Michigan Psych ReportT H E

M I C H I G A N A S S O C I A T I O N O F S C H O O L P S Y C H O L O G I S T S

V. 39 • No. 4 • Summer 2012 V. 39 • No. 4 • Summer 2012

Implementing Evidence-Based Practices (Part 4 of 4)Jamie Owen-DeSchryver, Ph.D and Amy Matthews, Ph.D. Grand Valley State University, Psychology Department and Autism Education CenterKelly Dunlap, Psy.S.Grand Valley State University, Statewide Autism Resources and Training Project

Changes to educational law, the school reform movement, and other policy-based and philosophical shifts in recent years have all converged to promote the implementation of scientifi cally-based practices in schools. School psychologists have been at the forefront of implementation of many of the resulting practices, including Response to Intervention (RTI) and Schoolwide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports. While scientifi cally-researched practices have been less clearly defi ned in the fi eld of special education, over the past decade we have seen a signifi cant rise in our understanding of the importance of Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) in supporting students with Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD) as they participate in their school communities. For the fi nal article in this series on evidence-based practices and ASD, we will summarize information from the Statewide Autism Resources and Training (START) EBP Implementation Project by using examples of how two particular EBPs, self-management and video modeling, are being utilized in a variety of public elementary, middle, and high schools in the state. In doing so, we would like to thank the many professionals and administrators that have worked with us over the past four years to systematically implement EBPs to improve outcomes for students on the autism spectrum. These schools assembled teams to learn about and implement EBPs for students, which resulted in documented progress toward IEP goals. They employed team processes that were critical for successful EBP implementation, not only improving behavior and learning for the target students, but allowing each team member to learn practices that could be applied to a broad range of students.

Overview of Evidence-Based Practices: Self-Management and Video ModelingIn the following textboxes we have provided adapted summaries of the steps for implementing two evidence-based practices: self-management and video modeling. Full modules that describe these practices, including the scientifi c research base for the practices, steps for implementation, checklists, and data collection examples, can be viewed at the National Professional Development Center (NPDC) on ASD website: http://autismpdc.fpg.unc.edu/content/evidence-based-practices

Continued on page 2

Steps for Implementing Self-Management

1. Identify a target behavior to either increase or decrease

2. Identify reinforcers specifi cally based on learner interests

3. Develop a data collection system and collect baseline data on learner performance of the target behavior

4. Develop a self-monitoring system that meets the learner’s needs, characteristics and strengths

5. Teach the learner to use the self-management system to self-record behavior using prompting, shaping and reinforcement strategies

6. Implement the self-management system, and continue to prompt the student to self-record behavior, as needed

7. Collect data on the learner’s performance of the target behavior

8. Increase the learner’s independence in using the self-monitoring system (fade prompts)

9. Provide intermittent checks to determine whether students are self-monitoring and recording data accurately

10. Gradually increase criterion for reinforcement, as appropriate

Steps for Implementing Video Modeling

1. Identify a target behavior to increase

2. Collect data on the learner’s baseline performance of the target behavior

3. Create a script or task analysis that details the behavior or skill you wish to teach

4. Have a model act out the script and video-record the model demonstrating the behavior or skill (video models can involve peers, adults, or self-models)

5. Show the learner the video multiple times, as needed

6. Allow the learner to participate with the same materials and activities viewed in the video

7. Collect data on the learner’s performance of the target behavior

8. Fade watching the video, as appropriate

2 Summer 2012

Executive BoardPresident OPENPresident Elect Melissa Nantais melissanantais@me.comPast President Rod Teeple rodjteeple@cs.comSecretary Katie Lamb katiecharboneau@gmail.comTreasurer Sharon Petty sharonmasp@aol.com

Regional DirectorsRegion 1 Director Sarah Marshall smarshall@diisd.orgRegion 2 Director OPENRegion 3 Director Tanya Uganski k.uganski@comcast.netRegion 4 Director Yolanda Mojica yolandamojica@msn.comRegion 5 Director Linda Campbell campbellLM@kalamazoo.k12.mi.usRegion 6 Director OPENRegion 7 Director Michelle Showers mshowers@lakeorion.k12.mi.usRegion 8 Director Heidi Feldman hkfeldman@yahoo.comRegion 9 Director Katie Williams lovellkatie@hotmail.comRegion 10 Director Sharon Dusney dusneys@gcity.k12.mi.usRegion 11 Director Donna Sprague donna.sprague4@gmail.comRegion 12 Director Amy Schoenherr Shayner03@hotmail.comRegion 13 Director Paul Robb paulrobb@hotmail.com

Committee ChairsLegislative Action Yolanda MojicaProfessional Standards Cheryl SomersFinancial Advisory Sharon PettyMembership Katie Williams Katie Lamb (alternate)Public Info/Communications Tanya UganskiNominations & Elections Sharon DusneyConferences & Workshops Paul RobbStudent Erin SeifPublications Donna SpragueSB-CEUs David MaxwellWebsite Jason SinesUniversity Relations Cheryl Somers/WSUSEAC Representative Paul RobbNASP Delegate Tracy Hobbs michtkh@yahoo.com

Implementing Evidence-Based PracticesContinued from page 1

EBP Implementation Examples from Schools in MichiganSelf-Management[ Self-management to increase

initiations with peers – Upon fi rst entering his classroom, an elementary age student with ASD was provided with three cue cards on his desk. These laminated cards had different conversation starters written on them, including examples of greetings, questions, and comments that could be directed to peers. The student read the cue cards when he fi rst entered the classroom then used these cues as he approached and initiated interaction with three classmates of his choice. After initiating a conversation with three different peers, the student was taught to obtain a reward located at the teacher’s desk.

