volume lii · 2020. 6. 19. · volume liii protocol march w \ rapid changes in technology… the...
TRANSCRIPT
-
Part Two: What Makes Us Qualified: Certification and Legal
Foundation
C ertification: If you received your degree from a NASP-accredited
program, it is likely that you have developed the required compe-
tencies to identify yourself as a Qualified Mental and Behavioral
Health Provider. NASP maintains that individuals who “maintain
competencies consistent with NASP standards are qualified providers of
child and adolescent mental and behavioral health services” (NASP, 2015).
Those competencies align with the ten domains identified within the NASP
practice model, most notably “Interventions and Mental Health Services to
Develop Social and Life Skills”. Examples of such interventions and services
can include: functional behavioral assessments, individual and group coun-
seling, cognitive-behavioral therapy, solution focused counseling, behavior
therapy, suicide intervention and postvention, crisis intervention, social
skills training, and the use of evidence-based strategies that promote social–
emotional functioning and mental health.
Of course, it is the ethical responsibility of each school psychologist to en-
gage in ongoing professional development to ensure that an appropriate lev-
el of competency in maintained.
Legal Foundation: The legal foundation for identifying our-
selves as Mental Health Providers is not new. The No Child
Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB, Title IV, Part A, subpart 4,
Sec. 4151) recognized school psychologists as eligible school
-based mental health providers:
Volume LII www.mspaonline.org February 2016
President’s Pen:
Yes, I Am and so Are You! Accept It...Embrace It...Share It!
Establishing your Professional Identity as a Mental and Behavioral
Health Provider
Board Members 3-4
Rapid Changes in
Technology… The New
WISC-V
5-6
How School Psychologists
can Foster Parent Involve-
ment in the IEP process
8-9
Working with Culturally
and Linguistically Diverse
Students
11-14
PGCSPA Hosts 2nd
Annual Gallery Walk
15-16
9th Annual Legislative
Day 17-19
Update: Results & Out-
comes of the Licensure 20-21
Notes From Your
Program Committee 21-22
Views From the Past 22-24
MSPA Grant:
Motivational Interviewing 24-25
MSPA Grant:
ABA Applications 25-27
Inside this issue:
-
2
Volume LIII PROTOCOL March 2016
President’s Pen
(9) SCHOOL BASED MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES PROVIDER- The term school based mental health ser-
vices provider includes a State licensed or State certified …school psychologist… or other State licensed or cer-
tified mental health professional qualified under State law to provide such services to children and adoles-
cents.
More recently (2010), Title V of the Affordable Care Act also recognized both doctoral and specialist level
school psychologists who are licensed, or certified by a state credentialing agency (such as MSDE), as qualified
mental health providers.
In 2015, NASP developed a White Paper, from which much of the current article was derived, which provides
greater commentary and detail about the role of school psychologists as mental and behavioral health provid-
ers.
NASP members can access this paper on the NASP website:
National Association of School Psychologists. (2015). School psychologists: Qualified health professionals providing child and adolescent mental and behav-
ioral health services [White paper]. Bethesda, MD: Author.
In the next issue of the President’s Pen, we will discuss the importance of school-based mental health services.
One final note, I would like to thank the membership and the Executive Board for their exemplary and persis-
tent efforts to revise the constitution. To see the new constitution and review the changes, go to:
www.mspaonline.org/Constitutional-Changes.
Regards,
Selina
http://www.mspaonline.org/Constitutional-Changes
-
3
Volume LIII PROTOCOL March 2016
2015-2016 Executive Board Members
President: Selina Oliver ([email protected])
President Elect: Courtnay Oatts ([email protected])
Past President: David Holdefer ([email protected])
Secretary: Laura Sass ([email protected])
Treasurer: Tina DeForge ([email protected])
Parliamentarian: Jessy Sammons ([email protected])
Elected Officers
Committee Chairpersons (Standing)
Diversity: Sharon Gorenstein ([email protected])
Historian: Michael Nuth ([email protected])
Information Management: Michelle Palmer ([email protected])
Legislative: Shannon Cassidy ([email protected])
Membership: Laura Veon ([email protected] )
Newsletter: Juralee Smith ([email protected])
Nominations: Warren Cohen ([email protected])
Professional Development: Ann Hammond ([email protected])
Professional Standards: Matt Lawser ([email protected])
Program: Amy Jagoda ([email protected])
Public Affairs: Bri Bonday ([email protected])
Committee Chairpersons (Ad Hoc)
School Safety: Brad Petry ([email protected])
Liaisons and Delegates
NASP Delegate: Stephanie Livesay ([email protected];
MSDE Liaison: Deborah Nelson ([email protected])
MPA/MSPA Liaison: Melissa Morris ([email protected])
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]
-
4
Volume LIII PROTOCOL March 2016
2015-2016 Executive Board Members
Contact one of the committee chairpersons listed on page 3 of the PROTOCOL for more information on the
committee’s purpose and ways to get involved. We are always looking for new committee members and
enthusiastically welcome interested graduate students.
MSPA committees:
Diversity Nominations
Legacy Professional Development
Information Management Professional Standards
Legislative Program
Membership Public Affairs
Newsletter School Safety
School Safety (Ad Hoc)
GET INVOLVED WITH
MSPA: JOIN A COMMITTEE
Local School Psychology Organization Representatives
Anne Arundel County Shira Levy ([email protected])
Baltimore City Abby Courtright ([email protected])
Montgomery County Kathy Reger ([email protected])
Prince George's County Michelle Young ([email protected])
Western Maryland Jeb Fleagle ([email protected])
University Representatives
Bowie State University - Kimberly Daniel ([email protected])
Gallaudet University - Bryan Miller ([email protected])
Howard University - Celeste Malone ([email protected])
Towson University - Craig Rush ([email protected])
University of Delaware - Kathleen Minke ([email protected])
University of Maryland, College Park - Hedwig Teglasi ([email protected])
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]
-
5
Volume LIII PROTOCOL March 2016
Rapid Changes in Technology… the New WISC-V!
I’ve been working as a school psy-
chologist since 1997. When I was in
graduate school I learned the WISC-
III, with its Verbal, Performance,
and Full Scale Indices. One of the big
changes from the “R” to the “III” was
the addition of four supplemental
indices based on a reworking and ad-
dition of subtests: Verbal Compre-
hension, Perceptual Organization,
Freedom from Distractibility, and
Processing Speed. The switch to the
WISC-IV was (or seemed to me to
be) a mild change. Gone were the
well-known Verbal and Performance
IQs, replaced by Verbal Comprehen-
sion, Perceptual Reasoning, Working
Memory, and Processing Speed indi-
ces, all of which made up the Full
Scale IQ. The structural change was
not too drastic, given the availability
of similar optional clusters of the
WISC-III. In fact, folks were proba-
bly more distressed by the loss of the
Object Assembly and Picture Ar-
rangement subtests as a part of the
test battery than the changes of the
indices. Administering the WISC-R,
WISC-III, and WISC-IV were largely
the same – you had your manual,
protocol, stopwatch, and eraser-less
pencils; you might have a clipboard
to hold the protocol, if that was your
preference, but everything was paper
-and-pencil.
Since the WISC-IV was published in
2003, there have been significant
changes in technology around the
world. We have moved from large
desk-top computers to laptop com-
puters, to sleek, thin, tablets with re-
movable keyboards and
touchscreens. Our ability to access the
internet has shifted from the use of
dial-up modems that monopolized
the home telephone line, to DSL, to
wireless cable/FiOS interfaces. Final-
ly, we shifted from using land-line
phones exclusively, to brick-sized
mobile phones, and finally to roughly
palm-sized cell phones that double as
cameras, phone directories, dictionar-
ies/encyclopedias, and computers. In
fact, mobile phones have probably
eliminated the need/use of stop
watches for most people.
