This article is for leadership personnel who design inservice education for people serving the needs of young children (birth to 6 years of age) with disabilities and their families. Following a definition and description of assumptions and guidelines, an approach for developing an inservice plan is detailed. In the final section, attention is given to special circumstances planners may face as they design meaningful learning opportunities for their local early childhood program personnel.

Multiple factors continuously influence the quality and quantity of community services for young children (birth to 6 years of age) with disabilities and their families. These factors include passage of federal laws, such as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), and their regulations; adoption of state statutes and rules; availability of legal decisions and interpretations; calls for parent-professional collaboration; innovations from new research and practice; emphasis on trends such as reform and excellence in education and human services; growth in consumer empowerment; increased efforts in interagency coordination and multidisciplinary services; and greater sophistication in early intervention and preschool programming. Early childhood programs need an ongoing strategy to maintain and improve their services within this dynamic context of change.

Inservice education provides a promising and effective strategy for coping with change and facilitating continuous organizational and individual improvement. To be beneficial, however, inservice education must (a) be integrated into the organization of the local early childhood program; (b) be designed in a systematic, continuous, and purposeful manner; and (c) treat participants as adults who are self-directed, are interested in improvement, and have a wealth of experience and the capacity to change and grow. As Cole (1982) urged: "Knowledge changes. Best practice changes. Both are altered by time, research, technology, and any number of other factors. An educator's education does not end on graduation day; it is only the beginning" (p. 370). This article discusses the planning necessary for effective inservice education. Presented first is a conceptual framework, including a definition of inservice education, fundamental assumptions for its design, and guidelines for a planning process. Next, a planning approach consisting of four interrelated phases is described. Finally, some special considerations are discussed.

Definition

Inservice education--sometimes referred to as human resource development or staff development--is nourished by a mixture of concepts from areas such as adult education, organizational development, dissemination, training, consultation, and planned change. From this blend of ideas arises a definition for inservice education: an ongoing and systematic enterprise that consists of diverse educational and training activities to support improvement, capacity building, and change, and that is focused on the accomplishment of organizational and individual goals. An investment in inservice education can help people and their organizations address a number of expectations. See Table 1 for sample expectations for the outcomes or potential benefits of inservice education.

To address these and other kinds of programmatic goals or individual concerns, planners must design inservice education for the people currently working or involved in serving the needs of young children with disabilities. As Harris and Bessent (1969) advised: "The intent of inservice education is to change instructional practices or conditions by changing people" (p. 17). Identified needs for new knowledge, skills, or attitudes can be satisfied through an organized and continuous approach that integrates various inservice methods ranging from formal education to practical sharing of ideas and practices with peers.

Assumptions

A plan for inservice education should reflect six fundamental assumptions: (a) be an integral part of the early intervention or preschool program; (b) respect and treat people as adults; (c) be participant oriented by involving people in many aspects of the inservice education; (d) employ an ongoing planning approach directed toward maintaining quality work and toward facilitating change or improvement; (e) foster individual and organizational readiness and commitments to learning, changing, and growing; and (f) offer a conducive learning environment and high-quality pathways to learning (Barber, 1983; Bruder & Nikitas, 1992; Harris & Bessent, 1969; Knowles, 1978; Lipton & Greenblatt, 1992; National Association of State Boards of Education, 1991; Sadowski, 1993; Urick, Pendergast, & Hillman, 1981).

Planners who recognize and attend to these basic principles can avoid the criticisms that frequently characterize inservice education as ineffective, childlike, and/or disjointed. Houston and Freiberg (1979), Kagan (1990), Linder (1983), Sparks (1983), and Wood and Thompson (1980) have maintained that inservice education historically has been carried out with little systematic direction, few specified objectives, and little or no design input from participants. Inservice education has been viewed as an occasional enterprise, seldom integrated within the structure of organizations.

To counteract these deficiencies, inservice education must be carefully designed, organized, and executed. An annual written plan can delineate and guide the scope and sequence of activities that are linked to the goals of the early childhood program and that enable people to acquire new competencies.

Guidelines

The following guidelines should be considered and incorporated in a planning process for inservice education. These guidelines serve as additional building blocks for a successful plan aimed at people involved in local early childhood programs (Johnston, 1984; Lawrence, 1982; Loucks & Zigarmi, 1981).

