"Shadowing" itinerant ECSE teachers: a descriptive study of itinerant teacher activities.

Abstract. In an effort to document the responsibilities and professional activities of itinerant early childhood special education (ECSE) teachers, five teachers were asked to participate in an observational study in which they were observed and their behaviors coded. Observations occurred at three different times during the year, during three-week cycles. Trained observers used the Classroom Visit Observation Form (CVOF, adapted from the Home Visit Observation Form, McBride & Peterson, 1997) to code the nature of itinerant teachers' activities when visiting selected target children enrolled in community-based early childhood programs. Results indicate that despite recommendations from the field for itinerant early childhood special education teachers to provide consultative services, the participants of this study rarely engaged in consultation and interacted primarily with children. These results also were validated through the participating teachers' responses in structured journals documenting their activities.

**********

Young children with disabilities enrolled in community-based early childhood programs, such as child care centers, Head Start classrooms, and families' homes, are commonly served by itinerant early childhood special education (ECSE) teachers (Odom et al., 1999). These teachers often are "traveling" teachers. Instead of functioning as classroom-based teachers, itinerants visit the children on their caseloads on a regular basis and have a responsibility to implement the goals and objectives found on the child's IEP. Although the itinerant service delivery model is often used to maintain inclusive services to young children with disabilities, little is known about what teachers do during their visits to community-based programs.

Itinerant staff can "implement" IEP goals and objectives in a range of ways. One way is to provide direct services to the child, working with the child either individually or in small groups with other children, to address IEP objectives. Another way that itinerant staff can fulfill their responsibilities is by supporting the work of general education staff (i.e., early childhood teachers and caregivers) as they address children's IEP objectives within the context of naturally occurring classroom routines. This indirect service delivery model reflects a consultative approach whereby the itinerant staff works in partnership with children's teachers and caregivers to support children's development. It also reflects an approach that is widely regarded by the field of early childhood special education as "best practice" in inclusive service delivery (Horn & Sandall, 2000; Lieber et al., 1997; McWilliam, 2002; McWilliam, Wolery, & Odom, 2001). Indeed, McWilliam (2002) argues that the most meaningful time for children's learning is the time spent between itinerant visits, not the time that itinerant staff spend during a classroom visit.

In many ways, an itinerant ECSE service delivery model reflects a home-visiting approach commonly used in Part C programs to provide early intervention services to young children and their families. Consistent with a home-visiting model, an itinerant model emphasizes where services are provided, as opposed to focusing on the nature of the services themselves. Defining a service delivery model by the location in which services are provided, however, is inconsistent with current wisdom that special education services should be viewed as an array of services and not a particular place. One cannot assume that a home-visiting model is more or less effective than another service delivery approach without understanding the salient components of that model; that is, what happens during home visits to children and families. Evaluating the effectiveness of an itinerant approach is also based on an assumption that one can define, describe, and replicate the intervention that an itinerant teacher provides. We are unaware, however, of any research that provides evidence as to the actions and activities of itinerant ECSE staff during classroom visits. The study reported here provides some evidence as to the activities of a sample of itinerant ECSE teachers employed in northwest Ohio.

McBride and Peterson (1997) described the activities of home visitors as part of an observational study conducted in the midwestern United States. Using a carefully structured observational protocol, they identified the types and nature of interactions between home visitors with others in the home during the visit (e.g., family members, children, other professionals) over an extended period of time. The results of McBride and Peterson's work indicated that home visiting staff spent a majority of their time interacting directly with the children on their caseload (i.e., providing individualized instruction), as opposed to providing triadic intervention (McCollum & Yates, 1994) that would support parent-child interactions to optimize children's development. This occurred even on occasions when the home visitors believed that they were "modeling" facilitative behaviors to parents and family members. In the absence of explicit cues from home visiting staff, trained observers were unable to differentiate between typical interactions with children and interactions that were supposed to be observed and understood by parents.

