Assignment Instructions: Write a peer response to Kristen’s discussion post, Abby’s discussion post, and Hayley’s discussion post. That is a total of 3 peer responses that you have to write. Make sure each peer response is at least 5 sentences long. I have uploaded Kristen’s discussion post, Abby’s discussion post, and Hayley’s discussion post as separate PDF files here (titled other attachment #1, other attachment #2, other attachment #3) By Kristen Pester Reading Discussion: I see the school psychologist as a vital member of the problem-solving team (PST)- often times acting as the leader/director of the process. If a new member of the school staff asked what role the school psychologist plays in the PST process, I would have several responses. First, a school psychologist is trained in the process and purposes of the MTSS/RtI system of interventions. This is important information for the team so they can be guided as to what constitutes a Tier 1,2 or 3 intervention and when to move a child up to the next tier. In addition, a school psychologist would have knowledge of the various specialized staff in the building and what they could offer to that child’s intervention process. Second, a school psychologist is extensively trained to gather, read, understand and utilize data collected from students and they would be able to help the entire team understand what the trends in the data mean for that student. Third, because of their unique knowledge about assessments and interventions, the school psychologist would play a major role in brainstorming appropriate assessments to pinpoint problem areas and then interventions to improve the academics of the child. Finally, the school psychologist thoroughly understands the requirements for qualification in special education and would be able to speak in to whether or not a child should be referred on for special education evaluation or continue with Tier 3 interventions. This is important information because a child should not be kept for an extended amount of time in Tier 3 interventions if they are not making adequate progress and should instead be referred for evaluation in a timely manner in order to avoid precious academic time being lost for the student. I am quite familiar with the process of Tier 1 and 2 interventions, due to my work as a 5th grade teacher. However, in my experience in my district, when a student does not respond to Tier 2 interventions, then the child is quickly referred to special education evaluation. This has been the default Tier 3 “intervention” in my experience. Therefore, I was interested to see what the actual recommended role of the PST was when the Tier 3 level was reached. Each step makes sense and follows a logical sequence from problem identification and analysis, plan development and implementation and then evaluation after sufficient time has passed. It makes sense, but one of my concerns is that by the time a child struggles at the Tier 1 level and is identified and referred to Tier 2 interventions, so much time has passed. Then the student must work on the Tier 2 interventions that are put into place for them and the team must determine if those are working, at which point they are referred on to Tier 3, if they are still struggling. Then the team must meet to brainstorm (which often takes months), collect data, implement and monitor intervention progress and finally make decisions about whether adequate progress is being made. Finally, if the child does not make progress, then they are referred for special education evaluation, which also takes months. By the time the whole process has taken place, a student can lose a year or more before they are matched with the help they need. If the child is young, they can often catch up and have an excellent academic experience. However, if the child is older and struggling, then they can often become frustrated learners whose attitudes sour on school. There are benefits to a slow process because those that are helped at a lower tier do not have to be referred to special education, which is a good thing. However, it is frustrating at times to see the process take so long and for the students to continue to struggle daily until they get the right help. This is how I hope to help as a school psychologist- to be part of the team who gets help for struggling students in the most efficient manner possible with the best interventions to fit their needs that improve their educational journey. Activity Discussion: Scenario- Henry is a 5th grade student at Walnut Elementary School (WES) who is currently struggling in reading. He is an otherwise hard-working student who gets along well with peers in the classroom. His classroom teacher is concerned and has asked for the PST to meet with parents to discuss how to help Henry learn best. This process involves the following steps: problem identification, problem analysis, developing a plan/hypothesis, plan implementation and plan evaluation. Problem identification- WES uses the Fastbridge platform for all their academic benchmark assessments and data collection for Tier 1 interventions. On the Fall benchmark test for the aReading assessment Henry scores 492, which is at the third-grade level. The 5th grade benchmark is 513. The aReading score measures Henry’s reading comprehension. His CBM reading score, which measures reading fluency, is 92, which is also at a third-grade level. The 5th grade CBM benchmark for Fall is 132. These two scores qualify for the dual discrepancy model and the team determines that