Here in my school we work with data driven decisions when qualifying most students. I feel that a great weakness in my school is the referral process. I feel that most teachers do not present their data for referral a child very well. Generally, it is… this child is struggling, he is failing, I’ve tried a couple of things (sometimes) and he just isn’t getting it. I feel that it is one area that as a school we really need to develop better. The veteran teachers are the worst at the referrals, the new teachers create the most complete referrals. Once testing in completed, I use the testing data, classroom observations, teacher interviews, and parent input to support eligibility determination. I feel that the sped teachers in my building follow the process continually and make informed decisions based on information gathered. I feel that a strength in my school is that we work well together as a team. There are three sped teachers in the building (1 preschool and 2 resource rooms). I feel that we support each other, discuss transitioning through the school, and work together to create the best programs for students with the varying needs. I feel that once the referral process is completed and the evaluation is started that the classroom teachers are happy to contribute more information when questions are asked.

I believe that our assessment team follows the steps and engages in DDDM process. We start the process with reviewing parent information from application packet and questionnaires. The parent information includes family’s concerns and parent description of child’s strengths. And we always enjoy reading positive things parents share with us about their kids. I agree that screening is one of the most important part of referral process and it should be a diligence process. During file review process, our team consisting of special education teacher, speech pathologist, school psychologist, and IEP clerical, analyzes, summarizes and interprets the information gathered, and then makes decisions whether to gather more information (i.e., video for speech therapist) or refer a student for special education evaluation. We sometimes determine that no assessment is needed, and a team member will call parents to deliver good news that their kid is on track and that a lack of certain skills, per parent report, is normal and age appropriate. We often find that some parents are happy with our recommendation. They share that they just want to make sure that their child is making progress and meeting developmental milestones, and they actually do not want special education services. We keep data about number of students who qualified and did not qualify for services and evaluate screening process on a regular basis.

Hi Dawn,

I had similar experience when I worked at elementary schools. Implementing the DDDM process was a very challenging task. It did help when school leadership was supportive. I was so happy that Dr. Kristie Pretti-Frontczak did presentations to ASD administrators, principals, instructional coaches and teachers last year.

To Dawn and Olena –

I appreciate both of your responses! Working in the same district as Olena – I see that our district evaluation center where Olena works as being VERY efficient and successful in their work with families and children. Their referrals come through venues other than school district preschool programs – and they have developed a successful DDDM process. I also appreciate Olena’s and Dawn’s comments on the struggles faced when trying to use this process in a school setting – where referrals come from teachers rather than parents. It is a very different experience and is where I “live” in my role in the school district. It requires a different approach and I also find that I have to “tweek” the process every year – as we hopefully continue to do a better job of pulling all the pieces of DDDM together.

In our school district, we have 15 Title I preschool classrooms – each in a different school building. My role is to support these teachers as they have concerns regarding the developmental progress of their students. We have developed a system that requires teachers to start the DDDM process while I provide consult support. In most cases (though never all) we are using a process where we cycle through DDDM at several levels that meet at least it’s first four purposes.

I have found that there are two challenges that I face every year. The first is logistical due to the locations of our programs and the itinerant nature of my work. In each school, each year (often due to staff or role changes), it is necessary for me to put together an assessment team at that school. And since each school and every professional have their own past experiences, expectations, caseloads, and schedules – it can be very challenging to bring together a team that can work together on the DDDM process. Also – since we do not have universal preschool within the district – many professionals who need to be involved in the process are unfamiliar with working with children younger than kindergarten age. With that said – I am generally pleased with the effort they make to come alongside our students and families – and while analyzing and interpreting data on the development of young children is very challenging for them – they tend to “step up” as we lean on each other’s and the parent’s expertise to make decisions.
The second challenge is similar to those I have heard others describe. Different teachers bring varied data when referring a child. I also find that each teacher has their own “baggage” – in their own past experiences or their own “shark music” as Kristie so aptly calls it. And then, sadly – there are always a few cases where a teacher just wants a child “out” of their class due to challenging behaviors. When I have the opportunity to consult early in the process – I find that we can minimize the problems that can arise from these. Keeping the communication lines open and flowing is so very important to the DDDM process!

