PUBLISHED BY THE NEW JERSEY ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGISTSEDITOR: Janet Burdsall, CO-EDITOR: Sol HeckelmanWinter 2017

President’s MessageBy Stephanie Frasier

Why is there so much con-flict? Remember when you were a child and you thought life was fair and people were judged by their character? Your parents made you share your most prized possession, whether it was your bike or a Barbie. Inviting kids from your neighbor-hood into your home was expected. You were lectured to “treat others as you would like to be treated.” “The innocence of children is what makes them stand out as a shining example to the rest of Mankind” (Kurt Chambers). As I watch the news with the protests and polit-ical ads, I worry about how chil-dren perceive this state of affairs. The fear and uncertainty they much feel. I can’t help but notice the contradiction between the ide-als with which we grew up and our actions as adults.

Dr. Seuss was my moral com-pass. I learned about the envi-ronment in The Lorax and about discrimination in The Star Belly Sneetches. Now I find myself re-ferring to Horton Hears a Who. To quote Horton, the elephant: “A person’s a person, no matter how small. Everyone matters, and everyone’s voice deserves to be heard. Whether you are 8 or 88, blue, orange, and elephant or a Who, we can all learn something

from each other. Everyone de-serves the right to be heard.” As adults and as educators we are cre-ating the world for the next gener-ation and we know children model what they see, not what we say. Knowing this, I encourage you to model actions which will cre-ate the world you want your chil-dren to live in. “Education is the most powerful weapon which you use to change the world” (Nelson Mandela). As educators, we have the power to change the world for the better.

As the excitement of the elec-tion winds down and the debates continue, I worry we are focusing on our disagreements and differ-ences, not on our similarities and common goals. I agree we have political differences among us, but we share the same goals: clean air and water, food, safe neighbor-hoods, quality education, a fair work environment, health care, and a home. In working with children, who are the future, I encourage you to think and talk about our com-monalities, with a goal for every-one to achieve our common goals. What an amazing world it would be if everyone had clean air and water, food, safe neighborhoods, quality education, a fair work envi-ronment, health care, and a home.

The adult child in me continues to believe that people are good and that we should strive to make things better for everyone, not just for ourselves. When I am frus-trated with politics, I refer to Eric Handler, who said, “Imagine a world if we all looked at others and saw the innocent child in them we all once were.” I encourage you to look to your inner child and solve your problems with the innocence of a child.

PSYCHOLOGISTSCHOOL The

New Jersey

TABLE OF CONTENTS

President’s Message ...................... 1

NJASP Consults with NJDOE Stakeholders ................................2

State Systemic Improvement Plan ......3Who Said School Psychologists Should Be Change Agents? ............4 Leveraging the Movement towards

RTI Implementation .......................5

Response to Intervention ................6

School Psychologists and Mental Health ...........................................8

Collaboration with NJ Dept. of Children and Families ................10

Is It Dyslexia? ..............................11

Early Childhood Assessments ......13Evaluation, Identification,

Eligibility .....................................14

References ....................................19

2

THE NEW JERSEY SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGIST

NJASP Consults with NJ-DOE Stakeholderby Sol Heckelman

As part of its mission to support the full development of our chil-dren academically, cognitively, so-cially, and emotionally, NJASP is currently an active member of two NJ Dept. of Education (NJDOE) responses to federal education legislation. One of these is recent and relatively short-term: Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), the latest revision of such legislation. The other is ongoing. Below are two reports presented to the NJASP Executive Board. They are brief summaries of these activities as of late November. Both NJASP and NJDOE are interested in comments and shared experience from active practitioners. Please address your observations to: Sol Heckelman sandyhecno1@aol.com

Every Student Succeeds. This

stakeholder group has met four times since September, with plans to meet two or three times more. This report is a summary, with fo-cus on what seems more relevant to SPs.

We have been looking at what data should be submitted by schools for Performance Reports and Accountability Measures. The idea is to pinpoint what would be necessary to provide a good picture of student progress (including ob-stacles) and identify which schools will require support, while not un-necessarily burdening schools with an overage of paperwork and re-cord-keeping. All indicators must be evidence-based.

Among Performance Report measures newly required under

ESSA and not currently on reports: enrollment in preschool, disag-gregation by poverty level, expul-sions, school-related arrests, law enforcement referrals, and violent incidents (including bullying and harassment). Among the measures identified so far in our discussions include: access to nurses, social workers and to guidance counsel-ors [I pointed out why SPs should be listed], chronic absenteeism, drop-out rate (discussion of advis-ability of 5- and 6-year graduations and how to measure them, and of some administrators’ push for IEP students to graduate with their age/grade cohorts), and training for families, accountability subgroups enumerated: economically disad-vantaged, major racial and ethnic groups, children with disabilities, and English learners. There was much discussion of the appropri-ate minimum size of accountability subgroups. Guidelines we were given: large enough to be easily reported to accurately indicate any trends, provide reliable data; small enough so that all students are ac-counted for and served. Among other things, folks had various statements re statistical reliability. It occurred to this author that any group size is arbitrary, and that all numbers have dispersion char-acteristics. So I suggested that we set the minimum subgroup size low (say, at 10, the lowest number be-ing considered), since that would provide the better differentiation.

One of the reasons is that a minimum number is just that. It doesn’t preclude a larger number where warranted/available, and en-sures that smaller groupings would be visible. As to the statistical re-liability concern: rather than set

one cutoff (which is arbitrary), re-port the standard deviations, confi-dence levels, probabilities, etc. for all groups/sizes reported. This will give readers a sense of the relative weights to give to all reported data, and enable us to get some sense of a groups’ functioning with relative-ly less reliable data. We would then also have that more limited infor-mation to provide a rough idea of the subgroups’ performance, while keeping in mind their less solid ba-sis. This would require some orien-tation/training.

A number of suggestions con-tained coordinated elements. Here are the two more directly related to school psychologists. NJEA: Based on an Indicator Index which includes six sections, recognizing that no one indicator can possibly measure everything pertaining to a school’s quality. Two of the sec-tions: supports and engagements, safe and healthy schools. And a particular emphasis on socioeco-nomic factors.

NJ Alliance for Social, Emo-tional and Character Development: School climate measures in support of using a school climate percep-tion assessment for Performance Reports. Research was shared as to how positive school climate de-creases absenteeism, suspensions, and violent behavior, and increases academic success.

The October 26 semi-annual (approx.) meeting is under the re-sponsibility of NJ Office of Special Education Programs (NJOSEP). The session included a segment on NJ Tiered Systems of Support (NJTSS), on which a committee of the NJASP Executive Board has

3

WINTER EDITION 2017

been working on its own and with NJDOE to promote NJTSS. NJ-DOE’s website has lots of informa-tion (see NJTSS. You can also ask questions).

The session also included a re-view of Positive Behavior Supports in Schools (PBSIS). There were reviews of the PBSIS training pro-vided to schools, Function-Based Problem Solving, and post-train-ing assessment. We also reviewed NJDOE’s Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) efforts. Most of our time was spent on several indica-tors (i.e., of student/school prog-ress).

The USDOE and therefore NJDOE are now ruled by Results Driven Accountability (RDA). The December 2004 revision of IDEA required that by December 2005 each state must have in place a performance plan evaluating the state’s implementation of Part B and describing how the state will improve such implementation. In addition, each state reports annual-ly its performance in meeting SPP targets. That’s the reason for these continuing stakeholder meetings, a good part of which is spent review-ing data and considering whether the goals set are still appropriate or need to be revised.

The USDOE continues to use both results and compliance data in rating each state’s efforts and results. The RDA Matrix they use consists of both a variety of scores re Compliance and (process, or how you get to) The six Compli-

State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSP) Stakeholders includes State Performance Plan(SPP and Annual Performance Report (APR)

By Sol Heckelmanance Indicators on which the state is being monitored for Correction of Findings of Noncompliance identified in Federal Fiscal year 2013 (10/1/12 - 9/30/13) include the following:

• Significant discrepancy, by race and ethnicity, in rates of suspen-sion and expulsion, and policies, procedures or practices that con-tribute to the significant discrep-ancy and do not comply with specified requirements (4B).

• Disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related ser-vices due to inappropriate identi-fication (9).

• Disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in spe-cific disability categories due to inappropriate identification (10).

• Timely initial evaluation (11)• IEP developed and implemented

by third birthday (12).• Secondary transition (13).