Henry struggles with both reading comprehension and fluency. Due to these initial scores Henry had already been moved to participate in a Tier 2 intervention called Read Live, which is a reading comprehension and fluency computer program administered by the reading staff. Unfortunately, after consulting the weekly progress monitoring data for 6 weeks, it is discovered that the Tier 2 interventions are not having the desired results for improving Henry’s reading scores. Problem Analysis When the PST meets with parents, they discuss Henry’s reading struggles and decide to collect a variety of data to pinpoint the potential root cause of his reading struggles. The team knows that in order to read fluently, first a student must have solid phonemic awareness, then strong decoding skills, which leads to reading fluently, which, in turn, allows the student to demonstrate reading comprehension (Burns and Gibbons, 2012). The team has already identified that Henry struggles in the areas of reading comprehension and fluency, so they decide to keep working backwards and test his decoding skills and phonemic awareness. The reading specialist gives several assessments that measure his competence in these areas. Other avenues are considered for intervention such as vision issues (which would make reading words hard), hearing issues (which would impact the way Henry understood the words) and attention challenges. Henry’s parents and his classroom teacher are given questionnaires to complete inquiring into past history and his personality. School records are also consulted to examine any patterns that would relate to a struggle with academics. When all the data come back, the only significant concern is in the area of decoding skills. The reading specialist administered a DIBELS assessment in nonsense word fluency and in addition, observed Henry while reading several passages and took extensive notes. The team decides to focus on Henry’s word decoding skills in the hopes that this will improve his general reading skills. Plan Development and Implementation It is decided that in addition to continuing to participate in the Tier 2 intervention group with Read Live, Henry will also get 20 minutes of focused decoding skills interventions with a reading paraprofessional, at least 4 times a week. The reading para will work with Henry on an intervention called “Graphosyllabic Analysis: Five Steps to Decoding Complex Words”. This intervention has been shown to improve decoding skills in especially the poorest readers and ultimately improves overall reading. The para will teach Henry a five-step syllable segmentation strategy through modeling the concepts and positive praise and feedback. The para will select a third-grade word list containing words with multiple syllables. The five steps include reading the word first, then defining it, then orally dividing the word into syllables, then the para would cover part of the word and say it to match it to the spelling and finally, the para would demonstrate how to blend all the syllables together to say the whole word (Burn, et al., 2017). The para will progress monitor Henry weekly using CBM reading passages and will graph his progress. It is decided that the PST will reconvene in 8 weeks to assess Henry’s progress and discuss next steps. Plan Evaluation The team reconvenes and ascertains that the plan has been implemented with integrity, as evidenced by the documentation presented by the reading specialist showing eight weeks of graphed points on Henry’s CBM data. Henry’s data does indicate that he is making steady progress with his CBM scores and the team decides to continue the plan implementation until the data improves to reflect current grade level or it shows that Henry has leveled off and is no longer progressing, at which time the team will meet again to discuss the possibility of further interventions or referral for special education testing. References Burns, M. K., & Gibbons, K. (2012). Implementing response-to-intervention in elementary and secondary schools: Procedures to assure scientific-based practices. Routledge. Burns, M. K., Riley-Tillman, T. C., & Rathvon, N. (2017). Effective school interventions: Evidence-based strategies for improving student outcomes. Guilford Publications. By Kristen Pester Reading Discussion: I see the school psychologist as a vital member of the problem-solving team (PST)- often times acting as the leader/director of the process. If a new member of the school staff asked what role the school psychologist plays in the PST process, I would have several responses. First, a school psychologist is trained in the process and purposes of the MTSS/RtI system of interventions. This is important information for the team so they can be guided as to what constitutes a Tier 1,2 or 3 intervention and when to move a child up to the next tier. In addition, a school psychologist would have knowledge of the various specialized staff in the building and what they could offer to that child’s intervention process. Second, a school psychologist is extensively trained to gather, read, understand and utilize data collected from students and they would be able to help the entire team understand what the trends in the data mean for that student. Third, because of their unique knowledge about assessments and interventions, the school psychologist would play a major role in brainstorming appropriate assessments to pinpoint problem areas and then interventions to improve the academics of the child. Finally, the school psychologist