[ Self-management to improve self-monitoring of performance – A middle school student with ASD was noted to often require prompting from a teacher, paraprofessional, or another student before he initiated classroom activities. Although he did not engage in disruptive behavior, he was typically passive and prompt dependent. In order to address these concerns, the student was provided with a watch that was set to vibrate every 10 minutes. When the watch vibrated, the student was taught to review a visual chart. Under a header of “What am I supposed to be doing?”, the chart outlined steps the student could take to determine the current expectations in the classroom, for example: 1) look at the other students, 2) do what other students are doing, 3) if I’m still not sure, ask a peer, and 4) if I’m still not sure, raise my hand and ask the teacher. Using these self-monitoring checks that were prompted by the vibrating watch, the student engaged more independently in the general education environment.

[ Self-management to teach a student to return from breaks – Professionals in this elementary-age classroom had been working with a student with ASD to teach him a work-break system, where the student completed a classroom

activity, then received a break. In order to support this student’s independence in this process and improve his return to classroom activities following breaks, school staff added some self-management components. After completing a portion of his schoolwork, the elementary student went to the teacher’s desk, where he drew a number from a jar. The number indicated the number of minutes the student was allowed to participate in a choice activity, which usually involved playing on the computer or looking at a favorite book. The student was taught to set his own timer for the number of minutes he drew from the jar, and also helped to set the teacher’s timer for the drawn number, with an additional two minutes added to the timer. When the student’s timer beeped, he was expected to return to the classroom activity. If he returned to the ongoing classroom activity before the teacher’s timer beeped two minutes later, he received an additional small reinforcer. In this way, the student’s independent return to classroom activities was facilitated, and his participation in academic activities between breaks also improved.

Video Modeling[ Video modeling to teach standing in

line – A second grader with ASD who was fully integrated in an elementary building was struggling to line up and remain in line during various transitions throughout the day. Because the student often required additional prompting from adults, his inability to appropriately transition reduced his level of independence. Staff elicited the help of peers to create a video showing the expectations for lining up, which also included a verbal description of the rules. The video was shared with the student with ASD prior to all instances of lining up for a week. By the second week, he only watched the video one time per day. After a week of intervention, the student was able to verbally state the rules, and also demonstrated the ability to line up and transition independently most of the time. Initially, the student received a small reinforcer for lining up according to expectations, but he later received only

Continued on page 3

MASP Leadership2011-2012

3Summer 2012

verbal praise. Staff at the school subsequently used the video for other students who also needed support with this behavior.

[ Video modeling to teach appropriate job behavior – Staff from a high school program supporting students with ASD used video modeling to teach students the series of steps required at the onset of a volunteer job shift in a community business. Staff video-recorded a high-school peer navigating through the store to enter the employee lounge. During this walk, the typical peer modeled saying “hi” to the business owner, and once in the lounge, she modeled hanging up her coat and placing her personal belongings in an appropriate compartment on a shelf. This brief, 30-second segment was then shown to the three high school students with ASD prior to beginning their volunteer shifts in the store. This allowed the students to become familiar with the visual environment of the store, including how to navigate aisles to reach the employee lounge, incorporated information about social expectations (e.g. greeting the owner), and demonstrated other important expectations, such as where to leave one’s personal belongings during a shift.

[ Video modeling to teach the morning routine – Staff from an elementary school used video modeling to teach the daily morning routine to a student with ASD. Prior to the video modeling intervention, the student required as many as ten verbal and physical prompts to complete these steps. Staff created a video using general education peers as models which included a voice-over that described the routine. The routine included entering the school building, fi nding the student’s locker, removing coat and boots and placing them in the locker, obtaining class materials, and entering the classroom. The video was shown to the student with ASD 3-4 times per day for the fi rst two days and then faded over time. Within two weeks, the student was independent in following the morning routine. Due to the success of this intervention, staff subsequently video recorded the steps to several additional school routines and used these videos to promote independence in other school activities.

Coaching Teams to Implement Evidence-based PracticesOver the past three years, as we have worked with school professionals on the START EBP Implementation Project, we have learned many lessons about implementing this process. In this section, we will share some of the critical coaching elements that have emerged from our experiences.

Foundational Elements. Over time we discovered that it was helpful to begin the EBP implementation process by having the team review current practices at the building level through using the USAPT, and at the classroom level through using a Classroom Assessment Tool. Both of these

documents are available at the START website: www.gvsu.edu/autismcenter. We found that a solid foundation in universal support practices (e.g. team process, positive behavior intervention and supports, curricular accommodations and modifi cations) was required before EBPs could be effectively implemented. Teams needed to commit to scheduling regular, monthly team meetings for planning and progress review. Implementation of EBPs within the complex and dynamic environment of the classroom required strong administrative commitment, both in terms of time for meetings, as well as in the provision of accessible support from ancillary staff, particularly in the early stages of EBP implementation.

Data Collection. In an era of accountability, the need for data collection practices and processes has grown increasingly important. In order to effectively implement EBPs, school professionals fi rst needed to operationally-defi ne meaningful goals then collect data on student performance with respect to these goals. During this project we found that data collection was a challenging, but critical, process. Data collection began at baseline and was followed by daily or probe data collection to monitor progress. We discovered that ongoing review of data allowed school professionals to make decisions about EBP effectiveness and implement necessary changes to improve success. School teams also benefi tted from intermittent monitoring of implementation fi delity. This monitoring helped professionals attend to accuracy of implementation and assess whether lack of progress might be the result of deviation from the practice protocol.

Broad Knowledge of EBP. During this project we found that school professionals needed preparation to use a variety of EBPs simultaneously. In fact, the bulk of interventions implemented in schools through the course of this project incorporated multiple EBPs in an overlapping, or graduated, fashion. For example, in most cases, prompting and reinforcement were used in conjunction with other practices. When using visual support systems, prompting was used consistently in the early learning phases but was gradually faded. When self-management systems were implemented, reinforcement was typically used at high levels in the early phases of implementation, but was often reduced as the student experienced more natural reinforcement contingencies and developed more fl uency with the new patterns of behavior. School professionals needed to become intimately familiar with a variety of practices so they could fl uidly implement them, both separately and together, across school settings to address a variety of student characteristics and needs.