All six were rated as Full Cor-rection. Scores of 0, 1, and 2 are given. Five Indicators were given the maximum score of 2. Only Secondary Transition (Indicator 13) was scored 1 (data reflect be-tween 75% and 95% compliance).

We reviewed Accountability percentages and scores for 4th and 8th grade Reading and Math As-sessments for children with disabil-ities, broken out by participation and NAEP levels, as well as exiting data for children with disabilities who dropped out or graduated with a regular high school diploma.

A table listing public high school 4-year adjusted cohort grad-uation rates, by race/ethnicity and selected demographics for 2014-15 was reviewed. NJ was 2nd in Total Score, behind only Iowa, and 2nd in Students With Disabilities, be-hind only Arkansas. However, for the latter, there was a substantial gap between general and special education. For all the other sub-groups, NJ was well above the US average.

There was a lengthy discussion regarding the State Identified Mea-surable Result for the 5-year grad-uation rate for students with IEPs. We looked for targets which would continually stretch the state’s and districts’ efforts while also seem-ing attainable. Here are the group’s previously established targets for five Federal Fiscal Years (Oct 1 - Sep 30 of the ending date): Base-line 2013 (2012-13) = 80%. 2014 = 81% (Actual 80.4%), 2015 = 82%, 2016 = 83%, 2017 = 84%, 2018 = 85%. NJOSEP is reviewing all in-put and will get back to us with a consensus.

A final perspective applies to other efforts in this context: NJTSS is being developed and applied as an overall umbrellas in these efforts. NJTSS is viewed as bringing together general and spe-cial education. It’s on the NJDOE website, as noted earlier, and in-cludes Universal Design for Learn-ing as well as PBSIS.A catchy guiding concept that was offered: “The Best Tier 3 is a Great Tier 1.”

4

THE NEW JERSEY SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGIST

The following President’s address was printed in the fall 1973 -1974, School Psychology in New Jersey (NJASP Journal), vol. 15, no.1. His message seems as relevant today as it did in 1973.

Who Said School Psychologists Should Be Change Agents? By Martin M. Brody

Once upon a time there was a school psychologist by the name of Speedy G. Wexler who worked for the Cozy Corners School System. When Speedy was hired, there was an enormous backlog of referrals for evaluation. But Speedy was such an efficient psychologist that he, along with other members of the Child Study Team, quickly stud-ied all the children in the district, classified all who were classifiable, and recommended appropriate ed-ucational placement. Speedy was delighted, because now he could turn his efforts toward changing the school system so that it would become more humanistic and more responsive to the individual needs of its students.

He provided in-service train-ing to teachers, became a member of the Administrative Council and planned workshops which helped bring the community and school together in a common effort to develop a better educational sys-tem. Eventually, his efforts were rewarded: he found that more and more students were being ef-fectively taught, and less and less were being referred for evaluation. Finally, no more referrals were re-ceived because the school system was so good it could deal with the educational needs of its children without evaluation by the Child Study Team.

The State Dept. of Education, upon hearing the news that there were no longer any handicapped [disabled -- Ed.] children in Cozy Corners, promptly informed Speedy’s superintendent that the salaries of the members of the Child Study Team would no longer be reimbursed. [There was a time when 50% of CST salaries were State-reimbursed -- Ed.] Speedy waved a fond farewell to Cozy Corners, sad but wiser. While the preceding parable is far-fetched, it does point to a dilemma which many school psychologists are now facing or will face in the near fu-ture. The dilemma is caused by the fact that the diagnosis “hand-icapped” [disabled -- Ed.] is in many cases a function of deficien-cies in the educational system. As the educational system becomes more flexible and enlightened in meeting the different needs of all children, the necessity for classifi-cation decreases. However, school psychologists who spend their time trying to make their school system more flexible and enlightened are technically not complying with the intent of the Beadleston Law which does not define their role beyond classification and prescriptive ef-forts with “handicapped” children.

A way out of this predicament is for NJASP to take the initiative in proposing new legislation defin-ing the role of the school psychol-

ogist more broadly. Such initiative is a high priority of our Legisla-tive Committee. However, while I strongly believe that our Associ-ation should help its membership become effective change agents, I do not think that legislation alone will do the job unless there is a commitment on our part as school psychologists to participate in making the schools more human-istic. I am not certain that such a commitment exists; my doubts are prompted by the following:

1. How many of us are in real-ity satisfied with the role of iden-tifying, evaluating, and classifying children?

2. How many of us want change, but are afraid of what change will mean with respect to the role and status of the school psychologist?

3. How many of us would like change, but don’t know what changes should take place in the schools?

4. How many of us want change, but have been frustrated, because we lack the power to effect change?

Perhaps I am unduly pessimis-tic; I hope this is the case. But I have heard a lot of high-sounding talk from school psychologists about what they would like to do in the schools, and a lot of excuses why they can’t do it.

5

WINTER EDITION 2017

Leveraging the Movement towards RTI Implementation in New Jersey to Transform the Role of the School Psychologist

By Caitlin Colandrea

Shifting away from the reac-tive approach. Over the course of my career, I’ve come to realize that the severe-discrepancy model has largely dictated the role of the school psychologist in New Jersey. The majority of school psycholo-gists pursue the profession because they have a desire to help children to reach their full potential. Cur-rently, I am working as a Supervi-sor of Intervention Services for a large public school district where my primary responsibility is to im-plement a district-wide Response to Intervention (RTI) framework. Pre-viously, I worked as a school psy-chologist in the same district with an average caseload of approxi-mately 80 students, kindergarten through eighth grade. Over 50% of the students on my caseload were classified under the category of Specific Learning Disability (SLD).

When I reflect on my experi-ence as a school psychologist, I realize that the discrepancy mod-el forces us to take a reactive ap-proach to advocacy for many of our students. In other words, if I truly wanted to advocate for some of the students who were classified SLD, it would have required me to advocate for those students pri-or to them “falling behind.” In my current role, I am able to advocate for all students by creating systems which address student needs from the start. RTI is not only a solution for preventing students from fall-ing behind through remediation, but also a solution for school psy-

chologists in New Jersey to utilize our training to the fullest extent possible.

School psychologists can do what?! I’ve heard many of my school psychologist colleagues ex-press, “nobody really knows what we do.” Much of our skillset is grossly underutilized. School psy-chologists receive training on as-sessment, counseling techniques, consultation, program evaluation, child development, crisis interven-tion, school administration, educa-tional strategies and interventions, law and ethics, behavioral inter-ventions and much more. The field of school psychology as a whole is one of continual progression and development. For example, school psychologists have extensive back-ground knowledge of Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS) and recognize the value of prevention through intervention. However, most school psychologists in New Jersey spend a significant amount of their time conducting psycho-logical evaluations and writing IEPs. Rather than maintaining the status quo of our profession, how can we begin to utilize all of our training in order to have the great-est impact on the students?

Response to Intervention in New Jersey provides school psy-chologists with an opportunity to change the perception of our role in New Jersey. The NJDOE has recently launched our state pre-vention model called, New Jer-

sey Tiered System of Supports (NJTSS). Subsequently, many districts throughout the state are now seeking to implement MTSS or RTI. In my current role, I have led the charge to implement RTI in twelve elementary schools and two middle schools. This venture has allowed me to embrace other skill-sets that I have gained as a school psychologist, and conduct program evaluations to create system-level change.

School psychologists are ex-perts in using data to inform deci-sions. The application of this skill to program evaluation is what helps us to understand if our programs actually work. RTI also allows for school psychologists to share in the value of consultation and collabo-ration. Through an RTI framework, schools psychologists can consult with classroom teachers about stu-dents who need academic and/or behavioral interventions. The goal is to intervene as early as possible in a proactive way, rather than rely-ing on a reactive approach. School psychologists should work collabo-ratively through the problem-solv-ing process as consultants, and approach the consultant/consultee relationship within an organized and systematic format. School psychologists can help to educate others within the school setting on collecting appropriate data, setting target goals and implementing ev-idence-based interventions. The collaborative problem-solving pro-cess can help to enhance the skills

6

THE NEW JERSEY SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGIST

and knowledge of all involved; it thereby contributes to the outlook that “all students are our students.”

How can we advocate for our profession? School psychologists have a responsibility to maintain professional competence and to ap-ply current research into practice. Organizations such as the New Jer-sey Association of School Psychol-ogists (NJASP) and National As-sociation of School Psychologists (NASP) continue to highlight the multiple roles that school psychol-ogists play in our schools today. However, it is imperative that we share our skills and training while actively promoting our profession to others. As school psychologists, we should:

1. Present to key stakeholders in districts on program evaluation and as to how school psychologists can help make informed decisions to increase the likelihood of suc-cessful RTI implementation.

