Exit and Entrance Criteria in the schools

blog_entrancesexitEntrance and Exit Criteria:

Who is eligible for speech and language services in the schools?

When do you exit?

These are important questions that are understood not just by speech and language pathologists but also by teachers, administrators and families. Why does one child get services but another child does not. Once you are in speech therapy is this a lifetime service?

Here is a document that was developed that gives some guidance in Rhode Island however nearly as soon as these documents are developed they need to be refined and should be considered a ‘living document’ that are evaluated consistently alas even this document was left in ‘draft’ form.RIspeechimpairment

In speech and language often the entrance criteria include standardized tests results which because of the standardization has specific scores that indicate a disability. The test manuals have extensive information on the validity and reliability of the tests. However now we also use functional information.  How is the child performing in the classroom? This information is often gathered while doing Response to Intervention.

What is your opinion of the entrance and exit criteria?

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
, , , , , , , ,
55 comments on “Exit and Entrance Criteria in the schools
  1. Before reading the entrance and exit criteria for speech, I did not really give much thought into the criteria. I honestly thought it was just as simple as a teacher or parent referring and the speech specialist deciding with some minor assessments if that child qualified. I did not realize how intensive and specific the assessments are. However, after reading this, I realize how ignorant I was for thinking that way especially after all of the things we talked about in class. Of course there would be very specific entrance criteria because speech is its own entity and is as diverse as special education is. In addition to being used to determine eligibility, I am sure, just like in special education, those assessments are also important in determining what areas of need the child has. I also noticed that the exit criteria for speech has similarities to special education, like a child being tested and showing they are in the average range and no longer need services. It does suprise me, however, that only one criteria needs to be met in order to exit a child. Especially since, unlike special education, an IEP team can determine if a child no longer requires speech. It seems to me that at least two of the criteria should be needed to exit a student at the least. Additionally, it also seemed strange to me that, since speech services can be as vast and diverse as special education, that there are no transition services for students who are exited, or for students who go on to high education and or other things after high school. This seems to me to be an area we can still improve on.

    • The IEP Team always makes the decision of discharge ( this is not different) the data they bring to the table may be different but the decision is a team decision.

      There are transition services for students who are exited either through consultation or RTI services with specific step down services.

      The law about school-based services is until a student is 21 which is similar for special education. If a person has a speech and language disorder that impacts life skills medical insurance may cover services.

  2. After reading about the entrance and exit criteria for speech and language services in the school, I’ve learned that the process is more complex than I would have ever imagined. Over the past two years at my school I have had a wonderful opportunity to engage in whole class speech groups in a pre-school setting. There were many students that were eligible for speech and language services due to the inclusion environment and the fact that almost half of the students in the class are on IEPS, I have come to learn that all students in the class benefited from the in class services provided. However, I have also noticed that several of the students in my class did not receive speech services. I was very confused as to why these students did not because it was very evident that they would benefit from it. I just assumed that it was because these student were not on IEPs and were just struggling with articulation. For example, one student had trouble pronouncing his ‘S’s and another student would say, “duck, duck, doose” instead of goose. There are other letter they were struggling to pronounce as well but we tried our best to work with these students in order to help them with the articulation of these letters and sounds. After we spoke with the speech and language pathologist at our school about these students and our concerns, the SLP evaluated them and determined that they would in fact benefit from small group speech instruction. Unfortunately, I am not a professional and still have a tremendous amount to learn in regards to how the letters are formed to make the corresponding sound. I think this is so interesting and would like to study it further to be able to understand why students have trouble producing certain sounds as well as how I can help them work on doing so.
    In regards to the entrance process, I feel like this article did a good job of explaining the thorough process that is undergone in order to determine eligibility. For instance, I now have a better understanding that within this process, there are many steps that need to be taken into consideration and that the student must meet more than one piece of the criteria in order to be eligible for services. I think that this is a great foundation for determining eligibility but I wondered if this was the most effective criteria for determination due to the diversity of students and his or her individual areas of strengths and needs. In addition to this, I also really liked how the article explained that in order to determine eligibility, there are many sources of data that need to be reviewed and taken into consideration because one test or observation may not hold entirely true to the student’s abilities. Moreover, the section on ELL students and determining eligibility really resonated with me because I 100% agree with the process for these student. I loved how the article explained that these students must be looked at on an individual basis as well as explaining that students who are english language learners must display deficits in both english and their native language, which I thought was a really important piece of information to remember as an educator. Finally, I really liked how this article broke up the eligibility criteria for each communication disorder into different sections and explained the factors, methods for evaluating students, scoring guides, teacher input assessments, etc. that should and can be used for determination. I think this helped put the process into perspective for me and helped organize the process a little better because I now understand how extensive it really is.
    Moreover, In regards to the exit criteria, I believe that this article was very insightful for me personally because prior, I have not experienced a situation where a student has exited speech and language services because they are usually just starting out. I really found this article interesting because I was curious to learn how the exit criteria was determined. As I reflected on the exit process, I felt that it was an accurate and a much simpler process for making a determination than the entrance process. I agree that if one is evaluated and meets one or more of the criteria listed, students should have the skills necessary to access the curriculum in the general education setting. Obviously, I think that when the students are being evaluated, SLP should use more than one source of information to determine if a student has met the objectives and is able to be exited from services. If this does not hold true based of the evaluated data, then students should still continue to receive services. I also agree that if parents request termination of services, their request should be granted even if it is not in the best interest of the student. Similarly, to the first piece of criteria, I believe that last 3 pieces can be effective measures if multiple sources of data have been evaluated and demonstrate that the students have learned the skill(s) necessary to engage in meaningful learning and achieve academic success in the general education setting as he or she accesses resources and the curriculum appropriately.

  3. After reading the requirements for being eligible for speech and language services my head is officially about to explode! Between the many different types of speech and language disorders as well as the external factors that can affect a students speech and language this seems like an incredibly intricate process. It is clear that this is never going to be black and white which is shown from a student not being eligible for services just based off of test results. I thought it was interesting that a student is ineligible for services if they perform poorly on a test, but performs well on the functional assessments, but if it is the other way around they could possibly be eligible. This shows an emphasis on the functional assessments in this process. Before a student is referred to special education for a communication disorder a process that sounds similar to RTI must take place with the TST (teacher support team). Due to the lengthy process it makes me wonder just how long this process actually takes to complete and get a child services. The exit process seemed fairly simple and it makes sense why students would be exited from having these services. With some communication disorders there are specific skills you can work on and practice with an SLP or other provider that you can use for the rest of your life. I think of it like when I went to physical therapy for my knee. The physical therapist gave me exercises to do for my knee that I could continue to do even after I was discharged. This is similar to students with speech and language disorders. An SLP can work with them on skills they need to practice in order to be able to communicate properly and once they know how to do it they may not need to assistance anymore.

