Quiz 1 - School Aged Children

Multi-Tiered Systems of Support

- Tiered system that involves multiple levels of instruction and support aimed at meeting students’ needs and preventing academic failure

Emphasizes collaboration and problem-solving 

Involves data-based decision-making 

Uses evidence-based practices to support student progress

Universal, school wide instruction

- evidence based instruction

- proactive & preventative

- core instruction

Targeted intervention

- delivered with greater intensity than Tier 1

- Targeted and specific support for students who need help beyond Tier 1

Intensive Intervention

- Delivered with greater intensity than Tier 2

- Individually tailored for students who need support beyond Tier 2 services

offer special education for students with disabilities. Many children were excluded or treated inappropriately

passed in 1975

Required all schools receiving federal funding to provide children with disabilities equal access to education and mandated that they be placed in the least restrictive educational environment possible.

IDEA (Public Law No. 94-142).

a United States federal law that governs how states and public agencies provide early intervention, special education, and related services to children with disabilities.

 Addresses the educational needs of children with disabilities from birth to age 21 

14 specified categories of disability

it is "spending clause" legislation, meaning that it only applies to those States that accept federal funding under the IDEA. 

All states have accepted funding under this statute and are subject to it.

FAPE 

Appropriate evaluation

Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) 

Parent & student participation in decision making 

IEP 

Procedural safeguards

Fair and Appropriate Public Education

Is designed to meet the unique needs of that one student

Is provided in accordance with the Individualized Education Plan (IEP) 

Results in educational benefit to the child

That is the million dollar question

Present levels of academic achievement and functional performance

Annual academic/ functional goals

Modifications/ supplementary aids the student may need in the classroom

Statement of speech-language services – explain and justify how often services will be provided and explain the setting and group size

First case the Supreme Court interpreted IDEA

The case involved a deaf student who was an excellent lip reader and making progress in school based on the services provided. 

Her parents asked for an sign language interpreter in every class, but the school said she didn’t need one because she was doing well in school. 

Her parents countered that she could be doing better and wasn’t reaching her full potential.

The U.S. Supreme Court sided with the school, saying the law requires schools to provide a “basic floor of opportunity.” It doesn’t require them to “maximize” a child’s potential.

Minimize the number of misidentifications

Provide a variety of assessment tools and strategies

Prohibit the use of any single evaluation as the sole criterion of which a student is placed in special education services

Provide protections against evaluation measures that are racially or culturally discriminatory.

LRE refers to the setting where a child with a disability can receive an appropriate education alongside nondisabled peers to the maximum extent possible.

 The most appropriate place for a child with a disability should be a setting that most closely resembles where the child, if not disabled, would be educated

Focus on LRE underscores the law’s strong preference for educating students with disabilities in the regular education environment ---inclusion

Throughout the whole IEP and special education process parents and families should be updated and kept informed of any decisions made about their specific student. 

Parents should also be able to provide valuable input about their student to determine placement and other educational goals. 

Statement of child’s present level of performance (PLOP)

Child’s annual educational goals

Special education supports and services that the school will provide to help child reach goals

Modifications and accommodations the school will provide to help child make progress

Accommodations child will be allowed when taking standardized tests

How and when the school will measure child’s progress toward annual goals

Transition planning that prepares teens for life after high school

The right of parents to:

 Receive a complete explanation of all the procedural safeguards

Inspect and review the educational records of their child

Participate in meetings related to the provision of FAPE

Obtain an independent educational evaluation (IEE) of their child

Receive “prior written notice” on matters relating to the identification, evaluation, or placement of their child, and the provision of FAPE to their child

Give or deny their consent before the school may take certain actions

Disagree with decisions made by the school system on those issues

Use IDEA’s mechanisms for resolving disputes, including the right to appeal determinations

90 calendar days.

15 days prior

30 calendar days

Annually,

three years

Speech-language impairment is a disability category defined as:  “A communication disorder, such as stuttering, impaired articulation, a language impairment, or a voice impairment, that adversely affects a child's educational performance (IDEA, 300, A,11)

IDEA does not specify any specific test score to qualify as SLI

A student is eligible for speech-language services when all of the following all true [IDEA 2004, § 602(3)(A)]: 

a student has a speech or language impairment 

the student’s speech or language impairment has an adverse effect on educational performance 

 specially designed instruction is necessary for the student to progress in the  curriculum 

established new standards for educational accountability at the federal level. 

As the states began to implement NCLB, state government and educational leaders sought to establish standards that would raise the level of performance of students in the United States on a global level. 

These efforts led to the establishment of the Common Core State Standards composed of a uniform set of standards for education in kindergarten through 12th grade that was adopted by 42 states. 

