CSD 563: School Speech Language and Hearing Programs
Course Syllabus
Class Location:
UMOnline/ face to face
Instructor:
Office:
Phone
E-mail:
Class Hours:
\
Office Hours:
\
Mission of Communicative Sciences and Disorders program
The mission of The University of Montana, Department of Communicative Sciences and
Disorders academic and clinical program is to mentor students of strong personal character
and to establish in them a commitment to lifelong learning and interest in the process of
communication. It is to develop, within each student, compassion toward their clients and a
research posture in their service delivery. Through the program’s emphasis on typical and
atypical speech, language, and hearing, students gain knowledge, skills, and values that
foster their individual growth as well as a passion for contributing to society and improving
the lives of others.
Place of Course in Program: The purpose of this three-credit course is to provide advanced
graduate students with an understanding of underlying principles, legal statues, best practice,
and ASHA recommendations for provision of speech language services in an educational
birth to 21 settings. Students will gain exposure to ethics and public policy( state and
Federal mandates), historical perspective, procedures techniques and implications for
service for diagnostic criteria and tools, treatment service models, , Evidence-based
practice, response-to-intervention, team participation, and clinical research and issues
regarding diversity. The course fulfills an offering of an elective in the departmental
Master’s degree in Communicative Sciences and Disorders.
Course Catalogue Description: This course reviews the historical and current trends
that impact speech and language services in the school or the birth to 21 years age
client. State and Federal laws for educating exceptional children including RTI,
IDEA,NCLB, state and federal laws will be reviewed and the implications for service.
Differentiate the therapeutic needs of special populations and review the prereferral, referral, assessment process, and various service delivery models and
implications for efficacy models and research within the school setting. 3 credits
Required Text:
Moore-Brown, B. and Montgomery, J. (2008). Making a difference for
America’s children; Speech-Language Pathologists in public schools (2nd edition).
Eau Claire, WI.: Thinking Publications.
Moore-Brown, B. and Montgomery, J. (2005). Making a difference in the era
of accountability; Update on NCLB and IDEA 2004. Eau Claire, WI.: Thinking
Publications.
SCHOOL PROGRAMS in SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY-Organization and Service
Delivery-4th edition. (2002). Allyn & Bacon, A Pearson Education Company, Boston, MA
Resource Texts Bernthal, J.E., & Bankson, N.W. (1993). Articulation and phonological
disorders. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Craighead, N., Newman, P., & Secord, W.
(1989) Assessment and remediation of articulatory and phonological disorders. NY, New
York: Macmillan Publishing Company. Larson, V.L., & McKinley, N. (1995). Language
disorders in older students: Preadolescents and adolescents. Eau Claire, WI: Thinking
Publications Paul, R. (1995). Language disorders from infancy through adolescence:
Assessment & intervention. St. Louis, MO: Mosby. (also—2001 edition) Other related
textbooks that you already own.
Learning Outcomes:
1. Understand the history and current trends in school speech, language and
hearing programs. (Montana)
2. Identify changes in state and federals laws for educating exceptional children
(IDEA, NCLB, RTI, etc.) (Montana)
3. Access national and state professional organization web sites to monitor
current trends and changes for the school based SLP.
4. Demonstrate knowledge of national regulations including positions
statements, scope and practice and code of ethics for school based SLPs.
(Montana)
5. Identify the role of the SLP with students with hearing impairments
6. Differentiate therapeutic needs among various age groups (birth – 3, 3 – 5
and k-12th grade)
7. Differentiate therapeutic needs among special populations and cultural
diversity
8. Understand the pre-referral, referral and assessment process
9. Develop full repertoire of assessment tools; from traditional tests to
Curriculum Based
10. Understand the roles of multidisciplinary team members with the school
11. Develop legally defensible IEPs
12. Understand and observe various service delivery models and identify the
appropriateness of each
13. Demonstrate an understanding of caseload selection and scheduling
Understand the importance and style of documentation, record keeping and
report writing
14. Demonstrate an understanding of parents rights and due process procedures
15. Synthesize current literature and theory to practical application
16. Demonstrate an understanding of budgetary requirements and materials
selection
17. Utilize efficacy procedures and research within the school setting
Assessments:
Areas of Assessment
Points
Written Research Project with Presentation 25
Related to disorder and method of
intervention RTI or best practice in the
school setting
Evaluation Report (ER) Assignment: based 15
on test results and background write a
report
IEP Assignment : Write goals with 3
15
objectives in four different disability areas
based on case study information.
