Traumatic Brain Injury/AMCHP Conference

This presentation provided several different models and resources to support children with TBI.

First -- EXCELLENT free and available website "Project LearNET".   This website provides, "Anytime access TBI consulting service to all schools and families without the cost of a TBI specialist". High quality, individualized support from this interactive website. Allows you to design a program for your TBI youth.  Developed by a grant to the Brain Injury Association of New York State. 

Link to Project LearNET.  

Second - BrainSTEPS is a school re-entry program from Pennsylvania.  It features a multi-disciplinary team that provides coordinated training and consultation for school teams in all areas of concern:  identification, IEP supports, interventions, long term planning and progress monitoring.  Online reporting tracks the students at www.brainsteps.net. Program Coordinator Brenda Eagan Brown offers to provide handouts  and other materials; she can be reached at eaganbrown@biapa.org.   Link to handout describing the program.

BEST Practices - Oregon's Youth Transition Program / AMCHP

Oregon's Youth Transition Program won a Best Practice Award for 2010.   It is a comprehensive trantion program for youth with disabilities implemented by Voc Rehab, the DOE, the University of Oregon, and local school districts.  The program exists in 105 high schools in Oregon and has proven to provide positive educational and employment outcomes.

Lets work together to review this program and see what it may offer to us in Hawaii.

Family Involvement - Ideas to make it real

Attending the session on cultural competence at the AMCHP conference led me to thinking about family involvement.  A bottom line for Maui District is that we have shown by due process rates and surveys etc. that  we have room for improvement with family involvement. We know that families who feel involved, trusted, respected tend not to file due process hearings AND their children have better outcomes.  Are there ways that we can improve, tweak, rethink our family involvement and increase our "familyculture competence"?

I envision adopting some new key strategies such as these described below.  Lets consider the new "golden rule" - Do unto others what they want you to do unto them". 

Begin having all district staff stop the use of  distancing language such as,  "the mom" and "the dad" and call all family members by their names and  help others (school staff) do the same by providing an example and the reminder.  Adding the term "the" along with family labels rather than the parent's name,  objectifies a parent.  It can make it easier for the staff to disrespect and disregard their input.  I believe that it is not always intentional, but that sort of language eases staff into disrespect which is less common when you are using a person's name.

I would like us to reconsider the concept of a "non-compliant" parent.  A parent that does not do something regarding what the educators want them to do with their child, is not being non-compliant,  they are choosing not to do the action/work/task, etc.  It is more family friendly to find out what is the issue that is standing in the way.  There could be many reasons and opening the discussion by acknowledging that the parent has chosen differently changes the energy. Note - added 4/3/2010 - see blog post on "recommended reading" for another opinion on the use of the term 'compliance' with regard to families. 

If we changed the way that schools work with parents when they are first becoming part of special education would it increase outcomes for students and increase satisfaction for parents? What if schools had a sort of PCNC for special education?  Not a new position, but someone who was the "go to" person for the family for early on concerns. Or would some schools want to identify an experienced family who can provide family to family supports for new parents?  Many parents will be more comfortable in speaking to another special education parent rather than a school staff member.  Is there a way we can facilitate that relationship?  I am thinking that there may be a possibility of working with the family component of the CCC to assist parents when they are first becoming part of special education.

We have recently invited parents to attend district trainings so as to build relationships - but what if we took this further.  I am considering the idea of having "family as faculty"  or a parent panel that would review presentations etc. in advance to provide input and their perspective.   Would this too be a possible off shoot for the CCC?   I am remembering the slogan, "nothing about us without us" and thinking that we could adopt that attitude and it also may reach the outcomes we are hoping for.

Finally,  there are new cultural and linguistic groups on Maui that our district and school staff may not be familiar with - it would benefit all to have presentations to understand the difference between Micronesian groups for example.

Thoughts on Leadership for Cultural and Linguistic Competence

Cultural competence is a developmental process that evolves over an extended period of time. Both individuals and organizations are at various levels of awareness, knowledge, and skills along the cultural competence continuum. Where am I in my journey to develop cultural competence and where are the staff I supervise and our Maui District Special Education Office as a whole?

Several areas of concern jump out at me when I think about our (Maui district DOE staff members) level of cultural competence – the impact on students and their families' satisfaction with their child's education, the impact on newly hired staff particularly from the mainland,  the impact on developing leadership from within our current staff, and the impact on our ability to consider and adopt new programs and new ways of leadership to the future of education.

