ADDRESSING LANGUAGE CONCERNS

IN THE SCHOOLS:
THE SLP AS CONSULTANT

JACK S. DAMICO
Louisiana State University
Baton Rouge, LA

An alternative service delivery model is proposed which enables the speech-language

pathologist to address a wider range of language concerns in the public schools. This
consultative model is described in terms of the structure needed to ensure its effectiveness
and the procedures which might be used to ensure successful implementation.

PUBLIC EDUCATION in the United States is currently undergoing significant changes

in the way the educational process is perceived (Cazden & Dickinson, 1981; Wells,
1982). Brought on by a realization that many students are not successful learners
and that there are glaring differences between the educational experiences of stu-
dents from different racial, linguistic, and socioeconomic backgrounds, numerous
groups are calling for revisions in the methods used to teach children. While
these revisionist movements may manifest themselves in many ways (e.g., back
to basics, standardization of methods and materials, competency-based learning,
cultural pluralism), they all share the goal of changing what does not appear
to work.
One direct result of this desire to change the system is that researchers, teachers,
and theorists are re-discovering the role language proficiency plays in the educa-
tional process (Dewey, 1938; Donaldson, 1978; Moffett, 1968; Oller, 1983; Vygotsky,
1962). This re-discovery, however, may be viewed as a mixed blessing. While
most educators finally recognize the importance of language to academic success
and socialization, many do not feel competent to address this topic.
Many educators, in fact, seem to exhibit a general uneasiness when the topic
of language-in-education is raised and, for many, this uneasiness is well-founded.
Few teachers have the academic background, practical experience and profes-
sional freedom to address language-related issues by themselves. Consequently,
language issues are overlooked and children with language differences suffer a
variety of abuses within the educational system. There are numerous examples
of this abuse in the literature ranging from cultural conflict (Philips, 1983) and
racial bias (Smitherman, 1981) to socioeconomic prejudice (Brown, Anderson,
Shillcock, & Yule, 1983), inappropriate placement in special education (Deyhle,

17

Downloaded from cdq.sagepub.com at GRAND VALLEY STATE UNIV LIB on May 6, 2015
1987; Ortiz & Yates, 1983) and neglect of language-based academic failure (Smith,
1983). These abuses, which daily confront school administrators in their offices,
teachers in their classrooms, and students at their desks, are serious problems.
Simply ignoring them will not make them go away. Indeed, many researchers
and educators believe that failure to address the language issues in our schools
is a major reason for our current state of educational crisis (Cummins, 1986;
Erickson, 1984; Greene & Wallet, 1981; Heath, 1984). If this is true, there is a
problem: While language-related issues must be addressed, educators appear un-
willing or unable to deal with these issues by themselves. The question, then,
is how may the language-related issues be addressed?
A crucial part of the resolution of this problem is to identify those persons
willing and able to confront the concerns, abuses, and other issues related to
language proficiency in the educational process. A likely candidate for this job
in each school is the speech-language pathologist (SLP). For the most part, SLPs
offer a unique set of qualifications to the public schools. Possessing academic
backgrounds which typically include coursework in normal language acquisition
and use, developmental psychology, speech and hearing sciences, linguistics,
learning theory, communicative assessment and intervention strategies, and educa-
tional principles, SLPs offer a perspective different from many school-based edu-
cators. Additionally, they interact with special education and regular education
teachers and have schedule flexibility not shared by other personnel. Given their
unique training and role within the schools, SLPs are the most logical profes-
sionals to function as the &dquo;language specialists&dquo; in their schools. As language
specialists, SLPs can work with other school personnel to address the language
concerns existing in both regular and special education.

THE CONSULTATIVE MODEL

If the speech-language pathologist does serve as the school’s &dquo;language specialist;’
this individual must have the flexibility to interact with all students and teachers
in diverse environments and must not be tied to a specific caseload or schedule.
This flexibility can be achieved by allowing the SLP to function as a consultant
(Fujiki & Brinton, 1984; Martin, 1974; McKinley & Lord-Larson, 1985; Pick-
ering, 1981; 1985). As defined by Idol, Paolucci-Whitcomb, and Nevin (1986),
a consultant is a professional with the knowledge or skills to mobilize other profes-

sionals in the treatment or handling of specific and mutually defined problems.

The consultant is available to others in the school to discuss questions or prob-
lems relating to language as it impacts on classroom activities, testing procedures,
culturally and linguistically diverse populations, socialization, and a plethora
of other issues. Together, the consultant and the other professionals collaborate
to determine what the potential problems are, and then formulate and imple-
ment solutions. In this process, the consultant serves as a resource for the other

18

Downloaded from cdq.sagepub.com at GRAND VALLEY STATE UNIV LIB on May 6, 2015
professionals who actually deal with the problems or concerns in a direct fashion
(Johnson & Johnson, 1980).
There are several advantages to utilizing the SLP in a consultative service
delivery model. First, this model allows for the background and abilities of the
SLP to be utilized to a greater extent. Not only can SLPs provide direct therapy
to language disordered students, they can also provide input on the academic
and social difhculties exhibited by these children and consult on issues and con-
cerns relating to children exhibiting language differences (i.e. students who may

not qualify for special education services). The result is that SLP consultants
are able to address more than just language disorders-they can also address

educational and social language concerns not directly linked to special education.
Second, the solutions and interventions implemented through collaborative con-
sultation will be more consistent with the current emphasis on naturalistic and
meaning-based assessment and intervention strategies when dealing with lan-
guage issues (Gallagher & Prutting, 1983; Hubbell, 1981; Simon, 1985a; 1985b).
Since teachers spend the most time with students, they have the best opportunity
for naturalistic interaction and observation in the classroom. Third, such con-
sultation allows the SLP and the teacher to share mutual responsibility for the
concerns addressed, resulting in more creative and effective solutions, along with

the development of stronger working relationships between the professionals in-

volved (Knight, Meyers, Hasazi, Paolucci-Whitcomb, & Nevin, 1981; Miller &
Sabatino, 1978; Sharon, 1980). In a word, the consultative model is &dquo;effective.&dquo;
The crucial question, then, is not &dquo;Why be a consultant?&dquo; but rather, &dquo;How
can this concept be placed into practice?&dquo; This paper will address two basic ques-

tions : 1) How should the consultative model be structured? 2) How can the con-
sultative model be implemented? Although there are numerous variations of the
consultative model of service delivery, a single version with proven effectiveness
will be described which answers these two questions. However, the reader is directed
to the work of Conoley & Conoley (1982), Idol, Paolucci-Whitcomb, & Nevin

(1986), Idol-Maestas (1983), Lippitt & Lippitt (1978), Montgomery (1980), and
Pickering (1981) for other variations.

HOW SHOULD THE CONSULTATIVE MODEL BE STRUCTURED?

To be successful, the consultative model must be structured to satisfy the de-
mands of the school personnel and not unduly burden the speech-language
pathology staff. Both of these features are essential if the model is to be utilized
over a long period of time. This plan must also be flexible enough in its structure

and in the issues it addresses to handle the unforeseen occurrences that inevitably
arise in the school environment. There are four basic elements to consider when
structuring the consultative model: the time devoted to consultation, the style

19
Downloaded from cdq.sagepub.com at GRAND VALLEY STATE UNIV LIB on May 6, 2015
 of consultative interaction, how group interactions will occur, and what interac-
tional strategies will be utilized. Each of these elements is discussed below.

