SCHOOL district administrators, special and general education classroom teachers, and speech-language pathologists (SLPs) need knowledge about the legal initiatives and the theoretical constructs behind responsiveness to intervention (RTI) models if they are to participate actively in the process. Current orientation to prevention and identification procedures in the schools, however, may be incongruent with an RTI frame of reference. Experiences over the last 30 years have been shaped by special education law that required states to determine eligibility procedures for programs for students with disabilities and set specific constraints on how school districts could spend federal monies provided for special education. Historically, the state has been the central player determining procedures at the school district level, with little opportunity for school districts to take the initiative for changes in procedures or programs requiring compliance with federal legislation.
Because of new federal legislation, school districts now will be able to design procedures incorporating RTI models that will place SLPs and other practitioners in an advantageous position to exert leadership. To do so, however, these frontline professionals will have to reorient their thinking about services and programs. The purpose of this article is to assist SLPs in assuming a leadership role in RTI efforts by (1) explaining current federal legislation; (2) providing a rationale for leadership; and (3) suggesting a formula for calculating leadership potential with specific leadership opportunities.
FEDERAL LEGISLATION
Two recent federal education laws, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA '04), have changed the ways in which school districts address school failure. They set the context within which RTI activities can become part of an accepted approach used with struggling students, as well as those suspected of having a disability. These laws blur the line between general education and special education in such a way that the expertise of personnel typically assigned to special education programs can be utilized to assist and support students in general education and their teachers. It is critical for school administrators, classroom teachers, SLPs, school psychologists, special education teachers, reading specialists, and other educators to become familiar with the aspects of these laws relevant to RTI to take full advantage of the opportunities and benefits that these laws provide. The roles and responsibilities of school personnel that were redefined by IDEA (1997) are undergoing more changes with the implementation of NCLB and IDEA '04.
No Child Left Behind
NCLB is the major education reform policy for all children. Enacted in January of 2002, the Act reauthorizes the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the principal federal law affecting education from kindergarten through high school. As part of the accountability provisions set forth in the law, NCLB has set the goal of having every child reach, at a minimum, proficiency on state-defined education standards by the end of the 2013 to 2014 school year. To demonstrate this goal, NCLB requires states to implement statewide accountability systems covering all public schools and students. Furthermore, states are required to separate or disaggregate student achievement data. Defined subgroups are racial/ethnic minorities, economically dis-advantaged, students with disabilities, and limited English proficient students. Through this reporting of disaggregated student achie-vement data, schools are held accountable for subgroups of students to assure that they are helping all children reach this achievement goal.
The primary subgroup of interest for this article is the group of students with disabilities. The NCLB Act prohibits schools from excluding students with disabilities from the educational accountability system. The statute requires states to use accommodations, modifications, and alternate assessments as needed, to ensure that students with disabilities participate fully in NCLB testing. Most students with disabilities must participate in the same state assessments based on the same academic standards as their peers. Some of these students will need accommodations or modifications as outlined in IDEA, such as increased time or the use of assistive technology, to ensure that their unique needs are taken into account as they participate with their peers in the assessment process. In addition, some students may take either alternate assessments or modified assessments based on general education state standards. And finally, those students with the most severe cognitive disabilities may take alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards. States and school districts have the flexibility to report the proficient and advanced scores of those students who are given modified assessments as well as students who are given alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards. For accountability purposes in judging adequate yearly progress (AYP) (The Education Trust, 2005), however, the scores from modified assessments must not exceed 2% of all students in the grades tested, and the scores from alternate assessments must not exceed 1% of all students in the grades tested.
NCLB marks a significant increase in the accountability of schools for the academic progress of students with disabilities by requiring that their progress be measured against the same academic standards as for students in general education. Now more than ever, students with disabilities are viewed as the responsibility of the entire school community, including general education. With this increased focus, educators with the skills and knowledge to contribute to the success of students with disabilities play a critical role across the school community. This moves special education teachers and related service providers into the general education arena more than ever as consultants to general education teachers, as well as service providers for students with disabilities in general education classrooms. Through an RTI model, special education teachers, SLPs, and other related service providers can assist in identifying the instructional techniques that are most effective in helping students with disabilities make progress on academic standards.
