Specific Learning Disabilities

Specific Learning Disabilities
Guidance for West Virginia Schools and Districts April 2012

Guidelines for Identifying Students with Specific Learning Disabilities
Guidelines to inform practice and decision- making Background information Strategies and procedures to provide consistency across schools and districts Resources

You Will Know… The nature, roles and responsibilities of the various teaming structures needed within the SPL framework Procedures for verifying each of the SLD criteria Level of Learning Rate of Learning Exclusionary Factors Validating Underachievement Patterns of Strengths and Weaknesses How to document the written requirements for SLD determinations At the conclusion of this workshop, you will know…

You Will Understand… Collaboration Data analysis Documentation
Eligibility Committee (EC) members need a comprehensive understanding of the student, his/her educational environment, educational history, and response to multi-level instruction The EC decision-making process relies on high quality: Collaboration Data analysis Documentation Assessment You will understand…

Policy & Guidance Policy 2419: Regulations for the Education of Students with Exceptionalities July 2012 Elements of multi-level instruction Problem-solving model SLD Standards/Criteria Specific Learning Disabilities Guidance for West Virginia Schools and Districts “Standard operating procedures” Decision-making considerations Resources Policy 2419 includes the regulations for implementing IDEA It includes the elements of the multi-level instruction model, a summary of the problem solving model used within the SPL process and the standards or criteria for determining that a student has a specific learning disability. Identifying Students with Specific Learning Disabilities is a guidance document that will assist schools and parents in making confident decisions. It includes procedures for all components of the SPL process, guidelines for decision-making and a variety of resources.

Authority Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA 2004), permitted the use of a process for identification of students with specific learning disabilities (SLD) that is based on the child’s response to scientific, research-based intervention. (§ (a)(2)) In 2007 the West Virginia Board of Education approved a revision to Policy 2419: Regulations for the Education of Students with Exceptionalities In 2012 the West Virginia Board of Education Approved a revisions to Policy 2419: Regulations for the Education of Students with Exceptionalities In 2007 the West Virginia Board of Education approved a revision to Policy 2419: Regulations for the Education of Students with Exceptionalities that phased out the use of the severe discrepancy model and required the use of Response to Intervention (RTI) documentation as one component of eligibility decision-making while also recognizing the contribution that an evaluation of a student’s cognitive processing to determine strengths and weaknesses could be very valuable. In 2011, Support for Personalized Learning (SPL) was adopted as a framework for providing personalized learning to all students. The West Virginia SPL framework is a state-wide initiative that suggests flexible use of resources to provide relevant academic, social/emotional and/or behavioral support to enhance learning for all students.

Advance Organizer Connecting Problem-Solving and Teaming
SPL & SLD Problem-Solving and Teaming Multidisciplinary Evaluation Components SLD Eligibility Standards Pattern(s) of Strengths and Weaknesses Connecting SPL, PSW & SLD Documentation Requirements This slide shows how the presentation is organized around these seven themes. You will see this slide periodically as we move through the session. We begin with Connecting SPL and SLD.

Connecting SPL and SLD The Framework and the Identification Process

Operationalizing SPL In 2011, Support for Personalized Learning was adopted as a framework for providing personalized learning to all students. SPL is characterized by a seamless system of high quality instructional practices allowing all students to sustain significant progress, whether they are considered at-risk, exceeding grade- level expectations or at any point along the continuum. SPL benefits include earlier identification of academic difficulties and a reduction in the number of students inappropriately referred for special education services.

SPL Continuum of Support
SPL is first and foremost a support system for all students. High quality CORE instruction is the foundation of SPL. It is characterized by high expectations for all students and takes place in an academic environment that is safe, challenging, engaging and allows students to take academic risks without fear of failure. All students need access to high quality CORE instruction. Quality instruction at the CORE level requires a focus of personnel and resources as indicated by students’ needs. Due to the fluctuating nature of needs across and within districts, schools and classrooms, it is essential that the individuals who are most aware of the needs participate in decisions made to allocate personnel and material resources. SPL affirms the premise that high-quality CORE instruction averts the need for unnecessary intervention and supports, and meets the needs of at least 80% of the students. Quality instruction at the CORE level incorporates relevant formative assessment, differentiation and scaffolding as basic practices in all lessons, and provides significant opportunities for authentic application of content and skills in and across all disciplines. It requires responsive teaching, teacher modeling, guided instruction, productive group work and independent learning. Content goals in the CORE come directly from the West Virginia Content Standards and Objectives. TARGETED instruction and more intense scaffolding are triggered when a student’s progress in the general classroom environment, despite strong commitment and high quality instruction at the CORE level, slows to below State-approved grade-level standards. It differs from quality CORE instruction because of increased scaffolding, time, assessment and expertise. INTENSIVE support is distinguished from TARGETED support by intensification of scaffolding, time, expertise and assessment. Additionally, INTENSIVE instruction is typically provided to smaller groups of similarly-skilled and needs-alike students or one-to-one. INTENSIVE instruction usually occurs three to five times per week for 30 to 60 minutes (over a minimum of nine weeks) and is more likely to occur outside the general classroom than the TARGETED level of support.