The purpose of this study was to describe the actions and activities of itinerant ECSE teachers who visited children with disabilities who were served in community-based early childhood programs. In addition to observing and recording the behaviors of itinerant staff during visits (which occurred at three different points during the school year), we also asked these teachers to record their daily activities in structured "job logs" developed for this study. Of interest was the nature of itinerant activities, as observed during classroom visits; their reports of professional activities, as documented in Daily Activity Logs; and differences in observed or reported professional activities that could be attributed to different times of the year.

Participants

As part of this study, we identified five teachers employed as itinerant ECSE teachers in three different school districts in northwest Ohio. Two of these districts were urban districts and one was primarily suburban/ rural. None of the districts provided a formal definition of itinerant ECSE services, although administrative staff from one of the urban districts reported that their itinerant teachers used a "consultative approach" as part of their work. We purposefully selected teachers who represented a range of diversity in terms of their experience providing both traditional classroom-based and itinerant ECSE services. All of the teachers were female. Figure 1 provides an overview of selected demographic characteristics of the participating teachers. The teachers' experience as itinerants ranged from none (Teacher 5 was in her first year of employment as an itinerant) to 20 years. All of the participants were full-time itinerants, with the exception of Teacher 5, who only worked part-time.

We asked these itinerant teachers to identify four children on their caseloads who were likely to remain on their caseloads throughout the length of the school year and were being served in center-based early childhood programs (as opposed to children's homes). We secured permission from the children's parents and the early childhood staff at the community-based program to allow observers to record the itinerants' actions. Figure 1 also provides information about the children's demographic characteristics. The children ranged in age from 3 years, 6 months to 6 years of age. All of the children had similar special needs, most of which were identified as "communication" or "adaptive behavior." Both Teacher 3 and 4 had children who dropped out of the program mid-year; other children with similar characteristics replaced them.

Instrument Development

Classroom Visit Observation Form (CVOF)

In order to reliably code teachers' behaviors and activities in the classroom, we adapted McBride and Peterson's (1997) Home Visit Observation Form (with permission from the authors) to use for itinerant classroom visits. We named the modified form the Classroom Visit Observation Form (CVOF). Using this form, observers simultaneously coded four variables at 30-second intervals: 1) the primary interaction of the interval, or who was involved in the interaction (e.g., target child, another child, teacher, or parent); 2) the content of the interaction, or the focus of the interaction (e.g., instructing the child, general conversation with adult, discussing intervention strategies with adults); 3) the nature of the itinerant activity, or what the itinerant teacher was doing (e.g., listening to the adult or child, observing, teaching, completing paperwork); and 4) the configuration of interactions with children, or the number of children or adults with whom the itinerant was interacting (e.g., an individual child, small group of children). At the beginning of the 60-minute visit, they also recorded who was present in the classroom, along with the primary activity that occurred during the visit (e.g., free play, snack, small-group work, large-group activity). Complete definitions of the coding system are available from the first author.

Using the CVOF, a coder observed one itinerant teacher interacting with a child and other adults who were present, such as general ECE teachers, child care providers, or parents. Each observation session was divided into 30-second intervals, with each of the four categories described above simultaneously coded at the end of each 30-second interval. At the 30- and 60-second marks, the coder observed the itinerant teacher and used the rest of the 30-second interval to record the variable that described what occurred at the 30- or 60-second mark. At the end of 10 minutes, coders took a two-minute break. Each observation lasted approximately one hour and thus consisted of 120 thirty-second intervals.

Itinerant Daily Activity Log

In addition to observing teachers during selected visits, we were also interested in collecting data on teachers' activities outside of those visits. To that end, we developed a closed-ended "job log" that allowed participating teachers to record the nature of their professional activities, along with estimates of the amount of time they spent on these activities and the proportion of time engaged in activities related to itinerant roles.

