Facilitating Effective Communication in School-Based Meetings: Perspectives from School Psychologists [1 ed.] 2021007150, 2021007151, 9780367427030, 9780367427023, 9780367854522

Citation preview

Facilitating Effective Communication in School-Based Meetings

This book offers guidance for school-based professionals participating in the special education process. It provides a foundation for effective oral communication and meeting facilitation in team meetings while highlighting methods to enhance collaboration between educators and families. School psychologists across the United States share how they structure meetings, provide examples for how to communicate educational and psychological concepts, and describe personas they present to support the meeting process. Chapters present a sequential facilitation process for school psychologist-led meetings and apply that process to problem-solving, suspicion of disability, eligibility/feedback, IEP, and manifestation determination meetings. Within each chapter, featured practitioners describe ways to address common challenges that arise. Aimed at graduate students and professionals, this text is a unique, example-based resource to enhance readers’ ability to facilitate and participate in the special education process. Jason R. Parkin, PhD, NCSP, is an assistant professor in the school psychology program at Seattle University. His professional interests include psychoeducational assessment and family/school partnerships. Ashli D. Tyre, EdD, NCSP, is a professor and program director for the school psychology program at Seattle University. Her research investigates perspectives of students, school staff, and families in educational change.

“Home-school meetings are a fragile interface between families and educators that require technical and clinical skill of school psychologists. Parkin and Tyre have managed to comprehensively capture the intricacies of home-school meetings and substantiate these intricacies with testimonials from practitioners and trainers throughout the United States. The text is a ‘must read’ for early career school psychologists and educators wishing to better hone their family-school collaboration skills.” —Francis J. DeMatteo, EdD, NCSP, associate professor and director, School Psychology Program, Humboldt State University; author of Delivering Psycho-educational Evaluation Results to Parents: A Practitioner’s Model “Finally a resource on leading school-based teams, Facilitating Effective Communication in School-based Meetings: Perspectives from School Psychologists, fills the void in the school psychology literature in this critical area! Teams are frequently used in schools, but little formal training actually occurs, leaving school psychologists to learn on the fly. Especially noteworthy is its practicality because the author’s painstakingly collected the art and wisdom of leading school teams by veteran practitioners. The book is thorough, clear and methodical in its approach, and fun to read. I will be using it in my program across a variety of courses.” —Sam Song, PhD, president, Division 16, APA; program coordinator, UNLV School Psychology programs; co-editor of Social Justice and School Psychology; author of School Psychology in a Global Society “What a gift to the field of school psychology! Unpacking the dynamics of school meetings is so needed and rarely taught in such a practical way. New and seasoned school psychologists will learn so much from this book!” —Rebecca Branstetter, PhD, founder of The Thriving School Psychologist Collective

Facilitating Effective Communication in School-Based Meetings Perspectives from School Psychologists Jason R. Parkin and Ashli D. Tyre

First published 2022 by Routledge 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158 and by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2022 Taylor & Francis The right of Jason R. Parkin and Ashli D. Tyre to be identified as authors of this work has been asserted by them in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Parkin, Jason R., author. | Tyre, Ashli D., author. Title: Facilitating effective communication in school-based meetings : perspectives from school psychologists / Jason R. Parkin and Ashli D. Tyre. Description: New York, NY: Routledge, 2022. | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2021007150 (print) | LCCN 2021007151 (ebook) | ISBN 9780367427030 (hardback) | ISBN 9780367427023 (paperback) | ISBN 9780367854522 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: School psychologists--Professional relationships. | Meetings--Planning. | Communication in education. | Special education--Parent participation. | Parent-teacher conferences. Classification: LCC LB3013.6 .P37 2022 (print) | LCC LB3013.6 (ebook) | DDC 371.7/13--dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021007150 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021007151 ISBN: 978-0-367-42703-0 (hbk) ISBN: 978-0-367-42702-3 (pbk) ISBN: 978-0-367-85452-2 (ebk) DOI: 10.4324/9780367854522 Typeset in Times New Roman by MPS Limited, Dehradun

Jason wishes to thank his wife and children, Sharon, Cora, and Jillian; his parents, Richard and Katherine; and his brother and sister, Erik and Kristen. All example names in this text are probably just coincidences…

Contents

List of Figures and Boxes Acknowledgments 1

2

An Introduction to Oral Communication and Meeting Facilitation Why a Book on Oral Communication, and Why Meetings? 1 Meeting Facilitation and Oral Communication: Two Skill Sets That Complement Each Other 2 What Creates an Effective Meeting? 3 A General Overview of This Book 7 Summary 9 References 9 Foundations of Effective Communication Consider the Context of Communication 12 Foundations of Communication: Credibility, Clarity, and Care 13 Communication Requires Credibility 14 Communication and Emotions 14 Communication Should Appear Reasonable 15 Interactions Between Vertices in the Context of Communication 16 Worldview, Beliefs and Values 16 Persona and Stance 19 Oral Communication and Collaboration 20 Collaboration Requires Active Listening 22 Disentangling Facts, Inferences, and Attributions 24 Collaborative Discussion 26

xv xvi

1

11

viii Contents Putting It All Together: The Context of Communication and Collaborative Discussion 29 Summary 30 References 31 3

Meeting the Objectives of the Context of Communication Establishing Trust and Credibility 34 Considering Our Persona 37 We Are All Doing Our Best 39 We Are a Team, We Work Together 41 Professional Confidence and Security 44 Considering Our Stance 45 Topics are Unintimidating, a Normal Part of Education 45 We Are Here to Solve Problems 46 The And Stance In Action 47 Discuss Strengths and Supports 48 Understanding Meeting Participants’ Beliefs and Values 49 Beliefs and Values Are Influenced by Culture 51 Beliefs and Values Are Influenced by Our Ability to Engage with Society 53 Implicit Assumptions of Special Education and Disability 56 Acquiring an Idiographic Understanding of Participants’ Worldview 57 Fostering Collaboration 58 Summary 59 References 60

33

4

Foundations of Meeting Facilitation Group Dynamics and the Multidisciplinary Team 63 Group Development 64 Group Leadership Functions 65 An Overview of the Meeting Process 67 The Planning Phase 68 The Warm-Up Phase 71 Introductions 72 Meeting Purpose 72 Group Norms 73 Roles 75 The Action Phase 76

62

Contents

ix

Active Listening in a Group 77 The Closure Phase 78 Post-Meeting 80 Summary 80 References 81 5

Planning and Facilitating Problem-Solving Meetings A Meeting Called by Many Names 82 What Do We Mean by Problem-Solving? 83 Multi-Tiered Systems of Support 83 The Continuous Problem-Solving Model 84 Problem Identification 85 Problem Analysis 85 Intervention 86 Progress Monitoring and Evaluation 86 Oral Communication in Problem-Solving Meetings 86 The Role of the School Psychologist in Problem-Solving 88 Getting to the Table: Advocating for Your Role in Problem-Solving Meetings 89 Planning 90 Team Composition 91 Team Member Roles 92 Team Development 93 Frequency and Duration of Meetings 94 Agendas 95 The Warm-Up Phase 97 Introductions and Review of Roles 97 Purpose and Meeting Goals 98 Norms 99 The Action Phase 100 Individual Student Problem-Solving 106 Validating Teacher Concerns for a Student 106 Prioritizing When There Are Multiple Concerns 106 The Elephant in the Room – Suspicion of Disability 106 A Tendency to Focus on Unalterable Factors 107 When a Problem for a Student is a Problem for the Whole Class 108 I Tried That, It Didn’t Work – Wash, Rinse, Repeat 109

82

x

Contents Managing Expectations for Behavior Change 111 Poor Instructional Match 111 Poor Implementation of Interventions 112 Systemic Problem Solving 112 Relationships With Administrators 113 Systems Change Fatigue 113 Keeping the Focus on Tier One 113 Getting Past Defensiveness 114 Focus on Alterable Factors 115 The Closure Phase 116 Post Meeting 117 Summary 117 References 118

6

Planning and Facilitating Suspicion of Disability Meetings Planning 120 Determine the Source of Referral 120 Conduct an Initial Records Review 121 Begin Formulating Specific Evaluation Questions 123 Consider the Context of Communication 124 Construct an Agenda 124 The Warm-Up Phase 126 Introductions 126 Purpose 127 Norms 129 Roles 130 The Action Phase 132 Starting at the Beginning 133 Dealing With Team Member Negativity 133 Recognizing Group Members’ Student Support Efforts 135 Skepticism at the Possibility of a Disabling Condition 136 Reviewing the Purpose of Special Education 138 Discussing Variables Within the Home and Family Context 139 Addressing Pre-Conceived Notions About Special Education 140 Explaining the Difference between IDEA and the DSM-5 140

119

Contents

xi

When a Student Has a Diagnosis, but There Is No Need for Special Education 141 When Group Members Do Not Agree On Typical Developmental Expectations 142 A Tension Between Continued Intervention and Evaluation 143 When Families Prefer a Private Evaluation 144 Ensuring Strong Referral Questions 145 Bringing Up Emotional Concerns 146 Group Members Dictating Aspects of the Evaluation 147 Ensuring Informed Consent and Clarifying Procedural Safeguards 147 Setting Appropriate Expectations for Next Steps within the Group 149 The Closure Phase 149 Post-Meeting 150 Summary 150 References 151 7

Planning and Facilitating Eligibility/Feedback Meetings Can a Feedback Meeting be Collaborative? 154 Planning 156 Consider the Context of Communication 156 Proofread Materials 157 Constructing an Agenda 157 The Warm-Up Phase 159 Introductions 159 Purpose 160 The Action Phase 160 Reading Your Evaluation Report 160 Knowing What the Team Needs From You 161 Feedback Should Be Unique 163 Getting Everyone Involved 164 Building Empathy and Compassion in Group Members 165 Describing a Developmental Delay Eligibility 166 Describing a Specific Learning Disability Eligibility 167 Describing an Autism Eligibility 168 Describing an Intellectual Disability Eligibility 170

152

xii

Contents Describing an Emotional Disturbance or EmotionalBehavioral Disability Eligibility 171 Differentiating between OHI and ED 172 When a Participant Objects to Labels 173 When There Is No Qualification 174 When a Student No Longer Requires Specially Designed Instruction 175 Embracing Diagnostic Uncertainty 175 The Usefulness of an Accurate Label 176 When Multiple Eligibility Categories Could Apply 176 Discussing Feedback with Students 177 When Group Members are Surprised by a Test Result 177 During Emotional Feedback 178 Addressing the New Normal 180 When Group Members Struggle to Accept an Average Score 181 Using Visuals 181 When Parent and Teacher Information are Discrepant 182 Differentiating between Accommodations and Specially Designed Instruction 182 Differentiating between IEPs and 504 Plans 183 Explaining Specially Designed Instruction 183 Responding to “Does He Need to Go to a Special Class?” 184 When Team Members Make Armchair Diagnoses 185 Requiring Precision with Interpreters 186 Making Referrals for Private Providers 187 On the Question of Medication 187 The Closure Phase 188 Post-Meeting 190 Summary 190 References 191

8

Planning and Facilitating Individual Education Plan Meetings Principled Negotiation 195 Principled Negotiation and Collaborative Discussion 197 Planning 198 Consider the Context of Communication 198

193

Contents xiii Constructing an Agenda 199 The Warm-Up Phase 200 Introductions 201 Purpose and Norms 201 The Action Phase 201 Avoiding the Parent Section and the School Section 201 The School Psychologists’ Role in an IEP Meeting 201 Know the Role of the District Representative 202 Keep the Meeting Length Manageable 203 Programming Should Reflect the Needs Identified in the Evaluation 203 Remember That Not All Group Members are in IEP Meetings Every Day 204 Things to Never Say 204 Don’t Put Families on the Spot 205 Describing the Importance of Fluency Goals 205 Challenges Establishing Goals 206 School-Based versus Community-Based Counseling 207 Discussing Least Restrictive Environment 207 Navigating Discussions about Placement 208 Removing an IEP 209 Explaining Related Service Providers or Psychological Services 210 Transition Planning 210 Sometimes the Meeting Needs to Stop 211 The Closure Phase 211 Post-Meeting 212 Summary 212 References 212 9

Planning and Facilitating Manifestation Determination Meetings Fostering Collaboration in a Manifestation Determination Meeting 215 Planning 217 Consider the Context of Communication 217 Establish an Understanding with Administrators Early in the School Year 218 Coordinating with Parents 218

214

xiv

Contents Records Review 219 Constructing an Agenda 220 The Warm-Up Phase 222 Introductions 222 Purpose and Norms 223 The Action Phase 224 When Parents are Upset about Discipline 225 When Parents Feel Shame 226 Describing Characteristics of the Student’s Disability 226 Be Ready for New Information 227 When Administration Wants to Maintain a Disciplinary Action 227 When Family Members Maintain the Presence of a Manifestation 228 When Group Members Won’t Offer an Opinion 229 Direct and Substantial 230 Impulsivity 231 On the Topic of Drugs and Alcohol 232 Failure to Implement the IEP 233 When the Team Wants to Vote 233 The Closure Phase 234 Post-Meeting 235 Summary 236 References 236

Index

238

List of Figures and Boxes

Figures 1.1 Relationship Between Oral Communication and 1.2 2.1 2.2 3.1 4.1 4.2 5.1 5.2

6.1 7.1 8.1

Meeting Facilitation Meeting Progression The Context of Communication Collaborative Discussion Features of Meeting Persona and Stance Task Group Meeting Process Sequence of Agenda Construction Team-based collaboration is central to each phase of the continuous problem solving model In multi-tiered systems of support, problem-solving teams collaborate to ensure that all students receive supports based on their level of need Records Review Process Collaborative Discussion of Eligibility Criteria Positions and Interests in Principled Negotiation

4 8 13 27 38 68 69 84

85 122 155 196

Boxes 5.1 6.1 7.1 8.1 9.1

Example Example Example Example Example

Problem-Solving Meeting Agenda Suspicion of Disability Meeting Agenda Eligibility/Feedback Meeting Agenda IEP Meeting Agenda Manifestation Determination Agenda

96 125 158 199 221

Acknowledgments

Thanks to the following individuals, whose wisdom is contained in the pages of this book. Aaron J. Fischer, PhD, BCBA-D, Dee Endowed Professor of School Psychology, Adjunct Assistant Professor of Child Psychiatry, University of Utah Aaron Willis, NCSP, School Psychologist, Oregon Abby Royston, Ph.D., NCSP, School and Clinical Psychologist, Hawaiʻi Alexandra Annen, Ed.S., School Psychologist, Illinois Alexandra Franks-Thomas, Ed.S., NCSP, School Psychologist, State of Washington Allison Grant, Ed.S., NCSP, School Psychologist, State of Washington Amanda Crawford, Ed.S., NCSP, School Psychologist, State of Washington Amber Del Gaiso, Ed.S, NCSP, School Psychologist, Measurement & Assessment Coach, Missouri Andrea Hoffelt, Ed.S., School Psychologist, Oregon Andrew Selders, Ed.S., School Psychologist, Missouri Ann M. Branscum, Postdoctoral Psychology Fellow, New Mexico Ashley Burchett, M.Ed., Ed.S., NCSP, School Psychologist, State of Washington Ashley Camera, NCSP, LPC, School Psychologist, Connecticut Beth Hardcastle, MA, M.Ed., Former School Psychologist, Florida Brendon Ross, Ed.S., NCSP, School Psychologist, Nevada Brett Andersen, Psy.D., SSP, ABSNP, NCSP, Licensed Psychologist, School Psychologist, Arizona Carina R. Turner, Ed.S., School Psychologist, Ohio Cat Raulerson, Ed.S., NCSP, School Psychologist with State PBIS Project, Florida Charles Barrett, Ph.D., NCSP, Lead School Psychologist, Virginia Christie Crouch, Ph.D., School Psychologist, Iowa Daniel Hof, Ed.D., NCSP, School Psychologist, Wyoming

Acknowledgments

xvii

Diane Barrett, Ph.D., NCSP, Licensed Psychologist, Pennsylvania Duane Franks, M.S., NCSP, School Psychologist, State of Washington Gina Coffee, Ph.D., NCSP, School Psychologist, Colorado Holly Hoke, Ed.S., NCSP, School Psychologist, Hawaiʻi Isaac Tarbell, NCSP, Supervisor of Psychological Services, School Psychologist, Pennsylvania Jenne Simental, Ph.D., Licensed Psychologist, Licensed Specialist in School Psychology, Texas Jessica Atkins, M.S., LSSP, Licensed Specialist in School Psychology, Texas Jill Davidson, Ph.D., NCSP, School Psychologist, State of Washington Jonas Taub, School Psychologist, Retired, New Hampshire Jules Nolan, Psy.D., LP, NCSP, School Psychologist, Minnesota Justin H. Dove, Ed.S., NCSP, School Psychologist, California Justin P. Allen, Ph.D., LP, NCSP, School Psychologist, Sam Houston University, Texas Kathryn M. Powell, Ph.D., School Psychologist, Georgia Katie Shelton, Ed.S., NCSP, School Psychologist, Delaware Kyle Hesser, Ed.S., School Psychologist, Nebraska Linda Pedersen, Ph.D., LSSP, Licensed Psychologist, Licensed Specialist in School Psychology, Texas Lindsay Amen, SSP, School Psychologist, Missouri Lisa L. Persinger, Ph.D., NCSP, School Psychologist, School Psychology Faculty, Arizona Liz Angoff, Ph.D., Licensed Educational Psychologist, California Lynae Maciel, Ed.S., NCSP, Bilingual School Psychologist, Illinois Margaret Hogan, Ed.S., NCSP, School Psychologist, Minnesota MaryAnn Green, Ed.S., Coordinator of Psychological Services, School Psychologist, Georgia Melissa Reid, Ph.D., Licensed Psychologist, Licensed Specialist in School Psychology, Texas Milaney Leverson, Ed.S, NCSP, School Psychologist, Wisconsin Mondie Childress, M.S., Licensed Specialist in School Psychology, Texas Natalie A. Strand, Ed.S., LSSP, NCSP, Licensed Specialist in School Psychology, Texas Nathaniel Jones, Ph.D., NCSP, School Psychologist, New Hampshire Peter McDougal, Ed.S., School Psychologist, Georgia Peter T. Whelley, MS, NCSP, School Psychologist, New Hampshire Ryan McGill, Ph.D., NCSP, BCBA-D, Associate Professor of School Psychology, William & Mary, Virginia Sally Whitelock, MA, School Psychologist, Elementary School Principal, Colorado Samantha Hoggatt, Ed.S., NCSP, School Psychologist, Idaho

xviii

Acknowledgments

Scott Crooks, SSP, NCSP, School Psychologist, Measurement & Assessment Coach, Missouri Sean McGlaughlin, Ph.D., NCSP, School Psychologist, Arizona Shawna Rader Kelly, Ed.S., NCSP, School Psychologist, Montana Sherri Bentley, M.S., School Psychologist, State of Washington Shilah Lyman, M.S., Licensed Specialist in School Psychology, Texas Tamara Waters-Wheeler, Ed.S., NCSP, School Psychologist, North Dakota Todd Robinson, Ph.D., NCSP, School Psychologist, Maryland Thanks to Meghan McNeil, who created the figures for this text. Your patience was limitless! Thanks to our beta readers, Tracy Mejia and Sarah Thramer, graduate students at Seattle University. You provided incredible insights!

1

An Introduction to Oral Communication and Meeting Facilitation

Why a Book on Oral Communication, and Why Meetings? We realize that school psychologists do not need an introduction to meetings. In our field, meetings are not occasional job requirements. For most of us they occur daily, a major part of indirect, consultative service delivery. In meetings, families and educators coordinate sup­ ports for students’ education and make decisions within the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA; also called the Individuals with Disabilities Improvement Act [IDEIA]). Ideally, the special education process, and the meetings within it, represent collaborative interactions among families and educators (Martin, 2005; Mueller & Carranza, 2011). Family participation reflects a major aspect of special education, and IDEA stresses that families should meaningfully engage in the process (Katsiyannis et al., 2001). Procedural safeguards and due pro­ cess mechanisms highlight family rights. Frequently, meetings in special education meet and exceed the collaborative aspirations of the law. But most all school psychologists know that just as frequently they do not (Reiman et al., 2010).

“Almost 30 years of research and experience has demonstrated that the education of children with disabilities can be made more effective by … strengthening the role and responsibility of parents and ensuring that families of such children have meaningful opportunities to participate in the education of their children at school and at home.” (IDEA 20 U.S.C. § 1400(5)(B))

We set out to write a book about the meetings school psychologists engage in for a few key reasons. First, meetings represent a major professional work setting for school psychologists, and furthermore, a unique work setting. We find them unique because of their multi­ disciplinary nature. In the spirit of IDEA, decisions do not come from DOI: 10.4324/9780367854522-1

2

Introduction

any one individual. Instead, decisions coalesce from discussions within a team of parents and educators. Frequently, the school psychologist has the most comprehensive understanding of the special education process within the team. As a result, school psychologists often lead or facilitate the meeting process. Second, we know school psychologists have accumulated a significant amount of craft knowledge, or a “wisdom of practice” (Leinhardt, 1990) related to the process of meeting facilitation. That knowledge deserves to be collected and shared, our major goal with this project. Other allied branches of professional psychology have demonstrated the value of practitioners’ wisdom (Postal & Armstrong, 2013). School psychologists share meeting facilitation as a professional art. We hope this text reflects that craft well and gives all readers exciting things to consider in their daily practice. Our conversations with school psychologists certainly did that for us.

Meeting Facilitation and Oral Communication: Two Skill Sets That Complement Each Other In our experience, school psychologists receive significant, formal training during graduate school in skills that might relate to their per­ formance in meetings, but not in meeting facilitation directly. On one hand, that seems appropriate. Meeting facilitation requires significant background knowledge in education, mental health, and child devel­ opment, to name just a few areas. Facilitation might represent more of a higher-order skill that requires fluency in those other areas of profes­ sional practice. Moreover, facilitation of a meeting reflects only a small fraction of our professional role. For instance, in the psychoeducational evaluation process, we might spend 10 hours administering various tests, interviewing students and stakeholders, and conducting observa­ tions, another ten hours scoring and interpreting results, and synthe­ sizing our data into a comprehensive report, and then 60 to 90 minutes facilitating a meeting with the student’s parents, teachers, and other group members. On the other hand, that small fraction of time, less than 10 percent of the time devoted to the whole process, will have a dis­ proportionate impact on the effectiveness of that information. A prac­ titioner could write the most elegant, comprehensive report, but in the feedback meeting, if they do not appear credible, if other group mem­ bers do not feel engaged in discussion, and if ultimately the group does not generate a consensus understanding of that information when making decisions, the report’s impact will be diminished. Alternatively, if group members feel allied with the school psychologist and a part of a cohesive group, if they not only participate in the discussion, but feel valued for their contributions toward the meeting purpose, the utility of that information may be amplified.

Introduction 3 While many school psychologists invest significant time into their re­ ports, writing skills may not transfer directly to oral communication. There is a lot of similarity between the two modes, of course, but there are fundamental differences that make oral communication distinct. Both skill sets are interpersonal. When we speak and when we write, we con­ sider our audience and the purpose of our communication. We use un­ derstandable language and make sound arguments. In contrast, writing is usually more formal and static than oral communication. Writers do not receive instant feedback from their audience, and there are no nonverbal communication channels that must be interpreted alongside written lan­ guage. In a meeting, group members ask questions, provide feedback, and make their own interpretation of data. When facilitating a meeting, practitioners must manage these various interpersonal dynamics. The mindset and worldview of our audience influences the way we draft our reports, but the meeting facilitation process magnifies that influence because we communicate orally.

When meeting participants feel allied with the school psychologist and valued for their unique perspective, it can amplify the utility of report data.

As illustrated in Figure 1.1, meeting facilitation and oral commu­ nication reflect complementary skill sets. In our view, they inform each other, and share common goals. We use meeting facilitation skills to ensure a fluent group process. For a meeting to be effective, all members should understand its purpose and share in its goals. That clarity allows participants to determine how they might meaningfully contribute to the meeting’s outcomes. We use oral communication skills to ensure that everyone collectively understands the information each participant brings to the group, strengthen arguments, and highlight shared values and identity within the meeting. This requires us to understand the worldview, beliefs, and values of meeting participants. When group members identify with each other, share a common purpose, and feel valued for their contributions, collective outcomes of effective oral communication and meeting facilitation, it can lead to a cohesive group and strong, consensus-driven decisions.

What Creates an Effective Meeting? We learned a great deal by speaking with school psychologists from across the United States and inquiring about their practice experiences. We had two general goals when constructing a sample of school psychologists

4

Introduction

Figure 1.1 Relationship Between Oral Communication and Meeting Facilitation.

with whom to speak. First, we aspired to capture examples of practical knowledge or wisdom school psychologists have learned about the meeting process and place those experiences within a context of general principles behind oral communication and meeting facilitation. Thus, we wanted to speak with relatively seasoned school psychologists known for strong in­ terpersonal and facilitation skills. A few individuals in our sample are no longer school-based professionals. They may work as trainers or in private practice, but they previously engaged in school-based work, or currently work alongside schools. Second, because the job role varies from state to state, we strived to collect a geographically diverse group of participants. We began with individuals from our own training whom we admired for their meeting performance. We also asked colleagues and state association leaders for recommendations. After completing an interview, we invited participants to recommend their own colleagues, especially out-of-state colleagues, who they too admired for their facilitation performance. In this way our sample snowballed into what we present here.

Readers may not agree with all the examples practitioners provided to us. Laws, job roles, and practice expectations vary from district to district and state to state.

Introduction 5 We queried practitioners’ experiences in two general ways. First, we asked for examples of strong communication and facilitation practices across multiple meeting types. We requested our interviewees to provide these details to us as if we were a fly on the wall during a meeting. What would we see them do or hear them say that might exemplify the concept or practice they describe? These examples may include a way of de­ scribing a concept, a practice that increases group participation, or even an attitude or perspective that practitioners find useful to support their performance directing the meeting process. Second, we asked them to provide us with common challenges that arise in various meetings, based on their experience, and to describe how they might address those chal­ lenges, or to share what they learned from them. We should point out that the practitioners we spoke with may not agree with everything we write in this text or with the perspectives of other contributors. Their voices are theirs, and ours is ours. There are also differences in state laws and school district practices that affect school psychologists’ daily prac­ tice. Of course, it should go without saying, this book is not intended to provide legal advice or guidance. As we listened to examples of meeting practices, several “big” questions emerged for us. Firstly, we wondered, what constitutes an effective meeting, is there a link or theme connecting all these practices we are hearing about? Returning to our “fly-on-the-wall” visual, watching a meeting in progress, how would we know if participants were accom­ plishing the meeting’s purpose? The easy answer probably involves ob­ servations of group collaboration and consensus. After all, collaboration reflects a major aspiration of IDEA (Welch, 1998). We bet that most all educators think they collaborate well with families (we certainly think we do!), but if that is true, it leads us to our second question: why might so many families feel the opposite? Research literature on parent satisfaction in IEP meetings consistently reveals challenges with the special education process (Mueller & Vick, 2017). While many families express satisfaction with meetings (Fish, 2008), the sad reality may be that many others do not feel included in the process to the degree that we think we include them (Engle, 1993; Phillips, 2008). That discrepancy also occurs with other educators; teachers likewise can feel ignored or devalued in meet­ ings (Slonski-Fowler & Truscott, 2004).

IDEA stresses the importance of parent participation, though many families may feel uninvolved.

While we maintain that collaboration between educators and families remains the aspiration of IDEA, we should acknowledge what many

6

Introduction

readers may be wondering: is true family-school collaboration possible in meetings? Engle (1993) describes a paradox within the special education process. IDEA highlights the necessity of parent participation, and yet many parents find the meetings intimidating to a degree that inhibits their participation (Dematteo, 2021). This paradox appears to arise from at­ tempts to shoehorn collaborative aspirations into a medical model of educational service delivery (Gutkin, 2012). While the process views all meeting participants to be on equal footing, participants remain unequal in terms of expert knowledge and decision-making authority.

Collaboration may be impaired by imbalances in specialized knowledge and decision-making authority.

Perhaps the term collaboration may not seem entirely applicable and a quixotic goal. “Collaboration” implies a consistent, mutual partnership across decision-making. We think of collaboration as a process in which two (or more) individuals create an outcome or arrive at a decision that none of them would have arrived at independently (Ferguson et al., 2002). Returning to a medical model, when we go to a physician and describe our symptoms, we probably do not “collaborate” with them on the diagnosis. There is a knowledge imbalance between the physician and us that limits our role in the diagnostic process. Yet collaboration did occur in the evaluation process. We collaborated with the physician in a delineation and description of the symptoms, the “input” of the diag­ nostic process. That part of the process could not occur without us. However, we did not have any direct influence on the output of the di­ agnosis. Their decision resulted from a process of generating and evalu­ ating hypotheses through tests and clarifying questions. Our influence came indirectly, through our description of symptoms.

When collaboration within a specific aspect of a meeting is necessarily limited, it becomes particularly important to highlight collaboration in other areas of the meeting.

We think there is a lesson here. As a patient, we indeed affected the meeting with the physician above, although the outcome of the meeting, the diagnosis, was probably not a true collaboration. As the patient, we see our contribution in the broader discussion, the input in for the di­ agnosis. When facilitating meetings, it may be necessary to help group members understand their impact on the meeting process. And that goes

Introduction 7 double for meetings in which the final decision cannot be reached via collaboration or consensus. Doing so requires us to think beyond the final outcomes of meetings and to be very conscientious of the process within meetings. When a participant does not agree with the ultimate outcome, it may be important to highlight the importance of their participation, because of their disagreement.

A General Overview of This Book We approached this project by considering what communication and fa­ cilitation practices might enhance collaboration in meetings. In Chapter 2, we provide a foundational discussion about effective communication. Communication always occurs within a context, one outlined since ancient times and in the fields of rhetoric and communication. Chapter 2 reviews collaborative practices in communication, highlights barriers to colla­ boration, and describes how school psychologists might facilitate discus­ sion. It ends by underscoring objectives we might strive to accomplish during communication in meetings. In Chapter 3, practitioners describe their methods for accomplishing those objectives and their considerations when approaching the facilitation process. We found their lessons insightful. We are excited to share them with the readership. As highlighted in Figure 1.1, collaboration is equally supported by meeting facilitation practices, the topic of discussion in Chapter 4. We provide an expanded task group model to delineate stages of facilitation (Hulse-Killacky et al., 2001). Group facilitation involves supporting the group’s content objectives while simultaneously ensuring members un­ derstand the meeting purpose, participate in a meaningful way, and feel valued for their contribution. In Chapter 4, we highlight specific processoriented objectives that support fluent meetings. Chapter 5 begins our discussion of planning and facilitation within the various meetings that comprise school psychologists’ daily work. We highlight challenges and roadblocks practitioners suggest are common within them, based on the stages described in Chapter 4. Though we discuss these meetings separately and sequentially, we realize meetings are not discrete entities. They build upon each other. For instance, experience in an eligibility/feedback meeting will affect the process of a subsequent IEP meeting. We see this as an advantage for collaboration. Just as in our physician example above, where perhaps there was not true collaboration in one aspect (diagnostic outcome), when we broadened the process into a discussion of symptoms, our influence became more apparent. If one aspect of a meeting feels less collaborative, we can highlight how colla­ boration within other parts of the process built to the current decision. Thus, it is important to be aware how both the content and process of one meeting informs others, as illustrated in Figure 1.2. Teachers and parents may feel more a part of decision-making in an eligibility when they

8

Introduction

Figure 1.2 Meeting Progression.

hear how the evaluation process addressed their specific concerns, de­ scribed during the previous meeting where the team suspected a disability. Parents and educators alike feel more involved and satisfied in meetings when their contributions are acknowledged (Esquivel et al., 2008). In Chapter 5, we review the problem-solving process. Problem-solving represents a foundational competency in school psychology. We ac­ knowledge that this is a general education function, but it informs the decisions we make regarding the appropriateness of special education. In Chapter 6, we describe meetings where the group must determine suspicion of a disabling condition, and the appropriateness of psychoeducational evaluation. We explain a process for record reviews that may help novice school psychologists with case conceptualization. We also highlight colla­ borative ways to begin the evaluation process in this meeting. In Chapter 7, we turn our focus to eligibility/feedback meetings. We wonder if many school psychologists find this meeting challenging to think about in a collaborative way. We think it can be done, particularly by setting the groundwork in the previous meeting. In Chapter 8, we discuss IEP meet­ ings. School psychologists’ roles in this meeting vary dramatically. Many of our interviewees described minimal involvement (so many school psy­ chologists are so overwhelmed by evaluation responsibilities), while others

Introduction 9 provided direct and related services through the IEP. In this chapter, we provide an overview of principled negotiation (Fisher et al., 2011), a col­ laboration method based on the values and interests of stakeholders, not their concrete positions. In Chapter 9, we end the text by discussing manifestation determinations. As with IEP meetings, we learned that school psychologists’ roles vary dramatically in these meetings. Many of our interviewees reported no real involvement, while for others, these meetings represented a major portion of their job role.

Summary We began our discussion of oral communication and meeting facilitation by describing them as complementary skill sets with similar goals. Together, they support meeting participants’ understanding of a meeting’s purpose and adoption of meaningful roles within the group. Both skills bolster IDEA’s spirit of collaboration between educators and families. Collaboration is often a challenging prospect in meetings, as imbalances in specialized knowledge and decision-making power may make team mem­ bers feel marginalized or undervalued. However, in parts of the meeting where collaboration appears more challenging, conscientious facilitators support participants’ feelings of inclusion by promoting their contributions and highlighting their influence. Practitioners from around the country provided us with many important lessons in the implementation of these skills. We hope readers find them as valuable as we do. We would like to close this introductory chapter with perhaps the most universal meeting facilitation lesson all school psychologists learn: some­ times we can do everything “right,” and the meeting is still a challenge. It can be difficult to cope when a group member is just not willing to agree with the others and move forward. At the same time, that individual likely thinks the same thing about someone else in the room. While we hope the lessons contained here minimize such occurrences and help us all take a step forward in the facilitation process, disagreements will happen. Remembering that all group members are doing their best and want the best for students is the first step in coming to a mutual agreement.

References Dematteo, F. J. (2021). Delivering psycho-educational evaluation results to parents: A practitioner’s model. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429020971 Engle, D. M. (1993). Origin myths: Narratives of authority, resistance, disability, and law. Law and Society Review, 27(4), 785–827. https://doi.org/10.2307/3053953 Esquivel, S. L., Ryan, C. S., & Bonner, M. (2008). Involved parents’ percep­ tions of their experiences in school-based team meetings. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 18(3), 234–258. https:// doi.org/10.1080/10474410802022589

10

Introduction

Ferguson, D. L., Ralph, G., & Katul, N. (2002). From “special” educators to educators: The case for mixed ability groups of teachers in restructured schools. In W. Sailor (Eds.), Whole-school success and inclusive education (pp. 142–162). Teachers College Press. Fish, W. W. (2008). The IEP meeting: Perceptions of parents of students who re­ ceive special education services. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 53(1), 8–14. https://doi.org/10.3200/PSFL.53.1.8-14 Fisher, R., Ury, W., & Patton, B. (2011). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in. Penguin Group. Gutkin, T. B. (2012). Ecological psychology: Replacing the medical model paradigm for school-based psychological and psychoeducational services. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 22(1-2), 1–20. https:// doi.org/10.1080/10474412.2011.649652 Hulse-Killacky, D., Killacky, J., & Donigan, J. (2001). Making task groups work in your world. Prentice Hall. Katsiyannis, A., Yell, M. L., & Bradley, R. (2001). Reflections on the 25th an­ niversary of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Remedial and Special Education, 22(6), 324–334. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193250102200602 Leinhardt, G. (1990). Capturing craft knowledge in teaching. Educational Researcher, 19(2), 18–25. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X019002018 Martin, N. R. M. (2005). A guide to collaboration for IEP teams. Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co. Mueller, T. G., & Carranza, F. (2011). An examination of special education due process hearings. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 22(3), 131–139. https:// doi.org/10.1177/1044207311392762 Mueller, T. G., & Vick, A. M. (2017). An investigation of facilitated in­ dividualized education program meeting practice: Promising procedures that foster family-professional collaboration. Teacher Education and Special Education, 42(1), 67–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406417739677 Phillips, E. (2008). When parents aren’t enough. External advocacy in special education. Yale Law Journal, 117(8), 1802–1853. Postal, K. & Armstrong, K. (2013). Feedback that sticks: The art of effectively communicating neuropsychological assessment results. Oxford University Press. Reiman, J. W., Beck, K., Coppola, T., & Engiles, A. (2010). Parents’ experiences with the IEP process: Considerations for improving practice. Center for Appropriate Dispute Resolution in Special Education (CADRE). Slonski-Fowler, K. E., & Truscott, S. D. (2004). General education teachers’ percep­ tions of the prereferral intervention team process. Journal of Education and Psychological Consultation, 15(1), 1–39. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532768xjepc1501_1 Welch, M. (1998). The IDEA of collaboration in special education: An introspective examination of paradigms and promise. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 9(2), 119–142. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532768xjepc0902_2

2

Foundations of Effective Communication

We enjoy the irony that results from titling this chapter “foundations of effective communication” because it begs for clarification. At the driest, most basic level, communication reflects the transmission of information. However, anyone with experience in special education knows that does not capture the type of skills required to commu­ nicate effectively in special education meetings. Computer chips communicate zeros and ones to transmit information; that dry defi­ nition fits an electronic metaphor well. However, electronics do not have to consider the various backgrounds, interpersonal relation­ ships, charged emotions, and individual beliefs and values that are part and parcel with meeting facilitation, nor does communication within an electronic device have a purpose beyond passing a series of bits on to the next chip in the sequence. In contrast, communication in meetings is tied to all those variables and must support group func­ tioning to facilitate a shared understanding of the meeting purpose. It is incredibly complex. “Effective” communication suggests that some methods of commu­ nication work better than others. What makes one method more effective than another may depend on the setting of communication and its pur­ pose. In mandating meetings, IDEA highlights families’ role and re­ sponsibility to participate meaningfully in their student’s education. The law also ensures protection of families’ rights in the process. Ideally, special education should not be something schools do for families, it should be something schools do with families. Thus, in the special edu­ cation meeting setting, “effective” communication fosters collaboration among meeting participants while simultaneously ensuring the group accomplishes the specific objectives of their meeting. Effective communication fosters collaboration in the decisionmaking process.

DOI: 10.4324/9780367854522-2

12

Foundations of Effective Communication

In this chapter, we describe tools to support collaboration through oral communication. They stem from three broad sources. First, they come from understanding the meeting as a context of communication. That context highlights important variables for consideration when engaging with other meeting participants. Second, tools include practices to de­ monstrate an understanding of communication from other group mem­ bers. Lastly, tools include a process of collaborative discussion. Ideally, these tools work together to facilitate collaboration across the special education process.

Consider the Context of Communication A meeting, like any scenario where people communicate, represents a context of communication. That context requires careful consideration to participate in it well. It includes five inter-related features (JohnsonSheehan & Paine, 2010; Losh et al., 2017): 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

The The The The The

speaker, topic(s) of discussion or the message(s) for communication, audience or other group members, purpose of the meeting, and setting.

These represent modern updates of rhetorical concepts, direct descen­ dants from ancient Greece (Leith, 2012; Heinrichs, 2007). The Greeks described the speaker via “ethos,” referring more specifically to the speaker’s credibility or trustworthiness. What we now call the topics of discussion, the Greeks termed “logos,” referencing particularly the logic and reasoning within communication. Regarding the audience, the an­ cient Greeks referred to “pathos” to indicate the mood and emotions communication stirred in the audience. They used the word “telos” to reference the various purposes of communication, and “kairos” to refer to the time, place, and timing of communication. Traditionally, discussion of the context of communication uses terms like “speaker” and “audience” because it comes from the study of oration, composition, and rhetoric (Losh et al., 2017). However, in a meeting, we realize that is not appropriate to think of ourselves as a speaker, as if we are giving a speech, nor is it useful to think of other meeting participants as an audience, a group listening, but not participating, in the discussion. Meetings are for collaboration, but this context still applies. Figure 2.1 describes the context of communication via a modified rhetorical or Aristotelian Triangle (White & Billings, 2017). It contains all five of the features mentioned earlier. The points of the triangle include the speaker, communication topics, and the audience. They frame the purpose of communication while encompassed by the larger meeting setting.

Foundations of Effective Communication

13

Figure 2.1 The Context of Communication.

Note that this setting is not static. It is part of a broader and everchanging ecology of discussion (Edbauer, 2005). Special education meetings have discrete beginnings and endings, but the discussion of meeting topics and decisions continues after the meeting concludes. Group members speak to each other before and after meetings. They talk to family members who were not in the meeting. They search the Internet, discovering information (both accurate and inaccurate) about meeting topics. School district practices and policies change, along with their communication about those practices. The availability of resources to support families, teachers, and students fluctuate. Societal expectations of schools and the broader discourse on topics such as special education or mental health, constantly evolves. These are just some examples of how a range of factors can influence the context and content of a meeting over time. When conceptualizing the process of a meeting, it is important to account for this dynamic nature of the context.

Foundations of Communication: Credibility, Clarity, and, Care There is much to unpack about the context of communication. To begin, consider the triangle vertices. The points of the triangle reflect the cred­ ibility of the speaker, the logic and clarity behind the message, and the emotional response the message elicits in the audience. Collectively, the vertices represent rhetorical appeals, or channels of persuasion. To put it another way, as Heinrichs (2007) described, we interpret communication

14

Foundations of Effective Communication

with our brain (logic), gut (speaker’s trustworthiness) and heart (emotions). Though there remains more to discuss about the context of communica­ tion, recognize its most fundamental tenant: effective collaboration re­ quires credibility, clear and logical communication, and demonstrations of caring towards other participants.

Effective collaboration requires credibility, clear and logical com­ munication, and acts of caring towards other participants.

Communication Requires Credibility To begin considering the context of communication, we first consider ourselves as speakers. The speaker vertex within the context of commu­ nication refers to the speaker’s credibility and trustworthiness. It includes the speaker’s character, values, and ethicality. Other participants may view even the most transparent reasons for suspecting a disability, the most insightful interpretation of a cognitive test, or the most effective intervention suggestions with skepticism if they feel skeptical of the person providing the information. Some aspects of credibility appear obvious. Credibility is founded on expertise and reputation. Nevertheless, there is some nuance related to the perceptions of the audience. Credibility derives from their perceptions of goodwill and strong judg­ ment (Heinrichs, 2007). When other group members feel we act in good faith, and offer pragmatic, reasonable suggestions, it increases trust. Relatedly, trust and credibility increase when others in the meeting identify with us, when they see themselves in us and us in them. When we describe classroom behavior with words a parent used to describe be­ havior at home, we can increase that sense of common identification. When an IEP team member shares stories of their own kids with families, they increase family members’ ability to identify with them, highlighting that they both are parents. Communication and Emotions The context also includes the perspective of other meeting participants, traditionally described as the audience. Communication can be impactful by influencing audience mood and emotions. Communication leveraging emotion can be found in commercials pairing sad music and pictures of unfortunate animals together. The sum is designed to move the viewer to donate money to the organization or adopt a pet. While this example appears manipulative, communication stemming from emotion can be genuine, and is usually more effective when they come from a genuine

Foundations of Effective Communication

15

emotion rather than one that is manufactured (Heinrichs, 2007). For instance, when a meeting participant becomes upset and yells or cries, those genuine emotions can be persuasive to the others in the room. Meeting facilitators should expect emotions from other participants, both positive and negative. Parents may experience a range of emotions across the meeting process, and sometimes over things that may not make sense to educators (Esquivel et al., 2008). For many families of students with disabilities, their point of view is unique, because every child with a disability is unique. A relatively routine accomplishment for a typical student could trigger joy when their student accomplishes it. Alternatively, a perceived benign challenge may be an insidious re­ minder of disability. Due to the nature of discussion within the special education process, communication that does not account for the way group members feel, may come off particularly poor or insensitive. After all, the major focus of discussion is somebody’s child. Families should know that their emotions are expected and acceptable (Esquivel et al., 2008).

Emotions are ubiquitous in special education meetings. Discussion revolves around somebody’s child.

Communication Should Appear Reasonable The influence of meeting topics and group decisions on effective com­ munication relates to the communications’ apparent reasonableness. Reasonableness refers to two general features. First, it includes the logic or clarity behind communication. This may reflect how explicitly com­ munication addresses student concerns or fulfills various criteria and principles in special education. Second, it refers to a communication’s congruence with the beliefs and values of individuals in the meeting. Participants filter the information they receive from others through their own worldview. If communication appears significantly discrepant from that worldview, it may be challenged or dismissed. Most special education meetings occur to make decisions. Consider how clarity of decision-making criteria impacts communication. All group members should understand how decisions are made, and the information required to make them. For example, in a manifestation meeting, the group must determine if the behavior leading to discipline is directly and sub­ stantially related to the student’s disability. Communication will be more effective if all group members understand they must consider the behavior from that lens, operating with a mutual understanding about the definition of “direct” and “substantial.”

16

Foundations of Effective Communication Communication’s reasonableness stems from its logic and clarity, but also its consistency with the worldview of other meeting participants.

Reasonableness also stems from congruence between the communica­ tion and the worldview of the audience. In every meeting, group members work together to make challenging decisions related to personal and confidential subject matters. For instance, determining whether a student is eligible for special education, or if a code of conduct violation reflects a disability manifestation both stem from topics such as mental health, child development, disability, and parenting and teaching practices. Meeting participants may each possess vastly different points of view across these subjects. In this way, congruence between communication and participants’ perspectives represents an interaction between the to­ pics and audience vertices within the context of communication. In fact, readers may notice interactions among all sides of the triangle. We discuss those next.

Interactions Between Vertices in the Context of Communication Worldview, Beliefs, and Values The interaction between the topics and audience vertices within the context of communication is multifaceted. The general discussion to­ pics in special education meetings are laden with multiple beliefs and values. Rhetoricians use the term “commonplaces” to describe often culturally specific “truths” about the world (Heinrichs, 2007; Leith, 2012). Commonplaces are not facts, but beliefs, values, and assump­ tions, and they vary based on the audience. They can include clichéd wisdom like “the grass is greener on the other side,” or “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure,” but also reflect beliefs shared by narrower groups. As an example, Heinrichs (2007) points out, liberals and conservatives tend to have very different commonplaces. We have all heard phrases such as “no new taxes,” or “healthcare is a right, not a privilege,” from various political groups. Effective communication often starts from shared commonplaces between the speaker and the broader audience. When the speaker’s argument originates from values, beliefs, and assumptions held by the audience, it tends to appear more reasonable to them. All meeting participants will have a perspective on various topics in meetings that will be influenced by these general be­ liefs and values. They should be considered when determining the best way to present information.

Foundations of Effective Communication

17

Communication must account for culturally specific “truths” about the way the world works. Different group members may hold vastly different points of view on meeting topics due to differing beliefs and values.

In our experience, these broad beliefs represent one reason why meetings in special education can be so interesting to think about, but so challenging to navigate. As a collective, group members may hold in­ compatible assumptions and beliefs about core meeting topics. Consider concepts such as special education and disability. Some family members may think of disability narrowly (Valenzuela & Martin, 2005). To them, a student is only disabled if they are profoundly impaired. In comparison, many of us who work in special education tend to conceptualize disability more broadly and include disorders like ADHD or learning disabilities in our understanding of disability. Similarly, to many general educators, special education represents intervention and support, while to many special educators, special education first reflects legal eligibility. When making decisions with implications around these topics, families, general educators, and special educators, may base their arguments on funda­ mentally different commonplaces. For instance, when we suggest that a child struggling to acquire self-regulation skills could be disabled, that conclusion may not align with other team members’ beliefs about dis­ ability. We expect most readers have been in a meeting where a partici­ pant struggled to consider that a student might demonstrate a disability because the student “does it on purpose.” Alternatively, when we high­ light that a student with below grade level academic performance does not qualify for special education because they do not demonstrate a disability, that conclusion does not align with other group members’ belief about the purpose of special education. We have all heard the re­ tort, “they’re the lowest in my class and need the help.” Group members’ diverse beliefs and worldview may influence how we construct and present arguments in meetings. We build arguments with two primary tools, deductive reasoning, and inductive reasoning (Leith, 2012). Deduction begins with a premise, a fact, or a commonplace and applies it to a specific case. Induction involves describing multiple cases to demonstrate a conclusion or make a generalization. Many school psy­ chologists may recognize these methods of logical argument as aspects of fluid reasoning (Schneider & McGrew, 2018). Deductive arguments can be effective when group members share common beliefs about the pre­ mises of the argument. The argument should begin with that shared value as a premise to establish its conclusion. However, if the audience re­ presents a diverse set of points of view, then inductive reasoning may be a

18

Foundations of Effective Communication

better way of demonstrating a conclusion (Heinrichs, 2007). Multiple examples and datapoints converging on a commonality will better high­ light a conclusion in that instance.

A deductive argument begins with a generalization and applies it to a specific case. An inductive argument describes multiple cases to demonstrate a generalization.

We wrote much of this text during the COVID-19 pandemic’s socialdistancing period. Communication during that time demonstrated many aspects of commonplaces in argument-building. At least in our region of the United States, some speakers presented a deductive argument in support of social distance by referring to that period analogously to a war. “We are at war with the virus, stay at home, wash your hands, social distance.” While that premise resonated with many people, in our ob­ servation, others found it laughable and maybe even offensive. Some individuals did not view sacrifices related to war or military service as analogous to sacrifices required by social distancing. They just were not comparable. In their eyes, the premise that we were at war with the virus did not effectively lead to the conclusion that social distancing was ne­ cessary. That argument held no credibility with them. For that group, an inductive argument may be necessary, as they did not share a belief that would lead to a positive view of social distancing. Multiple examples of people staying healthy from distancing efforts, or comparisons of out­ comes from individuals distancing and not distancing may be more persuasive. Consider a special education example of commonplaces or beliefs in argument-building. Earlier, we suggested that some educators may view special education primarily as an intervention resource. Given that belief as well as others (“early intervention is the best intervention”), they may struggle to accept a ineligible conclusion for a student who demonstrates a need for additional supports, because the ineligible status conflicts with their belief about special education. When communicating that result to them, we acknowledge that belief, expand on it, and then incorporate other valued beliefs that support the conclusion. Not qualifying is challenging to accept; you’re right, Katherine, Ricky certainly requires more support. But special education isn’t really about support, it’s specially designed instruction for students who are disabled, and Ricky does not demonstrate a disability, at least not how IDEA defines disabilities. While he needs more support, we also have to ask ourselves: Does he deserve to be labeled something that

Foundations of Effective Communication

19

really doesn’t describe him? What other avenues of support do we have available that describe this student appropriately? In this example, we started with one of the group’s beliefs (special edu­ cation is for intervention), acknowledged it, and expanded it. We linked the concept of disability to their beliefs about special education. Then we provided an additional common belief, one about inappropriately la­ beling a student for special education. We invited the group to further brainstorm solutions that might support both beliefs. Beyond commonplaces or general beliefs and values, the topics dis­ cussed within special education are identity laden. After all, someone’s child represents the most central topic in all meetings. The topics dis­ cussed in meetings can be associated with participants’ core identity and inject emotion into the discussion as participants create internal, gutfeeling attributions about the implications of the meeting for themselves (Stone et al., 1999). When meetings become tense, the educators in the room may be questioning their own competence (“Am I a good school psychologist?”), and for family members, identity implications may be even more profound (“Am I a good parent? Did I do something to cause this?”). We should anticipate that meeting participants may experience emotional responses to the discussion within special education meetings. When facilitating meetings, it can be useful to monitor participants’ emotional responses, offering support as necessary and appropriate. Amplifying emotions stemming from positive aspects of the meeting may increase cohesion amongst members and the value they place in the meeting process. These could include celebrations of skill growth, a dis­ cussion of student strengths and challenges, or effective collaboration between team members. Supporting emotional responses may also in­ clude prefacing hard or difficult information compassionately. When delivering significant news, especially news the family may remember for the rest of their lives, we can support their emotional response by pre­ facing that we know the news is “hard to hear,” but that honesty and forthright is necessary in the evaluation process (Wright et al., 2008). Persona and Stance The other two sides of the triangle within the context of communication reflect interactions between both the speaker and audience, and the speaker and topics. To facilitate the establishment of trust and credibility, we consider our topic, setting, and audience to determine the aspects of ourselves and our values to emphasize in our communication. There is much to consider about how we present ourselves in a meeting. We dis­ cuss children, should we be playful or humorous? The implications of special education are serious, should we appear formal or stoic? Many meeting participants may feel worried or nervous, should we be

20

Foundations of Effective Communication

welcoming and sensitive? These decisions establish our persona and stance, two concepts that reflect our attitude, language, and behavior toward other meeting participants, and the topics of discussion respec­ tively (Cockcroft et al., 2014). Persona represents unique features of our self, highlighted to fit the expectations and sensibilities of other meeting participants, the link between the speaker and the audience in Figure 2.1. In a sense, persona could reflect image. Various marketing brands spend a lot of money for celebrity endorsements. They want a particular per­ sonality to represent their product and associate it with valued features of the celebrity’s image. Stance reflects our orientation and attitude toward the topics of discussion, and how we deliver our communication. In Figure 2.1, stance can be found in the interaction between the speaker and the topic(s) of discussion. As with a demonstration of commonplaces in communication, the COVID-19 social-distancing period also provides examples of stance in communication. During that time, we observed many government officials carefully conveying a reluctant stance when delivering decisions of various extensions on the length of quarantine with their words, tone of voice, and other nonverbal aspects of com­ munication. The officials knew decisions around social distancing had many challenging implications for the public. By demonstrating a re­ luctant attitude toward the topic, they implied that they empathized with those challenges.

Persona represents our orientation toward other meeting partici­ pants, demonstrated through our attitude, language, and behavior.

Stance represents our orientation toward topics of discussion, also displayed via our attitude, language, and behavior.

Oral Communication and Collaboration The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) underscores that families must participate meaningfully in all parts of the special education process (Katsiyannis et al., 2001). This means more than passively lis­ tening to educators’ reports and progress-monitoring. Family members represent a critical part of the team. Unfortunately, aspirations of col­ laborative partnerships may feel more like the exception than the norm for many teams (Bacon & Causton-Theoharis, 2013). There are likely many barriers to collaboration, both interpersonal and systemic. These barriers may lead to families finding special education to be too

Foundations of Effective Communication

21

impersonal, intensely emotional, and labyrinthine in its processes. Collectively, it may cause families to feel confused and powerless (Zeitlin & Curcic, 2013). Lake and Billingsley (2000) identified numerous factors associated with conflict between families and educators within special education. In our view, they originate from aspects of the context of communication. First, conflict can stem from discrepant views of a student and their needs. Families may not perceive educators as understanding their child as a unique individual, but rather a group overly focused on the child’s defi­ cits. This conflict falls within the realm of the topics and emotions vertices within the context of communication. It occurs when educators do not adequately attend to families’ perspectives on their student and their reaction to the discussion. It also occurs when educators fail to highlight student strengths in their communication. Family members have a de­ tailed and nuanced understanding of their student. When communicating about their child, it is necessary to demonstrate an understanding of their perspective. Second, conflict occurs from discrepancies in knowledge between meeting participants. Parents in Lake and Billingsley’s study (2000) suggested that families need significant orientation to the special educa­ tion process when children are brought into the system. When educators do not describe it effectively, the resulting knowledge imbalance impairs collaboration. It may even imply to the family that their true involvement is not desired by other group members. The special education process itself must be a topic of discussion in meetings. It helps families under­ stand why different requirements, meetings, and processes are necessary. Programming and service delivery also represented a source of conflict identified by Lake and Billingsley (2000). Conflict can arise when there appears to be a lack of options for service delivery. Other times conflict arises because educators could not adequately substantiate why the op­ tions presented were the most appropriate choice. In the context of communication, this relates to the clarity of the decision-making process. Constraints around resources – money, time, personnel, materials – also create conflict. School administrators often find themselves “between a rock and a hard place.” Schools cannot cite a lack of funds as a reason to not provide a service, nevertheless finances may frequently be at the root of challenges with service provision. Interestingly, some of the par­ ents in Lake and Billingsley’s study (2000) suggested conflicts among families in special education, a wariness that students with mild dis­ abilities were overidentified and misusing limited resources, or alter­ natively, that too many resources were being spent on students with significant impairments. Lake and Billingsley (2000) further described conflict stemming from differences in valuation. This would fall within the interaction between the audience vertex and the topics vertex in the context of communication.

22

Foundations of Effective Communication

Group members may prioritize different things when consider students’ needs and programming. Valuation conflicts can occur when educators push for programming that does not appear to address the goals of other group members, especially family members. They can also occur when family members do not follow the “chain-of-command,” such as when they speak to a principal before discussing concerns with a teacher or requesting a due process hearing without ever discussing concerns with a special education administrator. Often both parents and educators attempt to use power to resolve conflicts, which is itself another source of conflict. Families can feel they have to be relentless in their pursuits and demon­ strate to administrators that they will not stop advocating for their children.

Conflict in meetings often arises from discrepant views student needs, discrepancies in knowledge about the special education process, ambiguous service delivery options, constraints around resources, value differences, and communication.