thoroughly understands the requirements for qualification in special education and would be able to speak in to whether or not a child should be referred on for special education evaluation or continue with Tier 3 interventions. This is important information because a child should not be kept for an extended amount of time in Tier 3 interventions if they are not making adequate progress and should instead be referred for evaluation in a timely manner in order to avoid precious academic time being lost for the student. I am quite familiar with the process of Tier 1 and 2 interventions, due to my work as a 5th grade teacher. However, in my experience in my district, when a student does not respond to Tier 2 interventions, then the child is quickly referred to special education evaluation. This has been the default Tier 3 “intervention” in my experience. Therefore, I was interested to see what the actual recommended role of the PST was when the Tier 3 level was reached. Each step makes sense and follows a logical sequence from problem identification and analysis, plan development and implementation and then evaluation after sufficient time has passed. It makes sense, but one of my concerns is that by the time a child struggles at the Tier 1 level and is identified and referred to Tier 2 interventions, so much time has passed. Then the student must work on the Tier 2 interventions that are put into place for them and the team must determine if those are working, at which point they are referred on to Tier 3, if they are still struggling. Then the team must meet to brainstorm (which often takes months), collect data, implement and monitor intervention progress and finally make decisions about whether adequate progress is being made. Finally, if the child does not make progress, then they are referred for special education evaluation, which also takes months. By the time the whole process has taken place, a student can lose a year or more before they are matched with the help they need. If the child is young, they can often catch up and have an excellent academic experience. However, if the child is older and struggling, then they can often become frustrated learners whose attitudes sour on school. There are benefits to a slow process because those that are helped at a lower tier do not have to be referred to special education, which is a good thing. However, it is frustrating at times to see the process take so long and for the students to continue to struggle daily until they get the right help. This is how I hope to help as a school psychologist- to be part of the team who gets help for struggling students in the most efficient manner possible with the best interventions to fit their needs that improve their educational journey. Activity Discussion: Scenario- Henry is a 5th grade student at Walnut Elementary School (WES) who is currently struggling in reading. He is an otherwise hard-working student who gets along well with peers in the classroom. His classroom teacher is concerned and has asked for the PST to meet with parents to discuss how to help Henry learn best. This process involves the following steps: problem identification, problem analysis, developing a plan/hypothesis, plan implementation and plan evaluation. Problem identification- WES uses the Fastbridge platform for all their academic benchmark assessments and data collection for Tier 1 interventions. On the Fall benchmark test for the aReading assessment Henry scores 492, which is at the third-grade level. The 5th grade benchmark is 513. The aReading score measures Henry’s reading comprehension. His CBM reading score, which measures reading fluency, is 92, which is also at a third-grade level. The 5th grade CBM benchmark for Fall is 132. These two scores qualify for the dual discrepancy model and the team determines that Henry struggles with both reading comprehension and fluency. Due to these initial scores Henry had already been moved to participate in a Tier 2 intervention called Read Live, which is a reading comprehension and fluency computer program administered by the reading staff. Unfortunately, after consulting the weekly progress monitoring data for 6 weeks, it is discovered that the Tier 2 interventions are not having the desired results for improving Henry’s reading scores. Problem Analysis When the PST meets with parents, they discuss Henry’s reading struggles and decide to collect a variety of data to pinpoint the potential root cause of his reading struggles. The team knows that in order to read fluently, first a student must have solid phonemic awareness, then strong decoding skills, which leads to reading fluently, which, in turn, allows the student to demonstrate reading comprehension (Burns and Gibbons, 2012). The team has already identified that Henry struggles in the areas of reading comprehension and fluency, so they decide to keep working backwards and test his decoding skills and phonemic awareness. The reading specialist gives several assessments that measure his competence in these areas. Other avenues are considered for intervention such as vision issues (which would make reading words hard), hearing issues (which would impact the way Henry understood the words) and attention challenges. Henry’s parents and his classroom teacher are given questionnaires to complete inquiring into past history and his personality. School records are also consulted to examine any patterns that would relate to a struggle with academics. When all the data come back, the only significant concern is