The Daily Activity Log (DAL) was developed based on data obtained through a national Delphi study of itinerant ECSE teacher roles and responsibilities (Dinnebeil, McInerney, & Hale, in press). It included a comprehensive list of possible activities related to the roles assumed by itinerant teachers (i.e., assessor/monitor, consultant to other adults, direct service provider to children, lifelong learner, service coordinator, and team member) as reported by approximately 120 representatives from four stakeholder groups: 1) parents of children served by itinerant teachers, 2) early childhood teachers who worked with itinerants, 3) supervisors of itinerant ECSE teachers, and 4) itinerant ECSE teachers. The log was structured so that responsibilities associated with each role (as identified through the Delphi study) were listed under each role category. In addition to the responsibilities identified by the Delphi study, participating teachers also were encouraged to add other responsibilities or activities not listed on the DAL.

Once the DAL was developed, itinerant ECSE colleagues who were not participants of the study reviewed the protocol and provided suggestions that were used to revise the instrument. Project staff met with each participating teacher to review directions for completing the log and provide feedback about its correct use. A copy of the DAL is available from the authors.

Data Collection Procedures

Classroom Observations

Three observers were trained to use the CVOF until they reached a baseline of 85 percent agreement in each of the four categories across three consecutive training sessions. Agreements were determined as the percent of intervals that were coded the same for each of the four variables. Inter-observer agreement also was calculated on 20 percent of the sessions during each observational cycle (i.e., fall, winter, spring). Inter-observer agreement between two observers obtained prior to, and during, each cycle of observations was high, averaging about 90 percent agreement.

Observers accompanied the five participating itinerant teachers on four classroom visits at three different times of the year: late fall, winter, and spring. During each cycle of observations, trained observers coded itinerant teacher behavior during four classroom visits to the four target children that were at least one hour in length. They began coding five minutes after they arrived in the classroom and ended the session after one hour. This process resulted in data from a total of 60 classroom visits, 20 per cycle, to each of the 20 target children (4 for each of the 5 participating teachers).

Completion of Daily Activity Logs

Concurrent with the observational cycles, teachers completed four Daily Activity Logs four times during each three-week cycle, each time choosing a different day of the week upon which to focus. Teachers were asked to complete four major components of the DAL. First, they documented the amount of time they had spent working that day, the number of visits they made, the number of miles they had traveled, and other logistical information. Second, they identified each of the itinerant responsibilities that they had engaged in throughout the day. Third, they estimated the total amount of time they spent engaged in roles identified on the DAL. Finally, they rated the amount of time they spent engaged in specific responsibilities relative to each role.

Results

Classroom Observations

Observers recorded the kinds of activities that occurred during visits. They reported that free play was observed in 68 percent of the observations and was recorded as the primary activity that occurred in 44 percent of all observations. Other activities included small-group activities, which were observed in 51 percent of all observations (and cited as the primary activity 25 percent of the time); large-group activities, which were observed 48 percent of the time (and cited as the primary activity 17 percent of the time); and circle time, which was observed 48 percent of the time (and cited as the primary activity 7 percent of the time). Observers noted that snack and nap or rest time occurred infrequently during visits.

Figure 2 provides information about how itinerant teachers used their time during classroom visits. As can be seen in Figure 2, teachers interacted primarily with children during their visits, as opposed to interacting with other adults. Time spent interacting with children ranged from approximately 58 percent of the coded intervals to almost 86 percent of the coded intervals. Interactions with children took place primarily in small-group activities while the children were engaged in free play. Teachers infrequently engaged in interactions with other teachers or adults in the room. Analyses of variance indicated no statistically significant differences in the nature or content of itinerant teacher activity that could be attributed to the time of year during which the observation occurred, or to the nature of the classroom activity that was occurring at the time.

