1. Ventura County SELPA Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses (PSW) Model: Psych TOT Training #3
Kim Charnofsky, Mental Health Facilitator, CVUSD
Jenny Jones, Director, VCOE
Robin Sakakini, School Psychologist, VCOE

2. Agenda Checking in Moodle Access Updates to Manual
Triennial Assessments
Two Assessment Approaches
Cross Battery Assessment
Dehn’s Processing Strengths and Weaknesses Model
Jenny

3. Jenny

4. Number of Trainings 1 2 3
Jenny

5. Positive Outcomes Buying in On board Receptive
Better understanding relationship between academics and processing
Jenny

6. Obstacles Time to train Not trained in XBA or Dehn’s model
Fear of presenting to the rest of the IEP team
Want to train all staff

7. Jenny

8. Jenny

9. Changes to the Manual Grammar, Spelling, Mechanics COMPARES
Triennials/Reevaluations
Jenny
There was an updated manual that was posted to the Ventura County SELPA website. An blast went out to all of our psych TOT members as well as others that were on our blast list. The information in the about the changes is also posted on the site.
Most changes are minor (e.g. grammar, formatting, etc.); however, there are several notable alterations. Footnotes have been added to the Comprehensive Organizational Matrix of Processing-Achievement Relations, Evaluating Significance (COMPARES) grid (see pages 95, 102, 107 and 113) which refers readers to additional information regarding attention as a process and its link to academic achievement areas. 

10. Changes to the Manual: Triennials/Reevaluations
Jenny
Materials: Handout of new pages in manual on tri/reevaluations
Based on feedback from educators and legal professionals, a notable change was made to procedures involving triennial/reevaluation assessments (see pages ) within the Ventura County SELPA Patterns of Strengths and Weaknesses Model for Specific Learning Disability Eligibility Procedural Manual. This resulted in changes to the SLD Eligibility Summary Page: Using a PSW Model (see pages ).

11. Changes to the Manual: Triennials/Reevaluations
Jenny
Due to the change for triennials/reevaluations, the IEP page found in SIRAS was changed as well. The box that previously asked the team to provide an explanation as to how the student continues to meet eligibility requirements under the discrepancy model was removed.

12. Changes to the Manual: Triennials/Reevaluations
Jenny
Materials: Handout of new SLD page
Therefore, more room was available on the page so all of section B was moved to the second page.

13. Changes to the Manual: Triennials/Reevaluations
Jenny
Materials: Handout of new SLD page
Since more room was available, the appearance of the first page is slightly different. However, no other content was changed. The directions for the page were also updated to reflect this change.

14. PowerPoint on SELPA Website
Jenny
In addition to the other resources on the SELPA website, a PPT was uploaded that provides an overview of the PSW model. This PPT may be useful for use with general education teachers.

15. Outstanding questions? (Jenny)

16. Assessment Approaches
Review of both models
Overview
ONCAP
Processing Weakness
Software
Students who are gifted
Students with a General Learning Difficulty Profile
Similarities/Differences
Jenny
The rest of the presentation will review the two assessment approaches adopted by the Ventura County SELPA for use with the PSW model. These slides were created to provide a summary of the two assessment approaches as well as to begin the discussion of the similarities and differences noted between the models. The PSW committee is aware that not all of the school psychologists within Ventura County were able to attend the full day presentations by Dr. Vincent Alfonso and Dr. Milt Dehn, and therefore, the committee is working with SELPA to determine the best time of the year to bring presenters back so that all interested school psychologists within Ventura County are able to attend.

17. Jenny
Materials: Venn Diagram and Comparison Table
In order to assist school psychologists in processing and analyzing the information that is presented about both assessment approaches, two tools are provided. These tools are meant to assist in the processing, but are not mandatory. Both tools are provided to assist those with varying learning styles.

18. Training this information
What are some initial ideas your training team has for bringing this information to your school psychologists?
Districts
Adopting only one approach
Decision making for which approach to use
Experts
Jenny
Some districts are leaning towards one assessment approach over another. Within districts, some psychologists themselves lean towards one approach or another. At the SELPA level, the PSW committee has been sharing with directors the belief that every school psychologist needs to be trained in both approaches and be free to use whichever approach lends itself to the student and the circumstances. However, districts make final decision.
Discuss with your training team your belief about your district’s stance on both assessment approaches. How is your district thinking of training this information and having psychologists be able to ask questions should they arise?

