Problem Solving Student Support Teams

19

There is a substantial body of research to sup-port the positive impact of school-based interven-tion and pre-referral teams. For example, school-based intervention teams have led to increased aca-demic learning time (Kovaleski, Gickling, Mor-row, & Swank, 1999), and decreased referral andspecial education placement (Fuchs, Fuchs, &Bahr, 1990; Ysseldyke & Marston, 1999). In ad-dition, school-based intervention teams appear toincrease collaboration among general and specialeducation teachers (Kovaleski, Tucker, & Stevens,1996) and between school personnel and parents(Will, 1986).

The concept of multipdisciplinary teams col-laborating to identify and implement interventionsin order to promote school success in the generaleducation curriculum has been around for over 15years (Graden, Casey, & Christenson, 1985). Mostrecently, 1997 Amendments to the Individuals withDisabilities Education Act (IDEA) cite prereferralinterventions as essential to making appropriate

referrals to special education (U.S. Congress,1997). Intervention teams are commonly dis-cussed within the field of school psychology. Forexample, the 2000 National Association of SchoolPsychologists Convention hosted over 10 paperpresentations and poster sessions on topics relatedto intervention teams. Given the empirical, legis-lative and professional support for school-basedintervention teams, it is not surprising that manyschools have them in place.

An informal survey in the fall of 2000 foundthat all of 26 school psychology graduate studentssurveyed (who represent over 35 schools in 19 dif-ferent southern California districts) reported thattheir school or schools had a functioning SST. Theperception of having a SST may be almost uni-versal in southern California, however, the func-tion and quality of the SST appears to vary dra-matically. This dramatic variation was apparenteven within one large-urban school district. A1999 survey of the district school psychologists

Problem Solving Student Support Teams

Kristin M. PowersCalifornia State University, Long Beach

The on-going efforts to improve Student Support Teams (SST) within a large, urban Californiaschool district are presented. The major goal of this reform has been to reshape the SSTs to focuson empirically supported interventions and data based decision making rather than student deficitand disability. Preliminary evaluation results indicate that these reform efforts increased theefficacy and effectiveness of the SST and led to a decline in over-representation of African Americanstudents referred to special education. Specific components of effective SSTs (i.e., organizationand management, teamwork, and problem-solving strategies) in use in the district pilot programare described in order to assist other California School Psychologists in implementing SSTs thatfoster widespread commitment among the faculty and improve educational outcomes for stu-dents. These components are summarized in a Self-Study Guide Check List that school psycholo-gists and other members of the SST may use to evaluate and reflect on the SSTs at their sites. Theimplications for the types of services school psychologists provide when embracing a problemsolving rather than medical model for servicing students are briefly examined, as well as thelimitations of the current categorical system in which we serve students with disabilities.

The author of this chapter is a faculty member at the California State University, Long Beach. Addresscorrespondence and reprint requests to Kristin M. Powers, California State University, Long Beach, EDPAC,1250 Bellflower Blvd., Long Beach, CA 90840 or e-mail <[email protected]>.

The California School Psychologist, Vol. 6, pp. 19-30, 2001Copyright 2001 California Association of School Psychologists

C A S PC A L I F O R N I A

A S S O C I A T I O N

OF S C H O O L

PSYCHOLOGISTS

20 The California School Psychologist, 2001, Vol. 6

indicated that there was great variability amongthe SST activities. For example, among the 46schools represented by these survey results, SSTswere a regularly scheduled activity in 62% of theschools, only 30% of the teams assigned a con-sultant to follow-up and supported the classroomteachers in implementing interventions, and fewerthan one third of the teams routinely re-met onstudents to examine the effectiveness of the inter-vention. Furthermore, fewer than 12% of the teamsreported collecting on-going, progress monitoringdata to determine the effectiveness of the inter-vention plans. Finally, state reported statistics in-dicated that SSTs were not successful in reducingthe over-representation of African American stu-dents and under-representation of Hispanic stu-dents in special education programs (CaliforniaDepartment of Education, 2000). Therefore, thequestion facing many districts around California,is not whether Student Support Teams are in place,but what is the quality and effectiveness of thoseteams?

REFORMING THE SST: ONESCHOOL’S SUCCESS STORY

The impetus for reforming the SST in a largeurban district highlighted in this article began, likemany reform efforts, in a single school. A group

of teachers and the school psychologist and coun-selor met to identify strengths and weakness ofthe school’s current SST and to develop an im-provement plan. The major focus of the plan wason implementing a problem-solving SST. Addi-tional modifications to the SST included chang-ing the team members to include more generaleducators and fewer special educators, assigninga consultant to every case to assist the referringteacher, and reallocating resources to hold moremeetings. Prior to presenting this plan to the schoolstaff during a faculty meeting, the teachers, coun-selor, and administrators were surveyed about thecurrent SST (N=20). These survey results pro-vided baseline data to gauge the effectiveness ofthe efforts to reform the SST. After one year ofreform, the same staff completed the survey again(N=22). Independent t-tests comparing the re-sponses in 1998 to the responses in 1999 wereconducted for select survey items. These results,summarized in Table 1, indicate a major shift inthe teachers’ perceptions of the SST. For example,most teachers no longer found the SST to be un-focused, unsupportive, and ineffective.

