Medical researchers have a great need for brain tissue to conduct studies of neurological disorders like Parkinson’s disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (Lou Gehrig’s disease), lissencephaly, and many others. So why does brain donation cause so many people to say, “Ewww!”? Perhaps it’s because people believe some of the myths about brain donation ..
1. Researchers only need the brains of people with brain disorders.
Not true. Researchers need brain tissue from both healthy people and those with neurological disorders. The healthy brain tissue can be studied to see why it stayed healthy, and diseased tissue can be compared to it.
2. You can’t have an open casket funeral if you donate your brain.
Not true. The pathologist (physician) makes an incision at the back of the head at the hairline, and the brain is removed. The skull remains, so the person is not disfigured in any way, and you can’t tell the brain has been removed.
3. Brain tissue donation is the same as other organ donation.
Not true. When someone dies, the brain tissue needs to be donated within 12 hours for it to be useful to researchers. The brain can’t be kept alive with machines the way the heart can for donation. And brain tissue isn’t used for a transplant like the heart or kidney—its tissue is for research only.
4. You have the final say on whether you’re a brain donor or not.
Not true. When you die, your body becomes the property of your next of kin. It goes to your surviving spouse; if you have no spouse, then your adult children; if no surviving adult children, then your parents; if no surviving parents, then your siblings. Whoever has responsibility for your body will have the final say in whether or not you are a brain donor. Therefore, if you want to be a brain donor, you have to talk to your family and make your wishes known.
In addition, places like University of Maryland at Baltimore furthers research through brain study. The tissue bank collects, stores, and distributes brain and other tissues for research dedicated to improved understanding, care and treatment of individuals with developmental disorders. Of special interest are individuals with Down Syndrome and other chromosomal defects, mitochondrial encephalopathies, phenylketonuria and other aminoacidopathies, maternal PKU, Rett syndrome, leukodystrophies, lysosomal disorders, dyslexia, autism, and other neurodevelopmental disorders. If you are interested, contact the Brain and Tissue Bank for Developmental Disorders at (800)-847-1539.
There are many other brain banks that can answer questions, provide contact information, and put your mind more at ease if you are inclined to donate your brain.
Brain donation is certainly something to 'think' about.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Thursday, April 3, 2008
RtI Dilemma
I work in a district that has implemented the 3 tiered reading model in alignment with NCLB. We have K-5 DIBELS progress monitoring twice monthly for data (WCPM) collection. Parapros, AmeriCore, volunteers, etc. are providing interventions and helping with the data collection. We are the recipient of the Reading First grant, so this is all fully funded. Yet with that 'free' money, we must succumb to Reading First rules. Our hands are tied tightly with regards to using curriculum or differentiated instructional methods outside the Reading First boundaries. So our SpEd teachers can not really exercise teaching freedoms with their reading groups -- which are combos of GenEd and SpEd students by the way.
When a student begins to flat line (not meet the individualized established goal line, and / or not achieve commensurate with grade level peers based on grade level benchmarks and class averages) then I can take at least 12 weeks of already existing data and establish a clear pattern of weakness. I can show a failure to respond to general ed instruction, and also use the subtests of our MAPS school wide computerized testing to show 1.75 SD -- following the RtI Manual's Appendix H.
We conduct a Family Support Team meeting, parents sign off on 'consent to test' and I then do a 'follow-up' cognitive, achievement and any behavioral rating scales or adaptive if warranted. The cognitive serves as a diagnostic tool in conjunction with the already available RtI data.
That being said, our SpEd teachers have no creative freedom to design any instruction or supplemental work for the IEPs once a student qualifies via RtI Procedures. They must only use what Reading First dictates. And there are no goals and objectives to use with the IEP that haven't already been covered in the tiers prior to qualification.
So, my report recs have focused on 'slower pace', 'smaller group', etc. even though that has already occurring before the qualification. SDI isn't / can't occur with Reading First. What Reading First is doing, then, is pigeon-holing us into the beurocracy of what RtI is NOT about -- just another way to qualify students for SpEd support.
The March issue of "Communique" addresses this topic. What can you share regarding your experience or thoughts on this issue?