Suggested SPL Guidelines
Variables Targeted Instruction Intensive Instruction Time Per Session 15-30 minutes 30-60 Length of Session Time will vary based on student needs 9 weeks minimum prior to moving to Intensive. Continues only until specific skill, concept, behavior is in place (usually short-term) 9 weeks minimum Number of Sessions 3-5 per week Frequency of Progress Monitoring Every 2-3 weeks Every 1-2 weeks This chart comes directly from the SPL document and provides the suggested guidelines for SPL.

SPL Data-One Element of SLD Eligibility
West Virginia’s SLD eligibility criteria no longer includes the use of the IQ-achievement discrepancy SPL is one component of the identification of specific learning disabilities. A specific learning disability determination is based on both educational need and a student’s low response to high-quality general education instruction. A body of evidence demonstrating academic skill deficiencies and insufficient progress when provided TARGETED and INTENSIVE instruction is required in documenting eligibility as a student with a specific learning disability.

Parents as Partners in the SPL Process
The district must document that the student’s parents were notified about the following: The state’s policies regarding the amount and nature of student performance data that would be collected and the general education services that would be provided; Strategies for increasing student’s rate of learning; and The parents’ right to request an evaluation at any time throughout the SPL process “A Parent’s Guide to Support for Personalized Learning (SPL)” is available at Counties are responsible for the copying and distribution of the parent brochure. In determining SLD, you must be able to document that the parent was indeed provided this information.

Critical Concepts It is critical that teachers, administrators and evaluators understand that low achievement alone does not constitute a student with a learning disability. only after a student is provided TARGETED and INTENSIVE instruction over a sufficient period of time that the conclusion of a SLD may be made. delivery of sufficient and appropriate multi-level instruction includes the provision of supports at CORE, TARGETED and INTENSIVE levels. instruction at these increasingly more intense levels ensures that each student is provided an adequate opportunity to learn prior to a SLD determination.

Connecting SPL to SLD Severe and persistent low achievement
Minimal or low response to TARGETED and INTENSIVE instruction Consideration of exclusionary factors, including lack of appropriate instruction SLD Determination

Advance Organizer Connecting Problem-Solving and Teaming
SPL & SLD Problem-Solving and Teaming Multidisciplinary Evaluation Components SLD Eligibility Standards Pattern(s) of Strengths and Weaknesses Connecting SPL, PSW & SLD Documentation Requirements

Problem Solving and Teaming
Laying the Foundation for Decision-Making

Problem-Solving Process
3. Develop a Plan 2. Analyze the Problem 4. Implement and Monitor the Plan 5. Evaluate and Adjust the Plan 1. Identify and Define Needs The school must establish a process for examining screening data, analyzing causes for limited response to CORE instruction, developing instruction to increase student achievement and ensuring all students are learning. The process of decision-making is the same regardless of examining groups of students or an individual student. The more efficient use of time and resources is found when the process is utilized to benefit groups of students. The SPL team members will have various roles in this process. It is a continuous cycle of examining data and modifying and adjusting for student needs. This collaborative learning cycle results in curriculum decisions, scheduling of instruction, student grouping and allocation of resources. Five steps in the process have been identified. The steps are as follows:

Progress Monitoring Progress monitoring provides dynamic assessment information to help teachers make instructional decisions. Frequently collected data provides ongoing guidance to teachers regarding the effectiveness of instruction and whether changes to instruction are needed. While progress monitoring data are collected prior to and during the referral and evaluation process (every two to three weeks in TARGETED and every one to two weeks in INTENSIVE), it is important that school personnel involved at various decision- making levels (i.e., IT, SAT, MDET, EC) understand the purpose and utility of progress monitoring procedures.

Progress Monitoring Progress monitoring varies depending on the level of intensity. For students at the Core level, progress monitoring is provided to all students using on-going universal screening and assessments aligned with instruction. Students who are receiving more intensive instruction in Targeted and Intensive levels are provided more focused progress monitoring. Tools that are flexible, efficient, accessible and informative are a priority. Progress monitoring is the way in which a team can gather the data used to make decisions during the problem-solving process.

