1. Communication Matters
FacilitatingSuccessful
PostsecondaryTransi-
tionsforStudents
WithDisabilities
By Diana K. Joyce & Sally Grapin
O
verthepastdecade,schoolpsychologists’roleinfa-
cilitatingthetransitionfromhighschooltocollege
for students with disabilities has become increas-
inglycomplex.Practitionersarefacedwiththedifficulttask
ofnavigatingtheconspicuousdisconnectbetweendisability
eligibility criteria at the secondary and postsecondary lev-
els (NJCLD, 2007). In addition, the increasing popularity of alternative programs such as dual enrollment and virtual
schoolingpresentsachanginglandscapewhenconsideringresponsibilitiesforaccommodationsforstudentswithdiverse
disabilities. This article is intended to explore emerging professional issues pertaining to documenting disability and ac-
commodation needs for students transitioning to postsecondary education. Consideration is given to recent changes in
federal law, guidelines by national organizations, and the shifting infrastructure of educational services in high school
and college. Finally, specific accommodation recommendations are provided.
Th e N e w s pa p e r o f t h e N at i o n a l A s s o c i at i o n o f S c h o o l P s y c h o l o g i s t s
© 2012, National Association of School Psychologists
CommuniquéNovember 2012 Volume 41, Number 3
26 A Framework for the Personnel
Evaluation of School Psychologists
Utilizing the NASP Practice Model
28 2013 Convention News
32 NASP Elections: President-Elect,
Treasurer, and 17 State Delegates to
Be Decided
I n s i d e :
GaryRadler/istockphoto
[ continued on page 20 ]
RetirementProject:
GivingBackto
NASPandthe
Children’sFund
By Bonnie Jasiunas
A
fter more than 36 years as a teacher and school
psychologist, I decided that it was time for me to
retire at the end of last school year (2011–2012). I
spent my career as school psychologist trying to make a
difference in the lives of the children and families that I
served. But before I retired my WISC test kit, stopwatch,
andcomputerscoringprograms,Iwantedtocompleteone
more project to demonstrate the power of giving back. I
decided to do a Retirement Project as a way of giving back
and honoring my years as a school psychologist.
As a school psychologist, I have relied on my profes-
sional organization, the National Association of School
Psychologists(NASP),foreducationandsupportinavari-
etyofformsincludinggriefcounseling,crisismanagement,
implementation of best practices, staff development, and
receiving grants provided through the NASP Children’s
Fund.Overtheyears,theChildren’sFundTinyGrantspro-
gram has provided the money for me to directly impact
the mental health and basic needs of students and fami-
lies.Ihaveusedthegrantmoneytobuytherapeuticgames,
books, and counseling materials that are still available for
use by the staff at the elementary schools I served. I used
three TinyGrants mental health grants to purchase Stop
and Think books to establish a classroom library available
to help students develop problem-solving skills relating
to bullying, making and keeping friends, and dealing with
feelings. I also used the grant money for children’s basic
needsbybuyingboots,coats,snowpants,gloves,andhats
so that every student at an elementary school could have
the warm clothing needed to participate safely in outdoor
winter activities during recess. And for my last year be-
foreretiring,JoannFederman,executivedirectorofFamily
Connections of Northeast Ohio, and I were awarded one
offournationwideNASPChildren’sFundcompetitiveser-
vice grants for $3,000 to fund an inclusive play center for
families with children of all abilities from birth to age 5.
Ratherthanhavingaformalcelebrationoraretirement
dinner, I asked my friends and colleagues who wished to
honor my career to contribute to the NASP Children’s
Fund. I sent an e-mail explaining
Transitions
Research-Based Practice
NASP Issues Guidance
on Personnel Evaluation
By Philip J. Lazarus, Mary Alice Myers,
Anastasia Kalamaros Skalski
F
ederal initiatives such as the Race to the
Top (RTTT) grant competition and No
Child Left Behind (NCLB) have prompted
new attention to the processes used for the eval-
uation of teachers and school administrators. A
wide variety of professionals other than teach-
ers and administrators contractually fall under
the classification of “instructional personnel”
and thus, local educational agencies and state
departments of education are also finding them-
selves readdressing evaluation practices of these
groups. Central to these conversations is the rel-
evanceofdevelopingevaluationtoolsthatcapture
student and professional growth accurately and
fairly,aresufficientinscopetoevaluatethebroad-
based services of the professional, utilize proven
evaluation methods, and provide a uniform sys-
tem common to all professionals.
Developing the Framework for the
Personnel Evaluation of School
Psychologists
In November 2011, NASP created the Personnel
Assessment Task Force comprising national and
state leaders with knowledge of effective person-
nel evaluation systems. Task force participants
included school psychologist supervisors, uni-
versity professors, NASP leadership, and staff.
NASP thanks the following task force members
for their service:
Mary Alice Myers (chair), coordinator of
school psychological services, Volusia County
Schools, Florida
Joan Bohmann, coordinator of school psychol-
ogy services, Washoe County Schools, Nevada
Bob Lichtenstein, school psychology pro-
gram director, Massachusetts School of Profes-
sional Psychology, Massachusetts
Leah Nellis, director of the Blumberg Center,
Indiana State University, Indiana
Tracy Schatzberg, su-
Professional Issues
[ continued on page 24 ][ continued on page 38 ]

2. President’s Message
Amy R. Smith is the president of the National Association of School Psychologists.
LeadersandProfessional
Development
By Amy R. Smith
I
t has been my experience that the topic of professional de-
velopmentcanbemetbyeducatorswithsighsandeye-roll-
ing. The dreaded word inservice can send shivers down the
spinesofthehardiestofsouls,especiallythemoreseasoned
professionals—those who take one look at the agenda and
think, “Been there, done that.” One of the more eloquent charac-
terizations of an inservice day that I have heard was from a col-
league who simply stated, “We were a captive audience and yet
they failed to captivate.” Educators may be provided with a day
of training, but at the end of that day they are left wishing they
couldhavespentthetimedoinganyoneoftheotherpressingtasks
waitingforthem.Thisisnotthe bestuse ofresources.As building
leaders, how can we take an active role in ensuring that our time
spentinprofessionaldevelopmentactivitiesismeetingourneeds?
Inservice days may be particularly frustrating for school psy-
chologistsandotherinstructionalsupportpersonnel.Toooften,
these personnel are assigned to inservice trainings designed
for teachers by administrators who may not fully understand
the specific training needs of these staff members. Yet it is our
professional obligation as school psychologists to continually
develop skills throughout our careers. The NASP Principles for
Professional Ethics Standard II.1.4 states, “School psychologists
engage in continuing professional development. They remain
current regarding developments in research, training, and professional practices that benefit chil-
dren, families, and schools. They also understand that professional skill development beyond that
of the novice practitioner requires well-planned continuing professional development and profes-
sional supervision.” If appropriate training activities are not offered locally, it is our responsibility
as professionals to find or create opportunities that will address our needs.
I encourage school psychologists to consider conducting professional development activities for
your colleagues in the context of your inservice offerings, staff meetings, or other less formal after-
school or lunchtime professional gatherings. Those of you working in the field can offer each other
valuable insight and perspective, igniting professional learning through discussion, case studies, and
critical review of professional books, articles, and other shared resources. Take advantage of oppor-
tunities to provide trainings on activities and services you have provided within your schools, by
sharing practical solutions to issues that you and your school psychology colleagues are addressing
locally. Consider also extending this local activity by submitting a proposal to present at your state
association conference or a NASP convention. This type of professional sharing is invaluable to prac-
titioners looking to attend a training offered by a school psychologist who is facing similar situations.
Facilitating meaningful professional development is one of NASP’s most important functions.
There are multiple opportunities available through NASP that allow participation in activities de-
veloped specifically for school psychologists. Have you taken advantage of NASP professional de-
velopment activities in person, such as the annual convention, summer conferences, a Public Policy
Institute, or crisis intervention trainings? These experiences allow participants to be immersed in
learning experiences developed specifically for school psychologists to meet their professional de-
velopment needs.
The economy has resulted in the tightening of budgets in school districts and higher education
institutions across the country. This makes it more important than ever to consider alternate meth-
ods to participate in meaningful training. NASP provides a variety of options to meet the needs of
those who may be hindered by limited budgets or limited ability to travel to events. The NASP On-
line Learning Center offers electronic continuing professional development opportunities that allow
schoolpsychologiststoearnCPDcreditsortosimplyengageinprofessionallearningfromyourhome
or office. Visit the Online Learning Center (https://nasp.inreachce.com), as well as the other educa-
tional materials available on the NASP website.
HaveyouexploredtheNASPonlineCommunitiesandInterestGroups?Thesevenuesoffermem-
bersopportunitiestoconnectandshareinformationaboutspecifictopicsandprovidegreatpotential
to expand individual skills. The Communities and Interest Groups allow you to interact with other
school psychologists and post questions, seek advice, offer solutions, or solve problems with col-
leagues from across the country who share your interests or face similar issues.
Continuous improvement of our skills is not only an ethical responsibility, it is imperative if we
are to provide the best possible service to the students, families, communities, and schools we serve.
Whileourpreservicetrainingisextensive,theconstantlychangingenvironmentineducationandthe
field of school psychology compels us to find meaningful ways to build our knowledge and skills as
individuals and as a community of professionals. NASP is committed to supporting you; as a build-
ing leader, what will you do? n
© 2012, National Association of School Psychologists2 | Communiqué | November 2012, Volume 41, Number 3
Continuous improve-
ment of our skills is
not only an ethical
responsibility, it is
imperative if we are
to provide the best
possible service to
the students, families,
communities, and
schools we serve.
Editor’s Note
SchoolMentalHealth
Professionals
T
hey say necessity is the mother of invention. For
many districts today, necessity takes the form of
reduced financing for programs of social, emo-
tional, and behavioral supports for students. Invention
means finding ways to provide these critical services in
that environment. The Newport-Mesa Unified School
District in California was faced with a cut of all mental
health services that had previously been provided by
the county. In response, they invented the Psychologi-
cal Support Services Department and reorganized to
provide a comprehensive, multitiered mental health
program staffed by the school mental health profes-
sionals they already had in the district. This program
seems special in that it takes responsibility for provid-
ing comprehensive services at each tier of the interven-
tion pyramid, including for those students whose men-
tal health issues had previously been addressed outside
of the school in county programs. Moreover, this is
being done with school-employed mental health pro-
fessionals. You can read about this interesting program
on page 10 and see the program brochure online.
There have long been calls for schools to embrace
the kind of three-tiered problem solving model for ad-
dressing mental health problems that has been adopted
for academics in the form of response to intervention.
More and more districts are moving in this direction
(including my own, which is piloting the AIMSweb Be-
havior screening program as we move toward integrat-
ing mental health programs into our RTI framework).
“Integration of Social, Behavioral, and Academic Initia-
tives” (p. 12) explains how SEL, PBIS, and RTI have the
potential to be integrated into a comprehensive system
of supports for students’ behavioral and mental health.
The NASP Practice Model article on page 14 provides an
example of some of these components in action.
