Square Peg in a Round Hole??

The square peg  in a round hole dilemma:   how do public school              SLP's fit in to teacher effectiveness  models?

I've been asking myself  these types of  questions since the state of Wisconsin adopted Charlotte Danielson's 2013 framework for teaching as a means for evaluating teachers as part of an overall Educator Effectiveness program.  Unfamiliar with the Danielson framework?  It provides a core framework of all the skills and traits that make us good teachers!  Many states are adopting  it for use  in teacher evaluations. 

That's right.  States are adopting it for use in teacher evaluations.  Now, that's not necessarily a bad thing but since Speech Pathologists are a different animal than classroom teachers, it behooves us to know more about the Danielson framework.

  Here's a brief overview.  It includes four domains as a framework for classroom-based  teaching;

1.  Planning and Preparation,
2.  The Classroom Environment,
3.  Instruction,
4.  Professional  Responsibilities.

There are components and elements listed under each domain.  Teaching is a complex art, isn't it?  The  Danielson model has done a wonderful  job outlining the important aspects and skills of teaching in a regular education classroom and of providing a roadmap of these skills for classroom teachers.   However, this "framework for teaching" model was not intended for use with SLP's.  You can learn more about it here at Charlotte Danielson's Framework for Teaching or check out Danielson's teacher rubric on Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction's website.

Danielson acknowledges that non-classroom specialists (that's us, Speechies!) may do some classroom-based teaching but have many other duties and responsibilities.  The work we do is different and therefore, we need our own framework.  So, she provides an instructional  framework for "Therapeutic Specialists,"  which includes Speech Language Pathologists, Audiologists, Physical Therapists,  Occupational Therapists and Learning Support Specialists.  This "Therapeutic Specialist" framework includes the following four domains, color coded so you can compare them to the analogous classroom teacher domains.

1. Planning and Preparation,
2.  The Environment,
3.  Delivery of Service,
4.  Professional Responsibilities.

Ok, we fit into this model somewhere.  However, we know what SLP's do is very different from the roles and responsibilities of classroom teachers.  Allow me to dissect and compare domain 2 for the classroom teacher, "the classroom environment" and domain 2 for the therapeutic specialists (that's us-SLP's) in the analogous domain of  "the environment."

The  components for Domain 2:  the classroom environment for classroom teachers are as follows:

2a:  Creating an environment of Respect and Rapport,
2b: Establishing a Culture for Learning,
2c:  Managing Classroom Procedures,     
2d:  Managing Students Behavior,

Domain  2 "the environment" components for  SLP's are as follows:

2a:  Establishing rapport with students,
2b: Organizing time effectively,
2c:  Establishing and maintaining clear procedures for referrals,
2d:  Establishing standards of conduct in the treatment center,  (i.e. how do we deal with negative  behaviors?),
2e:  Organizing physical space for testing students and providing therapy.

So, is the Danielson frameworks  "therapeutic specialist" framework adequate for using as a tool to evaluate SLP's in the public school setting?  That's the million dollar question!!

Here's my two cents: I  like the Danielson framework!  It appears  to be a comprehensive  tool for evaluating classroom teachers.  However, I do see some potential  concerns with using this framework to evaluate public school SLP's.  For example,  domain 2c, establishing and  maintaining clear procedures for referrals is  often within the professional  responsibilities of  the Director of Special  Education, not the SLP.  It's a good start but there's so  much more  to  our jobs than the "therapeutic specialist" framework  captures.   On Danielson's website, she encourages educators to use or adapt the Therapeutic Specialists framework but stresses that there is not the extensive validity research for the Therapeutic Specialists framework as there is for the teachers framework.    Before school districts adopt the Danielson framework as a means of evaluating SLP's, I'd hope for more research on the validity of using  this framework  for SLP's and other specialists (nurse, library media specialist etc.) that do not perform the bulk of their teaching in a large classroom.  

If you are interested in more information about the framework  for SLP's/Therapeutic Specialists check out Portland, Maine's School District's website and click on "Specialist Therapeutic Specialist Rubric" to see the rubric that their website states they are using on a trial basis. 

Where does ASHA stand on this issue?

I cannot find a formal statement  from ASHA on using the Danielson framework to evaluate school-based SLP's.  However the following information  is available on the ASHA website related to performance evaluations of SLP's:
In 2006, the  Ad hoc joint committee of  Administration and Supervision and School-based Issues from the American Speech Language Hearing Association put out a  Professional Performance Review Process document, (PPRP) which is  recommended  by ASHA for use  with school-based SLP's. 

Then, in 2012, ASHA put out the PACE: Performance Assessment of Contributions and Effectiveness of Speech-Language Pathologists.  This consists of  a portfolio assessment form,  a self-reflection form and evaluator observation form.

What's going on in your state related to evaluation of SLP's in the public school setting? 


Oh and it's time to roll out the credits:
Clip art in this post by and Ask  LisaAnne. 
                                                                   Donna