Although we also were interested in determining if the observational results could be a function of the child's disability or special need, an additional analysis of variance illustrated that this was not the case. However, we did find statistically significant differences in the nature and content of itinerant teacher activity that appeared to be linked to the teacher herself. Subsequent post-hoc analyses indicated statistically significant differences among teachers; those differences are set in bold type in Figure 2. Teacher 3's actions during visits were coded as significantly different from those of her colleagues. Teacher 3 was more likely to not engage in any interactions during her visits (qualitative comments indicated that she observed a great deal during visits). She was also less likely than her colleagues to engage in interactions with children and more likely to engage in interactions with adults. Analysis also indicates that Teacher 5 was more likely to engage in child-focused consultation (approximately 10 percent of coded intervals). She also spent more time in discussion with other adults and less time completing paperwork during the visit. It is interesting to note that Teacher 3 had only two years of experience as an ECSE teacher and one year of experience as an itinerant teacher prior to this study; Teacher 5 also had limited experience as an itinerant teacher. Teacher 1 was the most experienced itinerant teacher, with 20 years of experience functioning in an itinerant capacity.

Daily Activity Logs

Results from the DALs are consistent with the classroom observational visits, in that teachers reported spending most of their day engaged in responsibilities associated with their role as a direct service provider to children. They rarely reported engaging in consultation or coaching with other adults, although they did report spending a significant amount of time "collaborating" with related services professionals. Those activities that were most likely to be "not chosen" were related to consultation, teaming, and service coordination. Figure 3 reports preliminary analyses of the DALs. Tests of statistical significance indicated no statistically significant differences that could be attributed to the time of year during which the teacher completed the log, or to the teacher completing the log.

Discussion

The significance of this study is limited by its size. With only five teachers participating, all of whom worked in one geographic area, it is impossible to determine whether the results are representative of the itinerant ECSE service delivery approach. Given the lack of standardization of the model, we suspect our results are not representative. Replications of this study in different geographic locations and with programs that have distinguishable features (e.g., consultative approach versus a direct service approach) must be conducted.

Implications of This Research

The significance of this study lies more in the absence of certain itinerant activities, rather than in the presence of others. That is, the results of this study show that the primary responsibility of itinerant ECSE teachers was that of direct service provider to children, as opposed to educational consultant to their teachers or caregivers. These findings remained stable across participants and time. One might expect that the nature of itinerant services would change over time. For example, it is reasonable to assume that itinerant teachers would work more directly with children in the beginning of the year when they are getting to know children and that they would increase the time they spend with other adults as the school year progresses. One would even expect that itinerant teachers would engage in more assessment activities towards the end of the school year when team decisions about future placements are made. We did not see any such distinctions.

Contrary to the beliefs of many that high-quality itinerant services should reflect a consultative approach (Dinnebeil, McInerney & Chryst, 1999; Horn & Sandall, 2000; Lieber et al., 1997; McWilliam, 2002; McWilliam et al., 2001; Wesley & Buysse, 2004), the itinerant teachers who participated in this study overwhelmingly used a direct service provider model. They rarely engaged in conversations with other adults during their visits and spent most of their time interacting with children. This is particularly troublesome, since none of the participating school districts had previously identified the nature of their itinerant services as a direct service provider model (as opposed to a consultative model). Indeed, Teacher 1's district was the district that had a reputation for taking a consultative approach to itinerant service delivery. It is also interesting that the two teachers with the least amount of experience as itinerants (Teachers 3 and 5) engaged in significantly different activities than other participants. Teacher 3 observed much more than her peers, while Teacher 5 was more likely to engage in consultation than the more experienced teachers. It is interesting that both of these teachers had participated in a federal personnel preparation program that focused on consultative roles for itinerant ECSE teachers. Perhaps (hopefully) their preparation significantly affected the way they viewed their jobs.

Given the current federal mandate for evidence-based practices as well as the promise of inclusive environments for young children with disabilities, it is critical that the nature of itinerant services be well understood. How can the field study the efficacy of itinerant ECSE services when the ways in which services are provided are idiosyncratic--not only to districts or programs, but to individual teachers as well? It is also essential to understand the reasons and assumptions that underlie itinerant ECSE teachers' actions. Absent guidelines or a mandate to provide services in a particular way (e.g., consultative vs. direct service), it is not surprising that itinerant teachers' activities vary considerably. Do they tend to provide direct services because they lack the expertise and confidence to engage in a consultative approach? Do they believe that providing one hour of direct service per week (which is the average for itinerant ECSE teachers in Ohio; Dinnebeil, McInerney, Roth, & Ramaswamy, 2001) is more effective than providing consultation that would enable caregivers to provide IEP-based instruction throughout the week? It is clear that considerable research must be done on the beliefs, assumptions, and motives of itinerant ECSE teachers.