In addition to improved teacher perceptionsabout the SST, students also appeared to benefitfrom the new procedures. For example, almost fourtimes the number of students were served underthe new model than the previous year (43 versus

Table 1Teacher Perceptions of the SST Before and After the Pilot Year

Item Percent Agree 1998 1999

The SST is a waste of my time 50% 0*The SST is just a “hoop” to jump through to get special education services for a student. 63% 18%*The SST had clear direction 65% 100%*There was good follow-though by my colleagues after the SST 17% 85%*The student’s major difficulty was defined during the SST 50% 91%*The intervention identified by the SST matched the student’s needs 38% 90%*The SST leads to positive outcomes for students 60% 76%*

*Significant difference from prior year response; p < .01.

21

12 students), yet, the number of students referredand found eligible to received special educationservices remained constant. Furthermore, for thefirst time in years, African American students werenot over-represented in the referral and placementinto special education at this school. The propor-tion of each minority group (e.g., African Ameri-can, Hispanic and Asian American) referred andfound eligible to receive special education werecomparable to the overall demographics of theschool. Additional significant benefits include:follow-up meetings were held for 81% of the stu-dents, two thirds of the students met their inter-vention goals (goal setting and evaluation is de-scribed in greater detail in the section describingproblem-solving activities), and parental atten-dance of SST meetings doubled.

The success of reforming the SST at this oneschool triggered a district-level effort to improveall SSTs. A district multidisciplinary team wasformed and 20 schools were selected to receiveintense training and support. The major focus ofthis effort was to train teams in problem solving.Problem solving is an empirically supported strat-egy for identifying and monitoring interventions(Ysselydke & Marston, 1999). Problem solvingis distinct from traditional refer-test-place modelsbecause student challenges are addressed from anecological rather than psychometric perspective.For example, decisions about special education eli-gibility are based on responsiveness to educationinterventions rather than a search for disabilitywithin the child (Tilly, Reshcly, & Grimes, 1999).

In addition to introducing problem solving tothe targeted schools, the organization and man-agement of the SST and the team’s ability to worktogether toward a common goal were addressedby the trainings. In fact, it is sometimes necessaryto address team process and procedural variablesprior to focusing on problem solving strategies(Telzrow, McNamara, & Hollinger, 2000).

The successes and challenges encountered aseach of these 20 SSTs attempt to implement andsustain a problem solving model can be a resourcefor teams interested in engaging in similar reform.Based on the current literature on school reform,problem solving and consultation and on lessons

learned from the efforts underway in this large,urban California school district, some features ofeffective SSTs are described next.

FEATURES OF EFFECTIVEPROBLEM SOLVING STUDENT

SUPPORT TEAMS

Picture a highly effective SST. You mayenvision regularly scheduled meetings ofmultidisciplinary staff and parents that focus onexamining data to identify a student’s need andthen developing interventions based on thoseneeds. You may also imagine the team meetingagain later to follow-up on the outcome of the in-terventions and to decide the next course of ac-tion based on data collected during the interven-tion. This is the ideal.

Unfortunately, in reality, many teams are lessthan effective. These teams meet irregularly, typi-cally when a student or teacher is in crisis, spenda lot of time “admiring the problem” rather thanidentifying solutions, and suggest similar uncre-ative intervention ideas for each case. These inef-fective meetings typically result in one of two sce-narios (a) the referring teacher and/or parent leavesthe meeting frustrated by the laundry list of inter-vention ideas that they are expected to implementwith little or no support, or (b) the student is re-ferred to special education. In the latter case, themeeting has served as a “capitulation conference”rather than an intervention meeting. In the formercase, it is highly likely that the same student willbe referred to the student support team again thenext year. However, next year’s team will be un-able to answer two very important questions:“Were the interventions identified during the pre-vious year implemented?” and, if they were imple-mented, “Did the interventions work?” Whenteams fail to re-meet and evaluate the fidelity inwhich an intervention plan is implemented and theeffectiveness of the plan, the teams are basicallystarting from scratch the next time the student isreferred because they do not have information onthe success or failure of previous interventions.