I am fortunate to work within a district that seems to be mindful of DDDM when working with pre-school students (two years eleven months to five years) when they have evaluated students prior to placing (or not placing) students in district classrooms.

In my school, we have a team that is continuously conversing with each other, asking questions, mentioning noticed behaviors, listening to each other, and having reflection time on our students. I have found the biggest struggle on my team can be helping a parent (caregiver/family member) understand that no matter how many “experts” are at the table, they are still the expert on their child; their input is valuable, insightful, and integral to meeting the child’s needs. We need everyone’s view point to help find many (hopefully most) of pieces the of puzzle.

2.2

In our school district, we have the Early Intervention Services Center where the preschool aged kids (ages 2.9-5.11) are referred and screened and often, evaluated for special education services. My role is as a special education preschool teacher on an evaluation team. My evaluation team specifically works with children (and their families) that are referred through the Infant Learning Programs in Anchorage and Eagle River (and on JBER army/ air force base). As such, all of the kids that my team evaluates have had Part C services and have a primary service provider that knows the child and the family well. Often, the provider has worked with the child for two or so years.
I feel that we are using a data driven decision making model or DDDM very well, especially the first two steps of gathering and documenting. When we first receive a referral, we are provided with some basic information about the child and the family’s main concerns and we are given a copy of the most recent ILP evaluation. We then coordinate with the ILP provider to gather and document all the information that we can about the child that is important for an incoming team to know about the child and family. In these “briefing” meetings we get to learn many more details about the child’s strengths, concerns, delays, and what interventions and services have happened so far in the child’s life. We are able to ask lots of questions about their present level functional skills, the family’s situation and attachment levels, and whether the child has daycare or preschool experience. Myself or my co-worker and SLP often get invited to participate in the 90-day transition meeting with the ILP provider and the family. This is another opportunity to gather information and gain insights into the child’s life and present levels of development.
There is a range of needs for the referrals we receive, but all of the children have all qualified for Part C or have been picked up as needing extra support under Non-Part C services (usually “speech-only” type kids who are just getting bi-weekly or monthly services for a mild speech delay). Often times, the child receives more than just ILP services. They may have additional private speech therapy or occupational therapy and/or physical therapy. Sometimes, they have been evaluated by a developmental pediatrician or neuropsychologist. Many of the children that are referred have had ILP services from birth or shortly afterwards and are needing some major support in their development. We rely on the family and the ILP provider to gain releases of information forms so that we may talk with the private providers and obtain their evaluations as well. These evaluations are always included in our eligibility reports (as long as they are current). I do feel that our team does a very good job of gathering and documenting pertinent information about the child and their family.
The model we use is truly wonderful and works very well. However, I have found one challenge in our ILP to ASD preschool model. Often times, the ILP providers are quick to add their own judgement about what services the child will receive in our preschool program. We do have, albeit narrow, a hierarchy of services that preschool-aged kids can qualify for in our district. And we find that the ILP providers have already “pre-determined” and shared with the family where they believe the child will be placed. My team is always quick to point out that first they must be evaluated to determine eligibility, and that our qualifications for Part B services vary from Part C. It can be very frustrating when the family comes into the room at the beginning of an evaluation and says, “So when do we start at Nunaka Valley?” I can’t tell you how frustrating that is!
The other steps, the summarizing, analyzing, and interpreting are completed thoroughly by my team as well. I find it very helpful to ask the ILP provider for help when thinking of which goals to target and what modifications and accommodations would be beneficial and have worked in the past.

It is ironic that I happened watched the DDDM lesson the day after an inservice at my school that we learned about the new intervention and referral process. In the past, the referral process was very foggy to me and all parties included. Kids would be nominated by the teacher as having struggles and a team would talk about the kid. If there was enough of a need, they would be referred for Special Education and go through testing. I enter the picture when I am told that I have a new referral and I will be contacting parents, getting the meeting together, and making sure the assessments are completed. The biggest struggles that our team had in the past is enough documentation about how the child compares to other students and what has been done as an intervention with the child.

