1. fff Using RtI to Make LD Eligibility Decisions
In the Chicago Public Schools
Sue Gamm
Educational Strategies & Support

2. LD Eligibility based on RtI Framework Next Steps
Why Change?
LD Eligibility based on RtI Framework
Next Steps
AGENDA for the presentation. Be sure to identify break times when you review the agenda with the audience.
Clarify that FAQ’s and tools and resources are incorporated throughout the presentation (not just a separate section). 2

3. Resources for Presentation
Illinois ASPIRE RtI Eligibility Training
Illinois Special Education Eligibility and Entitlement Procedures and Criteria within a Response to Intervention (RtI) Framework: A Guidance
Frequently Asked Questions about Special Education Eligibility and Entitlement within a Response to Intervention (RtI) Framework
Office of Teaching & Learning: RtI Guidance

4. Why Change?

6. Hart & Risley, Meaningful Differences
Average number of words children heard per hour ranged from 2,153 to 616
Extrapolated out, by 4 years of age children heard 13 M to 48 M words

7. Talkative v Taciturn Parents
Talkative Parents: children heard they were right 750,000 times & times wrong 120,000 times
Taciturn Parents: children heard they were right 120,000 times & times wrong 250,000 times

8. Importance of Parent Talk
Child language based on amount of parental talking and amount and positive nature of the talk.
Parental talk accounts for all the variance.

9. Most students are referred for a special ed evaluation because of reading difficulties.
Minority Students in Gifted & Special Education (2001)

10. Designing
Change

11. Minority Students in Gifted & Special Education (2001)
Reading deficits often reflect an inadequate opportunity to learn & correlated sped referral rates for mild disability areas reflect quality of instruction.
Reading failure rates as high as 38-40% can be reduced to ≤6% through early identification & multitiered intervention.
Minority Students in Gifted & Special Education (2001)

12. Percentage of SwD with LD
ISBE District Profile: 2009

13. 2000 National Reading Panel
Many children are “instructional casualties” of failed or poor reading instruction.
2000 National Reading Panel

14. Change is good. You go first!
Judy Elliott,
CAO, LAUSD
In many cases, state reviews included a combination of two or more of these approaches.
• Reviews of policies, practices, and procedures (includes desk audits; 17)
• Reviews of student records (10)
• Reviews of existing monitoring data (6)
• Onsite visits (5)
• Reviews of due process complaints (2)
• Additional data collection and analysis (1)

15. LD Eligibility – The RtI Way

16. FY 2010 is Here!

17. Getting Started
Depending on nature and scope, RtI data can meet FIE requirements
Possible evaluation tools:
Interviews
Observation of the student in specific, relevant settings
Error analysis of work samples
CBAs/functional acad assessments, including CBMs & CBE
Progress monitoring data
Results from state and local assessments
Functional Behavioral Assessments
Behavior Rating Scales
Vocational assessments
Developmental, academic, behavioral & functional life skills checklists
Standardized (norm-referenced) assessments
So, can data collected through the RtI process meet the requirements of a full & individual, comprehensive evaluation? According to ISBE’s FAQ, depending on their nature and scope, they can. And these are examples of evaluation tools that can be used. REINFORCE

18. ISBE Administrative Code
Beginning at the start of the school year, Illinois districts must use a process that determines how a student responds to scientific, research-based interventions when determining whether a student is or continues to have a learning disability.
A student’s severe discrepancy between achievement & ability is no longer relevant.

19. New LD Eligibility Form

20. PROBLEM ID/ STATEMENT OF PROBLEM Describe baseline data & initial performance discrepancy for areas of concern in relevant domains, including information about performance discrepancy prior to intervention. Attach evidence PROBLEM ANALYSIS/STRENGTHS/WEAKNESSES Skill strengths/weaknesses. Attach evidence, including skill versus performance deficits.

21. Inappropriate lack of instruction (R/M) LEP Exclusionary Criteria
Determinant Factors
Inappropriate lack of instruction (R/M)
LEP
Exclusionary Criteria
Inclusionary Criteria
Performance Discrepancy
Educational Progress
Instructional Needs 21

22. Determinant Factors Lack of appropriate instruction in reading
Lack of appropriate instruction in math
Limited English language proficiency
If ANY DETERMINANT factor is present
– no eligibility
BUT: case manager notifies principal to correct

23. Inappropriate Lack of Instruction (R/M) LEP Exclusionary Criteria
Determinant Factors
Inappropriate Lack of Instruction (R/M)
LEP
Exclusionary Criteria
Inclusionary Criteria
Performance Discrepacy
Educational Progress
Instructional Needs 23

24. Lack of Appropriate Instruction in Reading/Math
IDEA 2004
Inserted term “appropriate”
Specifies methodology for analyzing these provisions when a student is suspected of having LD
IDEA doesn’t describe any methodology for review outside of LD - methodology not required but is permissive

