Connecticut's Speech & Language Program: Eligibility & Early Intervention Guidelines, Lecture notes of Communication

Download Connecticut's Speech & Language Program: Eligibility & Early Intervention Guidelines and more Lecture notes Communication in PDF only on Docsity!

GUIDELINES FOR

Speech and Language

Programs

DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY

FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION

SPEECH AND LANGUAGE SERVICES

UNDER IDEA

Connecticut State Department of Education

Revised 2008

ConneCtiCut State Department of eDuCation

Mark K. McQuillan, Commissioner

George A. Coleman, Deputy Commissioner

Division of family and Student Support Services

Charlene Russell-Tucker, Associate Commissioner

Bureau of Special education

Anne Louise Thompson, Chief

Carolyn Isakson, Project Manager

Colleen Hayles, Education Consultant

Bureau of Curriculum and instruction

Matthew J. Falconer, Editor

Guidelines for Speech and Language Programs — Contents iii

CONTENTS

Foreword v

Guidelines for Speech and Language Programs — Foreword v

FOREwORD

F

ederal and state special education laws and regulations require school districts to identify, eval-

uate and provide speech and language services to children from 3–21 years of age who exhibit

speech-language impairments that adversely affect educational performance. Policy letters from

the United States Department of Education (1980 and 1989) that define “educational” performance

as being broader than “academic” performance offer some guidance. However, there are no man-

dated procedures in Connecticut to determine eligibility for these services. Consequently, local

school districts have either developed their own criteria or relied on the professional judgment

of individual speech and language pathologists to guide the Planning and Placement Team (PPT).

According to parents and school personnel, variations in these criteria and how they are applied

have contributed to confusion when children move within and across school districts. In addition,

as school administrators and boards of education have examined state special education prevalence

data, increasing attention has been given to discrepancies among districts in the numbers of chil-

dren identified as having speech-language disabilities.

The State Department of Education (SDE) offers these guidelines to help school districts determine

which children are eligible for speech and language services under the provisions of the Individuals

with Disabilities Education Act. This document addresses critical issues and recent research in the

areas of assessment and identification, and builds on the philosophy and procedures described in

SDE’s 1993 Guidelines for Speech and Language Programs.

It is important to reiterate the following statement in the Department’s 1989 Policy Memorandum

(Guidelines for Speech and Language Programs, 1993, Appendix C, page 166): “If the PPT deter-

mines, following evaluation(s), that the communication impairment does not adversely affect edu-

cational performance, due to the importance of effective communication in the lives of children,

districts should consider offering services to remediate the problem outside of special education.”

This policy is also stated in the department’s February 1998 Report on Special Education and Related

Services. Careful attention to students’ speech and language skills and communicative competence

is an important part of our efforts to improve children’s educational performance.

Theodore S. Sergi

Commissioner of Education

vi Acknowledgments — Guidelines for Speech and Language Programs

ACkNOwLEDGMENTS

S

incere gratitude is expressed to many parents, speech and language pathologists in schools and

other practice settings, school psychologists, school administrators, university faculty, state

education agency colleagues. Personal and telephone communications with these individuals over

many years, as well as the writings of important contributors to the professional literature in speech

and language pathology and related fields, have helped to frame the philosophy and shape the con-

tents of these guidelines.

Special recognition is given to the committees of speech and language pathologists and other pro-

fessionals who contributed their expertise and many hours of their time beyond their regular work-

ing schedules to collaborate in the development of this document.

Language Committee

Carl Gross, New Britain Public Schools, chair

Preschool Subcommittee

Linda Strohmeyer, Fairfield Public Schools, chair

Margaret Avallone, formerly Branford Public Schools

Fran Giffin, North Haven Public Schools (retired)

Joan Jauernig, East Haven Public Schools (retired)

Maggie Smith, Seymour Public Schools

Elementary School Subcommittee

Sherrill Ellis, New Haven Public Schools, chair

Joyce DeFrancesco, Avon Public Schools

Rochelle Friedman, Newtown Public Schools (retired)

Roberta Tunderman, West Hartford Public Schools

Elizabeth Zalaski, Avon Public Schools

Middle/Secondary School Subcommittee

Vernice Jury, Ellington Public Schools, chair

Phyllis Bishop, Ellington Public Schools

Jane Siebert, Madison Public Schools

Marvin Schnur, New London Public Schools (retired)

Bilingual Issues/Urban Schools Subcommittee

Glynis King Harrell, New Haven Public Schools, Co-chair

Sheila Way, Hartford Public Schools, Co-chair

Roberta Abell, Waterbury Public Schools,

Ann Dolan, Bridgeport Public Schools

Linda Liss-Bronstein, Hartford Public Schools

viii Acknowledgments — Guidelines for Speech and Language Programs

Ford, director of curriculum and instruction, Berlin Public Schools; Augusto Gomes, ESL/bilin-

gual director, Danbury Public Schools; Peter Kenny, department head, ESL/bilingual education,

