**INSTRUCTIONAL CONSULTATION TEAM CONSORTIUM**

**North Carolina Instructional Consultation Team Consortium**

**Phase 1 Progress Report**

**July 2003 -- June 2004**

**Consortium Partners:**

Laboratory for IC Teams, University of Maryland, College Park

North Carolina Department of Public Instruction

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Public Schools

Craven County Public Schools

Hoke County Public Schools

Wayne County Public Schools

Prepared by

**Todd A. Gravois, Ph.D.**

IC Team Consortium Project Director

**Lindsay Vail, Ph.D.**

North Carolina IC Team Project Facilitator

Laboratory for Instructional Consultation Teams

3214 Benjamin Building

University of Maryland, College Park

College Park, MD 20742

\(301\) 405-6886

# TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS [2](#table-of-contents)

Executive Summary [3](#executive-summary)

1.0 Review of Program Goals and Objectives 5

2.0 Instructional Consultation Teams 6

3.0 Summary of District Partners and Participating Schools 7

4.0 IC Team Consortium Professional Development Sequence 8

4.1 \"3-D\" Model of Professional Development 8

4.2 IC Teams: General Training (Phases 1 & 2) 8

4.3 On-line Coaching (Phase 1) 9

4.4 IC Facilitator Training (Phase 1) 9

4.5 Instructional Assessment (CBA) Training (Phase 1 & 2)
[1](#instructional-assessment-cba-training-phase-1-2)0

4.6 Networking Sessions (Phases 2 & 3)
[1](#networking-sessions-phases-2-3)0

4.7 Individualized On-Site Technical Support (Phase 1, 2 & 3)
[1](#individualized-on-site-technical-support-phase-1-2-3)0

5.0 IC Team Program Evaluation [1](#ic-team-program-evaluation)2

5.1 Effectiveness of Training IC Team Facilitators & Team Members
[1](#effectiveness-of-training-ic-team-facilitators-team-members)2

**5.1.1 Training Effectiveness** [1](#training-effectiveness)2

5.2 Integrity of Program Implementation
[1](#integrity-of-program-implementation)4

**5.2.1 Level of Implementation (LOI)** 15

**5.2.2 Accuracy of Documentation** [16](#accuracy-of-documentation)

5.3 Outcomes: Impact on Student Achievement
[17](#outcomes-impact-on-student-achievement)

**5.3.1 Goal Attainment** [17](#goal-attainment)

**5.3.2 Sample Case Studies** [18](#sample-case-studies)

5.4 Outcomes: Impact on Teaching Practices 20

**5.4.1 Teacher Satisfaction** 20

**5.4.2 Impact on Teaching Practices** 20

5.5 Outcomes: Impact on Special Education Referrals and Placement
Patterns
[2](#outcomes-impact-on-special-education-referrals-and-placement-patterns)2

**5.5.1 Special Education Referral Patterns: Comparing IC Team to Non-IC
Team Referrals**
[2](#special-education-referral-patterns-comparing-ic-team-to-non-ic-team-referrals)2

6.0 Future IC Team Consortium Activities (2004-2005)
[24](#future-ic-team-consortium-activities-2004-2005)

6.1 Phase 2: Continued Implementation of the IC Team Model
[24](#phase-2-continued-implementation-of-the-ic-team-model)

#   {#section .unnumbered}

# Executive Summary

The Instructional Consultation Team (IC Team) North Carolina Consortium
is comprised of the Laboratory for IC Teams at University of Maryland,
four partner North Carolina school districts and the North Carolina
Department of Public Instruction, Exception Children Division.

The IC Team Consortium seeks to create a training and technical support
network for the purpose of developing and implementing Instructional
Consultation Teams (IC Teams) within North Carolina. The primary outcome
of implementing IC Teams is to develop, implement, and evaluate early
intervention support teams that demonstrate academic and behavioral
progress for at-risk students and that positively impact the
disproportional placement of minority students into special education.
The major goal of the North Carolina IC Team Training and Technical
Support Consortium is to build internal capacity within partner
districts to effectively reach this primary outcome. To accomplish this
goal, the project is designed in Three Phases of Program Development and
Technical Support:

> **Phase 1**: Provide comprehensive professional development to key
> personnel from each partner district to serve as site-based IC Team
> facilitators and trainers of teams. Once trained, the IC Team
> facilitators will be able to support the training and implementation
> of IC Teams within their respective schools and districts.
>
> **Phase 2:** Provide comprehensive professional development and
> implement IC Teams within each district to serve as demonstration
> sites for future expansion.
>
> **Phase 3:** Provide technical support to fully implement and
> institutionalize the IC Team project in demonstration sites and
> further develop the skills of key district professionals to assume
> training and technical support roles for future expansion.

The current report summarizes activities and outcomes conducted as of
July 2004, and covers Phase 1 and beginning Phase 2. To date, the
following outcomes have been achieved:

-   A total of forty-six (46) students were served by the IC Teams in
    seven (7) project schools during the current year.

-   Students served by the IC Teams achieved academic and behavioral
    success as evidenced by progress documented on the IC Team Student
    Documentation Form. An analysis of IC Team Student Documentation
    Forms indicated that case documentation demonstrated progress toward
    or attainment of eighty-eight percent (88%) of student goals
    established by IC Teams.

-   A total of forty (40) teachers requested and received support from
    the IC Teams in seven (7) project schools.

-   Ninety-one percent (91%) of teachers served by the IC Team report
    being satisfied to very satisfied by the level of support provided
    to them and their students. Ninety-six percent (96%) also report
    learning new strategies that they will use within their classrooms
    with individuals, groups and classes of students.

-   Data indicates that a much smaller percentage of IC cases were
    evaluated (19%) or placed (3%) in special education as compared to
    traditional (SAT, SST, PST) cases (71% and 42%, respectively). This
    suggests that referrals for special education will decrease as the
    IC Team process is more fully implemented in the coming year.

-   A total of seventy-seven (77) professionals have participated in the
    IC Team professional development sequence during the current year.
    Seven (7) professionals participated in Phase 1 training designed to
    develop IC Team Facilitators. Phase 1 training consists of intense
    professional development, coaching and on-site practice.
    Seventy (70) IC Team members participated in Phase 2 training. Phase
    2 training focused upon training the full IC Team members in the
    Instructional Consultation and Assessment processes, followed by
    on-site support delivered by the trained IC Team Facilitator.

-   Ninety-five percent (95%) of participants rated the quality and
    effectiveness of the professional development as effective to very
    effective.

-   Seven (7) IC Team Facilitators were trained in the skills of team
    facilitation, development of IC Team training modules,
    administrative consultation, and the change process. One hundred
    percent (100%) of participants rated the quality and effectiveness
    of the professional development to be effective to very effective.

-   A comprehensive program evaluation plan related to proposed research
    questions has been established and will be implemented relative to
    each Phase of project implementation. Baseline and first year data
    have been collected from the identified IC Team project schools
    using the Annual Data surveys.

-   The continued implementation of the IC Team process (Phase 2) is
    planned and scheduled for July 2004 -- June 2005.

# 1.0 Review of Program Goals and Objectives

The primary outcome of implementing the IC Team program is to develop,
implement, and evaluate early intervention support teams that
demonstrate academic and behavioral progress for at-risk students and
that positively impact the disproportional placement of minority
students into special education. Specifically, full implementation of
the IC Team process will result in:

• Documented progress in students\' academic and behavioral performance
as evidenced on the IC Team Student Documentation Form.

• Fewer students requiring specialized evaluation and programming; and

• Reduction of the disproportionate number of minority students referred
to and placed in special education.

The goal of the North Carolina IC Team Consortium is to coordinate
training and technical support to participating districts utilizing a
combination of on-site and technological supports to promote increased
school and district capacity to develop, implement and institutionalize
effective teaming structures during and beyond the funded period.

In order to achieve the stated goals, there are three distinct training
and implementation Phases of the proposed program. These include:

**Phase 1: Development of the IC Team Facilitator Skills.** Phase 1 is
focused upon training selected district personnel from the four partner
districts to serve as IC Team facilitators. Through intensive and
comprehensive professional development and coaching these professionals
will develop skills in Instructional Assessment, Instructional
Consultation and IC Team Facilitation in advance of the IC Team
membership. The goal of Phase 1 training is to intensively develop the
skills and knowledge of key district personnel so that they may serve as
an on-site model and support to IC Team members in providing teacher and
student support within the general education environment.

**Phase 2: Development of the IC Team within the Building.** Phase 2 is
focused upon the professional development and beginning implementation
of IC Teams within partner districts to serve as demonstration and
training sites for future expansion.

**Phase 3: Maintenance and Institutionalization of the IC Team
Process.** Phase 3 is focused upon the full implementation and ultimate
institutionalization of the IC Team within the designated demonstration
sites. Continued training and technical support is provided to the
school-based IC Team Facilitator, team and staff to ensure effective
implementation. Phase 3 also focuses upon the continued development of
the district personnel's skills in the IC Team process and the
development of leadership and training skills that will support future
expansion to additional district schools beyond the funding period.

# 2.0 Instructional Consultation Teams 

Instructional Consultation Teams (IC Teams) have been developed and
refined as a viable alternative to traditional approaches of assisting
teachers who experience classroom concerns. Instead of handling teacher
concerns through a refer, test and place model leading to special
education, IC Teams proposes the use of a multi-disciplinary team,
trained in collaborative Instructional Consultation, to provide support
to classroom teachers. The primary goal is to create and maintain
student success within the general education environment. There are
three major underlying assumptions of IC Teams: 1) that educational
services should facilitate learning for all students rather than simply
identifying learner deficits; 2) that the focus of problem solving
should be on creating an appropriate match between the learner's entry
skills and the instructional and management strategies implemented; and
3) that a school culture based on shared technical expertise and norms
of collaborative problem solving is the context in which students'
academic and behavioral development can be addressed most effectively.
Further, IC Teams represent best practice in team functioning and
fulfill federal (i.e. IDEA) and state requirements for systematic early
and pre-referral intervention services prior to a student being
considered for specialized instruction.

