Facilitating Effective Communication in School Based Meetings Perspectives From School Psychologists 1st Edition Jason R. Parkin

Facilitating Effective Communication in
School Based Meetings Perspectives

from School Psychologists 1st Edition
Jason R. Parkin
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmeta.com/product/facilitating-effective-communication-in-school-based-
meetings-perspectives-from-school-psychologists-1st-edition-jason-r-parkin/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
Theory and Cases in School Based Consultation A

Resource for School Psychologists School Counselors
Special Educators and Other Mental Health Professionals
2nd Edition Laura M. Crothers
https://ebookmeta.com/product/theory-and-cases-in-school-based-
consultation-a-resource-for-school-psychologists-school-
counselors-special-educators-and-other-mental-health-
professionals-2nd-edition-laura-m-crothers/
Facilitating Evidence Based Data Driven School

Counseling A Manual for Practice 1st Edition Brett
Zyromski
https://ebookmeta.com/product/facilitating-evidence-based-data-
driven-school-counseling-a-manual-for-practice-1st-edition-brett-
zyromski/
Behavior Analysis for School Psychologists 1st Edition

Michael I. Axelrod
https://ebookmeta.com/product/behavior-analysis-for-school-
psychologists-1st-edition-michael-i-axelrod/
School Psychologists as Advocates for Social Justice

Kathleen Ness
https://ebookmeta.com/product/school-psychologists-as-advocates-
for-social-justice-kathleen-ness/
Ecobehavioral Consultation in Schools Theory and
Practice for School Psychologists Special Educators and
School Counselors 1st Edition Steven W. Lee
https://ebookmeta.com/product/ecobehavioral-consultation-in-
schools-theory-and-practice-for-school-psychologists-special-
educators-and-school-counselors-1st-edition-steven-w-lee/
Preventing the School-to-Prison Pipeline: A Public

Health Approach for School Psychologists, Counselors,
and Social Workers 1st Edition Charles Bartholomew
https://ebookmeta.com/product/preventing-the-school-to-prison-
pipeline-a-public-health-approach-for-school-psychologists-
counselors-and-social-workers-1st-edition-charles-bartholomew/
Child Neuropsychology in Practice Perspectives from

Educational Psychologists 1st Edition Emilia Misheva
https://ebookmeta.com/product/child-neuropsychology-in-practice-
perspectives-from-educational-psychologists-1st-edition-emilia-
misheva/
School Based Family Counseling for Crisis and Disaster

Global Perspectives 1st Edition Brian A Gerrard
https://ebookmeta.com/product/school-based-family-counseling-for-
crisis-and-disaster-global-perspectives-1st-edition-brian-a-
gerrard/
Leadership for Deeper Learning Facilitating School

Innovation and Transformation 1st Edition Jayson W.
Richardson
https://ebookmeta.com/product/leadership-for-deeper-learning-
facilitating-school-innovation-and-transformation-1st-edition-
jayson-w-richardson/
Facilitating Effective
Communication in
School-Based Meetings
This book offers guidance for school-based professionals participating in

the special education process. It provides a foundation for effective oral
communication and meeting facilitation in team meetings while highlighting
methods to enhance collaboration between educators and families.
School psychologists across the United States share how they structure
meetings, provide examples for how to communicate educational and
psychological concepts, and describe personas they present to support the
meeting process. Chapters present a sequential facilitation process for
school psychologist-led meetings and apply that process to problem-solving,
suspicion of disability, eligibility/feedback, IEP, and manifestation deter-
mination meetings. Within each chapter, featured practitioners describe
ways to address common challenges that arise.
Aimed at graduate students and professionals, this text is a unique,
example-based resource to enhance readers’ ability to facilitate and
participate in the special education process.
Jason R. Parkin, PhD, NCSP, is an assistant professor in the school

psychology program at Seattle University. His professional interests in-
clude psychoeducational assessment and family/school partnerships.
Ashli D. Tyre, EdD, NCSP, is a professor and program director for the
school psychology program at Seattle University. Her research in-
vestigates perspectives of students, school staff, and families in educa-
tional change.
“Home-school meetings are a fragile interface between families and
educators that require technical and clinical skill of school psycholo-
gists. Parkin and Tyre have managed to comprehensively capture the
intricacies of home-school meetings and substantiate these intricacies
with testimonials from practitioners and trainers throughout the United
States. The text is a ‘must read’ for early career school psychologists
and educators wishing to better hone their family-school collaboration
skills.”
—Francis J. DeMatteo, EdD, NCSP, associate professor and director,
School Psychology Program, Humboldt State University;
author of Delivering Psycho-educational Evaluation Results to Parents:
A Practitioner’s Model
“Finally a resource on leading school-based teams, Facilitating Effective

Communication in School-based Meetings: Perspectives from School
Psychologists, fills the void in the school psychology literature in this
critical area! Teams are frequently used in schools, but little formal
training actually occurs, leaving school psychologists to learn on the fly.
Especially noteworthy is its practicality because the author’s painstak-
ingly collected the art and wisdom of leading school teams by veteran
practitioners. The book is thorough, clear and methodical in its
approach, and fun to read. I will be using it in my program across a
variety of courses.”
—Sam Song, PhD, president, Division 16, APA; program coordinator,
UNLV School Psychology programs; co-editor of Social Justice and
School Psychology; author of School Psychology in a Global Society
“What a gift to the field of school psychology! Unpacking the

dynamics of school meetings is so needed and rarely taught in such
a practical way. New and seasoned school psychologists will learn so
much from this book!”
—Rebecca Branstetter, PhD, founder of The Thriving School
Psychologist Collective
Facilitating Effective
Communication in
School-Based Meetings
Perspectives from School
Psychologists
Jason R. Parkin and Ashli D. Tyre

First published 2022
by Routledge
605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158
and by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa
business
© 2022 Taylor & Francis
The right of Jason R. Parkin and Ashli D. Tyre to be identified
as authors of this work has been asserted by them in accordance
with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents
Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or
reproduced or utilized in any form or by any electronic,
mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented,
including photocopying and recording, or in any information
storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the
publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks
or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and
explanation without intent to infringe.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Parkin, Jason R., author. | Tyre, Ashli D., author.
Title: Facilitating effective communication in school-based
meetings : perspectives from school psychologists / Jason R. Parkin
and Ashli D. Tyre.
Description: New York, NY: Routledge, 2022. | Includes
bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2021007150 (print) | LCCN 2021007151 (ebook)
| ISBN 9780367427030 (hardback) | ISBN 9780367427023
(paperback) | ISBN 9780367854522 (ebook)
Subjects: LCSH: School psychologists--Professional relationships. |
Meetings--Planning. | Communication in education. | Special
education--Parent participation. | Parent-teacher conferences.
Classification: LCC LB3013.6 .P37 2022 (print) | LCC LB3013.6
(ebook) | DDC 371.7/13--dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021007150
LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021007151
ISBN: 978-0-367-42703-0 (hbk)

ISBN: 978-0-367-42702-3 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-0-367-85452-2 (ebk)
DOI: 10.4324/9780367854522
Typeset in Times New Roman

by MPS Limited, Dehradun
Jason wishes to thank his wife and children, Sharon, Cora, and
Jillian; his parents, Richard and Katherine; and his brother and
sister, Erik and Kristen. All example names in this text are
probably just coincidences…
Contents
List of Figures and Boxes xv

Acknowledgments xvi
1 An Introduction to Oral Communication and Meeting

Facilitation 1
Why a Book on Oral Communication, and Why
Meetings? 1
Meeting Facilitation and Oral Communication: Two Skill
Sets That Complement Each Other 2
What Creates an Effective Meeting? 3
A General Overview of This Book 7
Summary 9
References 9
2 Foundations of Effective Communication 11

Consider the Context of Communication 12
Foundations of Communication: Credibility, Clarity,
and Care 13
Communication Requires Credibility 14
Communication and Emotions 14
Communication Should Appear Reasonable 15
Interactions Between Vertices in the Context of
Communication 16
Worldview, Beliefs and Values 16
Persona and Stance 19
Oral Communication and Collaboration 20
Collaboration Requires Active Listening 22
Disentangling Facts, Inferences, and Attributions 24
Collaborative Discussion 26
viii Contents
Putting It All Together: The Context of Communication
and Collaborative Discussion 29
Summary 30
References 31
3 Meeting the Objectives of the Context of Communication 33

Establishing Trust and Credibility 34
Considering Our Persona 37
We Are All Doing Our Best 39
We Are a Team, We Work Together 41
Professional Confidence and Security 44
Considering Our Stance 45
Topics are Unintimidating, a Normal Part of
Education 45
We Are Here to Solve Problems 46
The And Stance In Action 47
Discuss Strengths and Supports 48
Understanding Meeting Participants’ Beliefs and Values 49
Beliefs and Values Are Influenced by Culture 51
Beliefs and Values Are Influenced by Our Ability to
Engage with Society 53
Implicit Assumptions of Special Education and
Disability 56
Acquiring an Idiographic Understanding of
Participants’ Worldview 57
Fostering Collaboration 58
Summary 59
References 60
4 Foundations of Meeting Facilitation 62

Group Dynamics and the Multidisciplinary Team 63
Group Development 64
Group Leadership Functions 65
An Overview of the Meeting Process 67
The Planning Phase 68
The Warm-Up Phase 71
Introductions 72
Meeting Purpose 72
Group Norms 73
Roles 75
The Action Phase 76
Contents ix
Active Listening in a Group 77
The Closure Phase 78
Post-Meeting 80
Summary 80
References 81
5 Planning and Facilitating Problem-Solving Meetings 82

A Meeting Called by Many Names 82
What Do We Mean by Problem-Solving? 83
Multi-Tiered Systems of Support 83
The Continuous Problem-Solving Model 84
Problem Identification 85
Problem Analysis 85
Intervention 86
Progress Monitoring and Evaluation 86
Oral Communication in Problem-Solving Meetings 86
The Role of the School Psychologist in
Problem-Solving 88
Getting to the Table: Advocating for Your Role in
Problem-Solving Meetings 89
Planning 90
Team Composition 91
Team Member Roles 92
Team Development 93
Frequency and Duration of Meetings 94
Agendas 95
Introductions and Review of Roles 97
Purpose and Meeting Goals 98
Norms 99
The Action Phase 100
Individual Student Problem-Solving 106
Validating Teacher Concerns for a Student 106
Prioritizing When There Are Multiple Concerns 106
The Elephant in the Room – Suspicion of
Disability 106
A Tendency to Focus on Unalterable Factors 107
When a Problem for a Student is a Problem for
the Whole Class 108
I Tried That, It Didn’t Work – Wash, Rinse,
Repeat 109
x Contents
Managing Expectations for Behavior Change 111
Poor Instructional Match 111
Poor Implementation of Interventions 112
Systemic Problem Solving 112
Relationships With Administrators 113
Systems Change Fatigue 113
Keeping the Focus on Tier One 113
Getting Past Defensiveness 114
Focus on Alterable Factors 115
Post Meeting 117
Summary 117
References 118
6 Planning and Facilitating Suspicion of Disability Meetings 119

Planning 120
Determine the Source of Referral 120
Conduct an Initial Records Review 121
Begin Formulating Specific Evaluation Questions 123
Construct an Agenda 124
Introductions 126
Purpose 127
Norms 129
Roles 130
Starting at the Beginning 133
Dealing With Team Member Negativity 133
Recognizing Group Members’ Student Support
Efforts 135
Skepticism at the Possibility of a Disabling
Condition 136
Reviewing the Purpose of Special Education 138
Discussing Variables Within the Home and Family
Context 139
Addressing Pre-Conceived Notions About Special
Education 140
Explaining the Difference between IDEA and the
DSM-5 140
Contents xi
When a Student Has a Diagnosis, but There Is No Need
for Special Education 141
When Group Members Do Not Agree On Typical
Developmental Expectations 142
A Tension Between Continued Intervention and
Evaluation 143
When Families Prefer a Private Evaluation 144
Ensuring Strong Referral Questions 145
Bringing Up Emotional Concerns 146
Group Members Dictating Aspects of the
Evaluation 147
Ensuring Informed Consent and Clarifying Procedural
Safeguards 147
Setting Appropriate Expectations for Next Steps within
the Group 149
Post-Meeting 150
Summary 150
References 151
7 Planning and Facilitating Eligibility/Feedback Meetings 152

