97p. · document resume ed 378 753 ec 303 651 author rosenkoetter, sharon; shotts, cynthia title...
TRANSCRIPT
DOCUMENT RESUME
ED 378 753 EC 303 651
AUTHOR Rosenkoetter, Sharon; Shotts, CynthiaTITLE Bridging Early Services Transition Project--Outreach.
Final Report.INSTITUTION Associated Colleges of Central Kansas, McPherson.SPONS AGENCY Special Education Programs (ED /QSERS), Washington,
DC. Early Education Program for Children withDisabilities.
PUB DATE 21 Nov 94CONTRACT H024D00019NOTE 97p.
PUB TYPE Reports Descriptive (141)
EDRS PRICE MF01/PC04 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS Agency Cooperation; Delivery Systems; Demonstration
Programs; *Disabilities; *Early Intervention;Inclusive Schools; *Individualized Family ServicePlans; Infants; Kindergarten; Mainstreaming;*Outreach Programs; Preschool Children; PreschoolEducation; Referral; Social Integration; SpecialClasses; Toddlers; *Transitional Programs
IDENTIFIERS *Bridging Early Services Transition Project
ABSTRACTThe Bridging Early Services Transition (BEST)
Project--Outreach was designed to help families, administrators, andservice providers facilitate the transition of young children, birththrough age 5, as they move between services and service systemsincluding: from early intervention to special preschool services;from Head Start or preschool to kindergarten-level programs; and frommore restrictive special programs to less restrictive centers which
serve all similar aged children in the community. Planning for thesetransitions as part of each family's Individualized Family ServicePlan is required under federal law. The BEST model includes formatsfor: (1) local interagency needs assessments; (2) interagency
agreements; (3) communication between families and service providers;(4) family partnership in decision-making; (5) constructinginteragency and intra-agency transition timelines; (6) building atransition timeline for each child; (7) identifying local agenciesfor referral; (8) preparing the child for changes in programs andpersonnel; (9) systems change to incorporate more options forinclusive services; and (10) evaluation of transition procedures. Theproject worked with state leaders and local service systems in 17states to develop state and local transition services. Sections ofthis final report address goals and objectives, the project'sconceptual framework, a description of outreach activities, problemsencountered, evaluation findings, project impact, and futureactivities. Appendices include a project brochure, staffinginformation, and evaluation data. (Contains 89 references.) (DB)
***********************************************************************
Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made *
from the original docurient.***********************************************************************
DEPARTIPMT OF EDUCATIONOff e. of Et:Mr:Menai Frisearch and improvement
EDUCATIONAL RES:.,URCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)
174' document hal teen reproduced asreceived from the person or organizationoriginating it
C Minor changes have been made to improve
fePrOCluctiOn Quality
Points of view or opinions elated m thisdOcument do not necessarily represent officialOERI Positron or policy
BRIDGING EARLY SERVICES TRANSITION PROTECT -- OUTREACH
VIRAL REPORT
Early Education Program for Children with DisabilitiesU.S. Department of EducationGrant Numbers R024D00019
CPDA: 84.024D
Sharon Rosenkoatter, Ph.D.Project Director
Cynthia !Mott., N.M.Project Coordinator
Antsociated Colleges of Central KansasDepartment of Special Education
105 B. KansasMcPherson, KS 67460
316 - 241-7754
November 21, 1994
2
BEST COPY AVAILABLE
BRIDGING EARLY SERVICES TRANSITION PROJECT -- OUTREACH
FINAL REPORT
Early Education Program for Children with DisabilitiesU.S. Department of EducationGrant Numbers H024D00019
CFDA: 84.024D
Sharon Rosenkoettor, Ph.D.Project Director
Cynthia Shotts, M.Ed.Project Coordinator
Associated Colleges of Central KansasDepartment of Special Education
105 E. KansasMcPherson, KS 67460
316 - 241-7754
November 21, 1994
II. ABSTRACT
Bridging Early Services Transition Project -- Outreach
Sharon Rosenkoetter, Ph.D. Cynthia 'Mott., M.Ed.Project Director Project Coordinator
Bridging Early Services Transition (BEST) Project -- Outreachwas designed to help families, administrators, and serviceproviders facilitate the transition of young children, birththrough age five, as they move between services and servicesystems. Transitions of concern included these three: from earlyintervention to special preschool services, from Head Start orpreschool to kindergarten-level programs, and from more restrictivespecial programs to less restrictive centers which serve allsimilar-aged children in the community. Part H of Public Law 99-457 requires transition planning as part of each family'sIndividualized Family Service Plan and Public Law 102-119 requiresstate level coordination to promote effective transitions betweenearly intervention and special preschool services.
Three strategies are recommended to assist children andfamilies with transitions: interagency collaboration between thesending and receiving programs, partnerships between families andservice providers in transition decision-making, and support forthe child through orientation activities, curriculum planning, andenvironmental modification. The BEST Model includes formats for(a) local interagency needs assessments, (b) interagencyagreements, (c) communicating between families and serviceproviders, (d) family partnership in decision-making, (e)constructing interagency and intra-agency transition timelines, (f)building within the IFSP/IEP a transition timeline for each child,(g) identifying local agencies for referral, (h) preparing thechild for changes in programs and personnel, (i) systems change toincorporate more options for inclusive services, and (j) evaluationof transition procedures. This model has been found effective forrural and urban communities of various sizes, for children ofdifferent ages and types of disability, and for families withdiverse ethnicities, resources, and histories of participation.
The project worked with state leaders and selected localservices systems in 17 states to develop state and local transitionservices. It produced materials which have been widelydisseminated, including publication of a book released late in 1993by a highly respected publisher. It presented at 18 internationaland national conferences, as well as eight regional and 61 statemeetings; published nine scholarly articles; and produced seventransition manuals for states. It provided individualizedtechnical assistance as requested to more than 750 individuals.
An extension of this project was funded in 1993 to provideservices to seven states and nationally; it will continue until1996.
III. TABLE OF CONTENTS
II. Abstract 2
III. Table of Contents 3
IV. Goals and Objectives of the Project 4A. Source of Project Goals 4B. Project Foci 5
V. Conceptual Framework 7A. Significance of the Issues Addressed 7B. The Bridging Early Services Transition Model 7
Attachment 1 .7AC. Foundations in Previous Research 9
VI. Description of Outreach 11Attachment 2 12AA. Outreach to States 12B. National Outreach 16
Attachment 3 16AAttachment 4 17AAttachment 5 17CAttachment 6 17D
VII. Problems Encountered and Their Resolution 18
VIII. Evaluation Findings 19A. Effectiveness of the Model with Children, Families,
Service Providers, and Agencies 19Attachment 7 20A
B. Evaluation of Outreach Efforts 22
IX. Project Impact 24
X. Statement of Future Activities 26
XI. Assurance Statement 26
References 27
Appendices 28A: Brochure, Staff, National Advisory Board 29B: Evaluation Data 30
Bridging Early Services 4
IV. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE PROJECT
A. Source of Project Goals
The aims of this project are firmly grounded in the law. PartH of Public Law 99-457 required transition planning as part of eachfamily's Individualized Family Service Plan. Thereafter, theCongress acknowledged the challenges inherent in establishing a"seamless" sylgtem of services for young children with special needswhen it made transition one of the central elements of theIndividuals with Disabilities Education Act, P.L. 102-119 (1991).This legislation mandated state lead agencies to establishprocedures to guide transition planning for children moving betweenearly intervention and special preschool services. Only a fewstates have developed and implemented these transition policies andprocedures fully, though most are in the process of doing so(Shotts, Rosenkoetter, Streufert & Rosenkoetter, 1994). Thisproject has helped states to meet these requirements and alsoassisted local areas in complying with the resulting stateregulations. P.L. 102-119 encouraged states to train personnel "tocoordinate transition services for infants and toddlers withdisabilities from an early intervention program...to a pr43choolprogram under Section 619...." Subsequently, a national survey ofearly childhood leaders in all 50 states (Shotts et al., 1994)found that the need for personnel training related to transitionwas listed as a top priority.
Early childhood commentators have suggested that the policiesdeveloped for the transition between services at age three canserve as exemplars to ease transitions between services at otherages (Rosenkoetter, 1992). Indeed, two national forums convenedjointly by the U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. Departmentof Health and Human Services have called for improved transitionpractices for all children at the time of elementary school entry(National Forum on Transition, 1991; 1992); the practices proposedfor all children and their families are similar to those developedfor this project over the past 15 years. Goal 1 of America 2000speaks to the transition to elementary school from home orpreschool as a critical milestone in the development of awell-educated citizenry. The manual published by the U.S.Department of Education (U.S.D.O.E., 1991) for Goal 1 espouses manyof the elements that the Bridging Early Services Transition Projecthas long advocated. Nevertheless, despite well-publicized policystatements favoring transition planning, recommended practice andactual practice in states and localities remain far apart (NationalForum on Transition, 1992).
Finally the Americans with Disabilities Act (1990) prohibitsdiscrimination in public accommodations, including child carecenters. This means they cannot deny a child with disabilities the
Bridging Early Services 5
opportunity to participate in their program. This legislation hasled to many questions of how to ease transition into child care forchildren with special needs. Both attitudinal and proceduralissues are under discussion at state and local levels (Child CareLaw Center, 1990). Transition to least restrictive environmentshas been a foundation of Bridging Early Services' technicalassistance since its inception in the late 1970s. Multifacetedresearch on developing services in natural environments (Topics inearly Childhood Special Education, 1990), the increasing emphasison community- based placements from leaders in early intervention(NEC*TAS, 1.990; Peck, Odom, & Bricker, 1993), and this project'sexperiences with implementing transition to community-basedplacements have further stimulated this work. Several statesserved by this project have declared LRE to be a priority issue.Transition-planning teams for communities and for individualchildren and their families wish to receive not only motivationalspeeches but also workable strategies and technical support toensure success in community-based placements (Kontos & File, 1992).
From the above, it is obvious that a critical need in earlychildhood intervention is to help young children with special needsand their families prepare for and adjust to new service settings.Equally necessary is collaboration among service systems to promotesuccessful transitions. Significant transitions include movementfrom early intervention to special preschool services, from earlychildhood special education to kindergarten-level programs, andfrom more restrictive special programs to less restrictive centerswhich serve all similar-aged children in the community.
B. Project Foci
In order to address the concerns highlighted by recentlegislation, this outreach project adopted four major goals.Initial objectives of the project are presented below under each ofthe relevant goals.
Provide consultation and ongoing technical assistance to stateleaders attempting to guide effective practices for transitionPlanning.
1. Complete a technical assistance Deeds assessment todetermine the emphasis on transition planning in the outreachstate's comprehensive system of system of services to youngchildren with special needs and their families; to determinestengths and weaknesses in planning, implementation, follow-up, andevaluation stages of such transitions in the state, and to learnfrom state leaders which issues and audiences should be targetedfor technical assistance during the three years of the project.
2. Negotiate a written agreement, between this project and thePart H and Section 619 coordinators in each outreach state. Thisagreement was intended to address specific transition-related needs
Bridging Early Services 6
and provide for onsite training, ongoing communicaqtion, andevaluation of the effectiveness of technical assistance andoutreach site services delivered.
3. Inform state leaders about specific characteristics of thetechnical assistance model by demonstrating and explaining themodel and by providing examples in print and audiovisual materials.
4. Teach a mentor(s) in each outreach state to providetechnical assistance to programs in that state and to coordinatesuch efforts through the lead agency(ies) for early childhoodservices.
Provide training. technical assistance. and follow-up tocommunities striving to develop and implement effective transitionpractices.
5. Inform audiences within each state about specificcharacteristics of the model and strategies for achieving effectivetransitions -- by demonstration and explanation, by providingexamples in print :ad audiovisual materials, and by helping localstaffs adapt the model to their local situations.
6. Train families and staff members at outreach sites in theareas of interagency collaboration, transition planning, familypartnership, child preparation, follow-up, and evaluation. Provideguidance in the forms of planning assistance, workshops, follow-upconsultations, and individualized technical assistance.
Study policy and procedural issues related to transition anddevelop materials and data that speak to consumer needs.
7. Monitor and evaluatg ongoing technical assistanceactivities, including communications with outreach states, servicesto outreach states, interaction with personnel and sites in otherareas, and dissemination activities.
8. Continue to Atudy policy and procedural issues related totransition and to develop resources which address consumerconcerns.
Develop and disseminate materials and information to assistindiYillisl11412r22=1:024411149.MdAs.
9. Disseminate technical assistance materials, throughcontinued publications in journals, conference and workshoppresentations, a project brochure, a project manual, and a summaryvideotape, and through responses to ongoing requests forinformation.
10. Sponsor during year two a nationally advertised
Bridging Early Services 7
conference on transition from special services to community-basedprograms.
V. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR TEE PROJECT
A. Significance of the Issues Addressed
Systematic transition planning has been included amongrequirements in all major recert legislation pertaining to youngchildren with special needs. Lawmakers have recognized thattransition planning determines the location, nature, adequacy, andcontinuity of a young child's services as well as those availableto other family members. Transition planning aids family membersin supporting their child at critical times (Pensacola ARC, 1992).Effective transitions promote optimal development for children,minimize stress for families, assist in intervention planning byprofessionals and parents, aid agencies in developing ongoingworking relationships and structures, promote developmentallyappropriate intervention in natural environments, and providefamilies with a formative experience in advocacy as well asparticipation in guiding their children's education (Diamond,Speigel, & Hanrahan, 1988; Fowler, 1980, 1982, 1988; Hains, Fowler,& Chandler, 1988; Feichtl, Rule, & Innocenti, 1989; McDonald, etal., 1989; Rosenkoetter, Hains, & Fowler, in press; Wolery, 1989).
The transition process also influences programmatic change inother areas. For example, because transition usually requiresinteragency planning, it can be an excellent vehicle for fosteringinteragency collaboration, which then assists in resolving issuesless related to transition, such as Child Find, common intakeforms, and data management (Shotts & Rosenkoetter, 1992; Hazel etal., 1988). Decision-making regarding transition increasinglyelicits concerns about least restrictive environment - -sometimes onthe part of parents, sometimes on the part of agency personnel - -andprompts the search for more natural service delivery options(McLean & Hanline, 1990; Peck, Odom, & Bricker, 1993). Discussionof placement options also stimulates examination of existingcurricula with the goal of providing "all children with thenurturance, stimulation, and opportunities for growth required foreducational success" (U.S.D.O.E., 1991, p. 2).
B. The Bridging Early Services Transition Model
The Bridging Early Services Transition Model is diagrammed inAttachment 1 (Rosenkoetter, Hains, & Fowler, 1994). The modeldescribes a process, not a static event on a single day. Alltransitions occur within a broad context framed by
* national and regional trends for best practices in servicesfor young children and their families
* federal and state laws, regulations, and budgets* local customs, resources, and constraints* family advocacy
a) C.3 C2
a_ 4-,
U) a) ca O co C a) F a] C .0 ED a) CC
CoV C CoC
The
Brid
ging
Ear
ly S
ervi
ces
Tra
nsiti
onM
odel
Fed
eral
and
Sta
te L
aws,
Reg
ulat
ions
, and
Bud
gets
odes
Pre
scho
(Dev
elop
/nur
ture
/eva
luat
e
Ilil4
11.1
110:
1411
1Z1
Inte
rage
ncy
Col
labo
ratio
nS
uppo
rtig
gT
he C
had
o
ties6.
o
WR
ITT
EN
PO
LIC
IES
, PR
OC
ED
UR
ES
, TIM
ELI
NE
S, &
RE
SP
ON
SIB
ILIT
IES
0'
1I
1j
v
N)q,
'
o
(Dev
elop
/Impl
emen
t/eva
luat
e)00
Fam
ily L
eade
rshi
p
11
Bridging Early Services 8
These realities differ from transition to transition, but theyalways have a major role in determining how a transition willtranspire. These elements are diagrammed here outside therectangle.
The oval inside the rectangle contains some of the manytransitions families will experience during their child's firsteight years of life. Again, the three primary transitionsaddressed by this project are those that occur around age three,around age five, and any time children or service systems move fromsegregated services to community-based services with typical peers.
Two major factors ease or strain a transition: 1) therelationships between professionals and other professionals,between families and professionals, between families and otherfamilies, and between the child and the child's various careproviders, and 2) the procedures, agreements, timelines, and roledescriptions which govern transition events. Both of these factorsreauire careful development, maintenance, evaluation, andrefinement over time. Both of these factors pertain to each of thekey components of the transition process, which also relate to oneanother: interagency collaboration, family partnership intransition planning, and support for the child by means oforientation activities and environmental management.
In this model, interagency collaboration on transition isaccomplished by ongoing mutual effort as well as through one ormore interagency agreements. Interagency collaboration involveslocal definition of roles and responsibilities, composition of alocal timeline for transition which is responsive to localresources and constraints, commitment by all agencies' personnel tofamily participation in decision-making, and joint effort byagencies and families to modify curricular experiences andenvironmental supports to ensure children's continuingaccomplishment in new environments.
artnership between the _family and service providers isattained through an individualized transition plan, incorporatedinto the IEP or IFSP. The individualized family transition plan isdeveloped through open-ended conversations three and nine monthsprior to the transition, and during the transition; it is evaluatedsix months after the transition. Use of these interviews andsatisfaction surveys facilitates continuity in delivery of servicesto child and family across program enrollments. It also helpslocal programs to evaluate their transition procedures. Theoutreach model also provides for the development of a centraldirectory, which includes child care centers, specialized andcommunity preschool facilities, medical and social services, andspecial and regular, public and private kindergarten-levelprograms. Such a directory aids parents and professionals inexploring potential next environments for their children. Finally,
12
Bridging Early Services 9
the model encourages the development of a parent mentoring group toassist families approaching a significant transition.
The model contains procedures for supporting the child byincreasing communication between professionals in the sending andreceiving programs (i.e., bridging early services). The goal ofsuch coordination is to minimize differences in approaches betweenteaching/therapy programs for individual children. Suchcommunication has been very important to child adjustment whentransitions are from special education programs to community-basedprograms (cf. Johnson, Chandler, Kerns, & Fowler, 1986) and fromhome-based programs to center-based programs (Hanline & Knowlton,1988). The model also offers other strategies for reducingchildren's fears about unfamiliar settings and for buildingindividually appropriate skills to promote confidence andcompetence in the new environment.
The model developed for this project emphasizes comprehensivetransition services for infants, toddlers, and young children withspecial needs and their families. It guides the movement ofagencies, their personnel, and families from present practicestoward the goals they set for their local transition kgfforts. Themodel, its three prS-,ary components, and its instmmentationsupport both the requirements and the spirit of recent federallegislation. They openly discuss the change proless and help usersdevelop strategies for coping with change, strategies useful forother transitions than the ones emphasized by this project.
C. Foundations in Previous Research
This outreach model is based on recent research findings fromthe fields of psychology, early childhood education, specialeducation, sociology, and adult learning. Initial concepts andstrategies in this outreach model were developed and validatedduring previous demonstration and outreach projects at theUniversity of Kansas (Susan Fowler, project director) and atraining contract from the State of Kansas in 1988-90. During thefour years of the effort described herein, the model and itsactivities have been modified as a result of recent legislation andregulations, new understandings of family roles and communitydevelopment, growing interest in transition planning for allchildren, and comments from consumers in the outreach states.