in the area of decoding skills. The reading specialist administered a DIBELS assessment in nonsense word fluency and in addition, observed Henry while reading several passages and took extensive notes. The team decides to focus on Henry’s word decoding skills in the hopes that this will improve his general reading skills. Plan Development and Implementation It is decided that in addition to continuing to participate in the Tier 2 intervention group with Read Live, Henry will also get 20 minutes of focused decoding skills interventions with a reading paraprofessional, at least 4 times a week. The reading para will work with Henry on an intervention called “Graphosyllabic Analysis: Five Steps to Decoding Complex Words”. This intervention has been shown to improve decoding skills in especially the poorest readers and ultimately improves overall reading. The para will teach Henry a five-step syllable segmentation strategy through modeling the concepts and positive praise and feedback. The para will select a third-grade word list containing words with multiple syllables. The five steps include reading the word first, then defining it, then orally dividing the word into syllables, then the para would cover part of the word and say it to match it to the spelling and finally, the para would demonstrate how to blend all the syllables together to say the whole word (Burn, et al., 2017). The para will progress monitor Henry weekly using CBM reading passages and will graph his progress. It is decided that the PST will reconvene in 8 weeks to assess Henry’s progress and discuss next steps. Plan Evaluation The team reconvenes and ascertains that the plan has been implemented with integrity, as evidenced by the documentation presented by the reading specialist showing eight weeks of graphed points on Henry’s CBM data. Henry’s data does indicate that he is making steady progress with his CBM scores and the team decides to continue the plan implementation until the data improves to reflect current grade level or it shows that Henry has leveled off and is no longer progressing, at which time the team will meet again to discuss the possibility of further interventions or referral for special education testing. References Burns, M. K., & Gibbons, K. (2012). Implementing response-to-intervention in elementary and secondary schools: Procedures to assure scientific-based practices. Routledge. Burns, M. K., Riley-Tillman, T. C., & Rathvon, N. (2017). Effective school interventions: Evidence-based strategies for improving student outcomes. Guilford Publications. By: Abby Jennings Reading Discussion: School psychologists may contribute to Problem-Solving Teams in a variety of ways including implementing a data collection system, evaluating data, researching potential interventions, implementing interventions, providing support to general education teachers, or identifying students who may be in need of tier 3 supports. The most important factor for school psychologists to remember when being a member of a Problem-Solving Team is that effective teamwork and intervention implementation is the key to ensuring student success. School psychologists can play an integral role in ensuring the Problem-Solving Team works effectively and efficiently as well as helping to ensure interventions are implemented with fidelity. School psychologists can assist in evaluating interventions through observations or providing small group or 1:1 support services. Overall, school psychologists can be a valuable member of the Problem-Solving Team through providing a wide range of ideas and supports. One challenge that I see in utilizing the Problem-Solving Team framework to assist in tier 3 interventions is ensuring that all team members are on the same page and working towards the same goal. I could see where it would be easy to try to pawn student problems off to other professionals or believe a certain issue is “not your job” to assist with but by utilizing a team style of problem-solving different opinions and ideas can arise that may provide more effective support to students. Additionally, having different types of educational professionals on the Problem-Solving Team can allow for different viewpoints and perspectives to be discussed and evaluated. Lastly, a key idea that stuck out to me was that there is not one single intervention that can be applied across all students and will solve the problem at hand 100% of the time. It is important to remember that the problem-solving process is based on trial and error. What works for one student may not work for another or what worked for a student in the past may no longer be effective. The foundation of the Problem-Solving Team is that various interventions will be tried until an effective intervention is found. I believe it is important to try to not become discouraged when interventions do not work but instead continue to seek out new interventions that can better serve the student’s individual needs. Activity Discussion: Mock Case: Josh is a second-grade student at Happyville Elementary School. Josh is typically a happy student who enjoys school. Josh’s favorite school subject is math, and he likes to spend time with his classmates a recess. Since the start of this school year Josh has struggled to stay in his assigned seat during teacher instruction time. Josh will move from his seat to various parts of the classroom and distract other students. Sometimes, Josh will pace back and forth around the room attempting to find another activity that he may engage in