  4. I decided to look at school age children and their exit and entrance criteria for speech services. I do agree with the idea that students with a mild rating should be looked at individually to determine the need for services. This includes looking at teacher observations, informal testing, etc. in order for the team to get a more well rounded view of the students needs. If they were to simply go off testing alone, it is easy to miss the needs of a student, something all educators know. I also agree with students who present as mild-moderate through severe to receive services due to the disorders impact on the academic success and learning. A portion of the entrance criteria I particularly liked was how there is a focus on English Language Learners and how they should be assessed for services. The criteria makes sure these students are looked at on a student to student basis, taking into account their native language. For example, the criteria listed this example of an ELL consideration: “Interference from native language that may cause English errors (e.g. Spanish “la casa grande” literally means “the house big”)”. I think the criteria did a great job taking into account the growing diverse population of Rhode Island. Again, the ability to use more than just formal assessments can help to truly assess ELL students needs as well.
    There are portions of the exit criteria I agree with, and portions I do not. I do agree that services can be ended if the student has met all areas of need and there are no additional needs for the student. I also agree that if there are medical evaluations asking for the discontinuation of services, that should be followed. But I do not agree with the idea that if it is believed that a student learned sufficient strategies to function without the support of speech services, that those services should end. Repetition is what keeps our skills sharp, and by completely ridding a student of services, they may lose those skills. I would recommend more of a speech consult to check in with the student periodically. I also do not agree with the ability of the student, parent, and IEP team determine services are no longer needed for the student to be successful in a general education setting based off of data. I feel as if testing needs to be done in conjunction with the data for a more well rounded look.
    I had never really looked at entrance and exit criteria before reading this. I agree with the entrance criteria, but I do worry a little about how the elimination of services, possibly sometimes too early and too quickly, and how that can hurt a students success and cause a set back.

    • Exit Criteria as you stated is part of a team decision and sometimes a step down to a consult or services under a Response to Intervention ( regular education) works well to ensure that the gains made in treatment are solid.

  5. I agree with the enterance criteria. If a student present a lcommunication difficultly, sheathed it be in speech or hearing they have a right to the appropriate supports and services in order to help them farther develop those skills.

    I disagree with the exit criteria. I don’t agree with the regulation that after a certain age a child can no longer receive those services unless they also have another disability. I think as long as the communication issue presents itself the child should continue the services.

  6. It was interesting to read this document about how students are deemed eligible or exited from speech and language services in Rhode Island because it’s not something I’m fully educated about at this time.

    I strongly agree with the requirement that standardized test results shouldn’t be the only consideration used to determine if a child is eligible for speech and language services. Just like the document mentions it wouldn’t be equitable for non-native or English as a second language population of students to justify their eligibility for services from just one standardized test. Many formal or informal assessments should be the determining factors if the student is eligible or not. I didn’t know or think it was acceptable for a student to score poorly on the standardized test but, if he/she met 7 other functional measures the student would not receive services. Now I understand why the speech and language pathologist (SLP) at my school sits through the RTI meetings in the morning. It provides her the opportunity to work with these students who “do not qualify” for services but, to extend support as needed for the student. As a future special educator, I want to learn more and adapt my support systems in the classroom for students diagnosed with a communication disorder from the SLP.

    The criteria used to determine if a student can be exited from speech and language services is entirely new to me and any personal background knowledge to this subject matter. Reading that if the child has met all objectives and assessment data indicates no additional needs peaks my interest to learn more about how SLP administer selected assessments to validate this assumption. Especially since the document also mentioned “sufficient compensation strategies” and I want to learn what are the evaluations/strategies that SLP use to support this requirement for exiting a student.

    After reading this article, I’m learning how important it is for the special educator and SLP to collaborate and communicate quite often about students on their caseload. I haven’t observed the special educator and SLP communicating very often in my school but, the teachers could be meeting at other times as well. Glad to have been given the opportunity to read this document because I didn’t know this resource was available for me to look over and familiarize myself about on the various entrance/exiting criteria for speech and language services.

  7. As an elementary educator, I see many of my students enter and exit speech therapy. Sometimes it is obvious to me why a student has entered speech, sometimes it is not and that is where communication with the SLP comes into play. This year, I had a student who had difficulty with stuttering, but never received services. Yet there was another student with the same difficulty who received services. I did not understand why one student received help, but the other student did not.

    The same is true for exit criteria, at one point I had no idea why a student was exited. Since I teach third grade, students are often exited from speech at this age if they have no other disability that affects their learning and the IEP team deems the student as able to succeed in the classroom without the support of a SLP. (Am I correct in this assumption?) I worry about some of my students who have exited speech therapy because of the potential loss over the summer. How is fourth grade going to be for them next school year?

    During all of the IEP meetings that I have attended this year, the SLP was always present. My goal for the upcoming school year is to better understand the qualifications of entering a student into speech and language services. I want to form a better bond with the SLP so I can see what she sees in terms of speech and language development. As a first year teacher, I felt like my voice was not strong enough at referral meetings and I was not made aware of students being exited until their annual IEP meeting. I now know that in order to be considered for speech therapy, a student needs to score a certain way on a standardized test. Additionally, functional performance is also considered in this determination. In terms of exiting speech therapy, I think that a team decision should be made, particularly involving the general educator because he/she sees this student all day and should be looped into the decision making process.

    • You have some good thoughts in this response. It is hard as a first-year teacher. I am hoping that some of the information that you have learned in class may assist you in asking good questions to the SLP.

  8. I did not realize before reading that the entrance and exit criteria were so intense. After reading, I feel that the entrance and exit criteria are a great way for schools to determine which students require speech and language services. I think that the combination of standardized test and functional observations can help to accurately determine if a student needs speech and language support. Either of these assessments cannot be done alone and the tests that are administered need to be reliable and interpreted correctly in order to give accurate data on the child. I was surprised by how brief the exit criteria was. I think that the speech and language pathologist needs to use their discretion to know when a student is able to be exited from speech and language services. The exit criteria should be attainable but not too easy so that the student is exited early and is unable to succeed in the general education classroom without the speech and language supports.

  9. I think the entrance criteria to determine who is eligible for speech and language services in schools is straightforward, gathering both quantitative data and teacher observations. For each type of language disability, eligibility criteria is bulleted, along with a list of specific pieces of evidence that must be submitted, with forms to follow. Definitions of each language disability are given throughout, with some examples. Many of the specific language disabilities give additional information on the consideration of ELLs.

    I liked that the entrance criteria include not only standardized tests, but also teacher observation reports that indicate if the child’s “behaviors do (do not) interfere with the child’s participation in the educational setting.” I think that it is important for this type of qualitative data to be included in the report for eligibility because it will give more evidence of a disability and support findings from standardized tests. However, observations are not enough evidence to stand alone. The guidebook makes a note that evidence from “#’s 7, 8, and 9 (teacher report, child report, and parent report) are not sufficient evidence by themselves, of a weakness or impairment. They must be supported by objective data.”