Can a Feedback Meeting be Collaborative? 154
Planning 156
Proofread Materials 157
Constructing an Agenda 157
Introductions 159
Purpose 160
Reading Your Evaluation Report 160
Knowing What the Team Needs From You 161
Feedback Should Be Unique 163
Getting Everyone Involved 164
Building Empathy and Compassion in Group
Members 165
Describing a Developmental Delay Eligibility 166
Describing a Specific Learning Disability
Eligibility 167
Describing an Autism Eligibility 168
Describing an Intellectual Disability Eligibility 170
xii Contents
Describing an Emotional Disturbance or Emotional-
Behavioral Disability Eligibility 171
Differentiating between OHI and ED 172
When a Participant Objects to Labels 173
When There Is No Qualification 174
When a Student No Longer Requires Specially
Designed Instruction 175
Embracing Diagnostic Uncertainty 175
The Usefulness of an Accurate Label 176
When Multiple Eligibility Categories Could Apply 176
Discussing Feedback with Students 177
When Group Members are Surprised by a Test
Result 177
During Emotional Feedback 178
Addressing the New Normal 180
When Group Members Struggle to Accept an Average
Score 181
Using Visuals 181
When Parent and Teacher Information are
Discrepant 182
Differentiating between Accommodations and Specially
Designed Instruction 182
Differentiating between IEPs and 504 Plans 183
Explaining Specially Designed Instruction 183
Responding to “Does He Need to Go to a Special
Class?” 184
When Team Members Make Armchair Diagnoses 185
Requiring Precision with Interpreters 186
Making Referrals for Private Providers 187
On the Question of Medication 187
Post-Meeting 190
Summary 190
References 191
8 Planning and Facilitating Individual Education Plan

Meetings 193
Principled Negotiation 195
Principled Negotiation and Collaborative Discussion 197
Planning 198
Contents xiii
Introductions 201
Purpose and Norms 201
Avoiding the Parent Section and the School
Section 201
The School Psychologists’ Role in an IEP Meeting 201
Know the Role of the District Representative 202
Keep the Meeting Length Manageable 203
Programming Should Reflect the Needs Identified in the
Evaluation 203
Remember That Not All Group Members are in IEP
Meetings Every Day 204
Things to Never Say 204
Don’t Put Families on the Spot 205
Describing the Importance of Fluency Goals 205
Challenges Establishing Goals 206
School-Based versus Community-Based
Counseling 207
Discussing Least Restrictive Environment 207
Navigating Discussions about Placement 208
Removing an IEP 209
Explaining Related Service Providers or Psychological
Services 210
Transition Planning 210
Sometimes the Meeting Needs to Stop 211
Post-Meeting 212
Summary 212
References 212
9 Planning and Facilitating Manifestation Determination

Meetings 214
Fostering Collaboration in a Manifestation Determination
Meeting 215
Planning 217
Establish an Understanding with Administrators Early
in the School Year 218
Coordinating with Parents 218
xiv Contents
Records Review 219
Introductions 222
Purpose and Norms 223
When Parents are Upset about Discipline 225
When Parents Feel Shame 226
Describing Characteristics of the Student’s
Disability 226
Be Ready for New Information 227
When Administration Wants to Maintain a
Disciplinary Action 227
When Family Members Maintain the Presence of a
Manifestation 228
When Group Members Won’t Offer an Opinion 229
Direct and Substantial 230
Impulsivity 231
On the Topic of Drugs and Alcohol 232
Failure to Implement the IEP 233
When the Team Wants to Vote 233
Post-Meeting 235
Summary 236
References 236
Index 238
List of Figures and Boxes
Figures
1.1 Relationship Between Oral Communication and
Meeting Facilitation 4
1.2 Meeting Progression 8
2.1 The Context of Communication 13
2.2 Collaborative Discussion 27
3.1 Features of Meeting Persona and Stance 38
4.1 Task Group Meeting Process 68
4.2 Sequence of Agenda Construction 69
5.1 Team-based collaboration is central to each phase of the
continuous problem solving model 84
5.2 In multi-tiered systems of support, problem-solving
teams collaborate to ensure that all students receive
supports
based on their level of need 85
6.1 Records Review Process 122
7.1 Collaborative Discussion of Eligibility Criteria 155
8.1 Positions and Interests in Principled Negotiation 196
Boxes
5.1 Example Problem-Solving Meeting Agenda 96
6.1 Example Suspicion of Disability Meeting Agenda 125
7.1 Example Eligibility/Feedback Meeting Agenda 158
8.1 Example IEP Meeting Agenda 199
9.1 Example Manifestation Determination Agenda 221
Acknowledgments
Thanks to the following individuals, whose wisdom is contained in the pages

of this book.
Aaron J. Fischer, PhD, BCBA-D, Dee Endowed Professor of School
Psychology, Adjunct Assistant Professor of Child Psychiatry, University
of Utah
Aaron Willis, NCSP, School Psychologist, Oregon
Abby Royston, Ph.D., NCSP, School and Clinical Psychologist,
Hawaiʻi
Alexandra Annen, Ed.S., School Psychologist, Illinois
Alexandra Franks-Thomas, Ed.S., NCSP, School Psychologist, State
of Washington
Allison Grant, Ed.S., NCSP, School Psychologist, State of Washington
Amanda Crawford, Ed.S., NCSP, School Psychologist, State of
Washington
Amber Del Gaiso, Ed.S, NCSP, School Psychologist, Measurement &
Assessment Coach, Missouri
Andrea Hoffelt, Ed.S., School Psychologist, Oregon
Andrew Selders, Ed.S., School Psychologist, Missouri
Ann M. Branscum, Postdoctoral Psychology Fellow, New Mexico
Ashley Burchett, M.Ed., Ed.S., NCSP, School Psychologist, State of
Washington
Ashley Camera, NCSP, LPC, School Psychologist, Connecticut
Beth Hardcastle, MA, M.Ed., Former School Psychologist, Florida
Brendon Ross, Ed.S., NCSP, School Psychologist, Nevada
Brett Andersen, Psy.D., SSP, ABSNP, NCSP, Licensed Psychologist,
School Psychologist, Arizona
Carina R. Turner, Ed.S., School Psychologist, Ohio
Cat Raulerson, Ed.S., NCSP, School Psychologist with State PBIS
Project, Florida
Charles Barrett, Ph.D., NCSP, Lead School Psychologist, Virginia
Christie Crouch, Ph.D., School Psychologist, Iowa
Daniel Hof, Ed.D., NCSP, School Psychologist, Wyoming
Acknowledgments xvii
Diane Barrett, Ph.D., NCSP, Licensed Psychologist, Pennsylvania
Duane Franks, M.S., NCSP, School Psychologist, State of Washington
Gina Coffee, Ph.D., NCSP, School Psychologist, Colorado
Holly Hoke, Ed.S., NCSP, School Psychologist, Hawaiʻi
Isaac Tarbell, NCSP, Supervisor of Psychological Services, School
Psychologist, Pennsylvania
Jenne Simental, Ph.D., Licensed Psychologist, Licensed Specialist in
School Psychology, Texas
Jessica Atkins, M.S., LSSP, Licensed Specialist in School Psychology,
Texas
Jill Davidson, Ph.D., NCSP, School Psychologist, State of Washington
Jonas Taub, School Psychologist, Retired, New Hampshire
Jules Nolan, Psy.D., LP, NCSP, School Psychologist, Minnesota
Justin H. Dove, Ed.S., NCSP, School Psychologist, California
Justin P. Allen, Ph.D., LP, NCSP, School Psychologist, Sam Houston
University, Texas
Kathryn M. Powell, Ph.D., School Psychologist, Georgia
Katie Shelton, Ed.S., NCSP, School Psychologist, Delaware
Kyle Hesser, Ed.S., School Psychologist, Nebraska
Linda Pedersen, Ph.D., LSSP, Licensed Psychologist, Licensed
Specialist in School Psychology, Texas
Lindsay Amen, SSP, School Psychologist, Missouri
Lisa L. Persinger, Ph.D., NCSP, School Psychologist, School
Psychology Faculty, Arizona
Liz Angoff, Ph.D., Licensed Educational Psychologist, California
Lynae Maciel, Ed.S., NCSP, Bilingual School Psychologist, Illinois
Margaret Hogan, Ed.S., NCSP, School Psychologist, Minnesota
MaryAnn Green, Ed.S., Coordinator of Psychological Services, School
Psychologist, Georgia
Melissa Reid, Ph.D., Licensed Psychologist, Licensed Specialist in
School Psychology, Texas
Milaney Leverson, Ed.S, NCSP, School Psychologist, Wisconsin
Mondie Childress, M.S., Licensed Specialist in School Psychology,
Texas
Natalie A. Strand, Ed.S., LSSP, NCSP, Licensed Specialist in School
Psychology, Texas
Nathaniel Jones, Ph.D., NCSP, School Psychologist, New Hampshire
Peter McDougal, Ed.S., School Psychologist, Georgia
Peter T. Whelley, MS, NCSP, School Psychologist, New Hampshire
Ryan McGill, Ph.D., NCSP, BCBA-D, Associate Professor of School
Psychology, William & Mary, Virginia
Sally Whitelock, MA, School Psychologist, Elementary School
Principal, Colorado
Samantha Hoggatt, Ed.S., NCSP, School Psychologist, Idaho
xviii Acknowledgments
Scott Crooks, SSP, NCSP, School Psychologist, Measurement &
Assessment Coach, Missouri
Sean McGlaughlin, Ph.D., NCSP, School Psychologist, Arizona
Shawna Rader Kelly, Ed.S., NCSP, School Psychologist, Montana
Sherri Bentley, M.S., School Psychologist, State of Washington
Shilah Lyman, M.S., Licensed Specialist in School Psychology, Texas
Tamara Waters-Wheeler, Ed.S., NCSP, School Psychologist, North
Dakota
Todd Robinson, Ph.D., NCSP, School Psychologist, Maryland
Thanks to Meghan McNeil, who created the figures for this text. Your
patience was limitless!
Thanks to our beta readers, Tracy Mejia and Sarah Thramer, graduate
students at Seattle University. You provided incredible insights!
1 An Introduction to Oral
Communication and Meeting
Facilitation
Why a Book on Oral Communication, and Why Meetings?

We realize that school psychologists do not need an introduction to
meetings. In our field, meetings are not occasional job requirements.
For most of us they occur daily, a major part of indirect, consultative
service delivery. In meetings, families and educators coordinate sup
ports for students’ education and make decisions within the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA; also called the Individuals with
Disabilities Improvement Act [IDEIA]). Ideally, the special education
process, and the meetings within it, represent collaborative interactions
among families and educators (Martin, 2005; Mueller & Carranza,
2011). Family participation reflects a major aspect of special education,
and IDEA stresses that families should meaningfully engage in the
process (Katsiyannis et al., 2001). Procedural safeguards and due pro
cess mechanisms highlight family rights. Frequently, meetings in special
education meet and exceed the collaborative aspirations of the law. But
most all school psychologists know that just as frequently they do not
(Reiman et al., 2010).
“Almost 30 years of research and experience has demonstrated that

the education of children with disabilities can be made more
effective by … strengthening the role and responsibility of parents
and ensuring that families of such children have meaningful
opportunities to participate in the education of their children at
school and at home.” (IDEA 20 U.S.C. § 1400(5)(B))
We set out to write a book about the meetings school psychologists

engage in for a few key reasons. First, meetings represent a major
professional work setting for school psychologists, and furthermore, a
unique work setting. We find them unique because of their multi
disciplinary nature. In the spirit of IDEA, decisions do not come from
DOI: 10.4324/9780367854522-1
2 Introduction
any one individual. Instead, decisions coalesce from discussions within
a team of parents and educators. Frequently, the school psychologist
has the most comprehensive understanding of the special education
process within the team. As a result, school psychologists often lead or
facilitate the meeting process. Second, we know school psychologists
have accumulated a significant amount of craft knowledge, or a
“wisdom of practice” (Leinhardt, 1990) related to the process of
meeting facilitation. That knowledge deserves to be collected and
shared, our major goal with this project. Other allied branches of
professional psychology have demonstrated the value of practitioners’
wisdom (Postal & Armstrong, 2013). School psychologists share
meeting facilitation as a professional art. We hope this text reflects that
craft well and gives all readers exciting things to consider in their daily
practice. Our conversations with school psychologists certainly did
that for us.
Meeting Facilitation and Oral Communication: Two Skill

