by Kimberly McCallister and Susan Trumbo

On opposite sides of Virginia, speech-language pathologists in Hanover and Botetourt counties have implemented a workload approach to service delivery over the last four years as part of response-to-intervention (RTI). For students, the approach resulted in fewer special education referrals, improved scores on high-stakes testing, and greater participation in general education. For the SLPs, the approach changed the frequency and type of services provided and allowed more time for collaboration with colleagues.

How has flexible scheduling facilitated these results? At Central Academy Middle School (CAMS) in Botetourt County, in the western part of the state, the SLP typically spends three days per week in the building and spends consistent time in content-area classes to collaborate, co-teach, station teach, parallel teach, and/or supplemental teach to address language underpinnings within the framework of the Content Literacy Continuum. During the 2009–2010 school year, the SLP will teach a literacy strategies class that includes students with and without Individual Educational Programs (IEPs) who have specific needs in reading, writing, listening, and speaking. Pullout time is limited, but provided regularly outside of the school day to meet students' needs.

At James River High School in Botetourt County, the schedule varies from that of the middle school. The SLP provides services two days of the week to students with speech/language IEPs. These services are directly related to the curriculum of the students' content-area classes, often within the classroom. Students without speech/language IEPs also realize the benefits of an SLP supplementing instruction in these classes. As at the middle school, pullout services occur outside of the school day.

At Liberty Middle School (LMS) in Hanover County, in the eastern part of the state, the SLP's schedule rotates with the nine-week grading period. Students with IEPs who require consistent pullout services for articulation and fluency receive services at scheduled times that change every nine weeks. This scheduling avoids pulling students from the same class and gives SLPs the flexibility to be available for varied co-teaching and collaboration opportunities. Every nine weeks, the SLP provides specific learning strategy instruction classes to address literacy needs; different groups of at-risk students are identified throughout the year and instructed using the strategy that best meets their needs. In addition, intensive instruction targeting the language underpinnings of reading and writing is provided to students in small groups. In the 2009–2010 school year, the SLP at LMS will co-teach a social/pragmatic skills resource class that will give students in special education the opportunity to interact with general education peers during non-academic activities.

In hopes of replicating this model in other districts, two years of data were analyzed to determine what services were being provided with what frequency. The most recent findings, based on repeated time studies conducted in April 2008 and April 2009, show that approximately 55% of SLP time has been spent in direct services with students, including screenings, evaluations, and therapeutic instruction. Interventions, provided for students both with and without IEPs, are delivered through one-on-one, small-group, and whole-group scenarios. Indirect services comprise 30% of SLP time and include activities such as teacher collaboration and consults, file reviews, documentation, and student-related meetings. An additional 15% of SLP time was spent in activities that were not focused on students, such as school meetings or clerical tasks. However, this time was invaluable in building relationships with colleagues.

The workload and flexible scheduling approach at these schools has evolved over the past four years. SLPs worked their way into classrooms, beginning collaboration with teachers with whom a strong rapport had been developed. However, there is fine line between presenting yourself as the "expert" and being viewed as a "partner." The attitude conveyed by the SLP when approaching teachers was the key to developing successful collaboration and/or co-teaching relationships. Administrator support was also an integral part of implementing a workload approach, and obtaining this support may require endorsement beyond the building level.

As ideal as flexible scheduling sounds, validation through consistent data collection was essential to sustaining a workload approach. The data needed to promote a workload approach may vary according to setting. At CAMS, for instance, data collection focused on the SLP's impact on test scores and referral trends for special education. In 2006–2007, there were 11 referrals for special education with six students found eligible under IDEA. In 2007–2008, seven students were referred with six found eligible; in 2008–2009, only two students were referred and both were determined eligible.

At James River High School data provided information on the correlation between the involvement of SLPs and the number of students with speech-language IEPs who obtained verified credits that affect diploma status as well as students' post-graduation plans. In 2008–2009, 14 students with speech-language IEPs graduated; six received standard diplomas, four received modified standard diplomas, and four received special diplomas. Seven plan to attend community college, four will enroll in additional technical training, and three will be employed in a sheltered environment.

At LMS in Hanover County, information was collected about how SLP involvement may have improved placement in less-restrictive general education settings and increased scores on standardized testing. Self-contained placements at LMS have decreased by 8%, with students divided equally into collaborative and regular-education placements. In a comparable middle school that was not using an RTI and workload approach, the data showed that although adequate yearly progress was achieved, there was a corresponding 10% increase in self-contained placements. In addition, referrals to Child Study at LMS have decreased by 50%.

Communication about successes and challenges as well as SLPs' evolving roles is critical to effective implementation of a workload approach that promotes access to the curriculum for all students. Disseminating this kind of information was a new responsibility, and one that was important in keeping all stakeholders informed about the role of SLP with literacy to promote workload implementation.

Both of the authors initially were skeptical and uncertain about to how this new role would evolve and about the impact of these changes. After having made the transition from a traditional service delivery model to the workload approach, neither of the authors would choose to return to the tradition model. The current approach is not necessarily a finished product, but a process that is a constantly evolving professional journey.

Kimberly McCallister, MS, CCC-SLP, is a speech-language pathologist at Liberty Middle School in Hanover County, Va., and has been a leader in a school-wide literacy initiative as part of the Virginia Content Literacy Continuum (CLC) with the University of Kansas Center for Research on Learning. Contact her at KMcCallister@hcps.us.

Susan Trumbo, MS, is a speech-language pathologist at Central Academy Middle/James River High Schools in Botetourt County, Va., and has participated in the redesign of speech and language services as part of the Virginia CLC with the University of Kansas Center for Research on Learning. Contact her at strumbo@bcps.k12.va.us.

A Workload Analysis Approach for Establishing Speech-Language Caseload Standards in the Schools: Guidelines

A Workload Analysis Approach for Establishing Speech-Language Caseload Standards in the School: Position Statement