Every Student Succeeds Act (2015)

Expectations for students to perform at a level of college and career readiness has remained in state curriculum standards. 

The main purpose of ESSA is to make sure public schools provide a quality education for all kids

Under ESSA, states get to decide the education plans for their schools within a framework provided by the federal government.

The plan must include a description of the following:

Academic standards

Annual testing

School accountability 

Goals for academic achievement

Plans for supporting and improving struggling schools

State and local report card

CCSS (or related standards) reflect the curriculum and SLP services are meant to help students with speech and language difficulties access the curriculum

SLPs have a direct role in implementing the CCSS with students who have communication disorders-and may struggle with language/literacy-and in supporting classroom teachers.

SLPs may collaborate with the educational team to work on appropriate curriculum and functional goals to help each student reach his or her individual potential.

Universal Design for Learning (UDL) is a framework to give all students an equal opportunity to succeed.

This approach to teaching and learning deliberately offers flexibility in the ways students access material and show what they know.

Emerged due to the need for a model of support for students that was more valid than the IQ-achievement discrepancy model

Originated from a 1982 National Research Council Report that offered revised criteria for special education eligibility with a greater focus on the quality of general education instruction and the effectiveness of assessment (Vaughn & Fuchs, 2003)

Influenced by Dr. Hill Walker, who reframed the medical approach in the field of community health from a focus on remediation to a focus on prevention (Swenson et al., 2017)

Under this model, students are tested for their intelligence or cognitive capacity (i.e., IQ scores), which is then compared to their achievement in varying academic areas (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2007)

This is how disabilities were identified, but there were major flaws

Failed to serve the needs of students who had academic difficulties but did not satisfy the discrepancy as such students were generally denied special education services

Did not address the needs of “slow learners” caught in between general education and special education

Students would fall further behind until the gap was significant enough for them to be identified for support: the “wait-to-fail” model

In 2004, IDEA was reauthorized and congress agreed that this format was not reliable or valid (United States Congressional Serial Set, No. 14816, Senate Reports Nos. 163–191, 2004, p. 26)

Schools were encouraged to use an alternative process to determine disabilities, specifically encouraged to use research-validated interventions as part of the evaluation process

Response to Intervention (RTI) emerged to provide immediate and focused interventions for struggling students, using data to inform ongoing decisions regarding SPED eligibility 

They are related but distinct

RTI came before MTSS and was meant to identify disabilities in a valid manner and proactively support student needs

MTSS is system-wide and focuses on improving core instruction to prevent academic difficulties from occurring

MTSS encompasses RTI

Supports and interventions can be implemented prior to a formal evaluation, but MTSS is not an extended prereferral process

MTSS and SPED have different goals

MTSS is prevention-oriented and meant to support student success by providing tiered support

SPED is meant to identify which students have disabilities and how best to design and implement educational programs to meet their unique needs

SPED programs are documented in IEPs

MTSS works in parallel with SPED and not as a feeder

Data gathered during MTSS can be useful in considering eligibility for SPED

The answer varies based on local education agencies and districts

Students do not need to formally “qualify for” or “exit from” tiers

The process is more adaptable and less linear than the process used with IEPs

MTSS system should be flexible enough for students to receive the level of support needed at the moment and responsive enough to fade or change support as needed

Students may require services at different tiers in various skill areas at different times throughout their schooling

There is no such thing as a “Tier 2 student” or a “Tier 3 student”

It may be possible to classify students with regard to a tier corresponding to their level of need for discrete skills (e.g., decoding), but it is unlikely that students will need the same level of support for all skill areas

Research (Mellard et al., 2010) on school-age tiered systems estimates

80% of students will respond satisfactorily to general instruction (Tier 1)

15% of school-age students can be adequately served through more intense intervention (Tier 2)

5% will require the most concentrated and intensive level of intervention (Tier 3)

These percentages are largely dependent on the population of students and the measures used to allocate interventions within a school district or state

SLPs should play a key role in the education of K-12 students due to their high level of expertise in language and communication (e.g., Ehren et al., 2012)

Four purposes

To collaborate with other educators to improve the quality of instructional practices related to language and literacy

To proactively support students who are at risk for failure and meet their needs in an impactful manner without relying solely on SPED

To meet the needs of students with disabilities in a more efficient and inclusive manner by integrating SLP services into general education

To provide relevant data to inform decision-making, to facilitate accurate identification of students with disabilities, and to make appropriate eligibility decisions

Units of focus: Core curriculum, instructional program, needs of groups of students

Why is data needed to make this decision?: To determine the focus for SLP Tier 1 services

