Special School District Early Childhood Special Education Program Evaluation. Martha Disbennett, Chair

Transcription

1 Special School District Early Childhood Special Education Program Evaluation Martha Disbennett, Chair August 2005

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables...iii List of Figures...iii List of Appendices...iv Executive Summary...v Chapter I...1 Background and Purpose. 1 Focus for the Program Evaluation... 1 Design of the Report 1 Chapter II. 2 Criteria. 2 Curriculum...2 Service and Placement Options...3 Engagement Activities...4 Partner District Collaboration Efforts...4 Enrollment Data...4 Historical Information. 5 Chapter III: Literature Review...6 Laws Guiding LRE...6 Recommended Best Practice...7 Benefits of Inclusion for Children with Disabilities...7 Benefits of Inclusion for Children without Disabilities...8 Benefits of Inclusion for Families of Children with Disabilities...8 Benefits of Inclusion for Families of Children without Disabilities...8 Negative Outcomes...9 Professional Development 9 Cost Issues Associated with Early Childhood Special Education...10 Chapter IV: Methodology...11 Process...11 Population...11 Methods for Data Collection and Analysis...11 i

3 Chapter V: Results...15 Demographic Data...16 Early Childhood Special Education Quality Indicators...16 ECSE Teacher Survey...17 General Education Teacher Survey...18 Parent/Guardian Survey 19 Comparison of ECSE Teacher, General Education Teacher, and Parent/Guardian Survey Responses.20 Transition Parent Survey from First Steps to ECSE..22 Transition Parent Survey from ECSE to Kindergarten.23 Transition Teacher Survey from ECSE to Kindergarten..24 ECSE Student Placements 25 ECSE Exiting Placements 28 Movement to LRE within ECSE..29 Public Forum...31 Cost Analysis...31 Chapter VI: Summary and Recommendations...34 Summary...34 Limitations...35 Recommendations...35 References...37 Appendix...41 ii

4 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Evaluation Focus Questions and Data Collection Methods...12 Table 2 Data Sources and Data Collection Methods...12 Table 3 Strength Areas on ECSE Teacher Survey...22 Table 4 Progressing Areas on ECSE Teacher Survey...22 Table 5 Strength Areas of General Education Teacher Survey...23 Table 6 Progressing Areas on General Education Teacher Survey...24 Table 7 Strength Areas on Parent Survey...25 Table 8 Items of Concerns for Program Evaluation Committee on Parent Survey...25 Table 9 Comparison of Parent and Staff Survey Results, Above Average Scores...25 Table 10 Strength Area on Transition Parent Survey...28 Table 11 Item of Concern for Program Evaluation Committee on Transition Parent Survey...28 Table 12 Results of Transition to Kindergarten Parent Survey...28 Table 13 Results of Transition to Kindergarten Teacher Survey...29 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 National, State and District Trends in ECSE Student Placements 2003 & Figure 2 SSD ECSE Student Placement 2003& Figure 3 SSD Exiting Placement 2003& Figure 4 ECSE Self-Contained Classroom Teacher-Movement to LRE 2003& Figure 5 ECSE Itinerant Service-Movement to LRE 2003& Figure 6 ECSE Costs, School year Figure 7 ECSE costs, School year iii

5 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix 1-1 Appendix 1-2 Steering Committee Members ECSE Work Committee Members Appendix 2-1 District Profile, ECSE Placements (Census Data, ) Appendix 2-2 ECSE Placement Data 2003 Appendix 2-3 ECSE Placement Data 2004 Appendix 2-4 ECSE Exiting Placement Data 2003 Appendix 2-5 ECSE Exiting Placement Data 2004 Appendix 3-1 Appendix 3-2 Appendix 3-3 Appendix 3-4 Appendix 3-5 Appendix 3-6 Appendix 3-7 Appendix 4-1 Appendix 4-2 Appendix 5-1 Appendix 5-2 Appendix 5-3 ECSE Itinerant Survey ECSE Itinerant Survey Results General Education Teacher Survey General Education Teacher Survey Results Parent Survey Parent Survey Results Comments from Itinerant Teachers, General Education Teachers, and Parents Surveys Transition from First Steps Survey Transition from First Steps Survey Results Transition to Kindergarten Teacher and Parent Questions Transition to Kindergarten, Parent Result Transition to Kindergarten, Teacher Results Appendix 6-1 Appendix 6-2 Appendix 6-3 Appendix 6-4 ECSE Self-Contained Teacher Survey-Movement to LRE ECSE Itinerant Survey-Movement to LRE Preschools and Daycares Served by ECSE Staff Cost Analysis iv

