“Voices from the Field”
Interview with Nancy Thompson and Janine Figiel

Nancy Thompson and Janine Figiel from Jolly Toddlers

Nancy Thompson and Janine Figiel from Jolly Toddlers

Nancy Thompson
Nancy is the owner and director of Jolly Toddlers, a thriving high-quality early education center. She opened this child care center in 1984 to meet the needs of local families looking for high-quality care. Nancy graduated from Fitzgerald-Mercy School of Nursing with a degree in nursing, becoming a registered nurse (RN). Later she attained an undergraduate degree in early childhood and elementary education, as well as a master’s degree in counseling from Gwynedd Mercy College. Nancy is the proud mother of four children, and grandmother to six beautiful grandchildren.
Janine Figiel
Janine is the Jolly Toddlers assistant director and the center’s facilitator of the Pyramid Model/PBIS. Janine graduated from Seton Hall University with a bachelor’s degree in psychology. After college, Janine worked as a human resource manager in her family’s business while raising her two children. Human interaction and positive reinforcement has always been one of her interests so when Nancy Thompson asked her to help facilitate the Pyramid Model/PBIS pilot program at Jolly Toddlers, she was thrilled. Janine has been at Jolly Toddlers since 2010 and has since received a Child Development Associate (CDA) certificate as well as a director’s diploma in early childhood education.

The Pyramid Model

The Pyramid Model, as referred to throughout this post, is a Positive Behavior Intervention and Support (PBIS) framework for young children. It is a tiered intervention model made up of evidenced-based practices. At the base (tier 1), are the universal supports for all children, provided through nurturing and responsive relationships and high-quality environments. The second tier (tier 2) is made up of prevention practices that target social and emotional strategies to prevent problems. The final tier (tier 3) consists of practices related to individualized intensive interventions for children with pervasive challenging behavior that need more than tier 1 and 2 supports and practices.

ED: How did you begin your career in early learning and development?

NT: I started my career as a nurse and was a visiting nurse for several years. When I had my own children, I became really interested in early childhood education (ECE). I knew how to physically take care of my children but didn’t know how to promote their learning and development. I decided to take some ECE classes and went back to school. I learned about the importance of the environment you create for young children and supporting social and emotional development. Eventually, I earned a degree in counseling. I thought it was critical to understand what is going on in children’s minds, what motivates children, and the best ways to support their growth and development. Then I decided to start my own business and opened a child care center to meet the needs of local women who were going back to work six weeks after having a baby. I was shocked because I couldn’t imagine, as a working mom, having to find care for a baby that young. I thought that with my background in nursing, education, and counseling I could create a child care center that would meet the needs of babies. We started out serving seven children and now, 33 years later, we have 25 employees and serve 110 kids ages 6 weeks to 6 years old.

JF: I graduated with a psychology degree and was thinking of applying to law school but decided to have children and work from home. I did this for many years while my children were young. I’m close friends with Nancy’s daughter and about eight years ago Nancy called me to see if I wanted to volunteer in her center and help her implement Pyramid Model/PBIS. I didn’t know anything about Pyramid Model/PBIS, but with my background in psychology it seemed like a good fit. I started out as a volunteer and loved it. I went back to school, took ECE courses, and earned my director’s diploma in early childhood education. Now, I am committed to our center and to implementing Pyramid Model/PBIS.

ED: What is the Pyramid Model/PBIS and why did you decide to implement it?

NT: For us, Pyramid Model/PBIS is all about being respectful to one another. You can walk into a center doing Pyramid Model/PBIS and it will take just a few minutes to realize that it feels different. Teachers are respectful to each other and the children, administrators are respectful to teachers, and staff are respectful to families. We actually teach children expectations and rules, and then we teach them strategies for sharing, making friends, and being kind. When I first learned about Pyramid Model/PBIS, I knew I wanted to implement it. There was an opportunity through our local early childhood intermediary unit to pilot Pyramid Model/PBIS. They offered to provide us with the initial training and a coach. We’ve been implementing with fidelity (the degree to which an intervention is delivered as intended) for 6 years. We’ve really seen it transform our center’s climate. There is much more collaboration and there is no gossiping; teachers really help each other out. Across the center we are clear and consistent about expectations of classroom rules and playground rules. We also use visual schedules to facilitate children’s understanding of what their day looks like.