2. Embrace collaborative con-sultation through the problem-solv-ing process.

3. Offer to present professional development workshops on MTSS, RTI, data-based decision making and/or evidence-based interven-tions to showcase how school psy-chologists can serve in many roles.

4. Leverage any opportunity to utilize all of your skills and train-ing.

Dr. Caitlin Colandrea, Psy.D., NCSP is currently Supervisor of Intervention Services for the Old Bridge twp, NJ Pub-lic Schools.

continued from page 5 Response to Intervention within the Interventionand Referral Services System

By Eli Freund

The New Jersey Administra-tive Code (N.J.A.C.) outlines what school districts must do in order to identify students at risk for ac-ademic failure. Prior to taking ac-tion under the special education code (6A:14), school districts are required to follow the provisions of 6A:16, which are less compre-hensive than those mandated under 6A:14 (and might logically have been described first). N.J.A.C. 6A:16, subchapter 8 mandates In-tervention and Referral Services (I&RS). The Code specifically states that each school shall im-plement “a coordinated system for planning and delivering inter-vention and referral services de-signed to assist students who are experiencing learning, behavior, or health difficulties, and to assist staff who have difficulties in ad-dressing students’ learning, behav-ior or health needs” [i]. The code requires that if, after I&RS services have been provided, there is clear evidence that the interventions and strategies have been ineffec-tive within the general education system, the student should then be referred to the child study team [ii]

As a school psychologist work-ing in a middle school, I encoun-tered many students who had an IEP but probably needed only in-terventions and strategies within the general education program. Although in my district (as well as others) school psychologists do not participate in the I&RS committee, I believed that it was important for

psychologists to sit in on the com-mittee. I therefore proposed inte-grating a Response to Intervention function into the existing I&RS system. The superintendent ap-proved my proposal and assigned me to the new job title of I&RS and Section 504 Coordinator. In this new role I was able to reshape the I&RS process. Since the New Jersey Administrative Code re-quires an I&RS committee, I still kept the name, even though I would have preferred to call it the RTI (Response to Intervention) com-mittee. For Tier 1, the teacher was completely responsible for strate-gies and interventions in the whole group setting. I always encour-aged teachers to think about Uni-versal Design for Learning (UDL) and differentiated instruction. Teachers kept data binders which included running records, infor-mative and formative assessments, work samples and anecdotal notes. When a teacher believed that the classroom strategies were not con-tributing to student success, the teacher would complete and sub-mit a questionnaire for I&RS com-mittee review. I then reviewed the case, conducted a classroom obser-vation and perused the data binder. If the teacher was able to demon-strate that appropriate data were taken and analyzed, and the student did indeed need more support, the case was brought to the attention of the I&RS committee. The I&RS committee consisted of the follow-ing people:

• I&RS Coordinator

7

WINTER EDITION 2017

• Referring Teacher• General Education Teacher• Special Education Teacher• Guidance Counselor• Child Study Team Member• Parent• Student (If applicable)

The committee would review the documentation and discuss the student’s strengths and weakness-es. Once the committee identified these areas, targeted interventions were identified. An action plan was developed which identified the targeted concern, and proposed an operational intervention within an attainable time line (e.g., Simone will be able to read 10 cvc words independently 8 out of 10 times for the next two weeks). The teach-er would conduct the targeted in-tervention within the small group time of the class; if the student was still experiencing difficulty and was not responding to the in-terventions, the I&RS commit-tee would then identify the need for specific targeted intervention.

My district has reading spe-cialists who would also provide instruction for no more than two students at a time. These “interven-tionists” would provide assistance two to three times a week for thirty minutes on the targeted concern. They would conduct a baseline as-sessment and then graph a trajecto-ry. Throughout the weeks, the in-terventionist would graph the data and determine if the student was making progress towards the goal and, if not, change the intervention and mark the change on the graph. The I&RS committee would re-view the action plan after six weeks and discuss the student’s progress.

If the student had not made any progress, the committee would re-fer the student to the Child Study Team. However, if the student was making progress, the intervention-ist would continue with the service and regroup after six weeks. At this point, the committee would have the interventionist generalize the strategies into the small group and consult with the teacher.

The goal is to have the stu-dent integrate and generalize the strategies into the classroom. The action plan and frequent meetings ensured that yet another student would not be lost in the shuffle or placed unnecessarily into a special education classroom. Parents are also part of the process, allowing them to see what steps schools take to ensure their child suc-ceeds, as well as to identify strat-egies they can implement at home.

I believe that my training as a school psychologist, as well as pro-fessional development and experi-ence, allowed me to be an agent of change in a system that had un-necessarily directed most at risk students to special education. The new procedures adopted in my dis-trict have promoted accountability and data- based decision making. These procedures have also en-sured that students receive services in an environment that is no more restrictive than state law might re-quire. Teachers, administrators and parents were happy with the new procedures, since they identified interventions which could be de-veloped within the general educa-tion environment. School psychol-ogists are often frustrated when students are referred to them prior

to receiving any supportive inter-ventions from their school districts. Multi – Tiered Systems of Supports (MTSS), as outlined in this article, allow school psychologists to be-come more integral to pre-referral process and improve outcomes for students in need of timely interven-tion. [i] N.J.A.C. 6A:16 – 8.1(a) [ii] N.J.A.C. 6A:14 – 3.3 (a) 3i

Eli Freund is currently serves as Su-pervisor of Special Education in South Plainfield, NJ public schools. Prior to that he served as a Supervisor of Child Study Team, I&RS Coordinator and School Psy-chologist for 10 years in Lakewood, NJ.

8

THE NEW JERSEY SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGIST

School Psychologists and Mental Health: Early Intervention and TreatmentBy Sol B. Heckelman

The following article was prompted by an interest in under-scoring to the professional and general communities the supports which school psychologists of-fer to children across the range of general and special education. The editor of Common Ground, which is electronically circulated to professionals, families, and oth-er advocates, had been gracious in printing the article in its entirety. If you do not yet subscribe to CG, we think you’ll find it worthwhile. Questions/comments: sandyhec-no1@aol.com

Among the many important and enlightening articles to be found over the years in Common Ground, the Sept 2016 issue fea-tured Mental Health and Special Education: Early Intervention and Treatment for Childhood Mental Illness. The publication is to be commended for highlighting this crucial aspect of children’s growth and development. As we all know, children’s social and emotional health is an essential key to their cognitive and academic success; in fact, disturbances in such func-tioning are typically intertwined in learning disabilities, either as causes or as complicating conse-quences, or as the primary factor in a child’s special needs. The ar-ticle and a companion article both appropriately note the value of collaboration among the schools and broader community settings and services: What Can You Do to Support Children and Adoles-cents with Mental Health Issues? suggests that “Friends and fami-ly can be important influences to

help someone get the mental health treatment and services they need.” The earlier article comments: “The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) promotes the use of schools in promoting access to health care for students not receiving this care elsewhere.”

However, the following state-ment in the same article, while well-meaning, indicates a lack of knowledge, in two vital respects, as to how schools and our staff (teach-ers and specialized support person-nel) actually function:

“The American Academy of Pediatrics is calling on schools to establish a multidisciplinary stu-dent support team that includes school nurses, school counselors, and school physicians to provide interventions for students identi-fied with a mental health problem.”

First: As school staff and many family and other communities know, schools have a long history of multidisciplinary support teams. (Perhaps too many overlapping teams in some settings.)

Second: The recommended support team has two glaring omis-sions. As important as the proposed team disciplines are, there is no mention anywhere of School So-cial Workers or of School Psychol-ogists. (Full disclosure: I am a Past President of the NJ Association of School Psychologists [NJASP] and a longtime member of its Executive Board.)

These two disciplines are, in

fact, the most highly and specifi-cally trained of all school staff in providing interventions and sup-ports for emotionally or behavior-ally needy children and their fam-ilies, both in general and special education settings. School Social Workers, of course, along with their counseling and consultation skills, are prime practitioners in coordinating family and commu-nity involvement with school func-tioning, in the interest of children’s mental health.

Permit me to focus on the roles of School Psychologists, as the dis-cipline which integrates in its train-ing cognitive, academic, and per-sonal/social functioning of children in order to maximize their success. Understanding both educational and mental health development and needs blends a unique perspective which allows School Psychologists to provide comprehensive assess-ment, intervention and support for the whole child.

