Read on Twitter
take alert.A thread
I appreciate the dialogue I am seeing on SLD evaluation given the pandemic.
1/n
I see this as a complex issue. On one side concerns with the validity of eligibility decisions given the current context. On the other side a legit concern that our current service delivery model for intensive supports requires funding of some kind, which IDEIA provides
2/n
2/n
I'd like to petition that my school psych peeps and sped peeps opt to continue the debate while also focusing on an underlying issue. CORE instruction provided by general education teachers is a factor impacting this entire debate
3/n
3/n
The three-pronged approach proposed by Fletcher and colleagues is great. However, a major ASSumption of all of these models is fidelity in delivering high-quality, research-aligned instruction at CORE (i.e., gen ed) and in intensive interventions
4/n
4/n
Let's throw out the pandemic for a second, can we honestly say fidelity in CORE and intensive interventions are occurring widespread? Now with the pandemic in play, this exacerbates this underlying problem.
5/n
5/n
We need to attack a thorn in the side of eligibility decisions. Improve pre- and in-service teacher development in serving students who "struggle" (i.e., we can operationalize this if we want) through research-aligned instruction at CORE and intensive interventions
6/n
6/n
This requires collaboration with stakeholders outside the fields of SPED and school psych. SPED is inherently tied to general education because we are serving students that were unsuccessful in this environment in isolation. Debating within our fields will only get us so far
7/n
7/n
