8 Chapter 8: Working with Collaborative Teams

Johnny’s teachers notice he has difficulty in reading and mathematics at school. Instead of the teacher ignoring his needs, she seeks the help of the school’s reading and math interventionists. While working with Johnny, they noticed he was showing symptoms of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). So, they refer Johnny to the school psychologist, who conducts a psychoeducational assessment. Following the assessment, Johnny receives a diagnosis of ADHD, and the school psychologist sets up a meeting with Johnny’s parents. An intervention plan is created for Johnny to ensure his educational needs are met. For school systems to work to their full potential, collaboration is required between all agencies and professionals at an individual level. If there had been no positive collaboration between the professionals in Johnny’s scenario, Johnny’s needs might not have been met. While the work of teachers, school psychologists, and school social workers is vital to the success of school systems, the collaboration between these professions and others (e.g., parents, students) should not go unnoticed—this collaboration makes the school world go around!

In this chapter, we discuss group processes, group dynamics, and theories regarding group functioning to understand group operations and characteristics. In addition, the topic of collaboration is introduced—specifically, interprofessional collaboration and why it is crucial in school psychology. The roles of each profession involved in the school system are described to understand how each member contributes to student success. Though these members are essential in school success, family and home life play significant roles in student achievement and are discussed in this chapter.

Group Processes

Social Norms, Social Roles, & Group Cohesiveness

        Groups are defined as a collection of three or more people who interact with one another and are interdependent in that their needs and goals cause them to rely on one another (Cartwright & Zander, 1968). There are three main processes in which groups operate to encourage similarity between their members, one being through what is called social norms. Social norms are expectations about how group members should behave individually (Kruglanski & Webster, 1991). A second process is social roles. Social roles are shared patterns about how particular people are supposed to behave in and outside of a group (e.g., how a teacher and student behave; Hare, 2003). A third aspect of group processes is deemed group cohesiveness. Group cohesiveness is defined as the qualities of a group that bind its members together to promote a liking among them (Dion, 2000). These three processes play into group dynamics within school teams and are vital to group successes (e.g., student relationships, teacher-student relationships, and colleague relationships).

Group Dynamics

Tuckman & Jensen’s Theory of Group Development

        Group dynamics are defined as how groups and individuals react to changing circumstances (Lewin, 1951). Additionally, group development refers to the ongoing changes in a group’s structure and interactions throughout the group’s existence (Forsyth, 2014). One crucial theory regarding groups that came to light after the development of group dynamics is Tuckman and Jensen’s (1977) theory of group development. The five stages of group development are orientation (or forming), conflict (or storming), structure (or norming), performance (or performing), and dissolution (or adjourning). According to this theory, when groups collaborate, members move through all five stages, which are predictable patterns of a group’s average lifecycle. Orientation refers to an exchange of background information, uncertainty, and tentative communication—to become oriented toward one another and to figure out positions within the group. The conflict stage is characterized by disagreement and challenges to group leaders and their procedures. There is always a storming stage when a new individual enters the group due to the nature of group dynamics. The structure phase is accompanied by cohesiveness and agreement on procedures, standards, roles, and improved communication; there is less conflict and more interpersonal communication within this stage. The performance stage refers to focusing on the work of the group, decision-making, and cooperation among group members. The group continues to function through these stages until the dissolution stage. This last stage is when groups disperse, or the members decrease dependence (Forsyth, 2014; Tuckman & Jensen, 1977).

Group Process Models

Maslow’s Motivation Hierarchy

Maslow’s motivation hierarchy theory, commonly known as the hierarchy of needs, states that groups require specific needs to be met when working together to function properly (Maslow, 1943; 1987). Needs and drives are often confused in the empirical literature. A drive is an activity that results from a consistent disequilibrium within us and directs our motivation. In contrast, a need is reflected in this drive and is defined as a lack of something essential for survival or well-being (Seward & Seward, 1937). Maslow’s theory defined five broad needs that all people require to survive, especially in group settings. The first need is physiological. Physiological needs are needed for basic survival (e.g., air, water) (Taormina & Gao, 2013). They are defined as a lack of nutrients or environmental conditions necessary for the human body to survive (Taormina & Gao, 2013).

Level two needs are safety-security needs. Safety-security needs are defined as a lack of protection, such as job security, shelter, or lack of stability in life. Maslow (1943; 1987) states that the more physiological needs are met, the more individuals try to satisfy the safety-security needs. Level three is belongingness needs. Belongingness needs are innate and experienced universally. They are defined as a lack of lasting, close interactions or relationships (Maslow, 1943). This could be described in groups as feeling accepted into the group by its members and having a good rapport with them. Level four are esteem needs and, characterized by the lack of respect a person receives from others or themselves.

Lastly, level five needs are the highest level of self-actualization, considered more abstract than the previous needs. According to Maslow (1987), self-actualization is people’s desire for self-fulfillment and becoming actualized regarding their potential (i.e., to be comfortable with who they are). Groups often come together to fulfill a goal, and Maslow (1987) suggests that self-actualization is everyone’s primary goal. Therefore, if group members are self-actualized, groups flourish. In this theory, all previous needs must be met before becoming self-actualized, and meeting each need is a continuous process.

Glasser’s Choice Theory

A second group process model is Glasser’s choice theory (CT). According to Glasser (1998), people navigate the world through two constructs, known as the perceived world (i.e., all one knows or has experienced) and the quality world (i.e., factors of the perceived world that are expected, needed, and valued, which are informed by basic needs). If the two worlds are coherent, one is content. If they are conflicting, one experiences frustration. If needs are unmet, the worlds are incongruent, and one misbehaves.

Glasser’s theory is a therapeutic approach focusing on goal-directed behaviour (Barker, 2021). Central to the theory is the notion of five basic needs, resembling Maslow’s (1943; 1987) theory. The needs are survival (e.g., food, water, shelter), love and belonging (e.g., quality relationships, community), fun (e.g., activities, hobbies, learning), freedom (e.g., freedom of choice or restrictions), and power (e.g., experience recognition, esteem). How individuals behave and view their surroundings is influenced by whether these needs are met within a group. In groups, if members do not have all or some of these needs met, the group will not function fully. Applied to the classroom, when student needs are not being met, there is dysfunction in the class and, more broadly, the school system. Thus, school psychologists must consider these needs when servicing children, teachers, and the school system.