6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction Special School District is committed to program evaluation as a foundation for the continuous improvement process. The program evaluation framework approved by the Board of Education (2003) guides Special School District staff in conducting program evaluation activities to measure, analyze, and effectively manage special education services and operations. The Early Childhood Special Education (ECSE) Program Evaluation was a formative process occurring from October 2004 through June This summative report details the process, results, and recommendations that will guide future improvement activities for this population. Stakeholders included representatives from ECSE, parents, and partner district early childhood programs. In addition a public forum was held and the attendees included parents, partner district teachers, community preschool teachers and administrators, and SSD ECSE staff. The focus of the program evaluation was to answer four questions approved by the Board of Education: 1. What are the current best practices regarding Least Restrictive Environment in Early Childhood Special Education? 2. What supports related to best practice do children need to achieve in a general education preschool? 3. Was the transition from First Steps to ECSE and from ECSE to a school age program smoothly implemented using our current procedures? 4. How successful are our current ECSE practices in promoting movement to the least restrictive environment? Literature Review In 1974, the Education of the Handicapped Act Amendment (PL ) was passed. PL contained a provision although not mandating, that states serve all children with disabilities, and that such service, when provided, should be in the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE). In reviewing the literature it should be noted that there is no research related to LRE in a preschool setting. All the information is related to inclusion. For the purposes of this program evaluation we have used the recommended best practice as outlined in the literature for inclusion as a basis for our evaluation as including all young children with disabilities is our ultimate goal. v

7 With the initiation of Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) establishing developmentally appropriate classrooms in which all children can learn together. Young children with disabilities are best served in a natural setting with typically developing peers within their communities. Numerous studies demonstrated benefits of inclusion for the following groups: young children with disabilities, young children without disabilities, parents of children with disabilities, and parents of children without disabilities. These benefits included social acceptance and economic savings. Unifying early childhood education and early childhood special education has influenced professional development programs. Developing coursework and providing field-based education and experiences have been challenging. The philosophies and policies of general education and special education are not completely aligned and sometimes conflict. The lack of consensus of what constitutes recommended practices makes it difficult to develop blended professional development programs (Buysse, Wesley, and Able-Boone, 2001). Cited as most important was the collaboration that needs to occur between special and general education in order for children with disabilities to be successful. Methodology Data was gathered by review of available demographic information, quality indicators derived from the literature review, parent, general education and special education teacher surveys, comparison of results, public forum, analysis of ECSE placement and exiting placement data, and cost analysis. Results Strengths Several areas of strength were identified. These include: all parties involved with students in an inclusive setting were aware of the students IEP goals, children were being placed with age appropriate peers, SSD staff provided consistent communication, and parents reported they feel their child with a disability was successful in a general education preschool. Comments from general education preschool staff and parents indicated they were pleased with the support provided by SSD staff. In terms of transition from First Steps to ECSE, parents reported that they were satisfied with the process. In transitions from ECSE to kindergarten, parents and receiving teachers reported that they were knowledgeable about the process, and that their children were prepared. In reviewing placement data, the ECSE department s practice in promoting less restrictive environments indicated that eighty- three percent of students exiting ECSE spend the majority of their school day in a general education kindergarten setting. Only 2% are placed in a separate school. vi

8 Areas Progressing: Areas that were identified as progressing included general education preschool staffs attendance at IEP meetings, consistent implementation by general education preschool staff of supports/strategies, training on behavior management techniques, communication regarding placement options prior to IEP meetings, and encouraging movement within ECSE to less restrictive placements. Limitations The data collected for this evaluation provided the committee with a significant amount of information. The results validated the ECSE department s hypothesis that the department is successful in placing children in less restrictive settings. However, in the process of data analysis, the committee noted several limitations. The limitations should be taken into consideration when interpreting the results and designing future program evaluation activities. The transition from ECSE to Kindergarten Teacher and Parent/Guardian Surveys were phone surveys. The committee had difficulty contacting the participants for various reasons. In the future it is recommended that the survey be mailed and include school-age administrators and ECSE teachers. All general education teachers may not be aware that the purpose of 1:1 support is to provide the specific supports the student needs to achieve. In retrospect, the survey committee felt the term 1:1 support was too general and needed to be defined. Many of the terms used to describe adaptations in the survey were unique to special education. General education preschool staff and parents may not have understood the terms. The state and federal data used for comparisons was based on a mid-year count (December 1). SSD used the more accurate end-of-year count to review movement and placements. Recommendations The recommendations address identified needs. Action plans will be developed to address the recommendations 1. Establish a needs survey to determine training needs at individual preschool/daycare sites. With Partner District/Community Preschool collaboration, establish a system to document when and what training will be provided as well as continued support on an individual basis. Assess whether this training and support has been effective. Continue to work with the needs of the preschool staff when providing training. Communicate to Partner District/Community Preschool Directors the importance and legal obligations of general education teachers attendance at IEP meetings. vii

