1. Laurie Dinnebeil & William McInerney University of Toledo
Project DIRECT
Laurie Dinnebeil &
William McInerney
University of Toledo

2. MEPI Planning Model
IEP Intervention Planning with Consultation Partner
• Maturation - Biological Influence
• Environment -
Facilitative effect of materials, routines, etc.
• Peer Mediation - Structured peer interactions
• Intensive - Direct intervention necessary

3. M = Maturation / Biology
Evaluate learning objective to determine if ‘target’ behavior / skill is likely to improve as a result of biological development and experience without significant teacher or peer involvement
(e.g. minor articulation problems, grasping of objects, dressing skills, response to peer communication bids)

4. E = Environmental Support
Evaluate learning objective to determine if ‘target’ behavior / skill is likely to improve as a result of child access to materials or teacher ‘engineering’ of learning (or home) environment’. Will securing items in a variety of containers and placing out of child’s reach result in increased opportunities for fine motor skill development and communication (e.g. seeking desired toy/item with or w/o request for assistance)?

5. P = Peer Intervention/Support
Evaluate learning objective to determine if ‘target’ behavior / skill is likely to improve as a result of child interaction with competent peers. Teacher organization of ‘peer buddies’ and cooperative activity groups will increase opportunities for imitation learning (via peer modeling). Also peer ‘expectations’ for social interaction and communication may provide ‘motivation’ to target child to improve skill or behavior

6. I = Intensive/Direct Intervention
Evaluate learning objective to determine if ‘target’ behavior / skill requires IMMEDIATE intervention and/or will enhance child’s acceptance in learning community. Examples would include aggressive behavior, very limited communication skills, very limited personal mobility, and toilet training (if developmental indicators present). Child would not be expected to make reasonable progress toward acquisition of this skill/behavior without DIRECT and consistent teacher intervention.

7. Benefits of Matrices in Planning Intervention
ECE teacher, parents and administrators can see the link between daily schedule, daily routines and priority IEP objectives
INCIDENTAL and DIRECT instruction opportunities can be identified
Appropriate strategies and opportunity for instruction linked with opportunities
systematic planning includes awareness of teaching opportunities and selection of appropriate teaching strategies. Analysis of daily schedules and routines in search of ‘opportunities’ for learning/teaching is a valuable planning tool for the IECSE and her ECE partner
Planning Matrices index IEP objectives with typical activities in the classroom environment OR with specific activities in an ‘activity’ plan (e.g.. a special learning activity created by the teacher, such as a group art activity)
The matrix model that ‘references’ IEP objectives (either M, E, P or I level objectives) with classroom routines is most appropriate (see example on next slide…)

8. Activity-Based Intervention Matrix
adapted from Grisham-Brown & Hemmeter, 1998
adapted from Grisham-Brown and Hemmeter, 1998

9. Activity-Based Intervention Matrix A
DAILY SCHEDULE
OF ACTIVITIES
IEP Objective #1:Making Choices (Level E, P)
Center Time
Block center or housekeeping?
Classroom Chores
Water plants or feed fish?
Snack/Cooking Activity
Pudding or milkshakes?
Small Group-Art
Which art materials to use?
Going to Park with Parents
Slide or swing?
# Opportunities: 5
adapted from Grisham-Brown & Hemmeter, 1998
adapted from Grisham-Brown and Hemmeter, 1998

10. Activity-Based Intervention Matrix B
HOME - SCHEDULE
IEP Objective #1:Making Choices (Level E, P)
Breakfast
Block center or housekeeping?
Laundry w Mom
Water plants or feed fish?
Lunchtime Preparation
Pudding or milkshakes?
Reading Time
Which art materials to use?
Playing with my Brother
Slide or swing?
# Opportunities: 5
adapted from Grisham-Brown & Hemmeter, 1998
adapted from Grisham-Brown and Hemmeter, 1998

11. Activity-Based Intervention Matrix C
DAILY SCHEDULE
OF ACTIVITIES
IEP Objective #2:Reach and Grasp (Level M, E)
Center Time
Build tower w/ blocks
Classroom Chores
Reach for/grasp attendance slip – place on desk in office
Snack/Cooking Activity
Reach for/grasp cooking utensils
Small Group-Art
Reach for/grasp built-up paintbrush handle
Going to Park with Parents
Reach/grasp to hold onto swing/side of slide
# Opportunities: 5
adapted from Grisham-Brown & Hemmeter, 1998
adapted from Grisham-Brown and Hemmeter, 1998