East Hartford Public Schools; Elda Kluth, special education and student services director, Nor-

walk Public Schools; Joyce Milne, ESOL teacher, Milford Public Schools; Jeannette Palluzzi, ESOL

teacher, Branford Public Schools; Alicia Powers, bilingual speech and language pathologist, New

Britain Public Schools; Abigail Reilly, bilingual speech and language pathologist, Hartford Public

Schools; Rose Marie Salafia, TESOL resource teacher, Hartford Public Schools; Ann Stekelberg,

ESL coordinator, Glastonbury Public Schools; Lorraine Tragakes, speech and language pathologist,

Waterbury Public Schools

Appreciation for constructive comments and encouragement is extended to the following individu-

als and groups:

Members of the Connecticut Council of Language, Speech and Hearing Coordinators in Public

Schools; speech and language pathologists of the Bloomfield, Bristol, Middletown and New Brit-

ain Public Schools; members of the Connecticut Speech-Language-Hearing Association’s School

Affairs Committee; Dr. Wayne Secord, Chair, Department of Communication Disorders, North-

ern Arizona State University; Dr. Ken Appel, professor, Department of Communication Disorders,

Western Washington University; Connecticut State Department of Education consultants; Con-

necticut Council of Administrators of Special Education.

Special thanks are also offered to the following people:

George Dowaliby, chief, Bureau of Special Education and Pupil Services, and Leslie Averna, associ-

ate commissioner of the Division of School Improvement, for their unwavering support; and Rob-

ert Lichtenstein, State Department of Education consultant for school psychology services, for his

work on the sections about reporting standardized test results and language and cognition.

Appreciation is expressed to those who granted permission to reproduce or adapt materials. Thanks

are also offered to the following agencies, whose eligibility criteria were reviewed in the preparation

of this document: Bristol, East Lyme, Old Saybrook, Windham, Windsor school districts in Con-

necticut; the Arlington, Va., and Montgomery County, Md., public schools; and the State Depart-

ments of Education in California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Ohio, Oregon, Michigan, Utah,

Vermont and Virginia.

Guidelines for Speech and Language Programs — Overview 1

OVERVIEw

G

uidelines for Speech and Language Programs: Determining Eligibility for Speech and Language

Services Under IDEA is designed to facilitate the implementation of consistent practices in

Connecticut for determining children’s eligibility for speech and language services as special edu-

cation or as a related service. These practices focus on four major areas: early intervening services,

evaluation procedures, documentation and Planning and Placement Team (PPT) decisions about

eligibility. This publication is the revised edition of Guidelines for Speech and Language Programs:

Volume II: Determining Eligibility for Special Education Speech and Language Services, which was

published as a working draft in 1999. This edition includes revisions required by the reauthoriza-

tion of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (called the Individuals with Disabilities Edu-

cation Improvement Act, 2004) and its accompanying regulations (as amended in 2006), as well as

amendments to Connecticut special education statutes and regulations. This updated document

also reflects feedback and recommendations received by the Connecticut State Department of Edu-

cation (CSDE) from school-based speech and language pathologists (SLPs), school administrators

and faculty at the state’s university training programs in speech and language pathology.

Much of the 1999 edition has been preserved. Major revisions include:

• reorganized and expanded material about children from culturally and linguistically

diverse backgrounds;

• descriptions of commonly used qualitative assessments;
• more in-depth information about measuring frequency of disfluencies;
• reorganization of some of the evidence codes in the various criteria to increase clarity

and reduce redundancy;

• clearer emphasis on linking assessments to the general curriculum through curriculum

work samples, curriculum standards, the Connecticut Mastery Test (CMT) and Con-

necticut Academic Performance Test (CAPT); and

• development of a separate form for reporting the results of a reevaluation to increase

appropriateness of content.

These guidelines are organized in the following sections.

The introduction describes the process for developing the guidelines and the issues that were of

concern to members of the various committees and forums as a result of their knowledge of the

professional literature and experiences in their school districts.

The philosophical framework presents the organizing concepts of impairment and disability and

includes the basic premises that are critical to achieving uniformity in implementing the criteria

for eligibility determination.

