Using Primary Service Providers and Coaching in Early Intervention Programs

The purpose of this packet is to examine the use of a primary service provider approach to teaming which incorporates coaching with families and other professionals. "Coaching" is an interactive process between the family and professionals which promotes the care provider/early interventionist's ability to "be and do" (Shelden & Rush, 2001). This packet discusses the use of a primary coach approach to teaming. We hope this packet will assist you in your job as an early interventionist/early childhood special educator.

Feel free to print and/or copy any original materials contained in this packet. KITS has purchased the right to reproduce the copyrighted articles included in this packet. Any additional duplication should adhere to appropriate copyright law.

The example organizations, people, places, and events depicted herein are fictitious. No association with any real organization, person, places, or events is intended or should be inferred.

_{Compiled by Vera Lynne Stroup-Rentier, M.Ed., David P. Lindeman, Ph.D. and Peggy Miksch, M.S.}

_{June 2007}

_{Kansas Inservice Training System}

_{Kansas University Center on Developmental Disabilities}

_{Adapted for accessibility and transferred to new website October 2022}

_{Kansas Inservice Training System is supported though Part C, IDEA Funds from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment.}

_{The University of Kansas is and Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer and does not discriminate in its programs and activities. Federal and state legislation prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, age, disability, and veteran status. In addition, University policies prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, marital status, and parental status.}

Table of Contents

Letter from the Director

Introduction to Definition and Characteristics of Primary Coach Approach to Teaming

Implementing a Primary Service Provider/Coaching Model

Supporting Families Through Coaching

Activity

References, Resources, & Websites

Packet Evaluation

Letter from the Director

June 2007

Dear Colleague,

This packet was developed to assist early interventionist/early childhood special educators who provide early intervention services to infants and toddlers in natural settings in utilizing an evidence-­‐based approach to early childhood services. This packet includes practical ways to implement transdisciplinary teaming models by using a primary service provider as a coach.Resources and references to further develop your skills in this area are included. KITS is pleased to be able to offer you this information so you can continue to strengthen your services and service delivery models offered to young children with disabilities and their families.

We hope that you will find that the packet contains helpful information. After you have examined the packet, please complete the evaluation found at the end of this packet. Thank you for your interest and your efforts toward the development of quality services and programs for young children and their families.

Sincerely,

David P. Lindeman, Ph.D.

KITS Director

Back to top of page

Introduction to Definition and Characteristics of Primary Coach Approach to Teaming: Moving Beyond Multidisciplinary Practices

The designation of a primary service provider maintains the integrity of the team interaction while minimizing the number of professionals that families, child care providers, and Head Start programs are required to interact with on a regular basis. While our field is required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) to use a multidisciplinary team when interacting with families, evidence based practices has promoted a transdisciplinary process for team interaction. A primary service provider model uses a transdisciplinary process but details the role of this primary service provider team member. This section details models of team interaction and demonstrates how these same models progress from minimal amounts of team interaction to optimal levels of team interaction. Service decisions and differences between a transdisciplinary and a multidisciplinary approach are also illustrated. After reviewing this section, you should have a better understanding of how a team interacts when using a primary service provider approach and how to make sound service decisions when using a more transdisciplinary model of service delivery.

Teaming & The Primary Service Provider as Coach Model

Pre-Quiz

Use this pre-quiz to test your current knowledge. Then check your answers at the end of this section

1. The transdisciplinary model of team interaction and the primary service providers as coach model are the same.
   1. True
   2. False
2. In a primary service provider (PSP) as coach model, the IFSP/IEP outcomes must be:
   1. Discipline-free
   2. Functional (not impairment oriented)
   3. Based on care providers’ and child’s interests
   4. All of the above
3. For most children and families, in a primary service provider as coach model, the PSP should not change.
   1. True
   2. False
4. Which of the following is indicative of parent participation in a primary service provider as coach model of team interaction for delivery of services?
   1. Parents meet with team members individually
   2. Parents meet with entire team or a representative of the team
   3. Parents are full, interactive members of the team
   4. Parents and other care providers are equal team members
5. The primary service provider is identified based on the relationship with the care provider and the best match between IFSP outcomes and PSP expertise.
   1. True
   2. False

Definitions

Primary Service Provider - Transdisciplinary home-based service delivery by one person, with supporting services provided through joint home visits as needed by other professionals. All services should be listed on the IFSP when using this model.

_{McWilliam, R. (2004). Enhancing service in natural environments. Retrieved March 5, 2007, from http://www.nectac.org/~calls/2004/partcsettings/partcsettings.asp - Website has since moved to ECTA Center}

Coaching - “…an interactive process of observation and reflection in which the coach promotes a parent’s or other care provider’s ability to support a child’s participation in everyday experiences and interactions with family members and peers across settings.”

_{Rush, D. D., Shelden, M. L., & Hanft, B. E. (2003). Coaching families and colleagues: A process for collaboration in natural settings. Infants and Young Children, 16(1), p. 33.}

Multidisciplinary - “A team of two or more professionals from different disciplines who draw upon their areas of expertise to provide assessment and treatment to children with developmental disabilities” (p. 236).

Interdisciplinary - “A group of professionals who each represent areas of expertise useful in planning and implementing the educational, therapeutic, and/or medical treatment programs of children with special needs. The team periodically evaluates the child, and, with the child’s parents, determines the child’s areas of strength and deficit. Based on the evaluation, a plan for addressing the child’s needs is developed, as well as a determination of the professionals who will implement the plan. Members of the inter-disciplinary team may include a service coordinator, infant educator, physical therapist or occupational therapist, speech pathologist, social worker, physician, psychologist, and the parents” (p. 189).