JF: Nancy knew what she wanted to do, she just needed a name for it and some support. Pyramid Model/PBIS fits perfectly with her vision. Leadership is critical to implementation, so having her committed has been really important. Implementing Pyramid Model/PBIS isn’t easy; it takes about 3-5 years to get to a place where you are implementing with fidelity. It requires teachers being aware of how they talk to one another and to children. It is a tiered framework for figuring out how to support children in their social and emotional development. When implementing, centers must determine the specific strategies that will work best in their particular center. We have been focused on the bottom tier of creating a safe, warm, and nurturing environment. We have built in a lot of reward systems for the children; our goal is to catch them being good. Staff said they wanted a “reward” system too and soon the teachers started acknowledging one another, thanking each other, and recognizing accomplishments. Pyramid Model/PBIS really opened us up and bridged a gap we had with positive communication and collaboration across staff.

ED: How has your work with implementing Pyramid Model/PBIS improved the quality of early learning and development?

JF: We are a star 4 program (the highest quality) in our state’s quality rating and improvement system (QRIS), Keystone STARS. Implementing Pyramid Model/PBIS is a big part of why our rating is high. Children attending our center are happy; you don’t hear teachers yelling. The overall climate is wonderful. With Pyramid Model/PBIS, our teachers have been equipped with tools to meet the needs of all the children who attend. Twenty-five percent of our children are children with disabilities—our environment is an inclusive one. Pyramid Model/PBIS gave our teachers confidence to support all of the children, and to meaningfully collaborate with the therapists and special education professionals that come into our classrooms to work with the children with disabilities. Our teachers feel empowered to problem-solve and to figure out what works in an inclusive environment. In addition to the supportive climate we’ve created, our teachers take advantage of the great resources about implementing Pyramid Model/PBIS available online.

NT: Helping those with special needs is a priority for us and it has helped our overall quality improve. We regularly monitor children’s progress using the Ages and Stages Questionnaire (ASQ). Families don’t always catch when a child is struggling. We now have the tools to help parents, so if there is a real issue we can help families get the child the services they need. Pyramid Model/PBIS gave us a framework for understanding when a child may need more intensive intervention, and showed us the importance of monitoring children’s progress.

ED: What are some of the challenges you’ve encountered with implementing Pyramid Model/PBIS and any strategies you’ve used to overcome them?

NT: When change comes to a center there are those that will resist. When we decided to implement Pyramid Model/PBIS, I told our coach that some of our staff may not stay working with the center. In order for this to work, you need to have staff buy-in and for both administrators and staff to truly believe this approach is the right thing to do. I was prepared to potentially lose staff, and we did, but long-term Pyramid Model/PBIS has actually reduced our teacher turnover rate. I believe it’s because the teachers are happy and love to come to work. When we bring on new staff, they are supported by the veteran teachers. For example, if a new teacher starts and doesn’t know how to set up a classroom to maximize positive social, emotional and behavioral development, our veteran teachers will work with them and discuss what works and what doesn’t with a particular age group.

JF: Another big issue for us has been when we have a child with significant needs, but that child hasn’t been identified as qualifying for special education. We need extra help to support the child, and this can add a lot of stress for our teachers. At times we have hired extra teachers to provide the support. We know that if this child receives the interventions and attention early, they will thrive, but it can be hard for us as a small business. Our teachers are great at being resourceful and problem-solving; they usually get online and try to find creative approaches.