When a student begins to flat line (not meet the individualized established goal line, and / or not achieve commensurate with grade level peers based on grade level benchmarks and class averages) then I can take at least 12 weeks of already existing data and establish a clear pattern of weakness. I can show a failure to respond to general ed instruction, and also use the subtests of our MAPS school wide computerized testing to show 1.75 SD -- following the RtI Manual's Appendix H.
We conduct a Family Support Team meeting, parents sign off on 'consent to test' and I then do a 'follow-up' cognitive, achievement and any behavioral rating scales or adaptive if warranted. The cognitive serves as a diagnostic tool in conjunction with the already available RtI data.
That being said, our SpEd teachers have no creative freedom to design any instruction or supplemental work for the IEPs once a student qualifies via RtI Procedures. They must only use what Reading First dictates. And there are no goals and objectives to use with the IEP that haven't already been covered in the tiers prior to qualification.
So, my report recs have focused on 'slower pace', 'smaller group', etc. even though that has already occurring before the qualification. SDI isn't / can't occur with Reading First. What Reading First is doing, then, is pigeon-holing us into the beurocracy of what RtI is NOT about -- just another way to qualify students for SpEd support.
The March issue of "Communique" addresses this topic. What can you share regarding your experience or thoughts on this issue?
Saturday, December 29, 2007
Lost Boys
In all my years of working with children, I have learned about the distinct differences between genders first hand, yet it wasn't until I became a mother of boys that I began to seriously gravitate toward gender research. I had high hopes of understanding the differences I saw between boys and girls, and of understanding my sons at a level that was much deeper than what stereotypical society had to offer.
During my reading of gender related materials, I came across James Garbarino's book entitled "Lost Boys -- Why Our Sons Turn Violent and What We Can Do to Save Them". It was about youth violence, and honestly I was hesitant to read it at the time. I did not have a lot of time on my hands, and my own boys were just toddlers and I believed (as most parents do) that there was simply no way they would ever exhibit a violent tendency. So why read a book on violent youth? I have since referred to Garbarino's work frequently as both a parent and professional. Garbarino addresses the wide range of issues which boys of every temperament and from every background may have to confront as they grow and develop. He outlines steps that parents, teachers, and public officials can take to keep all children safer -- in hopes of turning our kids away from violence. Reading his work definitely gives one a broader understanding of youth violence. Especially helpful to me in my work with children and parents are Garbarino's 'ten facts of life' for violent boys:
Garbarino's work implies that violence is something that ‘happens’ to children early on. I see evidence everyday of the above list in action and tend to agree with this implication. What I appreciate about Garbarino's work, however, is that he outlines a developmental path as an alternative to violence. It focuses on making the social environment more competent in meeting the special needs of boys. It organizes the daily life experiences of boys around opportunities to learn positive lessons about how to be a man -- not cultural stereotypes which define manhood in terms of aggression, power and material acquisition.
Aside from another canned program which teachers would be asked to deliver, what might the role of schools be in creating that competent social environment Garbarino believes necessary in meeting the special needs of boys?
During my reading of gender related materials, I came across James Garbarino's book entitled "Lost Boys -- Why Our Sons Turn Violent and What We Can Do to Save Them". It was about youth violence, and honestly I was hesitant to read it at the time. I did not have a lot of time on my hands, and my own boys were just toddlers and I believed (as most parents do) that there was simply no way they would ever exhibit a violent tendency. So why read a book on violent youth? I have since referred to Garbarino's work frequently as both a parent and professional. Garbarino addresses the wide range of issues which boys of every temperament and from every background may have to confront as they grow and develop. He outlines steps that parents, teachers, and public officials can take to keep all children safer -- in hopes of turning our kids away from violence. Reading his work definitely gives one a broader understanding of youth violence. Especially helpful to me in my work with children and parents are Garbarino's 'ten facts of life' for violent boys:
1. Child maltreatment leads to survival strategies that are often antisocial and self-destructive.
2. The experience of early trauma leads boys to become hypersensitive to arousal in the face of threat and to respond to such threats by disconnecting emotionally or acting out aggressively.
3. Traumatized kids require a calming and soothing environment to increase the level at which they are functioning.
4. Traumatized youth are likely to evidence an absence of future orientation.
5. Youth exposed to violence at home and in the community are likely to develop juvenile vigilantism, in which they do not trust an adult's capacity and motivation to ensure safety, and as a result believe they must take matters into their own hands.