We have, in truth, been living
through the Comprehension question
about rapid changes in technology -
in real-time!
Never has this been truer than with
the change in the way we access as-
sessment tools. It started a few years
back, when computer scoring pro-
grams became more universally
available. Now, many of our most
popular rating scales can be adminis-
tered and scored for us online. The
newest addition to this technological
change is the ability to administer the
WISC-V on iPads through Q-
Interactive. Other assessments are
joining the Q-Interactive platform,
but the one that has become the most
broadly used thus far is the WISC-V.
School psychologists in Montgomery
County began training on the WISC-
V Q-Interactive over the summer of
2015, following a systematic investi-
gation and pilot group administra-
tion. We began officially using the Q-
Interactive WISC-V in October. So
far, as of the end of January, I have
administered the measure six times –
and I’m sold on it! For the first cou-
ple of administrations, I gave all of
the subtests so that I would more ful-
ly understand what the new
Wechsler had to offer. From there, I
have created my own preferred
battery that includes the rapid nam-
ing and symbol translation tasks, but
excludes other supplemental tasks
that I don’t feel are necessary for
most assessments.
With anything, there are pluses and
minuses to the new format. I find that
the students enjoy using the iPad,
Michelle Palmer, Montgomery County
-
6
Volume LIII PROTOCOL March 2016
Rapid Changes in Technology
even though they are not ‘playing
games’ like they are used to doing on
tablets. I appreciate the built-in timer
and the fact that I can see scores im-
mediately after administering the
subtests. I am still getting used to
some other things, such as making
sure my devices are sufficiently
charged, and making sure I’ve set
aside enough time in my session to
administer the delayed symbol trans-
lation (since I have added that to my
standard battery). Additionally, I am
accustomed to knowing when I am
reaching ceiling on tasks by looking
at the protocol. I can’t see that any-
more when using the iPad and, while
I know Q-Interactive takes care of ba-
sals, ceilings, etc., I’ve always liked
knowing where I was in the subtest. It
takes time to learn and become com-
fortable with any new instrument. I
suspect that, the more I use the WISC
-V Q-Interactive, the less these cur-
rent negatives will impact me.
Michelle Palmer, Montgomery County
Survey Says:
12 MD Counties participated in a survey regarding their current use of the
Q-Interactive Platform. Results are as follows:
Full Q-I Use: 50 % of respondents
Planning Stages for Q-I: 17% of respondents
Not using Q-I: 33 % of respondents
-
7
Volume LIII PROTOCOL March 2016
MSPA Spring Conference 2016
Supporting LGBTQ+ Youth and Families
Friday, April 15, 2016 The Hotel at Arundel Preserves
7795 Arundel Mills Boulevard
Hanover, Maryland 21076
Todd Savage, Ph.D. President, National Association of School Psychologists (NASP)
and
Jeffrey Poirier, Ph.D., PMP Principal Researcher, Health & Social Development Program, LGBTQ Practice Area Lead, American Institutes for Re-
search (AIR)
and
ColtKeo-Meier, Ph.D. Expert on Transgender and Gender-Nonconforming Youth
And
Lynne Muller, Ph.D., NCC, LCPC Student Support Services Specialist, The Breakthrough Center, Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE)
with
Saida Agnostini, LGSW Director of LGBTQ Resources, Free State Legal
-
8
Volume LIII PROTOCOL March 2016
How School Psychologists Can Foster Parent Involvement In
the Special Education Process
Parent involvement in schools is asso-
ciated with student academic
achievement (e.g., Fan & Chen, 2001;
Jeynes, 2012). Most research on par-
ent involvement has focused on child/
parent level predictors of parent in-
volvement such as parent de-
mographics (Greene et al., 2007) as
well as the patterns and forms of par-
ent involvement (Grolnick &
Slowiaczek, 1994; Hill & Tyson, 2009;
Seginer, 2006). One type of parent
involvement for a select group of par-
ents is attending and participating in
IEP meetings. Several studies have
documented parent dissatisfaction
with the special education process,
most specifically IEP meetings (e.g.,
Childre & Chambers, 2005, Tucker &
Swartz 2013, Zeitlin & Curcic, 2014).
However, relatively few studies have
gone on to provide evidence-based
strategies and recommendations ad-
dressing how schools can increase
parent satisfaction with the special
education process.
Weaver and Ouye (2015) conducted a
literature review on parent satisfac-
tion with the special education pro-
cess in order to identify current par-
ent barriers and develop strategies for
schools to address them. They identi-
fied three overarching areas that en-
compass most parent barriers with
the special education process, includ-
ing collaboration and planning, or-
ganization and communication style,
and lack of relationship. These barri-
ers described parents’ feelings of not
being included in the planning and
management of the meetings, difficul-
ty understanding and following the
flow of information shared during
meetings, and the feeling of being an
outsider in IEP meetings. Weaver
and Ouye subsequently provided
several strategies for school-based
personnel to use to help decrease par-
ent dissatisfaction. For example, they
recommended sharing the meeting
agenda with parents prior to the
meeting. They also encouraged fre-
quent and ongoing parent-school
communication about the child’s pro-
gress on his or her IEP rather than
once per year.
Many of the recommendations pro-
vided by Weaver and Ouye (2015) are
best-practice and worthy of attention.
Unfortunately, given the variation
among schools and school popula-
tions, each recommendation likely
would need to be tailored according-
ly. While the recommendations put
forth by Weaver and Ouye (2015) are
realistic and important, many did not
appear to be ones directly able to be
accomplished by a school psycholo-
gist. For example, school psycholo-
gists in several Maryland counties are
rarely in charge of scheduling the
meetings or creating the agenda.
However, there are several unique
aspects of our training as school psy-
chologists that lend to other recom-
mendations which have yet to be
identified. For example, school psy-
chologists are in a unique position for
understanding and navigating the
dynamic of group interaction and
have many tools to share. The pur-
pose of the present article is to add to
the growing list of research-based
recommendations with strategies spe-
cific for school psychologists.
Below are several strategies specific
for school psychologists to help in-
crease parent satisfaction and pro-
mote their involvement in the special
education process, specifically IEP
meetings:
Conduct trainings for the IEP
team to foster an understand-
ing of cultural awareness and
sensitivity. Provide additional
trainings in the area of effec-
Catherine Coales, M.S. Ed. & Julie Grossman, Ph.D., Prince Georges County
-
9
Volume LIII PROTOCOL March 2016
How School Psychologists Can Foster Parent Involvement In the Special Education Process
tive communication.
During team meetings, model for
other team members effective
communication and cultural
awareness and sensitivity.
Share research with school per-
sonnel related to parent dis-
satisfaction with the IEP pro-
cess. Ensure that everyone un-
derstands the problem and as
a team collaborate and identi-
fy potential solutions. Using
our understanding of the
problem solving process,
identify key areas of concern,
design and implement a pseu-
do-intervention, and subse-
quently collect data and meas-
ure the effectiveness.
Given our understanding of sys-
tem-level relationships, help
our schools to identify key
community stakeholders. Sub-
sequently help facilitate con-
versations between our school
teams and community repre-
sentatives to identify commu-
nity-based barriers and subse-
quently address them.
Present research on positive
school climate to our school
teams. Provide our IEP teams
with realistic examples of how
positive school climate can be
integrated into our meetings
and subsequently model these
behaviors. For example, make
sure each meeting begins with
reviewing the student’s
strengths rather than immedi-
ately identifying the student’s
weaknesses.