Our new problem solving procedure is far more involved and aligned with the DDDM process. The first steps are to gather information about the student and what interventions have been done in the past, talk with team members and previous teachers. The next step is to brainstorm tier 2 interventions to try with the student and document progress. If there s still a need, the information is summarized and the child is discussed and analyzed with the team and parents. The results are interpreted to determine if the child qualifies as a referral for special education.

Module 2 – Lesson 2: Data-Driven Decision-Making

•
Ashley Lyons – Keymaster
Directions: STEP 1- To what extent have you or the IEP teams you have been on engaged in the DDDM process? If you have, do you or your team engage in DDDM in a continuous manner? What steps of the process have you or your team struggled the most with and which step is a strength? If you have not engaged in DDDM specifically, describe how the decision-making process you have been a part of and how that compares to DDDM. STEP 2- Respond to at least one colleague’s posting.
I have never been directly involved in a team looking at pre-school children who might qualify for special services. The first place I worked at, while I was a senior in high school, in 1972, except for it’s director, was staffed by “non-professionals” who received their training directly from the director. She was highly trained and specialized in brain damaged and autistic children. At this time, there was no pre-school or even Kindergarten (until the following year), for students with special needs.
We had students from financially poor homes and students with a wide variety of disabilities, from ages 2 – 7, and later to age 5. I can’t really speak to how these students were chosen but, under the circumstances, we provided some very fine and needed services to them
As for my public school employment, I worked with K-3 (mostly) students and had a number of students who identified in pre-school as needing special services during my 8 years there. My biggest impression of the preparation work that was done (without my assistance), is that there rarely seemed to be enough time properly assigned to do all of the chores one must do to do a really good job. So, of course, most teachers spent a lot of time after the work day to get everything done. The biggest plus I saw was the commitment of teachers to give that extra time to provide quality services. The biggest challenge I saw was maintaining a Team from year to year. It seemed, all too often that they had to “create the wheel” all over again. A second challenge is finding the team to meet, including with parents, that was convenient and during working hours. Perhaps a bigger challenge would be for students in Kindergarten and 1st grade who did not qualify but continued to struggle. Having the resources to provide to general ed, teachers was often hit and miss. I very much sympathized with their calls for ideas to try with struggling students while maintaining effective assistance to a large classroom of less challenging but still needy younger students. It seems there were more changes in the team designed to help in these situations from year to year than in the pre-school programs.
From my position, it is very difficult to know if the Teams went through all of the steps of the DDDM but of all the steps, I would guess that gathering sufficient information from parents would have been the weakest since the emphasis seemed to be on how the difficulties with the child were affecting school work, unless the concerns were coming from parents, which present their own types of challenges.

•
Dawn Fagenstrom – Participant
Here in my school we work with data driven decisions when qualifying most students. I feel that a great weakness in my school is the referral process. I feel that most teachers do not present their data for referral a child very well. Generally, it is… this child is struggling, he is failing, I’ve tried a couple of things (sometimes) and he just isn’t getting it. I feel that it is one area that as a school we really need to develop better. The veteran teachers are the worst at the referrals, the new teachers create the most complete referrals. Once testing in completed, I use the testing data, classroom observations, teacher interviews, and parent input to support eligibility determination. I feel that the sped teachers in my building follow the process continually and make informed decisions based on information gathered. I feel that a strength in my school is that we work well together as a team. There are three sped teachers in the building (1 preschool and 2 resource rooms). I feel that we support each other, discuss transitioning through the school, and work together to create the best programs for students with the varying needs. I feel that once the referral process is completed and the evaluation is started that the classroom teachers are happy to contribute more information when questions are asked.
These observations are a good match for the experiences I had. Generally, I did not fault the Gen.Ed. teachers, having been in that position myself, I understand the challenges of preparing lessons, especiall at the elementary level and, for many schools, the challenge of keeping a “proper pace” of progress”.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
OLENA KYSELOVA – Participant
I believe that our assessment team follows the steps and engages in DDDM process. We start the process with reviewing parent information from application packet and questionnaires. The parent information includes family’s concerns and parent description of child’s strengths. And we always enjoy reading positive things parents share with us about their kids. I agree that screening is one of the most important part of referral process and it should be a diligence process. During file review process, our team consisting of special education teacher, speech pathologist, school psychologist, and IEP clerical, analyzes, summarizes and interprets the information gathered, and then makes decisions whether to gather more information (i.e., video for speech therapist) or refer a student for special education evaluation. We sometimes determine that no assessment is needed, and a team member will call parents to deliver good news that their kid is on track and that a lack of certain skills, per parent report, is normal and age appropriate. We often find that some parents are happy with our recommendation. They share that they just want to make sure that their child is making progress and meeting developmental milestones, and they actually do not want special education services. We keep data about number of students who qualified and did not qualify for services and evaluate screening process on a regular basis.
Wow! I would have wanted to work at her school. Sounds like she has a great team to work with. I doubt that this is typical though there are many great people in the system. There is not often proper training for how to work as a team in such situations. For most of us, our training focuses on our own specialties with a little talking about working with team members but very little actual study or practice.