9 2. Collect and analyze outcome data related to student development in all ECSE settings. With Partner District/community Preschool Directors strive towards collaboration in reporting student progress. 3. Review current transition procedures and determine what steps can be revised to clarify placement options and increase communication regarding student needs. 4. Review current practices and procedures regarding LRE. Work with ECSE staff, partner districts, community preschools and First Steps personnel in promoting LRE practices. viii

10 CHAPTER I Introduction BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Special School District is committed to program evaluation as a foundation for the continuous improvement process. The program evaluation framework approved by the Board of Education (2003) guides Special School District staff in conducting program evaluation activities to measure, analyze and effectively manage special education services and operations. The Early Childhood Special Education (ECSE) Program Evaluation was a formative process occurring from October 2004 through June This summative report details the process, results and recommendations that will guide future improvement activities for this population. Stakeholders included representatives from ECSE, parents, and partner district early childhood programs. In addition a public forum was held and the attendees included parents, partner district teachers, community preschool teachers and administrators, and SSD ECSE staff. FOCUS FOR THE PROGRAM EVALUATION The questions developed by the committee and approved by the Board of Education were designed to provide the ECSE department with information regarding how they were doing in placing children in the Least Restrictive Environment in Preschool. What are the current best practices regarding LRE in Early Childhood Special Education? What supports, related to best practice do children need to achieve in a general education preschool? Was the transition from First Steps to ECSE and from ECSE to a school age program smoothly implemented using our current procedures? How successful are our current ECSE practices in promoting movement to the least restrictive environment? DESIGN OF THE REPORT The report documents review of the literature regarding best practices in promoting LRE in early childhood and the methodology used to evaluate the ECSE program. The results are based on quality indicators identified through review of the literature. The limitations of the program evaluation are also addressed. The ECSE work committee developed action plans that may serve to guide the implementation of any recommendation that the Board of Education approves. 1

11 CHAPTER II PROGRAM DESCRIPTION CRITERIA Young Child with a Development Delay (YCDD) refers to a child age 3 through 5 who experience developmental delays, as measured by appropriate diagnostic instruments and procedures, in one or more of the following areas: physical development, cognitive development, communication development, social or emotional development, or adaptive development, and who needs special education and/or related services. A child (ages 3 through 5; not kindergarten-age eligible) has a developmental delay when: A. The child s development is at or below 1.5 standard deviations, or equivalent levels, of the mean in any TWO areas of development, OR at or below 2.0 standard deviations, or equivalent levels, in any ONE area of development. Areas of development that can be used to determine eligibility include physical, cognitive, communication, social/emotional or adaptive. B. The child needs special education and related services. Children who are kindergarten age eligible may continue eligibility as a Young Child with a Developmental Delay if they were identified as such prior to attaining kindergarten-age eligibility. CURRICULUM Curriculum for students with the educational diagnosis of YCDD follows the general education curriculum of the school district where the student attends school. Most districts in St. Louis County follow the Project Construct Curriculum. The guiding principles of Project Construct are: 1. Children want to make sense of their world 2. Children actively construct knowledge and values by interacting with their world 3. In their efforts to understand their world, young children s thinking will contain predictable errors 4. Developmental domains, groups of similar steps in development, are interrelated, each influencing the other While all students participate in specific curriculums, additional instructional strategies, based on best practices associated with their educational disability are employed to assist the student s access to the curriculum and demonstrate achievement. 2

12 SERVICE PLACEMENTS AND OPTIONS The individual needs of each child are considered by the IEP team to determine educational programming, services, and placement. Educators and parents of children work together to consider the best environment and services to meet the child s educational needs. The team follows three basic guidelines: (a) maintain the child in the least restrictive setting where services can meet special education needs; (b) consider all service delivery options before finalizing placement decisions; and (c) consider carefully the child and family variable along with evaluation information in making programming decisions. Given these guidelines, educators and parents consider the following placement options: Early Childhood Setting: Children with disabilities receive all of their special education and related services in educational programs designed primarily for children without disabilities. No education or related services are provided in separate special education settings. Early Childhood Special Education Setting: Children with disabilities who receive all of their special education and related services in educational programs designed primarily for children with disabilities housed in regular school buildings or other community-based settings. No education or related services as designated by the IEP are provided in early childhood settings. Home: Children with disabilities who receive all of their special education and related services in the principal residence of the child s family or caregivers. Part Time EC/Part Time ECSE Setting: Children with disabilities who receive all of their special education and related services in multiple settings, such that: (1) general and/or special education and related services are provided at home or in an educational program designed primarily for children without disabilities, AND (2) special education and related services are provided in programs designed primarily for children with disabilities. Residential Facility: Children with disabilities who receive all of their special education and related services in publicly or privately operated residential schools or residential medical facilities on an inpatient basis. Separate School: Children with disabilities who receive all of their special education and related services in educational programs in public or private day schools specifically for children with disabilities. Itinerant Services Outside the Home: Children with disabilities who receive all of their special education and related services at a school, hospital facility on an 3