Above are five research-based strate-
gies that can be employed by
school psychologists, in particu-
lar, in an effort to ultimately in-
crease parent satisfaction with the
IEP process. Future research
should continue to identify strate-
gies to help in this endeavor; both
strategies for all school personnel
as well as strategies for specific
people, such as teachers, special-
ists, school psychologists, etc. Fol-
lowing the identification of these
strategies, future research should
attempt to identify how such rec-
ommendations may need to be
tailored due to school specific
characteristics. Finally, future re-
search should examine the effec-
tiveness of these strategies and
continue to amend them as need-
ed.
Catherine Coales, M.S. Ed. & Julie Grossman, Ph.D., Prince Georges County
References
Childre, A., & Chambers, C. R. (2005). Family perceptions of student centered planning and IEP
meetings. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 40(3), 217–233.
Fan, X., & Chen, M. (2001). Parental involvement and students’ academic achievement: A meta-analysis.
Educational Psychology Review, 13, 1-22.
Green, C. L., Walker, J. M. T., Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (2007). Parents’ motivations for
involvement in children's education: An empirical test of a theoretical model of parental involvement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 532-
544.
Grolnick, W. S., & Slowiaczek, M. L. (1994). Parents’ involvement in children’s schooling: A
multidimensional conceptualization and motivational model. Child Development, 65, 237–252.
Hill, N. E., & Tyson, D. F. (2009). Parental involvement in middle school: A meta-analytic assessment of
the strategies that promote achievement. Developmental Psychology, 45, 740-763.
Jeynes, W. H. (2012). A meta-analysis of the efficacy of the different types of parental involvement
programs for urban students. Urban Education, 47, 706-742.
Seginer, R. (2006). Parents’ educational involvement: A developmental ecology perspective. Parenting:
Science and Practice, 6, 1-48.
Tucker, V., & Schwartz, I. (2013). Parents’ perspectives of collaboration with school professionals:
Barriers and facilitators to successful partnerships in planning for students with ASD. School Mental Health, 5, 3–14
Weaver, A.D. & Ouye, J. C. (2015) A Practical and Research-Based Guide for Improving IEP Team Meetings. NASP Communiqué, 44(3)
Zeitlin, V. M., & Curcic, S. (2014). Parental voices on Individualized Education Programs: “Oh, IEP meeting tomorrow? Rum tonight!” Disability and Society, 29
(3), 373–387
-
10
Volume LIII PROTOCOL March 2016
The Maryland School Psychologists' Association Annual:
School Psychologists’ Advancement of Minorities
Scholarship
Fundraiser & Silent Auction at the
04.15.16 Spring Conference
The Preserve at Arundel Mills Brought to you by the MSPA Diversity Committee
Visit www.mspaonline.org to make a $5 donation in advance
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGIST ADVANCEMENT OF MINORITIES, INC.
Minority Scholarship Program
The Maryland School Psychologist’s Association, (MSPA), is proud to support SPAM by of-fering funds to be used for a minority scholarship. The scholarship is administered by
SPAM. These awards were developed in response to MSPA's professional commitment to encourage promising graduate minority students to enter the profession of school psy-
chology in the state of Maryland.
-
11
Volume LIII PROTOCOL March 2016
Working with Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Families:
A Bilingual School Psychologist Perspective
Changing Demographic
The state of Maryland, along with the
country, continues to grow and
change. In the last decade, Maryland
has become increasingly more diverse
in its linguistic and cultural represen-
tation across the counties. According
to the Census Bureau information for
Maryland, the population of families
whose native language is not English
saw a 5 % increase from 2005 to 2013;
this is an increase of 284,463 people
who reported speaking a language
other than English in the home. The
changing demographics also indicate
a consistent and significant growth in
the families who identify themselves
as being from a Latino cultural group.
In addition, over the last few years,
there has been an influx in
“unaccompanied minors” immigrat-
ing to the United States to reunite
with family members already living
and working here. These children
bring with them a variety of experi-
ences that can potentially impact their
education including, but not limited
to: extended interruptions or a lack of
educational experiences, traumatic
events, and lengthy separations from
family members and caregivers.
These educational difficulties can
then contribute to an increase in re-
ferrals for special education assess-
ments and services.
Second Language Acquisition
In order to help English Language
Learners (ELLs) be successful in
school, it is important to understand
the stages of language acquisition
and how they impact a student’s abil-
ity to understand and complete aca-
demic tasks. There are five stages of
second language acquisition outlined
by Krashen and Terrell (1983): Pre-
Production (0-6 months), Early Pro-
duction (6 months – 1 year), Speech
Emergence (1-3 years), Intermediate
Fluency (3-5 years), and Advanced
Fluency (5-7 years). Notably, it is
common for new immigrants and sec-
ond language learners to go through
a “silent period” during the Pre-
Production stage. The silent period
can last up to a year for younger stu-
dents, such as children in the early
childhood age group. Factors such as
individual personality and native lan-
guage proficiency may also impact
the duration of the silent period. For
example, a child who is more intro-
verted or has limited skills in their
native language may have a longer
silent period. During the Speech
Emergence phase of second language
acquisition, students gain Basic Inter-
personal Communication Skills
(BICS). These are the language skills
needed in social situations or day-to-
day language needed to interact so-
cially with other people. This type of
communication is not as cognitively
demanding and tends to develop be-
tween 6 months to 2 years after arri-
val to a new country. During the Ad-
vanced Fluency stage of second lan-
guage development, a student begins
to develop their formal academic lan-
guage (e.g. listening, speaking, read-
ing, and writing) called Cognitive Ac-
ademic Language Proficiency
(CALP). This type of language is
more cognitively demanding, since
new ideas, concepts, and language
are presented to students at the same
time, and is essential for a student’s
academic success. However, research
has also demonstrated that if a child
has no prior schooling or lacks sup-
port in native language development,
it may take seven to ten years for
English Language Learners (ELLs) to
catch up to their peers (Thomas &
Collier, 1995).
To help ELL students be successful in
school, it is crucial to understand the
Laura Sass and Jennifer Gonzalez
-
12
Volume LIII PROTOCOL March 2016
Working with Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Families:
A Bilingual School Psychologist Perspective
impact of second language acquisi-
tion on students both academically
and emotionally. Furthermore, know-
ing where a student’s progress falls
within the stages can assist with in-
terventions that target student needs.
It is also important to understand the
distinction between developing BICS
and later CALP. As members of the
educational community, knowing
this distinction can help us under-
stand what it may be like for a child
experiencing these stages in the
school setting; often they are learning
new concepts that may fall outside of
their own life experiences while sim-
ultaneously gaining new, more for-
mal, vocabulary.
Bilingual School Psychologists
The job of a bilingual school psy-
chologist varies greatly in breadth
and depth across the country and
within the state of Maryland. In gen-
eral, the job of a bilingual school psy-
chologist includes the assessment of
children suspected of having an edu-
cational disability; specifically school-
aged children and adolescents that
require “bilingual support” during
testing activities. It is important to
note that bilingual support can have
many different meanings depending
on the level of the student’s language
dominance. In Prince George’s Coun-
ty Public Schools, a team of bilingual
school psychologists called the Bilin-
gual Psychologist Assessment Team
(B-PAT) work to improve knowledge
of diverse populations, assessment
procedures, and home-school com-
munication across the county. A bi-
lingual school psychologist often
works with families and school com-
munity members (e.g. school psy-
chologists, teachers, administrators,
etc.) to increase awareness and
knowledge of the impact of cultural
and linguistic factors that impact a
child’s learning and social-emotional
development. For example, a bilin-
gual school psychologist can help ed-
ucators and parents of children to un-
derstand what to expect or what is
typical of a child in the process of un-
derstanding a new culture along with
acquiring a second language. Addi-
tionally, bilingual school psycholo-
gists may work to develop home-
school communication by increasing
awareness of cultural differences
along with barriers to communication
and family participation in the educa-
tional setting.