Communication (or more specifically a lack there of) can also create conflict (Lake & Billingsley, 2000). Group members may desire a certain level of detail or frequency in communication. Family members may want a certain amount of progress reports or data, and most all school psy­ chologists can recall frustration when family members do not respond to attempts to schedule a meeting. The amount of people involved in the communication process can also lead to conflict. When too many people are involved, it can distort communication (like in the telephone game), or it can feel intimidating walking into a meeting with many strangers. Lastly and importantly, trust was involved in conflicts (Lake & Billingsley, 2000). Group members require predictability and security from each other. This relates to the notion of credibility in the context of communication. When educators lose credibility, it leads to mediation and due process. Collaboration Requires Active Listening Just as with any endeavor that requires communication, active listening represents a foundational skill set for meeting facilitation. It involves both verbal and nonverbal communication between the listener and the speaker with an end goal of empathetic understanding of the speaker. The listener attempts to clarify what the speaker says, check in on their own understanding, and infer the meaning and emotion behind language. Active listening represents a major toolset that school psychologists use

Foundations of Effective Communication

23

to understand the beliefs and values of other group members. A lack of genuine active listening in meetings reflects a major barrier toward collaboration. Active listening begins with appropriate attending behavior, non­ verbally monitoring and responding to multiple aspects of communica­ tion. These may include use of eye contact, various vocal qualities, and participants’ general body language. Of course, attending behavior may vary across cultures. Eye contact (or a lack of eye contact) may com­ municate engagement in a conversation, comfort with a topic, or general interest. However, in a meeting with various materials to be reviewed, eye contact with the speaker can be minimal, as members may be reviewing evaluations, graphs, or IEP drafts. Vocal qualities, features like pitch, rate, or volume, can convey similar information. Emotion can often be inferred from vocal qualities, especially when coordinated with other nonverbal behavior. A slow, broken-up, sentence with multiple restarts, could signify confusion or anxiousness. A harsh tone often accompanies frustration. Body language can include gestures (or a lack of gestures), posture, and personal space. By reviewing the group’s collective body language, we can assess the extent to which the group feels engaged in the task and hand, and cohesive in their orientation toward their work. If someone appears engaged in the meeting process, they may sit upright, and perhaps lean forward toward the rest of the group. Alternatively, an individual disengaged, or irritated with the process, may appear slouched, leaning away from others. Active listening also includes various “microskills” such as encoura­ ging, paraphrasing, and summarizing. Encouraging represents statements and gestures used to prompt a speaker to continue talking. Examples could include head nods, encouraging smiles and eye contact, or vocali­ zations such as “uh huh,” “yes,” or “mhmm.” Simply repeating a word or two that the speaker just said can also encourage them to continue their dialogue. Paraphrasing involves reporting what the speaker said, but in the listener’s own words. It provides the listener with an opportunity to receive feedback from the speaker about whether they understand the points the speaker has made. The speaker can then affirm points of un­ derstanding or clarify anything the listener missed. Summarizations can also be used to clarify information, though usually after a longer period. They are often used to transition from one topic to another, or to end a discussion. Summarizations can be useful interpersonal tools to ensure that the group collectively understands various points of discussion in the same general way. If a facilitator feels stuck, summarizing the current topic and pointing out areas of conflict or discrepant information allows the group to then continue its discussion in a meaningful direction. Other listening skills involving making inferences or attributions about participants’ emotions, potential causes of behavior, or identify the at­ tributions and assumptions they make about the behavior of other

24

Foundations of Effective Communication

people. Making effective inferences about behavior within the group and using those inferences to manage the meeting process is the crux of ef­ fective facilitation (Schwarz, 2017). These skills can be as necessary in facilitation as they might be in a counseling setting. We all experience meetings where a participant pushes away from the group, and perhaps furrows their eyebrows or leans away from the table. From that ob­ servation, we infer that the group member feels frustrated or does not agree with something in the discussion. Commenting “you pushed away from the table, are you feeling frustrated?” may provide them with an invitation to share their perspective. Demonstrating that we understand the point of view of other meeting participants requires testing inferences in the listening process. Consider a scenario in an IEP meeting where a family member requests a 1:1 para­ professional to be with their student in a general education classroom. Simply paraphrasing their request, “you see your daughter, Jilly, in the general education classroom full time with individual adult support,” will likely not result in the family feeling understood. There is a set of beliefs, values, or expectations that motivates their request. They may think the paraprofessional will help the child finish their work at school so there is less to do at home, or they may think the extra adult will increase the their child’s rate of learning. We can infer those values and investigate our accuracy with a statement such as “educating Jilly with her typically developing peers is your top priority.” That statement will likely result in the family feeling more understood by others in the room. If their un­ derlying interest is not time with peers, but something else, then it gives them an opportunity to clarify that for the group. Testing inferences in this way shows the group member that we are actively trying to under­ stand their perspective. Disentangling Facts, Inferences, and Attributions Brent (1996) reminds us that in discussion facts are closely tied to beliefs and values. Discussion in meetings can be challenging because much of the content includes inferences and attributions, not transparent blackand-white facts. When we hear various inferences and attributions in meetings, we should recognize they represent an interpretation or judg­ ment of facts stemming from participants’ worldviews. Recognizing these judgments can be a challenging task, as they can masquerade as facts through inferential leaps (Stone et al., 1999). A thermometer reading of 32 degrees Fahrenheit is a fact, whether that temperature is cold is a judgment. Cora’s reading score falling at the 16th percentile is a fact, whether that score reflects a major skill deficit is a judgment. Kevin moving from reading 40 words/min to 50 words/min after seven weeks of intervention is a fact, but whether that represents adequate progress is a judgment. When a teacher reports that Jillian falls significantly behind

Foundations of Effective Communication

25

her peers in reading, it sounds like a fact, but it is actually a judgment. All meeting participants may “jump to conclusions” without realizing it at times, and these inferences can represent sources of disagreement. Helping team members separate facts from judgments or inferences is a challenging aspect of oral communication within meetings. We find two tools useful towards that end: the ladder of inference, and the Toulmin argument model. The Ladder of Inference (Newman & Rosenfield, 2019; Senge et al., 1994) presents a metaphorical ladder to illustrate individuals’ tendency to allow their thinking to climb from objective data to actions that stem from unfounded conclusions. The bottom of the ladder, the sturdiest part, represents objective facts. When we start to weigh some facts more than others or selectively consider information, we begin to include our beliefs, values, or prior experiences in our perception of the facts. This weighting reflects more of an interpreted reality. Assumptions fall even farther up on the ladder, where we may make explanations of our information and act as if they are true, not tentative hypotheses that should be further evaluated with data. They cause us to arrive at inappropriate or premature conclusions.

The Ladder of Inference describes a sequential thinking process moving from

Kevin is a 5th-grade student whose grades appear to be low over the first two quarters of school. Based on this information, his teacher refers him for a special education evaluation. To us, this likely feels like a major jump to conclusions. Did the teacher look at all data available to him, or only selectively look at Kevin’s performance? If he had looked at his whole class, maybe he would have noticed that many students, not just Kevin have struggled with the curriculum from the last two quar­ ters. Perhaps Kevin’s teacher assumed that Kevin’s poor grades

26

Foundations of Effective Communication

represent skill deficits, when in fact they are related to other concerns. Kevin’s family argues constantly right now, and he has not been sleeping well. Maybe his grades from the last two quarters are more related to situational variables than an actual skill deficit. This as­ sumption further led to a conclusion that Kevin does not have the skills he needs to be successful in the curriculum, and the position that he should be referred for special education. The Toulmin argument model (White & Billings, 2017) is a second method for uncovering assumptions and beliefs behind individuals’ thinking, including our own. Many readers may recall this model from various writing composition texts (White & Billings, 2017). The model begins by first identifying a claim, a thesis or statement that others should accept. In the case of Kevin’s teacher, his claim is that Kevin should be referred for a special education evaluation. Claims are supported by grounds, which reflects data or facts. In Kevin’s teacher’s argument, the grounds include Kevin’s low grades over two quarters of school. Kevin should be evaluated for special education (claim) because he has de­ monstrated low grades across two quarters (grounds). The Toulman model stresses the need to evaluate the link between a claim and its grounds, an aspect of argument referred to as a warrant. A warrant justifies the data’s support of the claim and may include principles or beliefs, often stemming from values and ethics, logic, or emotions. Readers may recognize these sources of warrants as rheto­ rical appeals associated with the triangle vertices in Figure 2.1. Often warrants are unstated, but they should be analyzed not just for the sake of arguing or debate, but because they provide broader insight into the perspective of the individual making the claim. Investigating warrants gently and with curiosity provides us with a way to acknowledge the point of view of others. Kevin’s teacher could have many warrants behind his claim that Kevin should be referred for special education. One could be a belief that low grades represent a sign of a disability. Another could be that school should provide intense intervention to struggling students. A third could be that he is not doing his job if he does not advocate for Kevin. There are other aspects to the Toulman model, including, backings, qualifiers, and rebuttals, but the concept of the warrant is key for our purposes, because it generates space for active listening, and reflects assumptions that may require further clarification. Collaborative Discussion At the start of this chapter, we suggested that the broad purpose of communication in special education meetings is to foster collaboration among group members. The tools we discussed above provide support for rhetorical methods of collaboration. Rhetoric is often considered the

Foundations of Effective Communication

27

domain of debate, argument, and politics, taught in composition and communications courses, but not in psychology or education. Its asso­ ciation with politics may make some individuals think of the term pe­ joratively. However, rhetoric is much broader in scope. It refers to the use of language or symbols for communication (Foss et al., 2014). It should be no surprise that rhetoricians describe methods to engage in colla­ borative discussion. They originate from Carl Rogers’ (1970) ideas about communication outside the therapy setting, often termed Rogerian or collaborative rhetoric (Teich, 1992). We think their discussion may be just as useful for school psychologists in meetings as they can be for students of composition. In this model, illustrated in Figure 2.2, discussion relies on a thorough understanding of the perspectives of the individuals in the meeting, as it begins by highlighting common ground within the problem that requires collaboration to solve (White & Billings, 2017). In discussion, members should be able to demonstrate a thorough understanding of “opposing” positions genuinely and without any type of evaluation or judgment. Such a demonstration requires describing the contexts that might make that position valid and reasonable, listening for the situations, beliefs, and values that the position stems from. It means understanding the world­ view of the person describing that perspective (Brent, 1996). Only after a group member demonstrates an understanding of the other positions, providing a description of the various contexts in which the argument is valid and reasonable, can they introduce an alternative position. After introducing an alternative position, the group member then highlights its benefits to the other party. If it is possible to demonstrate how the two positions support each other, such as by compensating for what each other lack, that is ideal (Brent, 1996). Let us return to our short example earlier about the family requesting a 1:1 paraprofessional for their child and assume the school does not view that as an appropriate inclusion in the IEP. In a traditional discussion, a group member may state that they understand a paraprofessional is the family’s desire and refute the position with an alternative argument. But what would that thought process look like in the collaborative discussion sequence?

Figure 2.2 Collaborative Discussion.

28

Foundations of Effective Communication

First, the communicator would describe the issue, highlight common ground, and the perspective of their communication partner. On the issue of the least restrictive environment for Jilly, full time in general education with an individual, 1:1 paraprofessional is certainly an option. I also think Jilly needs to be in general education. As part of the discussion, the communicator demonstrates an under­ standing of their partner’s point of view. It allows Jilly to have a lot of exposure to her peers and for them to interact with each other. That’s an important consideration for her placement. Critically, understanding means describing the beliefs and values behind the communication partner’s perspective. It’s a particularly strong option when the student enjoys their peers, and when the student’s academic skill level allows them to engage in the classroom curriculum. That way they can collaborate. I also find peer engagement important. That sounds like something you really value for Jilly’s programming. Here, the communicator describes various rationales supporting that perspective, probing for the specific values that drive their communica­ tion partner’s perspective. Then they introduce an alternative viewpoint. We should also consider time in the learning center classroom. But critically, they pair it with an additional value whom their partner likely also shares. I want to ensure that our plan also accounts for instruction in the right skills, based on Jilly’s current performance level. In that setting, Jilly would join her general education classroom during collaborative times that focus on skills she knows, morning calendar, class meetings, music and other specials, but when the class moves on to other topics, she’d get instruction in skills she’s developing from the learning center. It wouldn’t look like she is just inside the class, but not a part of the class, when other students are doing things that she is still developing the prerequisites to do. In this case, that value involves prioritizing instruction in the skills Jilly is ready to learn, not asking her to engage in academics she is not ready to attempt.

Foundations of Effective Communication

29

Putting It All Together: The Context of Communication and Collaborative Discussion Both the context of communication and collaborative discussion offer tools and methods to support communication in meetings. We can fa­ cilitate understanding through specific implementation of a persona and stance. Consider the differences between an “expert” persona compared to a “partner” persona. An expert persona conveys a power differential, and a one-sided relationship. An expert’s role is to provide information. The audience has little to offer the expert. Such a persona may bolster the confidence of the speaker, but it may minimize collaboration, cohesion, and mutual understanding within the meeting group. The attitudes, language, and behavior that an expert would use contrast dramatically with a partner. A partner inquires, verifies, and checks-in with others. The relationship is two-sided. Rogers (1970) suggested that when in­ dividuals communicate, they experience a natural tendency to judge or evaluate the claims made by others. This natural tendency (a feature of an expert persona) ultimately impairs collaboration, as it overtakes our ability to understand the points of view of others in the meeting. When a group member adopts an expert persona, they are not listening to the viewpoints of other team members, and in turn, other team members are engaging in that very same natural evaluation tendency, rather than lis­ tening and considering the implications of the speaker’s point(s) of view. A partner persona requires the speaker to adopt an attitude that mini­ mizes this judgmental reflex. It places the meeting topics within the context of the beliefs and values of group members to elicit the per­ spective of others. Most all school psychologists likely recognize the utility of active listening skills for these purposes. The speaker’s stance also supports collaboration in a similar fashion. Often in meetings, participants provide conflicting, incompatible points of view and opinions. Because topics in special education are value-laden and much of the discussion in meetings tends to occur higher-up on the ladder of inference, it is not often the case that one perspective is ex­ clusively right and the other is exclusively wrong. Dichotomous thinking impairs the collaboration process specifically, and the special education process in general. Stone, Patton, and Heen (1999) describe what they call the “and stance,” a willingness to embrace multiple, conflicting points of view. As with a partnership persona, such a stance facilitates listening by intentionally inhibiting our natural tendency to judge or evaluate. It al­ lows us to maintain curiosity about the points of view of others in the meeting, because we are not as concerned with proving right or wrong. However, do not misconstrue the and stance to mean we must accept all positions. It is possible to demonstrate understanding of a position without agreeing with it. The and stance reminds us to first embrace a position to ensure we understand it, before deciding if it is possible to

30

Foundations of Effective Communication

agree with it. It supports collaborative discussion because it compels participants to generate the various contexts that may validate the alternative perspective for themselves.

Stone, Patton, and Heen’s (1999) “and stance” allows commu­ nicators to simultaneously embrace incompatible points of view. It does not require agreement; it requires understanding.

The context of communication highlights the role of beliefs and values in the communication process. We hope it is clear how that aspect of the context will affect meetings. They influence participants’ interpretation of information, and as a result, much of discussion may occur higher on the ladder of inference. The collaborative discussion process provides a fra­ mework for us to demonstrate an understanding of those beliefs and values when communicating. They give insight to the context in which a position becomes valid. Thus, careful attention to this part of the context of communication can support facilitators efforts at making all meeting participants to feel more a part of the special education process.

Summary Meetings represent a complex context of communication. For commu­ nication in a meeting to be “effective” it must come from a trusted, credible source. It must be clear, logical, and reasonable and it should stoke motivating emotional responses. The source of communication should be mindful of the beliefs and values associated with the topic(s) of communication and understand the feelings and concerns it might elicit for other meeting participants. These beliefs and emotions influence whether meeting participants accept the communication or reject it. But even more simply, for communication to be effective, it should ac­ complish its purpose. In the context of meeting for IDEA purposes, “ef­ fective” communication strives for collaboration. It acknowledges the role and responsibilities all meeting participants have in the education of stu­ dents. We maximize collaboration by adopting a partnering persona. In orienting ourselves to the topics of meetings, we can adopt the and stance (Stone et al., 1999), simultaneously holding two perspectives, even if in­ compatible. Those orientations facilitate our ability to demonstrate an understanding of participants’ worldviews. We use that verb “demonstrate” very deliberately. It is not enough to understand participants’ perspectives, we must prove it by identifying their beliefs and values through their in­ ferences and attributions, summarizing their thoughts from a context that makes them valid, before suggesting alternative points of view.

Foundations of Effective Communication

31

The tools outlined in this chapter highlight specific objectives for school psychologists in the process of meeting facilitation. We conclude by enumerating them, but we do not wish to imply a specific sequence or hierarchy. First, to communicate effectively within a meeting, we must establish trust with meeting participants. Second, we must understand the beliefs and values of participants. These beliefs and values allow us to determine the best way to present ourselves and our information. Furthermore, by demonstrating an understanding of the audience’s per­ spective, they feel accepted and understood. Third, we must foster col­ laboration. To properly conduct a meeting, everyone in the group should participate in a meaningful way. In speaking with practitioners, we learned a lot about how to accomplish these objectives. We turn to those lessons next.

References Bacon, J. K. & Causton-Theoharis, J. (2013). “It should be teamwork”: a critical investigation of school practices and parent advocacy in special education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 17(7), 682–699. https://doi.org/10.1 080/13603116.2012.708060 Brent, D. (1996). Rogerian rhetoric: An alternative to traditional rhetoric. In B. Emmel, P. Resch, & B. Tenny (Eds.), Argument revisited, arugment redefined: Negotiating meaning in the composition classroom (pp. 73–96). Sage. Cockcroft, R., Cockcroft, S., Hamilton, C., & Downing, L. H. (2014). Persuading people: An introduction to rhetoric (3rd ed). Palgrave-Macmillan Edbauer, J. (2005). Unframing models of public distribution: From rhetorical situation to rhetorical ecologies. Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 35(4), 5–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/02773940509391320 Esquivel, S. L., Ryan, C. S., & Bonner, M. (2008). Involved parents’ percep­ tions of their experiences in school-based team meetings. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 18(3), 234–258. https:// doi.org/10.1080/10474410802022589 Foss, S. K., Foss, K. A., & Trapp, R. (2014). Contemporary perspectives on rhetoric, 30thAnniversary Edition. Waveland Press, Inc. Heinrichs, J. (2007). Thank you for arguing: What Aristotle, Lincoln, and Homer Simpson can teach us about the art of persuasion. Three Rivers Publishing. Johnson-Sheehan, R. & Paine, C. (2010). Writing today. Pearson Education. Katsiyannis, A., Yell, M. L., & Bradley, R. (2001). Reflections on the 25th anniversary of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Remedial and Special Education, 22(6), 324–334. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193250102200602 Lake, J. F. & Billingsley, B. S. (2000). An analysis of factors that contribute to parent-school conflict in special education. Remedial and Special Education, 21(4), 240–251. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193250002100407 Leith, S. (2012). Words like loaded pistols: Rhetoric from Aristotle to Obama. Basic Books Losh, E., Alexander, J., Cannon, K., & Cannon, Z. (2017). Understanding rhetoric: A graphic guide to writing (2nd ed). Bedford/St. Martin’s.

32

Foundations of Effective Communication

Newman, D. S. & Rosenfield, S. A. (2019). Building competence in school consultation: A developmental approach. Routledge. Rogers, C. R. (1970). Communication: Its blocking and facilitation. In R. E. Young, A. L. Becker, & K. L. Pike (Eds.) Rhetoric: Discovery and change (pp. 284–289). Harcourt. Senge, P., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R., & Smith, B. (1994). The fifth dis­ cipline fieldbook: Strategies and tools for building a learning organization. Currency and Doubleday. Schneider, W. J. & McGrew, K. S. (2018). The Cattell–Horn–Carroll theory of cognitive abilities. In D. P. Flanagan & E. M. McDonough (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (4th ed., pp. 73–163). The Guilford Press. Stone, D., Patton, B., & Heen, S. (1999). Difficult conversations: How to discuss what matters most. The Penguin Group. Schwarz, R. (2017). The skilled facilitator. Jossey-Bass. Teich, N., (1992). Rogerian perspectives: Collaborative rhetoric for oral and written communication. Ablex Publishing Corporation. Valenzuela, R. & Martin, J. E. (2005). Self-directed IEP: Bridging values of di­ verse cultures and secondary education. Career development for exceptional individuals, 28(1), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/08857288050280010301 White, F. D. & Billings, S. J. (2017). The well-crafted argument: A guide and reader (6th ed). Cengage Learning. Wright, D. B., Gronroos, N., Burkhartsmeyer, J., & Johnson, D. (2008). Delivering the hard news well: your child has mental retardation. Diagnostic Center, Southern California. www.pent.ca.gov/beh/dis/deliverhardnewswell08.pdf Zeitlin, V. M. & Curcic, S. (2013). Parental voices on individualized education programs: “Oh, IEP meeting tomorrow? Rum tonight!”. Disability & Society, 29(3), 373–387. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2013.776493

3

Meeting the Objectives of the Context of Communication

I think if you’ve seen 10 of my meetings, you’ve seen 10 different meetings. I don’t rehearse what I’m going to say. If I try to stick to a script, I can’t respond to the group’s in-the-moment needs as effectively. Brett Andersen

In this chapter we describe how practitioners may pursue the meeting objectives outlined via the context of communication. It is challenging to do so concretely, because no two meetings (or 10 meetings) are alike. Even meetings with similar purposes will include different participants with unique backgrounds and individual goals. Each meeting’s unique context underscores some of the major objectives for school psychologists in the process of meeting facilitation. In the previous chapter, we enumerated the following as critical objectives to pursue: Establish trust and credibility; Understand the beliefs and values of meeting participants; Foster collaboration. We described tools to accomplish these objectives. They included an in­ tentional presentation of a persona and stance established by demon­ strating to other group members a sincere understanding of their perspective. We discussed specific aspects of active listening to focus on group members beliefs and values. They lay behind participants’ as­ sumptions and inferences about the topics and decisions within meetings. Lastly, we highlighted a process of collaborative discussion, which fo­ cuses on common ground, not discrepant viewpoints, and requires meeting facilitators to communicate from the viewpoints of other parti­ cipants. There is no formulaic way to achieve these objectives, nor is there a simple sequence in which to use the tools we suggested. Nevertheless, in discussion with practitioners, we learned many ways to accomplish these objectives using the tools described. DOI: 10.4324/9780367854522-3

34

Objectives of the Context of Communication

Establishing Trust and Credibility Recall from Chapter 2 that reputation and expertise are the foundations of the speaker vertex in the context of communication. I think parents and teachers really do perceive school psychologists as having a level of expertise that they enter the room with. Not that you don’t try to be authentic and welcoming, open to all opinions and ideas, but the title adds something. Sally Whitelock Many meeting participants may grant the school psychologist a level of trust and expertise due to the title. It implies a certain degree of training and experience. It’s so important for me to dress a certain way to maintain profession­ alism and decorum. Whereas some teachers may feel comfortable coming to school in much more relaxed types of clothing, particularly here in Southern California, I can’t do it. I have to control the things I can control about my appearance. Now there are some parents that still will not really feel as though I’m competent, regardless of me doing all of these things. But at least I have some control over it. Justin Dove Justin Dove highlighted the concept of decorum. It refers to matching language and presentation style to the meeting’s circumstances, purpose, and moreover, the expectations of other meeting participants (Heinrichs, 2007). Communities vary in expectations of professional dress and formality in the work setting. There are also interactions between group members’ expectations and participants’ personal identity. We bet many young, babyfaced school psychologists feel the need to appear professional due to their age. Members of minoritized groups may also feel pressure to appear especially professional due to the perceptions of families or colleagues in predominately white schools. Many professionals from minoritized groups may experience a narrower range of behaviors that they may be allowed to engage in to still be considered professional to others. Informality in pro­ fessional interactions may be more approved for individuals in the majority. I’m not going to talk casually or with slang, that sort of thing. At the beginning of my career, I was younger than most of the people who I was walking into meetings with, I can’t look like one of the kids. But your persona needs to be consistent with the kind of neighborhood you work in. It changes based on where you work, who you work with, and what the rest of your team acts like. Carina R. Turner We control many aspects of our appearance in meetings. Our dress, language, and mannerisms all contribute to how we present ourselves to

Objectives of the Context of Communication

35

others. They should fit the expectations of the setting and the meeting participants. Many practitioners highlighted that trust and credibility does not come easily. It must be earned. I don’t want to be in the process of providing feedback to a mom and wonder if she’s thinking “she doesn’t know my child; she doesn’t know enough.” Ann Branscum I want that family to know that I know their kid. Allison Grant In an and stance sort of way (Stone et al., 1999), we find the process of establishing trust and credibility simultaneously very simple and in­ credibly complex. On the one hand, at its core, it simply requires us to demonstrate that we know the family and their student. Ann Branscum and Allison Grant stated this so succinctly. Parents want to feel like you understand their viewpoint and where they’re coming from. I allow them to provide all the information they want to, even if that means they’re venting. But I’m listening, I’m taking notes. I’m trying to show them that what they say is important to me. Many times, there are valid concerns. Somewhere along the line someone didn’t give them information or hurt them. I try to show them that I empathize. MaryAnn Green For families to trust us, we must understand how they see their student, and demonstrate that we can see them in that same way. When providing evaluation feedback, families may not consider what we think, until we first demonstrate an understanding of what they think. On the other hand, establishing trust can be incredibly complex. While it represents an active process of learning and demonstrating our un­ derstanding of a family’s viewpoint, not all families may engage in the process with us to the same degree. Some parents don’t trust us to start with; they’re going to be guarded against everything we say, and they’re going to reframe what we say in the ways that are very unproductive toward building those relationships. You know, how do we create rapport? Where can we start to build trust so that they will at least give consideration to what we share with them? We give them time. We listen. After a challenging meeting, I left the building, and I don’t know if [Mom] was in the parking lot waiting to talk to me or if this just happened. We stood from about 5pm until literally 8pm that evening, and I stood listening to her about what was going on her in life that was impacting her child. We have a relationship that is still there today. Todd Robinson

36

Objectives of the Context of Communication

Todd Robinson described earning trust and gaining information from a family as a type of feedback loop. Paradoxically, to learn about a family, they must first trust us; for a family to trust us, we must first learn about them. I’ve had some meetings with families who have not always had very positive experiences in school settings. I will always try to get a sense for how parents are interacting with the adults that are in the room. Sometimes we just have to acknowledge, even coming into the meeting, that we might be working with a family who doesn’t have a lot of trust in the system, and part of our job is going to be establishing trust in the relationship. Shawna Rader Kelly When it is challenging to engage with a family, sometimes it is easy to jump to conclusions about them. Many practitioners might view such families as unhelpful, or uncaring. However, instead of reaching that conclusion, ensure that a family’s guardedness is not due to their ex­ perience with the school system. When you work with the demographic that I work with, primarily African American students in poverty, some of whom their parents may have been in special education as well, some of these parents feel like “you’re just trying to put my kid in a room. You just don’t want to deal with my kid.” Carina R. Turner Carina Turner highlights the varying beliefs that families can bring to special education meetings and how they complicate the establishment of trust. Recall the concepts of commonplaces from Chapter 2. There may be multiple beliefs behind families’ concerns. In this scenario, families may not view the concept of disability consistently with educators. Many individuals understand the concept of disability to describe major func­ tional impairments. They may also not see the special education system as anything worthwhile, especially if they had negative experiences with it themselves through perceived poor service delivery or misidentification. For some families, these beliefs lead to an assumption that educators use the concept of a disability as a convenient excuse to remove their student from the general population. I ask my team for more flexibility. Everyone assumes a parent can just get off work and for some families that’s really difficult. That’s what makes families become disenfranchised. Sean McGlaughlin. Boyd and Correa (2005) provided a framework for educators to consider when attempting to collaborate with families that may be disenfranchised with the education process. They stressed that many families require

Objectives of the Context of Communication

37

logistical, informational, emotional, and community-based support. Many families may appear unwilling to engage with the school, but the larger truth may be that they do not have the logistical resources to en­ gage. We should not assume that a lack of engagement is an unwillingness to engage. Perhaps they cannot take the time off work, or school meetings are scheduled at a time they are not able to attend. If they can attend, they may not feel like they understand the purpose and process of the meeting well enough to contribute meaningfully. I pre-meet with parents to prepare them for the meeting so they can be an equal partner and not feel overshadowed by the experience. I try to prepare them by giving them information about what the purpose of the meeting is, what is likely to happen, and some things I am learning about their child. I want their reactions and questions so I can sort of coach them, “that’s a really good question, bring that up at the meeting. You have good points, let’s see what other people have to say about that.” Lisa L. Persinger As meeting facilitators, we should expect these concerns. For some fa­ milies, we can establish trust by addressing logistical challenges, and coaching them to participate meaningfully. Considering Our Persona How I dress has changed over the last few years. I remember one of my very first meetings. It was with an older kid. He was waiting for his parents and I walked in. This kid had never met me. I was wearing a tie and slacks and the first thing he said was “are you DHS?” He thought I was from child protective services. I just felt like I must look like some of the DHS workers he’s met in his past. So, I try really hard to also just come into a room dressed in a way that doesn’t make me look like a big, scary administrator. Aaron Willis We control much about our appearance and enjoy a great amount of autonomy in how we present ourselves in meetings. Nevertheless, as many practitioners may recognize, and as Figure 2.1 illustrated, our persona ultimately results from how others perceive our language, be­ havior, and attitudes. We consider our audience, and topics of commu­ nication when choosing what aspects of ourselves to emphasize to gain trust and credibility. Key aspects of a meeting persona are delineated in Figure 3.1. Early in my career, I learned from my supervisor that other people’s perceptions of me are my problem. In other words, what they think about me—whether or not it’s true or accurate—can become a

38

Objectives of the Context of Communication

Figure 3.1 Features of Meeting Persona and Stance.

stumbling block to effectively serving my schools. In short, what could people misperceive about me that I need to be intentional about? Charles Barrett Indeed, practitioners stressed the importance of considering the features of ourselves that we bring to the meeting context. Intentionally presenting ourselves in a certain way represents the core of the persona concept, our image that we convey in the meeting. Being authentic and genuine with how you present yourself in meetings is critical, whether it be school-based or community-based, the families that you’re serving, they’ll cut through that pretty quickly if you’re putting on some kind of face or front. Isaac Tarbell At the same time, Isaac Tarbell’s point is critical. School psychology is a helping profession, and the foundation of any helping professional’s per­ sona should be based in a genuine desire to help, solve problems, and ad­ vocate for students. We certainly do not suggest that school psychologists should approach the process of meeting facilitation with alternative motives or deception; it absolutely is not a strong communication strategy. We think school psychologists should be critical about how they present themselves, because certain professional dispositions (and the professional behaviors that stem from them) might facilitate the meeting process and foster every professional’s goal of building relationships with families and advocating for children. After all, everyone’s personality is complex and multifaceted. No one presents all aspects of their personality all the time.

Objectives of the Context of Communication

39

Coming in with an arrogant persona, “I’m the school psychologist and I’m right,” is not an effective approach. I’m very much about relation­ ships with families. I am their advocate, I’m on their side. Sean McGlaughlin I absolutely want the team to see me as somebody who wants to collaborate. The last thing I ever want to come off as is the expert. Even when I’m sharing pretty lengthy evaluation results, I want to be there to help problem-solve. I want everyone, especially the student or parents, to feel connected to what I’m saying. I want them to feel the meeting is for them. Ashley Camera School psychologists strive for effective relationships with a wide range of students, families, and colleagues. In meetings, diversity of perspectives is the norm. After all, meeting participants come from different cultural backgrounds, hold different expectations for schools, and experience different aspects of student behavior. Many practitioners stressed that a partnership-oriented persona can help facilitate the meeting process. I try to be down to Earth and knowledgeable. Too many professionals get too verbose. I think about who I am talking to. Duane Franks Ultimately, establishing a persona will vary based on the beliefs and values of meeting participants. Nevertheless, practitioners had much to say about underlying, attitudes, language, and behavior to establish an effective persona. We Are All Doing Our Best We’re all there to ensure the success of the student. We may have some differences of opinion about how to best go about doing that, but if we keep that core understanding that we all just want to help, I think it can minimize contentiousness. It’s important to assume positive intent. Justin Dove Assume positive intent. This is a collaborative problem-solving per­ spective. We assume everyone is doing the best that they can with the tools they have. Liz Angoff A major attitude toward meeting participants involved granting positive intent toward others within meetings. Positive intent assumes that sta­ keholders try their best personally and professionally. It conveys a de­ sire for mutual trust between team members and underscores that everyone’s input is valued and understood. Positive intent facilitates our ability to empathize with other team members, particularly family

40

Objectives of the Context of Communication

members and teachers, and may contribute to cohesive team func­ tioning. It creates a fundamental distinction between the intent of an action and the consequence of an action. When we assume positive intent, we convey to others that we understand their purpose is noble, and their character is virtuous, even if the outcomes of their actions were negative. As a school psychologist, we need to have some basic assumptions about parents: all parents want the best for their child. We start there. Charles Barrett I believe the teacher has the hardest job in the school building. We need to be humble in that regard. They don’t have their own office for quiet every once in a while. They can’t respond to e-mail whenever they want. Peter McDougal We have to be careful with that word “lazy,” because lazy assigns some intent that I don’t think is always there. He’s [the student] frustrated. He’s been frustrated for a long time, but that’s not the same thing as lazy. Carina R. Turner Positive intent establishes basic assumptions about the motives of parents, teachers, students, or other meeting participants. Recall from Chapter 2 that collaborative discussion should initially summarize others’ perspectives from a context that makes their point of view valid. When facilitating meetings, assuming positive intent can act as a tool for that purpose. It suggests that we consider both person-based and situation-based attribu­ tions of behavior. Phone calls go unreturned because parents have busy schedules and their own jobs and responsibilities, not because they delib­ erately avoid school staff. Teachers struggle to implement a behavior plan because it is complex, situated in an overcrowded classroom, not because they want the student removed from their classroom. Most everyone tends to attribute their own poor performance or negative behavior to the si­ tuation, but attribute others’ challenges to personal characteristics, a thinking phenomenon termed the fundamental attribution error (Ross, 197Ross Berkowitz 19777). Assuming positive intent means considering the broader context influencing the behavior of team members. When personbased attributions about challenges spring up in meetings, they can serve to prompt the school psychologist to also frame those challenges with attri­ butions about the situation, context or environment. For instance, when bringing up the topic of challenging student behavior persisting even after the creation of a behavior plan, a school psychologist might approach the teacher by asking “has the behavior plan fit into your classroom well?” instead of “have you been following the plan like the team recommended?”

Objectives of the Context of Communication

41

The former frames challenges in terms of the broader classroom context, the latter insinuates blame toward the classroom teacher.

Positive intent distinguishes between the intentions behind actions and the consequences of those actions. It allows us to generate attributions stemming from a person’s situation, not their character.

We Are a Team, We Work Together Practitioners also highlighted that embracing team-based decisionmaking facilitated the establishment of an effective persona. We value the perspective and input of others through curiosity and by highlighting others’ expertise and role in the group. We value teamwork by ensuring that all group members understand the process of the meeting and special education more generally so they can meaningfully collaborate. I hope that team members walk away really feeling like I was focused on approaching things with curiosity in problem solving. Ashley Burchett “So today we’re going to discuss some of the things you’re noticing about your son, I’m really curious about how you see him. I have some information to share as well and I’m wondering how it fits or might not fit for you. We want to allow parents to react in their own way, we’re not installing information. Brendon Ross An attitude or general disposition of curiosity may allow school psy­ chologists to be open and flexible in their thinking, interested in con­ trasting perspectives about the various issues considered by the team. It conveys to other team members the school psychologist’s interest in learning from them, rather than only trying to be the “expert” in the discussion. The school psychologist’s role involves interpreting student, parent, and teacher perspectives within various developmental and eco­ logical models to support team problem-solving. We can demonstrate curiosity and openness by actively seeking out team members’ perspec­ tives and explicitly comparing various perspectives on the team. When two team members provide contrasting information, the meeting facil­ itator may point out the discrepancy and ask the team to hypothesize reasons behind the differences. Model what respect looks like in meetings, and also model that everyone has expertise to offer. If we take an “expert” approach we

42

Objectives of the Context of Communication shut others down from giving information, including families. We can’t be too quick to try and fix a problem. We need to listen, show we value the knowledge of teachers and families. Cat Raulerson I never want to appear like I think I know the child better than the parents. Families know their kids best. They give us the honor of sharing their child with us. That’s how I start meetings. Every meeting is a thank you for sharing your child with us, giving us this opportunity to work with them and see their strengths. Katie Shelton As a parent, you’re important in this meeting. You’re the expert on your child, and we need your perspective to help in decisions we make as a group. Christie Crouch

Valuing the team also means acknowledging the expertise different members bring to the meeting. Let others know that they are the experts about the child. The school psychologist’s job revolves around integrating those separate perspectives within the special education process. Parents have the most detailed experiences and observations of their child in numerous contexts and know the child’s early development. Highlighting their unique and valuable perspective can be a strong way to build rap­ port and help parents engage in the team process. It can be equally beneficial to point out the unique perspective other team members bring, especially if they might feel the meeting is only tangentially related to their job. For instance, general education teachers can provide informa­ tion about the scope and sequence of grade-level curriculum, how stu­ dents typically progress through the curriculum, and the functioning of the student in question at school. Being active in the military for 13 years, I learned everything has a process, a way of doing things. I make sure to use a process all can follow, and no one gets lost. We’ve all been in meetings where it’s all over the place, discussing stuff that was not relevant. Duane Franks I work with a lot of families who just don’t know what to expect. Before meetings, at the beginning of meetings, take their guesswork out of it. Lindsay Amen I’m a process kind of guy. I start my presentations with a description of the process for the family. We have these meetings all day long, so for us they are automatic, but many parents have not been through special education before. This meeting is their one hour on their child, so I want to be sure they understand the process so they can participate mean­ ingfully. Nathaniel Jones

Objectives of the Context of Communication

43

Valuing team-based decision-making means highlighting the expertise of other meeting participants, and thoroughly explaining the process of decision-making, so all have the capacity to collaborate.

We value team-based decision-making by ensuring that all group mem­ bers can participate meaningfully. Educators participate in numerous special education meetings; the process can feel routine. As a result, it can be easy to gloss over the process when facilitating. Unfortunately, family members may feel disoriented without a thorough understanding of how the special education process works. For them to participate meaningfully, an initial step includes orienting them to the types of decisions to be made, the data used for those decision, and the methods of making those decisions. Everyone has preconceived notions about meetings. Teachers might think “they’re not going to help. I’m dying in that classroom.” Administrators are worried about maxing out their funding limits, “do we have enough?” School psychologists are worried about their work, looking at their calendar. “Can I get this done?” It’s baggage. Everyone has baggage. Sometimes teams need to meet, not about children, but about getting rid of our baggage, whatever it is that is going to impact our functioning in the meeting, so that we’re there to support the parent. Peter Whelley We can also demonstrate we value teams by checking in with our col­ leagues. Team functioning can be impaired due to stress within the group. I think that we do have a lot of trauma and our teachers traumatized by proxy. You cannot pour from an empty cup. Staff have to take care of themselves before they can care for others. We look at social emotional learning, pushing that out district wide, it’s not just for kids. It’s for adults. Adults have to come to work in a space where they’re proactive and prepared to engage instead of [being] reactive. People are dealing with burn out earlier and earlier in their career. Isaac Tarbell Team members’ functioning in a meeting can be influenced by feelings of stress and burn-out. Providing collegial support may boost group mem­ bers’ professional functioning (Wolgast & Fischer, 2017).

44

Objectives of the Context of Communication

Professional Confidence and Security Lastly, confidence and security in the professional skillset we bring to meetings can facilitate an effective persona. You can’t present things tentatively, like you aren’t convinced of your own data. Have confidence in your results, speak from an area of expertise. Jill Davidson There are multiple aspects to this confidence. First, it develops through practice and experience. Of course, for new school psychologists that can be challenging. Experience is just something new school psychologists do not have yet. Fortunately, there is more to professional confidence than just experience. Starting out, especially as a young practitioner, it might feel necessary to sound smart and use the language you learned in graduate school. You want people to think you really know what you’re talking about. But do they understand what you said? Alexandra Franks-Thomas Confidence also stems from our ability to communicate in an under­ standable, jargon-free way. Make sure we’re using accessible vocabulary, then through the course of the conversation, if I can tell you get this at a much deeper level. I can progress into more technical language, but I can’t really go the other direction. Ashley Burchett We can demonstrate confidence by speaking plainly. Avoiding jargon implies a desire to not appear an expert, but to facilitate the collective understanding of the team. Once we are sure the team has a consistent understanding of concepts, we can add precision and technicality if necessary. We don’t want anyone at the table to feel disenfranchised because they don’t understand the terms we’re talking about. Allison Grant Using acronyms and educational or psychological jargon can facilitate communication for educators, but it ultimately hinders the meeting by limiting family members’ understanding and participation. One of us remembers hearing a joke about acronyms, though we cannot remember from whom. When acronym use becomes too much, quip “Oh! That’s a good TLA.” When someone responds “TLA?” then define it: “three-letter acronym!”

Objectives of the Context of Communication

45

I try to base an evaluation on the observations of other people, interviews with other people, my observations, and my test results so truly, it’s a multi-factored evaluation. But I am clear that I don’t have all of the answers. Justin Dove I don’t have to have the answers. I don’t have to be the lone expert. I can throw out an idea and somebody can say “No, it’s not going to work” – it might morph into something else. I don’t feel like I have to solve every problem on my own. Christie Crouch Second, perhaps paradoxically, we demonstrate confidence by admitting when we do not know something. It highlights that we know the limits of our expertise and may increase trust because other group members know that we would not pretend to know an answer. These admissions also imply that we embrace team-based decision-making by trusting other team members to provide the data the group needs for problem-solving. This aspect of a professional persona makes room for others to have a meaningful role in the decision-making process. Considering Our Stance Our stance represents our orientation toward the topics of the meeting. As with the persona, we convey a stance through our attitudes, behavior, and language. Practitioners stressed multiple features of a stance useful within special education meetings. Topics are Unintimidating, a Normal Part of Education One of the most striking things I’ve noticed when interviewing parents is that when they are listened to without judgment, they really open up. A little smile and nodding and an occasional “tell me more about that,” goes a long way to getting valuable information. Parents are frequently judged and talking about their child without being judged gets them to open up. Amanda Crawford I try to be friendly and calm. Overly professional is not preferred here compared to maybe more affluent areas. Most importantly, I try to be candid, straightforward. Peter McDougal Previously, we mentioned that many topics in special education meetings can be sensitive in nature. There is an unfortunate stigma associated with topics pertaining to mental health and special education. Usually, meet­ ings occur because students demonstrate academic, social, or emotional challenges. Many meeting participants could feel judged because their student requires such a meeting. Their very identity as parents or teachers

46

Objectives of the Context of Communication

can be wrapped up within these topics. By using candid, straightforward language, we demonstrate to others in the room that we do not share in such stigmas. We do not feel intimidated by challenging topics, and other meeting participants do not need to feel intimidated either. Furthermore, an open, candid stance also implies that these meetings, and the topics within them, are commonplace and normal. They represent a standard practice, and many families participate.

Discussion should be non-judgmental and normalizing for meeting participants.

We Are Here to Solve Problems Our process is not only about qualification, it’s about developing interventions. What are we going to do to support this student? Kyle Hesser When parents or teachers ask for meetings, it’s because they’ve done everything they can. They have exhausted their tools. So, we have to take a problem-solving perspective toward their concerns. How can we help? Our job is to translate their concerns into tangible supports, not defend our rights to give an IEP or not. Liz Angoff Practitioners also highlighted that school psychologists should adopt a problem-solving stance within meetings. Although special education fo­ cuses on both eligibility and supports, a problem-solving stance orients the group toward determining the most appropriate supports for students first. Once the group agrees on appropriate supports, then the group can concern themselves with whether special education may be necessary. From the perspective of the context of communication, a problem-solving stance likely increases the trustworthiness of the school psychologist. It implies a practicality that others may find reassuring. Start by agreeing on what’s our common ground. In what areas does this student need support? Come to that consensus, then determine what needs to be done about it. Then worry about how to provide those things last. Peter Whelley Peter Whelley highlighted collaborative discussion when establishing a problem-solving stance. It involves finding common ground about the challenges a student demonstrates, prioritizing the topics of discussion in meetings. First, we can develop a shared, concrete understanding about a

Objectives of the Context of Communication

47

student’s current functioning level and the discrepancy from a desired level of performance. A school psychologist with a problem-solving stance, will hear a general concern about off-task behavior and concretize it. “How often do you find yourself redirecting the student in a half hour activity [current functioning level]? I wonder what level would be more manageable [teacher expectations, desired functioning level]?” Questions around support can come second, as the intensity of supports may be related to the discrepancy between current and expected behavior. Questions around eligibility for services are tertiary. We cannot start answering them until we know the discrepancy between current and ex­ pected performance, and identify the supports required to reduce that discrepancy. A kid walks into class and on the board it says “pop quiz today.” Well, the kid picks up a chair, throws it across the room, and yells a few choice words. That’s the behavior. Why’d he do it? Because he wants to get out of the test? Because he slept in his car last night? Because his father just beat him? He hears voices that told him to do it? It’s our job to consider all the things behind the behavior. There was a reason for it. To support him, we need to figure out what that reason is. Allison Grant Everyone does well if they can. I start there. There’s a reason why a student is struggling and it’s our job and duty to help figure out what that reason is and try to see how we can build capacity within that student to perform at a level they feel successful. Ashley Camera A problem-solving stance goes beyond considering the magnitude of a discrepancy between current and expected performance. It investigates why the discrepancy exists or developed in the first place. Functional, context-driven evaluations determine the influences maintaining a con­ cern, be they antecedents and consequences in the environment, or an instructional context that does not provide appropriate practice for academic skill development. Note Ashley Camera’s endorsement of po­ sitive intent through collaborative problem-solving (Greene, 2014). It supports an investigation of situational variables that may impact a student’s functioning. The And Stance in Action I never invalidate a teacher or a parent’s opinion because they spend much more time with that student than me. I get a small piece, they have so much more. Even if I don’t agree with it, I make sure I am listening and inquiring. If I want to give a counter- opinion I usually say “I see your perspective and where that’s coming from. Can I tell you a little bit about what I’m seeing?” Tamara Waters-Wheeler

48

Objectives of the Context of Communication

Problem-solving does not require judging, or telling others they are in­ correct, even if there appears to be incompatible perspectives in the meeting. Recall Stone, Patton, and Heen’s (1999) and stance, an or­ ientation to the topics of conversation that embraces multiple perspec­ tives as valid, even if they do not appear compatible. Tamara WatersWheeler highlights a key step within collaborative discussion. She stresses the need to both paraphrase another meeting participant’s perspective while simultaneously acknowledging how that perspective can make sense. Apparent discrepancies between perspectives invites an investigation of the context of those perspectives. Experienced school psychologists re­ cognize that discrepancies between data often can provide a route to effective interventions. For instance, when behavior challenges exist in one setting and not another, the group can discuss differences between settings and consider what aspects of the problem-free setting could be implemented in the setting with the challenges. Discuss Strengths and Supports Every individual has strengths and weaknesses. We cannot understand the whole child until we understand their strengths as well as their challenges. Ashli Tyre Let’s start off with something that you’ve noticed as a strength or recent success for the student. Then we can talk about what strategies tend to work in the classroom. From there, we [can] delve deeper into the [details] of the of the actual behavior. Ashley Camera We can build a better plan by knowing what the kid is good at. I always ask, “What are they interested in?” I think it helps frame supports a little bit better. Carina R. Turner Practitioners also highlighted the need to discuss student strengths. So often in special education, meetings can be overly deficit driven. Recall that a major source of conflict in meetings includes a tendency for fa­ milies to perceive educators as unable to see their child as a unique in­ dividual (Lake & Billingsley, 2000). We make sure to start with strengths and say positive things in the beginning, like he’s really artistic or he’s got a good sense of humor. But in all honesty, by the time you get to us [in the student support process], we’re kind of in a deficit-based model. That’s the reality and I haven’t met a savvy parent yet that didn’t know, when we’re talking about what a great artist their kid is, it’s because the kid can’t read. Parents know why we’re all there. So, while we want to

Objectives of the Context of Communication

49

describe the totality of a kid who has all these positive things, we also know we’re there to have some difficult conversations. Sherri Bentley I have been on campuses where we try to start with strengths, and I like that. I think sometimes it comes off as a little bit artificial, you really have to walk a line there. It’s good in theory, but it can sound fake. I like to be the person who meets the parents in the front office and walks them back while chatting. “Oh I saw him the other day, we had a good time talking about Fortnight, he told me all about it. Oh he talks about how much he enjoys seeing his grandpa.” Find a way to make it more personable. Shilah Lyman Kids have so many strengths that we don’t even think of acknowledging. Kids that speak up and advocate for other kids don’t always do so the way we as adults in schools think they should. But they’re showing us a strength that should be nurtured and grown. Instead, we see educators call the too-chatty kid “verbally astute.” Milaney Leverson At the same time, we received many warnings that strengths cannot sound perfunctory. If educators appear to be insincere, other group members will easily see through these efforts. Hass (2018) described methods for devel­ oping what he termed a vocabulary of strengths. Strengths can be found in many areas of functioning. To ensure strengths are a major topic of the meeting, consider highlighting the following areas. The quality of relationships with peers, educators, and family; The development of cognitive, academic, athletic, or artistic accom­ plishments or competencies; The presence of aspirations, goals, and plans, a sense of purpose, even in the face of adversity; A sense of confidence or security, especially in the pursuit of goals. These areas can represent both targets of inquiry and methods of reframing when meeting participants begin to appear too negative in their description of students.

Understanding Meeting Participants’ Beliefs and Values School psychs are in a unique position to not just look at an individual student, but to look objectively at the environment that surrounds them, at the systems piece. That doesn’t always come naturally to educators. Our training focuses on the big picture, and I think it helps us

50

Objectives of the Context of Communication communicate better with parents, because we are better equipped to see things from their point of view. Milaney Leverson

The previous sections described features of an effective persona and stance for school psychologists to employ in the service of trust and credibility. To partner effectively with others in the group, our orienta­ tion to other meeting participants should stem from positive intent, em­ brace team-based decision-making, and express confidence and security. Our stance on meeting topics should be open or non-judgmental, geared toward problem-solving, and frame concerns from a place of strengths and needed supports. Furthermore, to facilitate collaboration, we de­ monstrate an ability to engage with potentially incompatible viewpoints simultaneously. A major question remains: how can we best establish those features? Ultimately, there may be no single answer, because the process can vary based on the expectations of other meeting participants. Because of this variability, a second major task of meeting facilitation involves efforts to understand the beliefs and values that participants bring to the specific context of communication we know as a special education meeting. We need to know about the family, their own experience with education, their experience with teachers. Have the parents received lots of phone calls from school, or a lot of requests for meetings because their kids have failed or gotten in trouble and now they’re feeling defensive? Are they afraid of getting in trouble themselves? Do they feel like bad parents simply because their kid can’t pay attention? Jules Nolan Parents can come into these meetings with challenges with school themselves. Or maybe it’s their third child and they’ve struggled to help their other children. They had a lot of confrontation with schools. We need to be sensitive to that. Peter Whelley What can initially be thought of as aggression on the part of a parent is not aggression. I come from a community where we don’t talk about mental health, where we don’t learn about healthy coping skills. Some of the most aggressive, obnoxious parents on the surface are really parents who are terrified. Carina R. Turner Regardless of the level of knowledge we have about students, practi­ tioners stressed that families have shown a tendency to judge the veracity of educators’ statements about their child by filtering these statements through their own set of beliefs and values. To communicate effectively, we must consider multiple bases of participants’ worldview. As Jules Nolan, Peter Whelley, and Carina Turner highlight above, this

Objectives of the Context of Communication

51

may include families’ past experiences with schools. It can also include cultural backgrounds and identities, as culture can provide insights into the way individuals make meaning and interpret the interactions and relationships in their lives (Hass & Abdou, 2019). We also consider families’ access to societal resources, and their ability to participate in societal institutions, targets of social justice advocacy. After all, fa­ milies’ experiences with prejudice or marginalization – particularly within the educational system – will likely influence the way they ap­ proach school meetings. Beliefs and Values Are Influenced by Culture Sue and Sue (2013) stressed that cultural competence involves an un­ derstanding and awareness of and humility toward one’s own culture, and also knowledge of the various worldviews of culturally diverse fa­ milies. Meetings in special education focus on complex topics related to child development, parenting, and teaching practices, mental health, disability, and education. Families may vary in their view of these topics, the purpose of education, and the role of school in their lives. Reviews of the experiences of parents from diverse cultural groups working with school teams suggest that educators can struggle to engage with families effectively (Rossetti et al., 2018). These challenges often stem from cul­ turally based differences in expectations. The SLP I work with is bilingual in English/Spanish, and she’s educated me quite a bit on Hispanic culture. Many parents view me as the expert and come to meetings just expecting me to talk and tell them what to do. They are reluctant to give me any input. However, I am wanting to hear from them. I am constantly questioning how my test results fit into their observations. Conveying test results to parents usually falls flat (or are misunderstood) when you do not connect with the parent and interpret the findings in light of their knowledge. Brett Andersen There can be differences in how the school team prefers to interact and the professional behavior expected by the family. In some cases, families may expect an expert persona and a direct discussion where the professional provides clear directions. Jegatheesan (2009) highlighted how some Asian mothers did not ask questions in school meetings for fear of seeming in­ appropriate for challenging experts. These mothers were sometimes shocked that presumed experts would ask them what goals their child’s IEP should address. Shouldn’t the experts make those decisions? Most of my families are Spanish speaking immigrants from El Salvador, Guatemala, or Honduras, and when they hear “doctor” or “psychologist” they may think “my child is crazy.” In their country,

52

Objectives of the Context of Communication “psychologist” has a very different connotation than what we know it to be here in the States. So, I try to manage it by knowing my audience and what they perceive from my title. I try to do this in a number of ways. First, by just being visible, bus duty, recess, all of that so families see my face around. Second, in meetings I stress that my role is with all students and staff. I try to broaden how they think about a psychologist. I emphasize I don’t only work with students with significant difficulties. I am here for everyone. Charles Barrett

Just as the school psychologist title may facilitate trust and credibility with some families, it can impair relationship-building in other instances. For some individuals, the title conveys the idea that the school thinks their student is crazy. In this situation, the title creates a barrier to a shared understanding of the student, because it can convey an in­ appropriate level of problem severity to the family, one so discrepant from their view of the child that they may minimize any concerns that could exist. Charles Barrett addresses this concern by making himself a routine part of all students’ experiences at school. Though school psy­ chologists support students’ mental health, for some families, it may also be helpful to stress that school psychologists also focus on education. Families from other cultures may have customs that we aren’t used to. Our gut reaction may be to see something as “wrong” or “bad,” but we also need to understand their intent. Acculturation is challenging. Jules Nolan Many practitioners have stories or anecdotes about mismatches between the cultural expectations of families and schools. Mismatches are likely to be present in a culturally pluralistic society, such as that which exists in the United States. However, all families, both those new to the United States, and those originally from the United States, will have unique worldviews that must be investigated and understood. I work with a lot of families from a lower SES, and it’s a culture. You have to understand that culture. They’re embarrassed about not having food. They’re not proud that they don’t have a vehicle to get them to meetings. Daniel Hof Families’ socioeconomic status can also influence their engagement with school. Most all families have the same educational goals for their stu­ dents, regardless of socioeconomic status (Epstein, 2005). However, some parents can feel uncomfortable engaging with educators (Thurstone & Navarrete, 2003). The nonjudgment aspect of persona can be critical to demonstrate.