Much of the extant research on transition has beenaccomplished by persons presently or formerly associated with thisproject (Chandler, 1992; Fowler, 1982, 1986, 1988; Fowler,Chandler, Johnson, & Stella, 1988; Fowler, Heins, & Rosenkoetter,1989; Fowler, Schwartz, & Atwater, 1991; Hains, Fowler, & Chandler,1988; Hains, Fowler, Kottwitz, Schwartz, & Rosenkoetter, 1989;Hains, Rosenkoetter, & Fowler, 1991; Hazel & Fowler, 1992; Johnson,Chandler, Kerns, & Fowler, 1986; Rosenkoetter, 1992; Rosenkoetter,in pr;ss; Rosenkoetter & Fowler, 1987; Shotts, Rosenkoetter,
13
Bridging Early Services 10
Streufert, & Rosenkoetter, 1994). This research and that of otherswas collated in a book published by Paul H. Brookes PublishingCompany (Rosenkoetter, Rains, & Fowler, 1994).
However, Bridging Early Services staff are also stronglyindebted to work by other transition researchers such as LisabethVincent and her colleagues (Vincent et al, 1980; Murphy & Vincent,1989), Mary Frances Hanline (1988; Hanline & Knowlton, 1988;Hanline, Suchman, & Demmerie, 1989); Michael Conn-Powers and JaneRoss-Allen (Conn-Powers, Ross-Allen, & Holburn, 1990), PeggyStephens and Beth Rous (Rous, 1992), Jennifer Kilgo and Mary JoNoonan (Noonan & Kilgo, 1987; Noonan & Ratokalau, 1991; Torres &Noonan, 1989), Sarah Rule and Barbara Fiechtl (Fiechtl, Rule, andInnocenti, 1989); Mabel Rice and Marion O'Brien (1990); DianeSainato (Sainato & Lyon, 1989), and Judith Carta (1991).
Another line of research impinging upon Bridging EarlyServices outreach comes from interest in transition to kindergartenfor all children, not just those with identified disabilities.Recommendations have come from a major national research study(Love, Logue, Trudeau, & Thayer, 1992) as well as from positionstatements by the U.S. Department of Education (1991), the NationalAssociation of State Boards of Education (1988, 1991), the NationalAssociation of Elementary School Principals (1990), the NationalAssociation for the Education of Young Children (Bredekamp, 1987),and Head Start (Administration for Children, Youth, and Families,1988).
It is impressive that the array of research and policydevelopment on transition, conducted by a variety of individualsand groups in diverse geographic areas, comes to remarkably similarconclusions about facilitating effective transitions for youngchildren and their families. The three components which havecomprised the Bridging Early Services Transition model since itsinception -- interagency collaboration, individualised familyparticipation, and preparation of new environments for enteringchildren and children for new environments - -are supported again andagain. What continues to be needed is connection between thestrategies recommended in the professional literature and theeveryday transition experiences of young children and theirfamilies in communities across America.
For the interagency component, the project draws heavily onwork by Elder and Magrab (1980, 1981), Morgan and Swan (1988;Morgan, Guetzloe, & Swan, 1991; Swan and Morgan, 1993), and Hazelet al. (1988). Research on adult learning (Davis, 1974; Eitington,1989) and the change process (Dreiford Group, 1986; Edelman, 1992;Elmore, 1990; Olson, 1989) guides our efforts to facilitate stateand local planning for transition.
For the family component the project seeks to ensure thateducational choices are compatible with both child and family
14
Bridging rarly Services 11
needs, the project employs a family systems approach. Itindividualizes the characteristics of family involvement toaccommodate the varying circumstances, needs, and culturally-basedpreferences of families (Bailey et al, 1990; Dunst et al, 1989;Heins, Rosenkoetter, & Fowler, 1991; Lynch and Hanson, 1992;McWilliam & Winton, n.d.; Turnbull & Turnbull, 1986).
For the child component, the project urges sending andreceiving personnel to use a variety of strategies to help youngchildren cope with the change in environments (Administration forChildren, Youth, and Families, 1988; Carta, 1991; Rosenkoetter &Fowler, 1987; Wolery et al., 1992; Ziegler, 1985). To ensure thatchildren carry over skills important to their adjustment in newprograms, a technology of generalization, identified by Stokes andBaer (1977) and elaborated by Vincent and her colleagues (1980,1981; Salisbury & Vincent, 1991) and Carta (1991) is incorporatedinto all phases of child preparation for transition. Curricularmodifications to meet the developmental needs of all children,whatever their developmental level, occur on both a system level(e.g., Goffin & Stegelin, 1992) and an individual child level (Pecket al., 1993).
Furthermore, this model provides for the collection ofevaluation data to document the success and satisfactionexperienced by each participant during the child and family'stransition from one program to another. Trainees are taught to useevaluation instruments to determine the success of their transitionprocedures and to individualize such instruments to meet theparticular needs of their consumers. This allows trainees todetermine for themselves whether a recommended transition strategyis efficacious and worthwhile in their particular setting. Thesedata, collated by the project, help to shape future technicalassistance locally and in other areas. State leaders also evaluatethe impact of this project upon the development of theircomprehensive statewide systems for service delivery, specificallyupon the growing awareness of the need for transition planningamong state and local service agencies. Such data help to shapeproject planning.
VI. DESCRIPTION OF OUTREACH
The project described in this report was slated to run fromAugust 1990 through July 1993. However, the postponement ofactivities in several states caused the project to be extendeduntil August 30, 1994. Due to that extension, it overlappedsomewhat with a second outreach project of the same name (sponsoredby the same institution) that began in July 1993.
Staff of the Bridging Early Services Transition Project- -Outreach are listed in Appendix A, as are the names of members ofthe National Advisory Board. Members of the Transition Taskforces
15
Bridging Early Services 12
in Kansas, Missouri, and Wisconsin are on file in the projectoffice.
Bridging Early Services Transition Project--Outreach hasprovided (and continues to provide) training, technical assistance,and materials development to support the transition of youngchildren with disabilities, developmental delay, or at-riskconditions from one service program to another. Specifically, thisproject provided technical assistance on transition to state andlocal leaders, direct service providers, personnel trainers, andfamilies in at least 12 states. That outreach process isdiagrammed in Attachment 2 and further described below. Theproject also shared results of ongoing product development andresearch with national audiences via publications and conferencepresentations, as delineated below. Transitions addressed include(a) early intervention programs to preschool programs, (b) specialpreschool/Head Start services to kindergarten-level services, and(c) restrictive special programs to intervention in community-basedearly childhood programs, where such a placement is appropriate tochildren's goals. Materials were also gathered an shared uponrequest regarding transition strategies for transition from theneonatal intensive care unit to community services for newborns andtheir families. Strategies taught across all transitions includestate and local interagency collaboration in transition planning,family partnership in both transition policy development andindividual decision-making, and careful preparation of children fortheir next environment(s) and of the environments themselves toserve developmentally diverse children and families.
While much of the discussion above pertains to content, it isworth noting that the Bridging Early Services staff strived toconduct all training and technical assistance in accord withprinciples of adult learning (Zemke, 1981).
A. Outreach to States
Nine states were initially approved for outreach activities.All of the states had targeted improved transitions in their plansto develop comprehensive service systems for young children withdisabilities. In each state the coordinators for Part H andSection 619 had invited our assistance and had pledged to supportactively our work in their states. Chairs of these states'interagency coordinating councils, comprehensive systems forpersonnel development, and Division for Early Childhood(professional organization) groups had, in many cases, also invitedour assistance to them.
The project worked in all nine of the targeted states plus atleast eight others. One additional state was formally added to theservice roster due to the intensity of consultations that occurred.In three ,pf the target states, outreach was more limited than inthe others. This was due to changing priorities within the states
16
Attachment 2 12A
AttachmentPlan of Operation
BEST model
General plan for outreach services
Assess needs in stateor at site
Define desired outcomes
Design mutually-agreeableaction plan, including
BEST TA
Design mutually-agreeableevaluation plan for
state or site
Evaluate
implementation ofplan
Implement plans
Evaluate
costs
Refine BEST model and
general plan for outreach services
17
Evaluate outcomes
achieved
Bridging Early Services 13
and, in several cases, to the availability of technical assistancecloser to home.
Priorities, timelines, and activities requested by the statesvaried considerably. Each will be briefly profiled below:
Alaska
The project shared extensive materials with state Part H andPart B coordinators, higher education, two Head Start grantees, anda variety of local programs. Information from project materialshas been included in state and local transition policies andmaterials. Staff met in Alaska with state leaders on 13 occasions,presented three 2 1/2 day workshops during the Alaska SummerAcademies, met with parent groups in two communities, facilitatedcommunity interagency meetings in four communities, conducted twoone-day and one two-day workshops, spoke at four state conferences,contributed to a distance learning module, and consulted with localservice providers on-site in 12 communities. Services weredelivered in three remote sites as well as rural and urbancommunities. Technical assistance is ongoing.
Colorado
The project shared materials with state leaders in Coloradoand went through Colorado's required training for out-of-stateinservice providers. Staff presented at three state conferences.On two occasions project personnel consulted in person withrepresentatives from a group attempting to facilitate transitionsfor Navajo children moving from a reservation Head Start into acommunity kindergarten. During much of this grant period, Coloradohad moved to other priorities than transition and did not wishfurther technical asssistance.
Florida
The project shared materials with state leaders and consultedwith them on efforts to merge pre-kindergarten and early childhoodspecial education. We consulted with early childhood personnelfrom SERVE, the U.S.D.O.E. regional laboratory, on severaloccasions and met with them and others in efforts to develop acomprehensive planning document. On three occasions projectpersonnel consulted with and trained staff from the national HeadStart Transition Project in Miami, FL. Bridging Early Servicespresented at five statewide meetings and worked in at least nineFlorida communities during this funding period.
ho
Not originally included in the list of outreach states, Idahowas added in a continuation proposal when it became clear that someother states were going to require fewer services that originally
15
Bridging Early Services 14
envisioned. Project staff met with members of the InteragencyCoordinating Council for an extended period and helped members todevelop their state's policy on transition at age 3. Extensivematerials were shared with state personnel, and elements of themwere incorporated into the state's guidelines on transition. Twostaff members presented three full-day regional workshops forcommunity teams in Moscow, Boise, and Pocatello. They alsopresented a three-day class on Innovative Educational Strategies(including transition) for a statewide leadership group in Summer1992.
(ansas
Given that the project is based in this state, more technicalassistance occurred here than anywhere else. Project DirectorSharon Rosenkoetter served as Vice Chair of the InteragencyCoordinating Council during much of this period and sharedmaterials with it and staffs of member agencies on numerousoccasions. Formal and informal consultations occurred at state,regional, and local levels. The project presented to two parentgroups, worked with 23 local communities on transition efforts, andspoke or presented workshops at 28 state meetings in Kansas. BESTprovided several drafts for the transition section of AansasGuidelines for the Implementation of Early Childhood SpecialEducation. As the project's scheduled funding period was ending,state leaders proposed to the state's Interagency CoordinatingCouncil that a state taskforce on transition be established. Theirrecommendation was followed. Dr. Rosenkoetter has been chairingthat group, and the project has been staffing it. Accomplishmentsinclude a draft policy on transition, three publications scheduledto receive wide circulation across the state, the recommendation ofa uniform policy on transitions across agencies, and regionalmeetings to be conducted across the state. The project workedintensively with two local projects in an effort to developreplicable transition strategies: one project developed ways toinclude children with special needs in a. community child careprogram, while another moved to merge Head start and ECSE servicesat the classroom level,
Minnesota
Project staff met on three occasions with Minnesota leadersand shared materials with them over the course of the project. Twotrainings were conducted with regional coordinators. A two-daycross-agency workshop was conducted in Virginia in northernMinnesota and followed up with a later visit and ongoingdiscussions. Regional workshops were conducted in two other areas.
Missouri
At the project's beginning, Missouri was extremely busyattempting to implement its new preschool mandate, but a year
19
Bridging Early Services 15
later, state leaders felt the need to train the entire state ontransition procedures quickly. At the request of a TransitionTaskforce, Bridging Early Services developed a videotape andaccompanying training manual and, with outstanding cooperation fromstate personnel, equipped 11 teams of trainers to introduce theconcepts to the entire state within a two-month period. Later workin Missouri, under the direction of Project Coordinator CynthiaShotts, centered around facilitating local interagency coordinatingcouncils and the issues they uncovered in attempting to dotransition planning. The project presented at numerous statewidemeetings, and Ms. Shotts facilitated stakeholders' strategicplanning for Part H over a three-day session. Project materialshave been shared extensively and incorporated into several statepublications which received wide circulation.
$ebraska
Nebraska was heavily involved with planning Part H servicesand implementing developmentally appropriate primary curricula; thestate showed little interest in transition issues beyond thesetopics during the tenure of this grant project. Severalconsultations with state leaders and mutual exchanges of materialsdid occcur, and a statewide transition meeting was co-sponsoredwith the BEST Project for approximately 200 people.
Wisconsin
Dr. Ann Hains coordinated the extensive project activities inWisconsin, with the aid of the BEST Planning Committee, which metthree times each year and formulated the transition agenda for thestate. Composed of state leaders, local service providers, andparents from around the state, the Committee has shown an admirablepropensity to pool funds, elicit broad-based participation, andstay the course in accomplishing reform in practices related totransition. BEST materials have been shared widely in this state.In Wisconsin, this project has presented a statewide conference ontransition, published a manual of recommended practices, developeda joint Head Start/ECSE planning form that incorporates IFSP andIEP elements, trained communities in producing interagencyagreements, shared newsletter items on recommended practices, anddeveloped a network of communities to pilot test use of the IFSP toage six. Numerous presentations and publications have resultedfrom Dr. Hainsl work in Wisconsin.
Wyoming
Wyoming leaders were eager to begin working on transition atthe time the application for this project was written. During thetime between proposal development and project start-up, theyarranged to receive assistance on transition from another technicalassistance provider. This project shared materials with them andmade one appearance at a state meeting but saw no reason to
20
Bridging Early Services 16
continue, given the state's access to services from other sources.Wyoming leaders agreed with this assessment.
Consultation with state leaders and workshops with largeattendance were also provided to Indiana, Iowa, New Hampshire,Illinois, Louisiana, New Jersey, New Mexico, and Pennsylvania.
B. National Outreach
National outreach included presentations at international,national, and regional meetings; contributions to policydevelopment on transition; dissemination of materials forpractioners' use; dissemination of scholarly articles; sharing withpersonnel trainers; and responses to requests for information andadvice.
Presentations at International, National. and Regional Meetings
During this funding period, Bridging Early Services presentedat 18 international and national meetings, including the Societyfor Research in Child Development, the International EarlyChildhood Conference on Children with Special Needs, theInternational Conference on Special Education, the InternationalCouncil for Exceptional Children, Zero to Three, and the NationalTransition Forum, co-sponsored by the the U.S. Departments ofEducation and Health and Human Services. At a highly-rated pre-conference workshop at the International Early Childhood Conferenceon Children with Special Needs, project staff worked intensivelyfor six hours on transition issues with 50 state leaders.Presentations are listed in Attachment 3.
During the same period, the project presented at eightregional meetings, such as the Midwest Transition Symposium, theNorthern Midwest Regional Early Childhood Forum, and the Region VIHead Start Conference.
Two 1992 presentations on APPLES Magazine of the IllinoisState Board of Education's Satellite Education Network were beamednationwide and also distributed by APPLES in videotape form.
Contributions to Policy Development on Transition
The project provided comments on transition issues pertinentto Federal legislation and regulations, participated in thedevelopment of the transition section of the Division for EarlyChildhood's Recommended Practices document, and each year provideda staff member for four or five days to review grant applicationsfor the Early Education Program for Children with Disabilities.
Transition to kindergarten is a major initiative of the U.S.Departments of Education and Health and Human Services (NationalForum on Transition, 1992). BEST was contacted by the National
21
BE
ST
PR
ES
EN
TA
TIO
NS
Loca
tion
Dat
eO
rgan
izat
ion
Pre
sent
atio
n/W
orks
hop
Titl
eI P
erso
nsE
valu
atin
gI P
erso
nsA
ttend
ing
Rat
ing
Ala
ska
(Ros
enko
ette
rA
ugus
t 4, 1
994
Ala
ska
Ele
men
tary
Res
truc
turin
g In
stitu
te"W
hat s
hall
we
do w
ith K
rissy
7"5
7
Dill
ingh
am, A
K(R
osen
koet
ter)
July
22,
199
4D
illin
gham
Inte
rage
ncy
Cou
ncil
Dec
isio
n-M
akin
g in
Ear
ly C
hild
hood
56
Kod
iak,
AK
(Ros
enko
ette
r)Ju
ly 7
, 199
4K
odia
k C
hild
ren'
s N
etw
ork
Bra
inst
orm
ing
Wor
ksho
p9
151-
4 sc
ale
= 3
.889
Hom
er, A
K(R
osen
koet
ter)
June
23-
24,
1994
Ken
ai P
enin
sula
Ear
lyC
hild
hood
Wor
ksho
pD
ecis
ion-
Mak
ing
in E
arly
Chi
ldho
od15
191-
6 sc
ale
= 5
.667
Min
neap
olis
, MN
(Ros
enko
ette
r)Ju
ne 1
9, 1
994
Mid
wes
tern
Con
sort
ium
for
Fac
ulty
Dev
elop
men
tH
ow to
Dev
elop
and
Nur
ture
Pra
ctic
um S
ites
721
1-4
scal
e =
3.8
57
Anc
hora
ge, A
K(R
osen
koet
ter,
Sho
tts)
June
15-
17,
1994
Ala
ska
Sta
ff D
evel
opm
ent
Net
wor
k -
1994
Sou
thce
ntra
l Aca
dem
y of
App
lied
Res
earc
h in
Edu
catio
n
Dec
isio
n-M
akin
g in
Ear
ly C
hild
hood
99
1-6
scal
e =
4.3
33
June
au, A
K(R
osen
koet
ter,
Sho
tts)
June
2-4
, 199
4A
lask
a S
taff
Dev
elop
men
tN
etw
ork.
199
4 S
outh
east
Aca
dem
y of
App
lied
Res
earc
h in
Edu
catio
n
Dec
isio
n-M
akin
g in
Ear
ly C
hild
hood
66
1-6
scal
e -
5.83
3
Top
eka,
KS
(Ros
enko
ette
r,k
Sho
tts, S
mith
)
May
7, 1
994
Com
mun
ity F
air
151-
6 sc
ale
- 4.