Time devoted to consultation

When initially implemented, consultation must be arranged to accommodate
both the need for direct speech-language service and the desire to increase the
SLP’s range of influence throughout the school. To accomplish this, a partial rather
than full consultative model is suggested (i.e., dividing the SLP’s time between
direct service to communicatively impaired students and consultation when
needed). This approach has been suggested in the literature (Dublinske, 1985;
Ehren, 1982; Hersh, 1981) and is best accomplished by setting aside a portion
of each day for consultative purposes. While the actual time utilized for consul-
tation will vary according to the needs of the school, experience has indicated
that at least one hour a day be devoted to consultation if a reasonable impact is
desired. The effectiveness of the model is further enhanced if this time can be
scheduled to vary throughout the week. For example, consultations can be sched-
uled at 9:00 a.m. on Mondays and Fridays, at 1:30 p.m. on Tuesdays and Thursdays,
and when needed on Wednesdays. In establishing &dquo;consulting office hours,&dquo; the
consultant has greater flexibility to address concerns as they arise. This is impor-
tant because teachers with questions need immediate answers, not excuses about

tight schedules orvague promises to &dquo;get to it next week.&dquo; Further, student ab-
sences or the tendency to utilize consultation time for district meetings and catching

up on paperwork can be avoided. If time is scheduled for consultation, the likeli-

hood will be that it is used for that purpose. Finally, this scheduling arrangement
enables the SLP to become an integral and reliable part of the school, rather
than a peripheral or ancillary figure. Thus, the effectiveness of the SLP is greatly
enhanced, as evidenced by research demonstrating the advantages of frequent
and expected consultations with school-based peers over infrequent or random
consultations with non-school based professionals (Idol-Maestas, 1983; Lippitt
& Lippitt, 1978; Slavin, 1980).
While it is important that consultation be allotted sufficient time for effective
implementation, it is equally important that this time be well-spent. Even the
perception of wasted time in consultation activities can be detrimental to the success
of the model. Indeed, accountability and cost-effectiveness have been found to
be essential elements of any successful consultation program (Conoley & Conoley,
1982; Hersh, 1981; Nelson & Stevens, 1981). To avoid the perception of poor ac-
countability, the SLP should maintain a careful record of the time spent in con-
sultation and review it with the supervisor or principal on a regular basis. Such
record keeping will strengthen the SLP’s position as a valued consultant and can
aid both the SLP and the principal in reviewing the model’s effectiveness. Addi-
tionally, the SLP should always have another consultation or a substitute therapy
session ready if a scheduled consultation is cancelled. For example, documented

20
Downloaded from cdq.sagepub.com at GRAND VALLEY STATE UNIV LIB on May 6, 2015
classroom observation of caseload students could replace a cancelled consulta-
tion appointment. This will ensure that the time scheduled for consultation is
spent for that purpose, and that the flexibility of the model does not result in
poor accountability.
The style of consultative interaction
The transactional style of interaction is recommended for the SLP as a language
consultant. Adapted from Pickering (1981; 1985), the transactional approach in-
volves a bi-directional collaborative relationship between the consultant (SLP) and
the interventionist (teacher). Rather than the SLP generating unilateral recom-
mendations about what is needed for a child within a particular setting, both
the SLP and the teacher create a plan of action for addressing the student’s par-
ticular language needs based on what is practical to implement in the classroom.
Together these professionals can develop a program or strategy for addressing
particular language-based concerns so that the teacher has the primary role of
intervention and the SLP essentially facilitates based on the mutually decided goals
and objectives.
The transactional approach has features of many other collaborative models
(Lanier, 1980), but unlike the other approaches, this one has the added advan-
tage of incorporating the student into the decision-making process. This is es-
sential because communication is a transactional process in which the student’s
intrinsic language proficiency and the interactional context reciprocally influence
one another (Hubbell, 1981; Kirchner & Skarakis-Doyle, 1983). That is, a stu-
dent’s language abilities are the result of a complex interaction, progressive in
nature, between what one says and the contextual reactions to what is said, so
that both the internal language system and the context are continually modified
by one another. Consequently, to ignore the impact that an individual’s language
plays on the environmental contexts, and the impact that the contexts play on
an individual’s language is to miss an integral component of communication when

discussing problems or program decisions.

A concerted effort must be made to include the student’s perspective of the
communicative context. Both the SLP and teacher need to view the student in
the situational context and observe not only the interactions of the student, but
also the interactions of teachers, peers and others in relation to the student. The
transactional approach results in the student’s language being viewed in relation
to both intrinsic and extrinsic factors, so that the student becomes more than
just a target of intervention.
When the entire context or situation is considered, including attitudes, poli-
cies, educational practices and teaching strategies, the transactional approach
to problem solving may result in the primary intervention not being directed
toward the student. Rather, the target of change may be toward others in the
environment or aspects of the environment itself. This model is especially rele-

21
Downloaded from cdq.sagepub.com at GRAND VALLEY STATE UNIV LIB on May 6, 2015
vant when dealing with children who appear to have significant socialization prob-
lems, most minority language or dialect speakers, and many who experience ac-
ademic failure. As demonstrated by numerous researchers (Cummins, 1986;
Garnica, 1980; Mercer, 1974; Norris, in press; Williams et al, 1976), many of
these problems may be due to extrinsic variables rather than the intrinsic abili-
ties of the student.

How group interactions will occur

Since the transactional approach is collaborative one, it is important that the
a

SLP structure interactions so that all interested parties (e.g., teachers, parents,
support staff, the student) are encouraged to provide input and exchange ideas.
This encouragement can occur by utilizing group interactions when possible.
To accomplish this, the consultant should be aware of the advantages inherent
in the different interactional group arrangements. Depending on time pressures,
degree of formality desired, and the aims of a particular interaction, the consul-
tant can opt for any number of potential interactional groupings. For example,
if the consultant is interested in disseminating general information on the struc-
ture of the consultative model or as a means of efficient initial contact, then large
group in-services are the most effective interactions (Joyce & Showers, 1980; Mont-
gomery, 1980). Such in-services, however, should be followed up as soon as pos-
sible by smaller informal group meetings to address concerns specific to certain
teachers, subject areas, or grade levels. These might be organized according to
grade levels (e.g., third grade teachers), subject areas (e.g., reading), or special
concerns (e.g., children of migrant workers). The smaller groups allow more specific

and personalized interactions with other professionals and still provide efficient
dissemination of information (Hall & Loucks, 1978; Sharon, 1980). Consequently,
these small group arrangements should be utilized when several teachers share
the same concerns and as a time-efficient way of establishing rapport.
If the goal of the consultative interaction is to create a more formal or official
solution to a recognized problem, then more formal group interactions should
be utilized. Rather than informal large or small group meetings, Individualized
Education Plan (IEP) meetings and/or locally organized task forces or ad hoc
committees might be the interactional groupings of choice. These groups are
more formal in structure and typically have more impact on school-wide or district-

wide policies. They can also be an effective way of implementing large scale changes
over a brief period of time. For example, the school may have recurring problems

with the misdiagnosis of limited English proficient students (LEP) and excessive
numbers of them are placed into special education inappropriately. Consequently,
the consultant can request that the principal organize a team to deal with this
problem consisting of the SLP, the school psychologist, a bilingual educator, a
bilingual teacher aide, a special educator, a regular classroom teacher and a so-
cial worker. This team can then work out a solution and do so in a more efficient
and effective manner. The consultant should be aware, however, that his/her role

22
Downloaded from cdq.sagepub.com at GRAND VALLEY STATE UNIV LIB on May 6, 2015
in such a group may be different than in other arrangements. Due to the more
formal nature of such groups, the principal might designate a definite leader (which
would be contrary to the transactional approach) or set an agenda different than
what the consultant feels is needed. In such situations, the SLP may contribute
a unique perspective, but the role as a facilitator of problem solving strategies

might be a shared responsibility. This may or may not be a problem depending

on the particular issues and the consultant’s objectives.

