Multi-Tiered Systems of Support

Implementation Tools for Speech-Language Pathologists in Education

Multi-Tiered Systems of Support

Implementation Tools for Speech-Language Pathologists in Education

Lesley Sylvan, MS, EdM, EdD

5521 Ruffin Road

San Diego, CA 92123

e-mail: information@pluralpublishing.com

Web site: https://www.pluralpublishing.com

Copyright © 2021 by Plural Publishing, Inc.

Typeset in 10.5/13 Minion Pro by Achorn International

Printed in the United States of America by Integrated Books International

All rights, including that of translation, reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, recording, or otherwise, including photocopying, recording, taping, Web distribution, or information storage and retrieval systems without the prior written consent of the publisher.

For permission to use material from this text, contact us by

Telephone: (866) 758-7251

Fax: (888) 758-7255

e-mail: permissions@pluralpublishing.com

Every attempt has been made to contact the copyright holders for material originally printed in another source. If any have been inadvertently overlooked, the publisher will gladly make the necessary arrangements at the first opportunity.

Disclaimer: Please note that ancillary content (such as documents, audio, and video, etc.) may not be included as published in the original print version of this book.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Sylvan, Lesley, author.

Title: Multi-tiered systems of support : implementation tools for speech-language pathologists in education / Lesley Sylvan.

Description: San Diego, CA : Plural Publishing, Inc., [2021] | Includes bibliographical references and index.

Identifiers: LCCN 2020027180 | ISBN 9781635502947 (paperback) | ISBN 9781635506433 (ebook)

Subjects: MESH: Speech-Language Pathology—methods | Educational Measurement—methods | Disabled Children—education

Classification: LCC RC428.5 | NLM WL 340.2 | DDC 616.85/5—dc23

LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020027180

Contents

Preface

Reviewers

Part I. MTSS and the SLP: Important Concepts and Decision-Making

1. What Do SLPs Need to Know and Explain About Their Role in MTSS? A Q & A Overview with Key Talking Points

2. What Decisions Do SLPs Need to Make? Key Decisions and Data Collection

Part II. What Tools Can SLPs Implement, Model, or Teach Within an MTSS Framework for Students in Grades K–12? Toolkit of Research-Based Approaches

3. Introduction to the MTSS Toolkit

4. Tools Related to Speaking and Listening Common Core State Standards

5. Tools Related to Reading Common Core State Standards

6. Tools Related to Writing Common Core State Standards

7. Tools Related to Language Common Core State Standards

8. Tools Related to Speech Sound Disorders, Fluency, and Voice

9. Tools Related to Social-Emotional Skills

Appendix A. Data Collection Forms and Templates for Toolkit Activities

A–1. Form for Tracking Classroom Observations and Discussions

A–2. General Accuracy Collection Form

A–3. Pictography Note-Taking Template

A–4. Cornell Note-Taking Template

A–5. Alphabet Knowledge and Phonological Awareness Data Collection Form

A–6. Checklist for Text Preview and Text Lookback Strategy

A–7. Graphic Organizer to Aid Students in Taking Notes on Word Definitions

A–8. Semantic Feature Analysis Template

A–9. Sorting Morphemes Activity Template

A–10. Morpheme Book Template

Appendix B. Letters and Permission Forms

B–1. Sample Letter to Parents Explaining the SLP’s Role, Including MTSS

B–2. Parental Permission Form: Permission for Speech-Language Screening and Support

B–3. Parent Permission Form: Permission to Participate in Support Sessions Run by the Speech-Language Pathologist

B–4. Letter to School Staff Explaining SLP Role Generally and in MTSS

Afterword

References

Index

Preface

This is a book about reframing what it means to be a school-based speech-language pathologist (SLP). SLPs are trained to help students with disabilities. However, the spirit of the multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS) framework is to think about the educational system as a whole. In an MTSS framework, SLPs move away from the concept of differentiating “our” students from other students. Instead, SLPs think about how to use our unique skillset to drive positive outcomes for all students.

Having worked in public schools as an SLP myself for years, I know firsthand about the busy daily lives of school-based SLPs. I know that the time spent conducting assessments, implementing individualized education plans (IEPs), and applying evidence-based practice hardly leaves school-based SLPs with a sense that they have any extra time. In fact, meeting the needs of students with identified speech-language disabilities can feel like more than a full-time job. The difficulty of reaching beyond the caseload to consider the needs of all students is real. However, I am convinced that SLPs can make a meaningful difference by embracing the MTSS framework. In doing so, they have the potential to better serve the needs of students with and without identified disabilities, and to do so more proactively.

My intention in writing this book was to provide SLPs with a useful resource rather than an extended theoretical explanation that leaves practitioners to fill in the specifics. With this goal in mind, during the summer and fall of 2019, I reached out to SLPs working in public schools all over the country to learn about their experiences with MTSS. My conversations included SLPs in big cities, suburbs, small towns, and rural areas. I spoke with both new and experienced SLPs. In all, I talked to SLPs from 19 different school districts. These conversations with SLPs motivated, grounded, and challenged me.

Practical Realities

A major takeaway from my conversations is that SLPs have challenging jobs. So many SLPs described their huge caseloads (I spoke with several SLPs who provide direct services to nearly 100 students), the minimal space they were given to work in (some SLPs worked in closets and others just had rolling carts), and the lack of budget to buy resources. I identified with these SLPs. As a former school-based SLP, I faced many of these same obstacles.

One complaint I often heard was that involvement in MTSS just seems unrealistic given the existing workload. I knew that framing MTSS as just “one more thing” really wouldn’t cut it for SLPs given their already highly demanding workload and the logistical difficulties of their jobs. This book focuses on practical research-based tools and insights into how SLPs can balance the demands of working within the special education framework with supporting general education students.

Collectively, We Have Questions!

So many SLPs struggled with how to get involved with MTSS and questioned if they were doing things the “right” way. In my conversations, many SLPs expressed curiosity about how other SLPs were making sense of MTSS. So many questions came up about MTSS in general, how to address roadblocks, what kind of data to collect, how to collaborate with other educators, how to define the SLP role, and what instructional approaches to take for students. Based on these pressing questions that weigh on our minds collectively, I have decided to organize my book largely as a series of questions and answers. This book tackles questions about the policy implications of the MTSS framework, applicability of the framework to SLPs’ roles in schools and how SLPs can implement MTSS in their practice.

Ideas From Research and the Field

There is extensive research relevant to MTSS, however, it can be challenging for practition ers to synthesize multiple studies and translate the ideas into their practice. On the other hand, many SLPs in the field have developed practical methods for techniques that are supported by research but their methods aren’t widely known. This book is an effort to bring the worlds of research and practice together. One thing I’ve heard many times is that all SLPs need a few “tricks up their sleeves” or “tools in their toolbox.” Jumping off this metaphor, I have designed the largest section of this book as an SLP MTSS Toolkit. The toolkit features ideas for how SLPs can support the Common Core State Standards, address speech-specific issues such as articulation, as well as help support students’ social-emotional skills within an MTSS framework. These tools come from the collective wisdom of the community of both practitioners and researchers in the field. Some of the tools, rubrics, and templates come directly from practicing SLPs as noted throughout the book. Additionally, I have highlighted real-world snapshots of MTSS in action based on the experiences of SLPs in the field. Throughout, I explain the research that underpins my ideas for tools and approaches that SLPs can use within MTSS.

Final Thoughts

In closing this preface, I’d like to offer a final reflection of how necessary MTSS will continue to be for the field of education and especially for SLPs. As this book is moving toward the production stage in the spring of 2020, schools throughout the world are facing an unprecedented challenge due to the COVID-19 public health emergency. With students out of physical school buildings, educators are being forced to halt face-to-face instruction and support for students. SLPs are scrambling to adopt new ways to support students through teletherapy and home packets. While the impact of this unprecedented use of virtual instruction on students’ collective academic progress remains unknown at this time, it seems certain that this situation will negatively impact student academic progress across the board. Further, it is likely the most vulnerable populations of students (i.e., students with disabilities, English language learners, and students from historically disadvantaged racial and cultural backgrounds) will be impacted most intensely. In the upcoming school years, educators will need to work harder than ever before to put interventions and supports into place to help students catch up from the lost learning opportunities during this time.

While I believe the relevancy and importance of the MTSS model was true before this crisis, I think the need for this framework will be all the more necessary in the times following this public health emergency. By taking an active role in supporting students through an MTSS framework, SLPs can play a key part in the essential effort of supporting the academic success of all students. By reaching beyond our caseload and working within an MTSS framework, SLPs can demonstrate their commitment to being part of the collective effort in public education to support the needs of all students regardless of their background, circumstances, or the challenges they face. It is my hope this book provides SLPs with tools, ideas, and inspiration to be impactful within this framework.

Acknowledgments

I wish to express my thanks and recognition for the many people who played a role in bringing this book to publication. First and foremost, I have been incredibly lucky to have the support of a team of dedicated and talented graduate students in the Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders (CSND) at Montclair State University (MSU) who have supported me with writing this book. To start, I owe a huge thank you to Erica Goldstein for her attention to detail, willingness to engage with the material, and ongoing enthusiasm for this project. As I have told her numerous times, I could not have done this project without her! I would also like to thank Megan Crandall for her ongoing support for my vision for this book and especially her invaluable help with developing the figures that helped me visually illustrate key concepts. I would also like to extend my appreciation to Andrea Perkins for her help very early in this project as I developed the book proposal. The excitement for this project from my students has been an enormous source of inspiration and motivation for me. I am so lucky to work with each of you!

Additionally, I’d like to thank my colleagues within my department at MSU. To this end, I’d like to extend my thanks to the chair of the CSND department, Janet Koehnke, as well as the program director of the speech-language pathology (SLP) program, Joan Besing. Further, I’d like to thank my SLP colleagues within my department at MSU for their support, including Mary Boyle, Michael Boyle, Rosemary Destephan, Sarita Eisenberg, Elaine Hitchcock, Kathleen Palatucci, and Diane Polledri.

A special thank you must be extended to the school-based SLPs who generously shared their specific ideas and practices with me so I could describe them in this book. Thank you to Erica Smith, Katie Marciniak, Heather Eisenberg, Dustin Juusola, Carlee Lewis, Meagan Jones, Jeffrey Meeks, Sarah Darr, Pam Waterhouse, Claudia Dunaway, Eileen Ferrey, Robyn Becker, Melissa Demuth, Kayla Fatula, Holly Buchanan, Laura Epstein, Jennifer Taps Richard, Emily Sadeghi, and Sarah Hershkowitz. It is my absolute honor to describe your work. In my view, this book is written both about all of you as well as for all of you.

My project editor at Plural Publishing, Christina Gunning, has been a helpful presence throughout my writing process. I appreciate her readiness to answer all my detailed questions and provide guidance. I’d also like to thank the entire team at Plural Publishing for their enthusiasm for this project. I am grateful for this opportunity to contribute to the field in a meaningful way.

Finally, I would like to acknowledge my family. My husband, Sachin Gupta, deserves special recognition for his emotional support on the journey of writing this book, his continued willingness to brainstorm ideas, and his unwavering confidence in my abilities. I would like to thank my daughters, Lena and Stella Gupta, who have shown patience and enthusiasm for this book beyond what can be reasonably expected from a 9-year-old and a 4-year-old. Finally, I thank my parents, Judy and Mike Sylvan, as well as my sister, Emily Kim. I am so appreciative of their ongoing support and encouragement.

Reviewers

Plural Publishing, Inc. and the author would like to thank the following reviewers for taking the time to provide their valuable feedback during the development process:

Alicia M. Davis, MS, CCC-SLP

Lecturer

University of Nebraska-Lincoln

Lincoln, Nebraska

Perry Flynn, MEd, CCC-SLP

Professor

Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders

University of North Carolina Greensboro

Consultant in Speech-Language Pathology

North Carolina Department of Public Instruction

Greensboro, North Carolina

Katrina Fulcher-Rood, PhD, CCC-SLP

Assistant Professor

SUNY Buffalo State

Buffalo, New York

Lesley E. Mayne, PhD, CCC-SLP

Assistant Professor

Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders

California Baptist University

Riverside, California

Sherine Ramzy, MA, PhD

Assistant Professor

Department of Psychology

The American University in Cairo

New Cairo, Egypt

Gwyneth C. Rost, PhD, CCC-SLP

Senior Lecturer and Undergraduate Program Director

University of Massachusetts, Amherst

Amherst, Massachusetts

Kaci Stenger, MEd, MA, CCC-SLP

Supervisor-Speech Language

Hamilton County Educational Service Center

Mount Healthy Heights, Ohio

Sandy White, PhD, CCC, TSHH, NYS Licensed

Chairperson and TSSLD Coordinator

Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders

Molloy College

Rockville Centre, New York

Lisa D. Williamson, MA, CCC

Clinical Supervisor, Assistant Professor

Department of Communication, Sciences and Disorders

University of Cincinnati

Cincinnati, Ohio

In memory of Doris and Percy Minden, for always believing in me.

Part I

MTSS and the SLP: Important Concepts and Decision-Making

1

What Do SLPs Need to Know and Explain About Their Role in MTSS? A Q & A Overview With Key Talking Points

Purpose of Chapter 1

The purpose of this chapter is to provide an overview of the MTSS framework, including a review of the support for MTSS from research and policy, as well as the logistics of MTSS implementation as an SLP. This section will clarify the terminology associated with MTSS and the relationship between MTSS and other important educational frameworks. Additionally, this section will explore how to best understand the tiers associated with MTSS and the role of SLPs specifically within the MTSS framework. In order to help clarify questions and allow readers to find the information most relevant to their needs, this section is written in a Question and Answer (Q&A) format. This Q&A is meant both to provide information and to model how SLPs might respond to questions from other educators.

The Q&A is divided into three different categories:

1. Basic Concepts of MTSS: definition, historical perspective, the relationship between MTSS and other educational frameworks

2. All Things Tiers: understanding the tiers, applying the concept of tiers to students and interventions

3. MTSS and the SLP: roles, challenges, collaboration, and communication

Part 1: Basic Concepts of MTSS

What Is MTSS?

MTSS stands for multi-tiered systems of support. This framework is used within the educational system in an effort to meet the educational and behavioral needs of all students. A central element of MTSS is providing students with increasingly intensive levels of support to be successful. The underlying philosophy of MTSS is that all students can succeed academically, but the intensity and focus of instruction should be adjusted to provide interventions and supports to students who do not readily make adequate progress. There are several key elements of MTSS:

■ MTSS is a tiered system that involves multiple levels of instruction and support aimed at meeting students’ needs and preventing academic failure.

■ MTSS emphasizes collaboration and problem-solving within the school system and at each tier.

■ MTSS involves data-based decision-making related to instructional choices, movement within the multilevel system, and disability identification.

■ MTSS involves the use of evidence-based practices to support student progress.

In one sentence, MTSS can be defined as a tiered education system, involving collaboration within teams of educators, to make data-driven decisions and implement evidence-based practice to ensure students make adequate academic progress.

What Is the History of the MTSS Framework in Education?

The MTSS framework evolved out of a need for new and improved practices for the instruction of students school-wide, and identification of students who were struggling academically or behaviorally. The original impetus behind a tiered model of support for students was the need for a more valid manner to identify students as having disabilities beyond the IQ-achievement discrepancy model. The idea of a tiered model originated from a 1982 National Research Council Report that offered revised criteria for special education eligibility with a greater focus on the quality of general education instruction and the effectiveness of assessment (Vaughn & Fuchs, 2003). Another key player in the history of multi-tiered systems of support is Dr. Hill Walker, who is well known for reframing the medical approach in the field of community health from a focus on remediation to a focus on prevention (Swenson et al., 2017). The driving principle of MTSS is to enable all students who are struggling academically or behaviorally to receive the necessary instruction and support regardless of whether or not they are identified as having a disability.

What Is the Discrepancy Model of Disability Identification and Why It Is No Longer Considered a Valid Way to Identify Disabilities?

All states at some point relied on an IQ-achievement discrepancy model to identify students with disabilities. Under this model, students are tested for their intelligence or cognitive capacity (i.e., IQ scores), which is then compared to their achievement in varying academic areas (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2007). The difference between a student’s capacity and achievement was used to identify disabilities. The reasoning was that if a student’s achievement matched their cognitive capacity, they did not have a disability; they were simply performing at a level matching their capabilities. One major flaw of this approach was that it failed to serve the needs of students who had academic difficulties but did not satisfy the discrepancy as such students were generally denied special education services. It also did not address the needs of “slow learners” caught in between general education and special education. Oftentimes, this lack of intervention and support would eventually result in students falling even further behind in school until eventually, the gap between their capacity and achievement was significant enough for them to be identified for support. Given this, the discrepancy model was often dubbed the “wait-to-fail” model.

With the 2004 reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the federal policy governing special education, Congress agreed “there is no evidence that the IQ-achievement discrepancy formula can be applied in a consistent and educationally meaningful (i.e., reliable and valid) manner” (United States Congressional Serial Set, No. 14816, Senate Reports Nos. 163–191, 2004, p. 26). Given this acknowledgment, schools were encouraged to use an alternative process to determine disabilities. Specifically, they were encouraged to determine students’ response to research-validated interventions as part of the evaluation process. This model, initially referred to as Response to Intervention (RTI), was designed as a way to provide immediate and focused interventions for struggling students, and used data to inform ongoing decisions regarding eligibility for special education services.

Box 1–1. Real-World Snapshot: Embracing MTSS to Move Away From the Discrepancy Model of Disability Identification

Erica Smith is the only SLP in Clinton County R-III School District in Missouri. As a state, Missouri has recently changed the eligibility rules that SLPs need to follow to qualify a student as speech-language impaired (SLI) under IDEA. Under the new state policy, it is now necessary to document a student’s lack of progress with evidence-based interventions that are designed to support general curriculum prior to determining their eligibility for special education. Given this, SLPs are now required to do informal interventions prior to formal evaluations. This new requirement replaces the older eligibility determination process, which relied on cognitive referencing.

As Erica was thinking through this new requirement, she had ongoing conversations with the district’s special education director and school principals to figure out how she could make a valuable contribution within a tiered model and how she could use data from her work with students to inform the eligibility determination process. After trying her new approach of implementing informal interventions prior to evaluations for a few months, she has found the intervention period very beneficial. She feels that she is able to gather strong data in that time period that indicates which areas to focus on with a student. Also, she is able to more readily identify which students do not need formal interventions or referrals to special education.

So Are RTI and MTSS Essentially the Same Thing?

Although RTI and MTSS are often used as synonyms, they are actually related, but distinct concepts. The RTI framework was developed before the MTSS framework as a way to identify disabilities in a valid manner and proactively support student needs. The focus in RTI is on the interventions and raising the achievement of the lowest-performing students through research-based interventions in order to prevent academic failure. In contrast, MTSS is a newer framework and is a system-wide approach to education where the focus is on improving core instruction as a means to prevent academic difficulties from occurring. MTSS is considered a larger framework that encompasses, but is not limited to, RTI. Figure 1–1 illustrates the relationship between RTI and MTSS.

Is MTSS Supported By Reseach?

Substantial research demonstrates positive student outcomes associated with the MTSS framework (e.g., Cabell et al., 2008; Spencer et al., 2015). Although the literature in this area is vast, a close look at a few notable studies demonstrates the efficacy and impact of the MTSS framework on student achievement:

Figure 1–1. The relationship between RTI and MTSS.

■ MTSS has potential for prevention: Multiple studies of MTSS models highlight that students who are struggling readers respond well to short-term supplementary support. Around 18% of students experience early reading difficulties (Hehir, 2005), however, not all of these students require intensive long-term support (such as that provided as part of special education) to make progress. In fact, research shows that most students (95% to 98%) respond positively to short-term reading interventions such as what might be provided within MTSS (Berninger et al., 2003; Mathes et al., 2005; McMaster et al., 2005; Torgesen, 2000).

■ MTSS adds value to students with and without disabilities: Research on four large districts that have implemented multi-tiered support systems found that the tiered process led to positive outcomes for students both with and without disabilities (Burns & Ysseldyke, 2005). Their success was dependent on a well-trained multidisciplinary team and instructional adaptations based on data.

■ MTSS improves collective efﬁcacy of educators: In 2007, a group of researchers collaborated with an urban elementary school to plan and implement a multi-tiered problem-solving model for reading intervention over the course of three years (Rinaldi et al., 2011). They found that the use of this model resulted in increased shared responsibility for students’ outcomes as well as greater use of collaborative planning time to ensure that students’ academic needs were identified and addressed. Further, general educators showed higher levels of active engagement with the special education process, resulting in higher levels of collective efficacy.

How Does MTSS Relate to Other Educational Frameworks Like Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and Universal Design for Learning (UDL)?

Although the purpose of public schools in society has evolved over time, the emphasis of U.S. education since the 1980s has largely been driven by the setting of academic standards known as standards-based education. The emphasis of standards-based education is setting clear and measurable standards for all students and assessments that measure each student against these standards. The federal policy No Child Left Behind (the federal education policy from 2001–2010) evolved from the standards-based movement. The successor to the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) of 2015, is similar to NCLB in that it also places a strong emphasis on standards and testing.

Given the strong emphasis on standards in education policy, there was a growing concern that standards could vary across states, with some states holding students to higher standards than others. Out of this concern grew the state-led effort to develop the CCSS, which was launched by state leaders in 2009 and has been adopted by 41 states. CCSS has been called “one of the most ambitious attempts to overhaul education policy in the country’s history” (Cavanagh, 2012, p. 14). The CCSS identifies a common set of standards that are accepted across states. These standards do not set the curriculum but rather identify what students should know and be able to do at the end of each grade in the areas of reading, writing, speaking and listening, language, and mathematics.

Within the CCSS, anchor standards that apply to Grades K–12 define cross-literacy expectations for all students to be ready for college and careers. Each anchor standard has corresponding standards for every grade (except for high school grades, which are presented in two-year bands) that align the anchor standards with appropriate grade-level expectations. The anchors and grade-specific standards are complementary to one another; the anchor provides the broad standard and the grade-specific standard provides specificity. Table 1–1 is one example of an anchor standard along with some examples of grade-specific standards. Figure 1–2 provides a full overview of the organization of the CCSS with more detail on the English Language Arts (ELA) standards within CCSS.

Understanding the goals of the standards-based education movement helps explain why an educational framework like MTSS is helpful. An important component of CCSS is that all students are held to the same standards regardless of socialeconomic factors, race, cultural or ethnic background, or disability. It has become increasingly clear that simply putting a set of standards in place is only the first step (Au, 2007; Booher-Jennings, 2005) and that schools need to have well-supported systems in place to aid educators in their goal of helping students reach standards.

MTSS frameworks endeavor to provide diverse student bodies with differentiated support so that all students can reach the same high standards. In order to implement instruction within MTSS, the principles of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) can be integrated into learning approaches (O’Brien et al., 2016). Central to UDL is the idea that designing education for students with specialized needs (i.e., students at the margins) ultimately benefits all learners and that students should be provided multiple means to engage in the learning process (Rose & Meyer, 2002). Accessibility, differentiation, and inclusion are key principles in UDL that inform tiered supports within an MTSS framework as described throughout this book. Further, UDL and MTSS are aligned in their focus on proactive plans focused on prevention of failure.

Table 1–1. Example Anchor Standard and Grade-Specific Standards

Figure 1–2. The organization of the CCSS.

To make sense of how MTSS fits with other educational frameworks, it is useful to view CCSS as setting the destination for students, to view MTSS as the path or infrastructure that students need to reach that destination, and UDL as the guiding signposts to inform instruction on the students’ path toward academic progress (see Figure 1–3).

Is MTSS Part of the Prereferral Process for Eligibility for Special Education?

Whereas supports and interventions through MTSS can be implemented prior to a formal evaluation, it is not correct to view MTSS as an extended prereferral process. It is possible that students who are not responsive to tiered interventions may be considered for special education at some point. However, MTSS is not intended as a prereferral process but rather as a prevention-oriented process. According to Ehren et al. (2009), “referring students to special education is the last thing on anyone’s mind in initially addressing students’ learning needs (unless there is a good reason to do so)” (p. 79).

Figure 1–3. A visualization of the relationship between UDL, CCSS, and MTSS.

The MTSS framework and special education have different goals. MTSS is a prevention-oriented process meant to support student success by providing tiered support as needed for students to achieve the standards set out by the CCSS. The goals of special education are to identify, through appropriate evaluations, which students have disabilities and how best to design and implement educational programs to meet their unique needs. These customized programs are formally documented as Individualized Education Plans (IEPs). MTSS is a general education framework that works in parallel with the special education system and not as a feeder. The use of data gathered through the MTSS process can be useful in considering eligibility for special education services. The types of data that SLPs might consider in making this determination are covered in detail in Chapter 2.

Do Students Have to “Do MTSS” Before They Can Be Identified as Having a Disability?

A concern that often arises in any conversation about MTSS is the tension that exists between early intervention within a school context (i.e., providing services to struggling students in a proactive manner) and formal evaluation for disability identification. Some parents and others in the education field have voiced concerns that implementing MTSS could be viewed as or used in a manner to delay a student’s appropriate evaluation and placement in special education (Heasley, 2016; Wright, 2011).

The truth is that there is no policy stating that a student has to “do MTSS” prior to being evaluated for special education or that a student in the process of an evaluation cannot simultaneously be receiving tiered support through MTSS. In fact, there is a strong consensus that a multi-tiered system should never be used to delay evaluation. The U.S. Department of Education issued an Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSEP) memo stipulating that although OSEP is supportive of implementation of tiered strategies, it “would be inconsistent with the [federally regulated] evaluation provisions . . . to reject a referral and delay provision of an initial evaluation on the basis that a child has not participated in an RTI framework” (Musgrove, 2011, p. 3). Further, the memo states that if a parent refers their child for special education evaluation and the local education agency (LEA) representative believes the student may be eligible for special education services, an evaluation must be provided regardless of how the tiered process is unfolding. Although the OSEP memo references RTI, it is important to remember that the RTI terminology predates the common use of MTSS terminology, and the implications of the memo apply to MTSS.

Once a Student Has an IEP, Are They “Done” With MTSS?

In a similar way that students do not have to “do” MTSS before they are evaluated for suspected disabilities, they are not “done” with MTSS if they have an IEP or a disability. With few exceptions, students with disabilities should be regarded as general education students first, which means they are part of MTSS. A central framework of special education services is the inclusion and education of students in the least restrictive environment (LRE). This translates into the fact that students with disabilities should receive education alongside general education peers to the extent that is feasible. The President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education report, A New Era: Revitalizing Special Education for Children and Their Families, includes a directive to, “Consider children with disabilities as general education children first . . . In instruction, the systems must work together to provide effective teaching” (2002, p. 9).

Do Parents Need to Give Formal Permission for Their Children to Participate in MTSS?

Given that all students in public schools receive the core curriculum, which is equivalent to Tier 1 in MTSS, there is no need for parents to provide formal permission for their children to participate in MTSS. However, if students are considered at risk and are receiving more intensive support (i.e., Tier 2 or Tier 3) in any given area, it would be advisable to keep parents informed. Unlike the process for IEPs, there is not a formal process for communicating with parents. It is possible this communication could happen during a routine parent-teacher conference or if parents are contacted to discuss specific concerns. If a student is later referred for a special education evaluation and the use of data collected via tiered interventions is used to build a case for eligibility, it would certainly be preferable not to take parents by surprise with this information. A sample letter to parents about the SLP’s role in the school and describing the MTSS framework generally is included in Appendix B–1.

Certain schools and districts may have specific procedures for communicating with parents and those should be followed with respect to MTSS as well. If SLPs or others are going to remove students from the general education classroom (such as small-group work) or to conduct a formal screening, it is prudent to inform parents and request permission. Two examples of such permission forms, one which asks permission for screening and support and the other focused only on seeking permission to provide student support, are included in Appendix B–2 and Appendix B–3.

Part 2: All Things Tiers

What Is the Best Way to Make Sense of the Tiers Within MTSS?

A key feature of MTSS is multiple tiers of support for students that increase in intensity and are additive in nature. The first tier, Tier 1, involves instructional support in the core education classroom. The nature of this instruction should be research-based, proactive, and aimed at supporting student success and preventing future difficulties. In Tier 1, the focus is on the prevention of deficits before using interventions. In an MTSS model, all students receive Tier 1 support. At Tier 2, students retain the support provided by Tier 1 but receive extra supports in deficient areas, often in small groups or with additional focus and attention paid by educators. Tier 3 services are more intensive and build on the support provided by the core curriculum in Tier 1 and the additional support provided by Tier 2. At least some aspects of Tier 3 support typically take place in a 1-on-1 or small-group setting.

What Is the Best Way to Visualize These Different Tiers?

The most common visual representation of MTSS is a pyramid model with Tier 1 services on the bottom (targeting all students) and Tier 3 services on the top (most individualized). See Figure 1–4.

Are the Tiers a Linear Process Where Students Start at Tier 1 and Move Up as Needed?

Some local education agencies and districts have clearly defined processes related to MTSS whereas others are less prescriptive (Foster, 2018). In general, the MTSS process is meant to be flexible and adaptable. Unlike the process typically associated with developing IEPs, which is highly structured and procedure-oriented, students do not have to formally “qualify for” or “exit from” specific tiers so the process can be more adaptable and less linear. The idea is that the MTSS system should be flexible enough for students to receive the level of support needed at the moment and responsive enough to fade or change support as needed. Over the course of their schooling careers, students may require services at different tiers to support different skill areas at different times.

Figure 1–4. The pyramid/triangle visualization of the tiers within MTSS.

Are Students Classified as Tier 1, Tier 2, or Tier 3 Students? What Percentage of Students Should Be in Each Category?

When it comes to classifying students by tiers, it is important to keep in mind that every student has a unique profile of strengths and weaknesses. Therefore, there is no such thing as a “Tier 2 student” or a “Tier 3 student.” Although it may be possible to classify students with regard to a tier corresponding to their level of need for discrete skills (e.g., decoding), it is unlikely that students will need the same level of support for all skill areas. In fact, it is not unexpected that a student may need Tier 3 support in one skill area whereas Tier 1 support is adequate for other skill areas. For example, a student might be making adequate progress at Tier 1 for vocabulary development but may need a Tier 3 level of support for articulation development.

While recognizing that students have strengths and weaknesses, research on school-age tiered systems (Mellard et al., 2010) estimates that 80% of students will respond satisfactorily to general instruction (Tier 1), approximately 15% of school-age students can be adequately served through more intense intervention (Tier 2), and the remaining 5% will require the most concentrated and intensive level of intervention (Tier 3). Whereas this 80%, 15%, and 5% expectation is a general idea, the exact percentage of students who need more intensive instruction for a given skill area is largely dependent on the population of students the school serves and the measures used to allocate interventions within a school district or state. The bottom line is that, for any given skill area, the vast majority of students should be addressed with Tier 1 instruction.

Are Students With IEPs Automatically Tier 3 Students? Are Special Education Services Considered Tier 3 Services?

It is important to be aware of and informed about local norms at the school, district, and state levels when considering this question as different places take different approaches. Research on districts and their approach to MTSS shows that some districts view special education support as Tier 3, whereas others view special education as additional support beyond Tier 3. Mellard et al. (2010) explain that how school districts frame the purpose of their multi-tiered systems often drives their stance on this question. Districts that view multi-tiered systems as early intervention to prevent school failures typically exclude special education from their Tier 3 structures. Schools that view the purpose of their multi-tiered support systems as including the disability identification process will often include special education as the highest intensity tier, Tier 3. Adding to the mix of possible approaches, some school districts do not treat special education as a stand-alone tier at all but rather place students with identified disabilities in the tiers that best meet their individual needs. Given the variety of approaches, it is clear that it is critical for SLPs to understand the norms and expectations in a given setting.

Are Instruction Approaches or Interventions Classified as Tier 1, Tier 2, or Tier 3 Approaches? Can the Same Basic Approach to Skill Development Be Used at Multiple Tiers?

Just as one cannot look at a student and describe them as a “Tier 2” or “Tier 1” student, it is not possible to look at any instructional approach or intervention in isolation and classify it as a Tier 1 versus a Tier 2 or Tier 3 level approach. Rather, it is necessary to look at the approach in relation to the needs and grades of the students. What might be considered a Tier 1 approach in kindergarten may be considered a Tier 3 approach in second grade when most of the students have already mastered the targeted skills. For example, the marketing materials for the “Heggerty Phonemic Awareness Curriculum” state that this program can be used as a Tier 1 core program for phonemic awareness in the younger grades (K–2), but that it can also be used as a Tier 2 and Tier 3 support for students in upper elementary school (Literacy Resources LLC, 2020).

Generally speaking, if all or most students need support in a given area, those skills should be addressed as a Tier 1 support. It never makes sense for an entire class or an entire grade to be receiving Tier 2 or Tier 3 level support in a given area. When interventions are used to target skills below a student’s current grade level or at a greater level of intensity than needed by students at the same grade level, they are generally considered to be at the Tier 2 or Tier 3 level.

In general, most instructional approaches for a target skill area can be used flexibly depending on the needs of the students. Chapters 3 to 9 describe specific tools that are largely appropriate for use at multiple tiers as long as there are appropriate adjustments in the level of support provided, as well as necessary adjustments to the frequency and intensity of instruction.

Part 3: MTSS and the SLP

Why Should SLPs Be Involved in MTSS?

There is a general consensus that SLPs should play a key role in the education of K–12 students due to their high level of expertise in language and communication (e.g., Ehren et al., 2012; Power-deFur, 2016; Rudebusch, 2012). SLPs’ involvement in MTSS can serve four related purposes:

■ Purpose 1: To collaborate with other educators (i.e., classroom teachers, special education teachers, school psychologists, counselors, and others) to improve the quality of instructional practices related to language and literacy, ideally preventing some students from requiring more specialized services moving forward.

■ Purpose 2: To proactively support students who are at risk for failure and meet their needs in an impactful manner without relying solely on special education services.

■ Purpose 3: To meet the needs of students with disabilities in a more efficient and inclusive manner by integrating speech-language services into general education and collaborating with educators to meet student needs.

■ Purpose 4: To provide relevant data to inform decision-making, to facilitate the accurate identification of students with disabilities, and to make appropriate eligibility decisions.

How Do SLPs Provide Services Under an MTSS Framework?

SLPs’ involvement with MTSS can take on many forms. SLPs can select from a variety of service delivery models for students with IEPs and the same concept applies to SLPs involved with MTSS. The specific location of SLPs’ direct involvement with MTSS may also vary and include the general education classroom, special education classroom, or a separate location outside the classroom setting. Possible roles that SLPs may take on within an MTSS framework include:

■ Professional development: SLPs can model strategies and other ideas through professional development sessions to guide educators in supporting students’ progress (Powell, 2018).

Box 1–2. Real-World Snapshot: SLP Involvement With a School-Wide MTSS Team

Katie Marciniak, a school-based SLP in a small school district in northern Minnesota, had been involved in working with a district-wide team to support the development and implementation of the MTSS framework. She notes there have been many challenges that her school district has faced regarding implementing an MTSS framework and that implementation is an iterative process that requires ongoing engagement and problem-solving. Early in trying to implement an MTSS framework, an observation was made that students were not making the progress the district wanted to see. As a group, district professionals involved with MTSS came to the realization that having students leave the classroom to get extra instruction during literacy time was likely counterproductive because students ended up missing important instructional time. The realization resulted in an effort to reframe the way the district thought about service delivery through a tiered approach. Katie explained how the district staff realized the importance of considering all students as Tier 1 students first and thinking of tiered support as additive to, rather than replacing, the core instruction. She explained how they are in the process of trying to change the schedule so all students have protected curriculum time for core instruction and then have a block of time when students get the additional support they need for specific skills. The district is thinking of using the concept of “WIN” time (“What I Need” time; Enriching Students, n.d.) as a model for this way of scheduling services and instruction.

As the district has gone through this process, there have been a lot of insights gained about how to support the needs of all students in the district. Reflecting on this process, Katie described how crucial it is to consider the best ways to use the skills of all the professionals in the district. She explained, “We don’t have more bodies and we can’t get more money,” so it is important to consider how to utilize everyone in the building to best support students.

■ Consultation: SLPs can provide guidance on how best to meet the needs of students through direct discussions with other educators. As part of consultation, SLPs can collaborate on selecting, developing, and adapting academic material to support students. Academic success is largely dependent on students’ communication competence and language, an area where SLPs can serve as valuable resources (Ehren et al., 2012).

■ Whole-class teaching: SLPs may “take over” the classroom for a whole-class lesson. This lesson may either be regularly scheduled or on an as-needed basis for modeling an approach. This provides teachers with a model for techniques to “elicit, modify, and reinforce speech and language skills” (Blosser & Means, 2020, p. 218).

■ Collaborative team teaching: The SLP and the classroom teacher implement a lesson planned collaboratively. In this model, both the SLP and teacher can teach simultaneously or the one teach/one float model can be implemented (Dixon, 2014). In this model, one professional provides instruction to the whole class, while the other floats around the room to provide support and extra help to individual students as needed. This has the added benefit of giving the SLP exposure to classroom materials (Blosser & Means, 2020).

Box 1–3. Real-World Snapshot: SLPs Involved With Professional Development

Given that MTSS is a general education initiative, Heather Eisenberg, a school-based SLP in San Diego Unified School District (SDUSD) in California, feels that SLPs play an important role in professional development for teachers and consultation with teachers within this framework. She explains that teams of SLPs in her district have held several professional development sessions for staff at varying school sites on specific strategies to support academic language. These sessions highlight ideas and strategies that are relevant for all students, not only those with IEPs or considered at risk.

Heather explains that these professional development sessions also highlight for teachers what signs indicate that students may need additional support beyond core instruction. This becomes an opportunity to explain the MTSS process and how it interfaces with special education. SLPs explain to fellow educators that when teachers see signs that students may need more support in the area of language, the SLPs will implement 6 to 8 weeks of intervention through the MTSS framework in collaboration with teachers. The SLPs then use the data collected through this process to make decisions about the next steps needed. If it has been determined that the student has made adequate progress through short-term interventions, then support will be faded. It is also possible at that point to try a different approach, increase the intensity of the support, or move forward with a special education referral if appropriate. Heather describes how the data points collected through this process, which she refers to as “performance-based measures,” are useful in building a case for special education eligibility. Given that most students in her district come from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, there are limitations to the usefulness of the data obtained from standardized testing. Data collection within the MTSS framework about how students respond to intervention is useful and relevant for SLPs in their task of differentiating language-intrinsic disorders from lack of instruction or other areas.

