Mr. Okafor's Implementation Problem: Consultation When the Intervention Never Ran
Mr. Okafor teaches fourth grade in a Title I school with 27 students, six of whom have IEPs. Trevor, age 9, has 12 office referrals in eight weeks, mostly for calling out, leaving his seat, and arguing with adults. The problem-solving team designed a check-in/check-out plan and a 10-minute daily repeated-reading intervention. After six weeks, Trevor's daily behavior report card shows 42% of points earned, and his oral reading fluency has grown only 3 words per minute. The school psychologist reviews implementation logs and finds Mr. Okafor completed check-in on 11 of 30 days, delivered the reading intervention on 9 of 30 days, and recorded report-card points on 14 of 30 days. In a brief interview, Mr. Okafor says, “I've got 27 kids and a pacing guide. This is one more thing they dump on me, and honestly I don't think it works anyway - he's fine in PE.” The principal wants to move Trevor to a behavior program.
1. How should the psychologist frame the problem and which consultation approach fits?
Read the worked answer
The framing question determines everything that follows. The data show the intervention was delivered roughly a third of the time. That means the team does not have evidence that the intervention failed; it has evidence that the intervention did not occur. Presenting “noncompliance” to Mr. Okafor will produce defensiveness and no change, so the psychologist should name the implementation gap neutrally - “we can't tell yet whether this works, because it hasn't had a fair test” - and treat it as a systems problem the adults solve together.
Consultee-centered consultation fits. Instead of assuming a skills deficit, assess the three classic consultee factors:
- Skill - does he know how to run repeated reading and a report card conference? Model and observe to find out, don't assume.
- Confidence - “I don't think it works” after six weeks of partial delivery suggests discouragement as much as skepticism.
- Objectivity - “he's fine in PE” is a comparison that ignores the different demands of a classroom; gentle reframing with data can help.
Also inspect the setting, not just the teacher: the intervention requires 10 minutes plus conferencing in a 27-student room; is the schedule realistic? Can check-in be folded into morning work, or report-card points into an existing routine? A first step targeted at feasibility buys credibility. Set one small goal (deliver the intervention four of five days for two weeks), provide modeling and brief performance feedback with a graph, and agree on a review date. This is capacity-building, and it is also the honest prerequisite to any decision about Trevor's placement.
2. What data would establish whether the intervention is ineffective versus not implemented, and how should the psychologist respond to the principal's push for a behavior program?
Read the worked answer
To answer the question, the team needs treatment integrity data that are direct and specific, not a global percentage. Minimum set:
- Adherence and dosage - sessions delivered, minutes, components completed (check-in, points, conferencing), collected via a simple checklist the teacher can complete in seconds.
- Quality - at least two direct observations by the psychologist, with interobserver agreement on Trevor's behavior.
- Student outcome data - the report card data plus direct observation of off-task and call-out rates, because the 42% may reflect inconsistent point recording rather than behavior.
- Comparison data - a classwide snapshot of instructional demand, so “fine in PE” can be replaced with a real functional comparison.
- Decision rules agreed in advance - e.g., if integrity is at least 80% for four consecutive weeks and Trevor's data remain flat, then the intervention is deemed insufficient and the team moves to a function-based BIP and possibly an evaluation.
On placement: the principal's instinct may be right eventually, but the current record cannot support it. Trevor has not had a documented, adequately delivered general education intervention, and a move to a behavior program is a change in placement that requires evidence of need - evidence the team does not yet have. Say so precisely, offering a four-week timeline with the integrity check as the gate. Also ask whether the function of his behavior has been assessed; if calling out is maintained by peer attention, the current plan may be the wrong intervention even if delivered perfectly. Propose an FBA if integrity holds and behavior persists.
3. What is the psychologist's responsibility to Trevor's parents during this process?
Read the worked answer
Parents are too often informed only when a placement change is proposed, which makes them recipients of decisions rather than partners. The psychologist should bring them in now, when the options are still open.
Specifically:
- Contact the parents before the four-week trial, explain what was found (the intervention was delivered about a third of the time), and be careful not to make this sound like blame directed at Trevor or at them.
- Ask what they see at home: homework completion, sleep, morning routines, any recent stressors, Trevor's own account of school. This is assessment data and shapes the FBA.
- Explain the plan in plain language - what will happen, who does what, how long it will take, and when they will hear back.
- Offer a way to monitor at home (a simple home-school note) if they want it, not as a requirement.
- Provide procedural safeguards if an evaluation is later requested or proposed, and explain their right to request one at any time.
- If there is any language or literacy barrier, use an interpreter and translated materials.
Also state honestly that a behavior program is being discussed. Concealing that and later presenting it as a fait accompli would destroy trust and invite a dispute the district may lose. If the parents request an evaluation now, the team should respond in writing within the required timeline rather than waiting for the four-week trial - the trial is a service-delivery plan, not a legal basis for delay.