Progress Monitoring Progress monitoring assessments function within SPL as a gauge of student performance and bring forward the need for conversation about instruction for groups of students or for individuals. Assessments in this category most typically target evidence of progress relative to specific, high-priority skills and processes. Data in this category could come from Acuity testlets or probes, DIBELS Next, West Virginia Writes, as well as other assessments. Progress monitoring assessment results can be used to adjust scaffolding, instructional pacing and presentation, as well as contribute to a collection of data used to make decisions about most appropriate instruction and placement for individual students. Progress monitoring data provides valuable information about students’ improvement as a result of a particular instructional method or program and measures instructional change and student growth.

Progress Monitoring Guidelines for Charting Student Progress
Guidelines for Charting Student Progress Draw trend line of student progress (e.g., Tukey method) for 7-8 data points and compare to the student’s goal line Trend is not as steep as the goal line, make a teaching change Trend is steeper than the goal line, raise the goal May use “four-point rule” if at least three weeks of instruction has occurred and the last four scores collected all fall above or below the goal line Four most recent scores all fall below the goal line, make a teaching change Four most recent scores all fall above the goal line, raise the goal (Stecker & Lembke, 2007) Comprehensive information on progress monitoring is collected and disseminated by the National Center on Student Progress Monitoring at Included on the web site are presentations, procedures manuals, information briefs and training modules.

Collaborative Structures
Instructional Team Student IT SAT MDET EC Team IEP Team Individualized Education Program Student Assistance Team The IT may also be a Grade Level Team or a Content Area Team. Both informal and formal collaborative structures for decision-making are in place in West Virginia and include: School Leadership Teams, Grade-Level Teams, Content Area Teams, Instruction Teams (IT), Student Assistance Teams (SAT), Multidisciplinary Evaluation Teams (MDET), Eligibility Committees (EC) and Individualized Education Program (IEP) Teams. Each of these formats provides a framework and process for discussing students’ educational concerns. Several types of teams are found at schools that have direct involvement with the SPL process. Regardless of the names of these teams, it is their function and membership that make them unique. In small schools, the teams may be combined or have shared membership. Since SPL is a dynamic process in which procedures change, the members of a team may also change. Decisions about how teams are configured are made at the local level based on the current needs of the students in the school. However, each team meets regularly and for a sufficient amount of time to conduct the business of the team. In addition to a written schedule of meeting times and locations, agendas and minutes are maintained in a file by a person and in a place designated by the team. Core members consistently attend meetings and avoid interruptions. Multidisciplinary Evaluation Team Eligibility Committee

Collaborative Structures
West Virginia Board of Education Policy 2510, Assuring Quality of Education: Regulations for Education Programs, sets forth requirements at each programmatic level to address the needs of struggling students. In Grades K-4 schools must provide strategies for early detection and intervention to correct student deficiencies in reading, language arts and mathematics. At the middle school level, an intervention component ensures mastery of the rigorous content standards and objectives at each grade level. High school students who do not demonstrate mastery of the content standards and objectives shall be provided extra help and extra time through intervention strategies.

Instructional Teams (IT)
Instructional Teams (ITs) are generally comprised of same grade- level teachers and providers of customized instruction. Naturally fit into the structure of middle schools and are also accommodated by departmental teams at the high school level. May also include the principal, school psychologist, special education teachers, speech/language pathologist and any other qualified personnel who have knowledge of the student and/or expertise in data analysis and instructional planning.

(IT) Focus ITs focus on student progress by:
using screening/interim assessment and other performance data to identify students who are not performing satisfactorily; grouping students according to specific skill needs; selecting or developing TARGETED instruction; and monitoring student progress and the effectiveness of instruction.

Student Assistance Teams (SAT)
Policy for Student Assistance Teams (SAT) is set forth in West Virginia Board of Education Policies 2510 and 2419. SAT may act in lieu of the IT Members may be the same or similar to the IT

SAT Focus The primary function of the SAT is the review of individual student needs that have persisted despite being addressed by the IT. A teacher, parent, instructional team (IT), adult student, district or any other interested person or agency may initiate a referral to SAT. The SAT ensures that multi-level instruction has been implemented and documented by the student’s teacher and/or provider of customized instruction.

Importance of IT and SAT
This documentation becomes part of the important existing data that will be used by the Multidisciplinary Evaluation Team (MDET) in determining what additional assessments are needed to determine if the student is a student with a Specific Learning Disability. Subsequently, the Eligibility Committee (EC) will use the SPL data along with additional information gained from the multidisciplinary evaluation to substantiate its eligibility decision.

