Instructional Consultation Teams: A Model of Teacher and Student Support

by Christine Gottleber

Printable Version

Instructional Consultation Teams represent a comprehensive support team model that uses a trained team of school-based professionals. The team supports classroom teachers in applying best practices in instructional delivery and assessment. The primary goal of Instructional Consultation Teams is to create and maintain student success within the general education environment by improving instructional support practices. The training is based on the research of Todd A. Gravois and Sylvia A. Rosenfield at the University of Maryland. This issue of Focus on Results looks at how the Instructional Consultation Team model provides a framework for improving instruction at the building level.

The Instructional Consultation Team process involves intensive, systematic, on-going professional development. The structure requires that a staff member in each building be assigned as the Instructional Consultation Team facilitator. This is a half-time position. The facilitator, along with his or her buddy (another staff member in the building who will receive training in advance of the building team), attend approximately 26 days of training in the areas of:

• Collaborative and reflective communication skills.
• Efficient data-driven problem solving (including instructional and functional behavioral assessment).
• Team functioning.

The first year is a training year. For the first semester of Instructional Consultation Team training, the facilitator and buddy practice the skills learned with one another and then with other staff members. Practice builds confidence and consistency and develops capacity within the building for the future Instructional Consultation Team.

The building team is made up of eight to ten professional staff members, including the building principal. The majority of the Instructional Consultation Team is comprised of general education staff. The Instructional Consultation Team receives three full days of training, usually five to six months after the facilitator receives training. After the team is trained, the building facilitator meets with the team on a weekly basis for approximately 50-60 minutes to continue the training. Over the next five to six months, the Instructional Consultation Team members practice skills under the guidance of the building facilitator. The second year is considered the first year of implementation. Instructional Consultation Teams are encouraged to rotate staff members on to the team that are new to the process. This builds capacity and sustainability within the building.

The Instructional Consultation Team training includes direct training by Todd Gravois and Ed Gickling. Gravois and Gickling present the conceptual framework of the model and demonstrate the skills needed.
Instructional Consultation Team members, once trained, are referred to as case managers who meet with classroom teachers to problem solve regarding individual student needs. (See Figure 1.)

Seven stages make up the Instructional Consultation Team Process:

1. Contracting: The case manager meets with the classroom teacher to review the problem-solving process, gain agreement to work together, and set a time for a next meeting.
2. Problem Identification and Analysis: The case manager works with the teacher to put the concerns in specific and observable terms. Instructional assessment is completed to establish a match between the student, task, and environment. The concerns are prioritized. Baseline data is gathered and goals are set for a three to six week review period.
3. Intervention Design: The case manager and teacher determine what will be done, when it will be done, who will do it, how often it will be done, and under what conditions it will be used.
4. Intervention Implementation: The case manager and teacher review progress with the teacher to see that the intervention is being implemented as planned.
5. Intervention Evaluation: The team collects and records data weekly based on the original plan.
6. Follow Up/Redesign: The case manager and teacher review the data, the intervention, and the setting. They revise or retry the intervention as needed.
7. Closure: The goals are met. The teacher is comfortable with the strategies, and the goals are embedded into the classroom, or faded because they are no longer needed.

Each step is taught thoroughly and practiced within a building to maintain the integrity of the process.

Instructional Assessment

The instructional assessment component of Instructional Consultation Teams uses materials from the student’s curriculum. The purpose is to determine the student’s instructional level and to create the conditions for learning. The dimensions of reading, writing, and math are used to aid discussion of the student’s strengths. Instructional-based Assessment gives the teacher a starting point for instruction, aligns with the students curriculum, and supports the Michigan Curriculum Standards and Benchmarks, Grade Level Content Expectations, and High School Content Expectations.

The Instructional Consultation Team process is a strength-based model. It differs from many student assistance teams, student intervention teams, child study teams, etc. as the team has received specialized training in assessment and research-based practices. Decisions are not made within the Instructional Consultation Team but with the classroom teacher as the team and teacher work “shoulder to shoulder” to assess, trial teach, and design interventions specifically for that teacher to use. The purpose of Instructional Consultation Teams is to improve student and staff performance. The discussion no longer centers on what the student needs, but rather on what the teacher can do to move the student from where she or he is to the next level. The teacher improves her/his skills and is able to use that knowledge with other students in the classroom.