To what extent have you or the IEP teams you have been on engaged in the DDDM process? If you have, do you or your team engage in DDDM in a continuous manner? What steps of the process have you or your team struggled the most with and which step is a strength? If you have not engaged in DDDM specifically, describe how the decision-making process you have been a part of and how that compares to DDDM

I feel that with some teams it happens more often than with others. I feel that more experienced teachers can be very beneficial on a team because that have dug into their data before. I think that newer teachers tend to struggle a little bit more. They may not have the training and knowledge to dig into the data. THat is were we come in as members of that team and we help the teachers get a grasp on all of the data that they have before them.

Though we have not formally written out these steps as defined here, I feel that we pretty much do follow the DDDM process. Different team members are responsible for different pieces, depending on where the student is in the RTI, Eligibility, or IEP process.

Screenings:
Since the RTI process was implemented in out district nearly 10 years ago, all kids are being screened at least three times per year using a norm-referenced informal assessment. There is a sped staff member who is responsible for administering this assessment. It is now computer-based so the data is automatically recorded. In addition, the general education teachers are continually gathering and recording anecdotal and other formative assessment data. The general ed, special ed, specialists, and at least one admin member meet bi-weekly to summarize, analyze, and interpret each student’s data and determine whether further early interventions are appropriate through the RTI process and, if so, develop a plan to implement. Because this takes time and the team is also reviewing/revising existing RTI intervention plans at this time, each student is not discussed at each meeting, but they are always discussed at least 3-4 times per school year, and more frequently if they have an active RTI education plan. Progress/concerns are documented of a form that was created for this purpose. Students are not referred for special education until they have had a plan within this system for an appropriate amount of time (usually at least half of a school year) and everything tried is not having a significant impact. Students who have IEPs are not usually discussed at these meetings because they are discussed on a regular basis in other settings (see Planning/Revising/Program Evaluation section below.) In my first two years with the district, this process did not really exist. But in the last 8-10 years this process was established (through some great admin leadership) and I now feel that it is a strength for the district.

Determining Eligibility:
Generally the special education teacher and other specialists are responsible for gathering the data used for determining eligibility. The special education teacher is responsible for the academic data, the psychologist performs psychological data, OTs, PTs, SLPs, and other specialists each gather their appropriate data. Any one of those people can gather behavioral/social data, depending on how the concern is impacting the student on a day-to-day basis. Each person goes through each of the five steps for their area and compiles the information in a short report. The special education teacher then transfers that information to the eligibility report. When the team meets, all members go through analyzing and interpreting steps together, looking at all of the information, and reach a consensus on a plan for the future.