Comprehensive Exam: Mt Federal
20
legislation, mandated procedures,
terminology
Course note book
10
Class Moodle Participation/Conduct,
15
Assigned Readings and online Activities
Letter grades will be assigned based on percentage of total available points attained. A= 90-100%
B=80-89% C=70-79% D=60-69% F= <60%
Research Project: Three options are provided, however, students currently
working in the schools are required to complete option two (2) or three (3). A
written paper as well as an oral presentation is required for all options. The written
portion must adhere to APA style writing. The presentation should be no longer than
15 minutes and should include a handout. Handouts must be emailed to the
instructor two full days before the due date in order to post them on blackboard.
Students should be prepared to present their information to the class on the due
date.
1. Choose a topic from a provided list to research and present to the class. A
review of the literature on the topic must be presented along with addressing
the topic with respect to the school setting. This may be done in groups, but
must first be approved by the instructor.
2. Conduct an efficacy study in your work setting to present to the class.
Consider your assessment policy, screening procedures, therapy
implementation, etc. Be creative. Retrospective data may be used however the
research, methodology, results and discussions section must be represented
in this case. Given the time constraints, you may consider completing a
literature review, methodology, and implementation procedures without
conducting the study.
3. Problem solving issue. Determine a problem within your work setting, which
affects your program. Research the issue and develop a solution. A full
explanation of the problem with step-by-step procedures to resolve the
problem must be included. Consider additional personnel involved as well as
necessary funding. Include the following information: a) Introduction:
purpose of your project, provide background information and key points
based on a review of the literature, b) identify the challenges that led you to
take on this project; why is the important to you and your program, c) what is
your rationale for the proposed solution?, d) who are the necessary people
involved in making the change?, e) what are the necessary steps for putting it
into action?, f) how will you measure the success of your change?
Additional assignment options
Assignment 1: In-service presentation and handout regarding clinical method or
medical condition. You will be paired with a classmate. Topics will be randomly
selected the first day of class. Finished product should reflect an equal amount of
work contributed by each student. Project parameters: Identify and read professional
literature related to your selected topic. Sources could include: refereed journals articles in speechlanguage pathology and/or related areas, text books, information from agencies, foundations, or
professional groups on the Internet, and commercially published materials. The purpose of this
project is twofold: 1) to gain information about a selected area affecting speech, language, or hearing
services in the schools, and 2) to gain experience in “in-service” presentations. Project Outcome: 1)
A 10-minute presentation about your topic. The content of the topic will dictate the format of the
presentation. For some topics, the material may be a summary of what is considered to be “best
practices.” For example, a specific treatment program or procedure may be described for a selected
topic. The style of the presentations will vary with topics. However, all presentations must contain
relevant information regarding SLP or Audiology Services in the schools. NOTE: You may make a
„live‟ presentation, or you may create video-taped material (for example, to demonstrate a
procedure); be creative! Commercially prepared videotapes should not be included. Your goal is to
present your colleagues with factual information that will increase their understanding of your topic.
Points will be deducted for presentations that are shorter or longer than the time-limit. 2) A printed
handout with key information about your topic must be created and provided for all class members (to
be included in notebooks). Although the length of handout should be determined by the amount of
information needed to augment your presentation, a limit of no more than 4 pages is suggested to
keep copying expenses down. Include all references (must be in APA style). Assignment 2:
Handout on a communication assessment tool. Test will be assigned during the first
day of class. The following information must be included in your 1-2 page handout (to be included
in notebooks). Title, author(s), publisher, price, purpose, age-range, subtests, materials, procedures,
time to administer, types of scores (e.g., standard scores, percentiles, age equivalency), normative
information, and overall strengths and limitations. Additional information can be added when
appropriate. Assignment 3: Paper entitled “Evidenced Based Practice and How It Applies to
School Based Speech-Language Pathology Services”. Students will write a 2 page (12 pt font, 1”
margins, single spacing) paper entitled: “Evidenced Based Practice and How It Applies to School
Based Speech-Language Pathology Services”. This essay should: define EBP, include information
gleaned from literature reviews, and discuss avenues for transferring information from research to
school based clinical practice. Include all references (must be in APA style). 4
Course notebook: Students will use a three-ring binder to organize all handouts, materials, notes,
and course-related articles into labeled categories. Materials from the course packet will also be
included in the notebook. Points will be awarded for correctly categorized materials, for using index
tabs, and for completeness of the notebook.
Observations: You are required to complete a series of observations during the
semester. The following settings are suggests to ensure diverse experiences I)
Regular education elementary teacher, II) Regular education secondary teacher, III)
Special education teacher, IV) SLP. Students must obtain all clearances prior to
observing. This information can be found on the blackboard site for the course.
