ds

199 985

AUTHORTITLE

INSTITUTIONMSS AGENCYPUB' DATEGRANTNOTE

ED4SitICEDESCRIPMS

.fDOCOHENT RESUME

EC 132 4118.

chennilm, Ruth H.A Model Damonstratio Service Delivery Continuum foxPreschool Handicapped Children. Final Program.Performance Report, July 1, 1979-lune 30, 1990.Rhode,Islind con., Providence.Office of Eddcation (DHEW), Nashingtoni D: C. .

Jun 80600770307050p.: Apendixes.A-J containing foras.and.workingpapers omitted due to. reproduction problems

BF0I/PCO2 plus Postage.*Demonstration.Programs: *Disabilities: PreschoolEducation; Program Descriptions; Program .

Effectiveness: *Program Evaluation

ABSTRACT,The final report details achievements and slippajes

of a mo 1 demonstration center which served 46

:;4

kreschool handicappedchildr . Documented are milestones in such areas at d.rect andsupple entAry services to children (identification, evaluationlparent/family participation (large and small group meetings,

.individual parent participation): development of a procedure toinsure longitudinal program continuity, staff development for projectand diktrict personnel and volunteers): dissemination; min evaluation.{child progress, cost effectiveness, parent involvement, replicationoutcomes). Among other achievements noted are increased coordination

. .

letwees cciomusitsy agencies. (CL)MI

*4*********************************************************************Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best tnai caz be made

from the' original document. 0******************4****************************************************

a

4

U S DEPARWENT OF HEALTH.ROuCAMN yiii.plar-ft.

A 1- NATIONAL INSTITUTE OFEDUCATION

pits' 00Cumett HAS eEEN REPRO-

. f OWED EXACI.v AS RECEIVED E.Rcv.

ISE PERSON OR 0140..top T ION ORIGIN'A T oric IT POINTS OF wew oR.op.N.oNs

1STATED 00 NISI NECESSFRoav,REFRE-sENT occIcla.N..tioNA. tratvuTe ofE0vC4t1Ce POSITION OR POL:CY

f

HANDICAPPED CHILDREN'S EARLY EDUCATION PROJECT ,

FINAL PROGRAM ,PERFORMANCE WORT

July. 1, 1979 - June 30; 1940

.

Grant.#: G007703070

A MODEL DEMONS RATION SERVICE DELIVERY CONTINUUMFOR PRESCHOOL HANDICAPPED CHILDREN -

et

11.

Bureau Of Grants & Sponsoiad PfojectsRhode Island CollegeProvidence, .13 02908

Pfeiared by:

Ruth H. Se4nnumProject Director

Y'

t

449,

'4

f0,EAFITM FAT OF HEALTH. EDUCATION. AP.LsWE.LcAHE

OFFICE OF EDUCATIONWASHINGTON. D.C. 20202

rt'CfsPM PERFORMANCE RSPOIT (Discretionary Grants')

FOr.v,A1"1.Om, v:` ^ "

rnum :A:: %her ben: Au may be. but u.'31 not necetun:y be. wtthhe:cI under this protease unless this report is corrpeted tr.!t! 1d /./1 "f'I 1:1 GSA blI 7,17

- ft...-.

7 -2 7.epeet:

er:

Part IAli iantees with awards from programs listed under "General Instructions" above respond.

Ju6 30, 1980

2. Grant Number:

GQ07703070

o' Report: From:

July 1, 1979

To:

June 30, 1980. Nrrre ac>d Desci;ptive Name of Project:

A MODEL DEMONSTRATION SERVICE DELIVERY CONTINUUM FOR PRESCHOOLHAND/CA/PEI; CHILDREN

I

: certify that to the best of my know:edge and belief this report (consisting of ilus and subsequerr pc7es ere

:s correct and complete in all respectexcept as may be specifically noted herein.

of :7-0:et r.",!ec,:orisl or Princ.pa; Signa:ure of Project Director(st or Prant.e.t."--.1s:.sare-tl!,

1Ruth H. ,SchennumPart 1: ("AtcoropisAhmene Reporting)

except ".e t:-....teAlt,h awards under 13.443 arcte te ":s Sec ;on A. Gr2 :eCS tinder 13.443 go to7 -"":- ".

^ et !3.444 except those sup--0_1;e3e1" act..t.es ate ro Wow zhe- c" !sted beow Aerf

-ercots 7.e ..at*rtes arc bac,N:I.ig activities^ Cit ..%;!) eiception: f07 ft:melt

Su-:cfentary Saivccs fc 0.,Vdron's

'2. '2.tit:r3110:"`"`" ,,e r» 'e.s ?- octets

".Meet Staff' - -z .",,ny.,,,-^;! r;,7 Drhr PrOar3::15

A;ee:I."--- Je;If2:C, re. Actnr:z:.:1

.s.':e 11;crv.:s" 1 nul c- 3'd Re- :.ca";ort

r

procarc :3.445, 13.445. 3.450,(: actiti-- eat:ngs Ite;rudsto ape, 04-v.:ye

, I

D!ssen:inat:or.. ,, ..4 4. r:SerViCe.6

f' (.`" -

rid 45: f..10 lie n' reffti,e a' 1.- '''''2.y ttiPt:"301: :nlinSiE

I 81.1T. 0 "7:%, ^f"1

6 " .. r* .

. .: ..

For eac.!: V the above rroparns. frple'xis. ag:-.i;r:!surn as Ihtne spZczal import for (Mow prilc"7. P Z.

cd:isor councils. parent inrullfrienr1 d's:Uctthe °flee:ryes and subobjec:c%es preselec: t- '-te alovappi.cation (tin rtarr4nre fOrniell in terms of:

. (,a) Acco-.113brnentS and IniteSIvies me*.f:1)Snppz,,.`,CS :n a:ratrnent and re,y,_%,:c

Refer Iae to aranc4Ito and v'' '. ". '1:"1.-.E Z StifC27ter1) pro.mrtions. schedy's.e for, c) 0c ?".

dates, and data co::ected andar.e :1"crilod04cs use.! to

.ad tt) For gre;:ces tinder :3 .. d:sctt.rI ...!:.o aertei-el front either priyves V 12;ning.lrSe':::1:01' 0:52I Za..c^s

:-..r-,1'7,:rs of tra;nees and h r$ of tra;17,::: *'?"

tics or the ,Bents of 747...at -toe er.:1-1.)ct A

,.lemendoon did .;.grantccs ate e e.s;.ts

terms . .*;ces prov:ded i;ele !.

'r Iii "-5 (.( !!t ke,"the n.ln.Ser of Wows r'ved

A:co higl-!.tht those piyour eplii:ation

141tsc the- upon invOTF. Out read

::r.p,s&es:serices. rcscv

jn:!tratitrg

Sy

fmisnng titts porttn - - -B. Re fir*:n; fot 1.::.?NoteeS un't ;3.413 tpeterrt, od ro;1-

11tolIfinl.