Beyond the support needed for students with disabilities to make progress on state achievement standards, special education teachers and related service providers can also play a critical role in assisting students who are struggling academically but who are not identified as having a disability. These professionals are trained to identify instructional "breakdowns" and individual learning needs, and to specify instructional approaches that can meet those individual needs. Using special education teachers and related service providers to provide consultation to general education teachers, and perhaps short-term remediations to struggling students, is consistent with an RTI approach. This tiered approach to support and service delivery moves special education personnel into the general education setting, contributing their expertise to the enhancement of student progress across the school community.
An important consideration in this expansion of staff roles is funding. Monies budgeted for NCLB, and particularly for Title I programs for disadvantaged students, can be used for services and supports usually funded exclusively out of IDEA and special education. Combining general education and special education funding allows for an expansion of staffing resources, rather than siphoning off resources from special education to assist general education.
In December 2004, President Bush signed into law IDEA '04. The legislation reauthorizes IDEA for 6 years. At this writing, new regulations are being developed through the U.S. Department of Education to give more specificity for implementing the new law.
IDEA '04 addresses RTI through two components. First, the law allows local schools to use up to 15% of their IDEA Part B funds for supportive services to help students in kindergarten through Grade 12 not yet identified with disabilities, but who require additional academic and behavioral supports to succeed in a general education environment. The law encourages schools to focus their efforts on students in kindergarten through Grade 3. Referred to as "early intervening services," allowable activities under this part of the new law include professional development for teachers and other school staff to use scientifically based academic instruction including literacy instruction; and educational and behavioral evaluations, services, and supports, including scientifically based literacy instruction. Schools are allowed to supplement these activities with funds received through NCLB.
Many schools already have general education intervention or child study teams in place to provide prereferral support for students experiencing academic problems in the classroom (e.g., Graner, Faggella-Luby, & Fritschman, 2005). The IDEA '04 legislation now allows for a portion of the IDEA funds to support such activities.
With regard to SLPs, providing early intervening or prereferral services allows them to work with a wider range of students with language and literacy learning risks without labeling them as speech-language impaired.
The second component of IDEA '04 that directly involves RTI regards determination of whether a child has a specific learning disability. In making this determination, the school is no longer required to take into consideration whether a child has a severe discrepancy between achievement and intellectual ability in oral expression, listening comprehension, written expressions, basic reading skill, reading comprehension, mathematical calculation, or mathematical reasoning. Rather, IDEA '04 indicates that schools may use a process that determines if a child responds to scientific, research-based intervention (i.e., RTI) as a part of the evaluation procedures used to determine if the child has a disability.
Under this model, eligibility for special education services would focus on the children who, even with early intervening services, are not able to be successful. The focus is on responding to the instructional challenges caused by the suspected disability, not on giving tests to document the failure of the student (LD Roundtable Comments for Regulations on IDEA '04).
WORKLOAD ISSUES IN IMPLEMENTATION
An analysis of NCLB and IDEA '04 makes it clear that SLPs and other related services providers have an opportunity-indeed, a mandate-to be involved in RTI teams in schools. What is not clear is how these professionals, already stretched with large, demanding caseloads, will engage in these additional roles and responsibilities. How can staff with complex and challenging special education responsibilities even consider expanding into the general education arena to serve struggling or at-risk students? The answer is multifaceted, comprising interdependent components of role identification, scheduling and documentation, funding, and access to services.
Role identification
The number of students on their caseloads for whom they provide assessment and direct intervention has traditionally defined special education personnel, particularly SLPs. The expectation-and the reality for the overwhelming majority of school-based SLPs-is that they spend each period of their work day engaged in face-to-face contact with students, either on an individual basis or in a small group. School-based SLPs report spending more than 70% of their time on direct intervention and diagnostic evaluations, and 8% of their time on paperwork (American Speech-Language-Hearing Association [ASHA], 2000b). What is not typically factored into their job responsibilities is the myriad of indirect services and administrative duties in which SLPs should engage to carry out programs that meet the individual needs of students with disabilities. In spite of their deep commitment, SLPs are not generally considered part of the general education process. As a result, they are not included on various teams or in initiatives that address the needs of teachers and struggling students who could greatly benefit from their knowledge and expertise in speech and language development and disorders.