13 outpatient basis, or other location for a short period of time (i.e., no more than 3 hours per week). This does not include children receiving services at home. These services may be provided individually or to a small group of children. ENGAGEMENT ACTIVITIES Families are the most important social unit for children. Consistent with this belief the education staff make quarterly home visits and hold regularly scheduled parent information sessions. Approximately 95% of the parents of children with a diagnosis of YCDD attend one or more parent education sessions. Social workers and facilitators work intensively with parents to assist them with their concerns and home-related issues. Parents complete satisfaction surveys at the end of each diagnostic meeting, annual program satisfaction surveys and participate in quarterly parent advocate meetings. In addition parents are linked with the Parent Advisory Councils within their home districts and have access to information and resources from the Family and Community Resource Center. PARTNER DISTRICT COLLABORATION EFFORTS Special education staff and administrators participate in numerous collaborative activities with partner districts. Included are staff development activities, Parents as Teachers workshops, care teams, preschool parent/child activities, parent conferences, and kindergarten transition activities. Staff shares equipment and materials on a daily basis. The ECSE Area Coordinators and Early Childhood Directors, from the 15 partner districts the ECSE department serves, meet bi-annually to discuss common issues and concerns regarding young children with disabilities. ENROLLMENT DATA The Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education publishes a Special Education District Profile annually for each district in the fall of the school year using the December 1 census data from the previous year. The profile reports contain twelve tables compiling core data entered from the school year reporting cycle. They are based on four general areas: 1. School Age Child Count Data 2. Early Childhood Child Count Data 3. Missouri Assessment Program Data 4. Discipline Incidents Data The Special Education District Profiles is one of the data sources used to evaluate performance goals and indicators, compare local data to Missouri data, and provide information for program evaluation. In addition the ECSE program collects profile information at the end of each school year in order to monitor caseloads for the ECSE grant, help project caseloads for the next school year, analyze ECSE placements, and analyze placement of children transitioning to kindergarten. The end of the year count more accurately reflects the number of students served 4

14 annually in ECSE because approximately half of the ECSE student population is added after the December 1 census is taken. HISTORICAL INFORMATION SSD s ECSE department has been in existence since From 1978 to 1990, SSD served only children with moderate to severe disabilities. They were served in self-contained special education settings. In 1990 when ECSE was mandated, children with mild disabilities were also served and a greater effort was made to move into local district buildings. Most of our local districts did not have general education preschool programs until 1991 when the State of Missouri started the Missouri Preschool Project (MPP). This was a grant program, which provided start up costs and 3 years of financial support to local districts who wanted to provide early childhood education. The inception of the MPP grant allowed SSD s ECSE department greater access to a continuum of placement options in most districts in St. Louis County. The Office of Special Education also addressed the LRE requirement by creating a reverse mainstream model where children without disabilities were educated by ECSE teachers in classrooms for children with disabilities, tuition free. With the 1997 reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Act, DESE placed a greater emphasis on providing services in general education preschool settings. They developed training in 2002 for ECSE staff across the state, which provided strategies for considering LRE when making placement decisions. The SSD ECSE department initiated a program to address LRE by increasing the number of ECSE itinerant teachers from six to ten in an effort to serve more children in early childhood general education settings. The teachers were chosen based on their experience. In addition, ECSE itinerant teachers wrote all initial IEP s in order to address the LRE mandate. In the winter of 2002, a meeting including SSD Administrators, community Early Childhood Directors, school district Early Childhood Directors, and ECSE itinerant teachers was held. SSD provided information regarding best practices, trends relating to LRE, and information on ECSE services for children enrolled in community and district preschool programs. SSD asked for input from the community preschool staff regarding training needs to support children with disabilities in preschool settings. Based on a needs survey, training modules were developed and ongoing training continues as the needs of the schools change. The itinerant teachers met as a group several times to discuss barriers to early childhood general education placements and strategies to increase placements in this setting. In-services were provided to ECSE classroom teachers to increase their awareness of LRE and encourage movement to less restrictive settings within the early childhood years. The itinerant teachers continue to meet several times a year to problem solve and develop new strategies in serving children with disabilities in general education preschool settings. As of June 2005, ECSE itinerant teachers were serving children in over 120 district and community preschool programs. 5