In order to determine if a particular intervention or instructional approach is effective, one must provide evidence that it works. A basic tenet of experimental design, however, is that the nature of the independent variable is known and can be measured. Given what we don't know about how itinerant ECSE services are provided, it is presently impossible to document the effects of an itinerant approach to ECSE service delivery. There is an urgent need for the field, including federal education staff and state and local administrators, to closely examine the itinerant service delivery approach and make formal distinctions between a consultative and a direct service approach. Once formal distinctions are made and are commonly understood, experimental research should be conducted to examine the efficacy of a consultative approach as compared to a direct service approach to itinerant ECSE services.

References

Dinnebeil, L. A., McInerney, W., & Chryst, C. (1999, October). Project open house: A model to support early childhood inclusion. Poster session presented at the Ohio Department of Education, Division of Early Childhood Annual Conference, Columbus, OH.

Dinnebeil, L. A., McInerney, W., & Hale, L. (in press). Understanding the roles and responsibilities of itinerant ECSE teachers through Delphi research. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education.

Dinnebeil, L. A., McInerney, W., Roth, J., & Ramaswamy, V. (2001). Itinerant early childhood special education services: Service delivery in one state. Journal of Early Intervention, 24, 36-45.

Horn, E., & Sandall, S. (2000). The visiting teacher: A model of inclusive ECSE service delivery 2000. Young Exceptional Children Monograph Series 2, 49-58.

Lieber, J., Beckman, P. J., Hanson, M. J., Janko, S., Marquart, J. M., & Horn, E. (1997). The impact of changing roles on relationships between professionals in inclusive programs for young children. Early Education and Development, 8, 67-82.

McBride, S. L., & Peterson, C. (1997). Home-based early intervention with families of children with disabilities: Who is doing what? Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 17, 209-233.

McCollum, J. A., & Yates, T. J. (1994). Dyad as focus, triad as means: A family-centered approach to supporting parent-child interactions. Infants and Young Children, 6, 54-63.

McWilliam, R. (2002, November). Three innovative evidence-based practices for individualizing inclusion. Paper presented at the OSEP National Early Childhood Conference, Washington, DC.

McWilliam, R. A., Wolery, M., & Odom, S. L. (2001). Instructional perspectives in inclusive preschool classrooms. In M. J. Guralnick (Ed.), Early childhood inclusion: Focus on change (pp. 503-530). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing.

Odom, S. L., Horn, E., Marquart, J. M., Hanson, M. J., Wolfberg, P., Beckman, P., et al. (1999). On the forms of inclusion: Organizational context and individualized service models. Journal of Early Intervention, 22, 185-199.

Wesley, P. W., & Buysse, V. (2004). Consultation as a framework for productive collaboration in early intervention. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 15, 127-150.

Laurie A. Dinnebeil

William F. McInerney

Lynette Hale

University of Toledo 

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Laurie A. Dinnebeil at the Department of Early Childhood, Physical, and Special Education, University of Toledo, 2801 West Bancroft Street, Toledo, OH 43606. Electronic mail may be sent via the Internet to [e-mail].