Guidelines for Speech and Language Programs — Introduction 3

INTRODUCTION

Rationale for Developing Statewide Eligibility Criteria

S

everal influences provided the impetus for the original version of these guidelines. Parents and

SLPs had reported confusion about eligibility for special education speech and language services

due to inter- and intra-district variability in identification practices and decisions. When moving

into a new district, parents of children who had been declared eligible for these services were sud-

denly confronted with their children’s ineligibility or vice versa. When children moved to a different

school within the same district, SLPs often expressed surprise that the PPT in the former school had

determined special education speech and language services to be necessary, or conversely, that chil-

dren now being brought to the PPT because of communication problems had not been “picked up”

previously. These reports were confirmed during discussions held by the CSDE with special edu-

cation directors. They were further substantiated by CSDE consultants reviewing school districts’

special education files and prevalence data when conducting special education program reviews

and technical assistance activities. Changes in laws and regulations governing special education; the

evolution of professional knowledge; and feedback from SLPs, school administrators and parents

converged to spur the need for these updated guidelines.

Process for Developing Guidelines

In preparation for compiling statewide eligibility criteria, 75 professionals representing speech and

language pathology, school psychology, special and regular education administration, early child-

hood education and bilingual education were invited to participate in the project. Of those, 40

were available for the initial meeting to plan the organizational structure for accomplishing the

task. Subsequently, a smaller group of committees was established to address the areas of language,

phonology, voice and fluency. The language committee subdivided further to deal with the areas

of early childhood, elementary and secondary education and issues related to urban districts and

children acquiring English as a second language. In addition, focus groups met to discuss issues

related to the complexities of identifying language disorders, the relationship between cognition

and language and nonbiased evaluations for children who come from culturally and linguistically

diverse (CLD) backgrounds. Special education program reviews conducted in school districts by

the SDE and professional literature augmented the field information and experience that members

of the various subgroups brought to their discussions. CSDE survey data (2006) helped validate

some of the concerns.

Concerns

The following concerns related to the variability in eligibility determination were expressed. These

issues were problematic both within and among school districts.

Concerns Regarding Early Intervening Services

Involvement of SLPs: SLPs, because of the itinerant nature of many of their jobs, are not always avail-

able when school personnel meet to address concerns about children’s learning or behavior. Some

4 Introduction — Guidelines for Speech and Language Programs

schools view SLPs as special educators, ignoring their pupil services (i.e., regular education) role

and excluding them from early intervening services teams that are viewed as the responsibility of

regular education. As a result, children may be referred for special education evaluation without

recognition of the need for or adequate involvement of the SLP at this early intervening services

stage. When the evaluation reveals difficulty with communication skills, these children may be

determined eligible for special education speech and language services without benefit of appropri-

ate or sufficient early intervening strategies, developed and implemented in collaboration with the

SLP that may have prevented the need for special education identification. For children from CLD

backgrounds, this practice may contribute to overrepresentation in special education.

Practices for Implementing Early Intervening Services: Some schools and districts have a formalized,

institutionalized process carried out under the auspices of a team of regular and/or special educa-

tors (e.g., Child Study Team, Student Assistance Team). In other districts, the principal or some

other coordinator is the agent who directs requests for early intervening services in regular educa-

tion to the professional deemed most appropriate to address the needs of the child on whose behalf

a consultation is requested. If school personnel associated with these activities lack information

about normal communication development, including second language acquisition, they may not

develop appropriate early intervening strategies.

Timelines for Implementing Early Intervening Services: Some children may not be given adequate

time to benefit from early intervening strategies, including sufficient support for, and modifica-

tions to, the strategies that were developed to address the request for regular education assistance.

Other children may be kept too long in the early intervening services phase. Either situation may

arise when school personnel lack information to help them distinguish normal communication

development from developmental delays or disorders, including differentiating cultural-linguistic

differences and disorders.

Options for Early Intervening Services: Children are often determined eligible for special education

speech and language services because there are insufficient options in regular education for sup-

porting development of their communication skills. This is of particular concern for preschoolers,

for children from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds or children who have had lim-

ited exposure to communication building experiences.

Concerns Regarding the Special Education Evaluation Process

Presence of SLPs at the Referral PPT: The itinerant nature of many SLPs’ jobs may preclude their

presence at the PPT that discusses the referral, acknowledges or rejects the need for evaluation, and

plans the evaluation. SLPs frequently report their disagreement with PPT decisions made in their

absence, which essentially “tie their hands.”

The Use of Case History and Other School-Related Information: Sufficient background and current

medical, health, developmental and other critical information (e.g., pertinent to normal commu-

nication building experiences and second language acquisition) may not be documented or related

to the selection of appropriate assessment procedures and instruments and the interpretation of

results.

6 Introduction — Guidelines for Speech and Language Programs

nicative competence; insufficient financial and personnel resources, or inability to reallocate these

resources as a result, special education in these school systems remains essentially “the only game

in town” to address communication difficulties.

