Search

This document is a guide--a "Road Map"--for implementing widespread use of the Pyramid Model for Promoting Social Emotional Competence in Infants and Young Children (http://www.challengingbehavior.org/do/pyramid_model. htm). It is a road map of systems change. The Road Map is written for statewide systems change, although it could be used for regions within a state or even for a large metropolitan area, as long as the administrative authority enables the necessary policy statements and resource allocations. The Road Map was written for use by a multi-agency team that is providing the initiative, the guidance, and the coordination for the systems change effort to implement the Pyramid Model. This paper begins by addressing three major elements that are instrumental in the process of planning and sustaining the high fidelity implementation of the Pyramid Model. It then provides a brief summary of the four stages of implementation: (1) exploration and planning; (2) installation; (3) implementation (initial to full); and (4) expansion and scale-up.

A growing body of evidence confirms that serious and persistent challenging behaviors in early childhood directly relate to later problems in school success, social relationships, educational and vocational success, and social adjustment. Conversely, key social skills associated with learning in group settings include being able to get along with others, follow directions, identify and regulate one's emotions and behavior, think of appropriate solutions to conflict, persist on tasks, engage in social conversation and cooperative play, and correctly interpret other's behavior and emotions. This paper provides answers to the following questions: (1) What are the OSEP (Office of Special Education Programs), IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) Part C and B/619 requirements related to social, emotional and behavioral outcomes?; (2) What does the research say about the ability of ECEC personnel to improve children's social, emotional and behavioral outcomes?; (3) Is there an effective model for promoting social, emotional and behavioral outcomes?; and (4) How are effective practices that produce positive outcomes promoted from the state level? (Contains 1 figure and 20 endnotes.)

This final report discusses the activities and outcomes of a project that addressed three challenges to improving outcomes for young children with disabilities: (1) a current and thorough synthesis of the knowledge base, (2) the effective translation and dissemination of this information for families, practitioners, and administrators, and (3) an understanding of policy and systems change support necessary to implement and sustain high quality services. In Phase 1, the knowledge base was synthesized by critically reviewing the extant literature, gathering the subjective views of 388 stakeholders, and synthesizing this knowledge base into 240 recommended practices. In Phase 2, the project developed and disseminated products in preferred formats for maximum suitability, prepared and field-tested products, disseminated the recommended practices nationwide, and provided regional and national training. In Phase 3, the project identified and incorporated training and systems change strategies to establish sustainable change in the quality of services for young children with disabilities and their families. The project also prepared six peer reviewed manuscripts for publication and video and Web-based products to accompany the print products produced in Phase 2. Appendices include: Figures; Literature Review Coding Forms; Manuscripts; Products, Web Site and Training; and Focus Group Recommendations. (Contains 17 references.) (CR)

This final report describes the objectives, activities and outcomes of a federally funded initiative to train and assist early childhood interagency teams in a model of planning systems and services for all young children, including children with disabilities and other special needs. The project is based on the value of stakeholder ownership in decision making. A key requirement asked of communities and state planners is to agree to establish a planning team of policy-level individuals including administrators, parents, practitioners, education agencies, childcare, Head Start and others. The project then assists the team to establish a shared goal or vision; assess policies and resources; develop action plans; target resources; and evaluate implementation. The unique systems-level focus of the training and technical assistance provided increases the ability of interagency teams to create coordinated systems of early childhood services, improve communication, blend resources so that all children can be together in inclusive settings, and make scarce resources go farther. The report includes information about each replication site's stakeholders, vision, objectives and final products. Also provided is a bulleted list of lessons learned, information about the project's dissemination activities and evaluation outcomes, and copies of four final documents produced by the project. (Author/SG)

This document provides information on how internal or external facilitators can support early intervention teams in promoting meaningful change in their communities. The information presented is derived from a federally funded project that provided training and technical assistance to local early intervention interagency teams. The project's purpose was to facilitate the establishment of local collaborative teams to work on challenges associated with putting in place a long-term vision for systems change to achieve inclusive, quality, comprehensive early care and education services to young children birth through 5 (or up to age 8) and their families. The project provided a facilitator to work with local community teams for approximately six sessions, after which, it was hoped, the team would be self-sustaining. The paper begins with an overview of evidence-based change and team development theories. It then provides a description of a model for facilitation through five developmental stages of change: (1) current context; (2) change initiation; (3) growing competence, confidence, and commitment to change; (4) full change implementation; and (5) desired change now current context. In the descriptions of these five developmental levels, reference is made to various activities that the facilitator can use with the team. (Contains 10 references.) (CR)

