Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

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

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Fff Using RtI to Make LD Eligibility Decisions In the Chicago Public Schools Sue Gamm Educational Strategies & Support."— Presentation transcript:

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

2 I.Why Change? II.LD Eligibility based on RtI Framework III.Next Steps

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?

5

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

14 Change is good. You go first! Judy Elliott, CAO, LAUSD

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

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

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 1.Determinant Factors Inappropriate lack of instruction (R/M) LEP 2.Exclusionary Criteria 3.Inclusionary Criteria Performance Discrepancy Educational Progress Instructional Needs

22 Determinant Factors

23

24 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 Lack of Appropriate Instruction in Reading/Math

25 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 Lack of Appropriate Instruction in Reading/Math

26

27 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) Lack of Appropriate Instruction in Reading/Math

28 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 Lack of Appropriate Instruction in Reading/Math

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

32 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 Lack of Appropriate Instruction in Reading/Math

33 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. Lack of Appropriate Instruction in Reading/Math

34 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 Lack of Appropriate Instruction in Reading/Math

35 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. Lack of Appropriate Instruction in Reading/Math

36 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 Lack of Appropriate Instruction in Reading/Math

37 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 Lack of Appropriate Instruction in Reading/Math

38 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 Lack of Appropriate Instruction in Reading/Math

39 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 Lack of Appropriate Instruction in Reading/Math

40 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. Lack of Appropriate Instruction in Reading/Math

41 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 Lack of Appropriate Instruction in Reading/Math

42 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 Lack of Appropriate Instruction in Reading/Math

43

44 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. Is Determinant Factor Related to Language Proficiency?

45

46 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” Exclusionary Criteria

47

48 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 Inclusionary Criteria

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

54 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 1. Performance Discrepancy

55 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 10 th percentile on screening tool not reviewed by National RTI Center; or score below 5 th percentile* on validated achievement test individually administered & compared to national norm sample (e.g., WIATII, KTEAII, WJIII). *TBD 1. Performance Discrepancy

56 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 1. Performance Discrepancy

57 Team Determination 1.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 2. 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 1. Performance Discrepancy

58 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. 1. Performance Discrepancy

59

60 Significantly slower rate than expected; or not only because of receipt of interventions 1.Were SRB interventions (designed to remediate area of identified need) implemented with fidelity? Consider: targeted intervention, ELL, intensity, amount of time, group size, etc. 2. Use appropriate progress monitoring (conducted at reasonable intervals) to inform continuation and/or modification of interventions? 2. Educational Performance

61 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 2. Educational Progress

62 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 2. Educational Progress

63

64 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) 3. Instructional needs

65 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 3. Instructional Needs

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

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 -cross-content/online-resources-a- community-partners.html

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

72

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

74


Download ppt "Fff Using RtI to Make LD Eligibility Decisions In the Chicago Public Schools Sue Gamm Educational Strategies & Support."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google