instead of listening to the teacher instruction. Josh’s teacher has tried everything they can think of to help Josh stay in his seat during instruction time but has not had success. The teacher believes it is time for the problem-solving team to meet regarding Josh’s inability to stay in his seat and attempt new interventions. Problem identification: In this scenario, the problem at hand is that Josh does not sit in his seat during teacher instruction time. Anytime Josh left his seat at an inappropriate time without asking the teacher for permission the occurrence was documented accordingly. Both the teacher and classroom para collected data on when Josh left his seat and compared data to ensure accuracy and consistency of data collection. The classroom teacher has noticed the problem since the beginning of the school year but has been collecting data consistently for four weeks to ensure an appropriate amount of baseline data had accrued. Problem Analysis: Several hypotheses were developed by the Problem-Solving Team for why Josh may not stay in his seat during teacher instruction time including that during teacher instruction time Josh is not receiving enough sensory input. A second hypothesis was that during teacher instruction time Josh is bored and therefore seeks out conversations with his classmates. The final hypothesis that was developed is that Josh’s desk is not a comfortable environment for him to learn in and therefore he seeks out alternative locations. The hypothesis that the Problem-Solving Team determined to be most likely was that Josh becomes bored during teacher instruction time, therefore leading him to seek out conversation from his peers and alternative activities to entertain himself. The Problem-Solving Team settled on this hypothesis because Josh can stay in his seat during group work time and individual work time when he has an assignment to work on. This was determined through teacher data collection by counting how many times Josh was not in his seat during the various types of instruction throughout the day. Developing a Plan/Hypothesis: The Problem-Solving Team established that an appropriate and obtainable goal for Josh would be to only leave his seat without asking one time during a 30-minute teacher instructional period. Currently Josh is leaving his seat five times during a 30-minute teacher instructional period. The intervention that the Problem-Solving Team recommended for Josh’s teacher to implement is “rubber band intervention”. With this intervention the teacher will put a set of rubber bands on one wrist and each time Josh leaves his seat the teacher will transfer the rubber bands to the other wrist. If after 30 minutes rubber bands remain on the first wrist Josh will receive a check mark for that 30-minute period. After Josh has earned ten check marks, he can select a reward. The teacher will first begin with four rubber bands on her wrist and slowly decrease this number until she only has one rubber band. This reduction in rubber bands will occur over four weeks’ time. This intervention will be utilized in the general education classroom by Josh’s teacher every day during 30-minute teacher instructional time periods. The general education teacher will collect the data on Josh’s progress through a data collection sheet where they will mark if Josh met his goal for the 30-minute time period. This data will be collected for four weeks with each week Josh being expected to leave his seat less during the 30-minute teacher instructional periods. A Problem-Solving Team meeting was set for five weeks after the initial implementation of the intervention to evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention. Plan Implementation: During the four-week period of intervention implementation the school psychologist did a total of thirteen randomized intervention observations to observe how the intervention was being utilized by the general education teacher and if Josh was making the progress that was expected. The school psychologist documented all observations and believed the intervention plan was being followed appropriately by the general education teacher. Additionally, the general education teacher collected the appropriate data and presented the graphed data points at the Problem-Solving Team meeting. Plan Evaluation: At the Problem-Solving Team meeting the team determined the intervention plan had been conducted according to the plan and there was a reduction in the undesirable behavior during the implementation of the intervention. The Problem-Solving team determined that the intervention should be continued but modified the duration that Josh would be observed from 30 minutes to 1 hour to further decrease the occurrences of Josh leaving his seat. All team decisions were documented appropriately and filed. By: Hayley Jones Reading Discussion: As a school psychologist working in a rural district, my responsibilities more restricted in some areas and I have more freedom in others. I will cover at least two schools in two different towns, so travel time needs to be considered. My role in my home school involves SIT meeting, evaluations, working 1:1 with students and providing groups in classrooms. I attend monthly SIT meetings to provide Tier 1, 2, and 3 intervention suggestions. I also make sure that the staff is collecting the appropriate data if an evaluation is a possibility. I provide testing for evaluations and I am a part of the IEP team that determines eligibility. I help set up with the IEP with the team (parents