personnel preparation in early intervention and early childhood special education: an overview of...
TRANSCRIPT
Personnel Preparation in Early Intervention and Early
Childhood Special Education: An Overview of Credentialing,
Training and Technical Assistance, and Provider
PerspectivesMary Beth Bruder, Ph.D.
University of Connecticut
Vicki Stayton, Ph.D.Western Kentucky UniversityCristina Mogro-Wilson, Ph.D.
University of ConnecticutBarbara J. Smith, Ph.D.
University of Colorado at DenverSylvia Dietrich, Ph.D.
Western Kentucky University
.
Information gathered will be utilized to identify critical gaps in current knowledge and design and conduct a program of research at the national, state, institutional and direct provider level to address these gaps. This program of research and policy formulation will yield information vital to developing policies and practices at all levels of government, including institutions of higher education.
The Center to Inform Personnel Preparation and Practice in Early Intervention and Preschool Education
A five-year project established in January, 2003 and funded by the Office of Special Education Programs.
The Center’s Goals
To compile a comprehensive database of current licensure and certification standards for all EI/ECSE personnel.
To develop a comprehensive profile of current training programs for all types of personnel at the institutional, state, and national levels.
To describe the current and projected supply and demand for personnel.
To design and conduct a program of research to identify critical gaps in current knowledge regarding personnel preparation.
To develop and disseminate recommendations regarding personnel preparation policy and practice based on research findings.
The Center’s Purpose
The purpose of this Center is to collect, synthesize and analyze information related to: certification and licensure requirements for personnel working with infants, toddlers, and preschoolers who have special needs and their families, the quality of training programs that prepare these professionals, and the supply and demand of professionals representing all disciplines who provide both ECSE and EI services.
The Center’s Projects Study I: The National Landscape of Early Intervention and Early
Childhood Special Education
Study II: The Higher Education Survey for Early Intervention and Early Childhood Special Education Personnel Preparation
Study III: The Analysis of Federally Funded Doctoral Programs in Early Childhood Special Education
Study IV: The Impact of Credentials on Early Intervention Personnel Preparation (Credentialing Part C)
Study V: Analysis of State Licensure/Certification Requirements for Early Childhood Special Educators (Credentialing 619)
Study VI: Training and Technical Assistance Survey of Part C & 619 Coordinators
Study VII: Confidence and Competence of 619/Part C Service Providers
Three Research Strands
Research Strand I: Preservice/ Higher Education
Research Strand II: Personnel Standards
Research Strand III: Inservice/ Ongoing Training
Research Strand I: Preservice/Higher EducationStatus Study II: Higher Education Profile
Study III: Doctoral Programs ProfileStudy IV: ECSE Programs
Child/Family Outcomes
Student Outcomes for ECSE Programs and Subsequent Practice OutcomesCollaborative Doctoral Program
Research Strand II:Personnel StandardsStatus Study I: Part C & 619 Profile
Study IV: Part C CredentialsStudy V: 619 ECSE Certification Requirements
Child/Family Outcomes
Part C Credential/Outcomes
Research Strand III:Inservice/ Ongoing TrainingStatus Study VI: Profile of State Technical
Assistance and Training NetworksStudy VII: National Study of Competence and Confidence
Child/Family Outcomes
Comparisons of Professional Development Models
Overview of Today’s Presentation Study VI: Training and Technical Assistance
Survey of Part C & 619 Coordinators
Study VII: Confidence and Competence of 619/Part C Service Providers
Study V: Analysis of State Licensure/Certification Requirements for Early Childhood Special Educators (Credentialing 619)
Study VI: Training and Technical Assistance Survey of Part C & 619 Coordinators
Background: Study VITraining and Technical Assistance Survey of Part C &
619 Coordinators
The status of state-level training and technical assistance (TA) systems for early intervention/early childhood providers has not been systematically collected or organized.
The purpose of this study was to identify and evaluate the current personnel preparation systems for EI/ECSE professionals in each state. Systems that provide and maintain effective and comprehensive personnel preparation and development will serve as models for national standards.
Methodology Part C and 619 coordinators were contacted to
complete the survey via phone with trained interviewers.