Group Safety Theory

Clark’s Psychological Safety Theory

        Groups function best when there is a sense of safety between group members (Clark, 2020). Timothy Clark (2020) created a theory regarding psychological safety within groups. He deemed there are four stages of safety in group settings. Stage one is categorized as inclusion safety, an informal admittance into a group or team—for example, a professor placing students in a group in class. The second stage is learner safety. This stage occurs when an individual in the group feels safe to engage with the group by asking questions and making mistakes and is marked by acceptance. The third stage is contributor safety, where individuals in the group take some responsibility and contribute to the group—for example, taking on roles in a group project or dividing the work. The fourth stage is the challenger safety stage. This stage is required for groups to work together and occurs when members can critique the group as a whole or individual members. Clark’s group safety theory (2020) emphasizes that all group members can be at different stages at different times. It states that members should feel psychologically safe in the group if all stages are crossed (Clark, 2020). To apply this to the classroom, educators should ensure students feel accepted, heard, and involved in group settings so they can flourish.

Group Factors

Beckhard’s GRPI Model

Beckhard’s GRPI (i.e., goals, roles, processes, and interpersonal relationships) model suggests that setting goals, assigning roles, and creating interpersonal relationships are vital to group effectiveness (Jaiswal et al., 2021). Groups should have clear goals when working together; there should be an agreement on results and standards between group members (Jaiswal et al., 2021). An example of this is a group project where the goal is to receive a good grade or finish before a set date. Next, the team would divide the work and assign roles and responsibilities (e.g., assigning sections of a paper among group members). Thirdly, the group must coordinate how they communicate (e.g., when or where the group will meet to work together). Lastly, the group must work together to develop strong interpersonal skills. These skills include building trust among members, sharing expectations, and effectively dealing with conflict (Jaiswal et al., 2021). Collaboration is needed in groups, and even more so in school psychology. Group dynamics, processes, and factors are all critical aspects of collaboration that must be discussed in this chapter before diving into collaborative teams in school psychology.

Collaboration

Cooperation and Collaboration

        School psychologists play a vital role in all domains of the school system (e.g., assessment, counselling, intervention). Within these large institutions, school psychologists are crucial in navigating collaboration between school teams (e.g., teachers, principals, school social workers) and the outside community (e.g., students, parents, caregivers) to cater to children’s needs. Knowing that many individuals are involved in creating positive, encouraging environments for children at school, research has focused on the involvement of school psychologists in creating these environments within the school.

There is an increasing demand for interprofessional collaboration to meet the needs of children in schools (Sosam & McGrath, 2013). Interprofessional collaboration occurs when two or more professionals in different disciplines join together to meet the needs of a children and their families (Anderson-Butcher & Ashton, 2004). Professionals collaborate more when they are involved in cooperative practices.

The difference between collaboration and cooperation is often confused. According to Walsh et al. (1999), a cooperative approach involves each professional providing an assessment and definition of a client’s problem to the team. In a cooperative approach, each perspective stands alone and is joined only by the common element of the client (Walsh et al., 1999). In a collaborative approach, each professional is considered an expert and co-learner. They believe knowledge is gained by interacting with other disciplines (Walsh et al., 1999). Individual assessments can change, and a thorough understanding of the client is formed through a collaborative approach. The key difference is that in the collaborative approach, all professionals involved use their specific knowledge to understand the issue or client while recognizing and acknowledging the expertise of each profession. The cooperative approach does not hold these same values and focuses more on different professions and how they can individually help the client (Walsh et al., 1999).

Collaboration and Students with Disabilities

        Collaboration is a fundamental component of effective instruction for students with disabilities (Leader-Janssen et al., 2012). According to the National Center for Statistical Information, 13% of all students between the ages of 3 and 21 use special education services (i.e., speech-language pathologist, special educator, reading interventionist) (Leader-Janssen et al., 2012). Many of these students spend 80% of their time in the general education classroom, Leader-Janssen et al. (2012) note that students with disabilities benefit when their educators’ seek guidance and assistance from other professions to provide the most supportive, well-rounded, and beneficial learning environment within the general curriculum.

Many students with disabilities engage in Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) (Leader-Janssen et al., 2012). IEPs are services that rely on goals and objectives tailored to the child’s needs to enhance learning and development (Pretti-Frontczak & Bricker, 2000). IEPs are administered by a group of professionals (i.e., general educators, special educators, speech-language pathologists, school psychologists, and parents) that are required to meet once a year to discuss the program plans, placement decisions, effective accommodations, and evaluate students’ progress within the program (Leader-Janssen et al., 2012). Therefore, collaboration is essential to ensure the success of children in IEPs, as well as other children in the school.

Introduction to Agencies Working Together

In an article by Sosam and McGrath (2013), a school social worker and a school psychologist discuss their attempts to form the collaborative partnerships needed to create changes in the school system. They state that past research in the implementation of interventions and supports, such as Response to Intervention (RTI), Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (PBIS), and Expanded School Mental Health (ESMH), often neglect the importance of within-school collaboration. The researchers focused on addressing students’ social-emotional needs and learning. The sample consisted of a diverse high school population—out of the 1,811 students, approximately 62% were White, 26% were Hispanic, 3% were Black, and 6% were Asian. Before the study, the high school undertook a transformation process that intended to create a better sense of community and an end goal of increasing academic achievement among students. Authors worked closely with administration to assist in professional development and provide consultation to those who needed it (Sosam & McGrath, 2013).

The authors discussed that creating a union in the school through the transformational process could create stronger positive relationships with parents, lobby for support services needed for students, and establish a better understanding of ethical practice within clinical and special education services. The professionals involved (i.e., social workers, teachers, clinicians) found that in addition to helping students by using a collaborative approach, they learned from one another and formed a support system within the team. Their results indicate that collaborative processes are needed in schools to implement a more productive and effective work environment to better serve the children involved (Sosam & McGrath, 2013).

Interagency Collaboration

Students and their needs are diverse, complex, and unique (Geisler-Brenstein et al., 1996). Thus, it is necessary to create educational spaces that cater to each child’s needs and weaknesses while accounting for the other children involved. As mentioned, interprofessional collaboration involves multiple professionals working together to meet the client’s or child’s needs (Anderson-Butcher & Ashton, 2004). Interagency collaboration, or IIC, carries the same description as interprofessional collaboration (i.e., when multiple professionals from differing agencies or organizations connect to serve a client across systems) (Cooper et al., 2016). School psychologists are trained broadly; they provide interventions, consultation, assessments, and collaboration (NASP, 2020), making them central in IIC. Despite their extensive training, some researchers question whether school psychologists can effectively deliver IIC.

McClain et al. (2021) discuss a paradigm shift in school psychology training through three frameworks—interprofessional team-based care, population health, and implementation science. With regard to interprofessional team-based care, authors mention the Interprofessional Education Collaborative (IPEC, 2016). The IPEC developed four core competencies—interprofessional teamwork and team-based practice, roles and responsibilities for collaborative practice, interprofessional communication practices, and ethics for interprofessional practice. These competencies focus on engaging students with one another to emphasize learning interactively. Interestingly, the National Association of School Psychologists (NASP) is not a member of the IPEC, despite the importance of collaboration in school psychology. McClain et al. (2021) suggest that graduate programs in school psychology expose future psychologists to interprofessional team-based care to include IIC in their graduate school curriculum. By doing this, the hope is to be better equipped to support students, families, and teachers regarding collaboration between parties.

