Sheryl Thormann – DPI Speech & Language Consultant

1. Children with a Speech and Language Disability & Indicator 7Child Outcomes: Getting Down to Basics Sheryl Thormann – DPI Speech & Language Consultant Ruth Chvojicek – Statewide Part B Indicator 7 Child Outcomes Coordinator

2. In this webinar we will: • Explain the impact children identified with a speech and language disability have on Indicator 7 • Increase you understanding of quality rating practices for Indicator 7 – Child Outcome; and • Review the IEP team process to assess the educational impact of a speech and language disability

3. Throughout the webinar… • Everyone is on mute to enhance audio quality throughout the webinar • Please post questions and comments in the question box.

4. The Three Outcomes Percent of preschool children with IEPs who demonstrate improved:

5. Quality Data? Wisconsin still working on enhancing quality of data Quality of data involves: • Accurate data collection/data entry, and • Accurate rating of children

6. Accurate Rating - Questions Asked in the Rating Process • Does the child function in ways that would be considered age-appropriate with regard to [this outcome]…? • (If no) Does the child use any immediate foundational skills related to [this outcome]…? • To what extent is the child using these skills across settings and situations?

7. 7-Point Rating ScalePlease refer to handout – “The Bucket List”

8. Pattern Checking Early Childhood Outcomes (ECO) Center predicted patterns in child outcomes data Predicted Pattern #1 Children will differ from one another in their entry scores in reasonable ways (e.g., fewer scores at the high and low ends of the distribution, more scores in the middle).

12. 2011-2012 Entry Distribution by Disability

13. 2011-2012 Entry Rating Distribution by Disability

14. 2011-2012 Entry Rating Distribution by Disability

15. 2011-2011 Pilot District Data Reviews Questions that arose from district staff: • Are all three outcomes being rated for speech and language children? • Are staff referencing an assessment tool in the rating process? • Are staff accurately rating using the 7-point scale? • Are these children really eligible for services? Or, are we over-qualifying some children for speech and language services?

16. Determining Speech/Language Eligibility in WI • Speech/Language Eligibility Criteria Checklist • http://sped.dpi.wi.gov/files/forms/pdf/podelg-spl-001.pdf

17. Educational Impact and Child Functioning • Why is documenting the educational impact so important? • Required in IDEA • Required for the child to receive or continue to receive special education and related services, in this instance speech and language services

18. Educational Effect/Academic or Functional Performance • Once the impairment no longer has an adverse affect on the academic or functional performance, the IEP team may consider that an indicator that a child no longer needs speech and language services. A disorder may continue to be observed, but the child may not be experiencing any limitations in academic or functional performance. If this is the case, the IEP team will need to determine if continued service is warranted at that particular point in time ASHA Code of Ethics -- Principle I.G: Individuals shall evaluate the effectiveness of services rendered and of products dispensed and shall provide services or dispense products only when benefit can reasonably be expected.

19. Court Ruling re: Educational Performance • If a student can make himself understood and communicate effectively despite the impairment, then his educational performance is not considered to be adversely affected by the impairment. • Example, Hanover Public Schools- Massachusetts State Educational Agency, 2005 • The student in this case performed well academically, had friends, and interacted with peers in a typical manner, • The hearing officer concluded the student's articulation impairment did not adversely affect educational performance. • The student's teacher testified the student was able to hear and understand what the student said. The teacher also testified that the other students were able to understand the student and did not need to ask for clarification of what was said. • The teacher pointed out that the student was involved in a school play and performed "as well or better than" his classroom peers.

