1. Oakland Schools February 2012
OS SLD Guidance: An Overview Presentation for the Oakland County Principal’s Network
Oakland Schools
February 2012

2. The OS SLD Document is designed to: Provide background information
review critical requirements of the IDEA Federal Regulations
provide examples of how to operationalize the regulations consistent with the direction from the USDOE and MDE.
The OS SLD document is not and has never intended to be specific procedures.
The OS SLD Document is designed to:
Provide background information
Review critical requirements of the IDEA Federal Regulations
Provide examples of how to operationalize the regulations consistent with the direction from the USDOE and MDE.
The OS SLD Guidance document is not and has never intended to be specific procedures.
Oakland Schools enlisted the help of a stake-holders group to assist in creation of this guidance document. This stakeholders group was made up of School Psychologists, Speech Pathologists, Teacher Consultants, and Administrators from each of the four quadrants of Oakland County.
The OS SLD Guidance and OS SLD Guidance FAQ were released August 18, The electronic version is searchable and contains live links.

3. Take Out Your Technology!
Find our Website:
You can find our website or participate in our polls with your computer, phone or tablet.
The OS SLD Guidance document is bookmarked
and searchable. All links are live!

4. What might be your role as an administrator with SLD?
Understand the historical problems with the ability-achievement discrepancy model and understand the alternatives.
Understand the multiple types of data used to make decisions about student’s suspected of SLD.
Support classroom teacher’s collaboration at the MET and IEP.
Understand the criteria used to determine SLD as well as general education’s role in appropriate instruction.

5. Background Since the inception of Learning Disabilities as
an eligibility category in the 1970’s, the difficulty
of operationalizing the diagnosis of a specific
learning disability (SLD) has plagued special
education.
Since the inclusion of Specific Learning Disability (SLD) as an eligibility category in the 1975 federal special education law, the field has been challenged to operationalize the federal SLD definition.

6. Problems with SLD Identification
For over 35 years, the discrepancy model has been required for SLD eligibility determination (discrepancy between ability and achievement).
Empirical studies over this time period have found little validity or reliability in this method for SLD determination.

7. Problems with SLD Identification
The heavy emphasis on the discrepancy model (referred to as a “wait-to- fail” model) has detracted efforts on prevention, early identification and intervention with students at-risk.
Problems with defining “severe discrepancy” has contributed to high variability in identification rates across the states, districts, and even school buildings within a district.
Disproportionate representation of minority students in special education and poor outcomes for students who receive special education.
The discrepancy model was overly focused on “what is wrong with the child” with little emphasis on ensuring high-quality instruction matched to the students. In fact, many of the children who have been identified as SLD are considered “curriculum casualties.”
Activity: Turn and talk with your partner for 30 seconds. Have you observed these issues with students in your school?
While “severe discrepancy” helped to close the potential floodgates posed by the term “imperfect ability”, the resulting reliance on the discrepancy model as an inclusionary criterion for SLD eligibility notably detracted from focusing on prevention, early identification, and appropriate intervention for students at-risk for learning disabilities.
In addition, the failure of the USDOE and many states to define “severe discrepancy” resulted in high variability in SLD identification rates across states (Reschly & Hosp, 2004), districts, and even school buildings within a district.
Furthermore, minority students have been disproportionately identified as SLD eligible, and assessment results from the NAEP have reflected poor outcomes for students identified as SLD and receiving special education services.
Additionally, it is evident that some of the students who have been identified as SLD would be more accurately identified as “curriculum casualties,” e.g., students who have not received the appropriate instruction to allow them to be successful learners.

8. Problems with SLD Identification
The special education system has become:
Overburdened
interventions are not typically “specialized”
and it has become increasingly difficult to distinguish between students with low achievement due to a lack of adequate instruction and those with a true SLD.
Over time the special education system has become overburdened, interventions have not typically been “specially designed” to address individual student needs, and it has become increasingly difficult to distinguish between students with low achievement due to a lack of adequate instruction and those with a true SLD.