19. Resources
Information for this presentation was taken from the following sources:
Flanagan, D. P., & Ortiz, S. O., Alfonso, V. C., (2013). Essentials of cross-battery assessment (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Dehn, M. J. (2014). Essentials of processing assessment (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
2014 VCASP Presentations:
Alfonso, V. CHC Theory, the Cross-Battery Assessment Method and Software, SLD Identification, and Assessment of Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Individuals. VCASP: October 24, 2014
Dehn, M. Identifying Processing Strengths and Weaknesses for SLD Eligiblity. VCASP: November 14, 2014.
Jenny

20. Agreement between Approaches
Jenny

21. What do both agree upon?
Based on several core research-based principles:
Specific Learning Disabilities are characterized by neurologically-based deficits in cognitive processing (NASP, 2007). This conclusion is supported by a meta-analysis that found significant processing differences between students with SLD and students without SLD (Johnson, Humphrey, Mellard, Woods, & Swanson, 2010).
Research has demonstrated the existence of specific cognitive processes (Flanagan, Ortiz & Alfonso, 2013; Hale & Fiorello, 2004). Researchers are also in agreement that sound tools and measures exist to assess these cognitive processing areas (LDA, 2010).
Research has also found links between various cognitive processes and specific areas of academic achievement .
Jenny
The information on this slide was previously presented with the PPT presentation at both the Overview training as well as the first psych TOT. When examining both assessment approaches, both agree on these same core research-based principles.
Specific Learning Disabilities are characterized by neurologically-based deficits in cognitive processing. This is a within learner trait. Research supports that students with SLD process information differently than neuro-typical students.
Research has demonstrated the existence of specific cognitive processes. E.g. auditory processing, visual processing, working memory, etc.
Researchers are also in agreement that sound tools and measures exist to assess these cognitive processing areas
Research has also found links between various cognitive processes and specific areas of academic achievement. See Comprehensive Organizational Matrix of Processing and Achievement Relations, Evaluating Significance (COMPARES) which can be found in the PSW Procedural Manual.

22. What do both agree upon?
Having a Pattern of Strengths and Weakness does not always equal an eligibility of Specific Learning Disability.
Jenny
There are instances when the assessment team believes that the student shows a pattern of strengths and weaknesses. However, just with any model of assessment for SLD eligibility, it is important that the assessment team rule out all exclusionary factors as well as determine whether the student requires special education services before the IEP team makes the final eligibility decision.

23. What do both agree upon? A comprehensive assessment ONCAP
Classifications of tests and processing areas may not be the same as test manuals
Limit the number of test batteries you take subtests from
Attempt to choose tests that were normed close in time
Composite scores are stronger than subtest scores
With composite scores, need to examine the cohesiveness of the scores or whether the scores are unitary.
Jenny
In order to determine if a student has a pattern of strengths and weaknesses, a comprehensive assessment is required. Remember that the term assessment does not equate with testing. Testing is an example of assessment, but the term assessment involves all parts of the RIOT model: Review, Interview, Observe, and Test.
The authors of both assessment approaches also agree that students with specific learning disabilities do have at least average cognitive ability. The term used within the Ventura County PSW Model is ONCAP – Otherwise Normal Cognitive Ability Profile. Further in this presentation, we will be examining the different ways both approaches assess for ONCAP.
There are times that the authors’ classification of specific tests and subtests along with the various processing areas they address vary from that of the test publishers. Most subtests that are administered to students assess more than one processing area. Just as the COMPARES committee found, different researchers define processing areas differently. This is something to keep in mind.
The authors do suggest that when using subtests from different test batteries, attempt to limit the number of tests you are pulling subtests from. Many times the authors’ examples began with the use of a broad cognitive test battery such as the WJ-COG or WISC. Additionally, as the software systems are completing calculations, as best as possible, choose tests that were normed at similar times.
The authors’ indicated that composite scores are stronger than individual subtest scores. With that being stated, it is also important to only use composite scores when they are valid. Both software systems examine the cohesiveness of the scores, looking to determine if the individual subtest scores that make up the composite are unitary. Therefore, when the two subtests scores vary widely (e.g., scaled scores of 4 and 10), the use of the composite score is not valid. Instead, further assessment is deemed appropriate.