Objectives of the Context of Communication

53

I try to avoid making assumptions about family culture based on race or ethnicity and, when possible, instead highlight shared experiences I may have with families. Research will show you there is more diversity within racial groups than there is between them. MaryAnn Green As MaryAnn Green stresses, knowledge of a family’s racial or ethnic background may not allow us to understand their unique worldview. It reflects a generality and can mask families’ individuality (Hass & Abdou, 2019). There is substantial variability within groups, and to assume otherwise reflects gross stereotyping. Research on concepts such as identity prominence, identity salience, and the psychological centrality of different identities suggests that these concepts can vary within an individual across different social contexts and interactions (Stryker & Serpe, 1994). For in­ stance, a family member from a racially minoritized group may be more aware of their racial identity in a meeting full of white educators than elsewhere. The dynamic fluctuations in identity saliency likely influence how special education meetings proceed, but of course, they will not ex­ plain all the potential complexity of participants’ social behavior and in­ teraction within meetings. We should not ascribe all the variability of social behavior solely to the cultural identities of meeting participants. Beliefs and Values Are Influenced by Our Ability to Engage with Society The National Association of School Psychologists has stressed that social justice advocacy reflects a foundation for all aspects of professional service delivery (NASP, 2020 National Association of School Psychologists 2020). Social justice includes concerns about equity in both the distribution of re­ sources and the opportunities to participate in society in ways that meet the needs of all members. It recognizes that some social groups such as those who are white, or male, or able-bodied, or heterosexual hold privileges that provide advantages in resource acquisition and societal participation. Social justice is multifaceted. It represents a goal for society (and in the context of school psychology, the role of schools in achieving that goal), a framework for the gathering and interpreting of information, and ultimately a practice, methodologies for eliminating injustice (Shriberg et al., 2013). I will enter spaces and acknowledge the privilege I’ve been afforded as a white male…sometimes people may defer to me as the white man in the room. “I’m an itinerant, I think you have a question for Miss Walker, the building principal.” Just because she’s a woman of color doesn’t mean I answer their question. Isaac Tarbell Issues related to social justice may influence the worldview of team members as it pertains to interacting with the school system. After all,

54

Objectives of the Context of Communication

schools are key child-serving, societal institutions, and are a major source of resources. Some families may have experienced a history of margin­ alization, inappropriate school discipline, or other experiences in a biased education system. That history may shape their perception of inter­ personal interactions in school meetings and may lead to disen­ franchisement with the education system. Families may find it challenging to (or they may not wish to) engage with the rest of the team, provide their point of view, or consider information from other team members without skepticism. I always try to bring up issues of diversity to the extent possible. When you’re working with a family who’s impacted by these prejudices, I think it is important to acknowledge that. I’m a white man, so I need to even more demonstrate unprompted advocacy and support, so that a person who has had a negative experience with the institution can consider if I can be an ally in this moment. Aaron Fischer As with cultural competency, we may expect issues pertaining to social justice to be entwined with numerous topics discussed within special education meetings. Social justice implications arise when teams discuss academic achievement (Musu-Gillette et al., 2016), school dropout rates, discipline practices like suspension or expulsion (Losen, 2014), or special education eligibility, particularly in the high incidence categories (Voulgarides et al., 2017), for example. I remember a case with a student who was African American and diagnosed with multiple mental health concerns. He could get really upset with other kids and he was starting fights left and right. His parents were in agreement that the fighting needed to stop but were opposed to a more restrictive placement, noting that the school officials did not understand the struggle of being a Black kid in a primarily white school. Administration and other group members did not agree because, in their view, they were not treating him differently because he was Black. I responded by validating the parent’s concerns and reminding them that we all wanted the same thing for their child, which was for the aggressive behaviors to stop. I explained that even though the school was not necessarily discriminating against him, that parents were right, as a Black male, he does have it harder than other kids in the majority, and that he is likely going to experience such challenges for the rest of his life. Given the level of aggressive behaviors that he was unable to control at that time, it seemed critical to help him learn to manage these behaviors before leaving school and going out into the “real world.” I don’t want him to go out into the real world and get into a fight because he’s upset and can’t control it, and then a cop comes and doesn’t understand that he’s a kid with a disability or even worse, he could pick

Objectives of the Context of Communication

55

a fight with someone who could seriously injure him. So, our best way to help him now is to teach him how to control his anger and respond in ways that will not make a bad situation worse. Anonymous. In the context of meeting facilitation, social justice may include all those facets. The above vignette demonstrated the application of these facets of social justice while in collaborative discussion. The school psychologist recognized a goal of equitable discipline for this student. Employing an and stance, she acknowledged that there were multiple ways to under­ stand the topic of discipline, and the situation leading to this instance of discipline. She did not just acknowledge the family’s viewpoint, she supported it. As a minoritized individual, their student’s experience at school was fundamentally different than most others and contributed to incidents of discipline. Schools have an obligation to ensure safe learning environments for all students. Concerns related to racism cannot be ad­ dressed just at a student level. Schools must address racism at a systemic level. Simultaneously, this student experiences challenges with emotion regulation that also contributed to discipline. Though the family was skeptical and suspicious of a more restrictive setting for their student, she highlighted the advantages of such a placement to address concerns with self-regulation. The student required specially designed instruction to support emotional regulation, and the current placement could not provide that adequately. Administrators and teachers often become very passionate and emotional about students’ behavior and have difficulty making decisions based on the facts and law. They tend to focus on how egregious the students’ behavior was, as well as their goal to ensure that students in the building know that misbehavior will not be tolerated. My expectation for our team of school psychologists is to use state and federal regulations to advocate for students’ best interest, even if it makes their team members view them as the “bad guy.” Sometimes you have to be the bad guy in order to protect students’ rights. School psychologists need to have the expertise to communicate and advocate for students’ rights, because parents don’t always understand what they’re advocating for during MDR meet­ ings. I spoke with one our team’s school psychologists today about an MDR meeting that involved a disadvantaged family. The school team wanted the child suspended, and the parent agreed. She didn’t understand her child’s rights and, without the school psychologist’s guidance, her child would have been suspended for a behavior that was a manifestation of their disability. MaryAnn Green MaryAnn Green highlights social justice implications in the context of a manifestation determination meeting. In this situation, the family did not

56

Objectives of the Context of Communication

have equitable access to participation in the meeting. Of course, the mother was able to attend, to discuss the situation with other group members and to provide her perspective, but participation should be more than attendance. In this scenario, the parent did not have the same understanding of the meeting’s implications in the support and education of her student. Without that level of understanding, she may not parti­ cipate equitably. Implicit Assumptions of Special Education and Disability Just as cultural competency relies on an awareness of our own values and worldview (Sue & Sue, 2013), we believe that to be an effective meeting facilitator within special education, we must be able to acknowledge the worldview of special education as a system. Special education reflects a certain set of cultural values that may differ from the values of families receiving services (Kalyanpur & Harry, 2012). Embedded in the broader educational system, special education includes both traditional American values such as individuality, equity, and the utility of hard work, but also bases its practices off values unique to it. These include a reification of the IDEA disability categories, and relatedly, how this conceptualization of disability dictates the concept of normal human development and func­ tioning. To facilitate meetings and communicate effectively, school psy­ chologists should compare the implicit values of special education with the values of the families they serve. These values may have implications for how school psychologists present information families. The concept of disability may appear uni­ versal. Nevertheless, its meaning varies culturally (Kalyanpur & Harry, 2012). The U.S. education system may use a much broader definition of disability than many families, or alternatively, use a much narrower de­ finition of typical human functioning. By “reification,” Kalyanpur and Harry (2012) mean that educators may treat an abstract concept as an objective, concrete, or material “thing.” Their point may be particularly noteworthy in discussion of milder disability categories such as specific learning disability or clinical conditions like ADHD. We do not wish to debate the existence of learning disabilities or ADHD; we acknowledge these examples to highlight how ubiquitous conditions and categories in our schools may not fit some families’ concept of disability. To many cultures, a student may not appear disabled if they have the general ca­ pacity to engage with the family in most daily activities (Valenzuela & Martin, 2005). To some family members, a specific learning disability may not mean a specific weakness in a “sea of strengths” (Shaywitz, 2003) as many educators think of the condition, it may rather be thought of more akin to intellectual disability, a condition impacting most all areas of life. Thus, relatively mild conditions in the broader context of dis­ ability, SLD, high-functioning autism, ADHD, or aspects of emotional

Objectives of the Context of Communication

57

concerns may not rise to the level of “disability” in the worldview of many families. To use the term disability suggests a level of severity that could be inconsistent with the family’s own conceptualization of the problem.

Reification of disability may influence special educators to highlight endogenous influences on student performance and minimize environmental or contextual influences.

Reification may potentially skew educators’ view of students in sys­ tematic ways. While behavior is complex and multifaceted, once a student is labeled as disabled, team members’ thinking about their behavior may overly focus on student characteristics, ignoring that disability represents an interaction between characteristics of a student and the demands of the environment. Disability represents a state of functioning (Wehmeyer, 2013). This tendency could lay behind families’ concerns that educators are too deficit focused, and do not view students as unique individuals (Lake & Billingsley, 2000). Anecdotally, in our experience, this tendency may be inverted in manifestation meetings, especially if administrators wish to maintain a disciplinary action, and family members expect it removed. In that scenario educators find many significant influences on behavior unrelated to the disability, while family members highlight the saliency of the disability in the student’s actions. Acquiring an Idiographic Understanding of Participants’ Worldview We highlighted aspects of culture, social justice, and implicit assumptions of special education to underscore sources of variability in meeting par­ ticipants’ worldview as it pertains to collaboration in the special educa­ tion process. We must underscore a point made earlier, culture and identity provide a starting point in understanding participants’ world­ view, but ultimately, understanding their unique perspective requires a significant investment of time into relationship-building. We already de­ scribed communication tools for understanding participants’ beliefs and values. They included a suspension of judgment through the and stance, while listening for inferences participants make during discussion. However, they can (and should) also be investigated directly.

Important beliefs to investigate include the definition of a problem, perceptions of causes, and the context around the problem, methods of coping, and help seeking and also available supports.

58

Objectives of the Context of Communication

In the context of cultural diversity, Hass (2018) and Hass and Abdou (2019) described the DSM-5 Cultural Formulation Interview (CFI;American Psychiatric Association, 2013) as a tool for the investigation of beliefs and values associated with meeting participants’ concerns. Specific targets of inquiry include the following: Culturally based definitions of the problem; Perceptions of the causes, and context of problems; Available supports for challenges, and also Factors that affect coping and help-seeking. Practitioners can evaluate these topics by highlighting the importance of families’ perspective on concerns raised in the meeting. For instance, if discussing concerns about challenges with reading in a problem-solving meeting we might ask “How do schools in [country of origin] support students learning to read?” to elicit beliefs about supports for academics, or “What thoughts do you have about why [student] is struggling with reading?” to query beliefs about the causes of reading difficulty.

Fostering Collaboration Along with establishing trust and understanding participants’ worldview, fostering collaboration reflects another major communication objective in meetings. In Chapter 2, we framed collaboration as the broad purpose of communication in special education meetings and highlighted methods of discussion to foster collaboration. Mueller and Vick (2017) stressed that while the spirit of IDEA highlights collaboration, most special education meetings appear to be exercises in paperwork and compliance. Recall in Chapter 1, we emphasized that oral communication and meeting facilitation represent complementary skill sets. While fostering collaboration may represent the broadest purpose of communication in special education meetings, it may ultimately require the application of skills in both areas. Simultaneously consider your outcome and the process you’ll use so all stakeholders are involved in that outcome, an outcome that everybody has kind of bought into. It starts with roles, somebody being a facilitator, somebody taking notes, somebody having an agenda. Then when things go awry, we know where to go back to. It also requires intentionality in facilitation. Ensure that everybody has an opportunity to talk. Sally Whitelock Collaboration requires us to consider the methods the group uses to accomplish their tasks. We will discuss these topics in more detail in Chapter 4.

Objectives of the Context of Communication

59

If I’m in a meeting with a family and it’s my first conversation with them, I feel like I haven’t done my job well. It’s important to build relationships over time. I work in a middle school, sixth to eighth grade. If a student is joining us in sixth grade, we will start meeting with them the spring of their fifth-grade year, starting that transition, building that relationship. Katie Shelton Relationship aspects of meetings may also facilitate and inhibit colla­ boration. In any given meeting, the educators in the room likely know each other better than the parents know other group members. The educators understand how each other work and have meaningful roles in the meeting process. Alternatively, the interrelationships in the group are new to parents entering the meeting. They must spend energy finding where they fit in the meeting context. It is important to anticipate this challenge and put effort into making the family feel welcomed. Affluent parents are often well-aware of their role in a meeting, but they can come in tense, and we have to be disarming. Parents from a lower SES background, or maybe who don’t speak English as their first language, they often have a deference to professionals where they don’t question. We have to be encouraging, demonstrate that they can disagree. Ryan McGill Ryan McGill simultaneously highlights the necessity of roles for all group members and the barriers that some families may have finding their role. All families should have access to meaningful participation in the special education process, but that is not always the case.

Summary We began this chapter by numerating objectives stemming from the context of communication in meetings: establish trust and credibility, demonstrate an understanding of participants’ beliefs and values, and foster collaboration. In this chapter, practitioners described useful atti­ tudes, language, and behaviors that may support those objectives. They described an orientation towards others in the meeting based on as­ sumptions of positive intent, team-based decision-making, and con­ fidence and security. Toward the topics of discussion, practitioners stressed a non-judgmental, problem-solving stance, that framed the dis­ cussion in terms of strengths and supports, not only deficits. Many of the topics discussed in the special education process are value and identityladen, and meeting participants may feel blamed, or judged during their discussion. When considering the best way to demonstrate those various attitudes, it is necessary to understand the perspective of other meeting participants.

60

Objectives of the Context of Communication

Special education includes values that may be implicit to those of us that work in special education, but highly salient to individuals new group members outside that area of education (Kalyanpur & Harry, 2012). Investigating the discrepancy between the assumptions of special educa­ tion and the beliefs and values of meeting participants is important for understanding their idiographic worldview. In Chapter 1, we stressed that oral communication and meeting facil­ itation are complementary skill sets. We spent the last two chapters dis­ cussing features of oral communication. In the next chapter, we turn to the facilitation aspects of meetings, a core competency when fostering collaboration.

References American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596 Boyd, B. A. & Correa, V. I. (2005). Developing a framework for reducing the cul­ tural clash between African American parents and the special education system. Multicultural Perspectives, 7(2), 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327892mcp0702_2 Epstein, J. L. (2005). School-initiated family and community partnerships. In T. Erb (Ed.), This we believe in action: Implementing successful middle level schools (pp. 77–96). National Middle School Association. Greene, R. (2014). The explosive child: A new approach for understanding and parenting easily frustrated, chronically inflexible children (5th ed). HarperCollins. Hass, M. R. (2018). Interviewing to understand strengths. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 10(3), 315–321. https://doi.org/10.26822/ iejee.2018336189 Hass, M. R. & Abdou, A. S. (2019). Culturally responsive interviewing practices. Contemporary School Psychology, 23(1), 47–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40688018-0204-z Henricks, J. (2007). Thank you for arguing: What Aristotle, Lincoln, and Homer Simpson can teach us about the art of persuasion. Three Rivers Press. Jegatheesan, B. (2009). Cross-cultural issues in parent-professional interactions: A qualitative study of perceptions of Asian American mothers of children with developmental disabilities. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 34(3-4), 123–136. https://doi.org/10.2511/rpsd.34.3-4.123 Kalyanpur, M. & Harry, B. (2012). Cultural reciprocity in special education: Building family-professional relationships. Paul H. Brooks. Lake, J. F. & Billingsley, B. S. (2000). An analysis of factors that contribute to parent-school conflict in special education. Remedial and Special Education, 21(4), 240–251. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193250002100407 Losen, D. J. (Ed.). (2014). Closing the school discipline gap: Equitable remedies for excessive exclusion. Teachers College Press. Mueller, T. G. & Vick, A. M. (2017). An investigation of facilitated individualized education program meeting practice: Promising procedures that foster familyprofessional collaboration. Teacher Education and Special Education, 42(1), 67–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406417739677

Objectives of the Context of Communication

61

Musu-Gillette, L., Robinson, J., McFarland, J., KewalRamani, A., Zhang, A., & Wilkinson-Flicker, S. (2016). Status and trends in the education of racial and ethnic groups 2016 (NCES 2016-007). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. National Association of School Psychologists. (2020). The professional standards of the National Association of School Psychologists. NASP. https://www.nasponline.org/ standards-and-certification/nasp-practice-model/about-the-nasp-practice-model Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process. In L. Berkowitz (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol 10, pp. 173–220). Academic Press. Rossetti, Z., Redash, A., Sauer, J. S., Bui, O., Wen, Y., & Regensburger, D. (2018). Access, accountability, and advocacy: Culturally and linguistically di­ verse families’ participation in IEP meetings. Teaching Exceptional Children, 49(5), 328–338. https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2018.1480948 Shaywitz, S. (2003). Overcoming dyslexia: A new and complete science-based program for reading problems at any level. Vintage Books. Shriberg, D., Song, S. Y., Miranda, A. H., & Radliff, K. M. (2013). School psychology and social justice: Conceptual foundations and tools for practice. Routledge. Stone, D., Patton, B., & Heen, S. (1999). Difficult Conversations: How to discuss what matters most. The Penguin Group. Stryker, S., Serpe, R. (1994). Identity salience and psychological centrality: Equivalent, overlapping, or complementary concepts? Social Psychology Quarterly, 57(1), 16–35. https://doi.org/10.2307/2786972 Sue, D. W. & Sue, D. (2013). Counseling the culturally diverse: Theory and practice (6th ed). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Thurstone, L. P. & Navarrete, L. A. (2003). Rural, poverty-level mothers: A comparative study of those with and without children who have special needs. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 22(2), 15–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/875 687050302200203 Valenzuela, R. & Martin, J. E. (2005). Self-directed IEP: Bridging values of di­ verse cultures and secondary education. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 28(1), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/08857288050280010301 Voulgarides, C. K., Fergus, E., & King Thrius, K. A. (2017). Pursuing equity: disproportionality in special education and the reframing of technical solutions to address systemic inequities. Review of Research in Education, 41(1), 61–87. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X16686947 Wehmeyer, M. L. (2013). Disability, disorder, and identity. Intellectual Developmental Disabilities, 51(2), 122–126. https://doi.org/10.1352/1934-9556-51.2.122 Wolgast, A. & Fischer, N. (2017). You are not alone: Colleague support and goaloriented cooperation as resources to reduce teachers’ stress. Social Psychology of Education, 20(1), 97–114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-017-9366-1

4

Foundations of Meeting Facilitation

In Chapters 2 and 3, we discussed aspects of oral communication for the purpose of collaboration. Collaboration is equally supported by aspects of meeting facilitation, as many practitioners described when discussing methods of fostering collaboration in Chapter 3. In this chapter, we highlight meeting processes designed to support group collaboration. We begin by describing general features of group dynamics, including how groups develop, and implications for group facilitation. Then we describe a meeting process conducive to special education. As part of that dis­ cussion, we offer methods for establishing a meeting purpose, meeting goals, and group norms. We also highlight the function of group roles. In later chapters, we apply these tools to various meetings in the special education process. At the most basic level, a meeting is a group of people collectively engaged in a variety of tasks or discussions. In special education, those tasks could be related to gathering or sharing information, making elig­ ibility determinations, or generating IEP goals. Facilitation of these meetings may broadly fall into the purview of “group work.” The Association for Specialists in Group Work (2000) defines group work as a broad professional practice involving the application of knowledge and skill in group facilitation to assist an interdependent collection of people to reach their mutual goals, which may be intrapersonal, interpersonal, or work related. The goals of the group may include the accomplishment of tasks related to work, education, personal development, personal and interpersonal problem solving, or remedia­ tion of mental and emotional disorders. (pp. 329–330) More precisely, meetings in special education could be considered a type of task group (Gladding, 2020). Task groups can be found all throughout education, business, and public and private sector organizations. Examples may include diverse groups such as task forces, community organizations, study groups, book clubs, committees, and planning groups. When a group DOI: 10.4324/9780367854522-4

Foundations of Meeting Facilitation 63 of people get together to collectively accomplish shared work or tasks, they have formed a task group. In a task group all members should understand the purpose of the meeting, feel they contributed to its outcome, and feel accepted for their unique perspective.

These groups appear quite diverse on the surface. They all accomplish different objectives, include different members, and meet in different settings. It is safe to say that no two groups are the same. Nevertheless, as with all groups, these examples share some common features. First, while all their specific goals will be different, successful task groups share common objectives (Hulse-Killacky et al., 2001). In a successful group, whether it be an example from our list above, or an IEP meeting, dis­ ability manifestation, or problem-solving meeting, all members: 1. 2. 3.

understand the purpose of the meeting, feel they contributed to the outcomes of the meeting, and feel accepted for their unique perspective.

Note that these facilitation objectives support the broader objective from the context of communication, fostering collaboration. The second common feature of groups is that they are influenced by group dynamics, or the ways that group members interact with each other. Broadly, a major task of meeting facilitation includes achieving the aforementioned objectives by assessing and intervening with these dynamics so that the group may best accomplish its purpose.

Group Dynamics and the Multidisciplinary Team Within a meeting, a facilitator must attend to two general types of in­ formation, the meeting content and the meeting process (Gladding, 2020). Content refers to the information shared in the meeting, the tasks to accomplish, or the decisions to make. Process refers to the interactions between group members and includes the way a group accomplishes its objectives. Because group dynamics represent the interactions between group members, they can be conceptualized as the system governing members’ collective interactions (Gladding, 2020). Through mutual in­ teraction, each group member affects every other member of the group; cause-and-effect is reciprocal and diffuse. In a well-run meeting, issues related to content and process appear balanced and inter-related. Teambuilding activities that appear out-of-step or off-topic in context of the group’s objectives illustrate a too process heavy scenario. Many people

64

Foundations of Meeting Facilitation

have a poor opinion of get-to-know-you ice-breakers for exactly this reason. They appear hokey and off-topic when they do not relate to the meeting content. Alternatively, a meeting where the facilitator begins by diving into content before members were introduced or understood their role may be too content focused. Such a meeting may feel lopsided, as participants struggle to understand the unique strengths and perspectives each person brings to the group. An effective facilitator understands that process supports the group’s accomplishment of content objectives. While the group will have numerous content objectives, the facilitator also en­ sures that the group collectively achieves specific process objectives that define a successful group.

Meeting facilitation requires management of both its content and process.

By analyzing the various dynamics in a group, it can be possible to understand the group structure, or how individuals in the group interact in relation to the group collectively. For instance, in a typical IEP meeting, members may include a special education teacher, a general education teacher, a related-service provider such as a speech-language pathologist, an administrator, and a family member. In this group, the special education teacher and speech-language pathologist collaborated on an IEP goal regarding social cognition, and presented it to the team, suggesting that programming related to the goal should be implemented in the general education setting. A facilitator might observe that when the speech-pathologist speaks to the group about the goal, the special edu­ cation teacher frequently adds affirmations. In this system’s structure, these two members might represent a sub-system. Similarly, it is possible that the general education teacher and parent form a second subsystem. Perhaps they had both spoken in private and they do not think the stu­ dent is ready for a social goal within the general education setting. They wish previously implemented small group instruction in the resource room to continue. Subsystems reflect an inevitable aspect of group structure. As a facilitator, observing the existence of these subsystems can be useful, because when the topic of IEP goals arises, the facilitator can predict the effects across multiple individuals in the group.

Group Development While there are many theories of group development (Gladding, 2020), Tuckman and Jensen (1977)’s model of forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning represents the classic exemplar (Bonebright,

Foundations of Meeting Facilitation 65 2010). In the forming stage, group members begin to learn about each other, and the purpose or content objectives of the meeting. They ex­ amine (explicitly or implicitly) their interpersonal relationships, the goals of the group and their own individual goals within the group. Members also decipher the norms or behavioral expectations of the group. The storming stage can be characterized by conflict within the group. Members may express emotional reactions to the tasks at hand. There may be an implicit jockeying for leadership roles or power within the group. As conflict begins to resolve, the group enters the norming stage. In this stage, a group structure emerges. There is a sense of leadership, effective interpersonal relationships, and shared group norms, goals, and objectives. The major work of the group occurs next, in the performing stage. During this stage, members receive both task-related and inter­ personal feedback from each other. As the group completes its objectives, members collectively enter the adjourning stage. At this time, members may reflect on the accomplishments of the group and consider the im­ plications of the work for themselves. They also may consider the change in relationships experienced during the group. Even though the composition of the groups involved in special edu­ cation meetings may change overtime, they will still progress through this general process. In particular, the family members joining the rest of the educators in the group will be meeting many other members for the first time and may not have the background knowledge necessary to under­ stand the purpose and objective of the meeting. They will have their own hopes and goals for the meeting and will be navigating interpersonal relationships to determine various perspectives in the group and under­ stand who shares their viewpoint. Their first objective may be to learn about the other individuals in the room, the purpose of the meeting, and the way members interact with each other (forming). Next, they may try to find a way to provide their own input, ensure certain information is considered, and determine where they fit within the group (storming). They may have their own objectives or goals for the group. As these issues resolve, they may find consistency between their views and the views of others in the room (norming), allowing for a completion of the meeting objectives, such as making an eligibility determination. They consider the ramifications of this decision as they prepare for a sub­ sequent meeting, such as when an IEP meeting is scheduled after an eligibility meeting, and in their life in general (adjourning).

Group Leadership Functions Group facilitation is a rapidly growing area of professional competence, particularly in business and organizational development. A facilitator helps a group increase its own effectiveness by improving both its process and structure (Schwarz, 2017). Schwarz warns us that in the

66

Foundations of Meeting Facilitation

truest sense of the title, a “facilitator” should not be considered a member of the group. A true facilitator should have no real stake in the content or decision of the meeting, nor authority over group members. That is probably not true for most of the meetings school psychologists find themselves involved in during the special education process. In many meetings, such as an eligibility feedback meeting in the traditional school psychology role, it may be more appropriate to consider the school psychologist as a leader facilitating the meeting. School psy­ chologists are typically not administrators, but in the context of a special education meeting, they may indeed be perceived as the person in charge. The distinction between a facilitator and leader is important, because it has implications for the behavior of others in the group. As a leader is usually viewed as the person in charge, their opinion may in­ fluence the conduct of other members. Some members may not wish to challenge the leader when discussing a meeting objective. Effective fa­ cilitation with multiple, complex relationships among group members requires an acknowledgment of this distinction.

A true facilitator has no stake in the decisions made in the meeting. That may not be the case in many meetings school psychologists attend.

Leadership in meetings may come with multiple facilitative respon­ sibilities or functions. We do not refer to more administrative respon­ sibilities like ensuring group members sign the appropriate paperwork. Rather, we highlight interpersonal responsibilities, characteristics of leadership that tend to be found within successful groups, used to support effective group dynamics. These include four general functions: executive functions, caring, meaning attributions, and emotional sti­ mulation (Hulse-Killacky et al., 2001; Leiberman et al., 1973; Luke, 2014). The executive aspect of leadership involves ensuring that the group stays on task and follows its norms and rules. This aspect of leadership requires monitoring of the group’s functioning to allow all members to participate. The caring aspect involves demonstrating concern for the well-being of the group. It encompasses the leader’s ability to recognize and act upon members’ in-the-moment reactions to both the group’s dynamics, and the content of discussion. Meaning attribution involves reacting to the way group members understand the tasks the group accomplishes, their role in the group, and the role of others’ in group tasks. Leaders may engage in this functioning by in­ vestigating and interpreting the meaning behind group interactions. One of us remembers a high school IEP meeting, where the mother

Foundations of Meeting Facilitation 67 sarcastically remarked “well, I guess this shows how much the school cares about my child,” when she saw only one of her student’s general education teacher in attendance. She attributed the lack of attendance to teachers’ apathy and disregard for her student, not to teachers’ at­ tendance at other IEP meetings occurring simultaneously in the building, or the school’s policy that only one general education teacher was required to attend the meeting. In this instance, leader support involved clarifying the situation so that she could consider alternative attributions for teachers’ attendance. The emotional stimulation func­ tion requires supporting group members’ sharing of their thoughts and feelings regarding the content of discussion. It also includes highlighting participants’ feelings during the meeting. In the previous example, it might involve acknowledging the mother’s frustration, while presenting alternative attributions.

Meeting leaders attend to the group’s on-task behavior, partici­ pants’ well-being, the group’s meaning-making, and emotional responses.

The facilitator objectives we described across Chapters 2 and 3, and these four functions of leadership complement each other. Recall that the context of communication stresses a need for a meeting facilitator to establish trust and credibility, understand the beliefs and values of meeting participants, and foster collaboration among group members. The executive and caring functions both stress the leader’s responsibility to ensure all individuals participate in an on-topic way. The meaning attribution and emotional stimulation functions require the group leader to understand participants’ beliefs and values.

An Overview of the Meeting Process Hulse-Killacky et al. (2001) suggested that task groups might be best facilitated in three broad phases: warm-up, action, and closure. We think this can also be a strong way to think about the facilitation of meetings in special education. Many practitioners also stressed to us that effective meetings can require significant planning. Furthermore, recall from the foundations of oral communication that discussion of topics within meetings do not end when the meeting ends. Because of these pre- and post-meeting implications, we find it useful to also consider a planning and post-meeting phase to that sequence. Thus, we outline a conceptual model below, describing the process of meetings through a planning, warm-up, action, closure, and post-meeting sequence.

68

Foundations of Meeting Facilitation

Figure 4.1 Task Group Meeting Process.

Recall from earlier in the chapter that all groups, regardless of their specific purpose, share common process-oriented goals may lead to their success (see Figure 4.1). We can support the groups’ accomplishments of those objectives by considering sub-objectives, managed across the pro­ cess of the meeting.

The Planning Phase All meeting types will require forethought and planning. First and fore­ most, it is necessary to create a welcoming environment. Planning may include ensuring that the physical meeting space is clean, comfortable, large enough for the group, and private. The facilitator can also ensure that participants have necessary materials such as pens, note paper, co­ pies of reports/IEP drafts and agendas, and often comfort items like tissues. It can also be important to conceptualize the meeting’s general context of communication discussed in Chapter 2. This involves considering the topics of discussion, decisions to be made, and the points of view of other meeting participants. Any previous meeting notes, prior IEPs, or the evaluation data should be reviewed. The facilitator will want to have a sense of what parts of the content may be more challenging or con­ troversial to the group to plan how it should be approached and ad­ dressed. If possible, the facilitator may wish to check in with some of the other individuals in the meeting. Previewing their point of the view may clarify the needs of the group during the upcoming meeting. It allows the facilitator to begin conceptualizing the group system. For instance, it

Foundations of Meeting Facilitation 69 would be useful to know if the teacher and parent have differing points of view on an issue, or a strained relationship. The facilitator knows that these members may require support, and that it will be important to understand the key differences between the two parties' perspectives. All meetings should include an agenda. Research on facilitated IEP meetings suggests that agendas are useful tools for numerous reasons (Mueller & Vick, 2017). An agenda provides a guide for the sequence of topics for discussion. Previewing it allows meeting participants to orga­ nize their thoughts. Agendas also makes the meeting process more transparent. They support effective communication by clarifying the way decisions are made, illustrating a sequence of discussion. Furthermore, an agenda provides a tool to minimize extraneous conversation. When dis­ cussion drifts off topic, the facilitator or other group members can refer to it and bring the group back to the topics of discussion. Construct the agenda as a tool to scaffold collaborative objectives. To do so requires attention to multiple aspects of a meeting (Kaner, 2014). Figure 4.2 illustrates a sequence in which to consider these meeting as­ pects during agenda planning. First, consider the overall meeting pur­ pose. For instance, in an eligibility meeting, the broadest meeting purpose is to determine a student’s eligibility for special education. The next step is to filter that purpose through specific goals or objectives. The goals of task-oriented meetings can be categorized into multiple areas (Kaner, 2014). In special education meetings, we advocate for considering three different objectives: 1. 2. 3.

build all group members’ capacity to participate in the decisionmaking process, develop a shared understanding of meeting topics, and collaborate on appropriate decisions.

Figure 4.2 Sequence of Agenda Construction.

70

Foundations of Meeting Facilitation

Note the sequence of the objectives; each one informs the next. The first general objective, build capacity for the decision-making process, stems from a spirit of collaboration and the notion that com­ munication is effective when it appears reasonable. While some in­ dividuals on the team will have significant experience with the special education process, others will have minimal understanding of the various criteria required to make decisions. Group members cannot participate effectively if they do not understand how decisions are made. Understanding these details allows all members to better consider the information they should provide to the group. It allows them to determine how they might best contribute to the group’s purpose. All meetings also require group members to share information with each other. This objective pertains to processes like the dissemination of reports, description of intervention results, or a declaration of general announcements, but it also includes sharing participants’ perspectives on that information. This objective represents a major aspect of eligibility meetings, for instance. As a facilitator, it can be useful to consider the best way to share information to minimize the chances that this part of the meeting turns into a lecture. The final objective includes collaborating on necessary decisions. By proceeding through the previous objectives in a general sequence, ideally all group members feel they have contributed to the group, and the de­ cision reflects a consensus. Ultimately, these objectives allow agenda planners to generate and frame meeting goals as a collaborative process. Returning to our elig­ ibility example, if we filter the purpose through those three goals, we might arrive at the following: 1.

2. 3.

Describe and clarify the three general criteria for IDEA eligibility (category criteria, adverse educational impact, and need for specially designed instruction) Construct a shared understanding of student’s current performance level and educational support needs Collectively determine an appropriate eligibility decision.

(Note: We actually think more can go into a feedback agenda; see Chapter 7.) After developing collaborative goals, it is possible to generate a se­ quence of topics for discussion. The process in Figure 4.1 splits meeting topics into two different types. These include topics to inform appropriate decisions and topics to build decision-making capacity. For instance, in an eligibility meeting, the concept of adverse educational impact reflects a topic to build decision-making capacity. Everyone in the group should understand what adverse educational impact means to participate meaningfully. In comparison, the topic of time on task during an

Foundations of Meeting Facilitation 71 observation might reflect a topic to inform decision-making, as partici­ pants apply that information when making decisions about adverse educational impact. Recall that group facilitation requires consideration of both content and process. To that end, after addressing topics of discussion, consider the processes that would maximize the group’s work on those objectives (Kaner, 2014). These processes might include open discussions, verifica­ tions of understanding, round-robin sharing, focused collaboration on pros and cons, or group brainstorming. For each meeting chapter, we demonstrate the process of constructing an agenda from this framework.

The Warm-Up Phase Consistent with Tuckman’s “forming” stage of group development, in the warm-up phase, group members learn about each other, not just their names and faces, but also their perspectives about the tasks the group must accomplish. Critically, during the warm-up, members begin de­ termining where they fit within the structure of the group, and how they will contribute to the group’s purpose. The warm-up phase includes specific objectives, especially for the meeting facilitator. First and fore­ most, it is important that the group conveys a welcoming attitude to all members. The facilitator can greet members as they arrive or meet a family member at the door. They can provide orienting materials, such as name tags, or a list of names of group members on an agenda. Not purposefully, sometimes groups may do things antithetical to a wel­ coming attitude. For instance, how often has a family arrived at a meeting, and all the school-based members of the team are already around the table talking? Even when the discussion is not meetingrelated, the appearance may not be welcoming, but intimidating. It could foster an “us and them” mentality in a group during the process of developing cohesion.

As a meeting begins, participants determine where they fit within the group, and how they will contribute to the group’s purpose.

Aside from appearing welcoming, a meeting warm-up also includes other process objectives. These involve making introductions, reviewing the purpose of the meeting, establishing norms of group behavior, and navigating or clarifying group roles. It is critical to accomplish these objectives and a strong agenda can help. Collectively, members use these warm-up phase objectives to individually determine where they fit within the group, and how they may contribute to the group’s purpose (Hulse-

72

Foundations of Meeting Facilitation

Killacky et al., 2001). The facilitator should think of these objectives as tools to use when framing the meeting to ensure it begins in an inclusive and collaborative way. Thus, these objectives set the foundation for the process outcomes we highlighted at the beginning of the chapter: a shared understanding of the meeting purpose, feelings of contribution, and validation of members’ unique perspectives. Introductions When engaging in introductions, we think it can be helpful and orienting for members to not only state their name and title, but also include their role in the work to be discussed, and their relationship to the student. A member’s introductory statement does not have to be lengthy, but the role/relationship information allows other members to evaluate their own perspective and get a sense of the unique information they may bring to the group. I’m Jillian, Cora’s school psychologist. I coordinated the evaluation we discussed, and collected information related to… Families may need the facilitator’s support in this aspect of an in­ troduction. In our experience, family members will provide their name, and a relationship to the student (I’m Sharon, Cora’s Mom), without articulating (or perhaps realizing) their unique perspective, and the role they play in the meeting process. The facilitator can empower family participation and support the family in navigating their role in the group by adding that information for the group’s consideration. …and remember, Sharon’s known Cora the longest, and has extensive observations of her in settings other members haven’t seen. A group member cannot feel like their unique perspective has contributed to the group process if they do not think they have a perspective to contribute. A statement like the previous one reminds families that they are not passive receptacles in this process; the meeting is not being done to them. It is being done with them. Meeting Purpose Describing the purpose of the meeting is a critical aspect of the warm-up phase and should be given a lot of thought and planning. Just like when making introductions, the facilitator should engage in the description of the meeting’s purpose knowing that it is a tool to guide participants in finding their role and space in the meeting. The purpose also begins to frame the norms and values of the meeting. Highlighting it at the top of the agenda,

Foundations of Meeting Facilitation 73 with well-described collaborative goals facilitates participants’ ability to find their role. For instance, consider the following description of a meeting purpose: Hello, everyone, thanks for making those introductions. We’re meeting today to review Kevin’s eligibility report and finalize its conclusions. As the evaluation coordinator, I’ll begin. What norms or expectations for participant behavior does this purpose set for the group? What roles does it suggest for individuals in the meeting? To us, the term “review” implies that many members, especially the family, should resign to a receptive, almost passive role. Their role is to listen, digest the data provided by the rest of the team, but make no attempts to actively synthesize the data with their own observations. Even if they did think through any information presented to them, that pur­ pose statement provides no avenue for them to provide their thoughts to the rest of the team. It conveys a norm or expectation within the group that decisions are generally already made, and the meeting is a formality. We advocate for describing the meeting purpose by highlighting the meeting goals on the agenda. With the example goals outlined earlier for an eligibility meeting, consider this next example. This is an eligibility feedback meeting. Collectively, we’ve been gathering lots of information about Cora that we’ll share with each other today and discuss its implications for her education. We’ll start by ensuring we all have a shared understanding of eligibility requirements, so that we know how we apply the evaluation information. Then we’ll share evaluation results and how they fit our observations of Cora at home and school. Once we have a shared sense of the results, we can apply them to the eligibility criteria and determine next steps. The previous meeting purpose reflects a summary of the goals developed when generating the agenda. The structure conveys to each person that their own unique perspective is a necessary contribution to the func­ tioning of the group. In that way, it sets up an expectation that each member will have a different viewpoint, and that they must share that viewpoint with the rest of the group. In our view, such a purpose facil­ itates effective communication via the topic vertex in Figure 2.1. By clarifying the specific questions to be answered by the group, the link between the student data and the decisions becomes more transparent. Group Norms Group norms represent shared expectations for interactions among group members (Schwarz, 2017). Meeting norms could also be thought of as the

74

Foundations of Meeting Facilitation

ground rules for how the group monitors itself (Hulse-Killacky et al., 2001). Norms can develop around most everything in the meeting from who brings the signature page to who makes the critical decisions. After describing the purpose of the meeting, the group should set norms for how the discussion will proceed. This is the opportunity to make group values explicit. We suggest that groups place norms on their agenda for the facilitator to summarize or expand upon, as necessary. It exposes new group members to them and provides them with an opportunity to ask questions or add to them. For instance, valuing diverse perspectives was implied in the structure of the meeting purpose in the example above. That value could be made explicit by including it as a norm. In meeting settings where the school psychologist is facilitating, but not a true fa­ cilitator (as they have influence over content and decisions), a norm re­ minding the team that decisions are made as a group would also be important. Expanding on the norm provides an opportunity to highlight how disagreements are handled, including parent due process rights. We provide examples of norms, both here and in example agendas in the upcoming chapters. However, we encourage teams to write their own, using whatever language necessary that allows them to provide details to the group, so all members understand the special education process. Some norms might be appropriate only in specific settings, and others, like valuing diverse perspectives, might be applicable to most all meeting types in special education. We find there to be multiple uni­ versal norms that teams might consider across all meeting types. The next is confidentiality. Addressing confidentiality explicitly can provide a level of psychological safety to members. Members can give accurate information and honest opinions, knowing it collectively stays within the group. A third norm applicable to most all meetings could be termed “student-focused.” It creates an expectation that the efforts of the group are centered on the student of concern. The team will not discuss irrelevant topics or other students, and side conversations will be minimal. As IDEA stresses collaboration, consider norms that facilitate colla­ borative interactions. Kaner (2014) describes multiple collaborative va­ lues that groups could consider in their normative discussions. The group should value full participation, which means members can share their perspectives, even if they are not fully formed. Before judging perspec­ tives, participants will display a second collaborative value, mutual un­ derstanding, which compels members to demonstrate that they understand a perspective before critiquing. Note the implication of the and stance, discussed in Chapters 2 and 3. A third value relates to in­ clusive problem-solving, an acknowledgment that shared wisdom can be more helpful than a single opinion when tackling complicated problems. Lastly, shared responsibility, a fourth value, stresses that all group members play a role in the success of the meeting.

Foundations of Meeting Facilitation 75 Norms to Consider Respect diverse opinions Full participation Mutual understanding Confidentiality Student-focused Shared responsibility

Even when norms are made explicit, unstated, implicit norms will de­ velop and affect the group. Recall the concept of subsystems. In many special education meetings, some participants will have an extensive work history together, while others will not. For instance, the special education teacher and speech-language pathologist may each work part-time in two different buildings together. They attend numerous meetings with each other, know how each other works, and understand the support they need from each other. They will have implicit norms for their interactions. Alternatively, the general education teacher is likely directly supervised by the administrator in the meeting. The resulting power differential may create a different set of expectations. These may have to be addressed through the course of the meeting. Roles During this warm-up phase, members define their role in the meeting, and ask themselves what they will provide to the group to reach the group’s objectives. Many readers may have experience in meetings where someone was assigned to be a focus monitor, and someone else was a notetaker. Roles are not just assigned responsibilities, however. Participants will construct their own roles based on their understanding of the meeting purpose and their own objectives. As with models of group development, there are many ways to describe group roles. Gladding (2020) suggests that most roles will serve one of three functions within a group: facilitative or building, maintenance, and blocking. Facilitative/ building roles serve to move the group forward in a useful way. These are roles that provide input to the group, seek clarification on topics, evaluate progress toward objectives, or minimize conflict. Maintenance roles are usually geared toward monitoring process or interpersonal functioning. These may be members that check in on others to ensure they feel comfortable or understand the information presented. A maintenance role may also include individuals who attempt to soothe emotions or praise other members. Blocking roles impede group progress. Individuals in these roles may dominant conversations, or alternatively, withdraw, especially when their input or consensus is necessary.

76

Foundations of Meeting Facilitation

The facilitator can help members find a meaningful role in the group and likewise discern the role a member finds meaningful. The information mem­ bers contribute to the group provides clues. Answers of “I don’t know,” or feelings of frustration suggest that the group member is not able to participate in a role they find meaningful. Perhaps readers have been in a situation where they felt frustrated by family member asks them why the district does not provide a certain type of program or service. For those of us in teacher-level roles, those questions are challenging and frustrating, because they pertain more to the domain of administrators. Individuals in teacher level roles do not necessarily have the authority to decide district-level services.

The Action Phase The group addresses the content objectives during the action phase of the meeting. However, just because attention begins to focus on content does not mean that process variables no longer require consideration. Significant process-related work occurs to ensure all members participate, conflict is addressed positively, and the group continues to grow cohe­ sively. Ultimately, members must develop the ability to express their own unique point of view and simultaneously listen to others express their own perspective. Much of the process-oriented work in the action phase can involve assessing and intervening with interpersonal interactions between members. Though the group set behavioral norms earlier, it does not mean members always follow them, especially when emotions begin to escalate. There may also be implicit interpersonal norms between members that begin to take precedence. When group members engage with each other, the facilitator should be ready to address interactions within the group, provide both positive and corrective feedback, and model effective inter­ personal communication (Hulse-Killacky et al., 2001). Hulse-Killacky et al. (2001) described the start of the action phase as analogous with the storming stage of group development, where members may begin jockeying for power, and pressing their own point of view. Emotion and tension should be expected. Conflict within a group is often a sign that aspects of the meeting process need to be further clarified (Bens, 2018). Sometimes it stems from challenges with the meeting purpose. Participants may not yet have a shared purpose, and conflict stems from misunderstandings around expectations of their work together. Other times, conflict arises from a role misalignment, such as if a group member is asked to contribute in a way that is discrepant from their skills or knowledgebase. Sometimes a poor meeting process causes challenges within a meeting. This might happen when a group tries to make decisions without first considering all pre-requisite information. And of course, other times group members have interpersonal conflicts and personality clashes. Lastly, preexisting conflicts, dissatisfaction with prior experiences, or challenges from outside the meeting can all be a source of conflict within a meeting.

Foundations of Meeting Facilitation 77 Active Listening in a Group Active listening provides the means to which a facilitator can attend to group dynamics within the meeting and maintain an effective process. In Chapter 2, we highlighted the usefulness of active listening for colla­ boration, and it is just as important in meeting facilitation. The facilitator is not just ensuring their own understanding of just one communication partner (as when listening in a dyad), they are supporting the under­ standing of multiple individuals simultaneously. There may be times in the meeting when the facilitator must actively listen for another member. Members may not be aware when others do not follow their train of thought or misunderstand their perspective. Artful paraphrases and summarizations support members’ mutual understanding of the in­ formation discussed and may foster feelings of contribution to the group goals. The and stance, highlighted in Chapter 2, can be particularly useful for these efforts. When disagreements occur, through these stances, the facilitator can model simultaneously accepting incompatible points of view and investigating the context from which the points of view emerge. Likely, most all school psychologists have been in a meeting where other participants provide vastly differing observations on a student’s behavior, or even discrepant responses on a rating scale. In music class, Jillian’s behavior appears pretty consistent with her peers, but in language arts, her behavior appears hyperactive, impulsive, and maybe even disruptive to the learning environment. I wonder what it is about music class that supports her so well? Simply summarizing the discrepancy often prompts other participants to begin thinking contextually, searching for situational attributions to ex­ plain the difference. Returning to the collaborative discussion model from Chapter 2, this practice would support describing the context that makes a position valid. There are expanded listening skills that may be particularly appro­ priate to meeting facilitation (Kaner, 2014). One skill involves simply embracing a range of interpersonal communication styles. We have all been in meetings with individuals that struggle to make a point. They speak circuitously, rambling, and combining multiple disjointed ideas together into a hard-to-decipher statement. A facilitator can both sum­ marize those ideas and help the speaker link them more explicitly to the broader topics of the meeting. Drawing people out represents a related skill. It represents both a paraphrase of a speaker’s statement with an open-ended question to elicit more information. It can be particularly useful when highlighting underlying values behind someone’s perspective. For instance, if a teacher suggests an intervention idea, a facilitator could draw more out by asking “what’s the best aspect of that intervention to

78

Foundations of Meeting Facilitation

you?” The answer would highlight their reasons for offering the sugges­ tion and indicate what they value regarding intervention efforts. Sometimes groups splinter into multiple segments. Most everyone can remember meetings where multiple conversations began after someone makes a point or shares information. The facilitator may use tracking skills to reign the group back together. This involves summarizing the current discussion and naming the additional discussions occurring. Then the facilitator may stack those discussions for sequential consideration by the group as a whole.

The Closure Phase After the group has accomplished its main content objectives, it still has process-related work to address. The facilitator should end the meeting in a way that allows the group to reflect on its accomplishments, under­ scoring process-related outcomes. To review, those include a feeling of shared purpose, collective contribution, and validation of the unique perspectives within the group. Hulse-Killacky et al. (2001) suggested four broad objectives to meeting closure designed to both advance the content and process of the group. These include reviewing group accomplish­ ments, reviewing the impact of group processes within the meeting, pre­ paring for future meetings, and lastly, expressing appreciation. Reviewing group accomplishments can serve as a strong segue from the action-oriented and content-driven part of the meeting to this last phase. Here, the facilitator may summarize the conclusions of the group, cele­ brating collective contributions of group members. There are numerous ways to begin this aspect of the closing process. One simple way would be summarizing the multiple decisions the group made, highlighting the various thoughts that members put forth to make the decision possible. So I think we’re at a consensus. Based on everything we talked about today, we find Jillian to be eligible for special education under the Autism category. Tracy [mom] provided us with detailed observations of early development consistent with that condition. Sarah [teacher] and Tracy described multiple ways Jillian’s methods of social engage­ ment require unique supports both at school at home. With this tact, the facilitator helps members connect their various con­ tributions to the meeting objectives. It is probably not necessary to en­ gage every group member in this way. In large groups that would make the beginning of closure too unwieldy. Instead, it may be effective to target members that the facilitator suspects need support in feeling engaged, or members whose buy-in is particularly critical. Closing the meeting should also include some way of reflecting on the process used by the group. Like in other aspects of the meeting

Foundations of Meeting Facilitation 79 closure, there are multiple ways the facilitator may accomplish this objective. In a problem-solving meeting, it may be appropriate to ex­ plicitly ask the group to reflect on what went well during the meeting, and what was challenging. Such a reflection could inform the way the group proceeds during a subsequent meeting. However, in a meeting where members may not be meeting again, such as at the end of a prereferral or suspicion of disability meeting, a reflection on the process might look different. In this setting, reflecting on the meeting process may begin with a general comment toward how the group engaged with each other. I’m in these sorts of meetings a lot, in multiple schools. It’s always interesting to hear the differing perspectives and how teams put all their shared information together. I think collectively, we really described Ashli’s current educational performance, and targeted some important questions to be investigated with more data. In some settings, that statement alone may help the group acknowledge how they were part of a larger helping process. If the situation calls for it, the facilitator could ask members for the information they found most important to them. Some of the closure work may involve clerical or administrative tasks of setting additional meeting times and ensuring everyone understands any post-meeting work assignments. This aspect of meeting closure provides accountability. The success of these subsequent meetings begins by confirming that everyone can accomplish any post-meeting objectives and address any concerns that arise. After problem-solving meetings, a post-meeting objective may include collecting progress-monitoring data. After an eligibility meeting, it may mean revising details in a report, or scheduling a time for a parent to see multiple placement settings. After an IEP meeting, a post-meeting objective might include revising goal state­ ments. The facilitator should ensure all necessary members understand any objectives they should accomplish, and the date and time for any subsequent meetings. Lastly, the closure of a meeting should also involve expressions of appreciation and gratitude. These could be targeted toward the group collectively, or individual members depending on the size, but it is im­ portant to make sure no one is left out. Even though we talk about this aspect of closure last, it does not mean that appreciation must occur last. It is possible to weave appreciation into other aspects of the meeting closure. We should stress that expressions of appreciation should not only be focused on contributions to the shared purpose of the meeting. If appropriate, the group should also acknowledge the privilege of working with each other, or the spirit of collaboration. Sometimes the best ideas can only come from a group working together.

80

Foundations of Meeting Facilitation

Of course, anyone with experience in special education knows that some meetings will not achieve a consensus. The smooth, objective-based closure process that we described above may not feel applicable. However, we think it remains appropriate if we change the target of our consensusbuilding. Instead of describing a consensus around the initial meeting goals, the group can pivot to clarifying (and documenting!) exactly where the sources of disagreement lay, and the rationale behind incompatible perspectives. Such clarification may further ensure that all voices are un­ derstood, and participants see that they indeed had an impact on the meeting. It also helps with the process of subsequent meetings, which may include additional individuals such as administrators or lawyers.

Post-Meeting Post-meeting represents a time to accomplish any “to-dos” assigned during the meeting. It is when interventions occur after problem-solving meetings and reports are finalized after eligibility meetings. However, there may be more group work to accomplish as well. It is important to recognize that the discourse within the meeting does not end when the meeting ends. When families leave, they will debrief on the way home. They may speak to other family members who were not in the meeting. Before adjourning the meeting, it can be useful to account for spillover from the meeting into “post-meeting.” For instance, ask group members about what questions might come up for them later. Alternatively, it may be helpful to give group members language to use when talking to other family members. When you get home tonight and talk to Grandma about the meeting, what questions do you think she might have that I can help you answer? Check-ins with group members can also be helpful. After a contentious meeting, it could be important to check in with group members who experienced a lot of emotion during the meeting may require additional support or debriefing. After problem-solving meetings, it can be helpful to check in with members providing interventions to ensure the plan’s feasibility and fidelity.

Summary Meetings in special education represent a type of task groups. When facilitating them, we strive to ensure all members understand the purpose of the meeting, feel they contributed to the outcomes of the meeting, and feel accepted for their unique perspective. These objectives support broader efforts aimed at fostering collaboration. No two meetings will progress the same way; as facilitators we should establish goals that build meeting participants’ capacity to make decisions, develop a shared

Foundations of Meeting Facilitation 81 understanding of meeting topics, and ultimately collaboratively make the decisions required of the meeting. Such goals support collaborative group norms, and help participants find meaningful roles for themselves in the meeting process. Next, we apply this facilitation model to meetings that are frequently part of school psychologists’ job responsibilities. We approach each meeting with an assumption that each meeting’s highest purpose reflects supporting students through collaboration and describe the process of the meeting through the planning, warm-up, action, closure, post-meeting sequence.

References Association for Specialists in Group Work (ASGW). (2000). Professional stan­ dards for the training of group workers. Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 25(4), 327–342. https://doi.org/10.1080/01933920008411677 Bens, I. (2018). Facilitating with ease! Core skills for facilitators, team leaders and members, managers, consultants, and trainer (4th ed). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Bonebright, D. A. (2010). 40 years of storming: a historical review of Tuckman’s model of small group development. Human Resource Development International, 13(1), 111–120. https://doi.org/10.1080/13678861003589099 Gladding, S. T. (2020). Groups: A counseling specialty (8th ed.). Pearson Education, Inc. Hulse-Killacky, D., Killacky, J., & Donigan, J. (2001). Making task groups work in your world. Prentice Hall. Kaner, S. (2014). Facilitator’s guide to participatory decision-making. Josey-Bass Leiberman, M., Yalom, I., & Miles, M. (1973). Encounter groups: First facts. Basic Books. Luke, M. (2014). Effective group leadership skills. In J. L. DeLucia-Waack, C. R. Kalodner, & M. T. Riva (Eds.), Handbook of Group Counseling & Psychotherapy (6th ed. pp. 107–120). SAGE Publications, Inc. Mueller, T. G. & Vick, A. M. (2017). An investigation of facilitated individualized education program meeting practice: Promising procedures that foster familyprofessional collaboration. Teacher Education and Special Education, 42(1), 67–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406417739677 Newman, D. & Rosenfield, S. (2018). Building competence in school consultation: A developmental approach. New York, NY: Routledge. Schwarz, R. (2017). The skilled facilitator (3rd ed.). Jossey-Bass. Tuckman, B. W. & Jensen, M. A. C. (1977). Stages of small-group development revisited. Group and Organizational Studies, 2(4), 419–427. https://doi.org/10.11 77/105960117700200404

5

Planning and Facilitating Problem-Solving Meetings

We start our discussion of meeting types with problem-solving meetings. This is logical as these meetings represent the point where a team becomes aware of a potential problem and applies a process to reach a solution. For our purposes, problem-solving meetings are general education meetings held to review data for one student, a group of students, or even a whole school, to identify those at risk for academic and behavioral challenges, determine which students require individual or group-based interventions, review response to interventions, and evaluate continued need for supports. Although problem-solving meetings may be held for students who receive special education services, the process could (and should!) occur within special education, they are not special education meetings per se. Rather, the focus is on leveraging the general education system to support student success. Problem-solving meetings represent the point where a team be­ comes aware of a potential problem and applies a process to reach a solution.

A Meeting Called by Many Names Problem-solving meeting names vary by school, district, and region. Indeed, the practitioners we spoke with listed many labels for these meetings. The teams that engage in problem-solving may be called the problem-solving team, student intervention team, continuous improve­ ment team, data analysis team, among other names. Kathryn Powell shared that her problem-solving team is called the Student Support Team, and Lindsay Amen’s team is referred to as the Care Team. As we begin, we acknowledge that individual student problem-solving meetings and suspicion of disability meetings share common features. Due to our child find obligations under IDEA, we may find that a problem-solving meeting turns into a suspicion of disability meeting during discussion. DOI: 10.4324/9780367854522-5

Problem-Solving Meetings 83 Conversely, we may set out to hold a suspicion of disability meeting only to find the team must return to the problem-solving process for a student. For our purposes, however, we devote this chapter exclusively to problem-solving meetings and hold discussion of suspicion of disability meetings for Chapter 6.

What Do We Mean by Problem-Solving? It is likely that educators have diverse conceptualizations of problemsolving based on the approach implemented in their schools. We con­ ceptualize problem-solving meetings as collaborations guided by the problem-solving model and occurring across multi-tiered systems of sup­ port (MTSS). While a comprehensive review of the problem-solving ap­ proach in the context of MTSS is beyond the scope of this chapter, we provide a brief review of the MTSS framework and the problem-solving model below. Then, we connect oral communication concepts to the context of problem-solving meetings. Finally, the school psychologists we interviewed share their experiences navigating problem-solving meetings in the following phases: planning, warm-up, action, and closure. For readers seeking to learn more about research investigating problem-solving teams, we suggest a summary provided by Dowd-Eagle and Eagle (2014). Multi-Tiered Systems of Support Discussing problem-solving meetings is complex for a couple of key reasons. First, problem-solving is conducted across multiple systemic levels within the educational setting. In an MTSS framework, teams apply the problem-solving model across the universal or tier one, targeted or tier two, and intensive or tier three systems levels. We illustrate the problem-solving cycle in Figure 5.1. At each systemic level, the focus is on differentiated instruction, screening, assessment, progress monitoring, prevention and intervention, implementation fidelity, evidence-based practices, and professional de­ velopment for educators (Stoiber, 2014). Together, these concepts com­ prise many details for the team to consider at each systemic level. Second, because of its focus on aforementioned variables, problem-solving inverts the typical attribution process we use to explain student challenges. Instead of premature reification of disability (Kalyanpur & Harry, 2012), educators must challenge themselves to systematically generate and test situation-based attributions behind student performance.

Problem-solving requires educators to challenge themselves to systematically generate and test situation-based attributions behind student performance, rather than student-based attributions.

84

Problem-Solving Meetings

Figure 5.1 In multi-tiered systems of support, problem-solving teams colla­ borate to ensure that all students receive supports based on their level of need.

At the universal or tier-one level, the problem-solving team examines data for students across schools, grade levels, classrooms, or subgroups of students within the school. The team will consider if universal curricula and prevention programs are working for most students within the school. They will identify which students might need additional intervention or support through tier two or three systems to reach successful school outcomes. At the targeted or tier two level, the problem-solving team further examines the needs and outcomes for students who have been identified as potentially at-risk. Teams review data, perhaps collecting additional data, to verify risk levels for stu­ dents. Then their work involves linking students to group-based intervention programs to support them based on their identified needs, all the while monitoring student performance and outcomes. At the intensive or tier three level, the problem-solving team considers the needs of student who are ex­ periencing significant academic or behavioral challenges and may need in­ dividualized intervention or supports to be successful at school. At this level, problem analysis, intervention, and evaluation occur one student at a time. The Continuous Problem-Solving Model The problem-solving model is a continuous improvement process; problem-solving is never complete as we cycle through the model’s phases in pursuit of ever continuing improvement of student out­ comes schoolwide. The phases of the problem-solving cycle include problem identification, problem analysis, intervention, and progress monitoring and evaluation (Pluymert, 2014). We illustrate this in Figure 5.2.

Problem-Solving Meetings 85

Figure 5.2 Team-based collaboration is central to each phase of the continuous problem solving model.

Problem Identification During problem identification, the team verifies if there is a problem and creates an initial description of it. In describing the problem, it is critical to consider multiple perspectives and sources of data on student performance as we work to operationalize it in concrete, measurable ways. However, that is just a starting point. It is also critical to verify a discrepancy between the current level of performance and the desired or expected level of perfor­ mance (Pluymert, 2014). In our experience, this phase of problem-solving can be harder than it sounds, especially at the student level. A problemsolving stance may be required to translate vague concerns into concrete discrepancies that have solutions. Other educators can bring up challenges like “Melissa appears shy and sad all the time,” and feel overwhelmed when considering how to provide support, because the problem is too vague. A simple translation into an observable discrepancy between current and de­ sired performance may support educators’ self-efficacy to address the pro­ blem. For instance, this concern could be reframed into “Melissa stands by herself every recess, while most kids interact with at least one other student.” Her teacher may feel like this problem now has a solution. Problem Analysis In the problem analysis phase, teams seek to understand problems in the context of the environments where students learn. Problem-solving teams

86

Problem-Solving Meetings

examine curriculum, instructional practices, classroom management, stu­ dent skill levels, and teacher skills as both causes of and potential solutions to problems. At this phase, teams avoid attributing learning problems to unalterable factors, such as disability or past experiences. Rather, the focus is on analysis of the problem and leveraging alterable factors to intervene.

Problem-solving teams examine curriculum, instructional practices, classroom management, student skill levels, and teacher skills as both causes of and potential solutions to problems.

Intervention In the intervention phase of the problem-solving process, the team works to define a goal and develop an intervention plan to help the student reach the goal. The focus of intervention design is matching curriculum, instruction, and supports to the needs identified in the problem analysis phase. Crucially, the team also defines methods for collecting data to evaluate student progress and monitor the fidelity with which the inter­ vention is ultimately implemented. Intervention implementation requires adequate support for implementors. Progress Monitoring and Evaluation In the problem-solving model, evaluation of interventions is a formative process. In this manner, we do not wait until the end of an intervention to determine if it has been effective. Rather, we gather data throughout the intervention period to determine if the student is making the rate of improvement necessary to reach their goal by the end of the intervention period. This allows the team to either continue intervention efforts when students are making sufficient gains or to alter intervention plans when continuous assessment reveals lack of sufficient progress. In this con­ tinuous problem-solving model, our teamwork is never complete. Outcomes of problem-solving may include continued intervention, a different intervention, or tackling the next problem to be solved.

