A
TECHNOLOGY EVOLVES: THE STORY OF MG&A
WHAT
HAPPENED WHEN "TRY ANOTHER WAY" MET THE REAL WORLD
"The human spirit glows from that small
inner light of doubt whether we are right." Saul Alinsky (1971)
HISTORY
During
the late sixties, Marc Gold, then a special education teacher in East Los
Angeles, began to formulate a conceptual framework of instruction based on a
few fundamental beliefs: a) His students with severe disabilities had much more
potential than anyone realized; b) All people with disabilities should have the
opportunity to live their lives much like everyone else; and c) Everyone can
learn if we can figure out how to teach them.
These
beliefs led Marc to pursue a doctorate at the
As
anyone in direct service in those days remembers, little attention was focused
on teaching persons with severe disabilities.
Persons who were merely willing to have people with the most severe
disabilities in their programs were considered to be innovative. Marc felt that this simply was not good
enough. He felt that all persons could
grow and have dignity and control of their lives.
The
three day conferences presented by Marc provided a powerful and hopeful message
to many persons who were working with people labeled severely handicapped. During one of Marc's presentations in
Staff
training projects in
TRY ANOTHER
WAY, THE PAST AND THE FUTURE MEET IN
In
the summer of 1979, eight people who had been involved in utilizing the TAW
approach in service agencies met in
To
better understand how we got into this predicament from such hopeful
beginnings, one would benefit from a basic understanding of the Try Another Way approach.
TAW includes three major components: (1) a framework for organizing the
information to be trained; (2) strategies for informing and motivating; and,
(3) a philosophy or value base which guides teachers/trainers in interactions
with the people being taught. Of the
three components, the philosophy drives the most important decisions. The Try Another
Way Training Manual by Marc Gold (1980) delineates the values of TAW in six
statements:
1. One can best serve handicapped persons by
training them to do marketable tasks.
2. Persons labeled handicapped respond best
to a learning situation based on respect of their human worth and
capabilities.
3. Those labeled handicapped have the
breadth and depth of capabilities to demonstrate competence, given training
opportunities. In fact, we actually
refused a request by the employer to assist in the training. We soon discovered, however, that major
changes in our training approach were necessary if the people we represented
were to be successful. It became evident
that many of the people we assisted needed continuing supports both from a
local service agency and from the employer.
Even though approximately 60% of the people we trained remained employed
after two years, the others had to return to sheltered programs or remain
unemployed (Zider, Garner & Rhoads, 1985). We also recognized that significant revisions
in our training strategies were necessary to facilitate long term success in
integrated workplaces.
MAJOR CHANGES IN THE TAW TECHNOLOGY
In response to the needs identified
by our employment trainers, Marc convened a corporate meeting in September of
1982, exactly three months before he died.
At this meeting we re-evaluated every component of the TAW system in
light of the information learned while training in integrated workplaces. A manual of our experiences in the
Mississippi Project called The Process of Employing (Callahan, et. al.,
1982) was compiled and employees came to the meeting with written
recommendations for change. A summation of
the results of that meeting is as follows:
1. We decided that we could
not train a "composite employee."
That is, as outside trainers, we could not "turn over" to an
employer an individual who was trained in all components of a job and who
needed no further training. In fact,
even if we could do that, we would not"t. All we would have succeeded in doing was
separating the new employee from the employer.
We would also give the impression that trained human service staff are
the only people capable of training an employee with severe disabilities.
2. We
"de-mystified" how to write sequential steps of a task. Instead of writing countless steps for every
task to be trained, we suggested breaking tasks down into only as many steps as
necessary for an "average" worker to successfully perform the
task. This change was made for the
following reasons:
a) It provides a common-sense starting
point for task analysis.
b) It may not be necessary to break a task
down further.
c) The employer and coworkers can identify
the sequence as being similar to the way they would break the task down.
d) It provides a framework for breaking a
task into smaller, more teachable steps if necessary.
3. We
"de-formalized" the writing of task analyses. Previously MG&A had supported the
development of typed, form-based documents which covered every conceivable
aspect of a job. The level of effort
necessary to compile such an analysis occasionally outdistanced the time it
took to train an employee to do a job.
With all the work a job trainer has to do, we wanted to remove needless
paper work. All the information which
was formerly collected was still viewed as being important, but each trainer
could use his/her own informal system of compiling the data.
4. We began to view
integration for all persons as being more important than the acquisition of
skills. Training began to be seen as
a means to an end and never an end in itself.
Any practices, such as competitive interviews and readiness training,
which systematically excluded persons with the most severe disabilities were
dropped.
5. We stopped selling
standardized task analyses. At a
time when the acquisition of skills was a valued outcome of services to persons
with disabilities, a "bank" of task analyses available to staff
throughout the country seemed to make sense.