Expansion and Sustainability. Another focus when coaching for EBP implementation was sustainability. In the fi rst years of EBP implementation, many of the school teams were frustrated by the slow process of learning new practices or logistical barriers that interfered with consistent progress. One message that emerged was the need for persistence. The EBP implementation process should

Continued on page 4

4 Summer 2012

be viewed as one that requires small steps, with the goal of consistency and sustainability across years. Schools often reported plans to expand EBP implementation in the second year, by moving the process to new grade levels, incorporating more general education professionals in the process, and providing increased training opportunities surrounding EBP implementation at the building level. Having a number of staff members who could function as coaches for the various EBPs was also important. We found that schools were typically unable to identify a single “EBP coach.” Instead, there evolved an understanding that a variety of coaches might take on various roles in the process, including those who might specialize in a specifi c EBP, or facilitate coaching for particular elements of implementation such as team process or implementation fi delity.

ConclusionSchool psychologists can serve as leaders in supporting school-based professionals to understand and implement EBPs. Given their expertise in data collection and analysis, school psychologists are invaluable members of these

teams. They assist in identifying and writing goals for students with ASD, help team members collect and analyze ongoing data, and support the use of data to make programming decisions.

In practice, it is no longer a matter of whether schools should adopt and learn the documented EBPs for students with ASD but a matter of how they will successfully work as a team to ensure that all students with ASD have access to the most effective strategies to address their unique learning and behavioral needs. Although EBP implementation is not always an easy or precise process, it is critical to achieving successful outcomes for students on the autism spectrum. School psychologists and other school professionals who develop and implement these interventions will fi nd that EBPs are benefi cial to a large number of students with learning or behavioral challenges. In an era where schools are increasingly being held accountable for student outcomes, evidence-based practices offer the best option to impact student achievement in meaningful and measureable ways.

LEGISLATIVE UPDATEBy Ellen Hoekstra, Capitol Services, Inc.

Kindergarten Age Likely to ChangeOn May 3rd the Senate passed legislation to increase the minimum enrollment age for kindergarteners. Senate Bills 315 and 316, both sponsored by Sen. Booher (R-Evart), would require children to be 5 years old by November 1, 2012 in order to enroll in kindergarten for the 2012-2013 academic year. The cutoff date would be pushed back to October 1 for the 2013-2014 year, and to September 1 for the 2014-2015 school year and beyond. The bills would also remove altogether the March 1 cutoff date for a child to enroll in the second semester of kindergarten. The law currently states that a child must turn 5 years old by December 1 of the year of enrollment.

Sen. Mike Nofs (R-Battle Creek) offered a substitute to SB 315 that was adopted that would ultimately place the decision of kindergarten enrollment in the hands of parents. A parent or legal guardian would retain the right to submit a written request by June 1 to enroll a child in kindergarten if he or she still meets the December 1 cutoff, with no sunset to the exception. If a family moves to the school district after June 1, the parents have until August 1 to submit an opt-out request.

SB 315 passed the Senate unanimously. SB 316 passed by a vote of 36-2 with Sen. Hoon-Yung Hopgood (D-Taylor) and Sen. Coleman Young (D-Detroit) voting no.

The House versions of the legislation are HBs 4513 and 4514, sponsored by Rep. Franz (R-Onekama). On Thursday, May 31, HB 4513 passed the House with immediate effect after a roll call vote with 64 Yeas and 45 Nays. HB 4514, which is

tie-barred with HB 4513, was placed on third reading. Most of the educators who testifi ed to the House Education Committee expressed strong support for the concept but many expressed concern about losing funding if the legislation took effect this fall, as originally written in the bill language.

A bill targeting the appropriations side of the policy change will be a Senate bill, according to Rep. Franz. HB 4513 now goes to the Senate for consideration and is scheduled for committee attention this week. “It has been noted that more than half of the states now have kindergarten age start dates of September 1, compared to 30 years ago when the majority of schools had December or January cut-offs.

Cyber-school Bill Signed by GovernorAfter many months on the House fl oor, SB 619 (Sen. Patrick Colbeck, R-Canton Twp.) was presented to the Governor last month and was signed into law on May 15 as PA 129 of 2012. The House passed the bill, with a number of amendments to gain votes, and returned it to the Senate, which approved the changes before sending the fi nal version to Governor Snyder.

The new law has two different caps. After three years of operation, a cyber-school may only have 10,000 students enrolled. The second cap limits a cyber-school’s enrollment at no more than 2 % of the state’s overall student population. If a cyber-school is reported to have crossed this 2% line, the State Board of Education, under the new version, has the authority to ‘push the pause button’. However, the school is not required to remove any students; instead, it would not

Continued on page 5

Ellen Hoekstra

5Summer 2012

Continued on page 6

be able to add additional ones. The House did not agree on immediate effect for SB 619.

In the public school community, there is concern that, technically, the number of students enrolled in cyber-schools could reach as high as 150,000. The bill’s supporters have conceded that this number is actually numerically possible to reach, though they insist that the probability of such a high enrollment is unlikely, given the amount of other factors that would have to be at play.

School Aid Bill through the Legislature The Legislature came close to meeting its goal of a completed budget by June 1. House members are anxious about the upcoming election, eager to get out of Lansing and back to their districts. The House and Senate have both passed the omnibus education budget bill, which consists of the K-12, Higher Ed, and Community College budgets.

Within the school aid portion of this budget bill, 448 districts received a $120 increase in their minimum foundation allowance; however, nearly half of all districts will see no foundation allowance increase. The fi nal decisions were put together by a bi-cameral committee with three senators and three representatives — a “conference committee”. Conference committee reports cannot be amended on the House or Senate fl oor; legislators may vote only “yes” or “no”, and in this case, the omnibus budget bill passed with only Democratic votes and without support from all Republican members.