I think the provision of comprehensive, coordinated
mental health services for students, provided by school
psychologists and other school personnel, is a trend that,
with sufficient advocacy, could expand across the coun-
try. Is it too much to visualize an RTI framework that
addresses both academics and mental health becoming
commonplace? Personally, I believe that such a frame-
work represents a way to greatly improve mental health
and academic outcomes for students while also provid-
ing opportunities for school psychologists to expand
their roles and make use of all the skills they possess.
There is not enough space here to mention all the
important articles in this issue. Please read the front-
page article on the evaluation of school psychologists.
Also see page 32 for a glimpse at the people who are
stepping up to the plate as candidates for NASP pres-
ident-elect, treasurer, and delegate (and stay tuned to
future issues of Communiqué for more information).
Finally, please read about Bonnie Jasiunas’s Retirement
Project (front page). If enough of us baby boomers
joined her retirement project, we could help a lot of
kids in need. Thank you, Bonnie, for a terrific idea!
Happy Thanksgiving.
—John Desrochers

3. © 2012, National Association of School Psychologists November 2012, Volume 41, Number 3 | Communiqué | 3
F RONT PAGE
Research-Based Practice
Facilitating Successful Postsecondary Transitions for
Students With Disabilities
By Diana K. Joyce Sally Grapin
Professional Issues
NASP Issues Guidance on Personnel Evaluation
By Philip J. Lazarus, Mary Alice Myers,
Anastasia Kalamaros Skalski
Transitions
Retirement Project: Giving Back to NASP and the
Children’s Fund
By Bonnie Jasiunas
2 President’s Message
By Amy R. Smith
2 Editor’s Note
By John Desrochers
4 Research-Based Practice
Assessment of Cognitive Ability of Students With
Severe and Low-Incidence Disabilities – Part 2
By Franci Crepeau-Hobson Hana Vujeva
7 IDEA in Practice
By Mary Beth Klotz
8 Professional Practice
Lore Versus Law: The Misconceived IDEA
By Sarah Betesh, Bridget Brown, Candace
Thompson, Perry A. Zirkel
10 Communication Matters
Establishing School-Based Mental Health Services
Aligned to Learning
By Melissa Hurd Kim Palmiotto
Contents
Volume 41, Number 3
12 Implementing RTI
Integration of Social, Behavioral, and Academic
Initiatives – Part 2
By Hank Bohanon Meng-Jia Wu
14 NASP Practice Model
Examples From the Field
By Eric Rossen Courtenay Barrett
15 Crisis Management
Research Summaries
Edited by Stephen E. Brock
18 Children’s Fund
Everyone Wins With a Children’s Fund Basic Needs
TinyGrant
By Mark D. Roth
26 Handout
A Framework for the Personnel Evaluation of School
Psychologists Utilizing the NASP Practice Model
2 0 1 3 Co n v e n t i o n N e w s
28 Presidential Convention Strands: Building Leaders
By Amy R. Smith
28 Music and Theater in the Emerald City
30 Publications
School Psychology Forum Available Online
By Steve Shaw
31 Book Review
Academic Skills Problems: Direct Assessment and
Intervention, 4th ed. (with workbook)
Reviewed by Robin Raphael
31 School Psychology Awareness Week
Know Your Own Strengths and Win a Scholarship
to the Online Learning Center
By Katherine C. Cowan
32 NASP Elections
President-Elect, Treasurer, and 17 State Delegate
Positions to Be Decided
33 Mobile App Review
Feel Electric! The Electric Company
Reviewed by Jessica Bosworth
35 Student Connections
Staying Afloat Financially While in Graduate School
By Gregory L. Esposito
36 Just a Click Away
Why Analytics Are Feeding My Narcissism
By Dan Florell
37 Writing in Style
Presenting Tables: Important Changes
By Victoria A. Comerchero Brieann Kinsey
38 Employment Notices
Co m m u n i q u é O n l i n e E xc l u s i v e s
Mobile App Review
Splash Math
Reviewed by Aaron Boyce
Ed i t o r
John Desrochers
Phone/fax:(203)255-0854
desroc@optonline.net
A s s o c i at e Ed i t o r s
Steven Landau
selandau@ilstu.edu
Mark Roth
mmroth1@myfairpoint.net
Karen Stoiber
kstoiber@uwm.edu
C o n t r i b u t i n g Ed i t o r s
Pamela Beeman, CA
Stephen Brock, CA
Merryl Bushansky, NY
Katherine C. Cowan, MD
Susan Gorin, MD
Scott Huebner, SC
Janine Jones, WA
Mary Beth Klotz, MD
Paul McCabe, NY
Breeda McGrath, IL
Bob Lichtenstein, MA
Anna Peña, MD
Bill Pfohl, KY
Steven Shaw, QC
Stacy Skalski, MD
R e v i e w e r s
Gena Barnhill, VA
Terry Bontrager, MA
Phil Bowser, OR
Andrea Canter, MN
Mary Chittoran, MO
Carlo Cucarro, NY
Stefan Dombrowski, NJ
Ron Dumont, NJ
Barbara Fischetti, CT
Robyn Hess, CO
Laurice Joseph, OH
Paula Laidig, MN
Matthew Lau, MN
Cammy Lehr, MN
Betty Lenehan, NH
Beth Kolb, NY
Richard Lieberman, CA
Rebecca Mandal, LA
Rebecca Martinez, IN
James McDougal, NY
Amanda Nickerson, NY
Leslie Paige, KS
Nancy Peterson, IL
Cathy Paine, OR
Martha Rosen, MN
Roberta Slavin, NY
Susan Smith, ME
Mary Tomblin, TX
Arcella Trimble, GA
Diane Wilen, FL
A r t D i r e c t i o n / D e s i g n
David Herbick Design
P r o d u c t i o n D i r e c t o r
Linda Morgan
lmorgan@naspweb.org
NASP E x e c u t i v e D i r e c to r
Susan Gorin
sgorin@naspweb.org
Ad v e r t i s i n g
Melissa Hickman
advertising@naspweb.org
R e p r i n t I n f o r m at i o n
Chris Goode
cgoode@naspweb.org
Ed i t o r i a l P r o d u c t i o n
m a n a g e r
Brieann Kinsey
bkinsey@naspweb.org
NASP Off i c e
4340EastWestHighway
Suite402
Bethesda,MD20814
(301)657–0270
Fax:(301)657–0275
www.nasponline.org
Communiqué (ISSN 0164775X) is published eight times a year (September, October,
November, December, January/February, March/April, May, June) by the National
Association of School Psychologists, 4340 East West Highway, Suite 402, Bethesda, MD
20814. The annual subscription rate for Communiqué is $50. This is inseparable from the
membership dues per the United States Post Office. Periodical postage paid at Bethesda,
Maryland and additional mailing offices.
POSTMASTER: send address change to Communiqué, NASP, 4340 East West Highway,
Suite 402, Bethesda, MD 20814.
For reprints, contact Chris Goode (see left). All NASP state affiliates may reprint material
in print publications without additional permission, provided that Communiqué is cited
as the original source. The opinions and products, including advertising, that appear in
Communiqué do not necessarily indicate official sanction, promotion, or endorsement on the part of Communiqué
or the National Association of School Psychologists.
Articles, announcements, and letters should be submitted to the Editor (see left).
NASP holds copyright on all material published in
Communiqué unless otherwise noted.
The published advertisement of any product, event or service
by the National Association of School Psychologists (NASP)
is neither an endorsement of the advertiser nor of the prod-
ucts, events or services advertised. NASP is not responsible
for any claims made in an advertisement. Advertisers may
not, without prior consent, incorporate in a subsequent ad-
vertisement or promotional material the fact that a product,
event or service has been advertised by NASP.
NASP provides publications for and on behalf of the
membership to advance the profession of school psychology
and to enhance the welfare of children and families. NASP therefore will accept advertising based upon legal, social,
professional and ethical considerations. Promotion of products, events or services must be directly relevant to school
psychology practice and training; must be consistent with the ethical principles and practice guidelines of the Associa-
tion; and must be consistent in tone, content and appearance with the Association’s goals and relevant publications. The
Association reserves the right to reject any advertising that is not in keeping with this policy or which is submitted for
the purpose of airing either side of controversial professional or social issues, including promotion of candidates for elec-
tion. Information regarding advertising is available online at www.nasponline.org/publications/ratecard.aspx.
Ed i to r i a l D e a d l i n e s , Volume 41
Issue # Month Deadline
#1 September July 16, 2012
#2 October August 13, 2012
#3 November September 17, 2012
#4 December October 15, 2012
#5 Januart/February November 26, 2012
#6 March/April February 4, 2013
#7 May March 18, 2013
#8 June April 15, 2013
Communiqué
“Caffeinated all day,
Seattleites like to get out
at night. The city contin-
ues to support one of the
most vibrant music scenes
in the country, providing
music of every genre.
There are a plethora of
independent theaters and
dance studios.”P. 28

4. © 2012, National Association of School Psychologists4 | Communiqué | November 2012, Volume 41, Number 3
Research-Based Practice
AssessmentofCognitive
AbilityofStudentsWith
SevereandLow-Incidence
Disabilities–Part2
By Franci Crepeau-Hobson Hana Vujeva
T
he assessment of cognitive ability in students with the most severe dis-
abilities presents a challenge to the clinicians who are charged with this
task. This article is the second of a two-part series that summarizes what
is currently known about effective assessment of the cognitive ability of
students with significant impairments in order to improve service deliv-
ery to them. Part 1 presented background information and addressed assessment of
cognitiveabilityinindividualswithvisualandhearingimpairments.Part2summarizes
the professional literature examining a variety of tests of cognitive ability that can be
used with students with language impairments, motor impairments, and significant
intellectual disabilities.
Language Impairments
Language impairments can involve difficulty with grammar (syntax), vocabulary (se-
mantics), the rules and system for speech sound production (phonology), units of
word meaning (morphology), and the use of language, particularly in social contexts
(pragmatics). Expressive language delays may exist without receptive language delay,
but they can also co-occur in mixed expressive/receptive language disorders (Ameri-
can Speech-Language-Hearing Association, 1993).
Asaconsequenceoftheheavyverballoadingofmoststandardizedcognitiveassess-
ments,childrenwithseverelanguageimpairmentsareunabletobeadequatelyassessed
utilizingtraditionalcognitiveassessmenttechniques.Indeed,researchutilizingfactor
analyses has demonstrated that nearly 50% of the variance in children’s performance
on cognitive tests is accounted for by language abilities (Losch Dammann, 2004),
leavinglittleroomforaccuratelyassessingthecognitiveabilityofchildrenwithsignifi-
cant language impairments utilizing standard cognitive batteries. This is of particular
concern for children with autism, especially those who are low functioning, as signifi-
cant language deficits are inherent to the disorder. Research indicates that scores ob-
tained from traditional measures of intelligence have underestimated the intellectual
ability of children with autism spectrum disorders (see Edelson, 2006 for a review),
perhaps because language deficits may be independent of cognitive ability (Dodd
Thompson, 2001; Lord Paul, 1997). Thus, the use of measures of intelligence that
take into account the interference of autism, particularly the significant language im-
pairments, is of critical importance in identifying core cognitive impairments and for
educational and treatment planning for this population.