Guidelines for Speech and Language Programs — Philosophical Framework 7

PHILOSOPHICAL FRAMEwORk

Organizing Concepts

T

he Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA 2004) includes speech and language

impairments that adversely affect educational performance among the types of disabilities

requiring special education and related services [IDEA 2004, § 602(3)(A); 34 CFR, 300.8(a)(1);

and 34 CFR, 300.8(c)(11)]. In determining eligibility for special education speech and language

services, it is critical to distinguish between impairment and disability. The World Health Organi-

zation’s (WHO) definitions of these two terms are useful in this regard.

According to the WHO, impairment means “any loss or abnormality of psychological, physiologi-

cal, or anatomical structure or function” (Wood, 1980, p.4). The important words in this defini-

tion are loss or abnormality of structure or function. The WHO’s definition of disability refers to

“reduced ability to meet daily living needs” (Nelson, 1993, p.10).

When applied to speech and language, impairment refers to loss of, or abnormality in, the compre-

hension and/or production of speech and/or language. For purposes of a child’s IDEA eligibility,

such an impairment is considered a disability when:

It has an adverse effect on educational performance [34 CFR § 300.8(c)(11)].

and

By reason of that disability, he or she requires special education and related services [IDEA

2004, § 602(3)(A)].

Note: Special education means specially designed instruction, at no cost to parents, to meet the

unique needs of a child with a disability [IDEA 2004, § 602(29); 34 CFR § 300.39]. Related services

are defined as those that may be required to assist a child with a disability to benefit from special

education [IDEA 2004, § 602(26)]. IDEA has long identified speech and language services as one of

the permissible related services. IDEA also has long allowed states to designate speech and language

services as special education. The CSDE has issued a policy memorandum permitting inclusion of

speech and language services as a special education service (1989). When a child has a primary or

sole disability in speech and language, the child’s speech and language services are considered spe-

cial education (even if the child also needs other special education services to address the speech

and language disability). When the speech and language issues are secondary to another disability

(e.g., learning disability), speech and language services needed to assist the child to benefit from his

or her special education services are considered a related service.

IDEA requires demonstrating adverse educational effect when determining eligibility for special

education. Eligibility for a related service is based upon a child’s need for that service to help him

or her benefit from the special education services the PPT has determined are necessary. Notwith-

standing this distinction, there continues to be broad consensus among SLPs around the state that

the procedures recommended in these guidelines, including demonstrating adverse educational

Guidelines for Speech and Language Programs — Philosophical Framework 9

tions, such as children acquiring English as a second language. A comprehensive assessment

should include an appropriate balance of formal and descriptive assessment instruments and

procedures to identify areas of strength and weakness and to examine how the child functions

communicatively in the environments in which he or she participates.

6. A number of factors, such as environmental support, attitudes and motivation, may miti-

gate the impact of a communication impairment. Therefore, if a child scores poorly on

standardized tests but meets communicative expectations on functional measures (e.g.,

descriptive instruments such as a speech and/or language sample; discourse and/or nar-

rative analysis; curriculum-based assessments; observations in natural settings; grade-

level, districtwide or state performance standards), the child’s difficulties cannot be said

to be adversely affecting educational performance.

A child with such a profile is not eligible for speech and language services as special education

or a related service. This child’s communication development and educational performance

should be monitored or non-special education intervention provided.

Conversely, if a child performs poorly on functional measures but scores well on standard-

ized tests, the child may be eligible for speech and language services as special education

or a related service.

Such a child may not be able to apply the specific communication skills demonstrated on the

standardized measures outside the test environment. However, before an eligibility determina-

tion is made, the reasons for the poorer functional performance must be carefully probed.

7. The relationship between cognitive and communication development is complex. Some chil-

dren exhibit communication skills that either exceed or are below what would be expected

based on cognitive measures.

Eligibility for special education and related services may not be determined on the basis of

a predetermined discrepancy between language and intellectual scores. However, appro-

priate cognitive measures may be used to support the findings of the speech-language

evaluation. (See pages 35–37 for further discussion of this subject.)

8. The speech-language evaluation report should be concise, yet sufficiently comprehensive to

facilitate eligibility decision making and to plan an appropriate intervention program if the

child needs services.

It must address the multiple requirements of IDEA, including the presence or absence of

any adverse impact of the child’s communication impairments on his or her educational

performance. (See pages 61–62 for the recommended evaluation report form.)

If an adverse effect is determined, it must be described in sufficient detail to enable the PPT to

justify a decision about eligibility for services.

9. Determining that a child is eligible for general or special education speech and language

10 Philosophical Framework — Guidelines for Speech and Language Programs

services does not automatically mean that the SLP must be the sole, or even the primary,

provider of direct services to that child.

The school SLP may use support personnel and/or provide consultative/indirect speech and

language services. However, under the Connecticut SLP licensure statute and regulations

and codes of ethics of national and state professional associations, the SLP has legal authority

and ethical responsibility for overseeing the design, implementation and supervision of such

speech and language services.