Population health is an interdisciplinary approach to health promotion through partnerships involving various community sectors to promote positive health outcomes for all (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2021). For example, partnerships between academia, healthcare professionals, schools, and the government. Diversity plays a significant role in student needs, including health needs. These needs are described as the “determinants of health.” The determinants of health include access to food, resources, or transportation.

McClain et al. (2021) suggest that school psychologists be knowledgeable in population health, which can be done through training in IIC. Through engagement in IIC, advocacy for equity in population health is supported. Regarding future training, authors note that population health approaches should be required within school psychology training programs to promote better IIC between healthcare, community, and school systems (McClain, 2021).

The last framework McClain and colleagues (2021) discuss is implementation science. Implementation science is the scientific study of methods to promote the uptake of evidence-based practices (EBP) into everyday practice to improve service quality (Bauer et al., 2015; McClain et al., 2021). EBP is an approach to healthcare wherein health professionals use the best evidence available and the most appropriate information to make clinical decisions for individual patients (McKibbon, 1998). Authors argue that while IIC is not considered an intervention or EBP, increasing its influence follows a similar process of moving an EBP into routine practice among school psychologists. The researchers highlight that the implementation science framework is necessary to address barriers to support long-term and wide-scale use between schools and school psychologists (McClain et al., 2021).

Overall, McClain et al. (2021) suggest that the field of school psychology addresses these barriers by engaging in IIC in graduate training, practice, and research. IIC has the potential to improve the coordination and efficiency of services for students. Specifically, IIC can improve educational, developmental, and health outcomes for youth and their families (McClain et al., 2021).

Problems Between Disciplines

Moolla and Lazarus (2014) also discuss challenges that emerge when working with different sectors to facilitate positive school development. The authors utilized the constructivist interpretivist paradigm (i.e., a qualitative approach) to investigate this. This study aimed to understand individuals’ experiences with school development and intersectoral collaboration and the meanings psychologists gave to these experiences (Moolla & Lazarus, 2014). The study was conducted across eight districts located in the Western Cape. Data was collected from focus group discussions regarding specific events and experiences by the participants involved.

Results revealed five challenges that emerged when school psychologists collaborated with other sectors to facilitate school development. These categories include diverse discourses and worldviews, roles and boundaries, personal and interpersonal factors, training, and organizational challenges. Diverse discourses and worldviews are a challenge because different disciplines use differing paradigms or frameworks in their practice, making it sometimes contentious between professions when developing schools and supporting students. Participants noted the different sectors involved held different opinions , which influenced how school development was facilitated (Moolla & Lazarus, 2014). Interpersonal relationships and respect are major elements that should be considered when working in a group.

Roles and boundaries were a challenge as the roles of school psychologists are poorly defined (Moolla & Lazarus, 2014). The roles of a school psychologist are often not communicated to everyone in the education system, resulting in ineffective implementation of recommended practices. School psychologists in the study suggested that to facilitate school development, other sectors must restructure their understanding of what school psychologists can feasibly do with the resources and education they have.

Training and development were also a challenge. This highlights that all sectors involved should require training in intersectoral collaboration and school development. Most participants acknowledged that training needs are different between sectors. For school psychologists, a curriculum change at the university level would contribute to more effective training and collaboration. However, the authors also note that training would be most effective if targeted to all sectors. This would create opportunities for everyone involved to explore discussions and develop shared understanding while building positive relationships.

The final category was organizational challenges. Participants in the study felt that there was a lack of coordination and poor management of intersectoral collaboration to ensure effective functioning across districts. These results highlight that poor collaboration coordination is a significant challenge in facilitating school development. School psychologists and other staff must find more effective ways of collaborating to provide valuable service to students individually (Moolla & Lazarus, 2014).

Overall, the results and challenges of Moolla and Lazarus’ (2014) study highlight the gaps in effective collaboration between disciplines within school systems. The discussions emphasize the challenges faced by school psychologists and accentuate the need for changes to create the most effective services, especially when developing school systems. As with any job, the effectiveness of a team is highly influenced by the intrapersonal dynamics between team members to contribute to effective collaboration (Gajda, 2004).

In Moolla and Lazarus’ (2014) study, power and marginalization were two key themes in the personal and interpersonal category. In the focus groups, participants described that team managers were authoritarian and often controlling in their management styles. This sense of lack of power had a significant impact on the collaboration efforts within teams and between colleagues. In addition, many school psychologists felt excluded in decision-making processes and felt their opinions and expertise were often excluded or unacknowledged (Moolla & Lazarus, 2014). This study sheds light on first-hand experiences of school psychologists working with other disciplines. In addition, it shows the absolute need for more collaborative practices between professions to ensure the best delivery of knowledge through teams for children.

Roles of Collaborators in the School Environment

In the school environment, many important roles make up a collaborative team when providing educators with Individualized Education Plans (IEPs). These roles include school psychologists, speech-language pathologists, math and reading interventionists, and occupational therapists. The following section provides an overview of the key roles within the collaborative school environment and discusses school psychologists’ role in working with each of these professionals.

School Psychologist

 School psychologists have specific training in assessment, consultation, and assisting with academic and behavioural difficulties(Leader-Janssen et al., 2012). The American body that governs school psychologists defines school psychologists as “uniquely qualified members of school teams that support students’ ability to learn and teachers’ ability to teach.” (NASP, 2021).  This definition emphasizes the role of the school psychologist within a team.

In Canada, the Canadian Psychological Association (2018) describes school psychologists as practitioners who

• Conduct psychoeducational assessments,
• provide consultations with teachers and school administrators to support them in the implementation of interventions for individual students with learning, social, emotional, and behavioural difficulties, and
• consult regarding implementing school-based and whole-school system prevention programs and interventions (para 4).

This definition clearly outlines the role of school psychologists in consultation. As collaboration is in the operational definitions of the practice, working within the collaborative team environment is a crucial part of school psychology.

Many schools and districts are adopting a Response-to-Intervention (RtI) strategy; school psychologists play an important role within this framework. RtI is an evidence-based framework comprising high-quality classroom instruction, universal screening, research-based interventions delivered to students in need, and continual progress monitoring (Bradley et al., 2005). Within this framework, school psychologists develop academic and behavioural interventions, and progress monitor (Leader-Janssen et al., 2012). Thus, they review the effectiveness of the intervention periodically and adjust if needed (Bradley et al., 2005).