School psychologists should not assume thatrobust pre-referral interventions have been at-

Student Support Teams


tempted for a student who has been the topic of asingle or multiple SST meetings. Kovaleski andcolleagues (1999) demonstrated that student im-provement was linked to the quality of the school-based intervention teams. They found that teamsthat failed to fully implement the intervention teamprocess as designed were no more successful inimproving students’ outcomes than schools thathad no intervention team in place. Therefore, psy-chologists should not conclude that a SST’s fail-ure to improve student outcomes warrants extremeinterventions such as special education, grade re-tention, or serious disciplinary action for individualstudents. Rather, psychologists should evaluate thequality of their SST and strive to improve the SSTat their site if it is failing to invoke change in manystudents’ behavior. A self-study checklist is in-cluded in Table 2 to assist school psychologistsand other SST members in identifying areas ofstrength and weakness within their team process.These characteristics of effective SSTs are groupedinto three broad categories (a) organization andmanagement issues, (b) teamwork, and (c) prob-lem-solving strategies. They are described belowalong with some trouble-shooting ideas.

Organization and management are factors thatare necessary but not sufficient to ensuring an ef-fective SST. Poor organization and mismanage-ment can result in disorganized meetings, failureto document decisions, and generally high levelsof frustration among the team members. The or-ganization and management features of a SST dis-cussed below are: making a referral, schedulingmeetings, length of the meeting, pace and focusof the meeting, and dissemination of the results.

Oraganization and Mangement

Making a referral. The first aspect of aschool’s SST to consider is the referral process.Do teachers and parents understand how to makea referral to the SST? It is common for new teach-ers to not know about the SST at their school;therefore, they are unlikely to access it as a re-source. Consider introducing the SST process ev-

ery year to the staff of your school, and perhapsdevelop a brochure on SSTs to be sent to parents.Sometimes even veteran teachers are unsure ofhow to make a referral. In some schools, a refer-ral may come in the form of a verbal request tothe psychologist, or a scribbled note in thecounselor’s mailbox, or a phone message to theprincipal from a parent. Without a standard refer-ral system, such requests for assistance may belost in the general noise of our very busy schools.Consider establishing a single SST coordinatorwho receives all of the referrals.

The referrals should be made on a standardform. This form should collect important infor-mation (current and prior achievement, health anddiscipline issues, attendance, etc.) but not overlyburden the person making the referral (Rosenfield& Gravois, 1996). This is a tricky balance. Thereferral form should contain just the right amountof summary information so that the team does nothave to wade through the entirety of a student’scumulative record at the time of the SST, but theform should not be so detailed as to discouragereferrals. Training on the use of the form andschool or district data collection policies will fa-cilitate the referral process. Forms should be re-vised if it regularly takes people over 30 minutesto complete.

When examining the referral process, youmay wish to consider whether all students haveequal access to the SST. The SST, as conceptual-ized in this model, is a general education activity.As such, all students, including those who are veryyoung (i.e., kindergarten), those who have disabili-ties, and those who are English language learnersshould be eligible to benefit from a SST if theyare experiencing school failure. School personnelwho view the SST as the “gateway” to specialeducation may have been informed that very youngchildren or English language learners are inappro-priate referrals to special education and so theymay not refer students with these characteristicsto the SST. When introducing the referral processto your staff, it may be necessary to dispel someof these misconceptions and encourage the staffto refer all students who are experiencing persis-tent failure to the SST.

23

Table 2SST Self-Study Guide Checklist

Directions: Review each of the following problem solving SST components with your SST mem-bers. Identify whether each component is in place consistently (“yes”) or occasionally in place (“some-times”) or not in place at all (“no”). Identify which components are a priority for your team to focuson implementing, improving, or sustaining.

Organization and Management:

Making a Referral• SST coordinator identified• Teachers know how to sign-up/ make referral• Teachers know how to complete referral paper work• Referral paper work takes less than 30 minutes to complete• Equal access: ELL and very young student (kindergarten) and students with disabilities are referred to

the SST

Pace and Focus of the Meeting• Agenda is visible to all participants (and translated when necessary)• Time keeper signals end and beginning of problem-solving stages• Meeting space is adequate• Avoid admiring the problem• Focus on a single student at one time

Scheduling• SST scheduled or other assistance offered within one month• Established time and place for meeting• SSTs are held frequently enough to meet the demands of the student population: prior to referral to

special education, grade retention; and/or major disciplinary action• Follow-up meeting scheduled at initial SST meeting

Dissemination of the Results• Note-taker identified• Results of the meeting are recorded on forms• Results are disseminated within two days to all SST participants• Results are translated for the parents as needed

Length of the Meeting• At least 25 minutes devoted to discussing one student• No more than 45 minutes spent on an individual student• Comments:

continued on following page



Table 2Problem Solving Steps, continued

Essential People Present• Referring teacher is present• For students with more than one teacher, the other teachers are either present or there is a method to

collect their input and inform them on the intervention plan• Parent invited• Parent prepared by school staff member for the meeting• Parent is present• General education teacher(s) act as consultants• Counselor and/or psychologist is present• Administrator is present• Translator and/or ELL specialist is present when appropriate• Other________________________________

Collaborative Process• Coordinated interdependence – members freely share ideas and resources• Shared vision — focus on intervention rather than disability• Make necessary requests for clarification• Use paraphrasing• Engage in perception checking• Comments:

Problem-Solving• Problem identification• Prioritize concerns• Consider multiple data sources: interview, observation, student work, etc.• Define the problem in specific, observable terms• Identify baseline• Discuss conditions in which behavior occurs• Identify intervention goal

Plan Implementation• Consultant assigned to assist teacher in implementing classroom-based interventions• Plan implemented and modified as needed• On-going progress monitoring data are collected (at least once per week)• Data charted/visually displayed

Problem Analysis• Generate hypothesis: The problem behavior occurs because of ________• Consider contributing factors such as the curriculum, instruction, school/classroom environment, home/

community, peers, and child characteristics• Develop intervention plan• Identify on-going progress monitoring system, including who will collect the data and how often• Comments:

Plan Evaluation• Hold follow-up meeting (6-8 weeks after the initial SST)• At follow-up meeting, discuss implementation of each intervention (e.g., Did it occur as planned? What

was the outcome?)• Examine progress monitoring data• Based on treatment fidelity and progress monitoring data make a decision: continue intervention, modify

intervention, refer to special education, etc.• Closure on each student is achieved• Re-schedule another SST meeting as necessary

25

Scheduling meetings. The SST coordinatortypically schedules each referral as they occur. Itis critical that these people not act as gate-keep-ers. For example, some SST coordinators mayrefuse some requests because he/she does not thinkthat the referred student’s needs are dire enough.Gate-keepers who refuse requests for SST assis-tance may be working under the assumption thatonly students who are experiencing significantacademic or behavioral delays, which could pos-sibly qualify them for special education, shouldbe referred.This gate-keeping is very bad for mo-rale and contradicts two very important premisesof the SST: early interventions are more effectivethan those that are attempted later (Rhode, Jenson,& Reavis, 1992), and the primary purpose of theSST is to develop and implement interventions,not to determine whether to test a student for spe-cial education (Graden, 1989).

The person who schedules the SST may needto prioritize some of the referrals. If a crisisemerges, one student’s SST may be postponed foranother, or an impromptu SST may be held. Simi-larly, if a teacher is referring a lot of students orfrequently refers students for very minor difficul-ties, than a member of the SST may wish to workindividually with that teacher to identify class-wide interventions rather than holding SST meet-ings for each student.

Meeting individually with teachers may beparticularly important for a school that is strug-gling to hold enough SST meetings to meet theneeds of the student population. For example, theauthor recently consulted with a year-round, multi-track elementary school that serves 1600 students.Simply scheduling initial and follow-up meetingsfor students with very serious academic and/orbehavioral difficulties was problematic. Teachersbecame frustrated by the lengthy waiting list, of-ten waiting 3 or 4 months for a SST meeting to beheld for their student. The multi-track schedulefurther complicated implementation of interven-tions, provision of consultation during the inter-vention, and planning of follow-up meetings be-cause it seemed that invariably a key person wouldbe “off-track” at any given time. One possible

solution was to develop multiple building-wideStudent Study Teams – each one associated withone or two tracks. A second possible solution wasto have grade level meetings staff two or three stu-dents every other week. When each grade level(K-5) meets twice a month to plan interventionsfor 2 or 3 students, 24 to 36 students per monthcan be addressed, many more than a building-levelstudent support team could possibly handle in thesame time period (Sprick, 1999). A third solutionto consider is to assign a consultant to each time-slot on the SST schedule. The consultant meetswith the teacher when a referral is made, eventhough the SST meeting may not be held for 2 or3 months hence. A school that implemented thisstrategy found that the consultant helped the re-ferring teacher to define the problem, collectbaseline data and begin some interventions priorto the SST meeting. As a result, some teachers nolonger needed to meet with the SST, and otherswere much more prepared for the meeting. Theimportant thing to consider is that a teacher orparent should not wait weeks or months for assis-tance.

A final important scheduling consideration iscalendaring a follow-up date. A 6-to-8 week fol-low-up is a key component of problem solving.Scheduling the follow-up at the initial meetingmakes it more likely that all of the key partici-pants will attend. For schools that follow a tradi-tional school-year calendar, it is not unusual forthe SST to be fully “booked” from April until theend of the year with regularly scheduled follow-ups (particularly given the disruptions caused bythe lengthy state testing schedule in California).Some teachers may be frustrated that they cannotrefer a new student to the SST in the spring. How-ever, the end of the year is not the best time torefer a student to the SST because there is littletime to implement and monitor an intervention.Informing the staff that fall and winter are the besttimes to make a referral, rather than waiting untilthe end of the year, may be helpful.

Length of the meeting . The length of the SSTmeeting will obviously affect scheduling oppor-tunities and the number of students that a site is



able to serve. The suggested length for a SSTmeeting is between 25 and 35 minutes. Obviously,more lengthy meetings are appropriate when thediscourse is being translated for non-Englishspeaking parents. It is very difficult, perhaps im-possible, to fully engage in collaborative problemsolving when less than 25 minutes are devoted toa single student. While meetings that are too shortrarely result in individually tailored interventions,SST meetings that last more than an hour are alsoproblematic. Lengthy discussions may result inSST members becoming over-committed to theintervention plan (Sprick, 1999). The team maybelieve the extended time and effort they devotedto developing a plan has necessarily resulted inthe optimal plan, and if that plan fails, team mem-bers may be unlikely to revise or try another plan.This is incongruent with two major assumption ofproblem solving: (a) there is absolutely no way toknow whether an intervention will work except totry it, and (b) intervention strategies should be re-vised if they are not working (Shapiro, 1996).Thus, over-commitment to a single plan can thwartthe problem-solving process.

Pace and focus of the meeting. Problem solv-ing should be the focus of the SST meeting. Thefirst step in problem solving is problem identifi-cation, which emphasizes factors that the SST caninfluence. This approach is very different than andstands in contrast to “admiring” the problem.“Admiring” the problem may include a lengthydiscussion about historic events the SST membershave absolutely no influence over (e.g., a mother’spast substance abuse, a father’s prior incarcera-tion). It is important to understand past eventsonly for predicting future student behaviors, notto reinforce the myth that the student difficultiesare immutable due to historic events. Similarly,admiring the problem may take the form of dis-cussing the student’s brother, cousin, or even acompletely unrelated students who shares similarattributes. This line of inquiry may be helpful inidentifying interventions that have proven success-ful with similar problems but is very ineffective ifthe discussion becomes focused on which studentpresented with the most outrageous difficulties.

An agenda with time limits can help to avoid de-railing effective problem solving with problemadmiration. A timer and/or time keeper that sig-nals the end of one problem solving stage and thebeginning of another can help maintain a focusedand efficient meeting.

Dissemination of the results. Recording anddisseminating the intervention plan, including whowill do what, when, where, and how, increases thelikelihood that those events will occur (Rosenfield& Gravois, 1996). In addition, beginning theprogress-monitoring chart for the person or per-sons responsible for collecting the data may in-crease the likelihood that the data will be collected.Providing everyone who is involved in the inter-vention with the intervention goal, plan, and moni-toring system not only increases fidelity of treat-ment and progress monitoring, it seems likely toassist in creating a focused vision of change amongthe adults in a child’s life. A member of the SSTshould be assigned to be the note-taker and some-one (possibly clerical staff) is assigned responsi-bility for copying and disseminating the interven-tion plan within 1 or 2 days of the meeting. ForEnglish language learners, it is very important (anin some cases a legal requirement) to have the in-tervention plan translated into the parent’s nativelanguage.

Teamwork

Teamwork, including engaging the essentialpeople in a collaborative process guided by a com-mon vision, is critical to a successful SST. Somestrategies for promoting collaboration are de-scribed next, though a detailed description of ef-fective collaboration skills is beyond the scope ofthis paper. Readers are referred to Kampwirth(1999) or Rosenfield and Gravois (1996) for moreinformation on collaborative consultation.

Essential people. The SST membership of-ten indicates the purpose of the SST meeting andguides the types of interventions that will be con-sidered. For example, SSTs that consists exclu-sively of special educators, speech and languagetherapists, and school psychologists suggest thatthe focus of the meeting is determining special

27

education eligibility rather than developing inter-ventions (Rosenfield & Gravois, 1996). Con-versely, SSTs that includes general educationteachers (acting as consultants), administrators,parents, general education specialists, etc. suggestthat interventions in the context of the generaleducation program are a top priority. In the dis-trict undergoing SST reform, the inclusion of gen-eral education teachers who act as consultants hasincreased the team’s focus on general educationinterventions. Furthermore, many psychologists inthis district have reported that general educationteachers have excellent intervention ideas and theirsuggestions often carry greater credibility thanthose posed by psychologists and counselors. Asone teacher stated, “the (consulting) teacher alsohas 35 students in her class, so if it worked forher, it should work for me.”

Parents are also essential partners in diagnos-ing and intervening in student problems(Christenson, 1995), and their participation whenissues of special education are considered is re-quired by law (U.S. Congress, 1997). In the dis-trict initiating these SST changes, parental par-ticipation dramatically increased when the class-room teacher, rather than the counselor or psy-chologist, invited and prepared the parent for theSST meeting instead of the school counselor. Aninterpreter and an English language learner spe-cialist should be present at SST meetings that ad-dress students who are English language learners.

Collaborative process. Successful collabora-tion depends in part upon coordinated interdepen-dence where each member gives and takes fromothers equally and freely and there is no perceivedhierarchy of power among the various members(Caplan & Caplan, 1993). Such coordinated in-terdependence should result in a synergism,wherein the results of the collaborative processare greater than if each SST member worked onthe problem in isolation. When some members ofthe team dominate others by either attempting toinitiate or withhold a referral to special educationservices, coordinated interdependence and the re-sulting synergism is unlikely. A myopic focus onspecial education eligibility, rather than problem

solving, can impede the collaborative process.Furthermore, when special education is the goal,the focus of the meeting is on what disables ratherthan enables the student (Grimes, 1999).