Once the model is in place, one-to-one interactions are recommended as the

&dquo;workhorse&dquo; of consultations. This interactional structure allows the SLP and
teacher to deal with specific students and engage in the collaborative tasks of
data collection, problem solving, and intervention that are the heart of the con-
sultative model. The transactional model can only be effective if one-to-one col-
laboration based on mutual respect is utilized (Fujiki & Brinton, 1984; Pickering,
1981; 1985).
What interactional strategies will be utilized
Another aspect of structuring the consultative model is realizing that collabora-
tive effectiveness can be influenced by the interactional strategies employed when
dealing with other professionals. Depending on factors such as the aims of the
interaction, the degree of rapport between the consultant and teacher, the type
of intervention to be implemented, the competencies of both parties in dealing
with the specific problem, and the consultant’s own effectiveness in using these
strategies, a number of options are available for utilization separately or in con-
junction with one another. There are ten potential strategies which might be
utilized: informing, instruction, modeling, demonstration, cognitive restructuring,
mediation, coordination, reinforcement, confrontation, and feedback. Each is
described below.
Informing. If the consultant merely wants to provide the teacher with informa-
tion which, when known, will allow both professionals to determine the extent
of the problem and ways to solve it, then direct informing can be used. This in-
volves simply calling a particular fact or group of related facts to the attention
of the teacher. For example, the teacher may be unaware of the superficial struc-
tural differences manifested by a speaker of Vernacular Black English (VBE)
(Fasold & Wolfram, 1970). Consequently, phonologic variations during oral reading
activities may be viewed as an articulation disorder or dyslexia. Providing infor-
mation on the regularity of these phonologic substitutions in VBE can poten-
tially modify the approach taken by the teacher during reading activities (Berdan,
1980).
Instruction. If more in-depth interaction is required, however, simple informing
will not be enough. The consultant will have to utilize instruction. This means
that rather than just providing focused information for a specific purpose, the
consultant and teacher engage in an intense learning situation. Background in-
formation and theoretical foundations are provided and the teacher develops the

23
Downloaded from cdq.sagepub.com at GRAND VALLEY STATE UNIV LIB on May 6, 2015
needed skills through a process of conceptually guided acquisition. For example,
a student identified as exhibiting a language disability may manifest that disabil-

ity in many ways. One manifestation might be that when the level of language
input gets too complex or abstract for the student, s/he may try to cope by with-
drawing from verbal activities. Consequently, during group discussion, the teacher
may see the child as shy and spend time during group activities trying to get
the child to participate. While changing affect and encouraging the child, how-
ever, the teacher still uses complex or abstract questions/comments so the child’s
behavior does not change. The consultant can help identify the problem (lan-
guage complexity) and, through instruction, aid the teacher in understanding
how language complexity varies, how the student reacts to it, and how levels of
complexity or abstraction can be simplified. The consultant makes these points
by using written materials, research reports, and clinical suggestions which pro-
vide the underlying theoretical foundations of language-as-displacement and the
practical implications of this theory (e.g., Blank, Rose, & Berlin, 1978; Donaldson,
1978).
Although this process requires more time and effort on the part of both profes-
sionals, the end result is a better understanding of the target principles and their
conceptual framework. While initially the teacher is a receiver of data, s/he is
directed to be more independent and continue to learn and apply the informa-
tion in innovative and creative ways.
Modeling. When dealing directly with classroom techniques and methods, other
interactional strategies are more beneficial than either informing or instruction.
One such strategy is modeling. This strategy is effective when the consultant
suggests clinical techniques or intervention approaches that require more than
just verbal instruction and/or when it is important that a particular technique
be implemented as quickly as possible. The consultant may provide information
and then actually model the approach with the teacher, providing opportunities
for the teacher to imitate the technique with immediate feedback. Modeling permits
immediate problem solving that addresses very specific concerns. The teacher
is not given a theoretical foundation or any long-term or real-life demonstration,
however, so this technique might not be generalizable to other contexts, resulting
in short-term and limited effectiveness. In utilizing the previous example, in-
stead of instructing the teacher on levels of abstraction and the ways that lan-
guage can be displaced, the consultant will arrange a meeting with the teacher,
inform the teacher of the problem and then model two specific techniques to use
in simplifying language. The SLP will then have the teacher imitate the tech-
niques and monitor the teacher’s performance.
Demonstration. When the consultative interaction can afford more time and effort
to solve the language concerns and problems, demonstration might be the inter-
actional strategy of choice. Like modeling, it requires that the consultant actu-
ally show the teacher how to perform the target techniques or approaches. Un-
like modeling, however, demonstration attempts to achieve a deeper understanding

24
Downloaded from cdq.sagepub.com at GRAND VALLEY STATE UNIV LIB on May 6, 2015
of the clinical or classroom interventions by providing information on the under-
lying rationale and by actually working with a student over a period of time to
provide examples. Once the demonstration period has ended, the teacher is no
longer just expected to play the role of an imitator, but be able to generate con-
sistent and defensible variations evolving from the consultant’s clinical rationale.
Although this approach takes considerably longer than modeling, it does encourage
greater growth on the part of the teacher. When trying to implement an inter-
vention approach to aid language disordered students in their reading, for ex-
ample, the consultant can meet with the teacher to discuss an approach like &dquo;com-
municative reading strategies&dquo; (Norris, 1985) and then take over the targeted
reading group for a three week period. During this time the teacher will observe
and make comments regarding the approach. After the three week period, the
teacher will take the group and the consultant will give feedback and comment
on the effectiveness of the approach with the students. In this way, both profes-

sionals will have an opportunity to work with the strategies and modify them
as appropriate with the students. Further, the comments and discussions will

allow for collaborative interaction so that both professionals can participate and
benefit from the process.
Cognitive restructuring. While the previous strategies are directed toward changing
behaviors, cognitive restructuring is directed toward changing attitudes. That
is, rather than giving the teacher specific information, strategies, or techniques
to utilize, the SLP will attempt to change the attitudes held by the teacher on
the particular topic of concern. It is reasoned that once a previously held attitude
is modified, the individual’s behaviors will eventually change to remain consis-
tent with the newly-formed attitude (Cialdini, Petty, and Cacioppo, 1981). Al-

though this strategy may seem indirect, psychological researchers have indicated
that attitudes hold a causal relationship over behaviors and that a change in atti-
tude will result in a long-term and stable change in behavior (Bentler & Speckart,
1981; Kahle & Berman, 1979).
It might be necessary to achieve a change in behavior by facing the realization
that a particular problem is deeply ingrained and will require more than just
working directly on the individual’s behavior-the underlying attitudes might
need modification. Cognitive restructuring attempts to affect a long-term change
in the behaviors of individuals by changing their attitudes. For example, a teacher’s
unconscious prejudice against Hispanic children may manifest itself in his/her
specific classroom feedback to these children. S/he may exhibit a negative affect,
a different type of verbal feedback, or a discounting of Hispanic cultural events

when they are related by the children. Though such behaviors might not be con-
sciously intended by the teacher, the students may recognize the differences be-
tween responses to Anglos versus those to Hispanics and the feedback may have
a negative effect on the Hispanic students. By working on the teacher’s internal-

ized attitudes about Hispanics, the behavioral patterns can be altered.