Oral Communication in Problem-Solving Meetings In Chapter 2, we discussed a model of communication based on the concepts of persona, stance, and multiple perspectives of team members. Persona is the result of how one hopes to be perceived and how they are perceived by team

Problem-Solving Meetings 87 members, our orientation toward other group members, demonstrated by our attitudes, language, and behavior. School psychologists we interviewed shared common personas conducive to the problem-solving context. Many reported they convey a persona of partnership. This extends to the problem-solving context where we work together in a team-based approach to understand problems and generate solutions. As part of this partnership, we can build the capacity of all members to meaningfully contribute to the problem-solving process. Another common persona feature was presuming positive intent. Extended to problem-solving, we apply this presumption when we think broadly about possible attributions for the behavior of others, including students, our colleagues, and families. Finally, curiosity was a common aspect of personas described by school psychologists. No doubt, the problem-solving process requires that we approach each situation with a sense of curiosity as we seek to deeply understand problems before we identify solutions.

Persona features that resonate with problem-solving meetings include partnership, presuming positive intent, and curiosity.

Stance is our perspective on topics of discussion. We communicate our stance through the topics we choose to discuss and the way we discuss them. A problem-solving stance communicates that we are here to un­ derstand and solve problems by examining strengths and needed supports. The extent that one’s stance is viewed as reasonable, logical, and clear lies in making the process of problem-solving clear to all participants. All need to understand the process and ultimately how decisions are made. Additionally, the extent that the stance one adopts in problem-solving is aligned to participant beliefs, values, and understanding of the problem is an important consideration. We can facilitate alignment when the team works together to identify their shared beliefs and values about solving problems. When there is a lack of understanding of the problem-solving process or conflicting values, it is likely that suggestions resulting from problem-solving meetings will be dismissed and educators will be less in­ clined to actively seek assistance through the team (Rosenfield et al., 2018).

A problem-solving stance communicates that we are here to understand and solve problems by examining strengths and needed supports.

Finally, the perspective of each member of a problem-solving team is influenced by their understanding of the problem-solving process, their

88

Problem-Solving Meetings

perceptions of the support provided by the problem-solving team, and their experiences with the problem situation at hand (Kruger, 1997; Rosenfield et al., 2018). When members do not have a complete under­ standing of the purpose and process of problem-solving, they may lack capacity to meaningfully contribute to the process. Moreover, they may hold assumptions counter to problem-solving. For example, a common counterproductive assumption frames the problem-solving process as merely a series of steps that must be completed before an ultimate special education referral meeting. Additionally, member perspectives will be influenced by their experiences with the problem situation. When teachers bring a student to the team for problem-solving, they also bring with them their accumulated prior experiences in observing and attempting to resolve the problem. This can be intertwined with complex emotions. Also, the teacher’s experiences during and after the meeting further shape their perspective. Did they feel heard or dismissed by the team? Did they feel validated in their prior efforts to solve the problem or do they feel their effectiveness as an educator was questioned by the team (Kruger, 1997)? Finally, do they feel adequately supported in following the re­ commendations following the problem-solving meeting?

When teachers bring a student to the team, they also bring their prior experiences and past attempts to solve the problem. This may also include frustration and feelings of helplessness.

The Role of the School Psychologist in Problem-Solving School psychologists have a lot to bring to the table in problem-solving meetings. The school psychologist is trained to be a leader, interven­ tionist, consultant, coach, and data analyst. The National Association of School Psychologist’s (NASP) practice model supports our knowledge and skills in these roles as well as integrated skills in assessment, con­ sultation, prevention, and intervention (NASP, 2020National Association of School Psychologists 2020). In our discussions with school psychologists across the nation, there was a great deal of variability in their engagement with problem-solving teams in their school. Some practitioners with whom we spoke were charged with leading problem-solving and professional development on a systemic level, with their title including MTSS facilitator or coordinator. For these problem-solving leaders, their work might occur at a district or even regional level where they serve multiple districts. Often, their work

Problem-Solving Meetings 89 was at the universal and/or targeted systems levels and they had less direct involvement in problem-solving for individual students. Generally, when I am engaged in problem-solving with a school or district leadership team, it would not be centered on an individual student. We would be looking at broader data sets, such as grade-level academic data, attendance data, discipline referrals, or implementation data. Beth Hardcastle I'm not there running the meetings. I am a coach in my role. I observe what the team does and then provide feedback and support to basically improve their problem-solving methods. Scott Crooks More often, however, the school psychologists we interviewed were in­ volved in tier three meetings where problem-solving concerned individual student needs. They often described their role not as facilitator of problem-solving meetings, but as a supportive specialist in the meeting. I do not facilitate RTI meetings, but I serve as a resource on every team. Kathryn Powell Sometimes, the school psychologist’s role as a supportive member was attributed to a conceptualization of the school psychologist as a special educator and the need to keep problem-solving meetings within the realm of general education. I'm a regular attendee, but someone else facilitates because it is a general education process. Lindsay Amen In some cases, school psychologists reported to us that they were not involved in problem solving processes at all, despite their desire other­ wise. They attributed lack of involvement to a shortage of school psy­ chologists in specific regions of the United States and the role restriction that comes with a high special education assessment caseload. Getting to the Table: Advocating for Your Role in Problem-Solving Meetings While school psychologists have a lot to contribute to problem-solving meetings, some struggle to get a seat at the table and they must ad­ vocate for their role in the process. Limited understandings of the unique knowledge and skills school psychologists can bring to problem-solving teams may serve as obstacles to our involvement.

90

Problem-Solving Meetings

Administrators may view the school psychologist’s role as limited to special education assessment and consultation. Getting to the table requires educating our colleagues and administrators on the value we can add to the problem-solving system in the district: There are challenges in trying to expand our role. I think some of my colleagues are used to our traditional responsibilities. I think there’s some discomfort as we break out of that and grow. Kyle Hesser As school systems move to MTSS frameworks, the role of the school psychologist shifts. Response to intervention becomes a factor in de­ termining the potential need for special education services among stu­ dents non-responsive to individualized, intensive interventions. However, it is not just the role the school psychologist that must change, but also views of our roles by colleagues must change. In our interviews of school psychologists who experienced this systemic change process, it seems that colleague views of our roles represent a barrier to our own role shift. This is because the problem-solving team is a subsystem with the school. For our roles to change to fit that shifting subsystem, we need others’ views of our roles to change for us to be effective. Hence, advocating for our involvement also requires that we clarify our role on the problem-solving team.

MTSS requires that the roles for school psychologists change and that views of our roles by administrators and colleagues change.

Planning Before we ever get to a meeting to solve a specific problem, extensive planning is necessary to develop the systemic infrastructure for effective and efficient problem-solving in the MTSS framework. Much of the systemic change that must occur for an effective shift to MTSS is beyond our scope. For our purposes, we will focus on the planning needed to create and support an effective problem-solving team that acts within this broad systemic infrastructure.

Planning for problem-solving meetings requires attending to team composition, development, member roles, frequency of meetings, and agendas.

Problem-Solving Meetings 91 Team Composition Like special education teams, problem-solving teams are multi-disciplinary. They include a combination of regular and ad hoc members, including the general education teacher, a data expert (i.e., someone familiar with school data systems), a behavior specialist, a counselor, a school psychologist, and a special education teacher (Rosenfield et al., 2018). Other specialists may be called in as warranted by the nature of the concern. Adequate representation of classroom teachers on the team has been associated with team outcomes (Rubinson, 2002). Ideally, the group would be kept to a manageable size of about six or so members. An administrator’s voice is heavy and when they start to talk, everyone else’s behavior changes. Meetings can turn into the administrator telling everyone what they’re going to do, and then everyone has to go do it. If they’re [administrators] following our guidance, they’re basically passive observers. [They are present] to support the team when they need to make decisions about resources or placement changes, things [where] the team can’t make that call. [They are also there] to encourage the team. Scott Crooks Administrator membership on the team has strengths and potential draw backs. Their participation encourages greater systemic support of the team and allows for more efficient allocation of resources. Yet, educators may feel vulnerable when experiencing challenges in their classrooms. Depending on their administrator’s leadership style and relationships with staff, teachers may feel less comfortable honestly sharing about their challenges in resolving problems. There is a need for research in­ vestigating the potential impact of the administrator and their role on problem-solving teams (Rosenfield et al., 2018). Grade-level team meetings [include] teachers, a social worker, coun­ selor, psychologists, the principal and me, looking at data and flagging students of concern. And then there may be a follow-up meeting where they bring in parents to try to map on [home or community] interventions. Isaac Tarbell Problem-solving meetings generally involve special educators, general education teachers, the principal and counselor, and other relevant staff as needed. We often will invite content areas specialists, such as an autism specialist or reading coach, to come in and offer intervention ideas as well. Parents do not typically attend, but there is parent communication before and after the meetings. Amber Del Gaiso

92

Problem-Solving Meetings Let’s all get together with the parents, if possible, just so everybody is around the table. That saves me a lot of time running around trying to get everybody’s story. And, if we’re all together, we’re all hearing the same things and then we can [better] problem-solve as a team. Natalie Strand

In our interviews with school psychologists who are actively involved in problem-solving team meetings, we found that parents are less likely to be invited to initial problem-solving meetings for individual students. Many practitioners considered the individual student problem-solving process to be an initial supportive structure for teachers as they work to meet the needs of students with learning or behavioral challenges. It was expected that teachers would inform parents of the concerns and the efforts under way to support their student. This was not universally true, some school psychol­ ogists reported that parents participated in their problem-solving team meetings, as in the quote from Natalie Strand. Ashley Camera’s teams often include secondary students in their problem-solving meetings. She meets in advance with the student to prepare them for the meeting. In the pre-meeting, she helps the student identify: …what they would like to share [and] coping skills they can use in the meeting if they start to feel overwhelmed or did not like the way something was said. [We talk about] how they can respond in a professional and appropriate manner. Ashley Camera

Team Member Roles Each team member brings knowledge and skills related to their educator role to the team, which is a defining feature of all multi-disciplinary teams. Our interviewees also described additional roles designed to facilitate ef­ fective team processes. In addition to a meeting facilitator, problem-solving teams have a case manager. It is unlikely that all aspects of problemsolving can occur in the context of a team meeting. The case manager works behind the scenes to support problem-solving from problem iden­ tification to evaluation. There also may be roles designated for a recorder, timekeeper, agenda monitor (i.e., monitors if the team is staying on topic according to the set agenda), intervention generator (i.e., has access to a bank of searchable interventions), and a goal monitor (i.e., a check on the appropriateness of the goal). In this manner, each member of the team has an expertise specific role related to the meeting purpose and an additional assigned role related to meeting processes.

Problem-Solving Meetings 93 In meetings, [nobody] wants to be the bad guy and say, Hey, guys, we’ve been talking about baseball for five minutes. We need to get back to talking about kids. What you [can] do is put someone in charge of that job. A timekeeper keeps everyone on time and has a timer going. Someone is the focus monitor, and their job is to keep everyone engaged on the topic. We have someone in charge of identifying resources for the team. We have someone in charge of wrapping up a discussion to [review the plan]. Sometimes we actually structure it so that the person who’s worst at something, it becomes their role. A person who is most often off topic will be the focus monitor—and it works. Scott Crooks

Team Development The development of an effective problem-solving teams requires profes­ sional development that builds knowledge and skills in ecological theory, data-based decision-making, differentiated instruction, and MTSS. In addition to these broad domains of expertise, teams also need to develop strong working relationships. When I know my team, it’s easier. I'm already aware of all the interpersonal dynamics so I am well equipped to come in. If I don’t know them yet, I ask in advance about dynamics on the team. Have they worked together in the past? Do people feel comfortable around each other talking, or is it a group that might feel more nervous? This information will help prepare you to facilitate the meeting. Cat Raulerson Cat Raulerson, a regional MTSS facilitator, recognizes the importance of knowing your team and observing their interpersonal dynamics. In her role, she facilitates teams’ professional development. Team trainings can be an important context for developing strong working relationships, in addition to building knowledge and skills in problem-solving. Collaboration within the team is so important. We want to be respectful of each other, yet we want to also be able to challenge one another’s thinking and share ideas in a way that others are receptive. The dynamics of teams are fascinating across different schools. You can tell that some are well-oiled machines that work together all the time, and others have a hard time collaborating in that environment. As a data team leader, I spend a lot of time supporting them and trying to build their collaboration skills, so they feel comfortable engaging in data team meetings. Amber Del Gaiso

94

Problem-Solving Meetings

In addition to developing a working relationship, problem-solving teams must also develop collaboration skills that allow them to function ef­ fectively through challenging situations. As facilitators, we can employ active listening skills to encourage engagement based on mutual respect and a willingness to challenge and be challenged. By portraying a persona assuming positive intent, we can help create a meeting environment where participants feel safe sharing their ideas and concerns. When we adopt the and stance, we demonstrate to others that disagreement does not ne­ cessarily lead to conflict, we can hold competing views of a situation during problem-solving. I think for meetings that go well, often there are good relationships at the foundation. We talk about structured problem-solving as steps one, two, three, and four. I have a colleague who came up with a concept called “problem-solving step zero,” which has to do with effective teaming structures and the group of people you’re bringing together prior to engaging in structured problem-solving. When the people come into the meeting, is the climate positive and engaging? When the meeting is over, do you see people lingering to talk with each other or does everybody split? Looking for these nuances is important. Beth Hardcastle Relationships among team members are a foundation to effective teaming. Efforts made toward relationship building among the regular members of the problem-solving team are a good investment. Investing time for developing trusting, working relationships is an investment that pays off when conversations get difficult. Frequency and Duration of Meetings The frequency of problem-solving meetings is likely to vary based on the level of problem solving in the context of the MTSS framework. Universal or tier one meetings occur at least three times per year shortly after universal benchmarking. Targeted and intensive meetings at tiers two and three meetings follow to discuss student needs, at least one time per month. Some problem-solving teams may block out a chunk of time to meet each week for problem-solving at tiers two and three. Problemsolving teams must make efficient use of limited time. Teams can easily spend too much time on one topic or find themselves veering off topic. Therefore, it can be helpful to set time limits on an agenda for each student or group of students that is discussed. For example, a tier three problem-solving team may allow 30 minutes for initial problem solving

Problem-Solving Meetings 95 for one student and 20 minutes for future follow-up meetings on that same student. [Meetings] can get out of hand sometimes with tangents spent on other things. So just to be mindful of the time, [our team] is very specific on time and actually puts the time in the agenda. A timekeeper is actually running a clock on how much time we’re going spend on this. And so, that keeps everybody more efficient. Natalie Strand Agendas Agendas are critical to keeping the problem-solving team discussion on topic and moving forward through the problem-solving steps. We can ef­ fectively construct agendas by first considering the meeting purpose. Since problem-solving occurs across multiple systems levels and contexts, problem-solving meetings have diverse purposes. By way of an example, let us consider a problem-solving meeting that has the purpose of reviewing progress monitoring data for 2nd-grade students receiving intensive reading supports. We can consider the meeting purpose in the context of building the capacity of all members to participate in the problem-solving process, developing a shared understanding of our purpose, and colla­ borative decision making concerning the specific agenda items. To build decision-making capacity for problem-solving in this context, we need to ensure our team members understand second-grade-level reading ex­ pectations, level of reading performance considered discrepant from ex­ pectations, and rate of progress necessary to meet expectations. In reviewing our meeting purpose with the team, we can foster a shared un­ derstanding by explicitly outlining the decisions to be made to reach de­ sired outcome of the meeting. Then, we can consider the decisions to be made and a process to foster collaborative decision-making. In creating the agenda, it is also important to keep in mind that the problem-solving team is charged with examining challenging situations. After working through an agenda examining cases where students are not successful in the general education system, team members may feel nu­ merous negative emotions. We can offset this tendency by reserving time on our agendas to celebrate successes. While it may feel like time is limited, prioritizing celebrations can offset negative emotions by ampli­ fying positive emotions. We can also build team cohesion through cele­ brations that highlight how our collective efforts create positive outcomes for students. Amber Del Gaiso makes this standard practice in problemsolving meetings. She guides her team in celebrating successes and ex­ amining why the students may have been successful to make explicit connections to the work of the team.

96

Problem-Solving Meetings Our data teams are encouraged to make sure celebrations are part of the agenda, usually at the beginning or end of the meeting. While these meetings mostly focus on problem-solving challenges, we have many students that are making a ton of progress, and it’s important to acknowledge and celebrate that. It truly improves the mood of the meeting when we talk about a student that’s really making amazing progress and share why we think that’s occurring. It is an easy thing to drop off the agenda, but I always try to keep it on there. Amber Del Gaiso

Box 5.1

Example Problem-Solving Meeting Agenda

Meeting Purpose To engage in collaborative problem-solving for 2nd-grade students receiving intensive reading support. Meeting Goals 1.

2. 3. 4.

Generate a shared understanding of second grade level reading expectations, level of reading performance considered discrepant from expectations; rate of reading progress necessary to meet improvement expectations; Review, discuss and celebrate the progress of students who met their reading intervention goals last quarter; Review progress monitoring data for students receiving inter­ vention who did not meet goals last quarter; Collaboratively determine if individual students need continued intervention or if there is reason to move to a meeting to discuss suspicion of disability.

Group Norms Begin and end the meeting on time Be present in the here and now Stay focused on the agenda and the process of problem-solving Assume positive intent and be open to having your perspective challenged Share your ideas and be open to the ideas of others Make decisions based on data and evidence Maintain

Problem-Solving Meetings 97 Topics Welcome and introductions (2 min) Review of meeting purpose and goals (2 min) Review meeting norms (1 min) Discuss problem-solving process, shared understanding of second grade level reading expectations (10 min) Review and celebrate progress of students who met goals, discuss why they may have been successful, celebrate (5 min) Review data for students who did not meet goals, discuss why they may not have been successful (20 min) Collaborate on necessary supports for individual students (20 min) Discuss if evidence supports consideration for a possible suspicion of disability meeting for individual students (20 min) Meeting summary and next steps (10 min)

Processes Round robin Review agenda, verification of understanding Review agenda Facilitated discussion Facilitated discussion Facilitated discussion Facilitated discussion Facilitated discussion Summarization by facilitator

The Warm-Up Phase At the start of a problem-solving meeting, the warm-up phase includes activities like other meetings, such as introductions and role setting, a review of the purpose of the meeting and meeting goals, as well as norms. While these activities are similar to other meetings, they also have some unique considerations in a problem-solving context which we shall review.

The warm-up phase of problem-solving meetings includes intro­ ductions, review of roles, and group norms.

Introductions and Review of Roles For new teams and periodically for existing teams, it is important to begin meetings with introductions, review of roles, and rapport building activities so everyone begins to develop strong working relationships and feels comfortable within their role on the team. Team members must understand their role in a group to know how they can mean­ ingfully contribute to the group’s shared purpose. This may include sharing in a round robin style format information such as each member’s name, role in the school, and their role on the problemsolving team.

98

Problem-Solving Meetings

The school psychologist may serve in a variety of roles on the team. If serving in the role of facilitator of the meeting, it will be helpful to clarify this role for the team. [I am here] today to facilitate data-based problem-solving. We’ve got a pretty tight agenda, so I'm asking for your permission, Team, to move us from one item to the next to help ensure that we get through the agenda – or get your approval if we need to spend more time on an item, knowing that it may impact our ability to address another item. [I try to create a] balance between “I'm the facilitator, but I'm also interested in your input and you are allowing me to be that facilitator.” Beth Hardcastle

Purpose and Meeting Goals The warm-up phase of a problem-solving meeting should also include a review of the team’s purpose and goals for the meeting. This helps each team member to see the big picture in problem-solving, allowing them to begin the meeting with the end in mind. The purpose of problem-solving meetings might be different for systems-level versus individual student focused meetings. Purpose of universal problem-solving: In our SST meetings, we are able to see what are school versus individual student concerns. [For example], at the high school level, students are just really struggling with organization and figuring out how to be a student. So, let’s discuss having that be something that’s provided to students at a school level vs providing intervention to individual students. Kathryn Powell Purpose of individual student problem-solving: Hey, thanks for coming today, everyone. We are going to be talking about Jason, how he’s doing in school, and some things that you have noticed – strengths, weaknesses – and come up with the plan through problem-solving as a team. What’s going on? How we can better support you as a teacher? Natalie Strand Everyone does well if they can because no one wants to feel unsuccessful or like they failed at something. There’s a reason why this student is struggling and it’s our job and our duty to help figure out that reason and to try to see how we can build capacity within that student to perform to a level that they feel successful. Ashley Camera

Problem-Solving Meetings 99 Along with a review of purpose, it is important to review goals for the meeting at hand. I learned very early on people really appreciate beginning with the end in mind. They want to know where you’re going with process, so goal setting helps. [Later,] you can always redirect to the goals as you go. Right now, we are trying to understand the data, identify and analyze the problem and we will be developing intervention steps in the next step. We’re not quite there yet. You always just redirect to the process. Cat Raulerson

Norms Problem-solving meetings occur at multiple levels and teams will in­ evitably encounter challenging issues associated with school-level sys­ temic failures, inequities, and bias. Therefore, it will be critical that teams have well established norms for how they will interact with one another when conversations get difficult. Norms express shared values of the group in an explicit way. Establishing norms provides boundaries for how the team will communicate when difficult issues come up. In many ways, the norms we have in problem-solving meets are similar to those in special education meetings with a few additions for consideration. Data team leaders often have the opportunity to model skills in cultural proficiency during team meetings as we discuss students and their backgrounds. Intentional or not, things are said that are not always appropriate. As the leader, you have to address it and not just let it pass, while still maintaining a relationship with this person after the meeting. We’ve been developing talking points and sentence starters that data team leaders can use to steer the conversation when needed. This work is based on a guide called “Speak Up at School” from the Teaching Tolerance website, which has been very helpful in developing our process. Amber Del Gaiso A suggested norm for problem-solving teams concerns how to address and interrupt bias, both implicit and explicit, as it comes up in meetings. While this norm is applicable to all contexts, special consideration is warranted in problem-solving meetings, which represent the first time the team becomes aware of a problem situation. A referring educator’s per­ ception of a situation is not necessarily objective. Their perception can be intertwined with comparisons to other students, complex emotions, and implicit bias. It is critical that teams do not accept the first presentation of the problem situation as fact, but that they engage in problem analysis to

100

Problem-Solving Meetings

have the full picture. This requires team members to be prepared to ad­ dress and interrupt bias, as well as to receive feedback on their own be­ havior. Maybe you have a new teacher, and they don’t know where or how to track data. Part of [the problem-solving team’s approach will be designing a way to [gather data]. Okay, what’s going on? Let’s pick your top two [behaviors of concern]. How are we going track that? Let’s set a plan and get this more structured and shored up. We will help you design it in a way to track data. And then we set the follow-up meeting afterwards. Natalie Strand A norm unique to problem-solving meetings might be to bring data to meetings. While creating a culture of data-based decision making is a critical foundation to problem-solving, it is also important to keep in mind that problem-solving cannot occur if we put up too many barriers to getting to the table. For academic concerns, teachers are likely to have data in the form of classroom performance, regular schoolwide screen­ ings, and statewide testing. However, readily available data is less likely to exist for classroom-based behavioral challenges. Teachers may require the support of the team to define an observable behavior and create a plan for data tracking.

The Action Phase In the action phase of problem-solving meetings, we are guiding multi­ disciplinary teams through the stages of the problem-solving model. During the action phase, we want to emphasize for the group our common purpose as a team and validate the unique perspectives and meaningful contributions of each team member. As a facilitator, it is critical to use active listening skills to guide the group discussion. We can monitor the experiences of others in the meeting using these skills and respond in ways that communicate interest in what they are sharing. Then, we can respond by using our micro-skills to encourage continued discussion that is going in an effective direction, paraphrasing to check the understanding of the group, questioning to encourage the team to consider missing information, and summarizing to capture a current discussion and then encourage the group to either get back on track or move on in the agenda. We can encourage diversity of perspectives on the team by adopting a stance that allows for and even encourages team members to hold competing views during the problem-solving process, Stone et al.’s (1999) and stance. We can also listen for inferences team members make and follow-up with questioning that challenges those inferences when they impede problem-solving.

Problem-Solving Meetings 101 During the action phase of problem-solving meetings, we want to emphasize for the group our common purpose as a team and validate the unique perspectives and meaningful contributions of each team member.

As discussed previously, the school psychologist may be charged with facilitation of problem-solving meetings or they may be a resource for the team. Regardless of our role, as a school psychologist on the MTSS team, one may feel pressure to be an expert with concrete answers for a problem situation. However, it is critical to emphasize the team in the problemsolving process. Each member brings their own set of expertise to the table in this collaborative partnership. Most critically, it is likely that other team members know the student or situation much better than the school psychologist. Therefore, our role might best be conceptualized as helping the team articulate what they know about the student or situa­ tion, perhaps view it in a new way, and generate solutions together. You get more effective asking questions. I remember sort of being paralyzed. My fear in those early days [was] of not really knowing what to say or what information I needed or how I could help the team, particularly during practicum and internship. But over time you get a sense of some of the red flags based upon something that a parent or teacher might say. You get much more adept at picking and choosing. Okay, tell me a little bit more about that. You said that he’s having trouble sleeping. That’s been happening for the past weeks, months, years? Have you spoken to your doctor about that? Justin Dove Listen and try to ask questions to get the information as objective as possible. If they say a certain behavior or just a word. What does that look like? You know, we want to get really specific on what is going on [when the behavior occurs] and what’s happening before. Natalie Strand In problem-solving meetings, our objective is not to have solutions for the team. Rather, it is knowing the right questions to ask that might facilitate the team in their problem-solving efforts to identify a viable solution. Problem-solving is team led. In the end, it should be team driven. We need to follow the problem-solving steps and stick to the fidelity of that process. Cat Raulerson When faced with challenging situations for which to problem-solve, it can be easy for teams to get stuck in a particular stage of problem-solving or

102

Problem-Solving Meetings

to even become side-tracked in discussions that are irrelevant or tan­ gentially related to the situation at hand. In these situations, it is critical to refocus the conversation on the stages of problem-solving. [We use a] problem-solving guide. On one side [of the paper], we have the three tiers split out with different strategies that are very concrete and user friendly. On the back, we have [a structure for our plan] divvied up by who’s going to be doing what. [It includes] what the teacher will be working on, how administration is going to support this issue, how any support staff [are involved], when we are meeting again, and how we are going to track data. [The structure] has really helped teachers become more objective about behavior and come from it more from a problem-solving standpoint. Natalie Strand Tools can be particularly helpful in keeping the team focused on the process. Many of our interviewees reported that their teams use a tool to guide and document their problem-solving work. The Team-Initiated Problem-Solving model was mentioned several times as a useful tool (see Newton et al., 2012). Even with a tool to guide team processes, there will be times when it gets off track. Sometimes, teams get stuck in initial stages of problem solving where they seem to be admiring the problem, when the process should be moving along to generating solutions. I think we’re very good at identifying problems in education, but we aren’t as effective in pairing those problems with useful and evidencebased solutions. The most important thing to focus on is helping teams actually solve problems rather than just admiring [them], because I’ve been in far too many meetings where you look up, it’s been 45 minutes or an hour and all you have done is just talk about a problem. You need to move to [solutions]. Okay, after this meeting, what are we going to do differently if what we’re doing right now is not working? Justin Dove In these situations, active listening and strategic questioning can help the team see the solutions before them so they can get back on track or even move forward: We ask what we call naive questions, which are non-confrontational questions. Instead of saying, Hey, you guys don’t seem to know what the problem is. You might ask, “It sounds like the behavior’s like this. Is that correct?” Or “could you define that or tell me what that means?” I am trying not to put the team on the defensive by using questions rather than the statements, [in this situation] I know the answer, I need them to answer the questions so that we can get back to where we need to be. Scott Crooks

Problem-Solving Meetings 103 A first-grader came to us in kindergarten last year. He had an ADHD diagnosis and didn’t make progress in reading. [Last year], he had been receiving leveled literacy intervention, but the issue was with [reading] decoding. I explained to the parent and to the team [that we] were doing the wrong intervention last year. [Following implementation of a matched intervention], he [made] significant progress, not only in his skills, but also in his confidence. He had been getting the wrong intervention [and] the right intervention was making a great difference. [Through this process], we had developed a level of trust with the parent. When you consider what happened last year, her perspective of our school and her son’s education, to where she is, there is level of trust there for her to agree to go along with this plan and give us a chance to see the outcome with the right actions in place. Todd Robinson Other times during problem-solving, the opposite phenomenon happens—where team members want to jump to solutions before under­ standing the problem. It is natural that group members will be eager to suggest solutions. Educators want to solve problems that interfere with student success at school. It can be frustrating to examine all angles of the problem when one already has an idea for how to solve it. However, it is critical to stay with the stages of the problem-solving model. In fact, our work can be more efficient in the long run when we understand the pro­ blem, its antecedents, manifestations, and consequences in the context of the environment where it occurs. It ensures we intervene when we have an explicit link between the problem and solution, which also increases our credibility as a source of reasonable and pragmatic ideas. In this manner, we can avoid the one step forward, two steps back phenomenon that oc­ curs when a poorly matched intervention proves unsuccessful in resolving a problem, returning us back to problem analysis phase once again. By using active listening, you can hear when someone jumps to interventions when we are still identifying the problem. You could definitely validate that and say, “That sounds like you’re going to a strategy. Let’s hold on to that. We’re not quite there yet, but let’s hold on that till we get through our problem ID,” and [then] redirect [the team member] back. I might even write it down the idea, “We will hold on to that and we will come back to it.” Active listening is huge because you want you want to foster [team member] engagement when they actually do participate. You want to reinforce that, [and not discourage it in your response]. Cat Raulerson To help teams keep their focus on problem solving stages, we can employ our active listening skills to intervene when groups veer from the process.

104

Problem-Solving Meetings People will often get off track when they don’t like what data [are] showing them. If they’re going away from what the data is telling us, I try to redirect. For example, I may say why I really like data. “I like data because I am a really indecisive person the data makes me feel confident in my decisions. When we have a lot of data supporting our decision, I feel much better about the decision than when I don’t have data to support it.” A lot of people will start generating solutions that have nothing to do with the data that is a very common team error, or they'll just get off track and redirection back to the data is important. Cat Raulerson

Another common way that groups get off track in problem-solving meetings is related to data. Teams may ignore or discount data because it does not fit with their conceptualization of the problem situation. Or they may simply be unaccustomed to using data for decision making. This is particularly true for inexperienced problem-solving teams or new team members. During problem identification, an initial view of the student is presented. This view is often presented by a person who is immersed in the problem situation within one educational context. However, the initial view may be accepted by the team without data to support it, consideration of other factors, or an understanding of the student across settings. The team needs encouragement to withhold judgment until a comprehensive view of the student in the learning environment is attained through problem analysis. In this manner, the team can adopt the “and stance” where they withhold judgment regarding contradictory sources of information until more data are gathered to objectively understand the problem from diverse view­ points. In this process, it is critical to separate facts from judgments. Facts are data-based, such as scores on progress monitoring measures. Judgments go beyond facts to make interpretations and draw conclusions, such as the scores are low. Both facts and judgments are necessary for decision-making. However, teams should be explicit about the difference and work to avoid judgments that lead to premature conclusions, such as the student’s low scores indicate a learning disability. Especially if it’s a new team, I'm going to be cautious about making sure everyone has a chance to participate. For example, I may use a round robin style activity versus a general open-ended question where anyone could shout out. You have to allow all members to have opportunities to respond. I might shift to let’s write down our ideas versus speaking if I have a quiet team. If you have a person who’s dominating, you have to shift styles. If it’s teachers, you want them to feel comfortable in front of the administrators. We sometimes have administrators who foster that climate where our teachers feel like

Problem-Solving Meetings 105 they can’t talk in front of them. In these cases you have to facilitate in a way that will build comfort for them to participate openly but not make them feel intimidated by their administrators as team members. We’ll use a lot of rephrasing questions to get to a place where they feel comfortable or change the type of question being asked to gather information. Cat Raulerson Whenever we bring a task group together to generate solutions to pro­ blems, we also must be mindful of group dynamics that may hinder the full participation of all members. Some group members will readily share their ideas, sometimes jumping in so quickly that participation from others is discouraged. Other group members may need more time to formulate and share their ideas. If we only offer an informal, open format for sharing ideas in problem-solving meetings, we may find that the same individuals share their ideas and other members are silent. These silent members are likely to also have ideas and important perspectives to share. They may be more comfortable sharing their thoughts in the context of a controlled structure for sharing. The data team leader is often responsible for validating how hard the work is that teachers are doing, while still trying to move the conversation forward to make some instructional decisions and have a clear resolution to the discussion. Some guiding questions I ask include the following: “A lot of suggestions have been made by the group. What’s something that you think you might be able to try? We need to wrap up the discussion of the student and move on. Do we have consensus about what comes next? Do you feel comfortable with your next steps? Do you know who to contact? What resources do you need and how can we support you?” Amber Del Gaiso Sometimes, our educator colleagues may be reluctant to engage in the problem-solving process. This could occur at any system level and be attributed to a variety of causes. For example, a general classroom teacher may believe that the student is struggling because they have an unidentified disability and view problem-solving as a delay in getting special education services. Reluctance may also be associated with a lack of belief in one’s ability to resolve the problem. Low self-efficacy can be addressed through social support provided through the team: coaching, social support, and affirmation that one is a valued member of the team and their skills are respected by colleagues (Kruger, 1997). Active listening skills can be helpful in moving the conversation forward.

106

Problem-Solving Meetings

Individual Student Problem-Solving In this section, we discuss facilitation of problem-solving team meetings to address the needs of individual students, typically associated with the intensive or tier three systemic level of the MTSS framework. Validating Teacher Concerns for a Student You are making a good call here. These behaviors are unusual and not what we would expect in the normal course of a school day. Abby Royston When a teacher brings a student forward for problem-solving, they are likely to have been concerned for some time or to have witnessed a skills deficit or behavior that is outside of their typical experience with students. Their concerns may also be bundled with complex emotions. It is critical to validate their concerns for the student and prior efforts in seeking solutions. Remember, our desired outcomes in facilitating meetings in­ clude ensuring that all participants feel like they meaningful contributed to the meeting. If we send a teacher away feeling dismissed by the problem-solving team, they are unlikely to feel the process was helpful and their participation in it was not meaningful. Prioritizing When There are Multiple Concerns Usually in this situation there are lots of problems. I may ask, what’s one behavior you'd like to change? What would make a big difference for the student? Lindsay Amen It is not uncommon for a teacher to have multiple concerns for an in­ dividual student. When students struggle in one academic area, they may struggle in related areas. Academic skills are not isolated by content area. Similarly, students may struggle in multiple social, emotional, and be­ havioral skills. In these situations, it can be challenging for the team to find focus for problem-solving. A conversation about prioritization of concerns can focus on what change would make a meaningful difference for this student’s experience at school. The Elephant in the Room – Suspicion of Disability [Sometimes stakeholders] say they want their student to get “extra help,” but what they are really pushing for is a special education evaluation. If they were to come out and say, “You know, I want this student to be evaluated for special education.” Then I can address that by saying, “We can evaluate. But as part of the evaluation, let’s figure out what [interventions] we can do.” Kyle Hesser

Problem-Solving Meetings 107 There are times when teachers bring students to problem-solving because they suspect a disability. However, they may have been instructed that interventions through problem-solving must occur first. This may cause them to view problem-solving processes as a hurdle they must surpass before suspicion of a disability can become part of the conversation. An unspoken desired outcome such as this is likely to impede problemsolving. Addressing it directly can help the team move forward with in­ tervention planning while also meeting child find obligations as relevant to the student’s situation. When a parent says they want testing, they may [actually be] saying: I want you to help my child. In these cases, I will ask: What is the question that you have? What concerns do you have about [your] child? What am I testing for? I'm interested in providing the correct intervention to see if that may provide your child with enough support to get back on track. If we explain our process, a lot of times [parents will] say: Okay, I'm comfortable with that. Let’s try [interventions]. Kathryn Powell Other times, it is parents that call for a move to testing based on suspicion of a disability in the context of problem-solving processes. It is important to be mindful that parents are unlikely to have a full understanding of the process of problem-solving in educational settings. They desire better educational outcomes for their child and may view testing as a route to achieve those outcomes. If we can focus our oral communication on providing them with clarity on the process of problem-solving, we can build their capacity for participation and collaborative decision-making. These scenarios all concern suspicion of disability and our child find obligations must be carefully balanced with our drive to promote inter­ ventions. For more on these challenges, see Chapter 6. A Tendency to Focus on Unalterable Factors At a high school meeting I observed, the data team leader looked at the agenda and saw a particular student’s name there for discussion and said, “You all want to discuss student A? He’s doomed. Why are we going to talk about him?” Everyone in the group jumped in immedi­ ately, saying “Oh, come on. No kid has ever been doomed. Yes, we’re going to discuss him. We need a plan to support this student!” They had a good enough relationship as a team to stand up to this colleague and present their point of view in a way that the leader was open to. I was really proud of them, as I didn’t have to say anything, they jumped right in to address the situation. Amber Del Gaiso

108

Problem-Solving Meetings

Another issue that may come up in problem solving is a tendency to get mired in examining factors that contribute to the problem which are outside of our control. While it is critical to consider all factors that contribute to the problem for a student, focusing on unalterable factors (e.g., history of abuse, family instability) can leave our team members feeling hopeless about the possibility of change. Focusing on alterable factors redirects our desire to help the student in productive ways. One of my most commonly used phrases for reframing a problemsolving conversation is: “You’re right, it sounds like the student has a lot going on right now, personally. That is helpful for us to know. What are some factors in our control that we can address and potentially have an impact?” Amber Del Gaiso When team members are focused on personal issues that are going on for a student, the facilitator can validate those concerns, consider them in problem analysis, and direct intervention efforts to factors under control in the school setting. We should use our active listening and commu­ nication skills to validate these concerns in the context of what it means to an educator. For example, “It is clear that you have dedicated a lot of time to understand this student’s situation. You’re working hard to establish a relationship with this kid.” Or “I can see that you care deeply for this student and their challenges at home.” We should not discount unalterable past or current issues because they help us understand a student’s si­ tuation more completely. We absolutely should consider factors such as past trauma and family instability in planning interventions for the stu­ dent. However, we may need to redirect conversations with an exclusive focus on unalterable factors as that risks evoking feelings of hopeless for change. Rather, we can redirect the conversation to the factors we can control at school that could make a meaningful difference in the student’s educational outcomes. When a Problem for a Student Is a Problem for the Whole Class You were assigned quite a few students who are struggling to acquire basic reading skills this year. We can see you are working hard to support them. We need to give you resources and support for more than just this one student. How can we provide you with class-wide supports in this area? Jason Parkin A teacher may bring forward one student for problem-solving, but a review of classroom data reveals other students are performing at com­ mensurately low levels. It is the job of the team to address this classwide issue to improve learning outcomes for all. Yet, it can be a challenging conversation. As a meeting facilitator, it is important to anticipate

Problem-Solving Meetings 109 attributions and inferences that participants may have when confronted with a differing view of a problem situation. In this situation, we imagine a teacher might be surprised in hearing this differing view of their classwide data and could infer that the team feels they are ineffective as an educator. Because we know classroom achievement results from a complex interplay of causal factors, we can frame this new classwide view of the problem as situation-based rather than teacher-based. In this manner, we are preempting a likely attribution that could impede problem-solving and collaboration. I Tried That, It Didn’t Work – Wash, Rinse, Repeat There is a tendency to throw our hands up and say, I have done all the good teaching. They should have learned it. And that’s often where we spin. Often the person who’s presenting the kid is not really there to problem-solve. They are there to vent. So, their emotional state is not in a place where they’re ready to problem-solve. So, if [presented with] a solution or suggestion, those are often dismissed. And part of it is related to the emotional state that person is in. Scott Crooks As teams move from understanding a problem situation to generating ideas for solutions, multiple issues may arise. Most school psychologists have experienced conversations where they suggest intervention ap­ proaches to teachers and the response is, I tried that or That won’t work. Why is this? There can be multiple reasons for this type of exchange. Sometimes, teachers need space to process their experiences. To vent, so to speak, as in the above example. As facilitators, it is critical that we consider the complex emotions educators may feel when immersed in a challenging situation with a student. Sometimes you are making suggestions and hear… “No, that won’t work. I tried that. I tried that before and that’s not going to work.” It’s hard because you’re feeling like you can’t even get the conversation started. I try not take it personally, which can be hard. If I have been the one who’s been throwing things out, I might step back and let someone else maybe ask a question or rephrase it. I think sometimes the teacher sees me as that gatekeeper and they shut down to me. But they might be more receptive to the counselor. Or maybe they need to hear what I’ve been saying in a different way. Since it’s another person, they may respond. Sometimes when they shut you down, all you can do is listen. Then, I may try saying something like, “maybe it didn’t work the way you did it. Is there a small way we could change it to make it easier for you?” Because otherwise this meeting’s not going to be helpful to anyone. Lindsay Amen

110

Problem-Solving Meetings

When we find ourselves in a communication loop where suggestions of the team are repeatedly rejected, it can help to focus on the context of the problem and the context of the proposed solutions. Here, Lindsay Amen focuses on shifting the context of who is providing suggestions and how prior interventions may be attempted again in different contexts. She is emphasizing the collaborative partnership of the team (and not just the school psychologist) in identifying viable solutions. Resistance is a part of change that we should expect in our work and we discuss this more in the context of suspicion of disability meetings in Chapter 6. I struggle at plenty of things in my life. If someone comes to me says, “Well, Scott, that meeting didn’t go so well did it?” Then Ithink, “No, it did not go very well and I'm trying to figure out how do I do a better job next time.” But, for good or for ill in education, I think teachers take a lot of personal ownership of the work they do, which makes them better educators because they really try hard to be successful for the kids. But the side effects are when things were not going well, it’s very touchy because it feels like you are critiquing them as a person rather than their instructional practices, curriculum, things that they could change to improve. We have stopped problem-solving because the adult is basically saying: “I'm doing a good job. Don’t look at me. That kid needs to fix their behavior.” Scott Crooks Scott Crooks describes his observations of the deep personal commit­ ments that teachers have to their work with students. When teachers find their efforts are not effective for a student, their self-efficacy may be negatively impacted. They might feel quite vulnerable as they bring the situation to the group for problem-solving. It is important that facil­ itators anticipate the identity issues activated for teachers when a group of their colleagues questions their prior practices and makes suggestions for changes to their methods to help a student. This may be prevented by ensuring that all educators in the school understand the problem-solving model and the team process as a source of support for colleagues as they work to meet the needs of all students. And then sometimes, frankly, we politely finish the conversation. Okay, it sounds like we can’t do anything today. And then we have the data team leader or administer circle back to that person next time they have a planning time to talk with them one on one because they weren’t ready to talk today. Basically, their emotional level is just not in a place where we can have a conversation. Scott Crooks Because educators are so deeply committed to their work with students, there are times that emotion blocks problem-solving and the attempt should end for that meeting. Yet, we do not want to leave the educator

Problem-Solving Meetings 111 and the student without the support they need. In these situations, one on one consultation may be a more viable approach for supporting the teacher in processing an emotionally charged situation. Managing Expectations for Behavior Change [Behavior concerns are] emotionally charged. Behaviors in general tend to be more frustrating. People tend to be a lot more willing to play the long game with academics than with behaviors. They want behavior fixed yesterday. Challenging behaviors just don’t work like that. I try to present realistic goals in the meetings. I try and be explicit that behavior change doesn’t happen overnight. Most likely, when we are trying to extinguish a behavior, it is going to get worse before it gets better. We have to be prepared for that. Kyle Hesser As part of the intervention planning process, the team may also work to manage educator expectations for change, particularly in the case of behavior change. Here, we are seeking to address both the emotions and the beliefs that educators hold. We might acknowledge the frustration experienced by the educators and administrators who are working di­ rectly with students who have very challenging behaviors. “We can see this is a very challenging situation. It must be hard for you to deal with this every day in your classroom, yet we see you are still very engaged in finding solutions that will support this student.” Then, the team might explore supplemental sources of classroom support, especially in instances of behavior that repeatedly interrupts ongoing classroom instruction. Poor Instructional Match They’ve had intervention, but the intervention is not producing the performance outcomes. So, we come to the table, we talk about it, and you would not believe how many times I’ve had to point out, [for example]: The intervention is addressing comprehension, but the problem is with decoding, phonological awareness or phonemic aware­ ness, and we have done nothing to address those concerns. You’re not going to get impact when your intervention is misaligned. This is something that I have had to really work with my schools to understand that there are assessments that we can do so that we can get clarity. You know, we could drill down to what I sometimes call the lowest common denominator of academic deficit. Todd Robinson Finally, issues may come up during evaluation of interventions. One unfortunate issue is the realization that an intervention was ineffective because it was not matched to the problem analysis. In these situations,

112

Problem-Solving Meetings

the team may will find it necessary to take two steps back and revisit problem analysis and intervention. Poor Implementation of Interventions OK, so it didn’t work. Then, I ask questions about the process, rather than making it about the person. Instead of saying, you didn’t keep the data. Ask, what didn’t work about this? What can we change? What was it about the data or this process that did not work for you? Oh, it was too tedious, and you could not keep up with it? Let’s try something different. Christie Crouch Finally, poor implementation fidelity can be an elephant in the room that is challenging to address. Most of our interviewees emphasized the need to address it directly, frankly, and with a recognition of all that teachers have on their plates during a school day. One strategy is to focus on the process, rather than the person. The reflects our persona of assuming positive intent in our colleagues. We use self-report fidelity forms. As we review intervention outcomes, we also answer questions on the self-report form. We’ve found that teachers are pretty honest. They may share something like: “The intervention only occurred three days a week, when it’s supposed to be four days a week. It usually starts late because the student doesn’t come on time.” Having a tool to guide the discussion helps. We can say, “Well, we can’t really rule this intervention out yet, because we haven’t been able to implement it in this prescribed way.” Then we can discuss the barriers. Discussing these barriers can also make team feel validated, because it helps them recognize all of the factors impacting the plan. Amber Del Gaiso Many people we interviewed reported using an implementation fidelity tool to guide the implementation fidelity conversation. We can use tools to facilitate a collaborative discussion focused on implementor supports for the aspects of an intervention that are not working in the context of the classroom. In this manner, we are not blaming the implementor, but discussing implementation barriers to be resolved. We presume positive intent and employ our problem-solving skills to facilitate implementation. Systemic Problem-Solving In this section, we discuss facilitation of problem-solving team meetings to address school- or group-level data, typically associated with the in­ tensive or tier one systemic level of the MTSS framework.

Problem-Solving Meetings 113 Relationships with Administrators [It is] important to listen to and value their perspective. Let them give their perspective first, whether that’s a perspective or questions they have or goals they are hoping to achieve. Active listening so important, like redirecting back when it’s appropriate to say: Okay, it sounds like your concerns are… and what you hope for your staff… and what you don’t want to happen… I always want to make sure that I'm making it clear to them that their perspective is valued and I also need their support of the work as one of the biggest drivers of the change. Cat Raulerson Problem-solving at the school level necessarily includes school-level adminis­ trators. In her work, Cat Raulerson uses her active listening skills to para­ phrase the goals, values, and concerns of administrators. This allows her to check her understanding while also highlighting the administrator’s values, beliefs, and priorities. This is important. Just as teachers are deeply committed to their work with students in their classrooms, administrators are deeply connected to their school and its outcomes. They perceive the outcomes of the school as a reflection of their performance as administrators. Therefore, dis­ cussions of school level needs, interventions, and outcomes are likely to tap into identity issues and evoke emotions for administrators. Systems Change Fatigue We’ve had a consistent change in leadership from year to year that [impacts] the initiatives being pushed down, and the amount of systematic change has really exhausted a lot of people into kind of a state of withdrawal. We are working through that systematically and [helping] people to move from a static to growth mindset. We need to get them in a place where they feel effective and supported in their daily jobs and functions, so they approach them from a place of continued growth. And that’s challenging. Isaac Tarbell Our interviewees discussed the challenge of too much systemic change and the educator fatigue that can result from lack of consistent, effective leadership in systemic change. When educators experience poor leader­ ship and ineffective initiatives, they tend to retreat into their classrooms rather than engage in broad change efforts. In these instances, it may be necessary to pause the implementation of additional changes and shift our focus to supports for staff. Keeping the Focus on Tier One If we are spending all of our time in a school wide [data] team [meeting] focusing student by student, the team [needs to] pull back

114

Problem-Solving Meetings and refocus. [We need to] identify where there are gaps in program­ ming, [where the] data [indicate group] skill deficits, and how we can differentiate instruction. That reframes the conversation because people want to be robust in their applications and impact the most students. We look at what could we do at the systems level to address the most learners. If your school or systems level [team] is spending time on student referrals, it’s just a waste of a lot of money in the room. Isaac Tarbell

Another challenge can be keeping the team focused on the purpose of problem-solving on a systemic level. It is a natural tendency for educators to turn their attention to the needs of individual students and they may not be accustomed to examining schoolwide data to identify group and schoolwide needs. In these meetings, it is critical to keep the focus on how universal systems in the school are supporting the whole school popu­ lation and identifying those who may need additional support. Without appropriate structures to set up the purpose and agenda, the conversation can easily shift to a student-by-student focus. Getting Past Defensiveness When it comes to teachers, often it’s easier or more familiar for them to engage in conversation around individual students. But when we’re looking at lousy Tier One data where the majority of kids are not demonstrating proficiency, that’s not a kid problem. That is a [harder pill to swallow] for some teachers, at least initially. [They may try to] explain away the data – the assessment doesn’t match well with end of the year assessments, it’s a new assessment the kids had never seen that before, or it’s not aligned with their curriculum. But poor Tier 1 data indicates a need for adjustments to curriculum and instruction in the general education setting that impacts all students. Beth Hardcastle A common challenge in reviewing group-level data is defensiveness. An administrator may become defensive in a district meeting where schoolwide data are reviewed for multiple schools. Similarly, a teacher can become defensive when their classroom data are presented for the team to review. In these instances, it might be helpful to engage the team in a conversation about their beliefs concerning what makes a good teacher or a good school. Is it only about outcomes on a specific measure of achievement? Indeed, there are many situational influences on test scores that are not entirely within the control of one educator. A broader conceptualization of good teaching might also include fi­ delity of delivering curriculum and instruction, building relationships with students, and responding to their needs. Despite there are many situational factors that influence achievement, the team can identify

Problem-Solving Meetings 115 solutions that improve outcomes. We might explicitly discuss the purpose of systemic problem-solving, which is to identify group and schoolwide needs that might be addressed through better curriculum, differentiated instruction and systems of intervention delivery. Our purpose is not to place blame for the needs identified in this process of examining data. Data review can be uncomfortable, especially for those who are not used to reviewing data or data that is not pretty. Strategies to assist with this include de-identifying data and having group members (such as a grade level) review another’s data—not their own. Then we’re just looking at classrooms – we don’t know whose it is. Some classrooms are doing better or worse than other classrooms. How do we come together to make what’s happening in some classrooms happen in the other classrooms? I’ve done the same in a district level meeting, where you’ve got school administrators and district level administrators. I might pair a principal from one school with a district person. And they’re looking at another school’s data. Beth Hardcastle Here, Beth Hardcastle offers a data review strategy to move past defen­ siveness that can be used at the classroom or whole school level. When we remove the source of the information, it may be easier for educators to examine it objectively and adopt a solution-focused stance with respect to differential outcomes at the classroom or school level. Focus on Alterable Factors [Team members may say…] this subgroup is low socio-economic status. So yeah, they’re all doing poorly because they don’t have the support at home. And then we try to shift the conversation to Okay, but we cannot control that. But we can control how we align our curriculum and [how we teach] – what do we infuse into what the kids are getting in general education to offset the fact that they may not have help at home with homework or they don’t have the language development other kids have. There are some things we can’t control, but there are things that we can control in terms of what we do for them when they’re in front of us during the school day. Beth Hardcastle At the systemic level, we are likely to examine data for subgroups in the schools. This review is likely to include data for subgroups based on demographic variables, such as race/ethnicity, family income level, and special programs. It is important to consider the school, home, and community experiences of students and families impacted by racism, economic marginalization, and ableism. In these conversations, it is also

116

Problem-Solving Meetings

critical that we avoid overgeneralizations and that we interrupt explicit and implicit bias when it enters the conversation. While it is important to have these conversations, we also leverage the team’s desire to help most effectively when we focus our efforts on alterable factors. These are variables the school can influence through curriculum, instruction, and supports for students and families.

The Closure Phase I always debrief. I walk [the team] through the big picture and end with some writing: Okay, everybody. What is one thing that went well today and one thing we would like to change next time we meet? If I am working with teams in a training capacity, so I'll usually do some type of share out where I'm trying to listen for their acquired learning as well. So, for example, if they’re developing their tier one expectations and they’re debriefing about what they’re drafting, Did they meet all the criteria of expectations? Did they have a plan for stakeholder feedback? Cat Raulerson At the closure of a problem-solving meeting, we can accomplish important objectives. They include providing the team with a summary of the meeting purpose, progress achieved toward the purpose, and conclusions resulting from the meeting. This is also our opportunity to review post-meeting tasks to be accomplished, follow-up expectations, and to prepare for future meetings. Further, they require that we attend to the group members and engage in group reflection on team processes. We may express appreciation for the contributions of each person toward the shared purpose of the meeting. We can take a moment to reflect on group processes, celebrating the collective contributions of the team, and inviting suggestions for im­ provement to process in future meetings. In his role as a coach to data team leaders, Scott Crooks observes meetings and provides feedback to teams. Here, he describes what he is looking for in problem-solving meetings: [There are] basically four things I am looking for. To see whether they have some data to use to make their decisions. I'm looking to see whether they are actively collaborating with one another, and so it should not be one person talking all the time or the administrator talking all the time. It should be actually active collaboration, and, whether they are solution focused and then whether or not they leave with some sort of action plan for their team. Scott Crooks Scott Crooks provides teams with constructive feedback to improve their processes, and shares his insights on effective ways to provide feedback to teams:

Problem-Solving Meetings 117 If I am not very heavily weighted towards positive feedback with some critiques and suggestions in there, the suggestions are not taken. Early on, I might have been likely to offer: Here’s three or four things you guys need to fix. If I do that, those things tend to actually not get fixed because it puts people in a defensive mode. [Now,] I tend to lean heavily towards positive things that I saw with and here’s a suggestion I might offer [for the team] to [improve]. Scott Crooks

Post-Meeting It can be argued that what follows from a problem-solving meeting is most critical. A well facilitated meeting might leave everyone feeling good, but it is ineffective in solving problems if nothing happens after the meeting. For these reasons, it is critical that problem-solving continues outside of team meetings. An action plan inclusive of who, what, where, and when intervention will occur is necessary to support implementation fidelity. However, in a problem-solving meeting that includes multiple students or groups on the agenda, it may not be feasible to create a de­ tailed plan for problem-solving situation. Post-meeting follow-up may be the ideal context for action plan creation, intervention coaching, and educator supports.

Post-meeting follow-up may be the ideal context for action plan creation, intervention coaching, and educator supports.

Summary In this chapter, we reviewed problem-solving meetings as general edu­ cation meetings for one student, a group of students, or even a whole school, to identify cases of risk, select individual or group-based inter­ ventions, review response to interventions, and evaluate continued stu­ dent or systemic needs. School psychologists reported diverse roles on problem-solving teams. Persona features that resonate with problemsolving include partnership, presuming positive intent, and curiosity about problems and solution. Demonstrating a problem-solving stance communicates to team members that we are here to understand and solve problems. During facilitation, it is critical to acknowledge prior experi­ ences and past attempts to solve the problem, which can be coupled with complex emotions for our educator colleagues. As we plan for effective problem-solving meetings, we attend to team composition, professional development, member roles, and clear agendas. Like other meeting types,

118

Problem-Solving Meetings

the warm-up phase includes introductions, review of roles, and group norms. While facilitating problem-solving meetings, we want to empha­ size for the group our purpose and validate the unique perspectives and meaningful contributions of all. At the closure of the meeting, it is im­ portant to review content objectives and process objectives. In this manner, we summarize our progress toward meeting objectives and the process by which we got there, expressing appreciation for the con­ tributions of members.

References Dowd-Eagle, S. E. & Eagle, J. W. (2014). Research examining group team-based school consultation. In W. Erchul & S. Sheridan (Eds.), Handbook of research in school consultation: Empirical foundations for the field (2nd ed., pp. 450–472). Routledge. Kalyanpur, M. & Harry, B. (2012). Cultural reciprocity in special education: Building family-professional relationships. Paul H. Brooks. Kruger, L. J. (1997). Social support and self-efficacy in problem solving among teacher assistance teams and school staff. The Journal of Educational Research, 90(3), 164–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1997.10543772 National Association of School Psychologists (2020). NASP practice model: Implementation Guide. National Association of School Psychologists. Newton, J. S., Horner, R. H., Todd, A. W., Algozzine, R. F., & Algozzine, K. M. (2012). A pilot study of a problem-solving model for team decision making. Education and Treatment of Children, 35(1), 25–49. Pluymert, K. (2014). Problem-solving foundations for school psychological ser­ vices. In P. L. Harrison & A. Thomas (Eds.), Best practices in school psy­ chology: Data-based and collaborative decision making (pp. 25–40). National Association of School Psychologists. Rosenfield, S., Newell, M., Zwolski, S., & Beneshek, L. (2018). Evaluating problem-solving teams in K-12 schools: Do they work? American Psychologist, 73(4), 407–419. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000254 Rubinson (2002). Lessons learned from implementing problem-solving teams in urban high schools. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 13(3), 185–217. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532768XJEPC1303_03 Stoiber, K. C. (2014). A comprehensive framework for multitiered systems of support in school psychology. In P. L. Harrison & A. Thomas (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology: Data-based and collaborative decision making (pp. 41–70). National Association of School Psychologists. Stone, D., Patton, B., & Heen, S. (1999). Difficult conversations: How to discuss what matters most. The Penguin Group.

6

Planning and Facilitating Suspicion of Disability Meetings

Many school districts will have a meeting to formally determine whether to suspect a student demonstrates a disability and requires evaluation for special education. These meetings may also include problem-solving; frequently they reflect the final instance of a series of problem-solving cycles. However, in this instance, the group includes the family in its discussion, at least in our experiences. As with problem-solving meetings, in our conversations with practitioners, we heard these meetings called many names. A few examples include guidance team meetings, student assistance team meetings, student intervention team meetings, pre-referral meetings, pre-multidisciplinary team meetings, domain meetings, studentfocused teams, and evaluation planning meetings. Though they all had different names, they had a common purpose of documenting a suspicion of a disability, planning any needed evaluation to determine the presence of a disability, seeking informed parental consent for the evaluation, and ultimately meeting districts’ child find obligations – schools’ affirmative duty to locate, evaluate, and identify youth who require special education and related services (IDEA § 300.111). Content objectives include determining whether the team suspects a disability, designing a comprehensive evaluation, reviewing proce­ dural safeguards, and obtaining informed consent from the family.

