Measures that Support Implementation of High Quality Inclusive

  • Slides: 75
Download presentation
Measures that Support Implementation of High Quality Inclusive Practices Presentation at National Early Childhood

Measures that Support Implementation of High Quality Inclusive Practices Presentation at National Early Childhood Inclusion Institute Chapel Hill, NC May 21, 2014 Patricia Snyder, Ph. D Professor and David Lawrence Jr. Endowed Chair in Early Childhood Studies University of Florida Mary Louise Hemmeter, Ph. D Professor Department of Special Education Vanderbilt University Moderator: Pamela J. Winton, Ph. D Senior Scientist & Director of Outreach FPG Child Development Institute Elena Soukakou, Ph. D Senior Lecturer University of Roehampton, London, UK

Agenda �Welcome and introduction �Overview of three measures �Question & answer after each measure

Agenda �Welcome and introduction �Overview of three measures �Question & answer after each measure �Facilitated discussion

Teaching Pyramid Observation Tool (TPOT) (Fox, Hemmeter, & Snyder, 2013) Available from Paul Brookes

Teaching Pyramid Observation Tool (TPOT) (Fox, Hemmeter, & Snyder, 2013) Available from Paul Brookes Publishing Embedded Instruction Observation System --Teacher Version (EIOS-T) (Crowe, Snyder, Crow, Mullin, & Embedded Instruction Project, 2011) Available from the authors Inclusive Classroom Profile (ICP) (Soukakou, 2012). Available from the author

Overview of the Inclusive Classroom Profile (ICP) � Dr. Elena Soukakou, Author Copyright ©

Overview of the Inclusive Classroom Profile (ICP) � Dr. Elena Soukakou, Author Copyright © 2013 by Elena P. Soukakou

ICP Content � Measures inclusive, classroom-level practices that support the individualized needs of children

ICP Content � Measures inclusive, classroom-level practices that support the individualized needs of children with disabilities

ICP Structure �Structured observation measure � 1– 7 point rating scale � 12 items

ICP Structure �Structured observation measure � 1– 7 point rating scale � 12 items

Young children with disabilities can experience low quality in classes that are otherwise rated

Young children with disabilities can experience low quality in classes that are otherwise rated as being of high quality Wolery, et al. , 2000 National Professional Development Center on Inclusion

ICP Items 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.

ICP Items 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Adaptation of space and materials Adult involvement in peer interactions Adult guidance of children’s activities and play Conflict resolution Membership Relationships between adults and children Support for social communication Adaptation of group activities Transitions between activities Feedback Family-professional partnerships Monitoring children’s learning

How Can the ICP Be Used? �As a research tool �As a classroom evaluation

How Can the ICP Be Used? �As a research tool �As a classroom evaluation tool �As a professional development tool National Professional Development Center on Inclusion

Who Is Being Observed? � � Children with identified disabilities in the context of

Who Is Being Observed? � � Children with identified disabilities in the context of classroom activities and social interactions with adults and peers Teachers, teacher assistants, specialists National Professional Development Center on Inclusion

Administration � Observation � Teacher interview � Document review National Professional Development Center on

Administration � Observation � Teacher interview � Document review National Professional Development Center on Inclusion

ICP Development: Five Phases Exploratory research 2. Conceptualization and domain delineation 3. Item generation

ICP Development: Five Phases Exploratory research 2. Conceptualization and domain delineation 3. Item generation 4. Expert review 5. Pilot study in the UK See Soukakou, E. P. (2012). Measuring quality in inclusive preschool 1. classrooms: Development and validation of the Inclusive Classroom Profile (ICP). Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 27(3), 478 -488)

Pilot Studies on the ICP � 1 st pilot study in the UK showed

Pilot Studies on the ICP � 1 st pilot study in the UK showed promising results on reliability & validity (Soukakou, 2012) � 2 nd pilot study in the US in collaboration with: NC Department of Instruction, Exceptional Children National Professional Development Center on Inclusion

ICP Pilot Study (US): Research Questions � Did assessors learn to use the ICP

ICP Pilot Study (US): Research Questions � Did assessors learn to use the ICP with accuracy? � What is the evidence for reliability and validity? � Did assessors find the ICP useful and acceptable for program evaluation? National Professional Development Center on Inclusion

Sample: Classrooms � 51 inclusive classrooms in one state � Public Pre-K (5), Head

Sample: Classrooms � 51 inclusive classrooms in one state � Public Pre-K (5), Head Start (13), Developmental Day programs (13), Other child care centers (20) � 150 children with disabilities � Mean age of children= 4. 43 years National Professional Development Center on Inclusion