There is no disputing that a special educator's ability to build trust with her students and the students' families directly impacts the student's outcomes and the parent's satisfaction with the school. I believe that while the participation of the parents in the IEP process is mandatory and therefore occurs regularly, their participation is meeting a requirement rather than being an actual partnership made up of mutual respect and exchange of ideas and information. So with respect to our desire to increase satisfaction and meaningful parent participation, I ask, What role does culture play in these relations between parents and educator? What different "cultures" are parts of this relationship? There is the actual culture of the family (ethnic, socio-economic, gender) , the culture of disability and how the family perceives that, the organizational culture of the particular school the student attends, and the culture (ethnic, socio-economic, gender) of the educator, just to name the obvious ones. Could our parent involvement and satisfaction levels and student outcomes increase if we were to be more skilled in our cultural competency?

New staff members join our district (and school) teams yearly. Cultural competence issues come up for new staff who are primarily from the mainland and struggle to understand our operational cultures of the DOE district administration, the schools, the kids, the parents etc. Additionally, their own cultural style is often misunderstood by their new peers and supervisors, leading to dissatisfaction, ineffective job performance and ultimately to new hires leaving their jobs. We have "cultural introductions" to new staff members, and they are effective to a degree – exposing new hires to understanding our "salad bowl" of disparate ethnic groups, the concept of being "local", our food choices, special language styles, music etc. But I am not aware of a cultural introduction to the culture of the DOE which has rigid unwritten rules, mores and expectations and is likely to cause a culture clash with new hires. On the flip side, do we recognize to what degree we are affected by our DOE culture? Are we contributing to quality employees to become disengaged from our system? If we were more culturally competent and able to identify cultural mores in our DOE culture could we more effectively maintain quality staff and increase job satisfaction?

A close friend and fellow DOE educator visited with me the other day and voiced her frustration with the teaching staff at her school; they are mostly young and several are new to Hawaii DOE. The problem her school was having was that no one was willing to step up and move into teacher-leadership positions.  She expressed the opinion that the new generation of employees was unwilling to give the amount of time that educators gave in the past without compensation.  This is a familiar theme;  I have had many similar conversations with veteran DOE administrators. Many complain that teachers leave the school right at 2:45pm; no one will step up and volunteer for committees and leadership positions. The immediate reason voiced is that they lack the commitment of earlier generations, they are too interested in the own personal pursuits to give time back to the DOE. However, upon further discussion and analysis, we started looking at other possible reasons for this phenomenon. Is it possible that staff are actually afraid to take a step up to leadership because there is accepted DOE cultural behavior to undermine peers that take that step up? We all know the a'ama crab syndrome; we laugh and shrug; but could it really be keeping us mired in provincial educational philosophies and preventing new blood and new ideas from taking root?

And finally, are we as special educators keenly aware and deeply involved in disability culture? Do we know the mores, the styles, the values the wants and needs of people with disabilities that we are charged to help? We have the data shows Hawaii's rates of inclusion of special needs students in general education classes is at the very bottom, dead last, of all 50 states AND territories. Interestingly, our statewide rates of adults with disabilities employed after high-school is nationally second to last! Do we see a connection here? Is it time to STOP giving lip service to inclusion in schools and recognize that WE, the people who are supposedly the champions of students with disabilities are part of the problem. If we understood and respected the culture, would be do a better job to stand up for the rights of people with disabilities?

Yes, we need to increase our cultural competence in these areas – immediately! 
AMCHP Conference






 

A Response to Intervention Model Incorporating Experimental (Single Case)/ NASP Design

     Presenters offered their rationale for single case design in measuring student outcome with regard to interventions.  Key point is that when there is improvement in outcome data,  it is less relevant to establish conclusively that the intervention was the specific cause of the improvement.  What is important is that there is improvement.  When there is no meaningful improvement, we may make the assumption that the intervention is not benefiting the student,  providing one of the variables is not with the fidelity, or duration or frequency of intervention. 


The model described contains the usual 3 tiers: 

1. Universal screening and progress monitoring using quality curriculum. All students
   
2. Standardized interventions with small groups in general education - approx 15 - 20% of students at any time
   
3. Individualized interventions with in-depth problem analysis in general education - approx. 5% of students at any time
   

The problem solving model applied to these tiers: 

1. Identify discrepancy between expectation and performance for the class OR the individual
   
2. for the individual: Identify category of problem and assign small group solution
   
3. for the individual: Identify causal variable. Implement individual intervention
   

Response to intervention is the hunt for what works, not the hunt for SLD.