Survey consists of 31 discrete and open-ended questions about funding, delivery methods, content, needs assessment, quality assurance, and other areas pertaining to training and TA.
Target sample was all 50 states, D.C., Virgin Islands & Puerto Rico
Part C (n=51)
619 (n=45)
Definition of a Training System A systematic, sustainable approach to professional
development that has:1. dedicated resources such as an agency budget line-
item; 2. staffing; 3. a dedicated agency that is responsible for the
provision of the training; 4. policies or procedures for determining professional
development expectations;5. has training content; 6. quality assurance; 7. identifies and measures outcomes; 8. provides on-going, needs based professional
development that is provided over-time; 9. a structure for the delivery of content (training
modules, etc.), and 10. has work-place applicability.
Definition of Technical AssistanceA system of technical assistance include all components as applied to
TA: 1. dedicated resources such as an agency budget line-item; 2. staffing; 3. a dedicated agency that is responsible for the provision of the TA; 4. policies or procedures for determining professional development
expectations; 5. has TA content; 6. quality assurance; 7. identifies and measures outcomes; 8. has work-place applicability; 9. provides ongoing TA; and 10. individualized professional development and problem-solving
services to assist individuals, programs, and agencies in improving their services, management, policies, and/or outcomes.
Training and Technical Assistance by State: Part C When asked, 39 states reported having a training
system Based on the definition of training applied by
research staff to survey answers:20 states (39%) had a training system
When asked, 43 states reported having a technical assistance system
Based on the definition of technical assistance applied by research staff to survey answers:
12 states (23%) had a technical assistance system
Part C: States with No Training System
31 states did not have a training system based on the definition
23 states did not have quality assurance measures
21 states did not identify and measure outcomes of the training
8 did not have policies to identify professional development needs
Part C: States with No TA System 39 states did not have a technical assistance
system based on the definition
30 states did not have procedures for identifying and measuring technical assistance outcomes
23 states did not have quality assurance measures in place to monitor their technical assistance systems
Training and Technical Assistance by State: Section 619 When asked 35 reported having a training system
Based on the training system definition applied by research staff to survey questions
23 states (58%) had a training system
When asked, 23 reported having a technical assistance system
Based on the technical assistance system definition applied by research staff to survey questions20 states (42%) had a technical assistance system
Section 619: States with No Training System 22 states did not have a training system
based on the definition
13 states did not meet the qualifications of a training system because they did not have methods of identifying and measuring outcomes
11 states did not have quality assurance measures in place to monitor their training systems
7 states did not provide trainings overtime
Section 619: States with No TA System 25 states did not have a technical
assistance system based on the definition
17 of the states did not meet the qualifications of a system because they lacked procedures for identifying and measuring technical assistance outcomes.
17 states did not have quality assurance measures in place to monitor their technical assistance system
12 states lacked policies to identify technical assistance needs within their technical assistance system.
Conclusions Findings indicate the organizational structures within
states vary greatly. Systems tend to be accessible throughout the states
and target multiple disciplines. The most commonly offered training topics include
Federal Regulations and agency-specific policies and procedures, transition, inclusion, child and family outcome measurements, and the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act.
The majority of training is provided through workshops and conferences; however, a growing number of states are using or developing distance learning methods.
Determining training/TA needs, evaluation, and quality assurance pose challenges for states.
Results indicate that there is a need for greater systemization of these processes.
Study VII: Competence & Confidence of Early Interventionist/Early
Childhood Special Educators
Background The purpose of this study was to conduct
research on the level of confidence and competence of personnel working with infants and toddlers with special needs and their families.
Methodology State coordinators of service providers were contacted and asked
to forward the link to the online survey to service providers working with children ages birth to 5 with disabilities. Approximately 27,700 e-mails were sent to direct providers A total of 1,819 individuals completed the survey Providers working with children birth to three: 1,084 in 44
states Providers working with children three to five: 735 in 38
states The survey consists of 47 questions to assess the competence and
confidence of service providers in the following areas: Family-Centered Practice Assessment and Evaluation IFSP Indicators Instructional Practice Natural Learning Environmental Collaboration and Teaming Early Literacy Learning
Factor Analysis A preliminary exploration of the Competence and
Confidence survey was performed using the principal component analysis (PCA) procedure. All survey items were considered, with the exception of
those related to early language and literacy. Four principal component analyses were run on six
items each. Three of the four scales produced single factor
solutions: competence and confidence regarding process items and competence regarding intervention items.
