Observational Research Project: Placement 1

Tyrah Urie

Parts 1 + 2
 Placement Setting Research, Placement 1

Introduction

Placement 1 is an elementary school in the MRSD called MTC located in the town of S. in the

state of New Hampshire. MTC houses 6 surrounding towns, generating the school population to

256 pre-K-2nd grade students. There are 56 employed faculty members. MTC has 26 classrooms

for all the subjects offered in the school program.

Description of the Program

MTC’s mission statement is one that serves the following found on MTC’s webpage:

“MRSD is a combined community of learners, education professionals and support staff,

volunteers, businesses, civic organizations, tax payers, and families who represent the towns of

F, G, R, R, S and T. MRSD embraces our shared responsibility to guide students to become

active citizens who are both empowered and inspired to contribute to the future of their

community. Therefore, we collaborate not just to teach, but also to engage and educate every

student in our district in an environment that is challenging, caring and safe while fostering life

long learning” (MRSD, 2018). After talking with Mentor T, the purpose of MTC’s program is to

offer a play based, nurturing, environment through creativity and discovery for all developmental

levels ( Mentor T, personal communication, 2018).

MTC is a public school serving students from pre-K to second grade ranging from ages 3

through 9 and provides before and after care for those in pre-K as they are only at MTC for half

the day (MRSD, 2018). MTC is composed of 14 general education classrooms with 2 pre-k, 4

kindergartens, 4 1st grades, 4 second grades and 2 special education rooms, 1 title X room, 1

resource room and extra curricular rooms for the student’s specials. Mentor T stated that the

primary goal for faculty at MTC is to serve all children providing education to any student,
provide special education to those who need it through occupational therapy, speech therapy,

medical therapy, counseling, and evaluations, through strict inclusive settings in the classroom

but also outside of the classroom if it is required (Mentor T, personal connection, September,

2018).

Community, population, and services.

S. New Hampshire is a rural community that has the population of 7,116 residents, 3,590

being female, and 3,592 are male. The ethnic diversity is low as most of the population is

predominately Caucasian. S. has an income range of middle to upper class however, there is a

rising poverty population of 13.1% (New Hampshire Employment Security, 2018). Along with

the rising poverty rate, there are high drug addiction rates in town S. that are in the mend of

rising (Mentor T, personal communication, 2018). The community of town S. has an average

median family income of 60,509 and the median household family income of 56,206 with an

unemployment rate of 2.5% (New Hampshire Employment Security, 2018). Although the money

numbers look high to some families they look low to others as every family is on different ends

of the money scale. The poverty and addiction rates, are correlated to the homelessness in town

S. affecting ¼ of kids at MTC (Mentor T, personal connection, September, 2018). Like poverty,

and lower income it can be linked to inadequate nutrition, care and food insecurity for children

and families. MTC has a free breakfast program in the morning and a free/reduced lunch for all

children who are eligible. Providing these two factors aid with the stress levels and supports

those who need it (Mentor T, personal connection, September, 2018).

All of these different rates and numbers are causing stress and pressure on families and

communities, resulting in several different deficiencies in home environments and school

environments for the children. These effects all have an affect on the community, the families
and children. More directly related to the Bronfenbrenner’s bio-ecological perspective. As stated

from Bronfenbrenner, “it is based on the idea of empowering families through understanding

their strengths and needs” All families and each person experiences stress in their own ways. We

can gain understanding related to patterns of family responses to various stress syndromes but we

always need to be cautious as to how we use our generalizations in our work with families

(Swick & Williams, 2006). Knowing that the microsystems, Mesosystem, Exosystem,

Macrosystem, and Chronosystem all play a role and correlate in one way or another when

looking at things that effect us, we must deepen our thoughts as to what may be going on instead

of making assumptions (Swick & Williams, 2006). MTC finds it most important to make those

connections and relationships open with the community, families and children. Thus, making it

easier to find ways to help and support children and families the best way they can within the

school environment and home environment.

IDEA Research, Placement 1

Description of IDEA Law

The Individuals with Disabilities Education law (IDEA) is a law that makes available a

free appropriate public education to to more than 6.5 million eligible infants, toddlers, children

and youth with disabilities. The law provides the eligible children with disabilities throughout the

nation early intervention, special education and related services to more than 6.5 million eligible

infants, toddlers, children and youth with disabilities (Individuals with disabilities Act, 2004).

There are 4 different parts that are composed of the IDEA. Part A is Geneneral Provisions, Part

B is Assistance for All Children with Disabilities, Part C is Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities

and Part D is National Activities to Improve Education of Children with Disabilities. (Individuals

with disabilities Act, 2004).

 When going further into the IDEA and putting the law into place at MTC, the school falls

under part B of the law. More specifically, Part B; Assistance for All Children with Disabilities

goes more into depth in stating that “provisions related to formula grants that assist states in

providing free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment for children with

disabilities ages 3-21” (Individuals with disabilities Act, 2004). At MTC, when working with

children with disabilities least restrictive classroom is crucial. The general educators and special

educators start with the least restrictive classroom environment as they can and slowly digress as

the need to when assisting children with their services and extra support. First, they have the

children regular education room, then use the regular classroom and resource room, after they

use just the resource room (minimum of 2 hours), then MTC will go to more extreme measures

to take the child out of district into placement for more severe means of support.

Special Education Process

Diving into a more focused look at the law from the perspective of the actual special

education process, it goes more into depth connected Part B of the IDEA at a public school like

MTC/MRSD. The special education process at MTC is definite when going through the steps in

determining/receiving services. The first step in the process is to receive a teacher parent concern

about a child in any given subject regarding special education and schedule a meeting. The

meeting is typically with the parents/guardians and general education teacher(s) to discuss the

concerns. After the 1st meeting occurs, the response to intervention (RTI) team intervenes

putting interventions into place to improve skills in the deficit areas and within a 6-week time

frame another meeting needs to happen with the parent/guardian and teacher to look at the

progress made from just the intervention, if any. If the teacher comes to the conclusion that there
was no significant progress made from the intervention, then he/she will fill out a referral to the

special education team requesting that a child receive special education services. Once the

special education team receives the referral they then have 15 business to respond to the referral.