While there are several suggested methods for changing attitudes, these processes

25
Downloaded from cdq.sagepub.com at GRAND VALLEY STATE UNIV LIB on May 6, 2015
are remote to the scope of this paper. Consultants are directed to the work of
Cacioppo and Petty (1979), Cialdini, Petty, and Cacioppo (1981), and Lamberg
and McCaleb (1977) for additional information. For the purposes of this paper,
it is sufficient to note that cognitive restructuring is a complex task which usually
requires a long period of specialized attention and the aid of additional personnel
(e.g., school psychologist, counselor).
Mediation. While the previous interactional strategies could be utilized at an
individual or group level, mediation is available only when dealing with groups.
At times, the consultant may find that language concerns are due to poor inter-
actions or misunderstandings between involved parties. The solution may be to
facilitate better understanding and cooperation between these individuals rather
than direct instruction (Johnson, Johnson, & Johnson, 1982). This situation usually
requires the strategy of mediation. That is, the consultant reviews the problems
and determines that there are potential solutions involving better interactions
between the involved parties. The consultant, therefore, works with these parties
to establish empathy and better interactions. Such mediation requires objective
and non-judgmental evaluation of the situation, positive interactions, and a will-
ingness to share perspectives (Slavin, 1980). By acting as an intercessor, the con-
sultant can effectively guide the professionals through school-based concerns or
interactional problems. For example, a student’s parents might object to their
child being seen by the Chapter One teacher for language experience because
they believe that placement in the program means that their child is &dquo;retarded.&dquo;
In trying to defend the program, the Chapter One teacher alienates the parents.
The SLP can mediate by helping the teacher discover the concerns that the parents
have and by helping the parents discover that the Chapter One teacher has an
honest concern for their child.
Coordination. This strategy is also reserved for group interactions but is usu-
ally less involved than mediation. It is used when dealing with several profes-
sionals simultaneously. The consultant may need to take the role of coordinator
so that the group members understand the ultimate objectives of their interac-

tions, the roles they have separately and together, and the time frame they must
follow. This coordinator role is especially important when direction or leader-
ship is not available and when the issues at hand relate directly to the consul-
tant’s expertise. Coordination should be accomplished carefully, however, to avoid
potential conflicts over territorial issues and procedural concerns.
Coordination might be useful, for instance, when there are scheduling prob-
lems for a language-disordered high school student. This student may have only
two hours per day that can be used for non-academic classroom activity. The
student wants to work as an aide in the library but must also attend the resource
room, shop, vocational lab, and language therapy. By meeting with the involved
professionals (resource room teacher, vocational lab teacher, librarian, and shop
teacher), the SLP can help each professional understand that by working together
on a language-based set of work-related activities, the student can receive the

26
Downloaded from cdq.sagepub.com at GRAND VALLEY STATE UNIV LIB on May 6, 2015
needed attention in naturalistic settings. The SLP and resource room teacher
can work with the student on the skills needed by a library aide and then place

the student in that environment as an intervention site. Similarly, the vocational

lab teacher and SLP can work on interviewing behavior and appropriate work
behavior and utilize the shop class for intervention. Due to the coordination of
effort, all the professionals share the same overall objective and all of the stu-
dent’s needs can be met.
Reinforcement. If one of the previous strategies is selected for use in a particular
situation, the consultant might choose to incorporate several other interactional
techniques into the process. One such technique is reinforcement. This strategy
is a direct attempt to modify the behaviors of the consulting partners. It is typi-
cally employed to encourage previously applied practices, new techniques, or
new applications of old techniques. The consultant provides positive comments

on those behaviors that should be retained and no comments on those behaviors

or techniques which require modification. This strategy of reinforcement is typi-
cally implemented by using simple operant techniques when dealing with the
targeted professional. Behavior modification need not be reserved only for a stu-
dent/client (Lippitt & Lippitt, 1978; Montgomery, 1980).
Confrontation. This is a second technique that is easily used in conjunction with
other strategies. It is viewed as an opportunity to demonstrate a positive, non-
territorial approach to problem-solving operating on the idea that people cooperate
rather than compete. In confrontation, the individuals involved with the targeted
language concern are encouraged to provide input and make suggestions and
then must defend their suggestions from the objections of others. If the sugges-
tions can be defended, then they may form a basis for action. During this con-
frontation of ideas, each individual is assisted to realize that any objection to
their opinions or ideas is purely a clinical matter and not a personal one. Conflicting
opinions are viewed as input which can be measured in an impartial and non-
personal way. Through such confrontations, interactions are directed to the most
creative and effective of solutions without concern for personal positions. Ac-
cording to this strategy, all professionals work as a team so that if one individual’s
suggestions win out, the entire team wins. This &dquo;win-win attitude&dquo; is beneficial
to all concerned. If such an attitude can be generated, positive and productive
consultation and problem solving will occur (Johnson, 1981).
Feedback. This is the last strategy mentioned. It involves letting people know
directly and descriptively what strengths and weaknesses they possess in specific
case situations. Although this technique may appear similar to informing, there

are important differences. Feedback is directed to one’s own behavioral perfor-

mance rather than just providing information of a general kind, and it frequently

requires a period of working with the teacher to develop self-monitoring abili-

ties. For instance, a counselor may not realize the damage that s/he may be inflicting
on a Black child’s self-image when unconsciously correcting the child’s use of

invariant &dquo;be&dquo; during a play session. Feedback to the counselor on this action,

27
Downloaded from cdq.sagepub.com at GRAND VALLEY STATE UNIV LIB on May 6, 2015
an explanation of how this places the child in a no-win conflict between the speech
patterns of home and school, and help with the ability to monitor his/her cor-
recting behavior can frequently make a difference to a child’s comfort and will
assist the counselor in becoming more aware of linguistic differences that can
be considered normal.
Language is a complex process. Sometimes it is necessary for individuals to
receive feedback from an SLP who is more sensitive to language intricacies. The
SLP serves as a source of external feedback and assists the other professionals
in monitoring problematic behaviors. Eventually, the ability to monitor one’s
own behaviors in language interactions is internalized. The SLP, by utilizing

feedback, has then helped the other professional &dquo;fine-tune&dquo; language monitoring.
Based on the previous discussion, it seems that an effective consultation model
is one which is well-structured and utilizes specific formats and techniques in
a collaborative attempt to address specific concerns. A number of the elements

needed for an effective model have been discussed and are summarized below in
Table 1.

HOW CAN THE CONSULTATIVE MODEL BE IMPLEMENTED?

Having a consultative model in mind to effectively address any language con-

cern is only the first step. The most practical question is one of implementation,

&dquo;How does one make the model operational?&dquo; The answer is actually an easy
one to give (though somewhat harder to accomplish): Start with a specific and

careful approach to letting people know what can be done and then do it. There
are, therefore, two stages in the implementation of the consultation model: 1)
the SLP must acquire acceptance of the idea and then, 2) place the idea into
effective operation.

Acquiring acceptance
In initially setting up the consultative model, the SLP must acquire acceptance
from three different levels in the school system. First, the SLP must secure the
support of the immediate supervisor (i.e., the person directly responsible for the
speech-language program at the level beyond each school building). This person
usually has the greatest input with district-level administrators regarding issues
of service delivery, cost effectiveness, and accountability. Once persuaded that
there is merit in the partial consultation model, this person can become a powerful
ally. Knowledgable about administrative and clinical issues and having access
to district and school-based administrators, the supervisor can provide construc-
tive feedback regarding ideas, suggest ways to approach the school’s principal,
and effectively pave the way for the consultative model.
The next person to persuade is the principal. In matters of policy interpreta-
tion and in the regulation of day-to-day activities at the building level, the prin-
cipal has almost complete authority in the school. This person, above all others,

28

Downloaded from cdq.sagepub.com at GRAND VALLEY STATE UNIV LIB on May 6, 2015
Table 1
A Review of the Elements Essential , for the Effective
Structuring of the Consultative Service Delivery Model

can make things happen or hinder change in the school. Consequently, it is es-
sential that the SLP secure the support of this administrator. In fact, the prin-
cipal is usually influential enough to help convince the immediate supervisor
if there is some reluctance to implement the consultative model.
Finally, it is necessary to gain the support of one’s professional peers in the
school - the teachers. They are the consumers and they must believe in the con-
sultative idea if it is to be successful. Though mentioned last, these individuals
are no less important than are the supervisor or the principal. Without them,

the consultative model will never materialize.