    When looking over the exit criteria, there was not as much detail listed as in the entrance criteria. The child only needs to meet one criteria in order to exit from services. Also, some of the specifications seemed vague. For instance, it says “appropriate evaluations indicate that the child has learned sufficient compensation strategies to function academically and is no longer in need of speech and/or language services as determined by the IEP team.” What does “appropriate evaluations” mean? I was surprised to find that the exit criteria did not list specific tests or observations needed as did in the entrance .

    Overall, the document developed seems like it needs some work. More details could be added to the exit criteria, listing specific objectives that need to be met. I agree that the document should be considered a “living document” as far as changes that need to be made. As more research is being done, information in this guidebook needs to be updated. My question then is why was this document left in draft? Is there any other guidebook in the state of Rhode Island that determines eligibility or exit criteria for children who may qualify for speech and language services?

  10. After reading the article I really see how the process of entering and exiting criteria works and how there can also be come gray areas in the process. When reading the living document it seemed that the process to enter speech and language was similar to the IEP process. A referral is made (10 days to meet), the team meets to discuss (SLP is there at meeting), and the team discusses concerns that prompt the referral. The team decided with SLP what testing would be done (standardized tests, functional measurement, observations and data collecting). once all data is collected team meets again to discuss results and to determine if student qualifies.

    I had a two students get exited from speech this past year. One of the students was once and ELL student. Before I took my job in November the student was exited but left as a consult only (they said mom was nervous about him loosing the services). The other student was exited in May. The SLP talked with me on many occasions about her progress. She explained that the student has plateaued. She explained that the student had worked to her capability and learned skills and tools needed to be sucessful on her own. The SLP tested the student and there was no data that proved she still needed speech. The SLP talked with the students mother on the phone, via email (she always cc me on the emails) and brought it up to my department head. The parent was concerned and wanted her education advocate to be at the IEP to discuss. At the meeting the SLP reported on the student and presented all the data. In the end the student was exited from speech.

    The SLP did say that the student could always ask me to contact her when needed and that she had a good relationship with me so if there was ever a need I could contact her with concerns.

    However, I do wonder what happens when a student exits. Do the SLP go over what they work on and what works for the student? What happens usually?

    • It really depends on the case and the circumstances. As the school team is always a supportive team regardless of whether a child is on a caseload or not you should feel free to work with your school therapist or use them in a consultant fashion to assist you with students with communication difficulties.

  11. It seems that speech and language services and who receives them are clearly defined through this document. In regard to entrance criteria, it states that a student must have an impairment that adversely affects their education, or the child’s communication skills are incredibly impaired to the point where they need specially designed instruction. Although I think that these entrance standards are articulate, they are quite broad without specific goals or standards to meet. I can see how this could be both a positive and a negative thing. For example, if a student has a communication disorder, yet they are consistently a C student, they may potentially be passed by for services. This could be detrimental because the potential of this student may never be maximized due the the wording of the law. Conversely, I would imagine that this wording allow students who have more severe conditions to receive an incredible amount of support through diverse instruction and services.

    In order for a child to have their special services discontinued, it seems as though the law is quite specific. The five pieces of exit criteria revolve around testing, meeting goals, or concrete data – for the most part. The exit criteria seemed to be much more concrete than the entrance criteria. I think this is important because exiting a student from services could be incredibly detrimental if not done at the appropriate time. The only real concerning thing to me in the exit criteria is the first piece in which it reads: The IEP team determines the the child can make progress in the general education setting without the support of speech and/or language services. This is concerning because if the supports that were in place for the student were not gradually pulled away, it could be very difficult for a student to succeed as expected by the service providers.

  12. I agree with the entrance criteria on standarized test that if a child if ascores poorly on standardized tests, but meets communicative expectations on functional measures the child’s difficulties can not be said to adversely effecting academic performance. That takes in to account students who are just simply not good test taker. Standarized tests can be extremely difficuly for student who are not good test takers with both the rigor and length of the test.

    Students can only be exited in one of two ways, if they have been exited out of their IEP. It has been determined the student has met all speech and language objectives and is no longer in need of additional support or if they have graduated high school. I agree that a student should only be exited from these services when evaluations have proven that this student has met all speech and language goals and a general classroom setting is enough for the student.I agree that there should be no age limit on receiving these services as part of their IEP unless they have met all speech and language goals and no longer need additonal services.

  13. Just like determining special education eligibility, speech and language services eligibility requires meeting certain criteria. To be eligible for speech and language services the student must meet at least one of the following criteria: 1. one or more consistent non-developmental sound errors 2. the child is unintelligible to significant members of his/her environment. 3. the child’s articulation patterns cause significant concern to himself/herself, which may limit social, emotional or academic functioning.

    And just like being determined eligible for the services, the students needs to be reevaluated and meet certain criteria to be exited as well. The student must meet at least one of the following criteria 1. The child has met all objectives in the areas of speech or language and assessment data indicates no additional needs. The IEP team determines that the child can make progress in the general education setting without the support of speech and/or language services. 2. At the request of the parent, or of the child, if age appropriate, only as part of an IEP team decision as to whether assessment data indicates that the child can make progress in the general education setting without the support of speech and language services. If the parental request for termination of services would result in a determination of continued eligibility that the child is a child with a disability, the IEP team must reevaluate the child in accordance to the regulation. 3. A medical evaluation in conjunction with the review of the IEP team recommends temporary or permanent discontinuation of services. 4. Appropriate evaluations indicate that the child has learned sufficient compensation strategies to function academically and is no longer in need of speech and/or language services as determined by the IEP team. 5. The child no longer needs special education or related services to participate in the general education setting as determined through the evaluation and IEP process.

    In my opinion I feel like the exiting criteria is too broad. I feel like it would be hard to really make a confident decision every time if a student should be exited from services or not based off these criteria. Here is where I think SLP professional training is better use of determining exiting from services than always following this criteria.

  14. In order to receive services in speech and language, there are several factors to consider. Because communication is such a complex process, communicative competence may change over time. Therefore, it is extremely important for speech and language services be determined based on a variety of sources and settings. In addition, a SLP should make statements about the child’s comprehension and production in all areas of communication. Therefore, by doing so, SLPs get to understand the students’ strengths and weaknesses. One statement that I was glad to read was the student should not be considered eligible for speech and language solely on the basis of standardized test results. I know that when I was younger and still today, I do not perform as well on standardized tests as I would on an assessment performed in school other than a test (Presentation, formative assessments, etc.) In addition, eligibility for special education and related services may not be determined on the basis of a predetermined discrepancy between language and intellectual scores. However, these results would support a speech-language evaluation. The speech-language evaluation report must address the presence of absence of any adverse impact of the child’s communication impairment(s) on his or her educational performance. This is where the student would be eligible for speech-language services. Their impairment (s) must adversely impact the student’s performance.