Transdisciplinary - “A group of professionals who each represent areas of expertise useful in planning and implementing the educational, therapeutic, and/or medical treatment program of children with special needs. The team gathers periodically to evaluate the child, share their expertise, and, with the child’s parents, determines the child’s areas of strength and deficit. Based on the evaluation, a plan for addressing the child’s needs is developed, and the professionals who will implement the plan are designated. Members of the inter-disciplinary team may include a service coordinator, infant educator, physician, psychologist, physical or occupational therapist, speech pathologist, and social worker, in addition to the child’s parents. Professionals on the transdisciplinary team may provide assessments, recommendations, and treatments that overlap other team members’ activities. For example, both the speech-language pathologist and the occupational therapists may address a young child’s oral tactile defensiveness, and then share their activities with the child’s parents, infant educator, and child care provider. Transdisciplinary team members also provide training to other team members and jointly share the responsibility of implementing the child’s plan” (p. 369).

_{Coleman, J. G. (1999). The early intervention dictionary: A multidisciplinary guide to terminology (2nd ed.). Bethesda, MD: Woodbine House.}

Using Transdisciplinary Service Delivery and a Primary Service Provider

Method that emphasizes how children really learn:

• Plan that is unified around the family’s functional needs
• Capitalizes on families’ forming close relationships with a primary service provider
• Uses specialists as efficiently as possible
• Uses our limited resources most effectively

_{Adapted from McWilliam, R. (2004). Enhancing service in natural environments. Retrieved March 5, 2007, from http://www.nectac.org/~calls/2004/partcsettings/partcsettings.asp - Website has since moved to ECTA Center}

Service Decisions: Transdisciplinary vs. Multidisciplinary

1. Routines of family
2. What does the family want to work on now?
3. Outcome for the child and family
4. Model of service deliver?
   • Transdisciplinary
     1. Who is likely to be the primary service provider?
     2. What help does the primary service provider need for each outcome?
     3. Services on IFSP
   • Multidisciplinary
     1. Services needed to address outcomes
     2. What help does the primary service provider need for each outcome?
     3. Services on IFSP

Based upon the reauthorization of the Individual with Disabilities Education Act of 2004, early intervention programs must engage a multidisciplinary team in its assessment and evaluation activities. As defined earlier, a multidisciplinary team is two or more professionals from different disciplines who draw upon their areas of expertise to assess and, in most cases, “treat” the child with developmental disabilities (Coleman, 1999). When using a multidisciplinary team approach after the assessment and evaluation, early intervention programs tend to utilize a direct, traditional, service delivery approach where on Monday the child sees the physical therapist, on Tuesday the child sees the speech therapist and so on. In complete contrast to this approach, a transdisciplinary approach, which aligns itself with using a primary service provider as a coach, is defined as a group of professionals who represent different disciplines and who use their expertise to jointly evaluate, assess and plan to best meet the needs of the child and the family in a cohesive way and use strategies such as role release (letting another discipline use intervention strategies commonly used by your discipline) and role exchange (videotaping yourself and then sharing with other team members your rationale for using a particular strategy (ies)) to insure a more comprehensive picture of the child, family and the supports they need. The diagram above depicts how you would make service decisions with the family and child based upon which of these models your team would use. Shifting the focus of the team model dictates both how the IFSP outcomes will look and how they will be addressed during service delivery.

_{Adapted from McWilliam, R. (2004). Enhancing service in natural environments. Retrieved March 5, 2007, from http://www.nectac.org/~calls/2004/partcsettings/partcsettings.asp - Website has since moved to ECTA Center}

The Primary Service Provider May Be Determined By…

• IFSP outcomes
• Relationship(s) with care provider/early interventionist(s)
• Knowledge of the primary service provider
• Availability of the coach

Characteristics of the Primary Coach Approach to Teaming

• One staff member or contractor of the program acts as the primary service provider to the care providers and is selected based on expertise in child development, family support, and coaching.
• The primary service provider has awareness of and access to program staff or contractors with a variety of knowledge, skills and experiences.
• Reciprocal coaching and learning occur between the primary service provider and care providers and between the primary service provider and other program staff or contractors.
• The primary service provider receives coaching from other program staff and contractors through ongoing interactions.
  • Joint visits should occur at the same place and time whenever possible with/by other program staff to support the primary service provider as often as deemed appropriate by the PSP or as state licensing requires.
  • When visits occur at separate times, the primary service provider and other program staff must inform the care providers that the purpose of the visit is to gain information that will be shared with the primary service provider for her continued work with the family.
  • Ongoing interaction provides opportunities for reflection and information sharing.
  • Program staff members providing coaching to the primary service provider may vary depending on the need or desire for timely ideas and feedback.
• The primary service provider approach is not…
  • A “watered-down” approach.
  • Teaching the care provider to do therapy.
  • A speech-language pathologist providing physical therapy.
  • Used because you don’t have a particular discipline available.

_{Adapted from McWilliam, R. (2004). Enhancing service in natural environments. Retrieved March 5, 2007, from http://www.nectac.org/~calls/2004/partcsettings/partcsettings.asp - Website has since moved to ECTA Center}

Teaming & The Primary Service Provider as Coach Model

Pre-Quiz Answers

Question 1: The transdisciplinary model of team interaction and the primary service providers as coach models are the same.

Answer: False. Both models are similar in that they are based upon learner-focused intervention which is a concept that shifts the focus of the intervention off the child with the disability and emphasizes supporting those people involved with the child across a variety of environments. The primary service provider as coach model has unique characteristics that separate it from the traditional definition of transdisciplinary model of team interaction. The primary coach approach focuses on promoting the child’s and family’s assets and interests within the context of natural learning opportunities using coaching conversations.