12. Activity-Based Intervention Matrix D
HOME SCHEDULE
IEP Objective #2:Reach and Grasp (Level M, E)
Breakfast
Build tower w/ blocks
Laundry w Mom
Reach for/grasp attendance slip – place on desk in office
Holiday Baking w Mom
Reach for/grasp cooking utensils
Gluing Stuff w Mom
Reach for/grasp built-up paintbrush handle
Play Games with my Brother
Reach/grasp to hold onto swing/side of slide
# Opportunities: 5
adapted from Grisham-Brown & Hemmeter, 1998
adapted from Grisham-Brown and Hemmeter, 1998

13. Activity-Based Intervention Matrix E
DAILY SCHEDULE
OF ACTIVITIES
IEP Objective #3: Initiate Social Interaction (Level P, I)
Center Time
Greet other children – vocalize or eye contact`
Classroom Chores
Initiate contact with office personnel
Snack/Cooking Activity
Eye contact w/ peers – their turn to stir
Small Group-Art
Initiate interaction w/ adult – ask for assistance
Going to Park with Parents
Eye contact/vocalize – to let know what she wants to be pushed
# Opportunities: 5
adapted from Grisham-Brown & Hemmeter, 1998
adapted from Grisham-Brown and Hemmeter, 1998

14. Activity-Based Intervention Matrix F
DAILY SCHEDULE
OF ACTIVITIES
IEP Objective #4: Cause/Effect (Use of Switch) (Level E,P or I)
Classroom Chores
Use switch to turn on toy (dump blocks center ‘building site’)
Snack/Cooking Activity
Switch to activate blender etc
Small Group-Art
Going to Park with Parents
Switch to turn on music box
# Opportunities: 3
adapted from Grisham-Brown & Hemmeter, 1998
adapted from Grisham-Brown and Hemmeter, 1998

15. Discussion
Gail is 4-year old with mild cognitive delay. She needs help in using words to express her needs.
How would you use a consultative approach to help her teacher recognize opportunities for Gail to practice use of words skill throughout the day? How would you help her mother recognize opportunities at home?

16. Discussion
Jaron is 5-year old with mild autism (PDD-NOS). He needs to use Boardmaker pictures to improve his activity transition skills in preparation for kindergarten.
How would you use a consultative approach to help his teacher to recognize / create opportunities for Jaron to practice this skill throughout the day? Could you do the same for his parents? How?

17. Discussion
Michael is 4-year old with Down Syndrome and mild CD. He needs to improve his verbal communication with peers with the use of American Sign Language.
How would you use a consultative approach to help his teacher or parent to recognize / create opportunities for Michael to practice this skill throughout the day?

18. Critical Factors in Effectiveness of Consultation Process
Time Demands (e.g. caseload, travel, planning time)
Create released time (volunteer relief, university students, subs)
Schedule meetings
Establish consultation logs / information exchange (e.g. listserv)
Administrative Support
Letters of Introduction
‘Contract’

19. Factors that Affect Consultation Process continued…
Administrative Support of LEA and ECE Program Administrators
This can be addressed, initially, through formal ‘Letters of Introduction’
Parent
Partner Teacher/Consultee
IECSE/CC Administrator
IECSE Supervisor/CC Administrator
Notes to Trainers:
If a consultative approach to itinerant ECSE service delivery is to be successful, there MUST be shared understanding of the roles and responsibilities of ALL professionals. Not only must ECE and itinerant ECSE as well as ECE program administrators (e.g., child care center directors) and ECSE supervisors understand and agree upon roles and responsibilities, but parents must also understand the importance of consultation as a legitimate way of supporting children’s development.

20. Components of a Formal Agreement for IECSE Services
Formal Agreement should include:
Description of services including emphasis on consultation model
Name/contact information for immediate supervisor of ICESE professional
Name, credentials and experience of IECSE teacher

21. continued…
Relationship between IECSE collaboration with ECE partner and addressing of child IEP requirements
Anticipated frequency and duration of scheduled visits
Interactive professional development ‘contact’ (IECSE professional & ECE professional)

22. continued…
Need for meetings with ECE partner teacher/consultee re: child progress
Plans for communication with parents re: child progress
Description of related responsibilities of IECSE professional
Sample IECSE Services Contract

23. Discussion
What are the benefits of communicating, before itinerant services begin, the role and responsibilities of the Itinerant ECSE teacher to:
Director of the ‘receiving’ preschool or child care center?
Parent of the child receiving Itinerant ECSE services?
Notes to Trainers:
Use these discussion questions to stimulate dialogue and help participants understand the importance of developing common expectations before itinerant services are provided.