IC Teams represents a complex innovation package, characterized by three
features: a delivery system structured around an interdisciplinary team;
a problem-solving, instructional consultation process; and an evaluation
design to ensure that the innovation package has been implemented with
integrity. Team members receive training in the critical skills and
knowledge areas cited in the research as promoting effective team
practices. Training components include:

• collaborative communication skills

• systematic problem-solving

• data-based decision-making utilizing classroom assessments

• curriculum based assessment

• data collection, charting and analysis for monitoring student progress

• functional behavioral assessment

The collaborative consultation process is detailed in the text
*Instructional Consultation* (Rosenfield, 1987), while the delivery
system and process for implementing IC Teams is described in
*Instructional Consultation Teams: Collaborating for Change* (Rosenfield
& Gravois, 1996). In addition, there are comprehensive training,
documentation and evaluation materials that support the effective
replication of the model in a variety of school settings. These
materials include *The IC Team Training Manual* (Gravois, Rosenfield &
Gickling, 1996), *The IC Team Facilitator Training Manual* (Vail,
Gravois & Rosenfield, 1998), and *The IC Team* *Level of Implementation
Scale-Revised* (Gravois, Fudell & Rosenfield, 1998).

The origin of IC Teams dates back to the mid-1980's and the Early
Intervention Project in the State of Connecticut to address
over-representation of minority students in special education programs.
This original teaming structure was subsequently implemented in schools
in the States of New York and Pennsylvania as part of each state's
efforts to support early intervention with students (see Rosenfield,
1992, for a complete history). Since 1991 the teaming model has been
implemented in schools in the State of Maryland. Through comprehensive
program evaluation and research, the model has been further developed
and refined, ultimately evolving into the present IC Team model.
Currently there are over 150 schools implementing the IC Team model,
including 112 schools in 14 Maryland school districts, 23 schools in 4
Delaware school districts, 15 schools in 13 Virginia school districts, 8
schools in 6 Michigan school districts, and 7 schools in 4 North
Carolina school districts.

# 3.0 Summary of District Partners and Participating Schools

Table 1 provides a summary of the North Carolina IC Team Consortium
Participants and particular Phases of Training and Technical support in
which they have participated.

**Table 1. IC Team Consortium LEA Partner and Participating Schools**

+---------------------------------+------------------+----------------+
| **DISTRICTS / SCHOOLS**         | **PHASE(S) OF    | **NUMBER OF    |
|                                 | PARTICIPATION    | PARTICIPANTS** |
|                                 | (SEE SECTION     |                |
|                                 | 1.0)**           |                |
+---------------------------------+------------------+----------------+
| **Charlotte-Mecklenburg**       |                  | **25**         |
+---------------------------------+------------------+----------------+
| -   Eastover Elementary School  | Beginning Phase  | 10             |
|                                 | 2                |                |
+---------------------------------+------------------+----------------+
| -   Nations Ford Elementary     | Beginning Phase  | 13             |
|     School                      | 2                |                |
+---------------------------------+------------------+----------------+
| -   Central Office              |                  | 2              |
+---------------------------------+------------------+----------------+
| **Craven County**               |                  | **21**         |
+---------------------------------+------------------+----------------+
| -   J.T. Barber Elementary      | Beginning Phase  | 10             |
|     School                      | 2                |                |
+---------------------------------+------------------+----------------+
| -   Vanceboro Farm-Life         | Beginning Phase  | 9              |
|     Elementary School           | 2                |                |
+---------------------------------+------------------+----------------+
| -   Central Office              |                  | 2              |
+---------------------------------+------------------+----------------+
| # Hoke County                   |                  | **12**         |
+---------------------------------+------------------+----------------+
| -   South Hoke Elementary       | Beginning Phase  | 12             |
|     School                      | 2                |                |
+---------------------------------+------------------+----------------+
| # Wayne County                  |                  | **19**         |
+---------------------------------+------------------+----------------+
| -   Eastern Wayne Elementary    | Beginning Phase  | 8              |
|     School                      | 2                |                |
+---------------------------------+------------------+----------------+
| -   Meadow Lane Elementary      | Beginning Phase  | 9              |
|     School                      | 2                |                |
+---------------------------------+------------------+----------------+
| -   Central Office              |                  | 2              |
+---------------------------------+------------------+----------------+

# 4.0 IC Team Consortium Professional Development Sequence

## 4.1 \"3-D\" Model of Professional Development 

> The Lab for IC Teams, University of Maryland recognizes the need to
> actively engage educational professionals in continued skill
> development. The professional development sequence of the IC Team
> Consortium is based upon the 3-D model of staff development\-\-- "I
> Do; We Do; You Do." In addition to introducing skills and content, the
> presenters provide demonstration and modeling of specific skills (\"I
> Do\"), then the participants have the opportunity to practice with
> presenters providing coaching and feedback (\"We Do\"). Finally, each
> session is followed by \"homework\" in which the participants are
> required to further practice within their schools (\"You Do\").
> Strategic on-line or on-site support is provided as participants apply
> newly learned skills within the school setting.
>
> The following sections provide a description of various professional
> development options offered to participants. Table 2 summarizes the
> training conducted during the current year.

## 4.2 IC Teams: General Training (Phases 1 & 2)

> The foundation training for all three Phases of the IC Team Consortium
> (see Section 1.0) is a 3-4 day training session in the base skills of
> the IC Team model. This training provides participants with an
> awareness of the goals and objectives of the model and develops
> necessary skills to become effective instructional consultants. At the
> conclusion of the training participants are ready to return to their
> schools and begin applying the skills. After the Phase 1 training of
> IC Team Facilitators, each participant is assigned an individual
> on-line coach to support her/his continued skill development upon
> return to their schools. For team members receiving training as part
> of Phase 2, they receive coaching from their IC Team Facilitators upon
> their return to school. Participants in this model are trained in the
> following skills:
>
> • Assumptions of the IC model
>
> • Effective collaborative communication skills
>
> • Systematic problem-solving stages
>
> • Curriculum-based assessment
>
> • Functional behavioral assessment
>
> • Collecting, analyzing and graphing data
>
> • Goal setting and teaming

## 4.3 On-line Coaching (Phase 1)

> After completing the IC Team General Training, each IC Team
> Facilitator returns to their respective schools and applies the skills
> learned. The IC Team Facilitators are required to complete a teacher
> consultation using the IC skills, audiotape each session, and then
> mail their tapes to a coach each week. Each facilitator is assigned an
> individual coach who reviews their tapes, and provides specific
> feedback on their skill development via e-mail. The on-line coach is
> also available throughout the case to answer questions and provide
> on-going clarification during application of the skills.

## 4.4 IC Facilitator Training (Phase 1)

> Individuals who have participated in the General IC Team training, and
> who have been systematically coached in applying the skills, are
> provided specific training to assume the IC Team Facilitator role. In
> addition to being able to provide consultation support to classroom
> teachers, the IC Team Facilitator is expected to coordinate the team
> functioning and provide on-going training to the team members
> following the general training. In addition, since the IC Team
> Facilitators have demonstrated and developed their own skills in the
> instructional consultant/ case manager model, they are expected to
> coach team members in the application of their skills.
>
> Staff of the Laboratory for IC Teams, University of Maryland conducted
> the IC Team Facilitator training for LEA partner professionals. The
> 2-3 day training focuses upon developing participants' skills in
> facilitating the implementation of the IC Team within their school.
> Specific skills developed within the training include:
>
> • managing organizational change
>
> • planning and delivering effective professional development
>
> • conducting administrative and organizational consultation
>
> • organizing and leading effective team meetings

## 4.5 Instructional Assessment (CBA) Training (Phase 1 & 2) 

> IC Team Consortium participants receive intensive ongoing training to
> develop their skills in Instructional Assessment (also referred to as
> Curriculum Based Assessment or CBA). The goals of the training are to
> assist participants in developing skills in:

-   determining and establishing an appropriate instructional level for
    students

-   conducting instructional assessments in reading, math and written
    language

-   incorporating the results of instructional assessment within the IC
    problem solving process

-   selecting and implementing strategies with individual students,
    small groups of students, and within whole class activities.

-   collecting and charting data that documents student progress.

## 4.6 Networking Sessions (Phases 2 & 3) 

> Once project schools reach Phase 2 activities, periodic networking
> sessions are established to provide strategic and individualized
> support to IC Team Facilitators and school administrators. Typical
> topics covered in Networking Sessions include:

-   Developing training and implementation plans for each school

-   Developing team schedules of training & implementation

-   Conducting Case Reviews/Problem-Solving

-   Conducting Functional Behavioral Assessment and Curriculum-Based
    Assessment

-   Developing class-wide interventions

## 4.7 Individualized On-Site Technical Support (Phase 1, 2 & 3)

> Facilitators and school-based professionals from each participating IC
> Team project school participated in on-going training to strengthen
> their skills in Case Management, Instructional Assessment,
> Documentation of Cases and Teaming. The goal of the individualized
> training is to assist participants in assessing and strengthening
> identified skills.