Bilingual Assessment
Cognitive and psychological assess-
ment of English Language Learners
(ELLs) can be very complex and de-
pends on a variety of factors includ-
ing: identification of appropriate test-
ing tools, use of research-based meth-
ods for interpretation, and under-
standing and overcoming barriers to
assessment of bilingual students. In
order to identify testing tools that are
appropriate for a bilingual child, you
must assess the child’s language
dominance or proficiency along with
their past exposure to academic infor-
mation. It is also often necessary to
use professional judgment during the
decision-making process and while
working with students to determine
their ability to understand and use
information presented during testing,
as well as reveal whether or not the
information or materials themselves
are impacting the child’s ability to
respond. For instance, a bilingual
school psychologist will often avoid
the use of testing materials that are
found to be linguistically and cultur-
ally-loaded. Certain assessments uti-
lize academic or formal language for
instructions or responses that are not
appropriate for ELL children with
Laura Sass and Jennifer Gonzalez
-
13
Volume LIII PROTOCOL March 2016
Working with Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Families:
A Bilingual School Psychologist Perspective
limited exposure to academic content
or language.
While research-based tools for bilin-
gual assessment and interpretation
are still lagging behind, there are still
tools available to assist with deter-
mining validity and interpreting test-
ing information. In Prince George’s
County, the team of bilingual school
psychologists (B-PAT) uses the Cul-
tural and Linguistic Interpretive Ma-
trix (C-LIM) developed from research
findings that culturally and linguisti-
cally diverse individuals tend to score
lower on tests with higher levels of
cultural content and higher degrees
of linguistic demand than they do on
tests that are lower on these two di-
mensions (Flanagan, Ortiz & Alfonso,
2007). The C-LIM can be used to de-
termine what performance is typical
of a child from a diverse cultural and
linguistic background and what per-
formance does not follow a typical
pattern or trend to assist profession-
als in interpreting whether tests can
be considered a valid estimation of an
ELL child’s performance or whether
the cultural and linguistic aspects of
the test itself impacted performance.
As with any other assessment tool, it
is crucial that the C-LIM be used in
conjunction with other information to
assist in test interpretation and deci-
sion-making. Moreover, the use of the
C-LIM requires training and practice
in order to understand the program
and be able to interpret scores at a
higher level.
Much like all testing practices, there
are barriers to bilingual assessment of
children that school psychologists
must surmount to be successful. First,
testing is often administered with bi-
lingual presentation of materials, us-
ing both English and Spanish, which
is true for the majority of bilingual
testing in Prince George’s County.
Many children are considered to be
“mixed dominant” in that they are
equally strong in English and Spanish
or do not have one language that is
stronger than the other. Yet nearly all
standardized assessment procedures
are not normed on a population with
this type of linguistic structure or lev-
el of need. Second, psychological and
cognitive assessment materials have
not been normed on children who are
unfamiliar with the formality or aca-
demic nature of the language used in
testing procedures, which extends to
populations whose native language
does not have academic vocabulary
or written components. This creates a
need to rephrase testing procedures
and adjust demonstrations to ensure
that a student understands the given
task; yet changing the procedures in-
validates assessment information,
from a statistical standpoint. For
those reasons, there is a need to up-
date assessment tools to better reflect
the diverse needs of the populations
immigrating to the United States.
Helping Diverse Students to Be Suc-
cessful
In order to improve academic out-
comes for English Language Learners
(ELLs), it is important to coordinate
programs and activities in schools, at
home, and in the community. One
way to improve parent participation
is by encouraging families to join
school-based activities, visit the class-
rooms, and attend parent-teacher
conferences. Staff training in schools
is instrumental in increasing faculty
knowledge of working with children
from diverse cultural and linguistic
backgrounds, increasing cultural
competency. Training should focus
on interventions designed for chil-
dren learning English as a second lan-
guage and utilize current research
about programs and strategies that
Laura Sass and Jennifer Gonzalez
-
14
Volume LIII PROTOCOL March 2016
Working with Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Families:
A Bilingual School Psychologist Perspective
help ELL students to access educa-
tion. Schools can send home re-
sources about classroom subjects and
activities in families’ native languages
and may also communicate with care-
givers regularly to help them to un-
derstand what students are working
on in the classrooms. When ELLs
struggle academically, they should be
referred to school-based intervention
teams for additional interventions
designed specifically to meet their
needs based on current research.
To reach families at home, schools
and school systems can offer parent
trainings or classes that focus on
strategies families can incorporate at
home to improve their student’s aca-
demic skills and/or positive parenting
strategies to improve social-
emotional functioning and lessen
family stress. Schools can also con-
nect families to community resources
to ensure families have basic life
needs met. For example, the Trans-
forming Neighborhoods Initiative
(TNI) in Prince George’s County
works with families to improve their
ability to identify and access school
and community resources (e.g. medi-
cal or health, employment, education,
and legal needs).
Families from diverse backgrounds,
especially families who recently im-
migrated to the United States, often
depend heavily on the support of
school community members. There-
fore educators, administrators, and
other school support personnel are in
a unique position to assist families in
need and to improve individual stu-
dent outcomes. School psychologists,
especially, are among personnel
trained and able to promote and facil-
itate the connection between schools,
families, and community groups and
programs.
Laura Sass and Jennifer Gonzalez
ARTICLES WELCOME!
Are you doing something unique in your county that you would like to tell others about? Did
you read a recently published professional book that you would like to review?
Submit PROTOCOL articles or ideas to:
-
15
Volume LIII PROTOCOL March 2016
PGCSPA Hosts 2nd Annual Gallery Walk: Connect the Dots,
Art Works!
Michelle Vertanen, School Psychologist PG County
I n honor of School Psychology Awareness Week 2015, the Prince George’s County School Psychologists’
Association (PGCSPA) used NASP’s Connect the Dots
theme and a newly established partnership with Art
Works Now, a non-profit local art studio, to host our 2nd
Annual Gallery Walk: Connect the Dots, Art Works!
School psychologists worked with their school’s art
programs to facilitate an educational lesson inspired by
the popular Pixar movie, Inside Out, to teach students
about their many colorful emotions. Using 6” x 6”
wooden panels and a various art mediums, students
created unique expressions of a chosen emotion and
supplemented their design with a brief narrative.
Community partners, educational leaders, school psy-
chologists, students, and families attended the gallery
walk to view over 300 pieces of student art displayed at
the Art Works Now studio.
Attendees were also invited to network with key edu-
cational stakeholders, learn about the important work
of the school psychologist, and to hear a keynote
presentation delivered by the office of the County Exec-
utive. The event was hugely successful in recognizing
Michelle Vertanen, School Psychologist, PGCSPA President,
Whitney R. Palin, Office of County Executive, Erica Chandler,
School Psychologist, PGCSPA Vice President
Picture Caption: I feel AnGer when My sister throws stuff in
the middle of MY room for no Reason.— Kardom Chatmon
-
16
Volume LIII PROTOCOL March 2016
PGCSPA Hosts 2nd Annual Gallery Walk: Connect the Dots,
Art Works!
not only the many talents of our students in Prince
George’s County but also the importance of meeting our
students’ social-emotional needs within the educational
setting.