Crucially, such training and skills are not limited to the individ-ual child or even to an individual classroom. By virtue of their liv-ing within the school communi-ty, School Psychologists become aware of the school as an organiza-tion, and of the talents and strengths which various staff members of-fer. Recommendations are fine-tuned so that learning and teaching styles, and personality patterns, complement each other. Thus, in-terlocking supports throughout the entire school organization become mutually reinforcing for the chil-dren’s benefit.

9

WINTER EDITION 2017

School Psychologists are well-known, along with the rest of the Child Study Team, for assessing children as to whether they qual-ify for special education instruc-tion and settings. However, this “gatekeeper to special education” Child Study Team function is — or should be — only a step, albeit a very important one, down a road begun much earlier.

Collaborative interventions in general education settings, when indications of a child’s nonopti-mal functioning first begin to be noticed by classroom teacher or parents, is the most efficient and productive application of support staff time. Such efforts often re-sult in highlighting children’s pat-terns of strengths, both academic and personal/social, so that they can improve their functioning, re-main productive and retain their social competence with peers in their regular classrooms. Relevant school staff and outside consultants should be accessed as needed.

This Response To Intervention (RTI) process has more recently been augmented as a MultiTiered System of Support (MTSS) in many states. Here in New Jersey, it’s been tweaked into what is called NJTSS. The NJ Dept. of Educa-tion (NJDOE) has been developing guidelines for this for a while now. Along with other sources, NJASP has been working closely with NJ-DOE in this respect. (This isn’t the place for extensive discussion of that effort.)

School Psychologists are prime players in the several stages of the NJTSS process, applying their psy-choeducational skills in clinical ob-

servation, informal assessment and classroom management in collabo-ration with other staff and family. They provide recommendations for instruction and social supports, and follow-up, as well as implementing social/behavioral programs when needed.

If the initial level of NJTSS support efforts is not sufficient-ly successful, the team (including parents) then moves, in stages, to more intensive programming and supports. By the time some chil-dren have not benefited sufficiently at a third level of intensity, they can then be assessed more formally to investigate what other types of in-struction or settings might be more beneficial.

The initial question is not El-igibility for Special Education. It is: what are a child’s patterns of strengths and weaknesses, and what programs/supports can be collaboratively maximized in order to take advantage of such potential? The smaller number of children for whom such efforts have not been sufficiently successful may then be found to benefit from a more re-strictive instructional setting.

With respect specifically to mental health, NJASP has devel-oped a formal statement on The Role of the School Psychologist in Behavior Assessment and Consul-tation. Some excerpts:

“The…School Psychologist…collaborates with other profes-sionals using the problem-solv-ing model to look at all pieces of data in order to inform a picture of the ‘whole child’….Compre-hensive evaluation of behavior…

includes(s) internal and external factors as well as learning and cognitive data….Both the anteced-ents and consequences are exam-ined in order to understand why a behavior occurs in a particular en-vironmental context….Social-emo-tional assessment – including an evaluation of thoughts, emotions, and interpersonal relationships….input from parents, student, and teachers….

“Behavioral intervention should be conducted at multiple levels of service and for all[emphasis in original] students….behavioral in-terventions should be made to pro-mote positive behaviors, preven-tion of inappropriate behavior and social/emotional learning.”

What mental health services do School Psychologists in New Jer-sey actually provide? Presented be-low are excerpts from a statewide survey of its membership conduct-ed by NJASP in 2013. These are functions reported by approximate-ly 1/4 – 2/3 of respondents as ac-tivities in which they engage very frequently:

advocate for children’s mental health, consult and collaborate at individual/family/group systems levels, monitor progress of student behavioral outcomes, provide di-rect counseling, and school crisis teams.

In addition to these functions, approximately 1/4 – 2/3 of these same respondents expressed the de-sire to apply their skills even more broadly in the following ways, giv-en the time and opportunity: design and deliver programs which devel-op effective behaviors, develop and implement school climate practic-

10

THE NEW JERSEY SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGIST

es, evaluate implementation and outcomes of behavioral and mental health interventions, and provide a continuum of mental health ser-vices NJASP incorporates such direction from active practitioners of school psychology, along with its own initiatives, via professional development in semiannual state-wide and regional conferences, in which mental health issues and practices have been a focus. Well-known evidence-based programs such as Positive Behavior Supports in the Schools, Social-Emotional Learning, and Restorative Practic-es, as well as lesser known but pro-ductive techniques, have been fea-tured. As it happens, the keynote address by Dr. Maurice Elias at this year’s (Dec 2016) Winter Confer-ence is titled: ESSA, School Cli-mate, and Social-Emotional Com-petence and Character….What role can and should school psycholo-gists play…?

Starting this past June (2016), NJASP President Stephanie Frasi-

er has been leading an after-hours informal networking series. Open to anyone, it has also attracted Learning Consultants, classroom teachers and administrators. Top-ics are chosen by the participants, with mental health drawing exten-sive discussion. It might be instruc-tive to conclude with comments of two School Psychologists from two different public school dis-tricts regarding their experiences addressing students’ mental health (personal correspondence):

“…School psychologists are on the frontline of mental health, espe-cially our young adults who suffer from anxiety, depression, bipolar, social anxiety, and other related psychiatric needs. In fact, the ex-ecutive functioning of these student learners is where School Psychol-ogists make the most progress, es-pecially with a myriad of supports, [e.g.], counseling, crisis interven-tion, consult[ing] with psychia-trist, etc. What’s more…without the data school Psychologists pro-vide, the psychiatrists are [insuf-

ficiently] informed to effectively support the youngster because…the account[s] from parents don’t mirror the students’ presentation in school.” (Jacqueline Persico)

“I have…found TONS [caps in original] of opportunities to work in classrooms preventatively or to help with an issue on topics includ-ing stress, mental health wellness, attendance, study skills, strategies for managing emotions — particu-larly anger, how to listen, respect for others, how to create a safe space for debates, etc. (Amanda Montani)

Common Ground Editor’s Note: In our original article, Mental Health and Special Education: Early Intervention and Treatment for Childhood Mental Illness, Common Ground referenced the Ameri-can Academy of Pediatrics recommenda-tion for multidisciplinary student support teams, including school counselors. We agree that this generic reference did not detail the important role that school social workers, guidance counselors, and school psychologists can play in the identifica-tion and treatment of students with mental health disorders.

continued from page 9

Collaboration with NJ Dept. of Children and Families Division of Children’s System of CareBy Elizabeth Manley

The New Jersey Department of Children and Families – Children’s System of Care (CSOC) is respon-sible for overseeing the public sys-tem of providers who serve chil-dren with emotional and behavioral health care challenges, children under the age of 21 with develop-mental disabilities, and youth up to age 18 with substance use chal-lenges. CSOC is committed to pro-viding these services based on the needs of the child and family in a family-centered, community-based

environment. Services available through CSOC are authorized with-out regard to income, private health insurance or eligibility for Medic-aid/NJ FamilyCare or other health benefits programs. Families with private insurance or other means may choose to access services out-side of the public system.

The Children’s System of Care’s primary objectives are to help youth succeed:

• At home, successfully living with their families and reducing the need for out-of-home treatment settings

• In school, successfully attending the least restrictive and most ap-propriate school setting close to home; and

• In the community, successfully participating in the community and becoming independent, pro-ductive, and law-abiding citizens.

11

WINTER EDITION 2017

CSOC offers a statewide con-tinuum of care, which includes care management, mobile response and stabilization services, peer/fami-ly support, in-community services (e.g., outpatient and in home ther-apy), as well as a range of residen-tial services of varying intensities.

The single portal for access to all services available through CSOC is the Contracted System Administrator (CSA) for the chil-dren’s system. PerformCare, a member of AmeriHealth Caritas, is the current Contracted System Administrator for the children’s system. For information about ser-vices available through CSOC, the public may contact PerformCare at 877-652-7624 or visit http://www.performcarenj.org/. Information about CSOC is available at http://www.state.nj.us/dcf/about/divi-sions/dcsc/.

Among the vital resources available through CSOC are Mo-bile Response and Stabilization Services (MRSS). MRSS are a system of time limited, clinically based interventions available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year to youth who are ex-

periencing escalating emotional symptoms, behaviors, traumatic circumstances which have com-promised or impacted the youth’s ability to function at their baseline. An initial MRSS intervention can be delivered at the site of the cri-sis within 1 hour of a request. Fol-low-up MRSS, which includes ap-propriate service implementation, may last up to 8 weeks.