24. You can fake bad but you cannot fake good.
What do both agree upon?
You can fake bad but you cannot fake good.
Jenny
One of the presenters made this statement and it rings true. While there are times that assessment team members question the validity of the scores, this statement is a good to keep in the back of our brains.

25. Turn and Talk What makes sense so far?
What questions are rolling around?
Jenny

26. Overview of Models Jenny
There are a variety of ways to train this part of the presentation, and is likely dependent upon how many of your psychologists have background knowledge on these topics and were able to attend the trainings provided by VCASP. The intent within Ventura County is to allow each school psychologist to attend trainings by the authors. With that being said, the Ventura County SELPA is working with both presenters to determine if additional trainings can be offered this spring and next fall. We will work to ensure that psychologists within Ventura County are provided with priority enrollment in these presentations.
As a trainer for your district, it is difficult to be an expert in every area of the Ventura County SELPA PSW Model. Use the discussion forums on Moodle to ask questions should they arise.

27. Overview: Cross Battery Assessment
Must assess in all 7 Broad Abilities
Fluid Reasoning
Crystallized Intelligence
Auditory Processing
Short-term Memory (includes working memory)
Long-term Storage and Retrieval
Visual Processing
Processing Speed
Robin
The Cross Battery Assessment approach is based upon CHC (Cattell Horn Carroll) theory. The concept of general intelligence or “g” is broken down into different processing areas. Main processing areas are termed Broad Abilities while the more specific processing areas are referred to as Narrow Abilities.

28. Overview: Cross Battery Assessment
Top Four Most Important Abilities for Learning and Academic Success:
Fluid Reasoning
Crystallized Knowledge
Short-term Memory/Working Memory
Long-term Storage and Retrieval
Abilities Related to Reading
Phonological Processing
Visual Processing/Processing Speed – Orthographic Processing
Robin
The authors of the Cross Battery Assessment model determined through their research the top four abilities important for learning.
The XBA software system does include a place to include data on orthographic processing. Choose the XBA tab under Grw-R (Reading) section and it will give you a composite score to use for orthographic processing.

29. Appendices of Essentials book
CHC Narrow Ability Definitions and Task Examples
CHC Broad and Narrow Ability Classification Tables for Tests Published
Descriptions of Cognitive, Achievement, and Neuropsychological Subtests by CHC Domain
Critical Values for Statistical Significance and Base Rate for Composites on Comprehensive Cognitive and Achievement Batteries
Variation in Task Demands and Task Characteristics of Subtests on Cognitive and Neuropsychological Batteries
Variation in Task Demands and Task Characteristics of Subtests on Achievement Batteries by IDEA Academic Area
Robin
There is a wide range of resources available within the CD-ROM that is found in each Essentials book.

30. Appendices of Essentials book
Neuropsychological Domain Classifications
Understanding and Using the XBA PSW-A v1.0 Software Program Tab by Tab
Cognitive and Neuropsychological Battery-Specific Culture-Language Matrices
Cross-Battery assessment Case Reports
Eugene, Oregon, School District Integrated Model for SLD Identification
Summary of the Expert Consensus Study for Determining CHC Broad and Narrow Ability Classifications for Subtests New to This Edition
Criteria Use in XBA DMIA v2.0 for Follow-Up on a Two-Subtest Composite
Robin
There is a wide range of resources available within the CD-ROM that is found in each Essentials book.

31. Overview: Dehn’s Processing Strengths and Weaknesses Model
Top 11 processing areas to examine
Attention
Auditory Processing
Executive Functions
Fine Motor
Fluid Reasoning
Long-Term Recall
Oral Language
Phonological Processing
Processing Speed
Visual-Spatial Process
Working Memory
Crystallized intelligence is not emphasized as a processing area
Kim
Materials: Processing areas CA XBA and DPSWM
There are eleven areas that Dehn’s model is broken into. Crystallized intelligence is not incorporated in these eleven processing areas. Dr. Dehn’s belief is that crystallized intelligence is a product of processing and not a direct measure of processing. While it is a good predictor of achievement, that is because it is achievement. Aspects of crystallized knowledge are subsumed within the area of Oral Language.
Refer to the handout which was created by Kim Charnofsky that examines the processing areas identified in CA Education Code and compares the processing areas within each of the assessment approaches.
For example, in the first row of the handout, you can see that the COMPARES lists Phonological Processing as a sub-area of Auditory Processing.  For the XBA approach, this information would be placed under Auditory Processing.  However, in the DPSWM approach, there is a category specifically for Phonological Processing.  The COMPARES uses the term Visual-Spatial Processing.  The XBA approach would include this information under Visual Processing, whereas the DPSWM approach has a category called Visual-Spatial Processing.  There are other wording differences to be aware of.  For example, under Cognitive Abilities, Memory, the XBA approach uses the term "Long-Term Storage and Retrieval" whereas DPSWM calls it "Long-Term Recall." Lastly, XBA uses the term "Short-Term Memory," whereas DPSWM uses the term "Working Memory," which incorporates short-term memory.