**Table 2. Summary of IC Team Consortium Sponsored Training**

+----------+----------------+---------------------+-------------------+
| **       | **Title**      | **Topic(s)**        | **Target          |
| Training |                |                     | Audience**        |
| Date**   |                |                     |                   |
+----------+----------------+---------------------+-------------------+
| **July** | Introductory   | -   IC Assumptions  | ICT Facilitators, |
|          | IC Team        |                     | Team Buddies,     |
| **22 --  | Training       | -   IC Problem      | Principals,       |
| 24,      |                |     Solving Process | District Contacts |
| 2003**   |                |                     |                   |
|          |                | -   Collaborative   | Raleigh, N.C.     |
|          |                |     Communication   |                   |
|          |                |     Skills          |                   |
|          |                |                     |                   |
|          |                | -                   |                   |
|          |                |    Curriculum-based |                   |
|          |                |     Assessment      |                   |
+----------+----------------+---------------------+-------------------+
| **S      | Large group    | -   Reading         | ICT Facilitators, |
| eptember | training and   |     Assessment      | Team Buddies,     |
| 15 --    | regional       |                     | Principals,       |
| 18**     | follow-up      | -   Contracting     | District Contacts |
|          |                |                     |                   |
|          |                |                     | ***Wayne County   |
|          |                |                     | (9/15-17)***      |
|          |                |                     |                   |
|          |                |                     | ***Charlotte      |
|          |                |                     | (9/18)***         |
+----------+----------------+---------------------+-------------------+
| **O      | Large group    | -   Reading         | ICT Facilitators, |
| ctober** | training and   |     Assessment      | Team Buddies,     |
|          | regional       |                     | Principals,       |
| **21 --  | follow-up      | -   Problem         | District Contacts |
| 24**     |                |     Identification  |                   |
|          |                |                     | ***Charlotte      |
|          |                |                     | (10/21-23)***     |
|          |                |                     |                   |
|          |                |                     | ***Craven County  |
|          |                |                     | (10/24)***        |
+----------+----------------+---------------------+-------------------+
| **No     | Large group    | -   Small Group     | ICT Facilitators, |
| vember** | training and   |     Reading         | Team Buddies,     |
|          | regional       |     Assessment      | Principals,       |
| **5 -    | follow-up      |                     | District Contacts |
| 7**      |                | -   Reading         |                   |
|          |                |     Strategies      | ***Hoke County    |
|          |                |                     | (11/5-6)***       |
|          |                | -   Intervention    |                   |
|          |                |     Design          | ***Craven County  |
|          |                |                     | (11/7)***         |
+----------+----------------+---------------------+-------------------+
| **J      | Instructional  | -   IC Assumptions  | IC Team Members   |
| anuary** | Consultation   |                     |                   |
|          | Teams:         | -   IC Problem      | ***Raleigh,       |
| **7 --   |                |     Solving Process | N.C.***           |
| 9**      | General        |                     |                   |
|          | Training       | -   Collaborative   |                   |
|          |                |     Communication   |                   |
|          |                |     Skills          |                   |
|          |                |                     |                   |
|          |                | ```{=html}          |                   |
|          |                | <!-- -->            |                   |
|          |                | ```                 |                   |
|          |                | -                   |                   |
|          |                |    Curriculum-based |                   |
|          |                |     Assessment      |                   |
+----------+----------------+---------------------+-------------------+
| **J      | IC Team        | -   IC Change       | ICT Facilitators  |
| anuary** | Facilitator    |     Process         |                   |
|          | Training       |                     | ***Raleigh, N.C.  |
| **21,    |                | -   Team            | (1/21-22)***      |
| 22, and  |                |     Functioning     |                   |
| February |                |                     | ***Wayne County   |
| 11**     |                | -   Designing Team  | (2/11)***         |
|          |                |     Training        |                   |
|          |                |                     |                   |
|          |                | -   Facilitating    |                   |
|          |                |     Case Progress   |                   |
|          |                |                     |                   |
|          |                | -   Case Coaching   |                   |
+----------+----------------+---------------------+-------------------+
| **Fe     | Large group    | -   Writing         | ICT Facilitators, |
| bruary** | training and   |     Assessment      | Team Buddies,     |
|          | regional       |                     | Principals,       |
| *        | follow-up      | -   Student         | District Contacts |
| *12-13** |                |     Documentation   |                   |
|          |                |     Form (SDF)      | ***Craven         |
|          |                |                     | County***         |
|          |                | -   Case Problem    |                   |
|          |                |     Solving         |                   |
+----------+----------------+---------------------+-------------------+
| *        | Large group    | -   Math Assessment | ICT Facilitators, |
| *March** | training and   |                     | Team Buddies,     |
|          | regional       | -   SDF             | Principals,       |
| **17 --  | follow-up      |                     | District Contacts |
| 18**     |                | -   Case Problem    |                   |
|          |                |     Solving         | ***Charlotte***   |
+----------+----------------+---------------------+-------------------+
| *        | Large group    | -   Behavioral      | ICT Facilitators, |
| *April** | training and   |     Assessment      | Team Buddies,     |
|          | regional       |                     | Principals,       |
| **22     | follow-up      | -   Strategies      | District Contacts |
| --23**   |                |                     |                   |
|          |                | -   Evaluation      | ***Hoke County*** |
|          |                |     training        |                   |
+----------+----------------+---------------------+-------------------+
| **May    | End of Year    | -   Evaluation      | ICT Facilitators, |
| 13**     | Review and     |     completion      | Team Buddies,     |
|          | Planning for   |                     | Principals,       |
|          | 2004-05        | -   End of Year     | District Contacts |
|          |                |     Planning        |                   |
|          |                |                     | ***Raleigh,       |
|          |                |                     | N.C.***           |
+----------+----------------+---------------------+-------------------+

# 

# 5.0 IC Team Program Evaluation

Evaluation of the IC Team process is comprehensive and related to the
phase in which a particular school is involved (i.e., Phases 1, 2 or 3).
The literature on program evaluation suggests that training and
implementation activities of the project should be equally evaluated to
ensure that the outcomes described are effectively interpreted and
attributed. A comprehensive program evaluation of the IC Team process
has been developed to include the following components depending upon a
particular school's progression through the defined phases:

1\) Effectiveness of training

2\) Degree and Integrity of Program Implementation

3\) Impact upon Students' Academic and Behavioral Performance

4\) Impact upon Classroom Teaching and Assessment Practices

5\) Impact upon School Referral and Placement Patterns

The current report only summarizes those evaluation components relevant
to the Phase(s) (i.e, Phase 1, 2 or 3) of training and technical support
provided.

## 5.1 Effectiveness of Training IC Team Facilitators & Team Members

### **5.1.1 Training Effectiveness** 

Participants rate the effectiveness of the training session in meeting
the stated goals and objectives after each training session. Table 3
provides a summary of the overall ratings provided for a sample of the
large-group training sessions.

**\
**

**Table 3. Training Feedback**

+--------------+-------------+-----+------+------+------+-----+-----+
| **Training   | **Topic**   | **  | **Pe |      |      |     |     |
| Date**       |             | No. | rcen |      |      |     |     |
|              |             | R   | tage |      |      |     |     |
|              |             | esp | of   |      |      |     |     |
|              |             | .** | Part |      |      |     |     |
|              |             |     | icip |      |      |     |     |
|              |             |     | ants |      |      |     |     |
|              |             |     | Resp |      |      |     |     |
|              |             |     | ondi |      |      |     |     |
|              |             |     | ng** |      |      |     |     |
+--------------+-------------+-----+------+------+------+-----+-----+
|              |             |     | **   | *    | **   | **  | **  |
|              |             |     | Very | *Eff | Some | Les | Not |
|              |             |     | Eff  | ecti | what | s** | Ef  |
|              |             |     | ecti | ve** | Eff  |     | fec |
|              |             |     | ve** |      | ecti | *   | tiv |
|              |             |     |      | *    | ve** | *Ef | e** |
|              |             |     | *    | *4** |      | fec |     |
|              |             |     | *5** |      | *    | tiv | **  |
|              |             |     |      |      | *3** | e** | 1** |
|              |             |     |      |      |      |     |     |
|              |             |     |      |      |      | **  |     |
|              |             |     |      |      |      | 2** |     |
+--------------+-------------+-----+------+------+------+-----+-----+
| **October    | Reading     | 16  | **6  | **1  | 12%  | 0%  | 0%  |
| 21-23,       | Assessment  |     | 9%** | 9%** |      |     |     |
| 2003**       |             |     |      |      |      |     |     |
|              | Problem     |     |      |      |      |     |     |
|              | Ide         |     |      |      |      |     |     |
|              | ntification |     |      |      |      |     |     |
+--------------+-------------+-----+------+------+------+-----+-----+
| **November   | Reading     | 20  | **8  | **1  | 0%   | 0%  | 0%  |
| 5-7, 2003**  | Strategies  |     | 5%** | 5%** |      |     |     |
|              |             |     |      |      |      |     |     |
|              | I           |     |      |      |      |     |     |
|              | ntervention |     |      |      |      |     |     |
|              | Design      |     |      |      |      |     |     |
+--------------+-------------+-----+------+------+------+-----+-----+
| **February   | Writing     | 11  | **5  | **3  | 9%   | 0%  | 0%  |
| 12-13,       | Assessment  |     | 5%** | 6%** |      |     |     |
| 2004**       |             |     |      |      |      |     |     |
|              | Case        |     |      |      |      |     |     |
|              | Problem     |     |      |      |      |     |     |
|              | Solving     |     |      |      |      |     |     |
+--------------+-------------+-----+------+------+------+-----+-----+
| **April      | Behavioral  | 15  | **7  | **2  | 0%   | 0%  | 0%  |
| 22-23,       | Assessment  |     | 3%** | 7%** |      |     |     |
| 2004**       | &           |     |      |      |      |     |     |
|              | Strategies  |     |      |      |      |     |     |
+--------------+-------------+-----+------+------+------+-----+-----+
| **TOTAL**    |             | **6 | **7  | **2  | **   | **0 | **0 |
|              |             | 2** | 3%** | 2%** | 5%** | %** | %** |
+--------------+-------------+-----+------+------+------+-----+-----+

**5.1.2 Online Coaching Effectiveness**

The effectiveness of the on-line coaching portion of the training is
evaluated using three measures: (1) the IC Team Facilitators' ratings of
the quality of coaching; (2) the ICT Facilitators' narrative responses
to open-ended questions about the quality of coaching; and (3) the
coaches' ratings of the ICT Facilitators' skills following coaching.
Five of the seven ICT Facilitators provided ratings of and narrative
comments about the quality of coaching; their responses are summarized
in Table 4.

