Learning from Model Demonstration Projects: An Example Briefing to the Office of Special Education P

1
Learning from Model Demonstration Projects An
ExampleBriefing to the Office of Special
Education ProgramsJanuary 14, 2009Washington, DC

• Mary Wagner, Ph.D., Principle Investigator
• Phyl Levine, Ph.D., Director
• Model Demonstration Coordination Center (MDCC)
• SRI International

2
Todays agenda

• Provide background on OSEPs current model
  demonstration investments
• Introduce the Model Demonstration Coordination
  Center (MDCC)
• Outline the conceptual framework guiding the
  MDCCs work

3
OSEPs model demonstration authority

• IDEA 2004 authorized model demonstrations as a
  way to support OSEPs technical assistance
  activities by
• applying and testing research findings in
  typical settings where children with
  disabilities receive services to determine the
  usefulness, effectiveness, and general
  applicability of such research findings.
  (Sec.663 (c) (1))

4
Model Demonstration Projects (MDPs)

• Further test or refine new practice, procedure,
  or program models having some support from theory
  and/or scientifically or evidence-based research
• Implement the models in typical settings
• Assess impacts
• If the model is associated with benefits, may go
  on to disseminate or scale-up the model

5
Three cohorts of MDPs (three grantees in each)
are addressing

• Progress monitoring in elementary reading
  instruction (2006)
• Tertiary behavior interventions in elementary
  and middle school (2007)
• Early intervention in language development for
  children younger than school age (2008)

6
MDP grantees

• Cohort 1 progress monitoring
• Lehigh University, University of Pittsburgh
• University of of Minnesota, Minneapolis Public
  Schools
• University of Oregon
• Cohort 2 tertiary behavior interventions
• University of Kansas, Illinois PBIS Network
• University of Oregon
• University of Washington
• Cohort 3 early childhood language development
• Orelena Hawks Puckett Institute
• University of Kansas
• Vanderbilt University, Florida State University

7
The Model Demonstration Coordination Center
(MDCC) was launched in 2005 to

• Identify characteristics of an effective
  implementation/evaluation/refinement process that
  moves a practice from early testing to being
  ready for wider adoption
• Coordinate each cohorts evaluation and
  synthesize and analyze their findings to maximize
  the strength of evidence produced

8
MDCC activities

• Facilitate a collaborative partnership with the
  MDPs to create opportunities for learning
• Contribute and/or broker methodological expertise
• Conduct cross-MDP analyses
• Develop a data system
• Communicate implementation and evaluation
  findings to promote adeeper understanding of the
  modeldemonstration process and its results

9
Framework for understanding model implementation
and outcomes
10
Characteristics of the source in progress
monitoring models
11
Characteristics of progress monitoring purveyors
12
Characteristics of the progress monitoring
destination organizations
13
Influences on destination organizations and their
implementation

• District-level (e.g., other initiatives,
  superintendent turnover, history with grantee
  university)
• State level (e.g., RtI initiatives, testing
  requirements)
• Other factors (e.g., union power/influence)

14
Intervention outcomes of progress monitoring
models
15
Feedback on progress monitoring model
implementation and effectiveness

• Reflect on lessons learned within cohorts
• Fidelity data
• Social validity data

16
Analysis and reporting

• Describe variations in each component of the
  conceptual framework for the three MDPs in a
  cohort
• Generate hypotheses from implementation/
  innovation research regarding how variations may
  shape implementation experiences
• Hold hypotheses up to implementation experiences
  and outcomes
• Across MDPs in a cohort
• Across cohorts
• Derive principles regarding an effective and
  efficient model demonstration process

17
Progress monitoring models Qualitative data
sources

• MDP proposals
• Model Specification Templatedocuments specific
  features and design elements of models
• Project templatetells the story of model
  development, implementation, and refinement over
  time
• District, school, and classroom profile
  toolsdescribing implementation contexts
• Teacher focus groups
• Update notes from regular MDP/MDCC/OSEP
  conference calls

18
Progress monitoring models Quantitative data
sources

• School and teacher surveysaugment information in
  profile tools regarding school and
  teacher/classroom variations
• Child/student surveydocuments student
  characteristics
• Common Core of Datadocuments school demographics
• Reading measures to assess growth
• Standard oral reading fluency passages
• Project-specific progress monitoring measures
• State accountability test scores across years
• IEP checklist
• Project-specific fidelity and social validity
  measures

19
What are MDPs trying to do?How do models
differ in their core intervention components?
20
Common features of models

• Three-tier system for differentiating instruction
• Benchmarking performanceof all students
• Progress monitoring of tier 2 and 3 students
• Team-based decision-making
• Incorporate progress monitoring data into special
  education processes

21
Model variations progress monitoring measurement
systems

• What is measured
• Frequency of measurement
• Technological support
• Benchmarks for assessing reading level and
  progress
• Measurement procedures

22
Model variations using progress monitoring data
for making instructional modifications

• Make up of decision-making teams
• Frequency/duration of meetings after
  bench-marking
• Data considered for tiers 2 and 3
• Interventions employed
• Involvement with/of special education personnel
  and procedures