1. Designate a coordinator. One person from the early childhood program should assume the leadership for initiating and coordinating the planning for the inservice education. This person should orchestrate the process by being task oriented and flexible, dividing large tasks into smaller more manageable ones, and being able to work with diverse groups--all while maintaining a positive attitude. The coordinator should prepare, circulate, review, and update an annual written plan for human-resource development and be responsible for ensuring that all activities are implemented and completed.
2. Gain commitment and support. Inservice designers must acquire political and economic commitment and sanction from administrators and supervisors. Review appropriate policy and procedure documents that may authorize and govern inservice education. Seek statements from authorities that reinforce the belief in a systematic and continuous approach. Secure endorsements from parents, staff, local schools' decision-making committees, and others. These commitments should ensure that inservice education becomes an integral part of the early childhood program and that it is seen as a credible investment of time, effort, and resources.
3. Determine the emphasis. Inservice education should emphasize improvement through individual growth, organizational change, or both. Initially, the emphasis may focus on short-term goals such as building awareness or increasing knowledge; or, the emphasis may focus on long-term goals such as improving skills, changing attitudes, or streamlining early childhood program procedures. Determination of the emphases to pursue hinges on an initial diagnosis and analysis of internal and external pressures. Internal pressures are those that stem from the early childhood organization and staff, such as perceptions of current program strengths, weaknesses, and concerns; degree of receptivity toward proposed changes; and time and effort required to bring about improvements. External pressures emanate from the needs of children and families, community, other service agencies, courts, state-and federal-government policies, and laws and regulations.
4. Conceptualize a vision and philosophy toward adult learning and the change process. Develop a perspective on how adults acquire new knowledge, skills, and attitudes, and on their ability to change within an organization. Specifically, examine the amount of control and choice given to adult learners in the learning process, their motivation, their learning rates and styles, and their preferences in terms of active and passive instructional activities.
5. Identify the participants. Identify the people who will participate in the inservice training. Determine the number of participants, their disciplines and roles within the early childhood program, the length and type of their education, their experiences in providing multidisciplinary family-centered and interagency services, their cultural and linguistic backgrounds, their previous inservice experiences, their motivation to learn and grow, and their current skill levels. This initial information will ensure that the proposed inservice is participant centered and focused. Furthermore, it provides a baseline of data on the knowledge and competency levels of the prospective audience for negotiating proposed intended outcomes, for shaping future needs assessments, for avoiding unnecessary redundancies and duplication of previous inservice efforts, and for designing learning opportunities that offer continuity and participant choice.
6. Know the characteristics of the children and families being served. Content can best be targeted to the interests and needs of the participants by knowing the nature of the children and families whom they serve. Characteristics include types and severity of disabling and at-risk conditions and the ages of the infants, toddlers, and preschoolers being served.
7. Understand the nature of the community in which the educational program is located. Attend to special features such as socioeconomic status, culture, language, geography, and climate. Also, consider the history, degree of collaboration and coordination, and quality of current early childhood programs in the community.
8. Use a responsive approach. Responsiveness should include planning collaboratively with participants, assessing needs, setting priorities and objectives, emphasizing relevance and practicality, using alternative delivery methods, conducting an evaluation, and providing follow-up events. The key is to integrate the outcomes of these activities into a meaningful and flexible plan of action.
9. Promote the transfer of new ideas, attitudes, and skills. Participants must take their new knowledge--skills, concepts, and approaches--from the inservice activities and apply them to their work with or on behalf of young children and their families. It is important to find ways to facilitate the transfer and follow-through of sound and user-friendly practices so that improvement in the organization and the involved individuals can become a reality. Transfer may be supported by activities such as peer tutoring, coaching, on-call support, mentoring, and external consultation.
10. Tap diverse training resources. Depending upon the need for external resources, identify organizations and individuals that can provide the desired assistance. Determine how this help will be procured and how it may be coordinated through interagency agreements with other local, state, or national inservice agencies.

The preceding definition, assumptions, and guidelines provide designers with a conceptual backdrop for the planning approach introduced in this section of the article. From a review of the literature and the author's experience, the process consists of four interrelated phases: (a) support and start-up, (b) initial planning, (c) program design, and (d) evaluation and implementation.

Each phase consists of several activities that should be integrated in a program of action for inservice education. A written plan should be prepared that can be updated annually. This document should guide implementation and capture key decisions made throughout the phases described, and should reflect other pertinent considerations (see Figure 1 for an outline of a sample plan).

Phase 1: Support and Start-Up

The activities in this phase involve obtaining sanction and support from involved authorities, designating a coordinator, assembling a planning team, and meeting to discuss and proceed with start-up activities.

Obtaining Sanction and Support. Seek sanction and support from administrators, program and central office staff, parents, school-building committee members, board of directors, union leaders, or other administrative bodies. These key people lend credibility to the staff-development enterprise, and they can authorize expenditures and the use of facilities and other resources.

Designating a Coordinator. The local early childhood program director may serve in this capacity or may delegate the responsibility to someone else, such as a teacher, a program staff member, the assistant director, a member of a school-based management and support team, or possibly a local paid consultant.

