Mary Beth Bruder, Ph.D. University of Connecticut Vicki Stayton, Ph.D. Western Kentucky University

The National Status of Early Intervention/Early Childhood

Special Education Training/TA Systems and Provider

PerspectivesMary Beth Bruder, Ph.D.

University of ConnecticutVicki Stayton, Ph.D.

Western Kentucky UniversityCristina Mogro-Wilson, Ph.D.

University of ConnecticutPaula J. Burdette, Ph.D.

Project Forum, NASDSE

Information gathered will be utilized to identify critical gaps in current knowledge and design and conduct a program of research at the national, state, institutional and direct provider level to address these gaps. This program of research and policy formulation will yield information vital to developing policies and practices at all levels of government, including institutions of higher education.

The Center to Inform Personnel Preparation and Practice in Early Intervention and Preschool Education

A five-year project established in January, 2003 and funded by the Office of Special Education Programs.

PI: Mary Beth Bruder, Ph.D.Co-PI: Vicki Stayton, Ph.D.

Project Coordinator: Cristina Mogro-Wilson, Ph.D.Research Scientist: Sylvia Dietrich, Ph.D. Research Scientist: Barbara J. Smith, Ph.D.

Results Part CMethodsBackgroundThe Center

Results Section 619

Study VII Study VII Results

The Center’s Purpose

The purpose of this Center is to collect, synthesize and analyze information related to: (a) certification and licensure requirements for personnel working with infants, toddlers, and preschoolers who have special needs and their families, (b) the quality of training programs that prepare these professionals, and (c) the supply and demand of professionals representing all disciplines who provide both ECSE and EI services.


Results Section 619


The Center’s Goals To compile a comprehensive database of

current licensure and certification standards for all EI/ECSE personnel.

To develop a comprehensive profile of current training programs for all types of personnel at the institutional, state, and national levels.

To describe the current and projected supply and demand for personnel.

To design and conduct a program of research to identify critical gaps in current knowledge regarding personnel preparation.

To develop and disseminate recommendations regarding personnel preparation policy and practice based on research findings.


Results Section 619


The Center’s Projects Study I: The National Landscape of Early Intervention and Early

Childhood Special Education

Study II: The Higher Education Survey for Early Intervention and Early Childhood Special Education Personnel Preparation

Study III: The Analysis of Federally Funded Doctoral Programs in Early Childhood Special Education

Study IV: The Impact of Credentials on Early Intervention Personnel Preparation (Credentialing Part C)

Study V: Analysis of State Licensure/Certification Requirements for Early Childhood Special Educators (Credentialing 619)

Study VI: Training and Technical Assistance Survey of Part C & 619 Coordinators

Study VII: Confidence and Competence of 619/Part C Service Providers


Results Section 619


Background

Background: Study V ITraining and Technical Assistance Survey of Part C &

619 Coordinators The status of state-level training and technical

assistance (TA) systems for early intervention providers has not been systematically collected or organized.

The purpose of this study was to identify and evaluate the current personnel preparation systems for EI/ECSE professionals in each state. Systems that provide and maintain effective and comprehensive personnel preparation and development will serve as models for national standards.


Results Section 619


Methodology Part C and 619 coordinators were contacted to

complete the survey via phone with trained interviewers.

Survey consists of 31 discrete and open-ended questions about funding, delivery methods, content, needs assessment, quality assurance, and other areas pertaining to training and TA.

Methods Results Part CMethodsBackgroundThe Center

Results Section 619


Definition of a Training System A systematic, sustainable approach to professional

development that has:a) dedicated resources such as an agency budget line-item; b) staffing; c) a dedicated agency that is responsible for the provision of the training; d) policies or procedures for determining professional development expectations; e) has training content; f) quality assurance; g) identifies and measures outcomes; h) provides on-going, needs based professional development that is provided over-time; i) a structure for the delivery of content (training modules, etc.), and j) has work-place applicability.


