Upload
howard-howard
View
218
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Opportunities, Initiatives and Key Resources:Building Intentional Inclusive Opportunities
Debbie Cate
Define inclusion challenges
and determine improvement resources and strategies
Discuss 618 and SPP/APR LEA Educational Environments data to determine areas of strength and need
Develop LEA next step plans for intentional inclusion
Objectives
• Inclusion Panel Discussion• Preschool Inclusion Facts• Nevada and National Data• Inclusion Challenges• District Plans• Resources
Our Afternoon
Dr. Lauren BartonDr. Barbara Smith
Children who start preschool
in segregated settings
are more likely
to remain in segregated settings
The Facts Inclusion benefits all children
Children can be effectively educated in inclusive programs using specialized instruction
Families of all children generally have positive views of inclusion
Inclusion is not more expensive
Children do not need to be “ready” 7 & 91
The Facts Research is clear: it’s effective
IDEA is clear: it’s preferred
The profession is clear:
DEC/NAEYC position statement
Departments of Ed and HHS new inclusion statement, suspension policy & DOE Playbook for Becoming an Early Learning Community
Effective Components of Inclusion
• Intentional, sufficient, and supported interactions between peers with and without disabilities
• Specialized, individualized supports
• Family involvement
• Integrated, interdisciplinary services and collaborative teaming
• Focus on critical sociological outcomes
• Effective, ongoing professional development
• Ongoing program evaluation 36
High Quality
Intentional Inclusion
&
Making Child Level
Decisions
Our Focus
8%
National Landscape - DraftIndicator 6A: Percent of children with IEPs attending a (RECP) and receiving the
majority of services in the program
Each bar represents a state or territory, 618 data, Dec 1 2013
100%
44%
62%
26%
Each bar represents a state or territory, 618 data Dec 1, 2013
National Landscape - DraftIndicator 6B: Percent of children with IEPs
attending a special education program
5 states 0%
44%26%22%
62%
SPP APR Indicator 6 - DraftEducational Environments 3-5, 2013-14 Na-
tional Compared to Nevada
National Nevada
RECP 10+ In Class
Services
RECP 10+ Ser-
vices Other
Location
RECP <10 In Class
Services
RECP <10 Ser-
vices Other
Location
Special Educa-
tion Class-room
Sepa-rate
School
Residen-tial or
Hospital Facility
Home & Home-bound or Hos-
pitalized
Service Provider Location
13-14
1777 623 73 103 4837 245 0 11 572
14-15
2152 751 156 148 4714 77 0 34 505
500
1500
2500
3500
4500
5500
Nevada Educational Environments for Children Ages 3-52013-14 Compared to 2014-15 - Draft
Preschool Inclusion Survey
• Inclusion preferred
• Many children in separate settings
• Inclusion – more than 50% typically developing children
• 2014 survey to 619 Coordinators - send to others
• Challenges and solutions
• Attitudes & Beliefs• Fiscal & contracting• Approval of non-public
school setting
• Curricula/methods• Transportation• Personnel qualifications• Conflicting policies
• Program quality
Overall Challenges
• Lack of Communication and collaboration
• Lack of awareness and understanding
• “Someone will lose” beliefs
• Staff preparedness
• Turf issues
• Lack of respect
• Other
Attitudes and BeliefsAttitudes and Beliefs
Policy and Procedure Challenges
Ensuring quality (standards, curricula, practices) in inclusive settings
Ensuring personnel meet standards and are effective
Fiscal policies/procedures (contracting; funding streams)
Transportation policies/procedures
Resource Challenges
Community programs full; no available slots
Lack of resources for transportation for typically developing children
Lack of resources for itinerate services
A/B: Build Awareness/Support
Educate local administrators
Provide user-friendly materials on benefits & laws
Provide models of high quality inclusion where teachers, parents and administrators can visit
Provide opportunities for practitioners, administrators and families to explore concerns, benefits and possible solutions
A/B: Collaborate
Establish trans-disciplinary teams
Establish interagency inclusion team
Provide awareness materials and opportunities for administrators
Provide joint PD for district and community personnel
Ensure support to community programs for ECSE and behavior support
Build culture of collaborative problem solving
Policy/Procedure Solutions/Strategies
Ensure state funded pre-k, at-risk & Title I
programs are inclusive
Require co-teaching (EC & ECSE) practica for certification
Provide training and coaching to community programs & itinerate ECSE services
Provide state training and T/A to district and community EC programs
Create MOU’s and contracts with community programs that address quality
Policy/Procedure Solutions/Strategies
Provide paras to community sites
Create tuition based access to district EC programs for nondisabled children
Reimburse parents for transportation
Create a state-level inclusion team for “barrier busting” that responds to local concerns
State dissemination to districts of creative ways to provide inclusion; examples; incentives
Braid funding streams
Resource Solutions/Strategies
Inclusive services do not cost more than segregated
Braid resources
Collaborate
Redistribute
(itinerate/consultative vs. segregated)
Public awareness of the benefits=$$
National Initiatives and Opportunities in Support of Inclusion
Federal Public Awareness Campaign & Joint
DOE HHS Position Paper on Inclusion
DEC Special Initiative on Inclusion
DEC Recommended Practices
RTT-ELC and Pre-School Development Grants
Joint Position Paper on PS Expulsion
Resources
• ECTA Inclusion Topic page
• NC Early Learning Network• DEC Joint Inclusion Statement
– Connect Modules
• Results Matter
IncludedQuality Standards
Specialized Instruction &
Supports Embedded into standards used
in the classroom
High Quality Early Childhood Programs
The contents of this presentation were developed under a grant from the U.S. Department of Education, #H373Y130002. However, those contents do not necessarily represent the policy of the Department of Education, and you should not assume endorsement by the Federal Government. Project Officers: Richelle Davis and Meredith Miceli