Jon Harding, NCDB
The phrase “new normal” is uttered a lot these days, and we worry what it actually means for those of us who work in the Deaf-Blind Technical Assistance network. The “new normal” is often used to describe ongoing changes in our culture, our economy, and our political systems, but it can also apply to our small corner of the world, too. For state deaf-blind projects and NCDB 2.0, operating in the “new normal” means that while we continue to strive to improve outcomes for children and their families, ongoing changes often affect our level of resource. We find ourselves having to do more or do different with less money, time, and/or staff. However, this is also an opportunity to reassess how we allocate our resources and to clarify our mission. The values that underpin our TA behaviors and practices as TA providers (relationships, communication, self-determination, personal growth, education, respect, choice, inclusion, empowerment, and self-fulfillment) should not change. The debate is not what we want to achieve but, rather, how to achieve it. Technology can be the vehicle to produce child and family outcomes in a more efficient way.
The “Old Way”:
While State Deaf-Blind Technical Assistance Projects are diverse, they have traditionally used a model of TA that relies heavily on in-person trainings, workshops, and conferences to create change and build the capacity of “systems” to serve the needs of our children and families (and honor our core values). These trainings typically consist of training materials, videos, assessments, and/or curriculum that are shared by a speaker, facilitator, and/or recognized ‘expert’ from the field. Participants are typically teachers, paraprofessionals, related service providers, family members, administrators, etc. In this context, projects expect and hope that workshop participants implement the strategies and practices with individual children and families that are being extolled in the workshops.
Most projects, too, have some element of on-site or one-to-one technical assistance as part of their repertoire. Some projects contract with outreach consultants who have been trained in some elements of deaf-blindness. The consultants might serve a geographic region or neighboring school districts. Often project employees serve as consultants who confer with teachers and/or teams by phone or on-site.
“Old Way” challenges:
- Implementation and measuring change:
Projects need to demonstrate accountability for their efforts by collecting and reporting impact data (ie: what changed as a result of our efforts?). However, measuring changes in behavior subsequent to workshops, sporadic on-site visits, or episodic phone consults has been problematic. Projects rely on self-reporting and perception to measure behavioral changes in either the service provider or the child. Documenting behavior change over a period of time (weeks, months, or even years) is an even bigger challenge. Modeling, checking for understanding, and guided practice (Madeline Hunter concepts) are typically absent in this traditional model of TA.
Even highly trained, experienced, and motivated teachers need support when working with children who are complex. Unfortunately, most teachers and providers working with children who are deaf-blind receive little or no training before being hired or prior to a child being placed in his/her class. Attending a one or two-day workshop is often a respite and certainly can provide relevant information, but it is unlikely to induce changes in teaching behavior. In the same way, even the most highly skilled consultant will find it difficult to compel changes in behavior as a result of infrequent one-to-one contacts.
Good TA providers know the answers to the challenges presented by children with complex needs are most likely to be solved by the team members themselves. While almost every school serving a child who is deaf-blind embraces the “teaming” concept, what we often find is confusion, indecision, uncoordinated services, and a lack of communication among the different specialty staff. Adding a deaf-blind project consultant to the mix on a one-time or intermittent basis rarely solves this dilemma and can, in fact, exacerbate any confusion team members feel.
By almost any measure, on-site technical assistance is expensive. Travel costs typically involve paying for transportation, food, and sometimes lodging. Few would advocate eliminating on-site TA entirely, for there are clear benefits to meeting in person. Project staff will have to assess the cost/benefit of all TA activities in the context of their budgets, but we must acknowledge the costs for on-site TA are unlikely to fall.
One “New Way”
The Distance Mentorship Program (DMP) was developed in response to the challenges mentioned above. The model has been described in the
Deaf-Blind Perspectives article,
Making Online TechnicalAssistance Connections . While it can be argued that using the DMP model can reduce costs, it may not be the most important reason to use it. Perhaps the most compelling reason to adopt a model that allows TA to be delivered remotely is that it can increase communication within the local team and with consultants over an extensive period of time. Ultimately, the implementation of strategies that are documented, and the resulting changes in behaviors can become the foundation for the local team to extend and increase their skills with other students and in other environments. An online, permanent electronic repository of videos, resources, and conversations can be shared with other professionals as the child transitions to new settings.
The DMP allows consultants to meet regularly with providers and to engage in the struggles that present themselves throughout a school year. Providers often appreciate the freedom to adapt their strategies, to acknowledge their fears, and to try “fun” activities that may not have an obvious connection to state standards, assessment measures, or standard grade-level curriculum. Consultants and providers can build a relationship based on trust and respect in ways that is impossible with episodic or one-time on-site visits.
It is important to state that the DMP is simply one model that can be utilized to deliver intensive, specific TA targeting both service provider changes as well as child and family outcomes. This model can and should be seen as a compliment to other systemic efforts that attempt to build capacity and improve outcomes: personnel preparation, intervener training, research, and effective TA systems.
The “new normal” demands new, innovative ways to deliver services that result in improved child and family outcomes, but also align with our larger values and principles. The Distance Mentorship model is one way to alleviate our fears about the “new normal”.