Assembling a Planning Team. Involving people in the planning process builds a sense of ownership for the entire process and a commitment to the plan's success. Assemble a small team of people who are representative of the participants for the prospective inservice plan. Establish general protocols for the process that the team will follow. (See Luke, 1980; Melaville, Blank, and Asayesh, 1993; and Stokes, 1981, for a detailed description of the organization and operation of planning committees.)

Meeting Around Start-up Activities. The inservice education designer and planning team will spend considerable time in meetings. Meeting and planning protocols must be established that specify such details as the membership of the planning team, meeting times and places, agenda-setting procedures, group process, conflict resolution, collaboration, and decision making.

The planning team should review the current status of the local early childhood program, including its mission, philosophy, and values. The team will identify general programmatic strengths and problems, individual concerns, challenging tasks to be accomplished, connections to other services, and future issues or trends. Also, a viewpoint toward lifelong adult learning, improvement, and change should be articulated.

Team members will determine the content for the inservice education and identify the resources that are available and/or needed to support it. Potential liaison relations with various inservice providers will be identified and established. These may include technical-assistance organizations, community or state inservice program initiatives (e.g., summer institutes), college coursework, professional and advocacy organizations, mentor programs, the state managers of pertinent federal programs (see Figure 2), or inservice participants who are willing to share any special skills they may have. Finally, the planning team will establish a tentative schedule for all activities composing the plan of action and anticipate the activities for the next three phases of plan development.

Phase 2: Initial Planning

The second phase may begin once support has been secured and various start-up activities completed. This phase consists of five interactive activities involving participants, needs assessment and priorities, intended outcomes, content, and learning scheme.

Participants. The audience for the inservice education may be defined broadly or narrowly. For example, participants may be identified based on their contributions to the goals of the local early childhood program, their job classifications, their numbers, or their educational backgrounds. Potential participants may include teachers (general, special, itinerant); social workers and guidance counselors; local school board, tribal native-corporation, or advisory board leaders; administrators; specialists such as occupational and physical therapists, early interventionists, speech-hearing clinicians, and psychologists; paraprofessionals and aides; volunteers; service coordinators; local interagency coordinating council members; secretarial and custodial staff; health and dental professionals; cooks; parents and other family members; and bus drivers. A clear identification of the audience guides the conceptualization of the needs assessment. Also, information about participants aids in content design for the inservice program and in specifying intended outcomes and training events.

Needs Assessments and Priorities. A needs assessment should be conducted to identify internal and/or external pressures to the program. These may reflect current and specific programmatic challenges or problems, individual participant concerns, future trends and issues, resources, and early childhood program tasks that must be addressed. Documenting these needs clarifies the teaching and learning that may be required and helps to shape the content and outcomes for inservice education.

Strategies for conducting needs assessments include written reports of participants' self-perceived needs and strengths; recommendations for training from teacher/peer observation of participants' competencies; a formal, written test of participants' knowledge of proposed content areas; an analysis of a community-wide service-needs assessment; a recent early childhood program evaluation or monitoring visit; recommendations from the planning-team committee, administration, school board, or the state personnel-development plan; informal or formal face-to-face interviews or focus groups with the participants about their strengths, interests, concerns, and resources; and recommendations from an inservice planner based upon observation of the prospective participants and organization (Harris, 1989; Riffle & Smith-Davis, 1991).

Whatever assessment methods are chosen, designers must be able to tabulate, analyze, and interpret the collected information. Priorities and a focus for content should become clear during this analysis as a picture of participant strengths, needs, resources, and interests is developed. It may be helpful to identify which needs are critical, important, or desirable. These data can confirm that inservice education is necessary and appropriate and can provide guidance for its emphasis.

Intended Outcomes. Goals must be established and then articulated as intended outcome statements. Through these statements, planners and team members should specify the expected changes or outcomes in individual and organizational behavior, knowledge, skill, or attitude that will result from the staff development.

It may be desirable to set three levels of intended outcome statements: one level for the expected long-term changes of the organization, such as the school system and its work with preschool children; one level for the entire audience, such as all instructional staff of a school building; and another level for the short-term expected changes of individual audience members, such as preschool teachers. The following are three examples of goal statements:

1. To have all school-system diagnosticians comply with new state standards on nondiscriminatory testing of preschool children with disabilities (organization level).
2. To increase knowledge among all instructional staff in an elementary school building about the uses, benefits, and availability of assistive technology for young children with disabilities (audience level).
3. To prepare designated individual preschool teachers to be comfortable, confident, and competent to plan and conduct targeted instructional interventions in the least restrictive environment as outlined in the child's IEP (individual level).