DISiUSS teS E:IT'iee Out. de.nl.".eS fito'lse prelhkilis etrOttiItt-cd. tsit- 7CS1.0S. J",1 CSCle!tartvfiirt.li prodm7t. Either iN:lude.z..---es -\117:1...1"" rJ:C"I.11S"rel..4.1sed. rcpor 1.; lets t.n.::'s.".":".

r

4.

v4141; Jaamt. etc.; pipers prepared for professlorX meet-t..;4:4::: and graphic rlaterials; completed cumculvm

c."14tcr.a4>d ans.:action:it tondo or drafts if a dev.eloprrienial stare, special methods, techniques and modvis de-V..7.;?.0.).:;%e4..nd o4ne; mr«sunna deiices used.

When :laisnad with this portion of Part Ii .443 granteesgo to C of ?tart il.

to respon :Ids section C. Discuss theki.ourtni

.j .....iaat.9,),Efed or antcipazed spinof deveioprnents(i.e.-,wi:Jch were not part of your origsthlly approved ,

wrucn 2re contemplated wakin thept.rpo.e of the Education for me ilandicapped legisla:fort zacn a> new cooperetzve inter-agency efforts: a de

wadri.,641

;11i.,11;;;elf, .1

a:ion, new public sent )H` :a ;pl.., r.;;;.C,:,7?4*.! CA: 4. P.... .. :rnartdatoty or other Ste*

teleyon: rIeW 41:etc.).

.(.2) 74'.-,erc outp:as arc qu-- .n

of Part 11, ieLite :6tation of udii casts. 442

(3) Indicate giber maztars C -

. .

kow about (o.g.. coron..41:::v rsp,0n.,. . tAtl.lefS cum-minx ih ..014,4zwire. O. teehn:cal .:sush.r..-e s :. f:relevant suaject.). .

A .

Pan IIIvt.t.1.1 ,:emonstra:,ton/Serce function o:

i3.-....4,,grantees who are solely supponed for "outs -..." to corrp:e:e 1"10:es IA, ler. and C.I 3.45 t, as weii ;s those.under . other handt

,1.capped p:oz:rarns wad a PrciervIc.: .nserv.;: i :.... ....... ..,:.are to Fornpl.tc Table 11. Ad grantee, L.r.z.: , 3.-044 e;::those who al,c, v.: ppo:ted so.c.y f..: "i,... :,.:.:;:-." i..r.. ....:::.0:eto cortp:eze Tab. iliA.int 11:S.

a.

Table Demonstration/Service Activities DCI:etChildren .

perfc4rilance data: for this.reperiod alto theUse a;e as of :he tunic of the orig:r.31 3p-

Co: eon:.nuation wnichever is:arar...ne; aaolec , :Nutt multi.handicapped

on.: oy prt.-a4ry handicapping condition. and 1:',:iicate

..

::ie number of inuaihandit Ipp,:, .r, ',,r..: ::::. L.. . i.. .thro411 1 : ....-e ::,r tho.e chit:.:, .21-v.: , .. .; . .o.i.....1.enroi!cd or re;e:y;r.; nisior servit-:. art. no, :. , .. .:.:....screened, cafe:red or g,r en rain.mc: uso:c..4-..i. ,::".--,,

Type of Handicap

.1=. ..M111=... . :

1. Trairiat4 Me idly Retarded

2. Ectscabie MealaIiy Retarded

:krnoet of Htr..hcapoec ACJ

Ages Atts ;Ages AS tv:e.0-2

;' 3.5 69' :G12 ,

1

I

,

I 6I'

..*

'3. Speci fic earnine, Disabilities.

20 .1

1'

1 -,

4. Deaf-Z-0'nd .. .

0 e I.

c5. DealfHa:d di Hearing 4 . ..

"1----""..

I,

.

. .6. :V...i.0,45:.y Hand:capped

--4. .

,

1. . ci.

F. . 1. .

.77. Senoei< Emotionally Disturb.td,

_

,.t

.. ,

. .I1 0 I I

17.

t

.

ii.. Spieecr, Irri;Wred.

. .?,:.'

, - .

.

.

:.12...

. -0

, .

9. One: flikaltn !moil:red4

II1

,_

;O. Orthopedically Impaired . . . . .

t...i. , . ' 1

I .I

ii

- I. .

,,

1-.. 7e..a. -.

a

, -.,c .. .

- ,1 1

.

if / I1 f"I

.2. Mult.riandleapped ,.

.

."2

. '.I

. ., above table carer by mote thaw 10 percent from the.data originaily presented in 014;

..e.: ex daerence. .

4

. ,,

1 41,

,11:..T

4,

4

t

V11.* 9.0.1.0101.

I

41.Yabic IS

ioject Staff Providing Services to Recipients in Table IA

I'

Type of Staff

Number----......a..

'Fulltime

.Partbite .

(As Full-t,i Equi.4.2..w::::)

Professic.nat Personnel(excluding teas:ha:I

..

: 1.2....

Director SulCare Evaluation Team /st

Teachers .' .4

.

Paraprofessional . -.. 3.

2

Table IC..u appucatr. xrviccs to 10050 11 cucappca efOt (aquae° an taluc tit

.: ServiceI

Number of KindiewOed.:-

, .: .3c.reence.

76Q . .

..

... ...4__

. 85 In Depth evaluationsC.agnostic and Evaivative134 Specific evaluations'

.

..

. 'i-okava to .Need Specal Help so t ..... 50 (only 46 served at theliarly Childhood Cei

0:er Resource Assistance-, -

..ImmHandicappeq Ara of

Table II

Preservi.:etInservice rrattung Data . . 4mr 4mr w.

Number of ' Number ci Students Rectiveo

.)* Persons Received Preservice Trair.inu t,,r Orssit. mo

1 .Ittservice Trainir4 AA I BA I MA ' Fc4;MA

Mji:lhattiCaPPOf

1

.1

1

Administratior. - I

"---;0

Early ChilohoodCROSS

I .

. 1

.

m/table Mentally Larded

Ec.lucabla Mentally Retar,ded CATEGORrCAL s .tI. ..

Specific Learning Disabilities/ t

. I

Otsaf/Ha'a of Hearing I

i

i

.

Vis.atly Handicapped.

.

.

i

S::iouslyErnotionallypisturbed" . .I

S,5z.e.:.n imparted ,.

1 I

.

.

,L--.t

!Or.r.opedically and Other Health Impair*.-) -

TCTA .

.

74.

2. 1

.1

.

7.1:::e II atinvi diffet bimore than 0 percent from those it your approved applii..ino,p, ct.n;.4n.

3FL Vo".17.1. ens

.0

p.f

ter)

(4

1

Table WA'. Placement of Children Participating inEarly Childhood Program During Repoiting Period

=1..

. ."!nti.Jeate the p'azerrierit childrct who left your project during the year covered by this report period.NOTE: Cyunt each child only once by primary tyspe of placement below. ,

it A TYFEsdF,PLJICEMENT4,

NtoreEP OF CX.DS.so

- FULL TIME _

Nonery schoalt,

PLACEMENT re0-

, :,,,,e7-arcs with etilldrert rho are NOT

o

Dereare provenly

bead Start

Fre-londefgarten 0

Kndegarten 21

Post

Primary grades Second

P

1. -

0If

Other 0

#

PLACEMENT

f, etimis only l'ar bandicapped" bit .ripe;er.fin nvvIzr private or

-;o4...7.: school;

tire-kinai-Igenen 16

iC4ndergarten lo

I Felt

ofientiry grades Selood

iri . 4 _.. - .