6. Youth who have participated in the violent drug economy or chronic theft are likely to have distorted materialistic values.
7. Traumatized youth who have experienced abandonment are likely to feel life is meaningless.
8. Issues of shame are paramount among violent youth.
9. Youth violence is a boy's attempt to achieve justice as he perceives it.
10. Violent boys often seem to feel they cannot afford empathy.
Garbarino's work implies that violence is something that ‘happens’ to children early on. I see evidence everyday of the above list in action and tend to agree with this implication. What I appreciate about Garbarino's work, however, is that he outlines a developmental path as an alternative to violence. It focuses on making the social environment more competent in meeting the special needs of boys. It organizes the daily life experiences of boys around opportunities to learn positive lessons about how to be a man -- not cultural stereotypes which define manhood in terms of aggression, power and material acquisition.
Aside from another canned program which teachers would be asked to deliver, what might the role of schools be in creating that competent social environment Garbarino believes necessary in meeting the special needs of boys?
Friday, December 28, 2007
Crazy Filthy People
Recently I was at a holiday party listening to a few parents voicing their concerns about living in rural or urban environments and the impact these different scenarios could likely have on their developing young children. Great dialogue, yet one mother became caught up in the dangers of helicopter parenting (as I refer to parents who fearfully hover over their children) by bashing the diversity of people you see most abundantly in downtown urban areas -- i.e. unkempt homeless people and people suffering with mental illness -- and how children should be kept away from these crazy, filthy people. This mom also began criticizing public schools and the 'protection' offered to certain children who ruin it for the majority.
So I attempted to engage in a conversation with this mother in order to understand her fear of diversity -- not the cultural kind as much as the human kind. Her children attend a private school, and she really couldn't answer any of my questions about the quality of the education or even the religious components of the school. She kept steering the conversation back toward the idea of keeping her children away from what she referred to as misfits. Kids of drug addicts. Handicapped children. Behaviorally emotionally disturbed. Poor kids who are always sick. On and on she went. And my mind wondered to my own children who have received an exceptional education in the public setting while learning first hand the issues of human diversity this mother was describing.
And there we sat. Two people on opposite ends of the spectrum. Both angry and fearful of the other, it seemed. Even in the work setting, I come across professionals who descriminate toward students with special needs. Unlike the mom at the party, they most often are apologetic to me as they know a school psychologist's passion involves advocating for all children. I find myself in a very lonely place at times, and this never ceases to sadden me at a very deep level.
So I attempted to engage in a conversation with this mother in order to understand her fear of diversity -- not the cultural kind as much as the human kind. Her children attend a private school, and she really couldn't answer any of my questions about the quality of the education or even the religious components of the school. She kept steering the conversation back toward the idea of keeping her children away from what she referred to as misfits. Kids of drug addicts. Handicapped children. Behaviorally emotionally disturbed. Poor kids who are always sick. On and on she went. And my mind wondered to my own children who have received an exceptional education in the public setting while learning first hand the issues of human diversity this mother was describing.
And there we sat. Two people on opposite ends of the spectrum. Both angry and fearful of the other, it seemed. Even in the work setting, I come across professionals who descriminate toward students with special needs. Unlike the mom at the party, they most often are apologetic to me as they know a school psychologist's passion involves advocating for all children. I find myself in a very lonely place at times, and this never ceases to sadden me at a very deep level.
Thursday, December 27, 2007
Achieving NCSP Status via WSU / EWU
The professional preparation required for obtaining and maintaining the Nationally Certified School Psychologist (NCSP) status is no doubt reserved for those who are dedicated in advancing the role of school psychology through rigorous study and continued professional development despite of the absence of a pay increase compared to nationally certified public school teachers and counselors.
In the State of Washington, there are four separate university programs which offer degrees in school psychology and which are approved by the National Association of School Psychologists (NASP) -- Seattle University, University of Washington, Central Washington University, and Eastern Washington University. NASP approval means the NCSP status can be granted upon completion of the university program. In addition to these four programs, Washington State University, along with Eastern Washington University, offers a post-master’s degree certification program that is approved by the Washington State Office of the State Superintendent of Public Instruction. Although this very unique program is not yet NASP approved, WSU / EWU candidates who choose to embrace NASP’s application process can, and have, obtained the NCSP status.