The Family Support Organiza-tions (FSO) offers support to fam-ilies of children with behavioral health, substance and intellectual and developmental disabilities. The FSO coaches, assists and sup-ports families as they access care for their child and assists caregivers in advocating in their schools and communities as well as with local agencies and other service pro-viders and system partners. FSOs facilitate both educational oppor-tunities for caregivers and support group. FSOs have a presence in all 21 counties.

For additional CSOC data, please view the Commissioner’s Dashboard and the Children’s In-terAgency Coordinating Council (CIACC) Summary of Activity

reports on the DCF Continuous Quality Improvement webpage, http://www.state.nj.us/dcf/childda-ta/continuous/index.html.

Elizabeth Manley, L.S.W., and M.S.W. from Rutgers U (New Bruns-wick), is DCF Asst Commissioner for NJ’s Children’s System of Care, with di-rect oversight of the statewide child be-havioral health, substance use and devel-opment/intellectual disabilities systems. Ms. Manley is DCF representative on the NJ Board of Social Work Examiners and the Governor’s Council on Alcohol and Drug Abuse; Principal Investigator on NJ’s Promising Path to Success, a SAM-HSA Grant with the focus on improving care for youth in need of an out of home intervention; and Vice Chair of the Na-tional Association of State Mental Health Program Directors (NASMHPD).

Ed. Note: DCF Asst Commissioner Manley recently joined an NJASP Execu-tive Board meeting for an open and fruit-ful discussion of her DCF efforts to in-vigorate collaborate efforts with schools, families and the broader communities. We feel there are particular ramifications which support the productive work of school psychologists. The editors wel-come questions and comments: sandy-hecno1@aol.com

Is It Dyslexia? Insights for NJ School Psychologists By Deborah Lynam and Jillian Matysik

School psychologists, along with other Child Study Team (CST) members, are often asked about dyslexia in schools by par-ents and educators. Until the recent dyslexia legislation in NJ, dyslexia was not traditionally discussed in schools. This was often a cause of frustration for parents seeking an-swers and support for their children

with reading difficulties. Despite the legislation requiring schools to screen students for potential indi-cators of dyslexia and to provide professional development for staff, this is often a topic school psy-chologists may be reluctant to dis-cuss. However, guidance from the U.S. Dept. of Education (USDOE) has recently clarified that schools

should be considering the use of terms such as dyslexia, where ap-propriate, to assist in describing and addressing unique student needs. Below are frequently asked questions on the topic of dyslexia in schools, offered to help school psychologists and parents break down the communication barriers which may exist around this topic.

12

THE NEW JERSEY SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGIST

What’s an appropriate response when a parent asks the question “Is my child dyslexic?”

It is the response to this ques-tion that can either create trust and collaboration between educator and parent or potentially put them on shaky ground. School psychol-ogists approaching these early in-teractions with parents as interest-ed partners, and encouraging the discussion to flow around early reading development, the poten-tial indicators of dyslexia, and the data gleaned from age appropriate skill-based screening tools, can go a long way toward creating such vi-tal trust and collaboration. It would be helpful to describe to parents just what tools your school uses to screen all students for potential indicators of dyslexia, and to ex-plain their children’s performanc-es on these screenings relative to grade-level expectations. Then, if their children’s data indicate that they may have some “red flags” for dyslexia, describe how the school intends to intervene to remediate their children’s specific weakness-es. These early conversations can be the first step to building strong partnerships which will result in timely and effective support ser-vices for students struggling in reading.

Can school psychologists identify dyslexia?

Within the school setting, there may be many well-trained professionals, such as school psy-chologists, learning disability teacher-consultants and reading specialists who can identify or as-sist in the identification of dyslex-ia. It is important to remember that

identifying the profile of dyslexia is different from giving a formal di-agnosis. School staff should screen and assess all students for the po-tential indicators of dyslexia in or-der to identify the students at risk for the common learning disability and provide them with timely inter-ventions. While it is misleading to say dyslexia is a medical diagnosis, most professionals in a school set-ting will more commonly use the term Specific Learning Disabili-ty to indicate a reading difficulty. This is because schools operate un-der the federal law, IDEA, which acknowledges 13 disabling condi-tions, one being a Specific Learning Disability (SLD). Conditions such as dyslexia fall under this category of SLD. Importantly, the possibili-ty of dyslexia should be assessed in the school setting; the treatment is an educational intervention.

Can it be useful to include the term ‘dyslexia’ in a student’s evaluation and/or IEP?

While it is most important that the language used in evaluations and Individual Education Pro-grams (IEPs) accurately articulates each student’s individual pattern of strengths and weaknesses, the use of the term dyslexia can help to clarify the student’s specific profile, allowing parents and edu-cators to have thoughtful conver-sations about the best ways to ad-dress students’ needs. For school psychologists and other CST mem-bers who may not be accustomed to including terms such as dys-lexia in evaluations and IEPs, it is important to note that IDEA does not prohibit the use of terms such as dyslexia. In fact, in its Dyslexia Guidance document, the USDOE

encourages states and school dis-tricts to use the term dyslexia when appropriate. This can be helpful in documenting how the specific condition (i.e., dyslexia) relates to eligibility for special education; it can also be a guide to appropriate services or accommodations. US-DOE’s guidance document can be found at: https://www2.ed.gov/pol-icy/speced/guid/idea/memosdcltrs/guidance-on-dyslexia-10-2015.pdf. For many parents and stu-dents, using this specific term dys-lexia, as opposed to the broader la-bel of learning disability, can be an important step toward helping stu-dents understand that they are ca-pable of learning. Use of this spe-cific term will assist them to begin building important self-advocacy skills and a healthy self-image.

How are the terms ‘dyslexia’ and ‘specific learning disability’ connected?

Dyslexia is a learning disability in the area of reading. The DSM-5 identifies dyslexia as an alternate term used to refer to a pattern of learning difficulties characterized by accurate or fluent word recog-nition, poor decoding, and poor spelling abilities.

SLD is an umbrella term which covers many learning difficulties; it is one of the 13 disability catego-ries defined in the IDEA. Dyslex-ia is listed as one of the qualifying conditions in this category.

It is possible that students may be identified as having dyslexia but be found ineligible for special edu-cation services under the category of SLD. This is due to the IDEA requirement that in order for chil-

13

WINTER EDITION 2017

dren to qualify for special educa-tion services, their disability (dys-lexia or other disability) must have a negative impact on their educa-tional performance, thus resulting in the need for special education. If children are found ineligible for special education, they may receive appropriate interventions in the general education setting through the school’s Response to Interven-tion (RTI) or Intervention and Re-ferral Services (I&RS) team, and/or be found eligible for accommo-dations under Section 504. School psychologists can assist in the in-tervention planning for these stu-dents, regardless of eligibility for special education.

School psychologists can play an active role not only in helping our schools craft effective policy to meet the mandates of NJ’s dyslex-ia legislation, and also by serving as important bridges between par-ents and educators seeking answers in support of struggling readers. Students benefit when all stake-holders have access to current, accurate information about this common learning disability, and when healthy communication and dialogue are encouraged. By seek-ing opportunities to bring valuable resources to our school community and to dispel common myths and misconceptions about dyslexia, school psychologists can help as-sure that all students have access to effective interventions and educa-tional practices in their classrooms.

Deborah Lynam is the Director of Partnerships & Engagement at AIM Institute for Learning & Research

Early Childhood AssessmentsBy Angela Stoner- Generalao

On 12/1/16, a networking meeting was held at the Trenton NJEA building to discuss assess-ments utilized for early childhood, including non-verbal instruments. NJASP members and other school professional were invited to attend as part of the on-going monthly series of NJASP networking op-portunities. The Pychoeducational Profile, Third Edition (PEP-3) was discussed and specific items were demonstrated to provide an alter-native assessment for children with Autism Spectrum Disorders. The PEP-3 was developed for evaluat-ing the uneven learning strengths and weaknesses characterizing au-tistic spectrum and related devel-opmental disabilities. It provides information on developmental skill levels and information useful for diagnosis and determining sever-ity. The PEP-3 is a standardized, norm-referenced scale designed to assess the developmental commu-nication, motor skills, and maladap-tive behaviors of children having or suspected of having autism or other Pervasion Development Disorders. Normative scores are based on the normally developing sample and the percentile ranks and develop-mental/adaptive levels are based on the autism comparison sample. The PEP-3 can be administered to children aged 2 through 7.5-years. It is useful for determining eligibil-ity, and more importantly assisting with creating goals and objectives and/or drills.