NT: Janine is the internal coach at the center. She works really hard to support our teachers when we have a child with more intensive needs. We are still trying to figure out what this support looks like, particularly when we don’t have access to other professionals to help us problem solve. We are seeing more and more children with behavioral issues, born with drug addiction, and with parents in jail; the kids and parents in these situations are tired, and it takes a lot of energy to help and support them. One solution we’ve found involves working with and educating families. We have shared a lot of Pyramid Model/PBIS resources with our families. When a child is really struggling with behavioral issues, we will collect and share data about the child’s behavior with their family and then develop a plan with strategies that can be used at both home and school.

ED: What suggestions do you have for others interested in promoting positive social, emotional, and behavioral development in young children?

JF: My advice for a program interested in Pyramid Model/PBIS is to start small, with easy and concrete steps for teachers. Lay it out for them and incorporate their strengths. For example, our teachers were really visually creative and focused on making things pretty, so one of the first things we did was to work on posting rules and expectations visually, including visual schedules that helped kids know what was happening each day. Also, implementing Pyramid Model/PBIS is a process, so be aware that you will likely have to go back and make changes to what you are doing. It really does take 3-5 years, so start small. Some other things we implemented early were bucket-filling books and beginning to teach children to recognize and understand different emotions. These were concrete strategies teachers could begin to use in order to see positive change.

NT: Also be flexible as an administrator. You may need to move teachers around. For example, we had to move a teacher to a different age group. You also need to think about how you staff your classrooms. I know that I want a teacher in each classroom that knows those children every day, so we make sure that happens; we staff our classrooms intentionally. We don’t put all of our kids in one big room at the end of the day. It is critical for kids to have their “own” room, and for the teachers in that classroom to really know them. My final suggestion is to be thoughtful about communicating with families on a regular basis.

JF: Hold onto your vision but be flexible. Take staff buy-in seriously. This can take time, but once teachers see the positive impact of the new strategies, they become more engaged. Providing structure, establishing clear expectations for kids, redirecting and replacing behavior with something positive—these strategies give teachers the tools to support all children. It is powerful when they use the strategies with a child with challenging behaviors and they see that it works. Our teachers also now recognize the importance of teaching kids social skills. Some children need to be taught how to play, make friends, and behave, and our center now has the tools to do this! Another important thing to remember is that Pyramid Model/PBIS looks different in every classroom and every center. It is an overall feeling of positivity and support among staff, children, families, and administration. It’s building a welcoming atmosphere as opposed to completing a checklist of things you do every day.


Blog articles provide insights on the activities of schools, programs, grantees, and other education stakeholders to promote continuing discussion of educational innovation and reform. Articles do not endorse any educational product, service, curriculum or pedagogy.

Use of Part B Program Funds for Technical Assistance to States on IDEA Data Collection

U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos believes high-quality data are an essential part of local, State, and Federal efforts to improve outcomes for infants, toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities. The Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) is seeking input from the public, particularly State educational agencies (SEAs) and State lead agencies (LAs), on how best to provide technical assistance (TA) to States on the collection and reporting of data required under Part B, Section 618 and Section 616, of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), including input on the most effective and efficient method of funding this TA. Currently, that TA on IDEA Part B and C data collection is provided to SEAs and LAs through funds reserved by OSERS under IDEA section 616(i) of Part B.

As a matter of general practice, the Department regularly reviews its investments to ensure that they represent the most efficient and effective use of federal funds. As part of this process, the Department is exploring several options for providing TA to States on collecting and reporting data required under Sections 618 and 616 of IDEA, and we are seeking input on whether to pursue these options.

The options are:

  1. Continuing to fund national TA Centers from the funds reserved under Section 616(i) (Part B) of IDEA to improve the capacity of States to meet their IDEA Part B and Part C data collection requirements under Sections 616 and 618;
  2. Inviting SEAs and LAs to directly apply for funds reserved under Section 616(i) (Part B) to purchase TA to improve their capacity to meet their IDEA Part B and Part C data collection requirements under Sections 616 and 618;
  3. Reducing funds reserved under IDEA Section 616(i) (Part B) to fund national TA Centers to improve the capacity of States to meet their IDEA Part B and Part C data collection requirements under Sections 616 and 618 and increasing slightly the IDEA Part B formula funding to States under Section 611(d);
  4. Not reserving funds under IDEA Section 616(i) (Part B) for TA for IDEA Part B and Part C data collection and instead including the funds in the IDEA Section 611 formula grant; and
  5. Allowing States to reserve additional State set-aside funding for IDEA Part B State-level activities, which would be used to improve the collection, analysis, reporting, and use of data under IDEA Part B (not Part C) instead of reserving funds under IDEA Section 616(i) (Part B).