Speech Language Pathologist 

In Canada, a speech-language pathologist (SLP) is a professional with a minimum of a master’s level education (Speech-Language and Audiology Canada, 2016). These professionals focus on identifying and treating speech and swallowing disorders (Speech-Language and Audiology Canada, 2016). Speech Language and Audiology Canada defines the roles and responsibilities of the SLP as follows:

• Speech-language pathologists may practice independently or within an interprofessional framework, collaborating with other professionals such as audiologists, physicians, nurses, educators, dietitians, occupational therapists, physiotherapists, psychologists, childcare staff, and social workers, as well as communication health assistants. Speech-language pathologists provide a broad range of clinical and other professional services. (Speech-Language and Audiology Canada, 2016).

The governing body for the profession in Canada recognizes the role of SLPs as part of interprofessional teams. Within IEPs, SLPs can provide curriculum-based interventions when working on programs for students with speech and language needs (American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, 2022; Leader-Janssen et al., 2012; Powell, 2018). SLPs also help schools in developing literacy, particularly at the phonic level (Powell, 2018). Phonics is the direct instruction of correspondence between phonemes (i.e., sounds) and graphemes (i.e., letters). SLPs’ expertise in linguistics and language puts them in a unique position to address this area of instruction for students with language or speech deficits (American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, 2022; Powell, 2018).

SLPs also help students with language disabilities who commonly struggle with figurative language. The SLP can design activities separate from the general curriculum that target this difficulty (Leader-Janssen et al., 2012). SLPs share similar responsibilities with school psychologists as both roles assess if communication abilities are sufficient for the learning environment (American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, 2022); however, SLPs have more training in providing treatment for reduced language ability, as well as recommending appropriate accommodations. If a school psychologist suspected a speech disorder during an assessment, the SLP would be the logical professional to collaborate with to serve the student best.

Teachers and Paraeducators

Many of the roles mentioned above discuss roles relevant to special education, IEPs, and intervention delivery for students with disabilities. However, most sections discuss how these roles must interact with general education teachers. Teachers deliver curriculum to all students and serve as the first line of screening for behavioural or learning issues. While they do not implement particular interventions, it is essential to consider them in collaboration as students communicate with them regularly. Teachers may also be a part of the programs designed by special educators, SLPs, OTs, and others in providing accommodations to students.

Paraeducators are individuals responsible for various daily tasks and provide ongoing support for students with disabilities. They receive little training before employment, so they need to collaborate to provide optimal support (Leader-Janssen et al., 2012). The paraeducator often has valuable insight into these students’ needs due to their frequent communication with them (Leader-Janssen et al., 2012).

Resource Teacher

The broad role of a special educator within a school is to ensure that students with disabilities’ needs are met and that necessary accommodations are being implemented (Leader-Janssen et al., 2012). In Nova Scotia, these professionals are known as resource teachers (Njie et al., 2018; Nova Scotia Department of Education, 2008). The nature of this position means that team cohesion and collaboration are necessary for success (Fisher et al., 2003). Resource teachers are trained to build strategies into the general education classroom environment, which requires ongoing consultation with general education teachers (Leader-Janssen et al., 2012; Nova Scotia Department of Education, 2008). Resource teachers usually do not host classrooms but mix into existing general education classrooms. They work to streamline information dissemination, problem-solving, material access, and strategizing for students with disabilities (Fisher et al., 2003).

It is critical for special educators to have regular meetings with general education teachers, so that both educators are abreast of the desired outcomes from each lesson (Leader-Janssen et al., 2012). The degree of collaboration between general education and special education benefits the entire team environment (Nova Scotia Department of Education, 2008). The resource teacher serves as what could be referred to as “boots on the ground,” working daily with students who require their assistance. When collaborating with school psychologists, the results of psychoeducational assessments likely determine whether a student requires a special education teacher or to be put into a special education program. The resource teacher is a functional and integral part of a school psychologist’s ability to accommodate students with disabilities.

Reading and Math Interventionists

In some cases, school boards employ trained professionals who specialize in collaborating with general educators and students to improve reading (Leader-Janssen et al., 2012) and math (DeFouw et al., 2019; Gilbertson et al., 2007). As the title suggests, the reading interventionist works in the school system to support general education teachers with additional support and strategies in developing reading, comprehension, and writing for struggling students (Leader-Janssen et al., 2012; Steckel, 2009). They also directly support students having trouble with reading comprehension, who typically have reading deficits of two grade levels or more below their current grade (Leader-Janssen et al., 2012). In case studies looking at the impact of reading coaches at school, there was an improvement in normalizing reading practices as opposed to reading being a special exception (Steckel, 2009). Importantly, meeting times were used to analyze student work samples, discuss instructional needs, and reflect on best practices (Steckel, 2009). Also noteworthy was the finding that teachers felt safer to take risks and implement new practices in reading instruction (Steckel, 2009).

The math interventionist serves a similar role, except in mathematics. They implement evidence-based interventions for students struggling with math, typically below the 25^th percentile, using various screening tools (DeFouw et al., 2019). The Institute of Education Sciences (IES) provides RtI-based guidelines for math intervention. In these guidelines, the role of the math interventionist includes universal screening to find students at risk of math failure, as well as providing high-quality instruction. In the second tier, it is recommended that interventionists provide supplemental small-group support regularly to students who require it.

Both reading and mathematics interventionists are included in the response to intervention (RtI) framework, along with the school psychologist. Increasingly, the school psychologist’s role in this framework is to consult with teachers to help develop, implement, and evaluate interventions for struggling children (Gilbertson et al., 2007). Math and reading interventionists are valuable resources for school psychologists when developing interventions involving subject-specific deficits.

School Counselor

In Nova Scotia, school counsellors, often referred to as guidance counsellors, work in schools to provide leadership, implement programs, counsel students, and develop collaborative relationships (Nova Scotia Department of Education, 2007). They are critical members of interprofessional collaborative teams as they have expertise in teaching social skills and fostering group dynamics (Leader-Janssen et al., 2012). Because of their skills, they are responsible within the Nova Scotian school system for reaching out to develop collaborative relationships with agencies in the community, including cultural agencies (Nova Scotia Department of Education, 2007). Additionally, as per Nova Scotia’s guidance counselling framework, they are mandated to maintain current knowledge of how Nova Scotian and Canadian society are changing (Nova Scotia Department of Education, 2007). These directives from the Department of Education underscore the importance placed on these professionals when collaborating with the school team, professionals, and the community.

 Guidance counsellors are valuable resources when social skills are the root of a student’s academic issues, as they can teach and reinforce social skills (Leader-Janssen et al., 2012). School counselling overlaps with school psychology, as both focus on students’ mental health and achievement. However, counsellors interact in the same school environment day to day. They are critical for student mental health, with a survey of Nova Scotian parents and educators indicating that 81% thought there were not enough counsellors in the school system (Njie et al., 2018). When the school psychologist identifies social, mental health, or group struggles as a factor in a student’s issues, the counsellor plays a crucial part in addressing these issues with the student.