The PEP-3 is composed of two major areas. The Performance area uses direct testing and observation

of the child. It is composed of 10 subtests, 6 that measure develop-mental abilities and 4 that measure maladaptive behaviors. These sub-tests are combined to form three composites: Communication, Mo-tor, and Maladaptive Behaviors. The Caregiver Report, the second area, is completed by parents and provides information regarding problem behaviors, personal self-care and adaptive behaviors. In the Performance area, developmental ages are computed in months for the following subscales: Cognitive Verbal/Preverbal, Expressive Lan-guage, Receptive Language, Fine Motor, Gross Motor, and Visu-al-Motor Imitation. Developmen-tal/ Adaptive levels are computed for these scales and the Affective Expression, Social Reciprocity, Characteristic Motor Behaviors, and Characteristic Verbal Behav-iors subtest measures the child’s ability to speak appropriately with minimal repetition or babbling.

The Developmental Assess-ment for individuals with Severe Disabilities, Third Edition (DASH-3) was also available for examina-tion and briefly discussed as an alternative assessment for children who are unable to complete a stan-dard cognitive assessment. The kit provides a list of materials that are required, but these are not provid-ed as part of the assessment. The DASH-3 may be completed in total or selected scales may be admin-istered to describe functioning in five different areas. The DASH-3 is a criterion-referenced assess-ment that measures skill levels

14

THE NEW JERSEY SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGIST

in persons of all ages with severe and/or multiple physical/sensory disability. These disabilities may include severe intellectual disabili-ties and ASDs or children function-ing chronologically from birth to 7 years of age, as well as individuals with mild to moderate disabilities. This is not a standardized measure of intellectual and/or developmen-tal functioning but it provides esti-mates of skills in a developmental sequence and can track progress across time. There are five DASH-3 scales: Sensory-Motor, Language, Social-Emotional, Activities of Daily Living, and Academics. The examiner can complete each scale using any of three methods: direct observation, interview, and/or in-dependent completion of the scales by someone familiar with the ex-aminee with direct follow-up by the examiner.

The Lieter-3 was also available for examination and if interest in this assessment is noted, a more in-depth presentation or adminis-tration and interpretation may be scheduled for a different meeting.

Evaluation, Identification, Eligibility, and Intervention for Students with Specific Learning Disabilities: Part 2

By Terri Allen

Few topics provoke as much discussion among New Jersey School Psychologists as district policies and procedures with regard to eligibility under the classifica-tion Specific Learning Disability. Although practices vary and often policies are not predicated on best practice, School Psychologists are in this because we want to support students and ensure that they have access to the supports and services that they require, especially those students we view as particularly vulnerable. Unfortunately, many School Psychologists report that they feel constrained by an in-flexible model of SLD eligibility in which one or two points deter-mine if a student is “in or out”. Not only do some practitioners express frustration related to rigid policies and an increasingly narrow role as “gate-keepers”, but even more so, may be disheartened when they feel unable to effectively advocate and support students with fidelity and integrity. In response to some of these concerns, over the past several months, NJASP Profes-sional Development and Govern-ment and Professional Relations Committees, in collaboration with representatives from the New Jer-sey Association of Learning Con-sultants (NJALC), the New Jersey Psychological Association (NJPA) and the Learning Disabilities As-sociation of New Jersey (LDANJ), developed the following White Pa-per on Evaluation, Identification, Eligibility, and Intervention for Students with Specific Learning

Disabilities. Part 1 of a series of articles drawn from the White Pa-per was presented in our last news-letter. Please link to the Members Only section of the website www.njasp.org for Part 1, the introduc-tion and executive summary of the document, plus a discussion (blog) of the state of SLD identification in NJ with an examination of Abili-ty-Achievement Discrepancy and Failure to Respond to Intervention (RTI) models of SLD identification and eligibility.

Part 2 presents the Patterns of Strengths and Weaknesses (PSW) approach, a proposed model for implementation within a frame-work of multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS), a discussion of the paradigm shift in service deliv-ery required for successful imple-mentation, and the next steps for collaborating with other stakehold-ers, including NJDOE, in order to transform service delivery to New Jersey school children.

A “Third Method”: Patterns of Strengths and Weaknesses ap-proach

Conclusion 5: To meet federal SLD statutory and regulatory re-quirement, a “third method” that identifies a pattern of psycho-logical processing strengths and deficits, and achievement defi-cits consistent with this pattern of processing deficits, makes the most empirical and clinical sense (LDA, 2010).

15

WINTER EDITION 2017

Overview: The Third Option - The Patterns of Strengths and Weaknesses (PSW) Model

The PSW model espoused by Flanagan, Ortiz, & Alfonso (2013), Hale and Fiorello (2004) and nu-merous others (Hale, Alfonso, et. al., 2010) not only meets the legal requirement of assessing the pres-ence of a deficit in a basic psycho-logical process, but also provides information about how to direct in-struction in order to remediate these deficits. A Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses approach reflects a Dual Discrepancy/Consisten-cy operational definition of SLD. Although the word “discrepancy” is still used, the DD/C pattern of cognitive and academic strengths and weaknesses is research based and more informative than the traditional “ability-achievement discrepancy” model. Basically, is there inconsistency (discrepancy) between cognitive abilities and ac-ademic skills, as well as between cognitive strengths and weakness-es; and further, is there consistency between observed cognitive weak-nesses and academic deficits? In practice, PSW consists of a step-wise process including: a finding of specific academic weaknesses that are demonstrated by daily class-room performance, curriculum based instruction, standardized tests, and/or teacher and parent reports; confirmation of the weak-nesses via normative assessment; a determination that the observed deficits are not the primary re-sult of “exclusionary factors” (i.e. physical, emotional disorders); determination of the presence of

specific cognitive weaknesses that are theoretically related to the aca-demic weakness; and an otherwise average profile of abilities. Thus, a SLD is viewed as unexpected un-derachievement in students whose performance should be congruent with their average profile (Figure 1).

The PSW approach posits a log-ical relationship between deficient cognitive processes that underlie and are necessary for successful performance in specific academ-ic subjects and the subjects them-selves. Moreover, its’ value does not end with the determination of the presence of a SLD, but extends be-yond assessing eligibility by using the information obtained to inform instructional strategies tailored to each student’s learning profile, ef-fectively placing the “I” back into the individualized educational plan (IEP) required by law. Thus, PSW supports the fundamental notion that testing and instruction should be linked, repairing disconnect be-tween the two. Furthermore, PSW is comprehensive in its’ approach to identifying the roots of students’ problems by including the assess-ment of executive functions which are brain based processes that di-rect self-regulation of thinking and

behavior and mediate access to cognitive abilities.

Main Elements of PSW – Inclu-sionary CriteriaSpecific academic weakness(es) Specific cognitive weakness(es)0ognitive abilities and processes in the average range (or higher) particularly those least related to the area(s) of academic weakness “otherwise normal ability profile” pattern of cognitive strengths sug-gests at least average overall cog-nitive ability May have some aca-demic skills in the average range (or higher)Research-based (or ecologically valid) links between the academic and cognitive weaknessesThe pattern is only supportive of SLD when other data sources con-verge in a manner consistent to what is known about SLD

Figure 1. Common Components of Alternative Research-Based Methods of SLD

Figure 1. Common Components of Alternative Research-Based Methods of SLD

SLD is characterized by Below-Average Cognitive Aptitude-Achievement Consistency

Flanagan, Ortiz, & Alfonso, 2013

Advantages of PSW model over existing approaches: PSW is based upon the most comprehensive and widely accepted theory

(Cattell-Horn-Carroll [CHC]) for understanding cognitive processing; PSW can be used across grade levels and academic subjects; Identification and/or acknowledgment of the co-occurrence of disabilities

among some students (e.g. those with ADHD or mental health impairments) can be integrated into the comprehensive PSW model. The PSW model helps tease out the impact of underlying cognitive processes versus other co-existing conditions affecting student achievement;

COGNTIVE STRENGTH(S)

Average or better

SLD is characterized by Unexpected Underachievement

SLD is Domain Specific

ACADEMIC SKILLS or

WEAKNESSES

COGNTIVE WEAKNESSES or

DEFICITS

Consistent

16

THE NEW JERSEY SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGIST

SLD is characterized by Below-Average Cognitive Aptitude-Achievement ConsistencyFlanagan, Ortiz, & Alfonso, 2013

Advantages of PSW model over existing approaches:

