SCOPE

• President's Message
• 2023 Summer Institute- Save the Date!
  
• Fall Conference Registration
• An Important Announcement About the Fall Conference
  
• Restorative Justice as an Alternative to Exclusionary Disciple
• Assessment Committee: School Psychology Assistant Survey
  
• Strategies to Help Students with Inattentive Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
  
• 5 strategies to gain parent buy-in early in MTSS
  
• Timely Completion of Initial Evaluations Under the IDEA
  
• WSASP Elections
• WSASP Leadership
• Emails for Area Representatives
• SCOPE Advertising Guideline
• Contact SCOPE

President’s Message

By Carrie Suchy, NCSP

When I was an undergraduate majoring in psychology and beginning to explore options for graduate training, I was advised to look into a profession I had never heard of - School Psychology. With no thought to graduate school in mind, I worked with my child development professor who was a school psychologist by training, not that I knew that at the time, on a research project for a credit needed to graduate. She would eventually introduce me to this profession. Our project was evaluating the effectiveness of our local HeadStart preschools in preparing students for kindergarten. Over the semester working with my professor on this project, she observed that this is a profession I might be interested in. It was a completely new possibility for me. I was not aware of any such role in the schools I attended, so I looked into it. Immediately, there was one thing about this job that appealed to me. School psychologists are trained to do so many different things. It looked like a job where monotony would not be a concern. Every day would potentially be different from the day before, and school psychologists do many different things in schools. Not teaching every day, not counseling every day, not data analysis every day, but possibly all of those things on some days. That just about sold me on this job. (It did not hurt that a basic cost benefit analysis indicated I would have higher earning potential on average with this 3 year graduate degree than if I pursued a 7 year PhD in clinical psychology, which was the other area I was interested in. I was making data-based decisions before I knew it was called that!) Little did I know that I would love this job. It is my calling. It is an intrinsic part of my identity that I am a school psychologist. If I had chosen a different path to get that credit I needed, or if I had pursued a minor in my undergrad, making my need for extra credits not exist, I may have never even known this was an option.

We all know there is a shortage in the field of school psychology. We all know that there are a lot of reasons why. Students don’t know about the profession, the pay is low for the level of training, working in education gets a bad reputation in the public eye, graduate training is costly in time, money and personal resources, and the list can go on and on. But every one of the members of WSASP found their way into this profession.

As we move into Spring, the moment my evaluation list seems to finally be shrinking I start to look forward to next year and think about changes I want to make in my practice. I think back and wonder if there is anything I used to do or wanted to do that I have not done? Can I try again next year? I think about this year and what went well, what did not, and what might be some realistic changes I can make? I do this because I love being a school psychologist and how many amazing skills I have that might support my students. But I, like all of us, can get bogged down in the day to day and drift from my intended and sometimes ideal practices and goals. The new school year is like new year’s day for me. It is a time for resolution and an opportunity for improvement, and I start in the spring thinking about that opportunity. How can I recenter my practice around my passion for this work? That is what keeps me loving this job. A perpetual cycle of personal reflection, improvement and problem-solving. Part of that process always gets me thinking about my path into this field of practice.

I think the paths that we take are such an important part of who we are as school psychologists. This was certainly true for me. Have you thought about your path lately? What about your passion for this job, is it fading under the mounting stressors? We see the increased needs our students have, and yet we rarely see an increase in staffing. This is hard work. I believe it is important that as a professional I take that time to reflect, consider how I can improve, and problem solve if there are things draining my passion for this work.

Being your President this year, and President Elect last year, those are things that have certainly added to my to-do list. But serving in these roles, and serving on the WSASP Board in general, has provided me opportunity for personal and professional growth. This service has fed my passion, not my exhaustion. Even when my job can feel tiresome or like I am stuck exercising one set of skills more than any other, my service to WSASP reminds me always of what I could do and of the varied, useful, and necessary skills we all have as school psychologists. My service to WSASP always reminds me of all the opportunities I have to improve my work satisfaction and hopefully impact that of other school psychologists through leadership.

So, as I leave the Presidency in the capable hands of our President-Elect, Mikael Olson, I have an ask for you all. Think back. What put you on the path to become a school psychologist? How does that beginning continue to define your passion for this work? I would love to hear your story on the WSASP facebook group. Let’s all take some time, reflect on how we started down this road, and reflect on what will maintain our passion moving into 2023-2024!

The 2023 Summer Institute will be held virtually August 10-11, 2023. This summer's theme is focused on advanced practice in completing functional behavior assessments (FBAs). Four sessions across two days from state and national presenters will take a deep dive into completing meaningful FBAs that can be used to develop and support intervention plans and mental health services for students. A comprehensive announcement will be coming soon, including presenters and registration cost.

From the WSASP PD Committee

Arick Branen & Tracy Pennington

Professional Development Co-Chairs

The End of an Era: A Letter from your Professional Development Chairs

Just over 20 years ago, WSASP was considering discontinuing fall conferences due to small attendance, which were dwindling every year. New leadership took over however, and the team decided to start holding conferences in nicer venues, with the belief that it would bring more people together. In 2003, The Historical Davenport in Spokane was selected as the first conference in a hotel. Per a statement from a long-time sales associate with the Davenport, this was the first ‘big’ conference they had ever held. The Davenport became very popular with school psychologists and was the main location for years to come! WSASP Fall Conferences have continued to be held at exquisite venues and resorts. We were able to do this without raising the cost of the conference significantly over the years and enjoyed gatherings between 350-450 people. Due in large part to the Covid-19 pandemic, times have changed. People have become more comfortable participating in conferences online, which significantly impacted the attendance at both the 2021 and 2022 conferences. Both conferences only attracted 100 practicing school psychologists. This past fall, we had more students at the conference than general members! At the same time, the hotels have increased costs for food, audio visual, and hotel rooms. As we are required to guarantee room block sizes and food/drink minimums, we have suffered incredible losses for the association, which is unsustainable. To continue in these venues, we would have to double the cost of conference registration.