The NASP website provides a very comprehensive outline of the requirements for NCSP status, and even entertains a FAQs section that addresses the necessary details for aspiring nationally certified school psychologists from both approved and non approved programs. For those students enrolled in the WSU / EWU certification program, a few additional efforts beyond the program’s requirements are needed for completion of the NCSP application process -- and are not addressed in great detail on the website; 1) proof of graduate credits obtained during a master’s or doctorate degree, 2) demonstration of knowledge and competency in each of the 11 domains of school psychology, and 3) a case study.
Proof of Graduate Credits. For NCSP status, NASP requires at least 54 graduate semester hours exclusive of the internship credits in a school psychology program, and the non-approved program application process requires copies of all syllabi from these graduate semester hours. This can be easily achieved by simply collecting course syllabi during completion of the program, yet it can take some serious detective work to secure syllabi from graduate coursework completed outside the WSU / EWU program which may be needed to account for a total of 54 semester hours. (NASP provides an alternative route if syllabi can not be located.) Providing proof of credits in coursework unique to school psychology is a specialized task for each candidate as the postgraduate program cohorts possess graduate degrees as well as a wealth of professional experience in different areas -- education, social work, psychology, and mental health, for example.
Comprehensive Portfolio. There are two major components to the portfolio requirement. The first is demonstration of knowledge in each of the 11 domains of school psychology as defined by NASP. A careful analysis of graduate degree coursework from both the certification program and the graduate degree in the form of written summaries serves as this demonstration of knowledge. NASP provides templates for recording these summaries. Documenting specialized trainings through WSASP workshops, district provided opportunities, or your own efforts through outside agencies and organizations may be wise to include in the summary analysis for any of the 11 domains possibly needing additional support that combined coursework may not have covered.
The second component of the portfolio involves the demonstration of competency in each of the 11 domains of school psychology. Whether choosing to pursue national certification during the internship experience or as a practicing school psychologist, it is wise to sit down with supervisors, mentors or colleagues and create a blueprint of projects and activities to be completed by the application deadline unique to each of the domains. Some creative, long-term planning is a must in collecting all necessary pieces of competency work for the portfolio. While this can seem like a daunting task, it allows for a very well-rounded and solid internship experience as well as the refinement of an already practicing psychologist’s repertoire of professional skills.
Case Study. NASP provides a detailed rubric for the case study. The rubric defines the parameters which guides the entire process. The case study takes a significant amount of monitoring throughout a lengthy time period, yet using a Functional Analysis of Academic Behavior along with the provided rubric, for example, allows a case study to evolve quite nicely.
In summary, working for the NCSP status definitely allows one to develop a solid understanding of the 11 domains of school psychology and how each of these plays a role in the dynamic and all-encompassing duties of a school psychologist. For interns, the entire application process can more clearly define the field of school psychology in a very hands-on, concrete way. Achieving NCSP status via WSU / EWU’s school psychology certification program is not a simple task. Along with some of the same requirements of other training programs, it takes thorough analysis of program coursework and post graduate studies in relation to the practice of school psychology. It requires multitasking efforts, solid time-management skills and perseverance in the creation of a comprehensive portfolio which showcases one’s best efforts in the field. For each of the Washington State school psychology training programs, however, the NCSP status is a symbol of an attainable and highly recognized professional standard certainly deserving of recognition regardless of the pay disparity amongst nationally certified public school employees.
In the State of Washington, there are four separate university programs which offer degrees in school psychology and which are approved by the National Association of School Psychologists (NASP) -- Seattle University, University of Washington, Central Washington University, and Eastern Washington University. NASP approval means the NCSP status can be granted upon completion of the university program. In addition to these four programs, Washington State University, along with Eastern Washington University, offers a post-master’s degree certification program that is approved by the Washington State Office of the State Superintendent of Public Instruction. Although this very unique program is not yet NASP approved, WSU / EWU candidates who choose to embrace NASP’s application process can, and have, obtained the NCSP status.