Just as this meeting goes by different names across states and districts, school psychologists’ role and participation level also vary. In some set­ tings, school psychologists lead these meetings, while in others, they may not be part of the decision-making. In those instances, this meeting re­ flects the end of a general education process, and the school psycholo­ gist’s domain is tied more to special education. Sometimes, school psychologists participate in the meeting, but do not necessarily provide leadership or facilitation. Nevertheless, whether facilitating or partici­ pating, there is much to consider about this meeting. DOI: 10.4324/9780367854522-6

120

Suspicion of Disability Meetings

This meeting is relatively unique in the special education process for a few reasons. It may often be the family’s first interaction with school re­ lated to student support and special education. As a result, it sets the stage for subsequent meetings. To us, this meeting requires more structure from the facilitator compared to others in special education. While both eva­ luation feedback and IEP meetings include specific documents for review, this meeting may not revolve around the discussion of a standard form or document. There is much to review in this meeting, but it will vary from student to student. It can be up to the facilitator to provide a structure that guides the group in discussion and decision-making. Lastly, as the school psychologist, we may not know the student of concern personally. Our contribution to this meeting does not come from personal observations, or testing data, as it might in subsequent meetings.

Planning Regardless of the specific role the school psychologist may occupy in this meeting, there are important planning aspects to consider. Preparation allows the school psychologist to begin case conceptualization and de­ termine which aspects of the case may require more discussion and data collection. To plan, we may determine the referral source and reason(s) for the referral, investigate recent history and communication between the school and family, and review student records. Ultimately, this in­ formation allows for a more complete consideration of the context for communication within the meeting. Determine the Source of Referral It is important to know who referred the student and the reason(s) behind the referral. Obviously, such knowledge allows the school psychologist to identify any additional data to review in various domains of school func­ tioning. It also begins to outline the various topics that will be discussed in the meeting, influencing the stance the school psychologist takes toward the meeting topics. For example, it may be necessary to frame a meeting dis­ cussing behavioral difficulties differently than a meeting discussing academic concerns. In our experience, discussion about behavioral concerns can be particularly challenging, due to various incompatible attributions group members may make about school behavior. For both behavioral and aca­ demic referral concerns, it is also necessary to understand the onset and duration of the problem, its frequency, and its intensity. Any current and historical efforts to address the problem should also be investigated. This shouldn’t be the family’s first exposure to concerns. Usually there is a history of not making adequate progress, or seeing academic concerns or difficult behaviors. Andrea Hoffelt.

Suspicion of Disability Meetings 121 It is equally important to learn about prior communication with the family. Has the school and family discussed these concerns, and to what degree? A single short e-mail is very different than multiple, lengthy parent/teacher conferences. Reviewing any prior contact and discussion between group members, especially between educators and family members, can help the school psychologist anticipate any areas of agreement or conflict among the group. Investigating prior communication can also provide information re­ garding the family’s knowledge of the special education and allow the school psychologist to plan how much time may be required to discuss those topics. Ensuring families understanding the process is critical for their effective collaboration. Conduct an Initial Records Review A private review of the student’s records can be an important step in plan­ ning. The school psychologist can learn the student’s age/grade, race/ethnicity, and language background, their educational history, available medical his­ tory, and vision/hearing screenings. It also begins formulation of a general trajectory of academic skill development determined from student grades, test scores, universal screenings, and available intervention and progressmonitoring data. These meetings may be initiated when the family provides the school with a private evaluation, so when available, those results should also be included in this review. Collectively, data in these various records allows the school psychologist to begin case conceptualization, and internally gauge the appropriateness of a formal psychoeducational evaluation.

A records review allows educators to begin conceptualizing the student and their current educational outcomes.

This planning step can be challenging because it involves organizing a lot of information. Most practitioners develop their own way of synthesizing this data during the beginning phases of case conceptualization. We find it useful to use three general questions as an organizational framework. 1. 2. 3.

Who is this student? What has been the outcome of their education so far? What home/school contexts may have led to these results for this student?

Questions 1 and 2, student and outcome data, are easiest to consider first. Information related to the student includes relatively static character­ istics. These include basic demographic descriptors, the student’s health/

122

Suspicion of Disability Meetings

medical status or diagnoses, visual/auditory acuity, any outcomes of previous testing or evaluation, and the student’s language background. Educational outcome data may include end-of-term grades, state test scores, and universal screening data. Reviewing this outcome data across grade levels provides a general trajectory of skill growth. The third critical question fills in the gap between characteristics of the student and their current school outcomes. It can be much more chal­ lenging to address because many of its answers come from the context of the student’s learning, and similarly, the context of their functioning at home. In schools with strong problem-solving systems, the team may already know a lot of this information. In schools still developing those systems, much of the discussion in this meeting may revolve around gathering it. Here, we investigate attendance, discipline, and intervention history, documentation of services such as Tier 2 and Tier 3 supports, English Language Learner (ELL) services, Title 1 services, general edu­ cation counseling supports, private tutoring, and any attempted behavior interventions/supports. Next, consider any patterns, discrepancies, and holes in the collected information. For instance, a scenario where a student’s test scores are high and classroom grades are low might generate questions about the student’s level or rate of work completion, organization, and on-task behavior. Data related to missing assignments can be used to begin an­ swering it. After reviewing these three aspects of data from the student’s records, the school psychologist may have questions to ask other group members during the actual meeting. In this scenario, those questions could include queries about a homework routine, student organizational habits, or home-school communication around homework expectations and work completion. Collectively, this represents contextual information linking student characteristics and educational outcomes, the middle puzzle piece in Figure 6.1.

A strong records review generates questions around what processes may have led to specific outcomes for a particular student.

Figure 6.1 Records Review Process.

Suspicion of Disability Meetings 123 Begin Formulating Specific Evaluation Questions Planning also involves considering the meeting participants’ questions about student functioning. Ultimately, the purpose of assessment is to inform decision-making (Hass & Carriere, 2014). Of course, the broadest decision the group makes involves determining whether to suspect a disability. However, if evaluation only occurs for eligibility purposes, then it can be particularly frustrating for group members when a student does not meet eligibility cri­ teria. It can be useful to broaden the purpose of evaluation, so if results do not support the presence of a disability, group members continue to see value in it. One way to do this involves creating specific questions to be answered through evaluation. If the group generates these questions collaboratively, individuals may better see their influence in the evaluation process. A records review can begin this process; above, we described the questions generated after noting that a student’s records contain poor grades and strong test scores. However, much of the school psychologists’ efforts in the meeting may involve translating the information group members provide into answerable questions. Here we draw from Therapeutic Assessment practices (Finn, 2007; Tharinger et al., 2011), though we must acknowledge that the Therapeutic Assessment model includes broader purposes and practices than just the creation of referral questions, and in many ways represents a family systems intervention. If a parent wonders if their child has a disability because math homework takes so long, their concerns may generate many more specific questions. Remember to consider not only intrinsic student factors, but also their curriculum, instruction, and environment (Reschly & Coolong-Chaffin, 2016). What is Kristen’s general level of math achievement? What math skills are expected at Kristen’s grade level? Which of these skills does Kristen possess, and which skills must she develop further? Is homework difficulty only associated with math, or does it apply to other subjects too? What are the homework assignments like? What is Kristen’s homework routine and environment like?

Questions do not only stem from characteristics of the student. They should investigate curriculum demands, classroom instruc­ tion, and the home and classroom environment.

We hope this illustrates how psychological and psychoeducational evaluations can be approached collaboratively, supporting a partnering persona, and a problem-solving stance.

124

Suspicion of Disability Meetings I feel like a lot of the time, we tell parents “you’re part of the team,” but we’re talking AT them. I give parents homework before meetings, so they can feel prepared and a part of things. Lynae Maciel

It provides the family significant, transparent influence over the evaluation. In some instances, it can be useful to reach out to families before the meeting to begin gathering answers to these questions. Ultimately, it underscores how collaboration starts here at planning the evaluation. Answering these questions requires the active involvement of all group members. As facil­ itators, we can use them to ensure group members contribute in a unique and fulfilling way. Afterall, the teacher is in the best position to answer some of those example questions above, and only the parent can answer others. Note, this process can also be used to support not moving forward with an evaluation, if such a conclusion seems appropriate. If the team already has data to answer these questions, and they do not point toward a suspicion of disability, it may not be necessary to collect more. Consider the Context of Communication Considering this information collectively allows for a more informed consideration of the communication context. Since these meetings in­ volve determining if there is a consensus around a suspicion of dis­ ability and (when appropriate) designing an evaluation, we can expect topics to include the student’s current functioning level, contrasted with expected functioning, parent and teacher supports, disability, and special education eligibility requirements. These topics may elicit contrasting perspectives about these topics, and in both parents and teachers, concerns related to failure. As a result, these meetings can sometimes be emotional for participants. The persona and stance practitioners described in Chapter 3 can be useful support tools. They facilitate the discussion of the whole student – strengths as well as difficulties – and help meeting participants thoroughly investigate si­ tuational or context-based attributions as they make judgments about the concerns they discuss. Construct an Agenda Recall the process for agenda building from Chapter 4. First, consider the general purpose of the meeting. As mentioned earlier, this varies from district to district. For example, we will plan an agenda for a meeting in which a family obtained a private psychoeducational eva­ luation for their student, which recommended special education elig­ ibility. Recall that after determining the meeting purpose, the next step involves filtering it through three general meeting goals: 1) build all group members’ capacity to participate in the decision-making process,

Suspicion of Disability Meetings 125 2) develop a shared understanding of meeting topics, and 3) collaborate on appropriate decisions. Filtering that purpose through those specific goals may result in the meeting goals and subsequent agenda provided in Box 6.1.

Box 6.1

Example Suspicion of Disability Meeting Agenda

Meeting Purpose To discuss a private psychoeducational evaluation (x/xx/xxxx) and its recommendations (including a recommendation for special education), and plan the next steps. Meeting Goals 1. 2. 3.

Share evaluation and its recommendations Review special education evaluation and eligibility process Collaborate on appropriate next steps

Group Norms All group members have a responsibility to share their perspec­ tive, demonstrate an understanding of others’ perspective, and work together to ensure a successful discussion. Welcome Questions Confidentiality Whole-student focused; no other students will be discussed in this meeting Task focused; stay on track and honor the purpose of the meeting Topics Welcome and introductions Review of meeting purpose and goals Meeting norms Discuss private evaluation, shared understanding of results and recommendations Discuss district evaluation and eligibility requirements, adverse impact, and specially designed instruction Collaborate on next steps

Processes Round robin Review agenda, verification of understanding Review agenda Facilitated discussion Facilitated discussion Facilitated discussion

126

Suspicion of Disability Meetings

After establishing specific meeting goals, consider the topics that will be necessary to discuss to accomplish them. In this example, these may in­ clude the private evaluation and its results and recommendations. If the private evaluation is incomplete from the school’s perspective, for in­ stance, if it requires a classroom observation, or if its recommendations do not appear appropriate, then a discussion of evaluation and eligibility requirements may be necessary to demonstrate what information may be missing from the private evaluation and how it can be supplemented.

The Warm-Up Phase As with all meetings, in the warm-up phase the facilitator ensures the group makes introductions and describes the purpose of the meeting. I knew there was a very good chance that, for the next 13 years, this parent was going to attend these meetings, and I thought it was important for them to understand the process. It is important to empower parents, and I truly believe all those corny commercials that say knowledge is power. We haven’t done our jobs if parents don’t understand their rights and the purpose of our meetings. MaryAnn Green Many of the practitioners to whom we spoke stressed that they were very cognizant that this meeting could lay the foundation for subsequent school/family interactions. In this phase of the meeting, where families may have little experience in formal interactions with special education, it is important to be welcoming and empowering. The facilitator and other members of the team should set the expectation that everyone partici­ pates, all voices are necessary. Introductions Of course, when members do not know each other, introductions can be an important first step in the meeting process. It may be necessary to tailor introductions according to the specific characteristics of district processes, or the unique characteristics of the case in question. For instance, in some scenarios, family members may already know many members in the room. In other scenarios, almost everyone could be a new face. At the same time, regardless of case history, it is also important to not make assumptions about individuals’ familiarity. Sometimes we might think a family member is familiar with others in the room when that is not the case.

This meeting will lay the foundation for subsequent interactions between the family and educators.

Suspicion of Disability Meetings 127 Cultural norms or expectations can also be important to consider. Different regions of the country, different racial or ethnic groups, and/or different language groups may all expect different greetings and introductions. [In Hawaiʻi] We greet people by hugging and kissing on the cheek. The parent may come over and hug everyone. Or it might just be like “Aloha” it’s so good to see you again. Holly Hoke The beginning part of this meeting can be a time to express gratitude to the family for their participation and acknowledge the burden that school meetings can place on them. Attendance may require a significant change in routine for many families. For some families, attendance means time off work or a need for additional childcare. We do not think that the meeting facilitator necessarily needs to make a huge display of this point. Rather, simply thanking them and acknowledging that attendance can be a difficulty can be sufficient. Lastly, the opening of this meeting can begin to set participation norms. Use an active and collaborative verb when describing this meeting, such as “thanks for coming to work with us.” It conveys a very different set of expectations for the meeting than “thanks for coming to speak with us,” or “see us” may convey. The word “work” stresses that the family will participate and be working alongside the rest of the group, not merely receiving information from educators. Purpose The school psychologist can begin to demonstrate their stance toward the topics of the meeting through a description of the meeting purpose. As with the introduction, the most effective way to convey the purpose of this meeting will likely vary based on specific district procedures and practices. For practitioners where this meeting occurs after a series of formal problem-solving meetings or because the family made a referral for a special education evaluation, the purpose may be more explicitly associated with beginning the evaluation process, while in other settings, the purpose is more tied to problem-solving, and questions about a suspicion of disability are somewhat secondary. Our purpose today is to talk about [student], how he’s doing at school, and things that you collectively have noticed. We’ll review his strengths and challenges, using that information to come up with a plan to support both him and [teacher]. Natalie Strand I really want to hear from all team members, you all know this child the best. What’s going great? What isn’t going as well as it could? [Turning to the family] Do we want to get permission from you to take a more

128

Suspicion of Disability Meetings thorough look “under the hood” and investigate the possibility of a disabling condition? Aaron Willis Thanks for joining us here today. Whenever a parent or teacher or anybody has a concern about a student, we initiate this process. We will talk collaboratively together about the student’s strengths and areas of concerns. How are they doing socially, emotionally, and academically to determine what our next steps might be. We will begin to implement those interventions or do additional assessment if necessary. As we move forward, we will meet again in six weeks or so to see if those interventions are working. What is the new data telling us? But today, we’ll put all our opinions on the table, respect diverse opinions and keep the student in the forefront as we consider what our next steps are. Sally Whitelock

In some of the example language practitioners provided us, they stressed that the purpose should convey expectations of inclusiveness, participa­ tion, and support. When referring to the student, the purpose should frame them as an individual with both strengths and challenges. Our goal today is to gather the information needed to make decisions about how to best help your child and help us collectively develop a plan to address your child’s needs. MaryAnn Green The purpose statement can also be used to empower family members’ participation. For instance, the example above conveys a spirit of service toward the family; the meeting will progress for the family to ultimately make various decisions in support of their student. The purpose should outline the meeting’s decision-making process. From the purpose, group members should be able to determine the in­ formation that will be discussed. While a significant aspect of these meetings is to decide whether the group suspects a disability, that ques­ tion should be broken down more precisely. That question describes the outcome of the meeting, but not the decision-making process. To provide clarification to decision-making, we can break the suspicion question down into a few questions. 1.

2.

3.

Compared to various expectations (age/grade/curricular), how does the student perform in various domains of functioning and across multiple environments? In areas where functioning does not meet appropriate expectations, what supports have been attempted? How have various individuals addressed these concerns? Are these concerns consistent with the disability definitions and rule out criteria addressed through special education, and if so, what information would be required to confirm or disconfirm them?

Suspicion of Disability Meetings 129 Note how these questions correspond very closely to the method used to organize the information from student records. Our purpose today is to share our observations of Cora at home and at school to collectively describe where she’s excelling, and areas of growth (1). All students have areas where they excel and areas of growth. We’ll also report to each other the things we find ourselves needing to do to support Cora at home and school (2). Sometimes, all this information can make the group wonder if certain challenges come from a disability, and we should evaluate the student to determine if they require more formal supports, such as through special educa­ tion. (3) In the previous example, we noted references to each of those questions. Consider how this statement frames norms, roles, and expectations for this meeting. By referring to observations at home, it highlights to members that the family has a particular role. When referencing “all students,” the previous purpose statement implies that everyone has challenges, normalizing the experience of this meeting for the family to a degree. Lastly, this statement brings up disability and special education so members know that those supports are being considered. In settings where this meeting focuses on problem-solving first, and child find second, it may be more appropriate to outline this question later in the meeting, not at the outset. However, when the family has made the referral, this should be brought up initially. Norms There are group dynamics to consider when conceptualizing norms for this type of meeting. For instance, practitioners highlighted how family members are in a unique position compared to others in the group. In contrast to the routine nature of the meeting for educators, it may be a very new experience for the family members. For some families these meetings can feel intimidating, we don’t mean them to be, but how can they not be with so many strangers in the room? Holly Hoke It’s definitely different walking into a school asking for help than maybe for your child’s concert or an awards ceremony, or musical. Katie Shelton Compounding on this intimidation further, family members may not know that these are very routine meetings for educators. Conceivably, they could wonder if their student struggles to such a significant degree

130

Suspicion of Disability Meetings

that the school must hold a special meeting just for them. Thus, during the warm-up phase of this meeting, it can be useful to highlight that many families can feel anxious or intimidated initially. Normalize anxious feelings for families and underscore that these meetings are a routine process between the school and families. Sometimes families find these meetings intimidating, but they’re actually a routine part of how our school works together with families to support students. Ashli Tyre Additionally, as highlighted in some of the purpose statements above, practitioners stressed that meeting norms should include a thorough discussion of student strengths. There are practical reasons to ensure the team does not ignore strengths. They can be leveraged during the inter­ vention process. Further, their discussion ensures that all areas of func­ tioning are considered, so the group confidently plans a comprehensive evaluation. Equally important, there are interpersonal reasons to discuss student strengths. It reminds group members that the student is not merely a collection of problems. It allows family members to verify that educators understand their student and see their student as a whole person. In our experiences, we find that a discussion of strengths toward the beginning of the meeting can provide a contrast that may help other group members understand and accept the group’s concern(s). This tactic easily applies to learning disabilities (“Cora is such a strong reader, it’s surprising her math skills do not seem to be progressing in the same way.”), but we think it fits in most all scenarios. (“Kevin’s records highlight that we have no reason to be concerned about his academics, he’s excelling! But his engagement with his peers is not progressing in the same way.”) Roles As in all meetings, members will assume various roles throughout the course of discussion. Of course, someone will facilitate the meeting. Another individual is often assigned a note-taker position. An individual may have the responsibility to bring procedural safeguards and other paperwork. Another member might monitor time. Pertaining to content, usually members will define their role related to their area of expertise. Logically, a speech-language pathologist might expect their role to in­ clude providing information about language development or describing age-appropriate articulation errors. Recall that group members begin to determine their role by considering the purpose of the meeting and evaluating how their unique perspective fits within that purpose. The

Suspicion of Disability Meetings 131 facilitator should consider the unique perspectives each member may bring to the meeting. Use your team members to talk about how the concern leads us to think whether it does or does not need to be addressed through special education. Use those team members who have those other lenses to provide answers to the groups’ questions. Allison Grant In this type of meeting, beyond facilitation, our role as school psychol­ ogists may include different components. As mentioned earlier, because we usually have little direct experience with a student before these meetings, and never as much as teachers and parents, our role involves framing the data provided by other team members. The general education teacher will bring their personal experiences with the student. That will include a description of how the student currently functions and specific supports the student may require in the classroom. Teachers have lots of data, but sometimes don’t know what that data is. “Take one of those behaviors you’re concerned about and paint me a picture of it.” Abby Royston However, other group members may struggle to describe their observa­ tions, or even more broadly, struggle to understand just how much data they can provide. We can scaffold their reporting through curiosity to help them describe their various concerns. Abby Royston describes how to help teachers operationalize behavior, which can lead to their ob­ servations of its antecedents and consequences. General education teachers also possess detailed knowledge of curri­ cular expectations. In fact, the general education teacher may be the most appropriate person in the room to help describe age and grade or cur­ ricular expectations. They spend a significant portion of their day around students at the same age/grade level. As a result, general education tea­ chers may often have a nuanced understanding of typical functioning in their grade level. At the same time, it can be important for facilitators to also recognize any sampling bias due to the demographics of a school. For instance, in an affluent area, many students in a general education classroom may perform well above general expectations. Similarly, when curricular expectations are demanding (and perhaps developmentally inappropriate), they can skew educators’ expectations of appropriate agebased functioning. I don’t like the term “below. He’s just below.” Below what? I ask teachers to provide three things. What does the student do well? What does the student do not so well? What do you do to support the things the student does not do well? Charles Barrett

132

Suspicion of Disability Meetings

Despite that knowledge base, other educators can struggle to convey those expectations. For instance, describing a student as being “below” is unhelpful, and likely hurtful to parents. As when teachers struggle to describe their observations, in scenarios like these, our role includes drawing out grade-level expectations in concrete terms. Then there are more implicit norms driving group member roles, un­ stated expectations among the group, but abided by, nevertheless. Sometimes group members may demonstrate a “stay-in-your-lane” mentality. The occupational therapist discusses sensory and fine-motor skills, or behavioral concerns reflects the school psychologist’s domain. We do not think there is anything wrong with specialists focusing on their area of expertise, but we should take care to ensure this meeting does not progress like a series of individual consultations. Sometimes important insights come from group members not explicitly trained in a particular domain of functioning or development. Even though we’re all there collaboratively, the reality is, as the school psychologist, you deliver the message nobody wants to hear. Allison Grant In many groups there is an implicit role expectation that “big” in­ formation or implications comes from the school psychologist. The school psychologist is the member that ultimately communicates to the family and the rest of the group that there is a suspicion of a disability, or alternatively, when many on the team are advocating for testing, that other variables appear to be more the primary cause of dysfunction.

The Action Phase Up to this point in the meeting, the facilitator has focused efforts on the meeting process. The group made introductions, delineated the purpose of the meeting in a way that made the decision-making process trans­ parent, and described group norms. Members likely have a sense of the unique point of view they bring to the meeting. Collectively, these steps support the process goals of a group meeting, creating a shared purpose and ensuring all members can contribute to the meeting. The action phase of the meeting requires managing content. If the facilitator appropriately attended to introductions, purpose, norms and roles, process may effectively support the discussion of meeting content. During the action phase, the facilitator should strive to actively validate members’ point of view and integrate their perspective with others. Recall the lessons from collaborative discussion in Chapter 2. Validating members’ points of view means describing the context supporting their perspective.

Suspicion of Disability Meetings 133 Below we describe common scenarios practitioners reported in meet­ ings where members must determine whether there is suspicion of a disabling condition. Starting at the Beginning I start basic, beginning with the reason for referral. “We are concerned because Mary was not keeping up with her peers in class, she’s off task a lot, she isn’t completing assignments, and when she does, there are a lot of errors. This process is to determine whether or not we can provide additional formal supports and services at school, often through special education.” Diane Barrett Start with facts, I always like to use data, I don’t use feelings, they get us in trouble. When it comes to an emotional disturbance referral, there are probably 30 office referrals, it’s more than most kids. So we need to figure out a way to help Joey. Let’s develop a behavior plan. Once they [parents] hear that there is positive reinforcement, that Joey gets help out of it, they see benefit. Daniel Hof Many practitioners stressed the need to highlight the supportive intent of this meeting. When describing specific concerns, pair them with a men­ tion of formal supports and services. This practice aligns with aspects of the collaborative discussion process described in Chapter 2. That process noted the importance of highlighting the upside of an alternative per­ spective for group members. I haven’t had a chance to meet your student, obviously. I know them only on paper. So, I’d like to start by summarizing their educational history through their records, and maybe you [parents] can tell me if it’s consistent with what you remember and help me add to it. Jason Parkin Summarizing records can also represent a useful starting point for the group. It creates a common place of understanding for all participants. In this example, many group members may appreciate the honesty the fa­ cilitator demonstrates by revealing their limited knowledge of the student. It reflects a practice consistent with a persona that values team-based decision-making. Such an admission provides a role for family members to contrast what appears on paper to their memory and allows the group to clarify any misunderstandings among participants. Dealing with Team Member Negativity Many practitioners highlighted challenges with frustration and negativity from group members when determining suspicion of a disability. When a

134

Suspicion of Disability Meetings

group member appears to be overly negative, it creates the potential for challenges within the group. These meetings can’t be “problem dumping,” where all the teachers come in and describe all the problems they’re seeing. Parents are in tears by the third teacher. I’ve had parents that would explicitly say, “you’re the experts and you’re telling me that you can’t deal with my kid.” We have to work hard to be collaborative. Jill Davidson Family members will not appreciate hearing negative tones from other group members. It impacts group cohesiveness and creates a barrier to effective problem-solving. When a team member is overly negative about the child, and the parent clearly picks up on that, it’s challenging. We have all worked with families who are cautious about us due to previous interactions with other educators. When team members start to be too negative, I try to expand their thinking. In what settings does the student demonstrate these problems? In what settings does the student not demonstrate them? If educators struggle to find settings without the problem, enlist the parents to brainstorm those settings. Charles Barrett Charles Barrett stresses the need for a positive, strength-based stance and employs meeting facilitation skills to support collaboration. He uses this scenario as an opportunity to give space to other group members, espe­ cially the family, to make a unique contribution to the discussion and adopt a meaningful role in the meeting. Through questioning, we can gently remind group members that a student does not struggle at all times or in all settings. Note, the persona advocated in Chapter 3 stresses positive intent, even when considering group member negativity. In addition to the role-based strategies noted above, it may be possible to construct situation-based attributions explaining other members’ negative attitudes. In part, the negativity may reflect an increasing level of tunnel vision or sensitivity to the problem. That group member has likely been working hard with in­ creasingly narrow interventions and they may begin to “miss the forest for the trees.” We can acknowledge the work between the teacher and the student, and frame the negativity as frustration, a natural response to the situation, feeling stuck. In some ways, these attitudes and emotions should be expected. Ideally, the referring individual(s) have attempted multiple interventions and supports that were ineffective. Afterall, if they had been helpful, there would be no need for the meeting. I would just listen and let them talk, and then I would say “Thank you very much for sharing all that. I’m going to document that in your areas

Suspicion of Disability Meetings 135 of concern, but I want to go back for a minute and just start with everyone sharing. What are the strengths of this child?” Sally Whitelock Sally Whitelock affirms the non-judgmental persona. She also highlights the usefulness of established agenda topics and norms. We can gently refocus group members to a brainstorming of strengths, and that is easier to do when the topic is delineated on the agenda. When kids have behavioral difficulties, it doesn’t mean they’re willful, that they have an ineffective teacher or overly permissive parents. Selfregulation is a set of skills that require direct instruction, modeling, and practice. Some children may need more teaching and practice than others. Jules Nolan To address negativity, it can also be helpful to reframe cognitive and social-emotional performance as a skill area rather than a personality trait. Such reframing assumes the positive intent of the student. Everyone intuitively understands that performance domains require instruction and practice: modeling, feedback, rehearsal, and support for generalization. Academic and athletic skill domains represent good examples. Most ev­ eryone understandings that reading and juggling are not innate skills. They require practice. Furthermore, most everyone understands that there are individual differences within skill development. Some people pick up some skills faster than others. However, it may be challenging for many individuals to broaden their thinking into the social-emotional or self-regulation domains. In our experience, even educators need assis­ tance reframing self-regulation as a set of developing skills requiring instruction and practice. It often is not a commonplace belief. Recognizing Group Members’ Student Support Efforts A teacher had significant concerns about some odd behaviors in the classroom and was feeling stumped. The Kindergarten student was very bright, probably reading at the first or second grade level, but extremely emotional with unusual ways of moving his body. The teacher was doing an excellent job at supporting the child in the classroom. We validated for her that yes, something was going on, and that she was doing a great job. Abby Royston One way to help group members feel both a shared purpose and re­ cognition for their contributions involves validating their perspective and praising their support efforts. Let group members know that others see their dedication. The facilitator or another group member can provide

136

Suspicion of Disability Meetings

comments to affirm efforts or to demonstrate they understand the rationale behind a concern. The team was not planning on evaluating, but the parents reported they were paying for extensive tutoring in reading after school. I pointed out that maybe that child was making progress because of the tutoring. Abby Royston It helps with relationship-building to let parents and teachers know that you see and appreciate their hard work. It can also be evidence that supports are necessary. Oftentimes the student is doing well because of the amount of support provide by adults, either at home or at school. Jenne Simental Adult support efforts represent an important area of investigation during this meeting. In the records review process we outlined earlier, they would be included as a process linking student characteristics to outcomes (see Figure 6.1). The significance of student challenges or progress should be interpreted in the context of provided supports. Sometimes additional help at home or extensive tutoring masks the need for specially designed instruction. Skepticism at the Possibility of a Disabling Condition Most all practitioners have experienced meetings where family members met the possibility of a disability or special education with skepticism or defensiveness. We have a negative judgment about information from outside our system. So why does it surprise us when parents have a negative judgment about information within our system? Jonas Taub With defensiveness, I start with “What do you want for your kid?” That question by itself breaks down some of those walls, because now it’s not “I have to go in here and plead my case to people who don’t know me and don’t care,” it’s “they’re working with me.” Carina R. Turner Jonas Taub reminds us that skepticism signals that we shared informa­ tion incompatible with the family’s current beliefs about their student. Often, a useful communication strategy may begin at shared beliefs be­ tween the team (including the family). Carina Turner provided one way to identify common beliefs. She starts at shared goals and aspirations. Some disabling conditions may be particularly challenging for families to consider, such as intellectual disability.

Suspicion of Disability Meetings 137 If the team suspects this category, it needs to be addressed upfront. In earlier meetings suggest “we need to explore this area of intellectual disability, but there is a lot of testing that needs to be done first, and I want to include you Mom and Dad in that process. We’ll talk as we go through it.” Aaron Willis While the special education process proceeds through discrete meetings, the discourse is continuous. To collaborate with families investigating the possibility of an intellectual disability (or any disability), it should be brought up when planning the evaluation. It can be mentioned when brainstorming evaluation questions. I went to a meeting at a teacher’s request to explain the evaluation process. The teacher and family had met previously to talk about her concerns for the student. However, she had never mentioned special education or disability. She had only told them she was sending the student out of the class with an associate for some individual help. So, I say those words [disability, special education] to Mom, who’s holding her newborn baby, and she starts crying saying “you think my daughter has a disability? You think something is wrong with her?” Christie Crouch Skepticism and other negative reactions may be exacerbated with poor communication and a lack of transparency prior to the meeting. When in this scenario it can be necessary to fall back on empathy and active lis­ tening. It is necessary to assess family members’ worldviews around terms like disability, and their understanding of special education. To many people, the term disability reflects a particular severity level. They may not use the term to reference the same large continuum of functioning applicable to special education. Upon hearing “disability” or “special education,” they may immediately assume educators want to change their child’s classroom or put them in a different school. They may instantly begin to worry that they did something wrong or caused the concern in some way. One strong next step could be to provide a summary of the discussion so far, keeping in mind the various assumptions around disability and special education, sparking their emotions. [You think my daughter has a disability?] Well, possibly. And I wonder that because I just heard so much about how hard both you and [teacher] are working with her. You’re doing so many important things. When the student is working hard, the parent is working hard, and the teacher is working hard, we have to consider if maybe there’s just something about [student] that’s not allowing them to grow from all that effort.

138

Suspicion of Disability Meetings

In this response, the facilitator commented about the magnitude of supports the student had received, and the effort the student has de­ monstrated, collectively framing them as strengths of the teacher, the parent, and the student. This framing is done deliberately to address any potential thoughts from parents and teachers that they somehow caused the condition from poor effort. It conveys the idea that the reason for suspicion is because they have collectively worked so hard with that student. Do you think, if s/he could be successful in math, s/he would be? – Allison Grant If group members need a different perspective to consider, sometimes it can be useful to supply a thought experiment. Recalling the concept of commonplaces from Chapter 2, with this example, Allison Grant le­ verages a belief most individuals hold about disability: it is beyond someone’s control. It also stems from positive intent, implying that people do not struggle on purpose. In effect, it minimizes participants’ ability to perceive the student as unmotivated or lazy. Reviewing the Purpose of Special Education We have to follow legal practices, but people don’t want to hear any of that. They just think,“I want this kid to get more help, and behind that door, special ed, is the magic bullet”, in most people’s minds. That’s the place where kids can get more help than they’re currently getting. Sherri Bentley The opposite scenario can also occur at pre-referral meetings. Rather than shock related to a suspicion of disability, some members push the idea that the student is disabled, even when available data does not suggest a disability could be present. Special education isn’t just about getting kids help. It’s about identifying a disability that is limiting a kid’s ability to participate in education. Sometimes team members may say “You say he needs help, why won’t you give him that help?” I’ll reply, “Yes, he needs help, and I’ll be happy to be a part of that problem-solving team to support him with that help. But he doesn’t need help because he’s disabled.” Allison Grant Some teams portray special education as the only way of getting extra help. They ask families, “Would you like your student to get extra help?” We aren’t just talking about extra help. We are talking about whether your child has a disability. I think most, if not all, families

Suspicion of Disability Meetings 139 with a struggling student would want their student to receive extra help, but not everyone wants their student in special education. Kyle Hesser There are numerous reasons that students may struggle at school, a disability reflects only one possibility. Scenarios such as this may arise because some individuals in the group may focus more on the support aspects of the special education and less on the entitlement aspects, a variation in beliefs that may differ among educators. As resources in public education have been cut, we have more kids in classrooms with less supports for teachers. Teachers are asked to accommodate kids at so many different levels, they’re begging for help. So, when a kid needs a little bit of extra help, in their head, they’re saying, “I can’t give it to him. But maybe that person who’s only supposed to have 12 people in a room can.” But I have to remind them, remember this is a legal document saying this child has a disability. It’s not saying this kid missed a year of school. It’s saying the child has a disability. Carina R. Turner It can be important to remind the group that there are other avenues of support, such as continued problem-solving. Special education focuses on students with disabilities who require specially designed instruction. Discussing Variables Within the Home and Family Context You have no idea what is going on in anyone else’s homelife. The team was discussing limit setting around videogames with Dad. Dad said, “you can’t tell me to take away videogames, that’s all he [student] has,” and I told him, “I hear that, it’s what excites him. But I want you to think, is that still going to be okay when he’s 40 and he wasn’t able to graduate from high school, or go to college, or participate in training, or get a job, and he’s still sitting on your couch?” Dad admitted he needs help, “My wife is drinking and I’m struggling.” We helped the kid by getting the father hooked up with parent coaching, al-anon, that sort of thing. Allison Grant Allison Grant reminds us of the broad systemic variables that impact child functioning and require consideration when suspecting a dis­ ability. In her example, a disability did not seem to be the cause of school difficulties, rather challenges with management at home asso­ ciated with multiple mental health concerns within the family system. Here the team strived to support the family as it began to engage with systems outside the school context.

140

Suspicion of Disability Meetings

Addressing Pre-conceived Notions about Special Education “Special education isn’t just for students with extreme disabilities. It’s there for students with (relatively) mild challenges too. There are 13 ways to qualify for special education and most of them do not seem to apply to your student.” I feel like I need to be clear that this [extreme disability] is not your son or daughter, there are no concerns about major physical disabilities or significant behavioral challenges. There are concerns about math. Margaret Hogan Sometimes families feel wary of a special education evaluation because they have never attributed student difficulties to a disability. When group members assume disability implies certain type of severe impairment, it can be helpful to clarify the scope of challenges served through special education. When a student has a physical disability, for example uses a wheelchair, it’s easy to see and understand a need for supports. However, with emotional disturbances it’s harder. If people can’t quickly and easily see the disability, it is difficult to understand the need for supports, and often even more difficult to determine what supports may be necessary. Jenne Simental Besides the severity of impairment, group members may also struggle to consider disability when its characteristics are internal, the case with disability stemming for behavioral, social, and emotional concerns, or learning difficulties. Explaining the Difference between IDEA and the DSM-5 I think about families that maybe already have some medical diagnoses provided or maybe some outside testing done. I try to delineate that we want to use whatever outside stuff has been done. But special education, for better or worse, is kind of its own bubble. We don’t work with diagnoses so much as we work within what we call an eligibility. There are far fewer eligibilities than there are diagnoses. We have a smaller number of holes to fit pegs into. There’s 12 different eligibility areas in the state of Oregon. Our goal as a team is to figure out which of these areas perhaps best describes your child as a learner. It’s not going to be perfect, but no matter what eligibility they qualify for, we’re going to make sure they’ve got the services they need. Aaron Willis Families may come with a medical diagnosis of autism and be confused about why that diagnosis doesn’t automatically translate into an IEP. I usually tell them that within education, we aren’t necessarily looking

Suspicion of Disability Meetings 141 for a diagnosis of autism, but that our goal is to investigate the impact of a child’s abilities on their education. Milaney Leverson When this meeting occurs because a student has received a diagnosis from the DSM, it can be important to describe the distinction between IDEA and the DSM-5 to meeting participants. While both the DSM-5 and IDEA provide classification of childhood functional problems, they re­ present distinct systems. Students who may fit criteria under one system may not under another (Tobin & House, 2016). This can create confusion for educators and families alike. All group members should understand the distinction. Aaron Willis and Milaney Leverson demonstrate how to focus the group’s attention on two various concepts within special education. First, contrasting the vast array of medical diagnoses with the relatively small number of eligibility categories can serve as a basis describing the dif­ ference between a disorder and an eligibility. Second, the major focus of school-based evaluation investigates how various concerns impact the schooling process. There may be less concern on the nuance of diagnosis. Collectively, it may be helpful to explain to the group the difference between a disorder, disability, and eligibility under IDEA. A disorder represents a cluster of signs or symptoms that affect health, while a dis­ ability describes a state of functioning manifested as an interaction be­ tween an individual’s capabilities and the environment (World Health Organization, 2001; Wehmeyer, 2013). As a concept, disability requires not just a description of the examinee, but their functioning within the environment, its impact on their educational functioning. Adverse edu­ cational impact represents a key component of IDEA eligibility. However, it is not the final component. Eligibility under IDEA requires students to demonstrate a need for specially designed instruction to make educational progress in light of a student’s unique circumstances (Zirkel, 2019). When a Student Has a Diagnosis, but There Is No Need for Special Education In schools, the conversation we should facilitate is whether the student needs specially designed instruction. That avoids putting the wall up that comes from saying, “We don’t think there’s a problem.” Instead, ask, “What kind of help do you think your student needs?” Nathaniel Jones I ask team members, “what do you think would be effective for this student, specifically?” We can always implement ideas directly from the child study team. Even if we do test Johnny, it’s going to be 65 days until we have results, and he may not even qualify. Charles Barrett

142

Suspicion of Disability Meetings

The distinction between a disorder, disability, and eligibility highlights school-psychologists’ problem-solving stance. A problem-solving stance conceptualizes student functional challenges as a problem to be solved and compels the group to determine supports to scaffold student per­ formance. That question – what supports may be necessary? – lies at the distinction between a disability and eligibility. When supports go beyond environmental accommodations and significantly change curriculum ex­ pectations or instructional practices, it may rise to the level of specially designed instruction. If the group suspects specially designed instruction may be necessary, then a psychoeducational evaluation is necessary to confirm eligibility. When Group Members Do Not Agree on Typical Developmental Expectations Understanding typical development is hard, especially for families that have just one child, or when we’re discussing their first child. I worked with a student with significant medical conditions from another country. He had been in ELL for two years and had very few words of intelligible speech. He was self-stimming in the classroom most of the time, he couldn’t attend to his personal care needs, and after two years of exposure, he still wasn’t familiar with classroom routines. So, we invited Mom to observe the classroom, just so she could see what other students were doing in the room, even if their native language also wasn’t English. The fact that he needed all the prompting and cueing and adult facilitation and supervision to do all of these things, it really put things into perspective for her. Diane Barrett Child development represents a major set of topics within special edu­ cation meetings. In this particular meeting type, group members may bring incompatible assumptions about child development, sometimes stemming from culturally-based differences in expectations, and some­ times based in different experiences with children. Such a situation de­ monstrates the value in a team-based, partnering persona. Rather than arguing, the team can show all group members how a student may function in different contexts through observations or work samples. Sometimes disagreements may occur because different group members observe the student in different settings. Obviously, students may perform differently between home and school where expectations, daily tasks, and relationships differ. When student functioning appears to differ across settings, then the group should discuss potential differences in those settings. The question becomes what about these settings differs that leads to changes in functioning? Note the necessity of an and stance (Stone, Patton, & Heen, 1999) toward the topics of student functioning across settings. Initially, observations across settings may appear

Suspicion of Disability Meetings 143 incompatible, but non-judgmental discussion can identify characteristics of one setting that may support a student’s functioning in the other. Moreover, it may allow group members to point out strengths in those contexts to support group rapport. A Tension between Continued Intervention and Evaluation Teachers may not have progress-monitoring data in the very narrow, traditional sense of the word, but it isn’t like they’re arbitrarily saying, “Let’s evaluate this kid.” They have observations that this kid needs more support and could be experiencing a disability. It’s our job as the psychologist to acknowledge that side of the data as well. At the same time, we also have to have certain types of progress-monitoring to be in compliance. In that situation, I suggest, “I’ll get going on this end, but you need to get collecting data on that end.” Peter McDougal Many practitioners recognize the necessity of progress-monitoring data for ruling out extrinsic causes of certain skill deficits such as a lack of exposure to appropriate instruction. However, the Office of Special Education Programs has stressed that a need for intervention data cannot delay a special education evaluation if there is a suspicion of a disability (Musgrove, 2011). When there is a requirement for more intervention services, or progress-monitoring data in particular, practitioners indicated a need for flexibility and compromise. Point out exactly what the [State] Department of Education requires for intervention. It’s not your requirement (as the eva­ luator), it’s the state’s requirement. “We have to do interventions and take data. I’ll help by monitoring and making sure it’s exactly the data we need.” Align yourself with the teacher as their support person. Jules Nolan It can be useful to point out the eligibility criteria that the evaluation team must describe in the evaluation report. For instance, in Washington State, Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 392-172A-03055 deline­ ates the multiple criteria required for a specific learning disability de­ termination. Within that code, Section 4(a) specifics: to ensure that underachievement in a student suspected of having a specific learning disability is not due to lack of appropriate instruction in reading or math, the group must consider: (a) data that demonstrate that prior to, or as part of, the referral process, the student was provided appropriate instruction in the general education settings, delivered by qualified personnel; and (b) data-based doc­ umentation of repeated assessments of achievement at reasonable

144

Suspicion of Disability Meetings intervals, reflecting formal assessment of student progress during instruction, which was provided to the student’s parents.”

In such a scenario, sometimes it can be useful to remind the team that by reviewing the data discussed so far, they have, in a way, started evalu­ ating the presence of a disability. The review highlighted any missing data that will be required for the evaluation. For instance, perhaps they re­ viewed data to document inadequate achievement, or described in­ formation suggestive of a discrepancy between ability and achievement to be confirmed with norm-referenced tests. In reviewing available records, perhaps they demonstrated that underachievement is not primarily the result of vision or hearing difficulties, or limited English proficiency. However, the group does not yet have data to report under 4(b) and must create a plan to collect it. We don’t want to damage trust with that teacher. And if the referral goes forward, we need them on our side. So, we need to be collaborative. “You’ve done a great job implementing these three strategies. I have a couple more ideas. Let’s meet 1:1 to discuss them.” Mondie Childress A gracious, team-oriented persona can support group members collecting additional progress-monitoring data. An automatic thought that we may have when suggesting more intervention is that others think “school psychs just don’t want another student to test,” and we can get defensive, and heated. We get a little bit elevated. Maybe you even anticipate it, so you walk into the meeting defensive. Remind yourself that the teacher is just trying to do the best thing for the kid and to them that means special education. Teachers may think we can “fix” students if they get that help, and teachers may think it’s our decision whether to give that kid help. Jules Nolan As Jules Nolan acknowledges, it is just as important to monitor our own beliefs and assumptions in meetings as it is to monitor other participants. This can reflect a significant source of stress for many of us. Recalling the perspective of others in the room and pointing out the regulations we help teams abide by can be useful ways to address it. When Families Prefer a Private Evaluation We’re always open to it [a private evaluation]. Bring it, share it. We want to collaborate. I think we have to help parents recognize that we’re evaluating within the school environment. There may be a need to take outside information and incorporate it into educational

Suspicion of Disability Meetings 145 recommendations. That’s our expertise. We’re asking for education­ ally relevant information. When it comes down to it, we’re trying to get the best picture so that we can assist the school system with programming for their child. Linda Pedersen I let them know that we appreciate the evaluation and the information. We’ll consider it and use as much of it as possible in our report. But there’s a difference in what happens in an educational setting and a clinical setting. Special education is a two-pronged process, there needs to be educational need for services and supports. Melissa Reid Families often bring private evaluations to school-based providers. However, it does not relinquish schools of their evaluation responsi­ bilities. Private evaluations may not include important components, such as classroom observations. When families provide data, it can be im­ portant to highlight distinctions between private and school-based eva­ luations and collaborate with the team on a plan to gather any additional information or address remaining questions. Ensuring Strong Referral Questions Standardized testing should have a purpose. It should be part of a process to find specific information. What are our referral questions? What are we trying to determine, and what’s the best way to determine it? Kyle Hesser To reiterate from the planning section earlier, one important objective in this meeting involves ensuring the group arrives at a consensus about the scope of the evaluation, and in the process, creates multiple specific questions to be answered by the evaluation. Recall from the context of communication in Chapter 2 that effective communication appears rea­ sonable and logical. The facilitator can use specific questions to increase the reasonableness of eligibility decisions by making eligibility criteria more transparent. Hass and Carriere (2014) provided a strong method of formulating answerable questions for the evaluation process. They out­ lined four general types of questions, those related to present functional status, those describing diagnostic or eligibility decisions, those con­ sidered “solution-based,” and those suggesting how various character­ istics of the examinee may contribute to the functional challenges observed by the group. Consider a common scenario in which a student referred for a special education evaluation has been recently diagnosed with ADHD. The evaluator can break down the obvious “Does this student meet criteria for Other Health Impairment?” question into more specific questions. These might include, but are not limited to, the following:

146

Suspicion of Disability Meetings How does Cora’s recently diagnosed ADHD impact her at home and school? What is Cora’s current level of academic and social/emotional devel­ opment? What types of supports has she required at home and in the classroom, and what additional supports might be necessary to support Cora’s academic and social/emotional development?

These types of questions are related to the general features of special education eligibility. They revolve around the student’s level of skill de­ velopment, its impact on educational functioning, and whether she might require specially designed instruction. Recall from Chapter 4 that the topics discussed in meetings include both those necessary to make various discussions and those necessary to build capacity for decision-making. The opportunity to discuss some of these capacity-oriented topics reflects a third benefit for constructing evaluation questions. For instance, if concerns in the meeting appear to involve autism, this is an opportunity to insert a question pertaining to stereotyped behavior. If concerns revolved around the acquisition of decoding skills, this is an opportunity to bring up phonemic awareness. Both stereotyped behavior and phonemic awareness are terms familiar to school psychologists, but perhaps not to other group members, and to family members particularly. However, all group members should un­ derstand them to make the link between a student’s functioning and various eligibility criteria transparent. I ask the team, “What would you like to learn from a cognitive assessment, what would you like to know?” Often they clarify that they want to know if a child could be served in general education. That’s a very good question, and something we should definitely be looking at, but a cognitive assessment is not going to give us that answer. What’s more likely to give us information to answer that question would be looking at his academics. Abby Royston Sometimes teams may require support when generating answers to their questions. Student functioning is influenced by multiple variables, but often teams get stuck on intrinsic, student characteristics. Often, we must interpret teams’ questions for them and recommend the best data to answer their questions. In effect, this builds the group capacity to make decisions from their data. Bringing Up Emotional Concerns I always include a broadband rating scale, even if others have zero suspicion of emotional concerns. In middle school especially, it’s so easy

Suspicion of Disability Meetings 147 to overlook or not see internalizing concerns. As a society, as educators, we’re so attuned to seeing externalizing concerns, with internalizing difficulties, we sometimes miss them. Katie Shelton It can be helpful to brainstorm suspected areas of concern with the rest of the team. Besides ensuring greater comprehensiveness, it can demonstrate our desire to be helpful and supportive to the rest of the team. Group Members Dictating Aspects of the Evaluation We have to respect our contract, our duty, and hours. It’s ok to have limits. I try to be upfront with my limits and with a non-judgmental face, gently, but firmly describe the limits I can work within. Margaret Hogan Many practitioners may have worked with families, educators, and/or administrators who request specific types of tests of measures, evaluation methods, or time constraints. Often, it can lead to frustration from the point of view of practitioners; it feels like professional over-stepping. However, it can also be a way to establish credibility with the group, and foster collaboration. If the group requests inappropriate tools, we can explain our rationale for better instruments. Remember the steps to collaborative discussion. Be sure to note all the contexts in which their preferred measures may be appropriate and highlight the nature of this particular evaluation that requires other measures. Similarly, if group members request the evaluation to happen in a different way, time or place then can be accomplished, we can acknowledge the benefit, but simultaneously stress our limitations. Afterall, most all practitioners have numerous evaluations they juggle. The important part is ensuring that the family understands what to expect before they sign for consent. Ensuring Informed Consent and Clarifying Procedural Safeguards I emphasize that there is consent for an evaluation, which is separate from consent for services. I also talk about how they can disagree with the findings, and if they do, we would want a letter of disagreement from them. I talk about the disposition of records; if they transfer to a different district, we send the special education history. Jill Davidson Families have to know what the paperwork says. There are just some terms within special education that are going be stigmatizing. When describing something like an emotional disturbance, that‘s heavy, right? That’s not an easy thing for anyone. So, acknowledge it with the group. “I don’t like some of these terms either. But on the other hand, it will open up doors to resources and layers of protection.” Aaron Willis

148

Suspicion of Disability Meetings We are pretty sure that everything is going to go well. However, if there are some concerns, we ask that first bring them to our attention so that we can address them. If you feel your concerns aren’t addressed adequately, you can reach out to our executive director or use the resources you’re entitled to (referring to paper copy of procedural safeguards). MaryAnn Green

Many practitioners stressed the need to be thorough in a discussion of informed parental consent for the initial evaluation. Informed consent includes an understanding of all areas of evaluation and the procedures used for evaluation. It should also include an understanding of all the ramifications of the evaluation. For instance, when a student is de­ termined to be eligible for an IEP or a 504 plan, the group has likewise determined that they are disabled. The family must understand those implications to truly provide their informed consent. Sometimes teachers talk to parents and say maybe we’ll do some tests to figure out how to help a student better. But you can see what they’re doing. They’re trying to avoid saying “special education.” But we can’t do testing without telling families the purpose: to determine the presence of an educational disability. Abby Royston In our experience, some members of the group may clarify to family members that they are only consenting to an evaluation, and not to special education or an IEP. Often, groups highlight that distinction to stress that the family has significant control in the process. While that distinction is correct, it should not be used to suggest the family has unilateral control over the process. If a student meets eligibility criteria, but the family decides they do not agree with such a conclusion, the proper course of action is continued discussion, and if a consensus cannot be reached, it may require initiation of an independent educational eva­ luation. The school had provided the parents with the booklet on their rights and the dad had had been sitting there reading it during the meeting. He had been quiet and then asked, “So um, if we tell you, you can do this and then we don’t want you to do it anymore after you start, are you gonna just keep doing it? Are you able to do that? Or do you have to stop?” I said, “at any point if you tell us to stop, we’ll stop. It doesn’t mean that we would destroy the information we’ve already gathered, but we simply stop where we are and that’s up to you.” Abby Royston If the family revokes consent, it does not reverse any of the actions conducted after the district obtained consent, but before consent was revoked. Further, it does not mean the district amends records to change

Suspicion of Disability Meetings 149 decisions. Paperwork referring to a suspicion of a disability remains in records even after revocation. Setting Appropriate Expectations for Next Steps within the Group Be very upfront about expectations when parents are signing paper­ work. They may be expecting a whole continuum of services, but that may not be what’s best for the kid, especially in the context of the resources the school has. That might not be realistic. Carina R. Turner There is always a chance your child does not qualify. If that happens, I want you to know I’m still here, willing to work with the campus and provide any resources that could be useful. I have a whole department of colleagues, too. If you need any outside resources, I can also reach out to them to see what contacts we have. Mondie Childress Before closing the meeting, the group should understand the logistics of the evaluation process. The team should know the timelines associated with the evaluation process, and the way each member will be participating. Do not let the meeting end without the family knowing how long the evaluation will take. Often school psychologists manage the evaluation process and may have multiple evaluations to complete simultaneously. If workload is high and the evaluation team may require the whole timeline to complete their data gathering, then let the group know. It can also be helpful to let families know that not every referred student qualifies for special education. Regardless, the school team continues to support students.

The Closure Phase After the group has determined whether to suspect a disability, designed a comprehensive evaluation, ensured the family understands their rights in the special education process, and set appropriate expectations for the evalua­ tion, the facilitator can begin the process of closing the meeting. Recall that a meeting’s closure phase includes specific process objectives, including, summarizing group accomplishments and the group process, preparing for next steps, and expressing appreciation for each other’s participation. The team indeed accomplished a lot in this meeting. It does not ne­ cessarily need to be reviewed sequentially, a summary of the discussion may prove to be more useful, especially if it can affirm strengths and hard work. It sounds like we’ve all noted that Erik’s reading is not meeting grade level expectations; this is in light of the nightly efforts he and Mom are putting in, and the two sessions a week he does with the reading specialist here for the last year.

150

Suspicion of Disability Meetings

In this example we highlighted both outcomes of the student’s education, not meeting grade level expectations in reading, and simultaneously un­ derscored all the effort the student, his family, and general educators have provided. These summaries can also include important notes within the meeting process, when appropriate, such as when an initial disagreement led to an important insight, or consistencies in points of view reinforced the group’s direction. If the group determined that an evaluation is ne­ cessary, then review the specific evaluation questions to be answer, as it allows members of the group to hear their concerns impact the outcome of the meeting. To prepare for next steps, the facilitator can summarize the roles and responsibilities of different members in the upcoming evaluation. If testing will occur, the family should know approximately how much time different batteries may take and who will administer them, or how many rating scales to complete and how to return them to school. The group should also discuss time lines. If possible, it can be a strong practice to set a date for the upcoming feedback meeting. Lastly, after the group understands next steps and members feel pre­ pared to accomplish any post-meeting responsibilities, the facilitator can express appreciation to the group. This can include reinforcing the plans the group made.

Post-Meeting Years ago, we didn’t have Google, so you didn’t have people doing their own research. It’s not a bad thing. But consider that in your 60 days, parents are going to find their own answers. Peter Whelley Discussion from the meeting likely does not end when group members walk out the door. Before ending the meeting, consider providing web­ sites and other literature that discusses some of the topics of conversation within the meeting. Families will be looking for additional information anyways and may appreciate help in their search. It can also be a strong practice to call families after a few days to ask if they have any further questions. Assuming the team decided to proceed with an evaluation, this can be done concurrently with updates about its status.

Summary In this chapter, we applied the task group structure to a suspicion of disability meeting. We outlined a useful way to organize student records when planning for the meeting. A general framework describing student characteristics, the student’s educational outcomes, and the process(s) or contexts leading to that outcome provides a way for facilitators to note strengths and points of support for students. Practitioners described

Suspicion of Disability Meetings 151 numerous aspects of this meeting that require careful communication and facilitation. When moving on to an evaluation, it can be a particularly strong practice to develop specific evaluation questions with the group. It supports collaboration, allowing group members to immediately see their impact on the evaluation process. It also broadens the evaluation purpose from eligibility to a discussion of student support needs.

References Finn, S. E. (2007). In our clients’ shoes: Theory and techniques of therapeutic as­ sessment. Routledge Hass, M. R. & Carriere, J. A. (2014). Writing useful, accessible, and legally de­ fensible psychoeducational reports. John Wiley & Sons Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) regulations, 34 C.F.R. § 300.111 et seq. (2008). Musgrove, M. (2011). A response to intervention (RTI) process cannot be used to delay-deny an evaluation for eligibility under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). United States Department of Education Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. https://sites.ed.gov/idea/files/idea/ policy/speced/guid/idea/memosdcltrs/osep11-07rtimemo.pdf Reschly, A. L. & Coolong-Chaffin, M. (2016). Contextual influences and response to intervention. In S. R. Jimerson, M. K. Burns, & A. M. VanDerHeyden (Eds.), Handbook of response to intervention (pp. 441–453). Springer Stone, D. Patton, B., & Heen, S. (1999). Difficult conversations: How to discuss what matters most. The Penguin Group. Tharinger, D. J., Krumholz, L. S., Austin, C. A., & Matson, M. (2011). The development and model of therapeutic assessment with children: Application to school-based assessment. In M. A. Bray & T. J. Kehle (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of school psychology (pp. 224–259). Oxford University Press. Tobin, R. M., & House, A. E. (2016). DSM-5 diagnosis in the schools. Guilford Press. Wehmeyer, M. L. (2013). Disability, disorder, and identity. Intellecutal Developmenal Disabilities, 51(2), 122–126. https://doi.org/10.1352/1934-9556-51.2.122 World Health Organization. (2001). International classification of functioning, disability and health: ICF. World Health Organization. https://apps.who.int/ iris/handle/10665/42407 Zirkel, P. A. (2019). The aftermath of Endrew F.: An outcomes analysis two years later. West’s Education Law Reporter, 364(1), 1–13.