The list below describes some items of interest that the conference committee had decided to put into the school aid portion of the omnibus budget bill:

Some items of interest in the School Aid budget include:• Foundation Allowance (Sec. 22b) Conference increases

funding by $100.3 million to provide for an equity payment to increase the minimum foundation allowance to $6,966 (a $120 per pupil increase from the current $6,846 minimum), continuation of the small class-size adjustment, and the assumption of $20.0 million in savings for requiring full-day kindergarten for a full foundation allowance.

• Best Practices Grants (Sec. 22f) Conference decreases the allocation to $80.0 million, and decouples funding from the Executive-proposed performance based funding. Distributes grants to districts on a $52 per pupil basis to all districts that meet 7 out of 8 revised best practices criteria.

• Consolidation Innovation Grants (Sec. 22g) Executive adds $10.0 million in funding, designated as one-time, for competitive assistance grants to help defray transition costs associated with the consolidation of operations or services among districts and ISDs that occur on or after June 1, 2012.

• MPSERS Cost Offset (Sec. 147a) Conference maintains the current appropriation of $155.0 million to reimburse school districts (excluding ISDs) for approximately 2% of their MPSERS payroll.

• MPSERS Retirement Obligation Reform Reserve Fund (Sec. 147b) Conference appropriates an additional

$41.0 million, above the $133.0 million appropriated in FY 2011-12, into the MSPSERS Retirement Obligation Reform Reserve Fund, bringing the fund balance to $174.0 million.

• MPSERS Pre-Funding (Sec. 147c) Conference appropriates $130.0 million to the Michigan Public School Employees’ Retirement System pursuant to Section 41 of the Public School Employees’ Retirement Act of 1979, 1980 PA 300, MCL 38.1341. If that section is not amended by SB 1040 the allocation shall lapse to the School Aid Fund unless the Legislature allocates the funding in another manner.

Boilerplate of Interest• Sec. 22f. Best Practices Grants – REVISED Conference

decouples the best practices grant from the performance-based grant, providing $80.0 million in funding to districts that qualify in awards equal to $52 per pupil. The Conference requires districts to meet 7 of the 8 criteria, but modifi es a few of the requirements. The requirement that districts provide both health and physical education was changed to a requirement that provide at least one of those courses. The requirement that districts provide dual enrollment and other post-secondary opportunities was modifi ed to specify that charter schools that do not offer grades at the secondary level may satisfy that requirement by informing parents of available post-secondary opportunities for students when they are at the secondary level. The Conference also redistributed any funds remaining after all awards have been distributed to qualifying districts with a foundation less than the basic level of $8,019 on an equal per pupil basis.

• Sec. 22j. Performance-Based Funding – NEW provides grants as part of a 2-part award under Section 22f along with Best Practices. The performance-based grants would be a maximum $100 per pupil based on student academic performance growth, which would equal a currently estimated $70.0 million. Districts would receive a portion or all of the following:

o $30 per pupil for meeting profi ciency growth in mathematics for grades 3 to 8.

o $30 per pupil for meeting profi ciency growth in reading for grades 3 to 8.

o $40 per pupil for meeting profi ciency growth over 4 years for high school students in all subject areas.

• Sec. 147. Michigan Public School Employees Retirement System (MPSERS) Employer Contribution Rates– REVISED Estimates the MPSERS employer contribution rates for FYs 2012-13 and 2013-14 as follows, with the proviso that a different rate may be calculated by the Offi ce of Retirement Services (ORS) pursuant to Senate Bill 1040 (see chart below):

SB 1040 Likely to Move in House before Summer BreakSB 1040 (Sen. Roger Kahn, R-Saginaw) is legislation introduced with the goal of reducing the costs of retirement for school districts, community colleges, and certain colleges that have employees in the Michigan Public School Employees

Summer 20126

Retirement System (MPSERS). This legislation has been very controversial, due in great part to the proposed increases in employee contributions and reductions in benefi ts. Ironically, SB 1040 passed the Senate in a version that actually would have cost schools more, assuming compliance with GASB (federal accounting rules).

The House Appropriations Committee reported out a version of the bill that contained its own different set of controversies and the bill now sits on the House fl oor. It appears likely that the House will take up SB 1040 before it breaks for the summer in mid-June.

Employees  Pre-­‐  July  1,  2010

Employees  on  or  after  July  1,  2010

Employees  Pre-­‐  July  1,  2010

Employees  on  or  after  July  1,  2010

Employees  Pre-­‐  July  1,  2010

Employees  on  or  after  July  1,  2010

Pension  Normal  Rate 3.74% 2.24% 3.47% 2.24% 3.94% 2.67%Pension  Unfunded  Accrued  Liability  (UAL) 12.49% 12.49% 12.49% 12.49% 15.86% 15.86%Early  Retirement  Incentive  (5-­‐  years) 0% 0% 2.66% 2.66% 2.66% 2.66%

Retiree  Health  Care 8.50% 8.50% 8.75% 8.75% 8.75% 8.75%

Total  Rate 24.46% 23.23% 27.37% 26.14% 31.21% 29.94%

FY  2011-­‐12 FY  2012-­‐13 FY  2013-­‐14

   SB  1040  Likely  to  Move  in  House  before  Summer  Break    SB  1040  (Sen.  Roger  Kahn,  R-­‐Saginaw)  is  legislation  introduced  with  the  goal  of  reducing  the  costs  of  retirement  for  school  districts,  community  colleges,  and  certain  colleges  that  have  employees  in  the  Michigan  Public  School  Employees  Retirement  System  (MPSERS).    This  legislation  has  been  very  controversial,  due  in  great  part  to  the  proposed  increases  in  employee  contributions  and  reductions  in  benefits.    Ironically,  SB  1040  passed  the  Senate  in  a  version  that  actually  would  have  cost  schools  more,  assuming  compliance  with  GASB  (federal  accounting  rules).        The  House  Appropriations  Committee  reported  out  a  version  of  the  bill  that  contained  its  own  different  set  of  controversies  and  the  bill  now  sits  on  the  House  floor.    It  appears  likely  that  the  House  will  take  up  SB  1040  before  it  breaks  for  the  summer  in  mid-­‐June.          