25. Lack of Appropriate Instruction in Reading/Math
IDEA Methodology
Data demonstrating prior to (or part of) referral process, student provided appropriate instruction in regular ed settings - delivered by qualified personnel
Data-based documentation of repeated assessments of achievement at reasonable intervals, reflecting formal assessment of student progress during instruction
Data provided to parents

26. WHEN following is not in place:
Lack of Appropriate Instruction in Reading/Math
CAN one assume poor reading/math is based on an internal disability
WHEN following is not in place:
Student provided with research & standards based core curriculum/instruction
Scientific research-based (SRB) interventions
Implementation with fidelity
Regular review & analysis?

27. Data Reflects Appropriate Instruction
Lack of Appropriate Instruction in Reading/Math
Data Reflects Appropriate Instruction
Reading Instruction’s essential components (2001 ESEA): phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary & comprehension
Math Instruction’s essential components: conceptual understanding, procedural fluency, strategic competence, adaptive reasoning, & productive response.
National Research Council (2001)

28. Use of SRB Interventions
Lack of Appropriate Instruction in Reading/Math
Use of SRB Interventions
Prior to/during the FIE process interventions used at Tier 2/Tier 3 levels were:
Based on scientific research
Appropriate for student
Provided in addition to core instruction
The Office of Teaching and Learning’s RtI Toolkit will offer best practices associated with multitiered interventions of increasing intensity

29. What is Scientifically-Based?
Practices and programs that have been thoroughly and rigorously reviewed to determine whether they produce positive educational results in a predictable manner
Determination based on objective, external validation

30. Is Differentiated Instruction an Intervention?
High quality instruction is differentiated & culturally responsive, effectively meeting diverse learner needs

31. Lack of Appropriate Instruction in Reading/Math
Qualified Personnel
Instruction delivered by personnel meeting highly qualified requirements of ESEA
Staff implementing core & supplemental instruction must also be adequately trained

32. Lack of Appropriate Instruction in Reading/Math
Data Sources
State assessment data (e.g., ISAT, PSAE)
Local universal screening data collected multiple times during academic year
Progress monitoring data of SBR interventions collected in regular intervals for individual or groups of students

33. Implementation with Fidelity
Lack of Appropriate Instruction in Reading/Math
Implementation with Fidelity
PLAN DEVELOPMENT/INTERVENTIONS Describe previous & current instruction & interventions (Tier I-core, Tier 2-strategic and Tier 3-Intensive) including evidence of scientific base and implementation with fidelity.

34. Principles of Integrity
Lack of Appropriate Instruction in Reading/Math
Principles of Integrity
Length of time curriculum in place
Amount of teacher training
Length of time student was taught the curriculum
Degree to which the instructional methodologies and techniques are used
Degree to which the instructional procedures and materials are used

35. Lack of Appropriate Instruction in Reading/Math
Practice Standards
Use of Fidelity of Implementation Checklist based on Instructional Planning Form
Existing mechanisms, e.g., school leadership/improvement process, professional development, school/classroom walk-throughs, instructional rounds, fidelity checklists, etc.

36. Unsatisfactory Practices
Lack of Appropriate Instruction in Reading/Math
Unsatisfactory Practices
Informal descriptions of reading intervention presented at meetings with interventions described only by program name(s) or on limited features, e.g., amount of time daily/weekly
Less structured interview information or self reports completed by the person(s) providing the intervention(s)
No independent observations for fidelity of implementation

37. Progress Monitoring (PM)
Lack of Appropriate Instruction in Reading/Math
Progress Monitoring (PM)
Databased documentation of repeated assessments of achievement at reasonable intervals, reflecting formal assessment of student progress during instruction.
Consider appropriateness of data, including tools used and way in which monitoring conducted
Progress monitored frequently & with fidelity

38. Frequency of Monitoring
Lack of Appropriate Instruction in Reading/Math
Frequency of Monitoring
Monitoring is more frequent as interventions become more intense
In Tier I: Approximately every 10 weeks
Tier II: At least twice per month
Tier III: At least weekly
OTL Toolkit will give further recommendations about PM tools and processes, best practices, and further instructions on use of GradeBook

39. Lack of Appropriate Instruction in Reading/Math
PM Assumptions
Directly linked to area(s) of concern
Completed over a period of time to assure reliability
Used by Instructional Leadership Team (ILT) to determine if interventions should continue because of demonstrated improvement - be changed - or provided with more intensity to support increased progress

40. Lack of Appropriate Instruction in Reading/Math
PM Practice Standards
The PM tool was reviewed by/met National RTI Center standards; was administered individually; and goal(s) developed in advance.
Validated but not reviewed by National RTI Center; or progress measured by end-of- unit tests that accompany the intervention program; and goal(s) developed in advance.