Box 1–4. Real-World Snapshot: Consultation as a Way to Work at “The Top of the License”

Dustin Juusola works in a large public high school in SDUSD with a large English language learners (ELL) population. He highlights the importance of having many service delivery models, including consultation models, in order to meet the needs of students and support teachers. He highlights that the ratio of SLPs to students and to teachers is usually much lower at the secondary level when compared to elementary schools. In elementary schools, there might be one SLP for every 20 or so teachers. In the high school where he works, there is one SLP per over 100 teachers. In discussing how he provides tiered support at the secondary level, he reports that the teachers are very interested in providing support to students, so consultation is a key element of his work. He works with teachers, school counselors, and teacher aides to brainstorm strategies that might support the needs of certain classes and particular students. A large focus of Dustin’s collaborative work is training classroom aides because they often work with students with language impairment for a large part of their days. He teaches the teacher aides when to model a response and when to give a student more processing time when they encounter language-related challenges.

While consultation is key, it is not the only support Dustin provides. He also models strategies in classrooms, provides training to teachers, and works with students in small groups and individually. The service delivery model may vary by the receptiveness of the teacher (some are more willing to “open” up their classroom than others) and by the preferences of the students. He feels mixing up the models of service delivery is important for students as it allows all stakeholders involved to see the connections between his interventions and academic work. After all, the goal of his work with students is ultimately to support them academically, so time spent working within a consultative model allows him to use his expertise to support the school and practice “at the top” of his license.

■ Direct work with students in small groups or individually: SLPs may work with small groups of students or they may run centers for instruction that students can rotate through. This station teaching model may be particularly useful in classrooms that have students moving through different activities (Dixon, 2014). SLPs may also work with students individually.

Even if SLPs Want to Support Students Within an MTSS Framework, Can SLPs Justify Being Involved in MTSS From a Funding and Policy Perspective?

This is a common question that SLPs ask. There has long been a history of SLPs focusing only on students with identified disabilities in public schools. However, education policy at the federal level includes language that justifies SLPs’ involvement in MTSS. Specifics on how key elements of ESSA and IDEA justify SLPs’ involvement in MTSS are included in Table 1–2.

Is a Large Caseload Prohibitive to MTSS Involvement?

Not necessarily. There are many ways that SLPs can embed MTSS in the work they are already doing in schools by putting a greater emphasis, as appropriate, on collaborative-classroom or co-teaching models to serve students on their caseloads. Spending more time in the classroom may allow SLPs to meet the needs of the students on their caseload more efficiently and effectively, while at the same time addressing the needs of nondisabled students through an MTSS framework. An added benefit of having SLPs interact with students with and without disabilities is that it is a way to actively avoid stigmatizing the target students who are on the SLPs’ caseload and provides inclusive services that facilitate opportunities for typically developing peers to model behaviors and goals.

That being said, it is unsurprising there is research showing that the size of a given SLP’s caseload may influence whether or not they select a multi-tiered system as a method of speech and language intervention and that demanding caseloads are viewed as obstacles for SLPs to implement a multi-tiered framework (Sanger et al., 2012). These findings suggest that SLPs should present an appropriate approach to workload analysis (American Speech-Language-Hearing Association [ASHA], 2017, 2020) to administrators in their districts, as needed, in order to successfully advocate for their involvement in MTSS.

What Challenges Might SLPs Face in Forming Close Collaborations With Educators and How Can These Challenges Be Addressed?

One important challenge SLPs face is teacher buy-in. In order to be effective in an MTSS framework, SLPs need to develop an atmosphere where they have strong, collaborative relationships with teachers. However, some SLPs report not feeling “welcome” in classrooms. The issue of “staying in one’s lane” is a struggle in educational settings that can be hard to overcome. It is useful to consider that this struggle is not unique to SLPs and MTSS. In fact, the difficulties of creating a transparent and collaborative atmosphere within schools have long been recognized and explored (Elmore, 1996).

There are a number of ways that SLPs can work toward nurturing good partnerships with educators. Some ways to facilitate this include:

■ Be visible and explain the SLP role: Survey research shows teachers often have limited knowledge about special education generally, and around 90% of teachers reported they had received no information about the field of speech-language pathology during their education (Sadler, 2005). To build strong collaborations, SLPs can strive to generate greater awareness regarding their area of expertise. An example of a letter that explains the SLP’s role generally, and in MTSS specifically, is included in Appendix B–4.

■ Use inclusive language to build collective efficacy: SLPs and classroom teachers can assume shared responsibility for the functional outcomes related to student success. Using “we” versus “I” to discuss interventions and goals helps promote the idea of collective efficacy (Murza, 2019). Research suggests that perceived collective efficacy is strongly related to student achievement in schools (e.g., Bandura, 1993; Goddard et al., 2000).

■ Start small and build from there: Given the challenges in building close collaborations, it is useful to start small. SLPs can start by finding one colleague or teacher to collaborate with and build from there. Success breeds success and other colleagues may be intrigued when they observe SLPs and teachers successfully collaborating (Clapsaddle & Palafox, 2013).

■ Mutual recognition of expertise: SLPs have a lot to share and model for other educators but the reverse is true as well. Although SLPs have a lot of unique skills to share with teachers, acknowledging and learning about the teachers’ unique areas of expertise is a way to build strong partnerships (Speech Pathology Australia, 2017).

Table 1–2. How ESSA and IDEA Relate to MTSS and the SLP

How Do SLPs Know if They Are Doing MTSS “Right”?

This book includes a guide for decision-making in MTSS (Chapter 2) as well as 22 tools that SLPs can implement as part of MTSS (introduced in Chapter 3 and described in Chapters 4 to 9). Multiple possible approaches are emphasized in the book with the recognition that not every possible approach is feasible in any given setting. It is important to emphasize that individual SLPs will need to be aware of the culture, expectations, policies, and practices in their specific settings when making decisions about their involvement with MTSS. There is no “one size fits all” approach to MTSS, which is part of the challenge and the beauty of the framework.

2

What Decisions Do SLPs Need to Make? Key Decisions and Data Collection

Purpose of Chapter 2

The purpose of this section is to delineate what kinds of decisions SLPs need to make in the MTSS framework, to identify the types of data SLPs need to inform these decisions, and to guide SLPs on how to make key decisions using varying data sources.

What Are the Key Decision Points for SLPs Within MTSS?

Once SLPs are on board for getting involved in MTSS, there are lots of decisions to be made. Some of these decisions have to do with programmatic choices and others concern the needs of individual students. Although there are undoubtedly countless decision points that come up with respect to SLPs’ involvement in MTSS, it makes sense to group these decisions into four broad categories, which are summarized in Table 2–1. This table also highlights the particular unit of focus for each decision and why data is needed to inform this decision. These four decisions are discussed in more detail after the sources of possible data to inform decision-making are explained. It is important to note that these decisions are not necessarily made in a linear order, with one decision following the next. Rather, these are key issues SLPs need to continue to consider and revisit within the MTSS framework.

What “Kinds” of Data Should SLPs Consider in the MTSS Process?

In their work in public schools, SLPs are used to gathering, analyzing, and applying different kinds of data from various sources. The data sources used by SLPs more generally in schools are also useful for informing decisions associated with the MTSS process. Some of the key data sources for making these determinations, as well as their possible strengths and limitations in relation to the MTSS process, are listed in Table 2–2. The purpose of this list is to highlight the various sources of information that can inform decisions made by SLPs in the MTSS process, as well as to underscore that not all data used to inform such decision-making needs to be gathered directly by SLPs. Further, just as no one piece of information or data should be used to make clinical decisions generally, no single source of data can fully inform decisions within an MTSS framework. Many different kinds and sources of data are needed.

Table 2–1. Types of Decisions SLPs Need to Make in MTSS

What Data Is Useful for Each Decision Point?

Different kinds of data discussed in this chapter can inform each major decision in the MTSS process. Table 2–3 illustrates that there is overlap between the “kinds” of data that need to be considered for different decision points, as well as some similarities. Following this summary table is a list of FAQs that delve into more detail for each decision point.

Table 2–2. Data Sources Organized by Who Generally Generates the Data

Box 2–1. Real-World Snapshot: Observations as an Important Source of Data for SLPs

Carlee Lewis of SDUSD feels that observations are a very important source of data for supporting students in the elementary school where she works. She explains that observation in the classroom is not only meant to identify students who may be considered at risk in the area of language but also to identify students with strong language skills. Carlee describes how important it is for students with strong language skills (who she refers to as “expert language users”) to be in close proximity to students who face more challenges with language because of the great importance of strong language models. She explains that strong language models from peers are key to the development of language skills of students with IEPs or who are considered at risk. Carlee shares her observations about the language abilities of specific students with teachers to encourage the teachers to take these skill levels into consideration with respect to seating and partner work. She explains that she has seen students grow more confident with their thinking and speaking in class when they are matched with peers considered to be strong language users.

Table 2–3. Summary of Decision Points and Most Relevant Data Sources

FAQs Related to Decision Point #1: How Can SLPs Make a Unique Contribution to the Core Curriculum/Tier 1 in a Specific Setting?

Why Is This Decision so Important?

High-quality Tier 1 core instruction is the “base” of the MTSS triangle. It is the foundation upon which all other elements rest. Given the central importance of the core curriculum and that the needs of most (about 80%) students should be fulfilled at Tier 1, SLPs who are concerned with making the largest difference in terms of language and literacy for students should focus their efforts on ensuring and supporting the Tier 1/core instruction learning environment.

What Challenges Might Educators Face Related to Tier 1 and How Might SLPs’ Contribution Be Dependent on the Challenge Faced?

High-quality core instruction necessitates educators providing research-based instructional practices around language and literacy, as well as differentiated instruction to accommodate diverse learners. This is a tall order and there are many reasons that it may be challenging for teachers across grade levels and content areas to provide this type of instruction. For SLPs to support the Tier 1 curriculum, it is necessary that they understand the challenges faced by educators in order to determine how they can make a unique and valuable contribution. This step is critical because the issues faced by educators at the Tier 1 level vary by district, school, or even by class. Table 2–4 identifies categories of challenges educators may face, associated questions to consider, and hypothetical possible actions that might be taken by an SLP in response.

It is important to highlight that the process of identifying Tier 1 challenges and ways the SLP can address them is by no means a process designed to “evaluate” or “criticize” classroom teachers. The challenges faced at the school, classroom, or student level are not the “teacher’s problem” but something that all educators in the school, including the SLP, can take responsibility for identifying and addressing within MTSS.

What Data Sources Are Most Likely To Be Useful for Informing the Decision About How to Make a Unique Contribution to Tier 1 as an SLP?

■ Classroom observations and school surveys, discussions with teachers and administrators: A thoughtful and reflective examination of the Tier 1 learning environment and student population is the preliminary step for SLPs to take in order to determine which interventions, supports, or ideas will be most helpful to provide at the Tier 1 level. In “Classroom-Based Services in an Urban Middle School: Strategies for Becoming Part of the Solution,” Laura Epstein and Prutha Shah state that, “After defining one’s mission, vision, and role in the school community . . . the next step in delivering services via a classroom-based service delivery model may not be to deliver services at all. Rather, the next step may be to observe the classroom routines to determine how students are motivated and engaged” (2019, p. 398).

Table 2–4. Three Types of Challenges Educators Face With Respect to Tier 1 and Examples of How SLPs Might Respond to These Challenges to Add Value at the Tier 1 Level

■ Standardized achievement tests related to academic standards: Data from standardized tests may be useful to provide insight into the skills and struggles faced by a group of students in a particular class or grade level. Looking at this data for groups of students may shed light on areas of academics where most students may need extra support.

■ Data collected in the classroom during “business as usual” teaching and learning: A close examination of data collected by teachers in their daily work will provide insight into how students are performing on assessments that closely match with teacher expectations.

■ Portfolio and work sample review: Examination of students’ work products such as journal entries or written notes may guide SLPs in identifying areas where most students can use additional support.

■ Periodic benchmarking: Looking at how a grade level or classroom of students is progressing on key skills monitored by periodic benchmarking may highlight areas where the progress for the class as a whole is less than expected.

FAQs Related to Decision Point #2: How Do SLPs Determine Which Students Need Help Beyond Tier 1?

Why Is This Decision so Important?

Although high-quality Tier 1 instruction is the foundation of MTSS and great effort should be made to ensure the curriculum is accessible, it is both expected and predictable that some students will struggle to keep up with peers and need additional support beyond Tier 1 (Foster, 2018). As discussed in Chapter 1, the percentage of students needing support beyond the Tier 1 level should be around 20%. However, research shows that in classrooms and schools with a large percentage of high-risk students, the percentage may be greater (Justice & Dunaway, 2005). The main goal for SLPs at this decision point is determining which students are not succeeding, despite high-quality Tier 1 instruction, and may need additional support.

Should All Students Be Screened to Determine Who Needs a Tier 2 or 3 Level of Support?

This is a complex decision and different districts and different SLPs approach this choice in different ways. Screening students may be time-consuming and there are validity issues to consider when administering screening instruments. That being said, there are a number of published tools designed for this purpose, several of which are listed in Table 2–5, along with the skill area they specifically screen and the student age ranges for which the tool can be used.

Besides Mass Screening, What Other Data Sources Are Most Likely To Be Useful for Informing the Decision About Which Students Need Support Beyond Tier 1?

■ Discussions with teachers and administrators: Conversations may be helpful in identifying students who are struggling with grade-level work.

■ Classroom observations: Students who are struggling academically, or who need more support in comparison with their peers, often stand out during classroom observations.

Table 2–5. Examples of Screening Tools That Can Be Used by SLPs in Different Areas

Box 2–2. Real-World Snapshot: Alternatives to Using Mass Screenings to Identify Students for Support in MTSS

Meagan Jones, an SLP in SDUSD, explains that her district made the decision not to conduct screenings to decide which students may be considered at risk or in need of extra support. Instead, these determinations are made based on classroom observations and discussions with teachers. Meagan mentions that she spends quite a bit of time working with teachers and students in the general education classroom at the Tier 1 level. She explained that the students who are mentioned time and again in her discussions with teachers, as well as students she ends up noticing while working in the classroom, are the students who are included in Tier 2 or Tier 3 services. In addition to discussing these students with their teachers, Meagan also attends student support team meetings, where groups of teachers and specialists discuss students facing academic challenges or who struggle socially or emotionally. She may identify which students need Tier 2 or Tier 3 services as a result of those meetings. Although these are not expected practices across the district, Meagan has found them beneficial within her school community.

■ Standardized achievement tests related to academic standards: These tests provide numerical information that compares an individual student’s performance to that of their peers.

■ Summative assessments: Students failing to meet teacher expectations on summative classroom assessments may be appropriate candidates for extra support.

■ Periodic benchmarking: It is also important to note that a robust progress-monitoring system for all students (where all students’ progress is being monitored over time) can function in place of a separate screening system. Periodic benchmarks and other progress-monitoring tools can highlight which students are not keeping pace with others, or making expected progress.

■ Data collected in classroom during “business as usual” teaching and learning: Students struggling with daily learning tasks or unusual (below expectations) patterns of participation or behavior may be good candidates for extra support.

FAQs Related to Decision Point #3: How Are Students Responding to Interventions or Services?

Why Is This Decision so Important?

Arguably, one of the most important decision points in MTSS is deciding if students are benefitting from the level of support that they are receiving, if additional support is needed, or if support provided within the tiered framework can be phased out. Progress monitoring is at the heart of MTSS, which is designed to be a flexible framework in which students can move between tiers in an adaptable way that meets their needs.

How Is This Decision Challenging?

Making decisions about how students are responding to interventions or services is challenging because SLPs need to focus on data that is responsive enough to document growth over time. Dependable progress-monitoring tools are sensitive enough to detect growth due to intervention, as well as reliably capture growth over time (Deno, 2003; Hall-Mills, 2018). The key challenge is to make sure the data collected directly relates to the skill of interest for which progress is being monitored.

Why Are Periodic Benchmarking Tools Ideal for Monitoring Student Progress?

The overall purpose of progress-monitoring measures is to identify students whose rate of progress in instruction is insufficient and may, therefore, be in need of additional support (Fuchs, 2003). Periodic benchmarks (i.e., CMBs and GOMs) are critical for monitoring student progress because they are designed to be administered frequently and reflect incremental change over time in response to instruction. According to Gillam and Justice (2010), progress-monitoring tools should be easy to administer, score, and analyze, and should permit rapid analysis. Although exactly how often data must be taken is a subject of debate, generally the idea is that obtaining more data points lowers the chance that measurement errors impact how a student’s progress is perceived.

Table 2–6 provides some examples of quantitative GOMs and CBMs that SLPs or other educators can use to periodically benchmark student progress in a way that is useful for SLPs. This list is not meant to be comprehensive but rather a list of some key examples.

Table 2–6. Examples of GOMs and CBMs That SLPS May Use for Progress Monitoring

Beyond Periodic Benchmarking, What Other Data Sources Are Most Likely to Be Useful for Informing the Decision Point About How Students Are Responding to Support or Interventions?

■ Discussions with teachers and administrators: Educators within the school are also likely to have a sense of how students are responding to a given level of support. Ongoing discussions with teachers and administrators are informative in making judgments about whether the level of support is appropriate for students or if students need more support.

■ Portfolio and work sample review, summative assessments in the classroom, data collected during “business as usual” teaching and learning: The ultimate goal of support is to make an impact on student progress in academics. Looking directly at authentic student work products, student performance on assessments and tasks in the classroom will also provide useful data on how students are progressing at a given level of support.

■ Data collected during tiered support provided by SLP: SLPs involved in providing support or instruction for students will take data during this time to see how students are responding to interventions. This data can inform judgments regarding whether a student is benefitting from their current level of support or needs more intensive support.

■ Language sample analysis (LSA): SLPs can monitor student progress in an authentic, contextually-relevant scenario by gathering and analyzing language samples over time.

FAQs Related to Decision Point #4: Based on Information Gained in the MTSS Process, Which Students May Be Considered Eligible for Special Education Services?

Why Should Data Collected Within MTSS Inform the Special Education Eligibility Process?

To be eligible for special education under federal policy ([IDEA 2004, § 602(3)(A)]), students must meet three key criteria: they must have a disability, the disability must adversely impact their academics, and specialized services must be needed for a student to access the curriculum. Many resources exist on how to make data-driven decisions regarding eligibility for special education services (e.g., Ireland & Conrad, 2016), but a key point across all of these resources is that multiple sources of information need to be taken into account. These sources of data include, but are not limited to:

■ Standardized tests of speech or language skills: These are often considered the “bread and butter” of making eligibility decisions. These assessments provide normative data on how students are performing in key areas related to speech and language.

■ Standardized achievement tests related to academic standards: These sources provide concrete data comparing individual students to their peers in academic areas.

■ Classroom observations, discussions with teachers and administrators: Observations and discussions are recognized as best practices for eligibility decisions related to SPED.

■ LSA: Analysis of authentic language samples can inform eligibility decisions.

■ Summative assessments in the classroom, data collected in classroom during “business as usual” teaching and learning, and portfolio and work sample review: Student’s performance on both formative and summative assessments, as well as an examination of student work products, can inform how and if a student’s disability adversely impacts academic performance.

Box 2–3. Real-World Snapshot: Using Data Gathered Within the MTSS Framework to Inform Special Education Eligibility Decision

Jeffrey Meeks has been an SLP for 15 years, a SPED director for five years, and a related service administrator for seven of those years. He has served as the President of the Arizona Speech-Language-Hearing Association and has served on the school finance committee within ASHA. He is currently an assistant clinical professor at Northern Arizona University.

Jeffrey explains that his work early in his career as an SLP serving the Native American reservations in Arizona was formative and influenced his thinking about MTSS. His work with this population helped him realize the limitations of standardized tests for differentiating language disorders from language differences and the need for a more valid way to identify students for special education services in the areas of speech and language. In his view, providing intervention is extremely helpful for students from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds when determining whether a student has a difference or a disorder. He pointed out the importance of the concept of dynamic assessment and explained how, in his opinion, MTSS provides a framework to gather useful and authentic data to make sure student eligibility decisions are well informed. The usefulness of this framework in providing data to inform eligibility decisions is an important part of SLPs’ involved with MTSS.

Jeffrey pointed out how his views on this are reflected in the “Speech-Language Services in Arizona’s Schools: Guidelines for Best Practice” created by the Exceptional Student Services Arizona Technical Assistance System (2019). This best practice manual states, “Dynamic assessment is particularly useful for students from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. After guided practice, students who do not have speech and/or language impairments often show marked improvement in performance” (p. 36). These guidelines also explain that:

Responsive instruction and Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS) are instructional approaches that also utilize intervention data to inform decision making. Students who have speech and/or language skills that are readily modifiable in a dynamic assessment or MTSS process are less likely to have true impairments. (p. 36)

This key idea about the parallels between dynamic assessment and tiered frameworks is also explored in the article “Response to intervention and dynamic assessment: Do we just appear to be speaking the same language?” by Lidz and Peña (2009).

Beyond the Data Sources Listed Above, What Data Collected Specifically Within an MTSS Framework Are Most Likely to Inform Decisions Related to Special Education Eligibility?

While keeping in mind that MTSS should not be thought of as an “extended prereferral” process for an IEP, the data that is gathered through a tiered approach can be useful in informing the eligibility determination process. In fact, many states specifically require students’ responses to interventions as a data source for eligibility. The idea is that students who respond adequately and make progress with support provided within an MTSS framework may not qualify for special education. On the other hand, students who continue to fail to make the expected progress given the support provided in MTSS are likely strong candidates for direct support from an IEP. Given this, the following two sources of data generated within an MTSS framework should inform eligibility decisions:

■ Data collected during tiered support provided by SLP: Student response to tiered interventions should be a key piece of information informing special education eligibility.

■ Periodic benchmarking: These tools demonstrate how students respond to interventions over time and provide insight into how students are responding or failing to respond to interventions.

Part II

What Tools Can SLPs Implement, Model, or Teach Within an MTSS Framework for Students in Grades K–12? Toolkit of Research-Based Approaches

3

Introduction to the MTSS Toolkit

Purpose of Chapter 3

The purpose of Chapter 3 is to introduce the multi-tiered SLP toolkit, which offers 22 concrete and practical ways that SLPs can play an active role within an MTSS framework. Whereas it is one thing to buy into the idea that SLPs can have an active role in MTSS, it is another to know what to do “on Monday morning” to get started. To this end, the toolkit introduced in this chapter is focused on practical and implementable strategies for SLPs.

How Is the Toolkit Organized?

The toolkit covers three main areas: tools related to supporting the Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts (CCSS for ELA), tools related to supporting speech-related issues such as articulation, voice, and fluency, and tools to support the social and emotional aspects of language use, as shown in Figure 3–1. The first area, CCSS for ELA, is divided into multiple chapters (Chapters 4 to 7), and the other areas are covered in one chapter each (Chapter 8 for Speech Sound Disorders, Stuttering, and Fluency, and Chapter 9 for Social-Emotional Skills).

Area #1: CCSS for ELA Toolkit

SLPs play a major role in supporting student progress within academics and the CCSS. In her book titled Common Core Standards and the Speech-Language Pathologist: Standards-Based Intervention for Special Populations, Lissa A. Power-deFur (2016) argues:

The CCSS provide an opportunity for speech-language pathologists to change the common perception of their role from that of speech therapy ancillary to the curriculum to speech-language services that are a vital part of the school teams’ striving to ensure mastery by all students. (p. 11)

This underscores the idea that focusing on the CCSS is an opportunity to contribute to education in a concrete and meaningful manner. These tools are designed to provide concrete ideas to support this initiative.

This area of the toolkit is divided into four main sections: speaking and listening, reading, writing, and language. These sections correspond to the four main strands within the CCSS for ELA across Grades K–12. There are five tools in the speaking and listening chapter, six tools in the reading chapter, three tools in the writing chapter, and three tools in the language chapter. Many of the tools include several activities that SLPs can implement right away.

Figure 3–1. Organization of the multi-tiered SLP toolkit.

Knowing that SLPs work with multiple grade levels, the toolkit does not focus on grade-specific standards but rather on College and Career Readiness (CCR) anchor standards that apply across all grades. The only exception to this are tools focused on reading foundational skills, which do not have anchor standards but only grade-specific standards for K–5. Because struggling students may not be performing at the expected grade level, focusing on strands and anchor standards allows SLPs to identify students’ zones of proximal development and provide necessary scaffolding to support student progress.

Area #2: Speech Toolkit

SLPs can also address speech-specific issues within an MTSS framework. Within public schools, SLPs are considered the experts in speech-specific issues like articulation, fluency, and voice so this area is a natural fit (Ukrainetz & Fresquez, 2003). The speech toolkit is divided into three areas: speech sound disorders, stuttering, and voice. There is one tool for each area.

Area #3: Social-Emotional Skills Toolkit

SLPs have a role within MTSS for supporting students’ social and emotional skills and the use of language for social purposes. These efforts can involve close collaboration with other school personnel with expertise in this area, such as counselors and school psychologists. Work in this area can contribute to school-wide programs as well as support the needs of specific students. There are two tools in this area.

Are These Ideas an Exhaustive List?

The toolkit is by no means meant to be representative of all the possible ways that SLPs can be involved in MTSS. In fact, such a task would be impossible as there are endless potential approaches. Further, each SLP is going to face unique circumstances regarding their particular workload, the needs of the school(s) they serve, the culture of the district, state policies, and other issues. As discussed in Chapter 2, decision-making is a necessary first step in the process of being involved with MTSS as an SLP.

How Were Tools Selected for Inclusion in the Toolkit?

Four key criteria guided the selection of the tools for the toolkit. These ideas are summarized in Figure 3–2 and explained below:

■ Tools that are flexible and adaptable: The tools can be used to meet the needs of students at different tiers by modifying the level of scaffolding and intensity. Most tools can be used at all grade levels and can be applied in a variety of settings and formats. For example, most tools can be implemented directly in a 1:1, small-group, or whole-class setting. For the tools related to the CCSS, the toolkit was designed to be flexible and adaptable by generally aligning the tools with the CCR anchor standards that span all grade levels.

■ Tools with a strong research basis: Every tool is grounded in research. The research supporting certain tools is drawn from literature about serving students with disabilities. In other cases, research is drawn from the field of education more generally. Looking at both bodies of literature is consistent with the idea of Universal Design for Learning (UDL), which highlights how designing learning environments with accessibility as a guiding framework benefits a diverse group of learners. Additionally, one key finding from research is the strong relationship between oral and written language (Kamhi & Catts, 2014). Given this, whenever possible, tools were selected that utilized both oral and written modalities. Many tools included examples of relevant texts to use when implementing the tool to highlight the importance of incorporating written material, especially children’s and young adult literature, into SLPs’ practices.

Figure 3–2. Criteria for selecting tools in the toolkit.

Box 3–1. Real-World Snapshot: SLPs Modeling and Consulting for Other Educators Using Varying Tools and Strategies

Pam Waterhouse has over 30 years of experience as a school-based SLP and works in many schools in British Columbia. Pam spends a large part of her time as a school-based SLP, not on providing services to individual students, but rather on understanding the curriculum and collaborating with teachers to ensure all students can access the curriculum and make progress academically. She explains her mindset with teachers as, “I am here to help you. What can I do to help you? What are your concerns? I want to be there as a resource. Let me bring you something, let me show you something, let me do a sample lesson for you or make you a visual.” Pam explains, “As a school SLP, the school is our client. The question needs to be what can I do for the school, not what can I do for 48 different clients.”

Because Pam spends so much time consulting with teachers, she feels she is able to contribute to the ideal of having excellent programming in place for her students five days a week. She also feels that the emphasis on professional development (PD) and in-classroom modeling sends a nonverbal message to teachers that they are competent professionals in supporting language learning. In her view, when school SLPs fill up their schedules with back-to-back students, they become far too busy to communicate with teachers. This sends a nonverbal message to teachers that remediation of communication disorders is only the SLP’s job and that teachers have only a small role to play. Pam has received feedback from both teachers and administrators that they appreciate her approach because it focuses on building capacity within the school staff.

In addition to working with individual teachers, Pam runs workshops for teachers in her province on strategies for working with diverse learners. Some of the topics she has covered include Practicing Articulation in the Classroom, Universal Design for Learning and Integration, Literacy for Struggling Readers, and Narrative Language. For each topic, she highlights the evidence of how the skills being taught pertain to better outcomes, demonstrates strategies and approaches for practicing skills (by using video models of herself or teachers in their classrooms), and provides some materials to try immediately.

■ Tools with straightforward implementation procedures: The tools included in the toolkit mostly require basic supplies available in schools. The tools deliberately emphasize making use of curricular materials and children’s literature where applicable. Although some relevant commercially available programs are mentioned, tool selection focuses on noncommercial approaches to skill development that use basic materials readily available to school-based SLPs.

■ Tools that can be modeled for and then implemented by other educators: Within an MTSS framework, SLPs may provide professional development, consult with teachers, model strategies for other educators, as well as provide direct intervention to whole classes, small groups, or individual students. Given these many possibilities, the vast majority of tools in the toolkit can be implemented by a variety of educators and not exclusively by SLPs. To highlight this, the descriptions of many tools refer to an instructor, which could be an SLP, as the one leading implementation.

Are the Tools Really Appropriate Across All the Tiers? How Is It Possible to Alter the Intensity of Each Tool So That It Is Appropriate at Different Tiers?

Altering the levels of scaffolding, dosage, and group size of instructional approaches allows tools to be modified to be appropriate for different tiers. There are multiple ways to increase the intensity of support, including dosage (minutes, frequency, and duration of instruction), group size, and support provided during a lesson (Mellard et al., 2010). Tools can be used across Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3 given appropriate adjustments. Possible adjustments are described below and summarized in Figure 3–3.

■ Scaffolding: Some students need more support to learn new strategies, content, and skills because of learning differences, styles, processing time, or processing issues. Therefore, the same general approach within Tier 1 might apply to students with greater needs (i.e., Tier 2 or Tier 3) if these students are provided with additional scaffolding. The concepts of UDL are important to keep in mind as related to scaffolding. For example, some students may need different representations (e.g., visuals), extra time for processing, and multiple ways to engage with the material.

Figure 3–3. Ways to modify the tools to be appropriate for different tiers.

■ Dosage: Some students need instruction or interventions to be provided at a greater intensity than others in order to fully benefit from the approach. Although some approaches might adequately meet the needs of students at the Tier 1 level when presented at a certain dosage (e.g., once a week for 30 minutes), other students may require more repetitions or greater exposure to key concepts. SLPs may provide students a greater dosage, as needed, by implementing the lesson with a higher level of intensity (e.g., twice a week for 45 minutes). In this way, SLPs can change the dosage to accommodate students at various tiers rather than changing the key components of the tool.

■ Group size: Group size plays a particularly strong role in intensity level, with a smaller group size increasing both the amount of personalized corrective feedback each student receives and the number of opportunities for students to actively respond to lessons. With a smaller group, an instructor or SLP can also exercise more flexibility in how much time to devote to each subject, building from focused to broader goals, and limiting transitions between subjects. Therefore, a way to take an approach from the Tier 1 to the Tier 2 or 3 levels is by altering the instructional group size.

Can the Tools Be Used for Students With Identified Disabilities or Are These Tools Only Appropriate for Students Outside of Special Education?

Given that a key feature in selecting the tools in the toolkit was their flexibility and appropriateness for use with a wide variety of students, many of these tools can be used to support both the speech and language development of students with disabilities as well those without identified disabilities. The MTSS framework encourages SLPs and other educators to move away from the idea that special education and general education are binary concepts and, instead, follow the principles of UDL that emphasize that instructional approaches designed for students at the margins may benefit all students.

For example, the speaking and listening toolkit includes a number of tools that support narrative development and collaborative conversations. These two areas are emphasized in the anchor standards of the CCSS. Additionally, these are both areas in which many students with language disabilities show delays and therefore may have IEP goals related to these areas. SLPs may be able to schedule their time in a way that meets the needs of students with IEPs by addressing these skills in the classroom setting through a “push-in” or “collaborative teaching” session. In doing so, SLPs may use tools for multiple purposes, to meet the needs of both students with disabilities and their peers. In fact, a benefit of this approach is that students with language challenges may benefit from peer models and embedding support in the classroom may promote generalization and provide an opportunity to model strategies that other educators can use to support students across the school day.

How Is Data Collected as These Tools Are Implemented?

As explained in Chapter 2, there are multiple sources of data that can be considered within the MTSS framework. One of these sources of data is the data collected by SLPs working directly with students while using approaches such as those described in the toolkit. Given that this type of data is just one among many possible sources of data informing decisions within MTSS, some SLPs may choose not to continuously collect data on student progress while these tools are implemented. Rather, they may choose to rely on other sources of data (e.g., periodic benchmarking, summative assessments) to determine how students are responding to the instructional approaches featured in the varying tools. This is an important consideration to keep in mind as data collection for individual students may be challenging, especially if these tools are implemented at a whole-class level or with large groups of students.

That being said, it is important for SLPs and others to have a mechanism in place for collecting data “on the spot” as these tools are implemented. To help guide this process, each tool includes a discussion of data collection. Some tools include specific forms for collecting data. Blank copies of these forms, which include several rubrics, are either included within the chapter or in Appendix A. In some cases, examples of how to use such forms (filled out based on hypothetical students) are included as each tool is described as applicable and helpful. Instructions for use of the forms are provided as well.

For a number of tools, the general accuracy collection form, included in Appendix A–2, may be appropriate for tracking data during tiered support. The form can be used flexibly to track multiple skills targeted for individual students or for groups of students, as seen in Figures 3–4 and 3–5. The variety of scales on the form allows SLPs to track skills in multiple ways, including percentage accuracy and level of support provided. It is important to specify in the notes section how the varying levels of support are defined (e.g., high level of support means direct repetition of an answer, moderate support means a forced choice question or restating the question, independent means no support) if that is the scale selected to track student performance. There is also a scale option to designate answers as fully or partially correct responses, as well as an option to design a customized scale.

Figure 3–4. General accuracy collection form example for an individual student.

Figure 3–5. General accuracy collection form example for a group of students.

What Information Is Included for Each Area and Each Tool?

Each chapter of the toolkit begins by describing why it is important for SLPs to be involved in addressing that toolkit’s area through an MTSS framework.

Each tool begins with a table that includes the following:

■ Key skills: Each tool specifies which specific skills are targeted.

■ Relationship to specific anchor standards from the CCSS (if applicable): Each tool identifies which core anchor standards are targeted.

■ Materials needed: The toolkit focuses on approaches that require limited materials or materials that are easily accessible in a school setting. However, as appropriate, any necessary materials needed to implement the tool are listed.

Following the table, each tool includes:

■ Explanation: This section provides a general overview of the approach, including the research basis behind the approach. As applicable, for tools that involve teaching varying strategies, multiple strategies are introduced and explained in this section. This is applicable to the “active listening and strategic note-taking skills” tool in Chapter 4 (Tool 4) and “the reading strategy instruction” tool in Chapter 5 (Tool 5).

■ General procedures: These are meant to be general guidelines, not scripts or recipes. Given the scope of this book, limited space is available for each tool so the step-by-step procedures are presented in a simple manner that may not capture all the nuances reflected in the referenced evidence base behind each approach. In many cases, visuals or templates for completing activities are included.

■ Data collection: Given the importance of data in informing decision-making in MTSS, each tool includes a discussion of data collection that is useful for collecting information about the implementation of that tool. SLPs are encouraged to carefully consider the purposes of data collection for any given student when making decisions about how to collect data related to the implementation of a tool.

The toolkits provide easily-implementable techniques for SLPs to employ using their expertise in communication and language as a part of the MTSS framework in close collaboration with other educators. The goal of this toolkit is to provide SLPs with some concrete ideas of how to make an authentic contribution within the MTSS framework and extend their expertise and knowledge base to make a difference for all students.

4

Tools Related to Speaking and Listening Common Core State Standards

Why Is “Speaking and Listening” an Important Area of Focus for SLPs Within MTSS?

School-Based SLPs Are the Experts on Oral Language in the School Setting

Given an SLP’s expertise in oral language development, addressing the speaking and listening standards within the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) as part of their involvement in MTSS is a natural fit. Oral language tends to be an area where SLPs have strong training and a good comfort level (Ukrainetz & Fresquez, 2003). Oral language lays the foundation for literacy development, so speaking and listening skills are critical for students’ academic success.

Oral Language Skills Are Predictors of Academic Success

Speaking and listening opportunities have the potential to significantly impact students’ content understanding, academic language use, engagement in class, and motivation. Academic conversations impact the learning outcomes for all students as they provide critical thinking opportunities and build content connections, but are especially important for students who are at risk for learning challenges (Spies & Xu, 2018). In fact, narrative ability, a key skill within the domain of speaking and listening, is one of the best predictors of school success for students with learning or language difficulties (Bishop & Edmundson, 1987).

How Are Speaking and Listening Included in the CCSS?

The Speaking and Listening CCSS standards highlight the communication skills students need for the purposes of language comprehension, production, collaboration, and literacy. These standards focus on the type of speaking and listening skills students require for purposeful and academic talk (in one-on-one, small-group, and large-group settings), the presentation of knowledge and ideas, the formal sharing of information and concepts, as well as the use of technology for communication. There are six anchor standards for speaking and listening across two major category areas, (1) comprehension and collaboration and (2) presentation of knowledge and ideas, as outlined in Figure 4–1.

Figure 4–1. CCSS categories of anchor standards within speaking and listening.

What Tools Can SLPs Use to Support Speaking and Listening in MTSS?

There are five tools in this chapter that provide different methods for supporting speaking and listening skills. The first tool focuses on oral narratives and story retells. The second tool discusses an instructional strategy for descriptive personal narratives using academic vocabulary. The focus of the third tool is collaborative conversations and critical thinking. The fourth tool discusses techniques for engaging students in active listening and developing accompanying note-taking skills. The fifth tool provides techniques for teaching public speaking skills to students. These tools are summarized in Tables 4–1, 4–5, 4–8, 4–10, and 4–13 throughout the chapter.

Tool #1: Structured Oral Narratives and Story Retells (Story Grammar)

Explanation

Oral narratives are also considered a “bridge to literacy” as they are closely related to students’ literacy development and school achievement (Hedberg & Westby, 1993; Westby, 1991). The focus of this specific tool is teaching students to produce organized narratives based on the elements of story grammar. Story grammar elements provide students with a framework to help them understand narrative texts. There is extensive research (e.g., Boulineau et al., 2004; Dymock, 2007) supporting the idea that direct teaching of story grammar elements results in improved oral narratives for school-aged children.

Table 4–1. Tool 1 Summary

For example, multiple studies have demonstrated that direct instruction on story grammar components results in improvements in the developmental story level (e.g., narrative complexity) of students’ orally-presented stories (e.g., Dimino et al., 1995; Green & Klecan-Aker, 2012; van Kleeck et al., 2006). Further instruction in story grammar elements has also been shown to have a positive impact on student’s writing outcomes (Spencer & Petersen, 2018).