Results Section 619


Definition of Technical AssistanceA system of technical assistance include all

components of a training system in addition to: a) individualized professional development;

b) problem-solving services to assist individuals, programs, and agencies in improving their services, management, policies, and/or outcomes.


Results Section 619


Survey Participant Characteristics: Part C

Data

Job Titles of Participants Who Completed Part C Survey (n=51)

Survey Respondent n % Part C coordinator only 26 50.98

CSPD coordinator only 9 17.65

Part C coordinator and CSPD coordinator 1 1.96

Part C coordinator and other Part C staff a 2 3.92

CSPD coordinator and other Part C staff 1 1.96

Other Part C staff 12 23.53

TOTAL 51 100.0

a Other staff included training directors, professional development directors, and staff from contracted training agencies who worked directly with the Part C or CSPD coordinators.


Results Section 619


Training and Technical Assistance by State: Part C Based on this definition of training, 20 states

(39%) had a training system where all of these components were met.

Based on this definition of technical assistance, 12 states (23%) had a technical assistance system where all of the components were met.


Results Section 619


Part C: Funding for Training Sources of funding for 18 of the 20 state training systems are primarily provided

by federal funds, with 8 states receiving state funds, 3 receiving Medicaid funds, and family fees

18

10

3

1

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Federal

State

Medicaid

Family Fees


Results Section 619


Part C: Participation in Training

20

12

8

6

2

Early InterventionProviders

Other EarlyChildhood Personnel

Families

Service Coordinators

University Faculty

Early intervention providers participated in all of the states training and twelve of the 20 had other early childhood or school age personnel participating in the training. A few states (6) had service coordinators and families (8 states) participating and only 2 states had university faculty participate in the training


Results Section 619


Part C: Delivery Methods for Training Nineteen of the states used workshops (classroom, lecture, or small group

format) to deliver training. Sixteen of the states used distance learning or online training opportunities. Eight states used annual meetings or symposiums and conferences to deliver training. Only three states used applied learning techniques, such as hands-on vignettes, case studies, or mentorship and shadowing, to train professionals. The delivery of training was split between more active and passive forms of training.

19

16

8

3

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Workshops

Distance Learning

Annual Meeting

Applied Learning


Results Section 619


Part C: Training Requirement

15

5

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Yes

No

Fifteen of the twenty states indicated that they had training specific to Part C that is required of the personnel. Five of the states indicated that training was not required.


Results Section 619


Part C: Link to Certification

15

5

5

2

2

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

CEUs/ CECs/ EarlyIntervention Points/ Units

Credential

Other

No

Certification

Only two of the twenty states with a training system, Colorado and Michigan, indicated that training was not linked to a certification, credential or continuing education credit. Kansas and North Carolina linked training to a certification, while five states linked it to a credential and five indicated another method such as enrollment in billing system. Fifteen of the states responded training was linked to Continuing Education Units (CEUs), Continuing Education Credits (CECs), or early intervention points or units


Results Section 619


Part C: Training Content

Service Delivery 19

Policies and Procedures 18

Working with Families 11

Disability Information 10

Child Development 7

Early Childhood Risk Factors 3 Data Management/ Outcomes 3

Many different areas of training content were cited, with the most common being training content on service delivery, policies and procedures, working with families, and disability information. In addition, some states had training content related to child development, data management and data outcomes, and early childhood risk factors.


Results Section 619


Part C: Evaluation of Training

Trainee Evaluation/ Survey Forms 18 Compliance/ Monitoring/ outcome data used 5 Trainee Exams 3 Verbal Feedback 3

Of the twenty states that had a training system all had a method to evaluate the training opportunities that took place.