The NASP website provides a very comprehensive outline of the requirements for NCSP status, and even entertains a FAQs section that addresses the necessary details for aspiring nationally certified school psychologists from both approved and non approved programs. For those students enrolled in the WSU / EWU certification program, a few additional efforts beyond the program’s requirements are needed for completion of the NCSP application process -- and are not addressed in great detail on the website; 1) proof of graduate credits obtained during a master’s or doctorate degree, 2) demonstration of knowledge and competency in each of the 11 domains of school psychology, and 3) a case study.
Proof of Graduate Credits. For NCSP status, NASP requires at least 54 graduate semester hours exclusive of the internship credits in a school psychology program, and the non-approved program application process requires copies of all syllabi from these graduate semester hours. This can be easily achieved by simply collecting course syllabi during completion of the program, yet it can take some serious detective work to secure syllabi from graduate coursework completed outside the WSU / EWU program which may be needed to account for a total of 54 semester hours. (NASP provides an alternative route if syllabi can not be located.) Providing proof of credits in coursework unique to school psychology is a specialized task for each candidate as the postgraduate program cohorts possess graduate degrees as well as a wealth of professional experience in different areas -- education, social work, psychology, and mental health, for example.
Comprehensive Portfolio. There are two major components to the portfolio requirement. The first is demonstration of knowledge in each of the 11 domains of school psychology as defined by NASP. A careful analysis of graduate degree coursework from both the certification program and the graduate degree in the form of written summaries serves as this demonstration of knowledge. NASP provides templates for recording these summaries. Documenting specialized trainings through WSASP workshops, district provided opportunities, or your own efforts through outside agencies and organizations may be wise to include in the summary analysis for any of the 11 domains possibly needing additional support that combined coursework may not have covered.
The second component of the portfolio involves the demonstration of competency in each of the 11 domains of school psychology. Whether choosing to pursue national certification during the internship experience or as a practicing school psychologist, it is wise to sit down with supervisors, mentors or colleagues and create a blueprint of projects and activities to be completed by the application deadline unique to each of the domains. Some creative, long-term planning is a must in collecting all necessary pieces of competency work for the portfolio. While this can seem like a daunting task, it allows for a very well-rounded and solid internship experience as well as the refinement of an already practicing psychologist’s repertoire of professional skills.
Case Study. NASP provides a detailed rubric for the case study. The rubric defines the parameters which guides the entire process. The case study takes a significant amount of monitoring throughout a lengthy time period, yet using a Functional Analysis of Academic Behavior along with the provided rubric, for example, allows a case study to evolve quite nicely.
In summary, working for the NCSP status definitely allows one to develop a solid understanding of the 11 domains of school psychology and how each of these plays a role in the dynamic and all-encompassing duties of a school psychologist. For interns, the entire application process can more clearly define the field of school psychology in a very hands-on, concrete way. Achieving NCSP status via WSU / EWU’s school psychology certification program is not a simple task. Along with some of the same requirements of other training programs, it takes thorough analysis of program coursework and post graduate studies in relation to the practice of school psychology. It requires multitasking efforts, solid time-management skills and perseverance in the creation of a comprehensive portfolio which showcases one’s best efforts in the field. For each of the Washington State school psychology training programs, however, the NCSP status is a symbol of an attainable and highly recognized professional standard certainly deserving of recognition regardless of the pay disparity amongst nationally certified public school employees.
Monday, November 12, 2007
got NCSP?
Public school teachers and school counselors have the opportunity to earn national certification as outlined by The National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. Eligibility requirements include a bachelor’s degree, 3 full years of experience, and a valid state license during those 3 years of employment. The certification process requires portfolio entries, including video recordings of actual teaching, and six separate 30 minute online assessments. In Washington State, funding is available to help offset the cost of the $2,500 assessment fee. This funding is made possible through a Federal Subsidy grant from the United States Department of Education.
In comparison, School Psychologists either graduate from NASP accredited masters or doctorate level programs meeting the requirements for national certification, or, like me, graduate from a non-accredited program and navigate through the process independently. Either way, the national certification process requires a rigorous level of training and applied knowledge in the 11 Domains of School Psychology along with passing a national exam and continuing to uphold the standards of the NCSP designation by pursuing professional development credits as required for renewal of this certification every three years. The NCSP is awarded through The National School Psychology Certification Board and is funded by the person achieving the certification status.