The focus of this tool is teaching students relevant story grammar components and guiding them to use these components to structure their oral narratives. “Story grammar” consists of rules that build a story hierarchy and form the predictable structure of narratives. Nancy Stein and Christien Glenn (1979) are recognized for defining the major features of story grammar. Stein and Glenn (1979) identified two overarching categories of story grammar, setting and episode. They also defined a number of subcategories of the episode including initiating event, internal response, internal plan, attempt, consequence, and reaction. See Table 4–2 for an explanation of story grammar elements.

General Procedures

1. Teach the underlying concepts of the story grammar components (see Table 4–2).

■ Depending on the age and current skills of students, a limited number of story grammar elements can be introduced at a time. For example, one lesson may focus only on setting and initiating events. If this selection is made, all of these procedures may be repeated multiple times until all (or a targeted number) of story grammar elements have been addressed.

Table 4–2. Story Grammar Elements

Source: Stein & Glenn, 1979.

■ Introduce visual support, in the form of a graphic organizer or other visual representation, to explain story grammar elements. Visual supports may vary in complexity depending on the needs of students. Two examples are shown in Figures 4–2 and 4–3.

■ Read narratives aloud and highlight the story grammar elements. Modeling self-talk about identifying story grammar components can facilitate learning. During modeled narrative, educators can point to visual elements introduced in previous steps to further explain the underlying concepts.

2. Provide students with opportunities to identify story grammar components.

■ After modeling the identification of story grammar elements in the previous step, explain that students are going to identify story grammar elements with support. Continue to use the visual elements introduced in step 1 as prompts for students.

■ As students begin to identify story grammar elements, it is important to consider complexity. For some students, it is helpful to begin with simple narratives before moving to more complex narratives. Simple picture books, like wordless picture books, or sequencing cards can be useful for prompting students to identify story grammar elements before advancing to grade- or age-appropriate reading material (Serafini, 2014).

3. Once students have been able to successfully identify story grammar elements, prompt students to retell their own stories using story grammar components as a structure.

■ Continue to use the visual of story grammar elements that have been modeled to students as a support to be faded over time.

Figure 4–2. Simple structured narrative graphic organizer example.

■ Direct teaching and modeling of a variety of transition words and sentence starters can help support students’ productions of their own narratives. These transition words and sentence starters can be posted visually. As students gain skills, the reliance on these structures can be faded. Some examples of such transition words and sentence starters are outlined in Table 4–3.

■ Given the research suggesting story grammar elements may positively impact not only students’ oral narratives but also their written narratives, prompt students to provide narratives both orally as well as in written format. The same visuals and transition word sentence starters can apply as students practice written narratives.

Data Collection

For this tool, it is possible to document students’ accuracy with identifying story grammar elements as well as to classify the narratives that students produce orally or in written form.

Figure 4–3. Complex story grammar graphic organizer example.

Table 4–3. Transition Words and Sentence Starters to Prompt Story Retell With Use of Grammar Components

■ The general accuracy collection form (included in Appendix A–2) can be used to track students’ ability to identify story grammar elements or to track the number of story grammar elements used in a story.

■ For tracking progress with types of narratives produced, Hedberg and Stoel-Gammon (1986) propose classifying narratives using stages ranging from loose descriptions of events (Stage 1) to true narratives with a theme and plot (Stage 5). The record form in Figure 4–4 describes these stages and can be used to track progress over time for students.

Commercially Available and Packaged Programs

There are a variety of published tools related to story grammar instruction as well. These can be helpful in supplementing or complementing this area, but it is important for each SLP to make an informed decision about using such tools or recommending published tools to colleagues or parents. These published tools are summarized in Table 4–4.

Figure 4–4. Data collection for story grammar. Source for Story Grammar Elements: Stein and Glenn (1979). Source for Stages: Hedberg and Stoel-Gammon (1986).

Table 4–4. Published Tools Related to Structured Oral Narratives and Story Retells (Story Grammar)

Tool #2: Story Talk

Explanation

Story Talk is an instructional strategy designed by Claudia Dunaway that has been implemented and further developed by the SLPs involved in the Language and Literacy Support Team within the San Diego Unified School District (SDUSD). This group includes Olivia Chin, Sarah Darr, Katie Dempsey, Jena McWaters, Heather Eisenberg, Eileen Ferrey, Sarah Hershkowitz, Meagan Jones, Dustin Juusola, and Carlee Lewis. This approach involves a structured lesson during which the facilitator (such as an SLP) develops a rich personal narrative with appropriate detail through the process of a question-answer (Q&A) session with students. After the facilitator models the story and Q&A session, a student goes through this same process with appropriate scaffolds as needed. This tool focuses on several targeted skills simultaneously: narratives, vocabulary (particularly mental state verbs), and inferential thinking as explained in Table 4–6.

General Procedures

Story Talk is a structured lesson that takes place for about 30 minutes. In general, this lesson is presented once a week over a set time frame (i.e., 6 to 8 weeks). The lesson has three key components:

1. The facilitator models collaborative story construction (15 minutes). An adult models story construction with collaboration from students.

■ The facilitator tells a “bare bone” story (focusing on the what, where, and who of the story) that outlines the basic sequence of events without detail.

■ The facilitator prompts students to ask questions about the story in order for the facilitator to develop the story. The facilitator instructs the students to refrain from asking closed-ended questions (e.g., “What color was the dog?”) and instead encourages students to ask open-ended inferential questions focused on emotion and motivation (e.g., “How were you feeling at the moment?”).

Table 4–5. Tool 2 Summary

Table 4–6. Targeted Skills in Story Talk and How They Are Addressed

■ The facilitator then retells the story in an expressive way that incorporates the answers to the students’ questions about the story.

2. Students tell their stories to the rest of the class (10 minutes). Each time the lesson is implemented, one student has a turn to tell his or her story. Ideally, the lesson takes place over multiple weeks to allow every student in a group or a classroom to get a turn telling the story.

■ In preparation for the lesson, give the students a global prompt (suggested language: “Think of something important that happened that you want to share with your friends.”).

■ During the Story Talk lesson, engage students in a back-and-forth conversation to find the “heart” of their story. First, ask students about the topic of their story (suggested language: “In just a couple words, tell us about your story.”). Once the student establishes the topic, encourage the student to expand on that topic (suggested language: “Scan your mind. Think about what to share about that event.”). Continue discussing the story, reminding the student to think of the story from the “inside,” meaning how they were thinking and feeling during the experience, rather than the outside, which is more limited.

■ Prompt peers to ask the presenting student questions. Remind students to focus on questions that get to the heart of the story.

■ After the Q&A session, the facilitator presents the “student perspective” rehearsal, where he or she tells the story using the student’s point of view and the student’s language.

■ The student presents the elaborated story with adult facilitation (examples of prompts and scaffolds are provided in Table 4–7).

■ If age-appropriate, the facilitator has the storyteller commit to writing up the story before the next lesson.

3. As an optional step, the student storyteller from the previous lesson reads his or her written version of the story.

■ When this tool is implemented over the course of several weeks, an optional extension is to have the student who presented the previous week write their story and read the written version of their story to the class the following week. This extension makes the connection between oral and written narratives more explicit for students and provides students a sense of accomplishment.

Data Collection

In SDUSD, SLPs use three different forms to collect data around when they use the Story Talk tool. The first rubric, the Classroom Story Talk rubric, focuses on tracking the progress of the class as a unit related to key elements of Story Talk. The second rubric, the Individual Story Talk student rubric, focuses on how the student acting as the “storyteller” performs when telling his or her story. The data collection form titled “Individual or class questioning record for Story Talk” can be used to collect data on the kinds of questions that students ask during the Story Talk lessons. These rubrics and forms are included in Figures 4–5, 4–6, and 4–7 (see pp. 69–71).

Table 4–7. Prompts and Scaffolds to Guide Student Thinking

Tool #3: Collaborative Conversations

Explanation

Collaborative Conversations is an instructional strategy designed collaboratively by the SLPs comprising the Language and Literacy Support Team within the San Diego Unified School district. This approach is applicable for students in pre-K to 12th grade as the type of text and topics of discussion can be modified for student needs. For this tool, the SLP acts as the facilitator of a student-centered discussion around repeated readings of a shared text “worth talking about.” Although a text “worth talking about” may vary by age group, the key idea is selecting a text for this activity that allows for discussion of psychological and emotional motivations and states. In this approach, the SLP facilitates students as they build ideas collaboratively around joint text reading.

Table 4–8. Tool 3 Summary

Box 4–1. Real-World Snapshot: Story Talk From a First-Grade Student

Claudia Dunaway developed the Story Talk approach and leads the Language and Literacy Support Team in SDUSD. She uses this strategy with K–12 students. Examples of an initial story, the questions asked to develop the story, and the final story from a first-grade student using the Story Talk approach are provided below.

Initial story:

“When I went to the park with my dad and brother, these two great big dogs started running at us. The owner didn’t even look. It just started like it didn’t even care.”

Elaborated story:

“One day I went to the park with my dad and my brother. Then these two great big dogs started running toward us. I was feeling really terrified because I was always scared of dogs. My dad stayed with my brother and went to the owner. He was arguing with the owner and then my brother started arguing too. I was running away and the dogs were chasing me and barking at me. I was afraid that I would get hurt or bitten. So now the owner called back the big dogs and I was relieved that I didn’t get hurt or bitten.”

Examples of questions asked by students:

■ How were you feeling when the dogs started chasing you?

■ Why were the dogs chasing you?

■ Why were you terrified?

■ What were you thinking when the dogs were chasing you?

■ How did you get away?

■ How did you feel after the dogs stopped chasing you?

Figure 4–5. Classroom Story Talk rubric. Created by Claudia Dunaway. Used with permission.

Figure 4–6. Individual Story Talk student rubric. Created by Claudia Dunaway. Used with permission.

Figure 4–7. Individual or class questioning record for Story Talk. Created by Claudia Dunaway. Used with permission.

The goal is for students to come to a deeper appreciation of the meaning inherent in the text and to gather insights into how to use learning strategies to strengthen reading comprehension. This tool is designed to move students beyond answering simple “wh” questions based on recall and teach them to ask open-ended questions and make inferential comments. In doing so, the goal is to improve both the quantity of student talk (i.e., amount of talk, number of exchanges) as well as the quality of student talk (i.e., academic vocabulary, complex syntax, inferential thinking) as well as facilitate the development of critical thinking skills. Although literal comprehension is important, focusing on inferential and critical thinking is equally important for academic success (Alexander, 2014). Equally important, a key goal that results from this approach is that students learn how to tie academic language to their insights because comprehension and academic language are interconnected. Further, discussion is a valuable tool for creating a classroom atmosphere supportive of inferential thinking and meaning-making (Applebee et al., 2003; Reznitskaya et al., 2009).

This tool is flexible and designed to be presented in a group setting where mutually established conversational rules (i.e., taking turns, listening to everyone, respecting all ideas) are followed in order to ensure that everyone is included in the exchange of ideas. This tool allows SLPs to simultaneously address the needs of students at varying levels. The lesson can be delivered in the general education classroom, a self-contained classroom, or in a small group. In either context, students with strong language skills can act as peer models for students who face greater challenges (i.e., students considered at risk with IEPs). In some cases, students that need the most intensive support and scaffolding may discuss texts in a smaller setting before or after the larger class discussion to support their meaning-making around the text and practice the collaborative conversation. If even more intensive support is needed for an individual student, a 1:1 session prior to the larger class discussion can also be completed.

General Procedures

1. Select a text worth talking about. It is important to consider the relevance of the topic, the level of student interest, accessibility of the language, and the appropriateness of the length for the allocated time period. The most important element of text selection is that the text contains interesting ideas that will generate a meaningful discussion. Texts that are appropriate generally have characters that go through important changes or contain an emotional element. Several examples are listed in Table 4–9.

2. Plan to read the text repeated times (i.e., once a week over a 3-week period). The idea of reading texts together multiple times is that repeated readings are required to reach a deeper level of understanding (Morrow, 1985). Rehearsals and revisiting texts allow students to build coherent and complex language. The expectation is that students enlarge their understanding of the text meaning with each subsequent reading, and that they demonstrate their thinking through the language they use. While this tool is flexible, the following focuses are recommended for the first and subsequent lessons on a given text:

■ First Read: Comprehension is the key focus of the first read. Rather than asking simple “wh” recall-oriented questions, facilitators encourage students to read “between the lines” to interpret text meaning and generate plausible inferences based on text evidence. Comprehension is demonstrated by talking meaningfully about text rather than repeating facts.

■ Possibilities for Subsequent Readings:

□ Examine how the author uses specific language (i.e., figurative language, imagery, vocabulary, sentence structures) to enrich the story.

Table 4–9. Examples of “Texts Worth Talking About”

□ Connect the important themes of the text to students’ lives, other texts, or current events. This is typically used when there are more than two reads.

3. Plan the lesson by identifying key ideas throughout the story to discuss and big ideas from the story as a whole. Plan to discuss key ideas throughout the story at designated “stop and talk” points. A “stop and talk” point occurs when readers arrive at a key idea, an emotion tied to an idea, or an important theme. For each of these points, plan possible open-ended questions to facilitate the conversation and identify emotion-related vocabulary words.

4. Read the shared text aloud. Stop at the designated “stop and talk” points for discussion. At each “stop and talk” point, provide think-aloud language models. In Figures 4–8 and 4–9, see the examples of lesson plans around the The Rainbow Fish by Marcus Pfister developed by SDUSD SLP Sarah Hershkowitz and “The Monkey’s Paw” by W.W. Jacobs, developed by SDUSD SLP Sarah Darr. These lesson plans identify key ideas throughout the books with associated open-ended questions and vocabulary. The lesson plans designate “stop and talk” points to discuss these ideas, as well as overall concepts to discuss at the end of the book reading.

Figure 4–8. Elementary level sample lesson plan (Grades K–2). Created by Sarah Hershkowitz. Used with permission.

5. Facilitate the generation and discussion of open-ended questions about key ideas in order to focus on the deeper psychological and emotional meaning tied to the surface actions of the characters. Through the discussion, students are encouraged to wonder, notice, interpret, connect, suggest, critique, and question as they examine ideas. Collaborative conversations can involve discussion with a whole class or conversation with a partner. As mentioned, there should be a plan to read the text multiple times in order to deepen understanding and craft complex language.

Figure 4–9. Secondary level sample lesson plan (Grades 7–12). Created by Sarah Darr. Used with permission.

Figure 4–10. Writing extension at elementary level. Created by Eileen Ferrey. Used with permission.

6. As an option, use a writing extension. After a text has been read several times, the group can engage in writing a collaborative piece that extends on a key idea in the text that is related to the inside of the story. The idea of this activity is to model how academic thinking and language translates into writing, and to provide a model of academic writing. The SLP will facilitate the class in generating a short written piece about the text together. See examples of writing extensions from an early elementary classroom, provided Eileen Ferrey, SDUSD, as well as a writing extension at the secondary level provided by Dustin Juusola, SDUSD, in Figures 4–10 and 4–11.

Figure 4–11. Writing extension at secondary level. Created by Dustin Juusola. Used with permission.

See Box 4–2 on p. 82 for Real-World Snapshot related to collaborative conversations.

Data Collection

In SDUSD, SLPs use rubrics to monitor student progress, as well as collect numeric data on the quality and quantity of questions and comments made by individual students. Meagan Jones, an SDUSD SLP, has developed rubrics for each grade in elementary school related to this tool. The first-grade rubric is included in Figure 4–12 and is meant to be filled out as a group with the SLP in the lead. Claudia Dunaway, the leader of the Language and Literacy Support Team in SDUSD, created the secondary rubric for collaborative conversations that is included in Figure 4–13. SLPs in SDUSD explain that they often share these rubrics with students to create transparency about goals and areas of focus.

Figure 4–12. Collaborative Conversation rubric for first grade. Created by Meagan Jones. Used with permission.

Tool #4: Active Listening and Strategic Note-Taking Skills

Explanation

To be successful in academic settings, the ability to take notes is an important skill. The focus of this tool is the development of note-taking skills. Although teachers generally use a variety of teaching methods beyond lecturing, research shows that the notetaking process constitutes a major portion of the time students spend in academic classes (Hudson et al., 2002). Good note-taking skills are important as students benefit both from the process of taking notes, which has been shown to improve information retention and learning, as well as the ability to refer to these notes at a later appropriate time, like when the students are studying for tests or completing written assignments (Kobayashi, 2006; Ukrainetz, 2019).

A key element of good note-taking is understanding the amount of information to record, which includes identifying main ideas, so that the notes will be useful. Research shows that students across varying grades face difficulties related to note-taking and may generate notes that are incomplete, fail to highlight the main ideas, or overly rely on writing down lectures verbatim (Bretzing & Kulhavy, 1979). Note-taking can be a challenge for all students but it is especially difficult for students with impaired language skills (Boyle & Forchelli, 2014; Boyle & Rivera, 2012; Kobayashi, 2006). Multiple studies have shown that direct instruction on note-taking benefits both typically developing students and students with learning challenges (e.g., Chang & Ku, 2015).

Figure 4–13. Secondary Collaborative Conversation rubric. Created by Claudia Dunaway. Used with permission.

Box 4–2. Real-World Snapshot: Collaborative Conversations Implementation While Working With Students Across the Tiers and Collaborating With Teachers

Eileen Ferrey has developed a system with the kindergarten teachers in the elementary school where she works five days a week. She spends eight weeks working in each kindergarten classroom, facilitating lessons collaboratively. At the onset of the 8-week period, she works with the teacher to set goals for individual students considered at risk, as well as goals for the classroom as a whole. During the 8-week time frame, Eileen facilitates lessons centered around the collaborative conversations approach while the teachers take data. At times, they switch roles so that the teachers facilitate and Eileen takes data. By being in all four kindergarten classrooms for 8-week periods over the course of the year, Eileen feels she is able to build a close relationship with each teacher and really focus on identifying strategies that will work well for each teacher and every class.

Eileen explains that this system allows her to simultaneously meet the needs of students at different tiers and students on IEPs while also contributing to the core instruction. She finds this practice not only time-efficient, but also helpful to students with disabilities and students considered at risk because their language development benefits from peer models. For students with IEPs, these sessions are counted as IEP services in the classroom, which may also be reinforced in other small group sessions during which the students may read the story and make meaning of it before participating in a collaborative conversation with the whole class. For students with IEPs, providing support in the classroom allows Eileen to focus on the transfer of skills and generalizations. At times, students with IEPs may “travel” with Eileen to other kindergarten classrooms (other than their own) as a way of increasing the intensity of the intervention. For example, some students may join Eileen in two kindergarten classrooms so they receive 16 weeks of collaborative conversations in the classroom, in contrast to their peers who receive eight weeks of the lesson.

For students considered at risk, she uses the data collected in the program to inform decision-making regarding possible special education eligibility. For some students, it is clear that the supports in the classroom are allowing them to make adequate progress, and for others, it becomes clear that more support is needed.

This tool provides guidance on targeted instruction to develop students’ note-taking skills, which involve both careful and targeted listening. Some of these strategies are also relevant to taking notes when reading, but the focus of this tool is learning to take effective notes while listening to information presented orally, such as within a lecture. There are five note-taking strategies detailed in Table 4–11, along with the basic instructions for each approach and the research that supports how each approach is useful. These strategies are meant to be examples and not an exhaustive list. It is important to select the strategies that make the most sense in the context of the note-taking, as well as the skills and grade level of the students.

Table 4–10. Tool 4 Summary

Table 4–11. Note-Taking Strategies and References for Guides and Visuals

Strategy #1: Cues-Based Note-Taking

This strategy involves guiding students to identify the key cues teachers use to indicate important information (Boyle, 2010). Cues have been found to increase the number of notes students take, which enhances their recall and comprehension (Titsworth, 2001; Titsworth & Kiewra, 2004). Relying on cues to guide notetaking has been shown to help students “chunk” information, thus reducing the load on their working memory (e.g., Archibald, 2018; Boyle & Forchelli, 2014). Table 4–12 contains information that explains different types of cues and how to guide students to use these cues to organize written notes.

Strategy #2: Strategic Note-Taking

Strategic note-taking involves deliberate activation of prior knowledge before note-taking commences, and then taking structured notes that involve students listing several salient points and new vocabulary for each topic introduced, as well as a quick summary of how ideas are related. Boyle (2010) found that students using this method captured almost twice as many lecture points, more than double the total word count, and had better recall and comprehension than students using standard note-taking formats. To use this approach, students can use the worksheet in Figure 4–14 as a guide for how to set up their notebook pages to capture all of this information in an organized way.

Table 4–12. Cues for Cue-Based Note-Taking

Source: Boyle, 2010; EAP Foundation, 2019.

Strategy #3: Pictography

This method involves instructing students to take notes using pictography, known as “picture writing” (Ukrainetz, 1998). Pictography involves sketching simple schematic notes to represent and organize ideas. Students can use visual elements like arrows, speech balloons, thought bubbles, stick figures, and other visual icons to take notes. Pictography as a note-taking strategy has been investigated and found to have positive results for students in several studies (e.g., Ukrainetz, 1998, 2019). Recently, Ukrainetz (2019) identified that training fourth- through sixth-grade students to record the ideas both through pictographic and conventional notes resulted in higher quality features on the written notes. Figure 4–15 shows an example of pictographic notetaking. A blank template is available in Appendix A–3.

Figure 4–14. Strategic note-taking worksheet.

Strategy #4: Cornell Notes

The Cornell note-taking system involves students organizing their paper into multiple sections. As shown in the example in Figure 4–16, the bulk of the paper is divided into two major columns, a thin column on the left, and a larger column on the right that students actively use during the lecture (Quintus et al., 2012). Underneath the notes, there is a space for a short summary to be written after the lesson is complete. Students fill in the thin left-hand column with questions or comments that are related to the notes taken in the right-hand column, which is meant to help students “clarify meanings, reveal relationships, establish continuity, and strengthen memory” (Cornell University Learning Strategies Center, n.d., para. 2).

Figure 4–15. Pictography note-taking example.

The positive impact of Cornell notes on student learning has been documented. Several studies of early high school students showed that students who used the Cornell note-taking system performed better on exams (Donohoo, 2010; Faber et al., 2000). A blank template that can be used as a guide for the Cornell note-taking system is included in Appendix A–4.

Figure 4–16. Cornell note-taking example.

Strategy #5: Mind Maps

Mind maps are diagrammatic note-taking tools that show connections and organization of concepts in a visual manner. To create a mind map, students start by drawing a large circle or box in the middle of the page and writing the main topic. They draw lines from this central shape to represent subtopics and continue drawing lines and circles or boxes for additional subtopics. To make a mind map easy to read, students may use single words or even pictures. Additionally, visual distinguishers like different colors or shapes of different sizes may optionally be used to develop a hierarchy within the notes (Buran & Filyukov, 2015). Figure 4–17 provides an example of a mind map. There are many mind-mapping computer programs that can aid in developing visuals (Andre, 2019).

Figure 4–17. Mind map note-taking example.

General Procedures

1. Explain to students the goals and importance of strategic note-taking.

2. Brainstorm and activate prior knowledge. Ask students to describe the kinds of problems they have encountered if and when they have tried taking notes on verbally presented information. Possible problems could include (a) writing and listening to the teacher at the same time, (b) determining what is important to write down, (c) writing fast enough, and (d) paying attention in a long class. Discuss how strong notetaking skills can help address these problems.

3. Introduce a note-taking strategy and style using one of the strategies listed in the introduction to this tool, and explain the steps of the approach in an explicit and detailed manner (i.e., “First, you listen for . . . then, you write/draw the note . . .”).

4. Model the use of the strategy. Listen to a lecture or presentation as a group (videos or podcasts might be good for this activity) and model for students how to take notes. In the process, “pause” the listening activity at certain points and “think aloud” or explain why certain information is important to show the reasoning behind why certain information is included or excluded in notes.

5. Have students take notes as a small group or in pairs to share ideas while generating notes. As in the previous step, it will be useful to “pause” orally presented information periodically so students can practice their note-taking skills.

6. The last step is independent practice. As students gain skills, they can practice note-taking in more authentic contexts and receive feedback and reflect on the usefulness of their notes.

Data Collection

Although it is possible to examine improvement in the quality of a student’s notes, note-taking is a means to an end, not a goal in itself. Given this, it makes sense to look at data on how well students perform on tasks requiring their notes rather than judging students’ skill and improvement based on the quality of the notes themselves. Following from this, one way to assess students’ progress as a result of using this tool is to look at students’ performance on tasks that require notes, such as assessments or assignments in the classroom.

Table 4–13. Tool 5 Summary

Tool #5: Public Speaking

Explanation

Students in schools are expected to make oral presentations in front of their classmates for a variety of different tasks, such as book reports, poster presentations, and science fairs. For students to be successful in these tasks, they must exhibit competent and strong oral presentation skills. Even though public speaking is frequently required for assignments among school-aged children, direct support to help develop students’ oral presentation skills is infrequently provided in a formal manner. The focus of this tool is providing instruction and focused practice around public speaking to support students in this area.

Box 4–3. Real-World Snapshot: Presenting Skills for Effective Public Speaking to Help Students With Classroom Presentations

Dr. Robyn Becker, a school-based SLP in Hillsborough Township Public Schools, generally visits every classroom in the school right before their first oral presentation of the year and presents a lesson she calls “Let ‘em RIP.” RIP is an acronym that highlights the elements of speaking on which students should focus (R = Rate, I = Intensity, P = Prosody). As part of this lesson, Robyn shows videos of other peers within the school involved in public speaking. Some key points she makes in her presentation are summarized in Table 4–14. After the presentation, Robyn provides structured opportunities for students to practice their speaking skills.

Robyn feels this approach gives her a structured opportunity to visit each classroom at least once a year, which is a nice way to maintain open connections with all the teachers in the school and get to know more students. She also states that these lessons help both students and teachers understand her role in the school and see her as a resource.

Research shows public speaking can frequently evoke anxiety among many individuals (e.g., Niles & Craske, 2019; Shi et al., 2015). This is because, in part, individuals feel more conspicuous during speeches and conspicuousness can lead to increased self-attention and self-focus (Daly et al., 1989). Some level of anxiety is anticipated for most students in public speaking situations but the level of anxiety may be higher among students with learning challenges (Heidari-Soureshjani et al., 2018). Given this, focused attention on public speaking skills, especially in anticipation of an assignment involving speaking, can be beneficial for all students but may be particularly beneficial to students with learning disorders. As explained in the procedures section, this tool involves the SLP teaching a whole class about public speaking strategies, small-group work focused on improving this skill, and reflection on how to apply skills to oral presentations.

General Procedures

1. When planning, coordinate with teachers to find the appropriate time to deliver the lesson. An ideal time for this lesson is during the days preceding an important oral presentation.

2. The SLP presents a whole group lesson that reviews key concepts associated with public speaking, as well as three key elements (rate, intensity, prosody) that students can alter and focus on during speaking.

Table 4–14. Key Talking Points for a Public Speaking Lesson

Created by Robyn Becker. Used with permission.

3. Practice in small groups. Prepare short, written paragraphs or topic area students can select (these can be in grab bags for fun). Prompt students to either read the paragraph or talk about the topic while deliberately modifying the key elements reviewed related to speech. Students should intentionally practice saying each paragraph too quickly, too slowly, or just right (altering rate); too loudly, too quietly, or just right (altering intensity); and too monotone, too animated, or just right (altering prosody).

■ Students can be provided with varying levels of support as they work in small groups. This can be supported by SLPs as well as teachers.

■ For students who need extra support with volume or intensity, a simple sound level meter app can be used to provide feedback.

4. To wrap up and reflect on the lesson, some students can be invited to role-play. The whole class can review the skills learned and identify how they will apply these skills to upcoming class presentations.

Figure 4–18. Oral speaking rubric.

Data Collection

As teachers grade and provide feedback on student presentations, they can also collect data about the students’ presentation skills. It is possible to add presentation skills to an evaluative rubric as shown in Figure 4–18. This rubric can be filled out by teachers, students, or SLPs. This rubric is also valuable for the Readers Theater tool, discussed in Chapter 5, Tool 4.

5

Tools Related to Reading Common Core State Standards

Why Is “Reading” an Important Area of Focus for SLPs Within an MTSS Framework?

There Are Widespread Struggles With Reading in American Schools

Poor reading skills are prevalent in American schools. According to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), as of 2019, only 35% of public school students in the U.S. in the fourth or eighth grade are considered at or above proficient in reading (National Center for Education Statistics, 2019). The consequences of reduced literacy are serious. Low reading achievement has a demonstrable impact on students’ readiness for college, careers, and life. Poor reading in the adult population not only limits access to higher education but it is associated with lower wages and significant increases in the likelihood of chronic health conditions (Weiss, 2003).

The Number of Struggling Readers Exceeds Expected Variability

The number of students reading below proficient levels far exceeds that which can be attributed to intrinsic disabilities or expected variability (e.g., Shaywitz et al., 1992). In fact, research suggests that a key reason many students perform poorly in reading is because schools fail to provide adequate instruction to at-risk students who exhibit significant risk factors (e.g., low socioeconomic status, second language learners) that make learning to read difficult (Justice, 2006; Justice & Dunaway, 2005).

Literacy Is Well Within the Scope of Practice for SLPs

While supporting students’ reading skills is a team effort, SLPs in schools have a key role to play in ensuring that all students develop literacy skills. The ASHA “Roles and Responsibilities of Speech-Language Pathologists in Schools” 2010 document states that “highlighting language/literacy” is one of the critical roles of SLPs in school settings and explains that SLPs can contribute significantly to the literacy achievement for all students, including those at risk for school failure.

Students Who Are Struggling Readers Respond Well to Supplementary Instruction

There is a growing body of research that shows that struggling readers benefit and make significant growth from supplementary assistance (such as what could be provided within an MTSS framework) beyond the standard curriculum. An accumulation of evidence (e.g., Austin et al., 2017; Vellutino et al., 2004) suggests that when interventions are delivered proactively and intensively, they make a significant difference in student outcomes. Research (e.g., Torgesen, 2000; Berninger et al., 2003) found that reading deficits can be reduced to 5% or lower if recognized early and appropriate intervention is provided.

How Is Reading Included in the Common Core State Standards (CCSS)?

Recognizing reading as a critical skill, the CCSS have three main groups of K–12 anchor standards related to reading, which are detailed in Figure 5–1.

Figure 5–1. CCSS categories of anchor standards and foundational skills within reading.

■ The “foundational skills” standards focus on the “decoding” side of reading, which includes (1) alphabet knowledge, (2) print concepts, (3) phonological awareness, (4) phonics, and (5) fluency. There are no anchor standards for foundational reading skills but rather, there are grade-level standards in K–5 for these skills. When introducing these skills, the CCSS states, “These foundational skills are not an end in and of themselves; rather, they are necessary and important components of an effective, comprehensive reading program” (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and Council of Chief State School, 2020, para. 1). This introduction also includes commentary relevant directly to MTSS by stating:

Instruction should be differentiated: good readers will need much less practice with these concepts than struggling readers will. The point is to teach students what they need to learn and not what they already know—to discern when particular children or activities warrant more or less attention. (para. 1)

■ The “literature” and “informational texts” groups share the same anchor standards and apply to Grades K–12. For Grades 6–12, the same anchor standards are also referenced in the “science and technical subjects” and “history/social studies” areas. These standards all focus on reading comprehension.

What Tools Can SLPs Use to Support Reading in MTSS?

Six tools are introduced in the reading section of the SLP MTSS toolkit. Four of these are related to foundational skills and two related to reading comprehension. Within foundational skills, the first tool focuses on print concepts, the second tool focuses on alphabet knowledge and phonological awareness, the third tool focuses on phonics, and the fourth tool focuses on reading fluency. Given that there are not K–12 anchor standards for reading foundation skills, grade-level standards are noted for Tools 1 through 3. In some cases, the same grade-level standard applies to multiple grades as noted. For reading comprehension, Tool 4 focuses on reading strategies and Tool 5 describes an approach called close reading. Since there are overarching anchor standards related to reading comprehension, the presentation of standards for Tools 4 and 5 do not include grade-level standards but focus solely on the anchor standards that are relevant to all grades. The various tools are summarized in Tables 5–1, 5–3, 5–10, 5–13, 5–15, and 5–18 throughout the chapter.

Tool #1: Print-Focused Read Alouds

Explanation

Print concepts are a dimension of early-literacy that represents children’s developing knowledge of the forms and functions of written language (Justice et al., 2017) and includes four domains of print knowledge: (1) book and print organization, (2) print meaning, (3) letters, and (4) words. This instructional approach involves read alouds during which the instructor leads discussions about the forms and functions of print. These “print-focused” read alouds are deliberately different from conventional read alouds, which generally focus on the storyline.

Table 5–1. Tool 1 Summary

Most studies on print-focused read alouds for children (e.g., Piasta et al., 2012) involve repeated reading of specific commercially available children’s literature. This approach may be useful for struggling students given that developmental norms suggest print concepts should be fully developed by kindergarten.

General Procedures

The general idea of this tool is to read books aloud and teach students about different print concepts for those books, and then probe their understanding until they move to a mastery level. The instructor should follow these steps:

1. Identify print concepts and make comments about them.

2. Prompt students to repeat the print concepts (e.g., “While I point, let’s all say ‘Title!’”).

3. Prompt students to identify print concepts with support.

4. Prompt students to identify print concepts independently.

Examples of relevant questions and comments for each domain of print concepts are included in Table 5–2.

There are many possible ways to extend this tool. For example, one could generate visuals for key concepts (i.e., cover) and add Velcro to books where visuals can be matched with key concepts. Students could also make their own books with a focus on identifying print concepts like the cover, author, words, pages, and so forth. It is also possible to give every student a book and play “Simon Says” with book parts: “Simon says, point to the cover. Now, point to a word (Simon didn’t say so).”

Data Collection

The general accuracy collection form included in Appendix A–2 is appropriate for tracking student progress related to print concepts. There are also a variety of tracking tools designed to collect data such as the Early Concepts of Print Checklist from the companion website for Teaching Literacy in the Visible Learning Classroom, Grades K–5 by Douglas Fisher, Nancy Frey, and John Hattie.

Table 5–2. Print Concepts Skills

Tool #2: Alphabet Knowledge and Phonological Awareness Games With Songs and Manipulatives

Explanation

This tool involves playing games and singing songs to develop students’ skills in two different areas, alphabet knowledge and phonological awareness. Both of these areas are critical for reading success:

■ Alphabet knowledge is the student’s understanding of the different alphabet letters. It is both intuitive and clear from research that letter knowledge is key for students as they learn to be successful readers (Storch & Whitehurst, 2002). Alphabet knowledge is consistently recognized as a strong and durable predictor of later achievement in literacy skills including decoding, comprehension, and spelling (Lonigan & Shanahan, 2009).

■ Phonological awareness is students’ sensitivity to the various phonological units that make up spoken speech including words, syllables, onsets, rimes, and phonemes. Development of phonological awareness tends to follow a developmental continuum, with awareness of word-level units (words, syllables) preceding awareness of subsyllabic units (onsets, rimes) and phonemic units (phonemes) (Anthony et al., 2003). Table 5–4 shows the major phonological awareness skills with an explanation and expectation for age of mastery.

Table 5–3. Tool 2 Summary

Table 5–4. Phonological Awareness Skills

Source: Kaderavek & Justice, 2004, p. 218; Turnbull & Justice, 2017, p. 201.

Like alphabet knowledge, phonological awareness is a strong predictor of literacy outcomes. A student’s level of phonological awareness at the end of kindergarten is a strong predictor of future reading success in first grade and beyond (Hogan et al., 2005; Torgesen et al., 1997). Because of this, a direct approach to phonological awareness intervention that includes manipulative materials and engages the student in reflecting on the phonological task (e.g., Defior & Tudela, 1994; Gillon & Dodd, 1995) is highly recommended to support skill development.

General Procedures

There are a wide variety of activities to strengthen both alphabet knowledge and phonological awareness involving songs, word games, and games with manipulatives. The difficulty of all activities can be adjusted depending on students’ skill levels. For example, for students who have mastered a given activity with one-syllable words may move onto two-syllable words. Further, some activities may be used to target multiple skills, and these are noted in the explanations of the activities below.

Some examples of such activities are organized into several tables:

■ Table 5–5. Examples of activities that target alphabet knowledge

■ Table 5–6. Examples of songs that target phonological awareness

■ Table 5–7. Examples of word games that target phonological awareness

■ Table 5–8. Examples of games with manipulatives that target phonological awareness. In this table, options for modifying the activity for more advanced students are included.

Table 5–5. Examples of Activities That Target Alphabet Knowledge

Table 5–6. Examples of Songs That Target Phonological Awareness

Table 5–7. Examples of Word Games That Target Phonological Awareness

Table 5–8. Examples of Games With Manipulatives That Target Phonological Awareness

Data Collection

There are many options for data collection related to this tool. For one thing, many tools that classroom teachers use to track student progress with reading include alphabet knowledge and phonological awareness components (e.g., aimswebPlus, 2017; iLearn, 2016; DIBELs, 2020). The Phonological Awareness Screening Test (PAST; 2019) is a copyrighted, downloadable tool developed by Dr. David A. Kilpatrick that assesses phonological awareness and can be used to monitor progress in this area.

Figure 5–2 (see p. 103) shows a sample data collection tool that can be used to record progress, as well as focus areas, during alphabet knowledge and phonological awareness activities. A blank version of this tool is available in Appendix A–5. The general accuracy collection form included in Appendix A–2 of this book can also be used to collect data related to this tool.

Box 5–1. Real-World Snapshot: Small-Group Work on Alphabet Knowledge

Melissa Demuth, an SLP from Borrego Spring Unified School District, works in a school with a high number of students classified as English Language Learners and students who qualify for free and reduced-price lunch. Many of the students in her school start kindergarten without having had the opportunity to attend a high-quality preschool program. She noticed, through her observations and ongoing collaborative work in classrooms, that many students seemed to be lacking alphabet knowledge skills, which prevented them from engaging with the phonics-oriented instruction taking place in their classes. Melissa decided to run small-group sessions through the MTSS framework, focusing on direct instruction on alphabet knowledge. She decided which students to include by asking the kindergarten and first-grade teachers to identify students who they felt were at risk of reading failure. The students who the teachers suggested were all already getting some extra strategies in the classroom, so the support provided by Melissa was additive and targeted. She worked with groups of about five students, 30 minutes a session, twice a week, and systematically went through all the letters. To review the letters, Melissa specifically used Bjorem speech cards (Bjorem, 2020) to introduce the letters and engage students in multimodal learning. Melissa took ongoing data on the students’ mastery of alphabetic knowledge and saw a lot of growth.