933
Top
eka,
KS
(Ros
enko
ette
r)M
ay 6
, 199
4C
oord
inat
ion
Cou
ncil
Ear
ly c
hild
hood
dev
elop
men
t ser
vice
s35
Not
eva
luat
ed
2223
McP
hers
on, K
S(R
osen
koet
ter,
Sho
tts, T
insl
ey,
Koe
hn)
May
3, 1
994
AC
CK
Edu
catio
n F
acul
tyT
eam
ing
and
colla
bora
tion
51-
5 sc
ale
= 1
.000
1 =
Exc
elle
nce
and
5 =
Poo
r
Gre
en B
ay, W
I(H
ain)
Apr
il 22
, 199
4S
prin
g F
ollo
w-u
p: P
lann
ing
Tra
nsiti
ons
for
You
ng C
hild
ren
with
Spe
cial
Nee
ds a
nd T
heir
Fam
ilies
211-
6 sc
ale
= 5
.571
Lind
sbor
g, K
S(R
osen
koet
ter)
Apr
il 19
, 199
4Le
ader
ship
Lin
dsbo
rgT
ake
Car
e of
Our
Chi
ldre
n7
Not
Eva
luat
ed
Den
ver,
CO
Ros
enko
ette
r,D
erm
yer,
Cam
pbel
l
Apr
il 7,
199
4C
ounc
il fo
r E
xcep
tiona
lC
hild
ren
Tra
nsiti
on a
t age
3: T
he c
halle
nges
and
the
oppo
rtun
ities
1432
with
71
hand
out
book
lets
pass
ed o
ut
1-6
scal
e =
5.4
29
Indi
anap
olis
, IN
(Ros
enko
ette
r)M
arch
25,
199
4In
dian
a T
rans
ition
Tas
kfor
ceM
eetin
g14
1-6
scal
e =
5.1
54
Tam
pa, F
L(R
osen
koet
ter)
Mar
ch 2
4, 1
994
Flo
prid
a E
arly
Chi
ldho
odLe
ader
sT
rans
ition
200
Not
Eva
luat
ed
Ste
rling
, KS
(Ros
enko
ette
r)M
arch
24,
199
4S
terli
ng C
olle
geE
arly
Chi
ldho
od S
ervi
ces
24N
ot E
valu
ated
McP
hers
on, K
S(S
hotts
)M
arch
21,
199
4A
CC
K E
CS
E M
etho
ds C
lass
Tra
nsiti
on13
1-6
scal
e =
5.8
46
Sal
ina,
KS
(Sho
tts)
Mar
ch 1
0, 1
994
Kan
sas
Hea
d S
tart
Con
fere
nce
Hel
los
and
good
byes
: Ear
ly c
hild
hood
tran
sitio
ns15
301-
6 sc
ale
= 4
.867
Eau
Cla
ire, W
I(H
ains
)M
arch
5, 1
994
Pre
para
tion
of c
hild
ren
and
fam
ilies
for
tran
sitio
n to
kin
derg
arte
n at
age
535
1-6
scal
e =
4.8
48
Wic
hita
, KS
(Ros
enko
ette
r)M
arch
5, 1
994
Kan
sas
Div
isio
n fo
r E
arly
Chi
ldho
od 1
994
Spr
ing
Con
fere
nce
Writ
ing
succ
essf
ul g
rant
app
licat
ions
1626
106
scal
e =
5.8
13
Wic
hita
, KS
(Sho
tts, C
onye
rs)
Mar
ch 4
, 199
4K
ansa
s D
ivis
ion
for
Ear
lyC
hild
hood
199
4 S
prin
gM
ulti-
disc
iplin
ary
Con
fere
nce
Who
will
hel
p pl
ant t
he s
eed?
An
inte
grat
ed c
urric
ulum
app
roac
h26
601-
6 sc
ale
.t 5.
143
24B
ES
T C
OP
Y A
VA
ILA
BLE
25
Wic
hita
, KS
(Ros
enko
ette
r)M
arch
4, 1
994
Kan
sas
Div
isio
n fo
r E
arly
Chi
ldho
odF
acili
tate
d pa
nel d
iscu
ssio
n w
ith S
ueB
rede
kam
p an
d S
usan
Fow
ler
47N
ot e
valu
ated
Wic
hita
, KS
(Ros
enko
ette
r -
Fac
ilita
tor)
Mar
ch 4
, 199
4K
ansa
s D
ivis
ion
for
Ear
lyC
hild
hood
Fac
ilita
ted
disc
ussi
on w
ith S
ueB
rede
kam
p16
Not
eva
luat
ed
Eau
Cla
ire, W
I(la
ins)
Mar
ch 4
, 199
4P
lann
ing
tran
sitio
ns fr
om H
ead
Sta
rtto
kin
derg
arte
n36
1-6
scal
e =
4.7
14
Wic
hita
, KS
(Ros
enko
ette
r,T
albo
tt, R
hode
s)
Mar
ch 3
, 199
4K
ansa
s D
ivis
ion
for
Ear
lyC
hild
hood
199
4 S
prin
gC
onfe
renc
e
Res
curc
e ra
isin
g fo
r K
ansa
sco
mm
uniti
es in
sup
port
of i
nfan
t and
todd
ler
serv
ices
1515
1-6
scal
e =
5.6
00
Kan
sas
City
, MO
(Str
eufe
rt. P
erso
n)F
ebru
ary
26,
1994
Gre
ater
Kan
sas
City
Ass
ocia
tion
for
the
Edu
catio
n Y
oung
Chi
ldre
n
Tra
nsiti
ons
to n
ew s
ettin
gs: A
chi
ld's
eye
view
2833
1-6
scal
e =
5.3
33
Ala
ska
(Sho
tts)
Feb
ruar
y 24
,19
94P
.A.R
.E.N
.T.S
., In
c.P
artn
ersh
ip C
onfe
renc
eLo
cal i
nter
agen
cy c
olla
bora
tion
23
1-6
scal
e =
5.5
00
Anc
hora
ge, A
K(S
hotts
)F
ebru
ary
24,
1994
P.A
.R.E
.N.T
.S.,
Inc.
Par
tner
ship
Con
fere
nce
Tra
nsiti
on a
t age
thre
e7
121-
4 ra
ting
= 3
.857
Hay
s, K
S(R
osen
koet
ter
Feb
ruar
y 16
,19
94R
esou
rce
Rai
sing
Wor
ksho
p1-
5 sc
ale
= 4
.8
Top
eka,
KS
(Ros
enko
ette
r)F
ebru
ary
11,
1994
Kan
sas
ICC
Tra
nsiti
on P
lann
ing
38N
ot E
valu
ated
Sal
ina,
KS
(Sho
tts)
Janu
ary
21, 1
994
Sal
ine
Cou
nty
Spe
cial
Edu
catio
n C
oop
& H
ead
Sta
rt
Tea
m B
uild
ing
201-
6 sc
ale
= 4
.700
Ste
rling
, KS
(Ros
enko
ette
r)Ja
nuar
y 17
, 199
4S
terli
ng C
olle
geS
ervi
ces
to Y
oung
Chi
ldre
n an
d T
heir
Fam
ilies
65N
et E
valu
ated
San
Die
go, C
A(R
osen
koet
ter,
Frie
deba
ch,
Has
eltin
e, D
ale,
Sho
tts)
Dec
embe
r 11
-15,
1993
DE
C In
tern
atio
nal E
arly
Chi
ldho
od C
onfe
renc
eC
omm
unity
col
labo
ratio
n fo
r tr
ansi
tion
plan
ning
: Fam
ilies
, loc
al, a
nd s
tate
agen
cies
wor
king
toge
ther
1255
1-6
scal
e =
4.9
55
262?
o In
dian
apol
is, I
N(R
osen
koet
ter)
Dec
embe
r 6,
1993
Indi
ana
Ear
ly C
hild
hood
Spe
cial
Edu
catio
n F
orum
Hel
los
and
Goo
dbye
s46
871-
4 sc
ale
= 3
.30
Was
hing
ton,
DC
(Ros
enko
ette
r,R
ous,
Frie
deba
ch)
Dec
embe
r 3,
1993
Zer
o to
Thr
ee N
atio
nal
Cen
ter
for
Clin
ical
Infa
ntP
rogr
ams
Pos
ter
sess
ion
Gav
e ou
t12
8ha
ndou
tbo
okle
ts
Not
Lva
luat
ed
Gre
en B
ay W
I(H
eins
)N
ovem
ber
19,
1993
Pla
nnin
g T
rans
ition
s fo
r Y
oung
Chi
ldre
n w
ith S
peci
al N
eeds
and
thei
rF
amili
es45
751-
6 sc
ale
= 5
.3
Mis
sour
i(S
hotts
)N
ovem
ber
15-1
7,19
93M
isso
uri E
arly
Inte
rven
tion
Sum
mit
Rol
es o
f fam
ilies
; Fam
ily s
ervi
ceco
ordi
nato
rs a
nd s
ervi
ce p
rovi
ders
Not
Eva
luat
ed50
Nc.
.t E
valu
ated
McP
hers
on, K
S(S
hotts
,R
osen
koet
ter)
Nov
embe
r 12
,19
93A
rea
Ear
ly C
hild
hood
Per
sonn
elW
orki
ng a
s a
Tea
m fo
r Y
oung
Chi
ldre
n w
ith S
peci
al N
eeds
inIn
clus
ive
Set
tings
3550
1-6
scal
e =
4.3
0
Sed
alia
, MO
(Sho
tts)
Nov
embe
r 5,
1993
Sed
alia
Mo
Tra
nsiti
onC
onfe
renc
eT
rans
ition
from
Ear
ly in
terv
entio
n to
Ear
ly C
hild
hood
?50
1-5
scal
e =
4.0
5
McP
hers
on, K
S(S
hotts
)N
ovem
ber
2,19
93M
cPhe
rson
Mot
her's
Clu
bE
arly
Chi
ldho
od S
ervi
ces
Not
Eva
luat
ed12
Not
Eva
luat
ed
Sal
ina,
KS
(Sho
tts)
Oct
ober
29,
199
3H
ead
Sta
rt a
nd E
CS
ET
eam
bui
ldin
g S
kills
2929
1 -
6 sc
ale
= 5
.517
Top
eka,
KS
(Gw
ost)
Oct
ober
28,
199
3Ja
y S
hidc
ler
Sch
ool
Tra
nsiti
onN
otE
valu
ated
8N
ot E
valu
ated
Top
eka,
KS
(Ros
enko
ette
r)O
ctob
er 2
7, 1
993
Dep
artm
ent o
f Hea
lth a
ndE
nviro
nmen
tR
esou
rce
Rai
sing
Wor
ksho
p38
501-
6 sc
ale
= 5
.400
Law
renc
e, K
S(S
treu
fert
, Sho
tts)
Oct
ober
23,
199
3K
AE
YC
Wha
t sha
ll I d
o w
ith m
y ro
om?
251-
6 sc
ale
= 4
.200
Law
renc
e, K
S(R
osen
koet
ter,
Lars
on, W
alke
r)
Oct
ober
23,
199
3K
AE
YC
Uni
ting
a co
mm
unity
to c
are
for
itsch
ildre
n1
201-
6 sc
ale
= 6
.00
2629
I.
Top
eka,
KS
(Ros
enko
ette
r)O
ctob
er 2
2, 1
993
Kan
sas
Infa
nt-T
oddl
erN
etw
ork
Res
ourc
e ra
isin
g fo
r K
ansa
sco
mm
uniti
es in
sup
port
of i
nfan
t and
todd
ler
serv
ices
: Ove
rvie
w o
f pub
licse
ctor
fund
ers
551-
6 sc
ale
= 5
.400
Sal
ina,
KS
(Ros
enko
ette
r,C
ampb
ell,
Der
mye
r)
Oct
ober
14,
199
3C
EC
Ann
ual C
onfe
renc
eT
rans
ition
at a
ge th
ree
:T
hech
alle
nges
and
the
oppo
rtun
ities
813
1-6
scal
e =
5.5
00
Kan
sas
City
, MO
(Ros
enko
ette
r,S
tack
)
Oct
ober
7, 1
993
Hea
lth C
are
Cha
lleng
esdu
ring
the
Ear
ly Y
ears
Tra
nsiti
on: P
aren
t's a
ndpr
ofes
sion
al's
per
spec
tives
69
Han
dout
sgi
ven
to 6
0pe
rson
s
1-6
scal
e =
5.6
67
1-5
scal
e -
4.5
(the
con
f. ev
als)
Mad
ison
, WI
(Hai
m)
Oct
ober
1, 1
993
IFS
P /I
EP
dem
onst
ratio
nsi
tes'
mee
ting
191-
6 sc
ale
= 5
.263
Alb
uque
rque
, NM
(Ros
enko
ette
r,G
wos
t)
Sep
tem
ber
23,
1993
Mag
ic Y
ears
VI C
onfe
renc
eP
aren
ts a
nd p
rofe
ssio
nals
join
ed in
tran
sitio
n30
851-
6 sc
ale
= 5
.417
Alb
uque
rque
, NM
(Ros
enko
ette
r,G
wos
t)
Sep
tem
ber
22,
1993
Los
Nifi
os P
roje
ct M
eetin
gB
ridgi
ng E
arly
Ser
vice
s23
401-
6 sc
ale
= 5
.522
McP
hers
on, K
S(S
treu
fert
)S
epte
mbe
r 20
,19
94D
evel
opm
enta
lly D
isab
led
EX
PO
Pos
ter
disp
lay
shar
ing
serv
ices
and
reso
urce
s fo
r yo
ung
child
ren
with
disa
bilit
ies
and
thei
r fa
mili
es th
roug
hB
ES
T
Not
eval
uate
dN
ot e
valu
ated
Sio
ux F
alls
, SD
(Ros
enko
ette
r)A
ugus
t 25,
199
3T
owar
d S
outh
Dak
ota
2000
Brid
ging
Ear
ly S
ervi
ces:
The
Com
mun
ity's
Cha
lleng
e7
201-
6 sc
ale
= 5
.71
3031
BE
ST
CO
PY
AV
AIL
AB
LE
Loca
tion
Dat
eO
rgan
izat
ion
Pre
sent
atio
n/W
orks
hop
Titl
e#
Per
sons
Eva
luat
ing
S P
erso
nsA
ttend
ing
Rat
ing
Eau
Cla
ire, W
I(H
ains
)A
pril
30, 1
993
Pla
nnin
g tr
ansi
tions
for
youn
gch
ildre
n w
ith s
peci
al n
eeds
and
thei
rfa
mili
es47
Bro
okfie
ld W
I(H
aim
)A
pril
23, 1
993
Pla
nnin
g tr
ansi
tions
for
youn
gch
ildre
n w
ith s
peci
al n
eeds
and
thei
rfa
mili
es47
Kan
sas
City
, MO
(Sho
tts)
Apr
il 15
, 199
3C
are
for
Kid
s W
hoar
e S
peci
alC
omm
unity
pla
nnin
g fo
r ea
rlych
ildho
od tr
ansi
tions
1115
Pitt
sbur
g, K
S(S
hotts
)A
pril
2, 1
993
It's
a bi
g st
epl P
lann
ing
for
tran
sitio
n to
kin
derg
arte
n30
33
Man
hatta
n, K
S(R
osen
koet
ter
&S
hotts
)
Mar
ch 1
6, 1
995
It's
a bi
g st
ep: T
rans
ition
toki
nder
gart
en23
55
Man
hatta
n, K
S(R
osen
koet
ter
&S
hotts
)
Mar
ch 1
1, 1
993
Par
ent M
eetin
g7
221
- 6
scal
e =
4.8
57
Pea
body
, KS
(Sho
tts)
Mar
ch 9
, 199
3P
eabo
dy M
othe
rsC
lub
Hel
los
and
good
byes
Not
eval
uate
d15
Not
eva
luat
ed
Ant
igo,
WI
(Hai
ns)
Mar
ch 5
, 199
3La
ngda
le H
ealth
Car
eC
ente
r -
Birt
h to
thre
e P
rogr
am
Pla
nnin
g tr
ansi
tions
for
pres
choo
l11
1 -
6 sc
ale
.: 5.
53
Law
renc
e, K
S(R
osen
koet
ter)
Mar
ch 5
, 199
3K
DE
CW
ritin
g su
cces
sful
gra
nt a
pplic
atio
ns22
391
- 6
scal
e si
5.5
00
3233
Law
renc
e, K
S(S
hotts
, Bar
tus,
Str
eufe
rt)
Mar
ch 5
, 199
3K
DE
CW
hat s
hall
I do
with
my
room
: Goo
did
eas
for
setti
ng u
p th
e en
viro
nmen
tto
faci
litat
e de
velo
pmen
tally
appr
opria
te in
terv
entio
n
2929
1 -
6 sc
ale
= 4
.40
Kan
sas
City
, MO
(Str
eufe
rt &
Bar
tus)
Feb
ruar
y 27
,19
93K
AE
YC
Hel
los
and
good
byes
: Hel
ping
you
ngch
ildre
n m
ake
tran
sitio
ns to
new
envi
ronm
ents
5610
01
- 6
scal
e =
4.6
00
Wis
cons
in D
ells
(Hai
m)
Feb
ruar
y 18
-19,
1993
DP
I-D
HS
S p
resc
hool
tran
sitio
nw
orks
hop:
Inte
rage
ncy
colla
bora
tion
311
- 6
scal
e =
5.1
7
Lind
sbor
g, K
ansa
s(R
osen
koet
ter)
Feb
ruar
y 17
,19
93U
SD
400
Tra
nsiti
on to
kin
derg
arte
nN
otE
valu
ated
13N
ot E
valu
ated
Bal
dwin
, WI
(Hai
m)
Janu
ary
25 a
ndF
ebru
ary
1,19
93
Tra
nsiti
ons
for
youn
g ch
ildre
nN
otE
valu
ated
Not
Eva
luat
ed
Pen
saco
la, F
l(S
hotts
)Ja
nuar
y 30
.19
93A
ssoc
iatio
n fo
rR
etar
ded
Citi
zens
Tra
nsiti
on p
lann
ing
for
child
ren
with
spec
ial n
eeds
1115
1 -
6 sc
ale
= 5
.364
Uni
vers
ity o
f Sou
thF
lorid
a(S
hotts
)
Janu
ary
28,
1993
Flo
rida
Men
tal H
ealth
Inst
itute
Brid
ging
ear
ly s
ervi
ces:
Com
mun
itytr
ansi
tion
plan
ning
4475
1 -
6 sc
ale
= 3
.512
Har
dee
Cou
nty
Flo
rida
Hig
hlan
ds C
ount
y, F
l.(S
hotts
)
Janu
ary
27,
1993
Brid
ging
ear
ly s
ervi
ces:
Pla
nnin
g fo
rth
e tr
ansi
tion
of y
oung
chi
ldre
n fr
omea
rly c
hild
hood
pro
gram
s to
kind
erga
rten
5075
1 -
6 sc
ale
= 5
.102
Pol
k C
ount
y F
lorid
a(S
hotts
)Ja
nuar
y 26
,19
93B
ridgi
ng e
arly
ser
vice
s: P
lann
ing
for
the
tran
sitio
n of
you
ng c
hild
ren
from
early
chi
ldho
od p
rogr
ams
toki
nder
gart
en
2542
1 -
6 sc
ale
= 5
.000
Junc
tion
City
, KS
(Ros
enko
ette
r)Ja
nuar
y 21
,19
93It'
s a
big
step
: Tra
nsiti
on to
kind
erga
rten
613
1 -
6 sc
ale
= 6
.000
Top
eka,
KS
(Ros
enko
ette
r)D
ecem
ber
16,
1992
Kan
sas
Chi
ld C
are
Adv
isor
y B
oard
50
Hay
s, K
S(S
hotts
)D
ecem
ber
11,
1992
Inte
rage
ncy
grou
pT
rans
ition
to k
inde
rgar
ten
30N
ot y
et ta
bula
ted
3135
Was
hing
ton,
DC
(Ros
enko
ette
r,S
hotts
, Hai
m,
Fow
ler,
Gw
ost)
Dec
embe
r 3,
1992
Div
isio
n fo
r E
arly
Chi
ldho
od; C
ounc
ilfo
r E
xcep
tiona
lC
hild
ren
Str
ateg
ies
for
tran
sitio
n pl
anni
ng: A
criti
cal c
ompo
nent
of c
ompr
ehen
sive
stat
e an
d lo
cal i
nter
vent
ion
syst
ems
501
- 4
scal
e =
3.6
usef
ulln
ess
3.8
Acc
ompl
ishe
dob
ject
ives
3.8
Mot
ivat
ed c
hang
e
Was
hing
ton,
DC
Sho
tts, R
osen
koet
ter)
Dec
embe
r 3,
1992
Div
isio
n fo
r E
arly
Chi
ldho
od; C
ounc
ilfo
r E
xcep
tiona
lC
hild
ren
Effe
ctiv
e tr
ansi
tion
mod
els
No
evel
uatio
nP
oste
r
Was
hing
ton
DC
2 se
ssio
ns(R
osen
koet
ter)
Nov
embe
r 4-
5,19
92D
epar
tmen
t of
Edu
catio
n:D
epar
tmen
t of
Hea
lth a
nd H
umae
nS
ervi
ces
Sec
ond
Nat
iona
l Tra
nsiti
on F
orum
31N
ot e
valu
ated
Oak
Bro
ok, I
L(H
ains
)O
ctob
er 1
9,19
92R
egio
nal E
arly
Chi
ldho
od F
orum
Mov
ing
On:
Brid
ging
Ear
ly S
ervi
ces
Tra
nsiti
ons
1818
1 -
6 sc
ale
= 4
.83
Law
renc
e, K
S(R
osen
koet
ter)
Oct
ober
16,
1992
Inte
rage
ncy
grou
pT
rans
ition
at a
ge th
ree
1832
1 -
6 sc
ale
- 4.