A single factor second order solution representing confidence regarding intervention items was produced.
Each of the four scales had good internal consistency, with Carmines Theta ranging from 0.6266 to 0.7952
Survey Participant CharacteristicsProviders Birth to Three Sample Size: n = 1,084 Demographics:
female (98%) white (93%) Age:
14% < 30 yrs. 26% 31 ≤ 40 yrs. 30% 41 ≤ 50 yrs. 31% > 51 yrs
Educational Attainment: BA 33% High School or AA 1% MA 63% PhD 3%
Providers Three to Five Sample Size: n = 735 Demographics:
female (97%) white (94%) Age:
13% < 30 yrs. 25% 31 ≤ 40 yrs. 28% 41 ≤ 50 yrs. 33% > 51 yrs
Educational Attainment: High School or AA 1% BA 26% MA 70% PhD 3%
Survey Participant Characteristics Most practitioners (80%) report not getting
the training they need to work with children with disabilities through higher education programs.
Only 50% of respondents report being required by their state to complete specialized training to work with children above and beyond their professional licensure/certification requirements.
Method of Training
67%
63%
56%
49%
26%
26%
15%
7%
6%
2%
1%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
conferences
full day workshops
lectures/presentations
half-day workshops
courses
mentoring/coaching
web-based learning
clinical supervision
DVDs/Videos
readings
collaboration/training
Percent of Respondents
Survey Participant Characteristics
Type of licensure or certification Providers birth to three: Education 53%, therapy 40%, and other 22% Providers three to five: Education 84%, therapy 22%, and other 8%
13%
22%18%23% 24%
14%
30%
40%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Special Ed ECE SLP ECSE
Part C
Part B/ 619
Overview: Providers Birth to Five
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Family Centered
Assessment & Eval.
IFSP/ IEP
Instructional Practices
Natural Learning Eniv.
Collaboration & Teaming
Early Literacy
Confident
Competent
Family-Centered PracticeQuestion 0-3 3-
5I am able to get the families I work with to obtain supports and resources on their own
8 8
Families recognize and use their strengths to improve child outcomes because of how I work with them
25 16
Getting families to talk to me about what is important for them to accomplish comes easy to me
55 57
I am pretty sure that the families I work with will become more empowered because of my work with them
55 39
% Reporting Almost always & All of the timeFirst 2 items represent competence, last 2 items confidence
Assessment & Evaluation Question 0-3 3-
5I am able to “hit the mark” every time in terms of identifying children’s strengths and needs
40 44
I am especially proficient at helping parents identify their children’s and families’ needs and concerns
42 49
I am almost always certain that I will be able to identify and use children’s personal interests to improve child learning
62 59
I feel sure that my assessments of children’s capabilities are accurate
62 64% Reporting Almost always & All of the timeFirst 2 items represent competence, last 2 items confidence
IFSP/IEPQuestion 0-3 3-
5The children with whom I work achieve the majority of their IFSP outcomes in six months or less
12 31
I am able to get the families I work with to be key players in identifying IFSP outcomes for their children and themselves
33 16
Writing IFSP outcomes that are functional and meaningful child behavior is a breeze
27 26
It is easy for me to know which child and parent IFSP outcomes are most important to the families I work with
53 45
% Reporting Almost always & All of the timeFirst 2 items represent competence, last 2 items confidence
Instructional PracticesQuestion 0-3 3-
5Because of my efforts, parents and other caregivers are better able to use responsive instructional practices with their children
25 20
My efforts getting parents and other caregivers to promote child engagement with people and objects are very successful
28 45
It is easy for me to get parents and other caregivers to use prompting and prompt fading procedures with their children
15 58
It makes me feel good when I see parents using child-initiated and child-directed learning activities
90 77% Reporting Almost always & All of the timeFirst 2 items represent competence, last 2 items confidence
Natural Learning EnvironmentsQuestion 0-3 3-
5I am able to get parents I work with to use everyday family and community activities as sources of child learning opportunities
25 36
I am almost always certain that I will be able to identify and use children’s personal interests to improve child learning
31 24