Figure 1 Demographic Characteristics of Teachers in Observational
Study

Teacher 1                               Child       Age

Urban          Full-time Itinerant      Boy A       4 yrs, 1 month
               29 years ECSE teach-     Girl A      5 yrs, 10 months
               er; 20 years itinerant   Boy B       3 yrs, 10 months
                                        Boy C       6 yrs

Teacher 2                               Child       Age

Urban          Full-time Itinerant      Girl A      5 yrs, 3 months
               23 years ECSE            Boy A       4 yrs, 10 months
               teacher; 12-13 years     Boy B       5 yrs, 2 months
               itinerant                Boy C       4 yrs, 3 months

Teacher 3                               Child       Age

Urban/         Full-time Itinerant      Boy A       4 yrs, 9 months
Rural/Suburban 2 years ECSE teacher;    Boy B       5 yrs, 6 months
               1 year itinerant         Boy C       5 yrs, 6 months
                                        Boy D       4 yrs, 4 months
                                        Boy E       4 yrs, 4 months
Teacher 4                               Child       Age

Urban          Full-time Itinerant      Boy A       5 yrs, 10 months
/Rural         8 years ECSE teacher;    Boy B       6 years
               5 years itinerant        Boy C       5 yrs, 8 months
                                        Boy D       3 yrs, 6 months
                                        Boy E       4 yrs, 8 months
                                        Girl A      Missing

Teacher 5                               Child       Age

Urban/Rural/   Part-time Itinerant      Boy A       4 yrs, 10 months
Suburban       8-9 years ECSE teach-    Boy B       4 yrs
               er; 1st year itinerant   Boy C       4 yrs
                                        Girl A      6 yrs

Teacher 1                               Disability

Urban          Full-time Itinerant      Communication & Adaptive
               29 years ECSE teach-     Communication
               er; 20 years itinerant   Communication
                                        Communication & Adaptive

Teacher 2                               Disability

Urban          Full-time Itinerant      Communication
               23 years ECSE            Communication
               teacher; 12-13 years     Communication & Adaptive
               itinerant                Social-Emotional

Teacher 3                               Disability

Urban/         Full-time Itinerant      Communication & Adaptive
Rural/         2 years ECSE teacher;    Adaptive & Social-Emotional
Suburban       1 year itinerant         Adaptive & Communication
                                        Social-Emotional
                                        Communication
Teacher 4                               Disability

Urban          Full-time Itinerant      Social-Emotional & Adaptive
/Rural         8 years ECSE teacher;    Social-Emotional & Adaptive
               5 years itinerant        Adaptive & Social-Emotional
                                        Social-Emotional & Adaptive
                                        Speech & Social-Emotional
                                        Missing

Teacher 5                               Disability

Urban/Rural/   Part-time Itinerant      Communication & FineMotor
Suburban       8-9 years ECSE teach-    Communication, Fine Mo-tor, &
               er; 1st year itinerant     Adaptive
                                        Developmental Delay
                                        Communication & Motor

Figure 2. Observations of Itinerant ECSE Teachers in Classroonz Visits

Interaction Variable                  Teacher   Teacher   Teacher
                                         1         2         3

Primary Interaction w/in Interval
  No Interaction                      12.14#    18.07     32.78#
  Itinerant-Child                     85.50#    78.27     57.89#
  Itinerant-Lead Teacher               2.36#     3.33#    11.78#
  Itinerant-Assistant                  1.14       .60       .44
  Itinerant-Parent or Caregiver         .21       .00       .00
  Itinerant-Other Center Staff          .50       .00       .78
  Itinerant-Other ECSE Staff            .00       .00       .00
  Itinerant-Multiple Adults             .00       .00       .00
  Itinerant-Other                       .29       .80       .22
Content of Interaction
  No Interaction                      12.07#    18.07#    32.44#
  Interaction with Children           85.36#    78.07#    57.89#
  General Conversation with Adults     2.93      1.93      3.33
  Scheduling/Planning for Visits        .00#      .00       .33#
  Child-Focused Consultation           1.43#     2.93      6.56
  Other                                 .21#      .27#     2.33#
  Can't Tell                            .14       .00       .33
Nature of Itinerant Activity
  Interaction with Children           77.00     74.00     56.78
  Watching/Listening to Children      14.79      9.20     14.89
  Watching/Listening to Adults         3.64      1.67      4.33
  Discussing with Adults               1.79#     2.60#     9.00#
  Coaching Adults                       .00       .27       .67
  Completing Paperwork                  .00#    10.33#     6.70#
  General Conversation                 3.00      2.00      4.00
  Other                                1.86      1.07      2.44
Configuration of Interactions with
Children
  No Interactions with People           .93#     5.87#    19.33#
  1/1 with Child in Room               3.79      3.60      1.78
  Small Group with Child in Room      67.57     35.80     57.22
  Large Group or Whole Class          35.35     33.80     11.00
  1/1 with Child Out of Room            .00      7.87      7.78
  Small Group w/Child Out of Room      2.79     10.73       .00
  Interacts with Adults                1.79#     3.53#     6.67#