Each observation (I-IV) should total 3-4 hours with a total of 12-16 hours. You may
stagger the observations, but you must observe a lesson from beginning to end. You
may observe students in your work setting with various teachers or you may also
choose to observe a variety of you students in their regular education or special
education settings. Observing occupational therapists, physical therapists, reading
specialists or Instructional Support Specialists will also meet this requirement. I am
aware of the time constraints and I am willing to work with each of you. Send me
your ideas and possible changes for approval. I want this experience to be
meaningful to you. Remember, you have the entire semester to complete this.
However, you must obtain your clearances before you observe.
Each observation write up should include the following:
1. Teacher information: a) setting, b) subject, c) grade, d) length of
lesson/session, e) classroom type: inclusion, special education,
therapy, all regular education, f) goal of the lesson or therapy session
2. Method of teaching: a) style with students, b) , method of instruction;
auditory, visual, kinesthetic, c) teacher/student interaction; regular
education versus special education students
3. Opinion Section: a) did the teacher/therapist meet the needs of the
students?, b) was it a special education lesson or therapy session?, c)
did it support the curriculum? If so, how? If not, why? d) general
impressions and how you might do things differently.
Evaluation Report (ER) and Individualized Educational Plan (IEP):
Students will be provided with assessment results, parent input and teacher input to
write an ER and develop an IEP for a hypothetical student. The forms to be used will
be posted on blackboard for completion. Students may not use the forms they are
currently using in their work place. The standard forms provided adhere to federal
regulations.
Exam: A comprehensive exam will be administered at the end of the semester. It
will be in the form of a case study requiring an essay response.
Grading System:
A
AB+
B
B-
93 and above
90-92
78-89
83-86
80-82
C+
C
C-
77-79
73-76
70-72
Policies
Class attendance, participation and activities: Students are expected attend
all classes, arrive on time and participate in all activities and assignments for group
discussion. Students are responsible for information and assignments missed due to
absence. Exams may be made up with only with permission from instructor.
Examinations and/or assignments may be altered during the semester as the
instructor deems necessary. Please refer to university policy regarding withdraw
dates.
Accommodations:
Readings: A series of supplemental documents will be required for this class. Most
of these documents may be obtained from the ASHA website. Students are expected
to obtain these documents. They will not be provided in class. Assigned
articles/reading will be announced through out the semester.
Recommended Readings:
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2001). Roles and
responsibilities of speech-language pathologists with respect to reading and writing
in children and adolescents Rockville, MD: Author.
Arvedson, J. (2000). Evaluation of children with feeding and swallowing
problems. LSHSS, 31, 28-41.
Bateman, B. & Herr, C. (2006). Writing measurable IEP goals and objectives.
Verona, Wisconsin: IEP Resources.
Berninger, V. W., Vermeulen, K., Abbott, R. D., McCutchen, D., & Cotton, S.,
et al (2003). Comparison of three approaches to supplementary reading instruction
for low-achieving second-grade readers. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in
Schools, 34, 101–116.
Berg, F., Blair, J., & Benson, P. (1996). Classroom acoustics: The problem,
impact and solution. LSHSS, 27(1), 16-20.
Blosser, J., & Kratcoski, A. (1997). PACs: A framework for determining
appropriate service delivery options. LSHSS, 28(2), 99-107.
Blosser, J and Neidecker, E. (2002). School programs in speech-language
pathology: Organization and service delivery (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Brackett, D. (1997). Intervention for children with hearing impairment in
general education setting. LSHSS, 28(4), 355-361.
Catts, H. W., & Kamhi, A. G. (2005). Language and reading disabilities
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Crago, M., Eriks-Brophy, A., Pesco, D., & McAlpine, L. (1997). Culturally
based miscommunication in classroom interaction. LSHSS, 28(3), 245-254.
Ehren, B. (2000). Maintaining a therapeutic focus and sharing responsibility
for student success: Keys to in-classroom speech language services. LSHSS, 31(3),
219-229.
Ehren, B. J., & Nelson, N. W. (2005). The responsiveness to intervention
approach and language impairment. Topics in Language Disorders, 25, 120–131.
Ehren, T. C., & Whitmire, K. A. (2005). Leadership opportunities in the
context of responsiveness to intervention activities. Topics in Language Disorders,
25, 168–179.
Farber, J., & Klein, E. (1999). Classroom-based assessment of a collaborative
intervention program with kindergarten and first-grade students. LSHSS, 30(1), 8391.
Falk-Ross, F. (2002). Classroom-based language and literacy intervention: A
program and case studies approach . Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Gallagher, T., Swigert, N., & Baum, H. (1998). Collecting outcomes data in
schools: Needs and challenges. LSHSS, 29(4), 250-255.