In gaining acceptance of the model, the strategies used and the information
provided will be the same at each level. The differences will be reflected in the
approach to each individual and this is dependent on the SLP’s relationship with
those individuals and their personalities. In general, however, the SLP should
remember several points: it is necessary to prepare the way for the consultative

29

Downloaded from cdq.sagepub.com at GRAND VALLEY STATE UNIV LIB on May 6, 2015
model before it is proposed, the model must be well-prepared, clear, and non-
threatening when presented, and there may be a transition period before the
model is accepted. Each of these points are discussed below.
Prepare for acceptance of the model. Any change in school operating procedure
is more likely .to be accepted if there is a perceived need for the change. If the
need is not present, then the likelihood of acceptance is typically poor. Conse-
quently, it is better to put off implementation for a year rather than present the
consultative idea when others are not predisposed toward it or if the timing is
poor. For example, attempts at implementation just before a state special educa-
tion audit may be inappropriately timed. Similarly, proposing the model when
the SLP has little credibility with the principal might result in an immediate
rejection of the model. The SLP can aid acceptance, however, by preparing the
way for the consultative model before it is proposed. This preparation can be
generated by ensuring that the following two objectives are accomplished:
1. Make the need for the consultative model known to all concerned. This
is accomplished by demonstrating that language proficiency forms the basis of
most behaviors noted in the school environment and, therefore, special attention
should be given to this underlying foundation of social and academic perfor-
mance. Demonstrations of the impact of language can focus on individuals or

on educational processes. For example, one may make the need known by demon-

strating to the principal and the classroom teacher that the problem behaviors
exhibited by a particular student in class can be linked to the child’s language
difficulty. Perhaps the child has a language disorder and it manifests itself in a
variety of ways that are interpreted as &dquo;acting out&dquo; or disruptive. This hypothet-
ical student shows the following problems: a) Interactional rules of classroom
discourse may not be understood (e.g., turn-taking, differential cueing according
to social situations) (Ripich & Spinelli, 1985). Consequently, the student con-

stantly &dquo;blurts out;’ or violates a teacher’s invitation to another student to pro-

vide an answer (Mehan, 1979). This behavior may be interpreted as trying to
engage in one-upmanship or simply as disruptive. b) The student may also have
problems with the following verbal instructions. This is manifested in several
annoying behaviors such as constantly reaching over to someone else’s desk to
find the page number or to get additional information on the verbal instructions
that were missed (Nelson, 1985). This student may be viewed as a &dquo;cheater&dquo; or
one who bothers others or is not able to focus in on a task. Such students may

have a difficult time sitting and listening to the teacher read a story when there
are visual distractions outside the classroom.

In all such instances, the SLP can identify potential language-based factors
by engaging in careful observations and then sharing these observations. After
identification, the SLP can suggest alternative management strategies to enhance
language rather than to punish the student for the poor behavior. Behaviors are
viewed as manifestations of a different type of problem (i.e., language processing)
and are demonstrated as having an impact on this individual.

30

Downloaded from cdq.sagepub.com at GRAND VALLEY STATE UNIV LIB on May 6, 2015
 Such demonstrations can also focus on educational processes rather than indi-
viduals. To the SLP, the number of opportunities in the school to demonstrate
the impact of language is nearly limitless. After all, language proficiency is truly
requisite in most educational activities (Carroll, 1968; Donaldson, 1978; Oller,
1979). For example, the SLP could focus on the issue of text readability. Specifically,
the fact that certain types of &dquo;simplified&dquo; reading texts for children may actually
be more difficult than those with more vocabulary and more complex syntax.
This can occur when the lexical and syntactic simplifications result in reduced
cohesion or the need for greater inference because less information is actually
given in the text (Norris, in press; Smith, 1983). Additionally, some of these books
do not provide meaning-based text-to-picture relationships that can aid text com-
prehension. This may be due to an over-emphasis on stylized artwork or the
fact that the texts concentrate on phonic-based groupings, meaningless rhymes,
or patterning rather than meaningful text which can be pictorially represented

(Smith, 1983). Demonstrating how the simplification in such texts results in com-
plexity and then demonstrating how additional communication and interaction
can overcome these problems (Norris, 1985) is a very powerful way of revealing
the impact of language on academics.
A final example is demonstrating how meaning-based activities such as pre-
tend play are well known methods of turning dull lessons into interesting and
effective ones. For example, a boring social studies lesson about Brazil can be
turned into an exciting adventure by using motivation, conflict, and expectancy
(Dewey, 1938; Oller, 1983). Nearly everyone can remember the Amazon River
at a later time if s/he imagined having to swim it to get away from a jaguar.
After several of these interactions which demonstrate the impact of language
on learning and motivation, concerned parties develop a more analytical approach
to the importance of language and its causal role in a number of areas they never
before considered. The new awareness establishes a greater perception of need
for a consultative model focusing on language.
2. Building the perception that the SLP is the professional best suited to handle
the role of consultant. It is not sufficient to establish the need for the model. The
concerned parties must also believe that there is a professional who can handle
the role of the consultant. For the SLP, this aspect of preparation involves estab-
lishing himself or herself as that professional. This is primarily a question of credi-
bility. That is, demonstrating that one has the background, knowledge, and in-
terest to function as the language consultant. This credibility can be established
as a consequence of the making the need for the consultative model known. The
individual that demonstrates the pervasive nature of language in the educational
context should establish his/her credibility at the same time. To do this, however,
it is important that the SLP let others know what is observed, what implications
are drawn, and how positive change can occur. That is, the SLP must exhibit

the ability to handle the role of consultant before the model is actually proposed.
Additionally, the SLP must provide the information and the potential solutions

31
Downloaded from cdq.sagepub.com at GRAND VALLEY STATE UNIV LIB on May 6, 2015
in non-threatening and personable way so that the concerned parties are more
a

predisposed to both the eventual proposal and the SLP as the consultant. To func-
tion in the transactional model, the SLP must demonstrate that s/hc can interact
in a cooperative manner.
Once the need for a consultative model which focuses on language concerns
and issues is established and the SLP has sufficient credibility, then the consulta-
tive model should be proposed and the second point in gaining acceptance of
the model should be remembered.
The model must be well-prepared, clear, and non -threatening. Even when there is a
predisposition toward providing for a partial consultative model, the SLP must
demonstrate that this idea is a serious one. Being able to present a well-considered
plan in clear language with supportive figures that show cost effectiveness and
a benefit to all involved will typically be successful (Hersh, 1981; Knight, Meyers,

Hasazi, Paolucci-Whitcomb, & Nevin, 1981; Slavin, 1980).