Regardless of the goal level, planners should strive for specificity. Outcome statements should reflect programmatic concerns and tasks or the knowledge, skills, and attitudes of participants that need to be affected or enriched.

Content. Content includes the substance, topics, or subject matter for the inservice education. It represents the material around which participants will interact, network, and learn. The selection of general content will be influenced by the goals, participants, and identified needs.

Content can be selected in three related ways. The first is guided by an awareness of the participants' field of endeavor and responsibilities. For example, preschool teachers might need information about successful and alternative program practices to facilitate transitions of children among Head Start, preschool, day-care, and kindergarten or need information about implementation strategies to address the need for effective classroom organization arrangements that incorporate inclusion techniques for children with special health-care needs. Service coordinators (case managers) might need skills on using culturally and linguistically relevant materials with families during home visits or on using particular interagency communication protocols for serving infants and toddlers and their families affected by alcohol and other drugs. A second way to select general content is guided by the characteristics of the children served by the participants. It is important to consider the children's cultural, linguistic, religious, economic, health, social, and educational backgrounds (Ramirez, 1979). A final consideration is who will specify the content for staff development. Will the participants specify the content through a needs or interest assessment, or will someone else specify the content? In many instances, early childhood program administrators will be required to present content specified--and perhaps packaged--by others. For example, as a result of a compliance-monitoring visit, a state agency may require specific training for psychologists at regional diagnostic and evaluation clinics in approved nonbiased and culturally sensitive assessment strategies. Or, newly enacted state legislation may require local early intervention centers to upgrade their staff skills on content about natural environments and its relationship to the development of Individualized Family Service Plans (IFSPs) and use of developmentally appropriate practices. Although in these cases a designer and planning team may not select content strictly on the basis of the participants, they should still keep in mind participants' needs, strengths, and characteristics.

The general content for inservice education will be selected by using a combination of these three strategies. The structure, sequence, and parameters of the subject matter will become clearer as the planning process moves ahead.

Learning Scheme. A theoretical scheme should underpin the climate, adult learning, and desired changes or improvements resulting from the inservice education. According to the Council on the Continuing Education Unit (1984), these types of conceptual schemes "are designed to facilitate the role of the learner and are organized in such a manner as to provide for appropriate continuity, sequencing, and integration of the program/activity to achieve the specific learning outcome" (p. 14). Three schemes are outlined here; each may be considered in relation to the plan's stated goals, participants, content, and intended outcomes.

Massey (1979) offered a five-part learning scheme: (a) exploration helps acquaint participants with content; (b) interaction encourages participants to share experiences and avoid isolation from one another and from content; (c) active participation in a variety of activities requiring active listening, viewing, and movement fosters a sense of involvement; (d) reflection and articulation allow participants time to stop and think about what they are learning, thereby enhancing their understanding; and (e) synthesis or integration gives participants time to pull together their new learning within their present cognitive, psychomotor, or affective constructs.

Stallings (1982) presented a similar learning scheme, referred to as Mastery Learning. It consists of four steps: (a) pretest--observe prospective participants and assess what is needed for staff development; (b) inform--package and dispense content by integrating theory and practice with participants' experiences during staff-development activities, and provide numerous practical examples; (c) organize and guide practice--portray units of behavior targeted for change, stimulate behavior change among participants, assess changes and provide feedback, and help participants integrate ideas and behaviors; and (d) posttest--following the staff development intervention, observe how participants are implementing the targeted behaviors and activities and provide feedback.

Finally, Verduin, Miller, and Greer (1977) offered a four-step scheme to guide the planning for skill-development goals and activities. In the observation phase, a participant watches a process or skill repertoire during an inservice event. During imitation, a participant carries out the skill under the watchful eye of the trainer or mentor. In the practice phase, a participant repeats steps until he or she can do them smoothly and accurately. Finally, during adoption, a participant transfers the process from the inservice setting to various other situations.

These learning schemes provide considerations for making thoughtful determinations about the desired learning process and climate. The designers and planning teams may engage in further research about these and other schemes and then discuss their relevance to general planning. Also, the teams may wish to invite a consultant to work with them on learning schemes. A consultant may clarify a scheme's relationship to individual participant and/or organizational change and to the design of long- and/or short-term inservice learning experiences.

Phase 3: Program Design

Program design involves finalizing objectives, scheduling, providing reinforcers, firming up resources, selecting settings, and choosing delivery methods. Designers and planning team members must consider and integrate these activities to move a step closer to completing a meaningful plan for inservice education.