9. IDEA 2004 Major shift in SLD identification practices
Deliberate effort to connect principles of ESEA with the requirements of IDEA
Congress gave states the option to address the major shortcomings of the discrepancy model, putting increased emphasis on appropriate research-based instruction
District could spend up to 15% of their IDEA Part B funds on preventative, early intervening services for at-risk, general education students.
The reauthorization of the Individual with Disabilities Act (IDEA) in 2004 encouraged a major shift in SLD identification practices and a deliberate effort to connect the principles of ESEA with the requirements of IDEA. For nearly 35 years, IDEA required the use of ability-achievement discrepancy as an inclusionary method to identify students with specific learning disabilities (SLD), despite practice complaints (e.g., ―wait to fail) and research findings (e.g., lack of reliable decision-making regarding who was and who wasn‘t eligible). In IDEA 2004, Congress gave states the option to address the major shortcomings of the ability-achievement discrepancy model, put an increased emphasis on appropriate research-based instruction, and, for the first time, allowed districts to spend up to 15% of their IDEA Part B funds on preventative, early intervening services for at-risk, general education students.

10. A Significant Change in Practice
“The regulations reflect the USDOE’s position on the identification of children with SLD and our support for models that focus on assessments that are related to instruction and promote intervention for identified children. Consensus reports indicate a need for major changes in the approach to identifying children with SLD. Models that incorporate RtI represent a shift in Special Education toward goals of better achievement and improved behavioral outcomes for children with SLD because the children who are identified under such models are most likely to require Special Education.”
Federal Regulations, pg
Thus, an important shift in special education law occurred with the enactment of IDEA 2004, which will in turn produce a significant change in practice for many years to follow. In discussion accompanying the issuance of the regulations for IDEA 2004, the USDOE is clear regarding its intention to make major changes in identification practices:
“The regulations reflect the USDOE‘s position on the identification of children with SLD and our support for models that focus on assessments that are related to instruction and promote intervention for identified children. Consensus reports indicate a need for major changes in the approach to identifying children with an SLD. Models that incorporate RTI represent a shift in Special Education toward goals of better achievement and improved behavioral outcomes for children with an SLD because the children who are identified under such models are most likely to require Special Education.”

11. Purpose of the OS Document
The purpose of this document is both to assist districts in complying with all state rules and federal regulations regarding SLD, and to encourage districts to make a long-term plan for reshaping identification practices. It is not intended to mandate an approach, nor is it intended to establish a single methodology for SLD identification across the county.
The intended audience for this document includes special education directors and supervisors, and the MET representatives who have a role in developing district procedures for the identification of SLD. Decisions about practice implications cannot and should not be made at the ISD level.
As you can see, the intended audience for the Oakland Schools Guidance document is special education staff and other individuals who play a role in identifying students with a specific learning disability. Building Administrators play an important role in the IEP process. They are typically the district representative. This guidance document lays out a new role for them, a role in assisting MET teams determine appropriate instruction and fidelity of intervention implementation. General education teachers are required MET members for the identification of specific learning disabilities. That is why this presentation is so important for members of the school community beyond the special educators.

12. Required Procedures
Initial evaluations are required to answer these questions:
Is this a child with a disability?
What is the present level of academic performance and related developmental needs?
Does the child need special education and related services?
Evaluations that are used to determine a SLD must:
Use a variety of assessment tools and strategies to gather relevant function, developmental and academic information
Not use any single measure or assessment as the sole criterion
Conduct an observation in the student’s learning environment to document the student’s academic performance and behavior in the area of difficulty
Use assessments for the purposes which the measure is reliable and valid.
These required procedures are best addressed through the multi-disciplinary team. Although every member of the team wears a different hat, they all bring a piece of the required puzzle to the table.

13. Commonalities to Data Wise
“A central premise of this book, therefore, is that it is important to examine a wide range of data, not just results on standardized tests. Indeed, we will show that an analysis of standardized test results raises more questions than it answers. Examining other types of evidence on students’ skills and knowledge is needed to answer those questions.”