For children with a lack of intelligible expressive communication because of pro-
found articulation difficulties, the Leiter International Performance Scale-Revised
(Leiter-R; Roid Miller, 1997) or the Comprehensive Test of Nonverbal Intelligence-
Second Edition (CTONI-2; Hammill, Pearson, Wiederholt, 2009) may be used
(Quinn,2010;Sattler,2008).TheWechslerNonverbalScaleofAbility(WNS;Wechsler
Naglieri,2006)mayalsobeconsidered(Sattler,2008),althoughthisassessmenthas
less research supporting its use in populations with disabilities and may, in fact, not
be a valid measure for children with any disability.
For both receptive and/or expressive language difficulties, the Universal Nonver-
bal Intelligence Test (UNIT; Bracken McCallum, 1998) is an optimal choice, (Far-
rell Phelps, 2000; Sattler, 2008). However, it is important to note that the UNIT
has dated and consequently questionable norms. While matrices-based tests such as
Raven’s Progressive Matrices (Raven, Raven, Court, 1998) and the Test of Nonver-
bal Intelligence (TONI-4; Brown, Sherbenou, Johnsen, 2010) are often used with
this population, these and other figural-reasoning tests should not be used in place of
comprehensive measures of cognitive ability because they measure intelligence based
on figure reasoning only. They should only be used as a screening measure of nonver-
bal ability (Sattler Hoge, 2006).
Motor Impairments
Research utilizing factor analyses has estimated that nearly 20% of the variance in per-
formance on cognitive assessment batteries is explained by children’s motor abilities
Franci Crepeau-Hobson, PhD, NCSP, is an assistant professor and the program director of the school
psychology program at University of Colorado Denver. Hana Vujeva is a school psychology student at
the University of Colorado Denver.
(Losch Dammann, 2004). Although motor skill and sensory function are not essen-
tial qualities in determining overall cognitive functioning, they are certainly critical to
performanceonassessmentprotocolsthatdetermineoverallcognitiveability(Decker
Davis, 2010) because most of these tests include some manipulation of objects such
as blocks and/or the use of a pencil. Children with motoric impairments are at a par-
ticular disadvantage when tasks requiring motor skill are timed (Sattler, 2001). There-
fore, cognitive batteries must be carefully selected in order to obtain an accurate esti-
mate of cognitive ability, and tasks heavily reliant upon motor skill or speed should be
avoided. Unfortunately, there are few accurate and fair tests for children with motor
impairments (Ruiter, Nakken, van der Meulen, Lunenberg, 2010).
For children with severe motor impairments that restrict ability to engage with
manipulatives or use a writing instrument, the CTONI-2 is considered the best option
because it was designed to limit motor involvement and subjects’ responses require
pointing only (Aylward, 1998; Hammill Pearson, 2009). The UNIT and Leiter-R are
valid considerations for children with more moderate motor impairments as they are
not timed and children with motor impairments are not penalized when completing
taskstappingmotorskill(McCallum,2003;Roid,Nellis,McClellan,2003).However,
neither psychometric properties nor norms for this disability group are available for
these measures.
Another choice when assessing children with motor impairments is to make adap-
tations to commonly used instruments in terms of item instructions, response format,
etc. to more accurately portray the child’s performance. Some research suggests that
decreasing the motor demands of some
standardized tests may not impact the
validity of the test results (Ruiter et al,
2010). However, it is important to keep
in mind that methodological research on
testadaptationsforphysicaldisabilitiesis
sparse and, as a result, neither normative
data nor recommendations for standard
modifications are available (Hill-Briggs,
Dial, Morere, Joyce, 2007). While ob-
tainingonlyinformativedataunderthese
conditions, making adaptations can still
give the clinician an idea of the child’s po-
tential cognitive ability.
Language and Motor
Impairments
As discussed above, both language and
motor skills are significant factors in
performance on assessments of cogni-
tive ability. When both are impaired, it
is nearly impossible to administer most
standardized assessments of cognitive
ability. Cerebral palsy (CP), the leading
causeofdisabilityaffectingmotorfunctionanddevelopment,referstoarangeofmotor
impairment syndromes secondary to brain lesions or anomalies (Mutch, Alberman,
Hagberg, Kodama, Perat, 1992) and typically affects both language and motor abili-
ties,including,inmostcases,apraxia.Testresultsmustbeinterpretedinthecontextof
themotor,speech,visual,andauditorydifficultiesthatmaybepresentinchildrenwith
CP (Fennell Dikel, 2001). Consequently, only school psychologists who are experi-
enced in the appropriate approaches should be evaluating children in this population.
This is particularly important as the sparse literature on the assessment of children
with CP and the limited choices for assessment techniques often leads to underesti-
mates of the cognitive abilities of children with CP (Warschausky, 2006). Children
with CP also have high rates of diagnoses of intellectual disabilities (ID) and learn-
ing disabilities (LD), yet the motor and communication barriers very likely invalidate
results on traditional cognitive assessment instruments. As a consequence, there are
many children who may be mistakenly diagnosed with an intellectual disability within
this population. This variability may also be related, in part, to delayed or deficient
language skills because of the incoordination of the muscles used in speech produc-
tion and significant gross motor handicaps seen in some types of CP (Fennell Dikel,
2001). Targeted educational, psychosocial, and vocational interventions depend upon
accurate assessment of cognitive strengths and weaknesses (Warschausky, Van Tub-
bergen, Donders 2008), so differentiating these from motor and language deficits
is very important.
Atpresent,therearefewmeasurestoaccuratelyassesschildrenwithCP.TheLeiter-
R and the CTONI-2 may be the most appropriate choices while UNIT and the WNS
may not be suitable because of the degree of motoric skill required, even if not timed.
Significant Intellectual Disability
Althoughmanystandardizedcognitiveassessmentscanbeusedtoassesschildrenwith
ID, most are not appropriate for truly gauging the cognitive strengths and weaknesses
of most children with ID who are in the mild range (55–69), and many are not capable
Although the focus of
this paper is on formal
cognitive assessment in
children with severe
impairments, it should
be noted that the assess-
mentsmustbeinterpreted
in concert with a broad
body of evidence,
including observational
measures, interview
data, and educational
and developmental
history, in order to draw
appropriate conclusions.

5. MA/CAGS/PsyD in School Psychology
MA/CAGS level curriculum at the Massachusetts School of
Professional Psychology (MSPP) emphasizes experiential
education, prevention, and mental health. Specialist degree school
psychologists may apply for advanced standing, and enter at the
PsyD level of the program. The PsyD level is compatible with
full-time employment as a school psychologist, and features:
• Summer (July/August) courses and late afternoon/evening
school year courses (on-site, supplemented by online instruction)
• Student-centered learning environment
• Leadership skills through systems perspective, personal growth,
and self-reflection
• Experienced practitioner faculty
MSPP also offers graduate programs in Organizational and Leadership
Psychology, Counseling Psychology and Clinical Psychology.
Visit www.mspp.edu/school for more details.
Doctoral
Program in
School
Psychology
Expand your
expertise
and credentials.
Increase your
leadership capabilities.
Admissions
Deadlines
Advanced
Standing PsyD
General Consideration:
Wednesday,
November 28, 2012
MA/CAGS,
School Psychology
General Consideration:
Wednesday,
January 9, 2013
Visit www.mspp.edu/
openhouse to learn
about our upcoming
Open House Series.
One Wells Avenue
Newton, MA 02459 Visit www.mspp.edu/school for more details.
Exciting
New Campus
Location at
One Wells Avenue
Newton, MA

6. © 2012, National Association of School Psychologists6 | Communiqué | November 2012, Volume 41, Number 3
of assessing children with more than moderate ID (IQs of approximately 40–55). For
the most part, assessments are lacking for this population because they do not include
a sufficient number of children with ID in their norming processes and are likewise
highly susceptible to floor effects (Edgin et al., 2010). In addition, these assessments
may lack factorial validity and measurement invariance when used with this popula-
tion(MacLean,McKenzie,Kidd,Murray,Schwannauer,2011).Theselimitationscan
result in inaccurate representations of cognitive ability in these children. However,
because an appropriate assessment of intellectual ability of these students is critical
for making placement and treatment decisions, the evaluation process must be ap-
proached very thoughtfully.
Two measures have been recommended for the assessment of children with ID—
the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales-Fifth Edition (SB-5; Roid, 2003a) and the Dif-
ferential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II; Elliott, 2007)—because of improved
samplingofchildrenwithIDintheirnormingpopulations,aswellastheirlowerlimits
of measurement (Dulcan, 2010).
The SB-5 is unique in that it allows for the calculation of IQ scores as low as 10
through an “Extended IQ” score (EXIQ; Roid Barram, 2004). These scores are de-
rived from a transformation of the child’s total raw score on the test, rather than the
use of traditional standard scores, and allow for the estimation of a Full Scale IQ score
for individuals whose cognitive functioning is extremely low. The ability to assess chil-
dren who have IQ scores below 40 may be important in the context of educational
planningbecauseindividualswithmore severe ID are morelikely tohaveconcomitant
neuromuscularandvisualconditions(AmericanPsychiatricAssociation,2000).Tables
for obtaining the EXIQ are provided in the SB-5 Interpretive Manual (Roid, 2003b).
The DAS-II is another good choice for use with children with ID, primarily because
the norming sample was more diverse in terms of ability and thus the test is able to
formally assess IQs down to 30. Furthermore, the structure of the DAS-II incorpo-
rates a great deal of flexibility by allowing the Upper Early Years battery (geared to-
ward preschool-age children) to be extended to lower functioning children through
9 years old. Lastly, a less well known feature of the DAS-II is the availability of norms
for children older than 9 years utilizing the Upper Early Years battery. These norms
are available via request from DAS-II customer service representatives (http://www
.pearsonassessments.com/pai/ca/research/resources/faqs/DAS-II_FAQs).
Additional measures to consider with the low-functioning ID population are the
CTONI-2 and the Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development-Third Edition
(Bayley-III; Bayley, 2006). The CTONI-2 is useful with children with ID who may also
have severe verbal or motor impairments, as only pointing is required for responses
and instructions can be given in either pantomime or verbally. Furthermore, the test
has been normed on and information is available on the performance of children with
significant intellectual disabilities (Hammill Pearson, 2009). The Bayley-III can be
used to approximate the intellectual level in infants and young children within the
profound range of intellectual disability (Mash Barkley, 2007), but is best viewed
as a measure of developmental level rather than intelligence (Sattler Hoge, 2006).
For clinicians who are looking for a quick screening instrument, the Rapid Assess-
ment for Developmental Disabilities (RADD; Walsh et al., 2007) may be considered.
The RADD, comprising low-difficulty items from published tests, can be administered
in 10–15 minutes, has adequate reliability, and according to the test authors, the RADD
total score and individual subtests can differentiate between various levels of cogni-
tive impairment (Walsh et al., 2007).
