Misguided Guidelines: Changing inappropriate educational policy for students with little or no functional speech Chris Borthwick Rosemary Crossley Anne McDonald Centre 538 Dandenong Road, Caulfield, Australia 3162 rosemarycrossley@annemcdonaldcentre.org.au

Standardised IQ Testing 2016 Until 2017, the Victorian Department of Education and Training (DET) required most students seeking assistance from the Program for Students with Disabilities (PSD) to demonstrate their eligibility by undertaking a psychological assessment using a standard intelligence test – specifically, as laid down in its Professional Guidelines (DET, 2016) using one of the Wechsler tests: the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence (WPPSI), the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC), or the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS). The Wechsler scales, however, require normal speech and manipulative skills, and many children, especially those with little or no functional speech (LNFS), cannot undertake them. When challenged on this, the Department replied Standardised IQ Testing 2016 Letter from Executive Director Victorian Department of Education and Training, March 7th, 2016 “The professional guidelines contain a set of procedures which provide a consistent approach to the assessment of students for the PSD. Standardised measures are used as part of the procedure for determining eligibility for the PSD and it is essential that procedures are consistent and variations in scores are not attributable to the use of different test instruments. In order to achieve this, a common test is needed. The Wechsler tests are recommended for this purpose, as they are a valid and reliable tool for the assessment of cognitive functioning of children and young people, including those with an intellectual disability. The Wechsler tests are one of the most widely individually administered measures of cognitive functioning for children and young people and Australian norms are available.”

the findings of those studies and It is unsurprising that people who have little or no functional speech perform worse on intelligence tests that require speech, such as the Wechslers, than on cognitive assessments that do not require speech, such as the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test 4 (PPVT4) and Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices (RSPM). For children with autism, this has been documented – see Dawson et al, 2007: Bolte, Dziobek, and Poustka, 2009: Courchesne et al, 2015: Nader, Courchesne, and Dawson, 2016*. In mid-2016, the Anne McDonald Centre raised concerns with the Department about the use of the Wechsler tests on children with little or no functional speech, based on the findings of those studies and the initial outcomes of a research program conducted by the Centre. Presented with this evidence, the Department accepted that this policy was indefensible and that change was necessary. After considerable discussion the Department issued revised guidelines in May 2017 permitting – though not mandating - the use of non-speech based assessment instruments including the PPVT4, RSPM, and the CTONI2. *References on handout

AAC changes everything. The Centre found that many clients without speech who had previously been assessed as having IQs <50-70 scored at average-or-above levels on standardised cognitive assessments – the Comprehensive Test of Nonverbal Intelligence 2 (CTONI-2), the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test 4 (PPVT4) and Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices (RSPM) - that did not require speech. Conventional IQ tests were both highly misleading and very prejudicial. AAC changes everything. School Placements and Student PPVT-4 Scores School Placements and Student PPVT-4 Scores

Further progress is being made. The Department is now “….working … on guidance for psychologists who are assessing students with Complex Communication Needs (CCN). [It will consider] issues you have raised such as determining a student’s ability to participate in a formal cognitive assessment by considering their communication and motor capabilities etc. prior to assessment…. We will be offering professional learning later this year for [DET contractors] Assessments Australia psychologists, and next year this professional learning will be offered to student support services psychologists….” DET is also getting the word out online - www.studentswithnospeech.org.au–  

Matt has autism and cannot speak. He can type but not write Matt has autism and cannot speak. He can type but not write. At the age of 11 he refused to do the WISC, and so the psychologist estimated that he fell in the “moderate-severe range of ID”. In 2016 Matt scored above the 90th PCTL on a PPVT4 and on the 75th PCTL on Raven’s SPM.  In 2017 he scored above the 90th PCTL on the CTONI2. Now 16, Matt is using Touch Chat with Word Power, and demonstrating secondary school math and literacy skills. While Matt’s school was told of his new test results, the previous Wechsler IQ estimates continued to determine his program. Matt needed and deserved a catch-up secondary program that started from his actual ability level. Instead, Matt’s last school report shows him with a huge plastic container of white socks to sort out and roll up. There is no suggestion that he was being offered any academic education.

Many problems remain. Many parents, many teachers, and even many psychologists and AAC practitioners are not aware of the change away from the old tests. Some schools have interpreted the change as meaning that students may be administered non-speech tests only after they fail the WISC, which is not the case. Few psychologists own any non-Wechsler tests. A more fundamental problem is that changing the assessment scales, or even the assessment outcomes, does not necessarily change the educational provision provided. Cognitive assessments are only given to children who are already believed to have intellectual disabilities, often because they have little or no functional speech. A high score on a PPVT4 or a CTONI-2 does not necessarily shift this mindset or ensure appropriate educational support. Victoria is moving away from IQ-based and diagnosis-based eligibility schemes to a needs-based program for students with disability. However, the removal of cognitive assessments from the system must not result in a school faced with an LNFS student simply relying on an eyeball assessment. To allow LNFS students to show their strengths, AAC practitioners must ensure that they have AAC support before their educational programs are set.