I’d like to start a discussion around the theme of IST’s, CST’s, or whatever name they go by these days. In fact, I recently heard the name, Child Evaluation Team, used. One can almost deduce the philosophy of these meetings just from the name used which seems to characterize them. If we want a name, I think they should be called Instructional Support Teams (IST). We need to move away from the medical model (problem resides within the child – hence, the old name commonly used: Child Study Team) and think of the whole environment that surrounds the child. Anyway, I am quite interested to hear how other schools/districts handle the IST meeting and how it should be run in particular.
(submitted from a Long Island School Psychologist)
3 comments:
I completely agree that we should call these meeting instructional support team, since part of the process is to determine whether any ecological changes are needed. On a side note, at my district the school psychologist is not involved in the IST process - What do we think about that?
I agree with the idea of "instructional support teams" but I wonder how often there is training with staff on what this transition means (i.e. away from the medical model and intrinsic deficits) or if districts just change the name and things continue as they always did. I also wonder how much training the IST members themselves have on providing different instructional recommendations to teachers with varying needs.
I am very suprised that the School Psychologist is not involved in the IST. How does that work with testing? Do they just tell the School Psychologist that the team decided to evaluate a student? In my district we (the psychologists) are main members of the problem solving/ data collection/ decision making process from referral through identification. I personally like it better that way because I get a sense of the child's needs and what has been done along the way to help.
Post a Comment