833
Em
poria
, KS
(Str
eufe
rt, B
artu
s)O
ctob
er 1
0,19
92K
ansa
s A
ssoc
iatio
nfo
r th
e E
duca
tion
ofY
oung
Chi
ldre
n
Hel
los
and
good
byes
1145
1-
6 sc
ale
= 5
.400
Anc
hora
ge, A
K(S
hotts
)O
ctob
er 7
,19
92In
fant
Lea
rnin
gC
onfe
renc
eP
rom
otin
g C
oord
inat
ion
and
Col
labo
ratio
n in
you
r In
tera
genc
yT
askf
orce
40
St.
Pet
ersb
urg,
FL
(Sho
tts)
Sep
tem
ber
17-
18, 1
992
Hea
d S
tart
ILIC
CB
uild
ing
Brid
ges:
Com
mun
ityT
rans
ition
Pla
nnin
g fo
r Y
oung
Chi
ldre
n w
ith D
isab
ilitie
s an
d th
eir
Fam
ilies
Day
1 -
25
Ove
rall
- 25
Day
1-
30O
vera
ll -
321
- 6
scal
e =
5.1
601
- 6
scal
e =
5.2
92
Wic
hita
, KS
(tw
o se
ssio
ns)
(Ros
enko
ette
r)
Sep
tem
ber
12,
1992
Sta
tew
ide
Con
fere
nce
Pla
nnin
g tr
ansi
tion
in e
arly
chi
ldho
od:
Wor
kabl
e st
rate
gies
with
you
ngch
ildre
n, th
eir
fam
ilies
, and
ser
vice
prov
ider
s
112
Not
Eva
luat
ed
Col
umbi
a, M
o(3
Wor
ksho
ps)
(Sho
tts)
Aug
ust 6
-6,
1992
Par
tner
ship
s fo
rP
rogr
ess
IVC
onfe
renc
e
1. T
rans
ition
at A
ge T
hree
and
Fiv
e2.
Par
tner
ship
s: P
aren
ts r
idP
rofe
ssio
nals
Pla
n to
geth
er fo
rT
rans
ition
s of
You
ng C
hild
ren
3. L
ocal
Inte
rage
ncy
Coo
rdin
atin
gC
ounc
il P
reco
nfer
ence
Ses
sion
31 47
75 100
50
Not
Eva
luat
ed1
- 6
scal
e =
6.0
67
1 -
6 sc
ale
= 5
.064
3637
DW
ashi
ngto
n, D
.C.
(Sho
tts)
Aug
ust 8
-12,
1992
Par
tner
ship
s fo
rP
rogr
ess
VC
onfe
renc
e
Tra
nsiti
on U
pdat
eT
he B
ridgi
ng E
arly
Ser
vice
Tra
nsiti
onM
odel
6 10N
ot E
valu
ated
Boi
se, I
D(R
osen
koet
ter/
Sho
tts)
July
28-
30,
1992
A S
hare
d V
isio
n fo
r In
nova
tive
Edu
catio
nal S
trat
egie
sD
ay 1
- 4
3D
ay 2
- 3
9D
ay 3
- 3
7O
vera
ll -
37
43 39 37
1 -
6 sc
ale
= 5
.023
1 -
6 sc
ale
= 5
.192
1 -
6 sc
ale
= 5
.176
1 -
6 sc
ale
= 5
.472
Mia
mi,
FL.
(Ros
enko
ette
r)Ju
ne 3
-4, 1
992
Dad
e C
ount
y P
ublic
Sch
ools
Tra
nsiti
on fr
om h
ead
star
t to
kind
erga
rten
14
Ove
rland
Par
k, K
S(R
osen
koet
ter)
May
28,
199
2R
egio
n V
I Hea
d S
tart
Tra
nsiti
on p
lann
ing
in th
e pr
esch
ool
4790
1 -
6 sc
ale
= 4
.894
II
Mac
omb,
IL(R
osen
koet
ter/
Sho
tts)
May
20,
199
2A
PP
LES
Mag
azin
evi
a th
e W
IU>
ISB
ES
atel
lite
Edu
catio
nN
etw
ork
Goo
dbye
s an
d he
llos:
effe
ctiv
est
rate
gies
for
brid
ging
ear
ly s
ervi
ces
Sat
ellit
eT
rans
mis
sion
Not
eva
luat
ed
Kan
sas
City
, MO
(Ros
enko
ette
r/S
hotts
)
Ses
sion
1
May
14-
15,
1992
Mid
wes
t Tra
nsiti
onS
ympo
sium
: Eas
ing
the
Tra
nsiti
on fr
omH
ead
Sta
rt a
nd o
ther
Ear
ly C
hild
hood
Edu
catio
n P
rogr
ams
to K
inde
rgar
ten
Brid
gebu
ildin
g: In
tera
genc
y st
rate
gies
for
over
com
ing
tran
sitio
n pr
oble
ms
1518
1 -
6 sc
ale
= 5
.367
Kan
sas
City
, MO
(Ros
enko
ette
r/S
hotts
)
Ses
sion
2
May
14-
15,
1992
Mid
wes
t Tra
nsiti
onS
ympo
sium
: Eas
ing
the
Tra
nsiti
on fr
omH
ead
Sta
rt a
nd o
ther
Ear
ly C
hild
hood
Edu
catio
n P
rogr
ams
to K
inde
rgar
ten
Brid
gebu
ildin
g: In
tera
genc
y st
rate
gies
for
over
com
ing
tran
sitio
n pr
oble
ms
912
1 -
6 sc
ale
= 5
.000
Indi
anap
olis
, IN
(Ros
enko
ette
r)M
ay 1
, 199
2T
he S
even
th In
dian
aC
onfe
renc
e on
Lea
stR
estr
ictiv
eE
nviro
nmen
t
Tra
nsiti
on W
arm
ing
for
youn
gch
ildre
n w
ith s
peci
al n
eeds
and
thei
rfa
mili
es
30N
ot e
valu
ated
Col
orad
o S
prin
gs, C
O(S
treu
fert
)A
pril
4, 1
992
Col
orad
o A
ssoc
iatio
nfo
r th
e E
duca
tion
ofY
oung
Chi
ldre
n
Hel
los
and
good
byes
- h
elpi
ng y
oung
child
ren
mak
e tr
ansi
tion
to n
ewen
viro
nmen
ts
622
1 -
6 sc
ale
= 5
.500
Pen
saco
la, F
L(S
hotts
)A
pril
4, 1
992
Nor
th F
lorid
a H
ead
Sta
rt/D
EC
Mee
ting
Tra
nsiti
on p
lann
ing
1111
1-
6 sc
ale
= 5
.545
3539
Pen
saco
la, F
L(S
hotts
)A
pril
3, 1
992
Nor
th F
lorid
a H
ead
Sta
rt/D
EC
Mee
ting
Brid
ging
the
gap
bef..
.een
pre
scho
olan
d ki
nder
gart
en9
91
- 6
scal
e =
5.6
66
Dad
e C
ount
y, F
L(S
hotts
)A
pril
2, 1
992
Dad
e C
ount
y P
ublic
Sch
ools
Inte
rage
ncy
colla
bora
tion
in p
lann
ing
early
chi
ldho
od tr
ansi
tions
811
1 -
6 sc
ale
= 5
.625
Prin
ceto
n, N
J(F
owle
r)M
arch
199
2N
J D
epar
tmen
t of
Edu
ce .i
onT
rans
ition
at a
ge 3
300
Not
eva
luat
ed
Jeffe
rson
City
, MO
(Ros
enko
ette
r/S
hotts
)M
arch
17-
18,
1992
Fac
ilita
tor
Tra
inin
gT
rain
er o
f tra
iner
s w
orks
hop
2350
1 -
6 sc
ale
= 4
.522
Wic
hita
, KS
(Ros
enko
ette
r/S
hotts
)M
arch
5, 1
992
Kan
sas
Div
isio
n fo
rE
arly
Chi
ldho
odC
opin
g w
ith c
hang
e43
561
- 6
scal
e =
5.3
0
Mar
shal
l, M
N(S
hotts
)M
arch
2, 1
992
Ann
ual S
peci
alE
duca
tion
Day
of
Exc
elle
nce
Con
fere
nce
Tra
nsiti
on p
lann
ing
for
youn
gch
ildre
n7
101
- 6
scal
e =
5.0
00
Det
roit
Lake
s, M
N(S
hotts
/Bla
ska)
Feb
ruar
y 27
,19
92W
est C
entr
alE
duca
tiona
lC
oope
rativ
e S
ervi
ceU
nit
Tra
nsiti
on p
lann
ing
for
youn
gch
ildre
n w
ith s
peci
al n
eeds
4060
1 -
6 sc
ale
= 5
.240
Jeffe
rson
City
, MO
(Ros
enko
ette
r/S
hotts
)F
ebru
ary
13-1
4,19
92M
isso
uri F
irst S
teps
Vid
eo ta
ping
brid
ging
ear
ly s
ervi
ces:
inte
rage
ncy
plan
ning
for
tran
sitio
n
Anc
hora
ge, A
K(S
hotts
)F
ebru
ary
3,19
92A
ncho
rage
Tra
nsiti
onT
ask-
For
ceT
rans
ition
pla
nnin
g22
401
- 6
scal
e =
4.8
86
Osh
kosh
, WI
(Hai
ns)
Janu
ary
29,
1992
Hea
d S
tart
Con
fere
nce
Cur
ricul
um s
trat
egie
s27
351
- 4
scal
e =
3.5
38
Sal
ina,
KS
(Sho
tts)
Jar
2ary
28,
1992
Sal
ina
Ass
ocia
tion
for
the
Edu
catio
n of
You
ng C
hild
ren
Hel
los
and
good
byes
: Tra
nsiti
on in
child
ren'
s liv
es30
Not
eva
luat
ed
St.
Loui
s, M
O(M
eek,
Fow
ler,
&C
lafli
n)
Nov
embe
r 16
,19
91D
ivis
ion
for
Ear
lyC
hild
hood
; Cou
ncil
for
Exc
eptio
nal
Chi
ldre
n
A r
etro
spec
tive
tran
sitio
n in
terv
iew
with
par
ents
of i
nfan
ts d
isch
arge
dfr
om th
e N
ICU
70N
ot a
vaila
ble
Si.
Loui
s, M
O(R
osen
koet
ter/
Sho
tts)
Nov
embe
r 15
,19
91D
ivis
ion
for
Ear
lyC
hild
hood
; Cou
ncil
for
Exc
eptio
nal
Chi
ldre
n
Tra
nsiti
on p
lann
ing:
A c
ritic
alco
mpo
nent
of c
ompr
ehen
sive
sta
tean
d lo
cal
syst
ems
8016
51
- 5
scal
e =
4.1
9
4041
Den
ver,
CO
(Ros
enko
ette
r)N
ovem
ber
9,19
91N
atio
nal A
ssoc
iatio
nfo
r th
e E
duca
tion
ofY
oung
Chi
ldre
n
Wor
king
toge
ther
for
youn
g ch
ildre
nan
d th
eir
fam
ilies
65N
ot e
velu
ated
Den
ver,
CO
(Ros
enko
ette
r)N
ovem
ber
9,19
91N
atio
nal A
ssoc
iatio
nfo
r th
e E
duca
tion
ofY
oung
Chi
ldre
n
Wha
t do
prek
inde
rgar
ters
kno
wab
out t
he s
truc
ture
of p
rose
, and
wha
t doe
s th
is m
ean
for
good
teac
hing
?
1135
1 -
6 sc
ale
= 4
.55
Den
ver,
CO
(Ros
enko
ette
r/S
hotts
)N
ovem
ber
9,19
91N
atio
nal A
ssoc
iatio
nfo
r th
e E
duca
tion
ofY
oung
Chi
ldre
n
Hel
los
& g
oodb
yes:
Pla
nnin
g fo
rpr
ogra
m c
hang
e w
ith s
peci
al n
eeds
child
ren
20-2
540
1 -
6 sc
ale
= 5
.18
Poc
atel
lo, I
D(R
osen
koet
ter/
Sho
tts)
Nov
embe
r 1,
1991
Idah
o In
tera
genc
yC
oord
inat
ing
Cou
ncil
Cor
ning
& g
oing
: Par
tner
ship
s in
tran
sitio
n fo
r yo
ung
child
ren
with
spec
ial n
eeds
1215
1-
6 sc
ale
= 5
.64
Boi
se, I
D(R
osen
koet
ter/
Sho
tts)
Oct
ober
31,
1991
Idah
o In
tera
genc
yC
oord
inat
ing
Cou
ncil
Com
ing
& g
oing
: Par
tner
ship
s in
tran
sitio
n fo
r yo
ung
child
ren
with
spec
ial n
eeds
2030
1-
6 sc
ale
= 5
.6
Mos
cow
, ID
(Ros
enko
ette
r/S
hotts
)O
ctob
er 3
0,19
91Id
aho
Inte
rage
ncy
Coo
rdin
atin
g C
ounc
ilC
omin
g &
goi
ng: P
artn
ersh
ips
intr
ansi
tion
for
youn
g ch
ildre
n w
ithsp
ecia
l nee
ds
1317
1 -
6 sc
ale
= 5
.83
St.
Loui
s, M
O(S
hotts
)O
ctob
er 1
9,19
91U
nive
rsity
of M
O a
tS
t. Lo
uis
Pla
ying
toge
ther
: Hel
ping
chi
ldre
nde
velo
p pl
ay s
kills
7280
1 -
6 sc
ale
= 4
.75
St.
Loui
s, M
O(S
hotts
)O
ctob
er 1
9,19
91U
nive
rsity
of M
O a
tS
t. Lo
uis
Bui
ldin
g ef
fect
ive
tran
sitio
ns fo
rch
ildre
n an
d th
eir
fam
ilies
2326
1 -
6 sc
ale
= 5
.182
Sal
ina,
KS
(Ros
enko
ette
r/S
hotts
)O
ctob
er 1
8,19
91S
alin
e C
ount
yIn
tera
genc
yco
unci
l
Brid
ging
ear
ly s
ervi
ces:
Tra
nsiti
onpl
anni
ng fo
r yo
ung
child
ren
and
thei
rfa
mili
es
2128
1 -
6 sc
ale
= 5
.81
Illin
ois
Sat
ellit
eS
yste
m(F
owle
r)
Sep
tem
ber
25,
1991
AP
PLE
S M
agaz
ine
Pas
t ref
lect
ions
.. .
new
dire
ctio
nsS
atel
lite
Tra
nsm
issi
onN
ot e
velu
ated
Top
eka,
KS
(Ros
enko
ette
r/S
hotts
)A
ugus
t 30,
1991
TA
RC
, Top
eka
Inte
rage
ncy
Gro
upT
rans
ition
pla
nnin
g fo
r yo
ung
child
ren
with
spe
cial
nee
ds19
241
- 6
scal
e 1E
5.6
Ste
vens
Poi
nt, W
1(H
ains
/Ros
enko
ette
r)A
ugus
t 14,
1991
Mul
tiple
Spo
nsor
ship
s an
dW
isco
nsin
Div
isio
nfo
r E
arly
Chi
ldho
od
Pla
nnin
g tr
ansi
tions
for
youn
gch
ildre
n w
ith s
peci
al n
eeds
and
thei
rfa
mili
es
2434
1-
6 sc
ale
= 5
.20
42B
ES
T C
OP
Y A
VA
ILA
BLE
43
Ste
vens
Poi
nt, W
I(H
eins
)A
ugus
t 199
1C
olla
bora
tive
Con
fere
nce
Fam
ily c
ente
red
inte
rven
tion
1717
1 -
5 sc
ale
= 4
.60
Tam
pa, F
L(S
hotts
)Ju
ly 3
1, 1
991
Lead
ersh
ip C
onf.
Exc
eptio
nal C
hild
Pro
gram
s of
Flo
rida
Intr
oduc
tion
to B
ES
T P
roje
ct22
0.