The majority of states used trainee evaluation or survey forms. A few states indicated using compliance or monitoring outcome data while a few indicated using verbal feedback or trainee exams as a way to evaluate the training that was provided


Results Section 619


Part C: Networking for Training

Other State Agencies 17 Universities (Higher Ed) 11 OSEP/ Department of Education 6 Parent Groups/ Parent Training Institutes 5 Contracted Training & TA Agencies/ Provider 5 Professional Therapy Organizations 4 Childcare Resource & Referral Agencies/ Special Eucation Resource Center 4 Disability Organizations.Advocacy Associations 4 NECTAC 2 Other State Part C offices and programs 1

All states relied on some degree of networking with other state professional organization and other agencies to provide training. Most networked with other state agencies such as interagency coordinating councils, state T/TA committees, and so on.


Results Section 619


Part C: States with No Training System Those states (n=31) that did not have a training system

based on our definition.

23 states did not meet the requirement of having quality assurance measures in place.

21 states that did not identify and measure outcomes of the training they provided

8 did not have policies to identify professional development needs. Information from states that did not have the other qualifications necessary to meet the definition of a training system


Results Section 619


Part C: Technical Assistance (TA) System There were 12 states that met the definition

of having a technical assistance system. The following series of graphs and tables summarizes the information gathered about their technical assistance systems.


Results Section 619


Part C: Funding for TA Funding for the training systems are primarily provided by

federal and state funds. Eight states responded that federal funding funds their TA and 8 responded that the state funds the TA. One state, Ohio, mentioned that Medicaid funds some of their TA

9

9

1

0 2 4 6 8 10

Federal

State

Medicaid


Results Section 619


Part C: Participants in TA All twelve of the states with a TA system reported that early

intervention providers participate in the TA. A few states (4) mentioned other early childhood or school age personnel, while two said families participate and one state mentioned service coordinators as participants in TA.

12

4

2

1

Early InterventionProviders

Other EarlyChildhood/ School-Age

Personnel

Families

Service Coordinators


Results Section 619


Part C: Delivery of TA

Annual Meeting/ Symposium/ Conference 1

Distance Learning 3

Workshops (e.g., classroom/ lecture, small group/ onsite/ in person/ face to face)

12

Written Material (e.g., memos/ listserv) 1

Regular Staff Meetings 1

Phone Calls/ Emails based on Individual Requests 8

All twelve states delivered TA by workshops or classroom/lecture setting and eight also said phone calls or emails were provided based on individual requests. Three states also cited distance learning and one state (NE) talked about offering TA in conferences. Ten states indicated that TA is required of personnel, while Texas indicated that it was not required and one state did not answer the question.


Results Section 619


Part C: Identification of TA Needs

Personnel Preparation Training Committee (may include supervisors, parents, providers, stakeholders, etc.)

3

Provider/ Administrator/ TA Consultant Input (surveys, training needs interview, self-assessments)

9

Federal and/ or State Initiatives 5 Compliance/ Performance/ Monitoring 10 State Credential/ Competencies 1 Evidence-based/ Best Practice/ Research 1

Ten states mentioned that compliance or monitoring was used to identify the TA needs. Nine states mentioned that provider or TA consultants input, via survey, a TA needs interviews, or self assessment, were used to identify TA needs. Five states used federal and/or state initiatives and three had a personnel preparation TA committee that may include stakeholders such as supervisors, parents or providers. One state mentioned that the state credential and competences that determined the TA needs and one state, Wisconsin, mentioned using evidence based research for identifying TA needs.


Results Section 619


Part C: TA Content

10

6

5

4

3

3

2

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Service Delivery

Data Management System/ Outcome Data

Disability-specific information

Early Intervention Policies and Procedures

Working with Families

Providing / Assessing Professional Development

Risk Topics

Current TA content focused mostly on service delivery (10 states), while six mentioned TA was provided related the data management system or outcome data, and five states mentioned disability specific information was provided through TA. Four states discussed early intervention policies and procedures in the content of TA in the past year.


