SpeechLanguage Pathologists Involvement in, and Perceptions of Literacy Programming

1
Speech-Language Pathologists Involvement in, and
Perceptions of Literacy Programming
2

• By
• Elizabeth Troester
• Mike Harris
• Abbie Pannkuk
• Stephanie Jarzynski
• Department of Communicative Disorders
• UWRF

3

• No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB)
• Individuals with Disabilities Education
  Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA 2004)

4

• Speech/language pathologists (SLPs) working in
  public school settings are increasing their
  involvement in literacy programming (Banotai,
  2005)

5

• Under NCLB states are required to adopt
  challenging academic content and performance
  standards in math, reading, and science,
  (Moore-Brown Montgomery, 2005, p. 7)

6
Adquate Yearly Progress (AYP)

• Required under NCLB.
• Accountability system must set targets and
  measure schools and districts progress.
• Continuous improvement in student performance
  required.

7
AYP (continued)

• IDEA 2004
• Performance goals for children with disabilities
  must be the same as states definition for AYP
• All children with disabilities must participate
  in all State and districtwide assessment programs.

8
Impact of NCLB

• Failure to achieve Adequate Yearly Performance
  (AYP) results in identification for school
  improvement
• Parents have option to send child to another
  school OR
• Eligible children receive supplemental services
  paid for by school

9

• Overall, failure to make AYP will cause school to
  be subject to improvement, corrective action, and
  restructurering.

10

• AYP is expected continuously, and is determined
  by each state.
• AYP is primarily determined by test performance
  and participation in two areas
• Reading/language arts and mathematics
• (ASHA, 2006)

11

• 1 rule for students with disabilities.. ED
  places cap on number of proficient and advanced
  scores of students with significant cognitive
  disabilities who take alternative assessments.
• 2 rule proposed by ED as of 3/28/06

12

• Impact Some school districts fail to make AYP
  solely because of special education students,
  because they are scored against grade-level
  standards rather than alternative achievement
  standards.

13
SLPs are being called upon to

• Incorporate test taking skills into their
  programming and goal writing.
• Incorporate essential components of reading
  instruction into assessments and IEP goals.

14
Reading Instruction

• NCLB defines essential components of reading
  instruction and creates Reading First programs

15

• Many public school SLPs have no direct training
  in literacy programming
• However, literacy programming is within our scope
  of practice (ASHA 2001)

16
American Speech-Language Hearing Association
(ASHA)

• SLPs knowledge of normal and disordered language
  acquisition, and their clinical experience in
  developing individualized programs for children
  and adolescents, prepare them to assume a variety
  of roles related to the development of reading
  and writing (ASHA, 2001b)

17
Purpose

• To gather and analyze preliminary data regarding
  literacy programming perceptions and practices
  among SLPs in public school settings in the upper
  Midwest.

18
Method

• A 17-item survey
• cover letter
• Mailed to 1000 randomly selected public school
  certified SLPs in 10 states
• IL, IN, IA, MI, MN, MO, ND, OH, SD, WI
• Postage paid, preaddressed return envelopes
  included

19
Survey

• Participants were asked to indicate their level
  of involvement in a variety of literacy programs,
  including, but not limited to Reading First,
  Early Reading First, Even Start Migrant
  Education, and Even Start Family Literacy.

20
(continued)

• Other survey items were designed to collect
  data on provision of supplemental services to
  students who are not currently on caseload, and
  the inclusion of elements of reading instruction
  into assessments, IEP goals, and intervention.

21
(continued)

• Specific elements include instruction in phonemic
  awareness, phonics instruction, reading fluency,
  reading/writing vocabulary, and text
  comprehension.

22
(continued)

• Data to ascertain SLPs level of training, comfort
  levels in providing services and percentage of
  time devoted to literacy programming.

23
Survey Tool Design

• Checklists to determine demographic data
• Checklists to determine levels of involvement
• A four point Likert scale to determine comfort
  levels in assessment, goal writing, and
  intervention

24
Data Analysis

• Data will be analyzed using descriptive
  statistics.
• Surveys were mailed on March 31, 2006.
• Data will be pooled and analyzed state-by-state
  and collectively.
• As of 4/18/06, return rate was 22.