Sets That Complement Each Other
In our experience, school psychologists receive significant, formal
training during graduate school in skills that might relate to their per
formance in meetings, but not in meeting facilitation directly. On one
hand, that seems appropriate. Meeting facilitation requires significant
background knowledge in education, mental health, and child devel
opment, to name just a few areas. Facilitation might represent more of a
higher-order skill that requires fluency in those other areas of profes
sional practice. Moreover, facilitation of a meeting reflects only a small
fraction of our professional role. For instance, in the psychoeducational
evaluation process, we might spend 10 hours administering various
tests, interviewing students and stakeholders, and conducting observa
tions, another ten hours scoring and interpreting results, and synthe
sizing our data into a comprehensive report, and then 60 to 90 minutes
facilitating a meeting with the student’s parents, teachers, and other
group members. On the other hand, that small fraction of time, less than
10 percent of the time devoted to the whole process, will have a dis
proportionate impact on the effectiveness of that information. A prac
titioner could write the most elegant, comprehensive report, but in the
feedback meeting, if they do not appear credible, if other group mem
bers do not feel engaged in discussion, and if ultimately the group does
not generate a consensus understanding of that information when
making decisions, the report’s impact will be diminished. Alternatively,
if group members feel allied with the school psychologist and a part of a
cohesive group, if they not only participate in the discussion, but feel
valued for their contributions toward the meeting purpose, the utility of
that information may be amplified.
Introduction 3
While many school psychologists invest significant time into their re
ports, writing skills may not transfer directly to oral communication.
There is a lot of similarity between the two modes, of course, but there are
fundamental differences that make oral communication distinct. Both
skill sets are interpersonal. When we speak and when we write, we con
sider our audience and the purpose of our communication. We use un
derstandable language and make sound arguments. In contrast, writing is
usually more formal and static than oral communication. Writers do not
receive instant feedback from their audience, and there are no nonverbal
communication channels that must be interpreted alongside written lan
guage. In a meeting, group members ask questions, provide feedback, and
make their own interpretation of data. When facilitating a meeting,
practitioners must manage these various interpersonal dynamics. The
mindset and worldview of our audience influences the way we draft our
reports, but the meeting facilitation process magnifies that influence
because we communicate orally.
When meeting participants feel allied with the school psychologist

and valued for their unique perspective, it can amplify the utility of
report data.
As illustrated in Figure 1.1, meeting facilitation and oral commu

nication reflect complementary skill sets. In our view, they inform each
other, and share common goals. We use meeting facilitation skills to
ensure a fluent group process. For a meeting to be effective, all members
should understand its purpose and share in its goals. That clarity allows
participants to determine how they might meaningfully contribute to the
meeting’s outcomes. We use oral communication skills to ensure that
everyone collectively understands the information each participant
brings to the group, strengthen arguments, and highlight shared values
and identity within the meeting. This requires us to understand the
worldview, beliefs, and values of meeting participants. When group
members identify with each other, share a common purpose, and feel
valued for their contributions, collective outcomes of effective oral
communication and meeting facilitation, it can lead to a cohesive group
and strong, consensus-driven decisions.
What Creates an Effective Meeting?

We learned a great deal by speaking with school psychologists from across
the United States and inquiring about their practice experiences. We had
two general goals when constructing a sample of school psychologists
4 Introduction
Figure 1.1 Relationship Between Oral Communication and Meeting Facilitation.
with whom to speak. First, we aspired to capture examples of practical

knowledge or wisdom school psychologists have learned about the meeting
process and place those experiences within a context of general principles
behind oral communication and meeting facilitation. Thus, we wanted to
speak with relatively seasoned school psychologists known for strong in
terpersonal and facilitation skills. A few individuals in our sample are no
longer school-based professionals. They may work as trainers or in private
practice, but they previously engaged in school-based work, or currently
work alongside schools. Second, because the job role varies from state to
state, we strived to collect a geographically diverse group of participants.
We began with individuals from our own training whom we admired for
their meeting performance. We also asked colleagues and state association
leaders for recommendations. After completing an interview, we invited
participants to recommend their own colleagues, especially out-of-state
colleagues, who they too admired for their facilitation performance. In this
way our sample snowballed into what we present here.
Readers may not agree with all the examples practitioners provided
to us. Laws, job roles, and practice expectations vary from district
to district and state to state.
Introduction 5
We queried practitioners’ experiences in two general ways. First, we
asked for examples of strong communication and facilitation practices
across multiple meeting types. We requested our interviewees to provide
these details to us as if we were a fly on the wall during a meeting. What
would we see them do or hear them say that might exemplify the concept
or practice they describe? These examples may include a way of de
scribing a concept, a practice that increases group participation, or even
an attitude or perspective that practitioners find useful to support their
performance directing the meeting process. Second, we asked them to
provide us with common challenges that arise in various meetings, based
on their experience, and to describe how they might address those chal
lenges, or to share what they learned from them. We should point out
that the practitioners we spoke with may not agree with everything we
write in this text or with the perspectives of other contributors. Their
voices are theirs, and ours is ours. There are also differences in state laws
and school district practices that affect school psychologists’ daily prac
tice. Of course, it should go without saying, this book is not intended to
provide legal advice or guidance.
As we listened to examples of meeting practices, several “big” questions
emerged for us. Firstly, we wondered, what constitutes an effective
meeting, is there a link or theme connecting all these practices we are
hearing about? Returning to our “fly-on-the-wall” visual, watching a
meeting in progress, how would we know if participants were accom
plishing the meeting’s purpose? The easy answer probably involves ob
servations of group collaboration and consensus. After all, collaboration
reflects a major aspiration of IDEA (Welch, 1998). We bet that most all
educators think they collaborate well with families (we certainly think we
do!), but if that is true, it leads us to our second question: why might so
many families feel the opposite? Research literature on parent satisfaction
in IEP meetings consistently reveals challenges with the special education
process (Mueller & Vick, 2017). While many families express satisfaction
with meetings (Fish, 2008), the sad reality may be that many others do
not feel included in the process to the degree that we think we include
them (Engle, 1993; Phillips, 2008). That discrepancy also occurs with
other educators; teachers likewise can feel ignored or devalued in meet
ings (Slonski-Fowler & Truscott, 2004).
IDEA stresses the importance of parent participation, though many

families may feel uninvolved.
While we maintain that collaboration between educators and families

remains the aspiration of IDEA, we should acknowledge what many
6 Introduction
readers may be wondering: is true family-school collaboration possible in
meetings? Engle (1993) describes a paradox within the special education
process. IDEA highlights the necessity of parent participation, and yet
many parents find the meetings intimidating to a degree that inhibits their
participation (Dematteo, 2021). This paradox appears to arise from at
tempts to shoehorn collaborative aspirations into a medical model of
educational service delivery (Gutkin, 2012). While the process views all
meeting participants to be on equal footing, participants remain unequal
in terms of expert knowledge and decision-making authority.
Collaboration may be impaired by imbalances in specialized

knowledge and decision-making authority.
Perhaps the term collaboration may not seem entirely applicable and a
quixotic goal. “Collaboration” implies a consistent, mutual partnership
across decision-making. We think of collaboration as a process in which
two (or more) individuals create an outcome or arrive at a decision that
none of them would have arrived at independently (Ferguson et al.,
2002). Returning to a medical model, when we go to a physician and
describe our symptoms, we probably do not “collaborate” with them on
the diagnosis. There is a knowledge imbalance between the physician and
us that limits our role in the diagnostic process. Yet collaboration did
occur in the evaluation process. We collaborated with the physician in a
delineation and description of the symptoms, the “input” of the diag
nostic process. That part of the process could not occur without us.
However, we did not have any direct influence on the output of the di
agnosis. Their decision resulted from a process of generating and evalu
ating hypotheses through tests and clarifying questions. Our influence
came indirectly, through our description of symptoms.
When collaboration within a specific aspect of a meeting is

necessarily limited, it becomes particularly important to highlight
collaboration in other areas of the meeting.
We think there is a lesson here. As a patient, we indeed affected the

meeting with the physician above, although the outcome of the meeting,
the diagnosis, was probably not a true collaboration. As the patient, we
see our contribution in the broader discussion, the input in for the di
agnosis. When facilitating meetings, it may be necessary to help group
members understand their impact on the meeting process. And that goes
Introduction 7
double for meetings in which the final decision cannot be reached via
collaboration or consensus. Doing so requires us to think beyond the
final outcomes of meetings and to be very conscientious of the process
within meetings. When a participant does not agree with the ultimate
outcome, it may be important to highlight the importance of their
participation, because of their disagreement.
A General Overview of This Book