: I . ... . .. " ''''Sch eidv I ed to ernsin on noffyShildnOod

.. 1 Pfetreamin cornona yea",,..._....._ _r - , ..Otntr koecily)

Other

PL,ACEMENT

N. r

'I . : ..,

% NUMBER,C....2.....vloiv.::^vrreaer of cMdren entered into

.. *P:,tezt;te t':tierst!)*

.4f. known/ prior to this.. r^: " "?;043 . " ": ...

. to-.0 c

home-based

0 A.

1.

Table 1118

EsIirheted retention rate of curnu- PEgc:".-lative numb; in integrated place. 1,

;.

I*

41.'" ; .,1

4

. .. .

11,/

,

,

I ' , s

#

-

4

6

TABLE OF CONTENTS

- INTRODUCTIONF

_

accomiuktmeer DEPORTING . 4.

ANTICIPATEA.AND 'UNANTICIPATED SPINOFF 23 *t.

11

APPENDICES

A. 'Case Manager Information

Longitudinal Service }delivery Log

f. Environmental Checklist

D. Parents Meetings

E. Parent Discussion Gfoups

F. Familiarization Workshops

G. Replication Workshops

H. Scribble; (Samplei

I. Monograph'

J. Data Analysis.

KA Colt Analysis

.

qr

4

.

.8

. ,

40

11

t

.9

.,04.

.4

,%°t!.0 .4

4.4

4.'16 .4 4

It Or 4. 4(714

^..X ,"

1, 0. ,V., 1.

e t.

.4

.

,..

0, s7

V

INTRODUCTION

This ptogress report.covers the period from July 1, 19,9, to June 30, 1980.

In order to clearly report the activities and accomplishments which, have occurred

during-that period, the following pages of this report have been organized

according to the following categories for each objective of the third year

continuation proposal:

AccoMplishments/Milestones Met

Dates

Outcome including Slippages 4

When reviewing this progresi report, it 4111 be noted that considetable

progress was made In Direct and Supplementary Services for Children, Parent/

Family Participation, and In Service Training for Project Staff all of which

have been priorities during this grant period. Since the Handicapped Children's

Early Education Project located at the Early ChildhoodCenter has assumed all

responsibilities for diagnogtic and educational services for 'preschool chil-

dren referred from.the 255 square mile area which isAundAr the jurisdiction

of the Northwest Special Education District, it has been necessary to include

activities in these priority areas which were not originally anticipated in

'the proposal. For example, the introduction of the Case Manager approach,

(see Appendix,A) has a direct impact on all priority areas cited above and

. has served to substantially improve the efficimncy.and effectiveness of the

.

referral and diagnostic process., This approach necessitated increased Acti-

vities in "In Service" Training for Project Staff in ordeeto facilitattheir

participation in tiliireferral and diagnostic process. In addition, the use of

the Cask Manager has increased the numbers of children which can be referrdd\

and has accelerated the rate at which referrals can be evaluated. In turn,

this has enhanced parent participation in the planning for their children_

' -2-

beginning from the time of referral. i.e., the umber of children actually

referred far diagnostic services was almost double what was anticipated

(173 instead of 90) and consequently the amount of professional time real-.

1st

located to direct services was increased by 350% (e.gt, 4 total of 46 clinics

in the areas of audiology, gkology, opthalamology, pediatrics, nursing,

physical and occupational therapy. were scheduled but a total of 141 occurred)

without changing budgetary priorities, but instead combining these direct

services with. staff development activities.; Concoimitint with this unex-

pected increase in the number of referrals was an increase in parent partici-,*

pation. 100 of the parents participaked'in planning conferences for their

children and seven instead of the anticipated five large group parent meetings

were

Once children ha ve been referred and evaluated, it has been possible

to extend tie Casejlanager approach.on'an on-going basis to the preschool

. handicapped children who have been placed in programs at the Early Childhood

Center. Through be utilization of Core Team Consultations to each program

on the model demonstration service delivery continutio, it possible fOr

each teaching team. and parents to have experts available from a variety of

disciplineq to deal with any questions or concerns' they iey have regarding

their children systematic.way4nd.ob a regularly scheduled basis.' There-

foie, coordination 'of special education programs with each child's related

service needs has been possible and through this c o ordination,isubstantial

.benefits have not only accrued to children and their families, but also to

the Project Stsffs' understandings of the contributions of other disciplines

to educating your preschool handicapped children.'1,

Replication efforts of prOgraus at the Early Childhood. Center were

carried out in conjunction with the Rhode Island State Department of Education

who 'provides funds on a.competitive basis to cover "start up" costs for those

. . .

t

communities desirous of replication.

Rhode Islanes plan for Education of

possible to carry out two five day training Workshops in each of the programs.

F

However, due to the delay in approval of

the'Handicapped by BEN, it was not

By revising the training fOrlinat for one of the model demonstration:services, .

it was possible to accommodate, ultimately, -more trainees than anticipated

in the continuation proposalo.howeven.

Slippages were most obvious in those activities that required parents,

students and volunteers to travel to the Early Childhood Center for partici-

pation in daily classroom activities and in the lack of support for.the In-

service training of professional staff (not teaching stern from the LEA's

administratZon comprising the Northwest Special Education District. In

speculating as to the reasons for these'slippages, it would appear that in,

bopt cases, rising.inflation and its consequent economic crises was a prime

factor. For example, the increasing price of gasoline forced many dedicated

parents, students and volunteers to reduce the frequency with which they

could commute to the Eakly Childhood Center which is located in,a very rural

setting not readily accessed by regularly scheduled public transportation.

The superintendents of the LEA's were not willing to commit their professional

staff torrticipate in In-Service training activities sponsored by the project

because th 6elt local taxpayers would not support continued efforts in theel

jfuture at the level of ervice delivery being demonstrated at the EarlyThild-

. .

hood Center. Thus, ins rvice training activities were carried Oat by project4

.

. ,

o.staff 2oine. out to individual schools in the LEA's and providine follow-up

technical assistance to kin4rearten teachers and other members of inter-

\ , -

disciplinary teams oh a case bv} ase basis.

4.

.0

GRANT FUNCTION: DEMONSTRATION/SERVICE

'Objective il: Continued development, demonstration and further refinefient of thecomprehesive diagnosiit and service delivery system, for forty-six

. so that local systems'can adopt and continue the,sYstem beyond theJwith.P.L. 94-142..

ACCOMPLISHMENTS/MILESTONES ' DATES

model demonstration centeispreschool handicapped childrengrant period in accordance.