Question 2: In a primary service provider (PSP) as coach model, the IFSP/IEP outcomes must be:

Answer: All of the above. In an effort to create IFSPs and IEPs which are considered to be more "user-friendly," Hull, Capone, Giangreco and Ross-Allen (1996) envisioned the concept of writing a "discipline free" IFSP/IEP. The intent was to develop an IFSP/IEP document in which any teacher, paraprofessional, therapist, or family member could read, understand, and effectively implement. Goals are not "assigned" to one particular service provider. Addressing the child’s skills and strengths rather than weaknesses develops discipline free IFSPs and IEPs. In order to be meaningful to children and families outcomes/goals must also be functional. That is, they should identify the development of skills that support the child in being successful in the environments, routines and activities in which they participate. And finally, outcomes/goals should be based on the interests of the child and family. If they are not based on their interests, they are less likely to be functional or be worked on in the absence of the early intervention staff. Also it is much easier to engage a child and their family in preferred activities.

Question 3: For most children and families, in a primary service provider as coach model, the PSP should not change

Answer: True. The primary goals of the coaching process involve positive changes in care provider(s) and children, achievement of child/family/care provider outcome(s), self-correction by the coaching partner and on ongoing competent performance by the coaching partner. In implementing these goals, the relationship between the child/family care providers is critical, therefore, it is important to try to keep the integrity of the relationship if at all possible.

Question 4: Which of the following is indicative of parent participation in a primary service provider as coach model of team interaction for delivery of services?

Answer: True. Parents meet with team members individually. Using the evidence-based approach for documenting characteristics of specific practices described by Dunst, Trivette, and Cutspec (2002), they have clearly defined the characteristics of a primary service provider as coach approach.

• An identified team of individuals from multiple disciplines having expertise in child development, family support, and coaching is assigned to each familyin the program.
• One team member serves as primary coach to the parent/care provider(s).
• The primary coach receives coaching from other team members through ongoing planned and spontaneous interactions.

Question 5: The primary service provider is identified based on the relationship with the learners and the best match between IFSP outcomes and PSP expertise.

Answer: True. The rationale for this includes:

• recognizing coaching as a reciprocal process
• the coach supporting the care providers to help the child to learn and in turn using the skills, knowledge, experiences and interests of the care provider
• supports for the child and family are designed to achieve outcomes that make a meaningful difference in the life of a child
• the knowledge of evidence-based practice used by team.

_{Coaching in Early Childhood. (n.d.). Retrieved March 5, 2007, from http://coachinginearlychildhood.org}

_{Dunst, C. J., Trivette, C. M., & Cutspec, P. A. (2002, September). Toward an operational definition of evidence-based practices. Centerscope 1(1), 1-10. Retrieved March 5, 2007, from http://www.researchtopractice.info/productCenterscope.php - Digital copy of publication has since moved to wbpress.com} 

_{Hull, K., Capone, A., Giangreco, M. F., & Ross-Allen, J. (1996). Through their eyes: Creating functional, child-sensitive individualized education programs. In R. A. McWilliam (Ed)., Rethinking pull-out services in early intervention: A professional resource. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.}

Back to top of page

Implementing a Primary Service Provider/Coaching Model

Implementing a primary service provider/coaching model is a process that includes many facets. It is important to start with a cross disciplinary team that wants to improve their skills, try new approaches, resolve challenges and build collegial relationships. This same team needs to be willing to meet on a regular basis, be able to schedule co-visits with their colleagues, when appropriate, and receive feedback from each other. There are several options for starting the process: a team can begin with newly referred children only, they can try this model on a handful of families currently enrolled in the program, use the model only on the families currently enrolled or a combination of any of these options. Lastly, as the team implements the primary service provider/coaching model questions may arise as to what to do now if team members are no longer "playing with the children", "using their hands the majority of the visit", and “bringing their toys”. Their role now is to facilitate participation between the caregiver(s) and the child and in so doing use "their hands" to help figure out what works with the child and model/teach to share new ideas with learners in their environment, with their toys.

Components of the Coaching Process

Initiation

• Identify coaching opportunities
• Clarify the purpose and outcomes of coaching
• Identify and address any barriers to making the coaching process effective
• Clarify the ground rules

Observation

• Coach observes the learner in some type of action or practice
• Learner observes the coach modeling some type of action or activity
• Learner observes him- or herself (self-observation)
• Coach and/or learner observe aspects of the environment

Action

• Coach models a skill for the learner
• Learner practices using an existing or new skill discussed with the coach
• Learner experiences a behavior, issue, or situation that precipitates a discussion with the coach
• Learner anticipates a behavior, issue, or experience to discuss with the coach prior to the event

Reflection

• Assist the learner in discovering what he or she already knows or needs to discover by asking the right questions in the right way
  • What’s happening now? What happened?
  • What do you want to accomplish?
  • How did you decide where to focus?
  • What have you tried? What did you do?
  • How could you do it differently?
  • How will you know when you are successful?
• Provide feedback on observation and/or action
• Share information, resources, and supports (as necessary)
• Confirm understanding of the learner
• Review what has been accomplished
• Plan new observations and/or actions or strategies to implement between coaching conversations

Evaluation

• Review the coaching process
  • Continuation
  • Resolution

_{Hanft, B. E., Rush, D. D., & Shelden, M. L. (2004). Coaching families and colleagues in early childhood (p. 60). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes. Reprinted with permission.}

*If the image displays too small on your screen, you may save it to your device to view it. 

_{Rush, D. D., Shelden, M. L., & Hanft, B. E. (2003). Coaching families and colleagues: A process for collaboration in natural settings. Infants & Young Children, 16(1), 40.}

Kinlaw (1999) defined coaching as a shared conversation between two individuals who each have information and skills to gain from interacting with each other. Professionals have skills and specific intervention strategies to share about children’s growth and development. Families and other caregivers have the most information about child’s routines, daily activities, likes, dislikes, strengths and needs. Together, the families and the professionals can begin to examine: 1) what is already happening that works for this child; and 2) what other natural learning opportunities exist for the child when the coach (professional) is not present, thus initiating the coaching process that is depicted in the above diagram.

