Training in Instructional

Consultation, Assessment &

Teaming

Todd A. Gravois, Ph.D.

Edward Gickling, Ph.D. &

Sylvia Rosenfield, Ph.D.www.icatresources.comwww.icatresources.com

Instructional Consultation Teams

represent the systematic search

for quality instruction.

Student

Instruction Task

Match=Success

Objectives Develop a systematic support network within each

building, including a trained IC Team Facilitator and trained Instructional Consultation Team.

Enhance teachers’ skills in and application of best practices of instructional assessment and delivery

Develop school-wide norms of collaboration and problem-solving

Utilize data for classroom and school decisions

IC Team Program GoalIC Team Program Goal

Enhance/ Improve/ Increase Student and Staff Performance.

Instructional Consultation Team Facilitator:Receives advanced training and supervision in instructional consultationProvides support to students by supporting classroom teachersSupports the on-going training and development of the teamFacilitates professional development

IC Team Roles: IC Team Roles:

Instructional Consultation Team:Provide support to classroom teachers

Provides a venue for continued training and team member development

Assists in aligning school resources

Principal:Active participant on team

Establishes a vision for objectively aligning curriculum and instructional practices

Other Key Personnel:Co-facilitates team development

Models instructional consultation process

IC Team Case Management Configuration

TEAM MEMBERS:Administrator

General EducatorsSpecial Educator

School PsychologistGuidance Counselor

Health ProviderSocial Worker

Others

CASE MANAGERCASE

MANAGER

CASE MANAGER

CASE MANAGER

CASE MANAGER

CASE MANAGER

CASE MANAGER

CLASSROOM TEACHER

Students

CLASSROOM TEACHER

Students

CLASSROOM TEACHER

Students

CLASSROOM TEACHER

Students

CLASSROOM TEACHER

Students

CLASSROOM TEACHER

Students

Students

CLASSROOM TEACHER

Students

CLASSROOM TEACHER

CLASSROOM TEACHER

Students

CLASSROOM TEACHER

Students

Students

CLASSROOM TEACHER

CLASSROOM TEACHER

Students

Process Variables:Three Critical Case Manager Skills

Collaborative & ReflectiveCommunica

tion

Systematic Problem Solving Process

Instructional & BehavioralAssessment

IC Team Support ProcessTeacherscomplete

brief "request for assistance" Team

member assigned as

Case Manager

Contract for Professional Collaboratio

n

Assessment of student's entry skills conducted Baseline and

Goals Established

and Documented

Classroom strategies developed/

demonstrated/

implemented

Ongoing data

collection to determine progress

toward goals

Every Case is Documented Using a common SDF

IC Team Student Documentation Form (SDF): Page 2

All Cases are Monitored Using ICAT Tools

•Level of Implementation/ Fidelity

•Teacher Feedback & Use

• Student Goal Attainment

•Team Functioning

•Disposition of Cases

• Capacity to link to other data management systems

• Uniform Practices• Consistent Implementation• Accountability at Case/

School/ District

ICAT Tools System Tracking:

• Student Codes• Case Progress

•Secure Log-In for ICAT Tools

•www.icattools.com

Logging OnLogging On

• Each school has on-line access to an individualized profile.

• The profile provides information on the fidelity of program implementation.

• The report allows each team to plan for additional training and activities to ensure quality support services for students.

School Reports: Sample Implementation Profile

School Reports: Sample Student Goal Attainment Profile

• Each school has on-line access to an individualized profile.

• The profile provides information on student progress toward established goals.

• The report allows each team to plan for additional training and activities to ensure quality support services for students.

Click to View or Print any District Level IC Teams Data Report

District Reports: Sample Aggregate Report

District Reports: Sample Aggregate Report

View Individual Schools’ Data or

Overall District Data

Implementation: Nevada IC Teams 2009-2010

District # of Teams2009-2010 Yr

% Team with High Implementation

Carson City 8 25% (2)

Churchill 7 43% (3)

Clark 2 50% (1)

Douglas 11 45% (5)

Elko 2 100% (2)

Humboldt 5 80% (4)

Lander 4 0% (0)

Lyon 15 27% (4)*

IC Team Level of Implementation

Teacher Outcomes: Nevada IC Teams 2009-2010

414 of 1148 teachers requested assistance of the IC Teams and engaged in the IC process for professional development and problem-solving around a student concern

This is approximately 36% of the teachers in Nevada project schools.

Teacher Outcomes: Nevada IC Teams 2009-2010

Of the teachers surveyed,

89% teachers requested assistance for an individual student

28% said they used strategies learned in IC case with another similar student 40% said they used the strategies with a small group of students 32% said they used the strategies with their whole class

72% used strategies learned with the IC Team Case Manager with small group/ entire class

Schools and districts focus on helping teachers improve instructional practices

Teacher Feedback: Nevada 2009-2010

“ Being involved with the IC process has made me more reflective of my instructional practice and how I can change the task or environment to best meet each student’s needs. I have applied many of the strategies I learned with to many different situations.”

“Not surprisingly… time. It definitely takes a significant amount of time to identify and implement intervention strategies, but then once they are working, it is great!”

“Change is a process, not an event” Hall & Hord, 2010

“The only concern I have is that others may not be open to the process”

Student Outcomes: Nevada IC Teams 2009-2010

# of StudentsConcerns Reviewed

Concerns RatedConcerns

Demonstrating Progress

Concerns Meet/Exceed

Goals

714 795 81% (646) 21% (138) 68% (439)

Goal Attainment

89% of IC Team cases demonstrated progress or met goalsSchools and districts focus on setting and meeting goals for students

Special Education Outcomes: Nevada IC Teams 2009-2010

IC Team Non IC Team

Cases Cases Eval Cases Placed Cases Cases Eval Cases Placed

432 23% (99) 18% (79) 92 72% (66) 49% (45)

Hit rate = 80%(evaluations that qualified)

Hit rate = 68%(evaluations that qualified)

Referral Patterns

Schools and districts focus on using resources effectively

Student Demographic Data: Nevada IC Teams 2009-2010

Request Patterns:

# Students Male Female

729 58% (424) 42% (305)

# StudentsCaucasian

African American

Asian HispanicNative

AmericanOther

729 62% (455) 2% (14) 2% (4) 25% (185) 3% (25) 5% (36)

Problem Solving Process

Contracting Problem Identification and analysis, including

instructional assessments Intervention design Intervention implementation Evaluation of intervention Follow-up/Re-design/Closure Data and process recorded on SDF

Structure of IC at PHES

Team composed of 20 members: 2 special education, 1 instructional aide, 1 counselor, 1 principal, 1 reading specialist, 1 computer tech, 1 school psychologist, 1 GT teacher, 11 classroom teachers

Facilitator and buddy Weekly meetings: case updates, case assignments,

training, case reviews Site training days Roving subs for coverage of instructional

assessments

PHES Goals for IC

Sustainability Implementation of classwide and small group

interventions Ongoing professional development and

collaboration IC as part of the school culture

Impact on Teachers

Common language Staff participation in the process

100% of faculty have attended 2 day intro training 20 members on team, wide representation

Collaborative problem solving Ownership and utilization of IC principles

“I most appreciate the positive support from a colleague. It gave me support with the parents. The process really helps when you can "talk" out the concerns, see what's working and not working and have another set of eyes when looking at how best to aid a student.”

“I love having the IC Team at this school. I believe it is a vital part of this school to have this program.”

District Support

DIG grant Stipends Sub days

Solicitation of input for DIG grant, sustainability plan

Facilitator meetings IC networking days, continued training