A meeting is then called with the parents/guardians, and “MTC team”. The general education

teachers, principal and or all of the following: speech pathologist, psychologists, interventionists,

behaviorists, case manager, etc. This Whoever is pertaining to the support the child will be

needing through the services attends the meeting to discuss concerns, more information and then

determination of evaluations. Evaluations are determined by what was suspected during the

meetings and observations during interventions. The MTC team then has 60 days to evaluate a

child and get a meeting set up to go over parent/guardian consent to evaluate. The

parent/guardian must agree to have the evaluations done on their child and if they opt out, the

process must stop. When everyone has come to the same consensus during the meeting and

there is parent/guardian consent. If consent is given, then there is a determination of eligibility

meeting held with the MTC team and parents/guardians where all evaluation summaries and

results are viewed. Within 30 days the team has to come back with a developed Individualized

education program (IEP) and get it approved by the parent/guardian. The IEP is then looked at to

determine what services the child will be receiving and where they will be receiving them from

within the least restrictive environment. There is then an IEP meeting with the team, and

implemented for the child. Every year before an IEP expires the team has to develop (update) a

new IEP, given that every 3 years the evaluation process starts all over again to see if the child

remains eligible (Personal Communication, Mentor T, 2018).

Observational Research Project: Placement 1

Tyrah Urie

Part 3
 (Dis)ability, Assessment, & intervention Research, Placement 1

(Dis)ability or diagnosis

Apraxia of Speech is a motor speech disorder that makes it harder for children to speak.

To speak, messages need to go from your brain to your mouth. These messages tell the muscles

how and when to move to make sounds. With apraxia of speech, the messages do not get through

correctly. One with apraxia of speech may not be able to move his/her lips or tongue at the right

pace to say the sounds. Even if their muscles are not weak, it may disable them to say much at

all. Common characteristics, although they may vary upon each individual include; child not

always saying words the same way each time they say them, child has ability to understand what

others say to he/she better than they can talk, has problems imitating what others say, seems like

he/she has to move their tongue, lips, or jaw a few times to make sounds, called groping, has

more trouble saying longer words clearly than shorter ones, has more trouble when nervous,

words sound choppy or flat, and the child may put the stress on the wrong syllables or words

(American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, n.d.).

Assessment: Identification and Eligibility

When looking how to identify apraxia of speech in a child, one would look for the

common characteristics of the (dis)ability described above. The child’s articulation would be

hard to understand. Speech/sound errors are inconsistent and the longer the length of utterance

the more unintelligible the student is (Mentor T, personal communication, 2018).

The assessment process specific to the placement that would be used to determine a

child’s eligibility for services for apraxia of speech is very similar to when it comes to the

general process for all disabilities requiring services. The process starts off with the first initial

concern brought to the attention of the general teacher or speech pathologist by the parents,
grandparent, teacher, speech pathologist, or pediatrician for the referral for special education.

The referral then goes to the case manager in the school, and a meeting is held with the special

education team. The speech pathologist would be on the team more specifically as the referral

would indicate the need as the case manger would inform the speech pathologists to attend. With

parental/guardian presence at all meetings and has given consent to terms, the speech pathologist

will then perform the assessments to determine the suspected disability and perform all of the

appropriate assessments in order to substantiate the disability. The additional assessments

performed may be done by the psychologist of MRSD (Mentor T, personal communication,

2018). Once all of the assessments are completed they are then reviewed with the special

education/evaluation team to determine intervention plans and special education services, again

along with parent/guardian consent.

Due to the specific placement setting, when assessing apraxia of speech there are no

specific tests that are used on the children, rather the educators use their professional judgement

based on the characteristic of the speech errors. However, based on the characteristics shown in a

given child, two assessments that are frequently used when looking at apraxia of speech are the

“Goldman-Fristoe Test of Articulation(GFTA-3) and the “Kaufman Speech Praxis Treatment Kit

for Children”.

Goldman-Fristoe Test of Articulation-Third Edition

The first assessment, Goldman-Fristoe Test of Articulation-Third Edition

(GFTA), shown down below under Appendix A, is a systematic means of assessing an

individual’s articulation of the consonant and consonant cluster sounds of Standard American

English. The GFTA assessment provides information about an individual’s speech sound ability

by sampling both spontaneous and imitative sound production in single words and connected
speech. The assessment has two sections that tests, sounds-in-words and sounds-in-sentences.

These two tests are more interview based assessments done by the speech pathologist only as

he/she has had special training and is best qualified to do so to get accurate scores. During the

Sounds-in-Words test the examiner presents a picture stimuli for the individual to label, which is

then used to evaluate an child’s articulation skill when labeling single words, scoring each

consonant and consonant cluster sound in the words as a correct or incorrect production. During

the Sounds-in-Sentences the child listens as the examiner tells a short story that is accompanied

by visual stimuli. Once the retelling of the story is over, the examiner will present each sentence

again and have the child repeat the sentence, again scoring each consonant and consonant cluster

sound in the targeted words from each sentence as correct or incorrect. Both tests are scored with

a mean of 100 and a deviation of 15 (Goldman & Fristoe, 2015).

The goal of the GTFA-3 is to obtain an accurate diagnostic information about an English-

Speaking individual’s ability to articulate consonant sounds in single words and connected

speech, sampling spontaneous and imitative speech production. The benefit of this assessment is

that it can compare articulation at different levels of complexity. The cons of the assessment are

that the images that the children are looking at have not been updated since 1999 meaning that

some of the pictures/concepts may not be considered relevant today, making it more difficult for

children to distinguish what is going on in the picture and that the tests involves advanced

recalling skills that younger children may not have developed yet. Another con to the test is that

since it is done by a certified speech pathologist who is trained in the test it may be difficult to

have the test administered to multiple students, as there typically is only one speech pathologist

at MTC. The test was originally only made for English-Language speaking children, which made

it impossible for non-English learners to be assessed. Not until 2017 was there a Spanish
speaking GFTA for individuals (Goldman & Fristoe, 2015). However, this assessment still has a

disadvantage for those outside of the English and Spanish language. The assessment may not

take into consideration the age level of the children and their abilities at a certain age, the

reliability of the test may not be accurate taking into consideration the previous experience

children’s day to day encounters and their ability to comprehend, decode and recall. If the child

isn’t able to do these things than their speech in their language is going to sound

delayed/disordered and can alter the results/scores.

Kaufman Speech Praxis Treatment Test for Children

The Kaufman Speech Praxis Treatment Kit (KSPK) or the Kaufman Speech

Praxis Treatment Test, shown down below under Appendix B for children aged 2-6 is a norm-

referenced, diagnostic test assisting in the identification and treatment of childhood apraxia of

speech. The KSPT measures a child’s imitative responses to the clinician (speech pathologist)

identifying to the clinician where the speech system is breaking down which can then point to a

systematic course of treatment. The KSPK assessment consists of 225 visual reference cards

(Pro-ed, n.d.). Along with the KSPK, the KSPT test has 4 parts that are scored and summarized

separately; oral movement, simple phonemic/syllable, complex consonant/syllable and

spontaneous length and complexity. This is done by a certified speech pathologist trained for in

the assessment for accurate results, the only difference between the two is that the KSPK is

assessed with cards and the KSPT is assessed on paper. With the KSPK assessment the child is

asked to read what they see on the card, whereas with the KSPT assessment the child is asked to

repeat words back to the administrator and the administrator is able to trace their errors, with

given the score sheet. Both assessments have administered time of 5-15 minutes, making it fairly

simplistic for the teacher to instruct with the child in timely manner. The norm-referenced and
standardized items provide a raw score, standard score, and percentile ranking for both KSP’s.