The specific components of the coaching process include: 1) initiation, 2) observation, 3) action, 4) reflection, and 5) evaluation. Although the diagram above may suggest coaching is a linear process, it is not. Observation, action and reflection are interwoven and important to the process being meaningful to the learning but can occur anytime during the coaching relationship. Actually, during the coaching process the learner and the coach may move in and out of these interwoven components several times. The initiation and the evaluation phases bind the process together so ultimately the learner and coach can jointly develop goals and address those same goals.

_{Hanft, B. E., Rush, D. D., & Shelden, M. L. (2004). Coaching families and colleagues in early childhood (p. 31-33). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.}

The Coach's Goal

The early childhood coach’s goal for the learner is sustained excellent performance in which the learner has the competence and confidence to engage in self reflection, self correction, and generalization of new skills and strategies to other situations as appropriate.

Coaches consider multiple factors when initiating a relationship with a learner including motivation, self-direction, critical thinking skills, integration of new information and learning styles. The chart below assists coaches in understanding learners who have visual, auditory, kinesthetic (active) needs by giving examples of what these learners might be doing during the coaching process.

Learning Styles for Coaching

_{Hanft, B. E., Rush, D. D., & Shelden, M. L. (2004). Coaching families and colleagues in early childhood (p. 176). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes. Reprinted with permission.}

Coaching Follow-Up Planning Tool

Once the coach and the learner mutually agree that their goals are met, they create a plan for ongoing improvement of skills or behaviors, including a plan to reinitiate the coaching relationship, if necessary. This plan is the final step of the coaching process.

Date:

Learner:

Coach:

Coaching topic:

Coach/Learner Plan Next Steps

Hanft, B. E., Rush, D. D., & Shelden, M. L. (2004). Coaching families and colleagues in early childhood (p. 61). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes. Reprinted with permission.

Coaching Follow-Up Planning Tool (Example)

Once the coach and the learner mutually agree that their goals are met, they create a plan for ongoing improvement of skills or behaviors, including a plan to reinitiate the coaching relationship, if necessary. This plan is the final step of the coaching process.

Date: January 27, 2006

Learner: Grandma

Coach: Grace

Coaching topic: Alexis' glasses and activity settings

Coach/Learner Plan Next Steps (Example)

Example table

_{Hanft, B. E., Rush, D. D., & Shelden, M. L. (2004). Coaching families and colleagues in early childhood (p. 61). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes. Reprinted with permission.} 

Coaching Worksheet

The coaching worksheet outlines both the components of the coaching process and elements within these same components. This tool can be used before, during and after any coaching conversation. The coach and/or learner as a way to document observations, actions and reflections that occur between or during coaching conversations may complete the worksheet. Both parties at the conclusion of a coaching visit can also complete it jointly. A separate worksheet can be used multiple times or one worksheet can be used across multiple coaching conversations. (Example included in the “Activity” section of this packet.)

Learner:

Coach:

Date:

Initiation

Coaching opportunity observed or presented:

The purpose of the coaching relationship is:

Intended learner outcomes resulting from the coaching relationship:

Barriers to the coaching process:

Strategies to address barriers:

Ground rules:

Observation

Action

Reflection

Evaluation

Coach Self-Reflection

• Is the learner accomplishing his or her goals?
• What changes, if any, do I need to make in the coaching process?
• Should I continue as this learner’s coach? (If not, who would be more effective?)

Coach Asks Learner

• Shall we continue coaching or have your goals been accomplished (continuation)?
  • If continuing coaching:
    • What changes need to be made in the coaching plan?
    • What observations and/or actions should take place between coaching sessions?
    • How will we communicate in between sessions?
    • Do we have a plan for the next session?

• If goals have been reached (resolution):

  • Is the learner committed to and capable of self-assessment, self-correction, and self-generation?

  • Has a plan for re-instituting coaching been discussed?

_{Hanft, B. E., Rush, D. D., & Shelden, M. L. (2004). Coaching families and colleagues in early childhood (p. 62-64). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes. Reprinted with permission.}

Back to top of page

Supporting Families Through Coaching

Many disciplines across the field of early intervention have advocated for a partnership between professionals and family members and caregivers in children’s lives. (Campbell, 1997; Dinnebeil, McInerney, Roth, & Ramaswamy, 2001; Hanft & Pilkington, 2000; Rush, 2000; Rush, Shelden, & Hanft, 2003). However, in the traditional model of service delivery families have often been viewed as the recipient of services and professionals as the experts who know what is best for the children and families they serve. In this approach, as discussed in the following pages, families view therapists and early childhood special educators as the people who can “fix” their child’s “problem”.

In contrast to this traditional model of service delivery, coaching is an evidence-based, help-giving strategy focused upon enhancing a caregiver’s competence and confidence to promote the development and capacity of their children, whether they have a disability or not (Dunst & Trivette, 1996). The process of moving to a coaching model utilized in family settings includes: 1) identifying the primary coach; 2) identifying the primary learners in the family and in the family’s every day activities; 3) redefining “hands on” intervention; and 4) reconsidering frequency of service and intensity of support. The family’s role in the coaching process is that of learner and the professional embraces their skills and competence so they can ultimately increase the caregiver’s capacity and increases the child’s full participation in family and community life.

The following pages will describe how coaching supports families so there is not a mismatch between what actually happens and what families want for their children.