This document provides information on tasks, tips, and tools derived from a federally funded project that provided training and technical assistance to local early intervention interagency teams. The project's purpose was to facilitate the establishment of local collaborative teams to work on challenges associated with putting in place a long-term vision for systems change to achieve inclusive, quality, comprehensive early care and education services to young children birth through 5 (or up to age 8) and their families. The tasks, tips, and tools presented in this paper address: (1) deciding why to collaborate; (2) recruiting collaborative team participants; (3) conducting the organizational meeting; (4) creating an effective structure for the team's operation; (5) creating a shared community vision grounded in the community's current context; (6) developing action plans to achieve the vision; (7) methods for implementing collaborative decisions, plans, policies, and procedures; and (8) tracking and evaluating collaborative efforts. Tasks and tips compose the first half of the document. The second half provides various tools that are referenced in the tasks and tips sections. Tools include formats for organizing and running effective meetings and instructions for team activities such as assessing the community context, visioning, and action planning. (CR)

This report summarizes data from 1990 and 1993 surveys on preschool mainstreaming that investigated the prevalence of inclusive programming in early childhood education, whether policy challenges to the inclusion of young children have changed over time, and currently existing challenges. Results indicate: (1) there is a dearth of policy research efforts looking particularly at inclusion policies, their implementation and their effectiveness in meeting desired goals for young children; (2) the policy research that is available points to slow progress in the effectiveness of current policies and systems to advance inclusion for young children, with only about 51 percent of preschoolers with disabilities currently educated in inclusive settings; (3) there were greater challenges to inclusion in people's attitudes and beliefs in 1993 than there were in 1990; (4) the perceived policy barriers did not in fact exist in the 1990 study, only the belief that they did; (5) factors other than policy are reported to be important in advancing inclusion, including knowledge of the effects of inclusion, knowledge and skills of personnel to promote friendships, and children's abilities to manage their own behavior; and (6) the quality of the majority of natural environments is mediocre at best. (Contains 26 references.) (CR)

This paper discusses 1997 amendments to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) that promote the inclusion of children with disabilities in general early childhood education settings. The evolution of inclusion policy is explored and changes in disability terminology are described. Amended provisions are then explained and include: (1) an emphasis on the provision of early intervention services in natural environments; (2) participation of preschool children with disabilities in appropriate activities; (3) access to the general education curriculum; and (4) a change in the definition of supplementary aids and services that makes it clear that these non-special education and related services are to be provided if necessary to successfully include a child with disability in general education settings and/or the general education curriculum. The report contains two tables that outline inclusion provisions in the IDEA early intervention program and in the preschool program. It also emphasizes that while IDEA contains provisions indicating a preference for inclusion for infants and toddlers and preschoolers with disabilities, implementation strategies at the state and local levels will play an important part in actualizing that preference. (CR)

This paper offers recommendations for establishing meaningful integration opportunities for preschool children with disabilities, derived from the work of the Research Institute on Preschool Mainstreaming, a 5-year federally funded project of St. Peter's Child Development Centers, Inc., in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The knowledge base on preschool integration is summarized, indicating that segregated environments have not been found to be superior for developmental outcomes, that frequent interaction among children with and without disabilities is needed for positive social outcomes to occur, and that parents want their children to have typically developing or neighborhood friends. Eight markers for quality practices are listed, emphasizing that children need to be educationally integrated and socially integrated with their peers to achieve integration's positive impact. Policy issues that prevent administrators from providing integrated preschool services are categorized, as are attitudinal barriers. Strategies for changing policy and attitude barriers are listed. The critical role of the school administrator in developing integrated preschool services is cited. A model of systems change for preschool inclusion is presented. An appendix lists seven resources for information on early childhood policies and programs. (JDD)

A national survey was conducted to determine the presence of barriers to placing preschool children with disabilities in normalized education environments. The survey inquired about education policy as well as attitudes, curricula, and methods. Surveys were sent to 278 educators, administrators, and parents, with a 53 percent response rate. Respondents ranked eight areas as possible disincentives to placing children with disabilities in normalized settings, with the following results: personnel training and standards was highest as a disincentive, with values and attitudes and fiscal/contracting policies also ranking high. Responses on this issue varied considerably by subgroup. For example, all parents and all directors of Head Start Technical Assistance programs felt that attitudes were a barrier, but over half the child care directors, Head Start directors, and state directors of special education felt that attitudes were not a barrier. Attitudes were categorized as follows: turf issues; teacher preparedness; awareness; the feeling that either the nondisabled or disabled child will receive a lower quality education ("someone will lose"); and the issue of communication, collaboration, and respect. Strategies for solving these barrier problems are presented. An appendix lists seven organizational resources for information on early childhood policies and programs. (Contains 14 references.) (JDD)