24. Discussion…continued
What are the benefits of communicating, before itinerant services begin, the role and responsibilities of the Itinerant ECSE teacher to:
ECE partner teacher/consultee?
What are the limitations of failing to communicate the role and responsibilities of the Itinerant ECSE teacher?
Notes to Trainers:
Use these case studies to facilitate discussion in small groups.

25. What Helps Make Consultation Work?
What Are The Major Challenges?
How Can We Address The Problems?
What Are Some Possible Solutions?

26. WHAT MAKES CONSULTATION WORK?
Positive relationship/rapport with the partner teacher
Working as a team, collaborating
Communication with parents
Explicating role of itinerant teacher

27. KEY POINTS - OHIO Focus groups
Relationship between IECSE and ECE teachers
Systems Elements

28. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN IECSE AND ECE TEACHERS
Educational Backgrounds/Experiences
Personal/Professional Characteristics
‘Working Together’

29. Educational backgrounds & experiences of the teachers
Gap between education levels  lack of knowledge/familiarity with jargon -- need to adjust consultation style, strategies (e.g., ‘cheat sheet’ re: jargon, acronyms)
“Because I’m new, some don’t take me seriously.”
Hiring practices; training
“It is important to have trust, rapport and longevity between ECE teachers and itinerants.” 29

30. Personal / Professional Characteristics
“Consultation works best with teachers who are open to growth and new ideas.”
“It seems like newer teachers are more receptive; [they] are like a sponge and want new ideas.” - partner teachers want IECSEs to be the ‘expert’ even though IECSEs often reject the label
“I’m so laid back and the teachers are used to me just coming in and going with the flow. Maybe I need to be more assertive. They’re so busy that I hate to make demands on them.”

31. ‘Working Together’
Student needs direct instruction because partner teacher cannot or will not implement intervention
Respite – break for the teacher
“Consultation does not work as effectively in a chaotic environment. A teacher who has less noise volume and teaches children to behave responsibly, has a better grasp and is able to implement ideas.”

32. OASIS OF EXCELLENCE
When itinerant teacher feels that she/he is the only one who can deliver quality instruction, therefore they must take advantage of the time they are there

33. Consider ….
If child is achieving IEP goals under pull-out and small group instruction of IECSE teacher, why adopt a more complex model of intervention such as consultation?
There are factors other than the effect of massed teaching sessions (60-90 minutes), once per week, that may account for child progress …
Children with special needs may be ‘learning’ skills and behaviors as a result of other factors that are addressed in the MEPI model (see next slide) for analysis of learning factors
Adjust consultation skills -
Who do we hire to be itinerant teachers? – need to be proactive in who is hired; Responsibility to train if not experienced 33

34. Working Together continued:
“The teacher is not comfortable. She is threatened or thinks she will be criticized.”
“I always try to validate what teachers are doing. I let them know that I’m learning from them too. I write positive comments regarding things that I’ve observed the teacher doing in notes to parents, on the IEP.”
“Have lots of back-up plans so if they shoot me down, I have something else to try.”
teachers are resistant, feeling like they are being critiqued 34

35. “Using this [consultative] approach gives you credibility to the [ECE] teacher because they see you know them.”
“It’s consistency that makes it work….”
“teacher follows through, asks questions, etc.”

36. Challenges to Consultation
TIME!!
Tradition of Direct Services
Professional Preparation of ECE/SPED Teachers
Personal Comfort and Professional Expectations of IECSE Teachers
Administrative Support

37. TIME!
Just 5 minutes?
already too busy!
I'm late! I'm Late!

38. Tradition
If direct approach has been always used in the past, transitioning to consultative approach is difficult
Lack of knowledge about itinerant services in general, especially at administration level
Introductory letters to parents, ECE administrators, teachers
Describe/explain role of itinerant

39. Professional Preparation
Most IECSE teachers were not exposed to CONSULTATION / COACHING models or skill training as undergraduate students

40. Personal Comfort and Professional Expectations
Most IECSE teachers expect to work with children vs. other adults. They define the role of teacher as direct instruction of children not coaching of other adults
Some IECSE teachers are uncomfortable working with a number of adult partners vs. children

41. Administrative Support
“Itinerants don’t get support that classroom teachers get.”
Training/Professional Development
Evaluation
PIECES
Knowledge and Skills Inventory for Consultants (Buysse & Wesley, 2007)
Monitoring Child Progress on IEP
Data responsibility, legal perspective

42. PIECES: Performance Indicators for ECE Specialists
Designed for two primary purposes:
Provide SUPERVISORS with tool to support high quality Itinerant ECSE service delivery and guide professional development
Provide Itinerant ECSE teachers with tool to enhance reflective practice and guide professional development
Developed by a team of ECSE supervisors, Itinerant ECSE teachers, and Higher Education faculty