Not
eva
luat
ed
Pen
saco
la, F
L(R
osen
koet
ter/
Sho
tts)
July
24,
199
1F
DLR
S W
estg
ate
Flo
rida
Pan
hand
leT
rans
ition
pla
nnin
g fo
r yo
ung
child
ren
with
spe
cial
nee
ds27
431
- 6
scal
e =
5.6
3
Pen
saco
la, F
L(R
osen
koet
ter/
Sho
tts)
July
23,
199
1E
arly
Chi
ldho
odIn
tera
genc
y C
ounc
ilIn
tera
genc
y is
sues
in tr
ansi
tion
25N
ot e
valu
ated
Milw
auke
e, W
I(H
eins
)Ju
ly 1
8, 1
991
Uni
vers
ity o
fM
ilwau
kee
The
indi
vidu
aliz
ed fa
mily
ser
vice
pla
n66
1N
ot e
valu
ated
Her
shey
, PA
(Fow
ler)
June
, 199
1P
enns
ylva
nia
Dep
artm
ent o
fE
duca
tion
Pre
scho
olS
ympo
sium
Ens
urin
g qu
ality
of s
ervi
ces:
New
chal
leng
es fo
r th
e ni
netie
sN
ot e
valu
ated
June
au, A
K(H
ains
/Sch
war
tz)
June
5-7
, 199
1S
umm
er In
stitu
te in
Spe
cial
Edu
catio
nS
olve
beh
avio
r pr
oble
ms:
Bui
ldin
g fo
rcl
assr
oom
man
agem
ent
78
1 -
5 sc
ale
= 4
.43
Atla
nta,
GA
(Fow
ler/
Mec
k/C
lafli
n)M
ay 1
991
Ass
ocia
tion
for
Beh
avio
r A
naly
sis
A n
eeds
ass
essm
ent t
o as
sist
mot
hers
of p
rem
atur
e in
fant
s in
thei
rtr
ansi
tion
from
the
neon
atal
inte
nsiv
eca
re u
nit b
efor
e, d
urin
g an
d 6
mon
ths
afte
r di
scha
rge
Not
eva
luat
ed
Mat
-Su,
AK
(Hei
ns)
May
31,
199
1M
atan
uska
-Sus
itna
Sch
ool D
istr
ict
Gra
nt w
ritin
g w
orks
hop
1520
1 -
6 sc
ale
= 5
.6
Dur
ham
, NH
(Fow
ler)
May
199
1U
nive
rsity
of N
HC
urre
nt e
vent
s in
ear
ly c
hild
hood
spec
ial e
duca
tion
Atla
nta,
GA
(Fow
ler)
May
199
1A
ssoc
iatio
n fo
rB
ehav
ior
Ana
lysi
sIn
terv
entio
n re
sear
ch in
mai
nstr
eam
setti
ngs
1A
tlant
a, G
A(F
owle
r)M
ay 1
991
Ass
ocia
tion
for
Beh
avio
r A
naly
sis
Inte
rven
tions
and
ass
essm
ents
with
fel J
lies
of y
oung
chi
ldre
n
Ove
rland
Par
k, K
S(F
owle
r/R
osen
koet
ter/
Woo
ds)
May
30,
199
1R
egio
n V
I Hea
d S
tart
Tra
nsiti
on p
lann
ing
for
youn
gch
ildre
n63
110
1 -
6 sc
ale
= 4
.94
Milw
auke
e, W
I(R
osen
koet
ter)
May
24,
199
1In
tern
atio
nal
Ass
ocia
tion
for
SP
ED
Crit
ical
issu
es in
ear
ly c
hild
hood
Tra
nsiti
on15
401
- 4
scal
e =
3.9
4
4445
Virg
inia
, MN
(Ros
enko
ette
r/H
ains
)M
ay 2
1-22
,19
91E
duca
tiona
l Ser
vice
Reg
ion
Tra
nsiti
on p
lann
ing
for
youn
gch
ildre
n w
ith s
peci
al n
eeds
3652
1 -
6 sc
ale
= 4
.53
Milw
auke
e, W
I(H
ains
)M
ay 1
991
Inte
rnat
iona
lC
onfe
renc
e on
Spe
cial
Edu
catio
n
Ear
ly in
terv
entio
n pr
even
tion
and
rem
edia
tion
401
- 4
scal
e =
3.9
4
Wic
hita
, KS
(Woo
ds)
Apr
il 29
, 199
1K
ansa
s C
onfe
renc
eon
Soc
ial W
elfa
reP
lann
ing
early
chi
ldho
od tr
ansi
tions
3454
1 -
6 sc
ale
= 4
.53
Man
hatta
n, K
S(W
oods
)A
pril
13, 1
991
Kan
sas
Stu
dent
CE
CC
onfe
renc
eP
lann
ing
scho
ol tr
ansi
tions
1010
1 -
6 sc
ale
= 5
.11
Shr
evep
ort,
LA(H
aim
)A
pril
8, 1
991
Adm
inis
trat
or in
volv
emen
t in
early
child
hood
tran
sitio
ns18
1 -
6 sc
ale
= 5
.78
Des
Moi
nes,
IA(F
owle
r)A
pril
1991
Dra
ke U
nive
rsity
Pla
nnin
g su
cces
sful
tran
sitio
ns fr
omH
ead
Sta
rt p
rogr
ams
to k
inde
rgar
ten
Oak
Bro
ok, I
L(F
owle
r)A
pril,
199
1Ill
inoi
s D
ivis
ion
for
Ear
ly C
hild
hood
Tra
nsiti
ons
from
ear
ly in
terv
entio
n to
pres
choo
l and
from
pre
scho
ol to
kind
erga
rten
Sea
ttle,
Wa
(Ros
enko
ette
r!R
osen
koet
ter)
Apr
il 20
, 199
1S
ocie
ty F
or R
esea
rch
in C
hild
Dev
elop
men
tA
long
itudi
nal s
tudy
of
prek
inde
rgar
ten
tran
sitio
n sc
reen
ing:
Tea
cher
rep
ort a
nd tr
aditi
onal
Tes
ting
Pos
ter
Ses
sion
Not
eva
luat
ed
Sha
wne
e M
issi
on, K
S(F
owle
r/R
osen
koet
ter/
Woo
ds)
Mar
ch 2
8, 1
991
Sha
wne
e M
issi
onS
choo
lsT
rans
ition
pla
nnin
g fo
r yo
ung
child
ren
with
spe
cial
nee
ds39
651
- 6
scal
e =
5.2
3
June
au, A
K.
(Woo
ds)
Mar
ch 1
6, 1
991
Sou
thea
st A
lask
aE
arly
Chi
ldho
odC
onfe
renc
e
Beg
inni
ngs
are
impo
rtan
t20
261
- 6
scal
e =
5.6
0
June
au, A
K(W
oods
)M
arch
15,
199
1P
aren
t Mee
ting
Tra
nsiti
on8
1 -
6 sc
ale
= 6
.00
June
au, A
K(W
oods
)M
arch
15,
199
1S
outh
east
Ala
ska
Ear
ly C
hild
hood
Con
fere
nce
Pla
ying
toge
ther
1019
1 -
6 sc
ale
= 5
.15
Kan
sas
City
, KS
(Fow
ler)
Mar
ch 9
, 199
1K
ansa
s D
ivis
ion
for
Ear
ly C
hild
hood
The
sta
te c
oord
inat
ing
coun
cil a
ndlo
cal i
nter
agen
cy c
ounc
ils
Kan
sas
City
, KS
(Ros
enko
ette
rlSho
tts)
Mar
ch 8
, 199
1K
ansa
s D
ivis
ion
For
Ear
ly C
hild
hood
'But
my
stud
ents
are
n't r
eady
tore
ad8
211
- 6
scal
e z
6.25
.
4647
Eau
Cla
ire, W
I(H
ains
)M
arch
7-8
, 199
1W
isco
nsin
Per
sonn
elD
evel
opm
ent P
roje
ct"C
atch
the
Spi
rit"
wor
ksho
p
Tow
ard
pare
nt a
nd p
rofe
ssio
nal
part
ners
hips
: Fam
ily-c
ente
red
stra
tegi
es fo
r de
velo
ping
indi
vidu
aliz
ed fa
mily
ser
vice
pla
ns
1836
1 -
4 sc
ale
= 4
.52
Kea
rney
, NE
(Ros
enko
e',..
_./W
oods
)M
arch
4-5
, 199
1N
ebra
ska
Ear
lyC
hild
hood
Tra
inin
gS
yste
m
Bui
ldin
g ef
fect
ive
tran
sitio
n fo
r yo
ung
child
ren
and
thei
r fa
mili
es44
901
- 6
scal
e =
4.6
1
Milw
auke
e, W
I(H
ains
)M
arch
1-2
, 199
1W
isco
nsin
Per
sonn
elD
evel
opm
ent P
roje
ct"C
atch
the
Spi
rit"
wor
ksho
p
Tow
ard
pare
nt a
nd p
rofe
sion
alpa
rtne
rshi
ps: F
amily
-cen
tere
dst
rate
gies
for
deve
lopi
ngin
divi
dual
ized
fam
ily s
ervi
ce p
lans
4289
1 -
4 sc
ale
= 3
.90
Hut
chin
son,
KS
Feb
ruar
y 21
-22,
1991
Edu
catio
nal S
ervi
cean
d S
taff
Dev
elop
men
t Acr
oss
Cen
tral
Kan
sas
Ass
essm
ent o
f you
ng c
hild
ren
98ki
t eva
luat
ed
Wau
sau,
WI
(Hai
ns)
Feb
ruar
y 14
-15,
1991
Wis
cons
in P
erso
nnel
Dev
elop
emnt
Pro
ject
"Cat
ch th
e S
pirit
"w
orks
hop
Tow
ard
pare
nt a
nd p
rofe
ssio
nal
part
ners
hips
: Fam
ily-c
ente
red
stra
tegi
es fo
r de
velo
ping
indi
vidu
aliz
ed fa
mily
ser
vice
pla
ns
2354
1 -
4 sc
ale
= 4
.20
Boi
se, I
D(F
owle
r)F
ebru
ary
Il,19
91Id
aho
Sta
teD
epar
tmen
t of
Edu
catio
n
Pla
nnin
g tr
ansi
tion
betw
een
early
inte
rven
tion
prog
ram
s an
d pr
esch
ool
prog
ram
s: a
dmin
istr
ativ
e an
d po
licy
conc
erns
120
Not
eva
luat
ed
Le C
ompt
on, K
S(F
owle
r /R
osen
koet
ter/
Woo
ds)
Feb
ruar
y 11
,19
91N
orth
east
Kan
sas
Reg
iona
l Ser
vice
Cen
ter
Tra
nsiti
on p
lann
ing
for
youn
gch
ildre
n25
371
- 6
scal
e =
4.4
0
Gre
en B
ay, W
I(H
ains
)Ja
nuar
y 17
-18,
1991
Wis
cons
in P
erso
nnel
Dev
elop
men
t Pro
ject
"Cat
ch th
e S
pirit
"w
orks
hop
Tow
ard
pare
nt a
nd p
rofe
ssio
nal
part
ners
hips
: Fam
ily-c
ente
red
stra
tegi
es fo
r de
velo
ping
indi
vidu
aliz
ed fa
mily
ser
vice
pla
ns
2856
1 -
4 sc
ale
= 4
.07
Milw
auke
e, W
I(H
ains
)Ja
nuar
y 19
91La
kesh
ore
Adm
inis
trat
ors
and
Sup
ervi
sors
Con
fere
nce
Cur
rent
and
futu
re tr
ends
in e
arly
inte
rven
tion:
Leg
isla
tive
and
prog
ram
atic
dev
elop
men
ts
No
Eva
luat
ion
Wic
hita
, KS
(Ros
enko
ette
r)O
ctob
er 1
1,19
90K
ansa
s A
ssoc
iatio
nfo
r th
e E
duca
tion
ofY
oung
Chi
ldre
n
Crit
ical
ski
lls fo
r tr
ansi
tion
toki
nder
gart
en38
851
- 6
scal
e rt
5.7
1
4549
Wic
hita
, KS
(Woo
ds)
Oct
ober
13,
1991
Kan
sas
Ass
ocia
tion
for
the
Edu
catio
n of
You
ng C
hild
ren
IEP
's a
nd IF
SP
's: F
rom
the
early
child
hood
per
spec
tive
515
1 -
6 sc
ale
= 4
.80
I
Cha
mpa
ign,
IL(F
owle
r)S
epte
mbe
r,19
90C
ade
Hos
pita
lT
he im
pact
of s
ocia
l pol
icy
on in
fant
sw
ith s
peci
al n
eeds
and
thei
r fa
mili
es38
0N
ot e
valu
ated
Mol
ine,
KS
(Ros
enko
ette
r1W
oods
)A
ugus
t 13,
1990
Elk
-Cha
tauq
uaS
peci
al E
duca
tion
Coo
pera
tive
Tra
nsiti
on: I
t's a
big
ste
p11
241
- 6
scal
e =
5.5
4
Bridging Early Services 17
Transition Project and asked to assist the regional educationallaboratories (funded by the U.S.D.O.E. Office of EducationalResearch and Improvement) in their efforts. Materials weredeveloped and shared with all 10 laboratories. Presentations weremade at two of their regional conferences and at the SecondNational Transition Forum. The purpose of the progject'sparticipation in these efforts is to include children with specialneeds in the policies and procedures developed for all children atthe age five transition. Transition processes developed underEEPCD sponsorship are useful for the more general conversationabout transition to kindergarten because our procedures have beenvalidated over many years.
Dissemination of Materials for Practioners' Use
Copious handouts have been shared at national, regional,state, and local meetings, and packets of information sent to stateleaders, ERIC, and NEC*TAS. Materials available for orderinginclude compilations of materials on various topics as well as theAPPLES videotape and the Missouri trainer of trainer videotape.The project also was successful in getting many short articlesprinted in various newsletters in the project states.
Several more lengthy items were published for practioner use.They are listed in Attachment 4. Paramount among them was the 1994release of Bridging Early Services for Children withSpecial Needs and Their Families: A Practical Guide for TransitionPlanning by Sharon RoPsnkoetter, Ann Hains, and Susan Fowler,published by Paul H. Brookes Publishing Company of Baltimore, MD.
Dissemination of Scholarly Articles
During the period of this project, nine articles werepublished in scholarly journals or texts. These are listed inAttachment 5.
Sharing, with Personnel Preparation Programs
Systematic planning for transition belongs in every preservicepersonnel preparation program. BEST has shared project materialswith personnel trainers in three states and with attendees at theMidwest Consortium for Faculty Development. This project has hadthe support of the Comprehensive System of Personnel DevelopmentCommittee in each of the target states.
Respcnses to Requests for Information and Advice.
During the period of this grant, the project office received750 requests for assistance, as shown in Attachment 6. Each one ofthese was personally answered.
52
17A
Attachment 4
NUBLICATIOES FOR PRACTIOMERS DURING OUTREACH PROJECT
Rosenkoetter, S.E., Heins, A.H., & Fowler, S.A. (1994).Bridging early services for young children with specialneeds and their families: A practical guide for transitionplanning. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Company.
* * *
Fowler, S.A. (1991). The future of early childhood servicesVideo prepared for the Illinois State Department ofEducation; transmitted nationally by APPLES Magazine,Macomb, IL.
Heins, A.H., & Rosenkoetter, S.E. (1992). Bridging earl's,services: A guide to transition planning. Produced for theState of Wisconsin by BEST Project.
Heins, A.R. (1990). Wisconsin curricula resource manual:Selected information on early intervention for families andprofessionals. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Department of Healthand Social Services: Birth to Three Program.
Olsen, P.P., & Rains, A.B. (1992). Toward parent andprofessional partnership: Guidelines for Wisconsin's IFSP.Madison: Wisconsin Department of Health and SocialServices.
Rosenkoetter, S.E. (1990). Transition tip, Rural SpecialEducation Quarterly, 1
Rosenkoetter, S.E. (1991, April) Bridging Early Services. It's,Pews, 2.
Rosenkoetter, S.E. (1994, Spring). Here they coAe--ready ornot. The Examiner, 1-4.
Rosenkoetter, S.E., Shotts, C.K., Streufert, C.A., Rosenkoetter,L.I., Barnes, K., & Bawatzky, D. (1994). Growing together:A guide to local interagency councils in Kansas servingchildren birth to two with special needs and their families.Produced for the Kansas Department of Health and Environmentby the BEST Project.
-Rosenkoetter, B.E., & :Motto, C.K. (1992). Goodbyes and hellos:Effective strategies for bridging early services. Video andaccompanying manual prepared for the Illinois State Board ofEducation; transmitted nationally by satellite by APPLESMagazine, Macomb, IL.
Shotts, C.K., & Rosenkoetter, S.E. (1992). Bridging early
53
17B
services: Interagency transition planning. Video andtrainer of trainers manual prepared in cooperation withMissouri First Steps/Department of Education.
5
29C
Attachment 5
SCHOLARLY ARTICLES AND CHAPTERS DURING OUTREACH PROJECT
Fowler, S.A., Hains, A.H., & Rosenkoetter, S.E. (1990). Thetransition between early intervention services andpreschool services: Administrative and policy issues.Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 24 55-65.
Fowler, S.A., Schwartz, I., & Atwater, J. (1991). Perspectiveson transition from preschool to kindergarten for childrenwith disabilities and their families. Exceptional,Children, Al(2), 136-145.
Hains, A. H. (1993). Strategies for preparing young childrenwith disabilities for the kindergarten mainstream. Journalof Early Intervention.
Hains, A.H., Rosenkoetter, S.E., & Fowler, S.A. (1991).Transition planning with families in early interventionprograms. Infants and Young Children, .2(4), 38-47.
Hazel, R., & Fowler, S.A. (1992). Program-to-programtransitions. In K.E. Allen, The exceptional child:Mainstremain in early education. Albany, NY: DelmarPublishing Company.
Kleinhammer-Tramill, P.J., Rosenkoetter, S.E., & Tramill, J.L.(1994). Early intervention and secondary/transition:Harbinghers of change in education. Focus on Exceptional.Children, n(2), 1-14.
Rosenkoetter, S.E. (1992). Guidelines from recent legislationto structure transition planning. Znfants and YoungChildren, .5.(1), 21-27.
Rosenkoetter, S.E. (1993). Transition planning: An importantpart of achieving Goal 1. The Record, 1Q(3), 73-82.
Shotts, C.K., Rosenkoetter, S.E., Streufert, C.A., &Rosenko, ter, L.I. (1994). Transition policy and issues:A view from the states. Topics in Early Childhood SpecialEducation, 11(3), 395-411.
55
29D
Attachment 6
REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION DURING OUTREACH PROJECT*
Number of Requests Geographic Area
95 West: Alaska, California, Colorado,Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico,Oregon, Utah, Washington
162 Upper Midwest: Illinois, Indiana,Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio,South Dakota, Wisconsin
443 Lower Midwest: Kansas, Missouri,Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas
38 Northeast: Connecticut, Maine,Massachusetts, New Hampshire, NewJersey, New York, Pennsylvania,Vermont, Washington, DC
68 South: Alabama, Delaware, Florida,Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland,Mississippi, North Carolina, SouthCarolina, Tennessee, Virginia
5 Miscellaneous: Canada, People'sRepublic of China, Taiwan
750 .Total requests
* Mote: List includes only those addresses in project fifes.More requests have been received and answered.
56
Bridging Early Services 18
VII. PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED AND THEIR RESOLUTION
The original application envisioned a straight-forward processof negotiating a service contract with leaders in each projectstate and then carrying out that project according to the agreedupon timeline. We found, however, that this initial plan was naivefor three reasons: 1) In 1990, state leaders for Part H and Part Band their interagency coordinating council were not necessarilyworking together (in some cases, they hardly communicated), so itwas not always possible at the outset to develop a single plan fora state. 2) Some state leaders were justifiably preoccupied withmajor initiatives apart from transition and did not have time towork with us on our time schedule (e.g., one state leader waited ayear to respond, then called and wanted to implement servicesassoon as possible). 3) State leaders who did not know us or ourwork well were not inclined to commit in writing to extensivepartnerships immediately; they wanted to "try out" the projectfirst in order to determine whether a relationship was worthwhile.We also found that developing relationships within a state andcoming to understand its unique issues of identity and politicstook longer for project staff than anticipated. In short,preparation had to procede dissemination to a much greater degreethan orignally anticipated. And services to states tended todevelop one step at a time rather than as part of master plan co-signed at the beginning of outreach.
Three objectives were modified. 1) State leaders did not wishus to sponsor a transition conference. They preferred, instead,for the project to present at existing conferences within theirstates. With permission from USDOE, the project abandoned plans tosponsor a conference in year 2. 2) BEST did not train a single"transition mentor" in each state to be a local coordinator.Rather several people in each state developed some compentenciesregarding transition to share with people in their state. Withoutpaying local coordinators, the project found that states were notwilling to commit major time for one person to assume the mentorrole. Also, given the breadth of many of these states, it provedhelpful to have more than one local expert available for assistanceto communities. 3) Plans to produce a videotape were abandoned dueto time constraints; a video will be produced during the 1993-96outreach project.
Initial personnel times were inadequate, and these weremodified in later applications. Nevertheless, nine states is alarge number to serve in a project such as this. Use of thesponsoring consortium's existing facilities and support personnel,part-time use of ACCK faculty with modest salaries, and cooperationfrom the university where Dr. Hains teaches allowed this project todo a great deal with limited funds.
Early in the current outreach project, the staff realized theimportance of parent co-leadership in conducting training. For
Bridging Early Services 19
example, Jo Gwost of Topeka, KS, presented together with projectprofessional staff at the full-day pre-conference workshop for theInternational Early Childhood Conference on Children with SpecialNeeds. Mrs. Gwost's perspective on transition (she has sixchildren, including two identified as gifted and two with mentalretardation) was invaluable in communicating both the rationale andspecific strategies for transition planning. However, even afterfunds to support a parttime parent staff member were obtained, theproject was unable to locate a suitable parent who was able to jointhe project staff long term and commit to the necessary travel.Accordingly, we employed a number of parents in different outreachareas to work with us when training occurred in their locale.These parents needed to share the philosophy embodied in our modelbut not to be technical experts in its application, as they usuallypresented together with professional staff. It has also been aBEST policy to have all project products critiqued by parents forreasonableness, for family friendliness, and for multi-ethnicsensitivity.