## Table 4. Quality of Coaching

+--------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+--------+
| **Item**                 | **Nu |      |      |      |      | **A    |
|                          | mber |      |      |      |      | verage |
|                          | of   |      |      |      |      | Ra     |
|                          | Part |      |      |      |      | ting** |
|                          | icip |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          | ants |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          | Resp |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          | ondi |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          | ng** |      |      |      |      |        |
+--------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+--------+
|                          | *    | *    | *    | *    | *    |        |
|                          | *1** | *2** | *3** | *4** | *5** |        |
|                          |      |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          | *    |      |      |      | **Ve |        |
|                          | *Not |      |      |      | ry** |        |
|                          | at   |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          | a    |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          | ll** |      |      |      |      |        |
+--------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+--------+
| Usefulness/relevance of  | 0    | 0    | 0    | 0    | 5    | *      |
| coach's feedback to your |      |      |      |      |      | *5.0** |
| case                     |      |      |      |      |      |        |
+--------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+--------+
| Effectiveness of coach's | 0    | 0    | 0    | 1    | 4    | *      |
| feedback for increasing  |      |      |      |      |      | *4.8** |
| your skills as an        |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| instructional consultant |      |      |      |      |      |        |
+--------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+--------+
| Clarity of coach's       | 0    | 0    | 0    | 1    | 4    | *      |
| feedback                 |      |      |      |      |      | *4.8** |
+--------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+--------+
| Thoroughness of coach's  | 0    | 0    | 0    | 0    | 4    | *      |
| feedback                 |      |      |      |      |      | *5.0** |
+--------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+--------+
| **Overall effectiveness  | *    | *    | *    | *    | *    | **     |
| of the online coaching   | *0** | *0** | *0** | *1** | *3** | 4.75** |
| course**                 |      |      |      |      |      |        |
+--------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+--------+
| What aspect(s) of this   | -    |      |      |      |      |        |
| online coaching          |   my |      |      |      |      |        |
| experience have been the |      |      |      |      |      |        |
| most helpful for you?    |   on |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          | line |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          |      |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          |    c |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          | oach |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          |      |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          |  was |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          |      |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          | very |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          |      |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          |    c |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          | lear |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          |      |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          |   in |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          |      |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          |  her |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          |      |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          |    r |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          | espo |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          | nses |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          |      |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          |  and |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          |      |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          |  was |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          |      |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          |   al |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          | ways |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          |      |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          | posi |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          | tive |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          |      |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          | with |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          |      |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          |  enc |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          | oura |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          | ging |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          |      |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          |    w |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          | ords |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          |      |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          | -    |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          | supp |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          | ort, |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          |      |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          |   en |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          | cour |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          | agem |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          | ent, |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          |      |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          |  ans |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          | wers |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          |      |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          |   to |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          |      |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          |    q |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          | uest |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          | ions |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          |      |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          | when |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          |      |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          |    I |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          |      |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          |    a |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          | sked |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          |      |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          | -    |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          |    r |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          | ecei |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          | ving |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          |      |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          |    q |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          | uick |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          |      |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          | feed |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          | back |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          |      |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          |  and |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          |      |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          |  ans |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          | wers |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          |      |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          |   to |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          |      |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          |    q |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          | uest |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          | ions |      |      |      |      |        |
+--------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+--------+
| What changes do you      | -    |      |      |      |      |        |
| recommend to improve the |  per |      |      |      |      |        |
| online coaching course?  | haps |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          |      |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          |   -- |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          |      |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          |   in |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          |      |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          |    a |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          | ddit |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          | ion, |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          |      |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          |   to |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          |      |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          |  the |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          |      |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          |   on |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          | line |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          |      |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          |    c |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          | oach |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          | ing, |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          |      |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          | more |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          |      |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          | face |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          |      |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          |   to |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          |      |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          | face |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          |      |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          |  con |      |      |      |      |        |
|                          | tact |      |      |      |      |        |
+--------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+--------+

The coaches' ratings of the ICT Facilitators' skills following coaching
are presented in Table 5. Coaches were asked to rate skills using a
five-point Likert scale, with the following descriptors:

1.  The facilitator does not have an understanding of this skill

2.  The facilitator understands this skill but has difficulty using it

3.  The facilitator can demonstrate this skill in some situations

4.  The facilitator can apply this skill consistently

5.  The facilitator could coach someone else on this skill

**Table 5. ICT Facilitators' skill development.**

  ----------------------- -------------- -------- -------- -------- ------- ----------- ----------
  **Item**                **Number of                                       **Average   
                          ICT                                               Rating**    
                          Facilitators                                                  
                          rated at each                                                 
                          level**                                                       

                          **1**          **2**    **3**    **4**    **5**               

  Problem-solving skills  0              0        1        3        3                   **4.29**

  CBA skills              0              0        1        4        2                   **4.14**

  Collaboration skills    0              0        2        3        2                   **4.00**

  Documentation skills    0              0        2        2        3                   **4.14**
  ----------------------- -------------- -------- -------- -------- ------- ----------- ----------

## The aim of coaching is to help ICT Facilitators to apply their skills (Level 4 or above) in an actual case. Results indicated that, following coaching, 86% of the ICT Facilitators reached a level of application in the skills of problem-solving and CBA, and 71% were able to apply their skills in documentation and collaboration.

## 5.2 Integrity of Program Implementation 

Prior to considering whether a program is effective, there is a need to
determine that the critical components are implemented with integrity.
For schools that are in Phase I of the program, implementation data are
presented as a narrative summary since a majority of their efforts
during this Phase are focused on training rather than implementation.
Level of implementation is reported using the following descriptors:
Readiness, which indicates that a team has just begun to implement the
critical dimensions; Early Implementation, which denotes that several
critical dimensions are in place while others are still being developed;
and Implemented, which indicates that the majority of critical
dimensions are in place.

**5.2.1 Level of Implementation (LOI)**

The IC Level of Implementation (LOI) narrative summary provides
descriptive information about each school's progress in implementing the
two sub-components of IC-Teams: the Collaborative Process and the
Delivery System. The Collaborative Process refers to the integrity with
which team members use the collaborative problem-solving process for
each case. During Phase I, it is typical for only the IC-Team
Facilitator and one to two other key team members to take and complete
cases, but as implementation progresses the expectation is that the
majority of team members will take cases; therefore the percentage of
team members taking and completing cases is reported as part of the
Collaborative Process sub-component. The Delivery System domain measures
the integrity of the team structure, the process teachers use to request
assistance from the team, the procedures used to assign and monitor
cases, and team functioning. Tables 6 and 7 provide the narrative
summary for the Collaborative Process and Delivery System
sub-components, respectively.

# Table 6. Level of Implementation: Collaborative Process Narrative Summary

+--------------------+------------------+-------------+---------------+
| **District/**      | **% (#) team     | **Co        | *             |
|                    | members with     | llaborative | *Descriptor** |
| **School**         | cases at**       | Process     |               |
|                    |                  | score for   |               |
|                    | **Intervention   | these       |               |
|                    | Implementation** | cases**     |               |
+--------------------+------------------+-------------+---------------+
| **Charl            |                  |             |               |
| otte-Mecklenburg** |                  |             |               |
+--------------------+------------------+-------------+---------------+
| -   Eastover       | 20% (2)          | 68%         | Readiness     |
+--------------------+------------------+-------------+---------------+
| -   Nations Ford   | 8% (1)           | 86%         | Readiness     |
+--------------------+------------------+-------------+---------------+
| **Craven County**  |                  |             |               |
+--------------------+------------------+-------------+---------------+
| -   J.T. Barber    | 33% (3)          | 91%         | Early         |
|                    |                  |             | I             |
|                    |                  |             | mplementation |
+--------------------+------------------+-------------+---------------+
| -   Vanceboro      | 10% (1)          | 88%         | Readiness     |
|     Farm-Life      |                  |             |               |
+--------------------+------------------+-------------+---------------+
| # Hoke County      |                  |             |               |
+--------------------+------------------+-------------+---------------+
| -   South Hoke     | 17%(2)           | 91%         | Early         |
|                    |                  |             | I             |
|                    |                  |             | mplementation |
+--------------------+------------------+-------------+---------------+
| # Wayne County     |                  |             |               |
+--------------------+------------------+-------------+---------------+
| -   Eastern Wayne  | 13% (1)          | 84%         | Readiness     |
+--------------------+------------------+-------------+---------------+
| -   Meadow Lane    | 13% (1)          | 81%         | Readiness     |
+--------------------+------------------+-------------+---------------+
| TOTAL              | 5 Readiness      |             |               |
|                    |                  |             |               |
|                    | 2 Early          |             |               |
|                    | Implementation   |             |               |
|                    |                  |             |               |
|                    | 0 Implemented    |             |               |
+--------------------+------------------+-------------+---------------+