School Psych Spotlight!Meet Dr. Maria Sella of the Flat Rock Community School District

Maria began her career as a School Psychologist in 1986 upon graduating from the University of Detroit with a Master’s Degree in Psychology and a Specialist Degree in School Psychology. After working for several years as a School Psychologist for the Flat Rock Community School District, she decided to further her education. In 2002, she obtained a Doctoral Degree in Clinical Psychology from the University of Detroit Mercy. She currently works in both school and clinical settings as this provides her with the opportunity to utilize her knowledge and skills from both domains of psychology. She has also held an adjunct faculty position at a local community college teaching an educational psychology class for several years.

In her current role as a School Psychologist with Flat Rock Community School District, Maria serves students in preschool through high school. In this position, she is involved in conducting special education evaluations yet has the opportunity to offer collaborative consultation, behavior intervention planning, crisis intervention, and occasional therapy/counseling. Moving away from the traditional role, she is also involved in problem solving teams for individual students through the multi- tiered RTI program that has been established in Flat Rock Schools. She spends much time involved in student centered team meetings developing interventions for learning and behavioral issues with their multidisciplinary staff. Although still involved in conducting evaluations & testing, with the advent of the more contemporary model for the identifi cation of SLD it is not simply a “test and place” model. As a result of recent changes in the evaluation framework for SLD eligibility, Maria notes that the RTI data and cognitive assessment provides a wealth of information about the relationship between students underlying cognitive abilities and academic skill mastery & their academic outcomes. Maria feels this adds great value to the assessment and diagnostic process and importantly, helps to drive instructional interventions for students. She has also been

in involved in the early development of Flat Rock’s PBIS program at an elementary school.

Maria shares that one of the most rewarding aspects of her position is she is able to follow students from the early elementary level to high school and to witness the successes and positive outcomes of the students that have had signifi cant learning or behavioral issues. Since she is the only psychologist in her district, it allows her to work with students and families throughout the years and to develop longer term relationships with them. She also is gratifi ed when able to elucidate the nature of a student’s learning or emotional diffi culties, share that information with parents and teachers so they have a better understanding of the reasons for their child’s diffi culties, and most importantly, develop helpful interventions to improve school functioning. Offering therapy to students is also very rewarding to her but due to time constraints she fi nds it is not always possible.

When asked about career challenges, Maria responded that over her career she has seen changes in educational trends ranging from curriculum to instructional strategies, to the more recent changes and strong debate about the frameworks for the determination of SLD eligibility. The move away from the outdated discrepancy model to other frameworks involving RTI and Patterns of Strengths and Weaknesses probably represents one of the largest changes in the fi eld that has been noted. Additionally she observes this topic of SLD determination has probably created the greatest amount of debate, controversy, and dissension among those in the fi eld of school psychology and learning disabilities.

Maria has always been passionate about the importance of cognitive assessment as it relates to children who possess learning differences. Recently, she was involved with a project through Wayne RESA that developed guidelines for the RTI process and for the determination of SLD. After

Continued on page 7

Summer 2012 7

much research and discussion, a framework was developed based on a Patterns of Strengths & Weaknesses approach that operationalized the defi nition of SLD based on CHC theory. It represents a shift in thinking about cognitive assessment and is grounded on a well validated contemporary theory of human cognitive abilities based on research from the fi elds of cognitive, educational, & neuropsychology. This framework has a strong theoretical foundation and involves a continuum of data-gathering methods, such curriculum-based assessment, student response to intervention, progress monitoring and cognitive assessment. This she believes represents a comprehensive method for determining SLD while providing a wealth of data to drive effective instructional strategies for students. Additionally, she feels this method also provides valuable information in the assessment of students with other neurodevelopmental disorders such as ASD and ADHD.

Resources accessed frequently by Maria include the ADHD report by R. Barkley & works by D. Flanagan, S. Shaywitz, D. Geary, A, Klin, and K. McGrew. Maria is drawn to their work as it provides the most current line of thinking in the areas

of SLD , ADHD & ASD which represent areas of most of her referrals and concerns. She also relies on information that is provided by MASP & NASP publications and the Journal of Learning Disabilities. RTI Wire and Intervention Central area also wonderful resources that she often uses.

As a member of MASP Maria enjoys the collaboration with colleagues across the state while attending the MASP conferences. She enjoys reading the Michigan Psych Report fi nding that it provides wonderful information about current practices, tells about what colleagues across the state are doing, and helps her develop ideas and strategies to use in her daily practice.

Maria is to be commended on her dedication to her students and families and for being outstanding in her fi eld despite the challenges of being Flat Rock’s only School Psychologist.

Respectfully submitted byVivian Dermyer, Sp.A.School Psychologist Marquette Area Public Schools

OP ED: Rethinking MASP Certifi cation —Gene Zalar, MA, NCSP

State and national certifi cation procedures are sometimes confusing. Most practicing state school psychologists give little thought as to what are their state certifi cation practices once they are certifi ed and working in a state, as it should be. Frustration and problems may arise if they become mobile and move to another state or want to return to their home state after leaving. I will describe two examples of problems and frustration regarding mobility.

To begin, however, it may make these examples easier and quicker to understand by taking what currently exists for state certifi cation in Michigan and Colorado. NASP becomes a provider to receive MASP certifi cation in Michigan while the Colorado Association of School Psychologist (CASP) becomes a provider to receive NCSP certifi cation. The focus as to which is the main SB-CEU or CPD provider is reversed in these two examples. Colorado is one of 30 states where reciprocity for NCSP certifi cation exists. The other 20 states have their own proprietary procedures for certifi cation which makes moving among those states confusing, diffi cult and frustrating.