IT and SAT Roles & Responsibilities
Teachers working together to: Identify students for multi- level instruction Group students Select and develop targeted instruction Monitor student progress and effectiveness of instruction SAT Review documentation collected during TARGETED and INTENSIVE instruction. Make recommendations for further, broader problem- solving activities Initiate multidisciplinary evaluations for special education The purpose of the IT is outlined here. Many schools refer to their teams as grade-level or monitoring teams. The name is not important – rather, it is the purpose and work of those teams that supports the SPL framework. In some schools, the IT and the SAT are the same group. Again, it’s not the name that matters but the fact that student data is being analyzed, instructional decisions are being made, and staff are working collaboratively to solve instructional problems.

Other Collaborative Teams
MDET – Multidisciplinary Evaluation Team Reviews SPL documentation and determines additional areas of assessment needed to constitute a multidisciplinary evaluation. EC - Eligibility Committee Reviews SPL documentation and additional assessments required by the multidisciplinary evaluation team in an effort to confirm the presence of a Specific Learning Disability. IEP Team – Individualized Education Plan Team Reviews the recommendations of the EC and SPL documentation to design a specialized education plan that will allow the child to progress in the State-approved grade-level curriculum.

MDET and EC Roles & Responsibilities
Review and discuss existing data collected during multi-level instruction Determine the need for additional evaluations that inform instruction and eligibility decision-making Select appropriate assessments to confirm or reject a SLD hypothesis EC Review and discuss student’s response to multi-level instruction Review and discuss results of additional evaluations Determine if multiple data sources indicate a specific learning disability Document the presence of a SLD Once the SAT makes the recommendation for a multidisciplinary evaluation the MDET is utilized. The evaluation team includes the same members as the IEP team but not necessarily the same individuals. A key responsibility of the MDET is to review existing data and make recommendations for additional evaluations. Finally, the Eligibility Committee is responsible for determining whether a student is eligible for or continues to need special education services. The most significant responsibility for the EC within the context of SPL is the task of verifying and analyzing the student’s response to intervention.

Advance Organizer Connecting SPL & SLD Problem-Solving and Teaming
Multidisciplinary Evaluation Components SLD Eligibility Standards Pattern(s) of Strengths and Weaknesses (PSW) Connecting SPL, PSW & SLD Documentation Requirements

Multidisciplinary Evaluation Components
Selecting Assessments to Inform Instruction and Determine SLD

Components of an Evaluation for SLD
Data collected throughout the SPL process is used as one component of the multidisciplinary evaluation The purpose of evaluations is to help the team identify not only why a student is struggling, but also how teachers can design appropriate and individualized specially designed instruction. In conducting an evaluation, schools are encouraged to select assessment procedures to link eligibility determination to instruction. A complementary relationship between the SPL process and psychoeducational testing exists in evaluating for a potential learning disability. SPL plus other evaluations constitute an evaluation for SLD. While the SPL process replaces the IQ-Achievement discrepancy model, it neither replaces nor circumvents the need for a comprehensive evaluation of a student suspected to have a SLD.

SPL Documentation Constitutes Existing Data…
Most information is gathered through the course of the student’s instruction A chronology of the student’s educational history Screening, Interim assessments, formative/classroom assessments and progress monitoring data Results of diagnostic assessments to inform the instructional process (e.g., Quick Phonics Screener, Phonological Awareness Screening Inventory, Key Math- 3, Basic Reading Inventory) Documentation of the nature, frequency, and duration of TARGETED and INTENSIVE instruction Take a look at the types of existing data that school are using to establish whether a student has responded sufficiently to intervention…

Considerations for Selecting Formal Assessments
In conducting an evaluation, MDETs select assessment procedures that will link eligibility determinations to instruction. Assessments that focus on specific features of a student’s academic difficulty are more useful than measures that address global academic areas. For the student who exhibits weaknesses in areas such as memory, attention, or processing speed, the evaluation battery addresses those areas. When the MDET chooses to use formal assessments, they must consider these points.

