We would like to share this very informative video from Connecticut's Early Intervention Program that does a very good job of demonstrating and explaining the role of the home visit in a Primary Provider model.
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Relief for Region 7 SPOE Area
All of us should by now be aware of the incredible damage and devistation left behind by the storms and tornado that went through Joplin, MO on Sunday evening. We would like to extend our sincerest prayers, thoughts, and condolences for those who have lost family members, friends, and homes in this tragic event.
The Region 7 SPOE Office is located in Joplin and the reports from the area are that the office was completely destroyed. At last report, all of the staff and their family members had been accounted for but there has been significant loss of shelter, materials, and safety.
The St. Louis Area SPOE Office would like to offer to help people in the area by collecting donations or contributing to other relief efforts that may be directed toward the area. If you are interested in making a donation or know of any other relief effort, please contact our SPOE Office at (314) 453-9203.
The Region 7 SPOE Office is located in Joplin and the reports from the area are that the office was completely destroyed. At last report, all of the staff and their family members had been accounted for but there has been significant loss of shelter, materials, and safety.
The St. Louis Area SPOE Office would like to offer to help people in the area by collecting donations or contributing to other relief efforts that may be directed toward the area. If you are interested in making a donation or know of any other relief effort, please contact our SPOE Office at (314) 453-9203.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Interesting and informative article from Robin McWilliam's Blog
Problems With The Toy Bag
"There are two major problems with the toy bag. The first is that it sends a message to families that “your junk ain’t good enough.” Why else would we be bringing in other toys and materials. I recently conducted an RBI in which the mother told me that the home visitor brought toys that she already had in the home!
The second major problem, the really serious one, is that it implies that intervention occurs during the visit. If a home visitor gets down on the floor with the child and the toy bag an starts “working with” the child, it is not surprising that the parent would believe that the child is being taught. We have made the point in many places, including on this blog, that the purpose of weekly early
intervention is not to teach children—that that is futile—but rather to provide caregivers with emotional, material, and informational support.
The persistent use of the toy bag thus leads to the attribution problem of parents’ attributing their children’s progress to weekly interactions with people outside the family instead of to ongoing interactions with regular caregivers. The consequences of parents’ making this erroneous attribution are obvious.
An indicator that the toy bag user him- or herself thinks that the intervention actually occurs during the visit is that they usually take the toys away at the end of the visit. If they believed that intervention is what happens between visits, they would leave the toys.
Another concern about the implication that intervention occurs during the visit is that so much of the visit is spent on triadic play among the home visitor, the child, and toys. Does anyone know of research that documents how much time families actually spend in such triadic play? I suspect it is a very small percentage of time.
So the staff in this program need to understand first how children learn (throughout days, not in
lessons or sessions) and how services work (by supporting natural caregivers, not by working with the child weekly). Until they grasp those notions, they probably won’t understand what’s wrong with the
toy bag.
Why do some parents want toy-bag-wielding home visitors? It’s because of the attribution problem. Once they are conditioned to believe that their child really needs direct, hands-on lessons with a teacher or sessions with a therapist, the empty-handed home visitor will look like a fisherman who
forgot his pole, a carpenter without a saw, a plumber without a wrench—you get the idea. You probably also by now understand that early intervention is about teaching people to fish with their own poles, to make cabinets with their own saws, and to fix leaks with their own wrenches.
Some therapists say they need items. Hmmmm. What items are critical? Especially, what items are critical for supporting families to teach their children functional skills that the children need to participate in their routines? Surely nothing that comes out of a toy bag. After all, if the outcomes we’re working on are functional, that means we found out what the needs were in everyday contexts. We need to be working with the materials that are in those everyday contexts.
In addition to therapists or teachers saying they need items to do their home visiting job, other excuses for taking toy bags abound. One is that the toy bag items are for instruction; home
stuff is for generalization. Another is that some homes have nothing (people in the U.S. actually say that with a straight face). Yet another is that parents want to see what their children might like. This is actually a reasonable reason to take toys—for children and families to try them out, but then leave them there for at least a week. Some fake interaction on a home visit doesn’t tell you whether the child will continue to be interested in the toy. These are mostly excuses that toy bag addicts make.
Yes, a number of experts in early intervention have identified the obsession with toy bags as an
addiction! Some behaviors common to addicts will surface when toy bag addicts are told to stop taking them.
But program managers need to be prepared to ban toy bags, if they understand the points I’m making here. You can’t expect people to do something (or stop doing something) if you don’t tell them to do it (or stop doing it). The occasional bright home visitor will get it and abandon the toy bag as a
result of training or reading or some other self-directed learning. But most addicts need to be told to stop.