This proposal should be presented in a written format which details the need
for this service delivery model, the overall objectives, the short term goals, an
outline and description of the structure of the model, the consultative procedure
to be followed, the primary topics to address, a time line for implementation,
an accountability scheme, and a suggested method of program evaluation. Ex-

perience suggests that the proposal should be no more than four or five pages
long, primarily in outline form with a brief summary as a cover page. Creation
of this document will not only allow others to evaluate the proposal, it will also
force the SLP to clearly formulate the model in his/her own context. This is an
important aspect of the preparation. In the spirit of the transactional approach,
the SLP might solicit the aid of other school-based professionals in the comple-
tion of the final proposal. This will provide an early critique and also create sev-
eral early advocates for the model.
Once the written document is prepared, the SLP should be prepared to ver-
bally present the proposal in a clear, concise, and defensible style. This verbal
presentation, if given, should be non-threatening and the SLP should be pre-
pared to compromise if necessary. The previously detailed strategy of confronta-
tion which advances the &dquo;win-win&dquo; attitude should be utilized and the third point
in gaining acceptance of the model should be remembered.
There may need to be a transition period before the model is accepted. It is possible that
the appropriate individuals will agree with the idea but will not be able to imple-
ment it due to any of a number of factors. It is also possible that the idea will
seem too different, too suspect, or too threatening. Consequently, it will be re-

jected. A third possibility is that the idea is accepted and implemented but there
are changes that greatly affect the model’s effectiveness,. For example, the SLP

may only be given two hours a week to serve as a consultant. In all of these situa-
tions, the SLP must recognize that the creation and implementation of a new
service delivery model may be a slow process that must proceed in jumps and
starts. If the SLP is persistent and understanding, however, the model will usu-

32
Downloaded from cdq.sagepub.com at GRAND VALLEY STATE UNIV LIB on May 6, 2015
ally be accepted and the SLP will have the opportunity to demonstrate its effec-
tiveness.

Effective operation
Once the appropriate parties approve the change in the service delivery model,
the model must be placed into effective operation. This will involve two major
tasks: dissemination of information via in-service and establishing and using a
consultative procedure.
Dissemination via in-service. As previously mentioned, a formal large group in-
service is the most effective way to disseminate the general ideas about a consul-
tative model. In this situation, the SLP must explain the change in the service
delivery model and its advantages. This in-service is important because it is the
initial operational move. If the SLP is successful in relating the excitement, benefits
and structure of collaborative, transactional consultation to the teachers, this model
can be successful immediately.

The content of the in-service is dependent on what was agreed upon by those
who approved the model and by the specific situation at the school. However,
there are several important pieces of information which must be disseminated:
1. There must be a clear and concise description of what is proposed. That
is, exactly what the consultant role will entail. In dealing with this issue, it is
best to emphasize the collaborative sharing of the consultant, which is best ex-
plained through examples. Too much information on the transactional aspects
of the approach tend to confuse the issue. The key point should be that these
changes mean more interaction between the SLP and the teachers, with the goal
of helping the teachers address language concerns and not just language disorders.
2. The in-service should focus on why the change is needed. This is usually
self-evident -particularly if the SLP has previously demonstrated the pervasive
influence of language in education. If this is the case, then the SLP should simply
make that point by sharing previous case examples. To make this even more effec-
tive, let the teachers who were collaborating relate the experiences. Again, using
actual examples helps a discussion move from specific experiences to general points,
and thus, is an excellent way of demonstrating that a consultative approach is
effective. Typically, the teachers will have a very positive reaction and start relating
specific experiences or concerns at this point. In turn, this can easily lead to a
productive discussion and allow the SLP to move easily to the specific targets
during early implementation of the consultative model.
3. Focus on mutual concerns of specialists and general educators. Experience
has suggested that most teacher concerns regarding language revolve around eight
issues: poor communication, poor academics, not following directions, poor so-
cialization, testing, bilingual/bidialectal issues, teacher attitudes,
and unspecified
concerns. Each of these issues should be mentioned and specific examples should
be provided to demonstrate how these issues can affect the school experience.
By starting with language-based issues that are frequently thought of as

33
Downloaded from cdq.sagepub.com at GRAND VALLEY STATE UNIV LIB on May 6, 2015
problematic, the discussion has immediate relevance to teachers and provides
a focus on major concerns.

4. Explain the procedures established for the consultative model. That is, give
the teachers specific information on how the consulting is to be accomplished.
This information should include procedures for the scheduling of consultations,
the actual process followed after a referral is received, how collaboration will be

utilized, how follow-up will occur, and a procedure for feedback and account-
ability. These issues are important and will allow the teachers to have expecta-
tions regarding how effective the consultative role might become.
It is important in the introductory in-service to stress that consultation is an
active collaboration and that the consultant will rely on the teacher to the same
degree that the teacher relies on the consultant. This needs to be stated repeat-
edly and, more importantly, it needs to be conveyed in the consultant’s presenta-
tion style during the in-service. This activity should involve much discussion and
the consultant should seek out the opinions and ideas of the teachers at this time.
This large formal in-service should be followed-up within a few weeks by smaller
group meetings where the teachers can actually address specific issues and ask
questions once they have had time to think about the change in the service delivery
model. ’

Establishing and using a consultative procedure. In the final analysis, the consulta-
tive model is only as effective as the SLP allows it to be. Despite the real needs
in the schools and the careful work structuring the service delivery plan and then
getting it accepted, the idea is dependent on the SLP’s implementation of the
actual procedure. The large in-service and the smaller group discussions usually
generate referrals and requests for assistance. Should these not occur, the con-
sultant can establish contact with the teachers on a one-to-one level and encourage
cooperation. When a referral or request is received, the following procedure should
be followed:
1. Respond immediately and schedule a meeting with the concerned profes-
sional. This is an important step in the consultative procedure. The SLP should
remember that s/he is working within a transactional process.
2. Target the concerns expressed. At the meeting, it is important to obtain
a clear picture of the professional’s exact concerns. If the concerns are vague,

help the person clarify what is problematic. Questions to pose might relate to:
a) how long the concern has been present, b) why the teacher decided to refer
at this point, c) how the concern manifests itself (i.e., what behaviors are exhibited),

d) if these manifestations appear to be specific to a context or environment, e)

what the referring professional perceives to be the problem, f) how has the con-
cern affected the student’s academic and social abilities, and g) how can the con-

sulting parties best investigate this concern. This data, from the referral agent’s
perspective, will aid the consultant in moving to the next stage.
3. Collect data on the referred student. Consistent with the transactional ap-
proach, data need to be collected in the naturalistic environment and wherever

34

Downloaded from cdq.sagepub.com at GRAND VALLEY STATE UNIV LIB on May 6, 2015
the referral agent has suggested. Data collection involves observing the student
in school and obtaining information on the student from as many sources as is
possible and reasonable (i.e., interaction with peers, the physical classroom, the
teacher, the family). The referral agent is also expected to collect data so that
both the consultant and the referral agent can work together and share their own
observations and opinions. Naturalistic data collection procedures are prefer-
able to observing artificial tasks in contrived situations to obtain data. Observa-
tional data obtained through contrived procedures may contribute little to the
assessment process (Damico, in press). It is also important that observations focus
not only on the actual problematic behaviors, but also on the antecedent events
and consequences of these behaviors on the contextual environment. A true trans-
actional approach requires such detail.
4. Share the data collected with the concerned professionals. The individuals
involved in the referral should meet to discuss the information obtained from
data collection. At this time, the professionals must be free to view all the data
objectively and suggest potential causal, correlating, and/or exacerbating factors.
The following questions should be answered: a) Are the observed behaviors con-
sistent with the targeted concerns of the referral agent? b) What specific behaviors
or observations lead to this conclusion? c) Are there any antecedent, co-occurring,

or consequential factors which may play a role? d) How frequently was the specific

behavior observed? e) Were there instances when a predicted occurrence of the

behavior did not occur? f) Were there any unique features of those instances?
Each of these questions will aid in analysis of the data.
5. Engage in mutual problem solving. Once the data has been analyzed, the
consultant and the other professionals can determine whether the problem is in-
trinsic to the student (e.g., a language-learning disorder), extrinsic to the student
(e.g., due to teacher attitudes or instructional practices or policies), or a combi-
nation of the two. Once this is determined, a specific plan to address the problem
or concern can be formulated. While such plans will vary according to the specific

concerns, the parties involved, and other aspects of the situation, three points
should be emphasized. First, the primary intervention should not be conducted
by the consultant but, rather, by the teacher or another with more frequent con-
tact. Second, the intervention should take place as a normal portion of the stu-
dent’s activities and in the problematic context. Separating the problem or con-
cern from real-life activities will not accomplish the same effects (Moffett, 1968;