Objectives. Using ideas generated during the initial planning phase, designers should finalize the objectives. These should relate to the previously developed goal and intended outcome statements and should be as specific as possible. The objectives may include dates, specific outcomes for the participants, and criteria for judging the accomplishments of the objectives.

Scheduling. The timetable for inservice events must enable the participants to use the training to best advantage. The schedule must reflect the priority of needs for inservice training and the approximate duration of the inservice and must ensure accessibility for the participants. Also, staff development must be scheduled around other events in the community and educational- or human-service systems.

Other scheduling matters must be considered. Sufficient advance notice about inservice events is crucial. Identification of individuals who might assist in addressing inservice needs is critical. Planners must be cognizant of local as well as national, state, and religious holidays and of union-contract requirements. Whenever possible, it is preferable to schedule the inservice over a period of time rather than as a one-time event. A convenient location for the inservice should be chosen to attain optimum participation. Finally, scheduling inservice activities during regular early childhood program operating hours (e.g., during nap times), instead of during evenings, after-school hours, or weekends, is optimal.

Reinforcers. Two kinds of reinforcers should be considered. External or extrinsic reinforcers are intended to encourage or motivate people to participate. Inservice education may offer participants incentives such as continuing education units (CEUs), release time, extra compensation, travel stipends, letters of commendation, or per diem expenses. Credit for college coursework or for renewing a teaching certificate may be made available. Finally, the early childhood program or licensing authority may make participation in training activities a basis for salary increases or promotion. Although external reinforcement is necessary, the program also should instill a sense of intrinsic or psychic motivation within each adult learner. Intrinsic reinforcers seek to develop an internal belief, value, or need within an individual to become an active, lifelong acquirer of new knowledge, skills, and attitudes.

Resources. Access to various resources is crucial. What money is available to implement the plan? How can we capitalize on previously made liaisons with potential inservice providers to teach or organize the instruction? Can contract services or consultant fees and travel expenses be handled? Can some consultants or trainers donate their time? Should a special training grant be prepared to secure monies from federal, state, or local government to enable inservice education to happen? What print and audiovisual materials are available? Can facilities and expertise be tapped to produce some training materials? Are there funds for renting or purchasing materials and audiovisual equipment? Can state technical-assistance staff be used from sources identified during the start-up phase? Identified resources will shape further decisions about program design involving settings and delivery methods.

Setting. Inservice education does not need to be confined to a classroom, conference center, hotel meeting room, or auditorium. Other options should be considered, depending upon the participants, type of learning desired, and training activity. Mobile units, closed-circuit television, teleconferencing, computer networks, and home study are other options available for the communication of and interaction around training content. Another dimension of setting to consider is the degree of formality or informality desired. Regardless, the setting should be comfortable, nonthreatening, and safe so as to be conducive for teaching and learning.

Delivery Methods. Methods provide the primary avenue to help accomplish the inservice goals and objectives. The choice of delivery vehicle(s) is closely related to the choice of an appropriate setting. This planning decision relates to the cumulative thought given to participants, needs, content, learning scheme, timing, duration, and resources. Individual, small-group, and large-group strategies can be designed in relation to the delivery-vehicle samples in Table 2.

Delivery method options for participants should be included in the written plan. Care should be taken to allocate sufficient time and resources for the design of each method selected for use in the inservice program.

Phase 4: Evaluation, Implementation, and Follow-Up

The final phase consists of three activities: evaluation, implementation, and follow-up.

Evaluation. The efficiency and effectiveness of the inservice education program must be monitored to gauge the achievement of intended outcomes (Branham, 1992; Thompson, 1981). It is important to document changes both in participants and in actual practice. A data-based gathering and reporting process must be designed in advance to answer questions such as: Have participants acquired knowledge and/or skills? Have participants' attitudes changed? Has morale improved? Can improvements in young children with disabilities and their families be traced to the inservice education program? Were the teaching activities or delivery vehicles effective? Are there indicators that permanent change has occurred in individuals and how has this impacted the organization? How effective was the speaker and his or her presentation? Were the materials and content useful and practical? Was the inservice environment conducive to learning? Was collegiality, mutual support, and idea exchange fostered? How were follow-up activities used?

The data-based gathering process may use instruments such as pre- and posttests, checklists, work-sample review, questionnaires, forms to chart progress in skills acquisition, observation accounts, oral reports, peer critiquing, or written reports. These may be implemented through self-reports or reports from a peer, external evaluator, or supervisor. By systematically planning to collect information, the early childhood program director and planning team will be able to monitor the quality of the inservice program, report on the progress of the program, and make changes over time, as appropriate. Above all, evaluation supports accountability to those agency administrators supporting, sanctioning, and funding the enterprise.