Interaction Variable                  Teacher   Teacher
                                         4         5

Primary Interaction w/in Interval
  No Interaction                      16.07     15.13#
  Itinerant-Child                     79.33#    73.80#
  Itinerant-Lead Teacher               4.87#     7.07
  Itinerant-Assistant                   .80      2.00
  Itinerant-Parent or Caregiver         .00      4.87
  Itinerant-Other Center Staff          .13       .00
  Itinerant-Other ECSE Staff            .00       .00
  Itinerant-Multiple Adults             .00       .13
  Itinerant-Other                       .00       .27
Content of Interaction
  No Interaction                      16.07#    14.87#
  Interaction with Children           79.33#    73.87#
  General Conversation with Adults     1.53      3.47
  Scheduling/Planning for Visits        .00       .00#
  Child-Focused Consultation           4.33#    10.20#
  Other                                 .00#      .27#
  Can't Tell                            .13       .67
Nature of Itinerant Activity
  Interaction with Children           74.33     69.93
  Watching/Listening to Children      10.67     11.27
  Watching/Listening to Adults         2.27      3.20
  Discussing with Adults               4.07#     9.93#
  Coaching Adults                       .13       .27
  Completing Paperwork                 5.80#     2.87#
  General Conversation                 1.27      3.47
  Other                                2.87      2.40
Configuration of Interactions with
Children
  No Interactions with People          8.40#     3.33#
  1/1 with Child in Room               9.07      2.93
  Small Group with Child in Room      49.67     59.27
  Large Group or Whole Class          29.87     26.93
  1/1 with Child Out of Room            .00       .00
  Small Group w/Child Out of Room       .47       .00
  Interacts with Adults                3.87#    10.87#

Note: Shaded items and bolded percentages indicate statistically
significant differences (p < . 05) among teachers

Note: Shaded items and bolded percentages indicate statistically
significant differences (p < . 05) among teachers indicated with #.

Figure 3
Itinerant Teachers' Ratings of Time Spent Engaged in Specific
Responsibilities

ROLE A--Assessor/Monitor              Not     24% or    25-      More
                                     Chosen    Less     50%      than
                                                                 50%

1. Administer assessment             82       2        12       5
instruments needed to meet state
and federal requirements related
to eligibility for services.

2. Collect and manage data to        48       22       17       13
monitor children's progress in
meeting IEP objectives.

3. Write progress reports for        77       10       3        10
annual reviews, including IEP
reviews.

4. Observe child in environment in   30       22       25       23
order to make decisions about the
kinds of services necessary to
address the child(ren)'s IEP
objectives.

5. Work with staff of community-     87       8        2        3
based programs to identify and
refer children who are suspected
of, or at-risk for, developmental
delay.

6. Serve as member of the            85       3        3        8
district's or program's early
childhood screening and assessment
team.

ROLE B--Consultant to Other Adults    Not     24% or    25-      More
                                     Chosen    Less     50%      than
                                                                 50%

1. Build rapport with general        22       30       32       17
early childhood teachers, child
care providers, program directors,
or parents of child(ren) with IEP.

2. Provide written information to    82       12       3        3
other adults about the child's
disability or special need.

3. Provide written information to    93       3        2        2
other adults about resources or
programs available to help
children and families.

4. Provide written information to    80       12       5        2
other adults about appropriate
intervention strategies for
child(ren) with IEP.