OUTCOME/SLIPPAGES

T. DIRECT AND SUPPLEMENTARY SERVICES TO CHILDREN

A. 'SeTecting the Target Population.1/

1. The Early Childhood Center continued to, serve as the diagnostic facility for.children over

the agg of 3 %alb are not yet enrailod in publiceducation in the Northwet e Educhtion Dib-trict. Referrals were' accepted for a range of .

diagnostic Services for children who have eitherfailed rescreening in vision, hearing, medical con-ditions, developmental learning.skillst,speech andexpressive language or have been referred for ser-vices.by an outside agency.

2. Each chil4 referred was assigned to a Case.Manager whose responsibilities included coordinating.all activities, resources and information related toeach referral.

3. Each child referred had an evaluation plandesigned as a result of the Core Evaluation TeamRekview in conjunction.w1.0 the child's parents. Theevaluutionplan included formal assessments designedto answer the following 3 questions:

A

11- Is this child eligible for special educationand related services? '

- If eligible, what are the long range goalsfor such services?

. .

- What is the most appropriate and least restric-tive setting for carrying out .these long range goals?

0.

These evaluations were conducted using a battery.of standardized, valid, reliable, culture-fair

40

June

July

June

July

'June

At,

.173 children were referred to theEarly Childhood Center for a range

. .

of diagnostic services which 10is considerably greater'than theanticipated 90 children.4 ,

. .

Each child referred to the EarlyChildhoOd Center was assigned toa Case.'Manager.(Appendiic A)

39 children who failed one or moreareas of rescreening in develop-mental learning skills, wer'e re-ferred for a Full Core Team Evalu-ation, consisting of general medi-cal,. psychological, sociologicaland education assessments:134.children who failed rescreen-

,ing in only vision, hearing, orspeech' and expressive languagewere referred for spedific evalu-ations in each of those areas todetermine the need for further

'assessmen:

.

I .

*.

ACCOMPLISHMENTS/MILESTONES DATES OUTCOME/SLIPPAGES

.8/

"procedures and instruments assembled by the project'staff and used for the purposes for which they were,designed.

'

4. For each ehil.'d receiving evaluations in Julyspecifid areas, a review was held with the specialist/ 4

consultant, parents ind,,Project Co-Director to review . June'Devaluation results and formulkte decisions regardingthe need for .further assessment. .4.

5, For each childxedeiving a Full Core Team) Evaluation, the Center' Full Core Nam met with the

k plrents to.jointly review evaluations results and for-mulate decisions regarding eligibility, long range"goals and least restrictive setting.

6,v Children who fell at or below 2 standarddeviations from the mean in any one area of func-tioning or one anT one -half standard deviations

. from the mean in any two Zr more areas of fund-2tioningvere eligible for special education and re- -lated services through the Early Childhood Center'sservice delfvery continuum. .

7. After'eligibility had been established, '

placement Was:Made in one of the model demonstration

.programs. Placement, in each of the programs' was

.made accordiag tp specificocriteria developed forthat program by project staff.' Included in thosecticerii are seveyit!t of handicapping ionditionas well as developmentallevels in the major skills

, areas.r%

As

August

Jufren

August

June

August

June

,41.

173 Summary donferences were heldto assess the results of specificevalUations.

39 Core Evaluation Team conferenceswere held with parents to-assessthe results of Full Core Team eval-uations and to jointly prepare.Phase I of the Individualized Edu-catiOnal Plan where indicated.

46 children who. met eligibility

Criteria for special educAtionand relatedservices were providedthose services through the service.delivery Early

Childhood Cent An-additional4 children were evaluated, but ser-vices were provided elsewhere.

6 moderately to severely handicapped.children were assigned to theself-contained Teaching Reseatchclassroom.

al mildly to moderately handicappedchildren were assigned to the PEECRintegrated tlasepom.111' mildly to moderately handicapped '

'children were assigned to the'High Scope classroom.'7* mildly to severely handicapped

were aspigned to ,the .

,Portage home-based piogram.15* childterfwhose only handicappingcondition was in the area of'speech.and expressive language attend134

.1

vi

ACCOICLISBXENTS1/2.11LESTONES

8. 'Each child assigned to one of the modelprograms received informal criterion - referenced

assessments specific to each model demonstrationprogram. Short term objectives of the IndividualizedEducational Plan were prepared frgm the resultsof the criterion-referenced assessments.

9. For each child admitted to the.Center,a loigitudinal service delivery log was maintainedaccording to'Project developed record keeping.proce;duress: This logging system was designed fb monitor.accountability of service delivery:

1

B. Program Implementation

1. Each model Program was operational accordingtg its prescribed curriculum and data collectionsystem.

*

2. For each child included in a model program,related servicwere coordinated with the educa- .

tional services plan.

OUTCOME /SLIPPAGES

September

June.

1'

Augds

. Junk .

a speech and language group4:44-01,weekly.

? (*denotes double programming)

46 eligible children receiv edinformal criterion-referencedassessments'from which the shortterm objectives were prepared.

July

June

September

June

3. Each of the model programs which comOriseet,heL September

range of educational services for the target popula- ; -

ion was analyzed according to the organization of _Iv Jung-444'

environmental variables. Thekefore, a 'framework wasdeveloped in which the organization of environmentalvariables for each model program was systematicallymatched to the severity of handicapping conditionto determine the "least restrictive" setting for any,.given child were pinpointed.

la.4

.sA lonolituanal service deliNterylog waiailintained for each childreceiving servicesat the Early .

Cliildnood Centet'. Informationii#4X,aintained. frog screening to.,asseastent to program planning:ami:imRymentation via an efficient-eW7vomsintain record keepingSystem. (Appen4ix A)

.

Each model prbgram served the pum-berS of handicapped. children enu-merated above ip I, A, S7, '

44,

Each child's related service-needs were documented in the.

and cgordinated by-the CaseManWger.'

An environmental analysis.clieck-

list for analyzing the presedIniand consequent conditions for eachmodel program was field testedandrefined. (Append/vie)

6

.1.

.1

I

444

4.. P. t

e

AtCOMPLISIMENTS/MILESTOPIES 'DATEi OUTCOME /SLIPPAGESo r

Ik; PARENT /FAMILY PARTICIPATIONdro.g. . .. -

. .

. :,,I.,. As eaeh,chifd was referred to the .Early

Childhood Center, hiSther parents were invited toPalticipate" in aCore Eyaluation'Team Review Con-fetenal6i, the purpose of designing an eyalua-tion plan. At tifie time0,.parints were .,also informed

of duerproeess prtiCedurts,,confidentiality assur-antes and.writtenpermission'fbrcarrying out theevaluation plan. 0 .

..f

# ,s A ..

2".. Once the aluationi were performed, parents July

,were encouraged to et with,the Core Evaluation Teakor appropriate speceplist/consuitants fot the purpose June',

. of review-1dg the r tilts ofthe evaluations'and deter-mining eligibility /for specidl editcatidn programming.

.

If eligibility foespeciak education programming wasestablished, then.the Rarents participated in writinglong range goals k the Individualized EducationalPlan and in seleciting The most appropriate and leastestriCtiye" setting for carrying out .those goals.