Planning Instruction/Revising Instruction/Program Evaluation:
These three things are formally done at each IEP or IEP amendment meeting. For these, we use any appropriate information from the eligibility decision (obviously, not all of this data is relevant- and none of it will be if the student’s eligibility was not determined recently) as well as relevant/current RTI data, progress monitoring data, anecdotal information, and other teacher/specialist-collected informal data. Before the IEP meeting, I meet with each general education teacher and specialist who work with the student to discuss progress monitoring results, present levels, and where current needs/concerns lie. In doing this, we informally go through each of the 5 steps. I also have an informal conversation with the parent when scheduling the meeting about what they’re seeing at home, what we’re seeing at school, and any concerns that they may have. Information from these conversations is used to write the drafts of PLAFFP, the goals, and the classroom accommodations. This process takes us through the gathering, documenting, and summarizing steps. At the meeting, when all team members are present, we formally review and discuss all of the information (and revise if needed) and determine goals, educational placement (LRE), classroom accommodations, tools that will be used for progress monitoring, and any other services that are needed. In doing this we are progressing through the analyzing and interpreting steps of the process. In addition to the IEP process, I also meet informally with teachers and specialists on a regular basis (frequency of these meetings is determined during the IEP meeting) to summarize, analyze, and interpret how things are going and whether the current program is working and what tweaks might be done to improve on current practices. I admit that formal documentation of these meetings is a weak point for me.

I think that, generally, we are engaging in the DDDM process continually, but different parts of it are emphasized more (or less) at different stages of planning/development/implementation of education plans. As a team, I think that we have strengths in all of the steps (gathering, documenting, summarizing, analyzing, and interpreting data) as they relate to intervention plans- especially through the initial and re-evaluation processes. I think that we may have a weakness in consciously gathering data about the whole child, looking for strengths as well as weaknesses. When we look at each student’s data, obviously strengths show up and are discussed along with anecdotal information. However, most of the discussion about strengths goes undocumented. I think that this is partly because it is a small community and we all feel that we know one another and each student quite well. Unlike in a larger district, I think that multiple members of the team could speak any individual student’s strengths at any time, so the formal documentation of that tends to go by the wayside. Also, because at the annual IEP level, much of the process falls to the special education teacher, how well these steps are being preformed depends on the strengths and weaknesses of the individual teacher. My weakness is definitely in gathering data each year about the whole child and in the accountability piece. I have always assessed/revised the data gathering tools used for each student’s goals at least once a year. But for some of the more abstract/anecdotal information, I find that having a functional data gathering/documenting tool is crucial, especially when several people are working with the student throughout the day. As mentioned, it is a lot of work to be constantly revising these tools and I’m not sure that they ever end up being just perfect.

Peer Response:
Naomi,

The process that your district takes sounds similar to my district. We have an RTI team that is different from the special education team students k-11 are screened 2-3 times a year. We meet monthly to go over data from these assessments, classroom assessments and interventions that are being used and discuss what is working and what isn’t working. Thank you for breaking down your schools process.

In my school district, as a CARE Team special education teacher, I support students in general education environments such as Title 1 preschool, Migrant Education Preschool, and Head Start. My role as a CARE Team teacher is to support these various teachers as they have concerns regarding the developmental progress of their students. Our school district has developed a system that requires general education teachers to start with the DDDM process. While using the DDDM process, I can provide supplemental support. Students can be referred throughout the school year and we continually evaluate for different accommodations/modifications or move towards a special education evaluation if needed.

The first challenge as a CARE Team teacher is often general education teachers want to quickly change a student’s placement to a self-contained location upon initially qualifying for special education services instead of giving the general education environment a chance. The key to solving this is keeping clear communication, using the data to show what accommodations or modifications are needed, and to focus on the child’s successes. It’s hard to let go of past experiences or the “what if’s” of a change of placement.

A strength I feel like our team has is a very straight forward referral process prior to evaluation. In the first two weeks, general education teachers are developing student relationships and implementing structures and routines. If there is a significant behavior, communication, health, or developmental concern, the general education teacher submits a concern form which immediately gets me involved with the student. Over the next few weeks, we collaborate, implement strategies, and gather data. Within 4-6 weeks, we keep evaluating concerns, complete additional documentation, and implement interventions. After 6-8 weeks of data, we than can form a SST team in order to do a formal evaluation for special education services. I like our referral process because it gives both the general education and special education teacher time to truly know the student and their needs. We do not automatically jump to an evaluation when at times, student’s needs can be met prior to receiving an evaluation with the right support, modifications, accommodations, and strategies.