7

Planning and Facilitating Eligibility/Feedback Meetings

We are sure all school psychologists possess an innumerable amount of experience with eligibility or feedback meetings. This meeting represents a progression from the suspicion of disability meeting. The group shares results of various assessments, often administered by multiple group members, to confirm or disconfirm the presence of a disability hypothe­ sized earlier. In our experience, often the school psychologist facilitates this meeting in a round-robin process as each member shares the out­ comes of tests they administered. Ideally, the family has been involved in multiple ways. They collaborated on referral questions with the group. They provided input through interviews and rating scales and received updates through the evaluator(s) and when talking to their student as data collection progressed. Strong communication with families during evaluation can support facilitation of this meeting. In our view, it is in the spirit of IDEA, as parents’ roles including serving as active, equal team members during the process (Vaughn et al., 1988). “a group of qualified professionals and the parent of the child determines whether the child is a child with a disability” (IDEA 34 C.F.R. §300.306[a][1])

There are numerous dynamics to be managed in these meetings. One dynamic includes how and when parents initially receive evaluation results. The practice can vary based on district and state policies. I always call the parent(s) before the meeting, before the report even makes it home, to discuss my findings. I go through my data and remind them of the criteria I mentioned in the consent meeting. It gives them a more private setting to process that information. For some of them, it kind of starts a grieving process. But it gives them time to think before the meeting with the group. Jessica Atkins DOI: 10.4324/9780367854522-7

Eligibility/Feedback Meetings 153 To make things collaborative, one of the most important things we do is send all the paperwork and reports home. We tell parents beforehand to come with their thoughts on their child’s strengths and challenges, so they’re able to participate. We also do that with the general education teachers so that they don’t say just a few things at the beginning of the meeting, and then not have much to add as it progresses. Alexandra Annen In many states (though not all), it is the law that family members receive the evaluation report prior to this meeting. That practice includes many benefits. It may allow family members to participate more meaningfully in the meeting process, as they have had time to consider the results privately. Moreover, it can be challenging for families to receive hard information for the first time in the meeting context. Some information needs to be provided in a smaller, more private setting. On the other hand, psychometric information requires training to understand effec­ tively. Parents could potentially interpret testing results inaccurately when reading a report without assessment specialists present to provide context and answer questions. Calling or meeting with parents before they receive the report can be a way to minimize that concern. We’re going to have a lot of people around the conference table. We’re going to spend a lot of time going over the report, and as a team, we make a decision. Ann Branscum Besides a lack of access to evaluation information, as Ann Branscum implies, family participation may also be limited due to a lack of famil­ iarity with the process of an eligibility or feedback meeting. It can be important to describe the process well before the meeting begins. The multidisciplinary basis of evaluations also creates a challenging dynamic to manage. Frequently, multiple specialists collect assessment information to aggregate with the results of others. When progressing through the feedback meeting, it is important that the process does not appear merely as feedback from multiple, individual assessments, but rather that all evaluators collectively describe the student. We do not want to “lose sight of the forest for the trees,” in the process of sharing information. Lastly, another challenging dynamic stems from IDEA’s spirit of col­ laboration. A process of collaboration may not appear as straight for­ ward in this meeting as it might for other meeting types. Nevertheless, as with all meetings in special education, we strive to accomplish the same meeting facilitation objectives, outlined in Chapter 4, that apply to other meetings: ensure that all members share a common purpose, contribute to the outcomes of the meeting, and feel valued for their unique perspective.

154

Eligibility/Feedback Meetings

Can a Feedback Meeting Be Collaborative? We speculate that many school psychologists may view collaboration as more challenging to conceptualize in a feedback meeting than in a problem-solving or IEP meeting, we certainly do. After all, many elig­ ibility categories appear very discrete and concrete. For example, in the context of intellectual disabilities, we do not collaboratively determine if a cognitive score falls around two standard deviations below the mean. That information comes from a specialized test that requires significant training to administer and interpret. The same is true for concerns related to autism, ADHD, or any number of disorders or mental health concerns. Qualifying terms like “chronic” and “frequent,” that define eligibility criteria are so subjective. Milaney Leverson Yet as black and white as some categories may appear, all categories include significant subjectivity. IDEA §1414(4)(a) underscores that “the determination of whether the child is a child with a disability…and the educational needs of the child shall be made by a team of qualified professionals and the parent of the child…” Furthermore, procedural safeguards stress that families may request an independent educational evaluation if they do not agree with a district’s evaluation (Breiger et al., 2014). The subjectivity associated with eligibility criteria and these fea­ tures of IDEA collectively underscore that a collaborative spirit, in the context of communication, a partnership persona, is as important in this special education meeting as it is in all others. There may actually be many aspects of this meeting with space for collaboration. In fact, we set the stage for collaboration in previous meetings. Recall that when suspecting a disability and establishing in­ formed consent, we began evaluation collaboration by constructing specific and answerable questions with parents, teachers, and later with the student. Those questions make this meeting an extension and con­ tinuation of that collaborative effort. We can start the meeting by re­ viewing those questions for the team and reminding them of that collaborative process. I enjoy working as team. I respect the input of professionals with expertise in other areas, but I also know that nobody has the one right answer. A lot of our data can be validated when our collaborators hear their voice or perspective in it. Jenne Simental When the evaluator considers these questions explicitly, meeting parti­ cipants may feel more connected to the feedback process. It ensures that meeting participants hear their concerns discussed explicitly during the meeting.

Eligibility/Feedback Meetings 155 We can also facilitate collaboration by employing participants’ instinct to evaluate or question testing results. When describing the purpose of this meeting, invite participants to share how various results fit into their own observations of the student. Such a practice may help individuals clarify a role for themselves and allow all members to make a unique contribution to the meeting. After each professional has reviewed their portion of the results, we pull up a checklist for the eligibility categories we are considering. Then each professional can discuss how their results relate to the various categories. No one person facilitates that piece. Gina Coffee Additionally, as Gina Coffee explained, the application of test results to eligibility criteria can be conducted collaboratively, as illustrated in Figure 7.1. It makes the link between eligibility criteria and evaluation results more explicit and transparent. Both the visual nature of a checklist and the concrete linking of results to criteria likely increases the effec­ tiveness of communication by making it more reasonable and logical. The law is helpful in that it gives us the opportunity to have a discussion, and it should be a collaborative discussion. It also gives us timelines and guidelines for how to have that discussion and how to document them. We should use it, not as a hammer, but as a way to

Figure 7.1 Collaborative Discussion of Eligibility Criteria

156

Eligibility/Feedback Meetings document process. We couldn’t come to an agreement? Document it, but also note how you offered the parent and the team the opportunity to discuss further. Jonas Taub

Through prior written notices and dissenting opinions, IDEA provides eligibility groups with methods of documenting collaboration. Jonas Taub stresses their use as tools of collaboration, not merely paperwork to complete.

Planning Consider the Context of Communication As with all meetings, the feedback meeting requires planning and fore­ thought. It can be useful to review the context of communication. Recall how the values and beliefs of meeting participants interact with the various topics and decisions of the meeting. When planning a feedback meeting, consider the consistency between the assessment findings and how group members currently view the student. The Therapeutic Assessment model describes three levels of findings based on their con­ sistency with group members’ prior beliefs (Finn, 2007; Tharinger et al., 2008). Level 1 findings include those highly consistent with how group members (and parents in particular) already view the student. Level 1 findings verify and validate their beliefs. If a student referred for reading concerns demonstrates below average decoding skills on a standardized assessment, that would represent a Level 1 finding. Level 2 findings change participants’ thinking about the student, but not in a way that threatens closely held beliefs. For example, consider a situation where a family refers their 14-year-old for an evaluation due to their observations of reading comprehension difficulties during language arts homework. Upon standardized testing the student scores age-appropriately on a comprehension measure. When the evaluator attributes the family’s ob­ servations to concentration difficulties that the student self-reported on a rating scale (and not comprehension difficulties), such a finding might be considered Level 2. Level 3 findings are significantly different from how participants view the student, so significant that they provoke anxiety, or disbelief, may threaten their identity, and are likely to be rejected. If the previous reading comprehension challenges were attributed to a low level of general cognitive ability, such as in the case of an intellectual disability, that finding might represent Level 3.

When planning feedback, consider how results will be interpreted by other meeting participants.

Eligibility/Feedback Meetings 157 Tharinger et al. (2008) suggest that the discussion of findings should proceed based on their level. Level 1 findings, those verifying and vali­ dating group members’ beliefs, should be presented first to minimize anxiety and reactivity. The evaluator should take care to confirm that group members (and again, the family in particular) provided useful in­ formation about the student and validate or praise their attempts at addressing and coping with the reasons for the referral. Discussing Level 1 findings should allow family members to hear their voice in the eva­ luation results. Level 2 findings should be discussed next. They should represent a majority of assessment feedback and likely require much more explanation and discussion. For instance, in the example earlier about the Level 2 reading comprehension finding, it could be necessary to explain that the standardized comprehension test uses short paragraphs while the family’s observations consisted mostly of lengthier language arts home­ work from textbooks. Furthermore, during a standardized test, distrac­ tions are minimized, students may feel more engaged than during homework, and the evaluator makes efforts to support examinee con­ centration and stamina. Evaluators should present Level 3 findings last, after group members have discussed and confirmed Level 1 and 2 find­ ings. Level 3 findings should usually not represent most of the findings, nevertheless, they also require significant time for group members, and especially the family, to consider. Group members may be more likely to accept these findings if they perceived earlier evaluation information to be accurate. Proofread Materials Cut and paste is the worst thing ever invented. My daughter’s name is not Bill! – Peter Whelley Of course, presenting well-written information is imperative. School psychologists are overworked, conducting multiple evaluations at the same time. Templates are a strong tool to increase efficiency, but make sure the names and pronouns are consistent with the student being evaluated. Constructing an Agenda We discussed the forethought that goes into agenda-building in prior chapters (and particularly Chapter 4). Building an agenda requires es­ tablishing a meeting purpose, filtering it through the three types of goals for task groups to created tailored meeting goals, and then determining effective methods for meeting those goals. The general goals we high­ lighted in Chapter 4 included the following:

158 1. 2. 3.

Eligibility/Feedback Meetings Build all group members’ capacity to participate in the decisionmaking process, Develop a shared understanding of the meeting topics, and Collaborate on appropriate decisions.

Creating an agenda also requires a consideration of two types of dis­ cussion topics, those that inform decision-making, and those that build capacity for decision-making. For an eligibility or feedback meeting, data from the evaluation informs decision-making, but multiple concepts should be discussed to build the team’s capacity for decision-making. Most every eligibility meeting requires discussion around the various criteria for IDEA categories, and the concepts of adverse educational impact, and need for specially designed instruction. Other topics to build capacity for decision-making vary from meeting to meeting. When dis­ cussing autism, the group may need to better understand the concept of social reciprocity and communication, for instance. If the evaluation started after the private diagnosis of various DSM disorders, then the group may benefit from more discussion around differences between diagnosis and eligibility. For a feedback or eligibility meeting, the purpose revolves around answering the questions posed by the group in the previous meeting, and ultimately determining if the student meets eligibility criteria for one of IDEA’s categories. If we filter this purpose through the general objectives above, it might suggest the following meeting agenda.

Box 7.1 Example Eligibility/Feedback Meeting Agenda Meeting Purpose To discuss answers to our questions posed on xx/xx/xxxx [consent date], determine if Erik’s educational performance is adversely impacted by characteristics associated with an IDEA category, and as a result, requires specially designed instruction. Meeting Goals 1.

Provide answers to referral questions: a. b. c. d.

2.

Why does Erik struggle to read? What reading skills does Erik struggle to acquire? What is Erik’s general level of reading skill? What more can be done to support Erik’s reading?

Generate a shared understanding of Erik’s current functioning level;

Eligibility/Feedback Meetings 159 3. 4. 5.

Develop a shared understanding of how those characteristics adversely impact Erik’s education; Collaboratively determine if support for Erik requires specially designed instruction; and Determine appropriate plan for Erik’s education.

Group Norms All group members have a responsibility to share their perspective, demonstrate an understanding of others’ perspective, and work together to ensure a successful discussion. Welcome Questions Confidentiality Student focused; no other students will be discussed in this meeting Task focused; stay on track and honor the purpose of the meeting Topics Welcome and introductions Review of meeting purpose and goals

Processes Round robin Review agenda, verification of understanding Meeting norms Review agenda Discuss evaluation, shared understanding of Facilitated discussion Erik’s current performance level Identify areas of adverse impact Facilitated discussion Collaborate on necessary supports Facilitated discussion Apply results to IDEA categories Facilitated discussion Meeting summary and next steps Summarization by facilitator

The Warm-Up Phase The warm-up phase of this meeting includes the same key objectives as in other meetings. During this phase, group members should develop a shared understanding of the meeting purpose and determine their role in the process. We scaffold this process by elaborating on the meeting purpose and goals we constructed within the agenda. Introductions As in any meeting, all group members should introduce themselves and share their relationship to the student. We find it especially important for

160

Eligibility/Feedback Meetings

educators to share a brief anecdote about their time with the student. It is important to demonstrate to the family that the evaluation team enjoyed the process of getting to know their child. Ideally, this anecdote affirms the strengths and uniqueness that the group, and family members parti­ cularly, perceives in the student. Purpose We can use the agenda as a tool to establish the meeting purpose. Recall that this aspect of the meeting may influence how group members develop a shared purpose and a unique role in the meeting. We may facilitate that process by crafting the purpose statement and meeting goals to highlight the collaborative nature of the meeting, specify the various role(s) group members play in the meeting, and clarify decision-making criteria. In the example meeting agenda above, we used collaborative verbs and possessive pronouns (discuss, our) to frame the purpose. We deliberately avoid more passive or less engaged sounding verbs like review. We in­ cluded a goal to highlight all members role of contributing to a shared understanding of the student’s functioning level. After all, group mem­ bers should not merely sit and listen to testing results, they share how those results fit into their own observations of the student.

The Action Phase Practitioners discussed numerous scenarios that may arise during feed­ back meetings and highlighted ways of engaging with the group that they find useful. We review those below, but note that this is not an exhaustive list of all scenarios, facilitation tactics, or challenges that may arise in a feedback meeting. Reading your Evaluation Report Don’t sit and read every word of your 30-page report. There is no authentic communication going on if it’s been two hours and you’re still reading. Ryan McGill There can be an impulse to read the team’s evaluation report during a feedback meeting. Evaluators worked hard on it, and reading it ensures that all details are presented to the team consistent with what was written in the report. That way parents will not be surprised by anything in the text when they read it privately later. But in our view, such a practice goes against the spirit of having a meeting and minimizes any efforts toward collaboration. Why meet if participants could just stay home, read the report, and get the same information?

Eligibility/Feedback Meetings 161 I like to say I talk to the data tables. That way I can hear their [group members’] reactions, see from their perspective. Jill Davidson Focusing on scoring tables can help evaluators avoid the reading impulse. It turns the feedback session into an interaction, allowing participates to engage actively. Knowing What the Team Needs from You Understand what your team wants and needs. Some resource teachers want a whole slew of recommendations from you. Others feel like that’s their job and you’re telling them what to do. In that case, have them create the recommendations. It creates more buy-in. Brett Andersen Beginning a feedback meeting can be complex. There are multiple sta­ keholders that may all require different information from the evaluation process, depending on their role in the meeting and their unique per­ sonalities. As an example, Brett Andersen highlights a process of colla­ boratively building recommendations, a way to avoid conveying a persona that the school psychologist is the instructional authority. It may allow the special education teacher to establish a unique role for them­ selves in the meeting, especially in the context of an initial eligibility, when the special education teacher may not know the student well. Read the room and talk about what the group finds important. Do they want to go in the order of the document, or do they care about social behavior the most, but what do they want to know? Ashley Burchett The group likely prioritizes certain information. Their collective priorities can help school psychologists determine what information can be sum­ marized, and what information may require significant discussion and elaboration. If the group spent time constructing referral questions in the previous meeting, we likely have a strong understanding of their most important questions. Reviewing those questions as part of the agenda helps group members hear their voice in the data and understand how they contributed to the evaluation process. When I write a report, I don’t just say “the child needs social skills goals,” I say the “child needs social skills goals in…” and I’ll specify more details, or even operationally define the area for deficits particular to the child. Melissa Reid The single most important thing you can do as an evaluation writer is to talk about what a need looks like in the classroom. The student’s reading comprehension score falls at the 7th percentile? What does that

162

Eligibility/Feedback Meetings mean in the classroom? The rating scale showed elevated levels of inattention? What does it look like in the class? He fiddles with things at his desk, he needs questions repeated to him multiple times. What are the targets for goals and objectives? Allison Grant

As Melissa Reid and Allison Grant stressed, numbers and scores are not as meaningful or useful as concrete descriptions of student functioning. Tie scores into observations and data parents and teachers provided through interview. Ultimately, that information supports the develop­ ment of goals and a direction for services. We can facilitate both parents’ and teachers’ contribution in meetings by contextualizing scores. Provide examples of the relationship between test scores and our observations, and simultaneously elicit those reactions from group members. When I write my reports, I try to write a summary at the end that can basically be copied and pasted from my report into the IEP. I write it in a way that the [IEP provider] can tie goals into information from the evaluation. Otherwise, it looks too much like a separate process. Andrea Hoffelt Ultimately, the evaluation should construct a thorough picture of a student’s current performance level to inform the IEP. The success of that subsequent meeting and the IEP constructed within it will be associated with the concreteness of the evaluation. In California, the job can include a combined admin/school psychology role. In meetings I would have to take notes to make sure both specific contributions and specific needs from all participants are documented. So, I’m trying to make sure I make a statement of eligibility and mention the unique needs of the child. I’m also listening for the teacher, both the one in this meeting and the one who will be teaching the kid next year. What are the takeaways they’ll need to help this child? Ryan McGill The discussion in this meeting has long-ranging implications. The re­ commendations from this group will inform not only work of the in­ dividuals in the room, but next year’s teacher, and teachers after them; another evaluation may not be completed for three more years. We must ensure that documentation can be understood by all individuals, not just fellow meeting participants. Tell a story, don’t report scores. Triangulate all those pieces and put it together. It minimizes confusion around why one kid qualified when they got an 85, but this kid didn’t. Ashley Burchett

Eligibility/Feedback Meetings 163 If a feedback meeting focuses primarily on test scores, it likely is pro­ gressing too superficially. Scores require integration within the broader context provided by other data sources, as decisions should not be made by any single piece of information. Besides a strong practice for de­ scribing a student’s functioning level, Ashley Burchett highlights how stressing data integration during a feedback meeting may minimize the confusion of team members with less training in psychometric test in­ terpretation. Transparency in data triangulation may clarify why a current student may qualify, when a student with similar scores did not. [When providing feedback] relate to students and families in a way that doesn’t feel so clinical: such as “this is what’s wrong with you and what’s ok.” Instead, I always try to focus on ways that I see who the student is as a person represented in the scores. “You mentioned that you’ve been struggling with this, the last few years. Here's where the testing that we did confirms how you've been feeling.” Or, “we need to think hard about how you can advocate for yourself around this specific need.” Milaney Leverson Less focus on scores or numbers can allow for an integration of findings with the lived experiences of the student and family. Tying in their ex­ periences may facilitate their understanding and acceptance of various results, as it makes the test scores more concrete. Feedback Should Be Unique I try to remember something cute or funny or unique that the kid did during testing that I can share as a way to decrease the tension. “When he was working with me, it was so much fun. These are some neat interactions I had.” I want the family to know I saw a different side of their kid. Ann Branscum Ann Branscum’s recommendation stems from key features of the context of communication. All students are unique. To earn a family’s trust, we must demonstrate we understand that uniqueness. Recall that research on the concerns of families during IEP meetings highlights educators’ strug­ gles to view a student as a unique individual (Lake & Billingsley, 2000). Effectively describing student uniqueness can be challenging. How could we ever understand the unique features of a student to the same degree as their family? At the same time, if parents and teachers understood every­ thing about a student, there would be no need for an evaluation. These two facets of the evaluation process create a useful dichotomy to highlight as we discuss the goals of the meeting while reviewing the agenda: all group members will have important information to learn from others and simultaneously, important information to share with others.

164

Eligibility/Feedback Meetings

With that dichotomy in mind, our goal at the beginning of feedback is to affirm to the family that we understand what they value about their student. We can rely on a strength-based stance, and team-valuing per­ sona, using those tools to identify anecdotes associated with aspects of the child the family finds important. If the family highlighted that the student is musically inclined, we can discuss favorite songs the student shared with us. If the family described the student as a bundle of energy, we might report that we never saw a student run as fast as this student during the many breaks in between assessments. Ideally, this initial process provides a common ground on which to build a discussion of additional feedback findings, especially those that may be discrepant from how various group members might view the student.

During feedback, all group members will have important informa­ tion to share, and simultaneously, all group members will have important information to learn.

Getting Everyone Involved At an initial eligibility, sometimes the special education teacher can feel like they are in the bullpen or “on-deck.” They are on the team, but not “in the game” yet. They usually don't have any input during the eligibility conference. If they didn't do any of the testing, they likely don't know the student. Therefore, I try to align the parent and the special education teacher together in the meeting. It helps give them a meaningful role. Brett Andersen District practices vary in terms of which group members carry the testing load during the evaluation process. While special education teachers may administer achievement batteries in some districts, in others they do not. When they do not have a testing role, they likely will not know a student during the initial eligibility process, and struggle to find a meaningful role in the feedback process. Brett Andersen leverages group dynamics to facilitate their participation in initial feedback meetings. We can align the parent and special education teacher by describing their common purpose in skill development, by suggesting supports that can be implemented at home and at school. Such a practice provides the special education tea­ cher with a meaningful role in the meeting and could allow them to feel they contributed meaningfully to the group. After discussing an eligibility category, I’ll ask the team why the category fits. I want to have a very structured statement to say this

Eligibility/Feedback Meetings 165 child has an educational disability. We work out the wording together. I tend to have a template, because there are criteria for each category, but I need to add in something specific from parents or teachers. Carina R. Turner Carina Turner identifies further space for collaboration in an eligibility meeting. Writing an eligibility statement collaboratively may clarify the reasons a student qualifies. It gives all group members a role in the process and ensures that the aspects of student functioning that members find most important can be highlighted. Building Empathy and Compassion in Group Members I feel like a lot of time adults are sitting in meetings talking about the same things. [As an alternative perspective,] I’ll bring in some research on ACES and how it affects brain development. We also bring up Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, collectively trying to get teachers to really understand you have to meet students where they are, not where you’d like them to be. We have a starting point, and we’re building on skills. Teachers seem interested to know that it will be easier to teach and for students to learn when basic needs are met. Ashley Camera The feedback meeting can be an opportunity to build compassion in the group, a desire to support a student. Students with behavioral concerns can create stress for service providers (Greene et al., 2002). Teachers’ attributions about student behavior may contribute to that stress (Chang, 2009), and represent a support target for consultants and other indirect service providers. A psychoeducational feedback meeting can provide a setting for the team to share multiple factors that influence student functioning and broaden the attributions teachers make about behavior. I try to engage in empathy toward individual circumstances, especially the parent, when there has been a history of complex trauma and it’s transgenerational, they’re victims, their children are victims. We want to effectuate change. Maybe the student is tearing down walls or showing some violent proclivities, but let’s help the group know that there has been extensive exposure to domestic violence, there’s a protection from abuse order, and as a result of all this, the child anticipates everything to be an imminent threat. They’re warding off potential perpetrators, that’s their mindset. Diane Barrett Some students with challenging behavior experienced a history of trauma (Milot et al., 2010; Mueser & Taub, 2008). Sharing that history as part of the meeting while simultaneously providing education on the effects of trauma on student behavior, may support teachers in making attributions

166

Eligibility/Feedback Meetings

less damaging to the student-teacher relationship (Chang & Davis, 2009). The student may create challenges in the classroom, and perhaps their behavior was “on purpose,” but behind that behavior is a challenge regulating a threat response. I volunteer on a juvenile parole board. Every Friday, I listen to hearings for children that are detained or incarcerated. Parents are so embar­ rassed about being in front of us. Their child has gone through the system for years before they end up being detained. But we need not blame them [parents]. They’re casualties as well. Peter Whelley It can be important to rely on an open, non-judgmental stance in sce­ narios that involve aspects of group members’ key identities. In our ex­ perience, parenting identities are particularly salient for families when discussing their child’s behavior, perhaps even more so than when chal­ lenges are exclusively academic in nature. Parents may hold unstated beliefs that they caused the disability. Even in the legal system, Peter Whelley highlights the utility of non-judgment to support families. Describing a Developmental Delay Eligibility Start with something concrete from the evaluation results. “You mentioned that he’s not potty trained. And really you described his adaptive skills as very low. We call that a developmental delay.” Samantha Hoggatt I provide examples from the classroom, what I saw, and compare it to what typical development should be. “We expect students to initiate conversations, going up and playing with their classmates, and responding to adults.” Lindsay Amen Both Samantha Hoggatt and Lindsay Amen highlight multiple features effective communication. They stress an inductive process, sharing mul­ tiple examples to concretely highlight a delayed skill area. A score is too abstract; contextualizing with examples that parents and teachers pro­ vided during data gathering make the concept much more transparent. Describing a skill deficit may also require a discussion about what typical or expected behavior should be. In our state, kids can be developmentally delayed until age nine. Then, to all of a sudden go from developmentally delayed to cognitively disabled, that’s a hard thing to hear. We need to say to parents, “right now we have them under developmental disability, but in the future, we may have to look at this [intellectual disability].” Daniel Hof

Eligibility/Feedback Meetings 167 Daniel Hof highlights an inherent challenge when teams consider a de­ velopmental delay eligibility. It may foreshadow a school-age eligibility category such as autism or intellectual disability. Many school psychol­ ogists may recall a meeting where family members felt surprised, or even ambushed, when the reevaluation of their student resulted in a schoolaged eligibility they were not ready to hear. The previous eligibility team did not mention it, even though the data collected in that initial eva­ luation suggested the possibility of the new eligibility category. Eligibility teams can increase transparency and support future meetings by clar­ ifying the limitations and boundaries of the developmental delay cate­ gory. Eligibility ends at a specific age, and it may indicate that a student’s functioning will be consistent with a different, school-age category. Describing a Specific Learning Disability Eligibility In the United States, specific learning disability represents the largest eligibility category describing students’ learning needs (United States Department of Education, 2020). As such, it is a frequent and important topic in feedback meetings. There are cognitive processes that help individuals be able to learn. If we find that one is weaker than some others, and there is a low academic skill related to that area, we call it a specific learning disability eligibility. Duane Franks Duane Franks provides a parsimonious description of the specificity of learning disabilities, particularly through the lens of processing strengths/ weakness models (PSW; Flanagan et al., 2018). Despite the fact that your child isn’t reading well, we see that they have a ton of capabilities. They have the ability to think through and problem-solve and verbally reason and do all of these things we want them to be able to do. But their reading performance just isn’t a match. It tells us that we as a school need to be doing something different. Milaney Leverson Milaney Leverson describes a strength-focused way to describe a specific learning disability. Underscoring the contrast between the skill deficit and the “sea of strengths” the student demonstrates may signify that the evaluation team understands the whole student and is not overly focused on their weaknesses. There is not an analog for LD in Spanish. What I learned working in a school where 90% of my meetings are translated is that whenever LD came up, you had to figure out a way with your translator to explain

168

Eligibility/Feedback Meetings that this is not an intellectual disability, because that’s the only analog, and they’re obviously two very different things. Ryan McGill

The concept may be associated with different characteristics within other cultures and language, however. A learning disability represents specific academic difficulties, not a broader, more global impairment. Nevertheless, the latter may be what the term conveys to some meeting participants. Remember when we did all those tests to see what you’re really good at and what’s harder for you? The tests showed us you’re just like everyone else in the world, you have things you’re great at and things you struggle with. The difference between you and some others is that the things you struggle with, we make you do in school all the time. Jason Parkin When students attend feedback meetings, consider how they will interpret results when planning the discussion. Many of us have been in meetings with adolescents who reject the notion of a disabling condition, insisting they are just like everyone else. The above example shares that premise with them, highlighting for the adolescent that they are indeed like ev­ eryone else, because all individuals experience strengths and challenges. With support, it allows the adolescent to begin to contextual their unique strengths and difficulties. I try to bring some optimism. For some people this can be a blow, learning their child is not the stellar student they had hoped, especially a parent who had trouble with school and blame themselves. They say “oh, I had trouble learning to read, I passed it down.” I always say, “but did you learn to read?” and when they say “well, yeah,” I say “so he will too, you had the work ethic, you’ll pass that down too.” Carina R. Turner It can be common for parents to assume they caused a disability. Carina Turner highlights the genetic explanation that many individuals may assume accounts for their student’s disability. While genetics are certainly a component of learning disability etiology (Grigorenko et al., 2020), neither genetics nor self-blame do much to support students. Turner uses this common belief about parents’ influence on children to help family members move past blame toward more optimism. Describing an Autism Eligibility At the time of this writing, the Center for Disease Control (CDC) reported an autism prevalence rate of one in 54 children (Maenner

Eligibility/Feedback Meetings 169 et al., 2020). Although it does not represent the low incidence disability it did previously, it continues to be challenging news for families to receive. Often families need time. Bringing up autism can sometimes start a grief process that every family has to go through when they have a child that isn’t typically developing. We need to join them and validate that, and then, in a gentle, consistent, and persistent way, help them with this process. Sometimes it’s necessary to bring in an outside perspective or an outside provider, so we aren’t the only one saying autism. Ann Branscum Ann Branscum stresses that introducing autism, or any disability, as a descriptor of a student’s development can start a grief process for family members. Educators should understand that grief is not limited to the provision of a diagnosis or eligibility. A developmental disability may represent an ongoing loss (Bruce et al., 1994). For many families, the process of development includes innumerous triggers of grief and re­ minders of the differences between their students and typical development (Bruce & Schultz, 2002). As education professionals, we should be aware that evaluations/reevaluations, rating scales, interviews, and IEP meet­ ings may all represent these triggers. This is a lifelong diagnosis. It’s going to look different as they grow older. Intervention is key to give students skills to function in the social world. They’ll have periods where they’re able to develop and use those skills. But then as those social demands increase, so will challenges. Middle school experience is very different than elementary school, the demands for independence that comes into play will likely create increased demand for new skills. Linda Pedersen It can be important for the team to assist the family in understanding the long-term implications of an eligibility such as autism. No team owns a crystal ball, yet general features of the developmental process may be highlighted for the family. I had a mother break down in tears. She said, “What did I do wrong?” It’s important to stress, you didn’t do anything wrong as a parent. It’s not caused because you didn’t feed your baby the right food or didn’t do certain things. I always share the history of autism, how it’s changed over time. Back in the day it was perceived as the kid rocking in the corner, or the child that didn’t want to have friends. However, autism is a spectrum, no child is the same and that’s [rocking in the corner] not your child. Mondie Childress

170

Eligibility/Feedback Meetings

It can be crucial for educators to be cognizant of their own beliefs and values, as well as values implicit in special education to make the worldview of other meeting participants more salient. Often group members may have a different (mis)understanding of the etiology and consequences of various disabilities. Educators should be cognizant that cultural explanations of disability can vary substantially. Some families may worry they did something to cause the disability or attribute the disability to punishment or karma (Bernier et al., 2010; Rogers-Adkinson et al., 2003; Zea et al., 1994). These families require support and under­ standing from other meeting participants. For families with older students, I suggest that they watch Temple Grandin’s TED talk with their child. She talks about the beauty of the autistic mind, the focus they can have. Ann Branscum It can be important to give families resources to learn about various conditions. Part of psychoeducation can include highlighting role models of neurodiversity. Describing an Intellectual Disability Eligibility Parents in an initial eligibility meeting for categories like autism or ID, that decision is going to resonate with them, it’s going to be a lifechanging moment. You have to console, but also give hope and optimism. Ryan McGill The initial application of an eligibility category like intellectual disability can be a profound moment for families. Many practitioners stressed it should not be news provided in a big meeting. I remember a 5-year-old we identified under Intellectual Disability. I asked the mom to talk to us about the meeting. She said “do you really want to know? That was the first time ever I’ve heard those words [Intellectual Disability]. And you said them. And you’re always going to be the first person. You’re always going to be the person that was the first to use those words.” But I had the opportunity to be with that family over the years and through their graduation. It’s always been about using a respectful tone, and not using clinical terms. This term is a subset of your child. It’s attributed to a quality of your child, a condition upon which they function. Peter Whelley Peter Whelley reminds us that we can deliver information with empathy, but nevertheless, it does not negate the grief that families will experience. Our job is to respect the grief and loss parents may experience and give families permission to be honest (Bruce & Schultz, 2002). Sometimes that

Eligibility/Feedback Meetings 171 honesty may be hard to hear. However, in this case, it ultimately formed a foundation of trust that allowed for the development of a prolonged professional relationship. For families to be honest with professionals, they first trust that the professionals will listen, which means employing a stance of non-judgment throughout interactions. It can also be necessary when interacting with grieving families to attribute difficult, challenging responses to the situation, and not to the person. If this is the first time a kid is being identified under this category, I make sure to give a second test to confirm it. I would never want to trust one snapshot. I have parents come in to meet with me privately, maybe a week before the meeting. I go over the results with them in private and I let them be mad and let them cry. Very often, they’re mad at me. I get it. I had one parent who hated me for three years until he finally said “it was easier to hate you then really come to terms with the reality of what this is.” Sherri Bentley Sometimes family members target their reactions toward other group members, and the school psychologist particularly. Maintaining pro­ fessionalism becomes especially important. Our response to that grief can form a foundation of trust, though it may (understandably) take years for family members to process through their reactions. I discuss instructional needs like repetition, tasks and concepts broken down into smaller pieces. I stress, it’s not that they can’t learn, it’s that we’re going to have to be a lot more involved to help them. Lindsay Amen When families are ready to hear next steps. It can be useful to describe the instructional implications associated with an intellectual disability. It would be wrong to assume a student cannot learn, though many people may leap to that conclusion. Lindsay Amen suggests a way to highlight the effort or level of involvement that parents and teachers can provide alongside the student. Describing an Emotional Disturbance or Emotional-Behavioral Disability Eligibility Nationally, students in the emotional disturbance category represent between 5 and 6 percent of students in special education (Office of Special Education Programs, 2020). The hardest category to explain to parents is an emotional disturbance. It’s such an antiquated term to describe a child’s behavior and emotions. I usually preface by saying “I hate the words of this eligibility area, but

172

Eligibility/Feedback Meetings it’s called emotional disturbance. We use it when we’re aware there are no medical or cognitive concerns, but for whatever reasoning there are emotions or behaviors that are disturbing the student’s ability to access their education.” Aaron Willis

We think many school psychologists would agree that discussing the emotional disturbance category can be challenging. Aaron Willis de­ scribes the category to eligibility groups by highlighting that the learning process is disturbed by emotions or behavior, not the student. Let’s talk about what qualifies a child under the auspices of what we call emotionally disturbed. Do the student’s emotions get in the way of his learning? We need to help the student understand their emotions and regulate their emotions so they can take advantage of their learning. Peter Whelley There are always [student] strengths to lean on. Don’t just dwell on the hard stuff. Plan before the meeting about developing the broadest context of strengths to place the emotional concerns within. Andrew Selders Peter Whelley and Andrew Selders highlight the role of a positive, strength-based stance toward the topic of eligibility. Rather than using a description of deficits to build a case for an emotional disturbance ca­ tegory, we can also describe the category through two related questions for the eligibility group to consider. Are emotions impacting learning for the student, and should services and supports build skills around un­ derstanding and regulating emotions? If the group endorses this need it can serve as a bridge to the eligibility category. These questions clarify the link between the student’s functioning and the eligibility category. Differentiating between OHI and ED A lot of time anxiety comes up and whether or not that’s more appropriate under OHI or ED. Our general district stance is that if it’s strict anxiety, it’s ED, not OHI. Andrea Hoffelt Part of it is explaining what is behind the law. There are health related conditions that OHI is designed to protect. They result in limited strength, vitality, alertness or hyper-alertness. And with that criteria, it gets challenging when people take a psychiatric diagnosis and apply it to OHI. I’ve seen it with PTSD, I’ve seen it with autism. Autism is not Other Health Impairment. It’s a specific class of conditions in IDEA. Jonas Taub

Eligibility/Feedback Meetings 173 For some students, determining whether ED or OHI represents a more appropriate eligibility category can be challenging. IDEA Sec. 300.8(c)(i) lists a number of chronic and acute health problems as exemplars, and most all reflect physical health concerns. At the same time, the list also includes psychiatric examples, including ADHD and Tourette syndrome. From this list, it appears that the spirit of the category serves to protect students with health challenges that impact their schooling through their vitality or alertness, but not in an emotional way. Even psychiatric ex­ amples in this list, ADHD and Tourette syndrome, do not include emotional features as core symptoms in their diagnosis. Nevertheless, the emotional distinction appears ambiguous. The Federal Register (2006) includes additional medical exemplars, including fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS), bipolar disorders, and organic neurolo­ gical disorders. The authors declined to include FAS and bipolar disorder as examples in the IDEA text opining that “these conditions are com­ monly understood to be health impairments, (p. 46550)” and suggesting no ambiguity in their application to OHI. However, bipolar disorders clearly include an emotional component. Without additional guidance or state and district guidelines to follow when in this scenario, it will be a struggle to communicate clearly. Perhaps the best path forward for a team is to highlight the general spirit of the category, to support children with health conditions that create limited strength, vitality, alertness, or alternatively hyper-alertness, and then determine whether those are the factors impacting school perfor­ mance, or if emotional regulation, or in the case of anxiety, it represents “a tendency to develop physical symptoms or fears associated with per­ sonal or school problems” (Sec. 300.8 (c)(4)). Do they [the student] have any diagnoses? It’s too easy for OHI to be a catch-all, it’s easy to fall back on OHI. I don’t fight the diagnoses, I talk about the need. We know the student has major depression, but let’s talk about what they need. They have A’s and B’s? Maybe they don’t have a need [for special education], and we talk about 504. Daniel Hof When the group appears stuck trying to agree to on an appropriate ca­ tegory, one tactic may be to revisit the general supports highlighted be the evaluation. While an eligibility category does not dictate the services a student can receive, summarizing student needs may provide the group with a direction in which to select one category over the other. When a Participant Objects to Labels Labels are categories tied to funding. They are a way of recognizing the types concerns children experienced that schools weren’t servicing at

174

Eligibility/Feedback Meetings all, why special education came about in the seventies. They are a funding mechanism. Not that special education has ever been fully funded. I try to see it as a process that supports our accountability. If we don’t have a process, how can we be accountable? Peter Whelley

Many meeting participants can be uncomfortable with the idea of la­ beling students. In the current system in most states, they are a necessity as they are tied to funding. It may be helpful to discuss with group members that the labels also represent accountability toward that student and his or her needs. When There Is No Qualification When students don’t meet eligibility criteria, it’s tough, and hard to have a good answer. I often tell families “we can’t attribute the difficulties you’ve described to a disability,” but that doesn’t mean we don’t continue to support your child. They’ll go to high school, they can still go to college, but it’s going to take hard work on our part, on your part, and on the part of your child. But it’s good news that they aren’t disabled. Charles Barrett When a student does not qualify, it can often create a challenging si­ tuation for the group, especially if group members had hopes for elig­ ibility. As Charles Barrett suggests, there are often no easy answers here. He models how to stress continued support for the student and family. The challenge in this scenario might be reduced (though not eliminated) by collaborating with the group on a broader set of questions to be discussed throughout the evaluation (see Chapter 6). Special education eligibility can be framed as a secondary sort of question. After the eva­ luation describes the student’s general functioning and the group con­ structs a set of recommendations for supports, the group determines if special education is necessary to implement those supports. We should always have recommendations, a backup plan. It doesn’t have to be 16 pages of recommendations, like when we’re in graduate school, but they should be really direct things that we know can take place. I try to come up with specific recommendations to help the parent and the class, and then say to the parent, “This is not an ending game here, if Joey continues to struggle, we can look again in the future. But let’s try these interventions first.” Daniel Hof It can sometimes be helpful to stress to the group that the team does not abandon the family or the student when eligibility does not appear pos­ sible. The group can continue to provide interventions and supports. If appropriate, additional evaluation can occur in the future.

Eligibility/Feedback Meetings 175 When a Student No Longer Requires Specially Designed Instruction Often the group varies in their concerns when a student no longer re­ quires specially designed instruction upon reevaluation. Parents may frequently voice concerns about removing services, especially if the ser­ vices may be the reason the student performs well. I remind the parent that “this is a team decision, not a ‘Dan’ decision. But before we decide to get rid of the IEP, let’s listen.” Then I start with teachers, because teachers are really strong about whether they think a kid needs services or not. Often you’ll hear multiple teachers say the student no longer needs it. If some group members still see benefit, then I try to bridge the gap, can we reduce services? Maybe look at less services and more accommodations to meet the student’s needs? Daniel Hof General educator teachers may provide an important perspective of the utility of various supports and services. Their observations can be contrasted with the perspective of parents and the student. We’re walking a tight rope between supports and independence. Ashli Tyre Sometimes it may be useful to remind the team that student independence should be the focus of the team’s efforts. The team may consider whether maintaining the same level of supports will allow the student to de­ monstrate an increased level of independence. Embracing Diagnostic Uncertainty The benefit of working in schools is that I get to watch kids develop across time, doing evaluations and reevaluations. There are times where I might say “no, I don’t think it’s autism,” and three years later, I say “oh, this seems different now.” In schools you get that feedback through repeated contact with the students you evaluate. It teaches evaluators to be okay with diagnostic uncertainty. We can’t live in a land of absolutes. You may come back and do a reevaluation, and that behavior that was just a cute quirk is now repetitive and intrusive. You didn’t see it because you took a snapshot of a child over a couple of days. We learn to say, “this is what it looks like right now.” Linda Pedersen Linda Pedersen highlights the necessity of confidence in our meeting persona. That confidence means embracing the uncertainty associated with psychoeducational evaluation. Students are constantly changing,

176

Eligibility/Feedback Meetings

and there are inherit limitations with our instruments and procedures. It can be helpful to situate current results in a longitudinal context – “this is what it looks like right now.” The Usefulness of an Accurate Label Services are not dependent on the eligibility category. However, an accurate diagnosis or eligibility can be critical to understanding a student’s needs as they grow and change. It may seem easy to support a young child in 1st or 2nd grade but as that student grows older and academic or social demands increase, those needs may change depending on diagnosis. We should consider it [the eligibility category] as students’ needs change as a guide to appropriate supports. Jenne Simental Both eligibility categories and diagnostic labels support communication efforts (Whitcomb, 2018). Jenne Simental suggests that we ensure group members understand an important nuance. Eligibility categories can be framed not as describing students, but rather describing their needs. Sometimes group members may become overly focused on eligibility categories, as if the category decision represents the most important topic of team discussion. Framing a category as a description of needs ensures that student needs remain at the forefront of the group’s purpose. It's about the services, not the label. I put very little value on that. Except in secondary it means a lot more than in elementary. In secondary, funds start to come from SSI money. Daniel Hof Daniel Hof reminds us that the implications of psychoeducational eva­ luations become broader in secondary settings. At that level of school, evaluations impact the family’s interactions with broader governmental systems. It can be important to ensure that our conclusions accurately convey the student’s support needs. When Multiple Eligibility Categories Could Apply Sometimes it’s hard to determine an appropriate eligibility category, or team members don’t agree on a category. When that happens, we bring everything back to the child’s adverse effects, that’s the most important part to determine programming. Alexandra Annen States vary on how eligibility groups may use eligibility categories when qualifying students for special education. Some states allow groups to pick primary and secondary categories while others allow for the selection of only one. Disagreement about a category may mean the group does

Eligibility/Feedback Meetings 177 not yet share a common vision of student needs. When indecision about the appropriateness of a category exists, the group can return to the concept of adverse impact. Ensuring a shared conceptualization of stu­ dent need may facilitate the selection of an appropriate category. Discussing Feedback with Students When students are involved, sometimes I notice the dynamic changes. Adults sometimes have a difficult time talking with the student instead of talking for them or at them. I like to “pre-meet” with students and discuss what they want to share, identify coping skills that they can use in the meeting, if they start to feel overwhelmed, or didn’t like something that was said. I also make notes with them that they can take to the meeting. Ashley Camera IDEA Section 300.321(a) indicates students should begin attending meetings when it is deemed “appropriate.” Providing feedback to the eligibility group with the student present brings a host of interesting dynamics. Parents requested their student with autism be present during evalua­ tion feedback. It can feel awkward. How do you talk about an eighth grader’s lack of friends in front of them? So, we talked about improvements in that area and discussed supports and instruction. Andrea Hoffelt Employing a strength-based stance can invert the discussion from deficits to a celebration of improvement and a description of necessary supports. When Group Members are Surprised by a Test Result Teachers can say “your testing is not accurate. You’re not measuring what I’m teaching. I know what the student’s skill levels are because I work with them every day.” Daniel Hof Sometimes parents or other team members can be very surprised to know the level the student performs at. Discuss where that score came from and their observations of the student, because we can’t just rely on one piece of data. I got that score in a quiet environment. What types of things do you observe? Alexandra Annen When a group member is surprised by a test result, it means the data was discrepant from their current conceptualization of the student. Surprising results reflect level 2 or level 3 feedback, based on Finn’s (2007) con­ ceptualization of the feedback process. For many parts of the evaluation,

178

Eligibility/Feedback Meetings

an evaluator may be able to predict when a group member will be sur­ prised. Ideally, collaborating with parents and teachers throughout the evaluation, constructing specific evaluation questions, and interviewing them about their observations, provides the evaluator with enough in­ formation about their worldview to know which parts of feedback will require more support for various stakeholders to discuss. Constructing an agenda and framing the meeting through goals can provide support in this scenario. Recall the second goal in the example agenda: generate a shared understanding of the student’s functioning level. By reviewing the agenda and that goal in particular, the facilitator sets group members’ expectations that this type of scenario should be expected, and members have a role to play when it does by sharing their observations. Alexandra Annen suggests multiple details to consider when a test score is discrepant from group members prior conceptualizations of a student. First, contextualize the data with the group. For instance, standardized test scores evaluate a student’s maximal performance under ideal conditions. The examiner helps minimize environmental distractions and maximize student concentration and effort. Alternatively, data from parent and teacher observations of a student usually represents typical performance. It can also be helpful the to note differences between skills included in the standardized test compared to skills included in the classroom curriculum. Standardized tests do not always reflect curri­ culum well. Next, compare test performance to other sources of data, such as related tests or information from records. Lastly, use those comparisons to verify the score is indeed not an outlier. The typical versus maximum performance distinction may be parti­ cularly important to clarify for the group, as it may have implications for intervention. If a student can demonstrate skills under standardized testing conditions, but not in the classroom, it could suggest that some­ thing about the context of classroom work should change to support the student. Direct intervention may be less effective than modifying aspects of the curriculum, assignments, or environment that may be preventing the student from demonstrating their knowledge. During Emotional Feedback Hearing testing results can elicit a variety of responses from group members, and it can sometimes be very emotional. It may include what Finn (2007) described as level 3 results, feedback that profoundly con­ flicts or clashes with their own viewpoint, threatening their own under­ standing of the student or themselves. Sometimes you have to tell families information they don’t want to hear. You can’t sugarcoat it or minimize it. You need to be honest. This

Eligibility/Feedback Meetings 179 is a major responsibility to we have to the students and families we work with. Sean McGlaughlin Some group members may lash out and attempt to avoid information. When that happens, evaluators must make a judgment about the best way to support the group member. It can be important to consider the group member’s understanding of the new information and how it con­ flicts with their previous conceptualization. Sometimes you have to realize, as a professional, you’re going to be “that person.” You can put as much support and kindness behind what you’re saying, but ultimately, you’re saying something really hard, and they’re not going to like it, and they’re not going to like you. Peter Whelley We expect that most all school psychologists have been in a situation where they had to deliver challenging news. It can be important to re­ member that the meeting reflects one point in time, but the broader discussion on the student’s development continues. Family members may need time to process the new information. I have a rule: the team does not cry in a meeting, even if the parents are crying. We do not cry. If my doctor told me I had cancer, and started to cry with me, that’s not what I want. I want my doctor to put their hand on my shoulder and say “you know what Sherri, we’ve got this. We know what to do.” I don’t need the professional to cry. I need them to tell me they’ve got it. Sherri Bentley Sherri Bentley highlighted an important aspect of the concept of the professional persona, particularly during emotional feedback. Of course, we want to be in partnership with family members, but that partnership should be based in security and trust. This is a time to demonstrate confidence, educators have a plan to support all students. Sometimes families have a perspective that they need to fight; I’m here to fight and get everything for my kid, and I have to get through these people to do that. We have to reframe how we present ourselves. We’re not here to fight, we’re not here to be a barrier. I also want your kid to get everything they need. So, we’ll have that discussion and if you disagree with anything, then we can sort it out. These are the safeguards that help describe next steps. Ryan McGill Meetings can also be emotional when group members feel they must fight tooth-and-nail for entitled supports and services.

180

Eligibility/Feedback Meetings Sometimes a team may perceive a parent as difficult, but in all actuality, they’re just doing their job and being an advocate for their kid. I highly respect it and encourage it. Sometimes people may feel intimidated by parents bringing an advocate to a meeting or sending a lot of emails with a lot of demands. But we react to things how we perceive it. So, I try to have that knee jerk reaction in private and then, with my team, acknowledge that the parent is just doing what parents should be doing, advocating for their kid. Sherri Bentley The number one thing is learning to not take it personally if somebody disagrees. It’s nothing against me as a professional, it’s nothing against my ability to do my job. Keep empathy in mind with the parents. Number one, they want to help their kids. They’re worried about their kids. If they’re disagreeing, I try to remind myself, that’s why. It’s nothing against me. They’re confused because they thought they had one answer, and I’m saying something different and they don’t know how to process that information. Jessica Atkins I may need to be the most unpopular person in the room, so I don’t take anything personally. I go back to my very basic belief that I am here to support students first, the family second, and the district third. If I know I did the best I can to provide support in that order, then I can sleep at night. Allison Grant

Many practitioners provided examples of how they reinterpret challen­ ging moments in meetings. They remind themselves of parents’ role in the meeting, and sometimes assure themselves that emotion comes with the school psychologist job. It does not have to be taken personally. Addressing the New Normal A lot of what we do as school psychologists is helping parents and teachers understand the new normal for a child. I want to know their [parents] hopes and dreams for their child. Maybe he won’t be a doctor, but we can still make that dream happen. Just maybe not like how you thought it would be. It doesn’t mean your child can’t be successful. Let’s figure out how your very sweet, caring, empathetic child can help people in a way that matches his talents. Carina R. Turner Carina Tuner highlights another reason why understanding the beliefs and values behind group members statements can be so important. While challenging feedback may change a group member’s view of a student, it does not actually change the student, they remain the same person. Similarly, much of the family’s hopes and dreams for that student may

Eligibility/Feedback Meetings 181 remain. You thought your daughter might be a doctor because she’s compassionate, hardworking, and empathetic? Let’s consider all the ways she can capitalize on those strengths. I just gave you some information about your child that helps us help him in the school environment, but your son is the same child that you’ve known and loved, that didn’t change in this moment. What changed is now we have information to work together as a team to support your child. As a school, we can help. Linda Pedersen The facilitator can consider language that aligns the school and family together. It implies that the new normal should represent a partnership between the school system and the family. When Group Members Struggle to Accept an Average Score Two out of three people will fall in this range. To get in the average range, you still have to know a lot and be able to do a lot. Andrew Selders Group members can sometimes feel surprised when a high achieving student scores within the average range of cognitive ability. Group members may not understand the normative basis of standardized tests scores. As Andrew Selders highlights, approximately two-thirds of in­ dividuals fall within one standard deviation above and below the mean, and he provides parsimonious language to communicate that statistical basis with families and educators. Group members may not understand that an average score still requires significant skill level. Lastly, in the context of a high achieving student, this discrepancy provides an op­ portunity to praise the student’s effort and work ethic, and also the support systems in the student’s life, as many more variables than cog­ nitive ability explain academic achievement. Using Visuals In eligibility meetings, I always bring a bell curve. I begin explaining by using height as an example. Most people fall right here [point to the average], an NBA player will fall here [point to the top end. I’m 5’2” so I’m down here. Alexandra Franks-Thomas Visuals can support group members understanding of standardized test scores and making them more transparent and communication about them more effective. Explaining a normal distribution with a value-free feature of people such as height can be a strong way of explaining con­ cepts like above average and below average. Judicious humor can support communication by eliciting positive emotions within the group.

182

Eligibility/Feedback Meetings

When Parent and Teacher Information Are Discrepant Home and school can be two very different settings. There are things at home a child has access to that they may not have at school. And there are a lot of educational demands at school. We have to break those differences down with the parent very concretely, so it helps them understand their child’s behaviors. Mondie Childress Besides discrepancies between participants’ individual beliefs about stu­ dents and data gathered during the evaluation, group members’ views of the student can also be discrepant from each other. Most all school psychologists have likely been in a scenario where a parent described minimal concerns about a student’s behavior, while a teacher highlighted significant challenges, or alternatively, the inverse. The situation fre­ quently occurs when discussing information from behavioral rating scales. When a teacher says he [student] can’t follow instructions at all, and parents report he [student] does fine at home, I say “are you giving two and three step instructions at home, or are you giving him one step instructions? That might be the difference. He might be more successful at home because you’re already naturally accommodating your child.” Carina R. Turner Oftentimes we may use discrepancies in observations to highlight various strengths within different settings. For instance, if a group member re­ torts that a student rarely demonstrates a concern in their setting, it can be contextualized by underscoring how well they know the student or how effectively they address the student’s needs. Note that the effec­ tiveness from this stems from eliciting positive emotions in the audience, one of the vertices within the context of communication (see Figure 2.1 for a reminder). Differentiating between Accommodations and Specially Designed Instruction An accommodation is a tweak to the world. The kid in a wheelchair can get to the door, but the knob is too high to reach and he can’t get in the classroom. We can move the doorknob or we can have someone stand in front of the door every day to open it for him, or we make the doorknob electronic so he pushes a button to open it. Alternatively, does the kid need hand strength to grab the knob, or strategies to approach it? Those things would be specially designed instruction. Allison Grant

Eligibility/Feedback Meetings 183 Allison Grant demonstrates the use of inductive reasoning to help de­ monstrate the difference between accommodations and specially designed instruction. Using a physical disability as an example, we can provide multiple cases of accommodations, and similarly multiple cases of spe­ cially designed instruction. Group members can use those examples to make contrast generalizations between the concept of accommodations and specially designed instruction. Differentiating between IEPs and 504 Plans Families may push for an IEP when a 504 plan is more appropriate. We describe what special education services would look like. It’s rarely what they really want. They don’t want to look at other [service] areas, they don’t want a removal from general education. Andrea Hoffelt Sometimes group members may request an IEP, but it may not actually represent what they think their student needs, particularly in secondary settings. Andrea Hoffelt suggests that explaining special education and its various models can help families understand what they are really re­ questing. This discussion can be paired with the differentiating between accommodations and specially designed instruction. It can be a particularly helpful discussion to have when discussing common challenges around concerns related to homework completion or organization. Does the student need to be taught to use a planner, or do they need prompting to use the planner? The former might represent specially designed instruction, while the later reflects an accommodation. It can also be helpful to highlight that while IDEA includes concerns about the outcomes of services, Section 504 does not. Section 504 prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities who need accommodations. Its concerns revolve around access to education, not necessarily the outcomes of education. Explaining Specially Designed Instruction IDEA describes specially designed instruction as “adapting, as appro­ priate to the needs of the eligible child under this part, the content, methodology, or delivery of instruction to address the unique needs of the child that result from the child’s disability; and to ensure access of the child to the general curriculum, so that the child can meet the educational standards within the jurisdiction of the public agency that apply to all children” (IDEA §§ 300.39 (b)(3)). However, that definition may require more detail, especially for group members that are not special educators.