Implementation. Preparing for the actual implementation of the plan for inservice education involves a host of factors (Trohanis & Jackson, 1980). These nuts-and-bolts considerations may include identifying and engaging the individual who will carry out the inservice plans; grouping the participants; preparing the classrooms; readying, motivating, and gaining commitments from the participants; sending out invitations; getting the audiovisual equipment; convening planned activities; procuring refreshments; making the introductions; photocopying and mailing the materials before an event; allowing time for participant reflection and absorption; collecting feedback; writing the reports; and paying the bills. A variety of special considerations also may need to be taken into account (see the following section).

Follow-Up. Feedback from the inservice participants and the availability of resources will be instrumental for planning follow-up. Weissglass (1992) observed that "Changing a culture requires personal transformation on the part of the members of that culture. Although there is no recipe to follow, this personal transformation can be facilitated by meeting the human need for new information, reflection, planning and emotional support" (p. 28).

Follow-up activities seek to sustain motivation and follow-through and ensure the smooth transfer and adaptation of new ideas and practices concerning services to young children with special needs and their families. Other application activities such as ongoing technical assistance and support, practice in controlled circumstances with collegial feedback, or coaching can be implemented. Additionally, follow-up can respond to and support the changing needs of the early childhood program (McDonald, Popham, & Baden, 1982).

The material presented so far in this article constitutes fundamental considerations for leadership personnel in developing a plan of inservice education for a local early childhood program. The ideas should not, however, yield a rigid, universally applicable approach. In addition to possible variations among the activities of the four phases of planning, consideration frequently must be given to, and allowances made for, special circumstances.

Special Needs. If the dominant language of the participants is not English, provide linguistically proficient instructors or interpreters for workshops, consultations, or demonstrations. Plan to accommodate the needs of participants who have disabilities by providing handouts in large type or in Braille, assigning an interpreter, or using appropriately modified and accessible physical facilities and telecommunication devices.

Cultural Differences. Make accommodations for varied socio-cultural and economic backgrounds. Be attuned to the diverse values of the participants and the young children and families they serve, especially traditionally underserved groups such as minority, low-income, migrant, homeless, and rural families.

Learning Materials. Carefully screen instructional materials, handouts, and audiovisual products to avoid gender, social-status, disability, racial, and cultural stereotyping. Produce new materials if appropriate materials are not available.

Geography. Be prepared--with alternative delivery modes, schedules, and a flexible attitude--to cope with weather, transportation, and accessibility problems that may hinder the execution of the inservice education plans.

Jurisdictional Authority and Responsibility. Be aware of, collaborate with, and work through appropriate jurisdictions, traditions, governance mechanisms, and administrative channels of the agency that houses the early childhood program. Know who is responsible for or is planning and implementing inservice events in any given locale--at the central office; at regional, statewide, or national technical-assistance agencies; or at nearby colleges and universities.

Publicity. Depending upon the size and scope of the local early childhood program and the participants targeted for inservice education, publicity may be necessary. This may require the use of regular communication strategies such as program newsletters and fliers, especially if collaborative or interagency programming with other nearby early childhood programs or agencies is to occur.

Inservice education must become an integral part of local early childhood programs. The preparation of a written annual plan can enhance this integration. The plan must be carefully designed by (a) incorporating an array of interrelated planning considerations, (b) responding to the needs of adult learners and their organizations that serve young children with disabilities and their families, (c) establishing ways to involve participants, and (d) incorporating evaluation and follow-up activities. Designers of inservice education must plan and orchestrate a systematic approach attuned to other considerations. These factors include special needs, appropriate curricula and instructional materials, jurisdictional authority, publicity, and climate and transportation barriers.

The type of planning proposed in this article demands active participation and commitment. Additionally, it calls for creativity, flexibility, and the synthesis of many ideas and activities. Above all, planning must be a continuous process that adapts to new information, needs, and changes over time. If a new law or policy is instituted on behalf of infants, toddlers, and/or preschoolers and their families, an inservice plan may need to be modified quickly so that early childhood program personnel can be acquainted with new content and its implications for service delivery.

Inservice education should be expected to produce a number of benefits. Early childhood practices should improve, thereby enhancing child growth and development. Additional benefits include the retention of competent staff, the upgrading of people's competencies, the boosting of morale, and the promotion of new sensitivities. Finally, an effective design for high-quality inservice education should inspire in all people a commitment toward continuous individual and organizational improvement. As Harris and Bessent (1969) observed: "The inservice education program is not only a tool of progress; it is also a symbol of faith in the improvability of the individual" (p. 4).

Address: Pascal Louis Trohanis, Frank Porter Graham Child Development Center, NEC*TAS, Room 500, Nations Bank Plaza, Chapel Hill, NC 27514.