Peer Response to Olena:

I’ve had the privilege of working with the EISC Assessment Team in the summer and agree that the team easily follows the steps and engages in the DDDM process. The referral process is very streamlined and doesn’t always warrant a special education assessment. Often parents do receive the news that their child is on track or are given resources to help them continue to be on track. We share a lot of community resources with parents that help their child continue to grow in all developmental areas. Other times, the referral process does warrant an assessment but it’s not up to one person to determine this… it’s a team. I like that it’s multiple people in different specialties that work together to determine this. I like how each person is willing to throw out their own thoughts but are willing to listen to other people perspectives and/or ideas.

STEP 1- To what extent have you or the IEP teams you have been on engaged in the DDDM process? If you have, do you or your team engage in DDDM in a continuous manner? What steps of the process have you or your team struggled the most with and which step is a strength? If you have not engaged in DDDM specifically, describe how the decision-making process you have been a part of and how that compares to DDDM.

I believe we engage in the DDDM process. The school district I work for does not have its own preschool program. Three to five-year-old children attend the Head Start program. The special education team (teacher and para) work closely with the Headstart staff once a student has been referred. We do rely a lot on the staff at the Headstart to provide information about the child (strengths, needs, concerns, parent concerns, etc) through both the gathering and documenting stage. I (as special education teacher) typically serve as the warehouse for the information provided by the Headstart staff and other individuals. Depending upon the reason for the referral one or more related service providers travel to the village to test the child. They perform observations and also gather information from the Headstart staff and parents. Typically the school psychologist and/or speech pathologist and/or occupational therapist, etc. will summarize their test results as well as the information they have gathered from teaching staff and parent(s), analyze and interpret the data they have and make recommendations. The teams that I work with then take that information as well as any other information gathered from the Headstart and the parents (work samples, Brigance test results, log notes, etc.) and then use that information to determine eligibility.

I think where things begin to break down is once an IEP has been written and implemented we do not continue to implement all 5 steps. Some of this depends upon the identified needs of the child and the amount of time staff (special education and Headstart) have to gather, document, summarize, analyze and interpret data on a regular basis. This is a definite area of need in my opinion.

Reply to LuEmma

I like your description of your district’s referral process. It is well-timed to give staff the opportunity to implement interventions and get to know the child before jumping into a referral for special education services and then immediately testing the child. I also think it is great that an evaluation isn’t the first step taken. It’s important to provide supports within the general education setting before jumping to an evaluation and possibly special education services. The Headstart staff that I work with are always more than willing to provide supports and try new strategies in an effort to see if the concern(s) they have can be addressed without an evaluation.

In my school classroom teacher collect data on a student and document any interventions that are being used. That information is sent into a team that meets weekly, the team reviews the paper and decide what needs to happen (interventions, targeted instruction, family engagement, referral) If a referral is made then the team continues to discuss student weekly to see where the team is on the referral and what the testing is showing.

I believe we do a nice job of following the DDDM model. By time a student reaches a referral the team has already collected data and tracked any interventions that have been used. The form the teacher fills out for the intervention team includes testing information, classroom behaviors, engagement, and any other relevant information. Family situations, social needs, attendance, and behaviors are all considered and used in forming the student profile. The team also identifies who needs to be involved and who is responsible for different areas.

Peer reply to Diane

I agree that once an initial IEP is made we don’t always collect the data needed. I think for our school the team really works together on collecting and sharing data during the initial referral but after everything gets separated out. And when you are supporting a child that is enrolled in a program outside of the district it gets more difficult.

The IEP team in my school is continuously engaged in the DDDM process. Before an IEP meeting, data from all team members are gathered across all settings and in the child’s area of need. We collect information to determine the student’s present levels of academic achievement and functional performance. We collect data from standardized school and district assessments as well as achievement and cognitive data. Daily observations, classroom data, anecdotal data, and parent input are also gathered. Throughout the IEP year, teachers document information using multiple methods. The team summarizes all the information using different techniques. This usually includes a narrative of the students’ present levels, graphs/tables, and a baseline of where the student is currently functioning. After all the information about the student is gathered and summarized, the team analyzes and interprets the data. Using all the data, an IEP or eligibility report is developed. I feel our team is strong in all the 5 steps of the DDDM process.