One final and rather new approach to the assessment of children with ID comes in
theformofutilizingstandardcognitiveassessments,suchastheWechslerIntelligence
Scale for Children, 4th Edition (WISC-IV; Wechsler, 2003), and then transforming the
raw data with z-score normalization, rather than using the standard scores provided
with the assessment. Thus far, this approach has been utilized primar-
ily in research applications, and that has demonstrated that z-score
transformations are able to eliminate the significant floor effects and
data skew that come with utilizing standard scores in children with ID
(Hessl et al., 2009). This approach has yet to be adapted or formalized
foruseinastrictlyclinicalsetting,butitisanapproachthathaspromise.
Conclusion
The task of assessing the cognitive ability of students with severe and
low-incidence disabilities is one that must be approached with care.
With the exception of deaf/hard of hearing, research in the area of cog-
nitiveabilityassessmentofchildrenwithlowincidencedisabilitieshas
been nascent at best, providing practitioners with little in the way of
guidance in this area.
The administration of most comprehensive cognitive test batter-
ies with these populations cannot be accomplished without modifying
standardized test administration procedures; however, this practice
can result in scores of questionable validity that may not be useful in
educational programming. Unfortunately, little research has been con-
ducted in this area, so the extent of the effect of these adaptations on
psychometric integrity is unclear. Furthermore, the utilization of tests
that assess a limited range of cognitive abilities may not provide a com-
prehensive picture of the child’s functioning. Practitioners charged with assessment
of students with low-incidence disabilities must be aware of the limitations of various
cognitive assessment tools when working with these children.
Except for some cognitive ability tests designed specifically for blind and visually
impaired individuals (i.e., the Cognitive Test for the Blind, [Dial et al., 1990] and the
Intelligence Test for Visually Impaired
Children [Dekker, 1989; 1993]), few mea-
sures have been developed expressly for
the various disability groups described in
this paper. Furthermore, the inclusion of
specific disability groups in test norms is
quite limited. Although there is no agree-
ment as to whether special norms should
be preferred over general norms when
assessing individuals with low incidence
disabilities (Braden, 1992), having both
availabletopractitionerscouldbeofhelp
in gauging the accuracy of their results.
Although the focus of this paper is on
formal cognitive assessment in children
with severe impairments, it should be
noted that the assessments must be inter-
preted in concert with a broad body of ev-
idence, including observational measures,
interview data, and educational and developmental history, in order to best understand
achild’sleveloffunctioningandinordertodrawappropriateconclusions(Miller,2007;
Powell-Smith, Stoner, Bilter, Sansosti, 2008). Furthermore, when there is no need for
formal cognitive assessment, a number of authors emphasize other approaches such as
ecological inventories, adaptive and life skills assessment, functional behavioral assess-
ment,andcommunity-basedassessmenttechniques(Gresham,Watson,Skinner,2001;
Shriver,Allen,Mathews,1999;Spears,Tollefson,Simpson,2001).Theseassessment
methods may be preferable largely because the type of data collected is directly appli-
cable to a student’s current functioning and future academic and treatment planning,
including the identification of the least restrictive environment for individual students
and the implementation of positive behavioral supports. Formal cognitive assessment,
whendeemedappropriate,canstillplayaveryimportantpartoftheassessmentprocess
in children with intensive needs, and understanding promising practices is key to mak-
ing this formal assessment as valid and as useful as possible. n
References
American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diag-
nostic and statistical manual of mental disor-
ders (4th ed., text rev.). Washington, DC: Author.
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association.
(1993). Definitions of communication disorders
and variations. Retrieved from http://www.asha
.org/docs/pdf/RP1993-00208.pdf
Aylward, G. (1998). Review of the Comprehen-
sive Test of Nonverbal Intelligence. In J. C.
Impara B. Plake (Eds.), The thirteenth mental
measurement yearbook (pp. 310–312). Lincoln,
NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements,
University of Nebraska Press.
Bayley, N. (2006). Bayley Scales of Infant and
Toddler Development, Third Edition. San Antonio,
TX: Pearson.
Bracken, B. A., McCallum, R. S. (1998). Uni-
versal Nonverbal Intelligence Test. Itasca, Il:
Riverside.
Braden, J. P. (1992). Intellectual assessment of
deaf and hard-of-hearing people: A quantita-
tive and qualitative research synthesis. School
Psychology Review, 21(1), 82–95.
Brown, L., Sherbenou, R. J., Johnsen, S. K. (2010).
Test of Nonverbal Intelligence, Fourth Edition. San
Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
Decker, S., Davis, A. (2010). Assessing and
intervening with children with sensory–motor
impairment. In D. Miller (Ed.) Best practices in
school neuropsychology: Guidelines for effective
practice, assessment, and evidence-based inter-
vention (pp. 673–690). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Quick Reference: Recommended Cognitive Assessments for Children
With Severe and Low-Incidence Disabilities
Visual Impairment
Intelligence Test for Visually
Impaired Children (Dekker,
1989)
Cognitive Test for the Blind
(Dial, 1990)
Motor Impairment
CTONI-2
Less severe impairment: UNIT
or Leiter-R
Language Impairment
UNIT
Leiter-R
CTONI-2
Motor and Language Impair-
ment (e.g., Cerebral Palsy)
CTONI-2
Leiter-R (depending upon level
of motor impairment)
Hearing Impairment
UNIT
Leiter-R
CTONI-2
WNV
Significant Intellectual Dis-
ability
Stanford-Binet 5 (SB5) Utilizing
EXIQ scores
DAS-II
CTONI-2
Bayley-III (younger children/
infants)
Other Resources
Hill-Briggs, F., Dial, J., Morere,
D., Joyce, A. (2007). Neuro-
psychological assessment of
persons with physical disability,
visual impairment or blind-
ness, and hearing impairment
or deafness. Archives of Clinical
Neuropsychology, 22, 389–404.
Miller, D. C. (2010). Best prac-
tices in school neuropsychology:
Guidelines for effective practice,
assessment, and evidence-based
intervention. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Formal cognitive assess-
ment can still play a very
important part of the
assessment process in
children with intensive
needs, and understand-
ing promising practices
is key to making this
assessment as valid and
as useful as possible.

7. Universal Design for
Learning: A Framework
for all Learners
Universal Design for Learning (UDL) is
an innovative approach to teaching and
learning that emphasizes research-based
instructional practices that guide educa-
tors in using new technologies and whole-
classroom methods while personalizing
each student’s instruction. The use of
UDLprinciplesingeneraleducationclass-
rooms makes curriculum and instruction
accessible and engaging. Curriculum bar-
riers are reduced; learning is supported;
students gain knowledge, skills, and en-
thusiasmforlearning;andtheirlearningis
assessedinamorevalidway.Thethreepil-
lars of UDL are multiple means of presen-
tation;multiplemeansofexpression;and
multiple means of student engagement.
At the federal level, policy makers have
incorporated UDL into legislation and
initiatives such as the Higher Education
Opportunity Act, the National Education
Technology Plan, the U.S. Department of
Education’s blueprint for the reauthori-
zation of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (ESEA), and the majority
of the state ESEA flexibility waivers ap-
proved for this year. Similarly, NASP’s
2011 comments on the reauthorization of
ESEA included recommendations for lan-
guage specifically addressing a definition
of UDL and related general assurances
and grants, research opportunities, edu-
cational technology, and provisions that
reflect UDL principles in the four ele-
ments of curriculum (goals, instructional
materials, teaching methods, and assess-
ments).Inrecommendinginclusionofre-
sponse to instruction (RTI) in the ESEA
reauthorization, NASP noted how RTI is
complemented by UDL because it pro-
vides a framework to decrease barriers to
learning while maintaining high achieve-
mentexpectationsforallstudents,includ-
ingstudentswithdisabilitiesandstudents
who are limited English proficient.
As a result of inclusion in federal leg-
islation and initiatives, UDL is becoming
a more common educational framework
within the national policy landscape.
States and districts are viewing UDL as
a critical part of their reform efforts and
incorporating UDL principles with Com-
mon Core State Standards into class-
rooms and schools. A recent two-part
study conducted by the National Cen-
ter on UDL at CAST, “Universal Design
for Learning (UDL): Initiatives on the
Move,” examined UDL implementation
at the state and local school district lev-
els. The study included state-level analy-
sisbyinterviewingstateeducationleaders
(typically, state directors of special edu-
cation), and examined the use of federal
RacetotheTop(RTTT)fundsin14states
that had UDL in their RTTT applications.
Parttwoofthestudycovereddistrict-level
analysisbysurveying134localspecialedu-
cation directors in districts that received
American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act (ARRA) grants. Both state and dis-
trict leaders reported a high degree of fa-
miliarity with UDL principles and linked
UDLwithothereducationinitiatives(e.g.,
RTI,positivebehavioralinterventionsand
supports, and differentiated instruction).
Stateleadersalsoreportedthatconfusion
does exist at the state and district levels
with personnel often not having a clear
understanding of the meaning of UDL, in
particularwithrespecttotherelationship
betweenUDLandotherinitiativessuchas
differentiated instruction.
Educators and policy makers in Mary-
land, Massachusetts, New York, Kentucky,
Ohio,andotherkeystatesaremovingahead
toimplementUDLinitiatives.Forexample,
in March of this year, Maryland adopted
UDL principles in the Code of Maryland
Regulations (COMAR 13A.03.06.01-.07).
The new regulations go into effect over
thenext2yearsandincludeprovisionsthat
allowfortheintegrationofUDLguidelines
andprincipleswiththeimplementationof
the Maryland Common Core State Stan-
dards and in the development or revision
ofcurriculum,instruction,professionalde-
velopment, and student assessments. Ad-
ditionalinformationaboutstate-levelUDL
initiativesmaybefoundathttp://www.udl-
center.org/advocacy/state.
National UDL Task Force
NASPisanactivememberoftheNational
UDL Task Force. Comprising more than
40 education and disability organizations,
the National UDL Task Force works to in-
corporate the principles of UDL into fed-
eral policy and practice initiatives. The
task force’s mission is to promote the
use of UDL to improve academic achieve-
mentandeducationalopportunitiesforall
learners. Efforts by the task force include
ongoing legislative activities to influence
federal policy; a Capitol Hill briefing; fact
sheetsonUDLincludingapplicationwith
gifted and talented students, English-lan-
guage learners, higher education settings,
and the Common Core State Standards.
School psychologists in their con-
sultative and leadership roles on school
teams are in a unique position to help
advance the use of UDL principles that
lower barriers to learning to meet the di-
verse need of all students. n
References
Code of Maryland Regulations, Universal De-
sign for Learning (COMAR 13.A.03.06.01-
.07). Retrieved from http://www.dsd.state
.md.us/MDRegister/3911.pdf.
National Center on UDL at CAST. (2012).
Universal design for learning (UDL): Initiatives
on the move. Retrieved from http://www.udl
center.org/advocacy/state/report.
National Universal Design for Learning (UDL)
Taskforce (http://www.udlcenter.org/advocacy).