Unit of focus: Identifying students from a larger group

Why is data needed to make this decision?: To determine which students need support beyond Tier 1

Unit of focus: Individual student

Why is data needed to make this decision?: To determine if the level of support is appropriate or if changes need to be made

Unit of focus: Individual student

Why is data needed to make this decision?: To determine (a) if it is appropriate to refer a student for a special education evaluation and (b) if a student is eligible for special education services

Data about students’ mastery in academic content areas related to the CCSS or other sets of standards (e.g., state level standards)

Can provide information about differences between students in terms of standard scores and percentiles

Examples: Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium, Iowa Test of Basic Skills, Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System

Strengths: 

Identify areas where students have met grade-level expectations and provide insight to educators about how their instructional approach supports students’ ability to meet grade level standards

Limitations: 

There are concerns that these assessments may be culturally-biased, are a source of stress and anxiety for students and teachers, and that teachers may be “teaching to the test,” which undermines the value of these tests

Standardized achievement tests related to academic standards

Summative assessments in classroom

Data collected in classroom during “business as usual” teaching and learning

Portfolio and work sample review

Students routinely receive final summative assessments for their performance in various subject areas

Examples: end-of-unit chapter tests, midterm or semester exams, grades on projects

Strengths: 

Authentic sources of information that have a clear relationship to student’s actual performance in school

Provide direct information about a teacher’s expectations for students in a given area

Limitations: 

Student performance may be influenced by many factors, such as stress, anxiety, and family circumstances

Educators collect a variety of data through “business as usual” teaching and learning as part of classroom routines and teaching practices

Examples: percentage of homework completed, percentage of answers correct on assignments and quizzes, quality and quantity of class participation, student attendance and tardiness

Strengths: 

Reflects the day-to-day reality and expectations of the classroom experience for students

Limitations: 

Different teachers may use varying kinds of data collection methods and may vary in how accurately and consistently they collect such data

Physical or digital, can be put together by or for students and feature work products (e.g., writing samples, class products, problem-solving examples, photos, or audio recordings) over a period of time (e.g., for a semester)

Can also contain student reflections on their own work or on their progress and goals

Examples: States, districts, and individual teachers may have rubrics or checklists that can be used to evaluate products in a student’s portfolio

Checklists can be especially appropriate to evaluate work products where multiple chronological steps are performed, such as writing samples. An example of a published checklist used to evaluate student writing is the “Writing Process and Product Worksheet” from Brookes Publishing

Classroom observations

Discussions with teachers and administrators

School surveys

Language sample analysis (LSA)

Standardized tests of speech or language skills

Screening tools related to speech and language

Data collected during tiered support provided by SLP

Can be used to gather data about the instructional program, groups of students, and individual students

Observations can take place during teacher-led instruction, small group work, or as individual students actively complete assignments

Can be unstructured (such as an SLP spending time observing the classroom without a set protocol) or structured

Examples:

General classroom environment and instruction: Classroom Environment Checklist (CEC)

Structured literacy-oriented observations: Classroom Literacy Environmental Profile (CLEP)

Classroom discussions: Low Inference Discussion Observation (LIDO) instrument

Can focus on the instructional program, groups of students, and individual students

The focus on discussions can vary based on purpose

Examples: can be casual (i.e., quick chat in the hall) or more structured, such as conversations within professional learning communities (PLCs)

Focused on students or educators, can provide insight into the school climate and instruction practices

Examples: School-wide surveys can provide observational insights into varying aspects of the school environment

SLPs may design their own surveys to get information on areas of key interest or they can use published tools

Examples of published tools to learn about school environments and bullying:

Bully Survey

Olweus Bullying Questionnaire

There is a broad consensus in the field that LSA should play a major role in assessment because it is considered a “strong evidence-based method of assessing children’s natural language” (Heilmann, 2010, p. 7)

Examples:  

Language productivity measures such as mean length of utterance (MLU), words per sentence (WPS), and clauses per sentence (CPS)

Can also be useful to see the micro and macro elements of varying discourse types (e.g., conversation, narrative, expository, persuasive)

Computerized programs for language analysis (i.e., Systematic Analysis of Language Transcripts [SALT]) allow clinicians to compare a student’s language sample to a database

Diagnostic assessment tools are designed to measure students’ speech and language skills

Allow the test administrator to compare the scores of the individual being assessed with a normative sample

Examples: Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals (CELF-5), Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals - Spanish (CELF-4 Spanish), Goldman-Fristoe Test of Articulation (GFTA-3), The Test of Written Language - Fourth Edition (TOWL-4), Test of Narrative Language-Second Edition (TNL-2), Test de Vocabulario en Imagenes Peabody (TVIP) 