# Table 7. Level of Implementation: Delivery System Narrative Summary

+-----------------+------------+-------------+-----------+------------+
| **District/**   | *          | **Request   | **Case &  | **Training |
|                 | *Permanent | for**       | Systems   | and        |
| **School**      | Support    |             | Man       | Business   |
|                 | Team**     | **A         | agement** | Ac         |
|                 |            | ssistance** |           | tivities** |
+-----------------+------------+-------------+-----------+------------+
| **Charlott      |            |             |           |            |
| e-Mecklenburg** |            |             |           |            |
+-----------------+------------+-------------+-----------+------------+
| -   Eastover    | Early      | Early       | Im        | I          |
|     Elementary  | Impl       | Imp         | plemented | mplemented |
|     School      | ementation | lementation |           |            |
+-----------------+------------+-------------+-----------+------------+
| -   Nations     | I          | Early       | Readiness | Early      |
|     Ford        | mplemented | Imp         |           | Impl       |
|     Elementary  |            | lementation |           | ementation |
|     School      |            |             |           |            |
+-----------------+------------+-------------+-----------+------------+
| **Craven        |            |             |           |            |
| County**        |            |             |           |            |
+-----------------+------------+-------------+-----------+------------+
| -   J.T. Barber | I          | Early       | Early     | I          |
|     Elementary  | mplemented | Imp         | Imple     | mplemented |
|     School      |            | lementation | mentation |            |
+-----------------+------------+-------------+-----------+------------+
| -   Vanceboro   | I          | Early       | Early     | I          |
|     Farm-Life   | mplemented | Imp         | Imple     | mplemented |
|     Elementary  |            | lementation | mentation |            |
|     School      |            |             |           |            |
+-----------------+------------+-------------+-----------+------------+
| # Hoke County   |            |             |           |            |
+-----------------+------------+-------------+-----------+------------+
| -   South Hoke  | Early      | Early       | Early     | Early      |
|     Elementary  | Impl       | Imp         | Imple     | Impl       |
|     School      | ementation | lementation | mentation | ementation |
+-----------------+------------+-------------+-----------+------------+
| # Wayne County  |            |             |           |            |
+-----------------+------------+-------------+-----------+------------+
| -   Eastern     | I          | Readiness   | Early     | I          |
|     Wayne       | mplemented |             | Imple     | mplemented |
|     Elementary  |            |             | mentation |            |
|     School      |            |             |           |            |
+-----------------+------------+-------------+-----------+------------+
| -   Meadow Lane | Early      | Readiness   | Early     | Early      |
|     Elementary  | Impl       |             | Imple     | Impl       |
|     School      | ementation |             | mentation | ementation |
+-----------------+------------+-------------+-----------+------------+
| TOTAL           | 0          | 2 Readiness | 1         | 0          |
|                 | Readiness  |             | Readiness | Readiness  |
|                 |            | 5 Early     |           |            |
|                 | 3 Early    | Imp         | 5 Early   | 3 Early    |
|                 | Impl       | lementation | Imple     | Impl       |
|                 | ementation |             | mentation | ementation |
|                 |            | 0           |           |            |
|                 | 4          | Implemented | 1         | 4          |
|                 | I          |             | Im        | I          |
|                 | mplemented |             | plemented | mplemented |
+-----------------+------------+-------------+-----------+------------+

### **5.2.2 Accuracy of Documentation** 

> A second measure of implementation examines availability and accuracy
> of the documentation used to track student progress within a
> consultation case. Case managers and teachers use an IC Team Student
> Documentation Form (SDF). The SDF form facilitates the progress of the
> problem-solving process, provides a means to measure student
> outcomes/attainment of goals, and facilitates data-based
> decision-making. Use of this form requires skill in
> observable/measurable definitions, data collection, goal setting, and
> graphing. For this reason, accurate completion of the SDF is monitored
> as an indicator of implementation.
>
> Of the total 46 cases that were taken during the 2003-2004 school year
> by project schools, 63% of the cases had a completed SDF. Of the 29
> SDFs available, 89% were completed accurately. Table 8 provides a
> summary of documentation completion and accuracy for consortium
> schools.
>
> Table 8. Student Documentation Completion and Accuracy

  ---------------- ----------------------- ---------- ------------- -----------------
  **School**       **District**            **Number   **% (#) of    **% (#) of
                                           of Cases** Cases with    Accurately
                                                      SDF           Completed Cases
                                                      Available**   (of \#
                                                                    Available)**

  Eastover         Charlotte-Mecklenberg   13         77% (10)      90% (9)
  Elementary                                                        

  Nations Ford     Charlotte-Mecklenberg   2          50% (1)       100% (1)
  Elementary                                                        

  J.T. Barber      Craven County           9          11% (1)       100% (1)
  Elementary                                                        

  Vanceboro Farm   Craven County           6          17% (1)       100% (1)
  Life Elementary                                                   

  South Hoke       Hoke County             10         100% (10)     78% (7 of 9
  Elementary                                                        completed cases)

  Eastern Wayne    Wayne County            3          100% (3)      100% (2 of 2
  Elementary                                                        completed cases)

  Meadow Lane      Wayne County            3          100% (3)      100% (3)
  Elementary                                                        

  **Total**                                **46**     **63% (29)**  **89% (24)**
  ---------------- ----------------------- ---------- ------------- -----------------

## 5.3 Outcomes: Impact on Student Achievement 

### **5.3.1 Goal Attainment**

To determine the effectiveness of the IC Team process in assisting
referred students to meet the academic and behavioral goals established
in the process, data from the completed Student Documentation Forms were
analyzed. Each SDF includes a graph depicting students' performance at
baseline and after interventions have been implemented; this information
was analyzed to determine whether each student's performance met the
specified goals, improved toward the specified goals, or indicated no
change.

Since IC Team cases often establish goals for more than one student
concern, Table 9 provides a summary of the goal attainment for the
number of concerns (rather than the number of cases) that had been
accurately documented. As depicted, 60% of student concerns met or
exceeded the academic or behavioral goals set for them within the
consultation process, while another 28% demonstrated progress toward the
goals established. This results in 88% of student concerns making
progress or meeting the goals established and indicates that the support
the IC Team provides to teachers and students is effective in addressing
student concerns within the general education classroom.

Table 9. Student Goal Attainment

  --------------- ----------------------- ------------ ------------- ----------- ------------
  **School**      **District**            **Number of  **Number of   **% (#) of  **% (#) of
                                          Accurately   Student       Concerns    Concerns
                                          Completed    Concerns      Making      Meeting/
                                          SDFs**       Addressed**   Progress    Exceeding
                                                                     Toward      Goals**
                                                                     Goals**     

  Eastover        Charlotte-Mecklenberg   9            9             1           6
  Elementary                                                                     

  Nations Ford    Charlotte-Mecklenberg   1            1             1           0
  Elementary                                                                     

  J.T. Barber     Craven County           1            1             0           1
  Elementary                                                                     

  Vanceboro Farm  Craven County           1            1             0           1
  Life Elementary                                                                

  South Hoke      Hoke County             7            8             3           4
  Elementary                                                                     

  Eastern Wayne   Wayne County            2            2             1           1
  Elementary                                                                     

  Meadow Lane     Wayne County            3            3             1           2
  Elementary                                                                     

  **Total**                               **24**       **25**        **28% (7)** **60% (15)**
  --------------- ----------------------- ------------ ------------- ----------- ------------

### **5.3.2 Sample Case Studies** 

The following cases studies provide further insight into the positive
impact that IC Teams has both upon teacher and student performance.
These case studies summarize actual IC Team cases for the current year.

> **Case Study One**: Vanceboro Farm-Life, Craven County
>
> **Problem:** A second grade teacher was concerned with the student's
> reading skills. The student received a grade of "N" in Language Arts
> in first grade, and was reading at the beginning first grade level on
> the Developmental Reading Assessment at the beginning of second grade.
> After collaborating with the case manager and analyzing several
> curriculum-based assessments (CBA's), word recognition and fluency
> were identified as areas needing additional support. The student was
> able to identify 82% of the words in the passage correctly, and read
> at an average rate of 35 words per minute. The goals established for
> the student were to read at least 85% of the words in the passage
> correctly and to read at a rate of 40 words per minute (short-term
> goal) and then 60 words per minute (interim goal).
>
> **Intervention:** To address word recognition concerns, the teacher
> first conducted a word search with the student weekly when a new
> passage was introduced, to identify the words the student was unable
> to read automatically. The teacher and student then created pocket
> words, or cards with the unknown words, which the student practiced
> several times per day. The parent also helped the student to pair a
> rhyming word with the unknown word, to help her learn the words. In
> the area of fluency, the teacher taught the student the strategy of
> chunking, which involves helping students to see how words are
> combined to form units of thought, and how thoughts are combined to
> form sentences and passages. For both interventions, the student
> charted her progress on a graph.
>
> **Data:** Before the interventions were implemented, the student
> identified 82% of the words in a grade-level passage correctly and
> read at a rate of 35 words per minute. Following intervention, the
> student was able to identify 92% of the words in a grade-level passage
> and read at a rate of 57 words per minute.

**Outcome:** At the end of her second grade year, the student was
reading at the ending

second grade level on the Developmental Reading Assessment, and earned a
grade of B- in reading. Furthermore, the student scored at Level 3 on
the End of Grade Pretest in the beginning of third grade. Following the
IC collaboration, the second grade teacher saw improvements in the
student's word recognition and fluency skills and felt that she could
continue implementing the strategies without the case manager's
assistance.

> **Case Study Two**: South Hoke Elementary School, Hoke County.
>
> **Problem:** A second grade teacher was concerned with the student's
> reading skills. When the teacher asked the student to read aloud, she
> had difficulty reading the words in the passage and did not appear to
> apply any strategies to unlock unknown words. The case manager and
> teacher assessed the student's skills in curriculum material at
> instructional level and found that the student was able to sound out
> words and to look for patterns in words, but that she did not know the
> sounds of certain vowel pairs (i.e., -ai, -ou) and R-controlled
> vowels. The student was able to accurately pronounce and give a word
> containing the sound for one of five R-controlled vowels and for five
> of twelve vowel pairs. The goal was for the student to learn the
> remainder of the vowel pairs and R-controlled vowels within four
> weeks.
>
> **Intervention:** The teacher and classroom assistant implemented
> several strategies. First, the teacher and student made flash cards of
> the known and unknown vowel pairs/R-controlled vowels and practiced
> them three times a week, keeping the ratio of known to unknown at
> 80%-20% to be within the student's comfort level (drill sandwich).
> Next, the teacher had the student listen to taped lessons (Formula 3
> tapes) of the specific vowel pairs that she was attempting to learn
> each week. Finally, during self-selected reading, the student was
> instructed to identify words that contained the vowel pairs or
> R-controlled vowels that she was learning that week and to write them
> down so that the teacher could review it and provide feedback.
>
> **Data:** Prior to implementing the above interventions, the student
> was able to read and provide an appropriate word for one R-controlled
> vowel and five vowel pairs. After four weeks of intervention, the
> student was able to correctly name, read, and provide a word for all
> of the vowel pairs and R-controlled vowels.

**Outcome:** Before the teacher began collaborating with the case
manager, he was very concerned that the student did not demonstrate
knowledge of any reading strategies in class and simply became silent
when asked to read aloud. When the teacher and case manager closed the
word study concern, the student was reading aloud and applying word
study strategies automatically in class. Her confidence in her reading
improved markedly. At that time, the teacher and case manager agreed to
focus on improving the student's reading fluency, and by the end of the
year the student was reading grade-level books accurately and fluently.