This goal/purpose of these assessment tools are to target and teach the syllable shapes children

need to master to become effective vocal/verbal communicators. It teaches children to combine

consonant and vowels to form words while controlling for oral-motor difficulty (Northern

Speech Services, n.d.). This approach builds intelligibility through a hierarchy of successive

“word shell” approximations based on least physiological effort of target words (Kaufman,

2018). The cons that come with the assessment are that the test can be administered by a

parent/guardian for practice purposes, however accurate results may be skewed for bias as it is

the child’s parent/guardian and it may not be evaluated by a professional as special training is

needed to evaluate and assess the results. Due to the test being 5-15 minutes long, it is easy to

administer and possibly miss pieces resulting in less accuracy.

Ethical Considerations of Assessment

Within all assessments regarding special education, ethical considerations and

responsibilities need to be made throughout the entire process. Confidentiality is one of the most

important parts in education and in particular Special Education. The Family Education Rights

and Privacy Act is to ensure parents have access but also limit access to records without

parent/guardian consent. If teachers and special educators did not follow FERPA or adhere to

professional standards of confidentiality and confidential information can be misused. Diving

into the NAEYC code of ethical conduct, “To use assessment information to understand and

support children’s development and learning, to support instruction, and to identify children who

may need additional services” (NAEYC, 2011). The inclusion of families is crucial when going

about assessments, evaluations and final decisions pertaining to special education services as

nothing can be sought out or finalized without parent/guardian consent. “Families shall be fully
informed of any proposed research projects involving their children and shall have the

opportunity to give or withhold consent without penalty. We shall not permit or participate in

research that could in any way hinder the education, development, or well being of a child”

(NAEYC, 2011). Jumping over to the DEC recommended practices, it states that “leaders ensure

practitioners know and follow professional standards and all applicable laws and regulations

governing service provision” (Division for Early Childhood, 2016). This, closely in relation to

the NAEYC code of ethics really emphasizes the idea that educators need to obey the laws and

regulations regarding confidentiality, rights to privacy, and the ethical and professional

responsibilities involved in providing services to young children and families.

Evidence-based Interventions

Once the process of assessing, evaluating, and a child qualifies for special education is

complete, interventions are put into place for the child receiving services. There are hundreds of

interventions that can be put into place with a child with any disability who may be needing extra

support. For apraxia of speech, although there are more, these 3 specific interventions can

support a child with apraxia of speech.

The first evidence-based intervention that would support a child is the “phonological

awareness intervention for children with childhood apraxia” (Moriarty & Gillon, 2006).

Phonological awareness is an important variable when reading, and spelling acquisition.

Children with apraxia of speech may have severe and persistent and phonological awareness and

phonological processing difficulties. Phonological representations hold information about sound

structure of words in memory and progress from holistic to segmental as children widen their

vocabularies. However, children without quality phonological representations are vulnerable to

speech and phonological difficulties (Moriarty & Gillon, 2006). Moriarty and Gillon state that
children with speech impairment preform more poorly on phonological tasks than those without.

When using phonological awareness interventions they should place emphasis on manipulating

speech subunits and speech production rather than on auditory-based activities alone.

Emphasizing speech production during phonological awareness activities gives children the

experience of arranging phonemes into larger linguistic structures like syllables and words,

which are the two main things children apraxia of speech have difficulties with (Moriarty &

Gillon, 2006). Moriarty and Gillon emphasized that careful and precise planning of

phonological interventions for children with apraxia of speech should ensure that skills

underlying their speech production and literacy deficits are directly targeted.

The second evidence-based intervention that would support a child is within the

“Telehealth Rapid syllable transitions (ReST) treatment for childhood apraxia of speech” article

(Thomas, McCabe, Ballard & Lincoln, 2016). The intervention strategy ReSt is increasingly

being used for assessment and treatment of communication orders. As similarly stated, children

with apraxia of speech have difficulty planning and programming the movements required for

the production of accurate speech sounds and prosody. The difficulties associated with their

impairment are often in correlation with potential effects in a range of linguistic and speech-

motor-domains (Thomas, McCabe, Ballard & Lincoln, 2016). Thomas, McCabe, Ballard and

Lincoln state that Rapid syllable Transitions use pseudo-word targets with differing lexical stress

patterns to target simultaneously articulatory accuracy, fluent transitions between syllables and

lexical stressed and children show improvement after working on these skills. However, also

stating that with ReST, delivery of the intervention is crucial. As the intervention is administered

by speech pathologists and clinicians, many families are unable to access these support agencies
resulting in less repetition and routine fluctuating the results of effectiveness (Thomas, McCabe,

Ballard & Lincoln, 2016).

The third evidence-based intervention that would support a child, is within the “limited

acquisition and generalization of rhotics with ultrasound visual feedback in childhood apraxia”

article (Preston, Maas, Whittle, Leece & McCabe, 2016). Although this intervention is not

incorporated at MTC, the intervention strategy discussed inside the article centers around rhotics.

Preston, Maas, Whittle, Leece and McCabe state that phonetically accurate productions of

American English rhotics require complex articulatory control of the tongue. Rhotics are the

most common residual speech sound errors and can impact both intelligibility and naturalness of

speech. By holding an ultra sound transducer beneath the chin to obtain real-time images of the

tongue, feedback of tongue posture can be used to teach complex articulatory configurations for

sounds. The images then can be used to cue desired articulatory movements by showing the child

which parts of the tongue should be lowered, raised, or moved forward or back. The idea/purpose

behind cueing with an ultrasound is on achieving a complex tongue shape that results in an

acoustically acceptable production. Children may demonstrate increased performance during

treatment when producing rhotics, but they may fail to sufficiently integrate this information to

achieve improved accuracy at later times or in new contexts (Preston, Maas, Whittle, Leece &

McCabe, 2016). Pertaining to motor speech interventions, it is important to distinguish between

performance during acquisition and learning. Performance during acquisition shows accuracy on

a task during training, while learning requires generalization to untrained stimuli as well as

retention overtime (motor learning) which is the ultimate goal of speech intervention (Preston,

Maas, Whittle, Leece & McCabe, 2016).

Progress Monitoring
 After assessing, reviewing the assessments and creating supports/interventions for a child

in special education it is important to monitor the progress and seek the deficits the child may

still be having. In relation to the assessments and intervention strategies described above, at

MTC very similar to formative and summative assessments the speech pathologists and

educators use therapeutic assessments and make their own charts to collect data on a child’s

progress/digress (Mentor T, personal communication, 2018).

