Smith, Stodden & Brown, 2005
Using the Cross-Training Framework to Focus State Interagency Transition Teams
This framework was devised circa 1993 to assist states that were, at that time, involved in developing their Statewide Transition Programs. Many of the teams we were working with told us that this framework helped them to convey the different elements and levels involved in transition teaming to their new and veteran members. We have re-worked the model to reflect the transition language of IDEA 2004.
Although the model appears complex it is actually fairly straight forward. The rows give a ‘big-picture’ view of what the team members can expect to happen over the long-term (3 to 5 years). For example: Phase I is basically a pre-team process. It is the progression that team leaders might use to provide prospective team members a rationale for buying-into the statewide organization. Any row basically reflects the progressive nature of the teaming framework.
Each column reflects the outcomes or products that the team members might be expected to produce or achieve during their tenure on the team. For example, the cross training process (column 1), describes 5 steps that are helpful in using “results-focused” designs. Basically, Step A has to do with clarity of the team goal and mission. In other words, clearly define the destination. Step B has to do with reviewing the evidenced-based practices that have helped other states and teams achieve similar goals and mission (prevents re-invention). Step C allows team members to celebrate evidence-based elements that already exist in their state or systems (prevents duplication). Step D is basically the subtractive result of Step B and C. In other words Step B outlines the desired evidenced-based program elements; step C allows the team to subtract the Step B elements already in place. Any elements not figuratively crossed-out after Step C become the elements the team still needs to pursue. Finally Step E, represents the how of the process. How might the teams go about achieving their ‘wish list’ illustrated in Step D.
Since this is a self-motivated change model it really is never fully achieved. This is due to the ongoing evaluation and feedback evaluation system indicated in the margin. For example, one of the earliest revisions made by most of the leadership teams during the Statewide Transition Systems Change years was to re-visit Phase 1 Step A.... They discovered they didn’t have the right players on the team initially.
Of course the relative usefulness of this framework is totally subjective to each team and site. If team leaders believe the framework might cause more member confusion than clarity, please feel free to disregard it.
Dr. Garnett J. Smith/Associate Professor