Results Section 619


Part C: Evaluation of TA

5

5

4

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Verbal Feedback

Compliance/MonitoringData

Trainee Evaluation Forms

All of the states with a TA system had a way to evaluate the quality of TA. Five used verbal feedback, and five states mentioned compliance monitoring and outcome data used. Four states said they used trainee evaluation and survey forms to evaluate the outcomes of TA.


Results Section 619


Part C: Differences in TA Across Disciplines

8

3

1

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Discipline SpecificTraining

No Differences acrossDisciplines

No Response

Eight of the twelve states with a TA system had discipline specific TA.


Results Section 619


Part C: Networking for TA

Universities (Higher Ed.) 4 NECTAC 1 OSEP / Department of Education / Part 619 / Part B 4 Professional Therapy Organizations (PT, OT, SLP, Medicine/ Health) 3 Other State Agencies: Interagency Coordinating Councils / State T&TA Committees / Early Childhood Training Collaborative

12

Childcare Resource & Referral Agencies / Special Education Resource Center (SERC)

2

Disability Organizations / Advocacy Associations 3

Parent Groups / Parent Training Institutes 3 Contracted Training & TA Agencies / Provider Agencies 4

All states relied on some degree of networking with other state professional organization and other agencies to provide technical assistance.


Results Section 619


Part C: States with No TA System Thirty of the states did not meet the qualifications

of a system because they lacked procedures for identifying and measuring technical assistance outcomes.

Twenty three of the states did not have quality

assurance measures in place to monitor their technical assistance systems, and thus did not qualify as a TA system based on our definition.

The remaining states did not meet other components of the definition. Results

Part CMethodsBackgroundThe CenterResults

Section 619Study VII Study VII

Results

Part C TA: Collaboration with Project ForumPaula J. Burdette, Ph.D.Project Forum, NASDSE

Brief Policy AnalysisPart C Technical Assistance: State Approaches


Results Section 619


Part C: CSPD

All states were asked if they had a Comprehensive System for Personnel Development (CSPD) or training plan for Part C.

Forty-two did not have a CSPD.

Seven states indicated that they had a broad based professional development system for all of early childhood, and one included paraprofessionals in their plan.


Results Section 619


Survey Participation Characteristics: Section 619619 coordinator only 32 71.1% Other 619 staff 6 13.4% 619 coordinator and other 619 staff a 3 6.7% CSPD coordinator only 2 4.4% 619 coordinator and CSPD coordinator 1 2.2% CSPD coordinator and other Part 619 staff 1 2.2% TOTAL 45 100

Job Titles of Participants Who Completed Part C Survey (n=51)

a Other staff included other state department 619 staff members and staff from contracted training agencies who worked directly with the 619 or CSPD coordinators.


Results Section 619


Training and Technical Assistance by State: Section 619 Based on the definition, 23 states (58%) had a

training system where all of the components mentioned above were met.

Based on this definition, 20 states (42%) had a technical assistance system where all of these above mentioned components were met.


Results Section 619


Section 619: Funding for Training

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Federal

State

Medicaid

Grants

Fifteen of the twenty-three states indicated that they utilized state funds for 619 training and fourteen received federal funds that supported the training. Grants partially fund the training in seven states and one state mentioned Medicaid as a training funding source.


Results Section 619


Section 619: Participation in Training

Early Childhood Special Education Teachers 23 Regular Education Preschool Teachers 13

Paraprofessionals 8 Related Service Providers (PT, OT, SLP) 17 District Administrators/ coordinators 13

Families 9

Other EC Agencies (Headstart, Child Care, etc.) 6

All 23 state representatives indicated that early childhood special education teachers attended trainings. Related service providers (e.g., occupational therapist, speech and language pathologists, etc), participated in trainings in 17 states. Regular education preschool teachers were noted by 13 states as being training participants. District administrators were mentioned by 13 of the states as being training participants. Nine of the states indicated that families participated in trainings. Eight states indicated that paraprofessionals participated. Six states included staff from other agencies (e.g., Head Start, child care, etc.) in trainings.