VIII. EVALUATION FINDINGS
As shown in Attachment 2, the evaluation design for BridgingEarly Services Project--Outreach has been an integral part of theoverall project plan. It provides for nesting evaluation withineach component of project services. It also allows forindividualization of evaluation questions and methods according toservices provided. Evaluation, thus, has multiple components, justas the project has multi-faceted services. Because the BridgingEarly Services Transition Model is a process, not a specificstructure or curriculum, it is continually adapted to changingregulations, state guidelines, and local needs. Evaluation datareflect that diversity in implementation.
A. Effectiveness of the Model with Children,Families, Service Providers, and Agencies
The origins i demonstration project, sponsored by theUniversity of Kansas, showed the efficacy of the transition model,which is illustrated in Attachment 1. Incorporation of the modelinto state and local service delivery results in a coherent systemfor transitions between services. This eases the stress oftransition for families and professionals and increases theadjustment and the learning of young children with disabilities whomove between programs. Additional elements have been validatedsince the original project, as will be discussed below.
Information concerning the effectiveness of the transitionmodel may be obtained from several sources, including parentopinion and satisfaction with the child's progress and transition;teacher opinion and satisfaction with the child's progress andtransition; child placement; and administrator opinion. Thesetypes of information have been collected for children who made a
58
Bridging Early Services 20
transition between programs in 1985, 1986, and 1987 and again in1992. Results show widespread support for this transition model.
garantalinignAncumtjatswram were assessed through aRetrospective Transition Interview (see Johnson, Chandler, Kerns, SiFowler, 1986). Parents indicated satisfaction with their child'spreparation for kindergarten and transition into kindergarten usingproject procedures. They also appreciated opportunities to talkwith a Transition Coordinator regarding their own concerns aboutthe transition.
Additional data were gathered on toddlers who moved to specialpreschool services across the state of Missouri (110 children in 11regions of the state) in 1992 using the model; analysis indicatedvery strong family approval of model procedures. Parentsespecially appreciated advance clarification of transitionprocedures as well as explanation of school expectations for parentparticipation. The statistically most significant change post-implementation of the BEST model was in opportunities fordiscussions with other parents regarding children's transitions.
Parents in Pensacola, FL, developed a parent transition manualbased upon the model. The manual is in wide use across Florida andwas recently presented at a national conference. A parent manualin Missouri was based upon the BEST Model, and parent groups inKansas and Wisconsin are in the process of doing the same. Parentswho attended BEST workshops in Kansas have also developed a parenttraining system on transition for the state. A mother in BrownDeer, WI, who attended a BEST workshop, managed her son'stransition to a community kindergarten. She then asked the projectif she could put her transition experience on videotape for sharingwith other parents. BEST supported this effort and hasdisseminated the videotape.
Teacher opinion and satisfaction were assessed through afollow-up questionnaire concerning child performance, completedonce at the end of the preschool year and three times throughoutthe kindergarten year. The mean and range of teacher satisfactionwith children's transition is presented in Attachment 7. Teacherswere generally satisfied with the transition plan. The follow-upevaluation also identified emergence of child behaviors of concern,such as particular pre-academic skills or social development. Theinformation concerning teacher satisfaction was then utilized bythe project to increase communication and problem solving betweenservice providers at different levels.
The 1987-88 outreach project followed 22 children in theirtransition from preschool to 10 kindergarten programs.Kindergarten teachers used an entry interview with parents ofkindergartners with disabilities (Conversation 3). The majority(80%) indicated that the transition interview was very helpful andthat they would use it again next year. Eighty percent of themalso indicated that the instrument was easily adaptable to theneeds of their individual programs and families; in fact several ofthe teachers planned to adapt and use the form with all of the
59
0 C 0 . - +-I 0 CO 4- (1)
ra Co
cn O co C ..- 4-*
CO
CC 10 W 0) (19. W > <
Ver
ys
Sat
isfie
d
Dis
-1
Sat
isfie
d
GO
Tea
cher
Sat
isfa
ctio
n w
ith B
ES
T T
rans
ition
Pla
ning
dur
ing
Chi
ldre
n's
Last
Yea
r of
Pre
scho
ol a
nd F
irst Y
ear
of K
inde
rgar
ten
N =
10 c
hild
ren
Pre
scho
olK
-Tim
e 1
K-T
ime
2K
-Tim
e 3
61
Bridging Early Services 21
children and families in their classrooms. Teachers felt thematerials and procedures that were used greatly improved theprocess of transition for themselves, as well as for children andfamilies.
Child placement data are useful short-term in judging theadequacy of the transition process. Prior to the recent push forinclusive placements, both school districts involved in thedemonstration project attempted to place children in the leastrestrictive environment (LRE) possible. Thus it was significantthat a year after the kindergarten placement, all 31 children werein their initial placement or a less restrictive one; thetransition model apparently functioned well to accomplish LRE forthose children.
During 1992-94, Bridging Early Services worked closely withschool and community leaders in Lindsborg, KS, to transition alleight of the local preschool children with disabilities (somesignificant) to the local early childhood center. Previously thesechildren had been riding 35-50 miles per day to attend a specialpreschool program in another community. This transition wascarefully evaluated, using both quantitative and qualitativemethods. Data were gathered from children, parents, specialeducators, therapists, early childhood educators, andadministrators. Both typical children and those with special needscontinued to develop well in the new placement; most striking wasthe increase in rate of language development, as evaluated withINREAL analysis, seen in the children with disabilities after theirmove to the local Children's Center. The transition wasaccomplished by meetings and introductory visits by children,parents, and teachers, by joint planning for the upcomingtransition, and by ongoing Bridging Early Services inservicing ofspecial educators, child care providers, and preschool teachers atthe Children's Center to help them develop team collaboration andproblem solving skills. After this successful transition, all ofthe children with special needs entered kindergarten in theirneighborhood school; most had been slated for busing to a specialeducation program in a town 18 miles away.
Administrator opinion was gathered in Lawrence, KS, andMcPherson, KS, demonstration sites. Transition proceduresimplemented in 1985 in both areas are still in use and stillfavorably rated. The three-county area centered by Pensacola, FL,implemented the project model in 1987; its administrators arehighly complimentary of the model and its impact on other types ofinteragency cooperation. Administrators in Eau Claire and BrownDeer, WI, are similarly favorable in their evaluation of the modeland its procedures.
,State leaders in Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Missouri, New Mexico,North Dakota, and Wisconsin (at least) have included the transitionprocedures and timeline developed by BEST in their state plansbecause they believe that it serves as a guideline for localprograms to satisfy legal requirements and ease transitions forfamilies. Taskforces facilitated
2by Bridging Early Servicer in
6
Bridging Early Services 22
four of those states have continued to develop transitionprocedures and resolve issues which arise.
The State of North Dakota is using a preschool-to-kindergartentransition training manual developed by the former project directorand, with her cooperation, has adapted the manual for use intransitions from infant programs to preschool programs. Likewise,state transition manuals developed by Bridging Early Services havereceived wide circulation (300-600 copies each) in Illinois,Missouri, and Wisconsin.
B. Evaluation of Outreach Efforts
Information about the effectiveness of outreach procedures hasbeen gathered from comments of attendees at project workshops basedon the model, by follow-up interviews with consumers to determinemodel implementation, and by critiques of project materials.
Evidence of effectiveness is available from 165 workshops andother presentations shared by project staff nationwide during thisoutreach period. During this outreach project, BEST staff haverecords of addressing 10,840 people. Evaluations of workshopexperiences have been extremely favorable concerning the usefulnessof the information and materials provided. Evaluations typicallyrate quality of presentation and effectiveness high (5 to 6 on a6-point acale; 4 to 5 on a 5- point scale); the quality ofmaterials (audio-visual and handouts) are also typically ratedhigh. See Attachment 3 for a list of workshops and otherpresentations. According to attendee reports, workshop andinservice presentations to professionals have produced changes intrams of
a. Awareness concerning the need for transition programming.Comments such as, "This workshop has given me insight as towhat must take place and what my responsibilities are intransition planning," and, "I see now that it's a good idea tocarry out (transition planning) throughout the year and toinclude transition in the IEP" are typical of workshopevaluations;
b. Interagency collaboration. Agency personnel typically leaveworkshops with a plan and an outline for the development of aninteragency agreement concerning transition. Comments frominteragency teams have included, "We realized we had nowritten agreements and plan to build one," and "It helped tohave agencies together at the same meeting to vent somefrustrations and to improve communications. Procedures werestarted to build an agreement";
c. Plans to include family collaboration in transitionprocedures. Participants often develop a list of activitiesthey can implement with families to involve them meaningfullyin transition planning, such as, "Encourage parents to visitreceiving programs," "Ask some experienced parents to help uswrite a parent manual on transition." "Have someone from the
63
Bridging Early Services 23
public school talk to our parents." "Include parents on ourinteragency council," and even "Allow parents to participatein their child's transition."
d. Program communication and follow-up procedures. Sending andreceiving teachers have indicated they plan to use each otheras a'resource in curriculum and goal development, to visiteach other's programs, and to communicate prior to and aftertransition. Some areas have scheduled joint inservicesessions. "It will be a new experience for the Head Start andkindergarten teachers to meet together to talk abouttransition, but we're going to try it." In one city,preschool and kindergarten teachers are meeting monthly toplan how to bridge services for transitioning children.
e. Teaming. Special educators and teachers of typicallydeveloping children often begin to see how they can worktogether to provide normalized experiences for children withdistbilities after transition. "I'm seeing how we sometimesuse the same words but we mean different things by them,"said one preschool teacher, "but when we work together we canmake the teaching appropriate for all the children in theroom."
Workshops conducted for families have reportedly helpedparents anticipate their children's growth in the new program, meetother parents and service providers from the new program, developways to participate meaningfully in their child's transition, andlearn about activities to do with their child at home that might bevaluable for transition to the new program.
Followup interviews were conducted with local administratorsat the first 12 locations of BEST workshops during the presentoutreach project. These interviews occurred an average of eightmonths after the workshop. 92% of respondents reported improvedlocal interagency planning on transition in their region, includingincreased communication and resulting written products. 92% alsoreported greater family involvement in planning for theirchildren's transition as a result of project materials and theworkshop presentation. Finally, 90% of respondents cited improvedtransition planning for individual children as a result of BESTtraining. A summary of these evaluation data appears in AppendixB.
In addition to formal presentations and workshops, projectstaff conducted hundreds of consultations on-site, by phone andfax, and at conferences. These conversations often helped consumersfind ways to overcome barriers which had arisen in their transitionplanning.
Letters in project files attest to the effectiveness ofproject materials for use by teachers and intervention programs.The Bridging Early Services book published by Paul BrookesPublishers, which contains a comprehensive presentation of projectphilosophy and materials, has reportedly been selling well.
64
Bridging Early Services 24
Evaluation of the Wisconsin manual by its recipients has shownthat 78% of the administrators responding have rated the manual"extremely useful" (see Appendix B).
One Missouri Project was comprehensive in nature. Togetherwith the Transition Planning Committee, BEST developed a videotapeand a trainer of trainers curriculum and brought together four teammembers from each of 11 regions of the State for preparation.These teams then returned home to facilitate transition planningwith 15-60 leaders (including parents) in each region. Both thetrainer of trainers session and the resulting workshops wereevaluated highly (see Appendix B), though the videotape was not.Followup surveys eight months after the Community TransitionWorkshops found significant impact of the BEST effort on Missouritransition planning. 88% reported changes in their transitionplanning procedures as a result of training. 97% said interagencyplanning had occurred or was being attempted. 97% had future plansfor improving transitions within their own agency and/or betweenagencies. 92% requested further technical assistance from BridgingEarly Services. See data summary in Appendix B.
IX. PROJECT IMPACT
In states where early childhood intervention services arethemselves in transition, this outreach project has encouragedtransition planning and related curriculum issues to be consideredin initial program development. In areas with establishedservices, the project has promoted,best practices as exemplified bythe model and has assisted personnel with interagencycollaboration, family involvement, or child/curriculum support, asneeded. Among the states targeted for technical assistance,services have developed in very different patterns. Some stateshave a coordinated system for technical assistance and personneldevelopment; other states are only beginning to develop suchstructures. Thus, it is obvious that different types of technicalassistance in different formats aimed at different outcomes wereneeded by various audiences among the states.
In spite of this diversity of demands, this outreach projecthas impacted children, families, service providers, administrators,state leaders, personnel trainers, and the broad early childhoodfield, as thoroughly detailed in Section VI, Description ofOutreach. Please consult that in-depth analysis.
The project worked in 17 states, providing intensive state andlocal services to five states and directly influencing formalstate-level transition policies in seven. It reachedprofessionals and parents in many parts of the country throughpresentations, workshops, print media, or technical assistance, aswell as through counsel to several of the regional educationlaboratories. Key facts include the following:
18 presentations to international or national conferences8 presentations to regional meetings139 presentations to state and local conferences
65
Bridging Early Services 25
* at least 10,840 persons addressed* seven transition manuals produced for/with states* nine scholarly articles published* one book published* 750 inquiries answered* numerous formal and informal consultations* 2,500 brochures distributed
If transitions are conducted well, young children have anincreased chance of school success, a most noteworthy impact(National Association of State Boards of Education, 1988).
In summary, it is demonstrable that this project has had abroad impact, with benefits to multiple groups:
1. Children with Disabilities. Children with disabilitiesgained from this project through an increased likelihood ofexperiencing success in new educational environments. The emphaseson placement of children in inclusive environments and on sharingstrategies for serving them there has begun to increase thefrequency of community placements in areas served. Early inclusionand educational success have the potential for spiraling throughthe students, lives (Salisbury & Vincent, 1990). Because programpersonnel, state leaders, and personnel trainers have been theprimary recipients of outreach training, the number of childrenbenefitting will increase each year, as these personnel work withadditional children.
2. Families of Children with Disabilities. Partnership inearly transition planning directly benefits families by increasingtheir competence and confidence to engage in future educationalplanning and service coordination (Hains, Rosenkoetter, & Fowler,1991; Lazzari & Kilgo, 1989). It helps to ensure that anappropriate setting is selected for the child, that the childbegins to develop some of the skills valued in the new environment,that the family knows its legal rights in the new setting, that thereceiving teacher is aware of some resources and priorities of thechild and the family, and that the family has developed a supportsystem for transition.
3. Agencies and Their Personnel. By receiving outreachtraining, programs are able to improve their transition planningand services. Efforts to implement this model result in improvedinteragency and interdisciplinary collaboration, which often hasbenefits beyond transition issues. Another area of assistance incertain local areas has been in the adoption of developmentallyappropriate curricula and teaching strategies which allow teachersto serve a greater diversity of children in a single toddler,preschool, or primary classroom.
4. State Leaders. State leaders have received assistance inimplementing the requirements of P.L. 102-119 for transitionplanning. This project has provided a source of information andtechnical support in problem-solving for some of the thorny issuesthat implementation of the new law has raised in their states, such
66
Bridging Early Services 26
as summer services, lack of responsiveness of senders or receivers,funding issues, and differences in eligibility criteria.
5. personnel Trainers. Sharing of materials and scholarlyarticles with personnel trainers has helped preserviceprofessionals to develop awareness of the need for transitionplanning with children and families and also to gain somestrategies for accomplishing it.
6. yield of Early Childhood Special Services. Sharing ofbest practices, consistent with the Bridging Early Services modeland validated during services to the local sites, is assisting thefield as a whole. The project's collaboration with several of theU.S.D.O.E.'s regional educational laboratories developing improvedtransition practices for public schools helps to ensure inclusionof children with disabilities in those plans.
X. STATEMENT OF FUTURE ACTIVITIES
As stated above, the Associated Colleges of Central Kansas wasfunded to provide for another three years (1993-1996) the outreachactivities of the Bridging Early Services Transition Project.Eigthteen months of that new project have elapsed. The new projectworks with three states in a significant way (Kansas, Missouri, andWisconsin) and to a lesser degree with four other states (Alaska,Connecticut, Florida, and Indiana).
In every case, learnings from the 1990-94 project areinforming current actions. It appears that project personnel arecontinuing to be especially useful in helping state and localleaders grapple with thorny issues surrounding the age threetransition for children with disabilities (Fowler, Mains, &Rosenkoetter, 1989) and the age five transition for all children,including those with disabilities (Rosenkoetter, 1994). BridgingEarly Services is also working in several parts of the nation tofoster local community planning for transition and related issuesas well as assisting communities in the transition to serviceprovision in more natural environments across the early childhoodage span. It is helping to develop a model procedure for hospitalto community transition and is pilot-testing a variety of ways tocontinue the use of IFSPs until age 6. Progress in these areaswithin target communities will be evaluated. Relevant data will beshared with the field and used to guide future decision-makingabout transition policy and practices.
XI. ASSURANCE STATEMENT
In accord with the request by the U.S. Department ofEducation, full copies of this report have been sent to the Officeof Special Education Programs and ERIC. Abstracts have been sentto all the addresses provided.
67
Bridging Early Services 27
REFERENCES
68
27A
REFERENCES
Administration for Children, Youth, and Families. (1988). Transition from preschool tokindergarten. Washington, DC: Author.
Bailey, D.B., McVVilliam, P.J., Winton, P.J., & Simeonsson, R.J. (1990). Implementingfamily - centered services in early intervention: A tem-based model for chance. Chapel Hill,NC: Univesity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Frank Porter Graham Child Development
Center.
Bredekamp, S. (Ed.). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs servingchildren from birth through ace 8. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education
of Young Children.
Carta, J. (1991). A longitudinal study of teachina skills for successful transition to kindergarten.Presented to the Society for Research in Child Development, Seattle, WA.
Chandler, L.K. (1992). Promoting children's social/survival skills as a strategy for transition tomainstreamed kindergarten programs. In S.L. Odom, S.R. McConnell, M.A. McEvoy (Eds.),Social competence of young children with disabilities. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes
Publishing Company.
Conn-Powers, M., Ross-Allen, J., & Ho !burn, S. (1990). Transition of young children into the
elementary education mainstream. iriggat LarlyChligitmacUlacialiducaton, 2(4), 91-105.
Cox, J.0., & Black, T. (1982). Analyzing costs of services. Chapel Hill, NC: TechnicalAssistance Development System.
Davis, L.N. (1974). plannina. conducting, and evaluatina workshops. Austin, TX: Learningconcepts.
Diamond, K.E., Spiegel-McGill, & Hanrahan, P. (1988). Planning for school transition: Anecological-developmental approach. Journal of the Division for Early Childhood, 12, 245-
252.
Dreiford Group. (1986). Managing change in a changing environment. Bethesda, MD: Author.
Dunst, C., Trivette, C., & Deal, A. (1989). n and w families: Principles nguidelines for practice. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
Edelman, L. (1992). Developing chariim anent skills: Keeping a "People-focus" duringorganizational chance. Baltimore, MD: Project Copernicus.
Eitington, J.E. (1989). The winning trainer. Houston: Gulf Publishing Company.
Elder, J.D., & Magrab, P.R. (Eds.). (1980). Coordinating services to handicapped children: Ahandbook of interagency collaboration. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishers.
Elmore, R.F. & Associates (1990). Restructuring schoolli The next aeneraltion of educaiionalreform. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass.
69
Fiechtl, B., Rule, S., & Innocenti, M.S. (1989). It's time to get ready for school. TEACHINGExceptional Children, 21, 63-65.
Fowler, S.A. (1980). Transition to public school. In K.E. Allen (Ed.), Mainstreaming in earlychildhood education. Albany, NY: Delmar Publishers.
Fowler, S.A. (1982). Transition from public school to kindergarten for children with special needs.In Allen, K.E., & Goetz, E.M. (Eds.), Early childhood education: Special problems. specialsolutions, (pp. 309-335). Rockville, MD: Aspen.
Fowler, S.A. (1986). Peer-monitoring and self-monitoring: Alternatives to traditional teachermanagement. Exceptional Children, 52, 573-582.