As a solution to this dilemma, we have elected to hold the conference virtually, over zoom this fall, 2023. This will allow many more psychologists to attend the conference, allow for a greater diversity of speakers both from a national and international pool of presenters, and allow for attendance asynchronously through the use of an archive or library of the talks. This will also allow for us to continue to produce high quality conferences without raising registration costs. Our mission is to provide needed and desired professional development to the psychologists of Washington. At this time, a virtual conference is seen as the only solution. In the future we will entertain other options such as holding a ‘mini’ in person conference, conferences on college campuses around the state, and/or

continued virtual conferences. Although this is the end of an era for hosting conferences as we’ve known them, our professional development committee is stronger than ever and we are committed to continuing to provide our membership the relevant, quality professional development you have all come to expect. We look forward to continuing to serve our membership.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE DETAILS ABOUT THE 2023 FALL CONFERENCE!

By Kate Ashton and Heidi Perez, Central Washington University

Exclusionary Discipline

While exclusionary discipline is frequently employed within classrooms, its benefits and

overall effectiveness are questionable. Exclusionary discipline is implemented to improve the

learning environment, but these practices are not effective in either improving the overall school climate or the academic achievement of the students. In fact, these zero tolerance strategies could potentially be having the opposite effect (American Psychological Association, 2008; Wang et al., 2023). The total rate of student delinquency, victimization, and violence has declined in recent years; therefore, exclusionary discipline such as suspensions and expulsions are not the result of worsening behavior (Gregory et al., 2014; Payne & Welch, 2018; U.S. Department of Education, n.d.). Instead, these strategies are employed in response to minor violations. For example, suspensions are often used in response to physical aggression, but they are also utilized as punishments for minor infractions like attendance issues or simple disobedience (Losen & Skiba, 2010). The short-term outcomes of this exclusionary discipline are often discussed, either positively or negatively, but the long-term outcomes are also highly relevant. Students who are constantly disciplined using these exclusionary strategies are unintentionally or intentionally “pushed out” of their school, resulting in their increased likelihood of long-term negative outcomes (Mongan & Walker, 2012; Skiba et al., 2014). Overall, even though exclusionary discipline is still prevalent in educational settings, it is ineffective and potentially detrimental to the disciplined students.

Exclusionary discipline has a multitude of consequences, but the most salient outcome is

decreased academic achievement. Specifically, exclusionary punishments that are excessive

result in lower academic achievement and engagement for both the student being excluded and the other students in the classroom, especially when these suspensions are used to punish developmentally normative violations (Wang et al., 2023). Not only does exclusionary

discipline affect academic achievement, but it is also evident that it results in increased

delinquency. In fact, exclusionary discipline acts as a significant predictor of increased

delinquency; these harsh discipline strategies do not reduce violence and instead potentially

increase its frequency (Gerlinger et al., 2021; Payne & Welch, 2018). Removing students from school can result in unintentional adverse consequences and cause those who have been excluded to misbehave more in the future. Additionally, these results are not affected by demographic criteria, indicating that the demographics of the individual do not have a meaningful effect on the rate of future delinquency (Gerlinger et al., 2021). Therefore, this relationship between discipline and increased delinquency cannot be better explained by demographic criteria such as race, ethnicity, or gender. Instead, the exclusionary discipline practices have a direct effect on student delinquency, further exacerbating the problem rather than ameliorating it.

Similar to its effect on delinquency, exclusionary discipline appears to have a direct

relationship with the justice system. There is a meaningful relationship between the use of

exclusionary discipline and a student’s future contract with the justice system (Gerlinger et al.,2021; Mowen & Brent, 2016). Students who have been suspended are much more likely to come in contact with the justice system; these students are 2.85 times more likely to get involved with the justice system within one year of their suspension. Furthermore, the more that a student is suspended, the higher these odds become (Fabelo et al., 2011). Specifically, students who are constantly excluded through punishment are almost nine times more likely to be arrested than students who are rarely suspended (Novak, 2021). Additionally, the rates of disciplinary practices that involve the justice system are increasing; between the 2015-16 and 2017-18 school years, school-related arrests increased by 5% and referrals to law enforcement increased by 12% (Office for Civil Rights, 2021). Thus, exclusionary discipline strategies can directly affect the probability of a student coming into contact with the justice system, increasing the likelihood of arrest and other associations.

Restorative Justice

In recent years, there has been a rise in restorative justice, which is a more effective and

less detrimental alternative to exclusionary discipline practices within schools. Restorative

justice is based on Indigenous traditions that prioritize interconnectedness and high-quality

relationships to encourage the welfare of the overall community (Amstutz & Mullet, 2014). These concepts are typically implemented through practices such as restorative conversations, peer mediation, and talking circles, intending to build, maintain, and repair relationships within the school (Hendry, 2009; Katic et al., 2020). Restorative justice was initially used within the criminal justice system, implementing these practices to both promote healing and prevent future offenses. Similarly, within the school setting, restorative justice shifts the focus from exclusionary punishments to reconciliation, rehabilitation of relationships, and reintegration into the school community (Payne & Welch, 2018). Exclusionary discipline results in many negative consequences, but restorative justice can be implemented as a positive alternative that promotes the student’s involvement with the school community rather than isolation from the community.