15 CHAPTER III REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE LAWS GUIDING LEAST RESTRICTIVE ENVIRONMENT In 1973, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (PL93-113) was passed by Congress to prohibit the discrimination of individuals with disabilities in public services, an important policy step toward community inclusion. Section 504 contained an important inclusion concept requiring that children with disabilities be educated in the school closest to their home. In 1974, the Education of the Handicapped Act Amendment (PL ) was passed. PL contained a provision, although not mandating that states serve all children with disabilities, and that such service, when provided, should be in the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE). PL established a right to a free appropriate public education (FAPE) for all children with disabilities. This law later became known as The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). There have been many subsequent congressional revisions to the IDEA as well as administrative clarifications and regulations by the U.S. Department of Education to help define Least Restrictive Environment. In 1990, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA; PL ) became law and opened the doors to community programs for very young children with disabilities. The Individualized Education Program (IEP) provisions now require consideration of the student s involvement in the general education curriculum and the participation of general educators in the IEP process. This is evident in the section of the IEP requiring a statement regarding how a child s disability affects the child s involvement and progress in the general curriculum. It makes a distinction for preschool-age children: For preschool children, as appropriate, how the disability affects the child s participation in appropriate activities. In another example of age-related adaptations connected to the LRE provisions, the following guidance is given for preschool placement options: The full continuum of alternative placements, including integrated placement options, such as community-based settings with typically developing age-peers, must be available to preschool children with disabilities. 34 C.F R Appendix 1, Federal Regulation The local education agency (LEA) must also supply any supplementary aides and services that will allow for a greater amount of inclusion for a child with a disability. For the purposes of this program evaluation we have used the recommended best practice as outlined in the literature for inclusion as a basis for our evaluation as including all young children with disabilities is our ultimate goal. 6

16 RECOMMENDED BEST PRACTICE With the initiation of IDEA, early childhood educators have come to recognize the benefits of inclusion and the importance of establishing developmentally appropriate classrooms where all children can learn together. Young children with disabilities are best served in a natural setting with typically developing peers within their communities. A natural setting is defined as one in which the child would spend time had he or she not had a disability and may include home, play groups, child care programs, preschools, Head Start programs, and neighborhood school classrooms (National Association for the Education of Young Children, 1993). Numerous positive outcomes have been reported for children with disabilities as well as for their typical developing peers in an inclusive setting. As reported by Odom (2000), further review of the literature indicates that children with disabilities in an inclusive setting perform as well, if not higher, on standardized developmental measures as compared to children in a traditional special education setting. Moreover, participation in an inclusive setting promotes increased communication skills, social skills, and improved self-esteem in those children with disabilities (Guralnick, 1980; Guralnick et al., 1996; Knopp, Baker, & Brown, 1992) while promoting increased acceptance and appreciation of diversity among typically developing children (Peck, Carlson, & Helmstetter, 1992). Both groups are shown to develop and maintain warm and caring friendships across developmental barriers. BENEFITS OF INCLUSION FOR CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES A central goal of inclusion in the educational setting is to prepare young children with disabilities to become active and participatory members in our community. In fact, increased community participation in the later years may be an important outcome of early inclusive intervention programs (Bruder & Staff, 1998). In a video study of classroom sessions it was demonstrated that IEP goals were taught every minute with the help of non-disabled peers 75% of the time. The children with special needs responded accurately 91% of the time. Therefore, it was concluded that it is possible to address IEP goals in an inclusionary setting (Strain and Cordisco, 1993). Research targeting more specific school achievement has produced more positive than negative outcomes for inclusion in education. In a research project called Project BLEND (Brown, Horn, Heiser, & Odom, 1996), it was also concluded that the children with disabilities in the Project BLEND made progress on their IEP goals and demonstrated no difference in their progress on three standardized developmental assessments when compared to peers with disabilities in a traditional, nonintegrated setting. Children with disabilities showed an increase in alertness and involvement when interacting with typically developing children (Kontos, 1988). Children with severe delays engaged in less inappropriate play in inclusive settings (Guralnick, 1981). After three years of research with thirty-five children, it was found that children with disabilities in inclusive settings gained the skills of membership and relationship (Bilingsly, Gallucci, Peck, Schwartz, & Staub 1996; Schwartz, Staub, Gallucci & Peck, 1995). The inclusion 7