Administrators

Administrators provide leadership in the school environment. Administration roles include principal and vice principals in schools. Beyond the disciplinary roles they are known for in pop culture, these individuals provide top-down leadership and direction to the staff in the school. Positive leadership from these individuals is necessary for the success of students receiving special education (Leader-Janssen et al., 2012). One survey found that time was the most significant barrier to collaboration (Santoli et al., 2008), highlighting the importance of time being prioritized from the top down.

Nova Scotia’s recent inclusive education policy (2019) highlights the role of administrators in inclusive education, including points on collaboration such as:

valuing student voice and choice and providing opportunities for them to speak to their strengths, challenges, and preferred ways of learning;

 working with parents/guardians to make them feel welcome in the school community and empowering them as essential decision-makers regarding programming and supports for their child, including, but not limited to, participating on student planning teams;

 working with parents/guardians to understand their preferred ways of collaborating with teachers, principals, and other staff and accommodating that, as much as possible;

working with teachers to support effective instructional strategies evidenced by student growth socially, emotionally, and academically (p. 7).

These roles selected from the inclusive education policy (Nova Scotia Department of Education, 2019) emphasize the importance of administrators working with staff, students, parents, and others within an inclusive education framework. Specifically of note is administrators’ role in facilitating a collaborative environment. Strong leadership is necessary for staff to make changes related to curriculum and instruction for special education students (Idol, 2006)—it is easy to imagine the needs of these students going by the wayside when administrators do not provide the necessary leadership, allowing for complacency and minimum effort.

Occupational Therapists

Occupational therapy is a form of healthcare that provides solutions for individuals with issues that cause them to struggle to do the things that are important to them (Canadian Association of Occupational Therapists, 2022). Occupational therapists, or OTs, are the practitioners who deliver this care. OTs are university educated professionals who implement treatment plans designed to help individuals lead more satisfying lives (Canadian Association of Occupational Therapists, 2022). An example of this is an OT assisting someone who has suffered a stroke adapt to day-to-day life post-stroke. These treatments are often carried out by making environmental adaptations that better suit the individual.

In schools, OTs provide support in many ways. At the classroom level, they help create inclusive learning environments for all students (World Federation of Occupational Therapists, 2016). They also collaborate with teachers to identify children who have additional needs, as well as work directly with students, providing therapeutic changes to their environment to maximize their academic participation and wellbeing (World Federation of Occupational Therapists, 2016). While OTs and school psychologists both conduct screening, assessment, and intervention, OTs focus on adapting the environment for their clients. They offer practical and feasible interventions that improve student success in several ways.

Accordingly, Njie et. al.’s (2018) report regarding improving inclusion and accessibility in Nova Scotia names OTs explicitly when discussing goals for supporting students with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Occupational therapists also support some students’ transition from grade to grade, school to school, or school to community (Njie et al., 2018).

Psychiatry and Family Medicine

Family medicine practitioners, or general practitioners, are doctors who work in the community and tend to a variety of medical needs. When necessary, they refer patients to specialists who have training in a particular area of medicine. While family physicians do not work directly in schools, they are often the first line of inquiry for the family when parents are suspicious of learning or behavioural issues in their child. Family medicine and the medical model focus on “fixing” disability symptoms instead of attending to the individual’s needs (Graham et al., 2009). However, with their medical foundation, these professionals can provide families with direction toward the appropriate resources.

Psychiatry is a branch of the medical field focused on mental illness. The mission statement of the Canadian Psychiatric Association (CPA) is “to promote the highest quality of care and treatment for persons with mental illness, and to advocate for the professional needs of its members by promoting excellence in education, research, and clinical practice.” (Canadian Psychiatric Association, n.d.).  While psychologists and psychiatrists often treat and assess the same conditions, psychiatrists receive specialized medical training in pharmacology, allowing them to prescribe medications. With an emphasis on medication, psychiatry takes a more narrow view of intervention. A large survey of GPs, clinical psychologists, and psychiatrists demonstrated that psychiatrists were less likely to believe that psychological and lifestyle interventions helped treat mental illness (Jorm et al., 1997). Students with LDs or neurodevelopmental disorders, such as ADHD, which require pharmacological intervention, see psychiatrists for assessment and ongoing medication consultation and monitoring.

The psychiatrist and family physician roles are adjuncts in the collaborative school environment. While not directly involved at school, they make medical decisions such as prescribing medication, which indirectly impacts the school environment by modifying the behavioural symptoms of students. These decisions may also inform how other professionals approach and implement interventions. An example of this is prescribing methylphenidate (i.e., Ritalin), an effective treatment for ADHD, to students with ADHD (Kooij et al., 2019; Rubia et al., 2014). A student receiving Ritalin may be better able to participate in interventions and learn in the classroom when their inattentive and impulsive symptoms are reduced.

Summary of Roles

As outlined above, several key collaborators are involved within the school environment. The school psychologist works with this team to assess, intervene, and monitor progress in students’ IEPs. During this process, it is crucial to collaborate with various professionals, as each role brings distinct expertise. Additionally, a combination of interventions uniquely suited to individuals provides the most effective support to students with disabilities (Leader-Janssen et al., 2012). Whether it is an environmental adaptation fostered by the OT or addressing specific speech deficits with an SLP, the school psychologist must be aware of the scope of all collaborative roles to serve the students best.

How Interprofessional Collaboration Functions in Schools

As with any cooperative process, working effectively across roles takes time and the right approach. Specific approaches are effective in optimizing collaboration in the school environment. When collaboration is successful, it improves the value of school-based mental health interventions by increasing access to resources, reducing burnout among school professionals, and increasing the knowledge and skills of all team members (Anderson-Butcher & Ashton, 2004). Models of interprofessional collaboration related to school mental health identify four major components that optimize processes—role interdependence, newly created professional activities, professional flexibility, and reflection on the process (Mellin et al., 2011).

Role interdependence refers to professionals’ ability to collaborate and depend on each other (Mellin et al., 2011).

Newly created professional activities refer to new mechanisms allowing collaborators to accomplish significantly more work than when working alone (Mellin et al., 2011).

Professional flexibility is the ability for collaborators to adjust and expand their knowledge base.

Reflecting on the process is collaborators’ ability to evaluate and provide feedback to strengthen future collaboration (Mellin et al., 2011).