The methadone treatment I suggest is a combination of the Routines-Based Interview and the Vanderbilt Home Visit Script. A future blog posting can address the VHVS, if there
is interest. It was included in the training of the person who wrote me with this excellent question (at the beginning of this posting).
In conclusion then, (a) the staff need learn how children learn and how services work, (b) the
program needs to ban toy bags (they are both symbolic and necessary for the propagation of atheoretical and nonempirical early intervention), and (d) the staff need to be trained to be support providers or consultants to the families. Only then will children get the amount and quality of early intervention they deserve, given the best available evidence."
Taken from Robin McWilliam's blog at: http://naturalenvironments.blogspot.com/2007/10/toy-bags.html
"There are two major problems with the toy bag. The first is that it sends a message to families that “your junk ain’t good enough.” Why else would we be bringing in other toys and materials. I recently conducted an RBI in which the mother told me that the home visitor brought toys that she already had in the home!
The second major problem, the really serious one, is that it implies that intervention occurs during the visit. If a home visitor gets down on the floor with the child and the toy bag an starts “working with” the child, it is not surprising that the parent would believe that the child is being taught. We have made the point in many places, including on this blog, that the purpose of weekly early
intervention is not to teach children—that that is futile—but rather to provide caregivers with emotional, material, and informational support.
The persistent use of the toy bag thus leads to the attribution problem of parents’ attributing their children’s progress to weekly interactions with people outside the family instead of to ongoing interactions with regular caregivers. The consequences of parents’ making this erroneous attribution are obvious.
An indicator that the toy bag user him- or herself thinks that the intervention actually occurs during the visit is that they usually take the toys away at the end of the visit. If they believed that intervention is what happens between visits, they would leave the toys.
Another concern about the implication that intervention occurs during the visit is that so much of the visit is spent on triadic play among the home visitor, the child, and toys. Does anyone know of research that documents how much time families actually spend in such triadic play? I suspect it is a very small percentage of time.
So the staff in this program need to understand first how children learn (throughout days, not in
lessons or sessions) and how services work (by supporting natural caregivers, not by working with the child weekly). Until they grasp those notions, they probably won’t understand what’s wrong with the
toy bag.
Why do some parents want toy-bag-wielding home visitors? It’s because of the attribution problem. Once they are conditioned to believe that their child really needs direct, hands-on lessons with a teacher or sessions with a therapist, the empty-handed home visitor will look like a fisherman who
forgot his pole, a carpenter without a saw, a plumber without a wrench—you get the idea. You probably also by now understand that early intervention is about teaching people to fish with their own poles, to make cabinets with their own saws, and to fix leaks with their own wrenches.
Some therapists say they need items. Hmmmm. What items are critical? Especially, what items are critical for supporting families to teach their children functional skills that the children need to participate in their routines? Surely nothing that comes out of a toy bag. After all, if the outcomes we’re working on are functional, that means we found out what the needs were in everyday contexts. We need to be working with the materials that are in those everyday contexts.
In addition to therapists or teachers saying they need items to do their home visiting job, other excuses for taking toy bags abound. One is that the toy bag items are for instruction; home
stuff is for generalization. Another is that some homes have nothing (people in the U.S. actually say that with a straight face). Yet another is that parents want to see what their children might like. This is actually a reasonable reason to take toys—for children and families to try them out, but then leave them there for at least a week. Some fake interaction on a home visit doesn’t tell you whether the child will continue to be interested in the toy. These are mostly excuses that toy bag addicts make.
Yes, a number of experts in early intervention have identified the obsession with toy bags as an
addiction! Some behaviors common to addicts will surface when toy bag addicts are told to stop taking them.
But program managers need to be prepared to ban toy bags, if they understand the points I’m making here. You can’t expect people to do something (or stop doing something) if you don’t tell them to do it (or stop doing it). The occasional bright home visitor will get it and abandon the toy bag as a
result of training or reading or some other self-directed learning. But most addicts need to be told to stop.
The methadone treatment I suggest is a combination of the Routines-Based Interview and the Vanderbilt Home Visit Script. A future blog posting can address the VHVS, if there
is interest. It was included in the training of the person who wrote me with this excellent question (at the beginning of this posting).
In conclusion then, (a) the staff need learn how children learn and how services work, (b) the
program needs to ban toy bags (they are both symbolic and necessary for the propagation of atheoretical and nonempirical early intervention), and (d) the staff need to be trained to be support providers or consultants to the families. Only then will children get the amount and quality of early intervention they deserve, given the best available evidence."
Taken from Robin McWilliam's blog at: http://naturalenvironments.blogspot.com/2007/10/toy-bags.html
Monday, March 21, 2011
Exciting Opportunity for First Steps Families in St. Louis Area!!!