17 of preschoolers with autism facilitated the generalization of social behavior learned in intensive interventions (Strain, 1983). BENEFITS OF INCLUSION FOR CHILDREN WITHOUT DISABILITIES A study conducted by Shanks in 1990 concluded that although children are initially apt to regard a child with severe multiple disabilities in a parallel with infants or toddlers, this view will diminish over time as information about the child and his or her disabling condition is offered and accepted by their typical peers. In addition, typically developing children persist in interactions with children whom they initially feared or avoided due to aggressive and/or unusual behaviors and assist their classmates in practicing new strategies with minimal adult support and encouragement (Thompson et al., 1993). BENEFITS OF INCLUSION FOR FAMILIES OF CHILDREN WITH DISABILITES There has been a shift in parental views and awareness of inclusion over the past several years. While parents of children with disabilities initially expressed concerns and fears about inclusive environments, they are now requesting and sometimes insisting on inclusive placements (Hanline, 1993). Parents tend to become more positive about the effects of inclusion on their children after direct participation in a program. Some advantages expressed by parents include an increased knowledge of typical development. They also are able to develop relationships with families of typically developing children who may be a resource for support. Likewise, they consider themselves less isolated with a heightened feeling of belonging. Studies support that parents of children with disabilities are more likely to attend general early education conferences and programs offered by the inclusive community program. Finally, participation in an inclusive early childhood program appears to affect the parent s placement preferences for inclusive schoolage services. This may have a direct impact on the transition to school age process ultimately impacting the nature of special education services through the life span (Thompson et al., 1993). Wesley et al. (1997) reported that some parents found the inclusive team approach confusing. Twelve parents who were participants in the Parents Interacting with Infants program, an inclusionary playgroup, said they wanted to involve their children with disabilities in the playgroup so that the children could socialize with typically developing children, and so that they as parents could gain a sense of belonging and support. They also said that although it was emotionally difficult to see the blatant differences between their children and the typically developing children, they felt that the support received from the group lessened the differences (Appl, Fahl-Gooler, & McCollum, 1997). BENEFITS OF INCLUSION FOR FAMILIES OF CHILDREN WITHOUT DISABILITIES Integration allows for the opportunity for parents and their children without disabilities to learn about individuals with disabilities. Moreover, parents express that exposure to people with disabilities fosters acceptance and contributes to important changes in society. They are able to develop relationships with families of children with disabilities and thereby make a contribution to them and their community (Worley & Wilbers, 1994). 8

18 NEGATIVE OUTCOMES Studies that find negative impacts on children with disabilities involved in inclusion do exist. Replicated studies indicate that children with disabilities engage in social interaction with peers less often than typically developing peers (Guralnick et al., 1989; Gurnalnick et al., 1996; Kopp, Baker, & Brown, 1992). Children with disabilities are at a higher risk for peer rejection than typically developing children in inclusive settings (Odom, Zercher, Li, Marquart, & Sandall, 1998). In 1999, Guralnick also found children with disabilities as less preferred playmates. When eighty children with disabilities in inclusive settings were studied it was found that one third were well accepted, one third were socially rejected, and one third fell somewhere in between (Odom, Aercher, Li, Marquart, & Sandall, 1998). PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT Fenichel and Eggbeer (1991) identified the need to develop relationships with an experienced mentor and other colleagues as vital in professional development. These relationships assist educators in reflecting on their knowledge and experiences in addition to receiving supervision and collegial support in preparing them to work with young children and their families. Unifying early childhood education and early childhood special education has influenced professional development programs. Developing coursework and providing field-based education and experiences have been challenging. The philosophies and policies of general education and special education are not completely aligned and sometimes conflict. The lack of consensus of what constitutes recommended practices makes it difficult to develop blended professional development programs (Buysse, Wesley, & Able-Boone, 2001). Changes brought about by the challenges of inclusion have required a change in the way we prepare professionals to work with young children and their families. Preparing professionals for their role in inclusion demands a change of thought (i.e., norms, values, skills, and relationships; (Fullan, 1998). Dramatic changes in where services are delivered, who delivers them, and the nature of the services have resulted in new professional roles for educators. The need to serve children in the least restrictive and most natural environment has required professionals to learn new techniques and strategies that implement effective practices supporting inclusion (Buysse, Wesley,& Able-Boone, 2001). In addition to the need for collaboration with general education teachers, there is an increased need for collaboration with related service professionals, University faculty, community persons, as well as families. They must share the responsibility and authority to gain knowledge about inclusionary practices. Buysse, Wesley, &Able-Boone (2001) describe this collaboration as communities of practice. These communities must; 1) design, implement and evaluate interventions; 2) promote high quality inclusion; and 3) promote professional development of the field. Providing appropriate coordinated and nonduplicative, transdisciplinary, therapeutic, and educational services requires educators to be skilled in human relations. They must be able to communicate effectively with other professionals and families with different expectations and various backgrounds. They must be knowledgeable about a variety of local and state resources available to the community. 9