Mary Beth Klotz, PhD, NCSP, is NASP Director, IDEA Projects and Technical Assistance. Some of
the information in this column provided by CAST (http://cast.org/udl/index.html).
November 2012, Volume 41, Number 3 | Communiqué | 7© 2012, National Association of School Psychologists
IDEA in practice
By Mary Beth Klotz
Dekker, R. (1989). Cognitive development of vi-
sually handicapped children. In R. Dekker, P. J.
D. Drenth, J. N. Zall (Eds.), Intelligence test
for visually impaired children aged 6 to 15 (pp.
1–21). The Netherlands: Bartimeus Ziest.
Dekker, R. (1993). Visually impaired children
and haptic intelligence test scores: Intel-
ligence Test for Visually Impaired Children
(ITVIC). Developmental Medicine Child
Neurology, 35, 478–489.
Dial, J., Mezger, C., Gray, S., Massey, T., Chan,
F., Hull, J. (1990). Manual: Comprehen-
sive Vocational Evaluation System. Dallas, TX:
McCarron-Dial Systems.
Dodd, B., Thompson, L. (2001). Speech disor-
der in Down’s syndrome. Journal of Intellec-
tual Disability Research, 45, 308–316.
Dulcan, M. (2010). Dulcan’s textbook of child
and adolescent psychiatry. Arlington, VA:
American Psychiatric Publishing.
Edelson, M. G. (2006). Are the majority of
children with autism mentally retarded? A
systematic evaluation of the data. Focus
on Autism Other Developmental Disabilities,
V. 21(2), 66–83.
Edgin, J., Mason, G., Allman, M., Capone, G.,
DeLeon, I., Maslen, C., …. Nadel, L. (2010).
Development and validation of the Arizona
Cognitive Test Battery for Down syndrome.
Journal of Neurodevelopmental Disorders, 2,
149–164. doi:10.1007/211689-010-9054-3
Elliott, C. D. (2007). Differential Ability Scales,
2nd edition. San Antonio, TX: The Psychologi-
cal Corporation.
Farrell, M., Phelps, L. (2000). A comparison
of the Leiter-R and the Universal Nonver-
bal Intelligence Test (UNIT) with children
classified as language impaired. Journal of
Psychoeducational Assessment, 18, 268–274.
doi:10.1177/073428290001800306
Fennell, E. B., Dikel, T. N. (2001). Cognitive
and neuropsychological functioning in
children with cerebral palsy.
Journal of Child Neurology, 16(1), 58–63.
doi:10.1177/088307380101600110
Gresham, R., Watson, S. T., Skinner, C. H.
(2001). Functional behavioral assessment:
Principles, procedures, and future directions.
School Psychology Review, 30, 156–172.
Hammill, D., Pearson, N. (2009). Com-
prehensive Test of Nonverbal Intelligence,
Second Edition. In J. Naglieri S. Goldstein.
(Eds), Practitioner’s guide to assessing intelli-
gence and achievement. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Hammill, D., Pearson, N., Wiederholt, J.
(2009). Comprehensive Test of Nonverbal Intel-
ligence (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Hessl, D., Nguyen, D., Green, C., Chavez, A.,
Tassone, F., Hagerman, R., … Hall, S. (2009).
A solution to limitations of cognitive testing
in children with intellectual disabilities: The
case of fragile X syndrome. Journal of Neuro-
developmental Disorders, 1, 33–45. doi:10.1077/
s11689-008-9001-8
Hill-Briggs, F., Dial, J., Morere, D., Joyce, A.
(2007). Neuropsychological assessment
of persons with physical disability, visual
impairment or blindness, and hearing im-
pairment or deafness. Archives of Clinical
Neuropsychology, 22, 389–404. doi:10.1016/j.
acn.2007.01.013
Lord, C., Paul, R. (1997). Language and com-
munication in autism. In J. D. Cohen F. R.
Volkmar (Eds.), Handbook of autism and per-
vasive developmental disorders (pp. 195–225).
New York, NY: Wiley.
Losch, H., Dammann, O. (2004). Impact
of motor skills on cognitive test results in
very-low-birthweight children. Journal of
Child Neurology, 19(5), 318–322. doi:10.1177/
088307380401900502
Mash, E. J., Barkley, R. A. (2007). Assessment
of childhood disorders (4th ed.). New York,
NY: Guilford Press.
McCallum, R. (2003). The Universal Nonver-
bal Intelligence Test. In R. McCallum (Ed.)
Nonverbal intelligence tests (pp. 87–109). New
York, NY: Kluwer Publishers.
MacLean, H., McKenzie, K., Kidd, G., Murray,
A. L., Schwannauer, M. (2011). Measure-
ment invariance in the assessment of people
with an intellectual disability. Research in
Developmental Disabilities, 32(3), 1081–1085.
doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2011.01.022
Miller, D. C. (2007). Essentials of school neuro-
psychological assessment. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Mutch, L., Alberman, E., Hagberg, B., Kodama,
K., Perat, M. V. (1992). Cerebral palsy epi-
demiology: Where are we now and where are
we going? Developmental Medicine and Child
Neurology, 34, 547–551.
Powell-Smith, K. A., Stoner, G., Bilter, K. J.,
Sansosti, F. J. (2008). Best practices in sup-
porting the education of students with severe
and low-incidence disabilities. In A. Thomas
J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school
psychology V (pp. 1233–1248). Bethesda, MD:
National Association of School Psychologists.
Quinn, M. (2010). Assessing and interven-
ing with children with speech and language
disorders. In D. Miller (Ed.), Best practices in
school neuropsychology: Guidelines for effective
practice, assessment, and evidence-based inter-
vention (pp. 551–578). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Raven, J., Raven, J. C., Court, J. H. (1998,
updated 2003). Raven’s Progressive Matrices.
San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessment.
Roid, G. (2003a). Stanford-Binet Intelligence
Scales, Fifth Edition. Itasca, IL: Riverside.
Roid, G. (2003b). Stanford-Binet Intelligence
Scales, Fifth Edition: Interpretive manual. Itasca,
IL: Riverside.
Roid, G. H., Barram, A. (2004). Essentials of
Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales (SB5) assess-
ment. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Roid, G. H., Miller, L. J. (1997). Leiter Interna-
tional Performance Scale-Revised. Wood Dale,
IL: Stoelting.
Roid, G., Nellis, L., McLellan, M. (2003). As-
sessment with the Leiter International Perfor-
mance Scale-Revised and the S-BIT. In R. Mc-
Callum (Ed.), Nonverbal intelligence tests (pp.
113–140). New York, NY: Kluwer.
Ruiter, S. A. J., Nakken, H., van der Meulen, B.
F., Lunenberg, C. B. (2010). Low motor as-
sessment: A comparative pilot study with
young children with and without motor
impairment. Journal of Developmental and
Physical Disabilities, 22, 33–46. doi:10.1007/
s10882-009-9165-5
Sattler, J. M. (2001). Assessment of children:
Cognitive applications. San Diego, CA: Jerome
M. Sattler Publishers.
Sattler, J. M. (2008). Assessment of children:
Cognitive foundations, (5th ed.). San Diego,
CA: Jerome M. Sattler Publishers.
Sattler, J. M., Hoge, R. D. (2006). Assessment
of Children: Behavioral, social, and clinical foun-
dations (5th ed.). San Diego, CA: Jerome M.
Sattler Publishers.
Shriver, M. D., Allen, K. D., Mathews, J. R.
(1999). Effective intervention of the shared
and unique characteristics of children
with autism. School Psychology Review, 28,
538–558.
Spears, R., Tollefson, N., Simpson, R. (2001).
Usefulness of different types of assessment
data in diagnosing and planning for a student
with high-functioning autism. Behavioral Dis-
orders, 25, 227–242.
Walsh, D. M., Finwall, J., Touchette, P. E., Mc-
Gregor, M. R., Fernandez, G. E. Lott, I. T.,
Sandman, C. A. (2007). Rapid assessment
of severe cognitive impairment in individu-
als with developmental disabilities. Journal of
Intellectual Disability Research, 51(2), 91–100.
doi:10.1111/j.1365-2788.2006.00853.x
Warschausky, S. (2006). Social development
and adjustment of children with neurode-
velopmental conditions. In K. Hagglund,
A. Heinemann (Eds.), Handbook of applied
disability and rehabilitation research. New York,
NY: Springer.
Warschausky, S., Van Tubbergen, M., Donders,
J. (2008, February). Modified test adminis-
tration using assistive technology: preliminary
psychometric findings with typically developing
children. Annual meeting of the International
Neuropsychological Society, Hawaii.
Wechsler, D. (2003). Wechsler Intelligence Scale
for Children-Fourth Edition. San Antonio, TX:
The Psychological Corporation.
Wechsler, D., Naglieri, J. (2006). Wechsler
Nonverbal Scale of Ability (WNV). San Anto-
nio, TX: PsychCorp.

8. © 2012, National Association of School Psychologists8 | Communiqué | November 2012, Volume 41, Number 3
LoreVersusLaw:
TheMisconceivedIDEA
By Sarah Betesh, Bridget Brown, Candace Thompson,
Perry A. Zirkel
T
he Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is a long and com-
plicatedlawthatisthesubjectofrelativelyfrequentamendments,regula-
tions,agencyinterpretations,andcaselaw.Itisnotsurprisingthatspecial
education leaders, who have challenging and multifaceted duties, need
periodic reminders of prevailing perceptions and practices that do not
square with the currently applicable IDEA requirements.
This set of items arose as a result of the June 2012 Lehigh University Symposium
onSpecialEducationLaw.Asmallgroupoftheparticipants,representingvariousjuris-
dictions and roles, selected legal lessons that appeared to be most beneficial to special
education leaders in terms of correcting common misconceptions. The following list
provides each of the selected lore items accompanied by the corrected law interpre-
tation, which includes the cited primary legal authority. The broad categories extend
from child find to remedies. The focus is on the IDEA; a separate article addresses
prevailing misconceptions concerning Section 504 (Zirkel, 2012).
Child Find, Evaluation, and Eligibility
Lore: “Child find,” in terms of the district’s evaluation obligation upon reasonable
suspicion of eligibility, does not extend to migrant or other highly mobile children.
LAW: Quite the contrary, the IDEA regulations are explicit that the district’s child
find responsibility extends to “highly mobile children, including migrant children”
(§ 300.111[c][2]).
Lore: The response to intervention (RTI) approach for identifying students with
specific learning disabilities will generate a spate of losing litigation concerning child
find under the IDEA.
LAW: Despite dire predictions in the special education literature of major problems
of RTI in terms of child-find litigation (e.g., Walker Daves, 2010) and repeated warn-
ings from the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) not to use RTI to delay
or deny IDEA evaluations (e.g., Memorandum to State Directors, 2012), RTI has gen-
erated relatively negligible child find litigation under the IDEA, with the outcomes
being notably deferential to districts. Most states had implemented the provision in
the2004IDEAlegislationandthe2006IDEAregulationsby2008,withatleastadozen
states opting to require RTI and the rest duly permitting it (Zirkel Thomas, 2010).