Results Section 619


Section 619: Delivery Methods for Training

Annual Meeting/ Symposium/ Conference 18 Distance Learning 13 Workshops (e.g., classroom/ lecture, small group) 21 Written Material (e.g., memos/ email/ listserv) 1 Regular Staff Meetings 3 Applied Learning (e.g., hands-on/ vignettes/ case studies/ mentorship/ shadowing)

4

Training was provided through workshops in 21 states. Annual meetings, symposiums or conferences were used to deliver the training in 18 states. Thirteen states used distance learning techniques, and four states mentioned applied learning such as hands on case studies or mentorship activities to provide training. Three states delivered trainings through regular staff meetings. One state mentioned using written materials to deliver training.


Results Section 619


Section 619: Training Requirement

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Yes

No

Does not answerquestion

Eleven of the states indicated that they did not have trainings specific to 619 that were required of personnel. Ten of the states indicated that they did have trainings that were required of personnel. Two states did not respond to the question.


Results Section 619


Section 619: Support or Incentives for Training

CEUs offered 12 Stipend/ Scholarship provided to Trainee 9 Paid Time 7 Other incentives 4 Free Training 4 Decided only at Local Level 3 Reimbursed for Travel Expenses 3 No Supports or Incentives 1

State coordinators for 619 services were asked if there were supports or incentives provided to personnel to encourage their participation in professional development. One state said that there were no incentives provided. The other 22 states indicated that there were supports provided to trainees in a variety of different ways.


Results Section 619


Section 619: Identification of Training Needs

Personnel Preparation Training Committee (may include supervisors, parents, providers, stakeholders, etc.)

8

Provider/ Administrator/ TA Consultant Input (surveys, training needs interview, self-assessments)

14

Federal and/ or State Initiatives 9 Compliance/ Performance/ Monitoring 13

Evidence-based/ Best Practice/ Research 3

All 23 of the states identified as having a training system had a way to identify their training needs. Fourteen states mentioned that they used provider, administrator or consultant input through surveys or interviews. Thirteen states mentioned using compliance monitoring or performance monitoring, eight states said that they had a personnel preparation training committee that may include supervisors, parents, providers and stakeholders. Nine states used federal and/or state initiatives in identifying training needs. Three states mentioned using evidence based research to identify training needs in their state.


Results Section 619


Section 619: Training Content

Service Delivery 21 Policies and Procedures 15 Data Management/ Outcomes 16 Disability Information 10 Working with Families 4 Child Development 2 Early Childhood Risk Factors 2

Many different areas of training content were cited, with the most common being training content on service delivery, policies and procedures, working with families, and child development. In addition, some states had training content related to early childhood risk factors.


Results Section 619


Section 619: Evaluation of Training

Trainee Evaluation/ Survey Forms 18 Compliance/ Monitoring/ Outcome data used 7 Verbal Feedback 3 Classroom observation 2

All 23 states identified as having a training system had a procedure in place to evaluate their training opportunities. Eighteen states used trainee evaluation or survey forms, seven used compliance outcome data, and three used verbal feedback. Two states (CO, IA) mentioned that they conducted classroom observations to monitor their training outcomes.


Results Section 619


Section 619: Procedures for Training Providers Of the 23 states that were identified as having a training system, 18 states

had procedures for addressing the re-tooling of those who provide the training. Twelve states had trainers attend conferences, seven states used informational meetings such as regional meetings or monthly meetings of trainers, and six states used a train the trainer model. Five states used national organizations web casts or resource centers and four used written materials such as journals, or listservs.

Conferences 12 Informational Meetings (regional meetings/monthly meetings of trainers)

7

Training Support (Train the Trainer) 6 National Organizations (webcasts/ resource centers) 5 Written Materials (listserv/ journals/ NECTAC information) 4 No formal procedures in place 4 No Response 1


Results Section 619


Section 619: Differences in Training Across Discipline Thirteen states had some discipline specific trainings at least some of the

time. Ten states did not have different training for different disciplines.

