When Do We Draw the LINE...

When a student disobeys one of the school codes of conduct, it results in disciplinary action as a consequence of the violation. What happens when it’s a student that has a disability? According to the Individuals Disabilities Act of 1997 (IDEA), a functional behavioral assessment (FBA) has to either be reviewed or conducted by the school psychologist before the school authority can take disciplinary action against a student with a disability. An FBA is a problem solving process that addresses a problem behavior that a child is exhibiting. It uses techniques to identify what triggers the specific behavior and interventions are created in order to directly address the behavior. A student with a disability should NOT be disciplined without the consideration of their FBA.

Two different children can display the same behavior, but the function of the behavior may serve two completely different meanings. For example, let’s say one child throws a chair across the classroom because they do not like the teacher. Now lets say a child with Asperger Syndrome (AS) throws a chair across the room, not because they do not like the teacher, but because he/she is having difficulty with trying to communicate what they want to say. Individuals with AS often have a hard time managing their emotions. One of the reasons why is because they have difficulties expressing what they want to say, which is known as Alexithymia. It is easier to use physical action as a release from their emotional energy. So in this case, would it be fair to serve both children with the same disciplinary action? Absolutely NOT!! In this instance, it is the job of the school psychologist to address the behavior according to the student’s FBA, not the school authority. When any student that has a disability violates a school code of conduct, it would appropriate for the school psychologist to intervene. It is their job to review the student’s FBA or conduct one in order to come up with an appropriate disciplinary action.

The utilization of FBAs has proven to be a successful way to produce a desirable behavior over a maladaptive one. Although there is no universal way in conducting a FBA, there are several areas that are considered in the process such as the purpose of the assessment, the definition of the problem, designing/evaluating interventions, etc. An FBA is a well thought out process that consists of beneficial information on a student with a disability. The interventions are carefully considered according to the student’s strengths and weaknesses. Our point? Are schools taking the necessary steps and using the FBA when determining what type of disciplinary action should be taken with a child that has a disability?

From personal observations and feedback from schools, it is unclear if school psychologists are getting the opportunity to intervene all the time. Is this fair to the student with a disability? Do you see the school authority consulting with the school psychologist before making a decision? Do they even feel as if these considerations should me made? If not using the FBA as a guide, what measures are they taking to consider the type of disciplinary action that should take place? In your opinion, do you think a FBA is even necessary to review when taking disciplinary action?


This Blog was created by: Cassie Porter, Jovanna Ossa, Nicole I. Sánchez & Preeti Patel

Testing What Works...

In trying to select academic interventions for individual students:

• How much should previous research (on interventions that show promise) weigh in?
  
• Should the students' thoughts and feelings on the problems they are having (and why these problems are there) be taken into consideration?
  
• Should their progress/what works or doesn't work for them according to their own standards be measured?

If different interventions are tested on the student while taking into consideration students preferences for the different interventions, the academic interventions may yield more successful results.

This Blog was created by: Nicole Aramando, Kevin DeJong, and Jalissa Hardesty.

Paradigm Shift

We believe that much of the existing struggle in moving forward and expanding our practice roles from “what is” in our current practice to “what should be” is a result of the difficulties we face as we try to step away from traditional roles that have now become institutionalized. In essence, what has traditionally or historically dominated our practice roles (i.e., traditional diagnostic and refer-test-place tasks) has become our expected. Others (teachers, administrators, parents, etc.) have come to know the school psychologist as one whose primary and most visible function has been the psychoeducational assessment and diagnosis of children to determine their eligibility for special education and/or related services (Fagan, 1995; Lentz & Shapiro, 1985).


However, eligibility is not determined by the school psychologist alone. The implementation of the IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act) brought about the need for an IEP team to conjunctively evaluate whether a child meets the criteria to be placed in a special education program (Jacob & Hartshorne, 2007).
How can we as school psychologists work more effectively with other members of the IEP team in order to ensure that students’ needs are being met? As future school psychologists, how do you see your role in relation to other members of the IEP team?

For many of us preparing to enter the field or have been in the field are inundated with “what is” our role as a school psychologist. How do we shift roles to “what should be” our function as a school psychologist? According to Merrell et al., 2006), we believe it is essential that school psychologists: (1) critically examine current practice and recognize the need to move beyond our traditional roles; (2) gain a thorough understanding of the shortcomings of the traditional roles (understand why we need to try alternative approaches); (3) establish a clear vision of our role as a data-driven problem solver and implement this role in practice; and (4) carefully evaluate the utility of any alternative practice that we implement.

The current practice to use a problem-solving approach has been effective and gives the school psychologist a more proactive stance in the school. However, despite advocacy for this approach and advances in problem-solving methodologies, and evidenced-based practices, schools do not readily adopt evidenced-based practices (Abbott, Walton, Tapia, & Greenwood, 1999; Carnine 1997, 1999; Fornes, 2003a; Friedma, 2003, Hunter, 2003).

How do we make effective practices an accepted and necessary approach in the school?

Would this approach help us to identify issues earlier, and offer more
opportunities for early intervention?

This blog was created by Mark Newman and Anel DeJesus.

A Change is Coming...

We are approaching a new wave in school psychology.

The change has been a long time coming! Decades of blind support for fashionable interventions and instructional techniques have utilized precious resources and failed to create any significant effects in our student's ultimate trajectories. Our goals for our schools, whether focused on academic growth or a decline in substance abuse, were often undefined and progress went unmeasured. Did we know whether these programs were effective?!

The answer is a resounding, "NO!"

There is a new movement. A movement encouraging us to bridge the gap between research and practice. Clearly the question becomes, "How?" What is your mission statement? In what aspect of your practice do you envision yourself making the strongest commitment to making empirically driven, data-based decisions?

This blog was created by Roxane Nassirpour and Tjasa Korda

Improving the Evidence-Based Practice Movement

We know that a problem solving approach is outcome-focused, data-driven, integrally linked to intervention, and context-specific.

Evidenced-Based Practice (EBP) as a problem solving approach “refers to a body of scientific knowledge, defined usually by reference to research methods or designs, about a range of service practices (e.g., referral, assessment, case management, therapies, or support services)”. It is directly related to applying data-orientated problem solving to students’ mental health and social-emotional needs. When deciding which type of EBP is appropriate in the school setting, we can take into consideration some of the most effective strategies:

· Parent Management Training (PMT)
· Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT)

(For additional information on PMT and CBT please see the link below:)
http://draweb.njcu.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=pdh&AN=ccp-60-5-733&site=ehost-live
· Psychopharmacology (using psychostimulants/medication)

These are only three of many new approaches developing among contemporary literature. With all the different types of methods of intervention and prevention under the EBP umbrella, how do we decide which one will work best for us? Seeing that this method of practice is fairly new, how can we begin to shift the paradigm from traditional to an EBP approach? Do you agree that practicing school psychologists traditionally trained (i.e., relying on clinical judgment rather than the scientific method or the empirical literature) are the primary offenders of underidentification and misidentification of mental health problems in school settings?

This blog was created by Jamie Cowan and Tahina Reyes