## 5.4 Outcomes: Impact on Teaching Practices 

### **5.4.1 Teacher Satisfaction**

During the 2003-2004 school year, a total of forty (40) teachers engaged
in collaborative problem solving with a trained case manager from the IC
Team. Of the approximately twenty-eight (28) teachers who worked with an
IC Team case manager through an entire case, 82% provided responses to a
Satisfaction with Consultation Survey distributed as part of the IC Team
Evaluation. Teachers were asked to anonymously rate their experience of
working with the IC Team using a five-point Likert scale, where 5=Very
Satisfied and 1=Not At All Satisfied. Mean scores of respondents are
provided in Table 10. Additionally, teachers were asked to provide
specific feedback (concerns and suggestions) regarding Instructional
Consultation (see Table 11).

Table 10. Teacher Satisfaction

+----------------------------------------------------+-----------------+
| **Item**                                           | **Mean Rating   |
|                                                    | (n= 23)**       |
+----------------------------------------------------+-----------------+
| Ease of access                                     | **4.91**        |
+----------------------------------------------------+-----------------+
| Timeliness of response                             | **4.74**        |
+----------------------------------------------------+-----------------+
| Level of comfort in working w/IC Team Case Manager | **4.83**        |
+----------------------------------------------------+-----------------+
| IC Team Case Manager understanding of children's   | **5.00**        |
| needs                                              |                 |
+----------------------------------------------------+-----------------+
| IC Team Case Manager support in identifying        | **4.82**        |
| problem                                            |                 |
+----------------------------------------------------+-----------------+
| IC Team Case Manager support in developing useful  | **4.77**        |
| strategies                                         |                 |
+----------------------------------------------------+-----------------+
| IC Team Case Manager support when strategies       | **4.86**        |
| implemented                                        |                 |
+----------------------------------------------------+-----------------+
| Overall effectiveness of process                   | **4.65**        |
+----------------------------------------------------+-----------------+
| How confident are you in your ability to deal with | **64% Very**    |
| similar problems in the future?                    |                 |
|                                                    | **36%           |
|                                                    | Somewhat**      |
|                                                    |                 |
|                                                    | **0% Not at     |
|                                                    | All**           |
+----------------------------------------------------+-----------------+
| How helpful has it been to work with the IC Team   | **83% Very**    |
| Case Manager to develop classroom strategies?      |                 |
|                                                    | **13%           |
|                                                    | Somewhat**      |
|                                                    |                 |
|                                                    | **4% Not at     |
|                                                    | All**           |
+----------------------------------------------------+-----------------+
| Based on your experiences, how likely are you to   | **87% Very**    |
| use the IC-Team the future for similar classroom   |                 |
| concerns?                                          | **9% Somewhat** |
|                                                    |                 |
|                                                    | **4% Not at     |
|                                                    | All**           |
+----------------------------------------------------+-----------------+

### **5.4.2 Impact on Teaching Practices**

A cornerstone of the IC Team process is working shoulder-to-shoulder
with teachers in an effort to support an increase in application of
effective assessment and instructional practices. Effective assessment
allows teachers to accurately determine students' skills within the
curriculum and results in effective student-differentiated instruction.
During the 2003 -- 2004 school year, twenty-two (((22) teachers across
the seven schools reported implementation of strategies learned through
implementation of IC Teams. Examples of such strategies implemented by
teachers are described in Table 11.

Table 11. Impact on Teachers' Instructional Practices

+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| ###### **Questions**              | ###### **Answers**                |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| ######                            | -   Word recognition strategies:  |
|  **Strategies learned and/or deve |     word search, drill sandwich,  |
| loped with IC Team Case Manager** |     pocket words, teacher-made    |
|                                   |     stories.                      |
|                                   |                                   |
|                                   | -   Word Study strategies: spot   |
|                                   |     and dot, phonemic awareness   |
|                                   |     task.                         |
|                                   |                                   |
|                                   | -   Fluency strategies: chunking, |
|                                   |     echo reading, impress         |
|                                   |     reading, visualization,       |
|                                   |     repeated readings.            |
|                                   |                                   |
|                                   | -   Comprehension strategies:     |
|                                   |     forming questions, quad       |
|                                   |     reading.                      |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| ###### **Other Ways Instructi     | -   Finding an instructional      |
| on or Classroom Management were e |     match.                        |
| nhanced through IC Team process** |                                   |
|                                   | -   The students now have to give |
|                                   |     me who, what, when, where,    |
|                                   |     and why questions for their   |
|                                   |     AR books.                     |
|                                   |                                   |
|                                   | -   I have used many of the       |
|                                   |     strategies in small groups as |
|                                   |     well as whole group settings. |
|                                   |                                   |
|                                   | -   I am more able to identify    |
|                                   |     specific needs efficiently    |
|                                   |     and quickly. Techniques are   |
|                                   |     becoming part of our daily    |
|                                   |     routine.                      |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| ###                               | -   A person to work shoulder to  |
| ### **What was most appreciated a |     shoulder with on one specific |
| bout having the IC team/being abl |     case.                         |
| e to work with IC Team manager**  |                                   |
|                                   | -   Strategies involved me and    |
|                                   |     were for practical support.   |
|                                   |                                   |
|                                   | -   Having the support of someone |
|                                   |     to work one on one with me to |
|                                   |     help better understand the    |
|                                   |     needs/problems of my students |
|                                   |     as well as develop a plan for |
|                                   |     improvement is a reassuring,  |
|                                   |     positive feeling.             |
|                                   |                                   |
|                                   | -   Hopefully using peers to      |
|                                   |     assist teachers will create a |
|                                   |     "village" atmosphere where we |
|                                   |     will help each other to       |
|                                   |     implement and identify what   |
|                                   |     are best teaching strategies  |
|                                   |     for every student to be       |
|                                   |     successful.                   |
|                                   |                                   |
|                                   | -   It is helping students be     |
|                                   |     successful readers. The       |
|                                   |     IC-Team is giving us          |
|                                   |     strategies to better meet the |
|                                   |     individual needs of our       |
|                                   |     students.                     |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| ###### **Suggestions or R         | -   Training should be done first |
| ecommendations for the IC Team**  |     and then implement            |
|                                   |     strategies/procedures after   |
|                                   |     the training.                 |
|                                   |                                   |
|                                   | -   More time in class with the   |
|                                   |     teacher.                      |
|                                   |                                   |
|                                   | -   Help us with understanding    |
|                                   |     the strategies.               |
|                                   |                                   |
|                                   | -   Larger team.                  |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+

## 5.5 Outcomes: Impact on Special Education Referrals and Placement Patterns 

A major purpose of IC Teams is to provide early intervention support to
teachers seeking assistance with students within the general education
arena. As case managers and teachers achieve academic and behavioral
goals for students, it is expected that fewer referrals, evaluations and
placements for special education will be required. Further, as effective
data-based problem solving is implemented within the school, it is also
anticipated that the appropriateness of the few referrals, evaluation
and placement of students in special education will increase as
evidenced by a higher percentage of evaluations resulting in placement.
Such outcomes support the notion that quality and effective early
intervention creates success for those students who are not disabled and
helps better identify those students requiring additional service
support within the school

### **5.5.1 Special Education Referral Patterns: Comparing IC Team to Non-IC Team Referrals** 

Table 12 summarizes the current year\'s data on the number and percent
of students referred and placed into special education, comparing those
cases served by the IC Team with those cases that went through
traditional teaming structures (i.e, SST, EMT, SAT, PST, IEP, etc.)

Although there were fewer IC cases than traditional cases, the data
indicates that a much smaller percentage of IC cases were evaluated
(19%) or placed (3%) in special education as compared to traditional
cases (71% and 42%, respectively). This suggests that referrals for
special education will decrease as the IC Team process is more fully
implemented in the coming year.