We approached this project by considering what communication and fa
cilitation practices might enhance collaboration in meetings. In Chapter 2,
we provide a foundational discussion about effective communication.
Communication always occurs within a context, one outlined since ancient
times and in the fields of rhetoric and communication. Chapter 2 reviews
collaborative practices in communication, highlights barriers to colla
boration, and describes how school psychologists might facilitate discus
sion. It ends by underscoring objectives we might strive to accomplish
during communication in meetings. In Chapter 3, practitioners describe
their methods for accomplishing those objectives and their considerations
when approaching the facilitation process. We found their lessons
insightful. We are excited to share them with the readership.
As highlighted in Figure 1.1, collaboration is equally supported by
meeting facilitation practices, the topic of discussion in Chapter 4. We
provide an expanded task group model to delineate stages of facilitation
(Hulse-Killacky et al., 2001). Group facilitation involves supporting the
group’s content objectives while simultaneously ensuring members un
derstand the meeting purpose, participate in a meaningful way, and feel
valued for their contribution. In Chapter 4, we highlight specific process-
oriented objectives that support fluent meetings.
Chapter 5 begins our discussion of planning and facilitation within the
various meetings that comprise school psychologists’ daily work. We
highlight challenges and roadblocks practitioners suggest are common
within them, based on the stages described in Chapter 4. Though we
discuss these meetings separately and sequentially, we realize meetings are
not discrete entities. They build upon each other. For instance, experience
in an eligibility/feedback meeting will affect the process of a subsequent
IEP meeting. We see this as an advantage for collaboration. Just as in our
physician example above, where perhaps there was not true collaboration
in one aspect (diagnostic outcome), when we broadened the process into a
discussion of symptoms, our influence became more apparent. If one
aspect of a meeting feels less collaborative, we can highlight how colla
boration within other parts of the process built to the current decision.
Thus, it is important to be aware how both the content and process of
one meeting informs others, as illustrated in Figure 1.2. Teachers and
parents may feel more a part of decision-making in an eligibility when they
8 Introduction
Figure 1.2 Meeting Progression.
hear how the evaluation process addressed their specific concerns, de
scribed during the previous meeting where the team suspected a disability.
Parents and educators alike feel more involved and satisfied in meetings
when their contributions are acknowledged (Esquivel et al., 2008).
In Chapter 5, we review the problem-solving process. Problem-solving
represents a foundational competency in school psychology. We ac
knowledge that this is a general education function, but it informs the
decisions we make regarding the appropriateness of special education. In
Chapter 6, we describe meetings where the group must determine suspicion
of a disabling condition, and the appropriateness of psychoeducational
evaluation. We explain a process for record reviews that may help novice
school psychologists with case conceptualization. We also highlight colla
borative ways to begin the evaluation process in this meeting. In Chapter 7,
we turn our focus to eligibility/feedback meetings. We wonder if many
school psychologists find this meeting challenging to think about in a
collaborative way. We think it can be done, particularly by setting the
groundwork in the previous meeting. In Chapter 8, we discuss IEP meet
ings. School psychologists’ roles in this meeting vary dramatically. Many
of our interviewees described minimal involvement (so many school psy
chologists are so overwhelmed by evaluation responsibilities), while others
Introduction 9
provided direct and related services through the IEP. In this chapter, we
provide an overview of principled negotiation (Fisher et al., 2011), a col
laboration method based on the values and interests of stakeholders, not
their concrete positions. In Chapter 9, we end the text by discussing
manifestation determinations. As with IEP meetings, we learned that
school psychologists’ roles vary dramatically in these meetings. Many of
our interviewees reported no real involvement, while for others, these
meetings represented a major portion of their job role.
Summary
We began our discussion of oral communication and meeting facilitation
by describing them as complementary skill sets with similar goals.
Together, they support meeting participants’ understanding of a meeting’s
purpose and adoption of meaningful roles within the group. Both skills
bolster IDEA’s spirit of collaboration between educators and families.
Collaboration is often a challenging prospect in meetings, as imbalances in
specialized knowledge and decision-making power may make team mem
bers feel marginalized or undervalued. However, in parts of the meeting
where collaboration appears more challenging, conscientious facilitators
support participants’ feelings of inclusion by promoting their contributions
and highlighting their influence. Practitioners from around the country
provided us with many important lessons in the implementation of these
skills. We hope readers find them as valuable as we do.
We would like to close this introductory chapter with perhaps the most
universal meeting facilitation lesson all school psychologists learn: some
times we can do everything “right,” and the meeting is still a challenge. It
can be difficult to cope when a group member is just not willing to agree
with the others and move forward. At the same time, that individual likely
thinks the same thing about someone else in the room. While we hope the
lessons contained here minimize such occurrences and help us all take a
step forward in the facilitation process, disagreements will happen.
Remembering that all group members are doing their best and want the
best for students is the first step in coming to a mutual agreement.
References
Dematteo, F. J. (2021). Delivering psycho-educational evaluation results to parents:
A practitioner’s model. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429020971
Engle, D. M. (1993). Origin myths: Narratives of authority, resistance, disability, and
law. Law and Society Review, 27(4), 785–827. https://doi.org/10.2307/3053953
Esquivel, S. L., Ryan, C. S., & Bonner, M. (2008). Involved parents’ percep
tions of their experiences in school-based team meetings. Journal of
Educational and Psychological Consultation, 18(3), 234–258. https://
doi.org/10.1080/10474410802022589
10 Introduction
Ferguson, D. L., Ralph, G., & Katul, N. (2002). From “special” educators to
educators: The case for mixed ability groups of teachers in restructured schools.
In W. Sailor (Eds.), Whole-school success and inclusive education (pp. 142–162).
Teachers College Press.
Fish, W. W. (2008). The IEP meeting: Perceptions of parents of students who re
ceive special education services. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education
for Children and Youth, 53(1), 8–14. https://doi.org/10.3200/PSFL.53.1.8-14
Fisher, R., Ury, W., & Patton, B. (2011). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement
without giving in. Penguin Group.
Gutkin, T. B. (2012). Ecological psychology: Replacing the medical model
paradigm for school-based psychological and psychoeducational services.
Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 22(1-2), 1–20. https://
doi.org/10.1080/10474412.2011.649652
Hulse-Killacky, D., Killacky, J., & Donigan, J. (2001). Making task groups work
in your world. Prentice Hall.
Katsiyannis, A., Yell, M. L., & Bradley, R. (2001). Reflections on the 25th an
niversary of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Remedial and
Special Education, 22(6), 324–334. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193250102200602
Leinhardt, G. (1990). Capturing craft knowledge in teaching. Educational
Researcher, 19(2), 18–25. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X019002018
Martin, N. R. M. (2005). A guide to collaboration for IEP teams. Paul H. Brookes
Publishing Co.
Mueller, T. G., & Carranza, F. (2011). An examination of special education due
process hearings. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 22(3), 131–139. https://
doi.org/10.1177/1044207311392762
Mueller, T. G., & Vick, A. M. (2017). An investigation of facilitated in
dividualized education program meeting practice: Promising procedures that
foster family-professional collaboration. Teacher Education and Special
Education, 42(1), 67–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406417739677
Phillips, E. (2008). When parents aren’t enough. External advocacy in special
education. Yale Law Journal, 117(8), 1802–1853.
Postal, K. & Armstrong, K. (2013). Feedback that sticks: The art of effectively
communicating neuropsychological assessment results. Oxford University Press.
Reiman, J. W., Beck, K., Coppola, T., & Engiles, A. (2010). Parents’ experiences
with the IEP process: Considerations for improving practice. Center for
Appropriate Dispute Resolution in Special Education (CADRE).
Slonski-Fowler, K. E., & Truscott, S. D. (2004). General education teachers’ percep
tions of the prereferral intervention team process. Journal of Education and
Psychological Consultation, 15(1), 1–39. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532768xjepc1501_1
Welch, M. (1998). The IDEA of collaboration in special education: An introspective
examination of paradigms and promise. Journal of Educational and Psychological
Consultation, 9(2), 119–142. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532768xjepc0902_2
2 Foundations of Effective
Communication
We enjoy the irony that results from titling this chapter “foundations
of effective communication” because it begs for clarification. At the
driest, most basic level, communication reflects the transmission of
information. However, anyone with experience in special education
knows that does not capture the type of skills required to commu
nicate effectively in special education meetings. Computer chips
communicate zeros and ones to transmit information; that dry defi
nition fits an electronic metaphor well. However, electronics do not
have to consider the various backgrounds, interpersonal relation
ships, charged emotions, and individual beliefs and values that are
part and parcel with meeting facilitation, nor does communication
within an electronic device have a purpose beyond passing a series of
bits on to the next chip in the sequence. In contrast, communication in
meetings is tied to all those variables and must support group func
tioning to facilitate a shared understanding of the meeting purpose. It
is incredibly complex.
“Effective” communication suggests that some methods of commu
nication work better than others. What makes one method more effective
than another may depend on the setting of communication and its pur
pose. In mandating meetings, IDEA highlights families’ role and re
sponsibility to participate meaningfully in their student’s education. The
law also ensures protection of families’ rights in the process. Ideally,
special education should not be something schools do for families, it
should be something schools do with families. Thus, in the special edu
cation meeting setting, “effective” communication fosters collaboration
among meeting participants while simultaneously ensuring the group
accomplishes the specific objectives of their meeting.
Effective communication fosters collaboration in the decision-

making process.
DOI: 10.4324/9780367854522-2
12 Foundations of Effective Communication
In this chapter, we describe tools to support collaboration through oral
communication. They stem from three broad sources. First, they come
from understanding the meeting as a context of communication. That
context highlights important variables for consideration when engaging
with other meeting participants. Second, tools include practices to de
monstrate an understanding of communication from other group mem
bers. Lastly, tools include a process of collaborative discussion. Ideally,
these tools work together to facilitate collaboration across the special
education process.
Consider the Context of Communication

A meeting, like any scenario where people communicate, represents a
context of communication. That context requires careful consideration to
participate in it well. It includes five inter-related features (Johnson-
Sheehan & Paine, 2010; Losh et al., 2017):
1. The speaker,
2. The topic(s) of discussion or the message(s) for communication,
3. The audience or other group members,
4. The purpose of the meeting, and
5. The setting.
These represent modern updates of rhetorical concepts, direct descen

dants from ancient Greece (Leith, 2012; Heinrichs, 2007). The Greeks
described the speaker via “ethos,” referring more specifically to the
speaker’s credibility or trustworthiness. What we now call the topics of
discussion, the Greeks termed “logos,” referencing particularly the logic
and reasoning within communication. Regarding the audience, the an
cient Greeks referred to “pathos” to indicate the mood and emotions
communication stirred in the audience. They used the word “telos” to
reference the various purposes of communication, and “kairos” to refer
to the time, place, and timing of communication.
Traditionally, discussion of the context of communication uses terms
like “speaker” and “audience” because it comes from the study of oration,
composition, and rhetoric (Losh et al., 2017). However, in a meeting, we
realize that is not appropriate to think of ourselves as a speaker, as if we
are giving a speech, nor is it useful to think of other meeting participants as
an audience, a group listening, but not participating, in the discussion.
Meetings are for collaboration, but this context still applies. Figure 2.1
describes the context of communication via a modified rhetorical or
Aristotelian Triangle (White & Billings, 2017). It contains all five of the
features mentioned earlier. The points of the triangle include the speaker,
communication topics, and the audience. They frame the purpose of
communication while encompassed by the larger meeting setting.
Foundations of Effective Communication 13
Figure 2.1 The Context of Communication.
Note that this setting is not static. It is part of a broader and ever-
changing ecology of discussion (Edbauer, 2005). Special education
meetings have discrete beginnings and endings, but the discussion of
meeting topics and decisions continues after the meeting concludes.
Group members speak to each other before and after meetings. They
talk to family members who were not in the meeting. They search the
Internet, discovering information (both accurate and inaccurate) about
meeting topics. School district practices and policies change, along
with their communication about those practices. The availability of
resources to support families, teachers, and students fluctuate. Societal
expectations of schools and the broader discourse on topics such as
special education or mental health, constantly evolves. These are just
some examples of how a range of factors can influence the context and
content of a meeting over time. When conceptualizing the process of a
meeting, it is important to account for this dynamic nature of the
context.
Foundations of Communication: Credibility, Clarity, and, Care

There is much to unpack about the context of communication. To begin,
consider the triangle vertices. The points of the triangle reflect the cred
ibility of the speaker, the logic and clarity behind the message, and the
emotional response the message elicits in the audience. Collectively, the
vertices represent rhetorical appeals, or channels of persuasion. To put it
another way, as Heinrichs (2007) described, we interpret communication
with our brain (logic), gut (speaker’s trustworthiness) and heart (emotions).
Though there remains more to discuss about the context of communica
tion, recognize its most fundamental tenant: effective collaboration re
quires credibility, clear and logical communication, and demonstrations of
caring towards other participants.
Effective collaboration requires credibility, clear and logical com

munication, and acts of caring towards other participants.
Communication Requires Credibility

To begin considering the context of communication, we first consider
ourselves as speakers. The speaker vertex within the context of commu
nication refers to the speaker’s credibility and trustworthiness. It includes
the speaker’s character, values, and ethicality. Other participants may
view even the most transparent reasons for suspecting a disability,
the most insightful interpretation of a cognitive test, or the most effective
intervention suggestions with skepticism if they feel skeptical of the
person providing the information. Some aspects of credibility appear
obvious. Credibility is founded on expertise and reputation. Nevertheless,
there is some nuance related to the perceptions of the audience.
Credibility derives from their perceptions of goodwill and strong judg
ment (Heinrichs, 2007). When other group members feel we act in good
faith, and offer pragmatic, reasonable suggestions, it increases trust.
Relatedly, trust and credibility increase when others in the meeting
identify with us, when they see themselves in us and us in them. When we
describe classroom behavior with words a parent used to describe be
havior at home, we can increase that sense of common identification.
When an IEP team member shares stories of their own kids with families,
they increase family members’ ability to identify with them, highlighting
that they both are parents.
Communication and Emotions

The context also includes the perspective of other meeting participants,
traditionally described as the audience. Communication can be impactful
by influencing audience mood and emotions. Communication leveraging
emotion can be found in commercials pairing sad music and pictures of
unfortunate animals together. The sum is designed to move the viewer to
donate money to the organization or adopt a pet. While this example
appears manipulative, communication stemming from emotion can be
genuine, and is usually more effective when they come from a genuine
emotion rather than one that is manufactured (Heinrichs, 2007). For
instance, when a meeting participant becomes upset and yells or cries,
those genuine emotions can be persuasive to the others in the room.
Meeting facilitators should expect emotions from other participants,
both positive and negative. Parents may experience a range of emotions
across the meeting process, and sometimes over things that may not
make sense to educators (Esquivel et al., 2008). For many families of
students with disabilities, their point of view is unique, because every
child with a disability is unique. A relatively routine accomplishment for
a typical student could trigger joy when their student accomplishes it.
Alternatively, a perceived benign challenge may be an insidious re
minder of disability. Due to the nature of discussion within the special
education process, communication that does not account for the way
group members feel, may come off particularly poor or insensitive.
After all, the major focus of discussion is somebody’s child. Families
should know that their emotions are expected and acceptable (Esquivel
et al., 2008).
Emotions are ubiquitous in special education meetings. Discussion

revolves around somebody’s child.
Communication Should Appear Reasonable

The influence of meeting topics and group decisions on effective com
munication relates to the communications’ apparent reasonableness.
Reasonableness refers to two general features. First, it includes the logic
or clarity behind communication. This may reflect how explicitly com
munication addresses student concerns or fulfills various criteria and
principles in special education. Second, it refers to a communication’s
congruence with the beliefs and values of individuals in the meeting.
Participants filter the information they receive from others through their
own worldview. If communication appears significantly discrepant from
that worldview, it may be challenged or dismissed.
Most special education meetings occur to make decisions. Consider how
clarity of decision-making criteria impacts communication. All group
members should understand how decisions are made, and the information
required to make them. For example, in a manifestation meeting, the group
must determine if the behavior leading to discipline is directly and sub
stantially related to the student’s disability. Communication will be more
effective if all group members understand they must consider the behavior
from that lens, operating with a mutual understanding about the definition
of “direct” and “substantial.”
Communication’s reasonableness stems from its logic and clarity,

but also its consistency with the worldview of other meeting
participants.
Reasonableness also stems from congruence between the communica

tion and the worldview of the audience. In every meeting, group members
work together to make challenging decisions related to personal and
confidential subject matters. For instance, determining whether a student
is eligible for special education, or if a code of conduct violation reflects a
disability manifestation both stem from topics such as mental health,
child development, disability, and parenting and teaching practices.
Meeting participants may each possess vastly different points of view
across these subjects. In this way, congruence between communication
and participants’ perspectives represents an interaction between the to
pics and audience vertices within the context of communication. In fact,
readers may notice interactions among all sides of the triangle. We discuss
those next.
Interactions Between Vertices in the Context of