    For a student to exit speech-language services, there must be a criteria met. This criteria was developed by IDEA 1997. If a child is considered to be ineligible for speech and language services, before their high school graduation, they must be reevaluated. I think this safeguard is put in place to protect the child’s best interest. A teacher cannot simply just suggest the child gets pulled from services, however, there has to be concrete data to support this decision. Once the child is reevaluated, the IEP team can decide that no additional data is needed or that it is needed to determine eligibility during the reevaluation process. If a child has a primary disability which qualifies them to receive special education and related services, there must be a criteria that needs to be met for them to exit from speech and language services. The child must meet all objectives in the areas of speech or language and assessment data indicates no additional needs. A medical evaluation can recommend discontinuation of services. If a parent or child (18 and older) requests to terminate the services, then a reevaluation must be given. If the child has learned sufficient compensation strategies to function academically and is no longer in need of speech and/or language services, they may exit the program. Finally, if a child no longer needs special education or related services to participate in the general education setting, they may also exit their speech and language services. I am glad to see that there are many safeguards put in place to prevent the child from exiting services they may need to succeed. If a child meets all of the criteria to exit a program, I believe they will be successful inside and outside of an academic setting.

    • Just a clarification about medical professionals recommending services or discontinuation of services, this may occur however there would still be a meeting to review those recommendations and the SCHOOL team which includes the family and anyone they wish to be at that meeting would have the final say. School based treatment is different from medical treatment. There are times that a physician may refer a child to a medical facility or clinic that may be the entrance to the clinic but it is not the same for school based services. School based services need to have an educational needs.

  15. The guidebook I thought is a well planned, in-depth explanation on the eligibility, referral, assessment identification, and dismissal process of students who may or may not need speech and language services in RI. It can provide school staff and parents important information regarding the speech and language services when considering a child’s intelligibility, voice, fluency, and other special considerations(ie. swallowing). Communication is an essential component in order for a child to succeed in the general education environment. I agree that in order to be eligible to receive speech and language services, it shouldn’t be based solely on a standardized test, but should also include a prior response to interventions using research based teaching methods and observations. This strategy will give more conclusive results, as well as rule out any other mitigating factors such as, if the child in question has a different cultural or linguistic background. Furthermore, the process will minimize the inefficient use of resources.
    By the collaboration of the SLP and TST, referrals should be identified as early as possible because of the impact that language development has on the brain, especially during the early years of a child’s life. Another factor that I found important to be examined was the fact that a hearing disorder can impact communication. Therefore, a hearing evaluation should be done in conjunction with other speech and language assessments.
    I thought the criteria for a student to exit out of receiving speech and language services was given appropriate consideration. If the child has met the necessary objectives by the IEP team and both medical and educational evaluations determine the child to be able to succeed in the general education setting, the child should no longer receive such services.

  16. After looking at the RI standards for entrance and exit criteria, I feel that the article contains insightful and important information to understand not only as an educator, but as a parent or educational advocate for a child. The main component of the entrance criteria that I found important was that both standardized testing data and the functional measurements are used as criteria to enter. Speech and language pathologists look at both pieces of data to understand the student better and then to decide if the student should enter services. This idea of using multiple criteria does not come as a surprise to me but may surprise others, as it gives a better and more full background of the student rather than looking at one piece of evidence and deciding about what the student needs. Another important entrance criteria I found was that eligibility for special education and related services may not be determined on the basis of a predetermined discrepancy between language and intellectual scores. However, appropriate cognitive measures may be used to support the findings of the speech-language evaluation. (6.) This is interesting as certain aspects cannot be used to determine entrance, but other aspects may be used under different circumstances. Overall, the information on entrance to special education and related services is relatively easy to understand.

    When looking at exit criteria, the document lists five clear ways a student can be exited from certain services or even aspects of their IEP’s. These five pieces of exit criteria are as follows:
    1. The child has met all objectives in the areas of speech or language and assessment data indicates no additional needs. The IEP team determines that the child can make progress in the general education setting without the support of speech and/or language services.
    2. At the request of the parent, or of the child, if age appropriate, only as part of an IEP team decision as to whether assessment data indicates that the child can make progress in the general education setting without the support of speech and language services. If the parental request for termination of services would result in a determination of continued eligibility that the child is a child with a disability, the IEP team must reevaluate the child in accordance to the regulation.
    3. A medical evaluation in conjunction with the review of the IEP team recommends temporary or permanent discontinuation of services.
    4. Appropriate evaluations indicate that the child has learned sufficient compensation strategies to function academically and is no longer in need of speech and/or language services as determined by the IEP team.
    5. The child no longer needs special education or related services to participate in the general education setting as determined through the evaluation and IEP process

    After viewing these five criteria, I find it very easy to navigate exit criteria. The entire process revolves around data driven material to see how the student is doing, and if goals and other criteria are met. With this, I also find that exit criteria is very broad and can make it difficult for teachers or an IEP committee to decide if the child should exit services. By making such broad aspects for exit, it becomes a case by case situation of specific material.

    Overall, I found this document to be an important read when understanding not only the role of speech and language pathologists when helping enter and exit students from services, but also to understand the importance of creating entrance and exit criteria for all students to meet as a uniform criteria instead of a case by case basis criteria.

  17. It was insightful to get a stronger understanding of the process of entering a student into speech and language services. The process itself is very clear, especially with the rules and regulations throughout the time. The most necessary piece in my opinion is the extensive review of the student’s abilities between teachers and parents at school and at home. There were really not too many surprises from this reading. Having a uniform procedure and process is integral to letting families and the support team know how to be eligible for speech and language services. It is a long process, but it is important to get a strong understanding if the child is truly in need of the services meaning their difficulties are having an adverse effect on their education. Another standout from these guidelines are the negative effects that could influence intelligibility. I have many students who have test anxiety, which could influence the testing and eligibility. That is only one example of a list of many things that could negatively influence testing with the student.

    The exit criteria is also important and very clear. I believe that the most important piece to exiting a student from speech and language services is re-evaluating the student before truly removing them from those services. Again, the procedure is very clear and self explanatory on how to exit a child from speech and language services. I imagine that the students who primarily exit from services are either students who test themselves out of the services or no longer require an IEP. In my experience, I had a student who did not want to receive services from the SLP and her mother denied the services. Outside of that one student, the rest of them continued services throughout their high school career.

  18. When I first starting reading this article, the words “speech and language are so important so that all students can communicate and accuse the curriculum,” really stood out to me. The reason for this is because communication is something that I take for granted. I have never had any speech or languages challenges, so for me the curriculum was always able to be accessed rather easily. That then made me think of my students, who were already receiving speech and language therapy when they entered my class, or the students who I felt needed work on these areas. Receiving speech and language therapy not only helps these students in academic areas, but can really improve the overall socially well being.