Policy of the ASHA states that SLPs play a critical and direct role in the development of literacy for children and adolescents with communication disorders and that they also make a contribution to the literacy efforts of a school district or community on behalf of other children and adolescents, with these roles implemented in collaboration with other educators (ASHA, 2000a). However, staff expectations and assignments frequently do not allow for this breadth of engagement in literacy efforts. Furthermore, ASHA policy states that caseload standards must allow SLPs to engage in the broad range of professional activities necessary to meet student needs, including not only direct services but also indirect services and administrative duties necessary to support students' education programs, implement best practices, and ensure compliance with IDEA and other mandates (ASHA, 2002). Too often, caseloads are set at a level that requires SLPs to spend all of their time with students at the sacrifice of other activities needed to adequately support their education programs or contribute to the academic progress of other students or to the various initiatives across the school district.
What is needed is the understanding that SLPs and other related service providers have knowledge and expertise that can greatly contribute to schoolwide initiatives. Subsequent staff assignments might then be made to allow these professionals to bring their skills and knowledge to districtwide programs to advance mutual goals to help all students gain language and literacy abilities to succeed in the school and life.
Scheduling and documentation
Once it is acknowledged that SLPs (a) need to engage in a wide range of activities to conduct speech-language programs consistent with accepted standards of practice and (b) have expertise of value to districtwide initiatives, it is necessary to include those various activities on their schedules and on forms of documentation such as Individualized Education Programs (IEPs). Staff schedules should include time for activities such as prereferral meetings and intervention, consultation to classroom teachers, student observations, consultation with outside agencies, and paperwork. In addition, IEPs should document activities conducted both with and on behalf of students, as a recognized part of the services provided within their special education program. Examples of such schedules and documentation are available on the ASHA workload Web site at: http://www.asha.org/members/slp/schools/resources/schools_resources_caseload.htm.
Funding
Using the expertise of SLPs and other related service providers for NCLB programs, various districtwide initiatives, and early intervening programs may require additional staff and other resources. Funding these resources need not be an insurmountable challenge. As noted previously, NCLB and IDEA funds may be combined for programs that involve students not identified as having disabilities. NCLB funds can be tapped to bring related service providers on board with general education initiatives such as Title I programs and Reading First. Up to 15% of IDEA funds can be used for early intervening services. The blending and braiding of funds can allow for creative development of innovative programs that use the full range of staff expertise to meet the needs of struggling students and prevent academic failure.
Access to services
In the past, students needing anything more than the most basic remedial support had to be referred to special education for academic and behavioral supports. Early intervening programs of IDEA '04 now provide these supports either through expert consultation to classroom teachers on effective instructional techniques to meet the needs of individual learners, or through short-term intervention carefully monitored to assure student progress. This practice might actually lead to a decline in referrals to special education, with a subsequent decrease in special education caseloads, as some students can receive needed support through this less intensive and less costly process. Staff can thus be used in a more efficient manner to meet the needs of those students who, in the past, would have been referred to special education as the only path to academic supports, but who may not need a full special education program or who might not qualify for services under the old discrepancy model.
A RATIONALE FOR LEADERSHIP
Times of change bring uncertainty, but they also bring opportunities to rethink current practices. In this section, we present a rationale for leadership that involves analysis of current practices in a way that encourages the development of leadership potential and the shaping of uncertainty into opportunities.
Times, they are a' changing
As can be seen from the discussion of the legal bases of RTI, RTI initiatives in school districts can be expected to bring important changes for SLPs. The first could be that a traditional role as "first responder" for struggling students is likely to change. In the context of the traditional special education identification process, students struggling with reading have often been referred initially to the SLP. Perhaps this occurred because initial screening pointed to possible oral language problems or because of the view that young children would be unlikely to qualify as learning disabled. In many cases, struggling students who could not qualify for other services have been assessed, determined to have speech-language disorders and placed in therapy. Although it is likely that the students' spoken language disorder was a contributing factor in their poor classroom performance, language therapy focused on spoken language alone might not be sufficient to prevent reading failure.