Procedures � 51 ICP assessments � 50 ECERS-R assessments �Assessor survey for gathering data

Procedures � 51 ICP assessments � 50 ECERS-R assessments �Assessor survey for gathering data on ICP acceptability National Professional Development Center on Inclusion

Results: Inter-Rater Reliability ITEM ICP 1 Adaptation of Space, Materials and Equipment ICP 2

Results: Inter-Rater Reliability ITEM ICP 1 Adaptation of Space, Materials and Equipment ICP 2 Adult Involvement in Peer Interactions ICP 3 Adult Guidance of Children’s Play ICP 4 Conflict Resolution ICP 5 Membership ICP 6 Relationships between Adults and Children ICP 7 Support for Communication ICP 8 Adaptations of Group Activities ICP 9 Transitions between Activities ICP 10 Feedback ICP 11 Family-Professional Partnerships ICP 12 Monitoring Children’s Learning ICC. 62. 78. 11. 70. 84. 75. 51. 72. 95. 60. 99

Results: Rank-Order Correlations Between ICP and ECERS-R Scale Space and Furnishings Personal Care Language

Results: Rank-Order Correlations Between ICP and ECERS-R Scale Space and Furnishings Personal Care Language and Reasoning Program Structure Activities Interactions Parent and Staff ECERS Total Score Note: *p<. 05, **p<. 01, ***p<. 001 ICP Total Score 0. 48*** 0. 21** 0. 47*** 0. 29* 0. 30* 0. 38** 0. 48***

Results: Discriminant Validity Mean(SE)/B(SE) Child Care 3. 67 (0. 15)a Developmental Day 5. 12

Results: Discriminant Validity Mean(SE)/B(SE) Child Care 3. 67 (0. 15)a Developmental Day 5. 12 (0. 19)b Head Start 4. 64 (0. 19)b Public Pre-K 4. 76 (0. 30)b Note: Means not sharing superscripts are significantly different.

Results: Social Validity On a 1– 5 point scale, 4 assessors: �Rated the importance

Results: Social Validity On a 1– 5 point scale, 4 assessors: �Rated the importance of the ICP constructs measured very highly (m= 5) �Would highly recommend the ICP measure to others (m=5) �Found the measure easy to administer (m= 4) �Felt well prepared after the reliability training observations (m=4) National Professional Development Center on Inclusion

Summary of Findings � Assessors established adequate administration and reliability proficiency upon training. �

Summary of Findings � Assessors established adequate administration and reliability proficiency upon training. � Evidence for construct validity. � Differences in quality across types of programs � Assessors found the ICP easy to use and useful for program evaluation National Professional Development Center on Inclusion

Next Steps u Training program for users. Online overview materials at http: //npdci. fpg.

Next Steps u Training program for users. Online overview materials at http: //npdci. fpg. unc. edu/measuring-qualityinclusion-inclusive-classroom-profile u Professional development curriculum for PD providers/consultants National Professional Development Center on Inclusion

ICP training available at PDC@FPG http: //pdc. fpg. unc. edu Putting Knowledge to Work

ICP training available at [email protected] http: //pdc. fpg. unc. edu Putting Knowledge to Work

Questions?

Questions?

Teaching Pyramid Observation Tool (TPOT) Mary Louise Hemmeter Lise Fox Patricia Snyder

Teaching Pyramid Observation Tool (TPOT) Mary Louise Hemmeter Lise Fox Patricia Snyder

The Pyramid Model: Promoting Social and Emotional Competence and Addressing Challenging Behavior Tertiary Intervention:

The Pyramid Model: Promoting Social and Emotional Competence and Addressing Challenging Behavior Tertiary Intervention: Few Children Secondary Prevention: Some Children Universal Promotion: All Children 27

TPOT Materials TPOT Score Sheet & TPOT Manual TPOT Sample Items http: //products. brookespublishing.