4. /3. Once eligibility was established and a child. was scheduled to utter one ol the model demonstration

programs, parenti were interviewed. using the Alpern-, JuneBoll Dayelopmerital Profile. The purpose Sithis in-.tervief was two15 .to hstablish rapport with the family and obt airi in-_

.- put f om the patents regarding their perceptions ofthe c ilel'#owth and development, and, 2) to collect

w,data or.evaluation.-' ,.

14

1

SePleMber.

June

July

4. Each child's Individualized Educational Planincl ded a parent participation component specificallytai rea.to meet the individual family's needs. Thesepl s were varied and include( te parent as a hometutor, die parent learning new behavior man4gementtechniques or merely familiarizing the parent with theeiticatiaal prograte.

I

.1:i

. October

'Jane

dr

's

173 parents or guardians of chil-dren referred participated in .the '

'Core Evaluation Team Review.

r

I73 parents of children who wereevaluated were invited to 'parti-.cipate in a.conference to reviewevaluation results. 0

Parents'of 15 newly referntd chIlL

dren who entered the model demon-stration programs were interviewed

using the Alpern-Boll DevelopmentalProfile. The parents of childrenwho participated in programmingat the Earn' Childhood Center inPrevious years weresndt interviewedagain.

Every child's:Individualized Edu-cational Plan defined a performance-baited, parent component specificailydeqigned to meet. the chilge andfamilies' individual needs. '

I

4

ACCOMPLISIDielffS/MILESTONES DATES OUTCOME/SLIPPAGES-

5. The Early Childho Center's Family Partici-pation Program inclidedties: ,

5.1 La

following types of activi-

Group Meetings

These meeti were held.for the purpose. of dissemina-ting info-ation,.obtaining parent input and encourag-ing open'communication between parents and school, aswell.as, between individual parents at the Center.

Septembqr

June

5".02 .Small Discussion Groups

of OctoherThese discussion groups centered around'tqpicsparticular interest to parents. Parefts selectedthe agendas for the discussiOn groups_ which June I

met in four-week cycles. Originally these groups , .

were to be composed of parents whoSe children are:all in thp same model demonstration, program (e.g.,High Scope parents). However, staff and parentsdecided that it would be preferahle to group parents.

4

heterogenously. II

5.3 IndivtdualeParent Involvement

5.3.1 Conferences to discuss diagnostic Julyand educational planning and individual -- child progress..

From the time, children were referred to the Early .Child-hood Cen;krueach-parent had the opportunity to meet .t,

June

with the are Evaluation Team and any specialist n-volvedin the child's evaluation ,process. In addition, It

for children who participated in each of'the model : .

demonstration programs,- parents4ad an oppoftunity co4v.meet with their child's model,dAmonstratiOn teicani.team and any specialist itao1.44 at lea* 3 times an-nually tgirevise the short teiii Obje,ctlyes of theIfidividualized Educational park.' .,.::: .!. .

'. i' 10"vri: .

..:,::;:: :A q:-v "'.., 11i %,;t4....."0..a' .. -

.

, . ; 0. .e4A ...A,1 J , 1. .0 ..1 4,..

I

4.

0'

7 large group meetings, were he4.:in which 74% of the' parents pai-cipated, which was greater than..the anticipated 5 large group ,

meetings. (Appendix 0)'4.4

Od

26% of the parents of children ineach model program attended smalldiscussion groups: (Appendix E)

I

100% of the parents participatedin at least one individual-con-ference during tie course of theyear.

tcd

.

ACCOMPLISHMENTS/MILESTONES

Y.

1':- ItDATES OUTCOMgi$LIPPAGES

I

: 45..3:2 Classroom Volunteer Tutors - September

Parents were trained to serve as volunteet t(!iatitLii' the classrbom in,accorJance with the vplunteeDs'irs:0-

ing program outlined by each particular moderimogram6.

"5.3.3 Classroom Observation 4

The Center operated with an "open 'door" polidy; parentswere welcome to attend class sessions at'any time.pfrents could spendeas little as 10 to 15 minutes oras much as the entire session in their child's class-room. A

s

, 5.3.4' For those parents who wished to partici-pate in Center activities by constructing eqq.pmentand/or materials or by contributing their tin in ''.

activities that do not involve disect contact withchildren, four work sessions were held during thecourse of the year.

5.3.5 Home Programs. For many children, theCenter-based program was coordinated with specifichome visits designed to helt, parents modify the homeenvironment in ways Similar to the classroom epviron-ment so that the educational pian can be car led outOn a 24 hour lifsis. For those children whosedid not designate specific home- visits, a lunch t1or notebook systeid was instituted in order to iniungoing gommuhication between the home and the-echo

rams

6. or children who have exited from aitoodeldemonstra on program at the EArly Childhood Centerbitt still equire special education and related ser-vices in grades k and 1, parents were invitedtowiticipate in each planning conference held fortheir chi/d.

.47. Parents of children who 'hake entered kinder-', 4srten or grade 1 and are still in peed of special ed

'cation and related se es have an inidividual/y.de-signed home component hick was jointly carried out b

1

June

:September

June

September

June

September

June

September

June

September .

June

32% of the Parents served 4111

classroom uolupteer tutors in oneof the model demonstration programswhich was an increase of 2% overwhat was expected;

40% of 61e parents observed theirchild's classroom at least once '

eyery two months which was less

than the original anticipated 75%of the parents. The cost of trans-portation to and from the Center was-a major reason for this.

. -A2% of the parents participated, in oneor more'of these work

-sessions which-was less than anti-.cipated, and is believed to be dueto transportation costs. oar

' 68% of the children had a home-basedcomponent attached tb their Center-Wed Individualized EducationalPlant' 32% of the children utilized.

either a notebook or lunch box system.Consequently, there, was a definedcoMmmnication system between-thehome and the school for all children.

100% of the parents participated. planning conferences for their ch Idwhen they'exited from the EarlyChildhood Center. Tbis representsan, increase of 50% over what wasanticipated.

Si..

70% of the children had a homecomponent attached to their Indivi;dualized Educational Plan which 24

, is 30% less than was tnitially proposed.

4

., .

ACCOMPLIskewS/KELEATONES DATES OUTCOME/SLIPPAGES.

the receiving teacher, the Northwest Special Educationstaff.and the/Early Childhood Center prolect staff:Such comionents included regularly scheduled home.visitations or continuationof the notebook orlunch box system.

if

a

";

9

However, receiving teams did notfeel a home component was necessary,for every child.

2.4

1-4OI

GRANT FUNCTION:. DEMONSTRATION /SERVICE -

Objective #2: To develop', field teaf and refine a systematic prOcedure and the instructional content for insuring,longitudinal program kentinuity for preschool handicapped children that leave the Early Childhood

. .Center.

- ACCOMPL/SHEMNTS/MILESTONES DATES OUTCOME/SLIPPAGES

A. DEVELMENT OF A PROCEDURE FOR INSURING LONGITUDINALPROGRAM CONTINUITY--

1. Decisions for children to exit from the EarlyChildhood Center was made for the following reasons:

1.1 following reassessment it was determined thatthese children were no longer eligible for specialeducation or related services,

1.2 FollowinU reassessment it was determined thatthe "most aoprdpriate and least restrictive" setting forchildren still eligible for special education and re-lated services should be provided in a mainstreamed pre-school, kindergarten or first grade classroom.