Giddan, J., Ross, G., Sechler, L., & Becker, B. (1997). Selective mutism in
elementary school: Multidisciplinary interventions. LSHSS, 28(2), 127-133.
Gelzheiser, L. M., & Meyers, J. (1991). Reading instruction by classroom, remedial
and resource room teachers. The Journal of Special Education, 24, 512–526.
Gillam, R., Loeb, D., Bohman, T., Champlin, C., Thibodeau, L., & Widen, J., et
al (November 2005). Comparing language intervention outcomes Mini-seminar
presented at the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association Annual
Convention, San Diego, CA.
Gillam, R. B., Loeb, D. F., & Friel-Patti, S. (2001). Looking back: A summary
of five exploratory studies of Fast ForWord. American Journal of Speech-Language
Pathology, 10, 269–273.
Gillam, R. B., & van Kleeck, A. (1996). Phonological awareness training and
short-term working memory: Clinical implications. Topics in Language Disorders,
17, (1) 72–81.
Graner, P. S., Faggella-Luby, M. N., & Fritschmann, N. S. (2005). An overview
of responsiveness to intervention: What practitioners ought to know. Topics in
Language Disorders, 25, 93–105.
Hall, B., Oyer, H., and Haas, W. (2001). Speech, language and hearing
disorders: A guide for the teacher (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Justice, L. M. (2006). Evidence-based practice, response-to-intervention, and
the prevention of reading difficulties. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in
Schools, 37, 284–297.
Justice, L. M., Skibbe, L., & Ezell, H. (2006). Using print referencing to
promote written language awareness. In T. A. Ukrainetz (Ed.), & Contextualized
language intervention: Scaffolding PreK–12 literacy achievement(pp. 329–428)
Eau Claire, WI: Thinking Publications.
Kratcoski, A. M. (1998). Guidelines for using portfolios in assessment and
evaluation. LSHSS, 29(1), 3-10.
Lidz, C. S., & Peña, E. D. (1996). Dynamic assessment: The model, its
relevance as a nonbiased approach, and its application to Latino American preschool
children. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 27, (4) 367–372.
Lindamood, P., & Lindamood, P. (1998). The Lindamood Phoneme
Sequencing Program for Reading, Spelling, and Speech(3rd ed.) Austin, TX: ProEd.
Logemann, J. (2000). Therapy for children with swallowing
disorders in the educational setting. LSHSS, 31, 50-55.
O'Brian, M., & Huffman, N. (1998). Impact of managed care in the schools.
LSHSS, 29(4), 263-269.
O'Connor, R. (2000). Increasing the intensity of intervention in kindergarten
and first grade. Learning Disabilities Research, & Practice, 15, (1) 43–54.
O'Toole, T. (2000). Legal, ethical, and financial aspects of providing services
to children with swallowing disorders the public schools. LSHSS, 31(1), 56-61.
Paasche, C., Gorrill, L. & Strom, B. (2004). Children with special needs in
early childhood settings. Clifton Park, NY: Thomson Delmar Learning.
Peña, E. D., Gillam, R. B., Malek, M., Ruiz-Felter, R., Resendiz, M., Fiestas,
C., & Sabel, T. (in press). Dynamic assessment of school-age children's narrative
ability: An investigation of reliability and validity. Journal of Speech, Language, and
Hearing Research.
Peña, E., Quinn, R., & Iglesias, A. (1992). The application of dynamic methods
to language assessment: A nonbiased procedure. The Journal of Special Education,
26, 269–280.
Pinnell, G. S., Fried, M. D., & Estice, R. M. (1990). Reading Recovery:
Learning how to make a difference. The Reading Teacher, 43, 282–295.
Polmanteer, K. & Turbiville, V. (2000). Family-responsive individualized
family service plans for speech-language pathologists. LSHSS, 21, 4-14.
Seal, B. (2000). Working with educational interpreters. LSHSS, 31, 15-25.
Shumway, K. (1999). The effectiveness of dynamic assessment as a kindergarten
screening measure Unpublished master's thesis, University of Wyoming: Laramie.
Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of
individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21,
360–407.
Stanovich, K. E. (2000). Progress in understanding reading: Scientific
foundations and new frontiers New York: Guilford.
Staskowski, M., & Rivera, E. A. (2005). Speech-language pathologists'
involvement in responsiveness to intervention activities: A complement to
curriculum-relevant practice. Topics in Language Disorders, 25, 132–147.
Tomblin, J. B., Zhang, X., Buckwalter, P., & O'Brien, M. (2003). The stability
of primary language disorder: Four years after kindergarten diagnosis. Journal of
Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 46, 1283–1296.