Observational Research Project: Placement 2
Tyrah Urie
Parts 1 + 2
Introduction

Placement #2 is a K to fifth grade elementary school in KSD called BFES located in the

town of K. in the State of New Hampshire. BFES is a title one school and the only English

language learning (ELL) school in the town of K. BFES has the population of approximately

250 students and 53 employed faculty members. BFES has 12 primary grade level classrooms

and other classrooms to accommodate for the other educational services provided in the building.

Description of the Program

BFES mission statement is the following found on BFES’s webpage (see appendix B for

further information): “The mission of BFES is to encourage positive learning experiences, self-

worth and respect for others, through a vibrant and caring environment, thus promoting

responsible citizens for the future” (BFES, 2018). The academic program at BFES is designed to

meet comprehensive needs of all children. “We strive to plan and involve children

developmentally appropriate lessons and activities in kindergarten through grade five. Our

school goals will focus on giving students what they need in terms of their academic, social, and

emotional development. We will continue to strive for high achievement and growth, and

support students to reach their full potential. We will also be focused on continuing to build

strong school culture. Our core set values and expectations, Courage, Acceptance, Respect, and

Empathy, will be reinforced in every aspect of the school day and it is encouraged to install these

values at home as well” (BFES, 2018).

 BFES is a public school serving students from kindergarten to second grade ranging from

ages 5 through 12 (Mentor M, personal communication, 2018). BFES is composed of 12 general

education classrooms with 2 kindergarten classrooms, 2 first grade classrooms, 2 second grade

classrooms, 2 third grade classrooms, 2 fourth grade classrooms, and 2 fifth grade classrooms.

BFES also has 2 special education rooms, 1 title 1 room, and extra curricular rooms for the

student’s specials. After talking with Mentor M and other educators in the building, it was clear

that BFES’s goal as educators is to create a safe, heard, compassionate and present environment

for all the children attending BFES while providing educational means of learning in all skills of

life (Mentor M, personal connection, 2018).

Community, population and services

K. New Hampshire is a suburban community that has the population of 23, 406 residents,

10, 912 being male and 12, 625 being female. The ethnic diversity in the town of K. is low as

most of the population is Caucasian, however the BF neighborhood is becoming more and more

diverse as BFES is an English language learning school. K. has a varying income ranges as some

areas have low income families and others have middle to upper income families. With the

varying income ranges, there is poverty population of 15.6 (New Hampshire Employment

Security, 2018). The average median family income for the community of town K., is $72,980

and the median household family income is 53,499 with an unemployment rate of 2.6%. In the

neighborhood of BFES, there are rates of homelessness in correlation to the high drug addiction

rates that are along with other variables, factoring into all of these numbers and percentages.

(Mentor M, personal connection, 2018). BFES is under the McKinney-Vento Act, allowing

children whose families may become homeless in the neighborhood of BF to still attend BFES

even if the family is to move out of the neighborhood or even town as immediate school
enrollment is critical to the child’s educational progression (Mentor M, personal communication,

2018). Like poverty, homelessness, drug addiction rates, and other factors, can be correlated with

inadequate nutrition, care and food insecurity for children and families (Mentor M, personal

communication, 2018). BFES has an 90% rate of children who receive free and reduced

breakfast and lunch. Many families bring their children in early for free breakfast, and leave

knowing that they will receive a full meal at lunch time. Making this accessible to families who

are eligible aid with supports and can decrease stress levels on the children and families as one of

the main needs of the children are being met (Mentor M, personal communication, 2018).

These varying rates and numbers that are effecting children and families are not only

causing stress on families but also communities resulting in various deficiencies in school and

home environments for the children. More closely in correlation to the Bronfenbrenner’s

biological perspective knowing about the microsystem, mesosytem, exosystem, macrosystem

and chronosystem and how they all correlate and play a major role in different factors that effect

us, we must deepen our thoughts as to what may be going instead of making assumptions and

stories in our heads (Swick & Williams, 2006). As stated from Bronfenbrenner, we can gain

insights related to patterns of family responses to various stress syndromes but must be cautious

as to how we use generalizations in our work with families (Swick & Williams, 2006). All

families and each person experience stress in their own ways. Making connections and

relationships with children and their families are crucial to BFES. BFES’s staff team members,

such as the principal, the social worker, and or the guidance counselor provide numbers to

MFS’s, mental health crisis lines, they work to set up parent-parent “buddies” so parent/families

have a resource with someone who may be experiencing the same challenges, and they pair up

each student with a faculty member for beginning/end of the day check-ins to build those
relationships and connections. These services are in hope to make it easier to find other means of

resources to help children and families in the best way possible within the home and school

environments. (Mentor M, personal communication, 2018).

IDEA Research, Placement 2

Description of IDEA Law

The Individuals with Disabilities Education law (IDEA) is a law that makes available a

free appropriate public education to more than 6.5 million eligible infants, toddlers, children and

youth with disabilities (Individuals with Disabilities Act, 2004). The law provides the eligible

children with disabilities throughout the nation early intervention, special education and related

(Individuals with Disabilities Act, 2004). There are 4 different parts that are composed of the

IDEA. Part A is Geneneral Provisions, Part B is Assistance for All Children with Disabilities,

Part C is Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities and Part D is National Activities to Improve

Education of Children with Disabilities. (Individuals with disabilities Act, 2004).

Putting the law into place at BFES and going even further into the law, the school falls

under part B of the law. Part B; Assistance for All Children with Disabilities goes more into

depth in stating that “provisions related to formula grants that assist states in providing free

appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment for children with disabilities

ages 3-21” (Individuals with Disabilities Act, 2004). BFES recently just became an all inclusive

school, however the educators do still participate in taking children out of the room for extra

support intervention groups. As it is an all inclusive school, educators begin with the least

restrictive classroom environment and slowly work their way up to the most restrictive

environment for the children as need be.

Special Education Process

Jumping into a more focused look at the law from the perspective of the actual special

education process, it goes even more in depth connected to part B of the IDEA at a public school

like BFES. The special education process at BFES is explicit to that of the NH special education

procedural process in determining/receiving services. (See appendix A for more information

about the process). At BFES the first step is to receive a teacher, parent, etc., concern about

possible special education services and referral is made to the school district, following an initial

individualized Education Program (IEP) meeting with the BFES team; parents/guardians, general

educators, and special educators. A referral meeting must be held within 15 business days of

receiving the referral. During the meeting BFES must give the parents/guardians a written notice

of the IEP teams decision on evaluations if need be. Once the child is officially being considered

for special education, written consent is required by the parent/guardian before evaluations can

occur. Evaluations are determined by what was suspected during the meetings. Initial evaluations

must be completed within 60 calendar days. Once the evaluations are complete, the IEP team

uses that information to determine whether or not the child is eligible for special education. To

be eligible the child must have a disability and require special education or special education and

related services to benefit from education. The child will then be identified with one or more of a

specific (dis)ability and the IEP must meet once every 3 years to determine eligibility. (The NH

Department of Education, 2017).