TPOT Materials TPOT Score Sheet & TPOT Manual TPOT Sample Items http: //products. brookespublishing. com/Teaching-Pyramid-Observation-Tool-TPOT-for-Preschool-Classrooms. Set-Research-Edition-P 727. aspx 28

Teaching Pyramid Observation Tool (TPOT) � The TPOT was developed to measure the fidelity

Teaching Pyramid Observation Tool (TPOT) � The TPOT was developed to measure the fidelity with which teachers implement Pyramid Model practices � Provides information that can be used to: u Describe “quality” of implementation of TPOT practices u Compare implementation within and across teachers/classrooms u Support program-wide implementation and improvement activities u Identify needs of teachers for training and implementation support

Using the TPOT �Observations u Conducted for a minimum of 2 hours § Must

Using the TPOT �Observations u Conducted for a minimum of 2 hours § Must observe centers or free play, at least one teacherdirected activity, and the transitions between activities § Focus of observation is primarily lead teacher’s implementation of practices, but consider all adults �Interviews u For those practices that might not or cannot be observed during the 2 -hour observation

Organization of the TPOT: Three Subscales � Key Practice Items: Multiple indicators associated with

Organization of the TPOT: Three Subscales � Key Practice Items: Multiple indicators associated with each item u Each indicator rated yes, no, or N/O (only when noted) � Red Flags u Each item rated yes or no � Using Effective Strategies for Responding to Challenging Behavior u Item only scored when challenging behavior observed u Includes three indicators for responses to each incident of challenging behavior u Each of these three Indicators rated as yes or no for each incident

14 Key Practice Items Observation items 1. Schedules, routines, and activities (SR) 2. Transitions

14 Key Practice Items Observation items 1. Schedules, routines, and activities (SR) 2. Transitions between activities (TR) 3. Supportive conversations (SC) 4. Promoting engagement (ENG) 5. Providing directions (PD) 6. Collaborative teaming (CT) 7. Teaching behavior expectations (TBE) 8. Teaching social skills and emotional competencies (TSC) Observation and interview items 9. Teaching friendship skills (FR) 10. Teaching children to express emotions (TEE) 11. Teaching problem-solving (TPS) Interview items 12. Interventions for children with persistent challenging behavior (PCB) 13. Connecting with families (COM) 14. Supporting families in using Pyramid Model practices (INF)

Example Key Practice Item re o c S ns m lu o C Indicator

Example Key Practice Item re o c S ns m lu o C Indicator No Opportunity 33

Key Practice Item: Schedules, Routines, & Activities Observation Only 34

Key Practice Item: Schedules, Routines, & Activities Observation Only 34

Key Practice Item: Teaching Friendship Skills Observation AND Interview 35

Key Practice Item: Teaching Friendship Skills Observation AND Interview 35

Interview Questions for Teaching Friendship Skills

Interview Questions for Teaching Friendship Skills

Red Flags Subscale 37

Red Flags Subscale 37

Challenging Behavior Subscale 38

Challenging Behavior Subscale 38

Defining the Behavior – What to Note

Defining the Behavior – What to Note

Studies to Examine Psychometric Integrity of TPOT™ Scores � � Primarily Head Start classrooms

Studies to Examine Psychometric Integrity of TPOT™ Scores � � Primarily Head Start classrooms TPOT observations u u u 50 classrooms 2 raters 3 occasions � 300 total TPOTs Generalizability study to look at dependability of scores across items, raters, occasions of measurement � CLASS � (Pianta, La. Paro, & Hamre, 2008) u 50 classrooms u Administered between 2 nd and 3 rd TPOT observation u Inter-observer agreement for 34% (n = 17) u Convergent score validity Work reported was supported, in part, by Institute of Education Sciences grant (R 324 A 07212) to Vanderbilt University. The information and opinions expressed are those of the authors, not the funding agency. 40

Generalizability Study Findings Less than. 01% of variance on key practice indicators due to

Generalizability Study Findings Less than. 01% of variance on key practice indicators due to raters � <1% of variance on key practice indicators due to occasion � 6. 12% of variance on key practice indicators due to classroom/teacher � Phi coefficient = absolute decisions � G coefficient = relative decision � Phi key practice indicators =. 89 � G key practice indicators =. 95 � Phi red flags =. 76 � G red flags =. 84 � Good news! � Dependability in rank ordering of classrooms and dependability in scores across raters, occasions � Snyder, P. , Hemmeter, M. L. , Fox, L. , Bishop, C. , & Miller, M. D. (2013). Developing and gathering psychometric evidence for a fidelity instrument. Journal of Early Intervention, 35, 150 -172. 41

TPOT™ and CLASS™ Correlations N = 50 Emotional Support (ES) Classroom Organization (CO) Instructional

TPOT™ and CLASS™ Correlations N = 50 Emotional Support (ES) Classroom Organization (CO) Instructional Support (IS) TPOT Key Practices. 70. 73. 76 Snyder, P. , Hemmeter, M. L. , Fox, L. , Bishop, C. , & Miller, M. D. (2013). Developing and gathering psychometric evidence for a fidelity instrument. Journal of Early Intervention, 35, 150 -172. 42