Aligning with the focus of restorative justice, one approach taken by schools is to

emphasize building and repairing relationships. The presence of strong positive relationships and the students’ perceptions of these relationships are significant predictors of behaviors such as fighting and substance use as well as academic success; the absence of these relationships in the school environment is connected to negative psychological and academic outcomes (Myrick & Martorell, 2011; Woolley et al., 2009; Yang & Anyon, 2016). Student-staff relationships are especially important. These relationships act as the foundation for problem-solving abilities, affect the students’ perceptions of discipline, and can reduce suspension rates (Anyon et al., 2018; Okonofua et al., 2022). Teachers are better able to respond to student misbehavior and identify the root of the issue, increasing the odds of students taking responsibility and changing their behavior (Anyon et al., 2018). Additionally, implementing restorative justice improves the relationships between students of color and staff members, causing them to feel safer and more connected to the adults within the school (Anyon et al., 2016; Katic et al., 2020; Woolley et al., 2009). These relationships create a sense of belonging among the students and improve both the rate of and response to misbehaviors. To improve these relationships, many strategies can be implemented, including home visits, advisory periods during school, positive contact with parents and guardians, student greetings, and staff visibility (Anyon et al., 2018). Executing these strategies will improve the overall relationship quality between school staff and students and help minimize problem behaviors.

There are many positive outcomes associated with enacting restorative justice goals,

including decreased negative disciplinary consequences. When exclusionary discipline is

replaced with restorative justice techniques, behavioral concerns, student delinquency, and

recidivism decrease while academic performance increases (American Psychological

Association, 2008; Morrison & Vaandering, 2012; Oakland Unified School District, 2014; Payne & Welch, 2018). Therefore, restorative justice can counteract the negative effects of exclusionary discipline and increase positive student outcomes while also decreasing negative behaviors. Not only does restorative justice decrease student delinquency rates, but it also improves social relationships within the school and reduces the number of discipline referrals that are sent to the school office (Katic et al., 2020). Overall, restorative justice is an effective and successful alternative to exclusionary discipline.

Implementing a restorative justice plan within the entire school will not only decrease the

negative consequence associated with exclusionary discipline, but it will also foster a positive school culture. Previously, most schools that have implemented restorative justice techniques have used them to respond to specific behavior issues rather than building a positive school culture, but for a comprehensive restorative approach to be reached, the entire school climate needs to shift to include the basic principles of restorative justice (Evans & Vaandering, 2016; Gregory et al., 2014; Morrison, 2015). Once these values and skills are integrated into the school, an environment will be created that is better able to respond to all relationships within the school, not only to incidents of violence and aggression (González et al., 2019). This improved response will result in improved student outcomes. Altogether, restorative justice improves the school climate if implemented properly, leading to improved relationships and lasting positive effects.

As mentioned previously, one specific example of a method based on restorative justice

is that of Talking Circles. Based on the practices of Native American tribes and the First Nations people of Canada, Talking Circles can be implemented as an appropriate alternative to suspensions or expulsions (Bintliff, 2014; Umbreit, 2003; Walsh, 2015). Talking Circles allow issues to be handled within the classroom by providing each student with the opportunity to speak without judgement or interruption; as a result, students are not excluded from the learning environment and both deeper listening and reflection are promoted within the conversation (Mehl-Madrona & Mainguy, 2014; Reimer, 2020). Furthermore, implementing Talking Circles facilitates communication, creates a safe space for students to express their thoughts and feelings, allows different perspectives to be addressed, and establishes an opportunity for learning (Skrzypek et al., 2020). While these circles are useful in response to problem behaviors, they can also be implemented weekly as a preventative measure and to help establish trust between one another (Reimer, 2020). Talking Circles are just one method among many that can be implemented as part of the transition to a restorative approach. Overall, restorative justice has many benefits and can be used in place of exclusionary discipline strategies to better support all students in schools.

More information about restorative justice can be found at: https://www.nea.org/professional-excellence/student-engagement/tools-tips/restorative-practices

Summarized by Kelly Nichols, Ed.S NCSP

During the 2021-2022 school year 54 school psychologists responded to a survey sent out by WSASP’s Assessment Committee. This survey arose from questions about the use and prevalence of school psychologist assistants (SPAs) in the state. This survey sought to gain preliminary data on SPAs and on other staff members who may commonly be involved in evaluation activities (e.g. special education teachers, paraprofessionals, etc.)

These respondents reported from 12 of the 13 areas. The largest proportion of respondents came from Area 1C (22%), followed by Area 3 (13%), and Area 7 (11%). The other areas made up between 2-7% of responses. The largest proportion of responding school psychologists (29.6%) reported that their district employs over 30 school psychologists. Approximately a fifth of the respondents work in districts employing between 6-10 and 18.5% work in districts of 16-20 school psychologists. Additionally, 13% work in districts of 21-30; 11% work in districts employing 0-5; and 7.4% work in districts of 11-15 psychologists. Regarding funding sources, the majority (87%) of school psychologists reported that their role was funded through special education only; and 11% reported dual funding between Special Ed and General Ed funding sources.