I find parents’ use of natural child learning opportunities that we identified together professionally rewarding
66 56
I feel that the children I work with benefit a great deal from everyday informal learning opportunities
72 75% Reporting Almost always & All of the timeFirst 2 items represent competence, last 2 items confidence
Collaboration & TeamingQuestion 0-3 3-
5I am able to successfully implement interdisciplinary interventions taught to me by professionals from other disciplines
49 53
Jointly planning and implementing interventions with other professionals insures that the children I work with get the right kind of practices
68 72
Helping other team members do what I do best (role release) makes me feel good about the interventions children and families receive
58 71
I am able to get the families I work with to be key players in identifying IFSP outcomes for their children and themselves
37 33% Reporting Almost always & All of the timeFirst 2 items represent competence, last 2 items confidence
Early Literacy LearningQuestion 0-3 3-
5I make sure I help parents and other caregivers understand and use emergent literacy learning activities with their children
41 40
I am able to get parents to understand why parent/child sound and word games are important for children’s early literacy learning
26 22
I am pretty good at helping parents provide their children early literacy learning experiences
49 50
Including pre-reading and pre-writing outcomes on children’s IFSP/IEPs comes natural to me
25 39% Reporting Almost always & All of the timeFirst 2 items represent competence, last 2 items confidence
Conclusions A more comprehensive training model
for personnel working with young children with disabilities
Using training methods that we know work for adult learners
Despite reported training needs, practitioners show many areas of strength in supporting children with disabilities and their families:
Family-Centered Practices Assessment & Evaluation Collaboration & Teaming Instructional Practices
Study V: Analysis of State Licensure/Certification Requirements for Early Childhood Special Educators
State Certification Requirements for Early Childhood Special Educators
Research Questions1. What are the certification requirements
for Early childhood Special Educators?2. What factors influence the type of
certification that is developed?3. How is the content of certification
developed?4. What are the facilitators and barriers to
developing and implementing certification?
5. How do state’s certification requirements compare to national personnel standards?
Certification Definitions Certification – the set of regulated
requirements that lead to initial preparation in ECSE
Endorsement – the set of regulated requirements that are in addition to the requirements for a specific certification (e.g., ECE, SPE)
Blended ECE and ECSE – the set of regulated requirements that lead to initial preparation in both ECE and ECSE through a single certification
Methodology
Web searches Telephone interviews
Sample
Part B 619 coordinators 50 states District of Columbia
Response rate- Telephone interviews (n=37, 73%)- Certification tables (n=38, 75%)
State’s ParticipatingArizona Indiana Montana Tennessee
Arkansas Iowa Nebraska Vermont
California
Kentucky Nevada Virginia
Colorado Louisiana New Hampshire
Washington
Connecticut
Maine New Jersey West Virginia
Delaware
Maryland New York Wisconsin
Florida Massachusetts
North Dakota
Wyoming
Georgia Michigan Ohio
Hawaii Minnesota Oklahoma Idaho – table only
Illinois Mississippi
Oregon
Certification Models – States with Single Certification Routes (n=26, 68%)
Certification Model n %
ECSE 13 50
ECSE endorsement 6 23
Blended ECE & ECSE 3 12
Special education 2 8
ECSE & Special Education Endorsement
1 4
ECE & Special Education Endorsement
1 4
Age Ranges – States with Single Certification Routes (n=26, 68%)
Age Range n %
Birth – 5 years 8 30
Birth – 8 years 4 15
3-5 years 4 15
Birth – 6 years 1 4
Birth – grade 2 1 4
3-20 years 1 4
Birth – grade 4 1 4
Birth – grade 6 1 4
3 years – Grade 2 1 4
3 years – Grade 3 1 4
3 years – Grade 12 1 4
Content Requirements– States with Single Certification Routes (n=26, 68%)
Content Requirements n %
Standards or Competencies
20 77
Course-Driven 3 11.5
None identified 3 11.5
Certification Models – States with Multiple Certification Routes (n=12, 32%)
Certification Model n %
Blended ECE & ECSE – 2 age ranges 2 17
ECSE; ECSE endorsement 2 17
Blended ECE & ECSE; 2 ECSE endorsements
1 8
Blended ECE & ECSE 2 age ranges; ECSE endorsement
1 8
ECSE; ECE 1 8
Certification Models – States with Multiple Certification Routes (Cont.)