1.3 Following reassessment, it was determined thatspecial education and related services should be provi-ded in a self-contained. dpecial education classroom inwhich the chronological and developmental ages of thechildren are more appropriately matched to the young-'

. steels needs.

2, For each of the above categories, a system ofprocedures was outlined. These procedures were fieldtested with an initial sample of children and refinedduring the course of the year as a result of ongoingformative assessment procedures.

Sep tembtr

June

September

June #4,'

The following changes in numbersof children from the original Pro-oosar reflect changes in the totalnumber of children served..

i 3 children exited the Early Child-- hood Center to enter regular pre-'

school kindergarten or first grade`class rooms

'14

22 children ligible for specialeducation sestreamed preand first gr16 children,education sespecial educ

5 children eself-containclassroom fo

ices entered maip-chool, hibdergartende classrooms:ligible for' specialvices entered preschoolLion -classes..

tere4 an existingd special education6-8 year olds'

.

A detailed systematic procedurefor insuringi longitudinal program

tContinuity as designed and imple=mented for sample of childrenmoving to new programs, Followingthe field test, the process wasrefined andlutilized for all-chil- . '

dren who move on tokiew programs., 4 b4.

0

.I

01.CCOMIISIIMENTSMILESTONES .DAIES . OUTCOME /SLIPPAGES4

.3. A technical assistance plan was designed !Ind.September The technical assistance plan

.

implemented for assisting the receiving personnel was impledented for each child(teachers0aCore Evaluation Team, etc) to integrate . June i who moved to a new program.children into new settings. This technical assistance -....

rplan was coordinated with the inservice training thatwag earmarked for' personnel in the Nbrthwest Silecial .

Education District. . ..,... "if .

4.9

J

it t..)

fb r

fa

23

GRANT FUNCTION: INSTRVICE TRAINING/

Objective #1: To maiptain and increase 'staff competency in areas.essential tochild- effective diagnostic and educational services to preschool

Accompustmas/MILESTONES DATES

the delivery of cost-efficient andhandicapped children.

OUTOOME/SLIPPAGES

A. STAFF DEVELOPMENT-FOR EARLY CHILDHOOD CENTERPERSONNEL,

me m..mm

Staff development for Early Childhood Centerincluded the folloWineactivities:

4 1. Core<Eyaluation Team Consultation

1.1. The Core TeamoEvaluation consisting of thepsychologist, speech and language therapist, and pro-ject Co-Director spent one morning per month in each Juneof the four model demonstration programs for the pur-pose of assisting'the teaching teams to integratethe specifics of these disciplines into their teachingwricula.

't,

b'

4 '1.2 Core Eimluatfon Team consultants such as the

pediatrician, neurologist, audiologist, otologistophthalmologist, etc., provided' consultation to Early.Childhood Centerlstaff through regularlchedufed-diagnostic clinics. Early Childhood Center personnelparticipated in each of these clinics and met withconsultant staff following clinics to &Fuss findings.

September

/

2. Weekly Stf Meetings k

September

June

r.

Wgekly staff meetings were held with project staff.NA.

2i

.M1

ft

Ae

The,Corepaluation Team spent 'onemorning per month in each of, thefour demonetration'programs,

.

'The following clinics andconsultation visits were held:

7

. ,

pediatric8 neurological, /11 audiologicaa I

5 otologics1 .

14 ophthalmplogicS1-. tk .o

36 nursing . . ft

3S physical therapy »35 occupational therapy .

Due to the increased' nuirber =

. I-1.4

0

"

at.

referrals, and the nature of thehandicapping c nditions of chil-dren reffered, it vas necessaryto inerease t number of clinicsby 350% over at' anticipated.

J.

Iff

ACCOMPLISHMENTS /MILESTONES DATES

t

OUTCOME/SLIPPAGES

to pl-an forthcoming activities, review the eventsof previops weeks, and work through issues speci-fic to the Center's operAtions. In addition, thestaff meetings were used for the p*frpose of staffdevelopment with each member'of the project staff

,.takIng responsibility for training other staff inhis /her own area of expertise. Seminars were preparedby individual staff members:lithe areas. of task analy-sis, behavior man4kement techniques, home programmingand the use of creative activities to develop positiiteself- concept and other aspects of conceptual develop-ment.

B. STAFF DEVELOPMENT .FOR NOITHWEST SPECIAL EDUCATIONDISTRICT PERSONNEL who will receive children served

at the Early Childhood Center.

Staff development for personnel who will providefollow up programming for children served at the EarlyChildhood Ceqter decurred as follows:

1. inservice Training.

1#10'Originally five kindergarten and five firstgrade teachers were to he selected by the NorthwestSpecial Education District to participate in a-seriesof 20 in-service training vorkshOls during the courseof the acadialic year which would focus upon longitud-inal program continuity for preschool handicapped chil-dren and the .means by .which these children can be main-streamed in to regular education settings, The fnser-

vice training approach was to Use a case study method'toaddress the needs of Actual children who have been

9mainstreamed into these settings.

$

July

June

Orr

July

June

33 weekly staffheld and attenmembers.

eetins wered by all staff

4

, II0- i

7 i

* 0it was anticipated that ten teachers(5 kindergarten teachers and 5 rade1)would participate in and c-

cessfully complete the serviceprogram. Howev4r, the superinten-.

, 'dent; of the,five communities com-posing the Northwest Special Edu-cation District would not permitthis to become operational. Hence,

project staff made regularlySPheduIed visits to receiving tea-chers to facilitate the transit-tion of children from the EarlyChildhood Center to mainstreamedsettings.

34:

O

.4f

-4

ACCOMPLIS1DEENTS/MILESTONES DATES OUTCOME /SLIPPAGES

1.2 Joint planning meetings were held betweenEarly Childhood Centex teaching teams and preschool,kindergarten and first grade teachers receiving these''children. These meetings were conducted on a case-

'' by case approach and were an informal means of famili-arizing receiving personnel with the needs for and meansof integrating handicapped children into regular edu-

.

cation.settings.

1.3 It was anticipated that the Northwest Special/Education District would designate a Core EvaluationTeam from each of the partictipating local educationagencies to participate in inserAce training whichwould focus upon the diagnostic and program planning.

approaches'. techniques and activities that have Proven .

successful- at the Early Childhood Center. The Corei

Evaluation Team would have then become familiarized withthe referral, schedulingjind logging system as well aseach of the 'eValuation techniques utilized bythis project.. The Coretvaluatim Team was to partici-pate in a'series of ten ,Aalf-day workshop sessionsduring the course ofthe year.

,

1.4 Replication of the Teaching Research model July

July

June

Jay

June

1

prograi for 6-8 year olds. An existingspecial education class for moderately to severely June

handicapped 6 to 8 year olds was to replicate the /Teachilig Research` model in order to insure..program

continuity for the population of children.

0'.

V

C.%StAFF DEVELOPMENT FOR VOLUNTEER PERSONNEL

4k

This train'. -1. In_

to children was conductedrvice

training for volunteers, who provide

direct se

.--SePtembe

.