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) mandates special education and related services to be delivered in the least restrictive environment to preschoolers with disabilities. The act also mandates that educators and administrators find appropriate educational placements for children who are entitled to receive a free public education. This report summarizes findings from a national survey and subsequent case studies related to federal, state, and local policies that present barriers to preschool mainstreaming. Survey and case study respondents cited policy barriers related to interpretations of policies and policy requirements. This paper focuses on Chapter 1 regulations and clarifies the process of including Chapter 1 preschool services in the least restrictive environment for children with disabilities and their families. Definitions in Chapter 1 and the IDEA statute are compared for the following terms: preschool children, educationally deprived children, children with disabilities, free public education, free appropriate public education, and desired outcomes. The intent of each statute is discussed, as are several federal clarifications regarding eligibility and service delivery. It is concluded that under certain conditions, a preschooler with a disability may be placed in a program or class that is funded by Chapter 1 for the purpose of providing the child with an integrated or mainstreamed placement. (LB)

The Policy Analysis Study of the Research Institute on Preschool Mainstreaming investigated the manner in which states and local districts have implemented the U.S. Office of Special Education Programs' recommendation that preschoolers with mild to moderate disabilities participate in mainstream programs such as Head Start. A national survey of state education agency administrators, Head Start administrators, local education agency directors, and parents in 10 states was conducted in an effort to determine whether particular education policies presented barriers to mainstreaming. Survey respondents were asked if there were disincentives to mainstreaming in their states and communities in the areas of: (1) public school accountability for program standards and supervision; (2) fiscal and contracting procedures; (3) transportation policies; (4) use of private or nonpublic agencies; (5) conflicting policies; (6) personnel policies; (7) curricula or methods requirements; and (8) values or attitudes. Problems were most frequently found in policies concerning program standards and personnel; fiscal matters; eligibility; transportation; and coordination. A total of 21 case studies were conducted as a means of following up on the disincentives. It was found that certain states and local agencies had discovered useful and innovative remedies for each of the types of disincentives discovered by the survey. A list of four references, and a list of resources on early childhood policies and programs, are appended. (SAK)

Implementing the Pyramid Model with fidelity and achieving positive outcomes for children and their families requires that administrators understand their roles in the implementation process. Every administrative decision impacts program quality and sustainability. This Policy Brief underscores the importance of facilitative administrative practices that provide sustained commitment, timely training, competent coaching, the use of process and outcome data for decision-making, and the development of policies and procedures that are aligned with high fidelity implementation. (Contains 12 endnotes and 1 resource.)

The document results from part of the Policy Options Project which identified and analyzed policy issues related to the delivery of appropriate services to preschool handicapped children and their families in terms of the need for assuring appropriate services, the factors affecting such policies, and policy approaches for the implementation of appropriate early developmental programs. Chapter I dicusses the benefits of early intervention for handicapped children and their families in terms of child, family, societal, and economic values; and analyzes existing policies regarding their effectiveness in assuring early intervention. Among conclusions drawn from the literature review and policy analysis are that early intervention has been documented as beneficial to society and the number of handicapped preschoolers and families needing but not receiving appropriate services cannot be precisely determined at this time. Chapter II addrsses five major policy areas which influence the development of early intervention services: defining the population to be served, delineating the scope of the services to be provided, designating the service provider, determining the nature of the policy, and identifying funding and resource availability. Final recommendations are that a lead agency be established to coordinate services and develop a coordinated public awareness campaign, that the state should develop standardized data collection and grant application techniques and due process safeguards, and that the stage should enact mandatory early intervention legislation granting universal access to services. Appended are position statements and a chart of ages of eligibility. (SBH)

Intended to help state planners understand and coordinate their program efforts, the guide provides an analysis of major federally funded programs for handicapped and at-risk children from birth to age 6. The following programs and their legislative authority are considered: Medicaid (Title XIX of the Social Security Act); The Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment (EPSDT) Program (Title XIX of the Social Security Act); Child Welfare Services--State Grants (Title IV B of the Social Security Act); Head Start (Title V of the Economic Opportunity Act); Maternal and Child Health (MCH) Services Block Grant (Title V of the Social Security Act); Social Services Block Grant (Title XX of the Social Security Act); and The Education of the Handicapped Act (Public Law 94-142, Part B, and the Preschool Incentive Grant Program). Programs were examined across 10 question areas including: What was the funding level for 1985-86 nationally? Is the use of funds restricted to specific agencies? What are the eligibility criteria for the population/s that may benefit from the program? Is the development of a state plan required for use of the funds? Is a system for case management provided? May the funds be used for personnel training? A chart provides a summary of the analysis across all programs and dimensions. (DB)

Focuses on federal legal requirements for public schools, Head Start, and community-based early childhood personnel, and the rights of parents related to public education services for children with disabilities, ages three through five, in community-based programs. Discusses the responsibilities of each party regarding making individualized placements; eligibility; supervision of service delivery; and financial responsibility. (TJQ)

A survey of special education personnel, child care providers, and parents found that barriers to the mainstreaming of preschoolers with disabilities were attitudes concerning (1) "turf" issues for special educators; (2) teacher preparedness; (3) awareness issues; (4) issues of communication and collaboration; and (5) the possibility that disabled or healthy children would suffer from mainstreaming. (MDM)