PGCSPA would like to thank the generous staff of Art
Works Now staff, Pyramid Atlantic, Maryland Coalition
of Families, Mental Health Association of Maryland,
Family Services Inc. of Sheppard Pratt Health System,
Contemporary Family Services, and the following Prince
George’s County schools for their support and contribu-
tions: Mary Harris “Mother Jones” ES, Melwood ES, Al-
lenwood ES, Riverdale ES, Accokeek Academy, Long
fields ES, Scotchtown Hills ES, Calverton ES, Drew Free-
man MS, and Charles H. Flowers HS.
In Prince George’s County, we are connecting the dots to
help students THRIVE!
Michelle Vertanen, School Psychologist PG County
Parent and student from Melwood Elementary School:
Nieshe Greenfield and Nyazia Senatuse
-
17
Volume LIII PROTOCOL March 2016
9th Annual Legislative Breakfast
The MSPA Legislative Committee
hosted the 9th Annual Legislative
Breakfast in Annapolis on January 14,
2016 in the House Building. This was
my fifth time attending the event,
which I started doing in my second
year of graduate school. This year I
attended as the Committee Chair. Alt-
hough all of my years of attendance
seem fairly minimal compared to
some of the other dedicated school
psychologists who have been plan-
ning and attending this event for far
more years. I continue to be amazed
by how the event grows and devel-
ops. This year we welcomed an amaz-
ing turn out of both legislators and
school psychologists to continue the
development of the presence of our
profession in Annapolis.
The breakfast serves as a mechanism
for the committee as well as MSPA to
make connections with legislators
across the state. By making and rein-
forcing these connections over the
years the committee is able to support
legislation pertaining to education,
mental health, and children and their
families. Additionally, MSPA is able
to share the value we have as a pro-
fession in terms of being a resource
for legislators when bills pertaining
to our area of expertise are brought
up during the session. The committee
works diligently to maintain strong
relationships with those legislators on
education subcommittees and also
those who are in the education field.
It is also valuable to highlight our
skill set to those who are unfamiliar
with education, because our
knowledge will be especially helpful
to them.
Shannon Cassidy, Legislative Committee Chair, Washington County
School Psychologists at the 9th Annual Legislative Breakfast
-
18
Volume LIII PROTOCOL March 2016
9th Annual Legislative Breakfast
This year MSPA was represented by
over thirty school psychologists,
school psychology faculty, and school
psychology students. The psycholo-
gist representation was from all over
the state including central, southern,
western, and eastern MD. Our stu-
dent representation included Bowie,
Howard, and Gallaudet University.
Several school psychologists as well
as students were able to make indi-
vidual appointments with their own
legislators to meet in their respective
offices, which provides opportunities
for more significant connections. It is
always great to see such diversity
among the psychologist participants.
In addition to our fantastic member
ship support the committee is pleased
to say that over 60 legislative officers
were in attendance this year. The
group of legislators in attendance rep-
resented one of our larger turnouts
and we were very pleased to see that
in the majority of instances the legis-
lators themselves were in attendance,
as opposed to staff members. Alt-
hough we encourage legislators to
send staff members if they are unable
to attend, the ideal situation is for the
legislators themselves to join us and
that was what we saw this year.
As in years past we shared valuable
information about school psychology,
presented posters of activities school
psychologists are engaged with in
their schools, attended the session,
and gave special gifts to those legisla-
tors who are members on the com-
mittees dealing with educational is-
sues: Ways & Means (W&M) in the
House and Education and Health, &
Environment Affairs (EHEA) in the
Senate. The year the folders provided
to legislators included the MSPA Bro-
chure, NASP Practice Model, the
NASP White Paper on School Psy-
chologists, and a fact sheet on mental
health. The posters shared were dis-
played from multiple LEAs across the
state and highlighted several areas of
practice unique to the field of school
psychology. When session began, a
group of school psychologists attend-
ed in both the House and Senate and
were introduced to both groups of
legislators. In the House session
MSPA was introduced by Delegate
Arianna Kelly and in the Senate ses-
sion the introduction was made by
Senator Gail Bates. As the members
of the W&M and EHEA committees
signed into the breakfast, they were
given a special gift in addition to the
information folders as a thank you for
their efforts toward issues that are
important to MSPA. The gift included
one of the MSPA Connect the Dots
Tumblers that had a bag of chocolate
covered espresso beans and hand
sanitizer inside. For the W&M and
EHEA members that were unable to
attend, the gifts and information were
Shannon Cassidy, Legislative Committee Chair, Washington County
School Psychology Students & Faculty at the 9th Annual Legislative Breakfast
-
19
Volume LIII PROTOCOL March 2016
9th Annual Legislative Breakfast
hand delivered to offices directly.
This year’s event was highly success-
ful and could not have been possible
without the support of the Legislative
committee who works extremely hard
for months to prepare; each of those
individuals deserves a great deal of
praise for their effort. In addition to
the committee members, the MSPA
executive board as well as the mem-
bers are essential participants and
deserve many thanks as well.
The 2016 Legislative Session has start-
ed with a bang and the number of
bills that have been filed continues to
grow. At this time several hundred
bills have already been filed, and the
committee has been working to re-
view each bill and then discuss those
that are related to our field of prac-
tice. As the session continues the
committee will meet regularly to dis-
cuss the bills that require action, and
those bills on which action is taken
will be posted on the MSPA website.
The session runs through April so
there is still a lot of time for more bills
to come!
If you’re interested in joining the
committee to review and discuss bills
or if you are familiar with a bill that
you would like to the committee to
consider please contact the committee
Chair, Shannon Cassidy at legisla-
Shannon Cassidy, Legislative Committee Chair, Washington County
School Psychologists and School Psychology Students with Delegate Diana Fennell
-
20
Volume LIII PROTOCOL March 2016
Update: Results and Outcomes of the Licensure Survey:
Professional Standards Committee Report:
Over the last several years, the MSPA
Executive Board has received re-
quests from members to discuss the
pursuit of a separate licensure for
school psychologists. At this time,
school psychologists in Maryland
cannot be licensed unless they pos-
sess an approved doctoral degree in
psychology, meet state standards for
their internship, and pass a national
and state exam. Licensure enables a
psychologist to practice independent-
ly without supervision outside of an
employment setting; it would also
enable school psychologists em-
ployed by Maryland school systems
to let their systems bill Medicaid for
some of their services to students
with disabilities.
Considering the level of interest ex-
pressed from various MSPA mem-
bers, then-MSPA Present David
Holdefer requested that additional
information be obtained from the
members regarding their feelings,
support, or opposition for obtaining
licensure for school psychologists
who do not meet current licensure
criteria in Maryland (for example,
school psychologists who do not have
a doctoral degree). It was in turn re-
quested that the Professional Stand-
ards Committee develop and distrib-
ute a survey to the membership to
collect this information. As the com-
mittee designed the survey, it was
emphasized that not only did we
want to gauge the membership’s level
of interest, but also to determine how
invested the membership would be in
the pursuit of licensure. Questions
that were asked in the survey to de-
termine overall level of interest in-
cluded, “Would you be in favor of
MSPA pursuing licensure for school
psychologists?” and “If school psy-
chologists were able to pursue licen-
sure to practice privately, would you
pursue that licensure?”. In addition,
two questions were included to deter-
mine the level of financial commit-
ment members would be interested in
providing in pursuit of licensure.
Each question was also followed up
with an item asking each member to
rate his or her level of interest (from
“Minimal” to “Very Strong”) and to
provide any comments.