Therefore, it would not appear that the reason for the negligible litigation is a time lag
in implementing RTI. Yet, thus far no published court decision has specifically con-
cerned RTI and child find, and the few pertinent hearing officer decisions have been
deferential to school districts (e.g., Cobb County School District, 2012; Joshua Indepen-
dent School District, 2010). Interestingly, the only notable child find violations to date
have been Office for Civil Rights’ letters of findings under Section 504 (e.g., Harrison
School District, 2011) rather than court decisions under the IDEA.
Lore: Neither child find nor eligibility under the IDEA extends to a child whose aca-
demic performance is at or above grade level.
LAW: This statement is too absolute to pass muster under the IDEA for three reasons.
First, the IDEA child find regulation is clear that the child’s promotion from grade to
gradedoesnotprecludetherequisitereasonablesuspicionthattriggerstheevaluation
obligation(§300.111[c][1]).Providingreinforcement,anotherIDEAregulationrejects
exemptingfromeligibilityforFAPEchildrenwhohaveneitherfailedacoursenorbeen
retained in grade (§ 300.101[c][1]). Second, the IDEA evaluation regulation requires
the district to use a variety of assessment tools that include functional and develop-
mental—not just academic—information (§ 300.304[b][1]). Providing reinforcement,
the IDEA eligibility regulation requires consideration of information from a variety of
sources extending beyond achievement tests and including the child’s adaptive behav-
ior (§ 300.306[c][1]). Thus, in a recent decision, a federal district court concluded that
the district’s eligibility evaluation was fatally faulty because it focused solely on the
child’sacademicprogress(G.“J.”D.v.WissahickonSchoolDistrict,2011).Third,insome
major jurisdictions, the need for special education, which is the ultimate requisite for
eligibilityundertheIDEA,maybepremisedonsocialinteractionratherthanacademic
Professional Practice achievement (Mr. I. v. Maine Administrative School District No. 55, 2007).
Lore: If a medical diagnosis is needed to determine whether the child meets the
eligibility standards of the IDEA or, as a result, to determine to what extent, if any, the
child needs specially designed instruction or related services, it is the parents’, not the
district’s, obligation.
LAW: OSEP and the courts have generally agreed that where the district has reason to
suspect that the child may be eligible, which by definition includes the need for specially
designedinstruction,thedistricthastheobligationtoevaluatethechild.Morespecifically,
OSEP has repeatedly pointed out—specifically using attention deficit hyperactivity disor-
der (ADHD) as the example—that if the evaluation needs to include medical diagnosis, it
shall be at no cost to the parents (e.g., Letter to Anonymous, 2000). Moreover, in contrast
to the residual exclusion for medical treatment, the IDEA regulations’ definition of re-
lated services expressly include “medical services for diagnostic or evaluation purposes”
(§ 300.34[a]). Thus, in a recent case, the district had delayed completing the evaluation
contingent upon the parents providing a medical diagnosis of ADHD; the court ruled that
thechild,whowasdeterminedtobeeligibleundertheIDEA,wasentitledtocompensatory
education as a result of this delay (M.J.C. v. Special School District No. 1, 2012).
Lore: The duty to evaluate a child, upon parental request, who is in a parentally
placed private school, does not apply to the district of residence; it belongs exclusively
to the district of location.
LAW: The district where the private school is located does have both child find and—
on a collective basis—proportional service obligations to children parentally placed
in private schools (§§ 300.131-300.132). However, the district of residence also has an
evaluation obligation upon parental request—at least if the parent expresses an inter-
est in possibly enrolling the child back in the district. OSEP has recognized this over-
lapping, rather than mutually exclusive, obligation (e.g., Letter to Eig, 2009). A recent
federal district court ruling reinforced the evaluation obligation of the district of resi-
dence upon parental request (Moorestown Township Board of Education v. S.D., 2011).
Lore: The requirement for parental consent for evaluation and reevaluation implicitly
allows the parent unlimited latitude to set conditions on the evaluation or reevaluation.
LAW: Therequirementforinformedconsent(§300.9)andtheconnectedrequirement
for prior written notice for the evaluation (§ 300.503) imply a parental right to limit
thescopeoftheirconsent.Moreover,theIDEAregulationsexpresslyprohibitdistricts
from using a parent’s refusal to consent to one service or activity of the evaluation or
reevaluation “to deny the parent or child any other service, benefit, or activity of the
[district]” (§ 300.300[d][3]). However, this right is not unlimited. Confirming this
conclusion, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld not only the lower
court’s ruling that the parents’ extensive conditions to their consent for reevaluation
oftheirchildamountedtoarefusal.Theappellatecourtalsoaffirmedthelowercourt’s
authorization for the reevaluation to proceed with specified reasonable conditions
(G.J. v. Muscogee County School District, 2012).
Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE)
Lore: The foremost procedural requirement in terms of denial of FAPE is the absence
of the regular, or general, education teacher in the deliberations of the IEP team.
LAW: Although the regular education teacher occupies an important role, the IDEA leg-
islation (§ 1414[d][1][ii]) and regulations (§ 300.321[a][2]) require this representation on
the IEP team only “if the child is, or may be, participating in the regular education envi-
ronment.” In a case arising before the effective date of the 2004 amendments, the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals found violation of this particular requirement to be a “critical
structuraldefect”(M.L.FederalWaySchoolDistrict,2004,p.636).However,ofthemanypos-
sibleproceduralviolations,thelatestversionoftheIDEAinsteadaccordedsingularstatus
to the parent’s participation in the IEP process. More specifically, the 2004 amendments
of the IDEA singled as a seemingly per se denial of FAPE the following district procedural
violation:“significantlyimped[ing]theparent’sopportunitytoparticipateinthedecision-
makingprocessregardingtheprovisionofaFAPEtotheparent’schild”(§1415[f][3][E][ii]).
Lore: The special education teacher on the IEP team must be the child’s current spe-
cial education teacher.
LAW: The relevant required representation on the IEP team is “not less than one spe-
cial education teacher of the child, or where appropriate one special education service
provider of such child” (§ 1414[d][1][B][iii]). As a recent Ninth Circuit decision illus-
trates, this member may be a prior, rather than the current, special education teacher
or provider of the child (Mahoney v. Carlsbad Unified School District, 2011).
Lore: Bullying of a student with a disability is exclusively a matter of other laws, such
as Section 504, thus not a FAPE issue.
LAW: The courts increasingly have taken the position that if the bullying is severe
enough and the district has not taken sufficient action in response to it, bullying may
constitute a denial of FAPE (e.g., Smith v. Guilford Board of Education, 2007). More spe-
cifically, in a recent published court decision, a federal district court concluded that
the applicable FAPE standard under the IDEA is “whether school personnel [were]
Sarah Betesh is a support teacher for students with autism for the Bucks County Intermediate Unit in
Quakertown, PA. Bridget Brown is dispute resolution coordinator with the New Hampshire Depart-
ment of Education. Candace Thompson is assistant superintendent at Community Consolidated
School District No. 21 in Wheeling, IL. Perry A. Zirkel is university professor of education and law at
Lehigh University.

9. November 2012, Volume 41, Number 3 | Communiqué | 9© 2012, National Association of School Psychologists
deliberately indifferent to, or failed to take reasonable steps to prevent bullying that
substantially restricted a child with learning disabilities in her educational opportuni-
ties” (T.K. v. New York City Department of Education, 2011, p. 316).
Lore: The entitlement to assistive technology devices extends without limitation to
use at home at the expense—including for repairs and loss—of the district.
LAW: The IDEA regulations condition the use of district-purchased assistive tech-
nology devices at the child’s home or other nonschool settings on whether the child
“needs [such] access … in order to receive FAPE” (§ 300.105[b]). Moreover, a federal
districtcourtrecentlyrespondedasfollowstotheparent’sclaimthatthedistrictmust
provide home use of such a device without any limits on use or loss:
The Court is not aware of any cases to support this argument, and [the parent] does
not provide any citation. Even assuming [the district] incorrectly required the sign-
ing of the financial loss agreement, [the child] fails to demonstrate how this agree-
ment resulted in the denial of a FAPE. [The child] was provided the device for use
at school and home. (R.P. v. Alamo Heights Independent School District, 2011)
Lore: Parental revocation of special education services requires (a) applicability to
the entire IEP, not a selected part, and (b) the signature of both parents.
LAW: Although the IDEA regulations do not specifically address either situation, the
accompanying commentary (2008) makes clear OSEP’s position that for parents who
seekrevocationofaparticularservice,theapplicationdependsonwhethertheservice
is essential for FAPE. In more recent policy announcements for cases where both par-
entshavelegalauthorityforeducationaldecisions,OSEPinterpretedtheregulationas
requiring districts to accept either parent’s revocation of consent regardless of which
parent consented to the services (e.g., Letter to Ward, 2010).
Student Records
Lore: IEPs are confidential except for members of the student’s IEP team.
LAW: IEPs are educational records covered by both the IDEA and the Family Educa-
tional Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). However, the FERPA regulations exempt from
parental consent disclosure to “school officials, including teachers, within the [district]
whomthe[district]hasdeterminedtohavelegitimateeducationalinterests”(§99.31[a]
[1][i][A]). More specifically, the IDEA requires—not just permits—that districts ensure
that“eachregulareducationteacher,specialeducationteacher,relatedservicesprovider,
and any other service provider who is responsible for [the IEP’s] implementation” not
only have access to the IEP but also be informed of its pertinent contents (§ 300.323[d]).
Lore: The IDEA generally entitles parents to copies of their child’s records—and at no
expense to the parents.
LAW: Contrary to the first part of this lore, the law generally entitles the parent to in-
spectandreviewtheirchild’srecords.However,therighttocopiesoftheirchild’srecords
is limited to situations where “failure to provide those copies would effectively prevent
theparentfromexercisingtherighttoinspectandreviewtherecords”(§300.613[b][2]).
Contrary to the second part of this lore item, the IDEA regulations permit the district
to charge a reasonable fee for the copies unless the fee would “effectively prevent the
parents from exercising their right to inspect and review those records” (§ 300.617[a]).
Discipline
Lore: The IDEA limits districts to positive behavioral strategies, thus prohibiting the
use of aversive or other notably negative disciplinary measures, such as expulsions or
restraints, for students with disabilities.
LAW: First, OSEP has more than one policy letter clarifying that the IDEA does not
prohibit restraints or other aversives, leaving such matters to state law (e.g., Letter to
Anonymous, 2008). Second, the IDEA regulations encourage “positive behavioral inter-
ventions and supports,” but also permit “other strategies” to address learning-imped-
ing behavior—and the operant verb is “consider,” not necessarily adopt or implement
(§ 300.324[a][2][i]). Third, the IDEA legislation (§ 1415[k][1][C]) and regulations (§
300.530[c]) for disciplinary changes in placement limit but do not prohibit expulsions.
Morespecifically,theseprovisionspermitremovalsformorethan10consecutivedays
upon (a) a defensible determination that the triggering misconduct is not a manifesta-
tion of the child’s disability and (b) specified safeguards, including the continuation
of FAPE. Moreover, even if the child’s misconduct is a manifestation of the child’s dis-
ability,theIDEAlegislation(§§1415[k][1][G]and1415[k][3][B])andthecorresponding
regulations (§§ 300.530[f] and 532[b][2]) permit removals for up to 45 school days to
interim alternative educational settings in specified serious circumstances.