Box 5–2. Real-World Snapshot: Supporting Phonological Awareness Skills at Classroom Centers

Kayla Fatula has worked in two rural districts in Pennsylvania (Northern Cambria School District and Blairsville-Saltsburg School District) and sees great value in SLPs working in classroom centers that are focused on phonological awareness skills, especially at the kindergarten and first-grade levels. She feels that having SLPs focus on these skills in classroom centers provides an opportunity to give more specialized and personalized support beyond how these skills are addressed within a larger class-wide literacy program. She explains that a challenge is that sometimes teachers might not understand the value of SLPs working in the classroom and they might view SLPs coming in as a sub or an extra classroom aide. However, she has seen several teachers recognize the value of her facilitated centers and feels that when run well, with collaboration occurring between the classroom teacher and SLP, such centers end up benefiting all students.

Figure 5–2. Alphabet knowledge and phonological awareness data collection form.

Table 5–9. Published Tools Related to Alphabet Skills and Phonological Awareness

Commercially Available and Packaged Programs

There are several commercially available published curriculum and programs that address alphabet awareness and phonological awareness skills. SLPs must make educated decisions about when to use published tools and suggest them to colleagues when working collaboratively. Some examples of such approaches are listed in Table 5–9.

Tool #3: Phonics and Decoding Activities

Explanation

Phonics is a method of teaching students to read by drawing attention to letters or letter patterns and the sounds they represent. Whereas phonological awareness focuses on the sound structure of words only, phonics focuses specifically on decoding print. Research shows a combination of phonological awareness plus phonics instruction has demonstrated significant benefits for reading outcomes (Ehri et al., 2001). Phonics is characterized by structured, systematic, and direct instruction focused on the relationship between subunits of words (e.g., graphemes, onsets, and rimes) and their corresponding sounds. An abundance of research supports phonics-based approaches to helping students learn to read (e.g., National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000; Torgesen et al., 2019). Such research shows that at-risk beginning readers are most likely to be impaired in decoding and will benefit from explicit instruction in this area.

There are two overarching types of phonics instruction, synthetic and analytic phonics (Henbest & Apel, 2017). The difference between the two approaches is based on differing views as to which linguistic unit to prioritize through instruction. Synthetic phonics focuses on the connection between individual letters and sounds, whereas analytic phonics deals in larger orthographic units like onsets and rimes. With synthetic phonics, students are taught to segment sounds represented by each letter of a word and then blend the sounds together. In analytic phonics, the student is instructed to manipulate the onset and rime (e.g., b-ack) of a word rather than the individual letters and sounds. There is evidence to suggest that both approaches are beneficial so both areas are addressed in the activities included in this tool.

Table 5–10. Tool 3 Summary

General Procedures

There are a wide variety of activities that can be used with students to strengthen phonics skills. The five activities in Table 5–11 (see p. 106) are based on research and can be used to support students’ phonics skills within the MTSS framework. As with phonological awareness activities, the difficulty of all activities can be adjusted depending on students’ skill levels. For example, for students who have mastered a given activity with CVC words can move onto more complex words.

The High Noon Books are also a useful tool for teaching phonics, providing stories and topics designed to help struggling readers, English language learners (ELL), and special education groups by exposing them to high-frequency words and predictable text and illustrations in a reading-level appropriate book (Academic Therapy Publications, 2016). There are multiple series of phonics-based books. The subject matter spans the content interests of students in Grades K–12. These books can be used to reinforce or enhance phonics activities such as those outlined in this tool.

Data Collection

Generally, school districts have progress monitoring tools in place (e.g., aimsweb-Plus, 2017; DIBELS, 2020) to monitor students’ decoding skills over time. Ideally, these tools can be used to monitor students’ progress with phonics. SLPs can also collect accuracy data during activities regarding student performance and track this over time using the general accuracy collection form.

Commercially Available and Packaged Programs

There are several commercially available curriculum and published programs that address phonics skills for struggling readers. SLPs should carefully consider available resources and student needs in determining when and if to employ a packaged program. Some examples of such approaches are listed in Table 5–12 (see p. 107).

Tool #4: Readers Theater

Explanation

Reading fluency is an essential aspect of students’ reading skills (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000). Fluent reading involves three key elements: accuracy, rate, and prosody. Fluent readers can accurately read connected texts at an acceptable conversational rate with appropriate prosody or expression. In contrast, nonfluent readers make mistakes, read slowly, or use inappropriate expression and phrasing while reading aloud. Developing appropriate reading fluency is important as research has demonstrated a reciprocal relationship between reading fluency and reading comprehension (e.g., Rasinski, 2006). Further, research suggests that this relationship persists beyond the elementary school years, well into high school, making reading fluency an appropriate skill to develop across the entire school-aged period (Rasinski et al., 2005).

Table 5–11. Activities Related to Phonics

Table 5–12. Published Tools for Struggling Readers Focused on Phonics

Table 5–13. Tool 4 Summary

Multiple studies have demonstrated that reading fluency develops with contextual reading practice and so repeated readings are one of the most powerful ways to increase reading fluency (Schwanenflugel et al., 2004). One way to create opportunities for repeated reading in an engaging format in order to enhance reading fluency is Readers Theater. Research shows that use of Readers Theater has led to gains in students’ reading fluency because this context gives students an authentic reason to engage in repeated reading of texts (e.g., Keehn, 2003). For example, Griffith and Rasinski (2004) collected data over three years that showed at-risk (Title 1) fourth-graders gained more than two grade levels’ worth of improvement in fluency and reading comprehension in a single year when Readers Theater was implemented in the classroom, along with other fluency tools. This program enhanced the performance of all the students in the classroom, not just those considered at risk in this area.

General Procedures

The basic idea of Readers Theater is that students rehearse a text (a poem, a story, a script, or another appropriate text) until they can read it fluently and with expression. The format of this tool is flexible. Readers Theater can be done at the whole-class level, in some groups, or even with individual students when working on reading jokes or poems. Given the variety of ways to provide scaffolding, students who need more support can be provided this support on a case-by-case basis. The basic steps are:

1. Choose an appropriate script. It is possible to develop a script based on curricular materials, age-appropriate poems, or using published books that contain Readers Theater scripts. Some examples of sources for scripts for Readers Theater are included in Table 5–14. It is important to select a script appropriate for the group size, reading levels and interests of students.

Table 5–14. Sources of Scripts for Readers Theater

2. After selecting the script, the bulk of time implementing this tool is devoted to practicing the script. There are many ways to meet the needs of students at different levels by modifying the scaffolding and intensity of instruction provided in this step. Some students will require more modeling than others and this can be modified throughout the process of practicing the script. It is also possible to vary the type of feedback provided to students. For example, some students may benefit from listening to an audio recording of themselves reading. It is also important to consider modifying the frequency of practice. Depending on their skill level, some students may need more frequent support when practicing their parts.

3. An exciting part of Readers Theater is the performance. The students can perform for other students, teachers, or parents as appropriate. Although costumes and props are meant to be minimal in Readers Theater, some may be used to enhance the performance and student engagement.

Data Collection

A one-minute reading sample is considered a good way to measure improvements in reading fluency efficiently and reliably. One way to obtain and assess this reading sample is by using the one-minute reading sample found in the Oral Reading Fluency (ORF) subtest of the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS, 2020). Another way to monitor progress within the one-minute reading sample is the use of the Zutell and Rasinski’s (1991) Multidimensional Fluency Scale (MFS) which is a qualitative measurement of students’ oral reading fluency that uses a rubric that included volume, expression, phrasing, smoothness, and pace. Outside of these published tools, the rubric presented in the “public speaking tools” in Chapter 4, Figure 4–18 can also be used to record a student’s rate, volume, and tone to collect data and track progress over time.

Tool #5: Reading Strategy Instruction

Explanation

The idea of this approach is to teach students basic reading comprehension strategies. The general concept of teaching students to read strategically and mindfully as part of comprehension instruction is well supported by research for both strong and at-risk readers (Kamil et al., 2008; Shanahan et al., 2010). In general, the use of reading strategies refers to the conscious application of specific procedures that highlight information for readers and focus their attention on key elements of texts.

There are many possible reading strategies with varying focuses and steps (e.g., Kamil et al., 2008; Shanahan et al., 2010; Willingham, 2006), so part of implementing this tool involves selecting which strategy to teach. Research is not conclusive about which strategies are considered the best or most effective but rather highlight that it is “the active participation of students in the comprehension process that makes the most difference on students’ comprehension” (Kamil et al., 2008, p. 17). Given that teaching students to read strategically (not developing skills related to any specific strategy) is the main point of this tool, several possible strategies are described. These strategies are outlined in Table 5–16, and accompanying visual guides and checklists are included in Figures 5–2 through 5–6. These figures can be photocopied to help teaching strategies to students.

Table 5–15. Tool 5 Summary

Beyond selecting which strategy to teach, the other key element involved with implementing this tool is selecting the text students should use when learning how to apply the selected strategy. Contextualization is important when considering text selection given that strategies are best delivered in a topical manner rather than taught as individual drills applied to an assortment of topics (Ukrainetz, 2017). Curricular or high-interest texts should be used when teaching reading strategies with this in mind. A caveat with this tool is that although there is strong research to support teaching reading strategies, many experts in the field caution about spending too much time on these strategies at the expense of other important aspects of reading comprehension (Elleman & Compton, 2017). Given this, it is important to highlight that direct teaching of reading strategies should be only one aspect of a more extensive reading comprehension program.

General Procedures

1. Select a reading strategy to teach using Table 5–16 as a guide. If a reading strategy is already being introduced to students in class, this tool can reinforce this strategy rather than introduce a new strategy.

2. Select several texts to use to teach a given strategy. Some considerations are as follows:

■ Ensure that the text is appropriate for the reading level of students. A text that is too challenging makes using the strategy difficult because students are distracted by the complex text. A text that is too easy does not fully illustrate the need for reading strategies in the first place. Curricular materials are good sources of texts, or reading material can be selected from websites like those included in Table 5–17.

Table 5–16. Descriptions of Possible Reading Strategies

Figure 5–3. SQ3R step-by-step guide.

■ Although strategies can be applied to many different texts, not all texts are appropriate for all strategies. For example, the text preview is more appropriate for informational texts that have headers and figures to preview. Story map graphic organizers are better for narrative texts.

■ Multiple texts are needed because practicing application of the strategies using different texts encourages students to learn to use the strategies flexibly.

Figure 5–4. Checklist for text preview and text lookback strategy.

Figure 5–5. K-W-L strategy worksheet.

Figure 5–6. Chain of events graphic organizer.

3. Explain the habits of good readers and why reading strategically is important. It is key to provide direct and explicit instruction regarding the use of reading comprehension strategies. This includes being specific regarding what strategies are taught and explaining why it is important for students to learn the strategies. In this step, discuss with students when and where they should apply the strategies when they read.

Table 5–17. Online Sources That Can Be Resources for Developmentally Appropriate Texts

4. Model how to use the strategies through demonstration while “thinking aloud” with a text to demonstrate to students how expert readers use strategies to help guide their comprehension.

5. Provide guided practice with feedback so students have opportunities to practice using reading strategies. Some considerations for how to provide this guided practice are as follows:

■ The appropriate amount of guided practice is dependent on the diffi culty level of the texts and students’ current skill levels.

■ It might be helpful for students to begin by practicing strategy use in cooperative learning groups. As students gain competence with strategies in groups, partner work might be useful.

6. Provide independent practice using the strategies. Research demonstrates that having independent practice increases the likelihood that students will use strategies independently outside of structured lessons (Kamil et al., 2008).

Data Collection

Given that the goal of reading strategies is to support reading comprehension, progress monitoring should focus on reading comprehension broadly and not narrowly on strategy use. That being said, taking formative data on how well students apply these strategies is a useful source of assessment data. Some strategies (e.g., SQR3, text preview, and text lookback) can be observed in students’ behavior and other strategies (e.g., KWL charts and graphic organizers) involve the development of written notes. Examining these behaviors and written notes for quality and quantity are useful sources of data.

Beyond this, most districts, schools, and teachers have a specific system in place to monitor reading comprehension (e.g., i-Ready Assessment, 2020; Acadiance Reading K-6, 2019; iLearn, 2016; Renaissance Star Reading, 2020; easyCBM, 2016; DIBELS, 2020) that may provide insight as to the impact this tool has on improving student reading comprehension. These systems can provide information on students’ progress in reading comprehension by obtaining baseline data and then tracking progress over time.

Tool #6 Close Reading

Explanation

Close reading involves reading a relatively short passage carefully and purposefully for the intention of discussing and reflecting on the text’s meaning and key elements. To engage with close reading, students are prompted to read specific texts attentively, annotate the text, discuss the literal, structural, and inferential dimensions of texts, and then reflect on the close reading process (Fisher & Frey, 2014; Ukrainetz, 2017). The impetus for including close reading as a tool in the toolkit comes from the statement in the Appendix of the CCSS, which states that the reading students are often asked to do is “too often of the superficial variety that involves skimming and scanning for particular, discrete pieces of information” (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010, p. 3). The Appendix of the CCSS goes on to state that such reading is “unlikely to prepare students for the cognitive demand of true understanding of complex text” (p. 3). The goal of the close reading tool is to move students beyond quick and impressionistic reading of texts and prompt students to engage in reflective reading practices.

Many different skill sets are developed in the process of close reading (Brown & Kappes, 2012). First, close reading allows for a focus on vocabulary development. During the close reading, students are prompted to notice and discuss important or challenging words they encounter and reflect on how these words add value to the text (Adams, 2011). Students also discuss how particular claims or ideas in the text are generated and supported. Finally, students learn to form opinions regarding how persuasive they find varying kinds of evidence. Close reading also supports metacognition as this tool prompts students to specifically recognize what elements of texts they do not understand, and then take active steps to respond to these comprehension gaps as necessary.

General Procedures

The steps outlined below are based on the procedures described in published studies regarding close reading (Adams, 2011; Brown & Kappes, 2012):

Table 5–18. Tool 6 Summary

1. Select a brief, high-quality, and complex text. Any short passage from written pieces included in the curriculum may be considered as appropriate for this tool. The websites listed in Table 5–17 may also be useful resources for text section. It is important to limit the length of the text to allow students to focus on close reading.

2. Students read the text independently and make annotations. Students should annotate the text by underlining main ideas, circling words and phrases that are unclear, and writing margin notes in their own words. These annotations can be done independently or as a group depending on the needs of students. Students can write on photocopies of textbook pages or make annotations on sticky notes to place on their textbooks.

3. Repeat the reading. Repeated readings of texts, which could take place in a read-aloud as a group, are important as they support the involvement and engagement of all students and reinforce the focus on the text (Brown & Kappes, 2012). Repeated readings can be particularly helpful for students who struggle during independent reading. In fact, one of the key indicators showing that students are actually engaged in close reading is that they engage in repeated readings (Adams, 2011).

4. Engage in a text-based discussion focused on discrete elements of the text. Adams (2011) suggests three kinds of questions for these discussions. The first questions should center on general understanding and key details. The next questions should explore vocabulary, text structure, and other elements of the author’s craft. The third kind of question should focus on inferences, opinions, and connections with the text. Table 5–19 provides examples of questions based on close reading of Chapters 1–3 of Wonder by R. J. Palacio. The format of this chart is based on an example proved in Fisher and Frey (2014).

5. The final step of the close reading procedure is prompting students to reflect on the knowledge gained through the process of close reading by producing a journal entry or other written product about what they learned from the reading. These reflection pieces allow students to synthesize what they have gained in the process of close reading.

Data Collection

Examination of annotations or written reflections is a great source of formative assessment data to monitor progress with this tool. Analyzing the reflection pieces are also useful sources for formative assessment. However, as noted with respect to data collection related to reading strategies, close reading should be viewed as a means to an end (to support reading comprehension) and not the goal itself. Given this, data collection procedures designed to measure progress related to reading comprehension (e.g., i-Ready Assessment, 2020; Acadiance Reading K-6, 2019; iLearn, 2016; Renaissance Star Reading, 2020; easyCBM, 2016; DIBELS, 2020) should be used to provide information about the impact of this tool. Most districts, schools, and teachers have a specific system in place to monitor reading comprehension.

Table 5–19. Examples of Questions for Discussion Element of Close Reading Tool Using Wonder by R. J. Palacio (Chapters 1–3)

Source: Fisher & Frey, 2014.

Box 5–3. Real-World Snapshot: Use of Read Alouds and Close Reading to Support Reading Comprehension

Holly Buchanan, an SLP employed by the Buna Independent School District (ISD) school district in Texas, does read alouds across grade levels in an effort to model for teachers how to make book reading more interactive. In her read aloud models, she demonstrates how to ask questions beyond just questions about pictures. As part of the process, she asks teachers to partner with her so the class can continue to make progress with longer reading material, even when Holly is not in the classroom. For example, for students in upper elementary school, Holly will choose a chapter book to read over the course of the semester. She will read the beginning of the book aloud and then ask the teacher to do additional reading from the book whenever there is a gap of time in the classroom. Whenever Holly comes in, she picks up where the teacher left off and does 10 to 15 minutes of reading aloud. During this time, she models how to ask questions, as well as make predictions and inferences. These skills are associated with close reading and enhance reading comprehension. To strengthen these reading discussions, Holly will sometimes bring in a photocopy of a page of the book for everyone, and together the class will highlight, circle, or add drawings to certain sections. After an entire book has been read aloud and discussed as a class, Holly leads the class in a project that helps students summarize and think about the text as a whole. These projects often incorporate visual arts.

Holly feels this practice is not only helpful to her students with identified speech-language disabilities but also benefits the whole class. She believes this practice guides teachers to better understand when and how students may struggle with reading comprehension and give her, as an SLP, the opportunity to model the kinds of scaffolds and supports necessary to support reading comprehension.

6

Tools Related to Writing Common Core State Standards

Why Is “Writing” an Important Area of Focus for SLPs Within an MTSS Framework?

Writing Is a High-Level Intellectual Endeavor That Requires a High Level of Linguistic Skills

In a recent report commissioned by the College Board titled “The Neglected R: The Need for a Writing Revolution” (2003), the authors explain that “writing is best understood as a complex intellectual activity that requires students to stretch their minds, sharpen their analytical capabilities, and make valid and accurate distinctions” (p. 13). This underscores the idea that writing goes beyond transcription and is a challenging endeavor that relies on comprehension and production in both the areas of vocabulary and sentence structure, as well as the implementation of strategies related to planning and revising. Given the linguistic elements of writing and the fact that writing is such a challenging skill, it is a natural fit for SLPs to address this skill area.

Many Students Struggle With Writing But Research Shows Interventions Are Impactful

The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP; 2011) revealed that the majority of students in both Grade 8 and Grade 12 (approximately 73%) demonstrated below grade-level writing proficiency. Struggles with writing are even more prominent among students from racial and cultural minorities, and students with disabilities (Persky et al., 2003). Encouragingly, research shows direct support with writing skills and strategies can be impactful to enhancing writing skills. Graham et al. (2012) conducted a meta-analysis focused on writing interventions for school-aged children and found that skill-oriented writing interventions resulted in statistically significant improvements in the quality of students’ writing.

Writing Is Important for Access to Higher Education and Job Opportunities

Poor writing skills may have a substantial impact on students’ lives going forward. Research shows that writing skills are essential for success in higher education learning, as well as in the job market. The College Board’s National Commission on Writing issued a report in 2004 titled “Writing: A Ticket to Work . . . Or a Ticket Out: A Survey of Business Leaders,” which concludes that writing in today’s workplace is considered a “threshold skill” for hiring and promotion. Writing skills are important on SAT, ACT, and GRE tests, which are important for access to higher education.

Despite its Importance, Relatively Little Time Is Spent on Writing in Schools

Despite the documented importance and complexity of writing skills, research shows that only little time is spent on writing instruction in schools. Two national surveys of writing instruction in first through sixth grades found that, on average, students spend less than 30 minutes a day on activities related to writing (Cutler & Graham, 2008; Gilbert & Graham, 2010). The studies also showed that teachers generally feel unprepared to teach writing. For example, Gilbert and Graham (2010) found that two-thirds of teachers surveyed reported that their teacher preparation programs provided them with little preparation to teach writing. Given this, it is clear to see that SLPs can add value by supporting students’ writing skills in a tiered framework.

How Is Writing Included in the Common Core State Standards (CCSS)?

The writing CCSS standards focus on skills related to vocabulary, syntax, and development and organization of ideas at increasingly complex content levels. In Grades K–5, the writing strand incorporates history/social studies, science, and technical subjects into overarching, broad writing standards. In Grades 6 through 12, the writing standards for these subjects extend more specifically to cover matters such as how a text describes a process related to history/social studies. A visual summarizing the ELA writing standards is provided in Figure 6–1.

What Tools Can SLPs Use to Support Writing in MTSS?

There are three tools in this toolkit that enhance writing skills in different ways. The first tool focuses on teaching students sentence-combining skills to support their writing development. The second tool discusses techniques for providing feedback to students engaged with writing tasks. The third tool explains the Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) framework that provides direct instructional strategies related to the mechanics of writing, as well as self-regulation strategies. These tools are summarized in Tables 6–1, 6–7, and 6–9 throughout the chapter.

Figure 6–1. CCSS categories of anchor standards within writing.

Tool #1: Developing Writing Skills Through Sentence-Combining

Explanation

One area of writing that is consistently difficult for less-skilled writers is constructing well-formed sentences. This skill is important because the ability to construct syntactically correct complex sentences is a key skill that characterizes expert writing (e.g., Beers & Nagy, 2009; Berninger et al., 2011). Further, gaining skills related to sentence construction is important because strength in this area allows students to focus on other writing-related issues such as planning (Saddler & Asaro, 2008). The instructional approach of this tool is teaching students to combine simple sentences to make more complex ones. There is a strong research basis (e.g., Saddler & Graham, 2005; Sadler, 2005; Strong, 1986) to support the efficacy of direct instruction on sentence combining. Specifically, students’ skills with sentence combining enhance their ability to form syntactically complex sentences, which, in turn, leads to improvement in overall writing quality.

General Procedures

Sentence-combining exercises, as explained in the procedures below, involve students manipulating sentences to create new syntactic structures while preserving their original meaning. There are two ways to implement this tool. One is direct instruction on sentence combining in isolation, described under Activity Idea #1. The other is working with teachers to enhance practice with sentence-combining within the context of lessons and assignments, described under Activity Idea #2. Procedures and suggestions for both approaches are included below.

Table 6–1. Tool 1 Summary

Activity Idea #1: Direct Instruction

For direct instruction of sentence-combining skills, most research studies suggest that this skill should be taught over a series of several consecutive lessons. Strong (1986) provided one of the first and most detailed descriptions of direct instruction on sentence combining. The steps suggested below are based on the procedures described in Strong (1986), as well as the modifications of those procedures described in more recent articles on sentence combining (Domsch et al., 2018; Saddler & Graham, 2005). The steps involved with sentence combining are meant to be used in both verbal and written modalities.

1. Explain the idea of “sentence combining” explicitly to students. Discuss how learning to combine simple sentences with conjunctions will help them write more complex sentences, which will improve their writing skills.

2. Introduce target conjunctions for the teaching session. Each session should focus on a new conjunction to be added to those targeted in previous sessions. The choice of conjunctions to target can be individualized to the needs of students as there is no set order that must be followed. Table 6–2 includes an example of the order that could be followed, which is described by Domsch et al., (2018) in their study titled “Increasing Complex Syntax Use in Written Language in School-Age Students: A Multiple-Baseline Study of Sentence Combining.” In this study, a total of five conjunctions were introduced over a 10-week time period.

Table 6–2. The Sequence and Schedule of Conjunctions Introduced as Part of Direct Instruction on Sentence Combining

Source: Domsch et al., 2018.

Table 6–3. Examples of Prompts for Cued Sentences and Target Conjunctions for Students to Combine Into Complex Sentences

Table 6–4. Examples of Single Combined Sentences With Target Conjunctions

3. After introducing a conjunction, provide multiple verbal examples of combined sentences using the target conjunction. For example, for the conjunction “before,” an appropriate model would be, “Lena ate breakfast before she came to school.”

4. Students are prompted to provide verbal models of combined sentences using the targeted conjunction. This step of verbal rehearsal is meant to prepare students for the step of combining sentences in writing. Peer models may benefit students who find this skill more challenging.

5. Students are provided with two written cued sentences and a target conjunction. They are prompted to combine the sentences using the target conjunction. Depending on time availability, this step should be completed multiple times. An example is provided in Table 6–3.

6. Students are prompted to write a single combined sentence themselves using one of the target conjunctions. Examples are provided in Table 6–4.

Activity Idea #2: Sentence Combining Embedded in Authentic Classroom Assignments

Instruction in sentence combining can also be embedded directly into instruction in content areas. Three examples of how to facilitate this are provided below:

■ Complex sentence frames in content areas: Students can be provided with complex sentence frames that prompt students to use conjunctions to form syntactically-complex sentences to use for writing assignments that align with the curriculum (e.g., Epstein & Shah, 2019). These sentence frames can be posted for students and may be required elements of written assignments. Students can be prompted to write two simple sentences and then combine them using the sentence frame, or they can use the sentence frame directly depending on their skill level. Examples of sentence frames to facilitate sentence combining for multiple content areas as shown in Table 6–5.

■ Complex sentence prompts in reading journals: A popular activity in classrooms across Grades 1 through 12 is having students complete reading reflection journals. The writing guidebook The Writing Revolution: A Guide to Advancing Thinking Through Writing in All Subjects and Grades (Hochman et al., 2017) recommends teaching students to improve their syntax by prompting them to extend simple sentences using the three conjunctions “because, but, and so” (p. 40). This technique could be used for reading reflection journals with a specific idea prompt. Some examples of prompts that could be included in reading response journals for texts at various grade levels are included in Table 6–6.

■ Complex sentence prompts in written summaries of narratives: It is also feasible to practice sentence combining through the practice of producing written summaries of narratives, such as what might be required by students in English or Social Studies classes. In the article “Language Intervention at the Middle School: Complex Talk Reflects Complex Thought” (2014), Marilyn A. Nippold described an intervention where middle school students collaboratively generate a complex narrative retell. In the lesson described in this article, students retell a complex Greek myth in their own words as the instructor writes down the simple sentences they produce. Together, they combine written simple sentences into more complex sentences using conjunctions. For example, Nippold (2014) explains some initial simple sentences generated by students included: “This story is a Greek myth,” “It’s about two men,” and “They were arguing all the time.” These sentences can be combined into the complex sentence “This story is a Greek myth about two men who were arguing all the time.” (p. 156)

Table 6–5. Sentence Frames to Facilitate Sentence Combining in Curricular Areas

Table 6–6. Example Sample Texts and Prompts for Reading Response Journals to Facilitate Complex Syntax

Data Collection

The goal of using the sentence combining is not a means in itself, but rather a means to improve students’ ability to write complex sentences. With this in mind, there are a number of options for data collection related to this tool. For one thing, writing samples could be collected before and after the interventions and then the number of complex sentences written in each session can be compared. This kind of data collection approach was used to analyze progress in the Domsch et al. 2018 study titled “Increasing Complex Syntax Use in Written Language in School-Age Students: A Multiple-Baseline Study of Sentence Combining.” Further, the general accuracy collection form can be used to evaluate students’ responses after being prompted to combine two single-clause sentences into a complex sentence, as students are required to do some of the activities above. In Balthazar and Scott (2018), a research study investigating sentence combining, student responses to such prompts were scored using a 0 to 3 point scale, with the highest score given to a grammatical, complex sentence and the lowest score given to incomplete or unchanged sentences. Given this, the 3-point scale on the general accuracy collection form (in Appendix A–2) would be an appropriate way to collect data for this tool.

Tool #2: Providing Immediate Feedback During Authentic Writing Tasks

Explanation

Providing students with feedback on their writing can provide useful and timely information that improves their writing in real-time. The focus in this tool is providing immediate feedback and support to students while they are engaged in authentic writing tasks, both to support the mechanics of their writing (i.e., grammar and word choice) and their attitudes toward the writing process. Graham et al. (2015) explain, “students use feedback about their writing to close the gap between what they write and the desired goal for a better paper” (p. 526). Research shows that direct feedback provided to students during writing tasks not only leads to improvements with respect to the quality of students’ written work but also promotes students’ sense of their own self-efficacy with respect to writing (Graham et al., 2012).

Self-efficacy is each individual’s belief about their ability to succeed with accomplishing a given task (e.g., Bandura, 1993). Self-efficacy is especially important for writing. There is extensive research showing that students’ judgments regarding their writing skills influence their persistence and perseverance with writing tasks, as well as their emotional reactions toward writing (e.g., Pajares, 2003; Schunk & Zimmerman, 2007). Positive feedback may empower and encourage the writing process for students. This idea is consistent with the important concept of a growth mindset. A growth mindset means the student believes their abilities are not fixed, but rather can be increased through hard work and effort. This concept contrasts with the idea of a fixed mindset, in which students believe their intelligence is fixed and their abilities cannot be improved. There is a body of research showing that students with a growth mindset show greater academic persistence than those with a fixed mindset (e.g., Dweck, 2008; Yeager & Dweck, 2012).

Table 6–7. Tool 2 Summary

General Procedures

1. Find an appropriate time for students to work on authentic writing tasks. This may be a time students are working on writing tasks during class or during a study hall period. Feedback can be provided during whole-class instruction or in small groups or 1:1 contexts.

2. Use this opportunity to provide feedback in real-time while students are writing. Feedback may include comments in three different areas: (1) vocabulary feedback, (2) gram mar and syntax feedback, and (3) comments aimed at boosting students’ self-efficacy as writers. Feedback can be directed to individuals or the class as a whole if the feedback is relevant to the larger group, as shown in Table 6–8 (see p. 130).

Data Collection

Collecting students’ written work over time and assembling a portfolio of written work to show development is highly recommended in order to document students’ progress in this area. Research shows analyzing students’ writing samples is a useful way to measure progress and document developmental changes in student writing (Nelson & Van Meter, 2007). Various qualitative and quantitative data can be analyzed from these writing samples to document student progress over time. Examples of quantitative data include measures related to overall productivity such as total words written (TWW), measures related to spelling such as words spelled correctly (WSC), measures related to vocabulary such as number of different words (NDW), and measures related to grammaticality such as the percentage of grammatical T-units or sentences (Price & Jackson, 2015). There are also a variety of writing checklists, developmental writing scales, and holistic rubrics that can be used to analyze writing samples in a more qualitative manner. For example, the “Developmental Writing Scale (DWS)” is a progress monitoring tool with a 14-point developmental scale, standardized scoring criteria, and examples (Sturm et al., 2012).

A general writing rubric, which can be used to take data on both students’ engagement with the writing process, as well as the quality of their written work, is included in Figure 6–2 (see p. 131). These rubrics can be used flexibly to focus on the student’s needs and progress.

See Box 6–1 on p. 132 for Real-World Snapshot related to providing feedback.

Tool #3: Writing Strategies and Focus on Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD)

Explanation

Writing involves several cognitive processes that students need to carry out strategically. Several meta-analyses indicate that strategy instruction is one of the best teaching practices to promote writing quality because teaching writing strategies has a positive and measurable impact on the quality of students’ writing (Graham & Perin, 2007; Rogers & Graham, 2008). Although writing strategy instruction has been found to be especially effective for students who have writing difficulty, research shows such strategies are helpful to students in general. Strategy instruction involves explicitly and systematically teaching steps that are necessary for planning, revising, and editing text.

Table 6–8. Examples of Writing Feedback Directed to the Whole Class or Individual Students

There are a variety of possible strategies to select. Strategy instruction may involve generic processes such as brainstorming (e.g., Troia & Graham, 2002), peer revising (MacArthur et al., 1991), or use of graphic organizers (Ewoldt & Morgan, 2017). The focus of this tool is a framework of strategies called Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD). The choice to focus on SRSD is deliberate because the framework is so well supported by research.

Figure 6–2. Writing rubric for writing process and written work.

Box 6–1. Real-World Snapshot: Providing and Modeling Writing Feedback During Classroom Writing Activities

Dr. Laura Epstein is the SLP in an urban middle school in the San Francisco area. When planning her approach to service delivery, she noted that many of the students on her caseload with IEPs had goals related to complex syntax and vocabulary. She noted that these areas were also challenging for students who were not on her caseload. Based on this, she decided it would make sense to work on writing skills in a classroom setting and decided to work to address these skills in the “learning center” classroom. The “learning center” is described by Laura as a “school within a school” where students struggling academically can receive supplemental instruction in a smaller group setting.

Laura visited the “learning center” during the time that students were working on writing assignments and provided feedback to supplement the teacher’s instruction. This feedback centered on the craft of writing, vocabulary, and grammar, as well as general words of encouragement to support students’ self-confidence as writers. With respect to words of encouragement, Laura was deliberate in framing her comments to convey to students that their writing skills are not something to be “fixed,” but rather to be increased through hard work and practice. This choice was made in order to support and promote a growth-based mindset among students.

Laura felt this setup of providing writing feedback during authentic classroom tasks allowed her to have an impact on students with and without IEPs while following the structure of the teacher-led class focused on writing mechanics. She was able to implement this approach with limited time for coplanning with the teacher as her approach fit in well with the activities already going on in the classroom. For students who needed even more support, Laura would pull students in small groups or on a 1:1 basis to provide more intensive and individualized feedback for their writing.

Laura noted that an added benefit was that this approach also influenced the practices of the paraprofessionals (i.e., teacher aides) who were consistently present in the learning center. Laura explains that before she spent time providing feedback to students during writing activities, the paraprofessionals were largely focused on keeping the students on task during writing assignments. She noted that paraprofessionals observed the kind of writing feedback she provided to students when she was in the classroom and that they were then able to provide this same kind of writing feedback at other times, even when she was not in the classroom. Laura’s involvement with this activity and others are further explored in her article about providing classroom-based services in urban middle schools (Epstein & Shah, 2019).

Table 6–9. Tool 3 Summary

SRSD is a framework for teaching writing strategies designed to help students with all aspects of the writing process, including planning, drafting, and revising. There is an extensive body of research on the SRSD approach that demonstrates the substantial and positive impact on students’ writing, as well as a wide variety of published material explaining this approach, several of which are described in Table 6–10. Studies that demonstrate the effectiveness of SRSD have looked at a number of different metrics and found this approach improves student attitudes toward writing, knowledge about writing, and the quality of written work (e.g., De La Paz et al., 2000; Harris et al., 2006).

The key idea of the SRSD model is that it combines two important concepts together, (1) direct instructional strategies related to the mechanics of writing, and (2) the development of self-regulation strategies, which are important to maintain the students’ perseverance and motivation. The idea is to provide the strategies that students need in order to write, while at the same time providing support for students to remain motivated through the writing process. SRSD is described as a versatile approach that can be used with students of all ages and in a variety of contexts, including whole-class or 1:1 work, as well as applied to improving the writing of different types of texts (e.g., expository writing, essays, and stories).

Table 6–10. Sources of More Information on Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD)

Table 6–11. The Six Basic Steps of SRSD Framework Implementation

Source: Harris et al., 2008.

General Procedures

The SRSD approach consists of six steps that can be rearranged, recombined, revisited, modified, or omitted, depending on lesson goals and student needs. In fact, in the seminal work on SRSD, Powerful Writing Strategies for All Students, Harris et al. (2008) state, “The six stages of instruction should not be followed like a cookbook. Good cooks take a recipe and personalize it” (p. 19). The six basic steps are (1) develop background knowledge, (2) discuss it, (3) model it, (4) memorize it, (5) support it, and (6) practice independently. Each step involves the two elements that characterize SRSD: (1) improving writing skills and (2) developing self-regulation skills. The basics of each step and how skills are developed in these two areas are summarized in Table 6–11.

Table 6–12. Three Example SRSD Strategies and Associated Acronyms

Source: The IRIS Center, 2020.

Before implementing the steps, part of the SRSD approach involves selecting a strategy to focus on for the lesson. The SRSD framework includes strategies in five different areas: (1) vocabulary enrichment, (2) story writing, (3) narrative, expository, and persuasive writing, (4) revising, and (5) writing competency. Full details of these strategies, including lesson plans and visuals such as checklists and graphic organizers are presented in the book Powerful Writing Strategies for All Students. Three example strategies, explanations, and associated acronyms are included in Table 6–12.

Data Collection

The data collection guidelines under Tool 2 are also relevant to Tool 3.

7

Tools Related to Language Common Core State Standards

Why Is “Language” an Important Area of Focus for SLPs Within an MTSS Framework?

Vocabulary Is Central to Literacy

Vocabulary knowledge is intrinsically linked with literacy development. In fact, one of the most notable and replicable research findings related to literacy achievement is the fact that students’ vocabulary knowledge relates strongly and positively to both literacy and overall academic outcomes (e.g., Beck et al., 2013; McKeown, 2019). Research shows that word knowledge is important both for the language comprehension aspects of literacy as well as foundational skills such as decoding (Lee, 2011; Ricketts et al., 2008; Snow et al., 1998).

Vocabulary Gaps Are Well-Documented and Have Serious Consequences for Students

The well known “30-million-word gap” study by Betty Hart and Todd Risley (1995) revealed that low-income children hear far less spoken language and are exposed to fewer words in the first three years of life than their affluent peers. This study has been used to explain how differences related to exposure to vocabulary put students from varying socioeconomic backgrounds on divergent trajectories in terms of educational outcomes. More current research continues to highlight the differences between vocabulary levels among students from different economic circumstances (e.g., Farkas & Beron, 2004; Roseberry-McKibbin, 2015). Beyond socioeconomic disparities, research also shows that students with disabilities, students from historically disadvantaged groups, and students learning English as a second language may exhibit gaps in vocabulary knowledge in comparison with peers (Catts et al., 1999).

The negative repercussions of poor vocabulary knowledge, both for individual students and for society at large, are alarming. For one thing, school success is highly dependent on vocabulary knowledge (Buac et al., 2014). Further, studies have shown that vocabulary knowledge is ultimately related to quality of life factors such as employment, earnings, and engagement in civic activities (Kutner et al., 2007). The consequences of impoverished vocabulary knowledge may be that “a great deal of individual and societal potential goes unrealized” (McKeown, 2019, p. 467).

There Are Challenges With the State of Direct Instruction on Vocabulary in Schools

Even though the demands for students related to vocabulary are high (between Grades 1 and 12, students are expected to learn approximately 36,000 spoken words), Roseberry-McKibbin, 2015), evidence suggests that there is limited direct instruction for vocabulary in schools. Further, the lack of instructional resources devoted to vocabulary instruction is most pronounced in disadvantaged schools. Wright and Neuman (2014) found that teachers in high-poverty schools provided instruction on fewer total words each day, and also addressed fewer challenging words than teachers in more economically advantaged schools. They alarmingly conclude that “vocabulary teaching as it is currently instantiated in kindergarten may in fact be contributing to, rather than ameliorating, vocabulary gaps by SES” (p. 352).