 

Supervision of School Psychologists NASP

On March 5^th, Final day at the NASP conference, I attended a session on the supervision of School Psychologists. The session was sparsely attended, so I was able to ask quite a few questions and consult with presenter Dr. Woika, Director of Clinical Training for Penn State. I was also fortunate, that same evening, to be invited to dinner by Dr. Jean Ramage. Joining us at dinner were Dr. Carol Robinson-Zanartu and Dr. Valerie Cook-Morales, both faculty at San Diego State University School Psychology and Counseling Department. Both experiences led me to consider changes to Maui District's current supervision model. My recommendations for change are described here.

I recommend that DES meet with Director Sato to review the NASP standards for supervision. I have purchased the NASP book on Supervision for us to use in our discussion and in re-thinking our methods, rubrics/standards, etc.

Our school psychologists staff deserve to have expectations for job performance that are clear, meet their organizational standards, include staying current with trends in the profession, allow for input from school level administrators in the schools that they serve, and encourage their professional growth. Both administrative supervision and clinical supervision should be provided to enable them to have the best job experience and for the district to experience the highest quality of performance from each member of the team.

Below are the recommendations from this presentation and from NASP as I interpret them:

1. Establish an objective, comprehensive and efficient way of gathering data on performance. Best practice industry standards state evaluations should include: (1) direct observation in various settings that represent the range of their job duties. Areas to observe could be – administering assessments, consulting in case conference, supporting RTI in a classroom, instructing a classroom teacher in implementation of a behavioral support plan, participating in an eligibility / IEP meeting.
   
2. Review of assessment protocols and supervisory review of reports is recommended. Anyone in a professional field benefits from supervision because "drift" from standard operating procedures and testing protocols is very common over time.
   
3. Participation in district provided professional development sessions, peer support sessions, staff meetings is recommended to be part of expectations and therefore evaluation
   
4. Focus on skill building is recommended – examples provided are - practice scoring especially for new assessments, role play steps, guide case conceptualization.
   
5. Allow for input on personal skill development – work on creating measureable goals and provide on-going specific feedback.
   
6. Use an evaluation tool that is specific to school psychologists
   
7. Separate clinical and administrative supervision to allow for honest exchange and feedback.
   

 

Models for RTI at the Secondary Level / NASP

On my second day at the NASP conference I attended an excellent session presented by Dr. Holly Windram,  Special Education Director for the St Croix River, Minnesota, School District (SCRED). MS085.  She was dynamic and enthusiastic and presented their comprehensive RTI district plan focusing on both RTI for academic and behavioral concerns.  She emphasized their use of Northwest Evaluation Association - NWEA MAPS - see link at bottom of this post -- as the key to their monitoring as did several members of the audience from other states.  

I believe that the essential Keys to their success is found in 3 quotes I took away from Dr. Windram’s presentation --  First -  “Don’t do anything unless it is linked with assessment data”.   Second-  “We will never look at a student with office disciplinary referrals (ODR) again without reviewing their academic interventions and progress monitoring data at the same time”. 
And, finally, “If you want to change your high school, change your 9^th grade. “

  
Thumbnail sketch ~ This blog post will describe the components of SCRED’s RTI program – see below for description of each component listed here:

1.      Universal screening of all 9^th and 10^th graders using NWEA MAPS, scheduled and reviewed 3 times annually with the principal. 

2.      Reviewing of ODR (office disciplinary referrals) with implementation of school wide PBS (positive behavior support) and the Behavioral Support program “Check and Connect”.  

3.      Structured routines (SIM strategies) to bring order and priority to content instruction in core classes. 

4.      The use of a problem solving process at all 4 levels which includes a multi-disciplinary problem solving team

5.      Supplemental instruction which is more robust, intense and matched to student need. 

6.      The leadership of the school psychologist to consult with administration, then support and maintain program integrity.

Universal screening –  Academic Targets - At the end of 8^th grade and all 9^th and 10^th graders are screened 3 times annually.  Principal and selected team members review of the outcome data to determine the program for each student falling below predetermined progress benchmarks.  These reviews are essential. If not done, it will invalidate the work that is being done and prevent you from making data based decisions, therefore the reviews are scheduled into the master calendars at the start of the school year and take priority.  Already identified at risk and special education students are progress monitored more frequently.   SCRED uses AimsWeb for their progress monitoring. 

PBS – School Wide Positive Behavioral Support -  Universal screening – Behavioral Targets -   3 times annual, Principal and selected team members review the ODR and the students falling below the expected Behavioral targets.  For any student with # of ODR at the risk level , academic status and remediation is examined at the same time.   Students continuing to be at risk are placed in the “Check and Connect” program.  See below for description.