In Washington State, SSHB 2262 was signed into law in May 2007 and provides teachers and school counselors who achieve national certification an annual bonus (paid in a lump sum) of $5,000 for the 10-year life of the certificate. SSHB 2262 also provides an additional $5,000 bonus (paid in a lump sum) for those teachers and counselors who work in schools where more than 70 percent of the students receive free and reduced lunch. These bonuses are described in the legislative documents as compensation received under a district’s salary schedule adopted in accordance with RCW 28A.405.200 and are not to be included in the calculations of the district’s average salary and associated salary limitations. In other words, the federal government will pay nationally certified teachers and school counselors up to $10,000 per year for up to ten years.
The gross financial disparity between teacher, school counselor and school psychologist national certification recognition may seem to be an issue of misinformation about the level of training School Psychologists receive. Some would argue, in addition to that reasoning, that the School Psychologist’s role within the public school setting isn’t clearly understood. Regardless what the root of the compensation disparity issue may be, it requires activist efforts with our state and national associations as well as at the legislative level of government.
If your state or district compensates you for national certification, I'd like to hear about it...
In comparison, School Psychologists either graduate from NASP accredited masters or doctorate level programs meeting the requirements for national certification, or, like me, graduate from a non-accredited program and navigate through the process independently. Either way, the national certification process requires a rigorous level of training and applied knowledge in the 11 Domains of School Psychology along with passing a national exam and continuing to uphold the standards of the NCSP designation by pursuing professional development credits as required for renewal of this certification every three years. The NCSP is awarded through The National School Psychology Certification Board and is funded by the person achieving the certification status.
In Washington State, SSHB 2262 was signed into law in May 2007 and provides teachers and school counselors who achieve national certification an annual bonus (paid in a lump sum) of $5,000 for the 10-year life of the certificate. SSHB 2262 also provides an additional $5,000 bonus (paid in a lump sum) for those teachers and counselors who work in schools where more than 70 percent of the students receive free and reduced lunch. These bonuses are described in the legislative documents as compensation received under a district’s salary schedule adopted in accordance with RCW 28A.405.200 and are not to be included in the calculations of the district’s average salary and associated salary limitations. In other words, the federal government will pay nationally certified teachers and school counselors up to $10,000 per year for up to ten years.
The gross financial disparity between teacher, school counselor and school psychologist national certification recognition may seem to be an issue of misinformation about the level of training School Psychologists receive. Some would argue, in addition to that reasoning, that the School Psychologist’s role within the public school setting isn’t clearly understood. Regardless what the root of the compensation disparity issue may be, it requires activist efforts with our state and national associations as well as at the legislative level of government.
If your state or district compensates you for national certification, I'd like to hear about it...
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
WSASP Conference 2007
The 2007 Washington State Association of School Psychologists conference last weekend in Spokane, WA was another great learning experience for me. I can't imagine the work and commitment it takes to pull off such a feat, so I'm hesitant to offer suggestions for next year's gathering. On the grand scale, I think the Davenport is a great place to host such an event. The decor really throws me into a manic state, however, and I have a hard time concentrating on anything but the carpet and chandeliers. Three nitty gritty points about the conference then...
1) Keynote speakers with a sense of humor are a must. Fagan was perfect.
2) Don't make regions sit together at meals. Personally, I'd like to meet other psychologists from around the state and hear about their jobs, lives, etc. I need this conference to be a reprieve from my workplace and geographical area.
3) What about a live support forum? Allow interested psychologists to get together to voice current concerns, offer encouragement, and establish post conference networking. Away from the conference, this doesn't exist for me. I guess the challenge would lie in trying to make a forum like this work without it turning into a gripe session.
1) Keynote speakers with a sense of humor are a must. Fagan was perfect.
2) Don't make regions sit together at meals. Personally, I'd like to meet other psychologists from around the state and hear about their jobs, lives, etc. I need this conference to be a reprieve from my workplace and geographical area.
3) What about a live support forum? Allow interested psychologists to get together to voice current concerns, offer encouragement, and establish post conference networking. Away from the conference, this doesn't exist for me. I guess the challenge would lie in trying to make a forum like this work without it turning into a gripe session.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