As many of you are aware, the licen-
sure survey was sent out to member-
ship and responses were collected
throughout May, 2015. Reflective of
the high level of interest in this topic,
a strong response rate was obtained
(234 members responded to the sur-
vey, which accounts for almost half of
all active members). Furthermore,
the responses were quite clear in indi-
cating that the majority of members
who participated in the survey are in
favor of licensure for school psy-
chologists to be pursued further. For
example, 79.5% of respondents indi-
cated that they would be in favor of
MSPA pursuing licensure for school
psychologists; 67.4% of respondents
would pursue such a licensure to
practice privately if it existed; 63.4%
would support a dues increase to fi-
nance legislative action in pursuit of
licensure; and 57.3% would be willing
to make an extra contribution toward
MSPA’s legislative efforts to pursue
licensure.
The survey results were shared with
the MSPA Executive Board at the
Summer Planning meeting in July,
2015. Considering this feedback pro-
vided by MSPA membership, the
Board recommended that a separate
ad hoc committee be formed to fur-
ther explore the possibility of seeking
some form of licensure for school
psychologists in Maryland. This
committee will consider the initial
data provided via the survey of mem-
bership, collect any additional infor-
mation deemed necessary to drive
decision-making, and further engage
the MSPA membership in order to
increase awareness and inform the
members of the possible outcomes of
any actions taken by MSPA. Ulti-
mately, the Licensure Ad Hoc Com-
mittee will provide specific recom-
Matt Lawser, Prince Georges County & Chair of Professional Standards Committee
-
21
Volume LIII PROTOCOL March 2016
Update: Results and Outcomes of the Licensure Survey:
Professional Standards Committee Report:
mendations to the executive board
regarding actions to be taken on be-
half of MSPA.
On behalf of the Professional Stand-
ards Committee and MSPA, I want to
thank everyone who took the time to
complete the licensure survey and
provide such valuable feedback to the
Executive Board. Anyone who is in-
terested in working on the Licensure
Ad Hoc Committee is encouraged to
contact the MSPA President, Selina
Oliver ([email protected]).
Any questions regarding the licen-
sure survey can be directed to Matt
Lawser, Professional Standards Com-
mittee Chair
rg).
Matt Lawser, Prince Georges County & Chair of Professional Standards Committee
Notes from Your Program Committee
Laura Shriver, School Psychologist, Carroll County—Program Committee
At every MSPA conference the pro-
gram committee asks attendees for
their feedback. On the evaluation
form we ask if you like the speaker,
the food, and the facilities. We also
ask for suggestions about future top-
ics membership wants to hear. All of
this information is correlated and
made available to the committee, in-
cluding each and every individual
comment that is made. As a com-
mittee we look at all of the input in
order to develop the best programs,
in comfortable facilities, at the best
price.
In the past couple of years we have
gotten an increase in requests to hold
our Summer Institute in Maryland
instead of Delaware. As a committee
we felt the requests for a change of
venue were valid ones. Some LEA’s
will not pay for and/or give mileage
for out-of-state conferences. Of
course the most obvious question is,
“Why is MSPA, which represents
Maryland school psychologists,
spending their money in another
state?” So in order to be able to an-
swer the question, some research was
done.
It all started with trying to find a full
service resort in Ocean City that
would meet or exceed the same
standards of our current facilities in
Rehoboth Beach. There were several
factors that were specifically looked
at based on what we know about the
Atlantic Sands. They included appro-
priate meeting rooms, room rates,
access to beach/shopping/restaurants,
parking, service charges, taxes, wifi,
pools, check-out times, and availabil-
ity. A few of us started to look on-line
at hotels we felt could house our
group. We read on-line reviews and
talked to people who had either
stayed or been at conferences in
Ocean City. Our list was narrowed to
five that met our standards.
What was learned during this process
is that there are only a few hotels in
OC that can house a group as large as
ours. While this surprised me, it was
reinforced several times by the sales
managers of the hotels I dealt with.
After much discussion I made ap-
pointments with five of the top picks
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]
-
22
Volume LIII PROTOCOL March 2016
Notes from Your Program Committee
for on-sight visits. I wanted to see
where the hotels were, what the bed-
rooms looked like and what the meet-
ing facilities were like. With my secret
partner (who has also been to all our
prior locations for the Summer Insti-
tute) we set off on the OC Project.
Our hopes were dashed by the new-
est and nicest hotel which did not
have a room big enough for our
workshop. Another hotel we liked
and would have met our needs will
not do group bookings during the last
two weeks of June. Our third visit
was to a facility under restoration; it
would not have been an improve-
ment on our current facilities. There
were large pillars in the meeting
room and I knew it would draw com-
plaints.
And then there were two. Two hotels
that we both agreed met our stand-
ards. Both were available for June
2017 so we requested bids. All perti-
nent information was provided to the
program committee for review. The
bottom line was – room rates in
Ocean City were slightly higher than
at the Atlantic Sands and they have a
higher tax rate (8% hotel occupancy
tax in Delaware vs 10.5% in Mary-
land). Service charges for our food in
Rehoboth are 21%. In Maryland they
add a 20% service fee plus 6% Mary-
land State Tax and .5% Local Tax. The
other benefit to the Atlantic Sands is
its exceptional location. Neither of the
other two hotels can beat the conven-
ience of where we currently are.
After much deliberation the com-
mittee has decided that the value we
are getting at the Atlantic Sands is
worth more than attempting to move
the Summer Institute to Ocean City at
this time. We will continue to review
your suggestions and input and look
forward to seeing you at our next
event.
Michael Nuth, Historian
Views From the Past: Constitutional Changes Over the Years
Laura Shriver, School Psychologist, Carroll County—Program Committee
Over the last year and one-half the
MSPA Board has been attempting to
reconcile the material in our Constitu-
tion, Policies and Operational Hand-
book. Our Constitution has been the
primary source for governing the
Maryland School Psychologists’ As-
sociation since its inception. I was
asked to give a brief presentation to
the Board regarding the evolution of
our Constitution and how that reflect-
ed on our changing views. The earli-
est Constitution that has been seen in
the archives is from the early 1980’s.
In this constitution there are three
primary membership categories: Ac-
tive, Associate and Honorary. There
was also a special category defined as
Charter Members. These were indi-
viduals who were Active members as
of September 1966 and were per-
mitted to maintain their Active level
as long as they kept their member-
ship active. If they lapsed they
would need to meet the established
standard for Active membership.
Additionally the leadership was set
up with an Executive Board responsi-
ble for the operation of the organiza-
tion and an Advisory Committee,
made up from members from each
LEA and school training program.
The Advisory Committee did just
that, they advised and had no vote on
the Board. The Advisory Council had
the “privilege of suggesting activities
for the Association and of recom-
mending Constitution and By-laws”.
The Advisory Council could suggest
-
23
Volume LIII PROTOCOL March 2016
Views From the Past: Constitutional Changes Over the Years
chairpersons and council all officers
and committee chairs so that the
work of the Association reflected “the
needs of the local areas of the State”.
At the time of this earliest Constitu-
tion there were only six standing
committees (Budget, Legislation,
Membership, Program, Publicity and
Information and Ethics and Profes-
sional Standards and Practices).
In 1990 a Constitutional change was
made that redefined membership cat-
egories, adding Distinguished and
Retired member categories and re-
moving the Honorary membership
designation. Committees expanded
with the addition of Nominations,
University Liaison and Long Range
Planning committees. Publicity and
Public Information committee was
split into the Newsletter committee
and Public Relation/Public Infor-
mation (PR/PI) committee. The Budg-
et committee was removed, with the
requirement of an Annual Financial
Review added to the Treasurer’s du-
ties. The office of the Second Vice
President was eliminated, but the Ad-
visory Council was still active. Finally
the required meetings for the Board
was set at 10 in the Constitution.