The basis of RTI is that effective classroom interventions are needed to provide struggling students with explicit instruction in phonics, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension. ASHA policy (ASHA, 2000a) based on current research has contributed to the growing recognition of reciprocal relationships among listening, speaking, reading, and writing. Taking advantage of such relationships for instruction and intervention requires school leaders to facilitate shifts in policy and practice that aim explicitly at helping all children make the connections across spoken and written modalities. That means that SLPs need to select language targets that are of relevance to literate language development at all levels of emerging competence, from the point when they first begin to interact with young children struggling with speech and language development, through the high school years, and into postsecondary education.
A second change is that the RTI movement may contribute to growing pressure for traditional pullout service delivery for students with language disorders to give way to other types of services that are more relevant to students' comprehensive needs. SLPs can expect to be asked to consult more with teachers on the selection of classroom interventions with students who have not been identified as having disabilities, as well as to provide an array of therapeutic services in the school and within the classroom to address the needs of children struggling with literacy learning development, while also serving children traditionally on their caseloads. These changes should improve generalization, which has been notoriously difficult to achieve when students are served almost exclusively in pullout sessions.
Because of these changes in federal law, SLPs could find it increasingly difficult to provide quality services to students with communication disorders in traditional ways. For example, as states and school districts establish policies that require specific amounts of time to be devoted to reading instruction, SLPs will find it increasingly difficult to meet service times specified on IEPs. An area of immediate concern would be workload increases as SLPs are involved in early intervening activities and a possible reduction in services to students with language disorders. Increased shortages of qualified SLPs could result in states turning to the services of less qualified individuals, with the result that the effectiveness of language services for all children will become marginalized. SLPs could find it difficult to justify services that do not demonstrate a direct and positive impact on instruction and academic success in the school. SLPs could also find it difficult to serve students with articulation, voice, and fluency problems because these students often have no academic difficulties. To forestall these consequences, a different mindset is needed on the part of SLPs.
Shaping change into opportunities
The time is ripe for transforming change into opportunities. SLPs who can imagine new possibilities will be able to approach these changes as effective leaders.
First, imagine that these recent changes in federal legislation affecting children with learning disabilities might be an opportunity for SLPs to provide better services and programs for all students with communication disorders. Then, consider that RTI initiatives will occur at the local school district level and SLPs will have the opportunity to participate in the development of RTI procedures and activities in their districts. Within these contexts, imagine that SLPs could
* work with all students, on the basis of their needs, without having to consider arbitrary "eligibility" criteria;
* model language elicitation activities for teachers in the classrooms;
* meet with curriculum planning teams to develop lessons and plan means to measure their effectiveness for students with language-learning problems;
* help district personnel interpret data from students' classroom performance and work samples;
* collaborate with general education teachers to plan specific interventions for students with language-learning disabilities;
* work with teachers to identify students at risk for reading problems without having to refer, test, and place them in therapy; and
* develop schedules that include activities both with and on behalf of students throughout the day, reflecting workloads that allow time for direct services, indirect services, and administrative responsibilities.
In the past, SLPs may only have dreamed of such possibilities, given their daily challenges of spending all their time working face-to-face with students in small groups, often in rooms apart from the classroom and isolated from other school activities. Now, these possibilities could become reality if SLPs exert leadership in the context of RTI initiatives.
Calculating leadership potential
What can SLPs contribute to the development and implementation of RTI programs in schools? First, SLPs have knowledge about normal and disordered language development in school-age children and adolescents. This knowledge can inform other school staff as they develop intervention plans to address the relationship between listening, speaking, reading, and writing. Second, SLPs provide essential services as evaluation specialists for most students with disabilities. RTI programs focus on early identification; therefore, SLPs may be involved with students before they are suspected of having a disability. Third, SLPs have the skills to provide therapeutic intervention for students whose language skills impact their ability to read and write.