Mellin et al. (2011) administered questionnaires to 246 school-based professionals to investigate factors that enhance interprofessional collaboration in schools. The questionnaire was based on the model outlined above. Findings showed that items measuring role interdependence and professional flexibility were high within teams, but reflection on the process was less common. The authors highlighted the administration’s role in creating time for reflection, noting that reflection was related to more effective collaboration in prior research (Mellin et al., 2011). To optimize collaboration, Mellin et al. (2011) suggested three ways school mental health professionals can take initiative and provide leadership to work towards stronger collaboration:

1) Inviting and facilitating team reflection,

2) creating physical space and time for collaboration, and

3) building positive relationships

When these initiatives are implemented, the four factors of optimal collaboration are supported. A relevant example is the team-based care model for youth with ADHD. This model emphasizes collaboration between healthcare and education systems. Essential to this model is data from multiple informants (Talbott et al., 2021). Obtaining data from multiple informants within the school and healthcare system is an excellent real-world example of role interdependence. At the same time, frequent adaptation of practices is a notable example of professional flexibility. While these factors are a good place to start for school-based teams looking to improve collaboration, more research in schools using direct observational measures instead of indexing optimization factors based on the perception of school staff is needed.

School psychologists serve two roles in improving interagency collaboration in schools. As noted above, there is a need for more direct observational research on what optimizes this kind of collaboration. As scientist-practitioners, school psychologists can work to build this body of literature by conducting observational studies. School psychologists can also implement the leadership initiatives laid out by Mellin et al. (2011) to bolster role interdependence, professional flexibility, reflection on the process, and the creation of new programs within their school systems.

School and Home Collaboration

Home-school collaboration is a reciprocal and dynamic process between at least one parent or caregiver and at least one individual within the school system. These individuals collaborate on decisions regarding mutual goals for a student. It is essential to distinguish between home-school collaboration and parent involvement. Parent involvement consists of a one-way flow of information (e.g., a parent-teacher conference or a parent serving on an advisory committee). In contrast, home-school collaboration requires a two-way exchange of information and a sharing of goals (Christenson, 1995). Home and school collaboration can increase specific skills (e.g., reading or math), improve relationships with faculty, and increase completion of work both in and out of the classroom (Cowan et al., 2004).

Approach, atmosphere, attitudes, and actions are four crucial components to build meaningful home and school collaboration (Christenson & Sheridan, 2001). Approach is how school personnel interact with the family, taking into account family and school values (Christenson & Sheridan, 2001; Cowan et al., 2004). Atmosphere is the overall climate set for families and educators. Attitudes are the perceptions that families and schools hold of one another. Lastly, actions are functional strategies for building long-term collaboration (Cowan et al., 2004).

Regarding students with disabilities on IEPs, parents are involved in identifying their child’s specific strengths and weaknesses and developing and implementing the IEP (Cowan et al., 2004). Parents also work with the school to identify ways to participate in their child’s education (Cowan et al., 2004). Despite these findings, the home-school collaboration for high-risk children (i.e., lower socioeconomic status, less parental education, stress) is less researched. Raffaele and Knoff (1999) conducted a review investigating home-school collaboration in disadvantaged families, suggesting ways schools can improve home-school collaboration. While educators note the benefits of this type of collaboration, they often experience frustration with families as they are sometimes disconnected from the education system (Raffaele & Knoff, 1999). This barrier persists with traditional approaches, leading educators to give up on involving family and bolstering the gap between home and school (Raffaele & Knoff, 1999). This jeopardizes the child’s success as parental support is critical to education (Raffaele & Knoff, 1999).

 To rectify these issues, Raffael and Knoff (1999) discuss programs created to improve home-school collaboration, which are listed below.

• The first program was developed by Sudia Paloma McCaleb (1995) and focused on home-school collaboration for language minority students. As a part of this program, language minority families experiencing financial hardship were invited to their children’s schools to participate in a dialogue about education and life. The program also organized sessions where students and parents cooperatively authored short books, in either English or Spanish, about childhood friendships and families as problem-solvers or protagonists in their own stories. The primary purpose of this program was to empower parents and highlight their education and impact on their children. This program is unique in that it encourages core elements of home-school collaboration and respects cultural backgrounds and values (McCaleb, 1995; Raffaele & Knoff, 1999).
• The second program was created by James Comer in 1968 (Haynes et al., 1988). It focuses on a school governance system, a mental health team, and a parent program (Haynes et al., 1988), contending that home-school relationships are the most crucial factor in student success (Haynes et al., 1988). Parents were invited to participate in day-to-day activities, school governance, and join parent organizations. This program involved broad-based system changes and individual support. The Comer program increased parent involvement significantly by providing a sense of social comfort to parents (Comer & Haynes, 1991; Raffaele & Knoff, 1999).

More recently, the role of parents as collaborators is discussed through equity. Parents are the earliest teachers to their children (Baquedano-López et al., 2013). However, equity barriers such as race, class, and immigration status have been identified (Baquedano-López et al., 2013). Parental involvement for low-income families, which places deficit perspectives on parents and students, views children and families as needing rehabilitation (Baquedano-López et al., 2013). This perspective results in limited parental roles that place more responsibilities on parents, without including diverse knowledge and experiences of parents into the collaborative process (Baquedano-López et al., 2013). Culturally informed models of family literacy and involvement encourage and affirm various practices while promoting the critical consciousness of all collaborators, including educators (Baquedano-López et al., 2013).

A recent review of barriers preventing productive family school collaboration suggested that cultural and class differences are significant barriers to home-school collaboration (Lohmann et al., 2018). Also highlighted was the role of negative communication and lack of collaboration from teachers (Lohmann et al., 2018). To overcome these barriers, authors posit that person-centred planning should be the first approach, as it emphasizes the individual needs of all stakeholders (Lohmann et al., 2018). Another primary recommendation is intentional and positive communication, including body language, facial expressions, and inquiring about how the family and child are doing (Lohmann et al., 2018). This was especially effective for immigrant families who value when teachers demonstrate genuine care about the child and family’s wellbeing (Fontil & Petrakos, 2015; Lohmann et al., 2018).

School psychologists facilitate collaboration between home and school. They broadly clarify parents’ and educators’ rights, as well as roles and responsibilities for children’s learning (Christenson, 1995). This increases the opportunity to maximize learning across environments. Christenson (1995) recommends three critical roles for school psychologists to facilitate this process. First, school psychologists inform educators and parents about empirical literature on the relationship between family support and academic performance. Second, school psychologists help parents build differential resources (e.g., time, knowledge, skills) to assist their children. Lastly, school psychologists provide ongoing consultation to schools and home environments as they actively collaborate to enhance children’s academic success.

School psychologists also aid in home-school collaboration with disadvantaged families. These program include increased parental involvement in schools, empowering parents to advocate for their children, and supporting parents to help them interact more effectively with their children outside of school; all of this can be done with appropriate training, supervision, and in ways that are respectful to cultures and ecological characteristics for disadvantaged students (Raffaele & Knoff, 1999). School psychologists can also identify individual needs relevant to an effective person-centred approach (Lohmann et al., 2018) and facilitate warm, intentional communication that fosters positive collaboration (Fontil & Petrakos, 2015).