184

Eligibility/Feedback Meetings Do we need to teach with a different curriculum, in a different pace, for a different purpose, or at a different place? What do we need to do differently to increase that rate of learning? Allison Grant Does the student require instruction in skills that aren’t a part of the general education curriculum at their age or grade level? Or if they are, do they require instruction of more intensity, duration, or frequency to make meaningful growth? Jason Parkin

It may be helpful to use the skills focused on in general education as a basis of comparison. Be careful to ensure that group members know general education does not only mean the core curriculum. Schools with strong MTSS models could certainly provide instruction in skills that are outside age- or grade-based expectations, and yet are still included in general education. Responding to “Does He Need to Go to a Special Class?” We imagine many readers have been in a meeting where family members ask this question. It is a common belief about special education, relating to the topics vertex within the context of communication, and a reminder that not all group members have the same familiarity with the special education process. Special education has come a long way since we were younger. When I was a child, kids in special education went to school in a separate classroom, where they did not necessarily get the help they needed. The outlook was grim. In the field of education, we now know so much more about how to help students with disabilities. We have a much greater knowledge base and a wider range of supports and services to meet the needs of students. Jenne Simental It can be useful to start addressing this question by first acknowledging the initial veracity of the belief. For some students, special education does indeed require a separate class. That was likely the group member’s ex­ perience when they themselves were in school. Note the rhetorical use of a positive emotion. By highlighting “dropped out” Jenne Simental takes a non-judgmental, positive stance toward the topic of special education, framing its potential as a positive support for students, while simulta­ neously acknowledging historical basis of its stigmatization. I describe what special education actually looks like at our school. Students don’t actually know which kids have an individualized education plan. There are a lot of teachers that go in and out of classrooms every day and do activities like guided reading groups or

Eligibility/Feedback Meetings 185 guided math groups. Students don’t know if those teachers are special education teachers or ELL teachers or reading specialists. They’re all just teachers. Alexandra Annen A response can also be contextualized to the specific processes within the school. This makes special education as a topic more concrete and transparent, key features of effective communication. Alexandra Annen highlights that behind this question may be concerns related to con­ fidentiality and stigma, and they should be acknowledged and addressed when formulating a response. The goal of special education is to really look at what your child needs and create an individualized plan. And it gives you as a parent a voice in that plan. It provides another person looking out for your child at school and will teach them skills they wouldn’t get in general education and ensures that schools get the resources to be able to provide that. Milaney Leverson Milaney Leverson stresses the collaborative nature of special education by highlighting IDEA’s spirit of parent voice. This can be a strong way to foster collaboration and support parents’ feelings of acceptance in the group. I bring up the concept of least restrictive environment, sometimes a phrase I use is “we give the least amount of help they need to be successful.” Lindsay Amen When families appear concerned that the possibility of a disabling con­ dition means the school will change their student’s school or classroom, it can be useful to describe the concept of least restrictive environment (LRE). Many individuals do not have a detailed understanding about the range of services and placements associated with special education, falsely assuming their student will have new classmates, or change buildings. This can be a tongue-in-cheek way of addressing those fears. When Team Members Make Armchair Diagnoses Sometimes team members may take our information and come to their own conclusions, but maybe say a bit too much. Sometimes team members may even make their own armchair diagnoses. Often their own children have these diagnoses, so they’re very attuned to seeing those things. I never want to say “you’re wrong” but the diagnosis is not their individual role. So, I’m always careful to jump in and remind the group of our responsibility with eligibility. Andrew Selders

186

Eligibility/Feedback Meetings

In special education, it is common knowledge that educators make elig­ ibility determinations, not diagnoses. Yet that distinction may not be as clear to other educators, or in a good-faith effort to help, group members may overstep their professional role and boundary. Andrew Selders un­ derscores the need for a persona incorporating positive intent to address this situation if it occurs in meetings. Requiring Precision with Interpreters I worked with a family whose first language with Spanish. This was very early in my career, and I was going into way too much detail about an achievement test. Finally, the dad interrupted me and he said something to the interpreter, and I honestly think the interpreter kind of softened what he said: “Can you just tell me if my kid can read?” Aaron Willis I worked with a translator and a very resistant parent. This parent did not believe that his daughter needed to be in special education at all. He was very animated and it was just difficult communicating. He asked a very specific question, but I wanted to answer in specific steps. But the interpreter kept stopping me and saying “No, he wants to know this.” I kept saying to the interpreter that I understand his question, and this is what he needs to know to get an answer, because it isn’t black and white. Todd Robinson Aaron Willis and Todd Robinson describe a major dynamic that can be challenging to address when an interpreter supports the group within a meeting. It can be challenging to determine an appropriate level of detail to provide. Some topics do not lend themselves to simple answers and require a step-by-step sequence of discussion. For instance, the question of if a student can read cannot be answered with a simple “yes” or “no.” Collectively, these experiences stress why meeting planning requires considering both information that about decision-making, and informa­ tion to make those decisions. When parents speak a different language and an interpreter is present, I use reflective listening statements. This is a way of providing accurate empathy so that the parent feels heard on a deeper level. I maintain eye contact with the parent during the translations to ensure that the parent and I are connecting. I also involve the other team members. For instance, when the teacher says something, I check in with the parent to get a sense of their reaction to that statement. I ask the parent, “What are your thoughts after hearing that?” or “How does that sit with you?” Brendon Ross

Eligibility/Feedback Meetings 187 It may sometimes be useful to ask parents to provide their reaction to information as a way to judge how information comes across to them. An interpreter, acting as an intermediary in communication can make it challenging to evaluate the experience a parent has in the meeting. Before the meeting, I give interpreters a glossary of terms in special education and what they mean. Jill Davidson Jill Davidson provided a very practical strategy when working with in­ terpreters. Often, we can predict many terms that may arise during the meeting. We can list these for the interpreter, and even ask them to de­ scribe how they might be interpreted. Then we can address and nuances in the interpretation that may be required to ensure the terms are con­ veyed appropriately. Making Referrals for Private Providers We have to be careful about making referrals. We have a list of providers by specialty and insurance, I tell families that I know some of these folks and I have heard great feedback from families who have seen them. You could talk to one of them. Charles Barrett If you send me a list of who your insurance allows, I’ll be happy to look at it and see if there are providers on the list that other families have told me they’ve had good success with. Allison Grant When a school-based psychoeducational evaluation confirms the presence of various difficulties, it is only natural that families ask for suggestions about service providers. It can be challenging for educators to provide a referral, while simultaneously not conveying that they prefer one provider over the other or insinuating that the family must obtain private services. On the Question of Medication Sometimes parents ask about medication for ADHD, depression, or anxiety. I tell them, often those things work, but we have to also teach students skills independent of medication. Talk with your pediatrician or private provider, but we still need to teach them to manage their emotions and behavior. Charles Barrett Sometimes families think schools just want kids on medication. Anytime medicine comes up I always talk about the importance of making that decision, doing their research. I know they’re going to google search, and they’ll find positives and negatives. So I stress they must talk with their doctor. Sean McGlaughlin

188

Eligibility/Feedback Meetings Medications can sometimes have side effects, and sometimes they also help kids better access our behavioral supports. I just stress to families that I understand their dilemma, that rock and that hard place, feeling like they have to pick between their kid’s health and education. Jason Parkin

The topic of medication can be challenging for educators. Some families may hold a general belief that educators want students medicated, as it makes their job easier. Most all educators know it is not their role to dispense advise on medication (Shahidullah, 2014). In this scenario, it can be important to highlight multiple considerations. First, we can stress to families, that regardless of their decision about medication, at school we will focus on skill building. Second, we stress that medication is an im­ portant decision that they should discuss with their physician; we will support their decision. Third, we understand their dilemma. Medication may provide a support to their student, but what are the side effects? If they do not take medication, how does that impact their school perfor­ mance?

The Closure Phase After the group finishes their main objectives, the meeting transitions into its closure phase. Recall from Chapter 4 that a meeting’s closure phase also includes unique objectives. To close the meeting, the group reviews its accomplishments and the impact of group processes within the meeting, prepares for future meetings, and lastly, express appreciation for all participants. These closure objectives support participants’ feelings of contribution toward the meeting outcomes and highlight the value of their unique perspectives. Some of these objectives may be accomplished concurrently. For in­ stance, while summarizing group accomplishments, it can be helpful to focus on the specific process objectives that led to their conclusions re­ garding the meeting objectives. Consider the following two statements that might occur after the group has finished its main content objectives. Ok, so after reviewing all the testing results, we’ve established that Erik meets eligibility criteria for a specific learning disability, and he requires specially designed instruction in basic reading skills. This first statement summarizes the group's conclusion surrounding the meeting’s general purpose. However, it may mask the significant work behind the consensus, and it does not highlight the processes the group followed to arrive it. We can add details to highlight that work, using the agenda to support our summary by providing a concise review of each meeting goal. From our example agenda, that might include the following:

Eligibility/Feedback Meetings 189 We started this evaluation to answer questions about Erik and his education. We confirmed some reading challenges that Sharon [Mom], and Ashli [teacher] had noticed, and identified a phonological deficit that associated with those observations [Goal 1]. Erik’s math skills are developing well, he enjoys science and art, and he has friends in the classroom [Goal 2]. These learning concerns seem to impact how he learns to decode, specifically [Goal 3]. It seems our next steps are to design more efficient ways for him to develop his decoding skills [Goal 4], and to conclude that he meets eligibility criteria under a specific learning disability [Goal 5]. Using the agenda goals to scaffold such a summary illuminates the groups’ multiple accomplishments and allows the facilitator to point out contributions from various group members. It highlights the process the group followed to arrive at a consensus, how group members contributed to the discussion, and the systematic way that each question informed the next. When there is not a consensus, the summarization should reflect the disagreement. Unanimous consensus is not always possible. Sometimes you can present data and documentation about disability definitions until you’re blue in the face and the team is still going to say “nope, he needs special ed.” At that point, I inform the team that I will be writing a dissenting opinion that says I do not believe this is an appropriate eligibility determination and I’ll list my reasons why. Conversely, when there’s one or two teachers who might believe a decision is wrong, I tell them “you are absolutely within your rights, if you think it is in the best interest of the child, to write a dissenting opinion; why you think the eligibility decision is wrong. I’ll make sure it is in the evaluation documentation and the prior written notice that dissenting opinions were written. We need to sign this page, but make sure if you do not agree that you check the box saying you do not.” Allison Grant Nevertheless, like Allison Grant stresses, we can still emphasize the team decision-making nature of the special education process, even in the face of disagreement. If there is something particularly contentious, make extra sure it’s documented, and from both points of view. Read it back to the group and make sure everyone agrees both sides are represented correctly. Alexandra Franks-Thomas The nature of the disagreement should be documented thoroughly and precisely. Alexandra Franks-Thomas provides a role for collaborative

190

Eligibility/Feedback Meetings

discussion in the dissenting process. To demonstrate we value the opinion of the dissenters, we must be able to document it with a genuine under­ standing of the concerns behind it. Summarizing the group’s accomplishments should provide a trans­ parent, logical link between evaluation outcomes and next steps. When a student qualifies for special education, the next objective involves setting up the IEP meeting. Alternatively, if the student is not eligible, it involves the coordination of other supports outside of special education. If dis­ sention exists, then the group should coordinate any need for in­ dependent educational evaluations.

If a meeting cannot end in a consensus, be sure to document the reasons behind the lack of agreement.

Lastly, the meeting can end by expressing appreciation. There are likely innumerable features of the meeting and its participants that could be targets of appreciation. Perhaps someone shared an insight or a con­ nection between pieces of data. Perhaps the team worked well together. In any case, this part of closure represents an opportunity to continue demonstrating the influence group members had upon the proceedings of the evaluation meeting.

Post-Meeting Many meetings end with a “to-do” list. Accomplishing them efficiently lends credibility to school psychologists’ professionalism. These may in­ clude finalizing details in the report and sending copies home to the fa­ mily and to the district’s central office. Even if such steps are not necessary, a post-meeting email to the family wishing them well and ex­ pressing appreciation one final time can be important. It allows them to respond with any additional questions and ensures they have contact information should they need anything in the future.

Summary School psychologists may play their largest role in eligibility meetings. Afterall, this meeting reflects the most traditional aspect of our job duties. We hope this chapter gave readers ideas to support collaboration. Those efforts begin at the very start of the evaluation process, even in previous meetings, where the group identifies specific questions for the evaluation. Collaboration requires an avoidance of sounding like a “one person show,” merely reading results. Instead, results should be placed in the

Eligibility/Feedback Meetings 191 context of stakeholders’ observations. Prompting participants for reac­ tions allows the group to process the results and understanding how findings relate to special education eligibility criteria.

References Bernier, R., Mao, A., & Yen, J. (2010). Psychopathology, families, and culture: Autism. Child & Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics, 19(4), 855–867. https://doi.org/1 0.1016/j.chc.2010.07.005 Breiger, D., Bishop, K., & Benjamin, G. A. H. (2014). Educational evaluations of children with special needs: Clinical and forensic considerations. American Psychological Association. Bruce, E. & Schultz, C. (2002). Non-finite loss and challenges to communication between parents and professionals. British Journal of Special Education, 29(1), 9–13. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8527.00231 Bruce, E. J., Schultz, C. L., Smyrnios, K. X., & Schultz, N. C. (1994). Grieving related to development: A preliminary comparison of three age cohorts of parents of children with intellectual disability. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 67(1), 37–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8341.1994.tb01769.x Chang, M.-L. (2009). An appraisal perspective of teacher burnout: Examining the emotional work of teachers. Educational Psychology Review, 21(3), 193–218. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-009-9106-y Chang, M.-L. & Davis, H. A. (2009). Understanding the role of teacher appraisals in shaping the dynamics of their relationships with students: Deconstructing teachers’ judgments of disruptive behavior/students. In P. A. Schutz & M. Zembylas (Eds.), Advances in teacher emotion research: The impact on teachers’ lives (pp. 95–127). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0564-2_6 Finn, S. E. (2007). In our clients’ shoes: Theory and techniques of therapeutic as­ sessment. Routledge Flanagan, D. P., Alfonso, V. C., Costa, M., Palma, K., & Leahy, M. A. (2018). Use of ability tests in the identification of specific learning disabilities within the context of an operational definition. In D. P. Flanagan & E. M. McDonough (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests and issues (pp. 608–642). The Guilford Press. Greene, R. W., Beszterczey, S. K., Katzenstein, T., Park, K., & Goring, J. (2002). Are students with ADHD more stressful to teach? Patterns of teacher stress in an elementary school sample. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 10(2), 79–89. http://doi.org/10.1177/10634266020100020201 Grigorenko, E. L., Compton, D. L., Fuchs, L. S., Wagner, R. K., Willcutt, E. G., & Fletcher, J. M. (2020). Understanding, educating, and supporting children with specific learning disabilities: 50 years of science and practice. American Psychologist, 75(1), 37–51. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000452 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act; Assistance to States for the Education of Children with Disabilities and Preschool Grants for Children with Disabilities; Final Rule. Fed. Reg. 71, 156 (August 14, 2006). (to be co­ difed at (§ 300.8(c)(9)) https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2006-08-14/ pdf/06-6656.pdf

192

Eligibility/Feedback Meetings

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) regulations, 34 C.F.R. §1414(4)(a) et seq. (2008) Lake, J. F. & Billingsley, B. S. (2000). An analysis of factors that contribute to parent-school conflict in special education. Remedial and Special Education, 21(4), 240–251. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193250002100407 Maenner, M. J., Shaw, K. A., Baio, J., … Dietz, P. M. (2020). Prevalence of autism spectrum disorder among children aged 8 years – Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network, 11 Sites. MMWR Suveillence, 69(4), 1–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.ss6904a1 Milot, T., Ethier, L. S., St-Laurent, D., & Provost, M. A. (2010). The role of trauma symptoms in the development of behavioral problems in maltreated preschoolers. Child Abuse & Neglect, 34(4), 225–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.chiabu.2009.07.006 Mueser, K. T. & Taub, J. (2008). Trauma and PTSD among adolescents with severe emotional disorders involved in multiple service systems. Psychiatric Services, 59(6), 627–634. Office of Special Education Programs. (2020). OSEP fast facts: Children identified with emotional disturbance. https://sites.ed.gov/idea/osep-fast-facts-childrenIDed-Emotional-Disturbance-20 Rogers-Adkinson, D., Ochoa, T., & Delgado, B. (2003). Developing crosscultural competence: Serving families of children with significant develop­ mental needs. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 18(1), 4–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/10883576301800102 Shahidullah, J. D. (2014). Medication-related practice roles: An ethical and legal primer for school psychologists. Contemporary School Psychology, 18(2), 127–132. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40688-014-0013-y Tharinger, D. J., Finn, S. E., Hersh, B., Wilkinson, A., Christopher, G. B., & Tran, A. (2008). Assessment feedback with parents and preadolescent children: A collaborative approach. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 39(6), 600–609. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.39.6.600 U.S. Department of Education. (2020). 41stannual report to congress on the im­ plementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. https:// sites.ed.gov/idea/files/41st-arc-for-idea.pdf Vaughn, S., Bos, C. S., Harrell, J. E., & Lasky, B. A. (1988). Parent participation in the initial placement/IEP conference ten years after mandated involvement. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21(2), 82–89. Whitcomb, S. A. (2018). Behavioral, social, and emotional assessment of children and adolescents. Routledge. Zea, M. C., Quezada, T., & Belgrave, F. Z. (1994). Latino culture values: Their role in adjustment to disability. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 9(5), 185–200.

8

Planning and Facilitating Individual Education Plan Meetings

Don’t let this meeting just be filling out forms. Peter Whelley

The group creates and reviews an individualized education plan (IEP) in accordance with states’ implementation of IDEA. While an IEP docu­ ment ideally fosters communication between parents and educators, parental perceptions of both the document and the process used to create it suggests that IEP meetings can be driven more by paperwork than collaboration (Zeitlin & Curcic, 2013). We suspect many school psy­ chologists might agree with that judgment, and for good reason. The paperwork is extensive. Special educators must ensure that an IEP contains a substantial amount of information. Every IEP includes the following: A description of a student’s current performance level; Measurable annual goals; Methods to monitor progress and report progress to the family; Descriptions of specially designed instruction, related services, and supplementary aids and services; Descriptions of program modifications or supports for school personnel; The extent a student will not participate with nondisabled students in the general education setting, extracurricular and non-academic activ­ ities; Accommodations required by the student; Any necessary alternate assessments; Any necessary extended school year services; Start dates, frequency, duration, and location of services; Post-secondary transition planning (as appropriate); A statement that a student has been informed that their rights under IDEA transfer to them when they turn 18 (as appropriate). Requiring all the previous information results in a dense document that can be challenging for all group members to navigate effectively, not just DOI: 10.4324/9780367854522-8

194

Individual Education Plan Meetings

parents. Many readers may recall experiencing confusion when trying to process a different district’s paperwork when students transfer into a school building. Perhaps the legal mandate for compliant IEP documents pressures educators into minimizing the process aspects of the meeting to focus on completing the paperwork content. These meetings can feel high stakes for all participants. Decisions made within IEP meetings represent some of the most frequent issues in due process disputes (Mueller & Carranza, 2011; Zirkel & Skidmore, 2014). Yet, complicated paperwork does not negate the need for a collaborative process. The group should strive to achieve the general process objectives described in Chapter 4: ensure all group members understand the purpose of the meeting, feel they contributed to a successful meeting, and feel valued for their unique perspective. Despite the extensive paperwork, meeting participants must still understand the meeting purpose, feel they contributed to a successful meeting, and valued for their unique perspective.

From conversations with practitioners, it appears school psychologists’ roles in IEP meetings vary dramatically. School psychologists may not attend IEP meetings frequently, as they are more the responsibility of special education teachers, who usually case manage and facilitate the meeting. Often a school psychologist may act as the local district re­ presentative, substituting when an administrator is not available. In many districts a school psychologist may also be a direct service provider, as counseling support or other psychological services may be written into the IEP. Effective meeting facilitation appears to significantly enhance the IEP meeting (Mueller & Vick, 2017). Facilitated meetings conducted by a neutral, trained professional who focuses on collaboration and consensusbuilding via clear, organized procedures can prevent conflicts between educators and parents and reduce the frequency of process hearings (Mueller & Vick, 2018). Formal facilitated meetings include seven general components: a neutral facilitator, an agenda, meeting goals created by team members (and collected before the meeting by the facilitator), group norms, a collaborative environment, communication that eliminates power differentials between educators and parents, and a parking lot for topics to be discussed later (Mueller, 2009). When the relationship between parents and other IEP team members has become adversarial, likely the neutral facilitator becomes a critical part of an effective meeting. But the other components may also prevent the challenges and misunderstandings that lead toward poor relationships among team members.

Individual Education Plan Meetings 195

Principled Negotiation In an IEP meeting, the team determines how a district will provide the services the team determined were necessary for the student. These decisions may require significant discussion and negotiation within the group. Principled negotiation represents a discussion framework that avoids turning disagreements into contests (Fisher et al., 2011). It minimizes the haggling, tug-of-war, back-and-forth image that may traditionally exemplify the concept of negotiation. The preferred outcome is not winning, but rather identifying a path forward that provides all parties a route toward their goals. The method provides the team with a way to investigate the possibility of mutual benefit, and if a conflict is unavoidable, fair standards for an appropriate resolution. Developed within the Harvard Negotiation Project, principled nego­ tiation has been applied to the IEP process before (Martin, 2005). Rightfully so, because it can support group members’ ability to con­ tribute to the meeting process and feel valued for their unique perspective, two major process objectives for all meetings within special education. In fact, its effectiveness likely stems from mutual understanding of the perspective of all group members. The model stresses four basic elements within a negotiation: people, interests, options, and criteria.

In principled negotiation, “winning” is not the goal, but identifying a path forward that brings all groups closer to their goals.

The people aspect of the model recognizes the audience vertex of the context of communication. Meeting participants have beliefs, values, and perceptions that may differ from each other and influence their hopes for meeting outcomes. The people aspect of the model stresses the need to separate the relationships between group members from the topics of discussion. In that way, it connects with the persona attributes school psychologists described in Chapter 3: positive intent, non-judgment. When referring to interests, the model spotlights the values, or concerns behind a position. This is illustrated in Figure 8.1. Positions represent concrete, explicit desires. For instance, a group member’s position may be that a 1:1 paraprofessional is necessary for a student’s IEP. The interest behind that position may be for the student to spend their time with ty­ pically developing peers. Interests should be a major focus of discussion. The formal facilitated meetings we mentioned earlier (Mueller, 2009) fo­ cused on interests by requiring participants to identify goals for the meeting. Identifying interests reflects a major meeting objective highlighted by the context of communication. Also note consistency with the concept

196

Individual Education Plan Meetings

Figure 8.1 Positions and Interests in Principled Negotiation.

of a warrant in the Toulmin method of argument analysis from Chapter 2, the link between evidence and claim, or a rationale as to why data supports an argument. Group members will all have multiple interests that can be collectively delineated. The same group member who desires maximum exposure to typically developing peers may also be interested in instruction targeting specific skill deficits. If those skills are not a major part of the general education classroom curriculum, then those two interests may be in conflict. They can be discussed and prioritized. Ideally, group members can describe solutions that support the interests of all parties. When group members’ various interests are better identified, the group can consider the third aspect of principled negotiation, generating op­ tions. This is a collaborative, brainstorming process. It minimizes a reflex to judge various options and negates an assumption that there is only one best option to mutually achieve the group’s interests. To reiterate, the group does not generate options to fulfill various positions initially de­ scribed, options should support interests. Usually, the best ones can fulfill the collective interests of the parties in conflict. We anticipate that some IEP team members may struggle when gen­ erating options. In many cases, parents may not know the various ser­ vices and supports schools can provide. A lack of knowledge may disadvantage their thinking process. They may require support from other group members to feel involved. In other cases, teacher-level staff may not have the authority to suggest certain options. Students’ entry into more restricted programs or the inclusion of various staff members as supports may require administrators to be present. In that scenario, administrators should be aware of the need for such options and invited to the meeting.

When brainstorming options, the focus should be on fulfilling participants’ interests, the values or concerns behind their positions.

Individual Education Plan Meetings 197 The last aspect of principled negotiation involves selecting the criteria used for making decisions. This part of the model also dovetails with the topic aspect of the context of communication, as it strives for trans­ parency in the decision-making process. It further relies on the teaming, partnership school psychology persona that values orienting all group members to the various processes within special education. The group can more easily collaborate on decisions when all members know how decisions are made, and the criteria with which to evaluate those deci­ sions. When a group appears stuck on a topic, it can be useful to revisit the criteria members use to prioritize or eliminate various solutions (Martin, 2005). Usually, it is helpful to select criteria that members find objective. Normative measures can be useful in this way, though nor­ mative measures do not exist for every goal an IEP team may create. Furthermore, the broadest objective of an IEP involves implementing a free and appropriate public education in the least restrictive environ­ ment, both subjective and ambiguous concepts. It can be challenging to achieve a consensus method for evaluating these two features of a student’s plan, as they will vary from student to student.

Principled Negotiation and Collaborative Discussion In addition to its consistency with the context of communication, principled negotiation merges effectively with the general collaborative discussion process reviewed in Chapter 2. They complement each other; principled negotiation demonstrates the depth of that process. Recall that collaborative discussion involves describing the issue of concern, and then subsequently, demonstrating a thorough understanding of the opposing viewpoint, by describing the context(s) that makes the op­ posing viewpoint valid. Principled negotiation highlights the concept of interests, concerns, beliefs and values behind a position, as a key part of that context. For instance, when a general education teacher stresses that a student needs their placement changed to a more restricted setting because of challenging behavior, she may have multiple interests that validate her position. That setting may focus on specific selfregulation skills not taught in her setting, and it eliminates the chal­ lenge she has supporting the student’s behavior. We can ask her for her thinking to investigate her interests; “the behavior program certainly focuses on developing self-regulation, what are the best aspects of that option to you?” In formulating such a response, we led with an interest we perceived to be driving her position. In doing so, we demonstrate a desire to understand her point of view, or in the parlance of colla­ borative discussion, a context in which her viewpoint is valid. At the same time, we should avoid putting words in other group members’ mouths. We investigate her interests, but do not necessarily provide her with interests.

198

Individual Education Plan Meetings

The investigation of interests and the context that makes a position valid offers interesting challenges. Group members may not always be aware of their interests or other motivators of their position. Alternatively, they may not be willing or able to state their interests. The teacher in the previous scenario is probably not going to admit that she wants the student removed from her class, because it makes it easier to manage her classroom. A parent who requested early intervention services two years prior, may not admit that he now demands an expensive, remedial tutoring service be­ cause he wants to punish the district financially (Martin, 2005). Likewise, a school administrator may not admit their financial interests when endor­ sing a program, but minimizing service costs is, of course, always a con­ cern. In those cases, we may demonstrate an understanding of interests by investigating them directly. For instance, the teacher may appreciate hearing “I know the student’s behavior takes up a huge portion of your time. We need some options that recognize how much effort you put into managing his behavior and allow you to also address your other job duties.” In collaborative discussion, introducing alternative viewpoints parallels principled negotiation’s generation of options. After demonstrating an understanding of group members’ initial interests, it can be useful to present others that lead to expanded options. We can help group mem­ bers consider other positions by first broadening their interests. Earlier we used a 1:1 paraprofessional request as an example. It represented an in­ terest related to a student experiencing school with their typically devel­ oping peers. Another interest may be ensuring that the student receives intense instruction in basic adaptive skills not addressed in the general education curriculum or implemented easily in a classroom with 23 other students.

Planning Consider the Context of Communication I don’t like anyone to be surprised at meetings. So I talk to the parents and I talk to the teachers before the meeting. It has nothing to do with predetermination. I’m not trying to make any decisions ahead of time. I want to know where are they [parents/teachers] at? If the team wants to bring up a change in placement, don’t surprise parents at the meeting. Daniel Hof As the description of principled negotiation illustrated, when preparing for an IEP meeting, as with all meetings, considering the context of communication can be an important initial step. While school psychol­ ogists usually do not create the IEP document, especially to the degree that they coordinate and create the evaluation report, they can provide important support ensuring continuity from the feedback meeting to the

Individual Education Plan Meetings 199 IEP meeting. More specifically, a school psychologist can consult with the IEP writer to ensure the present performance levels flow from an un­ derstanding of evaluation results, and the instructional needs of the student. It can be useful to consider the goals of various group members for the meeting outcome. We do not necessarily refer to the goals listed within the IEP, but more generally aspirations for the next year; group members’ vision for what education looks like for the student. Additionally, goals may reflect hopes for the how the meeting proceeds. In the formal, facilitated IEP process, the facilitator calls group members before the meeting to ask about their meeting goals, writes the goals in large letters on paper, and tapes the goals around the meeting room in preparation (Mueller, 2009). These goals provide insight into others’ perspectives and may highlight the various interests group members bring to the IEP process, which can be useful when collaborating on services to be in the IEP. Constructing an Agenda Building an agenda for an IEP meeting can progress through the same process we highlighted in other chapters. Begin by first highlighting the general purpose of the meeting and filtering it through the general objec­ tives described in Chapter 4. As a refresher, these include the following. 1. 2. 3.

Build all group members’ capacity to participate in the decisionmaking process; develop a shared understanding of the meeting topics, and collaborate on appropriate decisions.

Filtering the general purpose of an IEP meeting through these objec­ tives, might suggest the following agenda. Specifics may change, based on the unique needs of any particular meeting, of course.

Box 8.1

Example IEP Meeting Agenda

Meeting Purpose To develop/update Kevin’s IEP for the next calendar year. Meeting Goals 1. 2.

Share general goals for Kevin’s education during the upcoming calendar year; Create a shared understanding of Kevin’s current performance level;

200 3. 4. 5.

Individual Education Plan Meetings Determine necessary supports/services; Establish IEP goals for the next calendar year; Determine the appropriate educational placement.

Group Norms All group members have a responsibility to share their perspective, demonstrate an understanding of others’ perspective, and work together to ensure a successful discussion. Welcome Questions Confidentiality Student focused; no other students will be discussed in this meeting Task focused; stay on track and honor the purpose of the meeting Topics Welcome and introductions Review of meeting purpose and goals Meeting norms Review agenda, additions Discuss general goals for school year Update present performance level Construct IEP goals/objectives Determine programs, related services, accommodations Discuss participation in general education, nonacademic, and extracurricular activities Determine method/frequency of progress reporting Meeting summary and next steps

Processes Round robin Review agenda Review agenda Review agenda Round robin Facilitated discussion Facilitated discussion Facilitated discussion Facilitated discussion Facilitated discussion Summarization by facilitator

The Warm-Up Phase In an IEP meeting, the warm-up phase is as critical as in any other meeting. Recall that during this aspect of the meeting, we lay the foundation for critical process-oriented objectives. As the meeting begins, participants develop a shared understanding of the meeting purpose, and determine their role. The facilitator can refer to the agenda while describing the meeting purpose and highlight broad meeting goals. Critically, it is important to have space on the agenda to call for additional topics.

Individual Education Plan Meetings 201 Introductions Group members may know each other more in this meeting than in other meetings within the special education process. Nevertheless, introduc­ tions with a name and role can be important. There may be new in­ dividuals on the team, or the meeting may be the first IEP for the family at a new school. Moreover, introductions create a welcoming atmosphere for the group. Purpose and Norms After making introductions, the meeting purpose can be clarified by re­ ferring to the agenda and expanding on the goals. In our example agenda above, we created a sequence of goals designed to clarify the general decision-making process within the meeting. For instance, we first review the student’s current functioning level to ensure that IEP goals stem from that description. We determine programs, related services, and accom­ modations after establishing IEP goals, so we know what objectives pro­ grams should target, and the intensity of supported the goals might require.

The Action Phase Recall from Chapter 4 that while group members determine their role in the meeting during the warm-up phase, process objectives remain during the action phase. It is important that all group members participate, and any disagreements are addressed positively. Practitioners provided us with many examples of strong practices during an IEP meeting. Avoiding the Parent Section and the School Section I learned early on, around the table, never have the “parent section” and the “school section.” I’ll purposely sit right next to the parent. I can help explain things in the paperwork as we’re going through, but more importantly, I don’t want them to see the meeting as “us vs. them.” Daniel Hof We expect everyone has attended numerous meetings where the educators sit on one side of a table, and the family sits on the other side. It certainly is not a configuration conducive for collaboration. The School Psychologists’ Role in an IEP Meeting I’ll quote one of my professors: the role of the school psychologist is to be calm. Be the calm, level-headed one. We are often the farthest removed from the student, so we have to be able to be objective. Ann Branscum

202

Individual Education Plan Meetings

School psychologists do not always participate in IEP meetings. Whatever specific role we may have in an IEP meeting, the persona outlined in Chapter 3 remains critical. Ann Branscum highlights the criteria aspect of principled negotiation for the inevitable disagreements that occur in meetings, objectivity is important. Since school psycholo­ gists usually do not have a daily role with students, we may be in position to evaluate concerns objectively. As data-based decision-makers, we can describe how to evaluate options systematically. Via a problem-solving stance, we can consider differences in viewpoints by first reframing con­ cerns as a discrepancy between expected and current functioning. For instance, if one group member advocates for more IEP minutes to serve reading, but others do not agree, the school psychologist can refer to the student’s current rate of skill growth on various curriculum-based measures, and critically, compare it to the normative rate of growth. I avoid assigning blame in tough meetings. It’s not about our staff, it’s not about the parent. It’s about getting on the same page. A lot of our job is defined around mediation, just trying to help the teacher and parents find common ground, so that we can all be on the same page, and ultimately help the student. Daniel Hof Daniel Hof describes a mediational role for the school psychologist, based on that objectivity. Note his description of both a stance of nonjudgment, and the and stance (Stone et al., 1999) described in Chapter 3. “Getting on the same page” can mean investigating group members’ interests so all participants understand goals for the meeting. Know the Role of the District Representative The role of the district representative is to commit district resources and funding to the services the IEP calls for. So, if it’s a high needs IEP but none of the administrators can go, I’m talking to my special education director ahead of time. I need to know what my spending limit is! We have to know what is outside our decision-making scope. Somebody asks for a one-to-one [paraprofessional]? I’m going to table that discussion and save it for a future meeting. Allison Grant Often school psychologists may be asked to serve as a district re­ presentative, especially if administrators are unable to attend the meeting. The role can require additional planning. If meeting topics sway toward costly services, this role commits district funds. The person filling this role must know what resources the district can currently provide. If that is ambiguous, then the request may have to be investigated before a deci­ sion can be made. For meetings where the team knows that atypical or more costly support ideas may be discussed, then the appropriate

Individual Education Plan Meetings 203 decision-makers must be invited. It can be frustrating for other group members when a decision cannot be made because the right people were not at the table. Keep the Meeting Length Manageable Send out an agenda with time limits. Communicate so families know the content, and how long each topic should take. At the beginning of the meeting, if there are things not on the agenda that group members want to add, we can put them in the parking lot and discuss them if we have time, or if we need to, schedule another meeting. Sherri Bentley To participate meaningfully, all group members must understand the decisions to be made in the meeting. Sending out an agenda in advance can allow group members, particularly the family, to plan more effec­ tively. It allows them to generate their own goals for the meeting and clarify questions they want to ask. Furthermore, as a gesture, it de­ monstrates to the family that their involvement is important to the other members in the group and supports a spirit of collaboration. Programming Should Reflect the Needs Identified in the Evaluation In an IEP, the programming should reflect the needs identified in the evaluation. Sometimes it can be helpful to review the IEP for the teacher and help ensure that all needs are addressed. Melissa Reid Always have several levels of intervention or types of interventions in mind. In special education, there’s primary intervention, where you’re actually trying to remove the disability. That’s typically not something that we can do, right? Think of the kid who is eligible because of blindness. There may be an operation that removes their blindness, but that’s not within our purview. Second is that we teach them skills to navigate the world given the disability, and that is specially designed instruction. Third is accommodations, how do we modify things so they can get what they need? Then fourth there are interventions to deal with “collateral damage,” for instance, counseling to get back a sense of competence. Jill Davidson IEPs should address all needs identified in the evaluation (Bateman & Linden, 2012). Those needs provide the link between the feedback meeting and the IEP meeting. It can be helpful to review those needs with the service provider as an IEP is being developed, and help the team ensure consistency between the IEP’s description of present performance levels, and the needs highlighted by the evaluation.

204

Individual Education Plan Meetings

Jill Davidson provided a framework in which to consider student needs, a concise way of describing support options (Mascolo et al., 2014). Davidson’s terms could be considered topics of discussion that build decision-making capacity. They may provide helpful scaffolds to the team during the brainstorming aspects of principled negotiation. Group members’ less versed in intervention efforts may generate more ideas upon hearing the framework. She described two sets of skills, those taught to remediate a disability, and those taught in place of other skills the student may not have access to because of the nature of their dis­ ability. She also described the consideration of accommodations to sup­ port students. Lastly, noting that eligibility labels do not drive service provision, Davidson stressed that students may demonstrate needs as a secondary result of other difficulties. Remember That Not All Group Members Are in IEP Meetings Every Day I tell my team, “remember what it’s like to buy a house or a car.” These people are walking us through all this paperwork, and they’re telling us these things. But we’re not professionals; it’s hard to understand exactly what’s going on. We don’t want our meeting to be like that. Samantha Hoggatt Samantha Hoggatt provides an analogy to describe the experience of all the paperwork. It can be overwhelming and the signer can never be sure they made the right decision. We can use this metaphor to help the team take the families perspective. It can also be an effective way to highlight a goal for the process. At the start of the meeting, the facilitator may mention the volume of paperwork, but if the meeting starts to feel like buying a car, something is going amiss, we need to reset. Things to Never Say You never say that “we don’t have the money for that,” or “it’s not possible to provide those services,” or “we don’t do it that way.” Shilah Lyman Often time group members suggest service ideas that others on the team might not agree with. Instead of saying “no,” collaborative discussion and principled negotiation might suggest that educators reflect the in­ terest behind the specific service idea, and brainstorm other options that fulfill that same interest. Sometimes the group member who proposed the original idea will find other options just as helpful.

Individual Education Plan Meetings 205 Don’t Put Families on the Spot The forms start by asking for strengths, and sometimes it puts parents on the spot, and they can’t come up with something. So I include it in the developmental history. I review that with them and ask them if they have more to add.” Samantha Hoggatt Often the IEP process begins by asking the team (and families in parti­ cular) to describe the student’s strengths. It represents a well-meaning lead-in to the meeting. Everyone around the table appreciates a strengthbased approach to discussion, and a focus on strength represents an important aspect of the persona described in Chapter 3. This lead-in also provides an immediate way for families to participate. At the same time, if the family (or any group member) does not anticipate the question, they may feel singled out, and this well-meaning start has an adverse effect. Samantha Hoggatt provides a way to simultaneously begin this meeting with strengths as a topic and avoid this challenge. Capitalizing on the continuity between meetings, she reviews what families mentioned as strengths in the evaluation process, asking if they would like to ela­ borate. If this is an IEP meeting that does not proceed from an initial or reevaluation, it may be possible to use this strategy by reviewing the previous year’s IEP and reporting the strengths documented then. Describing the Importance of Fluency Goals When you’re riding a bike, you can know all the mechanics, but if you can’t do it fast enough in a coordinated way, you’re still going to fall off. So we have this big goal: understanding what you read. We’re going to get there by focusing on this mini goal right now, just trying to get faster, and we’ll keep moving forward in little steps. Our first goal is 60 words/min. While we’re working on this speed goal, we’ll still be working on comprehension through other means, but this is the main focus for now as a step towards that big goal. Liz Angoff Many school psychologists and special educators recognize a need for flu­ ency with basic skills for students to access higher-order aspects of reading, writing, and math. However, behavioral approaches to intervention do not always align with the expectations of other group members (de Mesquita & Zollman, 1995). Often group members may focus on the broadest part of a domain (e.g., reading comprehension) at the expensive of its components. Liz Angoff provides a bike riding analogy to describe the necessity of flu­ ency with skills. Note the employment of an and stance. After describing the bike analogy, the higher-order skill (reading comprehension in this case) is still the focus. Both skills are highlighted as important, comprehension as the outcome and fluency as a step toward that outcome.

206

Individual Education Plan Meetings

Challenges Establishing Goals When constructing goals, determining an appropriate rate of progress can be a challenging aspect of IEP meetings. Teams may use goal pro­ gress as an indicator of program effectiveness, whether the IEP provides educational benefit. Rigorous goals are important, those that are neither too easy nor too challenging. When the team struggles to find consensus on expected progress, it can be useful to provide families with additional activities at home, though Liz Angoff stressed that it does not remove educators’ responsibilities to hold programming to high expectations. It requires a lot of communication, progress-monitoring and check-ins. When family expectations are high and parents want to do more, we can provide them with activities to support that growth at home as well and help us all work as a team to get the student where they need to go. Liz Angoff Convey to the members advocating for the ambitious goals that the IEP will describe an appropriate, expected growth level, but of course, if the family chooses to supplement, even higher growth might be attained. We should have an idea of what it is we want to accomplish with the kid. There are generally available norms. Where are most kids reading at the beginning of 3rd grade? What is it going to take to get him there? Jonas Taub Often CBM measures can provide normative expectations for a rate of progress. If the group expects the student to catch-up to peers, then the goal for a rate of growth should exceed the typical rate of progress. Sometimes teams create goals that are too broad. The goal could improve by being more specific, targeting narrower skills. “I really like the general area, reading comprehension. Should we focus on answering WH questions, or making inferences? Let’s apply the SMART goal criteria.” Alexandra Annen Alexandra Annen describes a common scenario in IEP meetings. When goals appear too broad, it may be possible to refer to external criteria, such as the commonly endorsed SMART criteria. Goals should be specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound. For example, in the reading comprehension domain, it may be possible to create a goal that is even more specific. I never write a self-esteem goal because I don’t know an easy way to measure self-esteem. I’m going to look for some manifestation of

Individual Education Plan Meetings 207 self-esteem and see if we can measure that. Maybe that’s asking for help from peers, or the teacher. Jonas Taub The targets of goals should also be meaningful. Jonas Taub highlights the benefits of writing goals that are observable. Self-esteem is a concept inferred from behavior. Asking for help can be observed and recorded during a classroom activity. I support a lot of self-regulation and executive goals. In the IEP process, we describe goals first, so they lead to a level of service. “Based on the goals we drafted as a team, I’m suggesting that I meet with your child about 90 minutes a month. She’ll come to my office for the instructional piece 30 of those minutes, and then I’ll go into the classroom for 60 minutes.” Gina Coffee It can be important to follow a logical process across the meeting. Begin with describing the present level of performance as goals stem from issues it describes. Likewise, intensity of services stems from types of goals the team creates. Ideally, the meeting agenda illustrates that process, but referring to it orally can support clarity. Gina Coffee highlights how to make this process more transparent for team members. School-Based Versus Community-Based Counseling Counseling in the school setting is very much related to helping the child develop the skills that they need to be successful in the school setting. We focus on challenges associated with education and school. Coping skills for instance, the specific strategies may look different between home and school. Melissa Reid Many school psychologists provided direct counseling services, often as part of students’ IEPs (Plotts & Lasser, 2020). Some group members may require help distinguishing between the goals of school-based counseling, compared to that in the community. To be sure, there can be significant overlap between the two settings. In special education, as counseling is often provided as a related service, its focus supports IEP goals. Further, as Melissa Reid highlights, school-based counseling can be contextualized to the specific settings and challenges that arise at school. Discussing Least Restrictive Environment My district has a flow chart about least restrictive environment, with little avenues for programs. But don’t have this discussion without the needs of the child already agreed upon. Because you don’t want it to sound like you’re keeping services away from the student or you’re

208

Individual Education Plan Meetings trying to remove a student from their classroom. We’re trying to do X, Y, and Z, here are some delivery mechanisms that we have that we could pursue. Peter Whelley

IDEA stresses that “to the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities, including children in public or private institutions or other care facilities, are educated with children who are nondisabled” (IDEA, 2008 § 300.114(a)(2)(i)). Least restrictive environment can be a challen­ ging concept, because “appropriate” will vary from student to student. It can be easier to conceptualize when a team has agreed on goals, and the types of services needed for progress on those goals. Placement cannot be determined before a student’s needs are described, specially designed instruction, related services, accommodations and modifications are outlined, and goals are written. When we talk about things that are more restrictive, we mean when your child is pulled out of the classroom into a special education classroom to work either 1:1 or in a small group with a special education teacher, an occupational therapist, a speech therapist, or a social worker on a more consistent basis. Alexandra Annen Least restrictive environment does not equate directly with general edu­ cation, because the concept also factors in a student’s support needs (Bateman & Linden, 2012). In some cases, it may be useful to provide an example of how the setting and intensity of services affects the con­ ceptualization of the least restrictive environment. Navigating Discussions about Placement IEP teams may consider changes in placements, particularly for students who demonstrate challenging behavior, after attempting supports in less restrictive settings. These changes can be difficult to discuss. Occasionally, when looking at more restrictive placements or punish­ ments, parents may suggest that the school is discriminating against their child or trying to pass the student off to another teacher/class/ school to make our own lives easier. My response to that is to explain that our job as a school system is to prepare students for the “real world,” outside of school. For an adolescent who presents with oppositional or aggressive behaviors, the punishment may be suspension or a more restrictive placement at school but outside of school, or after the student has turned 18, the consequences become more serious and could involve jail time, loss of employment, loss of relationships, or worse. Our job as a school system, especially in secondary education, is to teach students how to do well without our support. This becomes

Individual Education Plan Meetings 209 especially important in the secondary setting where students are preparing for independence as adults. Jenne Simental In the nomenclature of principled negotiation, Jenne Simental de­ monstrates how to describe the interest (providing more help im­ mediately) behind the position (change in placement). Furthermore, she also provides an avenue to help families see why the interest is important. Special education is not a place. We will bring the service is to your child to the best of our abilities, and we'll explore other routes or options once the need becomes so great that we need to look at implementation or more restrictive types of settings. Sometimes we pull kids out of neighborhood schools, we have some kids that attend approved private schools. We have some kids in center-based schools. We have some kids in regional level programming classrooms, and then most of our kids are included. Isaac Tarbell Isaac Tarbell stresses the broad scope of services special education can provide. Families may not always understand that special education is not a place, a room or a school. When the topic of specific placements comes up in meetings, it may be necessary to refocus the team on the details of services. After services are confirmed, then the placement for those services may appear clearer. Removing an IEP Sometimes families want to remove an IEP before high school starts because they want the full range of general education available, electives. They don’t want a support period. But a disability doesn’t magically go away when a student gets to high school. We discuss similarities to middle school and high school and encourage leaving the IEP in place at least through the first semester. They have a right to remove services at any time, it’s their choice, but we recommend they start out with services. Andrea Hoffelt When parents say “we’re done with special ed, we don’t need it anymore,” we encourage them to look at a 504, so we don’t dump it [services] completely. Daniel Hof Andrea Hoffelt and Daniel Hof highlight a common scenario for school psychologists working in secondary settings. Families have the right to stop IEP services at any time. They may be motivated to remove services for fear of missing out on high school opportunities associated with certain electives. In this situation, it can be useful to encourage families to

210

Individual Education Plan Meetings

at least consider services through the adjustment into high school, or to determine if accommodations might still be necessary. When students no longer want their IEP, we need to know their reasons. Why do they want to stop? What is frustrating or not helpful about their plan? Sometimes it can be asking that miracle question, what would it look like to be ready to be dismissed? Mom, Dad, what would that look like to you? Teachers what would that look like to you? Johnny what would that look like to you? Now let’s look at the IEP goals. Do they match us getting there? Do we make some short-term objectives to demonstrate they don’t need specially designed instruction? Linda Pedersen Often a student and/or family requests an IEP to end because they may not realize there are other ways to provide support. Through a problemsolving stance, the group does not need to argue about maintaining or removing the IEP. Instead, there may be aspects of the IEP that can be changed. In the language of principled negotiation (Fisher et al., 2011), removing the IEP represents a position. The interest behind that position could be addressed in other ways. Explaining Related Service Providers or Psychological Services Remember when your child received speech services? A speech language pathologist met with your child and [provided] speech therapy and they had goals where they worked on things like articulation errors or functional communication skills. And you know that individual was responsible for running the service and tracking the progress and reporting back to you. School psychological service or occupational service is the same. It’s just a different camp of folks. They’re working on different goals to make sure that your child develops and continues to move forward in their access and participation. Isaac Tarbell When explaining the role of related service providers, it can be useful to frame their services as supporting a student’s ability to access and par­ ticipate in their education. Sometimes families may have experience with one type of related service. That background knowledge can be used to describe other services. Transition Planning Sometimes we get to that transition point in the IEP and parents of kids with severe disabilities think “my kid is not doing a job, my kid is not going to have a career outside the house,” some parents kind of reject it, because they see themselves as taking care of their kids forever. It raises a lot of issues. There’s still a lot more growth for these kids to make. So,

Individual Education Plan Meetings 211 we invite those adult agencies, and we provide a timeline for tasks. Like, even before your child turns 18, they need a state ID card. Jill Davidson IEP teams provide supports for students to transition out of the school context into a functional role within the broader community (Halpern, 1994). This may include outcomes such as employment, post-secondary schooling, home-making, and social relationships in the broader com­ munity. It can be a complicated process requiring school, family, and adult service agency coordination. A recent review suggested that student-focused planning can hold great promise (Cobb & Alwell, 2009). However, transitioning can be challenging due to a lack of parent and student involvement and a lack of understanding by educators. Often IEP teams can support families by expanding their thinking about what life for students can be like after school. Sometimes the Meeting Needs to Stop In a meeting where everybody is mad, the parent was screaming, the teachers were about to lose their cool and the kid was crying; I asked that we stop the meeting and reconvene at a later time. Nothing good is going to come from this. Whatever determination we make will not be fully informed consent. We can be afraid to stop because we don’t want to disappoint anybody, we don’t want to be rude or appear to not take the process seriously. But sometimes we stop the meeting because we’re taking it seriously. Carina R. Turner We are sure most all school psychologists have been in meetings where participants become so emotional that decisions cannot be made effec­ tively. While in some cases participants can calm down and the meeting can proceed, in other cases it may not be possible. In those instances, it may be necessary to stop the meeting, because as Carina Turner high­ lighted, individuals are no longer participating effectively.

The Closure Phase When the group finishes construction of the IEP document, the closure phase of the meeting may begin. Recall from Chapter 4 that this phase includes important process objectives: reviewing accomplishments and the impact of group processes within the meeting, preparing for future meetings, and lastly, expressing appreciation. These objectives support the facilitators efforts to ensure that all participants feel valued for their contributions. Reviewing accomplishments may involve a general summary of the IEP document to ensure that all understand its contents and no lingering questions remain. It may be helpful to underscore where the new plan supports the general goals and aspirations that participants discussed at the

212

Individual Education Plan Meetings

meeting’s outset. Explicitly reviewing the link between concrete features of the IEP and the general aspirations of the group for the upcoming year can also ensure that participants understand their influence on the document. In many scenarios, this meeting reflects the last one for the group, at least for a year, when the IEP is again revised. Thus, this is an opportunity to re-confirm the contact person for the family in case they have questions. It is also important to stress to the group that they do not have to wait a year to meet again. If anyone has more concerns, the group can reconvene. An IEP represents a working document and can be modified, if necessary. Expressing appreciation ends the meeting on a positive note (Martin, 2005). This could include highlighting what was particularly enjoyable about the meeting, underscoring what appears especially exciting in the plan, or emphasizing the growth a student made during the previous year.

Post-Meeting School psychologists may not have a lot of post-meeting responsibilities after an IEP. Of course, if counseling or psychological services are written into the IEP, then post-meeting responsibilities including carrying out and documenting those services. It can also be helpful to check-in with group members, especially the case manager, to ensure they do not require assistance with their responsibilities.

Summary While school psychologists do not always participate in IEP meetings, because we are frequently the most removed from the student, we can be a source of useful objectivity. IEP meetings can be paperwork heavy; the school psychologist can help special educators ensure that all participants understand the purpose of the meeting, participate in a meaningful way, and feel valued for their perspective while still attending to the content of various forms. The IEP describes the concrete supports and services a student requires to receive a free and appropriate public education; yet investigating participants’ beliefs and values behind the concrete supports for which they advocate (or in the parlance of principled negotiation and interests), can facilitate a collaborative process.

References Bateman, B. D. & Linden M. A. (2012). Better IEPS: How to develop legally correct and educationally useful programs (5th ed.). Attainment Company. Cobb, R. B. & Alwell, M. (2009). Transition planning/coordinating interventions for youth with disabilities: A systematic review. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 32(2), 70–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885728809336655

Individual Education Plan Meetings 213 de Mesquita, P. B. & Zollman, A. (1995). Teachers’ preferences for academic intervention strategies in mathematics: Implications for instructional con­ sultation. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 6(2), 159–174. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532768xjepc0602_5 Fisher, R., Ury, W., & Patton, B. (2011). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in. Penguin Group. Halpern, A. S. (1994). The transition of youth with disabilities to adult life: A po­ sition statement of the Division on Career Development and Transition, the Council for Exceptional Children. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 17(2), 115–124. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) regulations, 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.114(a)(2)(i) et seq. (2008). Martin, N. R. M. (2005). A guide to collaboration for IEP teams. Paul H. Brooks Publishing Co. Mascolo, J. T., Alfonso, V. C., & Flanagan, D. P. (2014). Essentials of planning, selecting, and tailoring interventions for unique learners. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Mueller, T. G. (2009). IEP facilitation: A promising approach to resolving conflicts between families and schools. Teaching Exceptional Children, 41(3), 60–67. Mueller, T. G. & Carranza, F. (2011). An examination of special education due process hearings. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 22(3), 131–139. https:// doi.org/10.1177/1044207311392762 Mueller, T. G. & Vick, A. M. (2017). An investigation of facilitated individualized education program meeting practice: Promising procedures that foster familyprofessional collaboration. Teacher Education and Special Education, 42(1), 67–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406417739677 Mueller, T. G. & Vick, A. M. (2018). Rebuilding the family-professional part­ nership through facilitated individualized education program meetings: A conflict prevention and resolution practice. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 29(2), 99–127. https://doi.gof/10.1080/10474412.201 8.1470934 Plotts, C. A. & Lasser, J. (2020). School psychologist as counselor: A practitioner’s handbook (2nd ed.). National Association of School Psychologist. Stone, D., Patton, B., & Heen, S. (1999). Difficult conversations: How to discuss what matters most. The Penguin Group. Zeitlin, V. M. & Curcic, S. (2013). Parental voices on individualized education programs: “Oh, IEP meeting tomorrow? Rum tonight!”. Disability & Society, 29(3), 373–387. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2013.776493 Zirkel, P. & Skidmore, C. A. (2014). National trends in the frequency and out­ comes of hearing and review officer decisions under the IDEA: An empirical analysis. Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, 29, 525–576

9

Planning and Facilitating Manifestation Determination Meetings

Summarized succinctly, a manifestation determination represents a review process in which a team of parents and educators decides whether a particular instance of behavior is a manifestation of a student’s disability (Kubik & Lavik, 2014). This determination occurs within a manifestation determination review meeting. Such a meeting must occur before a district removes a student from their IEP placement for more than an accumulated 10 days, due to discipline. It represents a protection, ensuring that students with disabilities do not experience a change in their educational placement due to disciplinary action because of their disability. Manifestation determination meetings can feel different from other meetings discussed in this text. Its major focus concerns causal factors associated with a particular instance or set of behavior(s), while other meetings in special education center on descriptions of student functioning and required educational supports. Sometimes it can also feel much more adversarial to group members, as individuals may have significant motivations for a specific outcome. Its stakes are high. The manifestation determination process was formalized as part of the 1997 IDEA amendment, after the Supreme Court determined that (unilateral) expulsion of students with disabilities reflected a change in their educational placement (Kubik & Lavik, 2014; Zirkel, 2018). The 1997 amendment required the IEP team to determine whether the behavior subject to disciplinary action was associated with 1) the appropriateness of the student’s IEP and the implementation of behavior intervention strategies consistent with the IEP and placement, 2) the student’s disability impairing their ability to understand the impact and consequences of the behavior subject to disciplinary action, or 3) the student’s disability impairing their ability to control the behavior subject to disciplinary action. The 2004 amendment modified manifestation meetings in multiple ways (Zirkel, 2018; Lewis, 2017). It changed the terminology referring to student behavior from “behavior subject to disciplinary action” to the “conduct in question,” and modified the individuals required to attend the meeting. While the 1997 amendment required the full IEP team to attend, the 2004 rules require a district representative, parent, and DOI: 10.4324/9780367854522-9

Manifestation Determination Meetings 215 any other relevant persons as determined by the school and parent. Furthermore, the 2004 act changed the definition of a manifestation from a focus on the appropriateness of the IEP to a focus on causal factors related to the conduct in question (Zirkel, 2006). The three questions from the 1997 amendment streamlined into two: whether 1) the conduct in question was caused by or had a direct and substantial relationship to the student’s disability, or 2) if the conduct in question was the direct result of the district’s failure to implement the IEP (including the behavior intervention plan). Manifestation meetings are undoubtedly complex. Some writers have compared them to the general legal process of deciding if an individual should be held responsible for criminal behavior due to their mental condition; whether an inability to understand right and wrong should lead to mental health treatment, rather than prison (Lee, 2005). Perhaps as a result, others suggest that the manifestation meeting compels a medically oriented view of disability (Lee, 2005; Katsiyannis & Maag, 2001). Such a view ascribes disability as originating within the student, rather than distributed across student, social, and environmental variables, underscoring the reification of disability discussed in Chapter 3. It might over-simplify an analysis of the behavior violating the code of conduct, and the broader situation surrounding it. Alternatively, the manifestation meeting may provide a way to minimize the group’s tendency toward questionable causal thinking. The fallacy of a single cause represents a logical error which assumes a single cause lays behind complex phenomena (Arp et al., 2019). By phrasing manifestation criteria as “direct and substantial” the question acknowledges multiple contributing factors influencing the behavior leading to discipline. One of the group’s main tasks involves considering whether features of the student’s disability were a major influence (direct and substantial) on the behavior violating the student code of conduct. Nevertheless, though the operationalization of a manifestation changed from the 1997 amendment to the 2004 reauthorization, the difficulty teams experience when attempting to answer them remains (Ryan et al., 2007). We expect most all school psychologists have participated in manifestation meetings where generating a consensus around a direct and substantial relationship felt impossible.

Fostering Collaboration in a Manifestation Determination Meeting I’ve never done an easy manifest. Because it always feels like an attack on the kid. Daniel Hof Just like every other meeting in special education, a manifestation determination meeting requires participants to collaborate on decisions.

216

Manifestation Determination Meetings

Ideally, fostering collaboration minimizes participants’ feeling attacked, as if the meeting represents retribution toward the student’s behavior. In facilitating the meeting, we strive to ensure that all participants understand the purpose of the meeting, contribute effectively, and feel valued for their unique perspective and contributions, objectives of all task groups introduced in Chapter 4. Kubik and Lavik (2014) stressed that IDEA 2004 implies the meeting should conclude in a unanimous consensus. Consensus can be important because manifestation determination meetings also include the general IDEA appeals process. During an appeal, the district may not remove the student from their current placement, although the student may be placed in an alternative educational setting for a maximum of 45 days if the behavior leading to discipline included possession of a weapon, knowing possession, use, or sales of controlled substances, or the infliction of serious bodily harm on another individual. One of the purposes of a manifestation is to determine if the child’s needs are being met under the current services. We’re trying to protect the child’s rights. Justin Allen This meeting can be framed as a problem-solving meeting. Allison Grant Manifestation or not, really the question is how do we ensure that the behavior doesn’t happen again? Linda Pedersen We’re holding the meeting because the student is showing behaviors that are concerning or they’re struggling in some sort of way. Either there is one big incident that has happened, or a pattern of smaller incidents. What can we do to help? How can we prevent this from happening again? Jessica Atkins A manifestation is essentially a forced problem-solving meeting. Jonas Taub

Despite their complexity, collaboration should still be a goal in manifestation determination meetings.

Fortunately, there may be multiple spaces for collaboration in this meeting. Families may enter the meeting assuming it is a disciplinary meeting. Their assumption represents a major place to begin collaboration efforts, because it misses the meeting’s larger purpose. As illustrated, many practitioners overwhelmingly stressed a need to emphasize a

Manifestation Determination Meetings 217 problem-solving stance in a manifestation meeting, framing the meeting as an opportunity discuss supports and solutions. While the meetings ultimate purpose involves a decision about a particular instance of behavior, the team should simultaneously be evaluating the effectiveness of the student’s current services. When scheduling the meeting, and explaining it to parents, ask them, “What do you know about the event? What information should I know that might help me make a recommendation? Do you have any updated information regarding your child’s psychological functioning or physical health?” Justin Allen The meeting also requires the group to consider information provided by the parents, another place collaboration may occur. Justin Allen stresses the necessity of obtaining information from the family, especially before the meeting. He highlights the necessity of valuing team-based decision-making. Reaching out to families to collect their viewpoint may allow them to feel part of the process. It can demonstrate a desire to involve them, not just in the final decision, but in data collection as well.

Planning Consider the Context of Communication As with all meetings, consider a manifestation meeting as a context of communication, outlined in Chapter 2, Figure 2.1. During the meeting, the team will discuss topics related to disability, discipline, and specific details of an instance (or pattern) of behavior. These topics may elicit substantial differences in perspectives. For example, parents may view the discipline applied by administrators as inappropriate or unreasonable. Administrators may feel similarly toward parents, and worried about how the behavior in question may impact the broader student population. Some participants may feel shame or guilt stemming from the need for such a meeting. No parent wants their student in trouble with the school. I try to get pre-empathy happening with everybody who participates in a manifestation meeting. I see manifestations as kind of being the worst day in that kid’s life, especially if it’s their first ever manifestation hearing that they’re having. That’s like the worst day for that kid in that family. I want everybody to understand that before we go in and start the discussion. Lisa L. Persinger Many participants, even educators, may not understand the purpose and process of this meeting, which makes it a challenge to facilitate.