However, with the advent of ecologically based teaching, the vast
differences among jobs and work settings and the problem of generalization for
persons with the most severe disabilities, the continued use of such
standardized analyses could not be defended.
6. We decided
teaching/training for adults should only take place in the settings where the
information would be used. We
embraced the Criterion of Ultimate Functioning (Brown, et.al.,
1976) six years after Brown and his colleagues suggested it. Although training in the "doing"
environment was always a component of TAW, we eliminated from our system almost
all justifications for the use of training rooms or other preparatory training
environments.
7. We decided we needed to
train natural trainers as well as employees. We found that if people are to be successful
without the continued presence of an outside, artificial trainer, we must find
ways to offer training information to "assisting persons" in the
natural settings. This process and the
information to be provided must be: a) easy to understand and to use; b)
natural (generic); c) effective; and d) able to result in a continuation of the
person in the integrated setting.
8. We found that we had to
plan for the use of natural assists and cues. In community environments and on jobs we
found that trainers must be aware of the types of assists being used to convey
information so as not to bring negative attention to the person receiving the
training. Furthermore, we realized the
necessity of assisting learners to attend to the natural cues in the settings
which they are using. Total reliance on
trainer provided cues resulted in dependency on the trainer by the new employee
and when the trainer tried to fade, problems occurred.
9. We decided to take only as
much data on a person as was absolutely necessary to insure success in
integrated settings. Many of the
traditional approaches for data taking were highly intrusive and brought a
great deal of unnecessary attention on the learner.
10.
We acknowledged that systematic training procedures were not the only
way to facilitate successful integration.
Many times either the nature of the task to be trained or the needs of
the individual receiving assistance dictates the use of procedures which do not
rely on sequential training. The use of
natural teaching styles, adaptation and partial participation might be more
appropriate in some instances.
Later, in 1987, this information was
further refined into a book for supported employment personnel, Getting
Employed, Staying Employed (Mcloughlin, Garner
& Callahan, 1987). This
comprehensive manual presents the general implementation of systematic
instruction along with the broader picture of supported employment.
LESSONS, MORE
CHANGES, AND A NEW DIRECTION
Even though we were pleased
with the many changes in the TAW training system which occurred as a result of
the 1982 corporate meeting, nagging problems remained with our efforts to
provide persons with long-term employment opportunities. The crux of the problem became clear when our
company agreed to provide job development representation and employment
training to a 21 year old woman with severe disabilities in
This
effort proved to be a learning experience for MG&A. We provided Jean with all the resources we
had available. A job was secured for her
at a small electronics company, stuffing short-run circuit boards. Her involvement on the job ranged from
fifteen minutes of work on her first day of employment to a full eight hour
day, five days per week within two months.
However, the bottom line was that, even though we were finally
successful in securing a job for her and teaching her to perform her basic job
responsibilities, she needed continuing support in order to remain
employed. Since our contract was
strictly time-limited, we could not continue to provide that support. Nor could we find any agency in Jean"s hometown (a large
At
the end of our contract we reported to the local school district and the Office
of Vocational Rehabilitation that Jean had learned enough new skills to fill a
50 page report. Additionally, the employer was willing for her to remain employed,
if support could be found. Such support
could not be found. The school district
and OVR saw Jean"s need for continuing support
as proof that she was unemployable and they again refused to provide on the job
assistance. In retrospect it was clear that
we had succeeded, however unintentionally, in helping Jean lose any hope of
being considered employable. There are
plenty of reasons, rationales and explanations which would justify our decision
to assist Jean, but we began to see clearly that a private company which would
not be available to offer long-term supports should not become involved in
employing persons who need such supports.
Since the on-going support feature of supported employment did not yet
exist, we got out of the business of employing people.
A
stunning blow hit the human service field and the twenty or so employees of
MG&A in December of 1982. Marc Gold
died of cancer. His role as a mentor,
friend and leader was immediately missed by his employees and colleagues. Those employed at the time by MG&A asked
ourselves a number of tough questions: a) if we had a reason to continue as a
company; b) if we had the skills to pull it off; and c) if we would be accepted
in the field. In October of 1983, after
much consideration, eight former employees acquired the rights to continue
operating as Marc Gold & Associates.
The
organization which emerged in 1983 had a solid foundation built by Marc and by
the numerous capable people which he attracted over the years. We also had an excellent opportunity to
design our services to respond to all we had learned in the previous
years. The following statements
characterize the new directions for MG&A:
1.
The training approach known as Try
Another Way is becoming a completely generic training
system useful for training any person to learn new skills. The name Try Another
Way is being de-emphasized in favor of referring to the training approach as
systematic instruction.