To help us in our review, we ask that you address the following questions in the comment section below. To protect your privacy and the privacy of others, please do not include personally identifiable information, such as a name of a child or school personnel, a Social Security number, an address, a phone number or an email address in the body of your comment. Comments containing the aforementioned information will not be allowed to remain on this site.

This blog will be open for comments from April 24, 2018 through May 24, 2018.

  1. What challenges does your State face in collecting, analyzing, reporting, and using IDEA Part B and Part C data required under IDEA Sections 616 and 618?
  2. To what extent do current Department-funded investments under the TA on State Data Collection program help your State address those challenges?
  3. Are there other investments that the Department should pursue to meet States’ IDEA data TA needs, and how should these investments be funded?
  4. What do you believe would be the potential benefits or limitations of the following TA funding options:

a) The Department continues to reserve funds under IDEA section 616(i) (Part B) to fund national TA centers to support the IDEA Part B and C State Data Collection Program;

b) States apply directly for funding under the TA on IDEA Part B and C State Data Collection program, which they can use to purchase TA on IDEA data collection required under IDEA Parts B and C; and

c) The Department does not reserve funds under IDEA section 616(i) (Part B) to fund new awards under the TA on State Data Collection Program under IDEA Part B and C and instead provides additional direct, formula funding to States under Part B of the IDEA? This option could also include allowing States to reserve additional State set-aside funding for IDEA Part B State-level activities, which would be used to improve the collection, analysis, reporting, and use of data under IDEA Part B (not Part C).

Background

Since 1976, IDEA has required States to annually report data on children with disabilities and, during that time, the Federal government has provided TA to States to meet those requirements. In 2004, Congress added IDEA Section 616 to require States to submit to OSERS, and make available to the public, a state performance plan (SPP) and an annual performance report (APR) with data on how each State implements both Part B and C of the IDEA to improve outcomes for infants, toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities. In 2004, Congress also added IDEA section 611(c), which gave the Secretary the authority to reserve up to one half of 1 percent of the amounts appropriated under Part B of the IDEA for each fiscal year to provide TA under IDEA section 616(i), where needed, to improve the capacity of States to meet the IDEA data collection requirements. The maximum amount the Secretary may reserve under this set aside for any fiscal year is $25,000,000, cumulatively adjusted by the rate of inflation. In fiscal year 2017, the Department reserved $21,400,000 for these purposes.

Since 2007, the Department has used these funds to support the TA on State Data Collection program, which is designed to improve the capacity of States to meet their IDEA data collection and reporting requirements for both Parts B and C of IDEA under IDEA Sections 616 and 618. The Department currently supports six investments under this program: the Center for IDEA Early Childhood Data Systems (DaSy), the IDEA Data Center (IDC), the Center for the Integration of IDEA Data (CIID), the Center for IDEA Fiscal Reporting (CIFR), the National Center for Educational Outcomes (NCEO) (jointly funded with OSEP’s Technical Assistance and Dissemination Program), and the EDFacts Technical Support Services II contract (jointly funded with the National Center for Education Statistics).

Conclusion

OSERS appreciates your support and suggestions as we continue efforts to improve the collection, analysis, reporting, and use of data as required in Sections 618 and 616 of IDEA as part of our commitment to ensure that infants, toddlers, children and youth with disabilities and their families have the supports and services guaranteed under IDEA.

We look forward to receiving your comments on or before May 24, 2018.