Information on psychologist to student ratios varied somewhat with most reporting caseloads between 800-1200 students (currently NASP recommends 1:500). Of those that responded, 21% reported a 1:1000 ratio, 17% reported 1:1200, 16% reported 1:900, and 10.7% reported 1:1100. Less than 4% of respondents reported other ratios either higher, lower, or that they did not know. This fits relatively well with the findings of the 2022 WSASP Census which reported that the majority of school psychologists in Washington work at ratios between 1:750 to 1:1250.

Information obtained on who completes academic testing as part of evaluation processes indicates that a small majority of school psychologists (54.5%) conduct the testing themselves. Approximately 31% report that their special education teachers conduct the assessments. Of particular interest to the primary aim of this survey, 10.4% report that a school psychologist assistant completed the academic testing. Interestingly, 2.6% reported that a paraprofessional conducts academic assessments. For comparison, the 2022 WSASP census reported that approximately 70% (of 488 responses) completed academic achievement tests for evaluation.

Similarly, the responses pertaining to observations indicate that the majority (58%) conduct their own evaluations. 17% report that observations are completed by behavior support staff, and 8.6% report that special education teachers provide observations for evaluations. Under 5% reported that school psychologist assistants, counselors, and other “assessment specialists” complete observations for evaluations. When it comes to cognitive testing, every respondent reported that school psychologists conduct the assessments in their district. One respondent reported that an assistant enrolled in a graduate program completed cognitive testing. On evaluation case managers, the majority (62.8%) responded that school psychologists typically take on this role. Other responses indicated that other ESA staff are case managers for evaluations as well (presumably when there are no concerns in psychology related assessment areas).

Perhaps the most pertinent take-away from this survey is that school psychologist assistants appear to be relatively rare and most commonly used for academic testing, if used at all. Alternatively this survey also found that special education teachers complete academic assessments much more frequently. This does bring up some questions on the training and testing-related experience that these teachers hold. Future surveys may wish to connect directly with special education teachers to obtain information on their assessment training, understanding of testing constructs, and testing-related self-efficacy. This may be of particular interest as the discrepancy model sunsets. For example, in districts where teachers complete the bulk of academic assessment, will special education teachers continue to participate in this kind of diagnostic assessment, or will that role shift back to school psychologists as a component of MTSS evaluations? Regardless of future directions of assessment roles, school psychologists should continue to work with the team to ensure that assessment-related members meet the publisher qualifications and have familiarity with the technical and construct properties of their chosen batteries.

Kim Storment Smith and Heidi Perez, Ph.D.

Central Washington University

Students with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) can have numerous academic and social difficulties in the school setting. One specific type of ADHD is ADHD Primarily Inattentive type, which is referred to as Inattentive ADHD in this paper. The symptoms of Inattentive ADHD can lead teachers to believe a student may be purposefully off-task or not following directions and treat the disorder as a behavioral concern. However, Inattentive ADHD is a brain-based disorder. By implementing evidence-based strategies for classroom environments and academics, school staff can develop interventions that help students with Inattentive ADHD be successful in school.

General Information on Inattentive ADHD

An ADHD diagnosis affects many children in the US. According to the CDC, 10% of children ages 6-11 years and 13% of children 12-17 years have received an ADHD diagnosis. Collectively, 5.7 million children ages 6-17 years have been diagnosed with ADHD. The three ADHD subtypes are Primarily Inattentive (PI), Hyperactive-Impulsive (HI), and Combined (C). ADHD-HI and ADHD-C can often be more easily observed in the classroom due to the increased need for activity those students demonstrate. Symptoms of Inattentive ADHD include six or more of the following symptoms for the last 6 months: often fails to give close attention to details or makes careless mistakes in school work, often has difficulty in sustaining attention in tasks or play activities, often does not seem to listen when spoken to directly, often does not follow through on instructions and fails to finish schoolwork, often has difficulty organizing tasks and activities, often avoids, dislikes, or is reluctant to engage in tasks that require sustained mental effort, often loses things necessary for tasks or activities, is often easily distracted by extraneous stimuli, and is forgetful in daily activities (DSM-5-TR, 2022).

ADHD Impacts in School

Students with Inattentive ADHD can be challenging in the classroom environment where a teacher needs to attend to the diverse needs of all students. Students with Inattentive ADHD tend to require more prompts, reminders, and assistance with organization. They are not only more easily distracted but their off-task behavior can distract other students from their classwork. They can appear as daydreamers and uninterested in attempting or completing schoolwork. A student’s difficulty in following directions or being easily distracted can be attributed to a behavioral issue, and especially for girls, attributed to immaturity (Quinn & Wigal, 2004). Elementary school students with Inattentive ADHD have higher rates of disinhibition than their peers, which can further lead school staff to assume the student’s behavior may reflect a behavioral issue (Tillman et al., 2011).

Students can also have difficulty with peer relationships due to missing social cues. Students with Inattentive ADHD can be a frustration to their peers if their behavior distracts their classmates. Older students have increased rates of depression, anxiety, and substance misuse. It is vitally important for school staff to be familiar with the neurological basis of the student’s behavior to not only understand it but implement effective interventions and accommodations. Appropriate interventions are critically important since mistreated ADHD can result in negative self-esteem from internalizing the reactions of peers and teachers to ADHD-related behaviors (American Academy of Pediatrics, 2022).