Figure 2 shows the primary stakeholders that make up the Instructional Consultation Team at the school-building level.

The benefits of the Instructional Consultation Team process (adapted from the Instructional Consultation Team Training Manual) are that it:

• Results in improved academic and behavioral achievement for students within the general education classroom.
• Provides a data-driven process for academic intervention services for students not meeting expected standards.
• Provides ongoing, professional development for staff in instruction, assessment, and collaborative problem solving.
• Maximizes resources through coordinated, goal-directed service delivery for students and teachers.
• Recaptures resources by reducing inappropriate referrals to special education.
• Addresses the overidentification, especially the overrepresentation of minorities, for special education services.

Results of the Instructional Consultation Team process, include increased student performance, enhanced teacher performance, utilization of more researched-based interventions in the general education classroom, and more positive learning environments with an emphasis on what students know.

Comments from staff members and students provide further insights:

• “During the first week of intervention, he learned his four words and even knew others he missed before.”
• “If I had known about working memory before, I would have been doing things differently.”
• “Just by asking him what he was thinking when he came to the word he didn’t know, I found out that he really knew more than what I had been seeing.”
• “There is carryover as he’s learned more words—he’s sitting taller, raising his hand to answer questions, and is just fitting in so well.”
• “My dad always wanted me to be a better reader and now I am” (after six weeks).

Program Evaluation

The University of Maryland is responsible for data collection for this project. Baseline data from the building is collected prior to the Instructional Consultation Team process. This data includes: retention rates, special education referrals, and discipline/office referrals. This same data is collected annually. At the end of the training year, additional data is collected consisting of: level of implementation, goal attainment, teacher satisfaction, and team collaboration. This data is analyzed and utilized by the school district and building facilitators to design ongoing professional development necessary for the full implementation of the Instructional Consultation Team process.

In Michigan, a consortium was started during the 2003-2004 school year with two intermediate school districts (ISDs), Eaton and Washtenaw, and one local district, West Bloomfield. The initial sites trained nine schools. The Michigan Consortium for Instructional Consultation Teams now consists of 65 schools in Eaton ISD, Washtenaw ISD, West Bloomfield Schools, Ionia ISD, Livingston Educational Service Agency (ESA), and Ottawa ISD. Midland County ESA and Montcalm ISD are in the readiness phase.

For more information, contact:

Christine Gottleber, Eaton ISD, (517) 543-5500 ext. 1143
Holly Heaviland, Washtenaw ISD, (734) 994-8100 ext. 1250
Susan Liebetreu, West Bloomfield School District, (248) 865-6470
Scott Hubble, Ionia County ISD, (616) 527-4900
George McLeod, Livingston ESA (517) 546-5500

References

Gravois, T.A., & Rosenfield, S.A. (2006). Impact of Instructional Consultation Teams on the Disproportionate Referral and Placement of Minority Students in Special Education. Journal of Remedial and Special Education, 27(1), 42-52.

Gravois, T.A., Knotek, S. & Babinski, L. (2002). Educating practitioners as consultants: Development and implementation on the instructional consultation team consortium. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 13 (1&2), 113-132.

Gravois, T.A., & Rosenfield, S. (2002). A multi-dimentional framework for the evaluation of instructional consultation teams. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 19(1), 5-29.

Rosenfield, S. A., & Gravois, T.A. (1996) Instructional Consultation Teams: Collaborating for Change. N.Y.: Guilford Press.

Rosenfield, S. A. (1987) Instructional consultation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Authors

Christine Gottleber, M.Ed. Admin., is the Supervisor/Planner for Administrative Services at Eaton Intermediate School District. Chris has 34 years experience in education as a Special Education Director and teacher. She has been involved with Instructional Consultation Teams for five years.

You may contact her at 1790 E. Packard Highway, Charlotte, MI 48813. Call (517) 543-5500 ext. 1143. cgottleber@eaton.k12.mi.us.

TOP of Page