In 1992 a major overhaul of the Con-
stitution was undertaken, which
serves as the basis for our current
constitution. It was the first of several
revisions to occur in the next six
years. Policy #10 was written and
approved by the Board, which creat-
ed a mechanism for recognizing local
School Psychology Organizations and
granting them a vote on the Board.
At this same time the NASP Delegate
was listed as an officer and granted a
vote on the Board.
In 1994 the Constitution changed to
add Multicultural Affairs, Profession-
al Development and Information
Management to the standing com-
mittees and to change PR/PI to Public
Affairs. Another major change was to
add Recognized School Psychology
Training Programs as a voting mem-
ber of the Board. However, nothing
was created to identify the program
or to monitor their participation in
the activities of the Board, as had
been done with Local School Psychol-
ogy Organizations.
Several minimal changes were added
in the next three years. In 1998 the
Constitution was amended to include
Student Membership. Policy #5 that
defines membership categories was
revised in February 1999 to include
Student Members to align with the
Constitutional change. In 2001, NCSP
was added as a method of qualifying
as an Active Member, the standing
committees expanded to add a Histo-
rian Committee and liaisons for
NASP, MSDE and MPA were all add-
ed to the Board. Finally, the succes-
sion for the Treasurer position was
altered to allow the Treasurer to suc-
ceed themselves more than once with
the approval of the Board. It was
thought at the time of this change
that the complexity of the Treasurer’s
office and the fiduciary requirements
might be better served by not having
the position change hands every two
years.
No more changes occurred for nearly
ten years, until 2010. At this time the
Finance committee was added, nam-
ing the Treasurer as the chair with the
President, Past President and Presi-
dent-Elect as the remaining com-
mittee. This formalized the financial
oversight of these officers concerning
the financial status of the organiza-
tion. At this same time, the names of
standing committees were changed to
more closely align themselves to com-
mittees at NASP. Historian was
changed to Archival Committee and
Multicultural Affairs Committee was
Michael Nuth, Historian
-
24
Volume LIII PROTOCOL March 2016
Views From the Past: Constitutional Changes Over the Years
changed to Diversity. Prior to this re-
vision, the Board had undertaken in
2005-2007 the creation of an Opera-
tions Handbook that more specifical-
ly outlined the duties and responsi-
bilities of each officer and committee.
The Constitution, Policy Manual and
Operations Handbook were created
in recognition that each of the other
documents existed, but not closely
enough to avoid creating some con-
tradictions in terms and procedures.
Selina Oliver, our current President,
recognized the inconsistencies and
attempted to correct all three docu-
ments in her year as President-Elect.
The Constitutional changes that we
voted on in October, 2015 was the
first step in aligning all the govern-
ance documents within the organiza-
tion. Courtnay Oatts, current Presi-
dent-Elect has taken on this task and
the hope is to have the Policy and
Handbook documents aligned by the
end of the year. This is an enormous
task that will eventually bring all doc-
uments together to compliment and
not contradict.
Michael Nuth, Historian
MSPA Training Grant: Motivational Interviewing
Sue Reedy & Jessy Sammons, School Psychologists in Calvert County
School Psychologists in Southern
Maryland provide mental health ser-
vices to students in multiple capaci-
ties, including counseling students
individually and in groups. As part of
counseling, school psychologists
strive to attain goals such as helping
students to develop positive alterna-
tive behaviors, make better decisions,
and cope with daily challenges. In
order for a student to make these
changes, they must be motivated to
do so. On August 21, 2015, 37 mem-
bers of the Southern Maryland School
Psychologists Association (SMSPA),
which includes School Psychologists
from Calvert, Charles and St. Mary’s
counties, with the support of an
MSPA funded grant, spent a half-day
with Dr. Terry Molony learning about
Motivational Interviewing (Miller &
Rollnick, 2013; Reinke, Herman, &
Sprick, 2011). Motivational Interview-
ing (MI) is a client-centered, directive
method for enhancing intrinsic moti-
vation to change by exploring and
resolving ambivalence.
Our presenter, Dr. Molony, Psy. D.,
NCSP has accomplished a lot since
beginning her career. In fact, in 2014
the National Association of School
Psychologists named Dr. Molony as
the School Psychologist of the Year.
In her presentation of the NASP
award, Dr. Sally Bass, NASP Presi-
dent, stated that Dr. Molony “has ex-
emplified services in the areas of pos-
itive psychology, systems change and
intervention, building relationships,
advocacy, and mentoring college stu-
dents.” Dr. Molony has been a prac-
ticing School Psychologist in Cherry
Hill Public Schools in New Jersey for
the past 13 years. In addition, she is
an Adjunct Professor for the School
Psychology Program and an Assess-
ment Supervisor in the Clinical Psy-
chology Program at the Philadelphia
College of Osteopathic Medicine
(PCOM). Prior to her School Psychol-
ogy career, Dr. Molony worked as a
licensed clinical social worker. Dr.
Molony has had a decisive impact on
her district’s practices and policies
related to student mental health and
engagement. She has been instrumen-
tal in starting a positive behavior sup-
-
25
Volume LIII PROTOCOL March 2016
MSPA Training Grant: Motivational Interviewing
port system that has been fully func-
tional for the last 8 years. She designs
and provides presentations to teach-
ers and parents, holds lunch clubs for
students and teachers, and works
with district leaders to enhance ser-
vices within the district. She also
works with children individually and
in groups addressing a host of emo-
tional difficulties, including anxiety,
school phobia, social skills, positive
psychology, friendship, behavioral
challenges, and self-advocacy. Ad-
ministrators and others who work
with Dr. Molony share that through
her work, Dr. Molony has helped to
create a school culture and climate
that is very caring, warm, and trust-
ing. We in Southern Maryland felt
that there was no one better to come
teach us about Motivational Inter-
viewing.
SMSPA School Psychologists learned
that Motivational Interviewing (MI)
takes into account why people change
and why they don’t. The goal of MI is
to ask questions to help people deter-
mine if they want to change their be-
havior. Through questioning, the
School Psychologist tries to determine
what motivates the student. By listen-
ing closely to what the person is say-
ing, the School Psychologist listens
for “change talk” to determine
whether the person states a need, de-
sire, reason, ability or commitment to
make a change. When they hear the
“change talk,” they reflect back on it
and ask questions. The School Psy-
chologists’ goal is to help the person
develop a discrepancy, between what
they are doing and what they need to
be doing, so that they are more moti-
vated to change. By using an empa-
thetic and authentic voice, the School
Psychologist builds rapport with the
student/client and assists him/her to
come up with the reasons for change.
MI also emphasizes that the School
Psychologist use open ended ques-
tions, affirmation, reflective listening,
and summarizing to encourage
change by helping the person to raise
the importance of making the change,
as well as building their confidence
that they can make the change. Using
these skills helps the student feel
ready, willing, and able to make the
change. MI is not a process where in-
formation is imparted, but instead
elicited from the person. The School
Psychologist seeks to acknowledge
the person’s strengths and efforts. No
judgments are made, instead the
School Psychologist needs to authen-
tically affirm positive statements. Dr.
Molony expressed that Motivational
Interviewing can be used with stu-
dents, teachers, parents, or anyone
who wants or needs to make a
change.
The participants really enjoyed the
presentation as indicated by the posi-
tive comments shared on the evalua-
tion scale, such as that Dr. Molony
gave a wonderful presentation and
the presentation was full of great
practical information. People felt that
the presentation was very useful and
that real world examples were
shared. They felt that the topic was
very relevant to our daily practice.
If you are interested in learning more
about Motivational Interviewing, Dr.