    As a classroom teacher, it was interesting to see exactly what is look at when considering a student for speech and language services. I truly agree that when considering a student for services, they are looking at all aspects of the students life and not just the standardized test scores, looking at the student as an individual and not just a number. I can remember struggling this year with certain students and communicating with the SLP due to the fact that I felt that I did not know enough about exactly what they were working on, the “language to use,” and myself feeling in confidence when discussing what I am seeing in the classroom, due to the unknown.

    I also liked that within the article there were charts and graphs, breaking up all of the information. This makes it very helpful when breaking down all the information and seeing where a certain student should be and at what time/age they should be reaching these areas.

    Overall, at first glance this article was a little overwhelming, but after really diving into, I feel better about the entire entrance/exit of speech and language process.

  19. When reading the article, I felt that the entrance and exit criteria are mostly straightforward but could have some gray area. I was pleasantly surprised to see that for the entrance criteria, speech and language pathologists look at both standardized data and functional measures as not all students can excel in one or the other. Given the example of the student who may do poorly on a standardized test but can prove they do not have a disability functionally shows that not all students who test on the standardized test should receive speech and language services and require an IEP. A similar example of a student who excelled on the standardized test but could not connect those skills to their functional performance might be a candidate for services. If I was a beginning speech and language pathologist, the use of these example, in collaboration with colleagues, would help me determine some of those students who might land in the gray area when it comes to eligibility.

    For exit criteria, the 5 different determinations were very clear cut to me as how a student can be exited from services but not necessarily their IEP and special education. What was clear about them and the common theme was if the student has met their goals and can show they can continue to make progress in the general education classroom, they can be exited from speech and language services. The key is that a reevaluation must be done to collect data on the student that shows the IEP team the student has made adequate progress and has met all their objectives. From that reevaluation, more non-speech and language testing may need to be done to determine if the students has another disability that continues to make them eligible for special education services.

  20. For the entrance criteria I believe that the combination of standardized tests and functional observations helps to accurately determine whether a child needs speech/language services. Either of these alone would not be enough but together they give data as well as qualitative data about the child. However, the tests administered need to be reliable and interpreted correctly in order to give accurate data about the child. The functional observations should also be done by an educator who knows the child in order to know what is normal and abnormal behavior.

    I was surprised that the exit criteria was so brief and that they only needed to meet one of five measures to exit a student. Exit criteria should be attainable as exiting a student is often the goal when working with a student. However, the criteria should not be so easy that a student is exited too early and is not able to succeed with just general education services. I think this is when the speech and language pathologist needs to use their discretion and know when a student is able to be exited to general education services and when a child needs new goals instead of being exited.

  21. I found this to be interesting to read through. It was a lot of information to look over and read but good information.

    The entrance seemed very detailed and thorough. I feel like it covered all the bases and does a great job gathering the information. I feel like it was a fair way to gather information and to evaluate who needs the services. I also liked that it talked about ELL students.

    I feel like exit slip was not as detailed and I did not like that if a child met one thing, they could be exited out. I also am curious as to what happens after a student exits? Do you students get slowly weened off the services or just they suddenly are stopped once they exit?

    I feel like it was evident that the documents are geared towards SLPs because of the wording. To me, looking at it at first was overwhelming. It makes me see how much work actually goes into getting students SLP services and exiting them. It is a lot more work than I thought.

    Overall, I feel like the entrance criteria was well done and great. The exit criteria I feel was not as thorough and also I just did not like that only one exit criteria had to be met. I feel like so much had to be done to get the services but it was so easy to be done with the services.

    • Excellent thought about exiting a student.

      This document was developed to created many years ago in an attempt to have all the districts in Rhode Island have a uniform exit and entrance criteria so that a child from Central Falls had the same opportunities as a child from Barrington.Originally it was designed to be a living document with a consistent review, unfortunately, this never happened and the document in fact never got out of draft form.

      Exiting a student should have the same careful consideration as determining that a student has a disability. Just as a student before special education may receive services or supports through Response to Intervention (RTI) so too can a student after exiting. This can all be part of a plan. This is often needed so that the family can also feel supported in the process.

  22. The document does an excellent job providing both a detailed and cohesive lay out of how a student can become eligible in order to receive services for speech and language. It seems as if can be difficult to figure out if a student is qualified for speech and language services, therefore a standardized test should not be the only way to determine is a student is eligible, which is not the case for this. There are so many factors that can lead to a students placement in special education and having many different ways to decide if the student is eligible, other than just a test is so important.
    The section about the ELL students was excellent since it laid out the difference between a student who is a native English speaker and those who do not speak English as their first language. Even if students in these different categories both qualified for speech and language services, there is a difference in the way that their needs should be met. I didn’t realize how much goes into a child receiving services for speech, especially the components of students exiting.

  23. According to the document there is certain criteria that a child needs to meet to be eligible for speech and language services. I feel that the entrance process is very similar in some way to how students become eligible for special education services. To determine eligibility for speech and language services a child must meet certain criteria. To be eligible for speech and language services a child must meet one or more of the following criteria, which are: one or more repetitive non-developmental sound errors, the child is unintelligible to significant members of his/her environment, and/or the child’s articulation patterns cause significant concern, which may interfere with social, emotional or academic functioning. For a student to exit speech and language services a child needs to be re-evaluated and a child needs to meet one or more of the following criteria: the child has to met all objectives in the areas of speech or language and assessment data indicates no additional needs, the IEP team determines that the child can make progress in the general education setting without the support of speech and language services, the parent of the child, requests for speech and language services to be discontinued and the IEP team agrees, and/ the IEP team is informed due to a medical evaluation and determines to discontinue speech and language services. Overall I feel that the process to receive and exit speech and language services is very similar to receiving special education services. To receive services there is a lot that goes into determining eligibility, observations, assessments, etc. But to end services there might not be as many steps because the IEP team all work with and know the student’s academic needs and would know if he or she still needed speech and language services.

  24. I believe entrance and exit criteria is SO important but I don’t think that it is made clear to parents especially that this criteria even exists. In the draft of the manual it stated multiple times that there is “standardized tests” that even preschoolers must take. When in reality its a lot of observation in the classroom setting and the child meeting certain benchmarks at certain ages. I love how this document defines what standardized tests are being used for entrance into speech because parents want to know!

    I am awful at paper and pencil testing. I fall asleep almost every time I take a test even if I’d just slept 12 hours prior to it. So many people are “bad test takers” and I think that is what I hear the most from parents who either want or don’t want their child to be referred. I’m going to reference this draft of the manual in my IEP website for my other class this semester. Parents need to know exactly what tests are being used to refer their child for speech and language so if they are referred they understand why. If they are not referred they also can clearly see what areas their child is proficient in as well.

    Entrance criteria is crucial and it has to have many tiers. If there was just one test that told us if children qualified for services or not, life would be easy. But lets be honest, life is not black and white. Its so important for everyone on the IEP team to look at all angles when considering giving services to a child. It is also equally important that they continue to look at all angles of a child’s education and behavior to see if services are no longer needed. Like this document we read is living and constantly changing, even more so is each child we’re interacting with! They are constantly changing and the same thing is NEVER going to work for his or her WHOLE education. We must always be checking to be sure that child’s needs are being met and if services are still needed or not!