Fowler, S.A. (1988). Transition planning. TaArgiIIVakconijal Children, 2D, 62-63.
Fowler, S.A., Chandler, L.K., Johnson, T.E., & Stella, M.E. (1988). Individualizing familyinvolvement in school transitions: Gathering information and choosing the ner . program.Journal of the Division for Early Childhoosf,12, 208-216.
Fowler, S.A., Heins, A.H., & Rosenkoetter, S.E. (1989). The transition between early interventionservices and preschool services: Administration and policy issues. Topics in EarlyChildhood Special Education, 2 (in press).
Fowler, S.A., Schwartz, I., & Atwater, J. (1991). Perspectives on the traasition from preschool tokindergarten for children with disabilities and their families. fiscs,Iptional Children, 0(2),136-145.
Gallagher, J.J., Trohanis, & Clifford, R.M. (1989). Policy implementation & P.L. 99-457:Planning for Young children with special needs. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing
CO.
Goffin, S.G., & Steglin, D.A. (Ed.). Changing kindergartens: Four success stories. Washington,DC. National Association for the Education of Young Children.
Heins, A.H., Fowler, S.A., & Chandler, L.K. (1988). Planning school transitions: Family andprofessional collaboration. Journal of the Division for Early Childhood, 12., 108-115.
Heins, A.H.. Fowler, S.A., Schwartz, I.S., Kottwitz, E., & Rosenkoetter, S.E. (1989). Acomparison of preschool and kindergarten teacher expectations for school readiness. EarlyChildhood Research Quarterly, 4 75-88.
Haim, A.H., Rosenkoetter, S.E., & Fowler, S.A. (1991). Transition planning with families in earlyintervention programs. Infants and Young Children, 3(4), 38-47.
Hall, G., & Loucks, S. (1978). Teachers concerns as a basis for facilitating and personalizing staffdevelopment. Teacher College Record, B0(1).
Hanline, M.F. (1988). Making the transition to preschool: Identification of parent needs. Journal
of the Division for Early Childhood, 98-107.
70
27C
Han line, M.F., & Knowlton, A. (1988). A collaborative model for providing support to parentsduring their child's transition from infant intervention to preschool special education publicschool programs. Journal of the Qivision for Early Childhood, 11, 116-125.
Han line, M.F., Suchman, S., & Demmer le, C. (1989). Beginning public school. TEACHINGExceptional Children, ZI, 61-61.
Hazel, R., Barber, P.A., Roberts, S., Behr, S.K., Helmstetter, E., & Guess, D. (1988). Acommunity aooroach to an integrated service system for children with special needs.Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Company.
Hazel, R., & Fowler, S.A. (1992). Program-to-program transitions. In K.E. Allen, The exceptionalMainstream irchild: migsarlashildbpoildupatipn. Albany, NY: Delmar.
House of Representatives Report 102-198 from the Committee on Education and Labor, September11, 1991, on the Individuals with Disabilities Education Amendments of 1991.
Johnson, T.E., Chandler, L.K., Kerns, G.M., & Fowler, S.A. (1986). What are parents sayingabout school transitions? Journal of the Division for Early Childhood, 11(1), 10-17.
Johnson, B.H., McGonigel, M.J., & Kaufmann, R.K. (Eds.). (1989). Guidelines and recommendedpractices for the individualized family service plan. Chapel Hill, NC: National EarlyChildhood Technical Assistance System, and Washington, DC: Association for the Care of
Children's Health.
Kontos, S., & File, N. (1993). Staff development in support of integration. In C.A. Peck, S.L.Odom, & D.D. Bricker (Eds.), Integrating vouna children with disabilities into communityprograms. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Company.
Lazzari, A.M., & Kelly, J.L. (1989). Practical methods for supporting parents in early transitions.TEACHING Exceptional Children, 2Z, 40-43.
Loucks, S.F. (1983). The concerns-based adoption model. Chapel Hill, NC: TADS
Loucks, S. (1982). Planning for Dissemination. Monograph of the Handicapped Children's Earlyeducation Program, L Chapel Hill: Technical Assistance Development System.
Love, J.M., Logue, M.E., Trudeau, J.V., & Thayer, K. (1992). Transition to kindergarten in
American schools. (Final report of the National Transition Study). Portsmouth, NH: RMC
Research Corporation.
Lynch, E.W., & Hanson, M.J. (19921.. Developing cross-cultural competence: A guide for workingwith vouna children and their families. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Company.
Macy, D.J., & Schafer, D.S. (1985). Real-time cost analysis: Application in early intervention.Journal of the Division for Early Childhood, 2, 98-104.
McDonald, L., Kysela, G.M., Seibert, P., McDonald, S., & Chambers, J. (1989). Parentperspectives: Transition to preschool. TEACHING Exceptional Children, ZZ, 4-8.
McLean, M., & Hanline, M.F. (1990). Providing early intervention services in integrated
71
environments: Challenges and opportunities for the future. Topics in early childhood
special education, 1Q(2), 62-78.
Mc William, P.J., & Winton, P. (n.d.). Brass tacks: A self - rating of Family-focused Practices inearly intervention. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, FrankPorter Graham Child Development Center.
Morgan, J.L., Guetzloe, E.C. & Swan, W.W. (1991). Leadership for local interagency coordinatingcouncils. Journal of Early Intervention, 15(3), 225-267.
Morgan, J., & Swart, W.W. (1988). Lgcal interagency councils for preschool handicappedprograms. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University, Department of School
Murphy, M., & Vincent, L.J. (1989). Identification of critical skills for success in daycare. Journalof Early Intervention, 12, 221-229.
National Association of Elementary School Principals. (1990). Early childhood education and them n h.1 .rin .s f.r .r,m f r n hi .r:n.
Alexandria, VA: Author
National Association of State Boards of Education. (1991). Carina communities: Supportingvouno children and families. Alexandria, VA.
National Association of State Boards of Education. (1988). Right from the start: The report of theNASBE taskforce on early childhood education. Alexandria, VA. Author.
National Transition Forum. (1992). Strengthening linkages and the transition between earlychildhood education and the early elementary school. Jointly sponsored by theAdministration on Children, Youth, and Families of the U.S. Department of Health andHuman Services, and the Office of Educational Research and Improvement with the Officeof Elementary and Secondary Education of the U.S. DEpartment of Education, and theRegional Educational Laboratories, in Washington, DC (proceedings currently in draft form).
National Transition Forum. (1991). Sticking together: ngthening linkages and the transitionbetween early childhood education and early elementary school. Proceedings of a nationalpolicy forum jointly sponsored by the Administration on Children, Youth, and Families of theU.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and the Office of Educational Researchand Improvement with the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education of the U.S.DEpartment of Education, and the Regional Educational Laboratories, in Washington, DC.
NEC`TAS. (1990). NEC*TAS resource Packet: Least restrictive environment for infants, toddlers,and Preschoolers. Chapel Hill,, NC: Author.
Newlove, B.W., & Hall, G.E. (1976). A manual for assessing open-ended statement of concernabout an innovation. Austin, TX: University of Texas, Research and Development Center
for Teacher Education..
Noonan, M.J., & Kilgo, J.L. (1987). Transition services for early age individuals with severe
mental retardation. In R.N. Oanacone, & R.A. Stodden (Eds.), Transition issues anddirections. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
72
BEST COPY AVAILABLE
27E
Noonan, M.J., & Ratokalaw, N.B. (1991). Project profile - PPT: The preschool preparation andtransition project. lomaisfiaturts,Intervention, 15.(4), 390-398.
Administration/Council of Administrators or Special Education.
Olson, J. (1989). Meeting the challenge of change: Implementing P.L. 99-457. Tonics in EarlyChildhood 5oecial Education, 9(31 18-31.
Pensacola ARC. (1992). Building bridges: A family's guide to transitions. Pensacola, FL: Author.
Prue, D.M., & Fredericksen, L.W. (1982). Overcoming resistance to change. In L.W. Fredericksen(Ed.), Handbook of organization behavior management, New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Public Law 99-457. (Oct. 8, 1986). Amendments to the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Asa,
Public Law 101-336. (1990). Americans with Disabilities Act.
Public Law 102-119. (Oct. 7, 1991). Amendments to the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Rice, M.L., & O'Brien, M. (1990). Transition: Times of change and accommodation. Tonics inEarly childhood Soecial Education, 2(4), 1-14.
Rosenkoetter, S.E. (in press). Transition siustmin : An important piece of America 2000 - Goal 1.The Record.
Rosenkoetter, S.E., & Fowler, S.A. (1986). Teaching children to manage daily activity changes inthe classroom. TEACHING Exceptional Children,I2, 20-22.
Rosenkoetter, S.E., & Fowler, S.A. (1986). Teaching mainstreamed children to manage dailytransitions. TEACHING Exceotional Children, j.., 20-23.
Rosenkoetter, S.E., Heins, A.H., & Fowler, S.A. (in press). Bridaing early services: Transition,glannina for young children with special needs and their families. Baltimore, MD: Paul H.Brookes Publishers.
Rosenkoetter, S.E., & Larson, L. (December 16, 1992). Testimony to the Kansas Child Care
Advisory Board. Topeka, KS.
Rous, B. (1992). Proiect STEPS. Presentation to the Combined Meetings, Baltimore, MD.
Salisbury, C.L., & Vincent, L.J. (1990). Criterion of the next environment and best practice:Mainstreaming and integration 10 years later. Topics in Early childhood Special Education,
1Q, 78-89.
Sainato, D., & Lyon, S. (1989). Promoting successful mainstreaming transitions for handicappedpreschool children. Journal of Early Intervention, la, 305-314.
Shafts, C., & Rosenkoetter, S. (1992). ridaina early services: Interaaencv transition olannina(videotape, trainer of trainers manual, and particip'nt manua). Jefferson City, Mo:
73
27F
Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.
Shotts, C.K., Rosenkoetter, S.E., Rosekoetter, L.I., & Streufert, K. (submitted). A 50 state surveyof transition practices and needs.
Stokes, T.F., & Baer, D.M. (1977). An implicit technology of generalization. jpurnal of AppliedBehavior Analysis, 1Q, 349-367.
Strain, P.S. (1988). LRE for preschool children with handicaps:be doing. In N TA r- r k- : r: r* *v nvi nm n f r inf nand preschoolers. Chapel Hill, NC: NEC TAS.
What we know, what we should
Swan, W.W., & Morgan, J.L. (1993). cp.1.1P5oratino for comprehensive services for young childrenand their families: The local interagency council. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing
Company.
Topics in Early Childhood Special Education. (19901 10(21, Mainstreaming revisited.
Turnbull, A.P., & Turnbull, H.R. (1990). f amamiagraglandsiricx sgatstty te specialpartnership. Columbus: Merrill Publishing Company.
U.S. Department of Education. (1991). Pr e riroHLyoraachieving our first national education Goal Washington, DC: Author
Vincent, L.J., Laten, S., Salisbury, C., Brown. P., & Baumgart, D. (1981). Family involvement inthe educational process of severely handicapped students: State-of-the-art and directionfor the future. In B. Wilcox & R. York (Eds.), Quality educational services for the severelyhandicaooed; The federal perspective. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education,Division of Innovation and Development.
Vincent, L.J., Salisbury, C., Walter, G., Brown, P., Gruenwald, L.J., & Powers, M. (1980).Program evaluation and curriculum development in early childhood / special education:Criteria of the next environment. In W. Sailor, B. Wilcox, & L. Brown (Eds.), Methods ofinstruction for severely handicaooed students. Baltimore: Paul Brookes.
Weber, C.U., Foster, P.W., & Weikart, D.P. (1978). AG economic analysis of the Ypsilanti Perrypreschool Project. Ypsilanti, Ml: High Scope Educational Research Foundation.
Winton, P.J. (1990). A systematic approach for planning inservice training related to Public Law99-457. Infants and vouna children, 3.(1), 51-60.
Wolery. M. (1989). Transportation in.early childhood special education: Issues and procedures.Focus on Emotional Children. 22(2), 1-16.
Wolery, M., Strain, P.S., & Bailey, D.B. (1992). Reaching potentials of children with specialneeds. In S. Bredekamp, S. & Rosegrant, T. (Eds.), Reaching potentials: Aporooriatecurriculum and_assessment for vouna children (Vol 1). Washington, DC" NationalAssociation for the Education of Young Children.
Zigler, P. (1985). Saying goodbye to preschool. Young Children, AL 11-15.
74
Bridging Early Services 28
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Brochure, Staff, National Advisory Board
Appendix B: Evaluation Data
Bridging Early Services 29
APPENDIX A
BROCHURE, STAFF, NATIONAL ADVISORY BOARD
76
BR
IDG
ING
EA
RLY
SE
RV
ICE
S
TR
AN
SIT
ION
PR
OJE
CT
Ass
ocia
ted
Col
lege
s of
Cen
tral
Kan
sas
Dep
artm
ent o
f Spe
cial
Edu
catio
n10
5 E
ast K
ansa
s A
venu
eM
cPhe
rson
, KS
674
60P
hone
316
/241
-775
4F
AX
316
/241
-515
3
Sha
ron
Ros
enko
ette
r, P
h.D
.P
roje
ct D
irect
orA
ssoc
iate
d C
olle
ges
of C
entr
al K
ansa
s
Cyn
thia
Sho
tts, M
.Ed.
Pro
ject
Coo
rdin
ator
Ass
ocia
ted
Col
lege
s of
Cen
tral
Kan
sas
Ann
Hei
ns, P
h.D
..
Pro
ject
Ass
ocia
teU
nive
rsity
of W
isco
nsin
-Milw
auke
e
Kay
Str
eufe
rt, M
.A.
Pro
ject
Ass
ocia
teA
ssoc
iate
d C
olle
ges
of C
entr
al K
ansa
s
Dar
lene
Saw
atzk
yP
roje
ct A
ssis
tant
Ass
ocia
ted
Col
lege
s of
Cen
tral
Kan
sas
"17
The
Ass
ocia
ted
Col
lege
i of C
entr
al.
Kan
sas
is a
con
sort
ium
of s
ix.
inde
pend
ent c
olle
ges,
loca
ted
in 'r
ural
and
urba
n co
mm
uniti
es. S
irioe
197
2 .th
e.
cons
ortiu
m h
as o
ffere
d pe
rson
nel..
prep
arat
ion
prog
ram
s in
spe
cial
educ
atio
n, a
long
with
a v
arie
ty o
t oth
erse
rvic
es.
1.
AC
CK
facu
lty a
nd s
tude
ntS
wad
icl
osel
y w
ith e
arly
chi
ldho
od p
rogr
ams
and
scho
ol d
istr
icts
acr
oss
a w
ide
regi
on.
The
par
ticip
atin
g co
llege
s of
AC
CK
incl
ude:
.
Bet
hany
Col
lege
Und
sbor
g, K
ansa
s
Bet
hel C
olle
geN
orth
New
ton,
Kan
sas
Kan
sas
Wes
leya
n U
nive
rsity
Sal
ina,
Kan
sas
McP
hers
on C
olle
ge :-
McP
hers
on, K
ansa
s
Ste
rling
Col
lege
Ste
rling
, Kan
sas
Tab
or C
olle
geH
HIs
botv
, Kan
sas
Beg
inni
ngs
are
impo
rtan
t..
.
An
Out
reac
h P
roje
ct o
f the
U.S
. Dep
artm
ent o
f Edu
catio
nE
arly
Edu
catio
n P
rogr
amfo
r C
hild
ren
with
Dis
abili
ties
78
.461 1'
4*T
rans
ition
Pro
Jet
t
BE
GIN
NIN
GS
AR
EIM
PO
RT
AN
T.
..
A c
ritic
al n
eed
in e
arly
chi
ldho
od s
ervi
ces
is to
hel
p yo
ung
child
ren
with
spe
cial
nee
dsan
d th
eir
fam
ilies
find
and
adj
ust t
o ne
wse
rvic
e se
tting
s. G
ood
begi
nnin
gs r
equi
reca
refu
l pla
nnin
g an
d co
oper
atio
n.
WH
Y P
LAN
?
Wel
l-coo
rdin
ated
tran
sitio
ns w
ithpa
rtic
ipat
ion
by a
ll re
leva
nt p
artie
s pr
omot
e
plac
emen
t dec
isio
ns th
at m
eet t
hene
eds
of c
hild
ren,
fam
ilies
, age
ncie
san
d sc
hool
s.
unin
terr
upte
d se
rvic
es b
ecau
se p
aren
tsan
d pr
ofes
sion
als
have
the
info
rmat
ion
and
reso
urce
s th
ey n
eed
to c
ontin
uepr
ogra
mm
ing.
non-
conf
ront
atio
nal b
ut e
ffect
ive
mod
els
of a
dvoc
acy
that
fam
ilies
can
use
thro
ugho
ut th
eir
child
ren'
s liv
es.
avoi
danc
e of
dup
licat
ion
in a
sses
smen
tan
d go
al p
lann
ing.
redu
ced
stre
ss fo
r ch
ildre
n, fa
mili
es,
and
prof
essi
onal
s.
'79
WH
AT
WE
SH
AR
E
Brid
ging
Ear
ly S
ervi
ces
Tra
nsiti
on P
roje
cthe
lps
prof
essi
onal
s an
d pa
rent
s le
arn
how
topl
an a
nd im
plem
ent s
ucce
ssfu
l tra
nsiti
ons
early
inte
rven
tion
to p
resc
hool
ser
vice
s.
spec
ial p
resc
hool
toki
nder
gart
en-le
vel p
rogr
ams.
spec
ial p
rogr
ams
to in
clus
ive
com
mun
ity-b
ased
ser
vice
s.
Hea
d S
tart
to k
inde
rgar
ten
Our
con
sulta
tion
is b
ased
on
rese
arch
and
impl
emen
tatio
n co
nduc
ted
sinc
e 19
76 in
dive
rse
area
s of
the
Uni
ted
Sta
tes.
The
BE
ST
Pro
ject
offe
rs th
e fo
llow
ing
outr
each
ser
vice
s:
trai
rng
and
tech
nica
l ass
ista
nce
to lo
cal t
rans
ition
pla
nner
sin
clud
ing
loca
l int
erag
ency
coor
dina
ting
coun
cils
, par
ent
grou
ps, c
omm
unity
age
ncie
s,an
d pu
blic
sch
ools
.
tech
nica
l ass
ista
nce
to s
tate
ICC
s, C
SP
Dpl
anne
rs, p
aren
tce
nter
s, a
nd o
ther
per
sonn
eltr
aine
rs.
pres
enta
tions
to n
atio
nal
audi
ence
s.
info
rmat
ion,
mat
eria
ls, a
ndre
sour
ces.
WH
ER
E T
O B
EG
IN
Fou
r st
rate
gies
are
rec
omm
ende
d to
ass
ist
child
ren
and
fam
ilies
with
tran
sitio
ns:
inte
rage
ncy
coor
dina
tion
betw
een
the
send
ing
and
rece
ivin
g pr
ogra
ms,
est
ablis
hing
writ
ten
timel
ines
for
tran
sitio
n, in
divi
dual
ized
fam
ilyin
volv
emen
t, an
d tr
ansi
tion
curr
icul
umpl
anni
ng e
nd in
stru
ctio
n an
d en
viro
nmen
tal
mod
ifica
tion
to h
elp
child
ren
expe
rienc
esu
cces
s in
thei
r ne
w s
ettin
g.