Designed to be relatively brief ways to identify students who may be below age-level expectations for speech-language skills

Purpose is not to provide diagnostic information but to identify students who may require more support in particular areas

Examples: 

Boehm Test of Basic Concepts,  Preschool Language Scales—5 Screening Test, Fluharty Preschool Speech and Language Screening Edition—Second Edition, Phonological Awareness and Literacy Screening (PALS), Student Language Scale (SLS) Screener for Language & Literacy Disorders

Data on students’ performance during tiered support, which may be similar to the type of clinical data that SLPs collect as a general practice in their direct work with students with IEPs

May include frequency counts of specific targets (e.g., sound production, definitions, etc.) and the use of cues and prompts

Examples: varies based on target area but many accuracy collection forms are available

Periodic benchmarking

Allows educators to look at students’ performance and compare it to established benchmarks

Can be classified as either general outcome measures (GOMs) or curriculum-based measures (CBMs)

GOMs are designed to be reflective of student development over time in academic areas

CBMs are a type of prescriptive and standardized GOM that allow educators to monitor students’ skills in certain areas of the curriculum across the entire school year (Deno, 1985; Fuchs & Fuchs, 2011) 

Standardized administration and scoring, and involve frequent, brief, and repeated sampling on a specific task

Examples: Fountas & Pinnell Benchmark Assessment Systems, Computerized screening tools such as FastBridge Learning and i-Ready

Strengths: 

Can contain drafts of work products over time to show growth visibly

Provide a natural context for students to be reflective on their progress and their own strengths and weaknesses

Limitations:

Students may need supervision to assemble meaningful portfolios and this process can be time-consuming

Some students receive more guidance (e.g., help from parents) on their portfolios than others

Strengths: 

Provide authentic information about the classroom or school environment and focus on the daily experiences of key stakeholders

Limitations: 

May be context-dependent (e.g., an observation carried out after lunch may yield a different impression than an observation first thing in the morning), so caution must be applied

Strengths: 

Allow SLPs to benefit from the insights of other educators and can serve as a foundation for a good relationship based on the ideas of trust and mutual respect

Research (e.g., Harris, 2010; Schussler, 2009) shows that teachers have a good sense of the strengths and weaknesses of their students as well as their instructional programs

Limitations: 

Scheduling time to meet and talk with other educators can be challenging and many logistical issues may need to be discussed (e.g., bell schedules, transportation issues, discipline), which may distract from a focus on issues of student instructional achievement, progress, and learning strategies

Strengths: 

Can provide a large base of opinions that are helpful in understanding the larger environment on a day-to-day basis

May facilitate gaining the perspectives of many people in a time-efficient and anonymous manner

Limitations:

The usefulness of surveys may be limited by low completion rates or rushed responses

Surveys may not provide nuanced information and may highlight the experiences of the majority over unique perspectives

Strengths:

Can provide authentic information about students’ language use in a manner that avoids the decontextualization of standardized measures

SLPs can collect language samples multiple times to monitor progress over time (Rojas & Iglesias, 2009)

Appropriate tool for evaluating multilingual speakers as it can provide a context for the comparison of skills in multiple languages

Limitations:

SLPs report finding LSA time-consuming and challenging (Heilmann, 2010)

Strengths: 

Allow a direct comparison of a student’s performance to a normed sample

Designed to highlight strengths and weaknesses from a developmental perspective

Limitations:

Static measures designed to provide information about a student’s skills at a given point in time and cannot capture incremental change over short periods of time

Diagnostic accuracy testing (i.e., specificity and sensitivity) information is not always provided and may vary

Issues related to reliability and validity, especially with culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds

In general, standardized tests have limited utility in planning functional, educationally-relevant services (Foster, 2018)

Strengths 

Can generally be administered quickly, which may allow SLPs to identify students who may be at risk in a consistent and time efficient manner

Limitations 

Screenings are not designed to be diagnostic and may not be culturally sensitive

Few tools are considered efficient for mass screenings of language when issues related to specificity and sensitivity are taken into account

Strengths:

Allow for repeated sampling of student performance via standardized procedures so a student’s performance at multiple points in time can be compared (Fuchs et al., 1989; Hall-Mills, 2018).

Can be used flexibly in that they can be administered to all students for benchmarking purposes and to certain groups of students when more frequent progress monitoring is needed

Limitations

To provide useful data, need to be administered repeatedly, which may be time-consuming

May require specific training to gather and interpret data, may be expensive or require a subscription

Validity of any progress monitoring tool depends, to a certain degree, on the contexts in which progress was assessed (Gillam & Justice, 2010)

Prevention

Assessment

Intervention

Program design

Data collection and analysis

Compliance