Illinois Autism/PDD Training and Technical Assistance Project Illinois’s Work Toward a Data-Driven System of Support for Students with Autism Spectrum.

Illinois Autism/PDD Training and

Technical Assistance Project

Illinois’s Work Toward a Data-Driven System of Support for Students with Autism Spectrum Disorders

PBIS Forum for ChangeOctober 11, 2007

Kathy Gould, IATTAP Project DirectorBarbara Sims, Illinois State Board of Education

Project Design History

Illinois Illinois Autism/PDD Autism/PDD Training and Training and

Technical Technical Assistance ProjectAssistance Project

Parents as informed & educated consumers

Wide array of effective intervention models

“Trainer of trainers” team model

Began in 1998 as a three year Statewide Project funded through ISBE

Current Project Design

Illinois Autism/PDD Training and Technical Assistance Project

IS-TAC ISBE TA Initiatives – Barbara Sims

On-line Courses - Illinois State University

Family Support – FFSASD

District/School Teams

State Leadership Team

Web- based Evaluation System

Experiential Team TrainingsExperiential Team Trainings

Week long guided practice

Apply a variety of teaching strategies

Include typical peers, Illinois learning standards

*self-assessments/action planning

*team monthly coaching

SCHOOL-WIDE SYSTEMSCurrent Status: Level

ofImplementation

Feature Need for Improvement

In Place

Partial in

Place

Not in

Place

School-wide is defined as involving all students, all staff and all settings.

High Med Low

10 6 5 8) Schools implement policies regarding school-wide supports and strategies for students with ASD.

5 8 4

15 8 7 9) School-based problem solving teams are in place and have necessary skills to develop/implement effective interventions for students with ASD.

6 10 4

5 14 6 10) School-based teams use data-based decision making to ensure progress of students with ASD.

11 5 2

Self-Assessment Surveys used with IEPA Teams

Current Status: Self-Assessment and Support of Illinois Educational Programs for Autism

Comparison across Systems SAMPLE Jan 2007

10

55

35

20

59

20.5

43

3027

69

21

10

41

49

10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

In Place Partially in Place Not in Place

per

cen

tag

e o

f re

spo

nse

s

District Systems

School-Wide Systems

Non-Classroom Systems

Classroom Systems

Individual Systems

Priority for Improvement: Self-Assessment of Implementation and Support of Illinois Educational Programs for Autism

Comparison across Systems SAMPLE Jan 2007

55

35

20

51

28

21

3033

37

17

48

35

27

50

23

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

High Med Low

per

cen

tag

e o

f to

tal

resp

on

ses

District Systems

School-Wide Systems

Non- Classroom Systems

Classroom Systems

Individual Systems

Team Action PlanningSelf Assessment Summary

For each System Area, follow steps below

Overall Perception

District School-Wide Non-Classroom Classroom Individual

1. Use the EIS Survey summary to rate overall perception of implementation – circle High, Med or Low

HighMedLow

HighMedLow

HighMedLow

HighMedLow

HighMedLow

2. Using the Survey, list three major strengths

a.b.c.

a.b.c.

a.b.c.

a.b.c.

a.b.c.

3. Using the Survey, list three major areas in need of development.4. For each system, circle one priority area for focusing development activities.

a.b.c.

a.b.c.

a.b.c.

a.b.c.

a.b.c.

5. Define activities for this/next year’s focus to support area selected for development.

6. Specify system(s) to sustain(S) & develop(D)

What about the child and family?

FY2005 School Consultation Model

15 School/Parent Teams participated in intensive consultation and trainingwith three consultants

7 Chicago Suburban area4 Central Illinois4 Southern Illinois

SystematicInformationManagementfor EducationOutcomes

School Consultation Model Piloted with

FY2005

14 students/team data entered

7 students with multiple data points

Multi-disciplinary Team/ IATTAP facilitator

Tracked on a variety of information and risk factors/ 3 month intervals

Is Student's Placement At-Risk?

1.27

1 1

1.55

1.2

11

1.25

1.5

1.75

2

Baseline Quarterly Discharge

Home Risk School Risk Community Risk

FY 2005 SIMEO

Autism Related Behaviors Demonstrating the Greatest Improvement

1.8

1.451.61.8

0.70.6

0.60.45

0.730.80.9

1.2

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

Baseline Time 1 Time 2

Aggression Anxiety Agitation Self-Injury

FY 2005 SIMEO

From School Consultation to

Focus Family Support

Attended FFPBS training at West Virginia Autism Training Center

3 days training on the family-focused model

Completed our own PATH

Brought back FFPBS information

Worked with Illinois State Board of Education on grant priorities

The Changing Focus of IATTAP

The Changing Focus of IATTAP

From School Consultation

– School entry point – School agreements for consultation– School observation– Some home/community observation– Report with recommendations, training

and follow-up

To FFSASD

– Home entry point– Use of Community Partners and

Education Facilitators– Family Frames– Team development– PATH– Action plans– Continued support

The Changing Focus of IATTAP

Focus Family Support 06-07

70 families began the FFSASD Process

59 entered into SIMEO

11 FFSASD families - launched

Evaluation Tools

Assessment Schedule

Data Collection Methodology

Data Storage and Graph Retrieval

SIMEO 07

FY 2007 SIMEO Demographics • 85% Male

• 85% have diagnosis of “Autism”