Table 1. Sample Expectations for Inservice Education

• Perform a job more effectively by keeping abreast of subject matter changes, promising instructional practices, clinical procedures, etiologies of typical and atypical development, implementation of total quality management (TQM) principles, or new technology applications pertinent to serving young children with disabilities and their families.
• Become oriented to interdisciplinary team services, functions, and collaboration.
• Upgrade personal competencies for current or new responsibilities.
• Boost morale or change attitudes and expectations.
• Become sensitized to young children's and their families' cultural, ethnic, and linguistic heritages.
• Nurture a professional commitment toward one's own continuous self-renewal and improvement within an atmosphere of a supportive learning community.
• Procure a professional credential, certificate, license, or endorsement.
• Fight staff burnout and excessive turnover.
• Help consider, pilot, adopt, and install an innovative program or component of a comprehensive service delivery system from another community.
• Help understand and address stresses related to processes of individual and organizational change and growth.
• Enhance career development, including earning a promotion and/or more pay.
• Reinforce currently strong early childhood program areas or strengthen deficient areas, which may include screening, assessment, instruction, inclusion, service coordination, family centeredness, procedural safeguards, and related services.
• Translate research findings into practical intervention or prevention uses for the classroom, home, center, or health-care setting.
• Comply with local, state, and federal laws (e.g., IDEA, ADA) and regulations.

Table 2. Samples of Delivery Vehicles for Inservice Education

• Independent study emphasizes self-instruction with readings, correspondence courses, audiovisual materials, and/or mass-media technologies (distance learning).
• Field visits give people an opportunity to see and learn firsthand about other early childhood service practices, approaches, or techniques.
• Conferences, institutes, workshops, and staff meetings facilitate information exchange, networking, developing and practicing new skills, or observing someone else.
• Consultants help diagnose and solve problems; serve as mentors, coaches, or role models; facilitate decision making; or act as catalysts for change.
• Audiovisual and print media include manuals, textbooks, newsletters, journals, films, filmstrips, videocassettes, teleconferencing, computer programs, and audiotape.
• Networks can build collegiality, support, and idea exchange through regularly scheduled forums, which operate through face-to-face strategies, computer network interface, or distance learning and telecommunications (Lieberman & McLaughlin, 1992).
• Group discussions allow a small number of people to engage in problem solving, case-study analysis, and idea sharing among peers.
• Seminars permit a small number of people to explore specific content in depth.
• Demonstrations show the use of procedures or materials.
• Make-it-and-take-it sessions emphasize concrete experiences in designing and producing curricular, learning center, and/or instructional materials.
• Simulations occur in small groups and include such strategies as role playing, microteaching, or simulated problem solving.

Figure 1. Outline of sample plan for inservice education
incorporating activities by phase and other considerations.

Four Interrelated Phases for Developing a Plan

Phase 1: Support and Start Up

         Obtain sanction and support
         Designate a coordinator
         Assemble a planning team
         Meet around start-up activities

Phase 2: Initial Planning

         Involve participants
         Conduct needs assessment and set priorities
         Establish intended outcomes Select content
         Determine learning scheme

Phase 3: Program Design

         Finalize objectives
         Attend to scheduling
         Consider reinforcers
         Secure resources
         Identify setting
         Choose delivery methods

Phase 4: Evaluation, Implementation, and Follow-up

         Document happenings and changes
         Consider implementation considerations
         Promote transfer and adoption

         Other Considerations for Designing a Plan

Assumptions            Guidelines       Special Considerations

Integration            Coordination     Special needs
Respect for adults     Commitment       Cultural differences
Participant oriented   Emphasis         Learning materials
Directed approach      Philosophy       Geography
Readiness              Participants     Jurisdictional authority
Options                Children and      and responsibility
                        families        Publicity
                       Community
                       Responsive
                        approach
                       Transfer
                       Resources

Figure 2. Inservice providers from federally supported programs.

Federally supported programs offer a wide variety of inservice resources for early childhood programs. These include programs in each state and selected jurisdictions, such as IDEA and its required state plan for the Comprehensive System of Personnel Development (CSPD), Head Start, Developmental Disabilities, Maternal and Child Health Services, Chapter 1 and its Even Start Program, Child Care and Development Block Grants, Mental Health, and others.

The U.S. Department of Education, through its Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), sponsors a variety of national training, technical assistance, and information services. These potential sources include Regional Resource Centers (RRCs), Parent Training and Information Centers (PTIs), National Earty Childhood Technical Assistance System (NEC*TAS), and the National Information Center for Children and Youth with Disabilities (NICHCY).