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

No differencesacross disciplines

Have DisciplineSpecific Trainings


Results Section 619


Section 619: Networking for Training

No networking 1 Yes (but no examples provided) 2 Universities (Higher Ed.) 6 NECTAC / NAEYC 1 OSEP / Department of Education / Part C 11 Professional Therapy Organizations (PT, OT, SLP, Medicine/ Health) 1 Other State Agencies 17 Childcare Resource & Referral Agencies / Special Education Resource Center (SERC)

3

Disability Organizations / Advocacy Associations 8 Parent Groups / Parent Training Institutes 7 Contracted Training & TA Agencies / Provider Agencies 6 Other State Part C Offices & Programs (share documents) 2 National Experts 2

The majority of states are collaborating with other state and professional organizations to provide and access training opportunities


Results Section 619


Section 619: States with No Training System Thirteen of the states did not meet the qualifications of a

system because they did not have methods of identifying and measuring outcomes.

Eleven of the states did not have quality assurance measures in place to monitor their training systems, and thus did not qualify for a training system based on our definition.

Seven states did not provide trainings overtime; while six states did not have dedicated staffing for their training system

The remaining states did not meet one or more of the other components of our definition.


Results Section 619


Section 619: Technical Assistance (TA) Systems

There were 20 states that met the definition of having a technical assistance system. The following series of graphs and tables summarizes the information gathered about their technical assistance systems.


Results Section 619


Section 619: Funding for TA

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

State

Federal

Other Grants

Early ChildhoodEducation Funds

No answer

TANF


Results Section 619


Section 619: Participation of TA

ECSE Teachers 19 District Administrators/ Coordinators 12 Preschool Teachers 11 Related Service Providers 11 Other Agency Staff 10 Families 8 Paraprofessionals 6 Not Applicable 1

The majority of states reported that ECSE teachers were the most frequent participants of technical assistance. District administrators and coordinators, as well as preschool teachers and other related service providers, utilized TA services as well.


Results Section 619


Section 619: Delivery Methods for TA

0 5 10 15 20

Workshops

Phone/ email Requests

Distance Learning

Conference

Written Material

Applied Learning

Regular Staff Meetings

Not applicable


Results Section 619


Section 619: TA Link to Certification

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

No

CEUs/ CECs

Credential

Other


Results Section 619


Section 619: Identification of TA Needs

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Provider/ Consultant Input

Monitoring/ Compliance

Federal/ State Initiatives

Training Committee

Best Practice/ Research


Results Section 619


Section 619: TA Content

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

Service Delivery

Policies/ Procedures

DataManagement/ Outcomes

Disabilites

Working with Families

Professional Development


Results Section 619


Section 619: Identification of TA Needs

Trainee Survey 11 Monitoring/ Compliance 7 Observation in Classrooms 3 Verbal Feedback 2 Trainee Exams 2 No Answer 1

Current TA content focused mostly on service delivery (17 states), while eleven states mentioned TA was provided relevant to early intervention policies and procedures. Eight states indicated that they provided TA relevant to outcome data or the data management system.

Five states mentioned TA regarding disability specific information and three states reported providing or accessing professional development as a content area for TA. Five states mentioned working with families as TA topics. Eleven states have TA related specifically to early language and literacy, seven do not, and two states did not respond to the question.


Results Section 619


Section 619: Evaluation of TA

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Trainee Survey

Monitoring/ Compliance

Observation inClassrooms

Verbal Feedback

Trainee Exams

No Answer


Results Section 619


Section 619: Procedures for Training Providers

Conferences 12 Train the Trainer 5 Informational Meetings 4 National Organizations 3 Written Materials 3 No Formal Procedure 3 State Professional Organizations 1

Seventeen of the states had ways to address the re-tooling or on-going professional development of those who provide the TA. Twelve of the states used conferences to keep TA providers updated. Informal meetings, such as regional meetings or monthly meetings, were indicated by four of the states. Five states also mentioned they used training support, such as, a train the trainer model.


