1. 2018 OSEP Project Directors’ Conference
OSEP Disclaimer
2018 OSEP Project Directors’ Conference
DISCLAIMER:
The contents of this presentation were developed by the presenters for the 2018 Project Directors’ Conference. However, these contents do not necessarily represent the policy of the Department of Education, and you should not assume endorsement by the Federal Government.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3 and 3474)

2. Sam Morgan Tracy Evans-Luiselli Donna Snyder NCDB NEC KYDBP
Child-Specific Technical Assistance: A National Model and State Implementation Examples
Sam Morgan Tracy Evans-Luiselli Donna Snyder
NCDB NEC KYDBP
nationaldb.org
The contents of this presentation were developed under a grant from the U.S. Department of Education #H326T However, those contents do not necessarily represent the policy of The Research Institute, nor the US Department of Education, and you should not assume endorsement by the Federal Government. Project Officer, Jo Ann McCann.

3. Today Topics DB TA Network
Child Specific TA as a method of supporting change
State specific model of TA and coaching
Goals
Framework for TA delivery for low incidence/child specific
Understand coaching as an intensive TA method

4. Deaf-Blind TA Network OSEP funded National project and state projects
Directives for
Increased collaboration between State Deaf-Blind projects
High quality TA by all Deaf-Blind projects

5. Challenges for Low Incidence Practice and Programming
Scale of practice being implemented
Frequently the only student in a class, school, or district
Lack of professional knowledge/experience in sensory impairment and significant support needs
Lack of infrastructure for services
Certification, shortages, state ed. - Low incidence
Issues of sustainability
Professional turnover
Student movement

6. Considerations for Low Incidence TA
Child specific due to scale
Inclusion of family
Team implementation of practice - facilitation
Well defined intensive TA practice that supports specialized instructional strategies
Instruction frequently one to one
Specialized interactive practices
Consultation including modeling of practice
Coaching good match due to nature of practices frequently used

7. Differentiating Levels of TA
Have clear differentiation between targeted and intensive
Potential for spill over and unclear delivery and outcomes
Commitment at targeted to get to intensive
Level 2 – Targeted
Training, tailored information, onetime consultation
Level 3 – Intensive
Coaching, consultation, ongoing, negotiated

8. A Child Specific TA Guide
Adapted from implementation and TA literature for large scale change – child specific, low incidence
OSEP funded TA centers – SISEP, NIRN
Public health implementation literature
Input and resources from state projects – co produced
Reflective of state DB project experiences/expertise
4 phases with resources
Organized by topics with added resources

9. Why a TA model?
Implementation/Technical Assistance is an effective way to organize practices that build the capacity of professionals and organizations
Decision making: Choose and define across TA levels
Efficient
Effective
Realistic
Develop a process to support consistency of delivery
Improve TA fidelity
A consistent approach that can be understood by recipients
Support staff transitions and consistency of delivery by staff

10. Support to State Projects
Tiered TA model of support to states
Universal – dissemination of TA products and models of success
Targeted – Peer to peer, general consultation
Intensive – Ongoing one to one support to state projects

11. Tier 3 Intensive TA Delivery Process
Level of TA
Tier 3 – Intensive - Outcomes; Implement evidence based practices with fidelity, improved outcomes for children and youth
Tier 2 – Targeted – Outcome: Increased knowledge and skills
Tier 1 – Universal– Outcome: Increased knowledge and skills
TIER 3 – Intensive TA Process
INITIAL FACE-TO-FACE CONSULTATION
RFTS MAPS
RFTS Cont. Identification
RFTS Intervention Planning
COACHING USING VIDEO CONFERENCING (Repeat up to 4 times)
Review videotapes of teachers implementing interventions with students
Review student progress
Make changes to intervention plans
Evaluation coaching session

12. Steps of Model Pre consultation and home visits
Face to face consultation
Web-based coaching sessions

13. Step 1: Pre Consultation and Home Visits
Classroom visits
Assess need for support and “team readiness”
Development of agreement
Review of technology needs (I Can Connect)
Home visits – Reach for the Stars with families

14. Step 2: Face-to-Face Consultation Meeting
*TA focus generated by team (including parents)
Not project staff
Identify priority skill (s) for student
Design intervention plans (vision, hearing, communication, mobility)
Identify resources needed

15. Coaching Table Coaching Table Column 1 - Conditions before
Column 2 - Possible behavioral Responses correct or incorrect
Column 3 Conditions after - Possible correct or incorrect responses

16. Step 3: Web-Based Coaching
View video and provide coaching and feedback;
Discuss and evaluate student progress; and
Discuss changes to the intervention plan and need for resources

17. Coaching Feedback Feedback to Service Provider 3 Boxes Before After
(Fidelity Measure)
3 Boxes
Before
After
Incorrect Child Response

18. Step 3: Web-Based Coaching: Discuss and evaluate student progress
Progress Monitoring on Child’s Outcomes
Novice
Apprentice
Proficient
Distinguished

19. Step 3: Web-Based Coaching: Identify resources needed
In collaboration with team...
Adaptive equipment - for instructional and communication access
Materials
Discipline specific support
Support for families

20. Video Coaching Case Example: “Mom and Henry”
Henry - 2 years old; cultural & language; Dad is from Eastern Europe
Likes
Dislikes
Vision
Hearing
Neurological
Motor
Learning History
Expressive Communication
Receptive Communication

21. Intervention Goal: Increase Upright Positioning and Exploration of the Environment (Nov 2017)

22. Weekly Zoom Sessions: Trying a Variety of Positions & Sensory Modalities & Materials

23. Mom begins to use more visual and tactile cues to support reaching and upright positions (Feb 2018)

24. Henry begins to explore independently (March 2018)

25. Increased time weight-bearing, walking with support, tolerating swings and car rides (June 2018)

26. Outcomes
Strong gains in Henry’s vision and motor skills; increased movement and exploration
Increased tolerance of hand-under-hand, gestures & signs
Mom and Dad more confident in how best to support Henry and identify priorities; initiating environmental arrangements
FAMILY & TEAM working together and not in isolation; earlier sessions helped facilitate setting priorities especially around vision, positioning, and communication
Parent sending videos almost weekly; requesting more TA sessions.

27. Challenges and Considerations
Scheduling
“Buy-in” from entire team
Technical issues
Less personal than face to face
Focused mostly on school activities and routines
Training in Evidenced-Based Coaching Practices: Narration, Questioning, Coding or Quantifying Behaviors, Pivotal Pausing
Facilitation (content focused on sensory skills)

28. Benefits Financial benefits to project
Team members can participate from anywhere
Team is focused on a single plan that all can follow
Videos provide evidence of progress
Ongoing support to team
Allows for relationship building without traveling to schools
Creates consistency in delivering instruction to student
Focus remains on student outcomes
Home and school are represented
Sustainable
Cultural preferences and video

29. Coaching Model Article
Grisham-Brown, J., Değirmenci, H.D., Snyder, D.C., Luiselli, T.E. (2017). Improving practice and outcomes for learners with deaf- blindness: A consultation and coaching model. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 50,

30. Presenters Sam Morgan Program Director NCDB sam.morgan@hknc.org
Tracy Evans-Luiselli
Project Director
NEC
Donna Snyder
State Coordinator
Kentucky DB Project

31. 2018 OSEP Project Directors’ Conference
OSEP Disclaimer
2018 OSEP Project Directors’ Conference
DISCLAIMER:
The contents of this presentation were developed by the presenters for the 2018 Project Directors’ Conference. However, these contents do not necessarily represent the policy of the Department of Education, and you should not assume endorsement by the Federal Government.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3 and 3474)