**Table 12. Referral Rates to Special Education: IC Team vs. Non-IC
Teams**

+-------------+-----+------+------+------+-----+------+------+------+
| Dist        | \#  | \%   | \%   | IC   | \#  | \%   | \%   | NON- |
| rict/School | IC  | (#)  | (#)  | HIT  | Non | (#)  | (#)  | IC   |
|             | Ca  | IC   | IC   | RATE | IC  | Non- | No   | HIT  |
|             | ses | C    | C    |      | Ca  | IC   | n-IC | RATE |
|             |     | ases | ases | (%   | ses | C    | C    |      |
|             |     | Eval | Pl   | of   |     | ases | ases | (%   |
|             |     |      | aced | E    |     | Eval | Pl   | of   |
|             |     |      |      | vals |     |      | aced | E    |
|             |     |      |      | Pla  |     |      |      | vals |
|             |     |      |      | ced) |     |      |      | Pla  |
|             |     |      |      |      |     |      |      | ced) |
+-------------+-----+------+------+------+-----+------+------+------+
| **C         |     |      |      |      |     |      |      |      |
| harlotte-Me |     |      |      |      |     |      |      |      |
| cklenburg** |     |      |      |      |     |      |      |      |
+-------------+-----+------+------+------+-----+------+------+------+
| **\*        | 12  | 25%  | 0%   | 0%   | 19  | 67%  | 33%  | 50%  |
| Eastover    |     | (3)  | (0)  |      |     | \*\* | \*\* |      |
| E           |     |      |      |      |     | (12) | (6)  |      |
| lementary** |     |      |      |      |     |      |      |      |
+-------------+-----+------+------+------+-----+------+------+------+
| **\*        | 2   | 0%   | \--  | \--  | 55  | 65%  | 4    | 7    |
| Nations     |     | (0)  |      |      |     | (36) | 4%\* | 0%\* |
| Ford        |     |      |      |      |     |      | (23) |      |
| E           |     |      |      |      |     |      |      |      |
| lementary** |     |      |      |      |     |      |      |      |
+-------------+-----+------+------+------+-----+------+------+------+
| **Craven    |     |      |      |      |     |      |      |      |
| County**    |     |      |      |      |     |      |      |      |
+-------------+-----+------+------+------+-----+------+------+------+
| **\* J.T.   | 4   | 0%   | \--  | \--  | 15  | 87%  | 4    | 5    |
| Barber      |     | (0)  |      |      |     | (13) | 3%\* | 0%\* |
| E           |     |      |      |      |     |      | (6)  |      |
| lementary** |     |      |      |      |     |      |      |      |
+-------------+-----+------+------+------+-----+------+------+------+
| **\*        | 3   | 0%   | \--  | \--  | 27  | 100% | 5    | 5    |
| Vanceboro   |     | (0)  |      |      |     | (27) | 4%\* | 4%\* |
| Farm-Life   |     |      |      |      |     |      | (14) |      |
| E           |     |      |      |      |     |      |      |      |
| lementary** |     |      |      |      |     |      |      |      |
+-------------+-----+------+------+------+-----+------+------+------+
| **Hoke      |     |      |      |      |     |      |      |      |
| County**    |     |      |      |      |     |      |      |      |
+-------------+-----+------+------+------+-----+------+------+------+
| **\* South  | 5   | 20%  | 0%   | 0%   | 39  | 9    | 5    | 5    |
| Hoke        |     | (1)  | (0)  |      |     | 7%\* | 2%\* | 5%\* |
| E           |     |      |      |      |     | (31) | (12) |      |
| lementary** |     |      |      |      |     |      |      |      |
+-------------+-----+------+------+------+-----+------+------+------+
| **Wayne     |     |      |      |      |     |      |      |      |
| County**    |     |      |      |      |     |      |      |      |
+-------------+-----+------+------+------+-----+------+------+------+
| **\*        | 3   | 0%   | \--  | \--  | 25  | 60%  | 40%  | 67%  |
| Eastern     |     | (0)  |      |      |     | (15) | (10) |      |
| Wayne       |     |      |      |      |     |      |      |      |
| E           |     |      |      |      |     |      |      |      |
| lementary** |     |      |      |      |     |      |      |      |
+-------------+-----+------+------+------+-----+------+------+------+
| **\* Meadow | 3   | 67%  | 33%  | 50%  | 52  | 47%  | 33%  | 71%  |
| Lane        |     | (2)  | (1)  |      |     | \*\* | \*\* |      |
| E           |     |      |      |      |     | (24) | (17) |      |
| lementary** |     |      |      |      |     |      |      |      |
+-------------+-----+------+------+------+-----+------+------+------+
| **Total**   | **3 | *    | **3% | **1  | *   | **7  | *    | **6  |
|             | 2** | *19% | (    | 7%** | *23 | 1%\* | *42% | 1%** |
|             |     | (    | 1)** |      | 2** | (15  | (8   |      |
|             |     | 6)** |      |      |     | 8)** | 8)** |      |
+-------------+-----+------+------+------+-----+------+------+------+

\***School had cases pending when report was written. These cases were
not included in "placed percentages."**

**\*\*School had missing data on a case.**

# 6.0 Future IC Team Consortium Activities (2004-2005)

## 6.1 Phase 2: Continued Implementation of the IC Team Model 

> Phase 2 professional development activities will continue beginning in
> September 2004. Specifically, IC Team Facilitators and key district
> personnel will continue to participate in comprehensive training to:

-   Fully implement the collaborative teaming model

-   Increase staff and teachers' comfort and use of the IC-Team process

-   Develop individual team members\' skills as case managers

-   Increase individual team members\' skills in documenting student
    progress

-   Increase classroom teachers\' use of empirically based practices of
    instruction and assessment

**Table 13. Proposed Training and Technical Support Plan (2004- 2005)**

# []{.mark}

**(DRAFT) NORTH CAROLINA IC TEAM CONSORTIUM 2004-2005 Schedule of
Training & Technical Support (DRAFT)**

+-----------+--------+---------------+------+------------+----------+
| **DATE**  | **LOCA | **TOPIC**     | **Ma | **Part     |          |
|           | TION** |               | teri | icipants** |          |
| **(Est.   |        |               | als/ |            |          |
| Days      |        |               | Info |            |          |
| In        |        |               | to   |            |          |
| cluded)** |        |               | Bri  |            |          |
|           |        |               | ng** |            |          |
+-----------+--------+---------------+------+------------+----------+
|           |        |               |      | **COHORT   | **COHORT |
|           |        |               |      | 1**        | 2**      |
|           |        |               |      |            |          |
|           |        |               |      | *          | **(6-9   |
|           |        |               |      | *(Existing | New      |
|           |        |               |      | 8          | Sc       |
|           |        |               |      | Schools)** | hools)** |
+-----------+--------+---------------+------+------------+----------+
| August 19 | Meadow | Network/      | Sys  | Cohort 1   |          |
| & 20      | Lane   | Planning      | tems | Fa         |          |
|           | Elem   |               | T    | cilitator/ |          |
| (Gravois/ | entary | [**Session    | rack | Team       |          |
| Gickling/ |        | 7:**          | ing/ | Buddies/   |          |
| Vail)     |        | ]{.underline} | Manu | Principals |          |
|           |        | Classwide     | als/ |            |          |
|           |        | Strategy/     | Case |            |          |
|           |        | Assessment    | m    |            |          |
|           |        | Applications  | ater |            |          |
|           |        |               | ials |            |          |
+-----------+--------+---------------+------+------------+----------+
| Sept /    | Sch    | On-site/      | All  | Cohort 1   |          |
| October   | eduled | I             | case | Fa         |          |
|           | by     | ndividualized | m    | cilitators |          |
| TBD       | dis    | Support       | ater | /Team      |          |
|           | trict/ |               | ials | members/   |          |
| (Up to 4  | s      |               |      | Principals |          |
| days,     | chools |               |      |            |          |
| each      | (clus  |               |      |            |          |
| school    | tered) |               |      |            |          |
| should be |        |               |      |            |          |
| prepared  |        |               |      |            |          |
| to commit |        |               |      |            |          |
| to one    |        |               |      |            |          |
| day)      |        |               |      |            |          |
+-----------+--------+---------------+------+------------+----------+
| October   | TBD    | Networking/   | All  | Cohort 1   |          |
| 14 & 15   |        | Conducting    | manu | Fac        |          |
|           |        | Program       | als/ | ilitators/ |          |
| (Gravois  |        | Evaluation    | case | Team       |          |
| & Staff)  |        | and Topic TBD | m    | Buddies    |          |
|           |        |               | ater |            |          |
|           |        |               | ials |            |          |
+-----------+--------+---------------+------+------------+----------+
| November/ | Sch    | On-site/      | All  | Cohort 1   |          |
| December  | eduled | I             | case | Fa         |          |
|           | by     | ndividualized | m    | cilitators |          |
| TBD       | dis    | Support       | ater | /Team      |          |
|           | trict/ |               | ials | members/   |          |
| (Up to 4  | s      |               |      | Principals |          |
| days,     | chools |               |      |            |          |
| each      | (clus  |               |      |            |          |
| school    | tered) |               |      |            |          |
| should be |        |               |      |            |          |
| prepared  |        |               |      |            |          |
| to commit |        |               |      |            |          |
| to one    |        |               |      |            |          |
| day)      |        |               |      |            |          |
+-----------+--------+---------------+------+------------+----------+
| December  | Centr  | *             |      | Cohort 1   | Cohort 2 |
| 6, 7, & 8 | alized | *Introductory |      |            | Faci     |
|           | Large  | IC Team       |      | New        | litators |
| (Gravois  | Group  | Training**    |      | members of | and      |
| &         |        |               |      | teams      | Pr       |
| Gickling) |        |               |      |            | incipals |
+-----------+--------+---------------+------+------------+----------+
| January-  | N/A    | On-line       |      |            | Cohort 2 |
| June, 05  |        | Coaching of   |      |            | Faci     |
|           |        | Cohort 2      |      |            | litators |
|           |        | Facilitators  |      |            |          |
|           |        | (minimum 8)   |      |            |          |
|           |        | Begins        |      |            |          |
+-----------+--------+---------------+------+------------+----------+
| January   | TBD In | # [Session I: | Case |            | Cohort 2 |
| 4, 5, & 6 | P      | ]{.underline} | m    |            | Facil    |
|           | roject |               | ater |            | itators/ |
| (Gickling | S      | # A In        | ial/ |            | Team     |
| & Staff)  | chools | structional A | Stud |            | Buddies  |
|           |        | ssessment in  | ents |            |          |
|           |        |               | A    |            |          |
|           |        | #  Reading    | vail |            |          |
|           |        |               | able |            |          |
|           |        | # B.          | for  |            |          |
|           |        |  Problem solv | Prac |            |          |
|           |        | ing Process:  | tice |            |          |
|           |        |               |      |            |          |
|           |        | #             |      |            |          |
|           |        |   Contracting |      |            |          |
|           |        |               |      |            |          |
|           |        | (Includes     |      |            |          |
|           |        | Practice      |      |            |          |
|           |        | Assignment)   |      |            |          |
+-----------+--------+---------------+------+------------+----------+