32. Overview: DPSWM Processing Clusters: Working Memory Attention
Executive Functioning
Fluid Reasoning
Long-Term Recall
Processing Speed
Kim
Dr. Dehn’s research places processing areas within clusters. If assessment determines concerns in one area, check the other areas within the cluster to determine if further weaknesses exist.
In Dr. Dehn's Essentials book, there is a discussion of Processing Clusters beginning  on page 46 with Rapid Reference 2.3; more discussion is found on page 246. 
Working Memory is considered a core cognitive process in Dr. Dehn's approach.  Working Memory both integrates and manipulates info as it processes input from the environment  and also processes information retrieved from long-term memory.  Attention and executive functioning, as "gate-keeper" processes, are clustered with working memory.  This is seen often in assessments, when the assessment team attempts to interpret to what extent a student’s poor performance on a memory task is due to attention, executive functioning (where they can't rehearse or organize the input using a strategy), or whether it is really due to memory skills. Processing speed is highly correlated with working memory, since a slow processing speed increases cognitive load and stresses out working memory (and vice-versa). Fluid reasoning depends on a strong working memory, since typically a person has to hold and process visual and/or auditory input during a reasoning task.
Research is finding that Working Memory has the highest correlation with “g”, followed by Fluid Reasoning. Working memory has a 0.5 correlation with learning; findings suggest working memory is a better predicator of specific learning disabilities than IQ scores.

33. Overview: DPSWM Processing Clusters: Executive Functions Attention
Working Memory
Fluid Reasoning
Kim
Dr. Dehn’s research places processing areas within clusters. If assessment determines concerns in one area, check the other areas within the cluster to determine if further weaknesses exist.
Some theorists (like Dr. Gerry Gioia -- pronounced Joy-A)  consider working memory to be one dimension of executive functioning.  An example can be found on the BRIEF, as working memory is a factor that is measured as part of executive functions.  Other theorists, including Dr. Dehn and a number of other researchers, consider executive functions and working memory to be equivalent processes, rather than working memory being a subsidiary of executive functions.  In either case, working memory does cluster with executive functions, as well as with attention and fluid reasoning.

34. Overview: DPSWM Processing Clusters: Oral Language Auditory Processing
Long-term Recall
Phonological Processing
Working Memory
Kim
Dr. Dehn’s research places processing areas within clusters. If assessment determines concerns in one area, check the other areas within the cluster to determine if further weaknesses exist.
Dr. Dehn's Oral Language Cluster includes both receptive and expressive language.  Reception of oral language communication depends on auditory and phonological processes, and expression of language depends heavily on long-term memory to retrieve words and linguistic structures.  Both receptive and expressive language rely on working memory to hold sounds and meanings.

35. Overview: DPSWM Processing Clusters: Visual-Motor Fine Motor
Visual-spatial processing
Kim
Dr. Dehn’s research places processing areas within clusters. If assessment determines concerns in one area, check the other areas within the cluster to determine if further weaknesses exist.
Difficulties with fine motor processing are sometimes related to deficits in visual-spatial processing.  For example, when a student performs poorly on the VMI, the psychologist then needs to determine if the student is struggling with the visual-spatial aspect, the motor coordination aspect, or with both.  Dr. Dehn reminds assessment teams that the association between fine motor and visual-spatial processing is likely to be stronger during the elementary school years than later on in development.