All Students Can Benefit From High-Quality, Evidence-Based Vocabulary Instruction

Although students with learning disabilities frequently need a higher level of scaffolding or intensity of instruction to improve their vocabulary knowledge (Kan & Windsor, 2010; Storkel et al., 2017), a growing body of literature makes the case that all students can enrich their vocabulary knowledge given direct instruction (McKeown, 2019; Weizman & Snow, 2001). Addressing vocabulary directly helps students develop oral and written language skills that are necessary to access the classroom curriculum (e.g., Cuticelli et al., 2015; Neugebauer, Coyne, McCoach, & Ware, 2017).

How Is Language Included in the Common Core State Standards (CCSS)?

The language CCSS standards are focused on conveying meaning effectively, inclusive of standards for the conventions of Standard English grammar, usage, and mechanics of language. Much of this strand looks at knowledge of word meaning in different contexts, including listening, reading, and media; also essential to vocabulary learning are the various levels of meaning, including nonliteral meanings, shadings of meaning, and relationships to other words. Because of the large emphasis on vocabulary and the importance of vocabulary in all other strands, this toolkit provides various tools for vocabulary instruction. A visual summarizing the ELA language standards is provided in Figure 7–1.

What Tools Can SLPs Use to Support Vocabulary, Which Is an Important Component of Language, in MTSS?

Although vocabulary instruction is a very broad and active area of research and practice, there are generally two main kinds of vocabulary instruction: lexical and sublexical instruction. At the lexical level, instruction targets whole words that are learned through a variety of meaning-rich activities. At the sublexical level, instruction is aimed at helping students gain an explicit awareness of morphemes, which is considered a meta-skill. Even though this toolkit contains many ideas, it is mainly divided into three main tools. The first tool focuses on instructional approaches at the lexical level. The second tool focuses on sublexical instructional approaches. The third tool is a compilation of ideas and includes a detailed list of vocabulary instructional resources relevant to SLPs, including online tools, published programs, and other resources that may be useful in an MTSS framework. These tools are summarized in Table 7–1, Table 7–7, and Table 7–10 throughout the chapter.

Figure 7–1. CCSS categories of anchor standards within language.

Tool #1: Vocabulary Instruction at the Lexical Level

Explanation

The focus of this tool is on teaching new words to students at the lexical level. This tool provides activities that feature the three key principles of effective vocabulary instruction found to be relevant in teaching word meanings to all students, including students in pre-K through high school, students learning English as a second language, and students with learning disabilities (e.g., National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000). These three well-supported essential elements of vocabulary instruction can be summarized as follows:

Table 7–1. Tool 1 Summary

■ Target words are presented with student-friendly definitions that contain both explanatory and contextual information.

■ Educators provide opportunities for students to encounter targeted words in multiple contexts.

■ Students are actively and directly engaged in the process of learning new word meanings.

Before describing specific procedures to follow when teaching vocabulary, it is important to think through which words to target with students. Given the wide range of possible words to teach, a guiding framework for selecting words to target through vocabulary instruction is helpful. Isabel Beck, Margaret McKeown, and Linda Kucan describe a tiered system to prioritize vocabulary for instruction in Bringing Words to Life, Second Edition: Robust Vocabulary Instruction (2013). This tiered system is summarized in Table 7–2 and highlights the fact that instruction will be most impactful when the focus is on high-frequency words that occur largely in academic environments (corresponding to Tier II), rather than on basic words that occur largely in conversation speech (corresponding to Tier I), or domain-specific words (corresponding to Tier III). Within this book on MTSS, it is important to differentiate the fact that Tier II words do not correlate with Tier 2 within MTSS, but is a concept specific to vocabulary instruction. To make this clearer, the tiers written with Roman numbers are referencing vocabulary, and those with numbers are referencing MTSS tiers.

Given that Beck et al. (2013) recommend Tier II words as the primary focus of vocabulary instruction to make the most significant impact, it is critical to understand how to select these words. The concept of Tier II words is not a strict construct, and educators must use their judgment when selecting what qualifies as a Tier II word for students at different ages and in different grade levels. There are a number of published lists of Tier II words, several of which are listed in Table 7–3, which may provide additional guidance. Educators can also select words from age-appropriate books or from curricular activities as described in the general procedures section of this tool.

Table 7–2. Tiers of Vocabulary

Source: Beck et al., 2013.

Table 7–3. Sources for Vocabulary Word Lists

General Procedures

There are two activities to consider related to teaching words at the lexical level: (1) instruction within interactive book reading, and (2) direct instruction of Tier II words within curricular and classroom activities. Procedures for both activities are described in this section.

Activity #1: Interactive Book Reading to Teach Vocabulary

Storybook reading as a potential vocabulary-building context has been discussed extensively in both descriptive papers (e.g., Eller et al., 1988; Justice & Dunaway, 2005), and research papers (e.g., Brett et al., 1996; Storkel et al., 2017). One key area of focus within this activity is ensuring students are exposed to target words an adequate number of times. Much research shows that repeated exposure to new words facilitates the learning of new words (e.g., Penno et al., 2002; Robbins & Ehri, 1994). To operationalize what “adequate exposure” actually means, Storkel et al. (2017) demonstrated that 12 exposures to words in an interactive book reading activity is generally adequate for typically developing children, while 36 exposures is the most impactful number for students with specific language impairment. Given this research, altering the frequency and intensity with which students are exposed to words within this activity is an important way to modify this activity to meet the needs of students at different tiers. When determining the best way to achieve the targeted frequency of word exposures, it is interesting to consider the Storkel et al. follow-up study (2019) looking at various dosages of word exposures in interactive book reading. This study found no particular dosage and frequency schedule was superior to another (i.e., providing student with six exposures to words at six different times results in similar outcomes as providing students with four exposures to words at nine different times) as long as a total of target number of exposures was reached.

1. Pick appropriate books for the activity. Recent work in this area (Storkel et al., 2017; Storkel et al., 2019) suggests using developmentally appropriate narrative books that contain colorful illustrations to help narrate the story and are neither excessively long nor heavily reliant on text to tell the story.

2. Plan to read books multiple times to ensure adequate exposure. Keep in mind that students with the most intensive needs in this area will require more total exposures to words in order to facilitate learning as discussed above.

3. Select words to target. Ideal words to target are (a) categorized as Tier II words, (b) judged to likely be unknown by students, and (c) occur in the text in a nondirective manner. Examples of target words for various ages and texts are included in Table 7–4.

4. Read the book aloud and pause to elaborate on targeted words as they occur in the text. This elaboration should include a student-friendly explanation with both definitional and contextual information. Beck et al. (2013) qualify student-friendly definitions as meeting two criteria: “(1) Capture the essence of the word and how it is typically used and (2) explain the meaning in everyday language” (p. 45). This step of elaborating vocabulary is crucial as research (e.g., Penno et al., 2002) shows students learn more unknown words in explanation versus no-explanation conditions during interactive book reading.

5. Pose discussion questions designed to have students connect with the target vocabulary words and use them in engaging contexts.

6. Implement extension activities that allow students to actively use target words in additional contexts.

Table 7–4. Examples of Target Words and Activities Within Interactive Book Reading

Activity #2: Explicit Vocabulary-Teaching of Curricular Words Through Interactive Activities

This approach involves implementing activities supportive of vocabulary development that is focused on words from curricular material. This approach to vocabulary development is consistent with the idea that authentic contexts facilitate learning and that students retain more when instruction focuses on topics and texts that are thematically related (Elleman & Compton, 2017; Wallach & Ocampo, 2017).

1. Review the reading curriculum material for a given class or grade and identify vocabulary from this material to focus on with students. Ideally, target words should be relevant, challenging, and categorized as Tier II words.

2. Present lessons that explicitly introduce these words with a student-friendly definition. Reference Step 4 in the previous activity for more information on how to form a student-friendly definition. Students can also be prompted to generate their own notes about word definitions as seen in the example in Figure 7–2. A blank version of this template is included in Appendix A–7.

3. Engage students with activities to promote active interaction with the words in multiple contexts. Research shows that students have more success learning and retaining vocabulary words if they can engage with these words through hearing, speaking, semantic manipulation, and otherwise playing with words (Beck et al., 2013). There are a number of possible activities to facilitate this type of engagement included in Table 7–5.

Data Collection

Analysis of how students define words is considered a reasonable means for approximating growth in word knowledge. This is because generating word definitions requires students go beyond sharing the general sense of the word and show their ability to use the word in a decontextualized manner (Beck et al., 2013). The general accuracy collection form in Appendix A–2 can be used to collect data about students’ definitions using the prompts “What does [target word] mean?” and, “What is a different word that means the same as [target word]?” Students’ responses can be judged on a scale from 0 to 2 as fully correct, partially correct, and incorrect as described in Justice et al. (2005). Incorrect answers show limited understanding of the target word. Partially correct answers would include appropriate use in a sentence that lacks definition detail as well as vague definitions or imprecise synonyms. Fully correct answers include precise use in a sentence or phrase or a precise definition. Examples of incorrect, partially correct, and correct definitions for target word “priority” are described in Table 7–6.

Figure 7–2. Graphic organizer to aid students in taking notes on word definitions.

Table 7–5. Examples of Activities That Promote Student Engagement With Vocabulary Learning

Figure 7–3. Semantic feature analysis example.

Figure 7–4. Antonym and synonym scale example.

Box 7–1. Real-World Snapshot: Explicit Vocabulary-Teaching Using Curricular Words and Co-Teaching and Planning

Dr. Robyn Becker, an SLP in Hillsborough Township Public Schools in New Jersey, focuses on vocabulary development with students by collaborating with classroom teachers and making use of the reading comprehension curriculum in place in elementary school classrooms in her district, a program called Making Meaning from the Collaborative Classroom (Center for the Collaborative Classroom, 2020). During lessons, she and the teacher generally take on different roles. The teacher focuses on reading comprehension using the guiding questions in the Collaborative Classroom program. Robyn highlights Tier II vocabulary and implements activities around synonyms, sentence formulation, and conversational use to support student learning. She also provides weekly home assignments related to highlighted words, which are referred to as “words of the week” in the classroom.

In addition to trying to make use of common planning time, one way that Robyn collaborates with teachers on these lessons is via a shared Google document that they each edit to focus on a specific day’s lesson. One benefit of this method of collaboration is that it is flexible so that edits can be made, as needed, over time. The SLP’s and teacher’s notes in the Google document are quick and relatively informal and allow one another to see what the other is planning to focus on in the lesson for a given day. See an excerpt of their shared planning document below:

Teacher Plans | SLP Plans
Monday |
1: Discuss working in pairs: “What can you and your partner do so that you both get a chance to talk?” | Introduce Venn diagram to compare concepts
| Vocab and concepts:
| Frogs versus toads
2: Introduce the story “It’s Mine!” by Leo Lionni. Discuss how there are three frogs in the story and one toad. Talk about how frogs live near water and toads live near land. | Water versus island versus pond
| Ex: same/different - frog versus toad attributes - color, size, shape, texture, and habitat
3: Read the story aloud, stopping at certain points to check for understanding. | Other vocab:
| Fable - usually uses animals to teach us a lesson about how to do what is expected in a group. We will use the social do well? language concepts we have introduced so far and tie them to this book. Idiom - smarty pants
4: Discuss the story. What happens in this story? |
5: Reflect on working in pairs: What did you do well? |
| Idiom - smarty pants

Tool #2: Sublexical Vocabulary Instruction

Explanation

This tool involves supporting vocabulary development by targeting students’ morphological awareness. Morphological awareness involves teaching students to think about base words, prefixes and suffixes (affixes), their meanings, and how base words and affixes are combined and spelled. Students learn to recognize morphemes and use this morpheme knowledge as a context for learning new words. This is important as research shows skilled readers use this knowledge to determine the meaning of unknown words, and students with language learning disabilities often lack this skill (e.g., Elleman et al., 2019; Gilbert et al., 2014; Kieffer, 2013). Much research, including several systematic literature reviews, has been conducted on the impact of morphological awareness instruction on students’ literacy outcomes, including vocabulary knowledge. For example, Bowers et al. (2010) found morphological awareness interventions resulted in moderate effect sizes for word reading outcomes (e.g., word recognition accuracy and speed). Further, instruction involving morphological awareness not only results in improvements related to students’ knowledge of morpheme meanings but also increases students’ motivation to attend closely to words, a concept called “word consciousness” (Crosson & McKeown, 2016; Neugebauer, et al., 2017). This tool is useful for students in kindergarten through high school because morphological awareness begins developing relatively early and continues to strengthen over the school years (e.g., Berninger et al., 2010).

Table 7–6. Example Scoring Criteria for Word Definitions Using the Vocabulary Term “Priority”

Source: Justice et al., 2005.

Table 7–7. Tool 2 Summary

General Procedures

Morphological awareness can be taught directly in systematic lessons (as described in Activity #1) or through less structured interactive activities and games (as described in Activity #2).

Activity #1: Direct and Systematic Teaching of Affixes

Morphological awareness skills can be taught directly to students in structured lessons as explained in Table 7–8. The steps described in Table 7–8 are based on two recent intervention studies with positive results (Apel et al., 2013; Henbest et al., 2019) that investigated the impact of directly teaching morphological awareness to students in elementary school classrooms. The steps will need to be repeated as more affixes are taught. In Table 7–8, these steps are explained in the context of teaching the target affix “re.” Some steps can be skipped, rearranged, or merged as needed. While implementing these procedures, consider targeting the five most common prefixes (un-, re-, in/im/ir/il-, dis-, en/em-) and the five most common suffixes (-s/es, -ed, -ing, -ly, -er/-or).

Table 7–8. Procedures to Teach Students Morphemes

Source: Apel et al., 2013; Henbest et al., 2019.

Activity #2: Interactive Activities That Promote Morphological Awareness

In addition to structured and direct lessons, there are other ways to engage students in developing morphological awareness skills. Several such activities, based on ideas from Dr. Shari Robertson’s “What’s in a Word? Building Better Vocabulary Through Morphological Instruction” guide (n.d.), are as follows:

■ Sorting morphemes (see Figure 7–5 for an example and Appendix A–9 for a blank template): Create flashcards that either have a base word or affix and have students create as many multimorphemic words as possible. Students can work independently or in groups, and can engage in a friendly competition to see who can come up with the most words.

■ Making a morpheme book: Students can make their own books to illustrate the meaning of varying affixes. For this activity, students write the word part (e.g., “pre-”), its meaning (“before”), examples of words with this word part (e.g., preset, prepare, preview, prevent), and draw pictures associated with the example words (e.g., a table set in preparation for dinner, a checklist representing being prepared). See Figure 7–6 for an example of a filled-out page that can be used to create a morpheme book. A blank copy of this template is in Appendix A–10.

■ Reading books that promote morphological awareness: There are a number of books that highlight morphological awareness, examples of which are included in Table 7–9. These books can be read and discussed with the class.

Figure 7–5. Sorting morphemes index card activity.

Figure 7–6. Morpheme book example.

Table 7–9. Books That Promote Morphological Awareness

Data Collection

The general accuracy collection form in Appendix A–2 can be used to collect information about how students perform defining affixes or demonstrating their use when prompted. A close look at students’ spelling is also an important way to measure students’ progress with morphological awareness. Students’ spelling provides insights into their understanding of morphemes. For example, spelling “happiest” as “hapeeistz” shows little understanding of the “est” morpheme, whereas spelling it as “happyest,” although still incorrect, shows greater morphological awareness. Developmental spelling assessments, such as the Computerized Spelling Sensitivity System (CSSS), utilize a spelling scoring procedure to assess the sources of linguistic knowledge that students are using to inform their spelling (e.g., Masterson & Apel, 2010, 2013).

Tool #3: Published Programs and Resources

Explanation

There are many programs and resources that have been designed specifically to support students’ vocabulary development. Given the importance of vocabulary skills for school-aged children and the challenges of making sure students receive instruction that supports vocabulary growth, it is worthwhile for SLPs to consider the applicability of the many programs developed to support vocabulary development. These programs vary by target population, ideal setting (classroom level versus individual program) and whether or not they use technology. Brief descriptions of such programs are included under the general procedures section to provide a useful reference.

General Procedures

There are a variety of programs that can be implemented with varying procedures. Such programs are described in Table 7–12. The table identifies the name of each program, the target population, as well as a brief overview of the program and its research basis. As noted throughout, many of these programs have free resources, so they could be useful as a supplement for students who need additional support in the area of vocabulary development. The programs are organized in order of grade-level relevancy. A quick summary is provided in Table 7–11.

Data Collection

Many of these programs or resources have specific built-in procedures and ideas for data collection. If needed, the general accuracy collection form in Appendix A–2 can be used as described in Tool 1 and Tool 2.

Table 7–10. Tool 3 Summary

Table 7–11. Quick Reference for Published Vocabulary Programs and Resources

Table 7–12. Names and Descriptions of Published Vocabulary Programs and References

8

Tools Related to Speech Sound Disorders, Fluency, and Voice

Why Are Speech-Specific Issues Like Articulation, Stuttering, and Voice Important Areas of Focus for SLPs Within an MTSS Framework?

The Needs of Students With Speech-Specific Disorders May Not Be Adequately and Consistently Addressed Within the Special Education Framework

It is a legitimate concern that the needs of students with speech-specific issues (i.e., articulation, fluency, and voice) may not be consistently or adequately addressed within schools given the constraints of policy related to special education. This is important because, outside of the MTSS framework, the support of SLPs for speech-specific issues is only available to students who are found to be eligible for special education services within the framework of relevant legislation and regulations (i.e., IDEA) related to students with disabilities.

According to IDEA, one key aspect of eligibility for speech-language services is that the student’s speech or language impairment must have a documented adverse effect on the student’s educational performance [IDEA 2004, § 602(3)(A)]. Research shows that many school districts interpret the phrase “adverse effect on educational performance” to imply that students without significant academic difficulties are not eligible for speech-language services (Dublinske, 2002). This has led to concerns that the needs of students with speech-specific issues may not be addressed by SLPs under IDEA. In response to such concerns, Edwin Martin of the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) issued a policy letter to ASHA in 1980 stating that an interpretation which “denies needed services to speech impaired children who have no problem in academic performance is unreasonably restrictive in effect and inconsistent with the intent of the [Education of the Handicapped Act]” (this act is currently enacted as IDEA; p. 1). Despite this clarification, research shows some SLPs continue to perceive that this phrasing in the eligibility requirements make it ambiguous to determine if students with speech-specific disorders are, in fact, eligible for services (Farquharson & Boldini, 2018; Oliver, 2002; Sylvan, 2014), particularly because these students do not consistently get poor grades in school. Sylvan (2014) explains how SLPs describe that this ambiguity often results in the needs of students with speech-specific issues going unmet in public schools. Given this, MTSS may be a useful framework to provide an avenue to meet the needs of students with speech-specific needs outside of the special education process.

Students with Speech-Specific Challenges Are at Risk for Academic Challenges

The general ambiguity about which students should qualify for speech-language services under IDEA is concerning in light of the important evidence highlighting the serious impact of speech disorders on academic performance. Research highlights that students with speech disorders are at risk for developing academic, emotional, social, and behavioral difficulties (Daniel & McLeod, 2017; Overby et al., 2007). Specifically, students with speech sound disorders (SSDs) are at an elevated risk for later literacy deficits (e.g., Felsenfeld et al., 1994; Hitchcock et al., 2015). Students with voice disorders face issues related to attention and motivation during learning activities (Ruddy & Sapienza, 2004). Students who stutter may face a variety of scholastic and social-emotional obstacles, including decreased participation in classroom discussions, difficulties with oral presentations, and reluctance to participate in cooperative learning projects (Erickson & Block, 2013; Ribbler, 2002). Although these academic needs are important, they may not consistently be reflected in a student’s academic grades, which helps explain why there is ambiguity in this area.

Research Shows a Tiered Framework Is Impactful for Addressing Speech Disorders

There is a growing body of research showing that MTSS can be a useful framework with respect to speech disorders, especially because this framework allows students to receive support outside of the special education process. Much of the research highlights the benefits of meeting the needs of students who might not “qualify” for special education services, as well as the flexibility to provide optional short-term support for speech-specific issues (Mire & Montgomery, 2009; Taps, 2008). Research shows that applying a tiered framework to meet the needs of students with speech sound disorders, in fact, adds value in that it results in students making more rapid progress as compared with the services provided through special education (Taps, 2008).

Although none of the research in this area suggests the tiered framework would be an appropriate replacement for students who are eligible for special education services (those students should be served via an IEP), it does underscore the idea that the MTSS framework may be a viable mechanism for providing speech-language services to students without the need to “qualify” for an IEP.

What Tools Can SLPs Use to Address Speech-Specific Issues in MTSS?

This toolkit presents a number of ways to consider the relevancy of the MTSS model when working with students with speech-specific needs. However, it is important to emphasize that the special education framework may be the best way to serve some students with speech-specific concerns. As with other areas, individual SLPs will need to use their professional judgment to determine the relevancy of the MTSS framework for their students and context. The first tool in this chapter focuses on short-term interventions for speech sound disorders. The second tool presents ways to create a supportive listening and communication environment for students who stutter. The third tool provides methods for teaching vocal hygiene education. These tools are summarized in Tables 8–1, 8–4, and 8–7 throughout the chapter.

Tool #1: Short-Term Intervention for Speech Sound Disorders

Explanation

The basic idea of this tool is to provide short-term, yet moderately intensive, support for students with speech sound disorders as a Tier 2 or Tier 3 level support. The use of this tool is an avenue to provide articulation therapy to students with speech sound errors who are expected to make relatively rapid progress without qualifying as students for special education or developing an IEP.

Table 8–1. Tool 1 Summary

There have been a number of key research studies (Bruce et al., 2018; Kuhn, 2006; Mire & Montgomery, 2009; Taps, 2006, 2008) that have documented positive impacts of short-term intensive programs to address speech sound disorders within a multi-tiered framework in school settings. Although these studies took place in different school districts, they all were influenced by similar concerns that the needs of students with mild articulation errors were not adequately addressed within the existing special education framework and the desire to serve these students in a more efficient and effective manner. One important issue to consider when reviewing these relevant research studies is that they all took place within school districts with varying schedule constraints, resource availability, and administrative support. Given this, the details of their approaches differed in terms of key variables such as inclusion criteria, session set up, and group size. The key details of the four most prominent studies related to short-term intensive articulation support are included in the discussion of procedures in Table 8–3 so that interested SLPs can consider multiple possibilities when determining what makes the most sense for implementing this tool in their specific settings. A summary of the key points from each study precedes the detailed discussion and can be used for quick reference in Table 8–2.

General Procedures

In general, this tool involves the following three steps:

1. Providing short term articulation therapy to students (without developing an IEP)

2. Documenting student progress

3. Discontinuing services for students who have made adequate progress and referring students who need more intensive support for a special education evaluation

Although the general idea of addressing articulation errors with the above steps is relatively straightforward, there are many key decisions that need to be made when implementing this tool, such as:

■ Which students (i.e., age, error types) should be included in this approach?

Table 8–2. Summary of Four Key Studies for Short Term Intervention From Speech Sound Disorders

Table 8–3. Details of Prominent Research Studies Related to Short-Term Articulation Support in a Tiered Framework

■ What are the appropriate group size, treatment intensity, and duration for this approach?

■ What therapy approach (e.g., word targets, cues, activities, parent involvement) should SLPs use?

■ What is the role of homework or carryover in the program?

■ What are the appropriate dismissal criteria?

Figure 8–1 illustrates the basic flow of how to implement this tool, incorporating information from the multiple studies outlined in this chapter.

Data Collection

SLPs are generally skilled at collecting data regarding students’ articulation skills. The general accuracy collection form can be used to collect data on students’ accuracy with varying speech sounds. There are also examples of data collection tools included on the SLPath website (http://SLPath.com) and in the Speedy SpeechTM Manual. The Mire and Montgomery (2009) article discussed in Tables 8–2 and 8–3 also includes a sample progress monitoring worksheet in the appendix.

Figure 8–1. General flow chart of the procedure for providing short-term intervention for students with speech sound disorders based on the studies described in Table 8–3.

Box 8–1. Real-World Snapshot: Involvement in Starting a Short-Term Program to Support Students With Speech Sound Disorders and Working With Administration on Logistics of Implementation

Jennifer Taps Richard, a school-based SLP in SDUSD, worked collaboratively with Claudia Dunaway to develop the Speech Improvement Class (SIC) in SDUSD. The SIC was designed to provide efficient and effective articulation intervention to students who do not require special education services to access the general education curriculum, but would benefit from short-term, intensive support. Jennifer coordinates the Phonology and Articulation Resource Center within her district, providing support to fellow SLPs who implement this process. Given concerns that running SIC would add to SLPs’ already demanding workloads, Jennifer and her colleagues advocated to have language added to the district SLPs’ contracts. This language stated that five students in the SIC would be counted towards each SLP’s total caseload numbers, which gave the SLPs time to address the needs of these students on their workloads. Maintaining and continuing to advocate for such language to be included in the SLPs’ contracts continues to be an ongoing effort for Jennifer and her colleagues in SDUSD.

Jennifer maintains an active website (SLPath.com) that contains a wide array of resources related to the SIC as well as assessment and intervention resources relevant to phonological and articulation issues. She has also published numerous articles on these and related topics (Combiths et al., 2019; Skelton & Richard, 2016; Taps, 2006, 2008).

Tool #2: Supportive Listening and Communication Environment for Students Who Stutter

Explanation

Given the developmental norms associated with the onset of stuttering (Bloodstein, 1960; Johnson, 1942; Reilly et al., 2009), it is relatively unlikely that school-aged children will present with stuttering for the first time during the school years. Thus, it is less likely that a significant group of students may be considered at risk for stuttering than might be considered at risk for articulation disorders. This context means that short-term support, provided through an MTSS framework, might be less relevant than the approach described in the previous tool focused on students with speech sound disorders. However, given that stuttering can impact many aspects of a student’s academic experience, it is relevant to consider how the MTSS framework can help educators establish a supportive listening and communication environment, which is considerate of the needs of students who stutter in the general education classroom (i.e., Tier 1) level. Providing guidance to teachers to foster such a supportive environment is the focus of this tool.

Table 8–4. Tool 2 Summary

The tool is based on the fact that a wide range of research studies (Crowe & Walton, 1981; Swan, 1993; Yeakle & Cooper, 1986) have shown that teachers have a vital role in the educational process of students who stutter and that teachers’ efforts to create a supportive listening environment in the classroom can have a positive impact on students’ progress and confidence. Further, research shows the idea that modeling good communication and listening skills in a classroom, although useful for all students, can be especially supportive and important for students who stutter. The fact that the steps to create a supportive listening and communication environment are helpful for all students demonstrates the connections between the MTSS framework and UDL, which further highlights how designing a learning environment to meet the needs of students at the margins is beneficial for all students.

General Procedures

1. Set up times to meet and provide information to the teachers of students who are currently receiving direct services for stuttering or who have a history of stuttering. If it seems appropriate, it is beneficial to include students with a history of stuttering, even if they are not currently receiving direct services, as these students will continue to benefit from support and awareness from the classroom teacher. If time allows, information can be provided to all teachers to raise awareness of the importance of a supportive speaking environment. These meetings can take place on a 1:1 basis, in a small group, or during a faculty meeting.

2. Explain the importance of creating a supportive listening and communication environment in the classroom for all students, but especially for students who stutter. Present and explain the points outlined in Table 8–5, which can guide educators on how to modify their communication both for the whole class and with specific students. These points promote a positive speaking and listening environment in the classroom. The ideas in this table are based on ideas from The Stuttering Foundation’s resource titled “Stuttering: Straight Talk for Teachers” (2010) as well as the National Stuttering Association’s “Stuttering: Answers for Educators” (n.d.). “Stuttering: Straight Talk for Teachers” (2010) is a free handbook for teachers and SLPs that contains information about stuttering and best practices for working with students who stutter. “Stuttering: Answers for Educators” (n.d.) is a brief pamphlet with information about stuttering, the role of speech therapy in regard to stuttering, and how best to work with students who stutter in class.

3. Provide a list of resources related to supporting students who stutter that teachers can refer to for more information, along with an explanation of the kinds of information available from different sources. Several relevant resources are included in Table 8–6.

Data Collection

Given that the focus of this tool is on teachers modifying the environment in their classrooms, classroom observations would be an appropriate source of data for this tool. An example of a classroom observation checklist is provided in Figure 8–2. It would also be useful to discuss the feelings and experiences of students who stutter in the classroom for feedback on the impact of this tool.

Table 8–5. Key Points to Share With Educators to Support Their Efforts to Foster a Positive Speaking and Listening Environment in the Classroom

Source: National Stuttering Association, n.d.; The Stuttering Foundation, 2010.

Table 8–6. Resources About Stuttering and Creating a Supportive Listening Environment for Students Who Stutter

Tool #3: Vocal Hygiene Education

Explanation

The incidence of voice disorders in school-age children is generally estimated at between 6% and 9% (Kahane & Mayo, 1989; Kiliç et al., 2004). However, there is much variety in terms of incidence rate. One study (Leeper, 1992) approximated the incidence rate to be up to 38%. These differences are likely related to individual perception and differences in testing methods (Hooper, 2004). In any case, it is important to focus on maintaining good vocal hygiene habits for school-age children. The focus of this tool is prevention of vocal abuse in school-aged children by teaching students about their voice, how to care for it, and how to avoid misuse or injuries leading to voice disorders. This is important as most school-based SLPs do not currently focus on this area in their practice. A survey study found that only 19% of respondents (27 SLPs) had implemented vocal abuse and misuse prevention programs with students within the two years before the survey (McNamara & Perry, 1994). This tool can be used in general education classrooms or with certain groups (e.g., students who are singers, cheerleaders, or athletes) who may be at risk of vocal misuse or abuse.

Figure 8–2. Checklist for classroom observation to evaluate supportive listening and communication environment.

Table 8–7. Tool 3 Summary

General Procedures

These steps are inspired by the procedures described in “Classroom Program for the Prevention of Vocal Abuse and Hoarseness in Elementary School Children” by Holly Nilson and Carl R. Schneiderman (1983), which describes a prevention of vocal abuse and hoarseness program that was presented by a school-based SLP to four second-grade and four third-grade classes and to their respective teachers. This study found this program was successful in teaching students a basic understanding of the vocal mechanism, how to discriminate voice qualities, and identification of abusive and nonabusive voice behaviors. The time frame for presenting this lesson could depend on the needs and schedules of the setting. The recommended steps are listed below:

1. Teach students about the different “speech helpers” like the lungs, vocal folds, and tongue. Use 3-D representations of each “speech helper” such as balloons for lungs and rubber bands for vocal folds is recommended.

2. Have students actively engage with different parts of the speech system, focusing on one at a time. Here are some examples of how to do this:

Table 8–8. Key Voice-Related Terms and Student-Friendly Definitions

■ Diaphragmatic breathing: Instruct students to put their hands on the bottom of their ribs and feel them expand as they take a deep breath. Then, have the students try to breathe without as much movement and see more movement from their chest. Lastly, have the students try speaking with both types of breathing, and without enough air, and have them discuss the differences.

■ Voiced versus voiceless productions: Teach students about the “loud” versus “quiet” sounds, turning their voices on and off and feeling the vibrations on the larynx.

■ Muscle tension dysphonia: Have students tense up their necks and try to speak, and compare that to normal speech.

3. Explain voice production and the vocal mechanism in age-appropriate terms. Introduce the terms included in Table 8–8, using discretion as to which words to review based on the age group and needs of the students. To reinforce the vocabulary and information, have the students play charades, trivia, or a matching game.

4. Have students identify vocal qualities of cartoon characters or celebrities through relevant short video clips. Examples are included in Table 8–9.

5. Identify ways to avoid abusive behaviors and situations. Some examples to provide to students are as follows:

■ Importance of hydration: Drinking a lot of water is always good for you, but it’s especially good for keeping your vocal cords healthy.

■ Use appropriate volume and your inside voice: Remember that you do not need to yell for people to hear you in the classroom. Save your loud voice for emergencies!

■ Rest your voice after excessive use: If you do have to use your loud voice, yell, or sing for a long time, make sure to give your voice a break afterward.

6. Incorporate extension activities, such as brainstorming a list of possible abusive and nonabusive situations or providing students with abusive and nonabusive situations for the students to sort.

Table 8–9. Examples of Characters and Vocal Qualities

Figure 8–3. Pre/posttest data sheet for vocal hygiene.

Data Collection

The tool is about sharing new knowledge about taking care of one’s voice. Given this, data regarding the impact of this tool can be collected by administering a pre/posttest that assesses students’ knowledge regarding their voice and vocal hygiene. Examples of pre- and posttests inspired by Nilson and Schneiderman (1983) are included in Figure 8–3.

9

Tools Related to Social-Emotional Skills

Why Are Social-Emotional Skills an Important Area for SLPs Within MTSS?

Social Skills and Emotional Regulation Are Key Elements of Communication

Given the close connections between language, behavior, and social skills, it is appropriate for SLPs to support social and emotional skill development. Language ability is central to most social interactions and there is a strong relationship between social skills, emotional regulation, and language competences. First, students with language challenges generally experience difficulties with social interactions (Fujiki et al., 1999). Further, students with difficulty regulating their emotions often experience breakdowns in conversation and other communication issues (Eisenberg et al., 2005; Fujiki et al., 2013). Given these close connections between social competences and language development, SLPs are well-positioned to support these social skills in a variety of contexts (Winner & Crooke, 2009). In doing so, it is important for SLPs to work closely with related professions who have specialty expertise in this area such as school counselors and psychologists. The role of the SLP is to collaborate with these professionals and other educators to share knowledge about social language.

Federal Policy and Strong Support for Addressing Students’ Social Skills

Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) is a systems-level prevention-oriented framework that is centered on the premise that academic achievement depends on engaging in appropriate prosocial behaviors. The U.S. Department of Education supports the national Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (2019) and federal policy (i.e., IDEA) requires the use of PBIS behavioral strategies for any student whose behavior impedes learning. A wide range of research shows that PBIS is effective in reducing disruptive student behavior (e.g., Conroy et al., 2014; Solomon et al., 2012). Given the widespread support for PBIS, it makes sense that the tiered support provided by SLPs, in collaboration with other educators, should align with the idea that supporting social skills proactively boosts academic success for students (e.g., Elleseff, 2014; Keller-Bell & Short, 2019; Zurawski, 2015).

What Tools Can SLPs Use to Address Social-Emotional Skills in MTSS?

This chapter includes two tools. The first tool is focused on developing prosocial skills and the second tool concerns bullying prevention and awareness. These tools are summarized in Tables 9–1 and 9–5 within the chapter.

Tool #1: Developing Prosocial Skills Through Interactive Activities

Explanation

The focus of this tool is the teaching and practicing of social skills and social language. Social skill development is important for students to develop stronger language for social purposes, to prevent antisocial behavior, and to support academics (e.g., Preston, 2015; Zurawski, 2015). Further, the idea of focusing on skill development to support prosocial behaviors is consistent with the ideas of PBIS. In the PBIS framework, professionals in school settings can work together to “create a safe, healthy learning environment where behavior problems are avoided or prevented from worsening and students learn self-discipline and effective interpersonal skills” (Bambara et al., 2015, p. 19). The focus of this tool is to facilitate lessons and activities that allow students to develop the language skills they need to navigate a variety of social situations they may encounter in a school setting in a prosocial manner.

Table 9–1. Tool 1 Summary

General Procedures

There are many ways that SLPs can support appropriate language to support students in developing prosocial skills. Four different activity ideas are described below.

Activity Idea #1: Behavioral Expectations Role-Play Activity

Schools generally have several school-wide behavioral expectations (a hypothetical example: Be Kind, Be Responsible, Be Safe) that are positively stated and prominently displayed within the school building environment (Bradshaw et al., 2008). In addition to school-wide expectations, teachers often have behavioral expectations (e.g., wait quietly when someone else has a turn) in their classrooms or other settings (e.g., assemblies: quiet listening, playground: take turns).

The focus of this activity is reinforcing these expectations through a language-based role-play activity of these behavioral expectations. In the book Behavior Support (Teachers’ Guides), Linda Bambara, Rachel Janney, and Martha Snell (2015) suggest using a direct instruction sequence that includes introducing and explaining expectations and role-playing with explicit examples and nonexamples of the target behaviors. Following from this, these steps are recommended:

1. Identify the behavioral expectations that the lesson is targeting. Some examples are as follows:

■ School-wide expectations: be peaceful in the classroom

■ Playground expectations: turn-taking and sharing

2. Discuss the expectations by asking questions. For example:

■ Why should we be peaceful in the classroom?

■ What does turn-taking look like?

3. Adult role-play with examples and nonexamples.

■ Model positive examples: sitting at desks and raising hands quietly while waiting to be called on, taking turns with a Frisbee (example of a positive turn-taking action)

■ Model nonexamples: Yelling an answer without raising a hand, not sharing the Frisbee (example of a negative turn-taking action)

4. Students role-play examples and nonexamples.

5. Check for understanding. Review with the class, have students discuss the targeted behavioral expectations in pairs.

6. As a possible extension, have students write a paragraph or make a visual representation (i.e., drawing or collage) about behavioral expectations.

Activity Idea #2: Reading and Discussing Prosocial Books

Research shows that reading and discussing books that explicitly focus on prosocial concepts (Bhavnagri & Samuels, 1996) can be helpful for social skill development. In fact, the term “bibliotherapy” is used in the educational literature and means a “technique that uses literary sources to help individuals resolve complex problems” (Sullivan & Strang, 2002, p. 74), or to explain that “guided reading of written materials to help the reader grow in self-awareness” (Morawski, 1997, p. 243).

According to Morawski (1997), the successful use of the bibliotherapy technique contains three sequential steps: (1) identification with behavior or emotion identified in literature, (2) catharsis that involves satisfaction when the character resolves a situation or processes an emotion, and (3) insight when the reader can relate the situation in the literature to their personal experiences. Following from this, the basic procedures for this activity are:

1. Read the book aloud or have students read books independently as appropriate.

2. Identify the emotions and behaviors explored in the story.

3, Discuss how characters resolve their emotions or solve challenging problems.

4. Explore how students relate to the book on a personal level.

5. Incorporate possible extension activities that further explore possible connections to literature. Several extension activity ideas are provided in Table 9–2 and Table 9–3.

There are many book series with an explicit focus on positive and prosocial behavior that can be used for this activity (see examples in Table 9–2). Beyond these books, most books or texts that feature social interaction could potentially be appropriate for this activity (see examples in Table 9–3).

Activity Idea #3: Teaching Vocabulary Specific to Describing and Understanding Social Interactions

Teaching students the appropriate vocabulary to describe and understand elements of social interactions will help students be successful in navigating social relationships necessary for both academic and nonacademic tasks. There are different sets of words used to describe emotions that can be introduced. For example, a specific Social Thinking® vocabulary is featured in the Social Thinking® programs developed by Michelle Garcia Winner (Crooke et al., 2008; Winner & Crooke, 2009). Some of these concepts, with examples of how to explain these concepts to students, are included in Table 9–4.