Our team struggles with the pre-referral data collection and progress monitoring process. Interventions are happening; however, teachers are not recording data and progress monitoring are not consistently done. Our district has a process in place following the Multi-tiered system of support framework. An online data collection and intervention system is in place, but in spite of all these supports, teachers struggle to complete the pre-referral process. This delays the referral process and can be frustrating for everyone, including the students.

Response to Dawn Fagenstrom

Hi Dawn. I have the same experience in our school with regards to the referral process. The breakdown happens in the process of documentation and regular progress monitoring. Documentation is important and it does become very frustrating when we hear our colleagues talking about students’ struggles expecting us to start testing with this information. Once a student is identified, it does seem like the DDDM process goes smoothly with everyone’s support.

STEP 1- To what extent have you or the IEP teams you have been on engaged in the DDDM process? If you have, do you or your team engage in DDDM in a continuous manner? What steps of the process have you or your team struggled the most with and which step is a strength? If you have not engaged in DDDM specifically, describe how the decision-making process you have been a part of and how that compares to DDDM. STEP 2- Respond to at least one colleague’s posting.
Step 1: Our process is a similar one. Something new that our disctrict is starting to require as part of the referral process is to ask our specialists to screen children prior to making a referral for testing. A screening may be an observation, parental conversation, teacher conversation or taking data. But, it really helps decrease the amount of referrals for testing around communication needs. Our district also has WIN groups that allows cildren to get specific instruction in “What They Need” if there is a delay or difference in a skill. This allows teachers to see if with a bit more instruction or perhaps different instruction, a child can be successful without going to testing. The SLP may find ways to support the child within their curriculum or even offer a few quick interactions to see if the child can “Catch up” with minimal interactions in the classroom as well. If a child can catch up, it means that they did not have access to the information for learning or needed a quick boost due to a delay/difference.
Once other alternatives have been shown not to work or there is a big enough difference that further testing is obvious, our service coordinators call a Planning Evaluation meeting. The meeting is conducted with parents, specialists and teachers. This allows everyone to ask questions and determine what type of testing should be conducted. This helps with getting the accurate information for later determining Eligibility.
Once, testing happens, the team comes back together to hold an IEP meeting. If there are questions, I know that individuals will ask further questions of each other and call parents for follow up etc. Sometimes, information needs to be gathered in a variety of settings in order to understand where the breakdown of skills is occurring. Also, sometimes professionals need to work together while collecting information if one area of weakness is affecting another skill areas. For example, if a child has trouble with staying regulated emotionally, the SLP may meet with the teacher/conduct observations with the teacher/testing together in order to help each other understand the underlying why’s etc.
The IEP meeting is for determining Eligibility as well as coming up with a plan for instruction. Revising instruction can happen within the activities itself which happens on a week to week basis depending on how a child is doing. But, it can also mean having another IEP meeting if larger changes like a whole different goal is needed. Each SLP takes daily notes on progress which is then written up in a progress note every Tri-trimester. Daily notes help determine level of support and even what a child is interested in or whether the child is ready to proceed to a more involved step in the goal. The progress notes are shared with the parent and help keep those working with children accountable. Program Evaluations happen each IEP as well as each session when looking at whether a child is ready for a different setting, more integration, less integration, more supports, less supports etc. Good instructors are always looking at how they can tweak the session to just what a child needs for growth.

Diane,
I agree with you on where the system tends to break down. I also think that once the IEP is written in our district there is less analyzing of environment, set of skills to work on etc. The analyzing and revising becomes less pliable and more stagnant. Good thoughts. I wonder if this is because it is so much work to make change. Systems get set up and tend to run smoothly once they become a regular occurrence. I think I see this the most with level of support and least restrictive environment considerations.
Christine

– To what extent have you or the IEP teams you have been on engaged in the DDDM process?
My IEP team deliberately engages in the DDDM process in a limited, asynchronous method. We do so via texts, emails, phone, video conferences (1:1), and other methods. I live in an isolated village in Alaska which makes collaboration with the various team members challenging. In devising collection methods, collecting data, summarizing data, and discussing the potential decision options, we do so mostly via email.