Observation Research Project Part 3

Placement #2

Tyrah Urie
 (Dis)ability, Assessment, & Intervention Research, Placement 2

(Dis)ability or diagnosis

An emotional disturbance(ED) is a condition exhibiting one or more of the following

characteristics over a long period of time and to a marked degree that adversely affects a child’s

educational performance: 1) an inability to learn that cannot be explained by intellectual,

sensory, or health factors 2) an inability to build or maintain satisfactory interpersonal

relationships with peers and teachers 3) inappropriate types of behavior or feelings under normal

circumstances 4) A general pervasive mood of unhappiness or depression 5) A tendency to

develop physical symptoms or fears associated with personal or school problems. Theses

characteristics that make up an emotional disturbance can effect an individual in areas beyond

emotional. Depending on the specific mental disorder involved, a person’s physical, social, or

cognitive skills may also be affected (Center for Parent Information and Resources, 2017).

Assessment: Identification and Eligibility

When deciding how to identify an emotional disturbance, one would look for and begin

to notice the common characteristics of the (dis)ability listed above over a long period of time

within a child. An emotional disturbance is an underlying result of non specific learning

disabilities but is a learning disability in itself that can be a result to certain disabilities (Mentor

M, personal communication, 2018).

 The assessment process specific to the placement that would be used to determine a

child’s eligibility for services for an emotional disturbance is closely related to the general

process for all disabilities that require services but goes into more specifics pertaining to the way

BFES does things. The assessment process starts off with the first initial referral that is brought

to the attention of the general education teacher or the special educator. The referral can be made

by the general education teachers, special education teachers, other educators/supports, in the

school environment. The referral can not be done by the parents due to the fact that, they

wouldn’t really see it impacting the child’s education over a long period of time. Parents may

refer their child in suspicion of a learning disability which can later be uncovered as ED but

wouldn’t be sought out as ED during that initial referral. (Mentor M, personal communication,

2018). Once the referral is brought to attention the district then has 15 calendar days to compose

the concerns and schedule a meeting. Within the 15 days for the meeting the parent/guardian,

teacher, parent, principal, special educator, and if any other related person as well that may be

currently or in the past working with the child like the guidance counselor, behaviorists, or

psychologist at BFES come together. During the meeting the parent/teacher would present the

child and their concerns in terms of how they feel the child’s education is being impacted. If the

referral originated from teacher, they must come to the meeting with data that supports and show

average statistical deficits in their academics. BFES staff has to clearly observe the child’s

educational impact deficits over an intervention cycle which is typically 6 months. Once this is

determined the team at the meeting have to come to a consensus to agree or disagree to evaluate

the child. The parent/guardian present at the meeting is the icing on the cake when determining if

they will sign for consent to evaluate or deny.

 Once the first meeting is done and the parents have signed consent to evaluate their child

another meeting is held. The evaluation plan meeting is held by the special educators including

the parent/guardian, teacher, school psychologist, education evaluator, and principal or the local

educational agency representative. During this meeting the suspected disability is discussed. A

list of all the assessments that are going to be evaluated to asses the checked suspected

disabilities on the evaluation plan (see appendix G), on the child then have to be made up by the

special educator. Then the full evaluation plan needs to be made. By week 6 of the entire

assessment process, all assessments that were put onto the evaluation plan must be done and

completed. By week 7, another meeting is held with all team members listed above to go over all

the findings of the assessments that were done by the special educator and school psychologist.

From this point, an ED evaluation report checklist will be filled out by the special educator and

school psychologist (see appendix H), who then have to go over why they checked off a

particular area or multiple areas on the checklist. If a child gets one check or more on the

checklist after all the assessments and data, they qualify for having ED. Once the child is

established for having ED the team must come to the agreement that the child meets eligibility

for special education. The parents have the ability to refuse or continue on and sign for consent

towards the eligibility of their child. If the parent/guardian signs, the process continues. After

consent, special educator will then have 30 days to go into the NHESIS, plug in all the

assessments and develop an individualized education program (IEP). After the 30 days a final

meeting is held to discuss the IEP, the parent/guardian then has 30 days to sign for consent. If

consent is not given within the 30 days, the child is then un-eligible and the assessment process

restarts. However, once the the parent/guardian signs the IEP is then good for 1 calendar year.
Every trimester the special educator has to make a progress report based off of the academic IEP

goals which are available to parents during parent/teacher conferences.

There are no specific tests that are used when assessing children for ED because it is

underlying. It is a disability that typically comes due to other unexplainable reasons that doesn’t

specifically fit under any other (dis)ability. However, based on the typical characteristics shown

in a given child, two assessments that are frequently used when looking at emotionally disturbed

children are the “Woodcock Johnson IV” and the “Behavior Assessment System for Children –

Third Edition (BASC3)”.

Woodcock Johnson IV

The first assessment, Woodcock Johnson IV (WJ IV) is a broad scope systematic

assessment that is based on the state-of-science tests for individual evaluation of academic

achievement achievement, cognitive abilities, and oral language that is broken up into 3

independents, complementary, and co normed batteries. The 3 batteries; Woodcock Johnson IV

tests of achievement (WI IV ACH), the Woodcock Johnson IV tests of Cognitive abilities, and

the Woodcock Johnson IV tests of Oral Language. The WJ IV provides professionals with the

most contemporary and comprehensive system for identification of patterns of strengths and

weaknesses among important cognitive, language, and academic abilities (Schrank, 2014).

More specifically to the placement, to assess for ED the Woodcock Johnson ACH and

COG are used through interview and observation. The Woodcock Johnson ACH includes 20

tests that measure four broad academic domains: reading, written language, mathematics, and

academic knowledge and is only administered by the special educator who has had specific

training. The Woodcock Johnson COG includes 18 tests measures the ability to attend to orally

presented material and focus on the attention on a task requirement. This specific test can only be
administered by the school psychologist who has also had specific training. Both tests are scored

by the level of development, comparison with peers in the same age group and the degree or

proficiency (Schrank, 2014). The level of development is split up into two categories; age

equivalents and grade equivalent. The age equivalents or age score reflects the child’s

performance in terms of age level in the norming sample at which the average score is the same

as the child’s score. The grade equivalent or grade score reflects the child’s performance in terms

of the grade level of the norming same at which the average score is the same as the child’s raw

score. The comparison with peers is also broken up into two categories; standard score and

percentile rank. The standard score describes a child’s performance relative to the average

performance of the comparison group with a means of 100 and standard deviation of 15 and the

scale is the same as the IQ test. The percentile rank describes a child’s relative standing to his or

her peers on a scale of 1-100. Last the degree of proficiency or relative proficiency index (RPI)

predicts a child’s level of proficiency on tasks that typical age or grade peers would perform with

90% proficiency. All of this information is sought out through the results of the assessment but is

then plugged into a computer to compute these scores and information (Schrank, 2014).