Here are some of the problems. For instance, say I’m certifi ed to work in Colorado for 5 years (the normal certifi cation cycle for any state certifi cation) as a school psychologist and I am NCSP certifi ed. Neither of these two certifi cations would automatically allow me to work in Michigan through reciprocity. It may be easy to understand why the CASP certifi cation would not help to work in Michigan but why on earth wouldn’t a national certifi cation (NCSP) that would allow me to work in 30 other states not allow me to practice as a school psychologist in Michigan? I’ve worked in Michigan as a school psychologist for more than 30 years (active MASP member with current certifi cation) and the last 3 in Colorado and I can’t return to Michigan without a lot of ‘re-certifi cation SB-CEU’s’ that are

Michigan specifi ed because ‘why’?

The above scenario is also true for new school psychologists moving into Michigan as well. They experience the same confusion, diffi culty and frustration that exist in the above example. I am proposing that MASP work with Michigan to change its certifi cation practices so that NCSP certifi cation is reciprocal in Michigan as it is in 30 other states. I began working in Colorado with my NCSP without having to take any additional SB-CEUs specifi c to Colorado and have certifi cation for 5 years with the state of Colorado, through 2015. Why again is this different for Michigan? With all the unfi lled school psychologist positions in Michigan and with the lowest population growth in the country I would think incentives would be made to attract school psychologists to Michigan rather than create confusion, diffi culty and frustration for school psychologist to work there.

I just signed a contract to work in Arizona this next school year and am certifi ed with that state under the NASP reciprocity concept. No hassle, confusion or diffi culty. Also, I was informed today that the application for certifi cation is now $210 up from $125 when I left Michigan. Arizona’s application fee is $60. I would encourage MASP to approach the state Department of Licensing and Regulation to help determine a way that the NASP NCSP credential would be accepted, without question, for certifi cation in Michigan. I could go on and on, but I think you see my point.

Gene Zalar, MA, NCSPgenezalar@yahoo.com

with contributions fromCharlie Deupree, MA, NCSPcdeupree@voyager.net

8 Summer 2012

NASP News: Your Delegate DeliversBy Tracy Hobbs

Continued on page 9

One of NASP’s most valuable roles is to provide school psychologists with state-of-the-art professional development opportunities. Our national convention is the most obvious example; I hope that you’ll be able to attend next year’s convention in Seattle. But because, for many of us, it’s just not possible to fi nd the time and fi nancial support to attend, NASP has begun offering Summer Conferences which provide concentrated skills development. You’ll hear the latest breakthrough strategies delivered by nationally known experts in sessions that will help you increase your effectiveness and simplify your service delivery. Plus, get up to 18 hours of NASP-approved CPD. Use your summer break to get the training you need! This year, the Summer Conferences are being held from July 9th – 12th in Denver and from July 23rd – 25th in Minneapolis. More information can be found at the NASP website: look for the “Summer Conferences” link in the “Conventions” section.

Another great source for professional development is NASP’s Online Learning Center (OLC) which allows school psychologists to access high quality continuing professional development (CPD) credits through live and archived webinars and webcasts. All sessions included on the OLC are NASP-approved and feature nationally known experts, synchronized PowerPoint presentations, downloadable handouts, and a printable documentation of attendance. Archived/On Demand sessions offer the fl exibility of starting and stopping as needed. NASP members enjoy a member discount, which will be refl ected at checkout prior to payment. The OLC now offers easy access to

dozens of hours of CPD that qualify for NCSP renewal, including several sessions addressing ethics/legal regulations in school psychology. New sessions and webinars will be added regularly to the OLC’s catalog, so visit frequently for updates. Find additional information on the NASP website by going to the “Continuing Professional Development” link.

Last month, the MASP Board reviewed and endorsed a new NASP position statement: School-Family Partnering to Enhance Learning: Essential Elements and Responsibilities. As written in the Summary, “NASP is committed to creating and enhancing partnerships between families and educators to promote positive outcomes for all children and youth.” This position statement replaces an earlier version called “Home-School Collaboration” and very deliberately emphasizes the concept of “partnership: “Unlike traditional parent involvement activities that emphasize passive support roles for families (e.g., volunteer, fundraiser), partnerships involve families and educators working together as active, equal partners who share responsibility for the learning and success of all students.” The position statement goes on to say, “NASP encourages school psychologists to take part in national, state, and local education efforts to defi ne the role of families in forming true and lasting partnerships among families and educators” and provides recommendations for including school psychologists in this role. For more information, the position statement can be found at:

http://www.nasponline.org/about_nasp/positionpapers/Home-SchoolCollaboration.pdf

Tracy Hobbs

Universal Design for Learning and Response to Intervention: Connecting the DotsBy Dave Edyburn, Ph.D., University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

How many of the following statements do you agree with?• The range of academic diversity in the classroom has

increased in recent years.• Teachers working with students in inclusion settings

face a relentless demand to modify curricular, instructional, and assessment materials.

• Students who cannot read at grade level struggle throughout the school day.

• Instructional modifi cations made for students with

disabilities may often help many other children in a classroom.

• The current emphasis on helping all children achieve high academic standards means much more effort must be devoted to helping struggling students.

In my work, I fi nd that each of the statements is true. As a school psychologist, you are well aware of the number of students in each classroom that struggle to access the general curriculum and perform in ways that meet grade

9Summer 2012

level expectations. Response to Intervention (RTI) models are one approach to closing the achievement gap. A key principle of RTI involves providing high quality instruction in the general classroom (Tier 1) in order to reach students before they fail.