2. We
now recognize the importance of non-paid, non-professional relationships in the
lives of all persons especially people with severe disabilities. We feel that systematic instruction is one
tool for enhancing the status of people, which, in turn, should contribute to
the likelihood that meaningful relationships will develop.
3. The
systematic instructional approach taught by MG&A now includes facilitating
strategies such as ecological inventories, natural cues, partial participation
and job creation strategies. The use of
natural supports is not only encouraged, but is an integral part of the
structure of this approach to training.
4. MG&A
seeks to identify and support agencies, companies and individuals who are
committed to provide integrated vocational, residential and recreational
services to persons with severe disabilities.
5. MG&A"s information and
assistance is directed solely at facilitating full integration for all persons
with disabilities. We will not assist
agencies, systems or individuals to teach persons with disabilities in
segregated settings.
6. The
systematic training and facilitation procedures taught by MG&A are designed
to intrude into the lives of people with disabilities to the least degree
possible. We also advocate for the
provision continuing supports necessary for all persons with disabilities to
lead fully integrated lives.
MG&A
now provides technical assistance to agencies, schools, companies and others
committed to the provision of meaningful and integrated services to all persons
with disabilities. All the owners and
consultants who represent MG&A are involved in services which directly or
indirectly share this commitment.
Training workshops ranging from one to five days are available as well
as longer-term customized technical assistance.
The structure of the organization is best defined as a network of
consultants who share a common history, values and approach to training. The old corporation which served to provide
employment for consultants and trainers has evolved to a less formal, but no
less powerful, commitment. This
commitment is extended to persons with disabilities, to their families, to
persons in the community.
Michael Callahan
Michael is a native Mississippian and has consulted
throughout the
Michael has also worked with United Cerebral Palsy
Association's (UCPA) for the past eleven years.
He is the current project director for a DOL grant, One-Stop to Success,
which will offer persons with significant disabilities access to services in
generic one-stop employment centers. He
is the former director of the Choice Access Project. This five-year project, ending in 1998,
examined the feasibility of providing direct vouchers to persons with severe
physical disabilities and for them to purchase the employment services of their
choice. He is also the former project director of UCPA’s
Research and Demonstration Project on supported employment and the UCPA Self-Directed
Staff Training Project for Supported Employment, a pilot project to test the
feasibility of an individualized, competency-based curriculum for staff
development as well as the UCPA National Demonstration Project for Supported
Employment in the late 80's. These
projects employed hundreds of persons with severe physical disabilities in jobs
using supported employment.
In the seventies, Michael worked in a work activity
center and group home for adults with developmental disabilities and he was a
Special Education teacher for four years.
His work also included 2 years in a state institution. He lives in
MELINDA MAST
Melinda Mast is a nationally recognized expert in the
individualized approach to employment and services for people with severe
disabilities. She is the current project director of a NIDRR funded project “Developing Individualized Employment
Portfolios for Job Development Representation by People with Severe
Disabilities”. This innovative project will develop and field-test a
presentation portfolio for people with disabilities and their representatives
to use to facilitate employment. It will
be employer tested and result in an “employer endorsed” approach for securing
employment for people with severe and multiple disabilities. Melinda also
serves as a technical assistance provider for UCPA’s
Assistive Technology and Systems Change project, Partner’s 2000, a PWI project,
the Choice Access, and the DOL “One-Stop to Success” Project. Melinda was previously the Project Director
of UCPA’s Research
& Demonstration Project on Supported Employment for People with Physical
Disabilities, and assisted in the development and field testing of the
self-directed staff training in supported employment curriculum modules. Melinda was the Coordinator of Vocational
Services for UCP Land of Lincoln in
She is a frequent speaker and consultant on strategies
and technology for including people with disabilities in the community. Melinda
is a member of TASH, ITASH,
APSE, and IAPSE. She is a
past Board member of the Illinois Rehabilitation Association, and was a member
of the organizing committee for the Illinois Alliance for Persons in Supported
Employment (IAPSE). Melinda lives and works from her office in
NORCIVA SHUMPERT
Norciva Shumpert is currently co-directing a Department of Labor,
“One Stop to Success” project, a project designed to implement the Workforce
Investment Act of 1998. She served as co-director for the Choice Access
Project, one of seven demonstration projects in the nation to demonstrate the
1992 Amendments to the Rehab Act on Choice Authority and co-directing UCPA is a
national disability organization that has 155 affiliates across the
nation.
Norciva
provides training and consultation regarding supported employment. She consults with families, schools, mental
health centers, and other community providers or projects on issues relating to
empowerment of persons with disabilities.
She has been a part of the statewide initiative in
Norciva and her family live in
Gautier, Mississipi.