41. Lack of Appropriate Instruction in Reading/Math
PM Practice Standards
UNSATISFACTORY. Tool neither validated nor meets National RTI Center standards administered in group - NO goals developed in advance - INCLUDES teacher-made tests, ratings or opinions
ELL. Above standards apply & must be valid for students with similar acculturation. NOT OK to use tool reflecting increased performance by students with different primary language

42. PM Data Given to Parents
Lack of Appropriate Instruction in Reading/Math
PM Data Given to Parents
Universal screening and/or student progress data
Provide in manner that’s easily understood, contains parent-friendly language & provides grade-level performance expectations so parents can compare performance
Inform parents about the steps being taken to intensify/change interventions

43. Inappropriate lack of performance (R/M) LEP Exclusionary Criteria
Determinant Factors
Inappropriate lack of performance (R/M)
LEP
Exclusionary Criteria
Inclusionary Criteria
Performance Discrepancy
Educational Progress
Instructional Needs 43

44. English Language Learners
Is Determinant Factor Related to Language Proficiency?
English Language Learners
If student’s language proficiency may explain severely low achievement and lack of progress - disaggregate achievement and progress information
Compare student to typical peers and – to extent possible – those with similar language, acculturation & experience.

45. Inappropriate lack of performance (R/M) LEP Exclusionary Criteria
Determinant Factors
Inappropriate lack of performance (R/M)
LEP
Exclusionary Criteria
Inclusionary Criteria
Discrepant Performance
Educational Progress
Instructional Needs 45

46. Exclusionary Criteria
Visual, motor or hearing disability; cognitive disability; emotional disturbance; cultural factors; or environmental or economic disadvantage
Effective screening can rule out exclusionary factors; not rule them “in”

47. Inappropriate lack of instruction (R/M) LEP Exclusionary Criteria
Determinant Factors
Inappropriate lack of instruction (R/M)
LEP
Exclusionary Criteria
Inclusionary Criteria
Performance Discrepancy
Educational Progress
Instructional Needs 47

48. Inclusionary Criteria
Based on IDEA/Illinois regulations, determine if a student does not:
Achieve adequately for age or to meet State- approved grade-level standards in area(s) of concern when provided learning experiences & instruction appropriate for child’s age or State- approved grade-level standards
Make sufficient progress to meet age or State- approved grade-level standards in area(s) of concern when using a process based on the child’s response to scientific, research-based intervention

49. Illinois’ Framework
DISCREPANCY. Performance significantly discrepant from peer group/standard; not discrepant because of intervention’s intensity
EDUCATIONAL PROGRESS. Progressing at significantly slower rate than age appropriate peers; or acceptable progress only because …
INSTRUCTIONAL NEEDS. Needs in any areas of concern are significantly different from those of typical peers & of intensity/type exceeding general ed resources

50. Per ISBE, IQ/achievement discrepancy is NOT component of these 3 criteria & team may NOT consider this result when criteria are not met
If the 3 criteria are met but there is NO severe IQ/achievement discrepancy, this result does NOT reverse the findings
Same applies to any data showing pattern of strengths & weaknesses in performance, achievement or both
If there’s suspicion of cognitive disability, intelligence assessment may be relevant

51. CPS psychologists will NO LONGER assess a student’s IQ/achievement discrepancy for LD

52. Nonverbal LD
Has been used to describe significant discrepancy between high verbal & lower performance scores on IQ test & deficits in motor, visual-spacial & social skills
Per ISBE, only areas in IDEA reg are relevant for LD eligibility, which are performance- based & focus on achievement - not processing deficits/behavior
Reading (basic skills, fluency skills, comprehension); math (calculation, problem solving); expression (written or oral); and/or listening comprehension

53. Inappropriate lack of instruction (R/M) LEP Exclusionary Criteria
Determinant Factors
Inappropriate lack of instruction (R/M)
LEP
Exclusionary Criteria
Inclusionary Criteria
Performance Discrepancy
Educational Progress
Instructional Needs 53

54. 1. Performance Discrepancy
Often referred to as “gap” analysis
USE:
State assessment data (e.g., ISAT, PSAE);
Local universal screening on all students collected multiple times during the academic year; and/or
PM data collected regularly

55. 1. Performance Discrepancy
Practice Standards
Score below 10th percentile on screening tool meeting standards set by the National RTI Center based on peers in their local school; administered individually; and/or on CBM compared to other students in the grade/school.
Score below 10th percentile on screening tool not reviewed by National RTI Center; or score below 5th percentile* on validated achievement test individually administered & compared to national norm sample (e.g., WIATII, KTEAII, WJIII). *TBD