'ing assisted the volunteer to employ methods appropriate Juneto each model cictaonssration program within the Center'sservice deliveryconttnuum. Training materials &Niel-oPad:by each model Program were utilized to assist the-

C$4.$

28 meetings were held to plan forand assist in the transition ofchildren from the Early ChildhoodCenter to other programs in theNorthwest Special Education District.0

, Ten workshop sessions were scheduledto be held to train the NorthwestSpeCial Education core Evaluation'Team to utilize procedures thatwill insure longituilinal programcontinuity. However. Insteadthe Northest Special Education Dis-trict chose to send one delegatetooeach full Gore review and plan-

.

ning conference.

One, special education 'class serving"

8 moderately to seferely handicappedchildien ages 6-8 was to adoptand replicate the Teaching Researchmodel., However, due to pressuresfrom local educational agencies,bargaining units this was not done":Instead, the parent clinic componentof the Teaching Research odel

was used for this popul Lion.A

21 volunteers were trained andParticipated on a regularlyscheduled haslet 57% of theparents were trained and partici-pated as volunteers at least onceper week. This represented an

34

ACCOMPLISHMENTS/MILESTONES DATES OUTCOME/SLIPPAGES."

tfie volunteers (parents and students) achieve specificcompetencies.,;

D. OTHER

For personntl interested in early childhoodspecial education (LEAls, private nurseries, Head.Start, Day Care), the project continued its devel-opment of a series of workshops at the familiari-zation, in-depth and replidation leve

1; Familiarization workshops scheduled to bepresented biweekly for the porpod, of providing anoverview of the Center's diagnostic and servicedelivery continuum. It was anticipated that approxi-mately 150 individual would participate in thesefamiliarization workshops.

2. Int-depth workshopi were scheduled to be heldbiweekly for each of the model demonstration programs,to provide an opportunity for participants to spenda full day at the Early Childhood Center participatingin the program as well as in planning activities. It

was anticipated that at least 80 persons would parti-cipate in an in-depth workshop at the Early Childhood.

Center.

3. {replication workshops were scheduled to be heldtwice during theyear for each of the model demonstrationprograms. During each of these workshops, five peribnsinterested in replicating a specific model program will'participate. for five days and will achieve the specific,competencps outlined in the replication training pack-age. 4

33

September_

June

September

June

September

June

incease of parents as volunteersover what was anticipated; however,a decrease in thq number of students.

q The decrease in numbers of studentswas probably due to the increasedcasts of transportation.

,11 FamiliariLi Workshopshave been presented for 25 Peoplewhich is a significant decreaseof what was 'expected. However,the Early Childhood Center hadreceived maximum exposure in its

4 two previous years.

10 In-Depth workshops were con-;ducted for 30' people.

.0ne Replication Workihop per pro-gram was conducted for a total of.74 people, since it was possibleto include many more trainees in the.High Scope workshop than the ori-ginally specified 4. (Appendix G).

36

6

%

GRANT FUNCTION: DISSEMINATION

0

Objective #1: To provide the Rhode Island educatidnal community and other community-based service providerifor preschool handLcapped children with knowledge and understanding of the comprehensive diagnosticand service delivery continuum deiigned and demastrated by this model demonktration project.

ACCOMPLISHMENTS /MILESTONES DATES OUTCOME/SLIPPAGES

Dissemination occured via'three modes:

7-ihe preparation and distribution of writtenmaterials .

- the development, implementation, and coor-dination of a statewide network for early childhoodspecial education

- the etablishment of direct contact with otherservice proyideri through visitations, presentations,etc.

A. THE PREPARATION AND DISTRIBUTION OFMATERIALS

The following, written materials were prepared byproject staff:

.1. An Early Childhood Center newsletter, "Scribbles".' Julywhich described activities and events atthe Center.

June

July

June

2. An updated dissemination packet which con-tained a coveriletter, a copy of "Scribbles", a sched-

ule,of Cent activities for the succeeding two-monthperiod and a procedure for scheduling a visit to parti-cipate in one or more of the projects training andvisitation.aoXivities.

3. The'revision and refinement of a monograph' which

fully describes the model' demonstration service deliverycontinuum developed by this'project.'

.

37

4

3 issues of "Scribbles" were i;re-pared and disseminated to 500people. This is less that theexpected 1,000 because of increasedprinting costs. (Appendix H)

F

A

500dissemination packets weredistributed which represents only'50% of the anticipated distribution ,

because Of increased production costs.

Several 5 page monographs describinethe model demonstration oroiect's 1

full service delivery continuumwere completed and published.(Appendix I) r,

36 .

ACCOMPLISHMENTS /MILESTONES

B. THE DEVELOPMENT OF A STATEWIDE EARLY CHILDHOOD

4

tikDATES 'OUTCOME/SLIPPAGES

SPECIAL EDUCATION NETWORK

1. The project Initiatqd the development Of astatewide consortium of mo4e1 demonstration projectsfor preschool special education. The Project Co-Direc-tor contacted each of the BEH projects and attempted toestablish regular meeting times and communication pro-cedures.

2. The project established formal linkages withthe State Department of Education as well as institu-tions of higher education and various community-basedservice providers in order to enhance interagency,efforts for disseminating the development of the-pre-school model demonstration Irograms.

C. DIRECT CONTACT WITH INTERESTED PARTIES

1. Large group presentations were scheduled monthlyfor th4 following types of organizations:

- Professional assoc ±ations such as Council forExceptional Children, National Association for theEducation. of Young Children, Special Education Tea-cher's Association, R. I. Association of School Psycho-logists, etc.

- Advocacy groups such as Child Abuse`, United Cere-bral Palsy, Coalition for Consumer Justice, Coalitionfor Handicapped Citizens.

2. Visitations to the Early Childhood Center by.interested persons as outlined in this proposal underObjective #3, Inservice Training.

;33

July

' June

1.;

SefteMber

June `

2 meetings were held with modeldemonstration project directorsand a system' of bimonthly communi-cations was established.

.

5 joint presentations were madeto the State Department of Edu-cation, each of the institutionsof higher learning and community,based service providers regardingeach of the BEH model demonstrationprojects and the means by whichthese i,rolects can become institu-tionalized via a statewide earlychildhood special education network. IL

CO

A0proximately100 persons parti-cipated in the inservice/dissemina-,tion activities at the Early Child-hood Center.

.

ACCOMPLISHMENTS /MILESTONES DATES OUTCOME /SLIPPAGES

'3. Presentations to student s at Rho de Island Septe er (

College, R'ode IslandJunior College, the Universityof Rhode /gland and Providence College occured at leasttwice during this project period. .The purpose of thesedemonstrations was to familiarize facultyand studeltspith the model demonstration diagnistic and servicedelivery continuum and toencourage them to integratethe essentials of this system into their core curri-culum far presetvice and inservice undergraduate and'graduate .students.

#

s 9

4

.