There are also other sets of vocabulary that describe social-emotional relevant concepts. For example, SLP Kristen Chmela of the Chmela Fluency Center (Chmela, 2018) describes five areas of communicative competence associated with social interaction (assertive, attentive, confident, effective, and proactive). Students can be directly taught these concepts to support social skills development as described in Preston (2015).

Table 9–2. Examples of Books With an Explicit Focus on Positive Behavior

Table 9–3. Examples of Books With Various Age Ranges, Along With Associated Discussion Questions and Extension Activities to Focus on Prosocial Concepts

Table 9–4. Examples of Vocabulary for Describing and Understanding Social Interactions From the Social Thinking® Curriculum

Source: Winner & Crooke, 2009.

The following steps can be used to teach social-emotionally related vocabulary terms to students:

1. Introduce the concept.

2. Discuss the concept.

3. Role-play the concept.

4. Do an extension activity related to the concept. Some recommended activities include:

■ Crafts involving the parts of the body to help understand whole-body listening

■ Personal collages related to self-confidence

■ An adapted Taboo or charades game where students guess what other students are trying to portray out of a list of targeted prosocial concepts

Activity #4: Running a Social Skills Group

Within a tiered framework, SLPs can run social skills groups where social skills are taught directly to students considered at risk in this area. This could be done in collaboration with or in consultations with other professionals with expertise in this area such as counselors, social workers, and school psychologists. Topics for social skill groups can include making friends, navigating social situations, starting conversations, collaborating on group projects, and other topics. For these social skills groups, SLPs can simply discuss these issues, make use of the variety of published curriculum and materials related to social skills or use a combination of approaches. The activities already described in this tool (i.e., role-playing, reading and discussing prosocial books, teaching vocabulary relevant to describing and understanding social interactions) could also be embedded in social skills groups. Video modeling curricula (such as Everyday Speech social skills video lessons, 2020) that allow students to see social skills performed by characters could also be useful for facilitating social skills groups.

Data Collection

Given the nature of social skills being highly context-dependent, this is a challenging area from which to collect data. One option is to collect data on students’ ability to identify and explain social concepts using the general accuracy collection form. It is also possible to have students keep reflective journals and rate their own social skills over time as a way to collect data. A social skills rubric template, which prompts students to engage in self-reflection, is included in Figure 9–1. Finally, classroom observation and discussions with teachers should be key sources of data for this area. For students with more intensive behavioral needs, discipline-related activities (e.g., trips to the principal’s office) or incidences of disruptive behavior can be tracked over time.

Tool #2: Bullying Awareness and Prevention

Explanation

Bullying is defined as “unwanted, aggressive behavior among school-aged children that involves a real or perceived power imbalance. The behavior is repeated, or has the potential to be repeated, over time” (United States Department of Health and Human Services, n.d., para. 1). There is a great deal of evidence that bullying has long-lasting academic, physical, emotional, and social consequences on students (Blood et al., 2011). There are negative impacts on those who experience bullying, including psychological and social consequences, such as loss of self-confidence and depression. Bullying not only impacts the immediate victims but has negative consequences for students who bully others, as well as those who witness bullying. Given the widespread impact of bullying, there have been many calls for SLPs to take an active role in addressing and preventing bullying (e.g., Hughes, 2014). In these efforts, it is important for SLPs to take a team approach and closely coordinate with appropriate school staff such as counselors and school psychologists.

Box 9–1. Real-World Snapshot: Collaboration and Embedding Social-Emotional Vocabulary Into Science Lessons

Dr. Robyn Becker, an SLP in Hillsborough Township Public School District in New Jersey, collaborates with a team consisting of herself, the special education teacher, and media specialist (who has a focus on science and math) to develop unique lessons that combine concepts in three key areas:

1. Social-emotional vocabulary (in particular, concepts from Social Thinking®)

2. STEAM principles (Science, Technology, Engineering, the Arts, Mathematics)

3. Academic concepts

Robyn explains that embedding Social Thinking® principles directly into academic lessons helps make the connections between social skills more explicit and authentic. The STEAM lessons are specifically designed so that they provide “real time” opportunities to practice the targeted social skills and illustrate specific points about Social Thinking® concepts. For example, if the target Social Thinking® concept is “group plan,” first students may build their own pumpkin patch with LEGOs® (i.e., “my own plan”), then work with only limited LEGOs® to collaborate with others to make one LEGO pumpkin patch (i.e., “group plan”) in a way that requires flexibility and collaboration. This deliberate planning of the STEAM lesson is an effort to manipulate the classroom environment to create “teachable moments” related to social skills.

She also feels that these lessons allow close collaboration and knowledge sharing between professionals within the school. Some example topics, in all three areas, that have been combined within lessons are summarized below:

Concept Categories | Example Topics
STEAM concepts | planning, predicting, problem-solving, growth mindset
Academic concepts | math sense, writing, reading fluency, comprehension
Social-emotional vocabulary (from the Social Thinking® curriculum as described by Winner & Crooke, 2009). | group plan, whole-body listening, flexible thinking, matching appropriate reaction to a problem (i.e., big problem = big reaction, small problem = small reaction)

The collaborative lessons generally take place over several days and involve the following steps:

1. The SLP introduces a social-emotional vocabulary term (e.g., “whole-body listening”) for the unit by leading the whole class in a discussion on this topic using an age-appropriate book or specific Social Thinking® book (e.g., Thinking About You, Thinking About Me by Michelle Garcia Winner). As part of this step, the teacher and SLP generally do a role-play or show a video clip or video model to illustrate the concept.

2. The media specialist presents age-appropriate STEAM-related sheets that include (a) creating a plan for an experiment, (b) making a prediction about the experiment’s outcome, (c) specific steps to carry out the experiment, and (d) an area to reflect on the actual experiment’s outcome. Some example projects include engineering projects (e.g., creating a marble run) as well as simple science experiments (e.g., predicting what will happen when skittles or jelly beans are put in water).

3. The teacher and SLP scaffold students’ awareness and reflection about the Social Thinking® concept as students engage in the STEAM activity. For example, as students listen to each other, they practice “whole-body listening.” As they examine different-sized chemical reactions, they better understand the concept of matching the appropriate reaction to the problem faced.

4. The lesson concludes as students complete the part of the planning sheet called “What Actually Happened” and document their observations and outcomes from the experiment. They also engage in self-assessment and self-reflection via whole-class discussion regarding their understanding of Social Thinking® concepts within this context.

Box 9–2. Real-World Snapshot: Running Social Skills Groups in an MTSS Framework Using Published Curriculum as a Starting Point

At the principal’s suggestion, Emily Sadeghi, an SLP in Jurupa Unified School District, ran a social skills group for general education students in collaboration with the school psychologist. Each social skills group ran as a semester-long program during lunchtime and included different students in the groups each semester. Emily explains that it was helpful to be able to offer this to students who didn’t qualify for special education related to social skills but who could use extra support in this area. The social skills groups began by talking about the qualities of a good friend and the good qualities they wanted to work on. SuperFlex® (a curriculum published by Social Thinking®) concepts and techniques were also discussed based on the needs of the individual students in the group. For example, one student had issues with being truthful, so that behavior and the effect it had on others was discussed, along with techniques to be more truthful. For students who were very shy and needed some work to build up confidence and lower anxiety when communicating, the group would discuss being brave and how to enter a conversation. For students who were too dominant in the conversation, issues like kindness, respect, and actively listening were also addressed. One student that had “graduated” from speech had a situational stutter and generally only stuttered at home, so he no longer qualified for services, but he had anxiety that impacted him at school. He joined the group to learn techniques to lower anxiety and relate better to his peers.

Figure 9–1. Social skills rubric for student’s self-reflection

Table 9–5. Tool 2 Summary

Involvement with anti-bullying efforts is especially important for SLPs within an MTSS model, especially in light of research that shows that students with communication difficulties are often at higher risk of being victims of bullying than their typically developing peers. The exact percentage of students, in general, who experience bullying is not completely clear as the estimates vary by source. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), bullying is a very frequently reported discipline problem in public schools, with almost 14% of public schools reporting that bullying happens at least once weekly, if not more often (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, n.d). Further, the CDC reports that bullying reports are highest for middle schools (28%), then high schools (16%), then combined schools (12%), and finally, primary schools (9%). Another source (Card & Hodges, 2008) found between 30% and 60% of typically developing students are bullied at some time during the school year with between 6% and 15% of students being bullied chronically. As seen in Table 9–6, students with communication-related disabilities, such as autism and stuttering, are especially vulnerable to bullying and generally experience higher rates of being the victim of bullying, as compared with the general student population. Under IDEA, SLPs and other educators have both legal and ethical obligations to ensure that children with communication disorders and other disabilities have safe school environments that are free from bullying. This obligation stems, in part, from the fact that bullying directed toward students with disabilities can be viewed as conduct that constitutes a disability-based harassment violation (Ali, 2010). SLP involvement with anti-bullying efforts, as part of a school-based team, fits into the MTSS framework given that bullying issues may not be directly included in students’ IEP goals but still impact students’ academic progress.

Table 9–6. Bullying Research Focused on Students With Communication Related Disabilities

General Procedures

1. Execute activities geared at raising students’ awareness of bullying. Lead activities geared toward creating a positive school culture with a focus on how to respond to bullying. Two ideas for activities are included in Table 9–7. Table 9–8 contains a list of story-based books and texts that can be read and discussed to raise students’ awareness of bullying and discuss associated issues.

2. Act as a support person for students who are bullied. Students who have experienced bullying need a safe space to come and discuss their feelings and reactions. SLPs can offer themselves as a “listening ear” for all students and let students know they are someone students can come to if they are bullied. Having strong and positive relationships is essential for students to see school as a safe place (e.g., Jennings & Greenberg, 2009; Murray & Greenberg, 2000). As a “listening ear,” SLPs can help students identify resources and provide emotional support.

3. Get involved with an anti-bullying program. Cook et al. (2010) suggested that programs that targeted the entire student population (i.e., classroom or school-wide level) should “constitute the first layer of support provided to prevent the onset of bullying” (p. 79). SLPs can be involved with anti-bullying efforts within the school or district community and spread awareness of how communication and language challenges are risk factors for bullying. If an anti-bullying program is in place within a given school, an SLP’s effort to support the anti-bullying program could focus on reinforcing the goals and strategies in the program. If a program is not already in place, an SLP can be involved with the selection and initial implementation of a program. Some school-wide anti-bullying programs, which SLPs may research further and possibly recommend at the class or school level, are listed in Table 9–9.

Table 9–7. Example Activities to Promote a Positive School Culture With a Focus on How to Respond to Bullying

Source: Langevin, 2002.

Table 9–8. Books That Will Facilitate Discussions Around Bullying

Data Collection

Bullying is an area where data collection over time is challenging. SLPs can log the number of instances where students mention bullying over time and should communicate with teachers and parents to assess the impact bullying has on students’ lives over time. SLPs can also gather information on students’ interactions during classroom activities. As discussed in Chapter 2, there are bullying-specific survey tools that can be used to monitor changes in the school atmosphere, such as the Bully Survey and the Olweus Bullying Questionnaire (Statistics Solutions, 2019; Swearer, 2019).

Table 9–9. Anti-Bullying Programs That SLPs May Consider at the School or Classroom Level

Appendix A

Data Collection Forms and Templates for Toolkit Activities

APPENDIX A–1

Form for Tracking Classroom Observations and Discussions

APPENDIX A–2

General Accuracy Collection Form

APPENDIX A–3

Pictography Note-Taking Template

APPENDIX A–4

Cornell Note-Taking Template

APPENDIX A–5

Alphabet Knowledge and Phonological Awareness Data Collection Form

APPENDIX A–6

Checklist for Text Preview and Text Lookback Strategy

APPENDIX A–7

Graphic Organizer to Aid Students in Taking Notes on Word Definitions

APPENDIX A–8

Semantic Feature Analysis Template

APPENDIX A–9

Sorting Morphemes Activity Template

APPENDIX A–10

Morpheme Book Template

Appendix B

Letters and Permission Forms

APPENDIX B–1

Sample Letter to Parents Explaining the SLP’s Role, Including MTSS

Dear Parents,

Welcome back! I am writing to introduce myself as the speech-language pathologist (SLP) in ____for the ___ school year. I am very excited to be part of this school community!

As an SLP, I work with students who need extra support in the areas of language, literacy, or speech. I maintain an active caseload of students with identified disabilities in these areas. For those students on my caseload, I work collaboratively with parents and school staff to develop Individualized Education Plans (IEPs) that include my services to support students’ progress. If you are concerned that your son or daughter may have a disability that requires my support, please be in touch with your student’s teacher or contact me directly. For those of you whose children already have IEPs that include speech-language services, I’ll be calling to introduce myself over the first few days of the school year.

In addition to working with students with identified disabilities, I work collaboratively with the school staff to support the language, literacy, and speech skills of the entire school community. As part of a larger effort to be proactive about meeting student needs, I work with students within the Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS) framework to provide instruction and support to students. The MTSS framework is characterized by a three-tiered system where all students receive high-quality core instruction (Tier 1) and students who need more support can receive the help they need in a flexible and adaptable manner (Tiers 2 and 3). As part of MTSS, I may be involved in delivering whole-class or small-group lessons in some classes and may co-teach or collaborate closely with classroom teachers. I consult with teachers about the best ways to meet student needs and often run professional development sessions on important or timely topics such as academic vocabulary or reading strategies. In short, I am a key member of the school team who is here to support the success of all students. I look forward to seeing all students have a great school year.

If you have any questions, please contact me at __________.

Thank you!

APPENDIX B–2

Parental Permission Form: Permission for Speech-Language Screening and Support

___________________has been referred to the school speech-language pathologist (SLP) for a screening due to concerns in the areas of:

• Reading

• Writing

• Language

• Social skills

• Speech concerns (articulation, voice, fluency)

• Other_______________

The screening will be conducted by the SLP and may involve:

• Classroom observation

• Discussion with student

• A formal screening test

• Other_______________

If concerns are noted, the SLP may provide support to address the area of concern that may involve:

• Consulting with the student’s classroom teacher

• Meeting with the student individually or in a small group to provide instruction

• Providing specialized instruction within the larger classroom setting

• Collecting progress monitoring data

If interventions are implemented, you will receive periodic updates. If the screening results indicate that a formal evaluation is needed, you will be contacted to discuss next steps.

Please indicate your approval by signing below and returning this form to me as soon as possible.

• I grant approval for screening and for the SLP to provide support, if warranted.

• I do not grant approval for my student to participate in a screening or receive small group support

Parent Signature ______________________

Date ____________________

APPENDIX B–3

Parent Permission Form: Permission to Participate in Support Sessions Run by the Speech-Language Pathologist

_________ is invited to participate in small-group or individual support sessions run by the school speech-language pathologist. This opportunity is part of general education and is designed to help your student be successful in a proactive manner. For ___________, the focus of this small group will be:

• Addressing articulation errors

• Supporting reading skills

• Developing language skills (e.g., vocabulary)

• Writing support

• Positive social skills

• Other______________________

Typically this session will take place:

• In the classroom

• In the hall

• In the SLP’s office

• Other______________

As part of this process, the SLP will work closely with the classroom teacher to reinforce skills to support student progress. Students may be expected to complete practice assignments at home and periodic updates will be provided.

If you have any questions, contact the SLP at ________________. Detach and return this permission slip. The SLP will be in touch to discuss ways parents can support student progress at home.

_______________________________________________________________________

Student’s Name_____________________

Teacher________________________

I do not want my child to participate in this opportunity to receive extra support at this time.

I would like my child to receive the support described in this letter.

Parent Signature ____________________

Date _______________________

APPENDIX B–4

Letter to School Staff Explaining SLP Role Generally and in MTSS

Dear School Staff,

Welcome back! I am writing to introduce myself as the speech-language pathologist (SLP) in ____ for the ____school year. I am very excited to be part of this school community!

As an SLP, I work with students who need extra support in the areas of language, literacy, and speech. I maintain an active caseload of students with identified disabilities in these areas. For those students on my caseload, I work collaboratively with parents and school staff to develop Individualized Education Plans (IEPs) that include my services to support students’ progress. If you have concerns that students in your class may have a disability that requires my support, please contact me directly. For students who already have IEPs that include speech-language services, I’ll be connecting with their teachers soon to discuss scheduling, service delivery, and how you can support these students in the classroom.

In addition to working with students with identified disabilities, a major focus for me is working collaboratively with the school staff to support the language, literacy, and speech skills of the entire school community. As part of the important effort to be proactive about meeting the students’ needs, the Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS) framework guides my work in important ways. As you know, the MTSS framework is characterized by a three-tiered system where all students receive high-quality core instruction (Tier 1) and students that need more support can receive the help they need in a flexible and adaptable manner (Tiers 2 and 3). I am also committed to the principles of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) and am interested in working collaboratively to ensure all students in our school have access to the curriculum and make progress academically this year.

This school year I’d like to take active steps to support the core curriculum collaboratively with you and I look forward to working with everyone to identify ways that I can be most helpful and supportive. I am open to delivering whole-class or small-group lessons as well as running centers in your classrooms. I look forward to the possibility of co-teaching or coming to classes to model strategies to support language, literacy, and speech development with students. I am always happy to consult with teachers about the best ways to meet student needs and hope to run professional development sessions on important or timely topics such as academic vocabulary or reading strategies. In short, please see me as a key member of the school team who is here to support the success of all students. I’ll be reaching out personally to each one of you over the coming weeks to discuss the possibilities.

If you have any questions, please contact me at ______.

Afterword

In the world of education and speech-language pathology, there will always be new trends in practice and new ideas embraced by policy, some of which will stay and others that will fade in time. As practitioners, it is natural to be cautious about integrating new policy initiatives into one’s practice given the worry that the new framework might be short-lived and not worthy of the time and energy needed to learn and implement it. In fact, one of the most enduring ideas that has emerged from the field of educational policy implementation is the idea of “decoupling,” which means that instructional environments (such as the classroom or the practices of SLPs) are largely disconnected from changes in the institutional environment that push new instructional practices or frameworks through policy (Coburn, 2004). Since the 1970s, many researchers have argued that educators often respond to new directives by making changes that are largely symbolic, rather than meaningful, in nature (e.g., Deal & Celotti, 1980; Firestone, 1985; Meyer & Rowan, 1977). This idea of “decoupling” has been used to explain how and why many school reform efforts fail to change practice and make a difference in educational outcomes for students (e.g., Cuban, 1993; Elmore, 1996).

As a closing for this book, it is worthwhile to consider this concept in relation to both the MTSS framework generally and the role of SLPs within MTSS. Are the MTSS framework and the role of SLPs within MTSS just another fad in educational practice pushed through by policy? Is it worth SLPs’ time and energy to invest in making a concerted effort to incorporate this framework into their daily practices and routines in schools? Throughout this book, I have made a clear case that I do not think MTSS is a passing trend and that SLPs should embrace their role in this framework in a meaningful manner. In my view, MTSS is an important and powerful framework that has the potential to transform the educational system from a relatively inflexible system that serves the needs of only some students, to a system that is flexible and adaptable enough to meet the needs of all students.

The negative academic outcomes for so many students in schools are well known at this point. Year after year, the Nation’s Report Cards show very few students in U.S. public schools performing at proficient levels in reading, math, and writing (National Center for Education Statistics, 2019). Further, although the impact of school closures due to the COVID-19 public health crisis remains unknown at the time of writing, it is predicted that students’ academic progress will be severely impacted and that inequities related to academic achievement will be exacerbated (Huffman, 2020; von Hippel, 2020). It is easy to feel overwhelmed by the breadth of challenges in public schools and to point to factors that are beyond the scope of SLPs’ work as the root of the problems that students face. It is absolutely true that some of the issues that students face in public schools stem from the multifaceted impact of poverty on the lives of families, the historical injustices against certain cultural and racial groups, as well as lack of investments in early educational experiences for children.

This does not mean educators, especially SLPs, throw up their hands in despair or double down on doing things the same way they’ve always done them. In fact, the scope and ongoing nature of the challenges in public schools should be a source of determined motivation to work relentlessly to make an impact on student outcomes. In my view, involvement with the MTSS framework provides a concrete and immediate way for SLPs to leverage their unique skill set, practice at the top of their licenses, and reaffirm their commitment to being part of a collective effort to set the next generation of students on a path towards success.

This book began by stating that the MTSS framework provides SLPs the opportunity to reach beyond the caseload to make a difference for all students. I argue that SLPs should take this opportunity for involvement with MTSS seriously and make changes in their practices that go far beyond a superficial level. I argue this not only because I am convinced by the research showing the positive impact of the MTSS framework, but also because I feel that MTSS fits in with the future of where the profession of speech-language pathology is evolving on a broader level (Volkers, 2019). Viewing MTSS as a passing trend or making only superficial changes to incorporate this framework into the practice would be a real missed opportunity for SLPs.

As a former school-based SLP myself, I fully understand the scope and challenges of the school-based SLP’s position and know that making changes to practice, while simultaneously continuing to work hard at a demanding job, is not easy. Embracing MTSS requires time, creativity, flexibility, and effort, but I am convinced that this effort will be well worth it. It is my hope that this book has provided answers to the questions SLPs have about MTSS, has provided guidance around decision-making and sources of data, and has expanded readers’ toolkit of strategies, lessons, and approaches to make an impact as an SLP within the MTSS framework. Although there are so many issues to address associated with public schools as SLPs, I feel optimistic and excited about the role of SLPs in being part of a better future for students in public schools. SLPs are well-positioned to use their dedication, expertise, and passion to make a meaningful and important impact on the outcomes for students through the powerful and proactive framework of MTSS.

References

Aboff, M. (2008). If you were a prefix. Picture Window Books.

Aboff, M. (2008). If you were a suffix. Picture Window Books.

Abrams, S. S., & Walsh, S. (2014). Gamified vocabulary. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 58(1), 49–58. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.315

Academic Therapy Publications. (2016). High Noon Books. https://www.highnoonbooks.com/index-hnb.tpl

Academy of Orton-Gillingham Practitioners and Educators. (2018). What is the Orton-Gillingham approach? https://www.ortonacademy.org/resources/what-is-the-orton-gillingham-approach/

Adams, M. J. (2011, Winter). Advancing our students’ language and literacy: The challenge of complex texts. American Edu cator, 34(4), 3–11, 53.

Adlof, S. M. (2019). Prologue to the forum: Vocabulary across the school grades. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 50(4), 461–465. https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_LSHSS-19-00007

Adlof, S. M., Baron, L. S., Scoggins, J., Kapelner, A., McKeown, M. G., Perfetti, C. A., . . . Petscher, Y. (2019). Accelerating adolescent vocabulary growth: Development of an individualized, web-based, vocabulary instruction program. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 50(4), 579–595. https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_LSHSS-VOIA-18–0143

aimswebPlus: Technical manual. (2017). NCS Pearson, Inc.

Alexander, P. A. (2014). Thinking critically and analytically about critical-analytic thinking: An introduction. Educational Psychology Review, 26(4), 469–476. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-014-9283-1

Ali, R. (2010). “Dear colleague” letter from the assistant secretary for civil rights, Russlynn Ali. United State Department of Education. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201010.pdf

American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2010). Roles and responsibilities of speech-language pathologists in schools [Professional issues statement]. https://www.asha.org/policy/PI2010-00317

American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2017). Caseload and workload. https://www.asha.org/PRPSpecificTopic.aspx?folderid=8589934681&section=Key_Issues

American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2020). ASHA workload calculator. https://www.asha.org/SLP/schools/Workload-Calculator/

Andre, L. (2019). Best 20 mind mapping software of 2019. Finances Online. https://financesonline.com/mind-mapping/

Anthony, J. L., Lonigan, C. J., Driscoll, K., Phillips, B. M., & Burgess, S. R. (2003). Phonological sensitivity: A quasi-parallel progression of word structure units and cognitive operations. Reading Research Quarterly, 38(4), 470–487. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.38.4.3

Apel, K., Brimo, D., Diehm, E., & Apel, L. (2013). Morphological awareness intervention with kindergartners and first-and second-grade students from low socioeconomic status homes: A feasibility study. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 44(2), 161–173. https://doi.org/10.1044/0161–1461(2012/12–0042)

Applebee, A. N., Langer, J. A., Nystrand, M., & Gamoran, A. (2003). Discussion-based approaches to developing understanding: Classroom instruction and student performance in middle and high school English. American Educational Research Journal, 40(3), 685–730. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312040003685

Archibald, L. M. (2018). The reciprocal influences of working memory and linguistic knowledge on language performance: Considerations for the assessment of children with developmental language disorder. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 49(3), 424–433. https://doi.org/10.1044/2018_LSHSS-17–0094

Artis, A. B. (2008). Improving marketing students’ reading comprehension with the SQ3R method. Journal of Marketing Education, 30(2), 130–137. https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475308318070

Au, W. (2007). High-stakes testing and curricular control: A qualitative metasynthesis. Educational Researcher, 36(5), 258–267. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X07306523

Austin, C. R., Vaughn, S., & McClelland, A. M. (2017). Intensive reading interventions for inadequate responders in grades K–3: A synthesis. Learning Disability Quarterly, 40(4), 191–210. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948717714446

Balthazar, C. H., & Scott, C. M. (2018). Targeting complex sentences in older school children with specific language impairment: Results from an early-phase treatment study. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 61(3), 713–728. https://doi.org/10.1044/2017_JSLHR-L-17–0105

Bambara, L. M., Janney, R., & Snell, M. E. (2015). Behavior support (teachers’ guides) (3rd ed.). Paul H. Brookes Publishing.

Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117–148. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2802_3

Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Kucan, L. (2013). Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary instruction. Guilford Press.

Beers, S. F., & Nagy, W. E. (2009). Syntactic complexity as a predictor of adolescent writing quality: Which measures? Which genre? Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 22(2), 185–200. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-007-9107-5

Berninger, V. W., Abbott, R. D., Nagy, W., & Carlisle, J. (2010). Growth in phonological, orthographic, and morphological awareness in grades 1 to 6. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 39(2), 141–163. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-009-9130-6

Berninger, V. W., Nagy, W., & Beers, S. (2011). Child writers’ construction and reconstruction of single sentences and construction of multi-sentence texts: Contributions of syntax and transcription to translation. Reading and Writing, 24(2), 151–182. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-010-9262-y

Berninger, V. W., Vermeulen, K., Abbott, R. D., McCutchen, D., Cotton, S., Cude, J., . . . Sharon, T. (2003). Comparison of three approaches to supplementary reading instruction for low-achieving second-grade readers. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 34(2), 101–116. https://doi.org/10.1044/0161–1461(2003/009)

Bhavnagri, N. P., & Samuels, B. G. (1996). Children’s literature and activities promoting social cognition of peer relationships in preschoolers. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 11(3), 307–331. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0885–2006(96)90010-1

Bishop, D. V., & Edmundson, A. (1987). Language-impaired 4-year-olds: Distinguishing transient from persistent impairment. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 52(2), 156–173. https://doi.org/10.1044/jshd.5202.156

Bjorem, J. (2020). Bjorem speech publications. https://www.bjoremspeech.com/

Blood, G. W., & Blood, I. M. (2007). Preliminary study of self-reported experience of physical aggression and bullying of boys who stutter: Relation to increased anxiety. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 104(3), 1060–1066. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.104.4.1060–1066

Blood, G. W., Robins, L. A., Blood, I. M., Boyle, M. P., & Finke, E. H. (2011). Bullying, school-based speech-language pathologists, and English language learners: Seriousness, intervention, and strategy selection. Perspectives on School-Based Issues, 12(4), 128–138. https://doi.org/10.1044/sbi12.4.128

Bloodstein, O. (1960). The development of stuttering: II. Developmental phases. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 25(4), 366–376. https://doi.org/10.1044/jshd.2504.366

Blosser, J. L., & Means, J. W. (2020). School programs in speech-language pathology: Organization and delivery. Plural Publishing.

Boehm, A. E. (2001). Boehm Test of Basic Concepts—Third Edition. The Psychological Corporation.

Booher-Jennings, J. (2005). Below the bubble: “Educational triage” and the Texas accountability system. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 231–268. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312042002231

Bos, C. S., & Anders, P. L. (1990). Effects of interactive vocabulary instruction on the vocabulary learning and reading comprehension of junior-high learning disabled students. Learning Disability Quarterly, 13(1), 31–42. https://doi.org/10.2307/1510390

Boulineau, T., Fore, C., Hagan-Burke, S., & Burke, M. D. (2004). Use of story-mapping to increase the story-grammar text comprehension of elementary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27(2), 105–121. https://doi.org/10.2307/1593645

Bowers, P. N., Kirby, J. R., & Deacon, S. H. (2010). The effects of morphological instruction on literacy skills: A systematic review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 80(2), 144–179. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654309359353

Boyle, J. R. (2010). Strategic note-taking for middle-school students with learning disabilities in science classes. Learning Disability Quarterly, 33(2), 93–109. https://doi.org/10.1177/073194871003300203

Boyle, J. R., & Forchelli, G. A. (2014). Differences in the note-taking skills of students with high achievement, average achievement, and learning disabilities. Learning and Individual Differences, 35, 9–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2014.06.002

Boyle, J. R., & Rivera, T. Z. (2012). Notetaking techniques for students with disabilities: A systematic review of the research. Learning Disability Quarterly, 35(3), 131–143. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948711435794

Bradbury, R. (1980). All summer in a day. In R. Bradbury, The stories of Ray Bradbury (pp. 532–536). Alfred A. Knopf.

Bradshaw, C. P., Reinke, M. W., Brown, L. D., Bevans, K. B., & Leaf, P. J. (2008). Implementation of school-wide positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS) in elementary schools: Observations from a randomized trial. Education and Treatment of Children, 31(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1353/etc.0.0025

Brett, A., Rothlein, L., & Hurley, M. (1996). Vocabulary acquisition from listening to stories and explanations of target words. The Elementary School Journal, 96(4), 415–422. https://doi.org/10.1086/461836

Bretzing, B. H., & Kulhavy, R. W. (1979). Notetaking and depth of processing. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 4(2), 145–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361–476X(79)90069-9

Brown, S. (2014). Reader’s theater: Classic poetry. Warm Hearts Publishing.

Brown, S., & Kappes, L. (2012). Implementing the Common Core State Standards: A primer on “close reading of text.” The Aspen Institute Education & Society Program. http://www.aspendrl.org/portal/browse/DocumentDetail?documentId=1396&download

Bruce, L., Lynde, S., Weinhold, J., & Peter, B. (2018). A team approach to response to intervention for speech sound errors in the school setting. Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups, 3(16), 110–119. https://doi.org/10.1044/persp3.SIG16.110

Buac, M., Gross, M., & Kaushanskaya, M. (2014). The role of primary caregiver vocabulary knowledge in the development of bilingual children’s vocabulary skills. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 57(5), 1804–1816. https://doi.org/10.1044/2014_JSLHR-L-13–0055

Buran, A., & Filyukov, A. (2015). Mind mapping technique in language learning. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 206, 215–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.10.010

Burns, M. K., & Ysseldyke, J. E. (2005). Comparison of existing responsiveness-to-intervention models to identify and answer implementation questions. The California School Psychologist, 10(1), 9–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03340917

Cabell, S. Q., Mcginty, A. S., Breit, A., & Justice, L. (2008). Designing quality tier one learning environments for emergent and early readers. Perspectives on Language Learning and Education, 15(1), 4. https://doi.org/10.1044/lle15.1.4

Cappadocia, M. C., Weiss, J. A., & Pepler, D. (2012). Bullying experiences among children and youth with autism spectrum dis orders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 42(2), 266–277. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-011-1241-x

Card, N. A., & Hodges, E. V. E. (2008). Peer victimization among schoolchildren: Correlations, causes, consequences, and considerations in assessment and intervention. School Psychology Quarterly, 23(4), 451–461. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012769

Catts, H. W., Fey, M. E., Zhang, X., & Tomblin, J. B. (1999). Language basis of reading and reading disabilities: Evidence from a longitudinal investigation. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3(4), 331–361. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr0304_2

Cavanagh, S. (2012). Standards backers seek out support of parents. Education Week, 32(5), 13–15.

Center for the Collaborative Classroom. (2020). Making meaning. https://www.collaborativeclassroom.org/programs/making-meaning/

Chang, W. C., & Ku, Y. M. (2015). The effects of note-taking skills instruction on elementary students’ reading. The Journal of Educational Research, 108(4), 278–291. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2014.886175

Chmela, K. A. (2018). Stuttering therapy: Building communicative competence across the common core. Chmela Fluency Center. http://www.chmelafluencycenter.com/?media_dl=426

Clapsaddle, K., & Palafox, P. (2013). Make it work: Steps to save our sanity. The ASHA Leader, 18(8), 26–27. https://doi.org/10.1044/leader.MIW.18082013.26

Cleary, B. P. (2013). Pre- and re-, mis- and dis-: What is a prefix? Millbrook Press.

Cleary, B. P. (2014). -Ful and -less, -er and -ness: What is a suffix? Millbrook Press.

Cleary, B. P. (2015). Breezier, cheesier, newest, and bluest: What are comparatives and superlatives? Millbrook Press.

Coburn, C. E. (2004). Beyond decoupling: Rethinking the relationship between the institutional environment and the classroom. Sociology of Education, 77(3), 211–244. https://doi.org/10.1177/003804070407700302

The College Board: The National Commission on Writing in America’s Schools and Colleges. (2003). The neglected “R”: The need for a writing revolution. https://www.nwp.org/cs/public/download/nwp_file/21478/the-neglected-r-college-board-nwp-report.pdf?x-r=pcfile_d

The College Board: The National Commission on Writing in America’s Schools and Colleges. (2004). Writing: A ticket to work . . . or a ticket out: A survey of business leaders. https://www.nwp.org/cs/public/download/nwp_file/21479/writing-a-ticket-to-work-or-a-ticket-out.pdf?x-r=pcfile_d

Combiths, P. N., Barlow, J. A., Richard, J. T., & Pruitt-Lord, S. L. (2019). Treatment targets for co-occurring speech-language impairment: A case study. Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups, 4(2), 240–256. https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_PERS-SIG1–2018-0013

Conroy, M. A., Sutherland, K. S., Vo, A. K., Carr, S., & Ogston, P. L. (2014). Early childhood teachers’ use of effective instructional practices and the collateral effects on young children’s behavior. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 16(2), 81–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300713478666

Conti-Ramsden, G., & Botting, N. (2004). Social difficulties and victimization in children with SLI at 11 years of age. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 47(1), 145–161. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092–4388(2004/013)

Cook, C. R., Williams, K. R., Guerra, N. G., Kim, T. E., & Sadek, S. (2010). Predictors of bullying and victimization in childhood and adolescence: A meta-analytic investigation. School Psychology Quarterly, 25(2), 65–83. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020149

Cook, J. (2012). Making friends is an art. Boys Town Press.

Cook, J. (2018). Rumor has it (building relationships). Boys Town Press.

Cornell University Learning Strategies Center (n.d.). The Cornell note-taking system. http://lsc.cornell.edu/notes.html

Cowley, J. (1995). The meanies came to school. Wright Group.

Coxhead, A. (2000). A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34(2), 213–238.

Crooke, P. J., Hendrix, R. E., & Rachman, J. Y. (2008). Brief report: Measuring the effectiveness of teaching Social Thinking® to children with Asperger syndrome (AS) and high functioning autism (HFA). Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 38(3), 581–591. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-007-0466-1

Crosson, A. C., & McKeown, M. G. (2016). Middle school learners’ use of Latin roots to infer the meaning of unfamiliar words. Cognition and Instruction, 34(2), 148–171. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2016.1145121

Crosson, A. C., McKeown, M. G., Robbins, K. P., & Brown, K. J. (2019). Key elements of robust vocabulary instruction for emergent bilingual adolescents. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 50(4), 493–505. https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_LSHSS-VOIA-18–0127

Crowe, T. A., & Walton, J. H. (1981). Teacher attitudes toward stuttering. Journal of Fluency Disorders, 6(2), 163–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/0094–730X(81)90013-9

Cuban, L. (1993). How teachers taught: Constancy and change in American classrooms, 1890–1990. Teachers College Press.

Curriculum Associates (2020). i-Ready assessment. https://www.curriculumassociates.com/products/i-ready/i-ready-assessment

Curtis, C. P. (2002). Bud, not buddy. Yearling.

Cuticelli, M., Coyne, M. D., Ware, S. M., Oldham, A., & Loftus Rattan, S. (2015). Improving vocabulary skills of kindergarten students through a multi-tier instructional approach. Intervention in School and Clinic, 50(3), 150–156. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451214542041

Cutler, L., & Graham, S. (2008). Primary grade writing instruction: A national survey. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(4), 907–919. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012656

Dahl, R. (2002). Lamb to the slaughter. In R. Dahl, Skin and other stories (pp. 22–34). Puffin Books.

Daly, J. A., Vangelisti, A. L., & Lawrence, S. G. (1989). Self-focused attention and public speaking anxiety. Personality and Individual Differences, 10(8), 903–913. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191–8869(89)90025-1

Daniel, G. R., & McLeod, S. (2017). Children with speech sound disorders at school: Challenges for children, parents and teachers. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 42(2), 81–101. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2017v42n2.6

Davies, M., & Gardner, D. (n.d.). Academic vocabulary lists. https://www.academicvocabulary.info/x.asp

Deal, T. E., & Celotti, L. D. (1980). How much influence do (and can) educational administrators have on classrooms? The Phi Delta Kappan, 61(7), 471–473.

De La Paz, S., Owen, B., Harris, K.R., & Graham, S. (2000). Riding Elvis’ motorcycle: Using self-regulated strategy development to PLAN and WRITE for a state exam. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 15(2), 101–109. https://doi.org/10.1207/SLDRP1502_6

Defior, S., & Tudela, P. (1994). Effect of phonological training on reading and writing acquisition. Reading and Writing, 6(3), 299–320. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01027087

deGroat, D. (2005). We gather together . . . now please get lost! Chronicle Books.

Deno, S. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52(3), 219–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440298505200303

Deno, S. L. (2003). Developments in curriculum-based measurement. The Journal of Special Education, 37(3), 184–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224669030370030801

DiCamillo, K. (2015). Because of Winn-Dixie. Candlewick Press.

DictionarySquared. (2012). http://dictionarysquared.com/

Dimino, J. A., Taylor, R. M., & Gersten, R. M. (1995). Synthesis of the research on story grammar as a means to increase comprehension. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 11(1), 53–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/1057356950110105

Dixon, D. (2014). School matters: How to make collaboration click. The ASHA Leader, 19(2), 32–33. https://doi.org/10.1044/leader.SCM.19022014.32

Dodd, B., Hua, Z., Crosbie, S. Holm, A., & Ozanne, A. (2006). Diagnostic Evaluation of Articulation and Phonology (DEAP). NCS Pearson.