Remedies
Lore: In tuition reimbursement cases, the parents’ unilateral placement must be a
state-approved special education school.
LAW: Codifying the Supreme Court’s ruling in Florence County School District Four v.
Carter(1993),theIDEAregulationsmakeclearthatahearingofficerorcourtmayfinda
parent-initiatedplacementappropriate,forpurposesoftuitionreimbursement,“even
if it does not meet the State standards that apply to education provided by the [state
education agency] and the [local education agency]” (§ 300.148[c]).
Lore: School personnel and/or their districts may be liable for money damages under
the IDEA for denial of FAPE.
LAW: This perception may be attributable to an early state trial court decision that
upheldajuryverdictagainstateacherformoneydamagesundertheIDEA(Doev.With-
ers, 1993). However, the extent to which this court relied on the IDEA is unclear, and,
in any event, its decision is of no precedential value. In contrast, a subsequent series
of published court decisions at the federal appellate level have consistently held that
money damages are not available under the IDEA (e.g., C.O. v. Portland Public Schools,
2012; Chambers v. School District of Philadelphia, 2009). n
References
Chambers v. Sch. Dist. of Philadelphia, 587 F.3d
176 (3d Cir. 2009).
Cobb Cnty. Sch. Dist., 58 IDELR ¶ 180 (Ga. SEA
2012).
C.O. v. Portland Pub. Sch., 679 F.3d 1162 (9th
Cir. 2012).
Doe v. Withers, 20 IDELR 422 (W. Va. Cir. Ct.
1993).
Florence Cnty. Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter, 510 U.S.
7 (1993).
Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA)
regulations, 34 C.F.R. §§ et seq. 99.1 (2011).
G.J. v. Muscogee Cnty. Sch. Dist., 668 F.3d 1258
(11th Cir. 2012).
G.”J.”D. v. Wissahickon Sch. Dist., 832 F. Supp.
2d 455 (E.D. Pa. 2011).
Harrison (CO) Sch. Dist., 57 IDELR ¶ 295 (OCR
2011).
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
legislation, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1401 et seq. (2011).
IDEA regulations, 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.1 et seq. (2011).
IDEA regulations commentary, 73 Fed. Reg.
73,011 (Dec. 1, 2008).
Joshua Indep. Sch. Dist., 56 IDELR ¶ 88 (Tex.
SEA 2010).
Letter to Anonymous, 34 IDELR ¶ 35 (OSEP 2000).
Letter to Anonymous, 50 IDELR ¶ 228 (2008).
Letter to Eig, 52 IDELR ¶ 136 (OSEP 2009).
Letter to Ward, 56 IDELR ¶ 237 (OSEP 2010).
Mahoney v. Carlsbad Unified Sch. Dist., 430 F.
App’x 562 (9th Cir. 2011).
Memorandum to State Directors of Special Edu-
cation, 56 IDELR ¶ 50 (OSEP 2011).
M.J.C. v. Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 58 IDELR ¶
288 (D. Minn. 2012).
M.L. v. Fed. Way Sch. Dist., 394 F.3d 634 (9th
Cir. 2004).
Moorestown Twp. Bd. of Educ. v. S.D., 811 F.
Supp. 2d 1057 (D.N.J. 2011).
Mr. I. v. Maine Sch. Admin. Dist. No. 55, 480
F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2007).
R.P. v. Alamo Heights Indep. Sch. Dist., 57 IDELR
¶ 64 (W.D. Tex. 2011).
Smith v. Guilford Bd. of Educ., 226 F. App’x 58
(2d Cir. 2007).
T.K. v. New York City Dept. of Educ., 779 F. Supp.
2d 289 (S.D.N.Y. 2011).
Walker, D. W., Daves, D. (2010). Response to
intervention and the courts: Litigation-based
guidance. Journal of Disability Policy Studies,
21(1), 40–46.
Zirkel, P. A. (2012, Summer). The common lore
of Section 504. CEC Today. Retrieved from
http://www.cec.sped.org/AM/Template.
cfm?Section=CEC_Today1TEMPLATE=/CM/
ContentDisplay.cfmCONTENTID=19081utm_
source=cecutm_medium=emailutm_
campaign=CEC+Todayutm_
content=summer+2012
Zirkel, P. A., Thomas, L. B. (2010). State laws
and guidelines for implementing RTI. Teaching
Exceptional Children, 43(1), 60–73.
NASP Communities
n Share Your Ideas
n Find an Expert
n Explore Hot Topics
Be part of the discussion at
http://communities.nasponline.org
A M e mb e r - O n l y B e n e f i t

10. © 2012, National Association of School Psychologists10 | Communiqué | November 2012, Volume 41, Number 3
EstablishingSchool-Based
MentalHealthServices
AlignedtoLearning
By Melissa Hurd Kim Palmiotto
D
ue to a change in state law, Newport-Mesa Unified School District (NMUSD)
school psychologists recently faced the challenge—and opportunity—to initi-
ateadistrictPsychologicalSupportServicesDepartmentanddevelopadistrict-
wide Educationally Related Mental Health Services Program.
On June 28, 2011, the California state legislature passed a new state budget that
required significant changes to be made in the delivery of mental health services to
eligible children with disabilities. Essentially, what the legislature did was to make
inoperative all provisions under what is commonly known as AB3632, the law previ-
ously governing the provision of mental health services for students with disabili-
ties in California. Under AB3632, mental health services were provided to students
with disabilities through county mental health agencies, pursuant to their legally
mandated Individualized Education Program (IEP) responsibilities. With the recent
change in the law, the legally mandated IEP responsibilities for county mental agen-
cies no longer exist.
Like most school districts in the state, NMUSD faced the challenge of figuring
how to continue to provide services for students under a new scenario. As the school
psychologists for the district, we saw an opportunity to reorganize our departmen-
tal services to better serve the needs of students and support learning. Throughout
the 2011–2012 school year, we continued to provide mental health services to eligible
students through a master contract with Orange County Health Care Agency. This
allowed time for internal program development and, at the same time, students ex-
perienced a smooth transition of services. It was during this time period that we de-
veloped the structural program components, assessment procedures, and templates
and hired the necessary staff in order to service our students’ school-based mental
health needs internally.
We realized that securing the support of key stakeholders (e.g., parents, teachers,
other school-based mental health providers, and district leaders) was critical to our
efforts, and we made sure to incorporate targeted communications with these groups
throughout our process. Not only did we need people to understand, participate in,
and support the resources for the new process, the approach itself required close col-
laboration among school mental health providers and other staff.
Program Development
Within the development phase, it was important to keep in mind that school-based
mental health services are more than just counseling. Services range from prevention
and skills development to intervention and evaluation, referral and collaboration, and
lastly, consultation and counseling. We made sure to include this as one of our key
messages in our outreach efforts.
A tiered approach to interventions was determined to be the most effective model
with which to move forward as a district. Students naturally transition from the most
generaltothemorestudent-specific,intensivetreatmentinterventions(andviceversa
as appropriate). This model provides support and intervention to all students—from
the general population to individualized support to specific students. School psychol-
ogists and school psychologist/mental health interns provide
services across the tiers; however, as the interventions become
more intensive, the service providers become more specialized.
One unique feature of the program is the inclusion of the
expressive therapies within the tiered process. We provided the
necessary education, training, consultation, and supervision to
our school psychologists in order for them to integrate the ex-
pressive therapies into their counseling roles. In addition, a reg-
istered art therapist integrates the expressive therapies at the
Tier 3 level for students who may benefit from this intervention.
Aschoolsocialworkerwasalsohiredtomanagespecializedcases
at the Tier 3 level and provide parent and staff training.
Emphasis
The focus of Psychological Support Services is to provide sup-
port and interventions to children within the district in order
to encourage positive mental health that in turn leads to posi-
Communication matters tive learning and behavior. This was another of our key messages. The Psychological
Support Services staff teams up with parents, other school-based professionals, and
community partners to provide a continuum of services that meet the needs of the
individual child.
We provided stakeholders with a clear outline of the need for and benefits of a
three-tiered approach. Many students’ needs for emotional or behavioral interven-
tion services can be met by a general level of support available in the school. However,
when behavior signals that a student is not coping with his or her environment and
this negatively impacts educational performance, the student may need targeted or
intensive treatment interventions to be successful in school.
Tier 1: Universal interventions. In the first tier, preventive interventions are avail-
abletobothgeneralandspecialeducationstudents.Thefocusoftheinterventionsare
social skills related to address a variety of issues relevant to a general population of
students. At this level, interns and the supervising school-site psychologists provide
group social skills interventions, consult with parents and teachers, and develop be-
havioral support plans.
Tier 2: Early interventions. Services at this level are targeted to support special
education-eligible students that are at risk for emotional or behavioral disorders that
are negatively impacting educational performance. At this level, continued service is
provided by the school-site psychologist. In addition, students now receive a social–
emotional assessment to determine unique needs that lead to specific goals that will
drive short term treatment. In addition, a specialized Tier 3 school psychologist pro-
vides consultation as needed to the school site.
Tier3:Intensiveinterventions.Tier3isthemostintensivelevelofinterventions.At
thislevel,servicesaregearedtowardspecialeducationstudentsthathavehadprevious
mental health interventions and are in need of more individualized support to assist
them in managing emotional or behavioral challenges that are negatively impacting
educational performance. At the Tier 3 level, students are typically referred after they
haveparticipated ininterventionsinTiers1and2. Specificindividualizedgoalsarethe
focus in individual or family sessions with a specialized Tier 3 school psychologist. In
addition, a licensed clinical social worker is available to provide in-home behavioral
support as well as parent education and training.
Change Is a Process, Not an Event
Overall, parents, school psychologists, and administrative staff have been overwhelm-
ingly positive about the proposed change in service delivery. Choosing a model of
change to provide a framework of organization to assist staff in the process has been
very helpful; in this instance, Kurt Lewin’s model of change was adopted. While we
had felt strongly over the years that we, as a district, could meet the mental health
needs of our student population, it was when the changes in state law transpired that
the stars aligned and granted us the initial funding source and opportunity to create
positive change. Based on extensive behavioral-RTI research and the supporting posi-
tions from NASP and CASP that school psychologists are the best equipped to deliver
mental health services in schools, stakeholders overwhelmingly agreed that change
wasessentialandagreedthatourschoolpsychologistsandinternalstaffwerethemost
qualified to service our own students and families.
A team of district experts was selected to outline a model that could be used to
explain the services to school psychologists and other support providers. Once the
model was approved, the program quickly began to take form and we started creating
protocols and training materials, and recruiting additional highly trained staff to pro-
vide the necessary counseling and parent component. When deciding what additional
staff to hire, the team requested feedback from the school psychologists to determine
how to best meet their needs in order to move forward fluently. The feedback received
indicated that supplemental and permanent staff equipped to train and support the
school psychologists in cognitive behavior therapy, solution focused therapy, and ex-
pressive therapies with children and adolescents were the most
needed areas of focus. This resulted in the development of on-
going inservice training as well as on-site consultation in order
to fully support the school psychologists during this transition.