15. Required Procedures A general education teacher…
Is a REQUIRED MET member for determining SLD Eligibility.
Their classroom data is important. It is a significant part of the requirement for multiple measures, demonstrating the discrepancy in state-approved grade level standards, and determining student need.
Their observations of the student within different learning contexts is needed.
Their information about the scope and sequence of the curriculum, the amount of time reading and math are taught in the classroom each day, and the way instruction is delivered is a required component in determining SLD eligibility. This is directly linked to the appropriate instruction requirement.

16. Data-wise: Ch. 2 Building Assessment Literacy
Covers several different types of assessments all of which are involved in SLD including:
Norm-referenced assessments
Criterion referenced assessments
Standards-referenced or standards-based assessments
SLD identification requires a convergence of these multiple sources of data.

17. SLD is Complex Old Thinking New Thinking
One achievement score and one IQ score
A formula determines eligibility
We collect multiple sources and types of data
Convergence of data based on professional judgment.
We have been working with district special education teams to develop procedures for SLD identification. Different districts are at different places with implementation so we will not make any assumptions with where your current learning is. Rather we will create a frame for you to visually see the new requirements.
Impact for Principal Leadership: Every district in Oakland County requires decision rules around data. OS has guidance about decision rules; these should not be viewed as absolute cut-points

18. These decision rules require professional judgment and are no longer formulaic in nature.

19. Applying IDEA 2004 Eligibility Criteria
This slide gives an overview of the required components of a SLD eligibility determination. Classification systems have used inclusionary criteria (characteristics ruling in SLD) and exclusionary criteria (characteristics ruling out SLD) over time to establish eligibility criteria. The goal is to define characteristics that reflect the construct of SLD and differentiate among many types of low achievement. Historically, inclusionary criteria for determining eligibility for SLD have included ability-achievement discrepancy models, cognitive processing models, cognitive processing deficits, absolute low achievement, and, more recently, response to intervention (RTI).
The figure on this slide was adapted from Lichtenstein (2008). The figure illustrates how the IDEA 2004 regulations and the MARSE translates into decisions making for SLD identification.
Criterion A is inadequate achievement and is a required element that now includes eight areas of eligibility including the addition of reading fluency. Inadequate achievement is considered inclusionary criteria for SLD.
Inadequate achievement needs to be unexpected given the student’s history of learning experiences and exposure to appropriate instruction. There are many possible reasons for inadequate achievement and SLD is only one possibility. In fact, exclusionary criteria and diagnostic assurance statements are designed to address these issues.

20. Inadequate achievement: Key Ideas
Impact for Principal Leadership
There are many possible reasons for achievement; SLD is only one possibility. The diagnostic assurance statement (lack of appropriate instruction or “cognitive impairment” are known causes of low achievement).

21. Applying IDEA 2004 Eligibility Criteria
Criterion B is a new requirement which now requires documentation and verification as opposed to a perfunctory checkbox. It is best thought of as an inclusionary criterion and is required for all SLD evaluations.
To meet the IDEA requirement, all SLD evaluations must consider and document the following:
Data that demonstrates that prior to, or as part of the referral process, the child was provided with appropriate instruction in regular education settings, delivered by qualified personnel.
Data-based documentation of repeated assessments of achievement at reasonable intervals, reflecting a formal assessment of student progress during instruction, which was provided to the child’s parents.
This chapter in the guidance document provides examples of how to document appropriate instruction in your reports as well as a matrix titled “Indicators of Appropriate Instruction” that guides decision making.

22. Determining appropriate instruction
Purpose
Not the Purpose
Evaluating the match of curriculum and instruction to student need, in addition to student participation.
Evaluating teachers
Impact for Principal Leadership
Realize that your staff are concerned about how collecting this data may appear as if they are evaluating their colleagues.
Have a system in place for staff to notify you if it appears as if a student has inadequate achievement due to lack of appropriate instruction.
Attempt to identify this prior to a referral to special education.