Concerns Families Share About Intervention

• Service providers don’t clearly define options for ‘REAL’ participation
• Lots of forms and questionnaires drive the initial meetings
• Explanations of natural environments and early intervention are too abstract, do not apply directly to their concerns
• Caregivers are concerned about:
  • Saying the wrong thing or being judged
  • Asking questions that delay or limit services
  • Altering the relationship with the provider
• Confusion about what routines or activities are, how to share or choose because no one explains why they are important
• Assessment (and later service) doesn’t relate to expectations (school or health care models)
• Information about the child and family is repeated multiple times…and not used
• Professionals would rather do activities/intervention than show families how to do it themselves
• Assessments use standard educational practices…not linked to intervention
• Interventions are discipline specific — not connected to priorities and family routines
• Providers play with toys and talk about what they think would be good activities to do in routines…and then leave

What Families Want Regarding Services

• Opportunity to work together to learn about their child
• A “real” picture that reflects their child in familiar and functional settings using multiple methods to share information
• Participation with their child in meaningful activities
• Information to support informed decision making in the areas they identify as important or a priority

_{Adapted from Woods, J. (2004). Enhancing service in natural environments. Retrieved March 5, 2007, from http://www.nectac.org/~calls/2004/partcsettings/partcsettings.asp - Website has since moved to ECTA Center}

Benefits of Primary Service Provider (PSP) Model

As indicated previously, many families enrolled in early intervention and early childhood special education programs are most familiar with a traditional model of service delivery. Based upon their previous experiences and their own understanding that “more is better”, it is important to clearly articulate to families the benefits of using a primary service provider approach. Hanft, Rush and Shelden (2004) provide this “script” for helping families and their coaches understand the value of the primary service provider as a coach model.

“You’ve requested early intervention services from our local program. I’m looking forward to getting to know you and your family better. My role is similar to a coach. I’ll be here to support you, your family, and other important people in your child’s life. Together, we will focus on your priorities and your child’s interests to come up with ways for supporting and increasing your child’s participation in family and community life. My goal is to assist you in helping your child learn and grow. I need to spend some time getting to know you and your family so I know what is important to you, what you like and need to do, and how you prefer to spend your time. You know more than I could ever hope to know about your child and family. Also, you and the other important people in your child’s life spend more time with him than I ever could. So, my intent is for us to pinpoint what you’re already doing that promotes learning and work together to find ways to do this even more. We’ll also work to overcome any challenges you may be experiencing” (p. 36).

Coaching develops the competence and confidence to implement strategies to increase the child’s learning opportunities and participation in daily life, increases the ability to know when the strategies are successful or make changes to current situations, as well as, generalize solutions to new and different circumstances, people, and settings.

_{Adapted from Shelden, M. L., & Rush, D. (2004). Enhancing service in natural environments. Retrieved March 5, 2007, from http://www.nectac.org/~calls/2004/partcsettings/partcsettings.asp - Website has since moved to ECTA Center}

• Family receives strong support from one person, not having to get to know multiple people
• Program for child and family is coordinated, not fragmented
• Weekly, family has to host only one visit in the home, not multiple visits

_{McWilliam, R. (2004). Enhancing service in natural environments. Retrieved March 5, 2007, from http://www.nectac.org/~calls/2004/partcsettings/partcsettings.asp - Website has since moved to ECTA Center}

Support-Based Home Visits

When using evidence-based practice in early childhood, a critical piece of the puzzle is determining what should happen during home visits for early interventionists. The emphasis on supporting and understanding families “where they are” is paramount to the success of using a coaching process to facilitate evidence-based practice.

• Focus on emotional wellness:
  • positiveness, responsiveness, orientation to the whole family, friendliness, sensitivity
• Include access to resources:
  • financial, basic needs, equipment, housing, Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
• Include access to information:
  • child development, disability, what to do with the child
• Embrace evidence-based practices:
  • A child’s relationship with primary caregivers organizes all his or her early development.
  • Children are active participants in their own development, based on their drive to explore and master their environment.
  • Improved outcomes are noted when consumers of all ages are actively involved in planning and implementing intervention.

_{Adapted from Hanft, B. (2004). Enhancing service in natural environments. Retrieved March 5, 2007, from http://www.nectac.org/~calls/2004/partcsettings/partcsettings.asp - Website has since moved to ECTA Center}

Back to top of page

Activity

Please read the following story and answer the questions. You are encouraged to take the blank handouts from the section “Implementing a Primary Service Provider/Coaching Model” and complete them individually or with your team. We have included a completed copy of these handouts as an example.

Rethinking Therapy

Asia was eager to meet Jackie and Lawrence and their son, Marcus, who had just turned 13 months old. Although Jackie and Lawrence were musicians who worked at night, Jackie had stayed up very late after work straightening the house in preparation for Asia's visit. Jackie's mom, Wanda, had stopped by for coffee and was also present when Asia arrived.

Upon her arrival, Asia noticed a pallet on the floor (activity setting) and Jackie preparing to go to the basement to do the laundry. Jackie and Wanda warmly greeted Asia, and Wanda indicated that she would slip out so Asia and Marcus could do their work without any distractions.

"I'll just be downstairs if you need me" Jackie called to Asia as she bounded down the stairs. “Have fun with your new teacher, Marcus! Mama will be back up in about an hour after you finish your exercises, then Gramma and Grandpa will come back, and we'll go to the store!"

Asia thought to herself, "Okay, what do I do now? Obviously, this family is used to something that I don't provide. Now, how am I going to handle this?" Although Jan had been identified as the primary coach from the early intervention program, it appeared that she had been using hands-on therapy in the family's home to remediate Marcus's identified needs. Jackie thought Jan's services were solely for Marcus, rather than a way to support the whole family in promoting Marcus's participation in life activities.

Asia took a deep breath as she focused on how she was going to engage Jackie in a conversation about considering a different approach. This approach would be based on Marcus's interests and assets to support Jackie's capacity to promote Marcus's involvement in activities that are important to the family.

At that moment, Jackie stuck her head around the corner, “Oh, Asia, I'm sorry. You must think I'm terribly rude. I'll stay with

Marcus while you run out to your car to get your bolster, therapy ball, and toy bag. You're really going to have to match the great toys that Jan always brought. Can't say much for the therapy ball, but Marcus always loved playing with Jan's toys!"