218

Manifestation Determination Meetings

Misunderstanding the purpose can obfuscate decision-making and reduce the group’s chances of arriving at a consensus. Practitioners suggested numerous recommendations to prevent concerns related to the context of communication. Establish an Understanding with Administrators Early in the School Year It can be useful to establish team member expectations far in advance of the need for any meeting. I’ve learned to meet with administrators, especially new administrators, early in the year, before we do a manifestation meeting. I tell them that this type of meeting is where we might have a conflict, I’m just real upfront with them. We might not agree and I hope it’s just a short moment in time and we can move past it. My job is different from theirs. They have to advocate for the campus. My only job is to advocate for this singular kid. Shilah Lyman Shilah Lyman suggests meeting with administrators before a manifestation arises to orient them to the process, and the dynamics it creates among relationships in the school building. It can be helpful to stress differences between their role as administrators, and the school psychologist’s role. School administrators face a broader set of implications from manifestation decisions. If a student disciplined for appearing to violate the rights of another student stays on campus because his behavior was deemed a manifestation of a disability, the administrator may receive phone calls from parents demanding answers. Of course, if the behavior leading to discipline included possession of a weapon, knowingly involved controlled substances, or included an infliction of serious bodily harm on another individual, the district may unilaterally place the student in an alternative setting. Ultimately, maybe more than anyone else in the room, the administrator must grapple with tension between inappropriate discipline toward a student with a disability and the districts obligation to create a safe learning environment for all students (Lewis, 2017). When facilitating a manifestation meeting, school psychologists can acknowledge this concern to help the group develop a shared perspective, especially if the administrator continues to push for a removal from the student’s placement when the rest of the group concluded the behavior reflected a manifestation of disability. Coordinating with Parents When you call the parents, you have to let them know that this is a serious situation. In reviewing cases, what I’ve found is that parents

Manifestation Determination Meetings 219 often felt like they were lied to. Someone contacts them and says, “This is just something we do, we’re just going to review this, it’s no big deal, don’t worry about it.” But then parents go to the meeting and realize “This is a big deal, now I’m not prepared and you’re suspending and possibility expelling my child from school. I’ll see you in court.” Justin Allen As manifestation determination meetings must be scheduled quickly, coordinating a meeting with parents should also occur immediately. Parents are likely working through emotions related to the situation. This initial phone call provides an opportunity to explain the purpose of the meeting to the student’s parents, so they can prepare. By making the time to call and discuss the purpose and process, it may allow parents to view the school psychologist as an ally, not an adversary. Manifestations may not be a meeting a secretary or administrative assistant should schedule. They are too complicated. Records Review This is, in fact, a very quick evaluation because you don’t have a lot of time. But you need to review the records, call the parents, and collect as much information as possible before the meeting. Justin Allen In many ways this meeting requires the team to engage in a type of evaluation. An initial planning step involves a review and summary the student’s file and special education documents. IDEA stresses that the team must review “all relevant information in the student’s file, including the child’s IEP, any teacher observations, and any relevant information provided by the parents” (IDEA 2004, §1415(k)(1)(E)(i)). This too represents a slight difference from IDEA, 1997, which stressed review of evaluation and diagnostic results (including other relevant information from parents), observations of the child, and the child’s IEP and placement (Lewis, 2017). There are a few reasons to engage in this assessment. The first is to provide general background information to the team. Many readers may have been in a position where they must conduct a manifestation meeting, but do not know the student. While other group members will likely know the student better, they may still not know certain details about the student’s history. The second reason is to determine how consistent the behavior violating the code of conduct appears with the student’s history. Is the behavior something that the student receives services and supports to address, or is it a novel behavior that does not appear characteristic of them?

220

Manifestation Determination Meetings

This is not just a meeting, an efficient records review, and discussion with parents should also occur.

We think it can be useful to create a short chronological summary of the student’s educational history in the review process. This should include records from both general education and special education, with an emphasis on details that may be related to the behavior in question. Be ready to describe when and why the student initially qualified for special education, as well as their service history and progress. This does not need to be extensive, necessarily. If a 16-year-old student has been eligible under the autism category since age three, we may simply note “Kevin has been eligible for special education since age three, consistently under the autism category. His services have revolved around reading, communication, and social skills development.” Be sure to describe services, goals, and progress, especially current goals and services. Alternatively, when a student’s educational history appears more complicated, be ready to provide more details. If the student’s educational history includes behavioral support, those features of his IEP should be reviewed thoroughly. The focus should be on the most recent functional behavior assessment (FBA) and behavior intervention plan (BIP). The implementation of the BIP can be a major factor in the outcome of a manifestation meeting. Be careful of overly focusing on the eligibility category. While the eligibility history should be reviewed, it should not necessarily be the greatest focus of the review process. Lewis (2017) stressed that a focus on an eligibility category is too narrow. It may have provided the protection of a manifestation meeting, but this review should provide a comprehensive description of the student’s needs stemming from the disability. Our analysis should focus on a description of the adverse impact the student’s functioning level creates, and the recommended supports and services. After reviewing records, it can be important to interview relevant parties. The disciplining administrator should be interviewed, and the paperwork they created documenting the discipline should be reviewed. This allows the school psychologist to understand the specific instance of behavior (or pattern of behavior) leading to the meeting and clarify any areas of confusion or concern. Constructing an Agenda An agenda can support the facilitation of a manifestation meeting significantly. It can assist in the explanation of the meeting’s purpose and process to sequence the group’s discussion. Recall from Chapter 4 that when creating an agenda, we consider the purpose of the meeting and

Manifestation Determination Meetings 221 filter it through multiple meeting objectives to create meeting goals. These objectives include the following: 1. 2. 3.

Build all group members’ capacity to participate in the decisionmaking process; Develop a shared understanding of the meeting topics; Collaborate on appropriate decisions.

We must also consider both topics that inform decision-making and topics that build the teams capacity to make decisions. Information around the student’s disability and details about the behavior requiring discipline reflect the former. A description of “direct and substantial relationship to the child’s disability” (IDEA 2004 Sec 300.530(e)(1)(i)), or the framing of this meeting as problem-solving, not discipline, represents the later. The purpose of the meeting revolves around determining whether a specific behavioral incident stems directly and substantially from the student’s disability, or alternatively, whether it reflects the result of the district’s failure to implement a student’s IEP. Filtering that purpose through the objectives above might suggest multiple specific meeting goals. We outline an example manifestation determination agenda below.

Box 9.1

Example Manifestation Determination Agenda

Meeting Purpose To determine whether the behavioral incident from X/XX/ XXXX represents a manifestation of Ashli’s disability. Was the behavior directly and substantially related to Ashli’s disability, or did it represent the district’s failure to implement Ashli’s IEP? Meeting Goals 1. 2. 3. 4.

Create a shared understanding of the questions answered in a manifestation meeting; Discuss Ashli’s disability and IEP services; Create a shared understanding of the incident from X/ XX/XXXX; Determine implications for discipline and support and services.

Group Norms All group members have a responsibility to share their perspective, demonstrate an understanding of others’ perspective, and work together to ensure a successful discussion. Welcome Questions

222

Manifestation Determination Meetings

Confidentiality Student focused; no other students will be discussed in this meeting Task focused; stay on track and honor the purpose of the meeting Topics Welcome and introductions Review of meeting purpose and goals Meeting norms Review agenda, additions Review educational history, disability status, and IEP services Review any new information from family Describe information from X/XX/XXXX incident Apply information about disability, services, and incident to manifestation questions Determine any next steps for supports or services

Processes Round robin Review agenda, check for understanding Review agenda Review agenda, check for agreement Facilitated discussion Facilitated discussion Facilitated discussion Facilitated discussion Facilitated discussion

The Warm-Up Phase Recall from Chapter 4 that group members use aspects of the warm-up phase to determine where they fit within the meeting and how they may best contribute to its outcomes. The warm-up phase may begin the group’s collaboration efforts. We hope it is clear how an agenda, such as the example above, can support facilitation of not just the whole meeting, but the warm-up phase specifically. An agenda can explicitly set a tone for collaboration. For instance, in the above agenda, we listed shared understandings of various topics as meeting goals. We also added space for additions to the agenda. Those agenda entries may establish the group’s desire for all participants to share their perspective. Introductions All meetings begin with an introduction of group members, including their role or relationship to the student. In some manifestation meetings, it may be the first time many group members meet each other. For instance, at the secondary level, parents may not have met all of their

Manifestation Determination Meetings 223 student’s teachers. The school psychologist may not know this student or their parent either. If the student has not recently participated in a reevaluation, the school psychologist’s knowledge of the student may come solely from paperwork and interviews. It can be important to consider the general tone or atmosphere of the meeting when group members introduce each other. Of course, we want the meeting to feel welcoming and warm. However, the general atmosphere may not feel that way to some members. Some readers may recall meetings where a conflict over discipline overshadowed the manifestation meeting. In other meetings, group members may feel shame or embarrassment from the situation. When the atmosphere feels somber, it may go against general, unspoken decorum for a subset of group members to laugh about private jokes or discuss plans for after school. When some group members are unable to feel lighthearted, other group members should avoid appearing that way themselves. Purpose and Norms After group members introduce themselves and identify their role and relationship with the student, the purpose of the meeting can be clarified. Because the purpose sits at the beginning of the agenda, most group members may have read it already. Thus, this is an opportunity to expand on it. In this situation, I tend to use formal language. While I want to talk to people in a way that makes the most sense for them, it’s possible that if I try and cut the language down, I risk creating unnecessary confusion. If I say, “We’re trying to see if this behavior is related to the disability,” I imply something I don’t mean to imply. So I generally say, “The purpose of today’s meeting is to review the latest behavioral incident, so-and-so has been suspend for. We’re not here to determine whether or not he did that, that was previously determined, we have to assume it occurred. Our job in the manifestation meeting is to determine whether the behavior is directly and substantially related to the student’s disability.” Justin Allen Justin Allen stresses the need for very specific language when discussion the purpose of this meeting. He acknowledges that we often change our language based on our communication partners. That habit represents the spirit of the persona construct from the context of communication. However, in this situation, that habit could create challenges if it does not communicate the specific questions the group must answer in this meeting.

224

Manifestation Determination Meetings Frame it as a protection. I explained to the family about their rights and that they’re protected and why they’re protected and why their eligibility and special education provides protection. So actually explaining their procedural rights and safeguard. Shawn McGlaughlin One of the first things that I learned about manifestations: this is not a discipline meeting at all. Our job here is not to determine whether a behavior occurred or what should occur in terms of disciplinary procedures. Our job is to make a recommendation about whether the behavior is a manifestation of the disability. We assume it occurred. This is not about guilt or innocence, or what we should do to punish the behavior. Justin Allen

When elaborating on the purpose of the meeting, underscore that it represents a parallel process to discipline. A manifestation meeting occurs because of discipline, but it is not a discipline meeting or a trial. When that becomes clear to participants it can be easier to emphasize the protective and supportive spirit of this meeting. The goals on the agenda should also be reviewed along with the purpose. They add detail and can set the tone for the discussion. When constructing the goals in the example agenda above, we used verbs like “share” to support the collaborative spirit of the meeting. In the final goal, we highlighted implications “for discipline, support and services.” This is the opportunity to lean into the problem-solving stance. At this point in the warm-up, the school psychologist can wonder with the group whether the behavior triggering discipline requires additional supports at school. Lastly, review the norms listed on the agenda. We endorse those described previously and in Chapter 4. However, specific group members may have more to add or elaboration on. By reviewing norms, it may be possible to further scaffold efforts at collaboration.

The Action Phase Besides supporting the warm-up phase of a meeting, a strong agenda also allows for a smooth transition into the action phase. With the purpose, goals, and norms of the meeting reviewed, the group can turn their attention toward the list of meeting topics and decisions listed in the agenda. In transitioning to the action phase, it can be useful to highlight the sequence or flow of the topics, and how they related to each other. For example, we could note: To determine if a behavior is a manifestation of a disability, we have a lot of things to discuss that I have listed here in the agenda. We’ll review Jillian’s disability, it’s features and its effects on her

Manifestation Determination Meetings 225 performance here at school. We’ll summarize her IEP and supports here at school, and then we’ll review details of the incident in question. Mom and Dad, we’ll particularly want to hear your thoughts, and any new information you may have. But before we begin, is there anything more we need to add to our agenda? Note how such an overview may clarify how the group makes decisions. Reasonableness of decisions represents an important aspect of the context of communication. Practitioners described numerous practices they find valuable when various scenarios arise during manifestation determination meetings. We describe exemplars in the next section. When Parents Are Upset about Discipline When parents are super angry about the discipline consequences, that can be a barrier to the meeting. It can get us stuck talking about the wrong things. Always start the meeting with something positive, someplace where the student is doing a good job. If someone is really stuck on that consequence, I let them know, “We understand you’re frustrated. That’s an administrative decision, and it happens outside of this meeting. We can help you start the appeals process related to that after this meeting is over.” Melissa Reid We already underscored the need to frame this meeting in a supportive, problem-solving way. One tactic to differentiate this meeting from discipline highlights positive aspects of the student. These might include anecdotes and interactions the group has had with the student to discuss informally with parents before the meeting begins. Perhaps it includes highlighting a juxtaposition between the discipline and other interactions with the student. The intent is to convey to the family that educators continue to be able to understand the whole student and do not myopically focus on the negative behavior that triggered this meeting. It represents a way to convey a stance of supportiveness toward the student. Another way to express support involves mentioning a discipline appeals process. As Melissa Reid demonstrates above, we can acknowledge the family’s frustration and disagreement by providing actions (the appeal) to address their concerns. It gives the family a direction to go with their concerns. Is this discipline an indicator that there is a whole lot more about your child that we all need to know in order to support them? Peter Whelley Peter Whelley provides additional language that may convey a nonjudgmental, problem-solving stance. Here the stance toward the

226

Manifestation Determination Meetings

behavior frames it as a target for support. This language conveys a message that historically, discipline may have been the reason the family has interacted with school, but there is an opportunity for this meeting to be different. When Parents Feel Shame I know we’re talking about things that are a little bit sensitive today. We may not have to go into detail about everything, I think everybody is aware of the reason behind the discipline. But I do want us to recognize that students who are otherwise wonderful kids and competent individuals do things that may not be the best choice, and when that’s the case, our job is to try to support them through that and give them the tools they need to make better choices. Melissa Reid Sometimes parents can feel shame or embarrassment around their student’s behavior. With variations of the language above, practitioners can acknowledge that the meeting addresses sensitive topics. It stresses the positive intent of the meeting, a feature of a persona highlighted in Chapter 3. By highlighting supports, tools, and choices, Melissa Reid’s example language helps support the problem-solving, collaborative spirit of the meeting. The commonality between these first two scenarios involves acknowledging the challenges parents feel in this type of meeting. Describing Characteristics of the Student’s Disability The team needs to work from a common understanding of the disability. Little Suzie’s disability can be characterized by X, Y, and Z, list those things. But make sure to turn to the parents and ask if that is an accurate description of Suzie’s challenges, her concerns with emotional regulation, her impulsivity issues, or her cognitive concerns and her ability to understand right and wrong. Allison Grant Allison Grant relies on multiple practices related to meeting facilitation and oral communication in this example. By describing individualized characteristics of a disability, she clarifies much of the decision-making process. It demonstrates how the process of the meeting builds from a common understanding of the student’s disability and services to details related to the behavior prompting discipline. She also provides an important meeting role for parents by asking them if their observations align with her description. It may increase the likelihood that parents feel they contributed to the meeting outcome and the group valued their unique point of view.

Manifestation Determination Meetings 227 Be Ready for New Information Sometimes we think we have the whole story, but we get to that manifest [meeting] and we’re going to hear more information. We need to have flexibility, be open to information shared by others, and refrain from predetermining manifest questions. Linda Pedersen Although a manifestation meeting requires substantial planning, we must also be ready for new information the family may provide. Even after calling the family and discussing the content and procedure of the meeting, more information may come forth. Our initial conceptualization of the behavior and its relationship with the student’s disability may change due to the discussion in the meeting. Openness to new information can further demonstrate to families that they are equal group members. We value their role in the meeting. When Administration Wants to Maintain a Disciplinary Action Earlier, we reviewed the position some general education administrators may find themselves in during the process of a manifestation meeting. Depending on the behavioral infraction, they may view the student’s presence on campus as a concern for others. Alternatively, they may view disciplinary consequences as an important component of an effective school. While the manifestation process allows for unilateral alternative placements for serious concerns related to drugs, weapons, and major bodily harm, there may be scenarios where that criteria does not apply, but concerns remain. Many school psychologists may recall a time where much of the group determined that a behavior was indeed a manifestation, but administration was not willing to join in the consensus. This behavior is related to that disability. That doesn’t mean that it’s right. That just means that we need to deal with that in a different type of way than excluding them from school. Justin Dove When a behavior is a manifestation, it doesn’t mean we must remove all consequences. It means those consequences might not look like assignment to an alternative school. It means we get more creative and individualized. Here we think restoratively when we can. If they’ve done some physical damage to the environment, we find some way for them to enhance the environment. If it’s being verbally ugly to another kid, it may be writing an apology, something where they’re owning their behavior. Melissa Reid It can be useful to attempt to understand administrators’ concerns. Sometimes, they may not realize that a manifestation does not necessarily

228

Manifestation Determination Meetings

mean removal of all consequences. It means the team must demonstrate flexibility and creativity to address the concern. Mentioned earlier, the behavior may represent an unmet programming need; a problem-solving stance can be important. Follow the process of arriving at a consensus around characteristics of the disability and details around the incident. If [administration] still wants to maintain the consequence, seek to understand. “Hang on, help me understand. If impulsivity is the issue, and Brutus got really angry and threw the chair, it wasn’t impulsive?” Allison Grant I go back to the most recent comprehensive evaluation. It should describe the reasons a student qualified as ED. I point out to the administrator, here is X, Y, and Z behaviors in the report, and what you’re saying the kid did really sounds like Z. Shilah Lyman The positive intent and team member features of our persona can be as important with administrators and other educators as it is with family members. In this scenario we should demonstrate a sincere desire to understand the administrator’s concerns. Earlier, we described the broader perspectives administers bring to this meeting. Depending on the behavior, when a student stays on campus, the administrator may have to address questions from other individuals who were not in the meeting. However, as the meeting is confidential, they may not be able to provide details that would let the other party(ies) understand the reasoning behind the decision. It can also be useful to investigate the reasonableness of the decision. Recall from Chapter 2, that communication can be effective when its reasonable and logical. To that end, it can be important to not engage in the question of manifestation until after all group members have a clear understanding of the student’s disability, and its adverse educational impact. When Family Members Maintain the Presence of a Manifestation It’s important to me that families understand their rights. I conclude the meeting, but ask, “Do you know how to find information about your appeal rights? Here’s where the information is. Here are individuals that might help.” Allison Grant Given the high stakes nature of this meeting, there can be times where the group does not arrive at a consensus, no matter how transparent or reasonable the decision appears to be. Family members can be especially motivated to not agree to a decision that disrupts their student’s education. When the meeting begins to go around in circles, and no possibility

Manifestation Determination Meetings 229 for consensus emerges, then a decision should be made. However, the family must all know about their rights to appeal the decision. When a consensus can’t be reached, the decision ultimately must be made by the person who is serving as the LEA. The team should by very clear on who that is, but it can be challenging when there is a district administrator, a special education administrator, the school psychologist, and the building principal in the room. I don’t think the school psychologist should ever serve as the LEA in a manifestation meeting. We make the recommendation, and the LEA can agree or ignore it. If the family has disagreements, we can pursue other courses of action. At this point, I usually say, “It looks like we’re having a hard time coming to an agreement. At this point we’re going to move forward. The LEA will make the final decision.” Justin Allen Ensure that all group members understand their role in the meeting. The meeting should include an LEA representative. That person must ultimately determine the conclusion for the group when a consensus does not emerge from discussion. In such a scenario, if parents do not agree, then the group can provide guidance on how to follow due process procedures. Give parents a clear path forward with their disagreement. “It’s probably very frustrating that you disagree with the infraction as it was documented. You know, legally, we do have to move forward with this meeting based on that documentation. However, after the meeting, we can discuss ways in which you can contest what was written.” Justin Dove Even if the team does not reach a unanimous consensus, we can maintain our support of the family by providing them clear direction on the appeals process. Providing contact information for the district representatives that oversee disciplinary appeals, or even reaching out to them ourselves and including the family on the e-mail can be useful. When Group Members Won’t Offer an Opinion Often it can be important to hold a staffing before these meetings. Set an expectation that the decision is an ARD [IEP team] decision; everyone has a voice, everyone should use their voice. If you have concerns or hesitations, make sure you explain why. Melissa Reid Another challenge that can arise in manifestation involves a lack of participation from other group members. These meetings can be intimidating; group members may struggle to engage in the discussion. During the warm-up phase, it can be important to clarify the various

230

Manifestation Determination Meetings

roles participants can take on in the discussion. We can use those roles to draw out information from participants. For instance, a general education teacher in the meeting may not have a role describing the general features of a student’s disability. However, they can certainly offer their observations on the saliency of those features in the student’s daily functioning at school. Sometimes it can be useful to hold a staffing before a meeting. Decisions are not made at staffing meetings, but they can help participants understand the process of a manifestation determination meeting. That information may make the meeting less intimidating and set an expectation that all group members participate. Direct and Substantial A student may experience poor self-esteem. And that poor self-esteem may make her really want to have friends. And the friends influenced her behavior. If you’re having to connect the dots like this, then you’re really in a situation where it’s an attenuated relationship and it is not direct and substantially related to the student’s disability. Linda Pedersen The major points of discussion in a manifestation meeting revolves around the determination of whether the behavior that violated the student code of conduct has a direct and substantial relationship to the student’s disability or resulted from the district’s failure to implement the student’s IEP. The first question has been termed “the relationship test” (Kubik & Lavik, 2014). It can be challenging to explain to meeting participants. Sometimes it can be helpful by highlighting that many behaviors can be related to a disability, but the group must focus on whether the behavior is directly and substantially related. Linda Pedersen offers the “connect the dots” test for our thinking. If the group begins linking effects from a disability together in a chain, the behavior was not likely directly related to the disability. This is similar to Yurman, Zirkel, and Dullum’s (2007) point that if a cascading, or domino effect of A causing B, which then causes C appears relevant when linking the disability to the behavior, then the behavior is not a manifestation. It only reflects a manifestation if A directly causes C. Through a problem-solving stance, we can stress to the group that even though a behavior may not be a manifestation of a disability, it does not mean that it could not reflect a target for intervention or support. For instance, in Pedersen’s example above, the student could still be referred to counseling supports to address self-esteem. In such a scenario, we conclude the meeting by stating that the behavior was not a manifestation alongside recommendations for additional supports that stakeholders may pursue.

Manifestation Determination Meetings 231 We commonly think about the behavior in terms of its association with the disability, but an association alone is insufficient to establish a direct and significant relationship. What we really need to know is, does the child’s disability make the behavior unpreventable for the child. To examine this, some states require schools to examine if there is a pattern to the behavior. If a pattern of behavior can be established, then this provides some evidence that the behavior is unpreventable. However, not all states have gone in this direction, and while questions remain about the validity of this approach, it is one way to consider the problem. There is yet another way that this problem can be examined, which includes examining if the child was able to understand the consequences of their behavior. The idea in examining if the child’s level of understanding is consistent with the concept of holding the child accountable at a level appropriate with his or her abilities. Justin Allen Justin Allen provides us methods to clarify the direct and substantial relationship test. These questions can support the group when moving past discussion of a mere association with a disability to better investigate a direct and substantial relationship. Ultimately, according to Kubik and Lavik (2014) the group may investigate multiple, specific questions in their discussion: Is the student’s thought process coherent and logical? Does the student understand consequences of misbehavior? Was the student appropriately oriented to the student code of conduct? For instance, did they receive a copy or explanation of the school rules? Has the student demonstrated the capacity to follow rules? Does the student demonstrate an understanding that the behavior was wrong? Does the student demonstrate an understanding of consequences for similar types of behavior?

Impulsivity The concept of impulsivity illustrates the complexity of manifestation meetings. Many individuals may consider impulsive behavior to be acting without any type of forethought. However, it can be challenging to determine whether a behavior is truly impulsive. It is not possible to actually observe students’ thought processes. How did this situation occur? Let’s begin where it started and walkthrough it. In walking through the ecological and situational variables, relevant factors such as impulsivity should become clearer.

232

Manifestation Determination Meetings I would be asking questions like, when the situation occurred, what preceded it? How much time passed between the antecedent event and the problem behavior? What contextual variables do I need to know to understand the situation? If there were opportunities for the student to think about the behavior, then it doesn’t appear impulsive. In one case that I recently reviewed, a student was offered a firecracker to light in the school quad, to which the student responded, “No, I’m good,” and walked off. Then he turned around, walked back, lit the firecracker, and got in trouble. In a case like this, we can say that this is representative of poor decision-making. But saying that it was an impulsive decision is going to be a hard case to make. In this situation, the student had time to make a decision, he then appears to have changed his mind after thinking about it, and then walked back to engage in the problem behavior. Justin Allen

Justin Allen provided examples of scenarios that can appear impulsive, and the type of information that could be discussed to clarify the situation. It can be helpful to consider the timeline associated with the behavioral infraction. If the student had time to consider their actions, or if there is evidence of planning, then the influence of impulsivity on behavior may be minimal. Relatedly, it can also be helpful to determine it if the behavior leading to discipline required multiple decisions, not just a single impulsive one. Collectively, this information may suggest that impulsivity did not influence the behavior in question substantially. On the Topic of Drugs and Alcohol If we’re discussing a learning disability in math, I have a real hard considering drug use to be a manifestation. But is the disability emotional? Is there a history of impulsive decision-making? Does the kid need therapy to manage things? If that’s the case, sometimes we need to tease out, is the drug use just related to social maladjustment, or is it covering emotional challenges? Is it a sign that we may need to do a reevaluation? Alternatively, if it isn’t related to a disability, do we need to help the family get in contact with our mental health liaisons so they can investigate family dynamics or a need for other resources? Allison Grant Drug and alcohol use may create the need for a manifestation meeting (Zirkel, 2010). In our experience, these scenarios may frequently involve a discussion of impulsivity. The group may spend time clarifying the relationship between impulsivity and decision-making. For instance, some individuals may attempt to describe impulsive decision-making as a failure to consider consequences, in the context of ADHD. At least one court case found it persuasive to review the exemplars of impulsive

Manifestation Determination Meetings 233 behavior described by the DSM-5 (American Psychiatric Association, 2013), noting that they are very instantaneous, or spur-of-the-moment in their nature (Office of Administrative Hearings, State of California, 2009). That nature of impulsivity can be contrasted with the questions considered above, specifically, whether the student understands the consequences of misbehavior. In the case of drugs and alcohol, Allison Grant demonstrates methods of maintaining the problem-solving spirit of this meeting. An instance of drug use could potentially be directly related to a student’s disability. Regardless, it certainly reflects a target of intervention and support for the student and family. Failure to Implement the IEP It’s touchy, people don’t want to have the discussion of did we fail to implement the IEP. But sometimes we did [fail to implement the IEP]. It’s just better to have that conversation and be transparent. It used to be perceived as such a big no-no, you don’t want to say that. But you do. Linda Pedersen Of course, the behavioral infraction could occur because the district did not appropriately follow an IEP. It certainly can happen; it could easily happen if a substitute staff member finds themselves involved with a complicated behavior intervention plan, for instance. This question should be considered, not only because it is the law, but also because it provides transparency to the manifestation process. It may increase district personnel credibility, an aspect of the speaker vertex in the context of communication, if they not only consider the actions of the student, but also their own actions in creating the behavior that led to discipline. Being able to admit mistakes, challenges, or uncertainty can be important in creating trust. There are more specific questions the group can consider when determining if a behavior occurred due to the district’s failure to implement an IEP (Kubik & Lavik, 2014). Specifically, the group should determine if the IEP was developed legally from a procedural standpoint and subsequently, has it been implemented as documented. The group should also determine if the IEP addresses all the needs that were documented in the most recent evaluation. The group should also question whether there are undocumented support needs. Is the behavior representative of a developing difficulty for which the student may require support? When the Team Wants to Vote At times, these meetings will turn into almost like a round table vote, which is not how a manifestation determination is supposed to go. When

234

Manifestation Determination Meetings it happens, I remind the group that this process is not a debate with winners or losers. If we’re not able to reach an agreement as a team, we can kick this up to the special education administration to help get it sorted out. Justin Dove Some administrators may bring additional staff members to meetings in hopes of winning a vote about the decision. No. It’s important for teams to know that MDR decisions aren’t made by voting. MaryAnn Green

Some teams may feel compelled to vote on decisions, not just in manifestations but in any numerous types of special education meetings. However, voting goes against the spirit of IDEA. Educators may not vote their opinion, worried about crossing an administrator or others in the room, and educators will usually outnumber family group members. The Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (Posny, 2010) issued a letter stressing the inappropriateness of voting to make IEPrelated decisions. It is not appropriate to make IEP decisions based on a majority “vote.” If the team cannot reach agreement, the public agency must determine the appropriate services and provide the parents with prior written notice of the agency’s determinations regarding the child’s educational program and of the parents’ right to seek resolution of any disagreements by initiating an impartial due process hearing or filing a State complaint.

The Closure Phase After the group determines whether a behavior (pattern) reflects a manifestation of a disability and creates any next steps for interventions, supports, or services, they enter into the closure phase of the meeting. Even with the meeting ending, facilitators can still strive to ensure that group members feel a shared purpose, contributed to the meeting, and were valued for their unique perspective. Recall from Chapter 4 that the closure phase can continue to advance the group toward these objectives by summarizing group accomplishments, reviewing the impact of group processes within the meeting, preparing for any future next steps, and expressing appreciation to each other. In a manifestation meeting, summarizing accomplishments may involve a short review of the meeting process and a summary of the group’s decisions. This summary should highlight contributions that various team members made. It allows all members to hear how their perspective influenced the course of the meeting. It may be

Manifestation Determination Meetings 235 particularly useful to highlight any new information parents shared during the meeting to show how it influenced decision-making. If the meeting does not end in a consensus, that should be noted as well. Meeting documentation should clearly highlight the incompatible conclusions, identifying the key issue(s) that separates them. While the team did not reach a consensus about the presence of a manifestation, they likely can arrive at a consensus about the reason(s) for group members’ discrepant conclusions. They will be the topic of subsequent meetings through the appeals processes. As an example, consider a common scenario that involves the issue of impulsivity influencing a student caught at school with an illegal substance. Administrators might suggest that the student had multiple chances to make decisions, minimizing the influence of impulsivity. Alternatively, parents could stress that the concept of impulsivity involves the student’s understanding of the consequences of his actions. From their perspective, it did not matter how many chances the student had for decision-making. A failure to predict consequences is a hallmark of the student’s thought process. The two contrasting perspectives on impulsivity should be documented by the group. It ensures that participants know that the group understands and cares about their perspective.

If a consensus about a manifestation cannot be achieved, likely the team can come to a consensus about the reason(s) one is not possible.

A thorough understanding of participants’ viewpoints also represents a place for the facilitator to express appreciation to the team. It can be as simple as a “thanks for helping me document that precisely.” In other scenarios, especially when the team concluded with a consensus plan to move forward, expressing appreciation may mean closing on a positive note, providing hope to the group that the plan will place the student on a strong educational trajectory.

Post-Meeting Many activities could occur after a manifestation determination meeting, all depending on the outcomes of the meeting. At minimum, various paperwork should be filled and appropriate prior written notices sent home. This provides one last opportunity to express appreciation to the family for participating in the meeting. If additional meetings must be scheduled, or contact with other individuals should be made, those responsibilities can also be followed up on.

236

Manifestation Determination Meetings

Summary Manifestation determination meetings can be challenging for all involved. While the decisions made in these meetings are difficult, and in many ways different than those in other special education meetings, we can still strive for a collaborative facilitation process. Like all other meetings that means ensuring that all participants understand the purpose of the meeting, feel they participated in a meaningful way, and are valued for their unique perspective. Practitioners stressed that framing this meeting as a problemsolving process supports collaboration, as does including parents in the data gathering and records review while planning the meeting. When a consensus does not emerge during decision-making, it may still be possible to reach agreement about why consensus is not possible. That can be documented to support any necessary appeals processes.

References American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596 Arp, R., Barbone, S., & Bruce, M. (2019). Bad arguments: 100 of the most important fallacies in western philosophy. John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (1997). Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) regulations, 34 C.F.R. §§ 1415[k][1][E][i] et seq. (2008) Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) regulations, 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.530(e)(1)(i) et seq. (2008) Katsiyannis, A. & Maag, J. W. (2001). Manifestation determination as a golden fleece. Exceptional children, 68(1), 85–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290106800105 Kubik, R. K. & Lavik, K. B. (2014). Best practices in making manifestation determinations. In P. L. Harrison & A. Thomas (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology: Student level services (pp. 399–414). National Association of School Psychologists. Lee, S. W. (2005). Manifestation determination. In S. W. Lee (Ed.), Encyclopedia of school psychology (pp. 303–305). Sage. Lewis, M. (2017). Were the student’s actions a manifestation of the student’s disability? The need for policy change and guidance. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 25(50), 1–21. https://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.25.2880 Posny, A. (2010, January 7). Letter to Dorothy M. Richards. Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. https://sites.ed.gov/idea/files/idea/ policy/speced/guid/idea/letters/2010-1/richards010710iep1q2010.pdf Ryan, J. B., Katsiyannis, A., Peterson, R., & Chmelar, R. (2007). IDEA 2004 and discipling students with disabilities. NASSP Bulletin, 91(2), 130–140. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0192636507302309 Student v. San Diego Unified School District. Office of Administrative Hearings, State of California OAH Case No. 2009070224 (2009) https://www.dgs.ca.gov/ OAH/Case-Types/Special-Education/Services/-/media/Divisions/OAH/SpecialEducation/SE-Decisions/2009/2009---August/2009070224Acc.pdf

Manifestation Determination Meetings 237 Yurman, B., Zirkel, P., & Dullum, L. (2007). Legal requirements for manifestation determination under IDEA 2004: Questions and answers. Communiqué, 35(6), 1–5. Zirkel, P. (2006). Manifestation determinations under the Individuals with Disabilities Act: What the new causality criteria mean. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 19, 3–12. Zirkel, P. (2010). Manifestation determinations under the new Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: An update. Remedial and Special Education, 31(5), 378–384. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932509355993 Zirkel, P. (2018). Manifestation determinations under the IDEA: The latest case law. The School Psychologist, 72(1), 13–22.

Index

accommodations 142, 175, 182–183, 193, 201, 203–204, 208, 210 active listening 22–23, 33, 93, 100, 137; in collaborative discussion 26, 29; in a group 77–78; in problem-solving 100, 102–103, 105, 107, 112 adverse childhood experiences (ACES) 165 adverse educational impact 70, 71, 141, 158, 228 advocacy 51 agenda 58, 68–71, 94–96, 124–126, 157–159, 199–200, 220–222 Alexander, J. 31 Alfonso, V. C. 191, 213 Allen, J. P. 216, 217, 219, 223, 224, 229, 231, 232 alterable/unalterable factors 86, 107, 115 Alwell, M. 211, 212 Amen, L. 42, 89, 105, 109, 166, 171, 185 American Psychiatric Association 58, 60, 233, 236 and stance 29–30, 57, 74, 77, 93, 100, 104, 142, 202, 205; in meetings 47–48, 55 Andersen, B. 33, 51, 161, 164 Angoff, L. 39, 46, 205–206 Annen, A. 153, 176–178, 185, 206, 208 annual goals 193 anxiety 156, 157, 172–173, 187 argument 3, 16–18, 25–27 Aristotelian triangle 12 Armstrong, K. 2, 10 Arp, R. 212, 236 Association for Specialists in Group Work 62, 81 assumptions 16, 17, 23, 88, 142; in

argument building 25, 26; toward meeting participants 33, 40, 53, 59, 126, 144; of special education 56–57, 60, 137 Atkins, J. 152, 180, 216 attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) 17, 56, 102, 145–146, 154, 173, 187, 232 attributions 19, 23, 40, 77, 83, 87, 108, 120, 124, 134, 165; in discussion 24–25; in group leadership functions 66–67 audience 3, 12–14, 182; influence on persona and stance 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 37, 52; in collaborative discussion 29, 31; regarding principled negotiation 195 Austin, C. A. 151 autism 56, 78, 91, 146, 154, 158, 220; in eligibility/feedback 167, 168–170, 172, 175, 177; IDEA vs DSM-5 140–141 Bacon, J. K. 20, 31 Baio, J. 192 Barbone, S. 236 Barrett, C. 38, 40, 52, 131, 134, 141, 174, 187 Barrett, D. 133, 142, 165 Bateman, B. D. 203, 208, 212 Beck, K. 10 Behavior Improvement Plan (BIP) 40, 133, 214, 215, 220, 233 Belgrave, F. Z. 192 Beliefs (see worldview) Beneshek, L. 118 Benjamin, G. A. H. 191 Bens, I. 76, 81 Bentley, S. 49, 138, 171, 179–180, 203

Index 239 Bernier, R. 170, 191 Beszterczey, S. K. 191 Billings, S. J. 12, 26, 27, 32 Billingsley, B. S. 21, 22, 31, 48, 57, 60, 163, 192 Bishop, K. 191 Bonebright, D. A. 64, 81 Bonner, M. 9, 31 Bos, C. S. 192 Boyd, B. A. 36, 60 Bradley, R. 10, 31 Brainstorm 19, 71, 134, 135, 137, 147, 196, 204 Branscum, A. M. 35, 153, 163, 169–170, 201–202 Breiger, D. 154, 191 Brent, D. 24, 27, 31 Bruce, E. J. 169, 191 Bruce, M. 236 Bui, O. 61 Burchett, A. 41, 44, 161, 162–163 Burkhartsmeyer, J. 32 Camera, A. 39, 47–48, 92, 98, 165, 177 Cannon, K. 31 Cannon, Z. 31 Carranza, F. 1, 10, 194, 213 Carriere, J. A. 123, 145, 151 case conceptualization 8, 120, 121 Causton-Theoharis, J. 20, 31 Chang, M.-L. 165, 166, 191 child development 2, 16, 51, 142 child find 82, 106, 107, 119, 129 Childress, M. 144, 149, 169, 182 Chmelar, R. 236 Christopher, G. B. 192 claim 26, 29, 196 Cobb, R. B. 211, 212 Cockcroft, R. 20, 31 Cockcroft, S. 20, 31 Coffee, G. 155, 207 cognitive assessment 146 collaborative discussion 26–27 collaborative problem-solving 39, 47, 95 collaborative rhetoric 27 commonplaces 16–19, 20, 36, 138 Compton, D. L. 191 conflict 21–22, 23, 48, 65, 75, 76, 93, 121, 194, 195, 196, 218, 223 consensus 2, 3, 5, 7, 46, 70, 75, 105, 124, 145; in IEP meetings 194, 197, 206; in manifestation determination

reviews 215, 216, 218, 227, 228, 229, 235; in meeting closure 78, 80, 148, 188, 189, 190 content objectives 7, 64, 65, 76, 78, 117, 119, 188 context of communication 12–20, 67, 68; associations with principled negotiation 195, 197; and collaboration 21–22, 29–30; in eligibility/feedback 154, 156, 163, 182, 184; in IEP meetings 198; in manifestation determination meetings 217, 218, 223, 225, 233; and meeting objectives 63; objectives of 33; school psychology meeting persona/stance 46, 50, 59; in suspicion of disability meetings 124, 145 continuous problem-solving model; Problem analysis, Problem identification, Progress monitoring and evaluation; Intervention 84–86 Coolong-Chaffin, M. 123, 151 Coppola, T. 10 Correa, V. I. 36, 60 Costa, M. 191 counseling services 122, 194, 203, 207, 212, 230 Crawford, A. 45 credibility 12, 13–14, 18; in eligibility/ feedback meetings 190; established in meetings 33, 34, 35, 37, 50, 52, 59, 67; in manifestation determination meetings 233; with persona and stance 19, 22; in problem-solving meetings 103; in suspicion of disability meetings 147 Crooks, S. 89, 91, 92, 102, 108, 109–110, 116 Crouch, C. 42, 45, 111, 137 cultural competence, humility 51–53 Cultural Formulation Interview (CFI) 58 cultural norms 127 culture 23, 51, 56, 57, 99, 168 Curcic, S. 21, 32, 193, 213 curiosity 26, 29, 41, 87, 117, 131 Davidson, J. 44, 134, 147, 161, 187, 203–204, 211 Davis, H. A. 166, 191 de Mesquita, P. B. 205, 213 decision-making capacity 70, 95, 204

240

Index

decorum 34, 223 deductive reasoning 17, 18 defensiveness 113–114, 136 1Del Gaiso, A. 91, 93, 95, 99, 105, 107, 112 Delgado, B. 192 Dematteo, F. J. 6, 9 developmental delay 166–167 Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition (DSM-5) 58, 140, 141, 158, 233 Dietz, P. M. 192 differentiated instruction 83, 93, 114 direct and substantial 15, 215, 221, 230–231 discipline 15; as data in meetings 89, 122; equitable 54, 55; in manifestation meetings 214, 215, 216, 221, 223, 224, 225, 226, 232; as a topic in the context of communication 217, 218, 220 Donigan, J. 10, 81 Dove, J. H. 34, 39, 45, 101–102, 234, 227 Dowd-Eagle, S. E. 83, 117 Downing, L. H. 31 due process 1, 22, 74, 194, 229, 234 Eagle, J. W. 83, 117 early intervention 18, 198 Edbauer, J. 13, 31 emotion regulation 55 Emotional disturbance, Emotional Behavioral Disability 133, 140, 147, 171–172 empathy 137, 165, 170, 180, 186, 187 encouraging 23, 59 Engiles, A. 10 Engle, D. M. 5, 6, 9 English second language learners, English language learners, ESL 59, 122, 142, 144 Epstein, J. L. 52, 60 Esquivel, S. L. 8, 9, 15, 31 Ethier, L. S. 192 ethos 12 evaluation planning meetings 119 evidence-based practices 83 expert persona 29, 51 extended school year 193 fallacy of a single cause 215 family participation 1, 72, 153

fatigue, systems change 112–113 Fergus, E. 61 Ferguson, D. L. 6, 10 Finn, S. E. 123, 151, 156, 177, 178, 191, 192 Fischer, A. J. 54 Fish, W. W. 5, 10 Fisher, R. 9, 10, 195, 210, 213 Flanagan, D. P. 32, 167, 191, 213 Fletcher, J. M. 191 Floyd, R. G. 192 fluency, 2, 205 Foss, K. A. 27, 31 Foss, S. K. 27, 31 Franks, D. 39, 42, 167 Franks-Thomas, A. 44, 181, 189 Fuchs, L. S. 191 fundamental attribution error 40 Gladding, S. T. 62, 63, 64, 75, 81 Goring, J. 191 Grant, A. 35, 44, 47, 131–132, 138–139, 162, 180–184, 187, 189, 216, 226, 228, 232–233 Green, M. 35, 53, 55, 126, 128, 148, 234 Greene, R. 47, 60, 165, 191 grief 169, 170, 171 Grigorenko, E. L. 168, 191 Gronroos, N. 32 grounds, argument construction 26 group development 64–67, 71, 75, 76 group dynamics 62, 63–64 group leadership (v. facilitation) group leadership functions 65–67 group norms 73–75, 96, 125, 132, 159, 194, 200, 221 group roles 62, 71, 75–76 group structure, subsystems 64, 75, 90 Gutkin, T. B. 6, 10 Halpern, A. S. 213 Hamilton, C. 31 Hardcastle, B. 89, 92, 94, 97, 114–115 Harrell, J. E. 192 Harry, B. 56, 60, 83, 117 Harvard Negotiation Project 195 Hass, M. R. 49, 51, 53, 58, 60, 123, 145, 151 Health impairment (see Other Health Impairment) Heen, S. 29, 30, 32, 48, 61, 118, 142, 151, 213 Heinrichs, J. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 31, 34

Index 241 Hersh, B. 192 Hesser, K. 46, 89, 106, 110, 139, 145 Hof, D. 52, 173–175, 198, 201–202, 209, 215, 133, 166–167, 176–177 Hoffelt, A. 120, 162, 172, 177, 183, 209 Hogan, M. 140, 147 Hoggatt, S. 166, 204, 205 Hoke, H. 127, 129 House, A. E. 141, 151 Hulse-Killacky, D. 7, 10, 63, 66, 67, 74, 76, 78, 81 identity 3, 19, 34, 45, 53, 57, 59, 110, 112, 156 IEP, Individualized Education Plan 5, 7, 193–194, 199, 203, 209–210; and collaborative discussion 24, 27; and credibility 14; disability 148; distinctions between IDEA 504; and DSM-5 140, 183; family expectations and experiences 51, 65, 163, 169, 175; information from eligibility meeting 8, 162; within a manifestation review 214; school psychologist role 8, 9, 46, 201–202 impairment, families’ understanding of disability 21, 36, 140, 168 implementation fidelity 80, 83, 86, 101, 111–112, 114, 116 impulsivity, manifestation of disability 226, 228, 231–233, 235 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Individuals with Disabilities Improvement Act 1, 11, 18, 20, 30, 56, 58, 70, 74, 82, 119; and collaboration 5, 6, 9; differences from DSM-5 140–141 inductive reasoning 17–18, 166, 183 inferences 23–25, 29, 33, 57, 100, 108; ladder of inference 25, 30; comprehension skill 206 informed consent 119, 147–148, 154, 211 intellectual disability 56, 136–137, 156, 166, 167, 168, 170–171 interests (vs. positions) 195–196 introductions 71, 72, 93, 117, 126, 159, 201, 222 jargon 44 Jegatheesan, B. 51, 60 Jensen, M. A. C. 64, 81 Johnson- Sheehan, R. 12, 31

Johnson, D. 32 Jones, N. 42, 141 judgments 14, 124; in contrast with facts 24–25, 27; within a persona/ stance 29, 45, 46, 50, 52, 57, 59, 104, 166, 171, 184, 195, 202, 225; family experiences 135, 136, 143; and setting limits 147, 184 kairos 12 Kalyanpur, M. 56, 60, 83, 117 Kaner, S. 69, 71, 74, 77, 81 Katsiyannis, A. 1, 10, 20, 31, 215, 236 Katul, N. 10 Katzenstein, T. 191 Kelly, S. R. 36 KewalRamani, A. 61 Killacky, J. 10, 81 King Thrius, K. A. 61 Kleiner, A. 32 Kruger, L. J. 87, 88, 105, 117 Krumholz, L. S. 151 Kubik, R. K. 214, 216, 230, 231, 233, 236 Lake, J. F. 21, 22, 31, 48, 57, 60, 163, 192 Lasky, B. A. 192 Lasser, J. 207, 213 Lavik, K. B. 214, 216, 230, 231, 233, 236 Leahy, M. A. 191 learning disability(ies) 17, 56, 104, 130, 143, 167–168, 188, 189, 232 Lee, S. W. 215, 236 Leiberman, M. 66, 81 Leinhardt, G. 2, 10 Leith, S. 12, 16, 17, 31 Leverson, M. 49, 50, 141, 154, 163, 167, 185 Lewis, M. 214, 218, 219, 220, 236 Linden, M. A. 203, 208, 212 logic 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 26, 30, 87, 145, 155, 190, 207, 215, 228, 231 logos 12 Losen, D. J. 54, 60 Losh, E. 12, 31 Luke, M. 66, 81 Lyman, S. 49, 204, 218, 228 Maag, J. W. 215, 236 Maciel, L. 124 Maenner, M. J. 168, 192

242

Index

managing expectations 110 manifestation determinations 9, 15, 16, 55, 57, 63, 214–236 Mao, A. 191 Martin, J. E. 17, 32, 56, 61 Martin, N. R. M. 1, 10, 56, 195, 197, 198, 212, 213 Mascolo, J. T. 204, 213 Matson, M. 151 McDougal, P. 40, 45, 143 McFarland, J. 61 McGill, R. 59, 160, 162, 168, 170, 179 McGlaughlin, S. 36, 39, 179, 187, 224 McGrew, K. S. 17, 32 mediation 22, 202 medical model 6 meeting content (vs. process) 63–64 meeting goals 62, 69–71, 73; in eligibility/feedback meetings 157–158, 160; in IEP meetings 194, 199–200; in a problem-solving meeting 96–97; in manifestation determination meetings 221; in a suspicion of disability meeting 124–125 meeting purpose 2, 7, 11, 62; in agenda construction 69, 72–73, 74; in eligibility/feedback meetings 157–159, 160; in IEP meetings 194, 200, 201; in manifestation determination meetings 221; in problem-solving meetings 92, 94, 95, 115; to support meeting roles 75–76; in suspicion of disability meetings 124, 127 mental health 2, 13, 16, 215, 232; in collaborative discussion 54, 139, 154; cultural understandings 50, 51, 52; and stigma 45–46, 147, 184–185 Miles, M. 81 Milot, T. 165, 192 Miranda, A. H. 61 modifications 193, 208 Mueller, T. G. 1, 5, 10, 58, 60, 69, 81, 194, 195, 199, 213 Mueser, K. T. 165, 192 Multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS), Intensive of tier three system, Targeted or tier two system, Universal or tier one system 83–84 Musgrove, M. 143, 151 Musu-Gillette, L. 54, 61

National Association of School Psychologists (NASP) 53, 61; practice model 88, 117 Navarrete, L. A. 52, 61 negativity 133–135 Newell, M. 118 Newman, D. S. 25, 32, 81 Nolan, J. 50–52, 135, 143–144 nonverbal communication 3, 22 Ochoa, T. 192 Office of Special Education Programs 143, 171, 192, 234 oral communication 1–4, 9, 12, 20, 25, 58, 60, 62, 67; in problem solving 83, 86, 106 other health impairment 145, 172 Paine, C. 12, 31 Palma, K. 191 Paraphrasing 23–24, 48, 77, 100, 112 parent satisfaction 5 Park, K. 191 pathos 12 Patton, B. 10, 12, 29–30, 32, 48, 61, 118, 151, 213 Pedersen, L. 145, 169, 175, 181, 210, 216, 227, 230, 233 Persinger, L. L. 37, 217 persona 19–31, 22–34, 37–37, 41, 44–45, 50–52; in IEP meetings 195, 197, 202, 205; in manifestation determination meetings 223, 226, 228; in problem solving meetings 86–87, 93, 111, 117; in suspicion of disability meetings 123–124, 133–135, 142, 144 Peterson, R. 236 Phillips, E. 5, 10 Plotts, C. A. 207, 213 Pluymert, K. 84–85, 118 poor instructional match 111 positions 9, 27, 29, 195–198 positive intent 39–41, 47, 50, 59; in evaluation feedback meetings 186; in IEP meetings 195; in manifestation determination meetings 226, 228; in problem solving meetings 87, 93, 111–112, 117; in suspicion of disability meetings 134–135, 138 Posny, A. 234, 236 Postal, K. 2, 10 Powell, K. M. 82, 89, 98, 106

Index 243 power 9, 22, 29, 65, 75–76, 126, 194 pre-referral 119, 138 present level of performance 47, 85, 207 principled negotiation 195–198, 202, 204, 209–210, 212 prioritizing multiple concerns 105–106 private evaluations 106, 121, 125–126, 144, 145 problem solving definition 83; model 84–86; oral communication in 86–88 problem solving team composition 90–92; member roles 92; school psychologist role 88–90 procedural safeguards 1, 119, 130, 147–148, 154 process objectives 64, 71, 117, 149, 188, 194–195, 201, 211 processing strengths and weaknesses (PSW) 48, 167 programming 21–22, 28, 113, 145, 176, 203, 206, 209, 228 progress monitoring 20, 79, 83–86, 95–96, 104, 143–144, 206 Provost, M. A. 192 Punishment 170, 208 Quezada, T. 192 racism 55, 115 Radliff, K. M. 61 Ralph, G. 10 Raulerson, C. 42, 93, 98, 101, 103–104, 112, 115 reasonableness 15–16, 145, 225, 228 records review 121–123, 136, 219–220, 236 Redash, A. 61 referral source 120 Regensburger, D. 61 Reid, M. 145, 161–162, 203, 207, 225–229 reification of disability 56–57, 83, 215 Reiman, J. W. 1, 10 related services 9, 64, 119, 193, 200–201, 207–208, 210 relationship test 230–231 Reschly, A. L. 123, 151 rhetoric 7, 12, 26–27, 32–32 rhetorical appeals 13, 26 Roberts, C. 32 Robinson, J. 61 Robinson, T. 35–36, 102, 111, 186

Rogers- Adkinson, D. 170–192 Rogers, C. 27, 29, 32 Rogers, C. R. 27, 29, 32 roles 4, 8–9, 58–59, 62, 65, 71, 73, 75–76, 81; in problem solving meetings 88, 90, 92, 97, 117; in suspicion of disability meetings 129–143, 150–152 Rosenfield, S. A. 25, 32, 87–88, 90–91, 119 Ross, B. 41, 186 Ross, L. 40, 61 Ross, R. 32 Rossetti, Z. 51, 61 Royston, A. 105, 131, 135–136, 146, 148 Rubinson 91, 118 Ryan, C. S. 9, 31 Ryan, J. B. 215, 236t Sauer, J. S. 61 Schneider, W. J. 17, 32 Schultz, C. L. 169–170, 191 Schultz, N. C. 191 Schwarz, R. 24, 32, 65, 73, 81 screening 83, 122 Section 504 plan 148, 173, 183, 209 Selders, A. 172, 181, 185, 186 self-regulation 17, 55, 135, 197, 207 Senge, P. 25, 32 Shahidullah, J. D. 188, 192 shame 192, 217, 223, 226 Shaw, K. A. 192 Shelton, K. 42, 59, 129, 147 Shriberg, D. 53, 61 Simental, J. 136, 140, 154, 176, 184, 209 Skidmore, C. A. 194, 213 Slonski-Fowler, K. E. 5, 10 SMART criteria 206 Smith, B. 32 Smyrnios, K. X. 191 social justice 51, 53–55, 57, 61 Song, S. Y. 61 speaker 12–16, 19–23, 29, 34, 77; in manifestation determination meetings 233 specially designed instruction: associated commonplaces 18, 139; differentiating from accommodations 182–183; in IEP meetings 193, 203, 208–210; as a part of eligibility 55, 70, 125, 136, 139,

244

Index

141–142, 146, 175; as a topic in the context of communication 158–159, 175 specific learning disability (SLD) 56, 143, 167, 188–189, 191 St Laurent, D. 192 stance 19–20, 29–33, 35, 38, 45–50, 55–57, 59, 74, 77; in evaluation feedback meetings 164, 166, 171–172, 177, 184; in IEP meetings 202, 205, 210; in manifestation determinations 225, 228, 230; in problem solving meetings 85–87, 93, 100, 104, 114, 117; in suspicion of disability meetings 123–124, 127, 134, 142 Stoiber, K. C. 83, 118 Stone, D. 19, 24, 29–30, 32, 35, 48, 61, 100, 118, 142, 151, 202, 213 Strand, N. A. 91–92, 94, 98, 99, 101, 127 student assistance teams, student support teams 82, 119 student strengths 19, 21, 48, 130, 172 Student v. San Diego Unified School District 236 Sue, D. 51, 56 Sue, D. W. 51, 56 summarizing 23, 30, 77–78, 100, 133, 149, 173, 188, 190, 234 Supplementary Security Income (SSI) 176 suspicion of disability 79, 82–83; feedback meetings 152; meetings 119–151; in problem-solving meetings 96, 106–107, 109 Tarbell, I. 38, 43, 53, 91, 113, 209–210 task group 7, 62–63, 68, 104, 150 task group objectives 11, 33, 63, 216, 221, 234 Taub, J. 136, 156, 172, 206–207, 216 Taub, J. 156, 165, 172, 192, 206–207, 216 team-based decision-making 43, 45, 50–59, 133 Teich, N. 27, 32 telos 12 Tharinger, D. J. 123, 151, 156, 157, 192 therapeutic assessment 123, 156 thesis 26; see also claim Thurstone, L. P. 52, 61

Tobin, R. M. 141, 151 Toulmin 25–26, 196 Tran, A. 192 transition services 193, 210, 211 Trapp, R. 31 trauma 43, 107, 165 Truscott, S. D. 5, 10 trust 14, 19, 22, 31; in communication 33–39, 45, 50, 52, 58; in feedback meetings 163, 171, 179; in manifestation determination meetings 233; meeting foundations 67; in problem solving meetings 102; in suspicion of disability meetings 144 Tuckman, B. W. 64, 81 Turner, C. R. 34, 36, 40, 48, 50–51, 136, 139, 149, 165, 168, 180, 182, 211 U. S. Department of Education 61, 143, 151, 167, 192 Ury, W. 10, 213 Valenzuela, R. 17, 32, 56, 61 validating concerns 47, 105, 107, 135 valuation 21–22 values 3, 11, 33; in argument and collaborative discussion 23–30, 31; in the context of communication 14–19; influence on persona 39; of meeting participants 49, 50–51, 53, 57–60, 67, 72, 74, 77, 87, 98, 112, 156, 180; in principled negotiation 9, 195–197, 212; of special education 56, 170 Vaughn, S. 152, 192 Vick, A. M. 5, 10, 58, 60, 69, 81, 194, 213 Voulgarides, C. K. 54, 61 Wagner, R. K. 191 warrant 26, 196 Waters-Wheeler, T. 47–48 Wehmeyer, M. L. 141, 151 Welch, M. 5, 10 Wen, Y. 61 Whelley, P. T. 43, 46, 50–51, 150, 157, 166, 170, 172, 174, 179, 193, 208, 225 Whitcomb, S. A. 176, 192 White, F. D. 6, 12, 26–27 Whitelock, S. 34, 58, 128, 135 whole class problems 25, 108

Index 245 Wilkinson, A. 61, 192 Wilkinson-Flicker, S. 61 Willcutt, E. G. 191 Willis, A. 37, 128, 137, 140–141, 147, 172, 186 World Health Organization 141, 151 worldview 3, 15–17, 24, 27, 30, 50–53, 56–58, 60–61 Wright, D. B. 19, 32 Yalom, I. 81 Yell, M. L. 10, 31

Yen, J. 191 Yurman, B. 230, 237 Zea, M. C. 118–192 Zeitlin, V. M. 21, 32, 193, 213 Zhang, A. 61 Zirkel, P. 141, 151, 194, 213–215, 230, 237 Zollman, A. 205, 213 Zwolski, S. 118