Structured Routines for Content Instruction in Core Classes -  SCRED has found that routines bring order and priority to the content.  They use SIMs Strategies (PDF on SIMS strategies).  These routines take time to teach both to teachers and students.  A coaching component for teachers is in place to support the successful implementation of the routines.  The structured routines support all learners and especially provide a safety net for at risk and/or culturally and linguistically diverse groups.

Use of a 4 Level System and a Problem Solving Process -   When data review indicates a student is not meeting the expected targets a 4 level problem solving system moves into place:

Level 1 – Teacher in core content consults with parents and student.  Discussion on possible means to address underachievement.  Data on universal screening is provided and discussed.  Student is monitored for improvement.

Level 2 – Teacher consults with school and district resource staff – this may be the school psychologist,  behavioral specialist, reading or math specialist,   differentiation specialist, special education teacher, speech pathologist etc.

Level 3 – Extended problem solving team (EPS team) meets with teacher.   EPS team may be made up of:  General education teachers, school psychologist,  behavioral specialist, reading and/or math specialist, differentiation specialist, special education teacher, speech pathologist.   EPS team always includes a school administrator.   EPS team now considers if student requires supplemental instruction: which type of supplemental instruction,  amount of time for supplemental instruction, expected targets, strategies, etc.  

EPS team meets weekly; these meetings are rigorously protected and attended by administration.  One time each month, the team reviews data for all at risk students. Student Specific discussions are scheduled, problem solving process is used – facilitator keeps team on track. The Academic counselor is responsible for collecting and presenting data on a specific student.  In some circumstances the EPS team may review entire class data or grade level data.  Members of the EPS team also monitor teacher adherence to the SIMs strategies and expected interventions.  There is further information below on SCREDs methods for  maintaining program integrity.

Level 4 – Referral to SST  - possible IDEA evaluation or continued remediation

At all levels the same problem solving process is used.  Any sort of problem solving model will work as long as it is being followed consistently.  SCRED uses: the following model:

Problem identification àProblem Analysis à Plan Development à Plan Implementation àPlan Evaluation.  Return to problem identification and repeat the model as needed.

Supplemental Instruction -  Example of the supplemental instruction is found in the Chisago Lakes High School 9^th Grade RTI English class, called “ RTI 9 English Core Plus”.   RTI 9 English Core Plus is taught by the most excellent, skilled intervention specialists.  The principal for Chisago Lakes rearranged her current teaching staff to ensure the best teachers were assigned to the supplemental instruction classes.  There are about 18 – 24 students in each class.  They are selected by CBM scores, State test scores, attendance and grades, 8^th grade status and teacher recommendation the problem solving model described above and the data on the universal screening measures. The classes instructional time is double that of the regular 9^th grade English class.  The first quarter of the class gives intense focus to relationship building between students and students and students and teacher, establishment of routines, whole group interventions (reading fluency and writing mechanics),  and progress monitoring system (daily oral language and “six minute solution”). Ongoing professional development is provided to the teachers.    At the end of the first quarter data is reviewed to identify additional needs at the classroom, small group or individual level.  For the remainder of the school year data review continues, and individual student instructional changes are made as needed.  It is a whole school effort to support this program.  Data is collected by a variety of staff including:  Behavioral specialists, academic counselors, school psychologists, paraprofessionals and classroom teachers.

Students who require more than the RTI supplemental level are proved with additional Tier 2 supplemental classes.  These are similar to the RTI described above, are only provided in reading and math, and run for one quarter and are designed as  a “skinny” class  - meaning class runs ½ a normal class block.  Clearly some creative thinking has gone into the master schedule at Chisago Lakes high School! 

Program integrity is maintained by direct classroom observations, feedback, and ongoing PD for teachers.

SCRED has determined their critical features of remedial literacy instruction at the secondary level.  They are:

·         Effective Professional Development

·         Effective instructional tools, strategies and core curriculum

·         System re-organization and support

·         Formative and summative assessment

·         Building / classroom climate that expects and fosters high student engagement

·         Committee/team to make it work

Role of the School Psychologist in RTI program development, planning, implementation and maintenance –  The school psychologist is key as consultant to the high school principal as they would be aware of the evidence based practices, are able to analyze the needs, ask the right questions and research the journals etc.  They are the experts in assessment and use of data and can determine when a problem is a “child problem” or may be a “school problem”.   School psychologists are trained in data collection, usage and analysis both at the child level and especially at the system level.  They are able to act as “educational interpreters” working and supporting across disciplines, helping school staff connect with families. They are the leaders for implementing an RTI framework in schools. 

