1. National Individualizing Preschool Inclusion Project Partners’ Meeting
Robin McWilliam, Principal Investigator
Peggy Freund, Project Coordinator
Amy Casey, Research Analyst

2. Welcome - Good to see everyone
Review National Network
Future Plans
Grant
Publications
Preliminary Data
Barriers and Solutions
What else?

3. Three primary objectives:
Project Goal: To promote quality inclusive practices in early childhood setting
Three primary objectives:
To help establish 10 state networks
To develop a national network
To provide training and technical assistance
in a model of individualizing inclusion
Provide training and technical assistance in a model of individualizing inclusion
Training includes an initial multiday training in each state and a variety of resources including project manuals, videos, and training modules
One of the most innovative aspects of this project has been the efforts to establish national and state training and support networks
Once these networks were established they would extend the reach of the Individualizing Inclusion Model, create local options for training as well as a local support system for programs.

4. Where We Are: The NIPIP National Network
Established Networks
North Carolina – October 2003
Kentucky – November 2003
Ohio – November 2003
Wyoming – March 2004
New York – May 2004
Tennessee – August 2004
Virginia – November 2004
Idaho – January 2005
Vermont – March 2005

5. Where We Are: The NIPIP National Network
Developing Networks
Arizona – August 2005
Minnesota – November 2005
Hawaii – October 2005
New Jersey – Winter 2005

6. Partner Satisfaction My involvement in NIPIP has…
3 – met my expectations – 40%
4 – exceeded my expectations – 50%
5 – far exceeded my expectations – 10%
n = 14
I would describe the responsiveness of the staff as…
2 – average – 11%
3 – above average – 44%
4 – exemplary – 45%
n = 13

7. Partner Satisfaction The materials have been… 2 – been useful – 11%
3 – been very useful – 89%
n = 13
I have found the data collection requirements of the project …
2 – manageable – 50%
3 – worthwhile – 50%
n = 14

8. Partner Satisfaction
Implementing the routines-based interview has been …
2 – difficult – 20%
3 – easy – 70%
4 – very easy – 10%
n = 13
Implementing integrated services has been …
2 – difficult – 11%
3 – easy – 67%
4 – very easy – 22%
n = 13

9. Partner Satisfaction Implementing embedded intervention has been . . .
2 – difficult – 20%
3 – easy – 70%
4 – very easy – 10%
n = 14
My overall satisfaction with NIPIP is
4 – high – 60%
5 – very high – 40%
n = 14

10. Partner Satisfaction Comments:
Because of the “partner” component …, our preschool seems to have more credibility… We have had very open discussion with local Part C and Part B representatives for the first time in 6 years.
The data collection process includes genuinely useful tools that not only gather information but also provide a great basis for offering feedback to teachers and providing an intelligent, useful framework for thinking about … child development and behavior…

11. Where We Are Going Future Plans Grant Publication
Evaluate and Refine Model
Develop Complete Toolbox
Test efficacy
Publication
Describe Model
Profile
Barriers with solutions

12. Implementation of Individualizing Inclusion Model (IndIA)
Mean Typical Scores (N = 6)
Pre-Training Mean (Std. Dev.)
Post-Training Mean (Std. Dev.)
Effect Size
(d value)
Entire Model
4.95 (.88)
5.75 (.67)
1.03
Functional Intervention Planning
4.55 (.97)
5.49 (.65)
1.16
Integrated Services
4.78 (1.0)
5.27 (.96)
.50
Embedded Intervention
5.31 (.63)
6.02 (.69)
1.08

13. Implementation of Integrated Specialized Services (SDF)
Group Results – All Therapists (9 sites; 1,936 sessions)
Pre-Training
(% of sessions in which model was used)
Post-Training
Individual Pull-Out 21 13
Small Group Pull-Out 4 2
1:1 in Classroom 5
Group Activity 10
Individualized Within Routines 51 72
Consultation 6 1

14. Implementation of Integrated Specialized Services (SDF)
Group Results – SLPs (982 sessions)
Pre-Training
(% of sessions in which model was used)
Post-Training
Individual Pull-Out 19 14
Small Group Pull-Out 5 3
1:1 in Classroom 6 1
Group Activity 16 9
Individualized Within Routines 53 71
Consultation 18

15. Implementation of Integrated Specialized Services (SDF)
Group Results – OTs (514 sessions)
Pre-Training
(% of sessions in which model was used)
Post-Training
Individual Pull-Out 19 9
Small Group Pull-Out 5
1:1 in Classroom 3 2
Group Activity 7
Individualized Within Routines 61 80
Consultation

16. Implementation of Integrated Specialized Services (SDF)
Group Results – PTs (345 sessions)
Pre-Training
(% of sessions in which model was used)
Post-Training
Individual Pull-Out 41 9
Small Group Pull-Out 1
1:1 in Classroom 6 4
Group Activity 19
Individualized Within Routines 30 62
Consultation 3

17. Implementation of Embedded Intervention (EIEIO)
Mean Percentage of Routines (N = 2 sites, 8 observations)
Time 1
Mean (std. dev.)
Time 2
Effect Size (d value)
Could
.66 (.14)
.70 (.17)
.26
Was
.66 (.24)
.76 (.11)
.57
Appropriate
.92 (.14)
.99 (.01)
.93

18. Exciting News From NIPIP Networks
FPG developed a video/DVD with examples of embedded intervention, narrated by teachers
At FPG, specialists and each teaching team meet every other week during naptime to review strategies for embedded intervention

19. Exciting News From NIPIP Networks
ID higher education and technical assistance partners have provided work sessions for the demo site and Early Head Start on functional goal writing
WY demo site has trained 4 regional programs and presented at the National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE) Policy Forum on Preschool Inclusion in Washington, DC

20. Comments From NIPIP Teachers
“After an RBI in which parental concerns and priorities were identified, the parents went home and started working on the goals immediately. Before the actual IEP meeting was held we had to adjust and add onto the goals, because the child had already mastered goals before we could begin any ‘professional’ interventions.”

21. Comments From NIPIP Teachers
“The parent walked into the IEP meeting, sat down, and said she had a couple more goals she wanted to add to the list. She went home after the RBI with staff and ‘interviewed’ her family. They determined that as a family they also wanted to work on these additional goals with the boy.”

22. Feedback About Partner Experiences
Needed for
Poster session at DEC
Manuscript to be submitted to journal
Grant Performance Reports
Share information by
ing us about current status
Participating in today’s activity

23. Feedback About Implementation of the NIPIP Model
Divide your flipchart into 2 columns
In the first column, list barriers that you ran into when implementing the Individualizing Inclusion Model
In the second column, list the creative solutions that your state or school district used to overcome the barriers
Pick 2 barriers and their solutions to share with the entire group