Certification Model n %
ECSE, ECSE endorsement; Special Education
1 8
ECSE – 3 age ranges; ECSE endorsement - 2 age ranges; Special Education
1 8
ECSE; Special Education 1 8
Special Education-Severe/Profound; Special Education–Mild/Moderate
1 8
Age Ranges – States with Multiple Certification Routes (n=9 age ranges) Age Range n %
Birth – 5 years 8 893 - 8 years (grade 3) 5 56Birth – 8 years (grade 3) 5 56
P-grade 12 4 44
3 - 5 years 3 33
Birth – grade 2 2 22
Birth – 4 years 1 11
3 years – grade 5 1 11
5 – 21 years 1 11
Content Requirements– States with Multiple Certification Routes (n=12, 32%)
Content Requirement n %
Standards or Competencies 9 75
Standards or Competencies for 1 Model, None for 2 Models
1 8.3
Standards or Competencies for 4 Models, None for 2 Models
1 8.3
None Identified 1 8.3
Requirements for Induction to the Field (n=25, 66%)
Induction Requirements n %Mentorship - One year 12 32Mentorship – Two years 4 11
Mentorship – Three years 2 5
Mentorship – Years not specified 1 3
Mentorship–1 Yr, Courses, Seminars 1 3Mentorship and PD Plan 1 3
Mentorship, PD Plan, Portfolio 1 3
Individualized with LEA and IHE 1 3Pass state performance assessment 1 3None specified 1 3
Alternative Routes to Certification (n=20, 53%)
Coursework in a specified timeframe Collaborative program with IHE/LEA Coursework and supervised teaching Portfolio review PD plan with oral and written exams Certification exam 90 clock hours of training, one year
internship, relevant PRAXIS II
Certification Requirements and University Programs – Degree Level
Degree Level n %
Baccalaureate 35 92
Baccalaureate or Post-Baccalaureate (endorsements)
8 21
Post-Baccalaureate 4 11
Certification Requirements and University Programs – Admission Requirements (n=38)
Admission Requirement
n %
PRAXIS I exam 18 47None specified 8 21IHE determined 7 18State developed exam 5 13
Certification Requirements and University Programs – Certification Exams (n=27, 71%)
Certification Exam n %
PRAXIS II 17 45
State developed 9 24
PRAXIS II and state developed
1 3
Certification Requirements and University Programs – Accountability (n=38)
Accountability System/Process n %
State review and accreditation 15 39
National accreditation – NCATE 3 8
National and state accreditation 2 5
National or state accreditation 1 3
Informal meetings to discuss 2 5
Don’t know 4 11
No response 11 29
PRAXIS II Exams Required by States (17 states)
PRAXIS II Exam n *%
Special Education: Preschool/Early Childhood 5 29Education of Exceptional Students: Core Content Knowledge 6 35Special Education: Knowledge-Based Core Principles 1 6Special Education: Application of Core Principles Across Categories of Disability (Exceptional Children 1-8)
2 12
Exceptional Needs: Mild Intervention 1 6Education of Young Children 3 18Early Childhood Education 2 12Elementary Education: Content Knowledge 3 18Elementary Education: Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment 2 12Reading Across the Curriculum: Elementary 1 6Principles of Learning and Teaching: Grades K-6 2 12
Rationale for ECSE Certification - Themes
National and state policies Changes or trends in the field Depth of content knowledge and
skills for adequate preparation
Rationale for ECSE Endorsement - Themes
Legislative mandates
Political climate in the state
Rationale for Blended ECE and ECSE Certification - Themes Inclusion/least restrictive
environment
Collaboration
Professionalism
Rationale for Special Education Certification - Theme
Supply and demand- Rural states- Primarily itinerant model of services- Maintaining the status quo
Rationale for Two Endorsements (ECSE or ECE and Special Education)- Themes
Inclusion
Adequate preparation to teach
preschool
Rationale for Multiple Models of Certification - Theme
Flexibility in staffing within
community programs
Certification Development Process - Themes
Committees with representation from relevant stakeholder groups
Statewide input into the proposal Articulation between 2 & 4 year
IHEs Too long ago to “remember”
Development of Certification Content - Themes Review of professional standards