23. Appropriate Instruction and what it has brought to light:
As mentioned in Data Wise “Looking at data in groups can be an intimidating process for teachers who worry that data will be used to blame them for weaknesses in their students’ performance.”
This is especially true with our new teacher evaluation system.
Impact for Principal Leadership
Be familiar with the DIBELS position statement regarding use of data.
For further details:

24. Applying IDEA 2004 Eligibility Criteria
Impact for Principal Leadership
If you are building your RtI Infrastructure, keep the end in mind. Issues like treatment integrity and procedural fidelity have to be planned from the beginning.
Criterion C provides two options. A student’s response to intervention was added to the statute. While appropriate instruction is an inherent characteristic of RTI and is required for all evaluations, response to targeted, scientifically-based intervention is another RtI core characteristic and is an option for schools to consider as part of their evaluation. RtI is not, and has never been, conceptualized as a standalone identification model.
The Oakland Schools guidance document was not intended to be a comprehensive review of RtI, although Chapter 6 does provide a general overview and focuses on how to evaluate a student’s response to intervention.
If you are moving towards RtI for SLD eligibility then you need to start building infrastructure to have the rigor required to make SLD eligibility decisions.

25. Applying IDEA 2004 Eligibility Criteria
Impact for Principal Leadership
OS has established guidelines in using the PSW option. Determining if there is a pattern with what makes sense with our knowledge about SLD.
The second option, a pattern of strengths and weaknesses (PSW) in performance, achievement, or both, relative to age, state approved grade level standards or intellectual development replaced the ability-achievement discrepancy language.
The PSW option allows for various types of strengths and weakness comparison including a) performance (state mastery test) with state-approved grade level standards, b) comparison of achievement tests with intellectual ability, and c) intra-individual differences in achievement. “Notably, the list of possible comparisons does not include intra-individual differences in cognitive processes. As stated in the IDEA commentary, the US Department of Education did not find evidence to justify assessment of intra-individual cognitive functions as contributing to the identification and intervention decisions.” (Lichenstein, 2008, p. 310)
The OS SLD Guidance document provides guidance for teams in determining what strengths and weaknesses a student exhibits and how those patterns fit into known SLD patterns. This guidance does not require strict cut off points or a score card method for determination. There is a sample Summary Worksheet for documenting relevant data.

26. Applying IDEA 2004 Eligibility Criteria
Criterion D considers the child’s need for special education programs and/or services. The MET must determine if the student’s needs extend beyond the resources and supports provided in the general education setting. They must demonstrate that the student’s instructional needs (Delivery methods, materials or content) are significantly different than general education peers, and that the student requires instruction of an intensity or type that cannot be reasonably provided or sustained in general education.

27. Applying IDEA 2004 Eligibility Criteria
Criterion E includes the necessary exclusionary factors. Conditions other than a SLD that are known to cause low achievement must be ruled out as the primary cause. The guidance document provides “Guiding Questions” that should be considered when making this determination.

28. The final chapter in the OS SLD guidance document is titled “Determining Eligibility.” It discusses the idea that SLD determinations are complex and cannot be reduced to a simple formula. When determining eligibility, the MET must rely upon a full and individual evaluation that gathers and integrates multiple sources of data from the curriculum, instruction, environment, and learner domains. We should be using multiple strategies to gather relevant data (record reviews, interviews, observations and testing results) and integrate that data without assigning undue weight or emphasis to any single data point. The tool in this slide titled “Eligibility Guide: Key Questions in SLD Decision Making” is designed to assist teams in pulling all of this information together to make solid and consistent SLD determinations.

29. OS SLD Project
There are many activities taking place around SLD eligibility in Oakland County. The majority of these learning opportunities are for special education staff in local districts.
You are encouraged to find out who is on the SLD team in your district. Ask those individuals what is happening around SLD eligibility and where they are at in this new process.
Talk to the members of the SLD team and your Special Education Administrator about your role as a general educator.
You can adjust this slide to reflect what is occurring in your local district and to fit your audience.

30. Oakland Schools SLD Team
Dr. Susan M. Koceski, School Psychologist
Abby Cypher-Kitchen, Special Education Consultant
Matt Korolden, Compliance Consultant
Carly Staunton, System Design Consultant
Karen Rockhold, Supervisor
Additional Training and Product Support
Bill Barley
Pam Allen
Deborah Norton