Real Alignment: Routines-Based Model and DEC Recommended Practices
Practices in the Routines-Based Model are directly aligned
with just over half (53%) of the 2014 DEC Recommended Practices. They are
indirectly aligned with a further quarter (26%) of the Recommended Practices.
This model, therefore, is a useful vehicle for implementing most of the
Recommended Practices.
The Routines-Based Model (RBM) is a way of providing early
intervention and early childhood special education, focusing on naturally
occurring routines, on family strengths, and on children’s engagement. Some of
its well-known components are the Routines-Based Interview (RBI), the ecomap,
the primary service provider, support-based home visits, collaborative
consultation or integrated therapy, incidental teaching, and the zone defense
schedule. The model provides guidance on both home- and classroom-based service
delivery, serving children birth to 6 years of age and their families.
The DEC Recommended Practices (Division for Early Childhood, 2014) were developed to provide guidance
to practitioners and families about the most effective ways to improve the
learning outcomes and promote the development of young children, birth through
five years of age, who have or are at-risk (sic) for developmental delays or
disabilities. (p. 2)
My colleagues and I have been developing and refining the
RBM since the 1980s, so some practices, such as the RBI, predate DEC
Recommended Practices—even the original ones in 1991. All RBM components
predate the current (i.e., 2014) Recommended Practices (McWilliam, 2010;
McWilliam & Casey, 2008).
To determine the real
alignment, not to be confused with wheel
alignment, of the RBM with the Recommended Practices, I determined whether each
of the latter was directly addressed by an RBM component, indirectly addressed
by the RBM, or not addressed by the RBM. The Recommended Practices, which can
be downloaded from http://www.dec-sped.org/recommendedpractices,
are organized in eight topic areas.
106sttire.com |
Leadership
Most of the recommended practices in this area are not
linked to the RBM, which tends to emphasize practitioner-level practices. But
our use of implementation science
and our methods for program evaluation
are linked to the practice related to collaboration with stakeholders on the
collection and use of data (L12). Also, our use of the primary service provider (PSP) is directly linked to promoting the
efficient and coordinated service delivery from multiple disciplines (L13). The
model is indirectly linked with L3, L6, and L9.
Assessment
The RBM addresses needs assessment for program planning, monitoring
child progress, and measuring child outcomes, so it is aligned with all but two
of the assessment recommended practices (A1, A8). The major assessment tools in
the RBM are the RBI (McWilliam, 2012); the Measure of Engagement,
Independence, and Social Relationships (MEISR)
(McWilliam
& Younggren, in press); the Classroom MEISR (ClaMEISR) (McWilliam, 2014); the Children’s Engagement Questionnaire (McWilliam, 1991); and the STARE (Casey & McWilliam, 2007). All of these are directly
linked to working as a team with the family (A2) but less so with other
professionals. They are also directly linked to conducting assessments that
include all areas of development (A4). The RBI and STARE are directly linked to
using a variety of methods including observation and interviews (A6). The RBI,
MEISR, and ClaMEISR are directly linked to obtaining information about the
child’s skills in daily routines (A7), systematic ongoing assessment (A9), and
assessment tools with enough sensitivity to detect child progress (A10). The
model is indirectly linked to a further three recommended practices (A3, A5,
A11).
Environment
The RBM is linked, mostly indirectly (E2, E4, E5, E6), to
all the environment recommended practices. The Engagement Classroom Model, which in a previous form was known as
the individualizing inclusion model (Wolery, 1997), along with support-based home visits and participation-based goals, directly
addresses services and supports in natural and inclusive environments (E1). Family consultation addresses working
with the family and other adults to promote children’s participation (E3).
Family
The RBM is linked to all but one family recommended practice
(F8). The RBI and family consultation directly address building
trusting and respectful partnerships with the family (F1). Support-based home visits are directly linked to four recommended
practices. Along with our mantra
that we have an ethical obligation to
provide families with evidence-based information, they are directly linked
to the practice that says almost exactly that (F2). Through family consultation, support-based home
visits are directly linked to supporting family functioning and promoting
family confidence and competence (F5). By incorporating the five parenting skills in our model,
these home visits are directly linked to engaging the family in opportunities
that support parent knowledge and skills (F6). The emotional-support component of the home visits is directly linked
to being responsive to the family’s concerns, priorities, and resources (F3).
The RBI is directly linked to
creating outcomes and goals that address the family’s priorities (F4). The RBM
is indirectly linked to two family recommended practices (F9, F10).
Instruction
The RBM is linked, mostly directly, to all the instruction
recommended practices. All the assessment
tools mentions earlier are directly linked to identifying each child’s
strengths, preferences, and interests (INS1). The RBI is directly linked to identifying skills to target for
instruction with the family (INS2), and, with incidental teaching, planning for and providing the level of
support the child needs to participate in routines (INS4). Incidental teaching
is also directly linked to embedding intervention within and across routines
(INS5), using systematic instructional strategies to promote child engagement
(INS6), and using explicit feedback and consequences (INS7). The STARE and goal attainment scaling are directly linked to gathering and using
data to inform decisions (INS3). The focused
RBI and our behavior-management
strategies are directly linked to using functional assessment and related
strategies for challenging behaviors (INS9). Participation-based goals are directly linked to implementing the
frequency, intensity, and duration of instruction (INS10). Finally, family consultation is directly linked
to using coaching or consultation strategies with primary caregivers (INS13).
The RBM is indirectly linked to three instruction recommended practices (INS8,
INS11, INS12).
Interaction
The RBM is directly linked, because it includes incidental teaching, to all the interaction recommended
practices. With our focus on engagement,
it is directly linked to promoting the child’s social development (INT2). Our
focus on social relationships, along
with incidental teaching, is directly linked to promoting the child’s
communication development (INT3).
Teaming and Collaboration
The model is linked also to all the teaming and collaboration
recommended practices, although not all directly. The PSP and associated joint
home visits are directly linked to representing multiple disciplines (TC1) and
working with families as a team to exchange information (TC2). The PSP is also directly
linked to identifying one practitioner from the team who serves as the primary
liaison (TC5). The RBM is indirectly linked to two other recommended practices
(TC3, TC4).
Transition
The RBM is not linked to either of the transition
recommended practices.
If the DEC Recommended Practices can be considered the most
effective ways to help young children with disabilities and their families (I
wish they included families in the outcomes of the practices, not just in the
implementation of the practices), this real alignment validates the model. The
model has other components that aren’t directly aligned with the recommended
practices, and one fifth of the recommended practices aren’t addressed by the
model. Nevertheless, the alignment is good enough to say that the RBM can keep
early intervention 0-6 on the road and not in the ditch.
References
Division for Early Childhood. (2014). DEC
recommended practices in early intervention/early childhood special education. Retrieved February 25, 2015, from http://www.dec-sped.org/recommendedpractices