“Jackie, can we talk for a few minutes while Marcus plays with some of his toys?” asked Asia. (Initiation-identifying coaching opportunity)

"Sure," Jackie responded. "I have a few minutes before that load of laundry is dry."

"I need some time to get to know you and your family. Sounds like your mom and dad, Wanda and Cecil, are a big support for you. Would you mind telling me more about your family and the types of activities you like to do?"

"Well," Jackie proceeded, “we like to go to church, (community context) and since we have a large extended family, we participate in a lot of different activities. My daughter leads the children's choir at church, (activity setting) and Marcus loves to be around the other children (child interest). He especially loves to play outside, and he loves music, too. Sometimes, we take him to work with us for a little while, and one of my sisters or brothers picks him up and takes him home. We also look forward to family gatherings for birthdays and holidays. (contexts for multiple activity settings) They always give Marcus an opportunity to play ball with his cousins. (activity setting, child interest) Oh, and Marcus loves my parents' dog. I can't keep him away from Fuzzy!"

"You've given me a wealth of information," Asia said. “How has the therapy that Marcus has been receiving helped him be involved in the types of activities you have mentioned and enjoy the things he likes to do?" (Reflection-probing learner to reflect)

Purpose of Coaching

• To support Marcus’s participation and learning during family life activities

Outcomes of coaching

• Marcus’s family will recognize and use everyday activities as learning opportunities.
• Marcus’s family will use his interests to promote his participation during church activities.

Key Partners

• Marcus—child
• Jackie—mother
• Lawrence—father
• Wanda—grandmother
• Cecil—grandfather
• Fuzzy—dog
• Asia—early childhood special educator

Child and family interests

• Family—listening to music, going to church, participating in family activities
• Child—listening to music, dancing, playing with other children and grandparents’ dog, being outside, playing ball

Activity settings

• Children’s choir practice at church
• Birthday parties
• Family gatherings
• Going to the store

"Well, therapy is separate from what we do as a family. It's what Jan did when she came. I guess you could say it's getting him to a point where he can learn to walk and not develop bad habits that would prevent him from moving more normally." (Reflection-sharing expectations)

"Do you feel like you have the supports and information you need to help Marcus participate right now?" Asia asked, (Reflection-probing learner about usefulness)

"The therapy is a support. He's made great progress in therapy, and we loved Jan. He can sit up now, and he couldn't until Jan came to work with him. Have you talked to her about everything he's accomplished? He needs you to stretch his legs by rolling him over the ball, even though he may not like it," Jackie quickly added.

Asia responded, "Have you thought about ways that you and other family members could encourage Marcus's learning and participation all the time based on the activities he likes to do and with the people that are most important to him, instead of doing things he doesn't like or he only did when Jan was here?" (Reflection-determining reception of new ideas)

Jackie raised her eyebrows and looked away from Asia, "We may not have specific ideas about what to do, but we have wondered if we couldn't be doing something ourselves."

"Could you be more specific?" (Reflection-clarifying learner's expectations)

“Well, for instance, he loves to dance to music, (learning opportunity, child interest) so wouldn't that help his legs get stronger? He loves eating marshmallows. (learning opportunity, child interest) Wouldn’t feeding himself marshmallows give him practice using his fingers to pick things up? He’d do just about anything to play with the dog. I’d sure like to figure out some way for Marcus to help take him for a walk.” (activity setting, child interest) (Reflection-self-discovering ideas)

“These are some of the same thoughts and questions that came to my mind.” Asia agreed. “I’m really excited about your ideas. (Reflection-providing feedback, affirming ideas) Together, we can come up with some strategies for helping Marcus walk the dog.”

Rethinking Therapy

• What type of approach was previously being used with Marcus and his family?
• How is the coaching approach different from the traditional approach?
• How did Asia begin to explore activity settings and learning opportunities with Jackie?
• What are Marcus's interests? What does he like to do? What interests Jackie and Lawrence?
• What are some of this family's activity settings?
• Within these activity settings, list Marcus's learning opportunities.
• Formulate three questions that you could use to stimulate Jackie's reflection regarding how Marcus can take Fuzzy for a walk.

_{Hanft, B. E., Rush, D. D., & Shelden, M. L. (2004). Coaching families and colleagues in early childhood (p. 106- 109). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes. Reprinted with permission.}

Coaching Worksheet: Rethinking Therapy

Learner: Jackie

Coach: Asia

Date: November 29

Initiation

• Coaching opportunity observed or presented:
  • Asia’s conversation with Jackie about providing services in the context of their daily activities
• The purpose of the coaching relationship is
  • To support Marcus’s participation and learning in family identified activities
• Intended learner outcomes resulting from the coaching relationship
  • Marcus’s family will recognize and use everyday activities as learning opportunities. Marcus’s family will use his interests to promote his participation. Jackie, Wanda (grandmother) and Cecil (grandfather) will identify three strategies to assist Marcus in walking when they are outside. They will use his interest in walking the dog as a starting point for his participation.
• Barriers to the coaching process
  • Both parents work nights
• Strategies to address barriers
  • Asia will call before visiting to ensure it is a good time. Some visits will be made with grandparents and aunt, who are also caregivers.
• Ground rules
  • Visits will last about an hour. Asia will call before making a visit. Because Wanda and Cecil play an active role in Marcus’s life, they are encouraged to participate in visits, and visits will occasionally be scheduled at times and locations so they may attend.