and recommended practices of professional organizations
Review of other states’ standards Review of other certification &
regulations specific to ECE programs
Review of research and literature
Certification Development: Facilitators and Supports - Themes Financial support
Legislative mandates
Systemic supports
Demand from the field
Higher education support
Certification Development: Barriers - Themes
Systemic barriers
Philosophical barriers
Supply and demand
Programmatic concerns
Certification Implementation: Facilitators and Supports - Themes
Financial supports
Systemic supports
Professionalization of the field
Certification Implementation: Barriers - Themes Systemic barriers
Programmatic barriers
IHE related barriers
Comparison of State Standards with National Standards
Conducted policy analysis of states’ standards Sample: 17 states that represent all 5
certification models Inter rater reliability: 3 senior investigators
compared 3 state policies to national standards with inter rater reliability of .64 (range .53-.70)
Method: 1 senior investigator compared States’ certification standards to CEC (common core and early childhood special education) and NAEYC standards
Comparison of State Standards with National Standards – Issues
Limited use of national standards (4 out of 18 sets of standards met 80% or better)
Lack of specificity in wording – open to interpretation of reader
Inconsistency in depth of wording specific to ECE and ECSE
Identification of and access to the necessary documents
Potential for inconsistent application of national (e.g. CEC, DEC, NAEYC, NCATE) standards in IHE program
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
State#1
State#2
State#3
State#4
State#5
State#6
State#7
State#8
State#9
State#10
State#11
State#12a
State#13
State#12b
State#14
State#15
State#16
State#17
Percentage of CEC Standards Met by State
(Coded 1-17)
Percent of CEC Standards Met by Each State
(Arranged by Certification Model)
Blended ECSE and EC
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
State #10 State #12a State #13 State #12b State #15
States (Coded)
Early Childhood Special Education (ECSE)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
State #2 State #5 State #6 State #9
States (Coded)
ECSE Endorsement on EC or Reg Ed
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
State #1 State #3 State #4
States (Coded)
ECSE Endorsement on SPED
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
State #7 State #14 State #16
States (Coded)
Special Education (SPED)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
State #8 State #11 State #17
States (Coded)
ECSE Endorsement on EC or Reg Ed Early Childhood Special Education (ECSE)
Special Education (SPED)
Blended ECSE and EC ECSE Endorsement on SPED
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Sta
te #
1
State
#2
State
#3
State
#4
State
#5
State
#7
State
#6
State
#8
State
#9
State
#11
State
#12
a
State
#14
State
#12
b
State
#13
State
#10
State
#15
State
#16
State
#17
Percentage of CC Standards Met
Percentage of EC Standards Met
Percentage of CEC Common Core and Early Childhood Standards Met by Each State
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
State #1 State #10 State #13 State #12a State #12b State #15
Percentage of NAEYC Standards Met by States (Coded)Percentage of NAEYC Standards Met by States
(Coded)
ECSE Endorsement on EC or Reg Ed
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
State #1
Blended
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
State #10 State #13 State #12a State #12b State #15
States (Coded)
Percent of NAEYC Standards Met by Each State (Arranged by Certification Model)
ECSE Endorsement on EC or Reg Ed
Blended
More Information
http://www.uconnucedd.org/
http://www.uconnucedd.org/per_prep_center/publications.html
Center for Excellence in Developmental Disabilities Education, Research, and Service
University of Connecticut Health Center263 Farmington Ave, MC-6222
Farmington, CT 06030(860) 679-1500
Contact Information Mary Beth Bruder
Vicki [email protected]
Cristina [email protected]
Barbara [email protected]
Sylvia [email protected]