Noteworthy Correlations: TPOT™ and CLASS™ � TPOT Key Practices subscale and every CLASS dimension

Noteworthy Correlations: TPOT™ and CLASS™ � TPOT Key Practices subscale and every CLASS dimension and domain � TPOT Red Flags subscale and every CLASS dimension and domain (negative relationships) � General teaching items on TPOT (SR, TR, SC, ENG, PD) and each CLASS dimension and domain � Most targeted teaching items on TPOT (TBE, TSC, TEE, TPS, FR) and Instructional Support CLASS domain � TPOT Connecting with Families with each dimension and domain on CLASS Additional detail in Chapter 7 in TPOT manual 43

Another Study: TPOT™ and ECERS-R �Noteworthy correlations u. TPOT Key Practices subscale and overall

Another Study: TPOT™ and ECERS-R �Noteworthy correlations u. TPOT Key Practices subscale and overall ECERS-R u 10 of the 14 TPOT key practice items and overall ECERS-R u. TPOT Red Flags subscale and overall ECERS-R (negative relationships) Additional detail in Chapter 7 in TPOT manual 44

Another Study: Pre-SET and Select TPOT-Pilot Version Key Practice Items (N = 31 Classrooms)

Another Study: Pre-SET and Select TPOT-Pilot Version Key Practice Items (N = 31 Classrooms) Note. Adapted from Steed and Pomerleau (2012). N = 31 classrooms. a = Seven environmental items included on pilot version of TPOT. * = p <. 05 ** = p <. 01 Additional detail in Chapter 7 in TPOT manual 45

Use of TPOT in Potential Efficacy Study (N = 40) 100 Total TPOT score

Use of TPOT in Potential Efficacy Study (N = 40) 100 Total TPOT score 90 80 Intervention 70 60 50 Comparison 40 30 Coaching Training 20 10 0 Sept. 1 Nov. 2 Feb. 3 Apr. 4 Figure 1. Mean TPOT scores across 4 waves. Total TPOT indicators = 108. Wave 4 [t(40. 03)=6. 80, p<. 001, Cohen’s d=2. 6) Hemmeter, M. L. , Fox, L. , Snyder, P. , & Algina, J. (2011, April). Efficacy of a classroom-wide model for promoting social-emotional development and preventing challenging behavior. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research 46 Association, New Orleans, LA.

Additional Results from Potential Efficacy Study: SSIS Child Outcomes Adjusted Means Intervention Control Cohen’s

Additional Results from Potential Efficacy Study: SSIS Child Outcomes Adjusted Means Intervention Control Cohen’s d Effect Size Social 88. 6 84 . 41 Problem Behavior 108. 7 115. 5 -. 52* Social 103. 8 96. 4 . 46* Problem Behavior 95. 2 99 -. 29 Target Children Non Target Children

Additional Results from Potential Efficacy Study: Target Child Social Interaction Behaviors Mean frequency positive

Additional Results from Potential Efficacy Study: Target Child Social Interaction Behaviors Mean frequency positive social interactions for 60 min observation session across 4 waves. Average frequency of positive social interactions for target children in each classroom used to derive means for each group. Mean experimental Wave 4 = 19. 96 (SD = 10. 7); control Wave 4 = 15. 65 (SD = 8. 5)

Using the TPOT to Inform Decision Making � Using the TPOT in coaching u

Using the TPOT to Inform Decision Making � Using the TPOT in coaching u Running TPOT u Formal TPOT u Goal setting/action planning � Using the TPOT program wide u Monitor implementation of PW implementation u Plan professional development � Using the TPOT in monitoring/evaluation

ily am g. F tin or pp us e ith w he of t

ily am g. F tin or pp us e ith w he of t Ke y es tic s le bs ca Su ac tic es pr ilie m fa io r ha v ng ns io ot sk ills so lvi be ith el M od ac Pr id m ra Py gw tin ec nn in g ng em m le ob pr ss ds hi p ns g nc ie s te tio ta ec in ns ct io am te pe om pr e lle tc ha en Co ist rs e xp en fri ex ng ac hi Te to ng ch i n re Te a ld ch i pe ng hi ac re lc na io ot em vio ha be tiv ra bo lla t en ns io es iti em gd ire id in ag ng se at rs ve co n s iti e ac tiv ac November - 8 Teachers Su n re ld or ch i ns f tio en rv te Te nd ls a ng ch i Te a kil ls cia so Co ov Pr n’ re rti ve hi ld gc in ot po ee n w nd Initial - 8 Teachers In ng ch i Te a om Pr Su p sb et on iti tin es , a ou s, r ns Tr a ul e he d Sc Percentage of Indicators Observed for Key Practice Items April - 8 Teachers 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Questions?