ADHD Neurology and the School Environment

ADHD is the result of dysfunction in neural circuits. It involves connections and interactions between many different brain areas. Up to 58% of children with ADHD have associated weaknesses in attention, graphomotor skills, and processing speed (Dickerson-Mayes & Calhoun, 2007). In the school setting, these deficits can cause the student difficulty with academic expectations. Inattention due to deficiencies in processing speed can contribute to wide-ranging difficulties in several skill areas. Students may have increased difficulty in physical activities with hand-eye coordination or throwing a ball. Difficulties in knowing how much pressure to apply to a pencil and discoordination in forming letters can affect a student’s performance in writing tasks. The inability to distinguish and recognize certain sounds can affect a student’s ability to learn phonological processing skills (Kibby et al., 2019). Overall, deficiencies in a student’s processing speed affect their ability to learn, understand, and apply information at the same rate as their peers.

There are also correlations between Inattentive ADHD and short-term working memory (STM) and working memory (WM). Cognitive deficits in either or both STM and WM affect a student’s ability to store and use information. These skills are vital to success in the school environment, as most of the information presented to students is new and/or requires scaffolding to prior knowledge. Students with Inattentive ADHD may not be able to process information at the same rate as their peers, nor be able to access information and apply it as needed to complete an expected academic, social, or motor activity. High reinforcement has been shown to improve the performance of students with STM and WM deficits. However, even given the improvement associated with high reinforcement, the student may still not be able to demonstrate behavior that is typical (Dovis et al., 2013). The neurological basis of Inattentive ADHD affects students on a global level. A student’s cognitive, academic, social, behavioral, and physical skills can be impacted. School staff play an important role in ensuring the student with Inattentive ADHD is provided with an environment, accommodations, and modifications that promote acceptance and provide strategies to support their success.

Classroom Environment Strategies

It is important to prepare, plan, and design a system of positive, preventative, and proactive supports to help a student succeed (DuPaul & Kern, 2011). Children with ADHD often have difficulty with peer relationships. Supports such as a classroom environment where the teacher has developed an expectation of valuing inclusion, kindness, and patience can increase a student’s acceptance from their peers. Strategies can include frequent awards to publicly identify all student’s genuine strengths, exclusive of behavioral compliance, and with special effort to identify children with behavioral difficulties who are most at risk of peer exclusion. Collaborative activities which partner students with ADHD and their peers with explicit instructions to treat each other with kindness and patience and then awarding class points toward a class reward when those behaviors are observed can promote peer inclusion. Helping students find commonalities, such as a mutual interest in drawing, can help encourage positive social connections (Mikami et al., 2013). Particularly for children with challenging behavior, a teacher’s acceptance and focus on the student’s strengths can help break down their negative reputation and model to other students that it is worthwhile to get to know their peers (Mikami et al., 2012). Teachers’ reactions to a student’s challenging behavior can affect other students’ acceptance and inclusion of them. In effect, the teachers’ reactions and statements serve as a guidepost for how students determine the value of patience, kindness, and inclusion of their peers (McAuliffe et al., 2009). These methods can achieve a positive accepting environment for all students, not just those with ADHD.

Daily Report Card (DRC)

Successful implementation of a Daily Report Card (DRC) can improve student outcomes and foster better communication between teachers and parents. The school team, parents, and the student if appropriate, can develop goals unique to the student’s needs. Goals may focus on academic productivity, compliance, or behavior in less structured school settings, such as recess. The DRC includes specific criteria on how the student can achieve each goal. For example, if the student’s goal was to increase productivity in sentence writing, the DRC criteria could be to write 4 sentences in their writing journal. The teacher provides immediate feedback on the DRC and praises both the student’s appropriate effort during the task and any successful result. The form should be sent home daily. Parents can develop a hierarchy of home-based rewards contingent on the student’s DRC performance. The connection between appropriate behavior at school and rewards at home can develop a stronger school-home partnership. By earning home-based rewards, students may be able to earn rewards that are more desired and more highly valued than those that can be provided at school (Fabiano et al., 2010).

Classroom Strategies

• Backpack checks before and after school to ensure a student does not forget assignments or materials

• A reasonable time limit on homework or reduced assignments, so students with ADHD do not spend a longer amount of time on homework than their peers

• Two sets of books, one for school and one for home so the child always has them available for homework

• Preferential seating next to the teacher and with classmates who are attentive

• Tasks broken into smaller manageable segments and/or reduced assignments

• Organizational and study skills instruction

• Provide class notes and outlines so the student has a framework for important information (Dickerson-Mayes & Calhoun, 2007)

• Evaluate the amount of visual stimuli in the classroom and limit distracting items

• Make sure the student knows how to successfully perform an assignment

• Ask for an immediate repetition of directions or what the student will do next

• Maintain consistency in the delivery of verbal information and give clear directions

• Some students may require delivery of only one concept or step at a time

• Appoint a peer helper to whom the student can ask questions about assignments (McCarney, 1995).

Functional Behavior Assessment (FBA)

It is important to mention that while a variety of classroom teaching and classroom environment strategies may have a positive influence on student behavior, some students may further benefit from a functional behavior assessment (FBA) to help them achieve success in school. An FBA is a best practice and can provide an individualized approach to identifying the current function of a student’s behavior. Once data has been collected, a plan can be developed to teach the student a more acceptable alternative or general behavior which, when demonstrated, will be reinforced.