• PSW is based upon the most comprehensive and widely accepted theory (Cattell-Horn-Carroll [CHC]) for understanding cognitive pro-cessing;

• PSW can be used across grade levels and academic subjects;

Identification and/or acknowl-edgment of the co-occurrence of disabilities among some students (e.g. those with ADHD or mental health impairments) can be inte-grated into the comprehensive PSW model. The PSW model helps tease out the impact of underlying cogni-tive processes versus other co-ex-isting conditions affecting student achievement;

• PSW corrects the flaws in ex-isting approaches (Ability Achieve-ment discrepancy [AAD] and Re-sponse to Intervention [RTI]) by drilling down to find the cognitive processing deficits that are the root causes of Specific Learning Dis-ability (SLD) rather than using an IQ score that may be skewed by these very deficits making predic-tions about achievement;

• PSW creates cognitive pro-cessing student profiles that can be directly translated into instruction-al strategies tailored to individual students, putting the “I” back into IEP and diminishing the potential for the implementation of strate-gies and interventions not specific linked to the student’s cognitive processing weaknesses;

• PSW offers specific guide-lines for differentiating students

with a SLD from those with low ability who are performing congru-ent with those abilities, diminish-ing the number of students incor-rectly diagnosed with a SLD;

• PSW principles offer not only a framework for conducting Tier 3 child study team evaluations, but also the infrastructure for strength-ening Multiple Tiered Support Sys-tems (MTSS) Tier 1& 2 supports, offering a seamless framework for advocating for all students whether they are general or special educa-tion students.

Additional Positive Outcomes of PSW/RTI model

• More accurate identification of students with SLD from those with low ability will make it easi-er for teachers to create truly dif-ferentiated instructional plans for low ability students and diminish the practice of classifying the latter group in order to have a vehicle for providing them with supports, fur-ther diminishing referrals to the CST;

• By logically extending PSW principles into the construction of a testing battery, child study team assessments will be individualized to target hypothesized cognitive processing weaknesses rather than continuing the practice of testing every student with the same instru-ments, reducing the amount of test-ing needed; and

• By limiting testing to the target processing domains, child study team members will be able to re-direct their considerable clinical and specialized learning skills to directly supporting teachers in the classroom by translating cognitive processing student profiles into ef-fective teaching strategies tailored to individual students.

PSW and Cross-Battery Assess-ment: “The ABCs of XBA”

The use of a PSW model for

identification of Specific Learning Disabilities requires a shift in our traditional assessment practices. In addition to conceptualizing RTI data into hypotheses testing in plan-ning the assessment, a PSW model promotes a collaborative approach to assessment between Child Study Team Members at multiple stag-es of the assessment process. The XBA approach is a method of as-sessing cognitive abilities, academ-ic achievement, and neuropsycho-logical processes that allows the examiner(s) to reliably and validly measure a wider range (or a more in-depth but selective range) of skills and constructs than can be represented by a single stand-alone assessment. In collaborating with each other, the school psychologist and learning consultant, and poten-tially the speech and language pa-thologist, can plan a more compre-hensive CST evaluation that is more efficient than the current model due to reduction in overlap in as-sessment areas. However, a wider range of abilities or more in-depth examination of a narrower skills is likely because the team targets the key areas identified in hypotheses testing. Following the generation of hypotheses, based on RTI and other data, the CST collaborative-ly plans the assessment, selecting a battery designed to best answer the referral question. A full description of the XBA model is beyond the scope of this paper, but essentially, the construction of a cross-battery assessment contains the following key guidelines for teams: 1. Make connections between pre-

17

WINTER EDITION 2017

senting difficulties in the refer-ral and related cognitive/neuro-psychological processes.

2. Determine the scope of assess-ment and purpose.

3. Generate the Hypothesis.4. Ensure Referral Relevant abili-

ties are measured and data gath-ered is sufficient to address con-cerns and draw conclusions.

Proposed Model for SLD identification: Comprehensive assessment within a framework of MTSS (Multi-tiered system of supports)

Conclusion 6: Both RTI and comprehensive evaluation of psy-chological processes are needed to optimize service delivery for children with and without SLD (LDA, 2010).

Conclusion 7: An understand-ing of a processing strengths and weaknesses model, in relation to academic achievement, can pro-mote better targeted and more tailored interventions for stu-dents at all tiers of the RTI pro-cess. An integrated, data driven multi-tiered system of supports is in the best interests of students in general education and stu-dents requiring more specialized special education supports and services.

Currently, only two SLD iden-

tification methods for special edu-cation eligibility determination are described in N.J.A.C. 6A-14. Fur-ther, neither of the two methods, Ability-Achievement Discrepancy nor failure to respond to interven-tion (RTI), as “standalones” are sufficient for SLD identification.

Consistent with IDEA, empirical data, and national trends, a “third method” approach is recommend-ed that identifies a pattern of psy-chological processing strengths and deficits and the links to spe-cific achievement. Not only does the “third method” fulfill statutory and regulatory requirements with regard to comprehensive assess-ment but also the approach can be practiced within a multi-disci-plinary team context. Comprehen-sive assessment of cognitive and neuropsychological processes in relation to academic achievement may be used not only for eligibil-ity decisions but will drive more targeted interventions. In better un-derstanding why a child manifests academic deficits, the School Psy-chologists and Learning Disability Teacher - Consultants, move from “gatekeeper” roles to assessment and intervention specialists.

Regardless of the method used to determine special education el-igibility, federal and state code explicitly states that all students should receive appropriate, high quality instruction prior to a refer-ral to determine the need for special education services. Further, lack of instruction in the suspected area of disability remains an exclusion-ary factor in eligibility decisions. Therefore, improved RTI practic-es, within a comprehensive Multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS) framework, should be used along with the PSW model. PSW models emphasize the importance to first document the provision of high quality interventions and the mon-itoring of progress in general edu-cation. This is ideally done within a multi-tiered process that (a) pro-

vides interventions of increasing intensity for struggling students and (b) monitors student progress in response to these interventions.

By using a combined RTI/PSW model, researchers have report-ed up to one-third fewer students identified as having a Specific Learning Disability (Hanson et al, 2009). A combined model, imple-mented with fidelity and integrity, will be more reliable and valid in the identification of specific learn-ing disabilities. When used in conjunction within framework of MTSS, including effective screen-ing and progress monitoring proce-dures, RTI/PSW may prevent more serious learning difficulties by in-tervening early, rather than waiting for the child to fail. Finally, the PSW model is based on empirical data linking cognitive processing to academic achievement. A team’s understanding of the tenets of the PSW model may serve to assist pre-referral teams in hypothesis testing, problem solving, and the development and implementation of interventions better tailored to the student.

Although this model is pro-posed as a better alternative to the identification of students eligible for SLD classification, the com-prehensive assessment may not necessarily result in classification but rather, may drive more inten-sive, targeted tier 3 services within general education. By integrating the PSW model of comprehensive assessment with an RTI model that “speaks the same language” in terms of the role of cognitive pro-cessing in the manifestation of ac-ademic difficulties, the continuum

18

THE NEW JERSEY SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGIST

of supports and services provided to at-risk students will be stronger along the whole continuum of as-sessment and intervention. Follow-ing a comprehensive assessment at the tier 3 level, there will most likely be an increased understand-ing of why the student is strug-gling, which, in turn, will enable teams to determine, 1) what like-ly could be done to affect positive change (McCloskey, 2015); and, then, 2) who can do what needs to be done to help the student. The traditional model of assessment and placement with an emphasis on “eligible/not eligible” tends to address the second question first (i.e., “who” or “where”, meaning placement in special education or general education) with consider-ably less attention to interventions tied to assessment data. PSW as-sessment is likely to drive more “individualized” education within the special education setting and supports the implementation of supports for students who are not placed in a special education set-ting. Typically, under the current Ability-Achievement Discrepancy model, students considered “not el-igible” are not likely to receive dif-ferent supports than they may have received prior to the referral, and, hence, are not likely to improve and may even get re-referred for CST evaluation in following years. The PSW model can provide infor-mation about student learner traits that is not articulated within a Full Scale IQ Ability-Achievement Dis-crepancy model and can only be assumed, but not always specified, when a student fails to respond to high quality intervention. Overall, the proposed PSW model will im-prove the diagnostic outcome for

students, regardless of eligibility decision.

A Paradigm Shift

Conclusion 8: A paradigm shift in the utilization of school sup-port staff, in particular School Psychologists and Learning Disability Teacher – Consul-tants, is recommended in order to provide more comprehensive services to all students at multi- tiers of support and to increase collaboration in developing and implementing comprehensive evaluation plans in the most effi-cient and thorough manner.