Results Section 619


Section 619: Networking for TA Other State Agencies 13

OSEP/ Department of Education/ 619 5 Higher Education 5 Disability/ Advocacy Organizations 5 Parent Groups 4 Contracted Agencies 4 No Networking 3 Professional Therapy Organizations 3 Childcare Resource/ Referral Agencies 3 NECTAC/ NAEYC 2 State Part C 2 Yes (no examples) 1 No response 1

Thirteen of the states mentioned that they networked with state agencies specific to TA.

Five networked with OSEP, the Department of Education, and other federal agencies. Five states indicated networking with disability specific organizations.

Five states indicated networks with institutions of higher education.

Four states indicated that they networked with contracted TA agencies and provider agencies on TA needs.

Four states mentioned professional organizations and parent groups. Three states mentioned networks with childcare resource and referral agencies, such as the Special Education Resource Center (SERC).


Results Section 619


Section 619: States with No TA System Seventeen of the states did not meet the qualifications of

a system because they lacked procedures for identifying and measuring technical assistance outcomes.

An additional seventeen states did not have quality assurance measures in place to monitor their technical assistance system, and thus did not qualify as a TA system based on our definition.

Twelve states lacked policies to identify technical assistance needs within their technical assistance system.

The remaining states did not meet other components of the definition. Results

Part CMethodsBackgroundThe CenterResults

Section 619Study VII Study VII

Results

Section 619: CSPD Most states (30) did not have a combined Comprehensive

System for Personnel Development (CSPD) or training plan for Part C and 619. Thirteen states indicated that they did have a combined CSPD. One respondent was unsure.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

No

Yes

Unsure


Results Section 619


Background: Study VII: Competence and Confidence of Part C & 619 Service Providers The lack of public policy regarding nationwide

certification or standards has lead to varied training and qualifications, influencing the level of competence and confidence of personnel providing services to families and children birth to 5.

The purpose of this study was to conduct research on the level of confidence and competence of personnel working with infants and toddlers with special needs and their families.


Results Section 619


Methodology Part C and 619 coordinators were contacted

and asked to forward the link to the online survey to Part C and 619 service providers.

The survey consists of 47 questions to assess the competence and confidence of Part C and 619 service providers in the following areas: Family-Centered Practice, Assessment and Evaluation, IFSP Indicators, Instructional Practice, Natural Learning Environmental, Collaboration and Teaming, and Early Literacy Learning.


Results Section 619


Survey Participant CharacteristicsPart C

Sample Size: Part C: n = 1,462

Demographics: female (97%) white (92%) Age:

16% > 30 yrs. 27% 31 ≤ 40 yrs. 29% 41 ≤ 50 yrs. 29% < 51 yrs

Educational Attainment: BA 38% High School or AA 3% MA 56% PhD 3%.

Part B/619 Sample Size: 619: n =

1,086 Demographics:

female (97%) white (94%) Age:

13% > 30 yrs. 26% 31 ≤ 40 yrs. 28% 41 ≤ 50 yrs. 33% < 51 yrs

Educational Attainment: High School or AA 2% BA 27% MA 67% PhD 3%.


Results Section 619


Part C Survey Participant Characteristics

Part C: 58% have some type of licensure or certification (education 53%, therapy 41%, and other 22%)

Part B/619: 67% have some type of licensure or certification (education 84%, therapy 22%, and other 8%)

17% 15% 15%8%

31%26%

12%18%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Special Ed ECE SLP ECSE

Part C

Part B/619


Results Section 619


Overview: Part C & Part B/619

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Family Centered

Assessment & Eval.

IFSP/IEP

Instructional Practices

Natural Learning Eniv.