5. Plan intervention strategies      55       28       12       5
with other adults that will
address child(ren)'s IEP goals and
objectives within the context of
the daily routine.

6. Plan ways to adapt materials or   92       5        3        0
equipment with other adults so
that the child(ren) with an IEP
can participate in daily routines
and activities.

7. Plan ways to adapt the physical   92       5        3        0
environment with other adults to
address the developmental and
learning needs of child(ren) with
an IEP.

8. Plan ways to adapt the daily      83       12       5        0
routines with other adults to
address the developmental and
learning needs of child(ren) with
an IEP.

9. Demonstrate intervention          70       15       13       2
strategies and interaction skills
to other adults.

10. Provide feedback to others       60       27       8        5
about their implementation of
specific intervention strategies
and interaction skills with
children.

11. Check with other adults on       83       12       5        0
follow-through of agreed-upon
intervention strategies or plans.

12. Help parents understand their    80       17       3        0
role as an advocate for their
child.

13. Conduct conference(s) with       63       8        17       2
parents, provide support and
information as requested, and
address parents' concerns.

14. Update parents of children's     37       30       20       13
progress through regular written
communication (e.g., journals,
notes sent home).

15. Plan and conduct inservice       100      0        0        0
training sessions with general
early childhood teachers, child
care providers, or other program
personnel.

ROLE C--Direct Service Provider       Not     24% or    25-      More
to Children                          Chosen    Less     50%      than
                                                                 50%

1. Work one-on-one, in small         17       0        5        78
group, or in large group with
child(ren) on IEP objectives.

2. Coach typical peers in how to     68       27       5        0
be role models for child(ren) with
IEP.

3. Teach ALL children in setting,    82       15       3        0
including typical peers.

4. Adapt classroom materials for     90       5        5        0
child(ren) with IEP.

5. Prepare individualized,           88       5        5        2
small-group, or large-group lesson
plans for child(ren) with IEP.

6. Create, purchase, or obtain       63       17       12       8
materials or equipment needed to
meet IEP objectives of child(ren)
with IEP.

ROLE D--Lifelong Learner              Not     24% or    25-      More
                                     Chosen    Less     50%      than
                                                                 50%

1. Read/review materials that        100      0        0        0
impact individual child's
disability on developmental growth
and educational performance.

2. Read IEP and available health/    78       0        3        18
development reports of child(ren)
entering the program.

3. Develop a thorough                98       0        0        2
understanding of the development
of young children in general.

4. Independently read professional   100      0        0        0
literature to maintain familiarity
with current information in the
field.

5. Attend conferences/workshops to   97       0        0        3
maintain familiarity with current
information and service delivery
trends in the field.

ROLE E--Service Coordinator/          Not     24% or    25-      More
Transition Planning                  Chosen    Less     50%      than
                                                                 50%

1. Coordinate all educational and    88       2        2        8
related services identified on the
IEP.

2. Research appropriate program      87       0        3        10
options at time of transition of
child with IEP to another program.

3. Coordinate and facilitate         100      0        0        0
transition meeting(s) involving
all relevant parties when child
moves from one program to the
next.

4. Coordinate related services at    97       0        2        1
transition time.

ROLE F--Team Member                   Not     24% or    25-      More
                                     Chosen    Less     50%      than
                                                                 50%

1. Serve as a team leader for        95       0        2        3
inter-/transdisciplinary teams
related to the child(ren) with an
IEP.

2. Coordinate and attend team        80       2        5        13
meetings, including IEP meetings.

3. Work with inter-/                 95       0        2        2
transdisciplinary team to write
IEP.

4. Support collaboration between     85       7        3        5
the school district and other
settings that serve children with
IEPs.

5. Collaborate with professionals    57       7        3        33
who provide related services to
child(ren) with IEP.

6. Participate in school district    97       0        0        3
preschool program staff activities
and planning sessions.

7. Engage in public relations        95       3        0        2
activities to promote the services
the school district or program has
to offer for child(ren) with
special needs.

Note: Due to rounding, the columns do not always add to an even 100.