    • Standardized testing in speech and language is usually not a paper pencil task unless the skill we are looking for requires a written response. In fact for preschoolers,it is often play skills that are observed using a standardized tool.

      Testing is usually broken up into smaller units allowing the child to both acclimate to the testing environment as well as to ensure that we are getting their best performance.

      Often it is the results of one test will give us an idea of another test that we will use with the student. This can make it difficult to tell a family exactly what we will be using.

  25. Before reading this document and this blog, I did not realize how much goes into both entrancing an exiting from receiving services for speech. I am familiar with the process from my student teaching experiences where one of my students was being evaluated for speech services and another one was preparing to exit from receiving them. The student who was exiting from speech and language services was turning nine at the time and did not have any other current academic issues that needed to be addressed. He transitioned out of speech and language services and was able to maintain the progress that he made throughout.

    The entry process seems as though it is extremely in depth, which I think is so important in determining which students require these services. The document spoke about evaluating and utilizing resources from a student’s receptive and expressive language abilities, academic progress, attendance, medical needs, home life, and how they are developing in comparison to their age-based peers. It makes sense to me that an English language learner must exhibit the speech impairment in both their native language and in English in order to qualify for services. Although, the entrance criteria were very detailed, the exit criteria did not seem quite as in depth. I think that a lot of factors need to be considered before determining that the child does not require speech services anymore and perhaps the criteria for exiting should be more comprehensive, so that no student be exited that is not ready to do so. I am curious about how many students exit from services and regress or require them again later on.

  26. Although it is an intense process, I feel that the entrance and exit criteria is a great way to determine which students require SLP services. Not only can observations be the sole purpose of referring a child, but medical evaluations, along with ones from teachers and SLPs are required. It is beneficial for it to be a comprehensive process because it allows the team to see how the child works with speech in different environments. If their is a consistent pattern of speech difficulty, then they can determine which goals to focus on to better enhance the child’s communication process.

  27. In my school, there are several students who just require speech and language services. I like how the SLP is involved in ever step of the way even before the assessment process. I like how that a student can qualify not solely based on assessment. I also like how the SLP can sit with the family and get their perspective. It is so important to have the family carry through any strategies that are being taught in school at home.
    I did not realize how many factors could negatively impact the speech and language sample. The SLP has to be careful in their assessment.
    Based on the article, I feel as though it is a lot easier for a child to be exited from speech and language. I think the criteria should change to be more difficult. There are so many times where a child is exited from a service too soon and they regress, needing services again. The exit criteria should be more strict.

  28. I think it’s important how they talked about how important language is to pre-school age children and discuss how it is important that children get the opportunity to learn and practice communication skills early on in childhood. I also liked how they listed the 13 eligibility categories for the pre-school aged kids. I never considered the possibility that some pre-school aged kids might require help from an SLP that early on, but now that I look back it should have been more obvious to me. I also felt like that chapter went into the right amount of detail, but was not overwhelming.

    The Chapter on the School Aged children (5-21) was a lot more intense, and everything had to be done within a certain time limit from the time of referral. It goes into a lot more detail. There are a number of guidelines that must be followed to determine who is eligible for SLP services. It’s all about following the proper procedures and making sure it is done accordance with the law and what is written. In order to determine if a child will require SLP services you first must make sure that there have been prior attempts at providing assistance to the child. If a student continues to exhibit things like communication problems or show many problems acquiring new (or basic) language skills then then a referral should be made for Special Education Services.

    There are a number of things that can happen that could make a child exit SLP services. A child could exit services upon graduating high school, or at the request of a parent. Evaluations should also be performed every few years to determine whether not the student is meeting or exceeding goals set for them.

  29. Who is eligible for speech and language services in the schools?
    No child should be considered eligible for speech and language services solely on the basis of standardized test results. If a child performs poorly on functional measures but scores well on standardized tests, the child may be eligible for speech and language services. A child’s communication skills require special instruction to address educational and communication needs. A speech-language evaluation report must be performed. They must address the presence or absence of any adverse impact of the child’s communication impairments on his or her educational performance. Must have attempts to prior assistance before sending in a referral. If after systematically applied interventions in regular education, the child continues to exhibit communication problems that are unrelated to normal characteristics of language acquisition, initiate a referral to special education.

    When do you exit?
    Once a child graduates with a regular high school diploma and/or a child exceeds age eligibility for free and appropriate public education. The child must be reevaluated to see if the disability is still present. If the child has met all objectives in the areas of speech or language and assessment data and indicates no additional needs they may exit. They may also exit at the request of the parent, or if age-appropriate, the child. Also, if a medical evaluation in conjunction with the review of the IEP team recommends temporary or permanent discontinuation of services. If appropriate evaluations indicate that the child has learned sufficient compensation strategies to function academically and is no longer need of services, they may exit as well. Lastly the child no longer need special education or services to participate in the general education setting as determined through the evaluation process.

    Interesting how the exit is so broad. What happens to that child after graduation? Special needs services, just like speech services, have an odd transition period after graduation/age out.

  30. I believe that this document, STUDENTS WITH SPEECH AND LANGUAGE IMPAIRMENTS MEETING THEIR NEEDS A GUIDE FOR SCHOOLS AND FAMILIES, provides great insight to the world of entrance and exit criteria amongst students with speech and language services. I feel as though the entrance criteria is well developed. I especially like how a student is not deemed qualified or unqualified based solely off of an assessment. With speech and language services, a wide array of areas are looked at such as home life, health records, comparisons to same aged beers, etc. This provides the team with a great representation of the student’s strengths and weaknesses with speech and language across multiple settings. With the entrance process being so detailed and well rounded, I was shocked to see the simplicity for the exit criteria of students receiving speech and language services.

    I also enjoy how the document outlines requirements for English Language Learners. I have taken a variety of SEI related courses that have a focus on the communication of ELLs, and I feel like this is an area that needs to be better understood by educators. There is such a challenge with understanding is a learning challenge is due to the students native language and the language barrier, or if it is due to some type of disability.

  31. Patricia,

    Are students on the Spectrum under serviced? Pragmatics, I feel, is a difficult concept to understand it involves:
    scripting
    role playing
    observing peer interaction
    prompting during peer interaction
    and other social situations

    It also can affect their reading because metaphors can be taken literally.

    I feel like the exit did not consider the “whole child.” Parent interviews etc..

    Interested to hear your thought on about that!

    • I appreciate your thoughts especially around parent interviews on exit criteria.

      Here is some information about exit from special education from the US Department of Education.
      http://www.seels.net/designdocs/SEELS_Declass_FINAL.pdf

      As professionals I feel that is is our responsibility to continually work with families from entrance to exit so that there are no surprises. Personally when I am working with a child I clearly define the goals for the child and continually discuss with the families these goals and the next steps.