Observation

Action

Reflection 

Evaluation

Coach Self-Reflection

• Is the learner accomplishing his or her goals?
  • Yes, Jackie has come up with three strategies to help Marcus practice walking when they are outside.
• What changes, if any, do I need to make in the coaching process?
  • Jackie wants Asia’s feedback on how her strategies are working for Marcus.
• Should I continue as this learner’s coach? (If not, who would be more effective?)
  • Yes

Coach Asks Learner

• Shall we continue coaching or have your goals been accomplished (continuation)?
  • Yes, continue coaching.
  • If continuing coaching:
    • What changes need to be made in the coaching plan?
      • Jackie wants to identify additional strategies she can work on for Marcus to use his hands and fingers more.
    • What observations and/or actions should take place between coaching sessions?
      • Asia observes Jackie using strategies they have both discussed.
    • How will we communicate in between sessions?
      • Asia will call Jackie two times a week.
    • Do we have a plan for the next session?
      • Asia will also give Jackie some strategies and she will try at least one of those.
• If goals have been reached (resolution):
  • Is the learner committed to and capable of self-assessment, self-correction, and self-generation?
    • Yes, Jackie is able to self-assess and self-correct, but wants more practice.
  • Has a plan for re-instituting coaching been discussed?
    • N/A. Coaching is ongoing right now.

_{Adapted from Hanft, B. E., Rush, D. D., & Shelden, M. L. (2004). Coaching families and colleagues in early childhood (p. 121-123). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes. Reprinted with permission.}

Back to top of page

References, Resources, Websites

References

Bruder, M. B., & Dunst, C. J. (December 1999/January 2000). Expanding learning opportunities for infants and toddlers in natural environments: A chance to reconceptualize early intervention. Zero to Three Bulletin, 34-36.

Campbell, S. (1997). Therapy programs for children that last a lifetime. Physical and Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics, 7(1), 1-15.

Coaching in Early Childhood. (n.d.). Retrieved June 21, 2007, from http://coachinginearlychildhood.org

*Coleman, J. G. (1999). The early intervention dictionary: A multidisciplinary guide to terminology (2nd ed.)s. Bethesda, MD: Woodbine House.

Dinnebeil, L., McInerney, W., Roth, J., & Ramaswamy, V. (2001). Itinerant early childhood special education services: Service delivery in one state. Journal of Early Intervention, 24(1), 35-44.

Doyle, J. S. (1999). The business coach: A game plan for the new work environment. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Dunst, C., Bruder, M. B., Trivette, C. M., Raab, M., & McLean, M. (2001). Natural learning opportunities for infants, toddlers, and preschoolers. Young Exceptional Children, 4(3), 18-25.

Dunst, C. J., Hamby, D., Trivette, C. M., Raab, M., & Bruder, M. B. (2000). Everyday family and community life and children’s naturally occurring learning opportunities. Journal of Early Intervention, 23(3), 151-164.

*Dunst, C. J., Herter, S., & Shields, H. (2000). Interest-based natural learning opportunities. In S. Sandall & M. Ostrosky (Eds.), Young Exceptional Children Monograph Series No. 2 (pp. 37-48). Denver, CO: Division for Early Childhood of the Council for Exceptional Children.

Dunst, C. J., & Trivette, C. M. (1996). Empowerment, effective help-giving practices and family-centered care. Pediatric Nursing, 22, 334-337, 343.

Dunst, C. J., Trivette, C. M., & Cutspec, P. A. (2002, September). Toward an operational definition of evidence-based practices. Centerscope 1(1), 1-10. Retrieved June 21, 2007, from http://www.researchtopractice.info/productCenterscope.php - Digital copy of publication has since moved to wbpress.com

Hanft, B. (2004). Enhancing service in natural environments. Retrieved June 21, 2007, from http://www.nectac.org/~calls/2004/partcsettings/partcsettings.asp- Website has since moved to ectacenter.org

*Hanft, B., & Pilkington, K. (2000). Therapy in natural environments: The means or end goal for early intervention? Infants and Young Children, 12(4), 1-13.

*Hanft, B. E., Rush, D. D., & Shelden, M. L. (2004). Coaching families and colleagues in early childhood (p. 106-109). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

*Hull, K., Capone, A., Giangreco, M. F., & Ross-Allen, J. (1996). Through their eyes: Creating functional, child-sensitive individualized education programs. In R. A. McWilliam (Ed)., Rethinking pull-out services in early intervention: A professional resource. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Kinlaw, D. C. (1999). Coaching for commitment: Interpersonal strategies for obtaining superior performance from individuals and teams. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.

McWilliam, R. (2004). Enhancing service in natural environments. Retrieved June 21, 2007, from http://www.nectac.org/~calls/2004/partcsettings/partcsettings.asp - Website has since moved to ectacenter.org

*Rush, D. D., Shelden, M. L., & Hanft, B. E. (2003). Coaching families and colleagues: A process for collaboration in natural settings. Infants and Young Children, 16(1), 33-47.

Shelden, M. L., & Rush, D. (2004). Enhancing service in natural environments. Retrieved June 21, 2007, from http://www.nectac.org/~calls/2004/partcsettings/partcsettings.asp - Website has since moved to ectacenter.org

*Shelden, M. L., & Rush, D. D. (2001). The ten myths about providing early intervention services in natural environments. Infants and Young Children, 14(1), 1-13.

Thelen, J., & Huntoon, J. (2004, September). Using systems change strategies to support children birth to five in natural and inclusive environments. Web-based conference call sponsored by OSEP Preschool LRE Community of Practice. Retrieved June 21, 2007, from http://www.nectac.org/~calls/2004/preschoollre/nebraska.asp - Website has since moved to ectacenter.org

Woodruff, G., & Hanson, C. (1987). Unpublished manuscript, Project KAI, Handicapped Children’s Early Education Program, Brighton, MA.

Woodruff, G., & McGonigel, M. J. (1988). Early intervention team approaches: The transdisciplinary model. In J. B. Jordon, J. J. Gallagher, P. L. Huntinger, & M. B. Karnes (Eds.), Early childhood special education: Birth to three (pp.163-182). Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children and the Division for Early Childhood.