Communication
Worldview, Beliefs, and Values

The interaction between the topics and audience vertices within the
context of communication is multifaceted. The general discussion to
pics in special education meetings are laden with multiple beliefs and
values. Rhetoricians use the term “commonplaces” to describe often
culturally specific “truths” about the world (Heinrichs, 2007; Leith,
2012). Commonplaces are not facts, but beliefs, values, and assump
tions, and they vary based on the audience. They can include clichéd
wisdom like “the grass is greener on the other side,” or “an ounce of
prevention is worth a pound of cure,” but also reflect beliefs shared by
narrower groups. As an example, Heinrichs (2007) points out, liberals
and conservatives tend to have very different commonplaces. We have
all heard phrases such as “no new taxes,” or “healthcare is a right, not a
privilege,” from various political groups. Effective communication
often starts from shared commonplaces between the speaker and the
broader audience. When the speaker’s argument originates from values,
beliefs, and assumptions held by the audience, it tends to appear more
reasonable to them. All meeting participants will have a perspective on
various topics in meetings that will be influenced by these general be
liefs and values. They should be considered when determining the best
way to present information.
Communication must account for culturally specific “truths” about

the way the world works. Different group members may hold vastly
different points of view on meeting topics due to differing beliefs
and values.
In our experience, these broad beliefs represent one reason why

meetings in special education can be so interesting to think about, but so
challenging to navigate. As a collective, group members may hold in
compatible assumptions and beliefs about core meeting topics. Consider
concepts such as special education and disability. Some family members
may think of disability narrowly (Valenzuela & Martin, 2005). To them, a
student is only disabled if they are profoundly impaired. In comparison,
many of us who work in special education tend to conceptualize disability
more broadly and include disorders like ADHD or learning disabilities in
our understanding of disability. Similarly, to many general educators,
special education represents intervention and support, while to many
special educators, special education first reflects legal eligibility. When
making decisions with implications around these topics, families, general
educators, and special educators, may base their arguments on funda
mentally different commonplaces. For instance, when we suggest that a
child struggling to acquire self-regulation skills could be disabled, that
conclusion may not align with other team members’ beliefs about dis
ability. We expect most readers have been in a meeting where a partici
pant struggled to consider that a student might demonstrate a disability
because the student “does it on purpose.” Alternatively, when we high
light that a student with below grade level academic performance does
not qualify for special education because they do not demonstrate a
disability, that conclusion does not align with other group members’
belief about the purpose of special education. We have all heard the re
tort, “they’re the lowest in my class and need the help.”
Group members’ diverse beliefs and worldview may influence how we
construct and present arguments in meetings. We build arguments with
two primary tools, deductive reasoning, and inductive reasoning (Leith,
2012). Deduction begins with a premise, a fact, or a commonplace and
applies it to a specific case. Induction involves describing multiple cases to
demonstrate a conclusion or make a generalization. Many school psy
chologists may recognize these methods of logical argument as aspects of
fluid reasoning (Schneider & McGrew, 2018). Deductive arguments can
be effective when group members share common beliefs about the pre
mises of the argument. The argument should begin with that shared value
as a premise to establish its conclusion. However, if the audience re
presents a diverse set of points of view, then inductive reasoning may be a
better way of demonstrating a conclusion (Heinrichs, 2007). Multiple
examples and datapoints converging on a commonality will better high
light a conclusion in that instance.
A deductive argument begins with a generalization and applies it to

a specific case. An inductive argument describes multiple cases to
demonstrate a generalization.
We wrote much of this text during the COVID-19 pandemic’s social-

distancing period. Communication during that time demonstrated many
aspects of commonplaces in argument-building. At least in our region of
the United States, some speakers presented a deductive argument in
support of social distance by referring to that period analogously to a
war. “We are at war with the virus, stay at home, wash your hands, social
distance.” While that premise resonated with many people, in our ob
servation, others found it laughable and maybe even offensive. Some
individuals did not view sacrifices related to war or military service as
analogous to sacrifices required by social distancing. They just were not
comparable. In their eyes, the premise that we were at war with the virus
did not effectively lead to the conclusion that social distancing was ne
cessary. That argument held no credibility with them. For that group, an
inductive argument may be necessary, as they did not share a belief that
would lead to a positive view of social distancing. Multiple examples of
people staying healthy from distancing efforts, or comparisons of out
comes from individuals distancing and not distancing may be more
persuasive.
Consider a special education example of commonplaces or beliefs in
argument-building. Earlier, we suggested that some educators may view
special education primarily as an intervention resource. Given that belief
as well as others (“early intervention is the best intervention”), they may
struggle to accept a ineligible conclusion for a student who demonstrates
a need for additional supports, because the ineligible status conflicts with
their belief about special education. When communicating that result to
them, we acknowledge that belief, expand on it, and then incorporate
other valued beliefs that support the conclusion.
Not qualifying is challenging to accept; you’re right, Katherine, Ricky

certainly requires more support. But special education isn’t really about
support, it’s specially designed instruction for students who are
disabled, and Ricky does not demonstrate a disability, at least not
how IDEA defines disabilities. While he needs more support, we also
have to ask ourselves: Does he deserve to be labeled something that
really doesn’t describe him? What other avenues of support do we have
available that describe this student appropriately?
In this example, we started with one of the group’s beliefs (special edu
cation is for intervention), acknowledged it, and expanded it. We linked
the concept of disability to their beliefs about special education. Then we
provided an additional common belief, one about inappropriately la
beling a student for special education. We invited the group to further
brainstorm solutions that might support both beliefs.
Beyond commonplaces or general beliefs and values, the topics dis
cussed within special education are identity laden. After all, someone’s
child represents the most central topic in all meetings. The topics dis
cussed in meetings can be associated with participants’ core identity and
inject emotion into the discussion as participants create internal, gut-
feeling attributions about the implications of the meeting for themselves
(Stone et al., 1999). When meetings become tense, the educators in the
room may be questioning their own competence (“Am I a good school
psychologist?”), and for family members, identity implications may be
even more profound (“Am I a good parent? Did I do something to cause
this?”). We should anticipate that meeting participants may experience
emotional responses to the discussion within special education meetings.
When facilitating meetings, it can be useful to monitor participants’
emotional responses, offering support as necessary and appropriate.
Amplifying emotions stemming from positive aspects of the meeting may
increase cohesion amongst members and the value they place in the
meeting process. These could include celebrations of skill growth, a dis
cussion of student strengths and challenges, or effective collaboration
between team members. Supporting emotional responses may also in
clude prefacing hard or difficult information compassionately. When
delivering significant news, especially news the family may remember for
the rest of their lives, we can support their emotional response by pre
facing that we know the news is “hard to hear,” but that honesty and
forthright is necessary in the evaluation process (Wright et al., 2008).
Persona and Stance

The other two sides of the triangle within the context of communication
reflect interactions between both the speaker and audience, and the
speaker and topics. To facilitate the establishment of trust and credibility,
we consider our topic, setting, and audience to determine the aspects of
ourselves and our values to emphasize in our communication. There is
much to consider about how we present ourselves in a meeting. We dis
cuss children, should we be playful or humorous? The implications of
special education are serious, should we appear formal or stoic? Many
meeting participants may feel worried or nervous, should we be
welcoming and sensitive? These decisions establish our persona and
stance, two concepts that reflect our attitude, language, and behavior
toward other meeting participants, and the topics of discussion respec
tively (Cockcroft et al., 2014). Persona represents unique features of our
self, highlighted to fit the expectations and sensibilities of other meeting
participants, the link between the speaker and the audience in Figure 2.1.
In a sense, persona could reflect image. Various marketing brands spend
a lot of money for celebrity endorsements. They want a particular per
sonality to represent their product and associate it with valued features of
the celebrity’s image. Stance reflects our orientation and attitude toward
the topics of discussion, and how we deliver our communication. In
Figure 2.1, stance can be found in the interaction between the speaker
and the topic(s) of discussion. As with a demonstration of commonplaces
in communication, the COVID-19 social-distancing period also provides
examples of stance in communication. During that time, we observed
many government officials carefully conveying a reluctant stance when
delivering decisions of various extensions on the length of quarantine
with their words, tone of voice, and other nonverbal aspects of com
munication. The officials knew decisions around social distancing had
many challenging implications for the public. By demonstrating a re
luctant attitude toward the topic, they implied that they empathized with
those challenges.
Persona represents our orientation toward other meeting partici

pants, demonstrated through our attitude, language, and behavior.
Stance represents our orientation toward topics of discussion, also

displayed via our attitude, language, and behavior.
Oral Communication and Collaboration

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) underscores that
families must participate meaningfully in all parts of the special education
process (Katsiyannis et al., 2001). This means more than passively lis
tening to educators’ reports and progress-monitoring. Family members
represent a critical part of the team. Unfortunately, aspirations of col
laborative partnerships may feel more like the exception than the norm
for many teams (Bacon & Causton-Theoharis, 2013). There are likely
many barriers to collaboration, both interpersonal and systemic. These
barriers may lead to families finding special education to be too
impersonal, intensely emotional, and labyrinthine in its processes.
Collectively, it may cause families to feel confused and powerless (Zeitlin
& Curcic, 2013).
Lake and Billingsley (2000) identified numerous factors associated with
conflict between families and educators within special education. In our
view, they originate from aspects of the context of communication. First,
conflict can stem from discrepant views of a student and their needs.
Families may not perceive educators as understanding their child as a
unique individual, but rather a group overly focused on the child’s defi
cits. This conflict falls within the realm of the topics and emotions vertices
within the context of communication. It occurs when educators do not
adequately attend to families’ perspectives on their student and their
reaction to the discussion. It also occurs when educators fail to highlight
student strengths in their communication. Family members have a de
tailed and nuanced understanding of their student. When communicating
about their child, it is necessary to demonstrate an understanding of their
perspective.
Second, conflict occurs from discrepancies in knowledge between
meeting participants. Parents in Lake and Billingsley’s study (2000)
suggested that families need significant orientation to the special educa
tion process when children are brought into the system. When educators
do not describe it effectively, the resulting knowledge imbalance impairs
collaboration. It may even imply to the family that their true involvement
is not desired by other group members. The special education process
itself must be a topic of discussion in meetings. It helps families under
stand why different requirements, meetings, and processes are necessary.
Programming and service delivery also represented a source of conflict
identified by Lake and Billingsley (2000). Conflict can arise when there
appears to be a lack of options for service delivery. Other times conflict
arises because educators could not adequately substantiate why the op
tions presented were the most appropriate choice. In the context of
communication, this relates to the clarity of the decision-making process.
Constraints around resources – money, time, personnel, materials –
also create conflict. School administrators often find themselves “between
a rock and a hard place.” Schools cannot cite a lack of funds as a reason
to not provide a service, nevertheless finances may frequently be at the
root of challenges with service provision. Interestingly, some of the par
ents in Lake and Billingsley’s study (2000) suggested conflicts among
families in special education, a wariness that students with mild dis
abilities were overidentified and misusing limited resources, or alter
natively, that too many resources were being spent on students with
significant impairments.
Lake and Billingsley (2000) further described conflict stemming from
differences in valuation. This would fall within the interaction between the
audience vertex and the topics vertex in the context of communication.
Group members may prioritize different things when consider students’
needs and programming. Valuation conflicts can occur when educators
push for programming that does not appear to address the goals of other
group members, especially family members. They can also occur when
family members do not follow the “chain-of-command,” such as when they
speak to a principal before discussing concerns with a teacher or requesting
a due process hearing without ever discussing concerns with a special
education administrator. Often both parents and educators attempt to use
power to resolve conflicts, which is itself another source of conflict.
Families can feel they have to be relentless in their pursuits and demon
strate to administrators that they will not stop advocating for their
children.
Conflict in meetings often arises from discrepant views student

needs, discrepancies in knowledge about the special education
process, ambiguous service delivery options, constraints around
resources, value differences, and communication.
Communication (or more specifically a lack there of) can also create
conflict (Lake & Billingsley, 2000). Group members may desire a certain
level of detail or frequency in communication. Family members may want
a certain amount of progress reports or data, and most all school psy
chologists can recall frustration when family members do not respond to
attempts to schedule a meeting. The amount of people involved in the
communication process can also lead to conflict. When too many people
are involved, it can distort communication (like in the telephone game),
or it can feel intimidating walking into a meeting with many strangers.
Lastly and importantly, trust was involved in conflicts (Lake &
Billingsley, 2000). Group members require predictability and security
from each other. This relates to the notion of credibility in the context of
communication. When educators lose credibility, it leads to mediation
and due process.
Collaboration Requires Active Listening