included) with appropriate services listed. If the student has mental health concerns, I can provide 1:1 services to help reduce the concerns and the impact that it has on the student’s academics. I also provide social skills groups for grades Prek-3rd. The school counselor provides groups for 4th-6th grade. I am also available for any consultation or brainstorming with teachers or administrators. One of the main ideas that stuck out from the readings, is that Tier 3 interventions do not require the student to be on an IEP. In my mind, I always thought that in order to receive individual assistance, whether it is from a reading specialist or other staff member, the student needs to be evaluated and qualify for special education services. Also, the amount of expected involvement depends greatly on the building administration. In one of my districts, there are 11 elementary schools. The role and expectations of the school psychologist in each of these schools varies depending on the principal for that building. The one question that I have asked this year is when do you (school psychologist) find the time to complete all of your job duties and still provide quality services? What determines how you prioritize your time and resources? AND Activity Discussion: 1. Problem identification Identify the Problem John is a 3rd grade student who behind in math fluency compared to his classmates. He is disruptive during class and does not turn in his homework. He is able to complete the Math minutes and recites his math facts when prompted, but will not complete written work. He will work on a couple of problems, but soon becomes frustrated and throws his paper in the trash. Define in quantifiable terms During Math, John can verbally recite math facts up to factors of 12. When completing math facts in written form, he is only able to consistently complete factors of 2 correctly. During one week, he refused to complete his assignment 7 out of 10 times. Four times he physically threw his assignment away and three times he told the teacher he lost it. He becomes argumentative with his classmates (telling them to shut up when they encourage him to complete the work) and asked to leave the classroom three times each day during the 90 minute math class. The team feels that if John was confident in completing his assignments, the disruptive behavior would decrease. John’s reading and writing scores meet the standards for a 3rd grader. His 2nd grade teacher did not report any concerns with him last year. 2. Problem Analysis The team feels that if John was confident in completing his assignments, the disruptive behavior would decrease. John’s reading and writing scores meet the standards for a 3rd grader. His 2nd grade teacher did not report any concerns with him last year. Observations were conducted during Math, Reading, and Science. John’s parents were contacted to discuss any changes that may have occurred since last year. John’s mom reported that she started a new job and is not home when he gets home from school. He stays home with his older brother (16) until she gets off of work at 5pm. John’s dad drives a truck so his schedule varies. John does get upset when his dad has to leave for long hauls (more than 2 nights away). Mom will let the teacher know when this happens so we can track if John’s behavior in the classroom changes. 3. Developing a Plan/Hypothesis The team has decided that during Math facts, John will meet with a para 1:1 to complete his work. The para will work with John in a quiet corner of the classroom to reduce distractions. If John continues to be distracted, they will go to the library to work. John will first verbalize the answers on the facts worksheets as the para reads him the problems. The para will then give John half of the worksheet. He will again verbalize the answers and then write the answer down. He will not move to the next problem until the answer is written down. If John finishes the first half, he will then be given the second half of the assignment. 4. Plan Implementation The para will be in the classroom during the scheduled math time. She will listen to the instructions with John and then the last 30 minutes, they will go to a quiet spot to complete the assignment. The teacher will observe the para during instruction time, and check on them periodically when they are working on the assignment. Another team member will also observe the procedure during the first two weeks of the intervention to ensure fidelity. As John completes more of the assignment (1/2, ¾, 100%) with accuracy, he can move back into the classroom with his classmates. When John has been able to stay in the classroom 5 days in a row, the teacher will start to track the number of times he asks to leave (bathroom, drink of water) and how many times he makes a negative comment to his classmates. 5. Plan Evaluation At the end of 8 weeks, John’s grade has improved by one letter grade. He is back in the classroom and can complete ¾ of his assignment before asking the para for help. He continues to verbalize all of the answers to his para before looking at the assignment. John’s teacher has not taken any behavioral data because she reported that John does not make comments any more than any of her other students. The para sits in the back of the class for the first hour (per John’s request) and then listens to him verbalize his answers at his desk. She sits with him while he completes the written portion, but only interacts when he has a question.
Purchase answer to see full attachment