Woods, J. (2004). Enhancing service in natural environments. Retrieved June 21, 2007, from http://www.nectac.org/~calls/2004/partcsettings/partcsettings.asp - Website has since moved to ectacenter.org

Additional Resources

*Bricker, D. (2000). Inclusion: How the scene has changed. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 20(1), 14-19.

Brown. W.H., Odom, S.L., Li, S., & Zercher, C. (1999). Ecobehavioral assessment in inclusive early childhood programs: A portrait of preschool inclusion. Journal of Special Education, 33, 138-153.

Buysse, V., Wesley, P., & Keyes, L. (1998). Implementing early childhood inclusion: Barrier and support factors. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 13(1), 169-184.

Cegelka, P., Fitch, S., & Alvarado, J. (2001). The coach-of-coaches model for preparing rural special education teachers. In Growing partnerships for rural special education. Conference proceedings, San Diego, March 29-31, 2001. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED453031)

Donegan, M., Ostrosky, M., Fowler, S. (2000). Peer coaching: Teaching supporting teachers. Young Exceptional Children, 3(2), 9-16.

*Dunst, C. (2000). Revisiting “rethinking early intervention”. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 20(2), 95-104.

*Dunst, C. J., Trivette, C. M., Humphries, T., Raab, M., & Roper, N. (2001). Contrasting approaches to natural learning environment interventions. Infants and Young Children, 14(2), 48-63.

*Edelman, L. (2001). Just being kids. Denver, CO: JFK Partners, University of Colorado Health Sciences Center and Early Childhood Connections, Colorado Department of Health.

*Gallacher, K. (1997). Supervision, mentoring and coaching. In P. J. Winton, J. A. McCollum, & C. Catlett (Eds.), Reforming personnel preparation in early intervention: Issues, models, and practical strategies (pp. 191-214). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

*Hanft, B., & Anzalone, M. (2001). Issues in professional development: Preparing and supporting occupational therapist in early childhood. Infants and Young Children, 13(4), 67- 78.

*Hanft, B., & Striffler, N. (1995). Incorporating developmental therapy in early childhood programs: Challenges and promising practices. Infants and Young Children, 8(2), 37-47.

Janko, S., Fr Porter, A. (1997). Portraits of inclusion through the eyes of children, families, and educators. Early Childhood Research Institute on Inclusion, University of Washington.

*McWilliam, R. A. (Ed). (1996). Rethinking pull-out services in early intervention: A professional resource. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

*McWilliam, R. A. (2000). It’s only natural…to have early intervention in the environments where it’s needed. In S. Sandall & M. Ostrosky (Eds.), Young Exceptional Children Monograph Series No. 2 (pp. 17-26). Denver, CO: Division for Early Childhood of the Council for Exceptional Children.

*McWilliam, R. A., & Scott, S. (2001). A support approach to early intervention: A three-part framework. Infants and Young Children, 13(4), 55-66.

*Odom, S. (2000). Preschool inclusion: What we know and where we go from here. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 20(1), 20-27.

Rogers, S. (1987). If I can see myself, I can change. Educational Leadership, 45(2), 64-67.

*Rush, D. D. (2000). Invited perspective. Infants and Young Children, 13(2), vi-ix.

*Sandall, S., McLean. M., & Smith, B. (2000). DEC recommended practices in early intervention/early childhood special education. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.

Trivette, C. M., Dunst, C. J., & Deal, A. G. (1997). Resource-based approach to early intervention. In S. K. Thurman, J. R. Cornwell, & S. R. Gottwald (Eds.), Contexts of early intervention: Systems and settings (pp. 73-92). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

*Turnbull, A., Turbiville, V., & Turnbull, H. (2000). Evolution of family-professional partnerships: Collective empowerment as the model for the early Twenty-First Century. In J. Shonkoff & S. Meisels (Eds.), Handbook of early childhood intervention (2nd ed., pp. 630-650). New York: Cambridge University Press.

*Walsh, S., Rous, B., & Lutzer, C. (2000). The federal IDEA natural environments provisions. In S. Sandall & M. Ostrosky (Eds.), Young Exceptional Children Monograph Series No. 2 (pp. 3-15). Denver, CO: Division for Early Childhood of the Council for Exceptional Children.

*Wolery, R. A., & Odom, S. L. (2000). An administrator’s guide to preschool inclusion. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute, Early Childhood Research Institute on Inclusion.

*These items are available from:

KITS Early Childhood Resource Center
2601 Gabriel, Parsons, KS 67357
Email: resourcecenter@ku.edu
Phone: 620-421-3067

Websites Specific to Primary Coach Approach to Teaming

Center for the Advanced Study of Early Childhood and Family Support Practices (CASE)

Note: Materials of particular interest on this above web site are as follows:

• Framework for Practicing Evidence-Based Early Childhood Intervention and Family Support (CASEinPoint)
• Asset-Based Context Matrix: An Assessment Tool for Developing Contextually-Based Child Outcomes (CASEtools)
• Promoting Young Children’s Participation in Interest-Based Everyday Learning Activities (CASEtools)
• Parent-Mediated Everyday Child Learning Opportunities: I. Foundations and Operationalization (CASEinPoint)
• Checklists for Promoting Parent-Mediated Everyday Child Learning Opportunities (CASEtools)
• Parent-Mediated Everyday Child Learning Opportunities: II. Methods and Procedures (CASEinPoint)
• Characteristics of a Primary Coach Approach to Teaming in Early Childhood Programs  (CASEinPoint)

Websites Specific to Primary Coach Approach to Teaming

Center for Evidence-Based Practice

Everyday Children’s Learning Opportunities Institute

National Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center

National Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center – Inclusion

Orelena Hawks Puckett Institute

Power of the Ordinary

Power of Two

Back to top of page

Packet Evaluation

Please take a few minutes to complete the brief online survey above. Your feedback is central to our evaluation of the services and materials provided by KITS.

Back to top of page