Val
idat
ed p
roce
dure
s an
d in
stru
men
tsar
epr
ovid
ed fo
r:
inte
rage
ncy
agre
emen
ts.
com
mun
icat
ion
betw
een
hom
e an
din
terv
entio
n pr
ogra
ms.
fam
ily in
volv
emen
t in
deci
sion
mak
ing.
cons
truc
tion
of a
pro
gram
tran
sitio
ntim
elin
e.
deve
lopm
eut o
f a tr
ansi
tion
timel
ine
with
in th
e IF
SN
IEP
for
each
chi
ld a
ndfa
mily
.
iden
tific
atio
n of
loca
l age
ncie
s fo
rre
ferr
al.
supp
ort f
or th
e ch
ild in
bot
h th
ese
ndin
g an
d re
ceiv
ing
prog
ram
thro
ugh
curr
icul
um p
lann
ing,
inst
ruct
ion,
and
env
ironm
enta
lm
odifi
catio
ns.
way
s to
wel
com
e th
e ch
ild a
nd fa
mily
into
the
new
pro
gram
.
eval
uatio
n of
the
tran
sitio
npr
oced
ures
.
80
STAFF OF BRIDGING EARLY SERVICES TRANSITION PROJECT -- OUTREACH1990-1994
Project Director: Sharon Rosenkoetter, Ph.D., 1990-1994
Project Coordinator:
Financial Officer:
Project Associates:
Project Consultants:
Gay Woods, M.S., 1990-91Cynthia Shotts, M.Ed., 1991-1994
Bruce Karstadt, J.D., 1990Douglas Penner, Ph.D., 1990-1994
Cynthia Shotts, M.Ed., 1990-1991Diana Bartus, M.A., 1991-1993Carolyn Streufert, M.A., 1991-1994
Ann Hains, Ph.D., 1990-1994Susan Fowler, Ph.D., 1990-1991James Tramill, Ph.D., 1991-1993Ilene Schwartz, Ph.D., 1992
Project Assistant: Darlene Sawatzky, 1990-1994
ACCK Consultants: P.J. Klinehammer-Tramill, Ph.D., 1990-1993Deborah Bailey, Ph.D., 1990-1994Gavin Doughty, Ph.D., 1990-1994Lorene Goering, M.A., 1990-1994Beverly Smith, M.A., 1990-1994James Parker, M.A., 1990-1994
Local/Family Consultants: Jo GwostKelli BarnesLinda AndersonAnn SpoonerJosie TorrezOthers
81
29D
BRIDGING EARLY SERVICES TRANSITION PROJECTNATIONAL ADVISORY BOARD
Carol BermanNational Center for Clinical Infant Programs
2000 14th Street, North, Suite 380Arlington, VA 22201-2500703/528-4300
Joan BlaskaCenter for Child and Family StudiesEducation Building 8118720 South 4th AvenueSt. Cloud State UniversitySt. Cloud, MN 56301-4498612/255-3251
Ken BrockenbroughNECTASCB# 8040, 500 NCNB PlazaChapel Hill, NC 27599919/962-2001
Mary Beth BruderMRI - Early Intervention ServicesCedarwood HallNew York Medical CollegeValhalla, NY 10595-1689914/285-7052
Judy CartaJuniper Gardens Children's Project2021 N. 3rd StreetKansas City, KS 66101913/621-1712 or 913/321-3143
Lynette ChandlerDepartment of Educational Psych.Counseling and Soecial EducationNorthern Illinois UniversityDe Kalb, IL 60115-2854815/753-0657
Mary Frances Han lineDepartment of Special EducationThe Florida State UniversityTallahassee, FL 32306-3024904/644-4880 or (H)- 904/386 -5848
82
Barbara JacksonProject Conbtinuity, Meyer Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of Nebraska Medical Center600 S. 42ndOmaha, NE 68198-5450402/559-7451
John KilloranSpecial Education SectionState Office of Education250 E. 5th Street SouthSalt Lake City, UT 84111801/538-7700
Deb Nelson5911 West 84th StreetOverland Park, KS 66207913/642-3941
Mary Jo NoonanDepartment of Special EducationUniversity of HawaiiWist Hall 208176 University AvenueHonolulu, HI 96822808/956-7956
Marion O'BrienHaworth Hall - Fourth FloorUniversity of KansasLawrence, KS 66045913/864-4840
Diane SainctaEducational Services and Research356 Arps Hall1945 N. HighColumbus, OH 43210614/292-8787
83
29E
Bridging Early Services 30
APPENDIX B
EVALUATION DATA
84
WORKSHOP EVALUATION
Check the category that best describes you:
Infant Specialist/Early InterventionistEarly Childhood Special EducatorCommunity Preschool/Day Care TeacherKindergarten-Level TeacherHead Start TeacherParaprofessional or AideNurse
Please rate the following aspects of this presentationwhich most closely reflects your opinion:
30A
For results,DATE: sec. Attachment 3
Social WorkerTherapist (type:ParentAdministrator (type:ResearcherPsychologistOther (please list)
by circling the rating number
PoorRelevance of topic discussed 1 2 3 4Scope/breadth of presentation 1 2 3 4
Usefulness of information 1 2 3 4
Quality of presentation 1 2 3 4Opportunity for participation 1 2 3 4Usefulness of handouts 1 2 3 4Overall rating 1 2 3 4
1. Please list your favorite part(s) of this workshop.
2... Please list your suggestions for improving this workshop.
3. What from this session will help you do your job better?
4. How might Bridging Early Services assist you in the future?
5. Other comments or questions:
Return to: Associated CAeges of Central Kansas105 East Kansas AvenueMcPherson, Kansas 67460
Contact: (316) 241-7754 for additional information
85
Excellent5 65 65 65 65 65 65 6
.. 42Trans lion Project
Results in narrative
OUTCOMES OF BRIDGING EARLY SERVICES TRANSITION (BEST) PROJECT
Training event: 5
Date of training: 6
1
237
Date of phone interview
1. Has interagency planning for improving the transitions of young children and their
families occurred as a result of the materials and presentation from the Bridging Early
Services Transition project? If so, what benefits to the agencies have resulted from
your intei agency planning? Have transition procedures been formalized with written
products (trans:tion resource manual, timeline, common referral form, common release
of information form, written interagency agreement, transfer of records procedure, or
other specific procedure)?
2. Have families of young children with disabiities been involved with transition
planning for their children as a result of the materials and presentation? If so, what
benefits to families have occurred?
3. Has transition planning for individual children as they move between early
intervention, early childhood or kindergarten programs occurred as a result of the
materials and training provided by the BEST project? If so, what benefits for the
children have been observed?
Results in narrative 30C
Thank you for taking time to provide information which will help to improve transitionplanning for Miszouri children and their families!
Name Phone
Please select the term which best describes you:Parent Regional Center ProgramSpecial Health Care Needs Public school early childhood special education
1. What transition planning has occurred in your program as a result of yourparticipation in the Community Transition Workshop? If you are a parent, pleaseanswer about transition planning for your child.
2. What interagency transition planning has occurred?
3. What are your plans for future work on transition planning:A. within your program?
B. with an interagency group?
4. Would you like additional technical assistance from Bridging Early ServicesTransition project staff?
Phone consultation when questions ariseA local or cluster interagency workshopAdditional written materialsConsultation with your local taskforceTraining for family services coordinators/teachers in working with families toplan individual children's transitionsWorkshop with and for parents in planning for their children's transitionsOther assistance (please explain your individual needs)
Results in narrative 30D
Bridging Early Services Transition Project Evaluation Plan
I. Evaluation of training conferences.A. Facilitators' training.
1. One page evaluation will be completed by participants at the endof the training.(F1)
2. After the Community Transition Workshops have beenheld, the facilitator will complete a one pageevaluation. (F2)
B. Community Transition Workshops.1. Each participant will complete a one page workshop
evaluation.(CTW1)2. The facilitators will complete a workshop outcomes
evaluation with the participants as part of the lastsegment of the workshop.(CTW2)
II. Evaluation of change in transition practices using a pretest, post-test design.A. Community Transition Workshop participants-group 1.
1. Pretest:a. Each participant will complete a preconference transition selfassessment survey with other program staff. These will be mailedto participants with other preconference information approximatelythree weeks before the workshop. Facilitators will complete thesame self assessment before the facilitators' training.(SA1)b. Participants will bring two copies of the selfassessment to the Community Transition Workshop. Onecopy will go the project staff for analysis. One copywill be used at the workshop and the participant willtake it with them. A person at the workshop should bedesignated to make extra copies if participants havenot brought two copies. Large prestamped envelopes willbe provided to the facilitators by the project formailing.c. After comparing the list of participants with thereturned pretests, project staff will follow-up byphone any persons for which a pretest was not received.
2. Post-test.a. The post-test will be mailed to all participantsfor which we have a copy of the pretest by the BESTproject.b. The post-test will be mailed about October 25, 1992with a return date of November 12, 1992. BEST staffwill follow up by phone beginning November 16.c. The post-test will be the same self assessment donebefore the workshops, and will again be completed withother staff within each program or agency.
30E
d. A letter of support from state level agencyadministrators will be inlcuded with the post-test, ifadministrators agree. This may help to emphasize theneed for this follow-up evaluation.
B. Pretest, post-test control--group 2.1. Selection of control group participants.
a. Ask state to provide a list of all school districts and a contactperson (ECSE coordinator or special education coordinator).Districts which will not be represented at the facilitator orCommunity Transition Workshops will be marked.b. These variables will be identified:
(1) programs which began ECSE services prior to Fall, 1989.(2) rural, mid-size, urban.(3) region of the state: Northeast, Northwest,Central, Southeast, Southwest.(or other systemalready used in the state to identify regions)
c. Invited programs which do not attend the trainingwill already have received the preconference selfassessment.d. A stratified sample will be selected from the listof school districts using the factors listed above.e. Sample size will be determined by the number ofpossible districts that can be included. Group 2 andgroup 3 will be selected from this list. The samplesshould be as large as possible since return rate may belower than desired.
2. The pretest will be mailed to Group 2 before theCommunity Transition Workshops, March, 1992, with areturn date of April 15, 1992. Phone follow-up willbegin April 20.
3. A letter of support from state level administrators ifthey agree will help to emphasize the importance of theevaluation. (to be included in evaluation mailing)
4. The post-test will be sent and returned on the sameschedule as the post-test for group 1.
5. Programs which complete the pre and post-tests willbe offered Interagency Transition Planning Manuals as anincentive.
C. Post-test only control-group 3.1. Sample selection will be from the same list and using
the same stratification variables as in Group 2.2. Group 3 will receive the post-test on the same
schedule as Groups 1 and 2.3. An incentive gift of Interagency Transition Planning Manuals will be
offered to those who complete the evaluation form.
2 89
30F
Ill. Evaluation of change in transition practices using a pre- and post-training
parent survey.A. Pre-training parent survey-Parent group 1.
1. Sample selection.a. Programs selected will be Bureau of Special Health CareNeeds and Regional Centers First Steps family servicecoordinators who will attend the facilitators' training.Factors for analysis:
(1) Geographic region in the state: Northeast,Northwest, Central, Southeast Southwest.(2) Rural, mid-size, and urban areas,total-22 First Steps programs. N=22 programs.
b. Selection of individuals within programs: N= 220
(1) 10 families from BSHCN and 10 families from Regional
Center programs will be identified by the service coordinators.
(2) The first 10 families whose children weretransitioned from First Steps into a public schoolearly childhood special education program after August1. 1991 will be identified to be part of the study.If there are more than 10 who transitioned on thatdate, the service coordinator will identify the first 10 byalphabetical order.
2. A Parent Satisfaction Scale will be distributed to theidentified parents by the service coordinators. Postage andprinting will be done by the BEST project. Parents willreturn the survey using a stamped envelope attached totheir survey. Surveys will be mailed after thefacilitators' training. Facilitators who representselected programs and who agree to participate will bebriefed about the selection process during a lunchmeeting at the facilitators training.Return date for the survey will be April 20, 1992.
3. The survey will identify which school district the child attends, sothat comparisons between programs which began before 1989after 1989 can be made.
4. No parent information or identification will be included
on the survey, so confidentiality will be maintained.Only the demographic information will be identified;region, size, and age of program.
B. Post-training parent evaluation-Parent group 2.
1. Programs for this group will be the same as thoseidentified for Parent Group 1.
2. The parent group will be selected in the same way asfor Parent Group 1 except this group will be the first10 who made the transition after August 1, 1992.
3 00
30G
SUMMARY OF ADMINISTRATOR'S SURVEY
N =12; written survey mailed with telephone interview. Respondents were
administrators who had requested BEST training for their locality or state.
Has interagency planning for improving the transitions of young children and their
families occurred as a result of the materials and presentation from the BEST project?
92% YES
Benefits to the agencies that have resulted that were mentioned were:
Increased communication and collaboration across agencies. (8)
Improved team skills and problem solving.Regular interagency transition planning meetings.
Written products have resulted: (8)Resource directoryWritten timelinesInteragency transition planInteragency Memorandum of Agreement for transition activities
Common release formTransition procedure section of personnel manual
Have families of young children with disabilities been involved with transition planning
for their children as a result of the materials and presentation? What benefits to
families have occurred?
92%--YES,(one person said benefits were limited)
Benefits to families mentioned were:
Reduced stress for families with more communication. (8)
Parents have more knowledge of program options and are able to participate
more effectively in decision-making. (6)Parents visit program options. (5)Written materials have been developed for parents during transition. (2)
Has transition planning for individual children occurred as a result of the materials and
training provided by the BEST project? If so, what benefits for the children have been
observed?
90%--YES
Benefits to children that were mentioned:
Longer timelines for transition act; vides allow a gradual process with less
stress. (8)
91
3011
Children visit their new placement before starting. (3)Individual transition plans are used. (3)More appropriate placements. (3)Equipment and related services are in place. (2)The evaluation process is less stressful to children, the programs are flexible in
where and how the evaluation will be done. (1)The process allows for follow-up after the transition. (1)
92
301
SUMMARY OF OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONS FROM MISSOURI; FALL 1992Respondents had received training at the Community Transition Workshop the
previous spring. This summary is with the first 36 who answered.
N =36
1. Transition planning occurred in their program as a result of the workshop.
83% said their program had changed their transition planning procedures as aresult of the training.
5% said they were in the informal or beginning stages, but were working outdetails.
5% did not change transition procedures they already had in place.3% had not had any referrals for preschool special education.3% did not feel the questions applied to the program.
Changes mentioned:An individual transition conference for each child and family.Development of a timeline.Parent/child visits.Improved referral process.Development of a consistent procedure.Staff visits to possible placements.Parent participation in developing the transition plan.Scheduling evaluations one month prior tot he 3rd birthday.Revision of forms.Preparation of families on a longer timeline.
2. Interagency transition planning has occurred in the community as a result of thetransition training.
92% said interagency planning had occurred.5% said details were being worked on or needed focus.3% said no planning had occurred.
Interagency planning that was mentioned:Formation of an interagency committee or focus of existing council with better
communication between agencies as a result. (25)Written policies, timeline, manual, or other written interagency procedures. (12)(these are in process in most cases)Planning for coordinated referral and screening. (4)
3. When asked about future plans for improving transitions, 97% of the respondentsreported ongoing or planned activities either within their own agency or betweenagencies.
93
303
Activities mentioned:Integrate transition planning at all levels.Focus on another transition (age 5).Complete written transition agreement, procedures, manuals. etc.Involve parents in identifying future needs for planning.Provide inservice training.imprciement of documentation.Continue interagency communication.Involve a broader group for planning.
4.. 92% of the respondents requested further technical assistance from the BESTproject. (materials, consultation, parent training, staff training)
91
Eva
luat
ion
of T
rans
ition
Man
uals
Req
uest
ed b
yW
isco
nsin
BE
ST
Pla
nnin
g C
omm
ittee
and
sen
t to
300
Wis
cons
in A
genc
ies
32 p
erso
ns fi
lled
out t
he p
ostc
ards
with
man
y of
them
ans
wer
ing
mor
e th
an o
ne it
em In
a g
iven
sec
tion.
Ple
ase
circ
le a
ppro
pria
te r
espo
nses
and
put
car
d in
mai
lbox
with
in th
ree
days
.
1. T
his
reso
urce
will
be
usef
ul in
our
age
ncy'
s w
ork.
very
muc
hso
me
not a
t all
don'
t kno
w25
51
1
2. T
he s
ectio
n th
at w
ill b
e m
ost u
sefu
l is
tran
sitio
n ov
ervi
ew 1
0se
rvic
es to
chi
ldre
n 6
eval
uatio
n 2
refe
rnec
es1
fam
ily p
artic
ipat
ion
10in
tera
genc
y is
sues
15
form
s/to
ols
for
plan
ning
6al
l sec
tions
4
Not
sur
e 1
3. T
ype
of a
genc
y:ea
rly In
terv
entio
n pr
ogra
m 1
5st
ate
inte
rage
ncy
coun
cil
1 (L
ocal
not
sta
te)
coun
ty a
dmin
istr
ativ
e le
ad a
genc
y 11
priv
ate
agen
cy 2
scho
ol d
istr
ict 2
pare
ntpe
rinat
al c
ente
r 1
Hea
d S
tart
1
othe
r 4
4. C
omm
ents
:
- W
ell o
rgan
ized
with
muc
h us
eful
info
rmat
ion
- C
urre
ntly
wor
king
on
tool
s to
enh
ance
tran
sitio
n. T
HA
NK
S!
- O
ur a
genc
y al
so tr
ansi
tions
chi
ldre
n th
ru 8
th g
rade
and
this
info
rmat
ion
can
appl
y-
Tha
nks
for
shar
ing
this
info
rmat
ion
- F
orm
s us
ed b
y ot
her
agen
cies
hel
pful
- T
hank
you
ll-
Sin
ce o
ur p
rogr
am is
new
, all
sect
ions
will
be
used
. Tha
nk y
ou fo
r th
is b
ookl
et.
- T
hank
s!-
Goo
d re
sour
ce to
gui
de p
roce
dure
and
pra
ctic
e-
Ent
ire p
ublic
law
hel
pful
.H
ard
to c
hoos
e a
best
sec
tion
- T
hank
s fo
r al
l the
har
d w
ork
- In
tere
stin
g th
at tr
ansi
tions
hav
e be
en ta
king
pla
ce e
ffect
ivel
y in
mos
t cas
es fo
r 15
yea
rs, n
ow w
e ar
e bo
mba
rded
with
pro
cess
es a
ndpr
oced
ures
for
it.-
Thi
s re
sour
ce c
onta
ins
muc
h va
luab
le In
form
atio
n -
it w
ill b
e a
usef
ul to
ol!
- E
xcel
lent
res
ourc
e!-
We
have
use
d su
cces
sful
tran
sitio
n sk
ills
for
a nu
mbe
r of
yea
rs.
96
30K
SUMMARY OF EVALUATION:MISSOURI COMMUNITY TRANSITION WORKSHOPS
-October 23, 1992
Facilitator evaluation of training, March 18, 1992
N=25 (all ratings are on a six point scale with 1 low) reported as means
Relevance of topic discussed 4.84Usefulness of information 4.44Quality of presentation 4.44Opportunity for participation 4.66Usefulness of handouts 4.64Usefulness of video 4.09Overall rating of training 4.48
Facilitator evaluation of training after CTW
N=40 (same format as done immediately
Relevance of topic discussed 5.03Usefulness of information 4.82Opportunity for participation 4.32Usefulness of handouts 4.53Usefulness of video 3.68Format of workshop plan* 4.13Overall rating of training 4.55
after training, except starred item)
Community Transition Workshop participant evaluation
N =164 (same format as Facilitators)
Relevance of topic discussed 5.21Usefulness of information 5.00Quality of presentation 4.85Opportunity for participation 5.00Usefulness of handouts 5.03Usefulness of video 3.97Overall rating 4.93
97