An integrated, data driven multi-tiered system of supports is in the best interests of students in general education and for students requiring more specialized special education supports and services. In-terdisciplinary collaboration prob-lem solving within a Multi-tiered System of Support (MTSS) frame-work is essential for systems level change and team members must possess the training and knowledge related to the core components of MTSS in order to effect change as collaborative problem solvers. Cur-rently, many individuals in school districts with the greatest expertise in how children learn are underuti-lized. Child Study Team members can play key roles in facilitating and sustaining a successful col-laborative, problem solving MTSS team in various ways. School Psy-chologists and Learning Disabili-ty Teacher–Consultants (LDT-C) are often untapped resources in supporting teachers, administra-tors and parents in understanding the interactions between cognitive

processing, executive functioning, behavior, social-emotional factors, and academic achievement.

Further, the application of cog-nitive theory to educational prac-tice is supported at all levels of the assessment and intervention con-tinuum. When fused into MTSS, earlier and more successful inter-ventions can be made, reducing referrals for full CST evaluations. Implementation of a PSW model provides a powerful tool for under-standing student underachievement across the general and special edu-cation spectrums as well as specif-ic, concrete, and practical strategies for addressing identified academic weaknesses. More accurate identi-fication of students with SLD from those with general low ability will make it easier for teachers to create truly differentiated instructional plans for low ability students and diminish the practice of classifying the latter group in order to have a vehicle for providing them with supports, further diminishing refer-rals to the CST.

By logically extending PSW principles into the construction of a testing battery, child study team assessments will be individualized to target hypothesized cognitive processing weaknesses rather than continuing the practice of testing every student with the same in-struments, reducing the amount of testing needed. Additionally, in providing evidenced based early intervention for at-risk students, PSW/MTSS model is likely to re-duce referrals for comprehensive evaluation; and, furthermore, eval-uations completed will be targeted based on hypotheses about why a

19

WINTER EDITION 2017

student did not respond to the in-tervention. CST members collabo-ratively plan and administer a com-prehensive evaluation(s) based on hypotheses testing process that will drive an assessment that is linked to intervention, regardless of the eligibility decision following the assessments.

A paradigm shift in the current delivery of services, from a tradi-tional “refer-test-place” model to an instructional consultation, col-laborative problem solving mod-el, is essential in order to fulfill the priorities recently articulated in the reauthorized Elementary and Secondary Education Act as the “Every Student Succeeds Act” (ESSA). “The purpose of this title is to provide all children signifi-cant opportunity to receive a fair, equitable, and high-quality educa-tion, and to close education gaps” (S.101/ESSA). The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) presents sig-nificant opportunities to improve school and student outcomes by implementing comprehensive ser-vices within multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS). MTSS offers an evidence-based framework for effectively coordinating and in-tegrating services throughout the school system to ensure that all students succeed (NASP, 2010). The emphasis on the provision of early supports for students at risk of not attaining full literacy skills and the promotion of inno-vative practices is consistent with a shift in utilization of specialists as consultants. Learning Disabili-ty Teacher – Consultants currently “test” more than they “consult”, despite their expertise in working collaboratively with teachers in

delivering effective differentiation strategies for students with diverse needs. LDT-C’s could also consult with teachers on how to embed for-mative assessment in order to in-form instructional efficacy.

A PSW approach, especially within a framework of MTSS, ex-amines the “why” of a student’s struggle, and complements behav-ioral and social emotional assess-ment in helping to better under-stand the often overlapping impact of underlying cognitive processing and/or social-emotional factors on student learning. In recognition of the link between behavior, mental health, and learning, ESSA sup-ports the integration of comprehen-sive school mental and behavioral health services into learning sup-ports, specifically naming school psychologists and school social workers, as providers of mental health services. A paradigm shift in service delivery will provide more time and opportunities for school psychologists to provide mental and behavioral health services in schools. Approximately 75% to 80% of children and youth in need of mental health services do not re-ceive them because existing men-tal health services are inadequate (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2001). Current initiatives present significant op-portunities to improve school and student outcomes by implementing comprehensive school psychologi-cal behavior and mental health ser-vices within multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS). Again, a shift to the proposed model is likely to free Child Study Team members from a testing model (IQ-Ability discrepancy model) that is time in-

tensive, paperwork driven, and not reliable and valid in the identifica-tion of specific learning disability. Furthermore, the current model provides a meaningful link from assessment to tailored interventions for the students, regardless of eli-gibility decision. A collaborative, PSW model provides a more thor-ough and efficient assessment and intervention system, thus enabling the student support personnel with possibly the greatest expertise and training in learning, mental health and behavior to better serve school children and support teachers, ad-ministrators, and parents.

Continue the conversation…Please go to www.njasp.org Mem-bers Area and link to the Members Blog.

ReferencesBarth, A. E., Stuebing, K. K.,

Anthony, J. L., Denton, C. A., Mathes, P. G., Fletcher, J. M., & Francis, D. J. (2008). Agreement among response to intervention criteria for identifying responder status. Learning and Individual Differences, 18, 296-307.

Flanagan, D. P., Ortiz, S.O., Alfonso, V.C. (2013). Essentials of Cross-Battery Assessment, Third Edition. Hoboken, NJ: John S. Wi-ley & Sons, Inc.

Flanagan, D. P., Ortiz, S. O., Alfonso, V. C., & Dynda, A. M. (2006). Integration of response to intervention and norm referenced tests in learning disability identifi-cation: Learning from the Tower of Babel. Psychology in the Schools, 43(7), 807-825.

Fuchs, D., & Deshler, D. D.

20

THE NEW JERSEY SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGIST

(2007). What We Need to Know About Responsiveness To In-tervention (and Shouldn’t Be Afraid to Ask). Learning Disabil-ities Research & Practice, 22(2), 129-136. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2007.00237.x

Hale, J., Alfonso, V., Berninger, V., Bracken, B., Christo, C., Clark, E., . . . Denckla, M. (2010). Critical issues in response-to-intervention, comprehensive evaluation, and specific learning disabilities iden-tification and intervention: An ex-pert white paper consensus. Learn-ing Disability Quarterly, 33(3), 223-236.

Hanson, J., Sharman, L. A., & Esparza-Brown, J. (2009). Pattern of strengths and weaknesses in spe-cific learning disabilities: What’s it all about. Technical Assistance Pa-per, Oregon School Psychologists Association.

Kavale, K. A., Spaulding, L. S., & Beam, A. P. (2009). A time to de-fine: Making the specific learning disability definition prescribe spe-cific learning disability. Learning Disability Quarterly, 32(1), 39-48.

Learning Disabilities Associa-tion of America (2010). White Pa-per on Evaluation, Identification, and Eligibility Criteria for Students with Specific Learning Disabilities. (Position Statement). Pittsburgh, PA: Author.

Maki, K. E., Floyd, R. G., Roberson, T. (2015). State learn-ing disability eligibility criteria: A comprehensive review. School Psy-chology Quarterly, Vol 30(4), Dec 2015, 457-469.

McCloskey, G., Hartz, E., Slonim, J. (2015). Interpreting the WSC-V Using George McClos-key’s Neuropsychologically Ori-ented Process Approach to Psy-choeducational Evaluations. In A. Kaufman, S. Raiford, & D. Coalson (Eds.), Intelligence Testing with the WISC-V (pp. 492 -547). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Scanlon, D. M. (2013). Assess-ing RTI Strategies: The Trouble with Packaged and Scripted Inter-ventions. Reading Today, 31(1), 20-21.

Shank, F. A., Decker, S.L., Garruto, J.M. (2016). Essentials of WJIV Cognitive Abilities. Hobo-ken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Sesma, H. W., Mahone, E.M., Levine, T., Eason, S.H. & , & Cut-ting, L. E. (2009). The Contribu-tion Of Executive Skills to Reading Comprehension. Child Neuropsy-chology : A Journal on Normal and Abnormal Development in Childhood and Adolescence, 15(3), 232-246.

Spencer, M., Wagner, R. K., Schatschneider, C., Quinn, J. M., Lopez, D., & Petscher, Y. (2014). Incorporating RTI in a hybrid model of reading disabili-ty. Learning Disability Quarterly, 0731948714530967.

Warner, T. D., Dede, D. E., Garvan, C. W., & Conway, T. W. (2002). One size still does not fit all in specific learning disability assessment across ethnic groups. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35(6), 501-509.