The “Check and Connect Program” -  in addition to the reading and math RTI described above,  Chisago Lakes has implemented an RTI for behavioral issues.  This program is a specific tier two intervention for grade 10 unmotivated students.  The concept focuses on relationships first and a sense of belonging as essential to those who have become or are becoming disengaged from school.  It starts with the data – review of attendance, ODR, grades and then the use of an engagement indicator.   The students for whom this program works are those who are strongly reinforced by adult attention.  You must match the students to this program for success; a student who wants to escape and avoid will not be supported by this particular model.   Essentially,  this is a structured behavior support program with regular checkins, problem solving sessions, lunches provided and time to connect, teaching that effort and behavior effects their school performance and providing one to one (or very small group)  adult support.

High Quality Links to RTI resources: 

School Psychologists and Response to Intervention Systems - PDF on the role of the school psychologist in supporting RTI systems and data collection in their schools.  Good for professional development.

National Center on Response to Intervention - US DOE  - one stop shop for everything

Evidence Based Intervention Network - East Carolina University - Great website for evidence based interventions.

Check and Connect Intervention Script PDF

NWEA MAPS homepage

Six Minute Solution Intervention Integrity Check 

SIMS – Strategic Instruction Model
Getting Ready for Secondary RTI

ASRS - Assessment of Autism Spectrum Disorders / NASP

Presented by Authors: Sam Goldstein, Ph.D. and Jack Naglieri, Ph.D.  (Sally Ozonoff, PhD was unable to attend). I am unable to produce my own notes on this topic that would provide any further knowledge.  Therefore I think best to provide you with the handout/overview of the ASRS.  Click link below.  

The ASRS was purchased by Maui District in Fall 2009. 

Action to review its use with our School Psych team and determine if further training would be beneficial.
CLICK for ASRS Overview pdf

NASP conference -- CONFERENCE HANDOUTS

http://www.nasponline.org/conventions/2010conventionhandouts.aspx

Click link for all conference handouts!

A Research –Based Consensus Definition of SLD Integrating Multiple Data Sources /NASP Conference: NASP

CLICK FOR - Cross Battery Assessment Download Materials

Presented by the Authors of the Cross Battery Assessment. 
PhDs - Dawn Flanagan, Vincent Alfonso, and Samuel  Ortiz
~Thumbnail sketch ~ 
 Presentation on the theory behind the Cross Battery Assessment, how it supports students with cultural and linguistic differences and how the use of Cross Battery Assessment in conjunction with intervention data supports quality, reliable eligibility decisions for specific learning disability.  

      RTI and cognitive assessment are complementary – NOT mutually exclusive.  It is essential to continue to use data from a variety of sources when making eligibility decisions. Some states have gone fully RTI only - and these presenters explained their concerns with this method.   The contemporary cognitive assessment model is  much different from traditional and works complementary with RTI  When students are not able to respond to Tier I interventions and again from Tier II,  then these  non-responders should receive a comprehensive evaluation. Using a flexible battery assessment means linking academic and cognitive data and also then linking to the right interventions that have positive outcomes to children
       It is essential to pay attention to Culture and language factors to determine cultural difference from learning disorder.  Use of the Culture language interpretive matrix (C-LIM) can assist in teasing out this data.  I was excited to discuss the possibility of using the C-LIM as a validity check when assessing students who are pidgen speaking and from pidgen speaking families. 
     The time has come to fully embrace RTI not as a diagnostic method but as an intervention system! The allure of RTI is in the ability to use universal screening and in the development and implementation of STP (standard treatment protocol) available to all students who need it.  Appropriately delivered RTI programs cannot help but (1) reduce numbers of students who are being referred for comprehensive assessments (2) allow for  greater attention to be paid to those who need it and therefore, (3) increase the overall accuracy of IDEA determination.
     I found it interesting and helpful to hear and read the comparisons of the definitions of SLD. The presenters recommended the use the Canadian description of Learning Disability as one of the most comprehensive and clear especially in describing the "unexpected under-achievement.  
     RTI is not really a paradigm shift, but has standardized  and defined  the means to intervene and includes the layer of accountability which as we will know, is essential to success.
What is monitored improves, what is not, does not. 
     The   “Learning Disability Quarterly” of summer 2008 – is recommended reading on  “RTI, separating the rhetoric of self congratulations from the reality of SLD identification.  Our assessment tools for assessment are better than ever; it is curious that there is this push to throw out comprehensive assessment and replace it exclusively with RTI. 
      Maui District has at least 2 school psychologists, maybe more, Anna Dewitt and Terry Bleau, whom are both currently using the  XBA system. Upon my return I intend to interview them on its use and consider the possibility of moving this method forward with the rest of our team including our psychological examiners..