Particularly appropriate resources for early childhood programs are the projects funded through OSEP under IDEA's Early Education Program for Children with Disabilities (EEPCD). Current EEPCD projects include inservice training projects on such topics as inclusion, cultural competency, family-centered services, and assistive technology. Four Regional Institutes for Higher Education Inservice Projects funded by EEPCD are training college and university faculty through states and jurisdictions to provide inservice training to early childhood program personnel in their communities. For more information on inservice resources available from EEPCD and other selected projects, please request the NEC*TAS Inservice List from the author.

References

Barber, L. (Ed.). (1983,March). Inservice education [Special issue]. Practical Applications of Research, 5(3), pp. 1-4.

Branham, L. (1992). An update on staff development evaluation. Journal of Staff Development, 13(4), 24-28.

Bruder, M. B., & Nikitas, T. (1992). Changing the professional practice of early interventionists: An inservice model to meet the service needs of P.L. 99457. Journal of Early Intervention, 16, 173-180.

Cole, R. (1982). Inservice is not a verb. Phi Delta Kappan, 63, 370.

Council on the Continuing Education Unit. (1984). Principles of good practice in continuing education. Silver Spring, MD: Author.

Harris, B. (1989). Inservice education for staff development. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Harris, B., & Bessent, W. (1969). Inservice education: A guide to better practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Houston, W., & Freiberg, H. (1979). Perpetual motion, blindman's bluff, and inservice education. Journal of Teacher Education, 30(1), 7-9.

Johnston, J. (1984,March). Assessing staff problems: Key to effective staff development. Child Care Information Exchange, pp. 1-4.

Kagan, S. (1990). Policy perspectives: Excellence in early childhood education and defining characteristics and next decade strategies. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Knowles, M. (1978). The adult learner: A neglected species. Houston: Gulf Publishing.

Lawrence, G. (1982,August). A synthesis of research on the effectiveness of staff development programs. Inservice, pp. 10-12.

Lieberman, A., & McLaughlin, M. (1992). Networks for educational change: Powerful and problematic. Phi Delta Kappan, 73, 673-677.

Linder, T. (1983). Early childhood special education: Program development and administration. Baltimore: Brookes.

Lipton, L., & Greenblatt, R. (1992). Supporting the learning organization: A model for congruent system-wide renewal. Journal of Staff Development, 13(3), 20-25.

Loucks, S., & Zigarmi, P. (1981). Effective staff development. Educational Considerations, 8(2), 4-8.

Luke, R. (1980). Teacher-centered inservice education: Planning and products. Washington, DC: National Education Association.

Massey, S. (1979,April). Staff development: Teaching adult professionals. Inservice, pp. 18-20.

McDonald, F., Popham, J., & Baden, J. (1982). Assessing the impact of staff development programs. Syracuse, NY: National Council of States on Inservice Education.

Melaville, A., Blank, M., & Asayesh, G. (1993). Together we can: A guide for crafting a profamily system of education and human services. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

National Association of State Boards of Education. (1991). Caring communities: Supporting young children and families. Alexandria, VA: Author.

Ramirez, B. (Ed.). (1979). Special education programs for American Indian exceptional children and youth: A policy analysis guide. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.

Riffle, C., & Smith-Davis, J. (1991). Planned change for personnel development: Strategic planning and the CSPD. Lexington, KY: MidSouth Regional Resource Center.

Sadowski, L. (1993). Staff development 101 for administrators: Alternatives for thirteen management myths. Journal of Staff Development, 14(3), 46-51.

Sparks, G. (1983). Synthesis of research on staff development for effective teaching. Educational Leadership, 41(3), 65-72.

Stallings, J. (1982). What is effective staff development for basic skills instruction? Palo Alto, CA: Stallings Teaching and Learning Institute.

Stokes, S. (Ed.). (1981). School-based staff support teams: A blueprint for action. Bloomington: National Inservice Network and Indiana University School of Education.

Thompson, E. (Ed.). (1981). Using student change data to evaluate inservice education. Bloomington: National Inservice Network and Indiana University School of Education.

Trohanis, P., & Jackson, E. (1980). The technical assistance approach to inservice. Educational Leadership, 37, 386-389.

Urick, R., Pendergast, D., & Hillman, S. (1981). Pre-conditions for staff development. Educational Leadership, 38, 546-549.

Verduin, J., Miller, H., & Greer, C. (1977). Adults teaching adults. Austin, TX: Learning Concepts.

Weissglass, J. (1992). Changing the system means changing ourselves. Education

Wood, 11(37), 36, 28. Wood, R., & Thompson, S. (1980). Guidelines for better staff development. Educational Leadership, 37, 374-378.

~~~~~~~~

By Pascal Louis Trohanis, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill