Volume LII FOLDERS/Info Management...Jeb Fleagle ([email protected]) University Representatives Bowie State University - Kimberly Daniel ([email protected])

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


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];

[email protected])

MSDE Liaison: Deborah Nelson ([email protected])

MPA/MSPA Liaison: Melissa Morris ([email protected])

mailto:[email protected]






















4


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])












5


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


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


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


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


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


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


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




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


13




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


14




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.


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:

[email protected]

15


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


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


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



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


School Psychology Students & Faculty at the 9th Annual Legislative Breakfast

19



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-

[email protected].


School Psychologists and School Psychology Students with Delegate Diana Fennell



20


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


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

([email protected]

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




22


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



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


24



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.


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


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


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


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


29


30


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

[email protected]

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

[email protected]

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

Documents

Volume LII FOLDERS/Info Management...Jeb Fleagle ([email protected]) University Representatives Bowie State University - Kimberly Daniel ([email protected])