Just as with any endeavor that requires communication, active listening
represents a foundational skill set for meeting facilitation. It involves
both verbal and nonverbal communication between the listener and the
speaker with an end goal of empathetic understanding of the speaker. The
listener attempts to clarify what the speaker says, check in on their own
understanding, and infer the meaning and emotion behind language.
Active listening represents a major toolset that school psychologists use
to understand the beliefs and values of other group members. A lack of
genuine active listening in meetings reflects a major barrier toward
collaboration.
Active listening begins with appropriate attending behavior, non
verbally monitoring and responding to multiple aspects of communica
tion. These may include use of eye contact, various vocal qualities, and
participants’ general body language. Of course, attending behavior may
vary across cultures. Eye contact (or a lack of eye contact) may com
municate engagement in a conversation, comfort with a topic, or general
interest. However, in a meeting with various materials to be reviewed, eye
contact with the speaker can be minimal, as members may be reviewing
evaluations, graphs, or IEP drafts. Vocal qualities, features like pitch,
rate, or volume, can convey similar information. Emotion can often be
inferred from vocal qualities, especially when coordinated with other
nonverbal behavior. A slow, broken-up, sentence with multiple restarts,
could signify confusion or anxiousness. A harsh tone often accompanies
frustration. Body language can include gestures (or a lack of gestures),
posture, and personal space. By reviewing the group’s collective body
language, we can assess the extent to which the group feels engaged in the
task and hand, and cohesive in their orientation toward their work. If
someone appears engaged in the meeting process, they may sit upright,
and perhaps lean forward toward the rest of the group. Alternatively, an
individual disengaged, or irritated with the process, may appear slouched,
leaning away from others.
Active listening also includes various “microskills” such as encoura
ging, paraphrasing, and summarizing. Encouraging represents statements
and gestures used to prompt a speaker to continue talking. Examples
could include head nods, encouraging smiles and eye contact, or vocali
zations such as “uh huh,” “yes,” or “mhmm.” Simply repeating a word or
two that the speaker just said can also encourage them to continue their
dialogue. Paraphrasing involves reporting what the speaker said, but in
the listener’s own words. It provides the listener with an opportunity to
receive feedback from the speaker about whether they understand the
points the speaker has made. The speaker can then affirm points of un
derstanding or clarify anything the listener missed. Summarizations can
also be used to clarify information, though usually after a longer period.
They are often used to transition from one topic to another, or to end a
discussion. Summarizations can be useful interpersonal tools to ensure
that the group collectively understands various points of discussion in the
same general way. If a facilitator feels stuck, summarizing the current
topic and pointing out areas of conflict or discrepant information allows
the group to then continue its discussion in a meaningful direction.
Other listening skills involving making inferences or attributions about
participants’ emotions, potential causes of behavior, or identify the at
tributions and assumptions they make about the behavior of other
people. Making effective inferences about behavior within the group and
using those inferences to manage the meeting process is the crux of ef
fective facilitation (Schwarz, 2017). These skills can be as necessary in
facilitation as they might be in a counseling setting. We all experience
meetings where a participant pushes away from the group, and perhaps
furrows their eyebrows or leans away from the table. From that ob
servation, we infer that the group member feels frustrated or does not
agree with something in the discussion. Commenting “you pushed away
from the table, are you feeling frustrated?” may provide them with an
invitation to share their perspective.
Demonstrating that we understand the point of view of other meeting
participants requires testing inferences in the listening process. Consider a
scenario in an IEP meeting where a family member requests a 1:1 para
professional to be with their student in a general education classroom.
Simply paraphrasing their request, “you see your daughter, Jilly, in the
general education classroom full time with individual adult support,” will
likely not result in the family feeling understood. There is a set of beliefs,
values, or expectations that motivates their request. They may think the
paraprofessional will help the child finish their work at school so there is
less to do at home, or they may think the extra adult will increase the
their child’s rate of learning. We can infer those values and investigate
our accuracy with a statement such as “educating Jilly with her typically
developing peers is your top priority.” That statement will likely result in
the family feeling more understood by others in the room. If their un
derlying interest is not time with peers, but something else, then it gives
them an opportunity to clarify that for the group. Testing inferences in
this way shows the group member that we are actively trying to under
stand their perspective.
Disentangling Facts, Inferences, and Attributions

Brent (1996) reminds us that in discussion facts are closely tied to beliefs
and values. Discussion in meetings can be challenging because much of
the content includes inferences and attributions, not transparent black-
and-white facts. When we hear various inferences and attributions in
meetings, we should recognize they represent an interpretation or judg
ment of facts stemming from participants’ worldviews. Recognizing these
judgments can be a challenging task, as they can masquerade as facts
through inferential leaps (Stone et al., 1999). A thermometer reading of
32 degrees Fahrenheit is a fact, whether that temperature is cold is a
judgment. Cora’s reading score falling at the 16th percentile is a fact,
whether that score reflects a major skill deficit is a judgment. Kevin
moving from reading 40 words/min to 50 words/min after seven weeks of
intervention is a fact, but whether that represents adequate progress is a
judgment. When a teacher reports that Jillian falls significantly behind
her peers in reading, it sounds like a fact, but it is actually a judgment. All
meeting participants may “jump to conclusions” without realizing it at
times, and these inferences can represent sources of disagreement.
Helping team members separate facts from judgments or inferences is a
challenging aspect of oral communication within meetings. We find two
tools useful towards that end: the ladder of inference, and the Toulmin
argument model. The Ladder of Inference (Newman & Rosenfield, 2019;
Senge et al., 1994) presents a metaphorical ladder to illustrate individuals’
tendency to allow their thinking to climb from objective data to actions
that stem from unfounded conclusions. The bottom of the ladder, the
sturdiest part, represents objective facts. When we start to weigh some
facts more than others or selectively consider information, we begin to
include our beliefs, values, or prior experiences in our perception of the
facts. This weighting reflects more of an interpreted reality. Assumptions
fall even farther up on the ladder, where we may make explanations of
our information and act as if they are true, not tentative hypotheses that
should be further evaluated with data. They cause us to arrive at
inappropriate or premature conclusions.
The Ladder of Inference describes a sequential thinking process

moving from
Kevin is a 5th-grade student whose grades appear to be low over the

first two quarters of school. Based on this information, his teacher refers
him for a special education evaluation. To us, this likely feels like a
major jump to conclusions. Did the teacher look at all data available to
him, or only selectively look at Kevin’s performance? If he had looked
at his whole class, maybe he would have noticed that many students, not
just Kevin have struggled with the curriculum from the last two quar
ters. Perhaps Kevin’s teacher assumed that Kevin’s poor grades
represent skill deficits, when in fact they are related to other concerns.
Kevin’s family argues constantly right now, and he has not been
sleeping well. Maybe his grades from the last two quarters are more
related to situational variables than an actual skill deficit. This as
sumption further led to a conclusion that Kevin does not have the skills
he needs to be successful in the curriculum, and the position that he
should be referred for special education.
The Toulmin argument model (White & Billings, 2017) is a second
method for uncovering assumptions and beliefs behind individuals’
thinking, including our own. Many readers may recall this model from
various writing composition texts (White & Billings, 2017). The model
begins by first identifying a claim, a thesis or statement that others should
accept. In the case of Kevin’s teacher, his claim is that Kevin should be
referred for a special education evaluation. Claims are supported by
grounds, which reflects data or facts. In Kevin’s teacher’s argument, the
grounds include Kevin’s low grades over two quarters of school. Kevin
should be evaluated for special education (claim) because he has de
monstrated low grades across two quarters (grounds).
The Toulman model stresses the need to evaluate the link between a
claim and its grounds, an aspect of argument referred to as a warrant.
A warrant justifies the data’s support of the claim and may include
principles or beliefs, often stemming from values and ethics, logic, or
emotions. Readers may recognize these sources of warrants as rheto
rical appeals associated with the triangle vertices in Figure 2.1. Often
warrants are unstated, but they should be analyzed not just for the sake
of arguing or debate, but because they provide broader insight into the
perspective of the individual making the claim. Investigating warrants
gently and with curiosity provides us with a way to acknowledge the
point of view of others. Kevin’s teacher could have many warrants
behind his claim that Kevin should be referred for special education.
One could be a belief that low grades represent a sign of a disability.
Another could be that school should provide intense intervention to
struggling students. A third could be that he is not doing his job if he
does not advocate for Kevin. There are other aspects to the Toulman
model, including, backings, qualifiers, and rebuttals, but the concept of
the warrant is key for our purposes, because it generates space for
active listening, and reflects assumptions that may require further
clarification.
Collaborative Discussion
At the start of this chapter, we suggested that the broad purpose of
communication in special education meetings is to foster collaboration
among group members. The tools we discussed above provide support for
rhetorical methods of collaboration. Rhetoric is often considered the
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
The Project Gutenberg eBook of Old English
colour prints
This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United
States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away
or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License
included with this ebook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the
laws of the country where you are located before using this
eBook.
Title: Old English colour prints
Author: Malcolm C. Salaman
Editor: Charles Holme
Release date: October 1, 2023 [eBook #71768]
Language: English
Original publication: London: Offices of 'The Studio', 1909
Credits: Fiona Holmes and the Online Distributed Proofreading

Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced
from images generously made available by The
Internet Archive.
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK OLD

ENGLISH COLOUR PRINTS ***
Transcriber’s Note
Page 30—Chilaren changed to Children
It is noted that some of the plates are only showing part fractions - these have
been left as printed.
OLD ENGLISH
COLOUR-PRINTS
TEXT BY
MALCOLM C. SALAMAN
(AUTHOR OF ‘THE OLD ENGRAVERS OF ENGLAND’)
EDITED BY
CHARLES HOLME
MCMIX
OFFICES OF ‘THE STUDIO’
LONDON, PARIS AND NEW YORK
PREFATORY NOTE.
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.
OLD ENGLISH COLOUR-PRINTS.
II.
III.
NOTES ON THE ILLUSTRATIONS.

PREFATORY NOTE.
The Editor desires to express his thanks to the following Collectors
who have kindly lent their prints for reproduction in this volume:—
Mrs. Julia Frankau, Mr. Frederick Behrens, Major E. F. Coates, M.P.,
Mr. Basil Dighton, Mr. J. H. Edwards, and Sir Spencer Ponsonby-
Fane, P.C., G.C.B. Also to Mr. Malcolm C. Salaman, who, in addition
to contributing the letterpress, has rendered valuable assistance in
the preparation of the work.
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.
Plate I. “Jane, Countess of Harrington, Lord Viscount
Petersham and the Hon. Lincoln Stanhope.”
Stipple-Engraving by F. Bartolozzi, R.A., after
Sir Joshua Reynolds, P.R.A.
” II. “Robinetta.” Stipple-Engraving by John Jones, after

Sir Joshua Reynolds, P.R.A.
” III. “Master Henry Hoare.” Stipple-Engraving by C.