Conclusion

After reviewing this material, readers should be able to meet the objectives set out at the beginning of the chapter. We can think back to Johnny from the introduction to apply these learnings. Without group processes, various professionals, and collaboration with his family, Johnny would not receive the appropriate support for his ADHD. Within a collaborative framework, Johnny can get appropriate pharmacological treatment from his physician, environmental aids from an occupational therapist, and support in the classroom from his educators, as they now have more knowledge of Johnny’s struggles from collaborating with other important figures in Johnny’s academic journey.

This chapter discussed group processes and relevant theories, interagency collaboration, and accommodating students with disabilities. We learned about the roles of different professionals within a collaborative structure. We explored the home and the family as a collaborator in student success, with particular attention to families from different backgrounds to reflect the increasingly diverse cultural makeup of Nova Scotia.

References

American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2022). Response to Intervention (RTI). American Speech-Language-Hearing Association; American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. https://www.asha.org/slp/schools/prof-consult/rtoi/

Anderson-Butcher, D., & Ashton, D. (2004). Innovative models of collaboration to serve children, youth, families, and communities. Children & Schools, 26(1), 39–53.

Barker, C. (2021). Influencing choice theory into functional behavioural assessment. International Journal of Choice Theory & Reality Therapy, 41(1), 35-47.

Baquedano-López, P., Alexander, R. A., & Hernandez, S. J. (2013). Equity issues in parental and community involvement in schools: What teacher educators need to know. Review of Research in Education, 37(1), 149–182. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X12459718

Bauer, M. S., Damschroder, L., Hagedorn, H., Smith, J., & Kilbourne, A. M. (2015). An introduction to implementation science for non-specialist. BMC Psychology, 3, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-015-0089-9

Bradley, R., Danielson, L., & Doolittle, J. (2005). Response to intervention. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(6), 485–486. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194050380060201

Canadian Association of Occupational Therapists. (2022). What is Occupational Therapy? – CAOT. https://caot.ca/site/about/ot?nav=sidebar&banner=1

Canadian Psychiatric Association. (n.d.). Who We Are. Canadian Psychiatric Association – Association Des Psychiatres Du Canada. Retrieved November 17, 2022, from https://www.cpa-apc.org/about-cpa/who-we-are/

Cartwright, D., & Zander, A. (1968). Group Dynamics (3rd ed.). Harper + Row.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2021). What is population health? https://www.cdc.gov/pophealthtraining/whatis.html

Charley, E., Robinson-Zañartu, C., Melroe, O., Dauphinais, P., & Baas, S. A. (2015). Using the NASP framework for effective practice with indigenous youth, families, and communities. Communique, 44(1), 20-22.

Christenson, S. L. (1995). Families and schools: What is the role of the school psychologist? School Psychology Quarterly, 10(2), 118–132. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0088315

Christenson, S., & Sheridan, S. M. (2001). Schools and Families: Creating Essential Connections for Learning. Guilford Press.

Clark, T. R. (2020). The 4 stages of psychological safety: Defining the path to inclusion and innovation. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Cooper, M., Evans, Y., & Pybis, J. (2016). Interagency collaboration in children and young people’s mental health: a systematic review of outcomes, facilitating factors and inhibiting factors. Child: Care, Health, and Development, 42(3), 325-342. https://doi.org/10.1111/cch.12322

Comer, J. P., & Haynes, N. M. (1991). Parent involvement in schools: An ecological approach. The Elementary School Journal, 91(3), 271-277. https://doi.org/10.1086/461654

Cowan, R., Napolitano, S. M. S., & Sheridan, S. (2004). Home-school collaboration. Educational Psychology Papers and Publications, 2, 201-208. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/edpsychpapers/18

DeFouw, E. R., Codding, R. S., Collier-Meek, M. A., & Gould, K. M. (2019). Examining dimensions of treatment intensity and treatment fidelity in mathematics intervention research for students at risk. Remedial and Special Education, 40(5), 298–312. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932518774801

Dion, K. L. (2000). Canada. In A. E. Kazdin (ed.), Encyclopedia of psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 5-12). Washington, DC/New York: American Psychological Association & Oxford University Press.

Educational and School Psychology Section—Canadian Psychological Association. (2018, March 20). https://cpa.ca/sections/educational/

Fisher, D., Frey, N., & Thousand, J. (2003). What do special educators need to know and be prepared to do for inclusive schooling to work? Teacher Education and Special Education, 26(1), 42–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/088840640302600105

Fontil, L., & Petrakos, H. H. (2015). Transition to school: The experiences of Canadian and immigrant families of children with autism spectrum disorders. Psychology in the Schools, 52(8), 773–788. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21859

Forsyth, D. R. (2014). Group dynamics (6th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

Gajda, R. (2004). Utilizing collaboration theory to evaluate strategic alliances. American Journal of Evaluation, 25, 65-77.

Geisler-Brenstein, E., Schmeck, R. R., & Hetherington, J. (1996). An individual difference perspective on student diversity. Higher Education, 31, 73-96.

Gilbertson, D., Witt, J. C., Singletary, L. L., & VanDerHeyden, A. (2007). Supporting teacher use of interventions: Effects of response dependent performance feedback on teacher implementation of a math intervention. Journal of Behavioral Education, 16(4), 311–326. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-007-9043-0

Glasser, W. (1998). Choice Theory. Harper Collins.

Goforth, A. N., Brown, J. A., Machek, G. R., & Swaney, G. (2016). Recruitment and retention of Native American graduate students in school psychology. School Psychology Quarterly, 31(3), 340-357. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/spq0000160

Graham, C. L., Brown, R. S., Zhen, H., & McDermott, S. (2009). Teaching medical students about disability in family medicine. Family Medicine, 41(8), 542–544.

Grant, S., Leverett, P., D’Costa, S., Amie, K. A., Campbell, S. M., & Wing, S. (2022). Decolonizing school psychology research: A systematic literature review. Journal of Social Issues, 78(2), 346-365. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12513

Hare, A. P. (2003). Roles, relationships, and groups in organizations: Some conclusions and recommendations. Small Group Research, 34, 123-154.