Cara Nissman, LRP Publications.

This article was forwarded to WSASP by Bill Elvey, Special Education Services, OSPI

Parents should know about a district's multi-tiered system of supports long before their child gets to the point of needing Tier 3 interventions. It should be clear that MTSS is a "comprehensive continuum of evidence-based, systemic practices to support a rapid response to students' needs, with regular observation to facilitate data-based instructional decision-making." 20 USC 7801 (33). Otherwise, parents may lose trust in the district and question whether staff members view parents' participation in their child's education as a priority. Special education directors should ensure staff members take the following steps to build parents' trust in MTSS from the beginning.

How to build trust of parents in MTSS

1. Learn parents' concerns.

Survey parents at the beginning of the year to find out:

•What they think are their child's main struggles.

•What issues regarding their child's education are important to them.

•What resources they need.

Later in the semester, survey them again to see if and how their concerns have changed. Draw on this information when meeting with parents to show an understanding of their needs.

2. Clarify what MTSS is.

Provide parents with information in print, in email, and in person on how MTSS works, including what progress monitoring looks like, and how the process helps students. Also, consider posting videos about the MTSS model on the district website. Use simple language. Do not use any jargon.

3. Be culturally sensitive.

Bring school personnel and families together for cooking, music, and other activities that show and allow them to discuss cultural traditions and experiences, and so people get to know one another and build mutual understanding and trust, which will be necessary later if they must collaborate on a child's intervention.

4. Offer parent training

Make classes available to parents throughout the year on how they can support their child's academic and social-emotional growth. Include:

•Guest speakers on timely topics.

•Lessons on how to motivate their child.

•Tips for communicating expectations to their child.

•Ways to reinforce interventions they are receiving at school.

5. Give parents leadership roles.

Give parents who want to be involved the opportunity to disseminate information about interventions available to other parents. They can help put fellow parents at ease about the MTSS process. Also, ensure parent-teacher associations know how to explain MTSS.

Cara Nissman covers autism, school psychology, and IEP team issues for LRP Publications.

From the NASP Communique: republished with permission

By Perry A. Zirkel, Lauren Irwin, & Maria N. Locuniak

Volume 51 Issue 7, pp. 30–31

This next article in the series on evaluation under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) focuses on the common, core responsibility of school psychologists for timely completion of the initial evaluation. For this topic, we first provide a legal analysis and then a discussion for professional implementation that includes ethical considerations and practical recommendations.

Legal Analysis

The legal dimension of this responsibility extends to employment accountability, which depends on state law and local policy. However, the focus here is on the court decisions under the IDEA within the framework of the IDEA legislation and regulations, corollary state special education laws, and the limited supplementation of federal agency policy interpretations. Understanding the role of these sources of law for timely initial evaluations requires a brief overview of the relevant framework of the IDEA.

First, the IDEA legislation, which is amended periodically with the most recent being for the reauthorization in 2004, provides the basic requirements. Next, the IDEA's administering agency, which is the U.S. Department of Education, issues regulations that repeat these requirements along with gap-filling specifications, with the latest full version being issued in 2006. Additionally, the Department's Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) periodically provides policy interpretations of the regulations, which are not binding but often are persuasive in pertinent court decisions. Finally, although not covered herein due to their negligible legal weight and cumbersome frequency, the IDEA provides two other decisional enforcement mechanisms at the administrative level (Zirkel, 2021). The first, which is adjudicative and subsidiary to court decisions, consists of due process hearing decisions (e.g., Los Angeles Unified School District, 2010). The second is a separate and investigative procedure often referred to as the state complaint process (e.g., Minnesota Transitions Charter #4017, 2013). The coverage here also does not extend to the overlapping investigative procedure of the Office for Civil Rights complaint resolution procedure under Section 504 (e.g., Walled Lake Consolidated Schools, 2008).

IDEA Legislation and Regulations

First, as a more general matter, the IDEA's legislation (2018, §1415[f][3][E]) and, without further elaborations, the regulations (2021, §300.513[a][2]) have codified a two-step adjudicative analysis for alleged procedural violations of the core obligation for a “free appropriate public education” (FAPE): (1) whether the school district has violated one or more of the procedural requirements of the IDEA or corollary state law, and, if so, (2) whether the violation(s) either caused a substantive denial of FAPE to the child or “significantly impeded the parent's opportunity to participate in the decision-making process” for FAPE. If the answer is yes only to step 1, a hearing officer or court is limited to the remedy of a prospective order for future compliance in contrast with a compensatory remedy. On the other hand, the state complaint process may use either a one-step or the two-step analysis for compensatory or purely prospective corrective action.

Second and specifically, the relevant requirement for timely initial evaluations under the IDEA legislation (2018) is the following completion deadline for the initial evaluation, which includes the culminating eligibility team meeting: “within 60 [calendar] days of receiving parental consent for the evaluation, or, if the State establishes a timeframe within which the evaluation must be conducted, within such timeframe.” This provision includes two exceptions—one if the child enrolls in a school of another district during the relevant time frame and the parent has agreed with the other district's prompt completion of the evaluation, and the other, more significantly, if “the parent … repeatedly fails or refuses to produce the child for the evaluation” (§ 1414[a][1][C]). IDEA regulations repeat these provisions without elaboration (§ 300.301[c]-[d]). Moreover, the evaluation must not only determine eligibility but also the educational needs of the child (§ 300.301[c][2]).