Too often, SLPs have not had the opportunity to use this knowledge outside of the therapy room. The opportunity now exists for SLPs to lead in this important area. SLPs might consider the following "formula" as a way to visualize the ingredients of leadership:
The factors in this formula are Pk = personal knowledge, P = participation, A = alliances, R = resources, and O = outcome. All the ingredients are necessary but their amounts and combination will determine the final outcome. The outcome is student success in literacy learning as a result of a shared responsibility to identify at-risk students and provide effective classroom interventions and therapy services, if needed. SLPs can improve their leadership potential by increasing the value of the ingredients in the formula.
Personal knowledge
SLPs intending to assume a leadership role in the school must acquire a level of personal knowledge or "Pk" about the relationships among speech and language development, disorders, classroom instruction, and student performance. SLPs can define terms such as phonology, morphology, semantics, pragmatics, and syntax, but their definitions may not translate well into educationally relevant activities or help differentiate the SLP's roles from those of other educators who address "language" in the school (Ukrainetz & Fresquez, 2003). SLPs in the schools are known by what they do most, which involves working face-to-face with students who have articulation or phonological disorders (ASHA, 2004). Therefore, the role of the SLP is often viewed as supplementary to the primary educational mission of the school.
To help administrators and teachers understand important relationships among listening, speaking, reading, and writing, SLPs should develop new means for relating their knowledge of these systems to the academic demands of schooling. They can do this by expanding their own knowledge in three areas: curriculum standards, accountability requirements, and relating group and individualized assessment.
The first area in which many SLPs need to become more knowledgeable is the set of curriculum standards applicable to specific grade levels. These standards, which generally are developed by state departments of education, are readily available on the Internet. The following two examples are from the Florida Sunshine State Standards for reading:
The student uses the reading process effectively.
LA.A.1.1.2. identifies words and constructs meaning from text, illustrations, graphics, and charts using the strategies of phonics, word structure, and context clues. (Grades PK-2)
LA.D.1.2.1. understands that there are patterns and rules in the syntactic structure, symbols, sounds, and meanings conveyed through the English language. (Grades 3-5; Florida Department of Education, 2005)
Using the standards as a springboard for discussion with teachers, SLPs can begin to identify the impact that specific language impairment may have on the skills needed for success in reading. This knowledge is essential if SLPs are to maintain a therapeutic focus (Ehren, 2000) during services while also communicating with educators in a manner that makes sense to them and makes clear the relevance of their services. For example, in the standards above, "word structure" communicates more directly than "morphology"; "meanings conveyed through the English language" are more understandable to teachers than a reference to "semantics." Using common terminology should open lines of communication with administrators and other general educators. Troia (2005) has suggested other ways that personal knowledge of language systems can be used to support SLP involvement in RTI initiatives.
The second area of personal knowledge would require the SLP to understand the overall requirements for school accountability, especially those related to recent legislative mandates. While skill instruction is the clear day-to-day business of classroom teachers, schools and school districts are driven to meet state and national benchmarks of proficiency. The most notable national benchmark to come out of the NCLB legislation is "adequate yearly progress." As described earlier in this article, the performance of students with disabilities is measured as a percentage of their participation on state assessments as well as meeting proficiency levels determined by each state. SLPs must become knowledgeable about these benchmarks. Key factors to consider are the number of students with disabilities identified in a school and the appropriate test modifications and accommodations, modified assessments, and alternate assessments for these students.
The third area of personal knowledge SLPs can continue to expand is the ability to select, administer, and interpret assessment data from multiple sources to be able to contribute effectively as part of the IEP team. SLPs implementing assessments to comply with eligibility criteria are very familiar with the need to use multiple measures of performance. The eligibility criteria usually require that the SLP match specific scores on standardized norm-referenced tests to quantitative cutoff scores. However, these measures of performance do not always identify how specific language abilities affect emerging literacy. This creates a dilemma, as IEP teams must be able to describe the impact of a disability on specific classroom performance skills. This requires that SLPs observe students in the classroom and use more curriculum-based measures in collaboration with teachers. Although SLPs might assist in schoolwide screening programs, it is probably more important for them to be able to help interpret results and know what to do next. This broadens the focus from just measuring and accountability, to also include planning about how to help students develop the skills they are missing.