Two strategies for “converting” those whohave a traditional refer-test-place perspective tothe problem-solving perspective are: (a) to pro-vide additional intervention and monitoring re-sources (often modeling and rehearsing these be-haviors for the teacher or parent), and (b) to stressthat the intervention is part of an assessment pro-cedure that may begin a full special educationevaluation. Intervention-based assessment is a keycomponent of problem solving. Unlike traditionalassessment methods, the primary purpose of prob-lem solving is to determine appropriate interven-tions (Tilly, Reschly, & Grimes, 1999).

Problem-Solving

There are some variations among problemsolving models. For example some problem solv-ing models begin with “establishing a coopera-tive partnership” (Zins & Erchul, 1995) as ad-dressed in the preceding section on teamwork,while others initiate problem solving with “prob-lem identification.” Yet, all problem-solvingmodels share a foundation in behavioral consul-tation (Telzrow, McNamara, & Hollinger, 2000).The problem solving process generally occurs infour general stages: problem identification, prob-lem analysis, plan implementation, and plan evalu-ation (Kratochwill, Elliott, & Rotto, 1995).

A recent study by Telzrow et al. (2000) sug-gests that problem-solving activities are criticalto the effectiveness of school based interventionteams. Two problem-solving components, clearlyidentified intervention goals and collecting datathat indicate student response to interventions,were found to be significantly correlated with stu-dent outcomes. While there is ample empiricalsupport in the behavioral consultation research foreach of the four stages of problem solving, SSTsgenerally have not mastered each of these activi-ties equally. For example, the teams examined byTelzrow et al. (2000) were relatively proficient atdeveloping behavioral definitions of the problems,



and identifying a precise intervention goal; how-ever, they had difficulty hypothesizing reasons forthe problem, collecting evidence of treatment in-tegrity, and comparing student performance tobaseline. Similarly, Bahr and colleagues (1999)found problem-solving intervention teams to bethe least familiar and least likely to use importantdata collection and analysis methods, such asgraphing intervention results, comparing post in-tervention data to the baseline, and conductingempirical classroom observations. These findingssuggest that SST members may be more compe-tent at conducting the first problem solving stage(problem identification) and they require moreintense training on subsequent stages (e.g., prob-lem analysis, plan implementation, and plan evalu-ation.) Accordingly, some suggestions for pro-moting these latter crucial components of prob-lem solving are provided next.

Problem identification. The first stage ofproblem solving, problem identification, beginswith prioritizing among many different concernsto identify one or two target behaviors (Rosenfield& Gravois, 1996). The target behavior is describedin terms of frequency, duration, intensity or latencyand the conditions under which it occurs (Salvia& Ysseldyke, 1997). Often the teacher or parentmay not have a precise definition of the target be-havior until after the initial SST meeting, and adata collection procedure for establishing baselineis put into place after the first meeting. A goodmethod for determining whether a target behaviorhas been defined in specific, observable terms isto ask the question “Can it be graphed?” For ex-ample, lack of student motivation cannot becharted, but the number of math problems a stu-dent completes during a 20-minute interval eachmorning or the latency between a teacher’s requestto begin an assignment and the student’s responsecan be graphed. For both academic and behavioralconcerns, target behaviors that represent an in-crease in a desired replacement behavior are pref-erable to those that aim to decrease in the undes-ired behavior (Rhode, Jenson, & Reavis, 1992;Shapiro, 1996). Once the target behavior is es-

tablished, an intervention goal based on the ac-ceptable level of performance is identified.

Problem analysis. During this stage, the teamgenerates hypotheses to explain the discrepancybetween the student’s current performance and theintervention goal. The discussion may focus onwhether the student is experiencing a skill or aperformance deficit, whether the student has hadthe opportunity to learn the target skill, and iden-tifying conditions in which the student experiencesmore and less success (Dally, Witt, Martens, &Dool, 1997). Telzrow (1995) suggests generatinghypotheses about such contributing factors as thecurriculum, instruction, school/classroom environ-ment, peers, home/community and child charac-teristics on the student’s current performance. Ifa number of equally plausible hypotheses are gen-erated, the SST may need to reconvene the meet-ing in order to collect more data.

Finally, an intervention plan is establishedbased on these hypotheses. Many SSTs brain-storm intervention ideas and then select a few toimplement based on their perceived effectivenessand feasibility. Very specific plans are more likelyto be followed (Rosenfield & Gravois, 1996).Some guiding questions posed by Telzrow (1995)for ensuring that this stage of problem solving issuccessful are: (a) Did we identify an interven-tion, or a place where interventions occur? (b) Willthe intervention address the cause of the problem?(c) How will each of the specific interventions beimplemented? and (d) What data will be collectedto evaluate the effectiveness of these interventions?The last question is a critical issue to problem solv-ing, yet many teams struggle with collecting on-going progress monitoring data (Bahr et al., 1999;Telzrow et al., 2000). Two strategies for reducingteachers’ resistance to data collection areto use(a) data that are already being collected routinely,and (b) self-monitoring data that the student col-lects.