Muma, 1986; Oller, 1983). Third, intervention should be geared directly to the
unique circumstances and concerns of the individual student.
6. Aid the interventionist in initiation of the intervention plan. This is an es-
sential portion of the SLP’s role as the consultant. The SLP should utilize model-
ling, demonstration, instruction, or any of the other previously discussed inter-
actional strategies to aid in the initiation of the intervention. This may involve
intensive work with the student and the interventionist initially, with a gradual
reduction of effort. The teacher will likely feel uncomfortable as the interven-

35
Downloaded from cdq.sagepub.com at GRAND VALLEY STATE UNIV LIB on May 6, 2015
tionist and the SLP should allay any concerns. At this stage, it is not sufficient
for the consultant to simply make suggestions or give the interventionist a set
of instructions or handouts. Direct, physical effort is typically required.
7. Engage in periodic evaluation of the on-going intervention and its conse-
quences. This final procedural step requires that the consultant monitor the in-
tervention to insure its appropriate implementation and effectiveness. It is not
unusual for an intervention to be modified due to extraneous factors or simply
because it is not as effective as was initially expected. Although the interven-
tionist should be aware of these possibilities, the consultant should take the pri-
mary responsibility for periodic evaluation.
Finally, in addition to the above procedure, there are several principles which
the SLP should keep in mind when operating within the consultative model. While
these points appear to be common-sense, adhering to them will help assure the
success of the service delivery model itself. First, concerns or problems that arise

are not the responsibility of the consultant alone. Responsibilities are shared by

the team of professionals and the significant individuals surrounding the stu-
dent. Consequently, all of these individuals should have an opportunity to pro-
vide input regarding the concerns. Second, recognize that individuals have specific
interactional styles and reactions to others. At times, therefore, reactions will
be different from what is expected. Recognize the differences between individ-
uals and interact accordingly. Third, recognize that all individuals have a right
to dignity and should be treated with respect at all times. This is particularly

important if the SLP wants to gain and maintain acceptance as the consultant.
Fourth, the consultant must be clear and comprehensible when interacting with
others. Don’t engage in professional jargon or terminology which might be con-
fusing to others. Strive for clarity of presentation during conversation. Fifth, at-
tempt to demonstrate and give examples whenever possible. The more concrete
and practical the explanations, the more effective the interaction. Sixth, don’t
allow handouts, articles, bibliographies or lesson plans to do a job expected of
the consultant. This service delivery model can work only if personalized atten-
tion is available. Seventh, it is essential that the consultant listen to others. Active
listening can result in the acquisition of valuable information and greater accep-
tance from others. Individuals are always more willing to interact with those who

truly listen to what is said. Eighth, demonstrate a willingness to obtain insights

and information from others. The consultant must not be afraid to learn from
others and give them credit for what they contribute. Finally, be willing to give
others encouragement, credit, and positive reinforcement for their accomplish-
ments and efforts. The consultant should be willing to act as a sounding board
and to share or divert credit to others for a job well done.

SUMMARY
As the emphasis on language-in-education continues to grow, there will be an

36
Downloaded from cdq.sagepub.com at GRAND VALLEY STATE UNIV LIB on May 6, 2015
increased need for language specialists in the schools. At the present time,
this role can be filled by the public school speech-language pathologist. No other
school-based professional possesses the qualifications or opportunities to fill this
role as easily. To be successful, however, the SLP must be willing to modify the
traditional service delivery model to accommodate this change in function. This
paper has provided some practical ways of accomplishing this modification.
A change in function, however, requires more than just modifying the service
delivery model. It requires SLPs to take more responsibility and, in some cases,
to learn more about language-in-education themselves. After all, the language

specialist should, in fact, be a specialist in the real sense of the word. This may
involve additional study and effort on the part of the SLP. If this is accomplished,
however, speech-language pathologists can provide a valuable service to their school
systems and the students that they serve.
Recently, Cummins (1986) suggested that a significant problem within the educa-
tional system is the tendency to use language-related issues to disable rather than
to empower students. That is, through language and language use, students are
hindered in the way they view themselves and their abilities and this, in turn,
has a negative impact on their actual school and social performances. Students
deserve better treatment when language issues are involved. If the school-based
SLP can function appropriately as a language consultant, then the disabling of
students through language-related issues can be reduced. The SLP as consultant
can inform, monitor, and modify those language concerns and problems that

cause the disabling of students. Perhaps the championing and empowering of

students is the primary task of the SLP in the schools.

Address Correspondence to:

Jack. S. Damico, Ph.D.
Dept. of Speech Communication, Theatre, and
Communication Disorders
Louisiana State University
Baton Rouge, LA 70803-2606

Acknowledgments
The author wishes to acknowledge Dr. Jan Norris, Sandra Damico, and Claire Waldron,
all of Louisiana State University, for their helpful comments and suggestions.

About the Author

Jack S. Damico, an assistant professor at Louisiana State University, teaches courses in
clinical linguistics and communication disorders. He holds an M.S. in communication
disorders from the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center and a Ph.D. in lin-
guistics from the University of New Mexico. He has extensive experience as a public
school clinician and currently consults with school districts and state departments of edu-
cation.

37
Downloaded from cdq.sagepub.com at GRAND VALLEY STATE UNIV LIB on May 6, 2015
REFERENCES

Bentler, P.M., & Speckart, G. (1981). Attitudes "cause" behaviors: A structural equation analysis.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 226-238.
Berdan, R. (1980). Knowledge into practice: Delivering research to teachers. In M.F. Whiteman
(Ed.), Reactions to Ann Arbor: Vernacular Black English and education. (pp. 77-85). Arlington, VA:
Center for Applied Linguistics.
Blank, M., Rose, S., & Berlin, L. (1978). The language of learning: The preschool years. New York: Grune
& Stratton.
Brown, G., Anderson, A., Shillcock, R., & Yule, G. (1984). Teaching talk: Strategies for production
and assessment. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Cacioppo, J.T., & Petty, R.E. (1979). Effects of message repetition and position on cognitive re-
sponse, recall and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 97-109.
Carroll, J.B. (1968). Development of native language skills beyond the early years. Princeton, NJ: Educa-
tional Testing Service.
Cazden, C.B., & Dickinson, D.K. (1981). Language in education: Standardization versus cultural
pluralism. In C.A. Ferguson & S.B. Heath (Eds.), Language in the USA. Cambridge, MA: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Cialdini, R.B., Petty, R.E., & Cacioppo, J.T. (1981). Attitude and attitude change. Annual Review
of Psychology, 32, 357-404.
Conoley, J.C., & Conoley, C.W. (1982). School consultation: A guide to practice and training. New York:
Pergamon Press.
Cummins, J. (1986). Empowering minority students: A framework for intervention. Harvard Educa-
tional Review, 56, 18-36.
Damico, J.S. (in press). The lack of efficacy in language therapy: A case study. Language, Speech,
and Hearing Services in Schools.
Dewey, J. (1938). Logic: The theory of inquiry. New York: Holt.
Deyhle, D. (1987). Learning failure: Tests as gatekeepers and the culturally different child. In H.E.
Trueba (Ed.) Success or Failure? (pp. 85-108). Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.
Donaldson, M. (1978). Children’s minds. Glascow: Collins.
Dublinske, S. (1985). Action: School services. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 16,
142-143.
Ehren, T.C. (1982). Response to Gillcrist [A Letter to the Editor]. Language, Speech, and Hearing
Services in Schools, 13, 61.
Erickson, F. (1984). School literacy, reasoning, and civility: An anthropologist’s perspective. Re-
view of Educational Research, 54, 525-544.
Fasold, R.W., & Wolfram, W. (1970). Some linguistic features of Negro dialect. In R.W. Fasold
& R.W. Shuy (Eds.), Teaching standard English in the inner city. Washington, DC: Center for
Applied Linguistics.
Fujiki, M., & Brinton, B. (1984). Supplementing language therapy: Working with the classroom
teacher. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 15, 98-109.
Gallagher, T.A., & Prutting, C.A. (Eds.). (1983). Pragmatic assessment and intervention issues in lan-
guage. San Diego, CA: College-Hill Press.
Garnica, O.K. (1981). Social dominance and conversational interaction-The Omega child in the
classroom. In J. Greene & C. Wallat (Eds.), Ethnography and language in educational settings. Nor-
wood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corp.
Greene, J., & Wallat, C. (Eds.). (1981). Ethnography and language in educational settings. Norwood,
NJ: Ablex Publishing Corp.
Hall, G., & Loucks, S. (1978). Teacher concerns as a basis for facilitating and personalizing staff
development. Teachers College Record, 80, 36-53.
Heath, S.B. (1984). Linguistics and education. Annual Review of Anthropology, 13, 251-272.
Hersh, R. (1981). What makes some schools and teachers more effective? Eugene, OR: University of Oregon.
Hubbell, R.D. (1981). Children’s language disorders. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Idol-Maestas, L. (1983). Special educator’s consultation handbook. Rockville, MD: Aspen Systems Cor-
poration.