19 Professionals can also promote inclusion in the community by building awareness and coalition with persons not typically part of the services (i.e., recreation organizers, summer camp directors, etc.). Professionals must advocate for strong early childhood program standards and adequate funding (Buysse, Wesley,& Able-Boone, 2001). Although there are many challenges associated with inclusion, professional development programs are responding to policies and practices of inclusion. It is the responsibility of each of us to pursue continuous professional development to design early childhood programs that meet educational needs of all children within the framework of developmentally appropriate practices (Lake, 1992). COST ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH EARLY CHILDHOOD SPECIAL EDUCATION In looking at the literature addressing inclusion and inclusive practices in Early Childhood Special Education programs, there appear to be several universal findings regarding the cost of these programs: A) Where inclusive programs are only available on a fee for service system, there will be inadvertent segregation by income level (Wolery, R.A. & Odom S.L. (2000) B) Local education agency inclusive services tend to be less expensive. C) Many districts studied contract for services with private agencies, negotiating a fee per student rate for all ECSE students; not just select students. data suggest that instructional costs of inclusive programs are generally less expensive than or comparable to traditional special education programs. ( Odom, S L.etal, 2000 ) There are expenditures in the short term that will result in substantial cost savings and positive economic impact in the long term. The Rand Corporation has completed a study to determine if Universal Preschool in California would be worth the investment and foster economic growth. The study, as reported in the Los Angeles Times, March 30, 2005 concluded that Universal Preschool for four-year-old children in California would result in benefits to the state totaling approximately $2.52 for every $1.00 spent. The benefits over time include reducing special education needs, reducing juvenile arrests, and reducing the number of children held back a year in school. Providing services to young children in the least restrictive environment faces many financial challenges beginning with the overall funding level provided by the Federal Government to implement IDEA. Without adequate funding, none of the IDEA programs (Parts A-D as initiated by states) can be successful (Guaralnick, 2001). 10

20 CHAPTER IV METHODOLOGY This chapter addresses the program evaluation process, the population being reviewed, and methods of data collection and analysis used in the program evaluation for students in the Early Childhood Special Education program. PROCESS The program evaluation process involved various stakeholders including parents and community members as the ECSE Steering committee. This committee established the focus of the evaluation and how the results would be implemented to increase LRE in the partner districts. A sub-committee was established to work on the program improvement tasks. Work committee members included a director, administrators, effective practice specialist, ECSE teachers, and related services personnel. The work committee met monthly through the inquiry, development phase, and the data collection phase. Sub-committees met more frequently. POPULATION The population of this review was all students in Special School District who received services in the early childhood special education program during the school years 2003 and SSD serves ECSE children in fifteen local districts. Eight districts in St. Louis County provide their own special education services to children ages 3-5. METHODS FOR DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS There were six methods used to collect data. The data collection methods used in addressing the focus questions approved by the Board of Education are noted in Table 1. 11

21 Table 1: Evaluation Focus Questions and Data Collection Methods Early Childhood Program Evaluation Focus Questions 1. What are the current best practices regarding least restrictive environment (LRE) in Early Childhood? 2. What supports related to best practices, do children need to achieve in a general education preschool? 3. Was the transition from First Steps to ECSE and from ECSE to a school age program smoothly implemented using our current procedures? 4. How successful are our current ECSE practices in promoting movement to the lease restrictive environment? Literature Review X SSD Staff Survey Data Collection Methods Gen Ed Staff Survey Parent / Guardian Survey Public Forum X X X X X X X X Transition Survey X Placement survey X Transition Survey X X X Cost Analysis Table 2: Data Sources and Data Collection Methods Data Sources Literature Review SSD Staff Survey Data Collection Methods Gen Ed Staff Survey Parent / Guardian Survey SSD Administrators X X SSD Teachers/Staff X X SSD Parents X X Public Forum Cost Analysis Gen Ed Staff X X Early Childhood Program Evaluation Committee Community X X X Literature Review / Quality Indicators of Best Practices After conducting a literature review, the committee identified quality indicators that reflect effective practices in early childhood special education. Those indicators included: 1) all children benefit from an inclusive setting; 2) social benefits were greater for children with disabilities who were included; 3) success was dependent on adequate training of staff and appropriate supports; 4) children included in the early childhood years are more likely to enter an inclusive setting in elementary school; and 5) the cost benefits over time allow children with disabilities to have 12