Plan implementation. The third problemsolving stage includes implementing the plan andcollecting and charting progress-monitoring data.Assigning a consultant to follow-up with the

29

teacher was found to increase the fidelity of theintervention implementation in the pilot study. Theconsultant can model and rehearse the interven-tion strategies with the teacher or assist the teacherin negotiating unforeseen obstacles to interven-tion implementation, which may reduce the like-lihood that a teacher ends an intervention prema-turely (Rosenfield & Gravois, 1996). Similarly,the consultant can assist the teacher in examiningthe progress monitoring data and determiningwhether a midcourse adjustment in the interven-tion is warranted.

Plan evaluation. The final stage of problemsolving is to reconvene the SST to evaluate theintervention plan’s effectiveness. During this fol-low-up meeting, the team reviews each interven-tion to determine and document whether they oc-curred and whether any modifications had beenmade. Documenting what worked and what didn’twork is very useful for future attempts to developintervention plans (Rosenfield & Gravois, 1996).Secondly, the team reviews the progress monitor-ing data, which should include a graphic displayof multiple data points collected over time. Basedon the fidelity of implementing the interventionplan, the student’s progress, and the discrepancybetween the student’s current performance and theintervention goal, the team selects from one ormore of the following options: (a) discontinue theinterventions, (b) continue the interventions,(c) modify the interventions, (d) refer to specialeducation, (e) retain at grade level, or (f) refer toalternate placement. Selecting from one of thesesix options establishes closure on the problem solv-ing process. Rather than letting the problem-solv-ing process fade away, achieving formal closureis critical to ensuring accountability for studentoutcomes (Rosenfield & Gravois, 1996).

IMPLICATIONS FOR SCHOOLPSYCHOLOGICAL SERVICES

Confronted with large caseloads and increas-ing demands to test students for special educationeligibility due to the current zeitgeist of standards-based education reform, some psychologists have

abandoned best practices. For example, PamBeeman (2000), a California school psychologistwrote:

California has announced new standards forgrade promotion, and this has, you canimagine, engendered a dramatic rise inrequest for assessment. . . If a student isgetting F’s, we test them. If a parentrequests it, we test them. If an agency or adoctor or a therapist requests it, we testthem… If group achievement test percen-tiles are low, we test ‘em… I don’t havetime to be proactive when I’m so busy beingreactive. Pre-referral interventions? Whatare those? (p. 35)Since problem solving decreases special edu-

cation referral rates (Fuchs, Fuchs, & Bahr, 1990;Ysseldyke & Marston, 1999) and subsequently thedemand to test, one wonders why school psycholo-gists continue to engage in this refer-test-placemedical model. Three possible explanations exit:(a) school psychologists actually believe that thecurrent categorical model serves students well; (b)they lack problem-solving skills, including com-petencies in conducting curriculum-based assess-ments, providing intervention support, and behav-ioral consultation; or (c) they are fettered by dis-trict policies and state law to a traditional medicalmodel for conceptualizing and providing specialeducation services. Leadership from school psy-chological organizations, training programs, localeducational agencies, and the state department ofeducation is necessary to innovate current schoolpsychology practices. An example of such inno-vation would be to pilot non-categorical modelsof special education in California. Non-categori-cal models that use problem solving to determinespecial education eligibility are gaining nationalsupport (Reschly & Tilly, 1999).

CONCLUSION

While the results of implementing a problemsolving SST described in this paper only repre-sent one school for one year, they are encourag-ing. The self-study guide contained in the appen-dix is currently being used to evaluate implemen-



tation of problem solving SSTs in each of the 20pilot schools. We expect to find variability inimplementation among the sites, which will helpto develop multiple models of problem solvingSSTs to choose from as we proceed to a district-wide implementation. Flexibility in implementingand sustaining problem solving SSTs is necessarybecause it requires organizational change that in-volves multiple participants. However, the essen-tial elements of problem solving, including pre-cisely defined problems, on-going progress moni-toring, and conceptualizing problems from an eco-logical rather than medical model, must remain inorder to have truly effective SSTs. The benefits ofproblem solving SSTs are, at a minimum, twofold:(a) student’s needs are met in the least restrictiveenvironment and (b) psychologists have more timeto devote to consultation, counseling and otherinterventions. Problem solving remains best prac-tice for developing, implementing and evaluatinginterventions and, in this author’s opinion, the mostpromising alternative to the current categoricalsystem for identifying and servicing students withdisabilities.

REFERENCESBahr, M. W., Whitten, E., Dieker, L., Kocarek, C. E., &

Manson, D. (1999). A comparison of school-basedintervention teams: Implications for educational and legalreform. Exceptional Children, 66, 67-83.

Beeman, P. (2000). I love my WISC-III. Communiqué, 28 (7),31.

California Department of Education. (December, 2000).Degree of disproportion of placement by ethnicity bydisability category. Making changes to achieve positiveresults for California’s children. [Online]. Available:www.cde.ca.gov/spbranch/sed/qapnow.htm#key

Caplan, G., & Caplan, R. B. (1993). Mental health consulta-tion and collaboration. San Fransico, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.

Christenson, S. (1995). Best practices in supporting home-school collaboration. In A. Thomas & J. H. Grimes (Eds.),Best Practices in School Psychology (3rd ed.: pp. 253-267).Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psycholo-gists.

Dally, E. J., Witt, J. C., Martens, B. K., & Dool, E. J. (1997). Amodel for conducting a functional analysis of academicperformance problems. School Psychology Review, 26,554-574.

Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L S., & Bahr, M. W. (1990). Mainstreamassistance teams: A scientific basis for the art of consulta-tion. Exceptional Children, 57, 128-139.

Graden, L. L. (1989). Redefining “prereferral” intervention asintervention assistance: Collaboration between general andspecial education. Exceptional Children, 56, 227-231.

Graden, J. L., Casey, A., & Christenson, S. L. (1985).Implementing a pre-referral intervention system: Part I.The model. Exceptional Children, 51, 377-384.

Grimes, J. (1999, April). Diagnosing what matters most: Thelearning enabled. Paper presented at the meeting of theNational Association of School Psychologists, Las Vegas,NV.

Kampwirth, T. (1999). Collaborative consultation in theschools. Saddleriver NJ: Prentice Hall.

Kovaleski, J. F., Gickling, E. E., Morrow, H., & Swank, P. R.(1999). High versus low implementation of instructionalsupport teams. Remedial and Special Education, 20, 170-183.

Kovaleski,J. F., Tucker, J. A., Stevens, L. A. (1996). Bridgingspecial and regular education: The Pennsylvania initiative.Educational Leadership, 53, 44-47.

Kratochwill, T. R., Elliott, S., & Rotto, P. C. (1995). In A.Thomas & J. H. Grimes (Eds.) Best Practices in SchoolPsychology (3rd ed.: pp. 519-537). Bethesda, MD: NationalAssociation of School Psychologists.

Reschly, D., & Tilly, W. D. (1999). Reform trends and systemdesign alternatives. In D. J. Reschly, W. D. Tilly, & J.P.Grimes (Eds.), Special education in transition:Functional assessment and noncategorical programming.Longmont, CO: Sopris West.

Rhode, G., Jenson, W. R., & Reavis, H. K. (1992). The toughkid book: Practical classroom management strategies.Longmont, CO: Sopris West.

Rosenfield, S. A., & Gravois, T. A. (1996). Instructionalconsultation teams. New York: Guilford Press.

Salvia, J., & Ysseldyke, J. (1997). Assessment (7th ed.).Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Shapiro, E.S. (1996). Academic skills problems: Direct assess-ment and intervention, (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.

Sheridan, S. M., & Gutkin, T. B. (2000). The ecology of schoolpsychology. Examining and changing our paradigm forthe 21st Century. School Psychology Review, 29, 485-502.

Sprick, R. (1999). The 25-minute planning process: A videoprogram for teacher-to-teacher problem-solving.Longmont, CO: Sopris West.

Telzrow, C. F. (1995). Facilitating intervention adherence. InA. Thomas & J. H. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in schoolpsychology (3rd ed.: pp 609-623). Bethesda, MD: NationalAssociation of School Psychologists.

Telzrow, C. F., McNamara, K., & Hollinger, C. L. (2000).Fidelity of problem-solving implementation andrelationship to student performance. School PsychologyReview, 29, 443-461.

Tilly, W. D., Reschly, D. J., & Grimes, J. P. (Eds.). (1999).Disability determination in problem solving systems:Conceptual foundations and critical components. In D. J.Reschly, W. D. Tilly, & J. P.Grimes (Eds.), Specialeducation in transition: Functional assessment andnoncategorical programming (pp. 285-291). Longmont,CO: Sopris West.

U.S. Congress. (1997). Individuals with DisabilitiesEducation Act Amendments of 1997. Washington, DC:Author.

Will, M. C. (1986) Educating children with learning problems:A shared responsibility. Exceptional Children, 52, 411-416.

Ysseldyke, J., & Marston, D. (1999). Origins of categoricalspecial education services in schools and a rationale forchanging them. In D. J. Reschly, W. D. Tilly, & J. P. Grimes(Eds.), Special education in transition: Functionalassessment and noncategorical programming (pp. 1-18).Longmont, CO: Sopris West.

Zins, J. E., & Erchul, W. P. (1995). School consultation. In A.Thomas & J. H. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in schoolpsychology (3rd ed.: pp 609-623). Bethesda, MD: NationalAssociation of School Psychologists.

Documents

Problem Solving Student Support Teams