Questions?

Embedded Instruction Observation System - Teacher Version (Crowe, Snyder, Crow, Mullin, & Embedded Instruction

Embedded Instruction Observation System - Teacher Version (Crowe, Snyder, Crow, Mullin, & Embedded Instruction Project, 2011) Work reported was supported, in part, by Institute of Education Sciences grant (R 324 A 070008) to the University of Florida. The information and opinions expressed are those of the authors, not the funding agency.

Scoring Sheet Manual

Scoring Sheet Manual

Description of EIOS-T � Continuous event observational coding system � Used by teachers to

Description of EIOS-T � Continuous event observational coding system � Used by teachers to record the frequency and accuracy of complete learning trials embedded within ongoing classroom activities, routines, and transitions u Adult or environmentally arranged antecedents to elicit a targeted child behavior u Whether the target child behavior occurred u Consequences and additional help (if appropriate) provided following child behavior

Development of EIOS-T Adapted from Embedded Instruction Observation System (EIOS) - Research Version 2.

Development of EIOS-T Adapted from Embedded Instruction Observation System (EIOS) - Research Version 2. 0 (Snyder et al. , 2010) u EIOS was primary dependent measure in a Goal 2 study funded by IES* u Adapted from the Teacher Performance Rate and Accuracy Scale (Ross, Singer-Dudek, & Greer, 2005) § Designed to quantify interlocking three-term contingencies or “learn units” *Institute of Education Sciences Project No. R 324 A 070008: Impact of Professional Development on Preschool Teachers’ Use of Embedded Instruction Practices

Interlocking Three-Term Contingencies for Teacher Instructional Components Three-Term Contingencies for Child Teacher Antecedent 1

Interlocking Three-Term Contingencies for Teacher Instructional Components Three-Term Contingencies for Child Teacher Antecedent 1 Child [reaches for ball] Teacher Behavior 1 Teacher: “Say ball. ” Child Antecedent Teacher Consequence 1/ Teacher Antecedent 2 Child: “Ball. ” Child Behavior Teacher Behavior 2 Teacher: [gives child a bal. I] Child Consequence Teacher Consequence 2 Child [plays with ball] Note. Table adapted from Ross et al. , 2005

From: Barton, E. , Bishop, C. , & Snyder, P. (in press). High quality

From: Barton, E. , Bishop, C. , & Snyder, P. (in press). High quality instruction through complete learning trials: Blending intentional teaching with embedded instruction. Young Exceptional Children Monograph.

Targeted Child Behavior Individualized Priority Learning Targets IEP Content Targeted Curricula (e. g. ,

Targeted Child Behavior Individualized Priority Learning Targets IEP Content Targeted Curricula (e. g. , early literacy, social emotional) General Curriculum Commercial Universal General Curriculum Locally Developed Early Learning Foundations

EIOS-R EIOS-T Focused on documenting � Occurrence of learning trials � Category of antecedent

EIOS-R EIOS-T Focused on documenting � Occurrence of learning trials � Category of antecedent � Categories of antecedents, delivered consequences and error u Teacher-delivered corrections u Adult-delivered u Environmentally arranged u Peer-delivered u Environmentally arranged � Procedural accuracy of learning trial components � Presence or absence of complete learning trial components

EIOS-T Development � Simplified and reduced EIOS-R codes � Developed coding manual and scoring

EIOS-T Development � Simplified and reduced EIOS-R codes � Developed coding manual and scoring sheet � Developed and piloted training u Piloted with preschool teacher who participated in Goal 2 study � Revised coding manual based on teacher feedback � Piloted with three preschool teachers in a multiple baseline across teachers single-subject experimental study (Bishop, Snyder, & Crow, 2014)

EIOS-T Codes

EIOS-T Codes

Following EIOS-T Coding

Following EIOS-T Coding

Pilot Data Using EIOS-T � Multiple baseline across three teachers single-subject experimental study (Bishop

Pilot Data Using EIOS-T � Multiple baseline across three teachers single-subject experimental study (Bishop et al. , 2014) u When provided feedback about their coding accuracy, 2 of 3 teachers were able to record accurately the occurrence of learning trials u When provided with feedback about their coding accuracy, all 3 teachers were able to record accurately the fidelity with which they implemented complete learning trial components u When teachers began to accurately record the occurrence and accuracy with which they delivered CLT components, the fidelity with which they implemented CLTs increased

Questions?

