Teresa Knapp, Humboldt State University

Brent Duncan, President, California Association of School Psychologists

Background: Following the January CASP Board meeting, the proposed position statement regarding the Reauthorization of IDEA was rewritten, taking into account both written and verbal feedback from board members. It was sent as an attachment to an e-mail blast from the CASP office on January 23^rd to all CASP members for whom CASP had an e-mail address. It was re-sent on February 4^th with another request for input from the CASP general membership. Board members continued to send input as well. The following is our attempt to summarize membership and board member feedback to the document.

General Consensus: A total of 19 CASP members and 17 board members responded to our request for additional input. There was a broad consensus for adoption of the paper, and support for CASP’s involvement with this issue. No CASP member who responded had any major concerns, and 16 of 19 responses contained a statement indicating support or agreement with the paper. Nine of the seventeen board members who responded also expressed general agreement with the position statement. Several members of CASP expressed appreciation for the all work put into this paper and found it to be an "excellent" document, "well written and articulate," and "progressive." The following table summarizes these results:

Table 1

Statements Regarding General Agreement or Disagreement

Areas of Specific Interest: Three sections of the paper (Support for all children, Learning Disabilities & the Appendix) received 72% of the specific comments, as reflected in Table 2. An area that received considerable attention from several members involve the bullets dealing with the importance of general education involvement and investment in tier 1, and in finding ways to support school psychologists in working with all children in Section B of the paper. Several members expressed support for the position that school psychologists have a responsibility to serve and help educate all children. Respondents also supported the idea that all children who have learning problems but not necessarily disabilities deserve intervention. The comment was made that general education "buy-in" is imperative to the success of any interventions in tiers 1 and 2.

Table 2

Sections of the Paper Receiving Specific Comments

Distinguishing between children who are "slow learners" and "learning disabled" is another area that received several comments, in Section D. Learning Disabilities. With the implementation of the three-tiered model, all low achieving students would receive intervention in tier 1, and those who do not respond would be referred for additional assessment, intervention, and eventual consideration as learning disabled under IDEA. A concern was expressed that "false positives" may be increased under this model, particularly if there is not general education buy-in. Some feel the specific eligibility definition for learning disabilities in tier 3 needs more rather than less specificity. A roughly equal number of respondents stated that there is no scientific support for any definition of learning disability, and that there is no place for neuropsychology in the practice of school psychology.

In regard to the three-tiered model, there was strong support from the CASP members who responded to the paper. There was also strong support for the involvement of school psychologists in the early intervention that would take place in tier one. As one member stated, "I agree with the idea of an expanded role for school psychologists with an emphasis on prevention and early identification." There was some concern regarding the layout or presentation of the three-tiered model, as some found the transition from tier 2 to tier 3 to be confusing, and did not know when a tier stops or proceeds onto the next level. One board member would like to see more specific criteria to determine eligibility in the third tier. Another board member would like to strike the words "if necessary" in the eighth bullet of the Appendix. (The evaluation is for determining eligibility under IDEA as learning disabled, and utilizes all previously collected data concerning rate of progress, results of direct observation, and additional individual assessment, if necessary.) When discussing individual assessment, several CASP members commented that they felt the discrepancy model was not appropriate, and is in fact, "severely flawed, arbitrary, and lends no useful information." No single response indicated that we should express our support for continuing severe discrepancy determinations.

A concern expressed by both general and board members involved the issue of whether CASP should take a stand primarily concerned with the welfare of children or the welfare of school psychologists, particularly given the difficult fiscal climate. One member suggested the inclusion of language suggesting "school psychologists need to be on-site for an adequate number of days to meet the needs of all children." There are those who believe we should do nothing to undermine the mandate for cognitive assessment. Another member stated, "consensus takes compromise," and expressed appreciation for the attempt to reflect multiple viewpoints in the paper.

Recommendations: Very few CASP members responded to our request for feedback regarding the paper. Whether this means that members liked the paper, are too busy to respond, or are apathetic regarding the issue or cannot be determined from this data. Based on the feedback received, there is a clear consensus supporting the adoption of the CASP Position Statement, Critical Constructs and Principles Regarding the Reauthorization of IDEA. Based on our analysis of the feedback received, the board may wish to consider the following revisions to the paper that was provided in your Board Packet.

1. Edit the subtitle on page 2 as follows:

CASP Statement I: Critical Constructs Regarding Assessment and Identification: Learning Disabilities under IDEA

2. Edit Section E, 1^st bullet as follows:

• Assessment must be linked to California state adopted curriculum standards

1. Organize the 3 tiers into 3 sections by adding headers as follows:

• Tier 1 is begins when pupils fail to make expected progress within general education

• Tier 2 involves a multidisciplinary, problem-solving process for pupils who fail to make adequate progress following Tier 1 interventions

• Tier 3 is used to define the special education referral process for pupils who continue to fail to make adequate progress

1. Regarding what appears to be a major point of contention or area of compromise, depending on your perspective, the board should consider the following 3 options:

1. Leave "as necessary" in sub-bullet 8 of Appendix I, and change "shall" back to "may" in sub-bullet 10. (Sides with a more complete adoption of a response to intervention approach to eligibility determinations)
2. Drop "as necessary" in sub-bullet 8 of Appendix I, and leave "shall" in sub-bullet 10. (Sides with the view that we should protect our mandate for cognitive assessment when it comes to special education eligibility, and supports the view that comprehensive cognitive assessment is always useful in the determination of a learning disability)
3. Leave the document as is. By leaving "as necessary" in sub-bullet 8 and leaving "shall"" in sub-bullet 10, the document includes at least one designed inconsistency, and attempts to provide room for both those members who believe there are times when a process-oriented cognitive assessment is unnecessary, and those who believe that an assessment for a learning disability shall always include a process-oriented cognitive assessment.