Domsch, C., Rodriguez, L. R., Titzman, L. E., & Kester, E. (2018). Increasing complex syntax use in written language in school-age students: A multiple-baseline study of sentence combining. Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups, 3(16), 4–19. https://doi.org/10.1044/persp3.SIG16.4

Donohoo, J. (2010). Learning how to learn: Cornell notes as an example. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 54(3), 224–227. https://doi.org/10.1598/JAAL.54.3.9

Dublinske, S. (2002). “Adversely affects educational performance” policy 1980–2002; Nothing has changed. Perspectives on School-Based Issues, 3(2), 3–7. https://doi.org/10.1044/sbi3.2.3

Dudek, K. L. (2014). The effect of metalinguistic strategy instruction on the oral and written expression of school-aged children. [Doctoral dissertation, Illinois State University] ProQuest. https://ir.library.illinoisstate.edu/etd/86

Dunn, L. M., Lugo, D. E., Padilla, E. R., & Dunn, L. M. (1986). Test de Vocabulario en Imagenes Peabody (TVIP). NCS Pearson.

Dweck, C. S. (2008). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House Digital.

Dymock, S. (2007). Comprehension strategy instruction: Teaching narrative text structure awareness. The Reading Teacher, 61(2), 161–167. https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.61.2.6

EAP Foundation. (2019). Lecture cues: Understanding lecture structure. https://www.eapfoundation.com/listening/lectures/cues/

Eggleton, J. (2003). Davy D’s dog. Pearson Education Canada.

Ehren, B. J., Blosser, J., Roth, F. P., Paul, D. R., & Nelson, N. W. (2012). Core commitment. The ASHA Leader, 17(4), 10–13. https://doi.org/10.1044/leader.FTR1.17042012.10

Ehren, B. J., Ehren, T. C., & Proly, J. L. (2009). Response to intervention: An action guide for school leaders. Educational Research Service.

Ehri, L. C., Nunes, S. R., Willows, D. M., Schuster, B. V., Yaghoub‐Zadeh, Z., & Shanahan, T. (2001). Phonemic awareness instruction helps children learn to read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel’s meta‐analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 36(3), 250–287. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.36.3.2

Eisenberg, N., Sadovsky, A., & Spinrad, T. L. (2005). Associations of emotion‐related regulation with language skills, emotion knowledge, and academic outcomes. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2005(109), 109–118. https://doi.org/10.1002/cd.143

Elleman, A. M., & Compton, D. L. (2017). Beyond comprehension strategy instruction: What’s next? Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 48(2), 84–91. https://doi.org/10.1044/2017_LSHSS-16–0036

Elleman, A. M., Oslund, E. L., Griffin, N. M., & Myers, K. E. (2019). A review of middle school vocabulary interventions: Five research-based recommendations for practice. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 50(4), 477–492. https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_LSHSS-VOIA-18–0145

Eller, R. G., Pappas, C. C., & Brown, E. (1988). The lexical development of kindergarteners: Learning from written context. Journal of Reading Behavior, 20(1), 5–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/10862968809547621

Elleseff, T. (2014). Creating successful team collaboration: Behavior management in the schools. Perspectives on School-Based Issues, 15(1), 38–44. https://doi.org/10.1044/sbi15.1.38

Elmore, R. (1996). Getting to scale with good educational practice. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.66.1.g73266758j348t33

Enriching Students (n.d.) WIN time scheduling software, enriching students. https://www.enrichingstudents.com/win-time-student-scheduling-software-middle-and-high-schools

Epstein, L., & Shah, P. (2019). Classroom-based services in an urban middle school: Strategies for becoming part of the solution. Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups, 4(2), 395–401. https://doi.org/10.1044/2018_PERS-SIG16–2018-0009

Erickson, S., & Block, S. (2013). The social and communication impact of stuttering on adolescents and their families. Journal of Fluency Disorders, 38(4), 311–324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfludis.2013.09.003

Estes, E. (2004). The hundred dresses. Harcourt.

Every Student Succeeds Act, 20 U.S.C. § 6301 (2015). https://www.congress.gov/114/plaws/publ95/PLAW-114publ95.pdf

Everyday Speech. (2020). Social skills video lessons. https://everydayspeech.com/social-skills-videos/

Ewoldt, K. B., & Morgan, J. J. (2017). Color-coded graphic organizers for teaching writing to students with learning disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 49(3), 175–184. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059916681769

Exceptional Student Services Arizona Technical Assistance System. (2019). Speech-language services in Arizona’s schools: Guidelines for best practice. Arizona Department of Education. https://cms.azed.gov/home/GetDocumentFile?id=5829c468aadebe159cb26332

Faber, J. E., Morris, J. D., & Lieberman, M. G. (2000). The effect of note taking on ninth grade students’ comprehension. Reading Psychology, 21(3), 257–270. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702710050144377

Farkas, G., & Beron, K. (2004). The detailed age trajectory of oral vocabulary knowledge: Differences by class and race. Social Science Research, 33(3), 464–497. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2003.08.001

Farquharson, K., & Boldini, L. (2018). Variability in interpreting “educational performance” for children with speech sound disorders. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 49(4), 938–949. https://doi.org/10.1044/2018_LSHSS-17–0159

Felsenfeld, S., Broen, P. A., & McGue, M. (1994). A 28-year follow-up of adults with a history of moderate phonological disorder: Educational and occupational results. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 37(6), 1331–1353. https://doi.org/10.1044/jshr.3706.1341

Firestone, W. A., & Wilson, B. L. (1985). Using bureaucratic and cultural linkages to improve instruction: The principal’s contribution. Educational Administration Quarterly, 21(2), 7–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X85021002002

Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2014). Closely reading informational texts in the primary grades. The Reading Teacher, 68(3), 222–227. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1317

Fluharty, N. B. (2001). Fluharty Preschool Speech and Language Screening Test—Second Edition. Pro-Ed.

Folk, J. (1992). Straight speech: A lisp treatment program. The Speech Bin.

Foster, W. A. (2018). The role of the speech-language pathologist in RTI: Implementing multiple tiers of student support. Plural Publishing.

Fountas, I. C., & Pinnell, G. S. (2020). Benchmark Assessment System (BAS). Fountas and Pinnell. https://www.fountasandpinnell.com/bas/.

Freeman, D. (1986). Corduroy. Viking Press.

Fuchs, L. (2003). Assessing intervention responsiveness: Conceptual and technical issues. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18(3), 172–186. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540–5826.00073

Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2007). A model for implementing responsiveness to intervention. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 39(5), 14–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/004005990703900503

Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2011). Using CBM for progress monitoring in written expression and spelling. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED519251.pdf

Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Hamlett, C. L. (1989). Effects of alternative goal structures within curriculum-based measurement. Exceptional Children, 55(5), 429–438. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440298905500506

Fujiki, M., Brinton, B., Hart, C. H., & Fitz gerald, A. H. (1999). Peer acceptance and friendship in children with specific language impairment. Topics in Language Disorders, 19(2), 34–48.

Fujiki, M., Brinton, B., Mccleave, C. P., Anderson, V. W., & Chamberlain, J. P. (2013). A social communication intervention to increase validating comments by children with language impairment. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 44(1), 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1044/0161–1461(2012/11–103)

FunEducation Inc. (2020). About the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills (ITBS). Bright Education Services and Testing. https://brighted.funeducation.com/Practice/Iowa-Test-of-Basic-Skills-ITBS

Gale, E. K. (2013). The bully book. Harper Collins.

Gauthier, S. V., & Madison, C. L. (1998). Kindergarten Language Screening Test—Second Edition. Pro-Ed.

Gilbert, J. K., Goodwin, A. P., Compton, D. L., & Kearns, D. M. (2014). Multisyllabic word reading as a moderator of morphological awareness and reading comprehension. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 47(1), 34–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219413509966

Gilbert, J., & Graham, S. (2010). Teaching writing to elementary students in grades 4–6: A national survey. The Elementary School Journal, 110(4), 494–518. https://doi.org/10.1086/651193

Gillam & Gillam (2010). Tracking narrative language progress (TNL-Pr). 4GASLPs. http://www.4gaslps.com/files/TypableTNLP.pdf

Gillam, R. B., & Pearson, N. A. (2017). Test of Narrative Language—Second Edition (TNL-2). Pro-Ed.

Gillam, S. L., & Justice, L. (2010). RTI progress monitoring tools: Assessing primary-grade students in response-to-intervention programs. The ASHA Leader, 15(11), 12–15. https://doi.org/10.1044/leader.FTR1.15112010.12

Gillon, G., & Dodd, B. (1995). The effects of training phonological, semantic, and syntactic processing skills in spoken language on reading ability. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 26(1), 58–68. https://doi.org/10.1044/0161–1461.2601.58

Glaspey, A. M., & Stoel-Gammon, C. (2005). Dynamic assessment in phonological disorders: The scaffolding scale of stimulability. Topics in Language Disorders, 25(3), 220–230

Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: Its meaning, measure, and effect on student achievement. American Education Research Journal, 37(2), 479–507. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312037002479

Goldman, R. & Fristoe, M. (2015). Goldman Fristoe Test of Articulation (GFTA-3). NCS Pearson.

Goldstein, H. (2016). PAth to literacy: A phonological awareness intervention for young children. Brookes Publishing.

Goldstein, H., & Kelley, E. S. (n.d.). The research behind Story Friends. Brookes Publishing. http://archive.brookespublishing.com/documents/Goldstein-story-friends-research-behind.pdf

Goldstein, H., Kelley, E., Greenwood, C., McCune, L., Carta, J., Atwater, J., . . . Spencer, T. (2016). Embedded instruction improves vocabulary learning during automated storybook reading among high-risk preschoolers. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 59(3), 484–500. https://doi.org/10.1044/2015_JSLHR-L-15–0227

Golinkoff, R. M., de Villiers, J., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Iglesias, A., & Wilson, M. S. (2017). Quick Interactive Language Screener (QUILS). Brookes Publishing.

Good, R. H., Kaminski, R. A., Dewey, E. N., Wallin, J., Powell-Smith, K. A., & Latimer, R. (2019). Acadiance reading K–6 technical manual. Dynamic Measurement Group. https://acadiencelearning.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Acadience_Reading_K-6_Technical_Manual.pdf

Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2005). Writing better: Effective strategies for teaching students with learning difficulties. Paul H. Brookes Publishing.

Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). Writing next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle and high schools. Alliance for Excellent Education.

Graham, S., Hebert, M., & Harris, K. R. (2015). Formative assessment and writing: A meta-analysis. The Elementary School Journal, 115(4), 523–547. https://doi.org/10.1086/681947

Graham, S., McKeown, D., Kiuhara, S., & Harris, K. R. (2012). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for students in the elementary grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(4), 879. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029185

Green, L. B., & Klecan-Aker, J. S. (2012). Teaching story grammar components to increase oral narrative ability: A group intervention study. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 28(3), 263–276. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265659012456029

Greenwood, C. R., Carta, J. J., Kelley, E. S., Guerrero, G., Kong, N. Y., Atwater, J., & Goldstein, H. (2016). Systematic replication of the effects of a supplementary, technology-assisted, storybook intervention for preschool children with weak vocabulary and comprehension skills. The Elementary School Journal, 116(4), 574–599. https://doi.org/10.1086/686223

Griffith, L. W., & Rasinski, T. V. (2004). A focus on fluency: How one teacher incorporated fluency with her reading curriculum. The Reading Teacher, 58(2), 126–137. https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.58.2.1

Gutiérrez-Clellen, V. F., & Peña, E. (2001). Dynamic assessment of diverse children: A tutorial. Language Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 32(4), 212–224. https://doi.org/10.1044/0161–1461(2001/019)

Hadley, P. A. (1998). Language sampling protocols for eliciting text-level discourse. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 29(3), 132–147. https://doi.org/10.1044/0161–1461.2903.132

Hale, S. (2017). Real friends. First Second.

Hall, M. K., & Jones, C. (Eds.). (2011). Dear bully: 70 authors tell their stories. HarperTeen.

Hall-Mills, S. (2018). Language progress monitoring for elementary students. Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups, 3(1), 170–179. https://doi.org/10.1044/persp3.SIG1.170

Hammill, D. D., & Larsen, S. C. (2009). Test of Written Language—Fourth Edition (TOWL-4). NCS Pearson.

Harris, K. R., Graham, S., & Mason, L. H. (2006). Improving the writing, knowledge, and motivation of struggling young writers: Effects of self-regulated strategy development with and without peer support. American Educational Research Journal, 43(2), 295–340. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312043002295

Harris, K. R., Graham, S., Mason, L. H., & Friedlander, B. (2008). Powerful writing strategies for all students. Paul H. Brookes Publishing.

Harris, L. (2010). Delivering, modifying or collaborating? Examining three teacher conceptions of how to facilitate student engagement. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 16(1), 131–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540600903478037

Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young American children. Paul H. Brookes Publishing.

Heasley, S. (2016). Schools reminded not to delay special ed evaluations. Disability scoop. https://www.disabilityscoop.com/2016/06/16/schools-reminded-evaluations/22421/

Hedberg, N. L., & Stoel-Gammon, C. (1986). Narrative analysis: Clinical procedures. Topics in Language Disorders, 7(1), 58–69.

Hedberg, N. L., & Westby, C. E. (1993). Analyzing storytelling skills: Theory to practice. Communication Skill Builders.

Hehir, T. (2005). New directions in special education: Eliminating ableism in policy and practice. Harvard Education Press.

Heidari-Soureshjani, R., Kargaran Dehkordi, F., & Mohammadi, T. (2018). A comparison of test anxiety between normal students and students with learning disorders in Lordegan County during academic year 2015–2016. International Journal of Epidemiologic Research, 5(2), 50–54. https://doi.org/10.15171/ijer.2018.11

Heilmann, J. J. (2010). Myths and realities of language sample analysis. Perspectives on Language Learning and Education, 17(1), 4–8. https://doi.org/10.1044/lle17.1.4

Henbest, V. S. (2017). Small group reading instruction: Activities for teaching phonemic awareness, the alphabetic principle, and phonics in a Tier 2 setting. Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups, 2(1), 78–85. https://doi.org/10.1044/persp2.SIG1.78

Henbest, V. S., & Apel, K. (2017). Effective word reading instruction: What does the evidence tell us? Communication Disorders Quarterly, 39(1), 303–311. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525740116685183

Henbest, V. S., Apel, K., & Mitchell, A. (2019). Speech-language pathologist–guided morphological awareness instruction in the general education classroom. Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups, 4(5), 771–780. https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_PERS-SIG1–2019-0003

Henkes, K. (2016). Chrysanthemum. Green-willow Books.

Herman, S. (2018). Teach your dragon to make friends: A dragon book to teach kids how to make new friends. DG Books Publishing.

Hitchcock, E. R., Harel, D., & Byun, T. M. (2015, November). Social, emotional, and academic impact of residual speech errors in school-aged children: A survey study. Seminars in Speech and Language, 36(4), 283–294. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0035–1562911

Hochman, J. C., Wexler, N., & Lemov, D. (2017). The writing revolution: A guide to advancing thinking through writing in all subjects and grades. Jossey-Bass, a Wiley Brand.

Hoffman, J. V., Sailors, M., Duffy, G. R., & Beretvas, S. N. (2004). The effective elementary classroom literacy environment: Examining the validity of the TEX-IN3 observation system. Journal of Literacy Research, 36(3), 303–334. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15548430jlr3603_3

Hogan, T. P., Catts, H. W., & Little, T. D. (2005). The relationship between phonological awareness and reading. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 36(4), 285–293. https://doi.org/10.1044/0161–1461(2005/029)

Hooper, C. R. (2004). Treatment of voice disorders in children. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 35(4), 320–326. https://doi.org/10.1044/0161–1461(2004/031)

Hudson, S. B., McMahon, K. C, & Overstreet, C. M. (2002). The 2000 national survey of science and mathematics education: Compendium of tables. Horizon Research.

Huffman, K. (2020, March 27). Homeschooling during the coronavirus will set back a generation of children. Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/coronavirus-homeschooling-will-hurt-students-badly/2020/03/27/f639882a-6f62-11ea-b148-e4ce3fbd85b5_story.html

Hughes, S. (2014). Bullying: What speech-language pathologists should know. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 45(1), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1044/2013_LSHSS-13-0013

Hugh-Jones, S., & Smith, P. K. (1999). Self-reports of short- and long-term effects of bullying on children who stammer. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 69(2), 141–158. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709999157626

Hunter, E. (1983). On the sidewalk bleeding. Responding to reading: Level C, 49–54.

Iglesias, A., Golinkoff, R. M., De Villiers, J., Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Wilson, M. S. (n.d.). Quick Interactive Language Screener: English–Spanish (QUILS: ES). Brookes Publishing. https://products.brookespublishing.com/Quick-Interactive-Language-Screener-EnglishSpanish-QUILS-ES-P1178.aspx

iLearn. (2016). https://www.ilearn.com/

Illuminate Education. (2020). Universal learning. FastBridge. https://www.fastbridge.org/solutions/solutions-screening/

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2004). https://www.congress.gov/108/plaws/publ446/PLAW-108publ446.pdf

Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). Catalyzing comprehension through discussion and debate - CCDD. Strategic Education Research Partnership. https://ccdd.serpmedia.org/lido.html

International Reading Association. (n.d.). A critical analysis of eight informal reading inventories. Reading Rockets. https://www.readingrockets.org/article/critical-analysis-eight-informal-reading-inventories

Ireland, M., & Conrad, B. J. (2016). Evaluation and eligibility for speech-language services in schools. Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups, 1(16), 78–90. https://doi.org/10.1044/persp1.SIG16.78

The IRIS Center. (2020). SRSD: Using learning strategies to enhance student learning. Vanderbilt University. https://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/module/srs/

Jacobs, W. W. (2000). The monkey’s paw. Samuel French.

Jennings, P. A., & Greenberg, M. T. (2009). The prosocial classroom: Teacher social and emotional competence in relation to student and classroom outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 79(1), 491–525. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308325693

Johnson, W. (1942). A study of the onset and development of stuttering. Journal of Speech Disorders, 7(3), 251–257. https://doi.org/10.1044/jshd.0703.251

Justice, L. M. (2006). Evidence-based practice, response to intervention, and the prevention of reading difficulties. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 37(4), 284–297. https://doi.org/10.1044/0161–1461(2006/033)

Justice, L. M., & Dunaway, C. (2005). Integrating literacy into language intervention for English language learners. Perspectives on School-Based Issues, 6(1), 15–19. https://doi.org/10.1044/sbi6.1.15

Justice, L. M., Logan, J., & Kaderavek, J. N. (2017). Longitudinal impacts of print-focused read-alouds for children with language impairment. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 26(2), 383–396. https://doi.org/10.1044/2016_AJSLP-15–0200

Justice, L. M. & McGinty, A. S. (2016). Read it again-preK!. The Ohio State University College of Education and Human Ecology. https://earlychildhood.ehe.osu.edu/files/2016/05/Curriculum-Supplement.pdf

Justice, L. M., McGinty, A. S., Cabell, S. Q., Kilday, C. R., Knighton, K., & Huffman, G. (2010). Language and literacy curriculum supplement for preschoolers who are academically at risk: A feasibility study. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 41(2), 161–178. https://doi.org/10.1044/0161–1461(2009/08–0058)

Justice, L. M., Meier, J., & Walpole, S. (2005). Learning new words from storybooks: An efficacy study with at-risk kindergartners. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 36(1), 17–32. https://doi.org/10.1044/0161–1461(2005/003)

Kaderavek, J. N., & Justice, L. M. (2004). Embedded-explicit emergent literacy intervention II: Goal selection and implementation in the early childhood classroom. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 35(3), 212–228. https://doi.org/10.1044/0161–1461(2004/021)

Kahane, J. C., & Mayo, R. (1989). The need for aggressive pursuit of healthy childhood voices. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 20(1), 102–107. https://doi.org/10.1044/0161–1461.2001.102

Kamhi, A. G., & Catts, H. W. (2014). Language and reading disabilities. Pearson.

Kamil, M. L., Borman, G. D., Dole, J., Kral, C. C., Salinger, T., & Torgesen, J. (2008). Improving adolescent literacy: Effective classroom and intervention practices. The National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED502398.pdf

Kan, P. F., & Windsor, J. (2010). Word learning in children with primary language impairment: A meta-analysis. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 53(3), 739–756. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092–4388(2009/08–0248)

Keehn, S. (2003). The effect of instruction and practice through readers theatre on young readers’ oral reading fluency. Literacy Research and Instruction, 42(4), 40–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388070309558395

Keller-Bell, Y., & Short, M. (2019). Positive behavioral interventions and supports in schools: A tutorial. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 50(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1044/2018_LSHSS-17–0037

Kelley, E.S., Goldstein, H., Spencer, T., & Sherman, A. (2015). Effects of automated Tier 2 storybook intervention on vocabulary and comprehension learning in preschool children with limited oral language skills. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 31, 47–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2014.12.004

Kieffer, M. J. (2013). Morphological awareness and reading difficulties in adolescent Spanish-speaking language minority learners and their classmates. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 47(1), 44–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219413509968

Kiliç, M. A., Okur, E., Yildirim, I., & Güzelsoy, S. (2004). The prevalence of vocal fold nodules in school age children. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, 68(4), 409–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2003.11.005

Kilpatrick, D. A. (2019). Phonological Awareness Screening Test (PAST). https://www.thepasttest.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/PAST-Forms-A-B-C-and-D-August-2019-update.pdf

Kobayashi, K. (2006). Combined effects of note-taking/-reviewing on learning and the enhancement through interventions: A meta-analytic review. Educational Psychology, 26(3), 459–477. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410500342070

Kuhn, D. (2006). Speedy speech: Efficient service delivery for articulation errors. Perspectives on School-Based Issues, 7(4), 11–14. https://doi.org/10.1044/sbi7.4.11

Kutner, M., Greenberg, E., Jin, Y., Boyle, B., Hsu, Y. C., & Dunleavy, E. (2007). Literacy in everyday life: Results from the 2003 national assessment of adult literacy. NCES 2007-490. National Center for Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/Pubs2007/2007480_1.pdf

Kyriakides, L., Creemers, B. P., & Antoniou, P. (2009). Teacher behaviour and student outcomes: Suggestions for research on teacher training and professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(1), 12–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2008.06.001

Langevin, M. (2002). Helping children deal with teasing and bullying. Perspectives on Fluency and Fluency Disorders, 12(3), 10–14. https://doi.org/10.1044/ffd12.3.10

Langevin, M. (2000). Teasing and bullying: Unacceptable behaviour program (TAB). Institute for Stuttering Treatment and Research.

Language Dynamics Group (2018). CUBED Assessment. Free download. https://www.languagedynamicsgroup.com/products/cubed/cubed_download/

Lawrence, J. F., Capotosto, L., Branum-Martin, L., White, C., & Snow, C. E. (2012). Language proficiency, home-language status, and English vocabulary development: A longitudinal follow-up of the Word Generation program. Bilingualism: Language and cognition, 15(3), 437–451. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728911000393

Lawrence, J. F., Crosson, A. C., Paré-Blagoev, E. J., & Snow, C. E. (2015). Word Generation randomized trial: Discussion mediates the impact of program treatment on academic word learning. American Educational Research Journal, 52(4), 750–786. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831215579485

Learning by Design. (n.d.). Why SPELL-Links. https://learningbydesign.com/why-spell-links/

Lee, H. (1960). To kill a mockingbird. Harper Collins Publishers.

Lee, J. (2011). Size matters: Early vocabulary as a predictor of language and literacy competence. Applied Psycholinguistics, 32(1), 69–92. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716410000299

Lee, L., Stemple, J. C., Glaze, L., & Kelchner, L. N. (2004). Quick screen for voice and supplementary documents for identifying pediatric voice disorders. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 35(4), 308–319. https://doi.org/10.1044/0161–1461(2004/030

Leeper, L. H. (1992). Diagnostic examination of children with voice disorders: A low-cost solution. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 23(4), 353–360. https://doi.org/10.1044/0161–1461.2304.353

Lesaux, N. K., Kieffer, M. J., Faller, S. E., & Kelley, J. G. (2010). The effectiveness and ease of implementation of an academic vocabulary intervention for linguistically diverse students in urban middle schools. Reading Research Quarterly, 45(2), 196–228. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.45.2.3

Lesaux, N. K., Kieffer, M. J., Kelley, J. G., & Harris, J. R. (2014). Effects of academic vocabulary instruction for linguistically diverse adolescents: Evidence from a randomized field trial. American Educational Research Journal, 51(6), 1159–1194. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831214532165

Lidz, C. S., & Peña, E. D. (2009). Response to intervention and dynamic assessment: Do we just appear to be speaking the same language? Seminars in Speech and Language, 30(2), 121–133. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0029–1215719

Light, J., & McNaughton, D. (2012). Literacy instruction for individuals with autism, cerebral palsy, Down syndrome and other disabilities. The Pennsylvania State University. https://aacliteracy.psu.edu/index.php/page/show/id/1/index.html

Lin, A. R., Lawrence, J. F., Snow, C. E., & Taylor, K. S. (2016). Assessing adolescents’ communicative self-efficacy to discuss controversial issues: Findings from a randomized study of the Word Generation program. Theory & Research in Social Education, 44(3), 316–343. https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2016.1203852

Lindamood-Bell Learning Processes. (n.d.). Seeing stars program: Symbol imagery for phonological and orthographic processing in reading and spelling (SI). https://lindamoodbell.com/program/seeing-stars-program

Lionni, L. (1996). It’s mine! Dragonfly Books.

Literacy Resources, LLC (2020). Heggerty phonemic awareness curriculum. https://www.heggerty.org/

Little, L. (2002). Middle-class mothers’ perceptions of peer and sibling victimization among children with Asperger’s syndrome and nonverbal learning disorders. Issues in Comprehensive Pediatric Nursing, 25(1), 43–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/014608602753504847

Lonigan, C. J., & Shanahan, T. (2009). Developing early literacy: Report of the National Early Literacy Panel. Executive summary. A scientific synthesis of early literacy development and implications for intervention. National Institute for Literacy . https://lincs.ed.gov/publications/pdf/NELPSummary.pdf

Lovell, P. (2001). Stand tall, Molly Lou Melon. G. P. Putnam’s Sons.

Lowry, L. (1993). The giver. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

Ludwig, T. (2015). My secret bully. Dragonfly Books.

MacArthur, C. A., Schwartz, S. S., & Graham, S. (1991). Effects of a reciprocal peer revision strategy in special education classrooms. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 6(4), 201–210.

Maciel, A. (2015). Tease. Balzer + Bray.

Martin, E. (1980). OSERS letter of policy interpretation. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. https://www.asha.org/uploadedFiles/OSERS-Letter-Policy-Interpretation.pdf

Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. (2020). Massachusetts comprehensive assessment system. http://www.doe.mass.edu/mcas/

Masterson, J. J., & Apel, K. (2010). The spelling sensitivity score: Noting developmental changes in spelling knowledge. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 36(1), 35–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534508410380039

Masterson, J., & Apel, K. (2013). Monitoring progress in spelling improvement. Perspectives on Language Learning and Education, 20(4), 140–152. https://doi.org/10.1044/lle20.4.144

Mathes, P. G., Denton, C. A., Fletcher, J. M., Anthony, J. L., Francis, D. J., & Schatschneider, C. (2005). The effects of theoretically different instruction and student characteristics on the skills of struggling readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 40(2), 148–182. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.40.2.2

McCloud, C. (2010). Growing up with a bucket full of happiness: Three rules for a happier life. Bucket Fillers.

McCloud, C. (2016). Have you filled a bucket today?: A guide to daily happiness for kids. Bucket Fillosophy.

McGee, B., & McGeen, T. (2007). Reader’s theater and so much more! Prufrock Press.

McGregor, K. K., Marshall, B. A., Julian, S. K., & Oleson, J. (2019). Learning while playing: A randomized trial of serious games as a tool for word mastery. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 50(4), 596–608. https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_LSHSS-VOIA-18–0121

McKeown, M. G. (2019). Effective vocabulary instruction fosters knowing words, using words, and understanding how words work. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 50(4), 466–476. https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_LSHSS-VOIA-18–0126

McKeown, M. G., Crosson, A. C., Artz, N. J., Sandora, C., & Beck, I. L. (2013). In the media: Expanding students’ experience with academic vocabulary. The Reading Teacher, 67(1), 45–53. https://doi.org/10.1002/TRTR.1179

McMaster, K. L., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Compton, D. L. (2005). Responding to nonresponders: An experimental field trial of identification and intervention methods. Exceptional Children, 71(4), 445–463. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290507100404

McNamara, A. P., & Perry, C. K. (1994). Vocal abuse prevention practices: A national survey of school-based speech-language pathologists. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 25(2), 105–111. https://doi.org/10.1044/0161–1461.2502.105

Mellard, D., Mcknight, M., & Jordan, J. (2010). RTI tier structures and instructional intensity. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 25(4), 217–225. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540–5826.2010.00319.x

Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363. https://doi.org/10.1086/226550

Miller, J. & Iglesias, A. (2017). Systematic Analysis of Language Transcripts (SALT), student version 18 [Computer software]. SALT Software.

Mire, S. P., & Montgomery, J. K. (2009). Early intervening for students with speech sound disorders: Lessons from a school district. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 30(3), 155–166. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525740108326593

Molina, M. (2020). PeaceBuilders creating safe, positive learning environments. Peace Builders. http://www.peacebuilders.com/

Montgomery, J. K. (2007). The bridge of vocabulary: Evidence-based activities for academic success. Pearson.

Moor, E. (2003). Readers theater, grade 1. Evan Moor Educational Publishers.

Morawski, C. M. (1997). A role for bibliotherapy in teacher education. Reading Horizons, 37(3), 243–260.

Moreau, M. R., & Fidrych, H. (2007). Story Grammar Marker teachers’ manual. Mind-Wing Concepts.

Morrow, L. M. (1985). Retelling stories: A strategy for improving young children’s comprehension, concept of story structure, and oral language complexity. The Elementary School Journal, 85(5), 647–661. https://doi.org/10.1086/461427

Murray, C., & Greenberg, M. T. (2000). Children’s relationship with teachers and bonds with school an investigation of patterns and correlates in middle childhood. Journal of School Psychology, 38(5), 423–445. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022–4405(00)00034-0

Murza, K. (2019). Think beyond you: Activate the power of your school treatment team. The ASHA Leader, 24(8), 46–54. https://doi.org/10.1044/leader.FTR1.24082019.46

Musgrove, M. (2011). OSEP 11-07 RTI memorandum. Department of Education. https://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/memosdcltrs/osep11-07rtimemo.pdf

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). (2011). The nation’s report card: Writing 2011. https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2011/2012470.pdf

National Center for Education Statistics. (2019). Results from the 2019 mathematics and reading assessments. The Nation’s Report Card. https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/mathematics/supportive_files/2019_infographic.pdf

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and Council of Chief State School. (2010). Common Core State Standards (Appendix A). Core Standards. http://www.corestandards.org/assets/Appendix_A.pdf

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and Council of Chief State School. (2020). English language arts standards—Reading: foundational skills—Introduction for K-5. Core Standards. http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/RF/introduction/

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Report of the subgroups (NIH Publication No. 00–4754). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

National Stuttering Association. (n.d.). Stuttering: Answers for educators. https://westutter.org/wp-content/uploads/educators-2019.pdf

Nelson, N. W., Howes, B. M., & Anderson, M. A. (2018). SLS Screener for Language and Literacy Disorders. Brookes Publishing.

Nelson, N. W., & Van Meter, A. M. (2007). Measuring written language ability in narrative samples. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 23(3), 287–309. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573560701277807

Nelson, Van Meter, & Bahr. (2001). Writing process and product worksheet. Brookes Publishing. http://archive.brookespublishing.com/documents/WLAProcessWorksheet.pdf

Neugebauer, S., Coyne, M., McCoach, B., & Ware, S. (2017). Teaching beyond the intervention: The contribution of teacher language extensions to vocabulary learning in urban kindergarten classrooms. Reading and Writing, 30(3), 543–556. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-016-9689-x

Neugebauer, S. R., Gámez, P. B., Coyne, M. D., McCoach, D. B., Cólon, I. T., & Ware, S. (2017). Promoting word consciousness to close the vocabulary gap in young word learners. The Elementary School Journal, 118(1), 28–54. https://doi.org/10.1086/692986

New Meridian. (2019). Ensuring every student succeeds. https://resources.newmeridiancorp.org/

Niles, A. N., & Craske, M. G. (2019). Incidental emotion regulation deficits in public speaking anxiety. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 43(2), 419–426. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-018-9954-1

Nilson, H., & Schneiderman, C. R. (1983). Classroom program for the prevention of vocal abuse and hoarseness in elementary school children. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 14(2), 121–127. https://doi.org/10.1044/0161–1461.1402.121

Nippold, M. A. (2014). Language intervention at the middle school: Complex talk reflects complex thought. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 45(2), 153–156. https://doi.org/10.1044/2014_LSHSS-14–0027

O’Brien, C., Campbell-Whatley, G. D., Toms, O., & Felder, C. L. (2016). The Common Core Standards, UDL, RTI. In G. D. Campbell-Whatley, D. M. Dunaway, & D. R. Hancock (Eds.). A school leader’s guide to implementing the common core: Inclusive practices for all students (pp. 123–136). Taylor & Francis.

Ogle, D. M. (1986). KWL: A teaching model that develops active reading of expository text. Reading Teacher, 39(6), 564–570.

Oliver, C. (2002). The school-based speech-language pathologist’s role in the determination of the educational relevance of a voice disorder. Perspectives on Voice and Voice Disorders, 12(1), 27–29. https://doi.org/10.1044/vvd12.1.27

Overby, M., Carrell, T., & Bernthal, J. (2007). Teachers’ perceptions of students with speech sound disorders: A quantitative and qualitative analysis. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 38(4), 327–341. https://doi.org/10.1044/0161–1461(2007/035)

Overturf, B. J., Montgomery, L. H., & Smith, M. H. (2013). Word nerds: Teaching all students to learn and love vocabulary. Stenhouse Publishers.

Pajares, F. (2003). Self-efficacy beliefs, motivation, and achievement in writing: A review of the literature. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 19(2), 139–158. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573560308222

Palacio, R. J. (2001). Wonder. Corgi Children’s.

Paterson, K. (2017). Bridge to Terabithia. Harper Collins.

Pavelko, S. L., & Owens Jr., R. E. (2019). Diagnostic accuracy of the sampling utterances and grammatical analysis revised (SUGAR) measures for identifying children with language impairment. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 50(2), 211–223. https://doi.org/10.1044/2018_LSHSS-18–0050

Penno, J. F., Wilkinson, I. A., & Moore, D. W. (2002). Vocabulary acquisition from teacher explanation and repeated listening to stories: Do they overcome the Matthew effect? Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(1), 23. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022–0663.94.1.23

The Pennsylvania State University. (2020). EL RAVE home. https://sites.psu.edu/elrave/

Persky, H. R., Daane, M. C., & Jin, Y. (2003). The nation’s report card: Writing, 2002. National Center for Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pubs/main2002/2003529.asp

Peterson, D. B., & Spencer, T. D. (2014). Predictive Early Assessment of Reading and Language (PEARL). Language Dynamics Group.

Pfister, M. (1992) The rainbow fish. North-South Books.

Piasta, S. B., Justice, L. M., McGinty, A. S., & Kaderavek, J. N. (2012). Increasing young children’s contact with print during shared reading: Longitudinal effects on literacy achievement. Child Development, 83(3), 810–820. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467–8624.2012.01754.x

Polacco, P. (2012). Bully. G. P. Putnam’s Sons.

Polacco, P. (2012). Thank you, Mr. Falker. Philomel Books.

Powell, R. K. (2018). Unique contributors to the curriculum: From research to practice for speech-language pathologists in schools. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 49(2), 140–147. https://doi.org/10.1044/2017_LSHSS-17–0059

Power-deFur, L. A. (2016). Common core state standards and the speech-language pathologist: Standards-based intervention for special populations. Plural Publishing.

The President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education report, (2002). A new era: Revitalizing special education for children and their families. Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center. https://ecta center.org/~pdfs/calls/2010/earlypartc/revitalizing_special_education.pdf

Preston, K. (2015). It’s elementary: Social skills boost academics. The ASHA Leader, 20(9), 48–54. https://doi.org/10.1044/leader.FTR2.20092015.48

Price, J. R., & Jackson, S. C. (2015). Procedures for obtaining and analyzing writing samples of school-age children and adolescents. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 46(4), 277–293. https://doi.org/10.1044/2015_LSHSS-14–0057

Pulver, R. (2016). Me first!: Prefixes lead the way. Holiday House.

Quintus, L., Borr, M., Duffield, S., Napoleon, L., & Welch, A. (2012). The impact of the Cornell note-taking method on students’ performance in a high school family and consumer sciences class. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 30(1), 27–38.

Rasinski, T. (2006). Reading fluency instruction: Moving beyond accuracy, automaticity, and prosody. The Reading Teacher, 59(7), 704–706. https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.59.7.10

Rasinski, T. V., Padak, N. D., McKeon, C. A., Wilfong, L. G., Friedauer, J. A., & Heim, P. (2005). Is reading fluency a key for successful high school reading? Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 49(1), 22–27. https://doi.org/10.1598/JAAL.49.1.3

Reading with TLC. (2020). Lively letters. https://www.readingwithtlc.com/lively-letters/

The Regents of the University of California. (2020). Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium. http://www.smarterbalanced.org/

Reilly, S., Onslow, M., Packman, A., Wake, M., Bavin, E. L., Prior, M., . . . Ukoumunne, O. C. (2009). Predicting stuttering onset by the age of 3 years: A prospective, community cohort study. Pediatrics, 123(1), 270–277. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2007–3219

Renaissance Learning, Inc. (2020). Renaissance Star Reading. https://www.renaissance.com/products/star-reading/

Reynolds, A. (2012). Creepy carrots. Simon & Schuster Books for Young Readers.