The goal/purpose of the Woodcock Johnson IV Assessment is to measure intellectual

abilities and academic achievement and also to find children’s IQ, see if the child is working up

to potential and to have the scores see where the disability may be within the child. The benefit

of this assessment is that it assesses several different areas of a child’s academic and cognitive

brain. The Woodcock Johnson IV is very data driven and non subjective (Mentor M, personal

communication, 2018).

Although the assessment can tell a lot about a child and has many pros, there are also

some cons of the assessment. If a child doesn’t have background knowledge and prior
experiences than they won’t know a handful of things on the assessment making it difficult for

the scoring to come out accurate. The assessment also doesn’t take into consideration children’s

reading and writing ability. If the child is a poor reader/writer than they are going to struggle

with large portions on the assessment and they aren’t going to get very far within the test.

Another con within the assessment it is becoming outdated. Many of the images provided in the

assessment are objects that are obsolete to the 21st century and many children may struggle with

trying to distinguish what is going on in a picture, again if they haven’t had those experiences

and background knowledge. (Mentor M, personal communication, 2018). Because the test can

only be administered by a special educator and school psychologist it may be difficult to have the

test administered to multiple children as there is only two special educators and one school

psychologist at BFES. The assessment is only made for English and Spanish language speaking

children, making in impossible for any other language outside of English/Spanish to be assessed

(Mentor M, personal communication, 2018).

Behavioral Assessment System for Children – Third Edition

The second assessment, Behavioral Assessment System for Children (BASC3)

ages 2-21 that is interview based and assesses a wide variety of behaviors that represent both

behavioral problems and strengths, including internalizing internalizing or externalizing

problems, issues in school and adaptive skills. This assessment can be used in school or clinical

settings to provide a snapshot of behavioral and emotional functioning. The BASC-3 is a

beneficial tool to use to asses and intervene while monitoring a child’s progress which is critical

to helping them to establish healthy social interactions and a positive educational experience

(Pearson, 2018).
 The BASC3 has three different forms that can be completed by the teacher, child, and

parent. The first assessment, BASC-3 Teacher Rating Scales (BASC-3 TRS) is the assessment

done by the teacher. The BASC-3 TRS is a comprehensive measure of both adaptive and

problem behaviors in the school setting. The second assessment with the BASC-3 is the BASC-3

Parent rating scale (BASC-3 PRS) in which the parent fills out. This particular assessment is a

comprehensive measure of a child’s adaptive and problem behaviors in community and home

settings. The third part to the assessment within the BASC-3 is the BASC-3 Self Report of

Personality (SRP). This section of the assessment is a personality assessment consisting of

statements that the child answers on their own in one of two ways. Some areas require a true or

false response and other areas use a four-point scale of frequency. All three forms are scored

using T scores and percentiles, for a general population and clinical populations and all 3 forms

can be done and scored digitally or on paper making it more convenient for teachers, families,

and children to fill out depending on their means of materials and which is more convenient and

useful at the time.

The goal/purpose of the BASC-3 is to use the tool to asses and intervene while

monitoring a child’s progress which is critical to helping them to establish healthy social

interactions and a positive educational experience (Pearson, 2018). The goal is not only to find

the negatives of a child’s behavior and emotions but also the behavioral strengths. The

assessment can be done within 5-10 minutes making it non-time consuming which can be

beneficial to all completing the forms (Pearson, 2018).

Even though the assessment is very short and non-time consuming, can be administered a

couple ways and by the teacher, family and child which are all pros, there are also cons to the

BASC-3. The assessment is only available in English and Spanish, making it a disadvantage for
all other non English/Spanish speaking languages (Pearson, 2018). The other con to the BASC-3

is that all questions answered from the parent, teacher and child are taken into effect. This can be

bias in the fact that you can pick and chose how you answer the questions essentially (Mentor M,

personal communication, 2018).

Ethical Considerations of Assessment

Within all assessments regarding special education, ethical considerations and

responsibilities need to be made throughout the entire process. Confidentiality is one of the most

important parts in education and in particular Special Education. The Family Education Rights

and Privacy Act is to ensure parents have access but also limit access to records without

parent/guardian consent. If teachers and special educators did not follow FERPA or adhere to

professional standards of confidentiality and confidential information can be misused. Looking at

the NAEYC code of ethical conduct, Ideal 1.7 states “To use assessment information to

understand and support children’s development and learning, to support instruction, and to

identify children who may need additional services” (NAEYC, 2011). The inclusion of families

is crucial when going about assessments, evaluations and final decisions pertaining to special

education services as nothing can be sought out or finalized without parent/guardian consent.

Principle 2.10 of the NAEYC Code of Ethical conduct principle 2.10 states “Families shall be

fully informed of any proposed research projects involving their children and shall have the

opportunity to give or withhold consent without penalty. We shall not permit or participate in

research that could in any way hinder the education, development, or well being of a child”

(NAEYC, 2011). Closely related to the NAEYC Code of Ethics is the DEC Code of Ethics.

Under the responsive family centered practices guidelines four, five and six and seven are crucial

when taking into consideration the ethical piece of assessments. Guideline four states, “We shall
empower familes with information and resources so that they are informed consumers of services

for their children”. Guideline five states, “We shall collaborate with families and colleagues in

setting meaningful and relevant goals, and priorities throughout the intervention process

including full disclosure of the nature, risk, and potential outcomes of any interventions”.

Guideline six states, “We shall respect families’ rights to choose or refuse early childhood

special education or related services”. Guideline seven states “We shall be responsible for

protecting the confidentiality of the children and families we serve by protecting all forms of

verbal, written, and electronic communication”. (Division for Early Childhood, 2016). All of

these guideposts are important to keep in mind as a future educator. Both the NAEYC Code of

Ethics and DEC Code of Ethics emphasize the idea that educators need to obey the laws and

regulations regarding confidentiality, rights to privacy, and the ethical and professional

responsibilities involved in providing services to young children and their families.

Evidence-based Interventions

Once the process of assessing, evaluating is complete and a child qualifies for special

education interventions are put into place for the child receiving services. There are hundreds of

interventions that can be put into place with a child with any disability who may be needing extra

support. For emotionally disturbed children, although there are more, these 3 specific

interventions can support a child with ED.