20. Court Ruling re: Educational Performance • Not all students with speech impairments will have communication difficulties as a result of their impairment. • Example, Gwinnett County – Georgia Dept. of Ed., 2011 • Hearing officer found no credible evidence that the student’s articulation affected educational performance so was not eligible to continue to receive service • Student exhibited difficultly with vocalic /r/ • The student excelled academically • The student’s teacher testified the student had many friends and showed no reluctance to speak in class . The teacher also indicated the student to be very articulate and very social

21. Discussion Around Level of Functioning and Educational Performance • Two sources that may be used to provide information about the child’s level of functioning include the following: V T • Documentation from the initial eligibility and • The IEP team’s discussions regarding the child’s Present Level of Academic Achievement and Functional Performance

22. Speech/Language Impairment Overview

23. IEP Team Discussion: Level of Functioning • Present Level of Academic Achievement and Functional Performance • Required in the child’s IEP • Form I-4 • The statement address both academic achievement and functional performance • Documentation on how the disability affects the progress and involvement of the student in the general curriculum or for preschoolers, the effect on their ability to participate in appropriate activities

24. Educational Performance/Academic Achievement • Academic achievement generally refers to a child’s performance in academic content areas • examples include: • reading or language arts, math, science, history The IEP team documents how the speech and language impairment impacts the child’s academic performance/ academic achievement

25. Educational Performance/Age Appropriate Activities • Activities that children of that chronological age typically engage in as part of a formal preschool program or in informal activities • Examples include: • coloring, pre-reading activities, play time, sharing time The IEP team documents how the speech and language impairment impacts the child’s ability to participate in age appropriate activities

26. Social-Emotional or Vocational/Functional Performance • Activities and skills not considered academic or directly related to a child’s academic achievement • Examples include: routine activities of daily living, motor skills, personal care, using communication to meet needs, communication and play skills, home/community orientation, leisure time, post-secondary skills, behavior and interpersonal relationships The IEP team documents how the speech and language impairment affects the child’s functional performance

27. Feedback in Speech and Language • One issue is documenting adverse educational effect (affect of the impairment on academic or functional performance) when grades are not affected or the impairment is mild • Day-to-day manifestation of the impairment • Be certain to look at all the areas of possible impact of the impairment

28. Areas to explore for possible educational effect(academic or functional performance) • Does the child exhibit difficulty completing the desired message? • Does the child exhibit discourse issues? False starts, repetitions, revisions, pauses, word order errors Topic maintenance Turn taking Poor or limited interaction skills

29. Issues in speech and language • Conversational Intelligibility • Mild articulation or phonological delay • Behavior • Be certain to look at all areas of the possible impact of the disorder Examine the frequency and prominence of the sound(s) in phonology and morphology Is the message acoustically distracting due to the sound error? Limited peer interaction, Frustration, Emotional outbursts, social withdrawal

30. Documentation sources • Language sampling • Contrasting intended message with the communicated message via speech sampling • Child report/ratings (if applicable) • Parent/teacher observations • Parent/teacher rating scales • SLP observations • Reports from child care, Head Start, etc. • Information should be gathered from a variety of sources

31. DEC Recommended Practices: Assessment A11. Professionals, families, and other regular caregiverswork as equal team members for purposes of assessment (i.e., give equal priority to family/caregiver’s observations and reports, discuss assessment results, reach consensus about the child’s needs and programs) A15. Professionals rely on materials that capture the child’s authentic behaviors in routine circumstances.

32. DEC Recommended Practices continued A19. Professionals gather information from multiple sources (e.g. families, professional team members, agencies, team members, agencies, service providers, other regular caregivers). A20. Assess the child’s strengths and needs across all developmental and behavioral dimensions. A24. Professionals assess not only immediate mastery of a skill, but also whether the child can demonstrate the skill consistently across other settings and with other people.

33. Next Steps - Suggestions • District Teams – Including Speech and Language staff – attend the Early Childhood Indicator Trainings • Evaluate your districts current assessment practices • Refer to your local CESA Program Support teacher for support in assessment practices and assessment tools • Refer to Indicator 7 resources on • http://dpi.state.wi.us/sped/spp-preout.html • www.collaboratingpartners.com • http://www.dec-sped.org • http://www.nectac.org/knowledgepath/ifspoutcomes-iepgoals/ifspoutcomes-iepgoals.asp

34. THANK YOU! For more information please contact: Sheryl Thormann 608-266-1783 sheryl.thormann@dpi.wi.gov Ruth Chvojicek 608-745-5405 chvojicekr@cesa5.org Or your CESA Early Childhood Program Support Teacher