With the start of the 2012–2013 school year, we enter the
actual change or transition phase and begin to incorporate the
new program procedures into our daily work habits. This stage
is crucial for success, as it will require a great deal of communi-
cation and support in the areas of coaching and training. School
psychologistsmeetonamonthlybasistoreviewproceduresand
brainstorm counseling ideas, and are encouraged to share posi-
tive outcomes at their sites. An emphasis on solution focused
group counseling in schools had been embraced and well-re-
garded professionals in this field provide ongoing training. We
are reaching out to school sites on an individual basis to deter-
mine need at each site and pilot Tier 1 programs such as Second
Step;StepstoRespect;andCheck-In–Check-Out,amongothers.
It is our hope and intention that school sites will begin to wit-
ness, first hand, the positive effects of prevention and interven-
tion and become agents of change themselves. n
Melissa Hurd is the lead school psychologist and Kim Palmiotto is a
registered art therapist and educational psychologist for the Newport-Mesa
Unified School District in California.
Communications Tips
n Recognize the opportunity within
a challenge.
n Assemble a collaborative team to
identify strategies.
n Know who your key stakehold-
ers are (whom do you need to
persuade?).
n Identify knowledge deficits in your
key stakeholders and provide that
information.
n Develop a few key messages that
reinforce the overall value of your
role and ideas.
n Provide for regular feedback.
n Use data to back up your ideas
and positions.

11. NEW
Autism
Asperger’s/PDD-NOS
No evidence of social impairment
Other diagnoses, such as
ADHD and anxiety, that are
sometimes accompanied by
mild social impairment
www.wpspublish.com/SRS-2 | 800-648-8857
• Unparalleled evidence of validity—
across the life span and across
cultures, nationalities, and
clinical groups
• Expanded age range—
2½ years through adulthood
• Two DSM-5 Compatible Subscales
that allow easy comparison of
symptoms to proposed ASD
diagnostic criteria
• Current, nationally
representative norms
• Updated interpretive guidelines
• Unlimited-use scoring software
NEW in the SRS-2
SRS-2 scores reflect differences in social impairment in various
clinical groups. These group differences are substantial, and
SRS-2 scores are clearly useful in differential diagnosis.
SRS-2
Social Responsiveness Scale
Second Edition
The second edition of this highly regarded autism assessment offers the convenience of a screener and the
power of a diagnostic tool. Completed in just 15 to 20 minutes, the SRS-2 identifies social impairment associated
with autism spectrum disorders (ASDs) and quantifies its severity. It’s sensitive enough to detect even subtle
symptoms, yet specific enough to differentiate clinical groups, both within the autism spectrum and between
ASD and other disorders.
What do the symptoms indicate? Find out with the SRS-2.
NOW AVAILABLE

12. 12 | Communiqué | November 2012, Volume 41, Number 3 © 2012, National Association of School Psychologists
IntegrationofSocial,
Behavioral,andAcademic
Initiatives–Part2
By Hank Bohanon Meng-Jia Wu
I
n part one of this series, we discussed the connections among social and emo-
tional learning (SEL), positive behavior interventions and supports (PBIS), and
response to intervention (RTI). Specifically, we compared the processes and fi-
delity components of these approaches. We attempted to highlight the similari-
ties in systems, practices, and data for each approach, with the understanding
that nuances could found within the practices of each. The following section provides
specific examples of the overlap in these approaches; the integration of systems, prac-
tices, and data; and factors related to core instruction.
Example of Overlapping Approaches
We believe that providing a discussion of integration of approaches and processes
is critical in light of our own experiences as evaluators for statewide projects for tech-
nical assistance. For example, in one Midwestern state, at least 71 schools reported
the use of SEL to improve their overall climate. Data were available for 69 schools.
Only 26 schools (38%) reported they were using SEL alone to address their climate
goals. Nineteen (28%) of the schools reported using SEL and PBIS. One school (1%)
reported implementing SEL and RTI as a part the statewide project. Six schools (9%)
were implementing SEL, PBIS, and RTI. As can be seen from these data, the overlap
of approaches and processes has already begun. Furthermore, there have been other
examples of the integration of approaches and processes in schools related to school-
based mental health (Bohanon Wu, 2011).
Without a common roadmap and a coordinated leadership team, it is possible that
well-meaningimplementersofallthreeapproachesmaycreateunnecessaryoverlapand
ineffective organizational structures. For example, one school implementing PBIS may
have a secondary team that focuses on academic and behavior supports, but this group
doesnotworkwiththeSELprogramsatthesecondarylevelaimedatimprovingstudents’
social competencies. This lack of coordination would mean that resources might not be
used in the most effective and efficient way possible to meet the needs of all students.
A Framework for Integration of Processes: Systems,
Practices, and Data
One possible way to decide where to start with the implementation of integrated ap-
proaches would be to reflect upon the school’s core curriculum academically, behav-
iorally, and socially, and its corresponding outcome data. Making decisions about ef-
fective general and remedial instruction and intervention, identifying students who
are at risk early, making decisions about needs for further supports; and determining,
delivering, and evaluating student-level programs, might be considered the focus of
all three processes. As indicated by Kurns and Tilly (2008), guiding questions could
be used to support identification of the need for the support process.
Question 1: What do we want students to know?
For example, question number one of the RTI Blue-
print (Kurns Tilly, 2008) under action step 3 is
to determine if the core program is sufficient. This
question regarding universal support is extremely
helpful if there is a defined core in place. In some in-
stances,aformalcorecurriculumforsocialorbehav-
ior support may not exist. Guiding questions based
on professional learning communities (Dufour, Du-
four, Eaker, Karhenek, 2004) could be integrated
with the RTI Blueprint (Kurns Tilly, 2008) to sup-
port defining the core in other areas. The first ques-
tion could include, What do we want all students
to know and be able to do by grade level, course,
and unit—academically, behaviorally, and socially?
School teams can develop matrices of desired skill
sets based on standards that define what students
should know and be able to do across all areas of
learning (social, behavioral, academic). In terms of
Implementing RTI alignment, some states have freestanding standards regarding SEL in early childhood
education. While only Illinois has approved freestanding standards that are statewide,
many states have integrated SEL standards into their academic core. The CASEL web-
siteprovidesausefultooltodeterminethenatureofSELstandardsonastate-by-state
basis (http://casel.org/policy-advocacy/sel-in-your-state).
Question 2: How will we know if students have acquired knowledge? Asecondques-
tionforteamstoaskwouldbe,Howwillweknowifallstudentshaveacquiredtheknowl-
edge and skills, including academic, social, and behavioral learning? An appropriate re-
sponse to this question requires that teams be willing to utilize screening tools that are
standardized,reliable,valid,brief,lowcost,andsimpletoadminister,score,andinterpret
(Kurns Tilly, 2008) across all three areas of support. Use of curriculm-based measure-
ments, office disciplinary referrals (ODRs), and ratings of social and emotional skills
could be useful at this step. This would allow schools to determine if there are needs
based on their expectations, and if these needs are school-wide (e.g., less than 80% of
students are meeting expectations), or more targeted (e.g., 15% of students do not feel
connected to their classroom environments).
Question 3: How will we help students who struggle? The third question asks how
schools will respond when students experience initial levels of difficulty in improving
their performance. School team responses for student deficits should be based upon
the nature of the problem. If 80% of the students are receiving 0–1 ODRs, 80% are
proficient meeting academic targets; yet, if only 30% of the students feel connected
to the school, then it would appear that starting with a tool such as the CASEL Rubric
would be useful to guide the next steps. Fortunately, new tools are being developed
to address fidelity and outcomes when using combined models of support (e.g., SEL
and PBIS; Bear, Hearn, Baker, Boyer, Smith, 2012).
Examples of Addressing the Core Curriculum
Table 1 provides an example of how a core curriculum teaching matrix could address
academic, social, and behavioral expectations. This table relates to question one from
the framework mentioned above (i.e., What do we want all students to know and be
able to do?).
Question 1: What do we want students to know? In this example, the school was
implementing PBIS. The school staff began to extend what was expected of students
by addressing social and emotional learning standards as a part of their teaching matrix
for expected behaviors. Typically, a team using the PBIS model would select behaviors
to instruct based on ODR variables (Sugai et al., 2010) by type of behavior, time of day,
location, percentage of students in need of the support, and time of the year. If SEL and
academicuniversalscreeningdatawereavailable,teamscouldcrosswalkneedsandsolu-
tionstoincreaseefficiencyofresponses.Forexample,universaldatamightindicatethat
studentslackedskillsinself-management,andcoreassessmentsdatamightindicatethat
students were not able to effectively summarize important information. An integrated
responsewouldincludedirectlyteachingBeingProductive(PBISMatrixBehavior)inthe
classroom through instruction of self-assessment (SEL related behavior) before submit-
ting written products (RTI core assessment of content area). Certainly, some students
would require more intensive supports, which relates to question number three of the
framework suggested above (i.e., What will we do if students do not respond?).
Question 2: How will we know if students have acquired knowledge? To prepare a
school for question two, external coaches may need to provide nonthreatening ways to
encourage teams to look at social and emotional needs of students. Encouraging teams
to assess SEL-related domains may be especially difficult in schools where the majority
of students are responding well to the core academic curriculum. One way to encour-
agethisconsiderationofdatais to useametaphor. With oneschool, weshared apicture
of a building that was in the last stages of demolition. We asked the group where they
Hank Bohanon, PhD, is an associate professor and Meng-Jia
Wu, PhD, is an assistant professor in the Loyola University of
Chicago School of Education.
Table 1: Example of Combined Behavioral, Academic, and Social and
Emotional Learning Matrix
(List locations
and activities
in this column)
Be Productive
(SEL Goal 1—self-
management Goal 3—
decision-making skills)
Be Respectful
(SEL Goal 2—social
awareness Goal 3—de-
cision-making skills and
responsible behavior)
Be Responsible
(SEL Goal 2—social
awareness Goal 3—de-
cision-making skills and
responsible behavior)
Be Appropriate
(SEL Goal 2—social
awareness)
Classroom Stay with your task Clean up after yourself Be on time, follow
directions, appropriate
remarks, ask for help,
think then speak
Positive remarks, raise
hands, use inside voice
SEL/SD: goal setting–
breaking down tasks
and reviewing steps for
task completion; self-
monitoring–ensuring
steps of assignments are
completed with checklist
before submitting
SEL/SD: monitoring
one’s own behavior to
maintain interactions
that are appropriate
when encountering oth-
ers and property
SEL/SD: set goals for
behavior, address with
checklist to complete
expectation or task
(e.g., remembering ID or
uniform)
SEL/SD: monitoring
one’s own behavior to
maintain interactions
that are appropriate
when encountering oth-
ers and property
Note: SD = self-determination skills that were added to the basic PBIS matrix to address the social and emotional learning standards.