The first evidence based intervention that would support a child with ED is contingent

reinforcement. Contingent reinforcement comes

in two forms: positive reinforcement and negative reinforcement. A contingent reinforcement

happens when a child reaches a targeted behavior as both positive and negative reinforcements

are used, more specific to BFES positive reinforcements are more typical (Luczynski & Hanley,
2009). The effect of contingent reinforcement can be useful until that specific tool does not work

anymore. Using tools like sticker charts, whole punch cards, number/prize reinforcements can

positively change a child’s behavior quickly and over time (Mentor M, personal communication,

2018).

The second evidence based intervention is the teacher-pupil interaction strategy. The

behavior of a leader or teacher influences the behavior of children (Jose & Cody, 1971). When

working with children with ED modeling for them behaviors/actions that they should be doing is

crucial (Mentor M, personal communication, 2018).

Progress Monitoring

After assessing, reviewing the assessments and creating supports/interventions for a child

in special education it is important to monitor the progress and seek the deficits the child may

still be having. Progress monitoring can be done through data sheets, observation and behavior

checklists, academic assessments and progress check-ins. (Mentor M, personal communication,

2018).
Observational Research
Tyrah Urie
Part 4
 Final Reflection
Introduction

Placement 1 is an elementary school in the MRSD called MTC located in the town of S.

in the state of New Hampshire. MTC houses 6 surrounding towns, generating the school

population to 256 pre-K-2nd grade students and 56 employed faculty members. MTC has 26

classrooms for all the subjects offered in the school program. Placement #2 is a kindergarten

through fifth grade elementary school in KSD called BFES located in the town of K. in the State

of New Hampshire. BFES is a title one school and the only English language learning (ELL)

school in the town of K. BFES has the population of approximately 250 students and 53

employed faculty members. BFES has 12 primary grade level classrooms and other classrooms

to accommodate for the other educational services provided in the building.

Ideas and Practices that Resonated

After being at both placements there were a few things in particular although there were

several of things that will stick with me into my future teaching career that were meaningful and

important. I think the biggest thing that will stick with me from both placements is how big child

advocacy is. As a future teacher, parent, and staff member speaking out in the best interest of all

children is really important. Being a support in every best way possible for a child is crucial no

matter the situation. Families need to know that your #1 job is to be there for their child, but also

support and listen to their ideas as well.

Challenges

With all experiences come success and challenges. In my first placement, I would say my

biggest challenge would be One thing that was challenging for me at this placement was the

observational piece in it self. I found it difficult to sometimes just sit back and observe when
there was something that I could have been doing to help. Especially around younger children, I

kept finding myself wanting to jump in and help and support their learning, or work through a

problematic situation that they might have been be having. I found that in certain situations if I

wasn’t fully engaged physically I was missing out on the experience. Although there were

several times where I was allowed to interact with the children this was a more observation-

based placement which made me really take a step back, take in a lot of things in, take notes and

ask questions later!

In my second placement the biggest challenge I would say would be hearing that the

school is a trauma school and trying to wrap my head around why several of the children are

acting the way that they are. Observing all the children that came into the resource room, and

even getting to work with some, really opened my eyes to not judging a book by its cover. In the

beginning it was easy to make a quick assumption as to a child is acting a particular way, with

challenging behaviors and strong emotions. However, it is not our job to judge yet to understand

the child as a whole and support then in every way we can.

New understandings and Remaining Questions

Within the placements I was able to gain new understandings and beliefs that I will be

able to hold and take with me as a future professional. After observing the children with

disabilities do the things they “aren’t able to do” was huge for me. Not just focusing on the

weakness/struggles a child has but realizing what they can do and working on expanding those

aspects along with the weakness is really important. From reading an IEP and reading a child

isn’t able to do this or that and then sitting in on an intervention group and actually getting to see

how smart and bright the child stated in the IEP actually is so eye-opening. When you get the

notation of special education, my idea is that our brains automatically think of what a certain
child can not do or is struggling with, when reality when you get a chance to sit down and

observe them learn, I find that there is a whole lot more of what that child can actually

accomplish and strive at. After the full semester, I was able to see and learn a lot. However, I

strive to find out more intervention strategies for children with disabilities and

emotional/behavioral struggles that I can take with me to my future career teaching in hope to be

the best support for children and their families. One main topic that I hope to learn more about

and experience is bringing up difficult sensitive topics with families regarding their children, and

how to make myself sound like I am doing it out of the best interest for the child and their

families and there for support.

Collection of Artifacts

The collection of artifacts throughout placement has been very helpful for me not only to

have a better understanding of some of the activities, plans, assessments and paperwork that are

including within placements, but also to better my understanding of these things visually and

knowledgably through the artifacts. Collecting artifacts has been a way for me to pull things

from my placements that I probably would not have picked up on my own.

Growth as a Professional

As a professional and early childhood educator, I can personally see my growth has

sprouted from the beginning of my education courses but also just from practicum 1 experience

and all of practicum 2. As a professional, I had learned brand new things that I had no clue about

before. As I professional, the importance of being open to diverse perspectives and backgrounds

really hit me. I learned that though things may be new and may dis-thrilling at first you have to

suck it up. The more time I thought about dwelling on not being sure if I was going to like the

special education field, the more time I would have missed being open to new things and
learning them. Being open to diverse perspectives and backgrounds, gives you so many more

insights and aspects of teaching that you can either take with you or even realize it may not be

for you as a teacher. Not only being open to diverse backgrounds within new areas but with

children as well. Trying to understand a child as a whole is very important. As an educator you

have to be open to new ways that children learn and new ways to support them with children

with disabilities and without. In this placement, I was really able to focus in on the ability to

recognize the legal and ethical obligations of the profession that I was lacking in practicum 1

because of this special education field, which I am so thankful for. As a person I was able to

grow in my self confidence. In previous field experiences I was always afraid to try and make

those connections/relationships and ask those sometimes “silly” questions to adults, however this

semester I was able to find myself and my confidence and become comfortable with talking to

other educational adults. I found that asking several questions only will help you and not hurt

and that no question is a dumb question. I learned that make connections and relationships with

your faculty peers as collaboration will be huge in the future.

Conclusion

Both placement 1 and 2 has taught an extreme amount. Some things taught that I want to

take with me as a future teacher and other things that I know I do not want to have be a part of

my classroom. Both placements gave me ample amounts of observations, experiences and

learning moments that I was able to ask questions on to expand my knowledge. From being

nervous of being placed in a special education setting and not knowing much of anything to

learning as much as did and being confident to take the knowledge with me in my future

placements and teaching experiences is an unbelievable goal that, and I am so thankful for my

opportunities I was given at MTC and BFES.