      Exit is sometimes more difficult than entrance and can have as many emotions involved in it as if a child is doing well there is a reluctance to change anything. However if we think about the least restrictive environment we may, in fact, be restricting opportunities by continuing to have special education supports on when they are no longer needed.

      It is important to do planning and have a gradual decrease in services or support so that everyone can feel comfortable and supported in exiting.

      Are we under serving ASD?
      I agree with you the idea of social pragmatics is not well understood by all educators and its impact not just on the community that is the school but also academics. We need to be proactive and out of the box thinkers to insure that students with social communication difficulties get what they need.

      Here is on article that explains how social pragmatics impacts writing.
      http://alliedhealth.ceconnection.com/files/TLD0111C-1337958684386.pdf

  32. While reading this document I was very impressed by the detail of it; written for every possible situation for a child. In every section of this document they emphasized the need to clearly evaluate they child in an appropriate setting and using the appropriate measures because as Kathleen stated this is not a one size fits all approach.

    For me the most interesting section was that of an ELL student. The United States is populated with a large percentage of students who are ELL’s, but as this document continues to reiterate, you must look at all sides of the child’s development as well as experiences. Sometimes a child may simply shy away from speaking a new language in public and it is essential to take these instances into consideration. Still, I continue to question why this is not a “living” document after so many years in its “draft” form. Are educators really using this document? The fact that it has managed to stay in “draft” form makes me wonder if anyone is actively using its guidelines when working with the children they serve or has this been forgotten and educators are simply using their experiences when working with children to pass judgement on a child’s needs.

  33. I think that this is a very well detailed document that goes through each method of eligibility in order for a child to receive services for speech and language. I agree with Nicole Mastroluca and do not agree that standardize testing should be the only method to determine eligibility of services. I was happy to read that a child could not be considered for services just on an assessment alone because sometimes the testing environment plays a role in the results, even who tested them.

    I really liked that this document outlined not only native English speakers eligibility requirements, but also requirements for English Language Learners. I feel there is sometimes confusion amongst many teachers when trying to determine if an ELL student is not understanding the material because of a language barrier or because of a disability. I think this document might be helpful for some general education teachers to read.

    This document also shows what to consider when testing children with TBI, or other types of disorders.

    I agree with Pamela in that the exit criteria seemed to not be as detailed as the entrance criteria. My only thought for this would be that they want to make sure a student truly needs services in speech and language so they thoughtful on the eligibility requirements. It would seem that one might also want to be more concrete on the exit criteria to make sure a students is actually ready to be exited. I know it says evaluations/objectives, plural, so would that be as intensive as the entrance part?

    • Excellent thoughts! Usually for exit besides for standardized testing you have classroom performance. As criteria for speech and language services in the schools there are three questions that need to be answered are:
      1. Does the child have a disability?
      2. Does it impact school performance?
      3. Does it require specialized instruction?

      So when considering discharge there are times that the testing that is done for ALL children may be used. So for example if I am seeing a student for a written language disability and now that child’s Fountas and Pinelli levels are on grade level and his quarterly written work has scored average on the rubric and his STAR testing ( what our district uses as quarterly assessment) are all in the average range I could use this as my rationale for discharge. The child’s disability is no longer impacting their academics.

  34. As I was reading through, one of the things that jumped out at me was the sentence “all children are unique.” I liked how throughout the reading it was emphasized that this is not a one size fits all approach, and that it is really based off the child.

    I also agree that it is a good thing to be a living document. I did find the appendix the most user friendly to read and use- where it actually gives examples of the student speech and where it should be by age. This was helpful for an educator who is not sure of the job of an SLP or any parent or member of the general public. It also makes sense that the beginning of the document is written in language that an SLP would better understand.

    Finally, it seemed like simple criteria to meet for the entrance exam, as simple as a referral and standardized test. The score was not just taken as a score, but was analyzed based on the student- with special considerations for age and if the student is an ELL, so that the wrong students are not qualifying for services.

    • The document’s purpose was intended for speech and language pathologists and as you can tell from some of the different fonts in the document was compiled from a variety of other documents and references. Many states actually have this document in a more formal format with updated information on Response to Intervention. California and Texas are two that have excellent information.

  35. I found it interesting that medical and family history were required. It makes sense, but would this be a determining factor on whether a student receives services or not? Can’t a student with hearing loss still qualify for services? Would a selective mute be qualified for services or would they go to the school psychologist? They are choosing not to speak, but it’s a deeper issue and often they hate the sound of their voice. Them not speaking does effect academics.

    I found the part about the scrutiny of services provided and cognitive scores to be interesting. It is a rather confusing document and contradicts itself.
    There are also so many exceptions to the rules.

    I was also under the impression that all kindergarten students were automatically screened for speech and didn’t need parent permission to do the screening. It would make sense to screen them as soon as they enter school and provide support early so as to correct their issues and hopefully move them out of speech services.

    It makes sense that the presence of a SLP is required at meetings determining whether an evaluation is warranted and that concerns that prompted the referral are discussed.

    Children are exited when they age out or graduate. They can also be exited if they meet one or more of the following: they all their IEP objectives for speech and language, medical evaluation, request of a parent or the child if age appropriate, evaluations determine services are not longer needed.

    • The medical and social history would not necessarily qualify or disqualify a student but rather would give more information that would assist in designing educational plans.

  36. As a preschool teacher, it is important that “young children have opportunities to learn and practice communication skills in order to obtain information and express themselves in a variety of ways and settings (RI Early Learning Standards)”. The development of speech and language skills in ALL students play a crucial role in their social, emotional, and academic development. Observing and recognizing your student’s speech and language impairments will be essential for early intervention.

    Early intervention will allow the student to receive support promptly and progress can be monitored. This is crucial during the preschool years. It is important to collaborate with the Speech and Language Pathologist and the team to make the necessary recommendations. Collaborating with the Speech and Language Pathologist, will enable the team to determine the “severity of communication impairments, to determine the length and frequency of interventions, and how the services will be implemented.”

    During the preschool entry procedure, a hearing test, a medical and family history including home and classroom performance should be completed. Standardized preschool speech and language assessments, language samples, and observations are a critical part of the entrance procedure. It is also critical to provide a language sample and observation of how the student communicates in a social situation. Children in this age group, may qualify under the developmental delay category.

    When reviewing the written guidance “Entry and Exit Criteria for Speech/Language Impairments”, it describes the criteria procedures on how to identify students with speech and language impairments through “referrals, assessments, and identification”. There are many factors that need to be taken into consideration that could potentially impact communication.

    We must consider the students who do not meet the “Enter and Exit Criteria for Speech/Language Impairments”. Their are many children who display speech and language disorders that clearly needs to be considered on an individual basis. We must keep in perspective, that each child is unique and need individualized instruction, support, modifications and services.

    • Good thoughts on this and similar to others who have spoken about the need to look beyond tests scores to see the whole child. Response to Intervention allows us to give support to children who might be delayed rather than disorderd.