Haynes, N. M., Comer, J. P., & Hamilton-Lee, M. (1988). The school development program: A model for school improvement. The Journal of Negro Education, 57(1), 11–21. https://doi.org/10.2307/2295272

Idol, L. (2006). Toward inclusion of special education students in general education: A program evaluation of eight schools. Remedial and Special Education, 27(2), 77–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325060270020601

Interprofessional Education Collaborative (IPEC). (2016). Core competencies for interprofessional collaborative practice: 2016 update. Interprofessional Education Collaborative. https://nebula.wsimg.com/2f68a39520b03336b41038c370497473?AccessKeyId=DC06780E69ED19E2B3A5&disposition=0&alloworigin=1

Jaiswal, A., Karabiyik, T., Thomas, P., & Magana, A. J. (2021). Characterizing team orientations and academic performance in cooperative project-based learning environments. Education Sciences, 11, 520. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11090520

Kooij, J. J. S., Bijlenga, D., Salerno, L., Jaeschke, R., Bitter, I., Balázs, J., Thome, J., Dom, G., Kasper, S., Nunes Filipe, C., Stes, S., Mohr, P., Leppämäki, S., Casas, M., Bobes, J., Mccarthy, J. M., Richarte, V., Kjems Philipsen, A., Pehlivanidis, A., & Asherson, P. (2019). Updated European consensus statement on diagnosis and treatment of adult ADHD. European Psychiatry, 56, 14–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eurpsy.2018.11.001

Kruglanski, A. W., & Webster, D. M. (1991). Group members’ reactions to opinion deviates and conformists at varying degrees of proximity to decision deadline and of environmental noise. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(2), 212–225. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.61.2.212

Leader-Janssen, E., Swain, K. D., Delkamiller, J., & Ritzman, M. J. (2012). Collaborative relationships for general education teachers working with students with disabilities. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 39(2), 112-118.

Lewin, K. (1951). Formalization and progress in society, in Cartwright, D. (Ed.). Field Theory in Social Science. Harper.

Lohmann, M. J., Hathcote, A. R., & Hogan, K. A. (2018). Addressing the Barriers to Family-School Collaboration: A Brief Review of the Literature and Recommendations. International Journal of Early Childhood Special Education, 10(1), 26–32. https://doi.org/10.20489/intjecse.454424

Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370–396. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054346

Maslow, A. H. (1987). Motivation and Personality (3rd ed.). Harper & Row Publishers.

McCaleb, S. P. (1995). Building communities of learners: A collaboration among teachers, students, families, and community. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315045610

McClain, M. B., Shahidullah, J. D., Harris, B., McIntyre, L. L., & Azad, G. (2021). Reconceptualizing education contexts: The imperative for interprofessional and interagency collaboration in school psychology. School Psychology Review, 51(6) 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1080/2372966X.2021.1949247

McKibbon, K. A. (1998). Evidence-based practice. Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, 86(3), 396-401.

Mellin, E. A., Anderson-Butcher, D., & Bronstein, L. (2011). Strengthening interprofessional team collaboration: Potential roles for school mental health professionals. Advances in School Mental Health Promotion, 4(2), 51–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/1754730X.2011.9715629

Moolla, N., & Lazarus, S. (2014). School psychologists’ views on challenges in facilitating school development through intersectoral collaboration. South African Journal of Education, 34(4), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.15700/201412052103

National Association of School Psychologists. (2020). NASP 2020 Domains of Practice. https://www.nasponline.org/standards-and-certification/nasp-2020-professional-standards-adopted/nasp-2020-domains-of-practice

National Association of School Psychologists (NASP). (n.d.). Who Are School Psychologists. Retrieved December 7, 2022, from https://www.nasponline.org/about-school-psychology/who-are-school-psychologists

Njie, A., Shea, S., & Williams, M. (2018). Students First: Inclusive Education that Supports Teaching, Learning, and the Success of all Nova Scotia Students. https://inclusiveedns.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/CIE-Students-First-WEBreport-2.pdf

Nova Scotia Department of Education. (2007). Comprehensive Guidance and Counselling. Department of Education. http://studentservices.ednet.ns.ca/sites/default/files/Comp%20Guidance%20and%20Couns%20Prog.pdf

Nova Scotia Department of Education. (2008). Special Education Policy. https://studentservices.ednet.ns.ca/sites/default/files/speceng.pdf

Nova Scotia Department of Education. (2019). Inclusive Education Policy. https://www.ednet.ns.ca/psp/equity-inclusive-education

Powell, R. K. (2018). Unique contributors to the curriculum: From research to practice for speech-language pathologists in schools. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 49(2), 140–147. https://doi.org/10.1044/2017_LSHSS-17-0059

Pretti-Frontczak, K., & Bricker, D. (2000). Enhancing the quality of individualized education plan (IEP) goals and objectives. Journal of Early Intervention, 23(2), 92-105.

Raffaele, L. M., & Knoff, H. M. (1999). Improving home-school collaboration with disadvantaged families: Organizational principles, perspectives, and approaches. School Psychology Review, 28(3), 448–466. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.1999.12085977

Rubia, K., Alegria, A. A., Cubillo, A. I., Smith, A. B., Brammer, M. J., & Radua, J. (2014). Effects of stimulants on brain function in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Biological Psychiatry, 76(8), 616–628. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2013.10.016

Santoli, S. P., Sachs, J., Romey, E. A., & McClurg, S. (2008). A successful formula for middle school inclusion: Collaboration, time, and administrative support. RMLE Online, 32(2), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/19404476.2008.11462055

Seward, G. H., & Seward, J. P. (1937). Internal and external determinants of drives. Psychological Review, 44(4), 349–363. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0059631

Smith, L.T. (2013). Decolonizing methodologies: research and Indigenous peoples. London: Zed Books Ltd.

Sosam, L. V., & McGrath, B. (2013). Collaboration from the ground up: Creating effective teams. School Social Work Journal, 38(1), 34-48.

Speech-Language and Audiology Canada. (2016). Scope of Practice for Speech-Language Pathology. Speech-Language and Audiology Canada. https://sac-oac.ca/sites/default/files/resources/scope_of_practice_speech-language_pathology_en.pdf?_ga=2.92851229.1229491843.1668446215-936982726.1668446215

Steckel, B. (2009). Fulfilling the promise of literacy coaches in urban schools: What does it take to make an impact? Reading Teacher – READ TEACH, 63, 14–23. https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.63.1.2

Talbott, E., De Los Reyes, A., Power, T. J., Michel, J. J., & Racz, S. J. (2021). A team-based collaborative care model for youth with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder in education and health care settings. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 29(1), 24–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/1063426620949987

Taormina, R. J., & Gao, J. H. (2013). Maslow and the motivation hierarchy: Measuring satisfaction of the needs. The American Journal of Psychology, 126(2), 155–177. https://doi.org/10.5406/amerjpsyc.126.2.0155

Tuckman, B. W., & Jensen, M. A. C. (1977). Stages of small-group development revisited. Group & Organization Studies, 2(4), 419-427.

Walsh, M. E., Brabeck, M. M., & Howard, K. A. (1999). Interprofessional collaboration in children’s services: Toward a theoretical framework. Children’s Services: Social Policy, Research, and Practice, 2(4), 183–208.

World Federation of Occupational Therapists. (2016). Occupational Therapy Services in School-Based Practice for Children and Youth. World Federation of Occupational Therapists. https://www.wfot.org/resources/occupational-therapy-services-in-school-based-practice-for-children-and-youth