56. 1. Performance Discrepancy
Practice Standards
UNSATISFACTORY. Teacher ratings or opinions, ISAT scores, or end-of-unit or curriculum-made tests; data from screening tools not meeting CPS screening standards
ELL. Same as above but student compared with others from same language subgroup

57. 1. Performance Discrepancy
Team Determination
Does discrepancy data meet practice standards?
IF NOT: within eval time frame, case manager reschedules meeting & notifies principal/designee to obtain applicable data; or student is not eligible
Is student’s performance significantly below his/her peers/expected standards in one/ more area(s) of concern? Or not due to receipt of interventions

58. 1. Performance Discrepancy
Documentation
Team reviews/documents normative rate of progress displayed by peers; and rate of learning required to close performance gap
Summarize data & analysis on Eligibility Determination form & Documentation of Evaluation/Intervention Results form, under Discrepancy.

59. Inappropriate lack of instruction (R/M) LEP Exclusionary Criteria
Determinant Factors
Inappropriate lack of instruction (R/M)
LEP
Exclusionary Criteria
Inclusionary Criteria
Discrepant Performance
Educational Progress
Instructional Needs
AGENDA for the presentation. Be sure to identify break times when you review the agenda with the audience.
Clarify that FAQ’s and tools and resources are incorporated throughout the presentation (not just a separate section). 59

60. 2. Educational Performance
Significantly slower rate than expected; or not only because of receipt of interventions
Were SRB interventions (designed to remediate area of identified need) implemented with fidelity?
Consider: targeted intervention, ELL, intensity, amount of time, group size, etc.
Use appropriate progress monitoring (conducted at reasonable intervals) to inform continuation and/or modification of interventions?

61. 2. Educational Progress
Team Determination
Were PM & SRB interventions (including core curriculum) provided per above?
IF NOT: within eval time frame, case manager reschedules meeting & notifies principal/designee to obtain applicable data; or student is not eligible
Does PM data show interventions sufficiently improved rate of learning/reduced performance gap? REVIEW:
Baseline performance
Rate of Improvement (ROI) - how well - pace/speed
ROI compared to predetermined ROI
Document on Eligibility Determination form & Educational Progress

62. The student does not have LD
2. Educational Progress
The student does not have LD
When progressing
At acceptable rate of progress
Based on SRB interventions
Typically provided with comparable intensity to S w/o D

63. Inappropriate lack of instruction (R/M) LEP Exclusionary Criteria
Determinant Factors
Inappropriate lack of instruction (R/M)
LEP
Exclusionary Criteria
Inclusionary Criteria
Discrepant Performance
Educational Progress
Instructional Needs 63

64. 3. Instructional needs
Significantly different needs from typical peers & of intensity/type exceeding general ed resources
Team considers:
Tier 2/3 intervention factors enabling progress
Characteristics of educational services needed
Intensity (rate of practice/feedback, explicitness of instruction)
Time (amount of time/day and sessions/week)
Group size (individualized, very small)

65. 3. Instructional Needs
Team Determination
Was PM data used to determine instructional needs that meet best or defensible practices?
IF NOT: within eval time frame, case manager reschedules meeting & notifies principal/designee to obtain applicable data; or student is not eligible
Are needs significantly different from those of typical peers & of intensity/type exceeding general ed resources?
Document on Eligibility Determination form & Instructional Need

66. Eligibility Determination
Does the disability adversely affect educational performance?
(discrepancy, educational progress, instructional need)
Need for specialized instruction

67. Home Schooled & Parentally Placed
Must collect necessary data (new if it did not exist) to determine student’s response to instruction & intervention as part of evaluation.
May administer universal screening measures and compare resulting scores to same CPS age/grade, and/or may provide limited consultation or interventions & progress monitoring.

68. Independent Evals
Parent does not have any right to an IEE at public expense before CPS completes its evaluation simply because of disagreement to use RtI as part of the evaluation process.
If an IEE is at public expense, it must conform to IL and CPS eligibility criteria, including how a student responds to SRB interventions as part of the evaluation procedures for LD.

69. Reevaluations
ISBE’s RTI FAQ. Must involve RtI in reevals for LD. Even if RtI not part of initial eval, presumed initial eligibility process valid & disability remains unless data indicates otherwise. (Data could show able to benefit from general ed curriculum without special education/related services.
USDE GUIDANCE. “Obviously” team should consider as part of reeval process – appropriateness of instructional & overall special ed program. If appropriate & student unable to exit - strong evidence to maintain eligibility.

70. T&L RtI Website
Office of Teaching & Learning RtI

71. The Perfect Storm RtI without Fidelity ADA /504 Expanded Eligibility
IDEA
Dispro-
portionality
Child Find
Vulnerability

73. LD Eligibility based on RtI Framework NEXT STEPS
Why Change?
LD Eligibility based on RtI Framework
NEXT STEPS 73