State Laws

Some state laws have taken the specified alternative of establishing their own time frame. Here are some examples:

• Arizona's regulations allow for an extension of 30 calendar days “if it is in the best interest of the child, and the parent and [district] agree in writing.”
• Delaware's regulations require completion of the evaluation within 45 school days in situations in which that period is less than 90 calendar days.
• Georgia's regulations exempt from the 60-day period “holiday periods and other circumstances when children are not in attendance for five consecutive days” and “[a]ny summer vacation period in which the majority of [the district's] teachers are not under contract.”
• Indiana's regulations specify 50 “instructional days,” with the variation of 20 instructional days for children participating in response to intervention (RTI).
• Maine's regulations stipulate “45 school days.”
• Louisiana's regulations specify 60 “business days.”
• Pennsylvania's regulations exempt from the 60 calendar days the period “from the day after the last day of the spring school term up to and including the day before the first day of the subsequent fall school term.”
• Washington's regulations specify 35 school days unless otherwise agreed between the parents and district in writing, including the reasons.
• 
  

OSEP Policy Interpretations

First, upon issuance of the 2006 regulations, the Department of Education added the accompanying comments that it had chosen not to specify the time frame for the periods immediately before consent and between completion of the evaluation and the determination of eligibility. Thus, such matters are left for either specifications in state laws or determinations of reasonable time by courts or other enforcement mechanisms based on the circumstance of each case. For example, hearing officers and reviewing courts address the preconsent reasonable-time period as a component of child find cases (e.g., Zirkel, 2020).

Second, while acknowledging that “conducting evaluation activities during extended breaks, such as the typical school's summer vacation, can be challenging for school districts, particularly if fewer staff members are available,” OSEP clarified that the timeline applies as specified in the IDEA or, if different, state law (Letter to Reyes, 2012).

Similarly, although acknowledging the difficulties during the pandemic, OSEP emphasized that the IDEA's timeline applies, including its two exceptions and the alternative of state law customization. Said alternative, this guidance explained, extends to “the flexibility to establish additional exceptions through State regulation or policy” (COVID-19 Questions and Answers, 2020).

OSEP's most recent relevant guidance reminded districts not to delay timely completion of initial evaluations for students participating in RTI and encouraged districts to complete the evaluations of highly mobile children within expedited time frames whenever possible (Letter to State Directors of Special Education, 2022).

Court Decisions

A relatively early decision by the federal district court in the District of Columbia addressed possible “tolling,” or temporarily stopping the clock, for the applicable period based on alleged parental obstruction. In this case, in upholding a hearing officer decision that ordered the defendant charter school to fund an independent educational evaluation for the child as the remedy for not meeting the then applicable timeline, the court rejected the school's tolling argument for two overlapping reasons. Although the parent was partially at fault for initial delays, she had not continuously and effectively frustrated the school's scheduling arrangements. Indeed, after the initial delays, the school failed to contact the parent for scheduling the evaluation until more than 3 months after expiration of the then-applicable period (Integrated Design & Electronics Academy Public Charter School v. McKinley, 2008).

In a case the following year, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which encompasses Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, ruled that although the evaluation, which found the child eligible under the IDEA, was completed 6 weeks late, the student was not entitled to compensatory education in the absence of preponderant proof of the requisite resulting loss to the child or the parents. More specifically, the appeals court concluded that the record in this case did not show that the undue delay had any impact on the parents’ decision to keep the student in private school during the year in question (P.P. v. West Chester Area School District, 2009).

Conversely, in a case in which the school district violated the then-applicable time period for completion of the initial evaluation for a child, which determined that the child was eligible under the IDEA, a federal court concluded that the violation resulted in a denial of FAPE by delaying the child's access to special education services. The difference from the prior case is that this student would have had an IEP sooner if the evaluation was completed within the requisite period. Here the parents unilaterally placed the child in a private school, which met the substantive standard for FAPE, in response to the district's failure to provide a timely IEP. Consequently, the court ruled that they were entitled to tuition reimbursement, per precedent in that jurisdiction, “‘from the date that the eligibility determination should have been made … until such time as the student is provided with an appropriate placement.’” (C.G. v. District of Columbia, 2013, p. 281).

Finally, addressing the aforementioned exception for parental failure or refusal, the federal district court in Maine upheld the hearing officer's ruling that the district did not meet the applicable 45-day deadline because the parent did not “produce” the student, an 11th grader who was having major emotional problems, for the evaluation. More specifically, the student was absent for the majority of the initial days in this period, and the parents unilaterally placed her in an out-of-state private school within the latter part of the period. Moreover, the court noted: Despite having no duty to utilize unconventional means to assess [the student] … [the school psychologist] nevertheless offered to “meet [with her] at a conference room located at [the local mental health facility] or even [her] home whatever [was] most comfortable for [her].” (Doe v. Cape Elizabeth School Department, 2019, p. 104 n.30)

Practice Implications

School psychologists have not only a legal duty but also an ethical obligation to adhere to the evaluation timeline. The NASP Principles for Professional Ethics (2020) reinforce and extend the duties under the IDEA and corollary state laws, including ensuring others’ legal adherence to the applicable timeline as follows:

• School psychologists respect the law and the civil and legal rights of students…[emphasis added].
• School psychologists assist administrators, teachers, other school personnel, and parents/guardians in understanding and adhering to legislation and regulations relevant to general and special education services [emphasis added].

