When we talk about global implementation, we need to
remember that U.S. implementation counts too. The Routines-Based Model (RBM) is
implemented, to one extent or another, in many places in the U.S. The RBI or
the RBM are the most frequently cited strategies for improving federal child or
family outcomes, in state systemic improvement plans (SSIPs). Some states, like
Alabama, Maine, Mississippi, and Tennessee have adopted the model and are at
different stages of implementation. Siskin Children’s Institute, where I used
to work, still demonstrates most of both the home-and community-based
components of the model as well as the Engagement Classroom Model, under the
leadership of Deidra Love and Julie Mickel, respectively.
In addition,
Multnomah Early Childhood Program in Portland, Oregon, is adopting the home-
and community-based practices in a large metropolitan environment, with Cami
Stevenson, the RBM Enterprise
associate director and an administrator and coach there, as a key player. Other
states adopted the model but drifted away from it, to other similar models or
approaches—an object lesson in distractibility, sustainability, and
compatibility, in implementation work.
Figure 1. Implementation of the Engagement Classroom
Model (part of the RBM) at the Slownezna Kraina Preschool in Cieszyn, Poland
The first country outside the U.S. to show an interest in
implementation of the RBM was Portugal, because I had been working intensively
with the University of Porto (under the leadership of Professor Joaquim
Bairrão) (Grande & Pinto, 2009; Pessanha, Pinto, & Barros, 2009) Pessanha, Pinto, &
Barros, 2009). Eventually, the Portuguese national association for early
intervention adopted the model, wrote a manual, and provided sporadic training
around the country. Meanwhile, students I had worked with, such as Cecília
Aguiar and Tânia Boavida, began their own leadership in Lisbon.
Figure 2. Rita, Robin, Cecilia, Nadia in Lisbon
Spain followed suit, when Marga Cañadas became an indefatigable
ambassador for the approach. Within countries, the spread of the model is
something we try to keep track of. In Spain, for example, implementation sites
are gradually growing, and, even within comunidades
autónomas (states) such as Castilla La Mancha, officials are documenting
the extent to which the RBM is being adopted. Pau García Grau and Catalina
Morales Murillo have recently conducted some intensive training in Castilla La
Mancha. Some Canadians were interested, in particular Kamal Haffar, who worked
to spread the word in Ontario. Quietly, Ai-Wen Huang went about conducting
research on the model, and she has produced the only randomized control trial
on the RBM (Hwang, Chao, & Liu, 2013).
In Singapore, Lim Hong Huay led
Project ECHO, which used the model for classroom practices. In New Zealand,
Julia Woodward and colleagues at the Ministry of Education, decided that all children and
families receiving early intervention through their system would receive
practices under the RBM. In Australia, a program in Victoria and Canberra,
Noah’s Ark, under the leadership of John Forster and his lieutenants, Kerry Bull
and Stephen Carberry, implemented the model. Meanwhile, in Western Australia,
Denise Luscombe was also using many of the model’s practices in her training
and consultation to others in the Perth area.
Through connections Cañadas had
made, a large agency serving children with physical disabilities, Teletón
Paraguay, adopted the model. This agency is one of a number of rehabilitation organizations
in Oritel, a federation of Teletones, meaning that we might have the
opportunity for implementation throughout Central and South America. The most
recent implementer has been an agency in Silesia, in Poland, the Słoneczna Kraina,
whichis implementing the Engagement Classroom Model, under the leadership of
Krystian Kroczek, Lucyna Legierska, Sylwia Wrona, and Natalia Józefacka.
I insert here a sad note about our Portuguese implementers.
Ana Pinto and Tânia Boavida both died within the past year. When I began
working in Portugal, Bairrão appointed Ana as my baby-sitter, so we spent much
time together and worked collaboratively. She even visited me at my home in Nashville.
My dean, Peter Hlebowitsh, and I visited Ana a couple of years ago.
Tânia was
my post-doctoral fellow and a true friend. She had her baby, Leonor, the day
after she defended her dissertation, she dragged Leonor and José to Chattanooga, and
spent she two years having fun with me. She was my intellectual granddaughter,
having been lucky enough to be a student of Cecilia Aguiar at ISCTE, and
Cecilia was a student of mine. I miss Tânia enormously. Both of these
consummate professionals gave the field so much and have been stripped from our
lives way too early.
Countries have their cultural anomalies and identities, yet
we find that, universally, professionals want to help caregivers provide the
most support possible to caregivers and children, families want their children
to participate meaningfully in their everyday lives, and programs want
professionals to carry out practices at a high quality. We make adaptations as
necessary, to be culturally responsive, but we don’t sacrifice needs assessment
by interviewing families, strategy development by collaborating with
caregivers, or evaluation by determining (a) how well goals are met, (b) families’
quality of life, and (c) how well children are functioning in their daily
routines.
Grande, C., & Pinto, A. I. (2009).
Estilos interactivos de educadoras do Ensino Especial em contexto de educação-de-infância.
Psicologia: Teoria e Pesquisa, 25,
547-559.
Pessanha,
M., Pinto, A. I., & Barros, S. (2009). Influência da qualidade dos
contextos familiar e de creche no envolvimento e no desenvolvimento da criança.
Psicologia, XXIII, 55-71.