Molony shared some of her favorite
references. Miller, W., & Rollnick, S.
(2002). Motivational Interviewing: Pre-
paring people for change (2nd ed.). New
York: Guilford Press.; Miller, W., &
Rollnick, S. (2013). Motivational inter-
viewing: Helping people change (3rd ed.).
New York: Guilford Press.; and Rein-
ke, W., Herman, K., Sprick, R. (2011).
Motivational interviewing for effective
classroom management. New York: Guil-
ford Press.
Sue Reedy & Jessy Sammons, School Psychologists in Calvert County
-
26
Volume LIII PROTOCOL March 2016
MSPA Training Grant: ABA Applications
School psychology practicum stu-
dents with Carroll County Public
Schools (CCPS) are afforded opportu-
nities to observe CCPS’ approach to
ensuring that school psychologists
and support staff are prepared to pro-
vide the best and most effective ser-
vices to students. Carroll County
Public Schools school psychologists
participated in an Applied Behavior
Analysis (ABA) professional develop-
ment training, funded by a Maryland
School Psychologist’ Association
(MSPA) training grant. This training
was provided to increase understand-
ing of ABA techniques and to demon-
strate how these techniques can be
applied in the school setting to pro-
vide direct services and consultation.
The presenter, Mrs. Holly Bennett,
provided useful information regard-
ing the history of ABA, rationale, and
treatment approaches. Furthermore,
Mrs. Bennett clarified misconceptions
about ABA.
Mrs. Bennett’s presentation ad-
dressed four main themes that related
to the use of ABA in schools for stu-
dents with Autism Spectrum Disor-
ders (ASD). First she discussed using
ABA to collect data for Functional
Behavioral Assessments (FBA) and
analyzing that data to create mean-
ingful and effective Behavior Inter-
vention Plans (BIP). In school psy-
chology training programs, such as
the one at Towson University, sys-
tematic data collection and using data
to make decisions are focal points in
every class. Mrs. Bennett’s explana-
tion of how ABA can be utilized to
collect data and make decisions pro-
vided additional insight into other
methods that can be used in conjunc-
tion with those that school psycholo-
gists are trained to use in their aca-
demic settings. There is much overlap
between concepts taught in graduate
level FBA classes and ABA practices.
The second theme Mrs. Bennett ex-
plored, was the application of ABA
principles to instructional methodolo-
gies as they relate to skill acquisition
in the school setting. Functional Com-
munication Training (FCT) stood out
as an important method of teaching
appropriate communication skills to
students with ASD. As explained by
Mrs. Bennett, the goal of FCT is to
teach students appropriate communi-
cation skills that serve the same func-
tion as less productive communica-
tion skills. This instructional method-
ology is an example of a training that
can be implemented to students by
teachers and staff with the support of
the school psychologist through In-
structional Consultation.
Third, Mrs. Bennett defined and mod-
eled verbal behavior. Verbal behavior
is a concept that may be unfamiliar to
graduate students, early practitioners,
and even experienced school psy-
chologists. With the growing applica-
tion of ABA services, it is important
that school psychologists become fa-
miliar with this methodology. After
Mrs. Bennett’s verbal behavior expla-
nation, school psychologists and oth-
er practitioners were was able to see
how the fundamentals of teaching
verbal behavior aligned with several
concepts already being applied
through FBA procedures. For exam-
ple, Mrs. Bennett explained that the
use of functional analysis to deter-
mine if the function of the undesired
behavior was a vital step to teaching
appropriate replacement verbal be-
haviors. Additionally, learning the
terminology used by applied behav-
ior analysts (e.g., mand, tact, echoic)
is key in engaging fluent cross-
practitioner discussions and ultimate-
ly supporting students. Knowledge of
commonly used ABA language will
be helpful when collaborating with
ABA professionals and when utiliz-
ing ABA research to enhance a school
psychologist practice.
Last, a discussion on how ABA is ap-
plied in the home-setting was provid-
ed throughout the presentation. Mrs.
Bennett emphasized the importance
of providing a continuum of services
for children with ASD and their fami-
lies. Ranging from graduate school to
experienced professionals, school
psychologists recognize first-hand
how vital home-school collaboration
is to the success of all students. More
specifically, it is important for stu-
dents that rely on intense supports to
be successful in school to have contin-
ued services within the home setting.
Understanding the role ABA can play
in the home-setting, school personnel
can better advocate for students with
ASD to receive such services in their
home, and to facilitate their overlap
into the school environment. Overall,
Mrs. Bennett’s presentation served as
a foundation for understanding the
Kim Dorsey and Juralee Smith, Carroll County
-
27
Volume LIII PROTOCOL March 2016
MSPA Training Grant: ABA Applications
role ABA can play in the school
setting. Additionally, the presentation
demonstrated the importance of col-
laborating with other professionals to
provide the best services for our stu-
dents.
School psychologists, special educa-
tors, and behavior support specialists
from Carroll County, Frederick Coun-
ty, and Montgomery counties bene-
fitted from this training, and received
Mrs. Bennett quite well. Ratings re-
garding the effectiveness of the
presentation were overwhelmingly
positive. See the TABLE to the left for
evaluation results.
Thank you to MSPA for your contin-
ued support in providing high quali-
ty professional development to vari-
ous geographic locations around the
state of Maryland. This service is in-
valuable and Carroll County looks
forward to continued opportunities to
partner with MSPA.
Kim Dorsey and Juralee Smith, Carroll County
Workshop Feedback
(32 Forms Returned)
Average Rating
(Scale 1-5)
1. The presenter clarified the objectives for
today’s workshop.
4.5
2. The learning objectives for this workshop
were accomplished.
4.5
3. The presenter was well-informed and
effective.
4.7
4. There was sufficient opportunity to inter-
act with the presenter.
4.6
5. I acquired new information and/or skills
at today’s workshop.
4.5
6. I will be able to apply the content of this
workshop on the job.
4.3
7. I plan to attend future MSPA training
grant sponsored professional development.
4.8
-
28
Volume LIII PROTOCOL March 2016
-
29
Volume LIII PROTOCOL March 2016
-
30
Volume LIII PROTOCOL March 2016
MSPA Executive Board Meetings
$200 Full $50 1/4 Page
$100 1/2 Page $24 1/8 Page
Meetings begin at 1:00 p.m. and end at 4:00 p.m. Lunch is served at
12:30 p.m.
MSPA Board meetings are open to all MSPA Members. Members are
encouraged to attend and become involved with MSPA at the executive
board level.
Please visit www.mspaonline.org to register to attend a board meeting and
to find out location details.
Membership Update
Welcome to all our new members!
PROTOCOL
Publication Information
Editors
Juralee A. Smith
Lauren Kaiser
Judi Amick
Layout and Production
Juralee A. Smith
Newsletter Design
Mike S. Michael
Address Communications to:
Juralee A. Smith
MSPA Web Site:
www.mspaonline.org
________________________________
Publication Deadlines
Fall September 1 . Winter November 1
Spring February 1 . Summer May 1
Submissions
Please submit all articles as email attachments in Mi-
crosoft Word or Microsoft Word compatible formats.
Address all submissions to
Pricing for ads to be placed in the
PROTOCOL:
Lisa Austin
Maria Brickley
Casey Chappelle
Janicia Dugas
Brittany Jenkins
Nicole Jones
Susan Kolarosky
Alexis Lupfer
James Orth
Audrey Palmer
Monique Schobitz
Tamie Smith
Jessica Smolarz
Nadine Warrick
06 May 2016 1:00
PM
Carroll County, MD
Mt. Airy Elementary School
03 Jun 2016 1:00 PM Bowie, MD