Wilkin, after Sir Joshua Reynolds, P.R.A.
” IV. “The Duchess of Devonshire and Lady Georgiana

Cavendish.” Mezzotint-Engraving by Geo.
Keating, after Sir Joshua Reynolds, P.R.A.
” V. “The Mask.” Stipple-Engraving by L. Schiavonetti,

after Sir Joshua Reynolds, P.R.A.
” VI. “Bacchante” (Lady Hamilton). Stipple-Engraving by

C. Knight, after George Romney.
” VII. “Mrs. Jordan in the character of ‘The Country Girl’”

(“The Romp”). Stipple-Engraving by John
Ogborne, after George Romney.
” VIII. “Hobbinol and Ganderetta.” Stipple-Engraving by P.

W. Tomkins, after Thomas Gainsborough, R.A.
” IX. “Countess of Oxford.” Mezzotint-Engraving by S.

W. Reynolds, after J. Hoppner, R.A.
” X. “Viscountess Andover.” Stipple-Engraving by C.
Wilkin, after J. Hoppner, R.A.
” XI. “The Squire’s Door.” Stipple-Engraving by B.

Duterreau, after George Morland.
” XII. “The Farmer’s Door.” Stipple-Engraving by B.

Duterreau, after George Morland.
” XIII. “A Visit to the Boarding School.” Mezzotint-

Engraving by W. Ward, A.R.A., after George
Morland.
” XIV. “St. James’s Park.” Stipple-Engraving by F. D.

Soiron, after George Morland.
” XV. “A Tea Garden.” Stipple-Engraving by F. D. Soiron,

after George Morland.
” XVI. “The Lass of Livingstone.” Stipple-Engraving by T.

Gaugain, after George Morland.
” XVII. “Rustic Employment.” Stipple-Engraving by J. R.

Smith, after George Morland.
” XVIII. “The Soliloquy.” Stipple-Engraving by and after

William Ward, A.R.A.
” XIX. “Harriet, Lady Cockerell as a Gipsy Woman.”

Stipple-Engraving by J. S. Agar, after Richard
Cosway, R.A.
” XX. “Lady Duncannon.” Stipple-Engraving by F.

Bartolozzi, R.A., after John Downman, A.R.A.
” XXI. “Cupid bound by Nymphs.” Stipple-Engraving by

W. W. Ryland, after Angelica Kauffman, R.A.
” XXII. “Rinaldo and Armida.” Stipple-Engraving by Thos.
Burke, after Angelica Kauffman, R.A.
” XXIII. “Angelica Kauffman in the character of Design

listening to the Inspiration of Poetry.” Stipple-
Engraving by Thos. Burke, after Angelica
Kauffman, R.A.
” XXIV. “Love and Beauty” (Marchioness of Townshend).

Stipple-Engraving by Thos. Cheesman, after
Angelica Kauffman, R.A.
” XXV. “Two Bunches a Penny, Primroses” (“Cries of

London”). Stipple-Engraving by L. Schiavonetti,
after F. Wheatley, R.A.
” XXVI. “Knives, Scissors and Razors to Grind” (“Cries of

London”). Stipple-Engraving by G. Vendramini,
after F. Wheatley, R.A.
” XXVII. “Mrs. Crewe.” Stipple-Engraving by Thos. Watson,

after Daniel Gardner.
” XXVIII. “The Dance.” Stipple-Engraving by F. Bartolozzi,

R.A., after H. W. Bunbury.
” XXIX. “Morning Employments.” Stipple-Engraving by P.

W. Tomkins, after H. W. Bunbury.
” XXX. “The Farm-Yard.” Stipple-Engraving by William

Nutter, after Henry Singleton.
” XXXI. “The Vicar of the Parish receiving his Tithes.”

Stipple-Engraving by Thos. Burke, after Henry
Singleton.
” XXXII. “The English Dressing-Room.” Stipple-Engraving

by P. W. Tomkins, after Chas. Ansell.
” XXXIII. “The French Dressing-Room.” Stipple-Engraving

by P. W. Tomkins, after Chas. Ansell.
” XXXIV. “January” (“The Months”). Stipple-Engraving by F.

Bartolozzi, R.A., after Wm. Hamilton, R.A.
” XXXV. “Virtuous Love” (from Thomson’s “Seasons”).

Stipple-Engraving by F. Bartolozzi, R.A., after
Wm. Hamilton, R.A.
” XXXVI. “The Chanters.” Stipple-Engraving by J. R. Smith,

after Rev. Matthew W. Peters, R.A.
” XXXVII. “Mdlle. Parisot.” Stipple-Engraving by C. Turner,

A.R.A., after J. J. Masquerier.
” XXXVIII. “Maria.” Stipple-Engraving by P. W. Tomkins, after