 References

American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (n.d.). Childhood Apraxia of Speech. Retrieved from

https://www.asha.org/public/speech/disorders/childhood-apraxia-of-speech/

BFES.(2018). Benjamin Franklin Elementary School. Benjamin Franklin Elementary School Parent-

Student Handbook 2018-2019. Retrieved November 9, 2018 from http://fra.keeneschoolsnh.org

Center for Parent Information & Resources. (2017). Emotional Disturbance. Retrieved December 2,

2018, from https://www.parentcenterhub.org/emotionaldisturbance/

Division for Early Childhood. (2016). DEC recommended practices with Examples. Retrieved from

http://www.dec-sped.org/recommendedpractices

Goldman, F., Fristoe, M. (2015). Goldman-Fristoe Test of Articulation-3. Retrieved from

https://images.pearsonclinical.com/images/Assets/GFTA-3/GFTA-3ScoreReport.pdf

IDEA. (2004). Statue and Regulations. Individuals with disabilities education act. Retrieved November

9, 2018, from https://sites.ed.gov/idea/statueregulations/.

Jose, J., Cody, J.J. (1971). Teacher interaction as it relates to attempted changes in teacher expectancy of
academic ability and achievement. Retrieved from
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.3102/00028312008001039

Moriarty, B.C, & Gillon, G.T. (2006). Phonological awareness intervention for children with childhood

apraxia of speech. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 41(6), 713-

734. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com

MRSD. (2018). Monadnock Regional School District school board policies. MRSD school board.

Retrieved September 26, 2018, from https://www.boarddocs.com/nh/mrsd/board.nsf/public#

NAEYC. (2011). Code of ethical conduct and statement of commitment. Position Statement.

Washington, DC: NAEYC.

NH Employment Security (2018). Swanzey NH economic & labor information bureau, 1-3. Retrieved

November 9, 2018, from https://www.nhes.nh.gov/elmi/products/cp/profiles-pdf/swanzey.pdf

Northern Speech Services. (n.d.) Kaufman Speech Praxis Test (KSPT). Retrieved from

https://www.northernspeech.com/educators-special-education/kaufman-speech-praxis-test-kspt/

Pearson Education (2018). Identify and manage behavioral and emotional strengths and weaknesses
with the BASC-3. Retrieved December 2, 2018 from
https://www.pearsonclinical.com/education/landing/basc-3.html

Preston, J. L., Maas, E., Whittle, J., Leece, M. C., & McCabe, P. 2016. Limited acquisition and

generalization of rhotics with ultrasound visual feedback in childhood apraxia. Clinical

Linguistics & Phonetics, 30(3-5), 363-381. Retrieved from

https://doi.org/10.3109/02699206.2015.1052563

Pro-ed. (n.d.) Kaufman Speech Praxis Treatment Kit for Children – Advanced Level. Retrieved from

https://www.proedinc.com/Products/12689/kaufman-speech-praxis-treatment-kit-for-children--

advanced-level.aspx

Schrank, F.A. (2014). Woodcock-Johnson IV. Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside Publishing.

Swick, K. J., & Williams, R. D. (2006). An analysis of Bronfenbrenner’s bio-ecological perspective

for early childhood educators: Implications for working with families experiencing stress. Early

Childhood Education Journal, 33, 371-378. doi:10.1007/s10643-006-0078-y

 The New Hampshire Department of Education. (2017). Special Education Procedural Safeguards

Handbook. Retrieved November 9, 2018.

Swick, K. J., & Williams, R. D. (2006). An analysis of Bronfenbrenner’s bio-ecological perspective for

early childhood educators: Implications for working with families experiencing stress. Early

Childhood Education Journal, 33, 371-378. doi:10.1007/s10643-006-0078-

Thomas, D.C., McCabe, P., Ballard, K.J., Lincoln, M. (2016). Telehealth delivery of rapid syllable

transitions (ReST) treatment for childhood apraxia of speech. International Journal of Language

& Communication Disorders, 51(6), 654-671. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1111/1460-

6984.12238
 Appendix A

MRSD Parents Guide

This artifact is the title page of the parent handbook for the 2018-2019 school year. This is given

out to all the parents/guardians of the children who attend MTC. This informational handbook

gives parents/guardians the mission statement, general information, student service, reports to

parents, health and safety, buss regulations, rights and responsibilities, attendance, the USDA

nondiscrimination statement and the district calendar.

 Appendix B

Yardsticks: Guide to Second graders

This artifact is a resource brochure for parents/guardians given out at parent teacher conferences.

The brochure gives information on the common developmental characteristics in the classroom

and at home for children ages 7-8 years of age under the categories of physical, social and

emotional and academic development. This brochure is given for each grade level at MTC.
 Appendix C

New Hampshire Special Education Procedural Safeguards Handbook

This artifact is the cover page of the New Hampshire Special Education Procedural Safeguards

Handbook. This is given to parents who attend their first IEP meeting for their child, and or to

those who are looking for more specific information on special education whether they are

professionals or the general public wanting/needing guidance on special education.

 Appendix D

BFES Parent-Student Handbook

This artifact is the first two pages to the table of contents of the parent-student handbook for the

2018-2019 school year. This is given out to all the parents and guardians of the children who

attend BFES. This informational handbook gives parents/guardians a letter from the principal,

the mission statement, general information, educational programs, rights and responsibilities,

school district policies, school safety and compliance statements.

 Appendix E

Goldman-Fristoe Test of Articulation-Third Edition (GFTA)

This artifact is a cover page of the Goldman-Fristoe Test of Articulation-Third Edition

assessment. This cover page is helpfull for those who may want to further their curiosity in the

assessment beyond what is stated above. This gives a familiarity component to the more specific

Golman-Fristoe Test as there are others.

 Appendix F

Kaufman Speech Praxis Treatment Kid for Children

This artifact is a cover page of the Kaufman Speech Praxis Treatment Kit for Children

assessment. This cover page allows educators, researchers, parents/guardians to research and

dive into more specific components of the assessment and can be given to parent/guardians when

giving out intervention strategy ideas at home.

 Appendix G

Special Education Evaluation Report

This artifact is a form filled out during a special education meeting by the special

educator. This form gives specific information on dates, who is attending the meeting, signed

consent, and a suspected disability checklist. This is then used to help form the final evaluation

plan for the special educator.

 Appendix H

Emotional Disturbance Evaluation Report

This artifact is used in the final assessment process filled out by the special educator and school

psychologist. ED evaluation report checklist will be filled out by the special educator and school

psychologist, who then have to go over why they checked off a particular area or multiple areas

on the checklist. If a child gets one check or more on the checklist after all the assessments and

data, they qualify for having ED.