National Individualizing Preschool Inclusion Project Partners’ Meeting

Robin McWilliam, Principal InvestigatorPeggy Freund, Project CoordinatorAmy Casey, Research Analyst

Review National Network Future Plans

Grant Publications

Preliminary Data Barriers and Solutions What else?

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

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

Where We Are: The NIPIP National Network

Developing Networks Arizona – August 2005 Minnesota – November 2005 Hawaii – October 2005 New Jersey – Winter 2005

Partner Satisfaction Expectation

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

1 2 3 4 5

Rating

Per

cen

tag

e

Series1

Responsiveness of staff

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

1 2 3 4

Rating

Per

cen

tag

e

Series1

I would describe the responsiveness of the staff as…

2 – average – 11%

3 – above average – 44%

4 – exemplary – 45%

n = 13

My involvement in NIPIP has…

3 – met my expectations – 40%

4 – exceeded my expectations – 50%

5 – far exceeded my expectations – 10%

n = 14

Partner Satisfaction Materials

0.00%

20.00%

40.00%

60.00%

80.00%

100.00%

1 2 3

Rating

Per

cen

tag

e

Series1

Data Collection Requirements

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

1 2 3

Rating

Per

cent

age

Series1

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

Partner Satisfaction Routines-based Interview

0.00%

20.00%

40.00%

60.00%

80.00%

1 2 3 4

Rating

Per

cen

tag

e

Series1

Integrated Services

0.00%10.00%20.00%30.00%40.00%50.00%60.00%70.00%

1 2 3 4

Rating

Per

cen

tag

e

Series1

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

Partner Satisfaction Embedded Intervention

0.00%10.00%20.00%30.00%40.00%50.00%60.00%70.00%80.00%

1 2 3 4

Rating

Per

cen

tag

e

Series1

Overall Satisfaction

0.00%10.00%20.00%30.00%40.00%50.00%60.00%70.00%

1 2 3 4 5

Rating

Per

cen

tag

e

Series1

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

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…

Where We Are Going

Future Plans Grant

Evaluate and Refine Model Develop Complete Toolbox Test efficacy

Publication Describe Model Profile Barriers with solutions

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

Implementation of Integrated Specialized Services (SDF)

Pre-Training

(% of sessions in which model was used)

Post-Training

(% of sessions in which model was used)

Individual Pull-Out 21 13

Small Group Pull-Out 4 2

1:1 in Classroom 5 2

Group Activity 13 10

Individualized Within Routines

51 72

Consultation 6 1

Group Results – All Therapists (9 sites; 1,936 sessions)

Implementation of Integrated Specialized Services (SDF)

Pre-Training

(% of sessions in which model was used)

Post-Training

(% of sessions in which model was used)

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 1

Group Results – SLPs (982 sessions)

Implementation of Integrated Specialized Services (SDF)

Pre-Training

(% of sessions in which model was used)

Post-Training

(% of sessions in which model was used)

Individual Pull-Out 19 9

Small Group Pull-Out 5 0

1:1 in Classroom 3 2

Group Activity 5 7

Individualized Within Routines

61 80

Consultation 7 3

Group Results – OTs (514 sessions)

Implementation of Integrated Specialized Services (SDF)

Pre-Training

(% of sessions in which model was used)

Post-Training

(% of sessions in which model was used)

Individual Pull-Out 41 9

Small Group Pull-Out 1 0

1:1 in Classroom 6 4

Group Activity 19 4

Individualized Within Routines

30 62

Consultation 3 1

Group Results – PTs (345 sessions)

Implementation of Embedded Intervention (EIEIO)

Time 1

Mean (std. dev.)

Time 2

Mean (std. dev.)

Effect Size (d value)

Could .66 (.14) .70 (.17) .26

Was .66 (.24) .76 (.11) .57

Appropriate .92 (.14) .99 (.01) .93

Mean Percentage of Routines (N = 2 sites, 8 observations)

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

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

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.”

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.”

Feedback About Partner Experiences

Needed for Poster session at DEC Manuscript to be submitted to journal Grant Performance Reports

Share information by Emailing us about current status Participating in today’s activity

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