-If you have, do you or your team engage in DDDM in a continuous manner?
Again, I have to say my school’s team does, but it is not a deliberative process. Our decision making is continuous, but asynchronous. As any of us notice trends, changes, or concerning issues, we bring it to the attention of the rest of the team and go from there.

-What steps of the process have you or your team struggled the most with and which step is a strength?
I would have to say that with my teams, our most challenging step is the interpret step (5). How does this data that we just analyzed, apply to real world settings. Our strength has to be 1 & 2, gathering and documenting the relevant information. I am blessed in that my sped aids are really talented ladies.

Lesson 2:2 Response to Naomi Buck’s post
Hello Naomi Buck. I like your response to this module’s DQ question. You managed to put into words, what we do at my school as well. I struggled with putting it into words.

We too struggle in the data collection areas, but mostly with qualitative data. I started addressing this with my daily check list where we record the quantitive data, I added a comment section, for my aide to include loads of positive information. It makes all the difference. Many weeks it has to be continued on the back of the page.

To what extent have you or the IEP teams you have been on engaged in the DDDM process?
Because I work in preschool, we often have limited data during the referal process that has to center around parent interviews, sometimes an IFSP, and ratings scores from the school psych. If the student has been with us in preschool for a while, then we have much more information on the data we take daily that drives our understanding of the student’s abilities. I have not been able to work much in the older grades and with the RTI process, but recognize the importance of having actual data and numbers to support the recommendations for the child that are not based on someone’s subjective opinion.
If you have, do you or your team engage in DDDM in a continuous manner?
The continuous data collection and decisions we use are usually based on observation and daily data collection in the preschool classroom. This can be very difficult to get a super accurate picture of the child’s abilities sometimes because our program is so short ( only 2 1/2 hours a day). It is a growing program and we hope that with the addition of more teachers and classrooms, we can eventually grow to having longer days and more influence in the student’s lives. We go through our daily data every trimester and report the baseline of the child and hope to show growth in the areas targeted.

What steps of the process have you or your team struggled the most with and which step is a strength? Sometimes our baseline can be a struggle, especially if we havent gotten to see much of the student before they start preschool and becasue the information is often limited to one environment (home) so we don’t often know as much as we would like to when placing a child in a classroom. After we place a child in a classroom, then the real daily data collection begins and we are able to make better understanding of the child’s needs but this data is only usually related to the IEPs objectives and it would probably be helpful to take more data on more areas of the child’s abilities so we can make sure we create a reasonably accurate IEP for the child in the areas they need and not just focus on the areas we have already identified.

The IEP teams in which I am engaged, use the Data Driven Decision Making (DDDM) process primarily for screening and for determining eligibility.
Our team engages in DDDM in a (mostly) continuous manner. We gather, document, summarize, and analyze data, but sometimes fail to vigorously interpret data.
It is the role of the special education teacher to plan and revise instruction. Our school district does not appear to engage in on-going DDDM program evaluations, at least to my knowledge.
The five steps of the DDDM model seem sound and are easily applied to my daily tasks as a special education teacher. I appreciate the distinction between the six different purposes that we use the DDDM model. Indeed, the purposes of determining eligibility are quite distinct from the purposes of planning and revising instruction.

There are five steps in a data driven decision making model:
1. Gather
2. Document
3. Summarize
4. Analyze
5. Interpret
The data driven decision making model is used for six different purposes
1. Screening before referrals
2. Determining eligibility
3. Planning instruction
4. Revising instruction (on-going performance evaluation)
5. Program evaluation
6. Accountability

Honestly, I would say we engage in it as much as we are required to. We don’t usually engage in the process thoroughly. It’s more of a checklist to make sure we’ve covered everything. However I work with students who have more significant needs, so the eligibility process is not used as a filter as much as a process to make sure we are on the right track.

Our team struggles with not focusing on what protective supports and the way the family sees the child and the child’s gifts. Another part we don’t consider is this question: What is our hope for the future? If we were to imagine a time without this concern, what would it look like and how would we feel? We rarely consider what success looks like. And we need to ask “What is the worst that could happen if they aren’t eligible?

In general, we have briefly gone over the child’s developmental history, reason for the referral, and academic and/or behavioral achievement.

This DDDM form will be very helpful to start using with my team.