Universal Design for Learning (UDL) proponents recognize that RTI Tier 1 offers a unique context for embedding supports into the curriculum that have the potential to support each learner. Whereas the potential seems clear, much more work is needed to operationalize UDL within a school’s Tier 1 interventions. In my opinion, School Psychologists have a unique role to play in this process given their knowledge of individual, small-group, and whole-class interventions and their ability to analyze and interpret performance data.

The purpose of this article is to provide a brief introduction to Universal Design for Learning (UDL) and its implications for school psychologists working in schools implementing RTI models. In addition, the article will serve as a resource directory for readers interested in learning more about the application of UDL.

Recognizing and Responding to DifferencesOver a life time, each of us will experience situations in which we personally, or, someone we know, will encounter limitations due to aging, disease, accident, and/or disability, that may impair basic life functions such as hearing, seeing, self-care, mobility, working, and learning. Whereas some of us may be born with a disability or disease that will require us to overcome limitations throughout our life, others will need to learn how to respond to challenges that arise from an accident or simply growing older. As a result, we must learn to recognize that differences and limitations are fundamentally part of the human condition.

In the classroom, it is important to think about learner differences as part of the instructional planning process. For example, shouldn’t we expect to fi nd that students’ knowledge and skills will vary considerably? When we walk into any classroom, shouldn’t we anticipate differences among students in:

• attention span• persistence• reading ability• handwriting legibility• number sense and problem solving skills• oral communication skills

Diverse students often encounter a variety of barriers in school, both obvious and hidden:

Obvious barriersStairs pose an obvious barrier to a person in a wheel chair or a person on crutchesPrint poses an obvious barrier to a person who is blindAudio poses an obvious barrier to a person who is deafVideo poses an obvious barrier to a person who is blind

Hidden barriersAttitudesOne-size-fi ts-allText that is fi xed (6 pt text on a rebate coupon codes); locked PDFsPoor design (text in graphics) Time

Often learner differences are viewed as a negative, outside of a range that we think we can manage (e.g., “Oh, I can’t teach that student, he’s blind.”). When we fail to recognize the range of diversity found in the population, there will be a need for an accommodation (i.e., “We’ll see if we can get a copy of the textbook in Braille.”). The goal of universal design is to proactively value differences. That is, we need to anticipate learner differences before they enter the classroom so that we can support their academic performance, before they fail.

Historical Context of Universal Design (UD)The principles of universal design have emerged from our understanding of the design of physical environments for individuals with disabilities. Perhaps the best example of the success of universal design principles is curb cuts. Originally designed to improve mobility for people with disabilities within our communities, curb cuts not only accomplished that, but also improved access for people with baby strollers, roller blades, bikes, etc. UD is frequently associated with architecture and has become a selling point in the home remodeling industry as we recognize special needs that result from the aging process.

In the 1990s, universal design concepts were applied to computers. Gregg Vanderheiden at the TRACE Center at the University of Wisconsin, Madison spearheaded conversations among the disability community and technology developers concerning initiatives that include disability accessibility software as part of the operating system. This means that access would be provided as the computer came out of the box (rather than require a consumer to track down an assistive technology specialist to make specialized modifi cations). Today, accessibility control panels are available on every computer.

These two cases led to the UD mantra, “Good design for people with disabilities, can benefi t everyone.” UD work in the 1980s and 90s set the stage for the paradigm shift known as Universal Design for Learning (UDL).

To Learn More About the Foundations of Universal Design, visit:

Center for Universal Design at North Carolina State Universityhttp://www.design.ncsu.edu/cud/A History of Technological Advances Inspired by Disabilityhttp://www.infi nitec.org/learn/learningaboutat/techhistory.htmThe Evolution of Assistive Technology into Everyday Products

1010 Summer 2012

http://accessibility.net.nz/blog/the-evolution-of-assistive-technology-into-everyday-products/

Foundations of Universal Design for Learning (UDL)In 2002, Rose and Meyer published a book that has become the defi nitive work concerning UDL:

Rose, D., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Rose, Meyer, and colleagues at the Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST) argue that the basis of UDL is grounded in emerging insights about brain development, learning, and digital media. They observed the disconnect between an increasingly diverse student population and a “one-size-fi ts-all” curriculum would not produce the desired academic achievement gains expected of global citizens in the 21st century. Drawing on the historical application of universal design in architecture (e.g., curb cuts) and the built-environment (e.g., accessible design for individuals with disabilities), CAST advanced the concept of universal design for learning as a means of focusing educational research, development, and practice on understanding diversity, technology, and learning. Their insight is commensurate with advances characterized as a major paradigm shift.

CAST’s philosophy of UDL is embodied in a series of principles that serve as the core components of UDL:

• Multiple means of representation to give learners various ways of acquiring information and knowledge

• Multiple means of expression to provide learners alternatives for demonstrating what they know, and

• Multiple means of engagement that capture learners’ interests, challenge them appropriately, and motivate them in ways that produces deep learning.

To Learn More About Universal Design for Learning, read:Using Flexible Technology to Meet the Needs of Diverse Learners: What Teachers Can Dohttp://www.wested.org/cs/we/view/rs/763Teaching Every Student in the Digital Age: Universal Design for Learninghttp://www.cast.org/teachingeverystudent/ideas/tes/

Translating UDL Theory into PracticeWithout seeing a class list, in a class of 30 middle school students, one can anticipate that 5-7 students have below grade level reading skills, 3-5 students will have learning disabilities, 1-2 may have vision or hearing diffi culties, and 1-2 students may have a primary language other than English. The current model of curriculum accommodations requires that these students fi rst be identifi ed and then special support services provided. The promise of UDL suggests that instructional materials can be designed which provide adjustable instructional design controls (think of these as a volume control slider that is adjustable to be off or some level between low and high). UDL control panels could be included in all instructional software and be

accessed by students and teachers when an adjustment is needed. Just think of it: do you need reading materials at a lower readability? Just go into the control panel and reset the slider and the same materials will be presented.