Reznitskaya, A., Kuo, L. J., Clark, A. M., Miller, B., Jadallah, M., Anderson, R. C., & Nguyen‐Jahiel, K. (2009). Collaborative reasoning: A dialogic approach to group discussions. Cambridge Journal of Education, 39(1), 29–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057640802701952

Ribbler, N. (2002). Stuttering: Its multidimensional impact on school performance. Perspectives on School-Based Issues, 3(2), 20–22. https://doi.org/10.1044/sbi3.2.20

Ricketts, J., Bishop, D. V., & Nation, K. (2008). Investigating orthographic and semantic aspects of word learning in poor comprehenders. Journal of Research in Reading, 31(1), 117–135. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467–9817.2007.00365.x

Rinaldi, C., Averill, O. H., & Stuart, S. (2011). Response to intervention: Educators’ perceptions of a three-year RTI collaborative reform effort in an urban elementary school. Journal of Education, 191(2), 43–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/002205741119100207

Robbins, C., & Ehri, L. C. (1994). Reading storybooks to kindergartners helps them learn new vocabulary words. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(1), 54–64. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022–0663.86.1.54

Robertson, S. (n.d.). What’s in a word? Building better vocabulary through morphological instruction. Shopify. https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0770/1861/files/whats_in_a_word_expanded_handouts.pdf?10112500271316399506

Rogers, L. A., & Graham, S. (2008). A meta-analysis of single subject design writing intervention research. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(4), 879. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022–0663.100.4.879

Rojas, R., & Iglesias, A. (2009). Making a case for language sampling: Assessment and intervention with (Spanish-English) second language learners. The ASHA Leader, 14(3), 10–13. https://doi.org/10.1044/leader.FTR1.14032009.10

Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Association for Super vision and Curriculum Development.

Roseberry-McKibbin, C. (2015). English language learners and the Common Core State Standards: Meeting the needs of students with low socioeconomic status and language impairment. Perspectives on Communication Disorders and Sciences in Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Populations, 22(1), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.1044/cds22.1.4

Rubin, A. (2011). Those darn squirrels! Clarion Books.

Ruddy, B. H., & Sapienza, C. M. (2004). Treating voice disorders in the school-based setting: Working within the framework of IDEA. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 35(4), 327–332. https://doi.org/10.1044/0161–1461(2004/032)

Rudebusch, J. (2012). From Common Core State Standards to standards-based IEPs: A brief tutorial. Perspectives on School-Based Issues, 13(1), 17–24. https://doi.org/10.1044/sbi13.1.17

Rylant, C. (2015). Slower than the rest. In C. Rylant, Every little thing, (pp. 1–7). Aladdin Paperbacks.

Sadler, J. (2005). Knowledge, attitudes and beliefs of the mainstream teachers of children with a preschool diagnosis of speech/language impairment. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 21(2), 147–163. https://doi.org/10.1191/0265659005ct286oa

Saddler, B. (2005). Sentence combining: A sentence‐level writing intervention. The Reading Teacher, 58(5), 468–471. https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.58.5.6

Saddler, B., & Asaro, K. (2008). Beyond noun-verb: The use of sentence combining to improve sentence writing ability. Insights on Learning Disabilities, 5(2), 41–50.

Saddler, B., & Graham, S. (2005). The effects of peer-assisted sentence-combining instruction on the writing performance of more and less skilled young writers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(1), 43–54. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022–0663.97.1.43

Sanders, J. (2017). You, me, and empathy: Teaching children about empathy, feelings, kindness, compassion, tolerance, respect, and recognizing bullying behaviors. Educate2Empower Publishing.

Sanger, D., Snow, P. C., Colburn, C., Gergen, M., & Ruf, M. (2012). Speech-language pathologists’ reactions to response to intervention: A qualitative study. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 14(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.3109/17549507.2011.604793

Schatschneider, C. Fletcher, J. M., Francis, D. J., Carlson, C. D., & Foorman, B. R. (2004). Kindergarten prediction of reading skills: A longitudinal comparative analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(2), 265–282. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022–0663.96.2.265

Schroeder, J., Cappadocia, M., Bebko, J., Pepler, D., & Weiss, J. (2014). Shedding light on a pervasive problem: A review of research on bullying experiences among children with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 44(7), 1520–1534. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-013-2011-8

Schulten, K. (2018, January 18). Student contest | Our fifth annual 15-second vocabulary video challenge. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/18/learning/student-contest-our-fifth-annual-15-second-vocabulary-video-challenge.html

Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2007). Influencing children’s self-efficacy and self-regulation of reading and writing through modeling. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 23(1), 7–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573560600837578

Schussler, D. L. (2009). Beyond content: How teachers manage classrooms to facilitate intellectual engagement for disengaged students. Theory Into Practice, 48(2), 114–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405840902776376

Schwanenflugel, P. J., Hamilton, A. M., Kuhn, M. R., Wisenbaker, J. M., & Stahl, S. A. (2004). Becoming a fluent reader: Reading skill and prosodic features in the oral reading of young readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(1), 119–129. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022–0663.96.1.119

Serafini, F. (2014). Exploring wordless picture books. The Reading Teacher, 68(1), 24–26. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1294

Seymour, H. N., Roeper, T. W., de Villiers, J., de Villiers, P. A., & Pearson, B. Z. (2018). Diagnostic Evaluation of Language Variation—Screening Test (DELV- Screening Test). Ventris Learning.

Shanahan, T., Callison, K., Carriere, C., Duke, N. K., Pearson, P. D., Schatschneider, C., & Torgesen, J. (2010). Improving reading comprehension in kindergarten through 3rd grade: IES practice guide. National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED512029.pdf

Shaywitz, S. E. (2018). Shaywitz dyslexiascreen. NCS Pearson, Inc.

Shaywitz, S., Escobar, M., Shaywitz, B., Fletcher, J., & Makuch, R. (1992). Evidence that dyslexia may represent the lower tail of a normal distribution of reading ability. The New England Journal of Medicine, 326(3), 145–150. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199201163260301

Shi, X., Brinthaupt, T. M., & McCree, M. (2015). The relationship of self-talk frequency to communication apprehension and public speaking anxiety. Personality and Individual Differences, 75, 125–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.11.023

Sirin, S. R. (2005). Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review of research. Review of Educational Research, 75(3), 417–453. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543075003417

Skelton, S. L., & Richard, J. T. (2016). Application of a motor learning treatment for speech sound disorders in small groups. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 122(3), 840–854. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031512516647693

Smith, R. W. (2008). World history: Readers’ theater. Teacher Created Resources.

Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.), (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. National Academy Press.

Snow, C. E., Lawrence, J. F., & White, C. (2009). Generating knowledge of academic language among urban middle school students. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 2(4), 325–344. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345740903167042

The Social Express. (2020). Cool school. https://socialexpress.com/cool-school/

Solomon, B. G., Klein, S. A., Hintze, J. M., Cressey, J. M., & Peller, S. L. (2012). A meta-analysis of school-wide positive behavior support: An exploratory study using single-case synthesis. Psychology in the Schools, 49(2), 105–121. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20625

Soto, G. (1990) Seventh grade. In G. Soto, Baseball in April and other stories (pp. 52–59). Harcourt Children’s Books.

Spangler, C. L., & Johnson, C. D. (2017). Reducing vulnerability to bullying for children and youth who are deaf and hard of hearing. Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups, 2(9), 72–82. https://doi.org/10.1044/persp2.SIG9.72

Speech Buddies. (2020). Discover Your Speech Solution. http://www.speechbuddy.com/

Speech Pathology Australia (2017). Speech pathology in schools: A resource to support engagement and participation of students with speech, language and communication needs in schools. Speech Pathology Australia. https://speechpathologyaustralia.cld.bz/Speech-Pathology-in-Schools-2017

Spencer, E. J., Goldstein, H., Sherman, A., Noe, S., Tabbah, R., Ziolkowski, R., & Schneider, N. (2012). Effects of an automated vocabulary and comprehension intervention: An early efficacy study. Journal of Early Intervention, 34, 195–221. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053815112471990

Spencer, T. D., & Petersen, D. B. (2016). Story champs. Language Dynamics Group.

Spencer, T. D., & Petersen, D. B. (2018). Bridging oral and written language: An oral narrative language intervention study with writing outcomes. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 49(3), 569–581. https://doi.org/10.1044/2018_LSHSS-17–0030

Spencer, T. D., Petersen, D. B., & Adams, J. L. (2015). Tier 2 language intervention for diverse preschoolers: An early-stage randomized control group study following an analysis of response to intervention. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 24(4), 619–636. https://doi.org/10.1044/2015_AJSLP-14–0101

Spies, T. G., & Xu, Y. (2018). Scaffolded academic conversations: Access to 21st-century collaboration and communication skills. Intervention in School and Clinic, 54(1), 22–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451218762478

Statistics Solutions. (2019). Olweus bullying questionnaire. https://www.statisticssolutions.com/olweus-bullying-questionnaire/

Stein, N. L., & Glenn, C. G. (1979). An analysis of story comprehension in elementary school children. In R. O. Freedle (Ed.), New directions in discourse processing. Advances in discourse processes (vol. 2, pp. 53–120). Ablex Publishing Corporation.

Stockton, F. (1907) The lady or the tiger? In F. Stockton, The lady or the tiger and other stories (pp. 3–12). Charles Scribner’s Sons.

Storch, S. A., & Whitehurst, G. J. (2002). Oral language and code-related precursors to reading: Evidence from a longitudinal structural model. Developmental Psychology, 38(6), 934–947. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012–1649.38.6.934

Storkel, H. L., Komesidou, R., Pezold, M. J., Pitt, A. R., Fleming, K. K., & Romine, R. S. (2019). The impact of dose and dose frequency on word learning by kindergarten children with developmental language disorder during interactive book reading. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 50(4), 518–539. https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_LSHSS-VOIA-18–0131

Storkel, H. L., Voelmle, K., Fierro, V., Flake, K., Fleming, K. K., & Romine, R. S. (2017). Interactive book reading to accelerate word learning by kindergarten children with specific language impairment: Identifying an adequate intensity and variation in treatment response. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 48(1), 16–30. https://doi.org/10.1044/2016_LSHSS-16-0014

Strategic Education Research Partnership. (2020). WordGen weekly. https://www.serpinstitute.org/wordgen-weekly

Strong, W. (1986). Creative approaches to sentence combining. Urbana, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Writing Skills and the National Council of Teachers of English.

Sturm, J. M., Cali, K., Nelson, N. W., & Staskowski, M. (2012). The Developmental Writing Scale: A new progress monitoring tool for beginning writers. Topics in Language Disorders, 32(4), 297–318. https://doi.org/10.1097/TLD.0b013e318272159e

The Stuttering Foundation. (2010). Stuttering: Straight talk for teachers (3rd ed.). https://www.stutteringhelp.org/sites/default/files/Migrate/teacher_book_2010.pdf

Sullivan, A. K., & Strang, H. R. (2002). Bibliotherapy in the classroom using literature to promote the development of emotional intelligence. Childhood Education, 79(2), 74–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/00094056.2003.10522773

Swan, A. M. (1993). Helping children who stutter: What teachers need to know. Childhood Education, 69(3), 138–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/00094056.1993.10520913

Swearer, S. M. (2019). Description of the bully survey. Bully Survey H & H Publishing. http://www.bullysurvey.com/bully-survey-for-free.html

Swenson, S., Horner, R., Bradley, R., & Calkins, C. (2017). In recognition of Hill Walker’s contributions to multi-tiered system of supports (MTSS). Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services Blog. https://sites.ed.gov/osers/tag/hill-walker/

Sylvan, L. (2014). Speech-language services in public schools: How policy ambiguity regarding eligibility criteria impacts speech language pathologists in a litigious and resource constrained environment. Journal of American Academy of Special Education Professionals, 2, 7–23. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1134770.pdf

Taps, J. (2006). An innovative educational approach for addressing articulation differences. Perspectives on School-Based Issues, 7(4), 7–11. https://doi.org/10.1044/sbi7.4.7

Taps, J. (2008). RTI services for children with mild articulation needs: Four years of data. Perspectives on School-Based Issues, 9(3), 104–110. https://doi.org/10.1044/sbi9.3.104

Taps, J. (2020). Speech improvement sound inventories. SLPath. https://slpath.com/soundinventories.html

Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (2019). Positive behavioral interventions & supports. http://www.pbis.org/

Thomas, A. (2017). The hate u give. Balzer + Bray.

Titsworth, B. S. (2001). The effects of teacher immediacy, use of organizational lecture cues, and students’ notetaking on cognitive learning. Communication Education, 50(4), 283–297. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634520109379256

Titsworth, B. S., & Kiewra, K. A. (2004). Spoken organizational lecture cues and student notetaking as facilitators of student learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29(4), 447–461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2003.12.001

Torgesen, C., Brooks, G., Gascoine, L., & Higgins, S. (2019). Phonics: Reading policy and the evidence of effectiveness from a systematic ‘tertiary’ review. Research Papers in Education, 34(2), 208–238. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2017.1420816

Torgesen, J. K. (2000). Individual differences in response to early interventions in reading: The lingering problem of treatment resisters. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 15(1), 55–64. https://doi.org/10.1207/SLDRP1501_6

Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., Rashotte, C. A., Burgess, S., & Hecht, S. (1997). Contributions of phonological awareness and rapid automatic naming ability to the growth of word-reading skills in second-to fifth-grade children. Scientific Studies of Reading, 1(2), 161–185. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr0102_4

Troia, G., & Graham, S. (2002). The effectiveness of a highly explicit, teacher-directed strategy instruction routine: Changing the writing performance of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35(4), 290–305. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194020350040101

Turnbull, K. L., & Justice, L. M. (2017). Language development from theory to practice (3rd ed.). Pearson.

Ukrainetz, T. A. (1998). Stickwriting stories: A quick and easy narrative representation strategy. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 29(4), 197–206. https://doi.org/10.1044/0161–1461.2904.197

Ukrainetz, T. A. (2016). Strategic intervention for expository texts: Teaching text preview and lookback. Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups, 1(1), 99–108. https://doi.org/10.1044/persp1.SIG1.99

Ukrainetz, T. A. (2017). Commentary on “reading comprehension is not a single ability”: Implications for child language intervention. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 48(2), 92–97. https://doi.org/10.1044/2017_LSHSS-16–0031

Ukrainetz, T. A. (2019). Sketch and speak: An expository intervention using notetaking and oral practice for children with language-related learning disabilities. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 50(1), 53–70. https://doi.org/10.1044/2018_LSHSS-18–0047

Ukrainetz, T. A., & Fresquez, E. F. (2003). What isn’t language?: A qualitative study of the role of the school speech-language pathologist. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 34(4), 284–298. https://doi.org/10.1044/0161–1461(2003/024)

United States Congressional Serial Set (2004), No. 14816, Senate Reports Nos. 163–191.

United States Department of Health and Hu man Services. (n.d.). Bullying definition. Stop Bullying. www.stopbullying.gov/what-is-bullying/definition

University of Oregon. (2016). easyCBM teacher deluxe user’s manual. https://help.easycbm.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/easyCBM-Teacher-Deluxe-Users-Manual.pdf

University of Oregon Center on Teaching & Learning. (2020). Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS). https://dibels.uoregon.edu/assessment/dibels/

The University of Queensland Australia. (2009). Phonological awareness for literacy (PAL). Plural Publishing.

University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston. (2016). Circle classroom environment checklist. Children’s Learning Institute. https://www.childrenslearninginstitute.org/media/99077/cecdraft_61716.pdf

University of Virginia Curry School of Education. (2020). Phonological Awareness Literacy Screening (PALS). https://pals.virginia.edu/

Vail, R. (2003). Thirteen and a half. In J. Howe, 13: Thirteen stories that capture the agony and ecstasy of being thirteen. Atheneum Books for Young Readers.

Van Allsburg, C. (1992). The widow’s broom. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Books for Young Readers.

van den Bedem, N. P., Dockrell, J. E., van Alphen, P. M., Kalicharan, S. V., & Rieffe, C. (2018). Victimization, bullying, and emotional competence: Longitudinal associations in (pre)adolescents with and without developmental language disorder. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 61(8), 2028–2044. https://doi.org/10.1044/2018_JSLHR-L-17–0429

van Kleeck, A., Vander Woude, J., & Hammett, L. (2006). Fostering literal and inferential language skills in Head Start preschoolers with language impairment using scripted book-sharing discussions. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 15(1), 85–95. https://doi.org/10.1044/1058-0360(2006/009)

Vaughn, S. & Fuchs, S. K. (2003). Redefining learning disabilities as inadequate response to instruction: The promise and potential problems. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18(3), 137–146. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540–5826.00070

Vellutino, F. R., Fletcher, J. M., Snowling, M. J., & Scanlon, D. M. (2004). Specific reading disability (dyslexia): What have we learned in the past four decades? Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45(1), 2–40. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0021–9630.2003.00305.x

Vocabulary.com (n.d.). Welcome to vocabulary.com. https://www.vocabulary.com/

Volkers, N. (2019). Work: Only its name will stay the same. The ASHA Leader, 24(12), 42–51. https://doi.org/10.1044/leader.FTR1.24122019.42

von Hippel, P. T. (2020, April 9). How will the coronavirus crisis affect children’s learning? Unequally. Education Next. https://www.educationnext.org/how-will-coronavirus-crisis-affect-childrens-learning-unequally-covid-19/

Waddell, M. (2017). Farmer duck. Candlewick.

Wallach, G. P., & Ocampo, A. (2017). Comprehending comprehension: Selected possibilities for clinical practice within a multidimensional model. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 48(2), 98–103. https://doi.org/10.1044/2017_LSHSS-16–0035

Walton, R. (1997). Pig, pigger, piggest. Gibbs Smith.

Warner-Czyz, A. D., Loy, B., Pourchot, H., White, T., & Cokely, E. (2018). Effect of hearing loss on peer victimization in school-age children. Exceptional Children, 84(3), 280–297. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402918754880

Weiner, M. T., Day, S. J., & Galvan, D. (2013). Deaf and hard of hearing students’ perspectives on bullying and school climate. American Annals of the Deaf, 158(3), 334–343. https://doi.org/10.1353/aad.2013.0029

Weiss, B. D. (2003). Health literacy: A manual for clinicians. American Medical Association. http://lib.ncfh.org/pdfs/6617.pdf

Weizman, Z. O., & Snow, C. E. (2001). Lexical output as related to children’s vocabulary acquisition: Effects of sophisticated exposure and support for meaning. Developmental Psychology, 37(2), 265–279. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012–1649.37.2.265

Westby, C. (1991). Learning to talk—talking to learn: Oral-literate language differences. In C. S. Simon (Ed.), Communication skills and classroom success (pp. 181–218). College-Hill.

White, K. R. (1982). The relation between socioeconomic status and academic achievement. Psychological Bulletin, 91(3), 461. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033–2909.91.3.461

Wiig, E. H., Semel, E., & Secord, W. A. (2006). Clinical evaluation of language fundamentals—fourth edition, Spanish. NCS Pearson.

Wiig, E. H., Semel, E., & Secord, W. A. (2013a). CELF-5 Screening Test. NCS Pearson.

Wiig, E. H., Semel, E., & Secord, W. A. (2013b). Clinical evaluation of language fundamentals. NCS Pearson.

Wild, M. (1994). The very best of friends. Voyager Books.

Willingham, D. T. (2006). The usefulness of brief instruction in reading comprehension strategies. American Educator, Winter, 39–50.

Winner, M. G. (2007). Thinking about you, thinking about me. Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Winner, M. G., & Crooke, P. J. (2009). Social Thinking®: A training paradigm for professionals and treatment approach for individuals with social learning/social pragmatic challenges. Perspectives on Language Learning and Education, 16(2), 62–69. https://doi.org/10.1044/lle16.2.62

Wired for Reading, LLC. (2019). Wired for reading. http://wiredforreading.com/

Wolfersberger, M. E., Reutzel, D. R., Sudweeks, R., & Fawson, P. C. (2004). Developing and validating the Classroom Literacy Environmental Profile (CLEP): A tool for examining the “print richness” of early childhood and elementary classrooms. Journal of Literacy Research, 36(2), 211–272. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15548430jlr3602_4

Woodson, J. (2001). The other side. G. P. Putnam’s Sons Books for Young Readers.

Woodson, J. (2012). Each kindness. Nancy Paulsen Books.

Wright, P. (2011). Stuck in RTI purgatory. The Wrightslaw Way https://www.wrightslaw.com/blog/stuck-in-rti-purgatory/

Wright, T. S., & Neuman, S. B. (2014). Paucity and disparity in kindergarten oral vocabulary instruction. Journal of Literacy Research, 46(3), 330–357. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296X14551474

Yeager, D. S., & Dweck, C. S. (2012). Mindsets that promote resilience: When students believe that personal characteristics can be developed. Educational Psychologist, 47(4), 302–314. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2012.722805

Yeakle, M. K., & Cooper, E. B. (1986). Teacher perceptions of stuttering. Journal of Fluency Disorders, 11(4), 345–359. https://doi.org/10.1016/0094–730X(86)90022-7

Yopp, H. K. (1992). Developing phonemic awareness in young children. The Reading Teacher, 45(9), 696–703.

Zimmerman, I. L., Steiner, V. G., & Pond, R. E. (2011). Preschool Language Scales-5 Screening Test. NCS Pearson.

Zimmerman, I. L., Steiner, V. G., & Pond, R. E. (2012). Preschool Language Scales-5 Spanish Screening Test. NCS Pearson.

Zurawski, L. (2015). Utilizing positive behavioral interventions and supports to reinforce therapeutic practices in the schools. Perspectives on School-Based Issues, 16(1), 4–10. https://doi.org/10.1044/sbi16.1.4

Zutell, J., & Rasinski, T. V. (1991). Training teachers to attend to their students’ oral reading fluency. Theory Into Practice, 30(3), 211–217. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405849109543502

Index

Note: Page numbers in bold reference non-text material

A

Academic Language Instruction for All Students, 155, 158

Academic thinking, 78

Academic Vocabulary List, 141

Academic Word List, 141

Active listening, 80

Administrators, discussions with, 27

Affixes, 150–151

Alphabet knowledge, 97, 99, 102, 198

Analytic phonics, 104

Anchor standards, in CCSS

example of, 8

for language, 139

for reading, 94

for writing, 123

Anti-bullying program, 189, 191

Antonym scales, 145, 147

Anxiety, during public speaking, 90

Autism, 188

B

Bambara, Linda, 181

Beck, Isabel, 140

Behavioral expectations role-play activity, 180–181

Behavior Support, 181

Bibliotherapy, 181

Boehm Test of Basic Concepts—Third Edition, 37

Breathy voice, 176

Bridge of Vocabulary: Evidence-Based Activities for Academic Success, 154–156

Bringing Words to Life, 140

Bullying

anti-bullying program for, 189, 191

awareness and prevention of, 184, 187–191

books regarding, 190

definition of, 184

frequency of, 188

general procedures for, 189, 191

negative impacts of, 187

research on, 188–189

school culture for, 190

C

CCSS

anchor standards in

example of, 8

for language, 139

for reading, 94

for writing, 123

history of, 8

Language standards

description of, 138

published programs and resources, 153–154, 154–159

vocabulary instruction. See Vocabulary instruction

MTSS and, 7–9, 10

organization of, 8, 9

Reading standards

alphabet knowledge, 97, 99, 102, 198

close reading. See Close reading

decoding activities, 104–105

overview of, 94–95

phonics, 104–105

phonological awareness. See Phonological awareness

print concepts, 95–97, 97

Readers Theater. See Readers Theater

reading strategies. See Reading strategies

Speaking and Listening standards

active listening, 80

Collaborative Conversations. See Collaborative Conversations

inclusion of, 57–58

note-taking skills. See Note-taking skills

oral narratives, 58–64

public speaking. See Public speaking

story retells, 58–64

Story Talk, 64–67, 65

Writing standards

feedback on writing, 128–129, 130–132

focus of, 122

Self-Regulated Strategy Development. See Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD)

sentence-combining. See Sentence-combining

CCSS for ELA toolkit, 47–48

CEFL-5 Screening Test, 37

Chmela, Kristen, 182

Classroom observations, 26–27, 36, 173, 175, 194

Close reading

data collection for, 118–119

explanation of, 116

general procedures for, 116–118

questions based on, 118, 118

real-world example of, 110

skill sets developed in, 116

Collaborative Conversations

data collection for, 79–80

explanation of, 67, 71–72

general procedures for, 72–79

goal for, 71

lesson plans, 73, 74–78

open-ended questions, 75

real-world example of, 82

rubrics for, 80–81

writing extension, 78–79, 78–79

Collaborative team teaching, 17

Collective efficacy, inclusive language for, 21

College and Career Readiness anchor standards, 48

Common Core State Standards. See CCSS

Communication, social-emotional skills in, 179

Computerized Spelling Sensitivity System (CSSS), 153

Conjunctions, 124

Contextualization, 110

Cool School, 191

Cornell note-taking system, 85–86, 87, 197

Critical thinking, 71

CUBED, 40

Cues-based note-taking, 83, 84

Curriculum-based measures, 30

D

Data collection

accuracy form for, 53, 54–55, 62, 153–154, 195

for alphabet knowledge, 103, 198

for decoding, 105

for lexical vocabulary instruction, 144, 149

for note-taking skills, 89

for phonological awareness, 101, 103, 198

for print concepts, 96–97

for public speaking, 92

for Readers Theater, 109

for reading strategies, 115–116

for sentence combining, 127–128

for story grammar, 63

for Story Talk, 66–67

for vocabulary instruction, 144, 149, 154

for vocal hygiene education, 178

Data sources, 23–32, 25–31

Decision points

contribution to Tier 1, 32, 33–36

data for, 24, 32

description of, 23, 24

summary of, 32

Decoding activities, 104–105

Developmental spelling assessment, 40

Diagnostic Evaluation of Language Variation, 37

Diaphragmatic breathing, 177

DictionarySquared, 155, 159

Direct teaching

of transition words, 61

in vocabulary instruction, 138

Disability identification

discrepancy model of, 4–5, 5

MTSS for, 10–11

tools for, 52–53

Discrepancy model of disability identification, 4–5, 5

Dosage, 52

Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS), 40, 109

E

English Learners’ Robust Academic Vocabulary Encounters (EL RAVE), 155, 157–158

Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), 7, 20

Excessive voice use, 176

Expanding Expression Tool (EET), 154–155

F

Feedback

grammar and syntax, 130

self-efficacy, 130

vocabulary, 130

on writing, 128–129, 130–132

Fluency, 105, 108

Fluharty Preschool Speech and Language Screening Test, 37

G

General outcome measures, 30

Grammar and syntax feedback, 130

Graphic organizers, 112, 114, 145, 200

Growth mindset, 128

Guided practice, 115

H

Hard of hearing, 189

Heggerty Phonemic Awareness, 103

High Noon Books, 105

Hoarseness, 176

Hydration, 177

I

Inclusive language, 21

Individualized Education Plans (IEPs)

description of, 10

MTSS Tier 3 and, 14

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)

MTSS and, 20

reauthorization of, 5

speech-language services, 161

Inferential thinking, 65, 71–72

Informal reading inventories, 41

Instructional approaches

group size of, 51–52

for vocabulary. See Vocabulary instruction

Interactive book reading, 142–144, 143

IQ-achievement discrepancy model, 4

J

Janney, Rachel, 181

K

Kindergarten Language Screening Test, 37

Kucan, Linda, 140

K-W-L model, 111, 114

L

Language

screening tools for, 29–30

standardized tests of, 29

Language sample analysis (LSA), 28–29, 42

Language standards, CCSS

description of, 138

published programs and resources, 153–154, 154–159

vocabulary instruction. See Vocabulary instruction

Larynx, 176

Least restrictive environment (LRE), 11

Letter bingo, 99

Letter identification, 99

Letters

to parents, 207

to school staff, 210

Lexical vocabulary instruction

explanation of, 139–142

interactive book reading, 142–144, 143

storybook reading for, 142–144, 143

vocabulary-teaching of curricular words, 144

Listening environment, 173

Literacy

description of, 93–94

phonological awareness and, 99

vocabulary and, 137

Literacy Curriculum, 107

Lively Letters, 107

Local education agency (LEA), 11, 20

M

Martin, Edwin, 161

McKeown, Margaret, 140

Mind maps, 87–88, 88

Morpheme book, 152, 152, 203

Morphemes

books that promote, 153

sorting of, 152, 202

teaching of, 151

Morphological awareness

definition of, 149

interactive activities that promote, 151–153

MTSS

Common Core State Standards and, 7–9, 10

data from

collection of, 53–56

special education eligibility based on, 42–44

definition of, 3–4

for disability identification, 10–11

as early intervention, 14

elements of, 3–4

history of, 4

permission letters for, 207, 210

permission to participate in, 11–12

philosophy of, 3–4

positive outcomes associated with, 6–7

as prereferral process, 9–10

progress monitoring in, 39, 40–41

research support for, 6–7

RTI and, relationship between, 6, 6

special education eligibility based on data from, 42–44

speech-language pathologists in

caseload, 19

challenges for, 19, 21

data sources for, 23–32, 25–31

decision points for. See Decision points

involvement of, 15–18, 16–18

provision of services by, 15–18

role of, 48

students in

progress of, 39, 41–42

response of, 41–42

support for, mass screenings for determining, 36–39

for stuttering, 171

Tier 1. See Tier 1

Tier 2. See Tier 2

Tier 3. See Tier 3

Universal Design for Learning and, 7–9, 10

MTSS toolkit

CCSS for ELA toolkit, 47–48

data collection, 53–55

social-emotional skills toolkit, 48

speech toolkit, 48

students with identified disabilities, 52–53

tool selection for, 49–51

Multidimensional Fluency Scale (MFS), 109

Multi-tiered systems of support. See MTSS

Muscle tension dysphonia, 177

N

Narrative language, 40

Narratives

classification of, 63

literacy and, 58

oral, 58–64

reading of, 60

sentence prompts in, 126

Story Talk, 65

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 93, 121

National Research Council Report, 4

New Era: Revitalizing Special Education for Children and Their Families, 11

Newsela, 115

No Child Left Behind (NCLA) Act, 7

Note-taking skills

Cornell system, 85–86, 87, 197

cues-based, 83, 84

data collection for, 89

general procedures for, 88–89

graphic organizer for, 145, 200

importance of, 80

information to record, 80, 82

mind maps, 87–88, 88

pictography, 84–85, 86, 196

strategic, 83–84, 85

O

Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS), 11, 161

Olweus Bullying Questionnaire, 191

On-demand writing prompts, 40–41

Onset awareness, 98, 100

Oral language skills, 57

Oral narratives, 58–64

Oral Reading Fluency (ORF), 109

Orton-Gillingham Approach, 107

P

Parents

letter to, 207

permission forms for, 208–209

speech-language screening and support form, 208

PAth to Literacy, 103

PeaceBuilders, 191

Periodic benchmarking, 30–31, 38–39

Phoneme blending, 98, 100–101

Phoneme counting, 98

Phoneme identity, 98, 100–101

Phoneme manipulation, 98, 100

Phoneme segmentation, 98, 101

Phonics

activities related to, 106

analytic, 104

description of, 104–105

published tools for, 107

synthetic, 104

Phonological awareness

data collection for, 101, 103, 198

definition of, 97

development of, 97

games with manipulatives that target, 101

general procedures for, 99

literacy outcomes and, 99

phonics versus, 104

published tools related to, 103

real-world example of, 102

skills associated with, 97–99, 98

songs that target, 100

word games that target, 100

Phonological Awareness and Literacy Screening, 37

Phonological Awareness for Literacy (PAL), 103

Phonological Awareness Screening Test (PAST), 101

Pictography, 84–85, 86, 196

Portfolios, 26, 41

Positive behavior, 182

Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS), 179–180

Predictive Early Assessment of Reading and Language, 37

Preschool Language Scales, 37

Print concepts, 95–97, 97

Professional learning communities, 27

Progress monitoring, 39, 40–41

Prosocial books, 181–182

Prosocial skills, 180–184, 183

Public education

emphasis of, 7

standards-based, 7

Public speaking

anxiety associated with, 90

data collection for, 92

explanation for, 89–90

general procedures for, 90–92

real-world example of, 90

rubric for, 92

talking points for, 91

Q

Quick Interactive Language Screener, 37

Quick Screen for Voice, 38

R

Read alouds, 73, 110

Readers Theater

data collection for, 109

explanation of, 105, 108

general procedures for, 108–109

reading fluency benefits of, 108

scripts for, 108

Reading

close. See Close reading

storybook, 142–144, 143

struggles with, 93–94

Reading difficulties, 7

Reading fluency, 105, 108

Reading standards, CCSS

alphabet knowledge, 97, 99, 102, 198

close reading. See Close reading

decoding activities, 104–105

overview of, 94–95

phonics, 104–105

phonological awareness. See Phonological awareness

print concepts, 95–97, 97

Readers Theater. See Readers Theater

reading strategies. See Reading strategies

Reading strategies

contextualization of, 110

data collection for, 115–116

explanation for, 109–110

general procedures for, 110–115

online resources, 115

text lookback, 113, 199

text preview, 113, 199

types of, 111–112

Read It Again, 103

ReadWorks, 115

Referral, for special education, 9–10

Response to Intervention (RTI)

definition of, 6

MTSS and, relationship between, 6, 6

team approach to, 167–168

in urban school district, 168–169

Rhyme awareness, 98, 100–101

Robertson, Shari, 152

S

Scaffolding, 51–52

Scaffolding scale of stimulability, 41

School staff letter, 210

School surveys, 28

Seeing Stars, 107

Self-efficacy

definition of, 128

feedback related to, 130

Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD)

concepts associated with, 133

definition of, 133

description of, 122

explanation of, 129–130, 133–135

general procedures for, 135–136

information sources, 134

steps of, 134–135

strategies, 130, 136

Semantic feature analysis (SFA), 145, 147, 201

Sentence combining

in authentic classroom assignments, 125–127

data collection for, 127–128

direct instruction of, 124–125

explanation for, 123

general procedures for, 123–127

goal of, 127

Sentence formation, 123

Shaywitz Dyslexia Screen, 38

Snell, Martha, 181

Social-emotional skills

behavioral expectations role-play activity, 180–181

bullying awareness and prevention, 184, 187–191

in communication, 179

federal policy support for, 179–180

prosocial skills developed through interactive activities, 180–184

toolkit, 48

Social-emotional vocabulary, 185–186

Social skills group, 184

Social Thinking® vocabulary, 182

Speaking and Listening standards, CCSS

active listening, 80

Collaborative Conversations. See Collaborative Conversations

inclusion of, 57–58

note-taking skills. See Note-taking skills

oral narratives, 58–64

public speaking. See Public speaking

story retells, 58–64

Story Talk, 64–67, 65

Special education

eligibility for, 42–44

goals of, 10

least restrictive environment provisions, 11

MTSS as prereferral process for, 9–10

referral for, 9–10

Specific language impairment (SLI)/Developmental language disorder (DLD), 188

Speech

screening tools for, 29–30

standardized tests of, 29

Speech improvement class, 165–166

Speech-language pathologists (SLPs)

caseload of, 19

collaborative team teaching by, 17

consultation by, 16

educators and, partnerships between, 19, 21

letter to parents about, 207

MTSS involvement by, 15–18, 16–18. See also MTSS

professional development by, 15

role of

parental letter about, 207

school staff letter about, 210

small-group work by, 18

teacher and, partnerships between, 19, 21

whole-class teaching by, 16–17

Speech sound disorders

academic challenges, 162

data collection for, 170–171

listening environment, 173

short-term intervention for, 163–170, 164–170

studies for, 164

supportive listening for, 171–173, 173, 175

tiered approach to, 162

Speech-specific disorders

academic challenges, 162

special education framework for, 161–162

Speech toolkit, 48

Speedy Speech, 166–167

SPELL-Links, 107

SQ3R, 111

Standardized achievement tests, 25, 35, 38

Standards-based education

Common Core State Standards. See CCSS

description of, 7

goals of, 8

Storybook reading, 142–144, 143

Story Champs, 64

Story Friends, 154, 156

Story grammar

data collection for, 63

definition of, 59

description of, 59–60, 60, 62

elements, 60

organizer for, 62

Story Grammar Marker, 64

Story retells, 58–64

Story Talk

class questioning record for, 71

data collection for, 66–67

explanation of, 64

general procedures for, 64–66

real-world example of, 68

rubrics for, 66–67, 69–70

scaffolds for, 67

targeted skills in, 65

Strategic note-taking, 83–84, 85

Student Language Scale, 37

Stuttering, 171–173, 189

Sublexical vocabulary instruction

affixes, 150–151

explanation, 149–150

general procedures, 150–153

Summative assessments, 25–26, 38, 42

Supportive listening, 171–173, 173, 175

Syllable awareness, 98

Synonym scales, 145, 147

Synthetic phonics, 104

T

Teachers

discussions with, 27

speech-language pathologists and, partnerships between, 19, 21

Team teaching, collaborative, 17

Teasing and Bullying: Unacceptable Behaviour (TAB), 191

Text lookback, 113, 199

Text preview, 113, 199

TextProject, 115

Tier 1

description of, 12

instructional approaches, 14–15

speech-language pathologists

challenges for, 33, 34–35

description of, 33–36

process-related challenges, 34

screening tools used by, 37–38

structural challenges, 34

student-level factors, 35

students needing help beyond Tier 1, 36–39

student classification, 13–14

visual representation of, 13

Tier 2

description of, 12

instructional approaches, 14–15

student classification, 13–14

students needing help at, 36–39

visual representation of, 13

Tier 3

description of, 12

IEPs and, 14

instructional approaches, 14–15

special education services, 14

student classification, 13–14

students needing help at, 36–39

visual representation of, 13

Transition words, 61, 62

U

Universal Design for Learning (UDL)

description of, 49–50

MTSS and, 7–9, 10

principles of, 9

V

Verbal rehearsal, 125

Vocabulary

direct instruction on, 138

evidence-based instruction in, 138

literacy and, 137

social-emotional, 185–186

social interactions, 182, 183, 184

tiers of, 141

tools for supporting, 138–139

word lists for, 141

Vocabulary.com, 155, 157

Vocabulary feedback, 130

Vocabulary instruction

data collection for, 154

direct instruction, 138

elements of, 140

lexical level of

data collection for, 144, 149

explanation of, 139–142

interactive book reading, 142–144, 143

storybook reading for, 142–144, 143

vocabulary-teaching of curricular words, 144

published programs and resources, 153–154, 154–159

sublexical level of

affixes, 150–151

explanation, 149–150

general procedures, 150–153

vocabulary tiers in, 141

word lists for, 141

Vocabulary knowledge, 137–138

Vocal cords, 176

Vocal cysts, 176

Vocal hygiene education

data collection for, 178

data sheet for, 178

explanation for, 174–175

general procedures for, 175–178

voice-related terms, 176

Vocal nodules, 176

Vocal polyps, 176

Vocal quality, 176–177

Voice, 176

Voice disorders, 174

Volume of voice, 176

W

Walker, Hill, 4

Whole-class teaching, 16–17

Wired for Reading, 107

Word awareness, 98, 101

Word games, 100

Word Generation, 154, 156–157

Work sample review, 26, 41

Writing

feedback on, 128–129, 130–132

higher education and, 121–122

job opportunities and, 121–122

linguistic skills for, 121

in schools, 122

struggles with, 121

Writing extension, 78–79, 78–79

Writing standards, CCSS

feedback on writing, 128–129, 130–132

focus of, 122

Self-Regulated Strategy Development. See Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD)

sentence-combining. See Sentence-combining