22 increased independence and the ability to acclimate into society more easily than those who did not have inclusive experiences. SSD ECSE Teacher Survey The SSD ECSE teacher survey was sent to Early Childhood Special Education (ECSE) itinerant teachers who had early childhood student(s) on their caseloads attending regular preschools. The teachers were asked to complete one survey for each child on their caseload. The survey was sent to 17 ECSE itinerant teachers for 105 early childhood students attending regular preschools. The respondents were asked to rate their perception of the supports children with disabilities need to achieve in a general education preschool. A five-point Likert scale was used with a rating of 1 denoting strongly disagree up to a rating of 5 denoting strongly agree. General Education Teacher Survey The general education teacher survey was sent to general education teachers who have student(s) receiving early childhood special education services from an early childhood special education teacher in their classroom. Children who received services from a speech pathologist only were not included in this survey. One hundred and five (105) surveys were sent to general education preschool teachers. The respondents were asked to rate their perception of the supports young children with disabilities need to achieve in a general education preschool. Again a fivepoint Likert scale with the same rating as the ECSE teachers was used. Parent /Guardian Survey A parent survey was mailed to households of 105 parents/guardians of children who receive Early Childhood Special Education itinerant services at their regular preschool. The respondents were asked to rate their perception of the supports their children with disabilities need to achieve in a general education preschool using a five-point Likert scale with the same rating as the teachers. Transition from First Steps to ECSE Parent/Guardian Survey A survey was sent to households of 175 parents/guardians of children who have transitioned from First Steps to ECSE during the school year of The respondents were asked to rate their perception of the transition procedures using a five-point Likert scale with a rating of 1 denoting strongly disagree/not helpful at all and a rating of 5 denoting strongly agree/very helpful. Transition from ECSE to Kindergarten Teacher Survey The survey was conducted by telephone interview with receiving teachers of students who have transitioned from ECSE to Kindergarten for the school year of The purpose of the survey was to determine if the procedures the ECSE program had in place for transitioning ECSE students into kindergarten were effective. Approximately 1/3 (162) of the students exiting ECSE with an IEP were targeted for the interview. Members of the program evaluation committee conducted the interviews in late September and early October There were 34 respondents who were asked questions regarding their perception of the supports and information available to them as well as the success of the child s transition. 13

23 Transition from ECSE to Kindergarten Parent/Guardian Survey. The survey was conducted by telephone interview to parents /guardians of children who have transitioned from Kindergarten to School Age for the school year of The purpose of the survey was to determine if the procedures the ECSE department had in place for transitioning students into kindergarten were effective. Approximately 1/3 (162) of the students exiting ECSE were targeted for interview from each district. Members of the program evaluation committee conducted the interviews in late September and early October There were 31 respondents who were asked their perception of the supports and information available to them as well as the success of the child s transition. Placement Survey A student placement survey was completed the past three years by ECSE teachers (classroom and itinerant) and speech language pathologist. The purpose of the survey was to determine the movement of children across placement options to the least restrictive environment. Data has been collected annually regarding increases and decreased in level of service during the school year. Exit information pertaining to school age placement was also reported. Public Forum A public forum was held to gather input from parents/guardians, partner district personnel, staff, and community members on quality indicator areas. Parents were notified of the forum in a letter. Flyers were also provided to the members of the Parent Advisory Council, district preschool programs, and community preschool programs. Notification of the forum was also posted on the district website and on voice mail. The forum was held from 6:30-8:30 p.m. in the Special School District Central Office on May 12, There were 23 people representing all the stakeholders listed above. A brief overview of the program evaluation process was provided and the program evaluation questions were displayed on posters around the room. Committee members were available for questions and comments. Participants were asked to write their comments for each question on the posters. The committee reviewed all comments provided by participants at the public forum. This information was taken into consideration when developing action plans. Cost Analysis Annual cost for all IEP students by placement were obtained as well as the costs for related services. The ECSE Grant provides an annual cost per pupil, which includes direct services as well as overhead. All services to children are fully funded by the grant. In addition, SSD provides reimbursement through the ECSE Grant to 5 component districts for space, materials, and overhead related to the percentage of ECSE students in their district. 14

24 CHAPTER V RESULTS Eleven findings are presented in this chapter. These analyses have been included to answer the following questions posed by the Board of Education: 1. What are the current best practices regarding least restrictive environment (LRE) in Early Childhood Special Education? 2. What supports, related to best practices do children need to achieve in a general education preschool? 3. Was the transition from First Steps to ECSE and from ECSE to a school age program smoothly implemented using our current procedures? 4. How successful are our current ECSE practices in promoting movement to the least restrictive environment? The findings are listed below. The number corresponding to the evaluation focus question follows. 1. Demographic data. 2. Quality indicators derived from the literature review. (BOE question 1) 3. The results of the ECSE teacher surveys regarding supports children need to be successful in a general education preschool. (BOE question 2) 4. The results of the general education teacher surveys regarding supports children need to be successful in a general education preschool. (BOE question 2) 5. The results of the parent surveys regarding supports children need to be successful in a general education preschool. (BOE question 2) 6. The result of the parent survey regarding transition from First Steps to ECSE. (BOE question 3) 7. The result of the parent survey regarding transition from ECSE to Kindergarten. (BOE question 3) 8. The result of the teacher survey regarding transition from ECSE to Kindergarten. (BOE question 3) 9. The results of the movement to the lease restrictive environment. (BOE question 4) 10. The results of the public forum. (BOE questions 1, 2, 3, 4) 11. A cost analysis for ECSE. 15