Moreover, as a matter of professional best practice in working in collaboration with others for the interests of students, school psychologists’ pivotal position for timely initial evaluations determines not only IDEA eligibility but also individual strengths and areas of need for improved learning in general and special education.

Yet, we currently have a national shortage of school psychologists. After the COVID-19 return to school, school psychologists find themselves busier than ever due to the occupational shortage and the increased levels of students’ learning loss and mental health issues. As a result, school psychologists must become even more flexible and creative in dealing with their workload, including timely completion of initial evaluations.

Based on informal interviews with practicing school psychologists and special education directors, we have compiled some practical recommendations to assist school psychologists in completing evaluations within the required time frame. We group them here by category for ease of consideration.

Technology

• Utilize an Excel spreadsheet which has the formula programmed within it so one can successively enter the dates specific to obtaining consent and reaching completion in relation to the applicable timeline.
• Store RTI or MTSS data within a shared database so teacher or interventionist can enter the data, and the school psychologist can view the data, at any time.
• Establish a shared drive of data and other resources within the school district for interventions, recommendations, data collection, and other materials.
• Use electronic administration of assessments to make the process smooth and quick.

• Schedule the eligibility meeting at least 2 weeks in advance of the due date so as to have a grace period in case of a snow day or some unexpected circumstance.
• Hire part-time school psychologists to support the full-time school psychologists when needed. The “when needed” procedure is for the full-time school psychologist to receive this assistance upon request for discretionary utilization, such as to complete reevaluations while the full-timer focuses on the influx of initial evaluations.

• Ensure that the school psychologist is at the table during the RTI/MTSS team meetings so they have an ongoing understanding of the individual needs and progress of each participating student.
• Start the evaluation process by reviewing the MTSS data, interviewing the teacher, and observing the student so the school psychologist can home in on what further questions they need to answer and select the appropriate tools for this purpose.

• Train special education coordinators to administer some assessments (e.g., achievement testing) to free up time for the school psychologist.
• Train behavior specialists and paraprofessionals, and establish systems and procedures for them to collect behavioral data oriented toward student needs.

• Gain administrator support to create a culture of shared responsibility in completing the evaluation (e.g., school psychologist, reading specialist, teacher, and parents working on a smoothly coordinated basis).
• Build rapport with administrators so they can assess the most efficient and effective of the school psychologist's special skill set, assigning to others routine tasks that do not require such skills, such lunch and bus duty.
• Balance direct service provision and assessment priorities by leveraging other personnel who can provide direct counseling services.
• Increase recruitment by offering flexible hours and hybrid opportunities.
• Collaborate with local universities to cultivate relationships with practicum students and interns, and leverage them to help with the increased workload and expand the incoming pipeline.
• 
  

The application and relevance of the recommendations vary based on the state and local context. However, school psychologists who implement a customized selection of these strategies will find an increase in timeliness of evaluations and manageability of workload. Therefore, school psychologists are encouraged to leverage their sphere of influence for effectively applying these practical recommendations to successfully complete evaluations within the required time frame.

link to full article

Elections closed on May 1st. Members voted for President-Elect, Secretary, and Area Representatives for odd-numbered areas. Elected positions will begin July 1, 2023.

President-Elect: Anna Casey
Secretary: Kate Salveson
Area 1A: Unfilled
Area 1C: Marina Ganotra and Marci Nicholson
Area 3: Unfilled
Area 5: Unfilled
Area 7: Stephanie Kneedler and Jenna Hickey
Area 9: Kristin Schuster and Breanna McGarry

Thank you to everyone who participated, and who has served on the WSASP Board!

WSASP 2022-2023 Officers:

• President: Carrie Suchy
• President Elect: Mikael Olson
• Past President: Cassie Mulivrana
• Secretary: Gina Caulton
• Treasurer: Arick Brannen

WSASP 2023-2024 Officers:

• President: Mikael Olson
• President Elect: Anna Casey
• Past President: Carrie Suchy
• Secretary: Kate Salveson
• Treasurer: Arick Brannen

Over 2000 school psychologists and other educators currently receive the SCOPE

1) The services or products offered (advertised) shall provide potential direct and/or indirect benefit for school psychologists; children; and/or families. Benefits are not to be limited to the field of education.

2) The advertisements must be in good taste, meaning suitable for viewing by children and otherwise non-offensive i.e. non-sexist, nonracist, etc.

3) The company purchasing the advertisement space must be an established company in business for over five years and with known products. If the company's status does not meet this criterion, WSASP may require a catalog of products or services offered; a sample of products offered to preview; and/or references of prior service recipients. If the product/services are judged to be of likely benefit, the account will be accepted.

4) Product and service accounts are to be encouraged. Paid political advertisements and paid public policy statements will not be accepted unless approved by the executive board.

5) The Scope Editor will use the above guidelines to accept or decline advertising accounts.

6) The Scope Editor will refer questionable accounts to the WSASP executive board when the guidelines above are not sufficient to make judgment.

7) The WSASP executive board reserves the right to reject any accounts deemed below our standards of professionalism or of possible detriment to our Scope readers or association. The WSASP Board has approved these guidelines for organizations or individuals interested in advertising in our newsletter.

8) WSASP address is: 816 W Francis Ave, #214, Spokane, WA 99205

* For rates and conditions please email: SCOPE@wsasp.org

816 W. Francis Ave. #214, Spokane, WA 99205

509 724-1587

Contact@WASP.org