Becoming more involved in implementing curriculum standards, accountability, and contextually based assessments as the basis for instructional plans shifts the focus from SLPs' caseloads to their workloads. This allows SLPs to establish roles in the school that reflect their full workload as consultants and team members, and not just as direct service providers (ASHA, 2002a,b). Demonstration of the contribution that SLPs can make to schoolwide issues can in turn lead to assignment of speech-language staff based on full workload activities rather than on caseload numbers (ASHA, 2003).
Participation
Participation is identified as a variable in the leadership formula, expressed as (P * 3). This emphasizes the importance of including others in the equation to solve the literacy learning problems of students as well as increasing the possibility of achieving the outcome. SLPs need to increase their participation in the planning, development, and implementation of school initiatives. Participation with others will add value to the leadership formula. SLPs should initially determine what activities they currently participate in with other school staff. Some of these activities may require their participation and others may be voluntary. Some activities may serve more social functions, such as committees that plan school celebrations. Others activities are essential to the overall operation of the school, such as serving on the textbook selection committee. Every opportunity to participate has value; however, each opportunity needs to be considered within the framework of the time available, opportunities for establishing alliances, and the potential for increasing quality programs for students. For example, if the SLP is currently involved in social or required activities not directly related to student success, the SLP might let other staff know of an interest in other opportunities.
SLPs who desire to participate must ensure that they receive announcements about possible school or district activities in a timely manner. School office staff may need to be told that the SLP wants to receive announcements that are directed to "all teachers." Using electronic methods of notification can assure that SLPs will not miss an opportunity because they were not in the school building at the time of the announcement. As greater opportunities for participation become available, the challenge will be choosing among the numerous activities that present themselves. SLPs might consider volunteering to help with activities, such as
* reconciling class lists of students who have been identified as having learning disabilities and language disorders;
* reviewing student proficiency on state assessments and identifying standards related to language performance where particular students perform below established proficiency levels;
* reviewing reading programs that include explicit instruction to help teachers determine if the program will meet the needs of students identified with specific language deficits;
* suggesting student assignments to specific classrooms to enable more efficient collaboration with teachers and more efficient service delivery; and
* developing parent-training programs that model effective supports for student's listening, speaking, reading, and writing development.
Getting an opportunity to participate on important tasks may require SLPs to follow specified procedures for nomination and election. As a starting point, SLPs might let key staff in the school know they are interested in participating in these kinds of activities. Participating with others to address mutual goals is more likely to lead to greater appreciation of the knowledge and skills SLPs bring to the schoolwide enterprise of helping all students become successful.
Alliances
An ally is someone who can help you achieve a mission. The perceived importance and potential success of a mission increases as the number of allies increases. Allies provide support to the mission in many ways. Allies bring knowledge and skills that complement each other and strengthen all efforts. That is why, the alliance factor in the formula is A2. In many school districts today, SLPs view themselves as sole providers of services for students with speech and language disorders. This view effectively isolates the SLPs from others and does not foster the development of alliances. It would be more productive all around to acknowledge that the complex interrelationship between oral and written language development requires stronger alliances between the SLP and the classroom teacher. Coincidentally, classroom teachers may feel that they have sole responsibility for the achievement of their students. It is important to realize that alliances serve to support student success, not the individual SLP or teacher. The participation of SLPs on IEP teams is a prime opportunity to demonstrate the value of shared responsibility. The IEP must describe the support for school personnel, such as training or professional development that will be provided to assist the student. This is an opportunity for SLPs to offer support through training or consultation or to engage with teachers in professional development activities that are meaningful to both in addressing their shared goals.
SLPs should consider how such alliances will be beneficial to the students they serve. Holding parent conferences along with the classroom teacher can offer one important benefit. Parents may be better able to understand the purpose of speech-language intervention services when the classroom teacher is able to describe clearly what classroom skills the SLP wants to improve. The SLP can then elaborate on specific goals and outcomes expected from intervention. In addition, this focus on classroom skills allows for a more functional approach to progress monitoring and generalization of learned skills.