36. Appendices of Essentials book
Selective Testing Tables for Processing/Memory
Specific Tests/Subtests for all 11 Processing Areas
Interview Items
Observation Items
Planning Sheet
Children's Psychological Processes Scale
Psychological Processing Analyzer (SOFTWARE)
Statistical Tables
Processing Assessment Report Template
Self-Monitoring Sheet
Kim
There is a wide range of resources available within the CD-ROM that is found in each Essentials book.
Appendices A & B are particularly useful when planning the assessment, as the appendices list all of the eleven processing areas in Dehn's approach, and the tests, composites, and subtests that measure each.
Appendix C and D contain interview and observational items for both parents and teachers on a student's processing.
Appendix E contains the worksheet version of the Psychological Processing Analyzer, which will be demonstrated in a few minutes, and Appendix G contains additional information about the PPA.
Appendix H contains tables that assist in converting scaled scores to standard scores and percentiles, as well as converting t-scores to standard score conversions with reverse scoring. This can be helpful when trying to figure out if a behavior rating scale T-score is significant, and how it fits in with standard scores that have been collected.  
Appendix I has a report template that can be used, that demonstrates how to integrate the results of a processing assessment into a psychoeducational report.  

37. Otherwise Normal Cognitive Ability Profile (ONCAP)
Jenny
Remember that in the Ventura County SELPA PSW Model, the Full Scale IQ score is not required. Instead the team is to examine whether the student demonstrates an Otherwise Normal Cognitive Ability Profile, or ONCAP.
Consensus has been found amongst researchers of the PSW model that students with Specific Learning Disabilities have average or near average cognitive ability.

38. The Full Scale IQ score is not ALWAYS the same as ONCAP
Jenny & Kim
Materials: Fluid Reasoning is not equal to “g” Handout
There are many instance when the Full Scale IQ score is synonymous with ONCAP. However, there are times that the main cognitive test that was administered to the student does not provide enough information about the student’s ONCAP. For example, some cognitive measures are more limited in their focus (NNAT or CAS, for example) and the processing areas examined with that test does not tap into the student’s areas of strengths.
Kim Charnofsky provided the handout that may be used in trainings within your district.

39. ONCAP FSIQ or equivalent at 90 or above
XBA
DPSWM
FSIQ or equivalent at 90 or above
Cross-battery mean of 90 or above
One of the cognitive abilities (highly linked to g) at 90 or above
Must assess in all 7 areas
Choose the areas that are deemed “sufficient”
Software determines a g-Value (ONCAP)
≥ .60 = ONCAP likely
= more information is needed
≤ .50 = ONCAP is unlikely
g-Value determines an Intact Ability Estimate (IA-e)
Jenny
For XBA, in order to use the software, assessment must be completed in each of the seven broad abilities. Specific broad abilities are given more weight than others when calculating the g-Value, dependent on age/grade of student. The g-Value is interpreted according to the likelihood that an individual possesses at least average overall cognitive ability. The g-Value is a number between 0 and 1 (not inclusive) and this number determines the Intact Ability Estimate (IA-e). This Intact Ability Estimate is used when examining the student’s likelihood of having a pattern of strength and weakness.
For Dehn’s model, there are multiple ways to determine ONCAP. Generally speaking, in this model, a score of 90 or above is considered average. One way to determine ONCAP is to examine the FSIQ score, if available and valid for this use. Another way would be to calculate and evaluate the Cross Battery Mean (IA-e), which can be done either by the software, or by hand. Lastly, Dehn’s model allows for the use of one of the cognitive abilities as determination of ONCAP. However, upon further discussion with Dr. Dehn directly, his explanation is that this single composite score should be from a processing area highly aligned with “g” or overall general ability.

40. Turn and Talk What makes sense so far?
What questions are rolling around?
Jenny

41. Processing Weakness
Jenny

42. Processing Weakness Weaknesses are specific not general or pervasive.
both normative and personal weakness.
statistically significant and unusual.
Jenny
Both models indicate that processing weaknesses found should be domain-specific and not general or pervasive. The latter may be an indication of a student with a General Learning Difficulty who is not likely eligible for special education under the classification of SLD. Weaknesses also need to be examined statistically to determine if they are both a normative and a personal weakness. In Dehn’s model, the use of the word “deficit” means both a normative and intra-individual weakness was found. Another way to discuss processing weaknesses is that they should be statistically significant and unusual.