43. Parts of the PIECES
Part A: Requisite knowledge and skills related to ECSE service delivery
Part B: Communication skills and specialized knowledge related to coaching and information sharing in order to develop family, professional, and community relationships that support learning in the pre-K LRE
Part C: Specialized knowledge to coordinate and facilitate integrated service delivery (embedded instruction) to support learning in the LRE

44. Identifying Critical Knowledge and Skills for IECSE Teachers
Each Part is organized around specific performance indicators that have been described with the use of observable examples

45. Rubrics to Assess Knowledge and Skill Level
Each indicator is described using a continuum of rubrics: Basic, Proficient or Distinguished
A 2-page checklist provides an easy-to-read overview of the Itinerant ECSE teacher’s performance in each of the 3 major parts and subsections of PIECES

46. Part A: Requisite K & S Related to ECSE Service Delivery
Knowledge of the organizational context of the child’s environment
Ability to design and implement child-focused interventions

47. Part B: Requisite K & S Related to Coaching and Information Sharing
Ability to build a collaborative team
Ability to establish and implement a plan for regular communication among team members
Demonstrates appropriate use of specific interpersonal communication skills to establish ongoing relationships with families and providers.
Helps others develop skills and use strategies via a coaching model.
Provides information to support the child’s success in the community-based program.

48. Part C: Requisite K&S to Coordinate &Facilitate Integrated Service Delivery
Coordinates and monitors service delivery.
Designs and implements professional development (PD) activities.

49. For Discussion…Evan Is Too Aggressive
Jill is an itinerant ECSE teacher working with Mary Jo, an early childhood teacher who is Evan’s teacher.
Evan is 5 years old and has autism.
Evan has been on Jill’s caseload for 4 months and in Mary Jo’s classroom for a month.

50. Evan Is Too Aggressive cont…
Mary Jo is concerned because Evan has limited verbal skills which creates ‘problems’ (e.g. screaming, scratching, pushing) in his interaction with his peers
Jill and Mary Jo are meeting to discuss Evan’s progress and the topic of Evan’s ‘negative behavior’ is at the top of the agenda!

51. Evan Is Too Aggressive cont…
What should Jill say and do during this visit with Mary Jo to help Evan to be successful in this early childhood environment?

52. Evan Is Too Aggressive cont…
Prepare to discuss recommendations with the rest of the group, including specifics related to:
Information that might help Mary Jo
Skills that Mary Jo may need to learn
Expectations for IEP-focused interventions to be managed by Mary Jo

53. Evan Is Too Aggressive cont…
Role play the situation with a partner and be prepared to discuss the things that Jill should say and do to provide Mary Jo with the professional support that she needs (and expects).

54. Evan Is Too Aggressive cont’d…
How would your recommendations be affected by this information re: Mary Joe and Jill (Itinerant ECSE Teacher)
Scenario #1
Mary Jo is 40-year old ECE teacher who holds BS Degree in ECE and has 10 years of experience
Jill is 24-year old with BS in ECE and 2 years experience as Itinerant ECSE

55. Evan Is Too Aggressive cont’d…
How would your recommendations be affected by this information re: Mary Joe and Jill (Itinerant ECSE Teacher)
Scenario #2
Mary Jo is 30-year old with AA Degree in Child Care Technology and has 2 years of experience in PreK.
Jill is 26-year old with BS in ECE, M.Ed.in ECSE and 3 years experience as Itinerant ECSE

56. Evan Is Too Aggressive cont’d…
How would your recommendations be affected by this information re: Mary Joe and Jill (Itinerant ECSE Teacher)
Scenario #3
Mary Jo is 29-year old with H.S. Degree and has 7 years of experience in PreK
Jill is 40-year old with BS in ELEM ED, 4 years experience as Grade 4-5 teacher and 2 years experience as Itinerant ECSE

57. Evan Is Too Aggressive cont…
How would your recommendations be affected by this information re: Mary Joe and Jill (Itinerant ECSE Teacher)
Scenario #4
Mary Jo is 45-year old with High School degree and CDA and has 16 years of experience in Head Start
Jill is 35-year old with BS in SPED, 4 years experience as Middle School SPED teacher, and this is her 1st year as Itinerant ECSE teacher

58. Evan Is Too Aggressive cont’d…
How would your recommendations be affected by this information re: Mary Joe and Jill (Itinerant ECSE Teacher)
Scenario #5
Mary Jo is 35-year old with High School degree 12 years of experience in PreK.
Jill is 52-year old with Master’s degree in ECSE,10 years of experience in classroom-based ECSE and 9 years of experience year as Itinerant ECSE teacher