• Median age 10.5 years

• 93% Caucasian

• 56% Living with single mother

• 52% at-risk for failing home, school and/or community placement

10

5

7

9 9

6

1

6

12

3

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007

Baseline Time 2 Time 3 Time 4 or more

9 students10 students

27 students

SIMEO Autism Evaluation Capacity Increases

Increase in Data Useby Family Focus Facilitators

IATTAP: Use of Data at Team Meetings

27 27 29

3

1422

47

1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Baseline Time 2 Time 3 Time 4

Number of Meetings without data use Number of Meetings with data use

IATTAP Data Summary CohortClassroom Behavior Functioning

IATTAP Classroom Behavioral Functioning (N=27)

2.58

1.812.13

2.65 2.9

2.33

1.31

1.95

1

2

3

4

Baseline Time 2

Completes Assignments on Time* Pays Attention**

Participates in Activites** Appropriate Behav Unsupervised**

*=Approaching statistically significant change**=Statistically significant change

AlwaysAppropriate

SometimesAppropriate

SeldomAppropriate

NeverAppropriate

IATTAP Data Summary CohortSchool/Classroom Inclusion

IATTAP School/Classroom Inclusion (N=27)

2.332.45

3.07

3.31

2.77

2.04

2.44

2.22

1

2

3

4

Baseline Time 2

Daily Schedule Visable** System for Communicating Peers/Teachers**

Completes w ork independently** Transitions Independently**

**=Statistically significant change

Always

Sometimes

Seldom

Never

IATTAP Data Summary CohortStudent Placement Risk: Home, School and Community

IATTAP Student Placement Risk

1.48

2.92

1

2

3

4

Baseline Time 2

Placement Risk (N=27*)

*=P<.000

High Risk

ModerateRisk

Low Risk

No Risk

Assessment of Training Strengths and Needs by Environment

2.4

2.162.3

2.1

2.7

2.4

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Baseline Time 21=

Hig

h N

ee

d

4

=H

igh

Str

en

gth

Home Community School

FY 2007 Training Need Decreases in Home, School and Community

IATTAP Data Summary CohortFamily Stressor by Type

N=27 (*Categories Not Mutually Exclusive)

IATTAP Family Stressors by Type

14

711

23

11

4 5

14

47

05

1015202530

Pe

rce

nt

of

To

tal

Percentage of Overall Identified Stressors

Amount Stress Reduction

2.22 21.63 1.5 1.5

0.740.4 0.33 0.3

0

1

2

3

Am

ount

of C

hang

e

Amount Stress Reduction

IATTAP Data Summary CohortAmount of Stress Reduction by Stressor

N=27

IATTP Family Post Program Quality of Life: Quality of Life Subscale: Highest ratings

4.45

4.63 4.54 4.45

1

2

3

4

5

Need forAssistance

Overall Qualityof Life

Current EDPlacement

EmotionalStability

Aggregate Family Rating

Quality of Life

N=11

Much Better

Slightly Better

No Change

Slightly Worse

Much Worse

IATTAP Family Post Program Quality of Life: Team Strategies and Process Subscale: Highest ratings

3.9

4 3.9 3.9

1

2

3

4

Comfortable withstrategies

Strategies AddressFamily Needs

Team CollectivelyProblem Solves

Team FacilitationEffective

Aggregate Family Rating

Quality of Life: Team Strategies and Team Process

Sub-Section-Areas of Highest Rating

N=11

Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

Twins

Tim and Trey

Age 11

DaughterAge 9Mom

Meet a Focus FamilyMeet a Focus Family

Team helped Mom to access Personal Assistant for A. He will receive 250 hours until the end of the fiscal year.PA gets Tim involved in social / community events.School team got Tim involved in Special Olympics for the 1st time.

SIMEO 2007-Home, School, Community Tool 

Data used in work with Student A

Goal: A will communicate effectively.SLP began using a loaner AAC Device with A.Mom completed paperwork for purchase of AAC device.School team members are using AAC device within the classroom.

SIMEO 2007- Educational Information ToolQuestion: Has a Communication System with Peers & Adults

Goal: A will finish school at XYZ District.Team called for meeting to develop a BIP for ATeam watched video on addressing sensory needs.Team implemented MORE visuals at school and home. Communication system in place.

Progress toward PATH Goals

SIMEO 2007-Referral Disposition Tool

Question: Risk of Student Placement from School

Student A – Education Information Tool

Student B – Big Behavior Tool

IATTAP Data Summary CohortStudent A-Decreases in Family Stress

High Stress

Moderate Stress

Low to Moderate Stress

Low to No Stress 1

2

3

4

5

Baseline Time 2 Time 3 Time 4 Time 5

Stress Related to School Issues

Stress Related to Student's Aggressive Behavior

Stress Related to Student's Limited Communication Abilities

Moderate to High Stress

IATTAP Data Summary CohortStudent B-Decreases in Family Stress

High Stress

Moderate Stress

Low to Moderate Stress

Low to No Stress 1

2

3

4

5

Baseline Time 2 Time 3 Time 4 Time 5

Stress Related to Student's Inappropriate Display of Emotions

Stress Related to Student's Aggressive Behavior

Stress Related to Student Becoming Over Excited

Moderate to High Stress

Project FutureProject Future

Coordinated TA with other initiatives

“Coaching Network” members of problem-solving teams

District assessment and support, external observation

Expanded on-line courses

Coordinated on-line evaluation data system

Increase ability to access and use data to make decisions across initiatives