43. Software Systems Jenny
Both assessment approaches provide software that can be immediately used with the purchase of an Essentials book. The software system can be dragged/dropped onto any computer and can be used on multiple computer.
The software provided within the Essentials book on XBA provides three programs in one. The XBA Data Management and Interpretive Assistant (DMIA) provides the user with a method of using the Cross-Battery method. The PSW Analyzer examines the data within a Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses Model. Lastly, the software includes the Culture-Language Interpretative Matrix (C-LIM) is a tool for use with English Learners.
The software provided within the Essentials book on DPSWM is an excel file that examines strengths and weaknesses of processing areas. The Excel worksheet is not tied to the specific reliability coefficients of each subtest. In order to use this, the user must purchase the Psychological Processing Analyzer. Information about pricing for individual use as well as site use is available on Dr. Dehn’s website.
Activity:
A trainer from each district was asked to bring a laptop with the software already downloaded. Should a trainer not have the software downloaded, they can borrow a CD-ROM from a facilitator or colleague. During the rest of the training, sample data will be provided so that trainers can utilize the software systems.

44. Software Systems Use composite scores over subtest scores
Watch for cohesiveness of scores
Use the test composite score over the software composite score
Jenny
As was previously mentioned, the use of composite scores over subtest scores are suggested, when available and valid. When using the PSW Analyzer within the XBA software, it is suggested to use the test composite score over the XBA DMIA composite score, if available and valid.

45. Software Systems Each book provides software system on CD-ROM
Cross Battery
Dehn’s Model
Examines one processing weakness at a time
Examines multiple processing strengths/weaknesses at a time
Will include information on new tests in March 2015 (Amazon download)
Will include information on new tests in PPA Version 3.0
X-BASS:
New download will have all three systems (DMIA, PSW & CLIM) integrated (X-BASS)
Software system includes reliability coefficients, unitary cohesiveness, and more frequent test updates
Jenny
Because the PSW Analyzer within the Cross Battery Model only allows the user to examine one processing weakness at a time, the user may need to run the software more than once, replacing test scores of processing weakness and/or academic weakness each time.
Activity:
Kim and Robin will use the same data from Sample Student #1 (SLD) and run the data through both software systems. The purpose of this activity is to familiarize the trainers with the software.

46. Jenny
The first sample student likely possessed a SLD and could be found eligible for special education. The next student samples will examine data from students at different places on the bell curve.

47. Students that are gifted
May have a personal weakness but not an official “deficit” because the score is in the average range.
Use clinical judgment
Ask, “is this student underachieving as much as a typical student with SLD?”
Jenny
There has been much discussion of students that are gifted intellectually and eligibility for special education under the classification of SLD. While many students with gifted cognitive levels underachieve and/or achieve within the average range (and therefore demonstrate a discrepancy between ability and achievement), there is controversy at times in regards to whether they require special education services.
When examining the data for a student with a high cognitive ability, the assessment team may find that the student possesses a personal weakness but not an official “deficit” because the score is in the average range. As with any case, use clinical judgment. There is no absolute with any student and therefore, all data about the student must be taken into consideration before a determination of eligibility can be made. One question the assessment team could examine is, “is this student underachieving as much as a typical student with SLD?”
Activity:
Kim and Robin will show the results of data from Student #2 (GATE) that was previously entered into the software programs to see the determination.

48. Students that posses GLD
GLD SLD
Overall cognitive ability in the 80s to low 90s range
Academic performance is in the 80s range
Pervasive below average performance
May have splinter skills (relative strengths)
Jenny
This team has already discussed differences that exist in students who possess General Learning Difficulties and Specific Learning Disabilities. Refer back to the SLD vs. GLD vs. ID chart in the Ventura County SELPA PSW manual. Students with general learning difficulties typically have overall cognitive ability profiles in the 80s and low 90s. Academic performance is fairly similar and scores are often found to be in the 80s. While some splinter or relative strengths may be present, below average performance is pervasive.
Recommendations found for students with general learning difficulties include Tier II and Tier III support as well as small group, ample time to practice skills, and the need for several error-free repetitions of newly taught information.
Activity:
Kim and Robin will show the results of data from Student #3 (GLD) that was previously entered into the software programs to see the determination.

49. Jenny
Are there additional resources that the trainers need?

50. Thank you! Kim Charnofsky kcharnofsky@conejousd.org
Jenny Jones
Robin Sakakini