Torgesen, J. K., Alexander, A. W., Wagner, R. K., Rashotte, C. A., Voeller, K.
K. S., & Conway, T. (2001). Intensive remedial instruction for children with severe
reading disabilities: Immediate and long-term outcomes from two instructional
approaches. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34, 33–58.
Troia, G. A. (2005). Responsiveness to intervention: Roles for speechlanguage pathologists in the prevention and identification of learning disabilities.
Topics in Language Disorders, 25, 106–119.
Underwood, J. & Webb, L.D. (2006). School law for teachers: Concepts and
applications. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.
Ukrainetz, T. A. (2005). What to work on how: An examination of the practice
of school-age language intervention. Contemporary Issues in Communication
Science and Disorders, 32, 108–119.
Ukrainetz, T. A. (2006). Assessment and intervention within a contextualized
skill framework. In T. A. Ukrainetz (Ed.), & Contextualized language intervention:
Scaffolding PreK–12 literacy achievement(pp. 7–58) Eau Claire, WI: Thinking
Publications.
Ukrainetz, T. A., & Fresquez, E. F. (2003). What isn't language? A qualitative
study of the role of the school speech-language pathologist. Language, Speech, and
Hearing Services in Schools, 34, 284–298.
Ukrainetz, T. A., Harpell, S., Walsh, C., & Coyle, C. (2000). A preliminary
investigation of dynamic assessment with Native American kindergartners.
Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 31, 142–153.
Ukrainetz, T. A., & Trujillo, A. (1999). "You know, I just don't know what else
you'd do?" Five SLPs' perspectives on children's literature in speech-language
intervention. Contemporary Issues in Communication Science and Disorders, 26,
35–48.
University of Alabama. (2004). Project CORE: Building a community to
reading excellence in Jefferson County Mississippi Tuscaloosa, AL: Department of
Education Early Reading First Grant.
Vaughn, S., Moody, S. W., & Schumm, J. S. (1998). Broken promises: Reading
instruction in the resource room. Exceptional Children, 64, 211–225.
Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., & Lyon, G. R. (2000). Differentiating between
difficult-to-remediate and readily remediated poor readers: More evidence against
the IQ-achievement discrepancy definition of reading disability. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 33, 223–238.
Yell, M. (2006). The law and special education. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.
Class Schedule: Textbook should
be brought to all classes Date
Topic
Required Reading
Legislative Foundations:
NCLB, IDEA 2004, 504, HIPPA,
FERPA, ADA
Early Intervening Services, RtI,
Referral, Assessment
Eligibility Guidelines and
Evaluation Reports
Chapter 10 & Section
IEP meetings and paperwork
Service Delivery Models
Chapters 1 and 2 &
Section II
Chapter 3
IEPs and Evidence-Based Practice
Chapter 4
Workload Analysis Approach
Chapter 5
School Standards
Serving Secondary Students;
Specialized Services
Serving Elementary and
Preschool; Curriculum Alignment
Title of Article (project) due
Development of
intervention/treatment plans
Case Study Lesson Plans
Case Study Lesson Plans
Continued
Parent and Student Rights
Class Project due
Professional Issues for SLPs in
the Public Schools;
Legal Considerations
Chapter 6 & Section
Chapter 7
Possible guest speake
Possible guest speake
Chapter 8
Chapter 9
Appendixes A & B
Section III
Final Exam
Course Schedule
Class #
1
Date
Topics
Presenters
Pre-class
Reading
Assignments
A) Course
Overview &
Standards B)
Special Ed.
Legislation History,
State Standards,
Role of the SLP
Chapters 1& 3
Packet: items #
4,5,6,7
A) Screening &
Chapter 7& 9
Assignments
and Quiz
Assignment 1 #1-4
Assessment
2
B) School
Psychologist‟ s
Role
3
A) A) IEP,
caseload selection,
entrance/exit
criteria
B) B) Class
Presentations
4
A) Facilitating
written and reading
language
Packet: items #
8,9,10
B) ADA and
Cultural
5
A) Response to
Intervention B)
Medicare
documentation
6
A) Service Delivery
Models,
Developing a
Relevant
Intervention
Program &
Functional
Outcome Goals
7
A) Autism
Spectrum
Disorders B) AAC,
AT
8
A) Aural
Rehabilitation
9
A) Articulation and
phonological
disorders B)
Therapy hintsbehavior
management,
reinforcement, etc.
10
A) Certification and
Licensure, Lifelong
Prof. Involvement
B) Class
Presentations
Practical
considerations for
school-based SLPs
Assignment 2
Chapters 8 & 10
B) Educational
Externship