38
Downloaded from cdq.sagepub.com at GRAND VALLEY STATE UNIV LIB on May 6, 2015
Idol, L., Paolucci-Whitcomb, P., & Nevin, A. (1986). Collaborative consultation. Rockville, MD: Aspen
Publishers.
Idol-Maestas, L., & Ritter, S. (1985). A follow-up study of resource/consulting teachers. Teacher
Education and Special Education, 8, 121-131.
Johnson, D.W. (1981). Reaching out: Interpersonal effectiveness and self-actualization. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (1980). The key to effective inservice: Building teacher-teacher collab-
oration. The Developer. pp. 223-236.
Johnson, D., Johnson, R., & Johnson, F. (1982). Unlocking the potential of group decision-making
through constructive controversy. Journal of Religion and the Applied Behavioral Sciences, 6, 2-6.
Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1980). Improving inservice training: The messages of research. Educa-
tional Leadership, 37, 379-385.
Kahle, L.R., & Berman, J.J. (1979). Attitudes cause behaviors: A cross-lagged panel analysis.
Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 315-321.
Kirchner, D.M., & Skarakis-Doyle, E. (1983). Developmental language disorders: A theoretical
perspective. In T.A. Gallagher & C.A. Prutting (Eds.), Pragmatic assessment and intervention issues
in language. San Diego, CA: College-Hill Press.
Knight, M., Meyers, H., Hasazi, S., Paolucci-Whitcomb, P., & Nevin, A. (1981). A four-year evalu-
ation of consulting teacher services. Behavioral Disorders, 6, 92-100.
Lamberg, W., & McCaleb, J. (1977). Performance by prospective teachers in distinguishing di-
alect features and miscues unrelated to dialect. Journal of Reading, 20, 581-589.
Lanier, J. (1980). Collaboration session. In G. Hall, S. Hard, & G. Brown (Eds.), Exploring man
in teacher education: Questions for future research. Austin, TX: Research and Development Center
for Teacher Education.
Lippitt, G., & Lippitt, R. (1978). The consulting process in action. San Diego, CA: University Associates.
Martin, V.E. (1974). Consulting with teachers. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 5,
176-179.
McKinley, N.L., & Lord-Larson, V. (1985). Neglected language-disordered adolescent: A delivery
model. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 16, 2-15.
Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Mercer, J. (1973). Labelling the mentally retarded. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Miller, T., & Sabatino, D. (1978). An evaluation of the teacher consultant model as an approach
to mainstreaming. Exceptional Children, 45, 86-91.
Moffet, J. (1968). Teaching the universe of discourse. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Montgomery, M.D. (1980). The special educator as consultant: Some strategies. In NJ. Long,
WC. Morse, & R.G. Newman (Eds.), Conflict in the classroom (pp. 177-179). Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Muma, J.R. (1986). Language acquisition. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Nelson, M., & Stevens, K.B. (1981). An accountable consultation model for mainstreaming be-
haviorally disordered children. Behavioral Disorders, 6, 82-91.
Nelson, NW. (1985). Teacher talk and child listening—Fostering a better match. In C.S. Simon
(Ed.), Communication skills and classroom success: Assessment of language-learning disabled students.
(pp. 65-104) San Diego, CA: College-Hill Press.
Norris, J.A. (1985). Communicative reading strategies: Treating language as a communicative
process. Journal of Nebraska Speech-Language-Hearing Association, 23, 4-8.
Norris, J.A. (in press). What phonics has to do with language (and why reading teachers should
care). The Reading Teacher.
Oller, J.W., Jr. (1979). Language tests at school: A pragmatic approach. London: Longman.
Oller, J.W., Jr. (1983). Some working ideas for language teaching. In J.W. Oller, Jr. & P.A. Richard-
Amato (Eds.), Methods that work: A smorgasbord of ideas for language teachers. (pp. 3-20) Rowley,
MA: Newbury House.
Ortiz, A.A., & Yates, J.R. (1983). Incidence of exceptionality among Hispanics: Implications for
manpower planning. NABE Journal, 7, 41-54.
Philips, S. (1983). The invisible culture: Communication in the classroom and on the Warm Springs reservation.
New York: Longman, Inc.

39
Downloaded from cdq.sagepub.com at GRAND VALLEY STATE UNIV LIB on May 6, 2015
Pickering, M. (1981). Consulting with the classroom teacher to promote language acquisition and
usage. Topics in Learning and Learning Disabilities, 2, 59-67.
Pickering, M. (1985). Interpersonal communication constructs and principles: Applications in clinical
work. In C.S. Simon (Ed.), Communication skills and classroom success: Therapy methodologies for
language-learning disabled students. (pp. 95-110). San Diego, CA: College-Hill Press.
Ripich, D.N., & Spinelli, F.M. (1985). School discourse problems. San Diego, CA: College-Hill Press.
Sharon, S. (1980). Cooperative learning in small groups: Recent methods and effects on achieve-
ment, attitudes, and ethnic relations. Review of Educational Research, 50, 241-271.
Simon, C.S. (Ed.). (1985a). Communication skills and classroom success: Assessment of language-learning
disabled students. San Diego, CA: College-Hill Press.
Simon, C.S. (Ed.). (1985b). Communication skills and classroom success: Therapy methodologies for language-
learning disabled students. San Diego, CA: College-Hill Press.
Slavin, R. (1980). Review of cooperative learning research. Review of Educational Research, 50, 315-342.
Smith, F. (1983). Essays into literacy. Exeter, NH: Heinemann Educational Books, Inc.
Smitherman, G. (1981). "What go round come round": King in perspective. Harvard Educational
Review, 51, 40-56.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wells, G. (1982). Language, learning and education. Bristol: Centre for the Study of Language and
Communication, University of Bristol.
Williams, F., Hewett, N., Hopper, R., Miller, L.M., Naremore, R.C., & Whitehead, J.L. (1976).
Explorations of the linguistic attitudes of teachers. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

40

Downloaded from cdq.sagepub.com at GRAND VALLEY STATE UNIV LIB on May 6, 2015