9 '

No

I

0

5 lectures were delivered forundergraduate and graduate pre-school specisl education pro-

,grams offered at Rhode Island'sinstitutions of higher education:1,

sri

.1

414

42

NO

,

A

GRANT FUNCTION: EVALUATION4 $ 4 -

Objective: To continye to tollect data for an analysis of child progress, cost effectiveness, parent involvement,and efficiency of replication, so that school systems will be able to make informed decisions regardingthe continuum of preschool diagnostic and special' educational services which would be most appropriatefor their community.

.

1 j.

ACCOMPLISHMENTS/MIIESTONES DATES OUTCOME/SLIPPAGES .

4 O.

.

A. Child Progress,

1. Children were formally reassessed on the Julyoriginal instruments; which.were used prior to.

4 entry into program on an annual basis or after.actually having participated in a moel demon-,Aration program for ten months.

June.

4

2. All children who exited from services July v.

in the model demonstration' program continuumwerereassessed on the same basis as that Junespecified in 4.1.

1

. 3. It was originally proposed that the.progress'of handicapped children served in'teeprograms along the model demonstration service' ' June

delivery continuum would be compared with -

similar children being served in more-tradi- -,

tional settings.

July.

44s.

4. Teacheis and parents percepts oftheir childrenta growth and development werecompared both aktime of entry into program'and after every-ten months of programming

. 'using the.Alpern Boll Developmentil Profilechecklist.

r

I

June,1980 '

4

Data analysis consisted of a comparisonofchildren's progress at reassessment-

& with their original performanc4 at the t

time of entry into program, and showedstatistically significant gains ,

. by children in all programs..( Appendix J)

- Children's progress at reassessmentwas compared to their performance atthe time of exiting from the modeldemonstration program service deliverycontinuum and also showed significantgains had been made. (Appeidix J)

A data analysis of the.progregs ofchildren served in programs along themodel demonstration program continuum

,was attempted with children served inmore traditional settings, however,LEA's which originally agreed to co-operate were not able to follow throughwith the testing due;.to budget cuts.

. Statist/Cal comparisons were made re-garding teachers and parents perceptions of their children's growth-anddezplopment, and as children participatedin programming, their parents. pellap-tion of their grodth and developmentbecame more in agreement with that Ofthe teacher's. (Appendix J)

44

V

ACCOMPLIS NTSMILESTONES

B. CostlEffectiVeness

DATES IDUTCOME/SLIPPAGES

.

1. The cost effectiveness of the referral. and diagnostic procedures used at the Early

Childhood Center were to be compared to those'more traditionally employed by'Rhode Island,local schpelaystems.

;

2. The cost involved 4n carrying-o utmodel demonstration programs were determinedand the relhtive cost benefit, for each pro-

, gram was then,derived by comparing per-pupilexpenditurei kith pupil progress.

3. lkelatit cost-benefit for each of theModel dembnatra ion program* was to be comparedth relative'dost4enefits of more traditionalprograms. " .

.'

C. Parent Invalvement

'1. 'The frequency of parent participationin the wide range of parent involvement 4ti-vities was logged and compared to the Ereesquency of parent.participation in more tradi-tional programs.

45

July

June

July

June

July

June

t'

Data was colletted and analyzed todetermine the cost effettllyenefs ofth4 referral and diagnostic proceduresused at the Early Childhood Center.However, comparable data was not col-lecte.froth LEA's who originally agreedto do so because of budget cuts.

The cost of carrying-out each modelprogram was totalled and divided bythe number of children served in orderto determine average per pupil expendi-ture. An analysis of average per .

pupil expenditure in relationshi to

child progress was used to detefminecost-benefit.' However, there was nosignificant difference in pupil progressamong programs.' (Appendix K)

Data was collected and analyzed to detex- 7mine the relative coat-benefit for each,

of the model dedonstration programs in $

comparison wiiti'more traditional pro -grpms was not possible due to problemsenumerated above.

comarison was made of the percent of-,

parent participation in activities atthe Early Childhood Center, with percent of parent participation in moretraditional programs and it appears that

. parents of children at the Early Child-hood Center participate in activitiesrelated to their child's education aroproximately 50% more often than childrenin more traditional settings.

4

)

ACCOMPLYSHMEiTS/IilLESTONES DATES

4

. \-at OUTCOME /SLIPPAGES

aplication Outcomes

1. The effectiveness of replicationtraining for service delivery was deter-mined by counting the number of childrenwhomill be served in a less restrictivesetting as a result of Rhode Island localschool systems adopting the model demon-stration delivery continuum.

I

47

4

September

June

4.

a

Data was collected and compared re-.garding numbers of children and the re-strictiveneseof the setting in whichthey were served prior to replicationtraining.

9 Teachers now trained in the Portagemodel can provide education fot.ss.many as 30 Children in their home:

4 Feachers trained in the PEECH model'will now provide education for 40mildly to moderately handicappedchildren in integrated settings withnon-handicapped children.

5 Teachers trained in the Teaching Re-search model will now be able to pro-vide education for 30 moderately toseverely handicapped children whowere previously servedin inetituTtional or agency' settings.

62 Teachers now familiarized with theHigh Scope model can teach 620 mildlyhandicapped children in mainstreamed

settings.

4ss defined according to project developed,environmental checklist.

cj

dr

.4,

-23-

ANTICIPATED AND UNANTICIPATED SPINOFF

Because of a major emphasis of this grant period has focused on the

de4elopment of:a continuum of diagnostic and educational services to pre-

school handicapped children and their parents, it has been possible to

"streamline" the referral process, significantly-reduce the number of children

who may have been otherwise falsely identified as handicapped and concomitantly

increase the number and rate at which children can be effectively referred,

evaluated and served by the model demonstration program service delivery system.

Another spinoff effect has beep the development of coordinated efforts

between federal sources of funding for preschool handicapped children available

to the Rhode Island State Department of Education's Special Education Up

and the Handicapped Children's Early Education Project located at the Early

Childhood Center. As a result of this coordihation; the Early Childhood

Center's service delivery continuum has been adopted as a model.for Rhode4

. Island Local Education Agencies.approach to early intervention for preschool

handicapped children, and the Rhode Island State Department of Education will

continue'to provide technical assistance to those communities who participated

in replication training.

Coprdlnation has, also been achieved between the Handicapped Children's

Early' Education Project and the major community agencies serving families

in the Northweste d Region. ThesOfforts have 'resulted in .

expanding the service delivery continuum to include less restrictive settings,

i.e., private nursery schools, Head Start and in coordinating resources for

the overall improvement of daily family living. The Northwest Special Educar

tion District will continue this coordination and will assume some of the ier-

vices previously delivered by the Handicapped. Children's Early Education Pro-

ject staff at theEarly Childhood Center.reu._.

,

4J

1

r

t

? '

Ia.

A

-

i

-24-.

.

Unanticipated spinoff has included the appointment of a Service Coor-

dinator for preschool handicapped children in the Northwest Special Education

District who haon trained by Ban4icapped Children's Early Education' Project- .

staff. . -

p

sIs

c-

e

e :e

.

i

A

I

,

.:

A ,

04i

I

(

i

I

,

........

6 p

.1

r

.