Would you like to be a part of an exciting project that is identifying ways to
support families with children who have health issues or developmental delays?
This project, funded by the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, is
designed to determine if an evidence-based program called Nurturing Parenting
affects caregiver's knowledge of child development and parenting behavior.
Nurturing Parenting is an 8-week program that supports parents and provides them
with education and resources to help them meet the challenges they face (child
care is available for class time). This is a research project, therefore
families who agree to participate will be randomly assigned to the group that
receives the Nurturing Parenting program or to the group that simply completes surveys
two times (eight weeks apart) and does not receive the parenting program.
Participants in both groups are provided with monetary and other gifts in
appreciation for their time. This opportunity is available to families with a
child under the age of 3 who are receiving First Steps services. Please keep in
mind that this is a limited time offer, so please call Deb O'Neill at
314-877-6469 today for more information!
support families with children who have health issues or developmental delays?
This project, funded by the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, is
designed to determine if an evidence-based program called Nurturing Parenting
affects caregiver's knowledge of child development and parenting behavior.
Nurturing Parenting is an 8-week program that supports parents and provides them
with education and resources to help them meet the challenges they face (child
care is available for class time). This is a research project, therefore
families who agree to participate will be randomly assigned to the group that
receives the Nurturing Parenting program or to the group that simply completes surveys
two times (eight weeks apart) and does not receive the parenting program.
Participants in both groups are provided with monetary and other gifts in
appreciation for their time. This opportunity is available to families with a
child under the age of 3 who are receiving First Steps services. Please keep in
mind that this is a limited time offer, so please call Deb O'Neill at
314-877-6469 today for more information!
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Level 3 Trainings for Current St. Louis EIT Members
Please Note: There has been a location change for the Level 3 Trainings scheduled for March 4th and March 10th. Due to the size of the group, the new location will be The Delta Gamma Center for Children located at 1750 Big Bend Blvd., St. Louis MO 63117 (776-1300).
The other dates- March 15-16, March 18, and March 21-22 are still scheduled for the St. Louis Area SPOE Office.
REMINDER: This training is only for providers who are currently assigned to EITs in the St. Louis area. If you are not currently assigned to an EIT or have not RSVP'd, you will not be able to attend these trainings.
Thank you
The other dates- March 15-16, March 18, and March 21-22 are still scheduled for the St. Louis Area SPOE Office.
REMINDER: This training is only for providers who are currently assigned to EITs in the St. Louis area. If you are not currently assigned to an EIT or have not RSVP'd, you will not be able to attend these trainings.
Thank you
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Level 3 Trainings for St. Louis EIT Members
At this time, we would like to announce the dates for the next phase of training for current Early Intervention Team Members:
Level 3- Routine Based Interviewing (RBI) Sessions:
- Friday March 4: 9am-4:30pm
- Thursday March 10: 9am-4:30pm
- Tuesday March 15 & Wednesday March 16: 3pm-6:30pm (2 Day Session)
- Monday March 21 & Tuesday March 22: 3pm-6:30pm (2 Day Session)
All Level 3 Trainings for the St. Louis Area are currently scheduled to be held at the SPOE Office. Space is limited to roughly 40 people per session.
This training will focus on the elements involved in the process of conducting the RBI with families in the First Steps Program. Routine Based Interviews helps all IFSP Team members better understand the day to day life of the family while also leading to the development of better individualized and functional outcomes that relate to the child/family's particular needs. This training is mandatory for all EIT members. If you are part of a team in a different region of the state and have already attended this training you are not required to attend it again here in St. Louis, but please contact the appropriate SPOE Director to let us know this information. Please view this link for more information regarding the RBI: Robin McWilliam RBI
For those who may not have attended the previous Level 1 (EIT 101- Introduction to Missouri's Early Intervention Teams) please follow this link to access the Power Point on the DESE website:
In addition, Marcy will also be providing a Level 2 Session (Distinguishing between Early Intervention Teams and IFSP Teams). This session will be held at the SPOE Office on Monday March 7 from 1pm-3pm.
You should still plan to attend the Level 3 training even if you have not yet attended the previous 2 levels.
Please RSVP for the training(s) by emailing Katie Motil at kmotil@awsusa.com or calling the SPOE Office at (314) 453-9203 by Friday February 25th.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
SPOE OFFICE WEATHER CLOSURE
Due to the dangerous weather conditions in the St. Louis Area, the SPOE Office was closed on Thursday, January 20th and will be closed on Friday January 21st as well. We are still able accept and respond to all referrals within normal business hours and all SPOE staff can be reached either via email or via phone message.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)