SLPs also should seek to strengthen alliances with school administrators, such as principals. Principals may not have a direct role in hiring the SLPs who are assigned to their schools. Thus, they may not perceive the SLP as a full member of their staff. This can be particularly true when an itinerant professional provides services. SLPs also exercise some autonomy in the process of evaluating, identifying, and recommending intervention, which makes principals even more likely to let them "do their own thing." Therefore, SLPs must demonstrate to the principal the importance of their roles in the school's mission. SLP should be able to describe their knowledge and apply their skills in the context of being a part of the team of educators.
Establishing alliances that lead to more effective collaborative relationships and, ultimately, to improved student outcomes helps foster the perception of the SLP's role in the school as broad-based and multifaceted. This can increase other professionals' understanding of the full range of roles and responsibilities that SLP can engage in both with and on behalf of students and the school community as a whole. Such understanding in others will create a context that allows SLPs to bring about the systemic changes needed to move beyond the traditional pullout caseload model.
It is important to recognize that alliances require each person to share responsibility for the success of the mission. The most important aspect of this responsibility is dependability. When a person is responsible for a task, it is important to complete the task and do it well.
Resources
Organizations like schools and school districts rely on the development and management of human and fiscal resources. Human resources are the administrative, professional, technical, clerical, and volunteer staff whose function is necessary to the achievement of the mission. SLPs should know the organizational structure of the school district and the school. Organizational charts can illuminate how departments and divisions within the school district are related. Useful information can also be gleaned from knowledgeable long-time employees. Leadership opportunities may develop differently for SLPs who serve a school district through a cooperative or intermediate unit structure, or through contractual arrangements. Because these types of structures tend to separate general and special education services, the SLP could find it more difficult to participate on planning teams and create needed alliances.
Change usually creates some anxiety among staff who may feel that their positions or workload are jeopardized. Thus, SLPs should encourage the perception that the focus on student achievement will require a realignment of roles, not an elimination of positions. This also means that SLPs must be willing to consider changes in their traditional roles, being willing to give up some activities to take on new ones.
Fiscal resources are the funding sources for various programs and services provided by school districts. The more SLPs know about the details of school funding, the more they will be able to see opportunities for change. School districts are funded through a combination of federal funds, state funds, and local district funds, with state funding usually being the largest proportion of all funding sources. The use of monies is often constrained by specific legal requirements and procedures. Some programs in school districts may be almost entirely funded by a single source of local or federal funds. If these funds are eliminated or local priorities change, entire programs can be affected. After capital expenditures for facilities and other durable goods, such as furniture and equipment, personnel costs are the most significant for a school district. An SLP does not need an extensive background in school finance to be an effective leader. However, knowledge about some of the key concepts that govern the school district's revenue and expenditures can be helpful when considering changes in programs and services. School district finances are public record, and state departments of education often provide yearly summaries for comparison among districts (Pennsylvania Department of Education, 2005).
Key questions for SLPs to pursue would include: What is the source of funding for the speech-language program? How are funding amounts determined? Are there restrictions on how program funding can be used? For example, federal funding may not be used to pay special education providers currently funded from state or local funds. Such use of federal funds would be considered supplanting and is not allowed. However, new hires could be paid from federal funds. As described previously, changes in IDEA '04 will allow school districts to spend up to 15% of their federal funds on services to students who are not yet classified as disabled. These funds could be used to pay SLPs who are providing consultation to teachers and direct intervention with these students as part of new RTI programs.
SLPs may be able to bring additional funding to the table by applying for grants made available through their state professional association, special interest divisions, and ASHA. While these grants are typically small ($300 to $1000), they can provide the motivation and resources to try out new ideas. Small successes can lead to larger opportunities in the future.
CONCLUSION
The opportunity to participate in the development of RTI programs opens the door for significant changes for school districts, influencing key elements of policy in special education and requiring a realignment of human and fiscal resources. SLPs can embrace this change as an opportunity to bring about changes in their roles and responsibilities. SLPs who can imagine a different future can become leaders in creating their new roles. In this article we have provided SLPs with information about why change is occurring as well as ways to increase their leadership and redefine their workload by establishing their role as integral to the school's mission. That role will allow the SLP to apply knowledge and skills in improving services for the benefit of students wherever and whenever it is needed.
REFERENCES