J. Russell, R.A.
” XXXIX. “Commerce.” Stipple-Engraving by M. Bovi, after J.

B. Cipriani, R.A., and F. Bartolozzi, R.A.
” XL. “The Love-Letter.” Stipple-Engraving, probably by

Thos. Cheesman.
OLD ENGLISH COLOUR-PRINTS
“Other pictures we look at—his prints we read,” said Charles Lamb,
speaking with affectionate reverence of Hogarth. Now, after “reading”
those wonderful Progresses of the Rake and the Harlot, which had
for him all the effect of books, intellectually vivid with human interest,
let us suppose our beloved essayist looking at those “other pictures,”
Morland’s “Story of Letitia” series, in John Raphael Smith’s charming
stipple-plates, colour-printed for choice, first issued while Lamb was
hardly in his teens. Though they might not be, as in Hogarth’s prints,
“intense thinking faces,” expressive of “permanent abiding ideas” in
which he would read Letitia’s world-old story, Lamb would doubtless
look at these Morland prints with a difference. He would look at them
with an interest awakened less by their not too poignant intention of
dramatic pathos than by the charm of their simple pictorial appeal,
heightened by the dainty persuasion of colour.
There is a fascination about eighteenth-century prints which tempts
me in fancy to picture the gentle Elia stopping at every printseller’s
window that lay on his daily route to the East India House in
Leadenhall Street. How many these were might “admit a wide
solution,” since he arrived invariably late at the office; but Alderman
Boydell’s in Cheapside, where the engraving art could be seen in its
dignified variety and beauty, and Mr. Carington Bowles’s in St. Paul’s
Churchyard, with the humorous mezzotints, plain and coloured, must
have stayed him long. Then, surely among the old colour-prints
which charm us to-day there were some that would make their
contemporary appeal to Elia’s fancy, as he would linger among the
curious crowd outside the windows of Mr. J. R. Smith in King Street,
Covent Garden, or Mr. Macklin’s Poet’s Gallery in Fleet Street, Mr.
Tomkins in Bond Street, or Mr. Colnaghi—Bartolozzi’s “much-
beloved Signor Colnaghi”—in Pall Mall. Not arcadian scenes,
perhaps, with “flocks of silly sheep,” nor “boys as infant Bacchuses
or Jupiters,” nor even the beautiful ladies of rank and fashion; but the
Cries of London at Colnaghi’s must have arrided so true a Londoner,
and may we not imagine the relish with which Lamb would stop to
look at the prints of the players? The Downman Mrs. Siddons, say, or
the Miss Farren, or that most joyous of Romney prints, Mrs. Jordan
as “The Romp”, which would seem to give pictorial justification for
Lamb’s own vivid reminiscence of the actress, as his words lend
almost the breath of life to the picture. Yet these had not then come
to the dignity of “old prints,” with a mellow lure of antique tone. Their
beautiful soft paper—hand-made as a matter of course, since there
was no other—which we handle and hold up to the light with such
sensitive reverence, was not yet grown venerable from the touch of
long-vanished hands. They were as fresh as a busy industry of
engravers, printers, and paper-makers could turn them out, and of a
contemporary popularity that died early of a plethora.
What, then, is their peculiar charm for us to-day, those colour-prints
of stipple or mezzotint engravings which pervaded the later years of
the eighteenth century, and the earliest of the nineteenth? No
serious student, perhaps, would accord them a very high or
important place in the history of art. Yet a pleasant little corner of
their own they certainly merit, representing, as they do, a
characteristic contemporary phase of popular taste, and of artistic
activity, essentially English. Whatever may be thought of their
intrinsic value as works of art, there is no denying their special
appeal of pictorial prettiness and sentiment and of dainty decorative
charm. Nor, to judge from the recent records of the sale-rooms,
would this appeal seem to be of any uncertain kind. It has lately
been eloquent enough to compete with the claims of artistic works of
indisputable worth, and those collectors who have heard it for the
first time only during the last ten years or so have had to pay highly
for their belated responsiveness. Those, on the other hand, who
listened long ago to the gentle appeal of the old English colour-
prints, who listened before the market had heard it, and, loving them
for their own pretty sakes, or their old-time illustrative interest, or
their decorative accompaniment to Sheraton and Chippendale,
would pick them up in the printsellers’ shops for equitable sums that
would now be regarded as “mere songs,” can to-day look round their
walls at the rare and brilliant impressions of prints which first
charmed them twenty or thirty years ago, and smile contentedly at
the inflated prices clamorous from Christie’s. For nowadays the
decorative legacy of the eighteenth century—a legacy of dignity,
elegance, beauty, charm—seems to involve ever-increasing legacy
duties, which must be paid ungrudgingly.
A collector, whose house is permeated with the charm and beauty of
eighteenth-century arts and crafts, asked recently my advice as to
what he should next begin to collect. I suggested the original pictures
of the more accomplished and promising of our younger living
painters, a comparatively inexpensive luxury. He shook his head,
and, before the evening, a choice William Ward, exceptional in
colour, had proved irresistible. Yes, it is a curious and noteworthy
fact that the collector of old English colour-prints has rarely, if ever,
any sympathy with modern art, however fine, however beautiful. He
will frankly admit this, and, while he tells you that he loves colour,
you discover that it is only colour which has acquired the mellowing
charm of time and old associations. So your colour-print collector will
gladly buy a dainty drawing by Downman, delicately tinted on the
back, or a pastel by J. R. Smith, somewhat purple, maybe, in the
flesh-tints, while the sumptuous colouring of a Brangwyn will rouse in
him no desire for possession, a Lavery’s harmonies will stir him not
at all, and the mystic beauty of tones in any Late Moonrise that a
Clausen may paint will say to him little or nothing. But then, one may
ask, why is he content with the simple colour-schemes of these
dainty and engaging prints, when the old Japanese, and still older
Chinese, colour-prints offer wonderful and beautiful harmonies that
no English colour-printer ever dreamt of? And why, if we chance to
meet this lover of colour at the National Gallery, do we find him, not
revelling joyously in the marvellously rich, luminous tones of a
Filippino Lippi, for example, or the glorious hues of a Titian, but
quietly happy in front of, say, Morland’s Inside of a Stable, or
Reynolds’s Snake in the Grass?
Well, we have only to pass a little while in his rooms, looking at his
prints in their appropriate environment of beautiful old furniture,
giving ourselves up to the pervading old-time atmosphere, and we
shall begin to understand him and sympathise with his consistency.
And, as the spell works, we shall find ourselves growing convinced
that even a Venice set of Whistler etchings would seem decoratively
incongruous amid those particular surroundings. For it is the spell,
not of intrinsic artistic beauty, but of the eighteenth century that is
upon us. It is the spell of a graceful period, compact of charm,
elegance and sensibility, that these pretty old colour-prints, so
typically English in subject and design, cast over us as we look at
them. Thus they present themselves to us, not as so many mere
engravings printed in varied hues, but rather as so many pictorial
messages—whispered smilingly, some of them—from those years of
ever-fascinating memory, when the newly-born Royal Academy was
focussing the artistic taste and accomplishment of the English
people, and Reynolds, Gainsborough, Romney, were translating the
typical transient beauty in terms of enduring art, while the great
engravers were extending the painters’ fame, and the furniture-
makers and all the craftsmen were supporting them with a new and a
classic grace; when Johnson was talking stately, inspiring common-
sense, Goldsmith was “writing like an angel,” and Sheridan was
“catching the manners living as they rose”; when Fanny Burney was
keeping her vivid diaries, and Walpole and Mrs. Delany were—we
thank Providence—writing letters; when the doings of the players at
Drury Lane and Covent Garden, or the fashionable revellers at
Ranelagh, Vauxhall, and the Pantheon, were as momentous to “the
town” as the debates at Westminster, and a lovely duchess could
immortalise a parliamentary election with a democratic kiss. These
prints, hinting of Fielding and Richardson, Goldsmith and Sterne, tell
us that sentiment, romantic, rustic and domestic, had become as
fashionable as wit and elegance, and far more popular; while a
spreading feeling for nature, awakened by the poetry of Thomson,
Gray and Collins, and nurtured later by Cowper, Crabbe and Burns,
was forming a popular taste quite out of sympathy with the cold
academic formalism and trammelled feeling of the age of Pope.
These literary influences are important to consider for any true
appreciation of these old colour-prints, which, being a reflex in every
respect of the popular spirit and character of the period in which they
were produced, no other period could have bequeathed to us exactly
as they are. And it is especially interesting to remember this, for,
from the widespread popularity of these very prints, we may trace, in
the pictures their great vogue called for, the origin of that abiding
despot of popular English art which Whistler has, in his whimsical
way, defined as the “British Subject.”
That the evolution of the colour-print, from its beginnings in
chiaroscuro, can boast a long and fascinating history has been
proved to admiration in the romantic and informing pages of Mrs.
Frankau’s “Eighteenth-Century Colour-Prints”—a pioneer volume;
but my present purpose is to tell the story only in so far as it
concerns English art and taste.
Now, although during the seventeenth century we had in England a
number of admirable and industrious engravers, we hear of no
attempts among them to print engravings in anything but
monochrome; so that, if they heard of the colour-experiments of
Hercules Seghers, the Dutch etcher, whom Rembrandt admired, as
doubtless they did hear, considering how constant and friendly was
their intercourse with the Dutch and Flemish painters and engravers,
none apparently thought it worth while to pursue the idea. But, after
all, Seghers merely printed his etchings in one colour on a tinted
paper, which can hardly be described as real colour-printing; and, if
there had been any artistic value in the notion, would not the
enterprising Hollar have attempted some use of it? Nor were our
English line-engravers moved by any rumours they may have heard,
or specimens they may have seen, of the experiments in colour-
printing, made somewhere about 1680, by Johannes Teyler, of
Nymegen in Holland, a painter, engraver, mathematical professor
and military engineer. His were unquestionably the first true colour-
prints, being impressions taken from one plate, the engraved lines of
which were carefully painted with inks of different hues; and these
prints may be seen in the British Museum, collected in all their
numerous variety in the interesting and absolutely unique volume
which Teyler evidently, to judge from the ornately engraved title-
page, designed to publish as “Opus Typochromaticum.”
The experiment was of considerable interest, but one has only to
look at these colour-printed line-engravings, with their crude
juxtaposition of tints, to feel thankful that our English line-engravers
were not lured from their allegiance to the black and white proper to
their art. Doubtless they recognised that colour was opposed to the
very spirit of the line-engraver’s art, just as, a hundred years later,
the stipple-engravers realised that it could often enhance the charm
of their own. In the black and white of a fine engraving there is a
quality in the balancing of relative tones which in itself answers to the
need of colour, which, in fact, suggests colour to the imagination; so
the beauty and dignity of the graven line in a master’s hands must
repel any adventitious chromatic aid. A Faithorne print, for instance,
with its lines and cross-hatchings in colours is inconceivable;
although one might complacently imagine Francis Place and
Gaywood having, not inappropriately, experimented with Barlow’s
birds and beasts after the manner of those in Teyler’s book. If,
however, there were any English engravings of that period on which
Teyler’s method of colour-printing might have been tried with any
possibility of, at least, a popular success, they were surely Pierce
Tempest’s curious Cryes of the City of London, after “Old” Laroon’s
designs, which antedated by just over a hundred years the charming
Wheatley “Cries,” so familiar, so desirable, in coloured stipple. But
this was not to be, and not until the new and facile mezzotint method
had gradually over-shadowed in popularity the older and more
laborious line-engraving was the first essay in colour-printing made
in England. In the year 1719 came Jacob Christopher Le Blon with
his new invention, which he called “Printing Paintings.”
This invention was in effect a process of taking separate
impressions, one over the other, from three plates of a desired
picture, engraved in mezzotint, strengthened with line and etching,
and severally inked each with the proportion of red, yellow, or blue,
which, theorising according to Newton, Le Blon considered would go
to make, when blended, the true colour-tones of any picture
required. In fact, Le Blon practically anticipated the three-colour
process of the present day; but in 1719 all the circumstances were
against his success, bravely and indefatigably as he fought for it,
influentially as he was supported.
Jacob Christopher Le Blon was a remarkable man, whose ingenious
mind and restless, enthusiastic temperament led him through an
artistic career of much adventure and many vicissitudes. Born in
Frankfort in 1667—when Chinese artists were producing those
marvels of colour-printing lately discovered by Mr. Lawrence Binyon
in the British Museum—he studied painting and engraving for a while
with Conrad Meyer, of Zurich, and subsequently in the studio of the
famous Carlo Maratti at Rome, whither he had gone in 1696, in the
suite of Count Martinetz, the French Ambassador. His studies seem
to have been as desultory as his way of living. His friend Overbeck,
however, recognising that Le Blon had talents which might develop
with concentrated purpose, induced him in 1702 to settle down in
Amsterdam and commence miniature-painter. The pictures in little
which he did for snuff-boxes, bracelets, and rings, won him
reputation and profit; but the minute work affected his eyesight, and
instead he turned to portrait-painting in oils. Then the idea came to
him of imitating oil-paintings by the colour-printing process, based on
Newton’s theory of the three-colour composition of light, as I have
described. Experimenting with promising results on paintings of his
own, he next attempted to reproduce the pictures of the Italian
masters, from which, under Maratti’s influence, he had learnt the
secrets of colour. Without revealing his process, he showed his first
“printed paintings” to several puzzled admirers, among them Prince
Eugène of Savoy and, it is said, the famous Earl of Halifax, Newton’s
friend, who invented the National Debt and the Bank of England. But,
sanguine as Le Blon was that there was a fortune in his invention, he
could obtain for it neither a patent nor financial support, though he
tried for these at Amsterdam, the Hague, and Paris.
His opportunity came, however, when he met with Colonel Sir John
Guise. An enthusiastic connoisseur of art, a collector of pictures (he
left his collection to Christchurch College, Oxford), an heroic soldier,
with a turn for fantastic exaggeration and romancing, which moved
even Horace Walpole to protest, and call him “madder than ever,”
Guise was just the man to be interested in the personality and the
inventive schemes of Le Blon. Easily he persuaded the artist to
come to London, and, through his introduction to many influential
persons, he enlisted for Le Blon the personal interest of the King,
who granted a royal patent, and permitted his own portrait to be
done by the new process, of which this presentment of George I. is
certainly one of the most successful examples, happiest in tone-
harmony. Then, in 1721, a company was formed to work under the
patent, with an establishment known as the “Picture Office,” and Le
Blon himself to direct operations. Everything promised well, the
public credit had just been restored after the South Sea Bubble, the
shares were taken up to a substantial extent, and for a time all went
well. An interesting prospectus was issued, with a list of colour-prints
after pictures, chiefly sacred and mythological, by Maratti, Annibale
Carracci, Titian, Correggio, Vandyck, some of them being identical in
size with the original paintings, at such moderate prices as ten,
twelve, and fifteen shillings. Lord Percival, Pope’s friend, who, like
Colonel Guise, had entered practically into the scheme, was
enthusiastic about the results. Sending some of the prints, with the
bill for them, to his brother, he wrote: “Our modern painters can’t
come near it with their colours, and if they attempt a copy make us
pay as many guineas as now we pay shillings.” Certainly, if we
compare Le Blon’s Madonna after Baroccio—priced fifteen shillings
in the prospectus—for instance, with such an example of
contemporary painting as that by Sir James Thornhill and his
assistants, taken from a house in Leadenhall Street, and now at
South Kensington, we may find some justification for Lord Percival’s
enthusiasm. For colour quality there is, perhaps, little to choose
between them, but as a specimen of true colour-printing, and the first
of its kind, that Madonna is wonderful, and I question whether, in the
later years, there was any colour-printing of mezzotint to approach it
in brilliance of tone. Then, however, accuracy of harmonies was
assured by adopting Robert Laurie’s method, approved in 1776, of
printing from a single plate, warmed and lightly wiped after
application of the coloured inks.
Discouragement soon fell upon the Picture Office. In March 1722
Lord Percival wrote:—“The picture project has suffered under a great
deal of mismanagement, but yet improves much.” In spite of that
improvement, however, a meeting of shareholders was held under
the chairmanship of Colonel Guise, and Le Blon’s management was
severely questioned. The shareholders appear to have heckled him
quite in the modern manner, and he replied excitedly to every hostile
statement that it was false. But there was no getting away from

Facilitating Effective Communication in School Based Meetings Perspectives From School Psychologists 1st Edition Jason R. Parkin

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Facilitating Effective Communication in School Based Meetings Perspectives From School Psychologists 1st Edition Jason R. Parkin

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Facilitating Effective Communication in

School Based Meetings Perspectives

Theory and Cases in School Based Consultation A

Facilitating Evidence Based Data Driven School

Behavior Analysis for School Psychologists 1st Edition

School Psychologists as Advocates for Social Justice

Preventing the School-to-Prison Pipeline: A Public

Child Neuropsychology in Practice Perspectives from

School Based Family Counseling for Crisis and Disaster

Leadership for Deeper Learning Facilitating School

This book offers guidance for school-based professionals participating in

Jason R. Parkin, PhD, NCSP, is an assistant professor in the school

“Finally a resource on leading school-based teams, Facilitating Effective

“What a gift to the field of school psychology! Unpacking the

Jason R. Parkin and Ashli D. Tyre

ISBN: 978-0-367-42703-0 (hbk)

Typeset in Times New Roman

List of Figures and Boxes xv

1 An Introduction to Oral Communication and Meeting

2 Foundations of Effective Communication 11

3 Meeting the Objectives of the Context of Communication 33

4 Foundations of Meeting Facilitation 62

5 Planning and Facilitating Problem-Solving Meetings 82

6 Planning and Facilitating Suspicion of Disability Meetings 119

7 Planning and Facilitating Eligibility/Feedback Meetings 152

8 Planning and Facilitating Individual Education Plan

9 Planning and Facilitating Manifestation Determination

Thanks to the following individuals, whose wisdom is contained in the pages

Why a Book on Oral Communication, and Why Meetings?

“Almost 30 years of research and experience has demonstrated that

We set out to write a book about the meetings school psychologists

Meeting Facilitation and Oral Communication: Two Skill

When meeting participants feel allied with the school psychologist

As illustrated in Figure 1.1, meeting facilitation and oral commu­

What Creates an Effective Meeting?

Figure 1.1 Relationship Between Oral Communication and Meeting Facilitation.

with whom to speak. First, we aspired to capture examples of practical

IDEA stresses the importance of parent participation, though many

While we maintain that collaboration between educators and families

Collaboration may be impaired by imbalances in specialized

When collaboration within a specific aspect of a meeting is

We think there is a lesson here. As a patient, we indeed affected the

A General Overview of This Book

Figure 1.2 Meeting Progression.

Effective communication fosters collaboration in the decision-

Consider the Context of Communication

These represent modern updates of rhetorical concepts, direct descen­

Figure 2.1 The Context of Communication.

Foundations of Communication: Credibility, Clarity, and, Care

Effective collaboration requires credibility, clear and logical com­

Communication Requires Credibility

Communication and Emotions

Emotions are ubiquitous in special education meetings. Discussion

Communication Should Appear Reasonable

Communication’s reasonableness stems from its logic and clarity,

Reasonableness also stems from congruence between the communica­

Interactions Between Vertices in the Context of

Worldview, Beliefs, and Values

Communication must account for culturally specific “truths” about

In our experience, these broad beliefs represent one reason why

A deductive argument begins with a generalization and applies it to

We wrote much of this text during the COVID-19 pandemic’s social-

Not qualifying is challenging to accept; you’re right, Katherine, Ricky

As illustrated in Figure 1.1, meeting facilitation and oral commu

These represent modern updates of rhetorical concepts, direct descen

Effective collaboration requires credibility, clear and logical com

Reasonableness also stems from congruence between the communica

Persona represents our orientation toward other meeting partici