Collaboration & Teaming

Early Literacy

ConfidentCompetent


Results Section 619


Family-Centered PracticeQuestion C BI am able to get the families I work with to obtain supports and resources on their own

9 9

Families recognize and use their strengths to improve child outcomes because of how I work with them

24 43

Getting families to talk to me about what is important for them to accomplish comes easy to me

54 56

I am pretty sure that the families I work with will become more empowered because of my work with them

53 37% Reporting Almost always & All of the timeFirst 2 items represent competence, last 2 items confidence


Results Section 619


Assessment & Evaluation Question C BI am able to “hit the mark” every time in terms of identifying children’s strengths and needs

38 42

I am especially proficient at helping parents identify their children’s and families’ needs and concerns

41 46

I am almost always certain that I will be able to identify and use children’s personal interests to improve child learning

61 59

I feel sure that my assessments of children’s capabilities are accurate



Results Section 619


IFSP/IEPQuestion C BThe children with whom I work achieve the majority of their IFSP outcomes in six months or less

12 30

I am able to get the families I work with to be key players in identifying IFSP outcomes for their children and themselves

33 16

Writing IFSP outcomes that are functional and meaningful child behavior is a breeze

25 26

It is easy for me to know which child and parent IFSP outcomes are most important to the families I work with



Results Section 619


Instructional PracticesQuestion C BBecause of my efforts, parents and other caregivers are better able to use responsive instructional practices with their children

25 20

My efforts getting parents and other caregivers to promote child engagement with people and objects are very successful

25 44

It is easy for me to get parents and other caregivers to use prompting and prompt fading procedures with their children

14 56

It makes me feel good when I see parents using child-initiated and child-directed learning activities

88 76

% Reporting Almost always & All of the timeFirst 2 items represent competence, last 2 items confidence


Results Section 619


Natural Learning EnvironmentsQuestion C B

I am able to get parents I work with to use everyday family and community activities as sources of child learning opportunities

24 35

I am almost always certain that I will be able to identify and use children’s personal interests to improve child learning

30 24

I find parents’ use of natural child learning opportunities that we identified together professionally rewarding

65 55

I feel that the children I work with benefit a great deal from everyday informal learning opportunities

72 74

% Reporting Almost always & All of the timeFirst 2 items represent competence, last 2 items confidence


Results Section 619


Collaboration & TeamingQuestion C BI am able to successfully implement interdisciplinary interventions taught to me by professionals from other disciplines

41 50

Jointly planning and implementing interventions with other professionals insures that the children I work with get the right kind of practices

67 67

Helping other team members do what I do best (role release) makes me feel good about the interventions children and families receive

32 60

I am able to get the families I work with to be key players in identifying IFSP outcomes for their children and themselves



Results Section 619


Early Literacy LearningQuestion C BI make sure I help parents and other caregivers understand and use emergent literacy learning activities with their children

39 39

I am able to get parents to understand why parent/child sound and word games are important for children’s early literacy learning

24 22

I am pretty good at helping parents provide their children early literacy learning experiences

47 47

Including pre-reading and pre-writing outcomes on children’s IFSP/IEPs comes natural to me



Results Section 619


Competence Areas by ProfessionPercent of Practitioners Reporting they are Competent in Using Different

Kinds of Selected Practices Part C & PartB/619

SE/ Early Childhoo

d

SLP OT PTType of Practice ECSE

sample size 998 579 403 155 117Family-Centered Practices

5 6 15 4 3

Assessment Practices

29 28 27 24 24

Achieving IFSP/IEP Outcomes

8 9 6 8 19

Instructional Practices

14 16 16 7 17

Natural Environments/LRE

21 25 21 21 29

Collaboration/Teaming

44 42 34 20 36

Early Literacy 18 18 20 6 12


Results Section 619


Documents

Mary Beth Bruder, Ph.D. University of Connecticut Vicki Stayton, Ph.D. Western Kentucky University