Questions?

Discussion How are these measures similar? Could these measures be used in an integrated

Discussion How are these measures similar? Could these measures be used in an integrated fashion? How would that integration occur? What is the role of measures such as these in terms of supporting inclusion within the broader early childhood quality movement?

THANK YOU

THANK YOU

Data Slides to Show if Needed

Data Slides to Show if Needed

ICP Sample: Lead Teacher Characteristics* Head Child Public Dev Start Care Pre-K Day Total

ICP Sample: Lead Teacher Characteristics* Head Child Public Dev Start Care Pre-K Day Total Mean Mean Course hours in special education 9. 25 1. 18 1. 50 16. 08 7. 52 Number of years of teaching child(ren) with a disability 10. 77 5. 95 4. 40 5. 48 6. 91 Number of years of teaching in EC 13. 62 12. 85 5. 60 8. 10 11. 12 * Based on teacher report National Professional Development Center on Inclusion

ICP Sample: Classroom and Child Characteristics Head Start Child Care Public Pre-K Dev. Day

ICP Sample: Classroom and Child Characteristics Head Start Child Care Public Pre-K Dev. Day Total Mean Mean Number of children in classroom 17. 15 16. 55 15. 00 16. 38 16. 51 Number of children with IEP in classroom 2. 62 2. 15 2. 40 4. 69 2. 94 Age of youngest child (Yrs) 3. 54 3. 20 4. 00 3. 69 3. 49 Age of oldest child (Yrs) 4. 54 4. 30 4. 62 4. 47 Number of adults in classroom 2. 38 1. 70 2. 20 3. 46 2. 37 Children with IEP/adults ratio 1. 13 1. 22 1. 07 1. 43 1. 23 All children/adults ratio 7. 66 10. 91 7. 10 5. 02 8. 21 ECERS-R score 4. 95 4. 58 5. 14 5. 31 4. 92 ICP score 4. 64 3. 67 4. 76 5. 12 4. 39 National Professional Development Center on Inclusion

ICP Sample: Children’s Primary Diagnoses* � Speech and language (38%) � Developmental delay (37%)

ICP Sample: Children’s Primary Diagnoses* � Speech and language (38%) � Developmental delay (37%) � Autism (12%) � Other health impairment (5%) � Sensory impairment (4%) � Multiple disabilities (1%) � Orthopedic impairment (1%) � Don’t know (2%) * Based on teacher report

ICP Sample: Children with Disabilities � 88% of classrooms had at least one child

ICP Sample: Children with Disabilities � 88% of classrooms had at least one child with a moderate or severe level of disability in at least one area. * * Based on teacher responses using an adaptation of the ABILITIES Index (Simeonsson & Bailey, 1991). National Professional Development Center on Inclusion

ICP Sample: Percent of Children Receiving the Majority of Specialized Services in the Classroom

ICP Sample: Percent of Children Receiving the Majority of Specialized Services in the Classroom Children receiving majority of services in classroom Head Start Child Care Public Dev. Pre-K Day Total 17. 65% 37. 21% 8. 33% 67. 21% 57% ▶ In North Carolina, the percentage of children receiving the majority of specialized services in the classroom is 50. 97%* ▶ Nationally, the percentage of children receiving the majority of specialized services in the classroom is 41. 67%* *OSEP Report to Congress, 2011 National Professional Development Center on Inclusion

EIOS-T Teacher Coding Accuracy Average Percent Occurrence Agreement Natalie Rhonda Brenda No Training EIOS-T

EIOS-T Teacher Coding Accuracy Average Percent Occurrence Agreement Natalie Rhonda Brenda No Training EIOS-T Feedback 12 (0 – 20) 62 (38 – 75) 90 (75 – 100) 33 (0 – 66) 41 (20 – 63) 90 (78 – 100) 31 (9 – 50) 36 (9 – 50) 47 (18 – 76) Average Percent Component Agreement No Training EIOS-T Feedback Natalie N/A 66 (40 – 83) 88 (80 – 100) Rhonda N/A Brenda N/A 67 (39 -89) 82 (61 -83) 66 (33 -83) 83 (69 -100)

Percentage of Procedurally Correct Learning Trials Teacher Implementation of Complete Learning Trials

Percentage of Procedurally Correct Learning Trials Teacher Implementation of Complete Learning Trials