+-----------+--------+---------------+------+------------+----------+
| January   | TBD    | Networking/   | Case | Cohort 1   |          |
| 11^th^    |        | Program       | Ma   | Fac        |          |
|           |        | Evaluation/   | teri | ilitators/ |          |
| (Vail &   |        | Topic TBD     | als, | Team       |          |
| Staff)    |        |               | Manu | Buddies    |          |
|           |        |               | als, |            |          |
|           |        |               | Stud |            |          |
|           |        |               | ents |            |          |
|           |        |               | and  |            |          |
|           |        |               | Cla  |            |          |
|           |        |               | sses |            |          |
|           |        |               | A    |            |          |
|           |        |               | vail |            |          |
|           |        |               | able |            |          |
+-----------+--------+---------------+------+------------+----------+
| February  | TBD In | #             | All  |            | Cohort 2 |
| 2, 3, & 4 | P      |  [Session 2:] | manu |            | Facil    |
|           | roject | {.underline}  | als/ |            | itators/ |
| (Gravois  | S      |               | case |            | Team     |
| & Staff)  | chools | # A. In       | m    |            | Buddies  |
|           |        | structional A | ater |            |          |
|           |        | ssessment in  | ials |            |          |
|           |        |               |      |            |          |
|           |        | #  Reading    | Stud |            |          |
|           |        |               | ents |            |          |
|           |        | # B. Readin   | A    |            |          |
|           |        | g/Strategies  | vail |            |          |
|           |        |               | able |            |          |
|           |        | # C.          | for  |            |          |
|           |        |  Problem Solv | Prac |            |          |
|           |        | ing Process:  | tice |            |          |
|           |        |               |      |            |          |
|           |        | #  Problem Id |      |            |          |
|           |        | entification  |      |            |          |
|           |        |               |      |            |          |
|           |        | D. Student    |      |            |          |
|           |        | Doc. Form     |      |            |          |
|           |        |               |      |            |          |
|           |        | (             |      |            |          |
|           |        | Introduction) |      |            |          |
|           |        |               |      |            |          |
|           |        | (Includes     |      |            |          |
|           |        | Practice      |      |            |          |
|           |        | Assignment)   |      |            |          |
+-----------+--------+---------------+------+------------+----------+
| Ma        | Sch    | On-site/      | All  | Cohort 1   |          |
| rch/April | eduled | I             | case | Fa         |          |
|           | by     | ndividualized | m    | cilitators |          |
| TBD       | dis    | Support       | ater | /Team      |          |
|           | trict/ |               | ials | members/   |          |
| (Up to 4  | s      |               |      | Principals |          |
| days,     | chools |               |      |            |          |
| each      | (clus  |               |      |            |          |
| school    | tered) |               |      |            |          |
| should be |        |               |      |            |          |
| prepared  |        |               |      |            |          |
| to commit |        |               |      |            |          |
| to one    |        |               |      |            |          |
| day)      |        |               |      |            |          |
+-----------+--------+---------------+------+------------+----------+
| Feb 28 &  | TBD In | #             | All  |            | Cohort 2 |
| March 1,  | P      |  [Session 3:] | manu |            | Facil    |
| 2         | roject | {.underline}  | als/ |            | itators/ |
|           | S      |               | case |            | Team     |
| (Gravois  | chools | # A.          | m    |            | Buddies  |
| & Staff)  |        | Student Docum | ater |            |          |
|           |        | entation Form | ials |            |          |
|           |        |               |      |            |          |
|           |        | B. Case       | Stud |            |          |
|           |        | reviews/      | ents |            |          |
|           |        | Problem       | A    |            |          |
|           |        | Solving       | vail |            |          |
|           |        |               | able |            |          |
|           |        | # C. Small G  | for  |            |          |
|           |        | roup Reading  | Prac |            |          |
|           |        |               | tice |            |          |
|           |        | #             |      |            |          |
|           |        |  Assessment,  |      |            |          |
|           |        |               |      |            |          |
|           |        | # D.          |      |            |          |
|           |        |  Problem Solv |      |            |          |
|           |        | ing Process:  |      |            |          |
|           |        |               |      |            |          |
|           |        | #  Intervent  |      |            |          |
|           |        | ion Design &  |      |            |          |
|           |        |               |      |            |          |
|           |        | #  Evaluation |      |            |          |
|           |        |               |      |            |          |
|           |        | *(Includes    |      |            |          |
|           |        | Practice      |      |            |          |
|           |        | Assignment*   |      |            |          |
+-----------+--------+---------------+------+------------+----------+
| March 3   | Centr  | Networking/   | Case | Cohort 1   |          |
|           | alized | Program       | Ma   | Fac        |          |
| (Gravois  |        | Evaluation/   | teri | ilitators/ |          |
| & Staff)  |        | Topic TBD     | als, | Team       |          |
|           |        |               | Manu | Buddies    |          |
|           |        |               | als, |            |          |
|           |        |               | Stud |            |          |
|           |        |               | ents |            |          |
|           |        |               | and  |            |          |
|           |        |               | Cla  |            |          |
|           |        |               | sses |            |          |
|           |        |               | A    |            |          |
|           |        |               | vail |            |          |
|           |        |               | able |            |          |
+-----------+--------+---------------+------+------------+----------+

+-----------+--------+---------------+------+------------+----------+
| March 21  | TBD In | #             | All  |            | Cohort 2 |
| & 22      | P      |  [Session 4:] | manu |            | Facil    |
|           | roject | {.underline}  | als/ |            | itators/ |
| (Gickling | S      |               | Case |            | Team     |
| & Staff)  | chools | # A. Team     | Ma   |            | Buddies  |
|           |        | Facilitation  | teri |            |          |
|           |        |               | als/ |            |          |
|           |        | # B.          | Stud |            |          |
|           |        |  Problem Solv | ents |            |          |
|           |        | ing Process:  | a    |            |          |
|           |        |               | vail |            |          |
|           |        | #  Wri        | able |            |          |
|           |        | ting Concerns | for  |            |          |
|           |        |               | prac |            |          |
|           |        | # C. Writin   | tice |            |          |
|           |        | g Assessment  |      |            |          |
|           |        |               |      |            |          |
|           |        | D. Student    |      |            |          |
|           |        | Documentation |      |            |          |
|           |        | Form          |      |            |          |
|           |        |               |      |            |          |
|           |        | (Includes     |      |            |          |
|           |        | Practice      |      |            |          |
|           |        | Assignment    |      |            |          |
+-----------+--------+---------------+------+------------+----------+
| April 28  | TBD In | #             | Ma   |            | Cohort 2 |
| & 29      | P      |  [Session 5:] | nual |            | Facil    |
|           | roject | {.underline}  | and  |            | itators/ |
| (Gickling | S      |               | Stu  |            | Team     |
| & Staff)  | chools | # A           | dent |            | Buddies  |
|           |        |  Case Reviews | Math |            |          |
|           |        |               | Samp |            |          |
|           |        | # B. Prob     | les/ |            |          |
|           |        | lem Solving P | case |            |          |
|           |        | rocess: Math  | m    |            |          |
|           |        |               | ater |            |          |
|           |        | #  Concerns   | ials |            |          |
|           |        |               |      |            |          |
|           |        | # C. Ma       |      |            |          |
|           |        | th Assessment |      |            |          |
|           |        |               |      |            |          |
|           |        | # D.          |      |            |          |
|           |        | Student Docum |      |            |          |
|           |        | entation Form |      |            |          |
|           |        |               |      |            |          |
|           |        | (Includes     |      |            |          |
|           |        | Practice      |      |            |          |
|           |        | Assignment    |      |            |          |
+-----------+--------+---------------+------+------------+----------+
| May 18    | TBD    | #             | All  |            | Cohort 2 |
|           |        |  [Session 6:] | Case |            |          |
| (Gravois  |        | {.underline}  | M    |            | Facil    |
| & Staff)  |        |               | ater |            | itators/ |
|           |        | # A           | ials |            | Team     |
|           |        |  Case Reviews |      |            | Buddies  |
|           |        |               |      |            |          |
|           |        | # B.          |      |            |          |
|           |        |  Problem Solv |      |            |          |
|           |        | ing Process:  |      |            |          |
|           |        |               |      |            |          |
|           |        | #  Behavio    |      |            |          |
|           |        | ral Concerns  |      |            |          |
|           |        |               |      |            |          |
|           |        | # C. Behavior |      |            |          |
|           |        | al Assessment |      |            |          |
|           |        |               |      |            |          |
|           |        | # D.          |      |            |          |
|           |        | Student Docum |      |            |          |
|           |        | entation Form |      |            |          |
|           |        |               |      |            |          |
|           |        | (Includes     |      |            |          |
|           |        | Practice      |      |            |          |
|           |        | Assignment)   |      |            |          |
+-----------+--------+---------------+------+------------+----------+
| May 19    | TBD    | Network/      | all  |            | Cohort 2 |
|           |        | Evaluation    | ma   |            | Pri      |
| (Gravois  |        | completion/   | teri |            | ncipals/ |
| & Staff)  |        | End of Year   | als/ |            | District |
|           |        | Planning      | Sys  |            | Contacts |
|           |        |               | tems |            |          |
|           |        |               | Trac |            | Facil    |
|           |        |               | king |            | itators/ |
|           |        |               |      |            | Team     |
|           |        |               | Case |            | Buddies  |
|           |        |               | Trac |            |          |
|           |        |               | king |            |          |
+-----------+--------+---------------+------+------------+----------+
| May 20    | TBD    | Network/      | all  | Cohort 1   |          |
|           |        | Evaluation    | ma   | P          |          |
| (Gravois  |        | completion/   | teri | rincipals/ |          |
| & Staff)  |        | End of Year   | als/ | District   |          |
|           |        | Planning      | Sys  | Contacts   |          |
|           |        |               | tems |            |          |
|           |        |               | Trac | Fac        |          |
|           |        |               | king | ilitators/ |          |
|           |        |               |      | Team       |          |
|           |        |               | Case | Buddies    |          |
|           |        |               | Trac |            |          |
|           |        |               | king |            |          |
+-----------+--------+---------------+------+------------+----------+
| June 13,  | Centr  | *             |      | Cohort 1   | Cohort 2 |
| 14, & 15  | alized | *Introductory |      |            | IC       |
|           | Large  | IC Team       |      | New        | Teams,   |
| (         | Group  | Training**    |      | members of | Faci     |
| Gickling, |        |               |      | teams      | litators |
| Gravois & |        |               |      |            | and      |
| Staff)    |        |               |      |            | Pr       |
|           |        |               |      |            | incipals |
+-----------+--------+---------------+------+------------+----------+
| June 16   | Centr  | **IC Team     |      |            | Cohort 2 |
|           | alized | Facilitator   |      |            | Faci     |
| (Gravois  | Large  | Training**    |      |            | litators |
| & Staff)  | Group  |               |      |            |          |
+-----------+--------+---------------+------+------------+----------+