  37. I also found it very fascinating that the entrance criteria was so detailed, and the exit criteria less so. One of the things that I found very intriguing was that theoretically only one of the criteria needed to be met to exit the child from speech and language services. Also, on the first criterion in the list, it states that the child can be exited if the “assessment data indicates that the child can make progress in the general education setting without the support of speech and language services?” There is no statement about “sufficient progress” or “adequate progress,” or even “equal progress to their peers,” just “progress.” This concerns me somewhat, as I have seen how much a child can grow and make gains with the support of an SLP. To think that children are being exited from the services to struggle in the regular classroom without the extra support, just because they are making some “progress,” is concerning. They might be able to make even more “progress” with speech and language support.
    On a more positive note, I liked how they included more language disorder and vocabulary entrance criteria. Older entrance criteria focused more on speech and less on language. Students who are profoundly deaf often don’t benefit from speech support, but benefit greatly from SLPs with language and vocabulary support. I also liked the special considerations of ELLs and children with traumatic brain injuries, auditory processing disorders, nonverbal learning disorders, and ASD,
    On an interesting note, I teach a child who has recently been diagnosed with a nonverbal learning disorder. He has a cochlear implant, has near-perfect speech, but does have language delays. He has, in the past, been diagnosed with seasonal affective disorder, and ASD. Both diagnoses were later removed. This year, the SLP that he sees finally told us she thought he had a nonverbal learning disorder. The team was able to assess him, and she was right! He now receives services geared towards children with NLD, and has made huge gains. Kudos to the SLP for seeing something everyone else missed!

  38. I think that the complexity of speech and language services is often overlooked. Although the criteria for a student to be eligible for services is vast and extensive, there are many factors that really need to be taken in and evaluated in order to ensure that the student is getting what he/she needs to have full access to the provided curriculum. When thinking about these factors that ultimately help determine eligibility, I can’t help but think that each child truly poses a unique case – that it takes multiple access points of data to make such a determination and that ideally, a team that has worked with the student for a period long enough to make a sound assessment is the one making the decision.

    I do not believe that standardized testing should be the sole factor in determining eligibility for services, however after now have some experience with formative assessments, there is value to their scores when it is known and documented that the testing is appropriate. Again, multiple areas of assessment should be taken into account when making such weighty decisions.

    Language is very complicated. I think that the families should be greatly involved whenever possible. Even more importantly, when there is not much family support, the team should have multiple experiences with the student to make an educated decision.

    As far as the exit criterion is considered, it seems logical that of those listed that if one of them was considered to be met, that services would no longer be rendered. As with most aspects of education, if there were a sense that the student would be eligible to exit service, that a transition program or a decrease of services would be the first step.

  39. I like the entrance and feel that it is a thorough process to determine eligibility: home, school, comparing to peers, attendance, health records, receptive and expressive language to name only a few.

    School age eligibility criteria: “A child must meet one or more of the following criteria to be eligible for Speech Therapy:
    1. One or more consistent non-developmental sound errors.
    2. The child is unintelligible to significant members of his/her environment.
    3. The child’s articulation patterns cause significant concern to himself/herself, which may limit social, emotional or academic functioning.”

    The ELL also seemed impressive. “For an ELL child to be deemed speech impaired he or she must exhibit an articulation disorder in both the first and second languages.”

    Exit criteria, a student needs to be reevaluated. “one or more of the following criteria is met.
    1. The child has met all objectives in the areas of speech or language and assessment data indicates no additional needs. The IEP team determines that the child can make progress in the general education setting without the support of speech and/or language services.
    2. At the request of the parent, or of the child, if age appropriate, only as part of an IEP team decision as to whether assessment data indicates that the child can make progress in the general education setting without the support of speech and language services. If the parental request for termination of services would result in a determination of continued eligibility that the child is a child with a disability, the IEP team must reevaluate the child in accordance to the regulation.
    3. A medical evaluation in conjunction with the review of the IEP team recommends temporary or permanent discontinuation of services.
    4. Appropriate evaluations indicate that the child has learned sufficient compensation strategies to function academically and is no longer in need of speech and/or language services as determined by the IEP team.
    5. The child no longer needs special education or related services to participate in the general education setting as determined through the evaluation and IEP process.”

    I do not feel that the exit criterion is detailed enough. For entrance the criteria is detailed and thorough looking at the whole child and in different environments. The exit criterion seems very simple and they need only ONE of the five. What happened to the in depth system used for entrance?

  40. As I was reading the document, I immediately noticed that it mentioned a draft and that was actually going to be a question that I was going to ask you. I thought that this was a great source/wealth of information and I was wondering why it never left the drafting stages? Does the state of Rhode Island have a “living” document that is, as in depth, as this one, in effect today? If not what what does RIDE have for guidance with regards to entering and exiting speech and language services? I read and reviewed the eligibility requirements and they were:
    1. The impairment has and adverse effect on educational performance.
    2. A child’s communication skills are so impaired that he/she requires specially designed instruction to address his or her educationally related communication needs.

    I think that these two requirements are important because if the student is experiencing negative educational or communication/social experiences due to the impairment then services are warranted. However, a point I was pondering was that the Speech and Language Pathologist is the expert in knowing how to work with a child based on their individual needs, but this article mentioned the importance of collaboration. I looked over the forms that the teachers had to fill out, as well as, the parents. I was wondering if collaboration has been successful or if this could possibly be a reason why this document never left the drafting stages due to a lack of collaboration by some parties?

    The exiting of a child from services according to this document is as follows:

    1. The child has met all objectives in the areas of speech or language and assessment data indicates no additional needs. The IEP team determines that the child can make progress in the general education setting without the support of speech and/or language services.
    2. At the request of the parent, or of the child, if age appropriate, only as part of an IEP team decision as to whether assessment data indicates that the child can make progress in the general education setting without the support of speech and language services. If the parental request for termination of services would result in a determination of continued eligibility that the child is a child with a disability, the IEP team must reevaluate the child in accordance to the regulation.
    3. A medical evaluation in conjunction with the review of the IEP team recommends temporary or permanent discontinuation of services.
    4. Appropriate evaluations indicate that the child has learned sufficient compensation strategies to function academically and is no longer in need of speech and/or language services as determined by the IEP team.
    5. The child no longer needs special education or related services to participate in the general education setting as determined through the evaluation and IEP process.

    Just as you mentioned in class today, it is the goal of the Speech and Language Pathologist to work with the child and hopefully, be able to, ideally get rid of the impairment such as stuttering, for example. However, as I was reading further it said that services end once a child graduates or reaches a certain age. I was also wondering what if the young adult still had an impairment, and what services would or could they continue to receive? I just wanted to end this blog by stating that a Speech and Language Pathologist does a’lot of important work for a child and kudos to them! Thank you for your services!

Leave a Reply to Alyssa DiNitto Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Skip to toolbar