Many adults fi nd it diffi cult to visualize what UDL might look like. As a result, I have found the following resources useful to share in workshops as a means of helping educational leaders understand the potential of UDL. As you explore each of the resources, consider the question: Would these instructional materials be helpful to a single student (if so, it might be considered assistive technology), a small group of students (if so, it might be useful as a RTI Tier 2 intervention), or might there be value in giving this resource to the entire class in order to reach those who know will struggle and many who we cannot identify in advance?

Literacy Center Education Networkhttp://www.literacycenter.net/lessonview_en.phpStarChildhttp://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/StarChild.htmlBen’s Guide to U.S. Government for Kidshttp://bensguide.gpo.gov/The Brain: From Top to Bottomhttp://thebrain.mcgill.ca/

To Learn More About UDL Interventions, visit:Teaching Every Student Bloghttp://teachingeverystudent.blogspot.com/Free Technology Toolkit for UDL in All Classroomshttp://udltechtoolkit.wikispaces.com/CAST UDL Studiohttp://udlstudio.cast.org/OSEP Toolkit on Universal Designhttp://www.osepideasthatwork.org/udl/index.asp

Looking AheadUDL has developed considerably over the past ten years. In late 2011, UDL was featured prominently in the U.S. Department of Education’s National Technology Plan. Some observers believe this foreshadows language that will eventually appear in the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). In addition, states requesting NCLB waivers for increased fl exibility must speak specifi cally to their plans for UDL. As a result, it appears that UDL will continue to be viewed in education as a promising intervention for helping diverse student increase their academic performance.

By design, UDL advocates talk about all students. For the most part however, UDL has largely been advocated for from the special education community. In addition, there is some overlap in the principles of UDL and Differentiated Instruction (DI). This has led to school administrators being forced to adopt one model or the other as the larger umbrella for instructional reform. (In my mind, UDL and DI are compatible so it does not matter which one is the overarching organizer for a school/district.) Finally, because

Continued on page 11

11Summer 2012

the UDL construct does not address the issue of outcome measurement, UDL has largely been advanced as a policy initiative rather than a research-based intervention. As a result, there is little evidence to show that UDL initiatives can be scaled (i.e., across a school district, across a state or region).

To Monitor the Latest Developments in UDL, explore:UDL-Implementation Research Networkhttp://udl-irn.org/UDL Connecthttp://community.udlcenter.org/National Center on UDL

http://www.udlcenter.org/Edyburn, D.L. (2010). Would you recognize universal design for learning if you saw it? Ten propositions for new directions for the second decade of UDL. Learning Disability Quarterly, 33(1), 33-41. PDF available online: http://people.uwm.edu/edyburn/UDL2ndDecade.pdf

About the AuthorDave Edyburn is a Professor in the Department of Exceptional Education, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. He is a member of the National Center or UDL Advisory Board and Editor of the Journal of Research on Technology in Education. Email: edyburn@uwm.edu

The Michigan Association of School Psychologists of-fers congratulations to May and August 2012 graduates of our state’s school psychology programs. Best wishes to them in their future endeavors. (* denotes August graduates)

Graduates from Andrews University

Shanter Alexander*Tiago BaltazarJasmine Good*Steven Henderson*Diane Keller*Ellen Kleindienst*Danny McAlister*Jordan Nay*Nickolas Paniagua*Kevin Seale*Lydie Theodor*

Graduates from Central Michigan University

Andrew Cook (Master’s required for PhD)Megan Hassevoort (Master’s required for PhD)Josh Hook (Specialist, Master’s)Kasee Stratton (PhD)

Graduates from Michigan State University

Stacy Bender, Ph.D.Angie Maupin, Ph.D.

Nate von der Embse, Ph.D.Joseph Sbar, Ed.S.Ellen Clark, Ed.S.Tim Farrow, Ed.S.Sara Leggett, Ed.S.Janelle Maxson, Ed.S.Kristen Sparschu, Ed.S.

Graduates from University of Detroit Mercy

Jacqueline BackTina L. Champagne Marlana LaFave Katie M. LambrixPadriac S. O’Connor

Graduates from Wayne State University

Marsida Boshnjaku*Michelle Fransway*Stefanie Gill*Nicole Horn*Ryan Mach*Katie Maguire*Grace Patterson Naseef*Jordan Reichard*Elizabeth Robtoy*Ryan Vella*Megan Wujcik*Emily Zurek*

Congratulations Graduates!

NEXT YEAR’S FEATURED SERIES –

ADHDCall for Papers for the Fall Conference.

Download the form at www.maspweb.com

– Deadline July 1st

14661 Huff St., Livonia, MI 48154-4967 www.maspweb.com

Editor’s Note…The Michigan Psych Report is published during the Fall, Winter, Spring and Summer as the official newsletter of the Michigan Association of School Psychologists.

Items for publication will be considered on the basis of general interest to the membership, relevance to the practice of school psychology, and significance of the subject matter. The editor reserves the right to alter submissions to conform to space and format requirements, and to improve clarity.

The opinions expressed in articles, letters, and editorials are not necessarily the views of the Michigan Association of School Psychologists.

Permission is granted to other school psychology associations to reprint articles, so long as the author and source are acknowledged.

Submit articles, comments and corrections by email attachment to: Donna Sprague – donna.sprague4@gmail.com

MASP Fall ConferenceOctober 21-23, 2012

DoubleTree Hotel – Bay City, MISunday Pre-Conference: Nancy Marchand-Martella speaking on Adolescent Literacy Strategies

Monday: Ron Martella speaking on Positive Behavior Supports

Tuesday: Leisa Gallagher, Reaching and Teaching Struggling Learners (RTSL), Michigan Department of Education, Office of Special Education, speaking on Dropout Prevention

This is your last issue –

Don’t forget to renew

your membership!