Cross Battery Assessment (XBA) Approach for Determining SLD
Cross battery assessment(XBA) is a process of selecting subtests that target specific cognitive domains. XBA results and interpretations inform and guide instructional approaches and strategies for the student. XBA can be used to determine if a pattern(s) of Strengths and Weaknesses exists between cognitive abilities and achievement XBA includes multiple measures for arriving at a conclusion that confirms or rejects the hypothesis made by the SAT and MDET. Lists included in the SLD guidance document Appendix are not exclusive. Professional judgment and expertise should guide the selection of tests. One technique to cognitive assessment that may be useful is the cross-battery approach. It is described briefly in the Guidelines for Identifying SLD document on pp and the references beginning on p. 55 includes further readings. Also, the Appendix includes three example of cross battery assessments designed to investigate reading and mathematics difficulties.

Observation Requirement
The student suspected of having a SLD must be observed in the learning environment, including the general classroom setting, to document the student’s academic performance and behavior in the areas of difficulty. IDEA 2004 includes a new requirement for observation. New language (underlined component on slide) addresses academic performance and behavior in the areas of difficulty. So, if a student is referred for evaluation due to reading difficulties, observation of the student in the context of reading instruction is required. Logistics are important and evaluators will need to strategically plan observations that capture the student’s performance in those areas of difficulty.

Observation Requirement
Use information from observation done before the student was referred for an evaluation OR At least one member of the evaluation team conducts an observation after the student has been referred for evaluation and parent consent is obtained IDEA 2004 strengthened its language around the observation and the child suspected of having a SLD. It now uses the word “ensure” in discussing the provision. It also broadens the scope of where the child is to be observed. Previously the environment for observation was just in the general classroom setting. Also added are the phrases “and behavior” and “in the areas of difficulty” – which address the scope of what is being observed.

Observation and Parent Consent
Circumstance Consent Required Consent Not Required Observations conducted as part of routine classroom instruction and monitoring of the child’s performance before the referral for evaluation Observations conducted after the child is suspected of having a disability and is referred for evaluation The new observation requirement generates questions about parent consent. This chart illustrates the issue and when consent is and is not required.

Parent Requests for Evaluation
The law is clear - a parent may request an evaluation at any time during the SPL process If a parent requests an evaluation, the district may choose to: Request permission to evaluate, OR Decline the request to evaluate and issue prior written notice (PWN) in accordance with the regulations SPL does not change this aspect of the special education regulations. Note the two options the district has once a parent requests an evaluation: 1) honor the parent’s request, or 2) deny the request and provide PWN. Don’t get bogged down with the notion that if the evaluation is done prior to the completion of tiered intervention, the student’s can’t be made eligible. Be sure to explain that the other important component to identifying a student with a SLD is the collection of SPL data. A premature request for evaluation may not be helpful as SPL data must be reviewed in the decision-making process. Good communication with parents is the key and will help schools avoid potential conflict over premature evaluations. NOTE: Schools use their SAT process to address a parental request for evaluation.

SLD Eligibility Standards
Operationalizing the SLD Criteria

SLD Eligibility Standards
Policy 2419 frames the SLD eligibility as: level of learning (Standard 1); rate of learning (Standard 2); and exclusion factors (Standard 3), including the validation of the provision of appropriate instruction. pattern of strengths and weaknesses

Standard 1 – Level of Learning
The first element in identifying a student with a learning disability addresses the student’s mastery of grade-level content in one or more of the following areas: oral expression; listening comprehension; written expression; basic reading skill; reading fluency skills (area added in 2004 revisions to IDEA); reading comprehension; mathematics calculation; or mathematics problem solving.

Key consideration student demonstrates significant and persistent low academic achievement even after obtaining evidence of research-based CORE classroom instruction and TARGETED and INTENSIVE instruction.

Possible Verification Sources for Level 1 Screening and assessment results that include a minimum of 3 data points that reflect at least 9 weeks of TARGETED instruction and at least 6 data points that reflect at least 9 weeks of INTENSIVE instruction that are at or below the 8th percentile are considered significant. Confidence intervals should be considered. An individually administered norm-referenced achievement test score at or below the 8th percentile is considered significant. Confidence levels for each test administered should be considered. Student performance relative to State-approved grade-level standards is an essential component of determining the existence of severe underachievement. CSOs are available in electronic format on the West Virginia Teach 21 website at The determination of severe underachievement (how low a student actually is) is complex and requires the use of multiple data sources and sound professional judgment. By considering the aforementioned data sources in relation to the determination of Level of Learning, the EC makes a confident, informed decision.

Standard 2 – Rate of Learning
Academic progress or Rate of Learning is the student’s attained rate of improvement compared to the typical rate of improvement in a given content area. It is through regular assessment of an instruction and its effect on the student’s achievement that student response is determined. Progress monitoring data provide measurable evidence of changes in the student’s achievement that are attributable to a particular instructional approach.

Standard 2 – Rate of Learning
Standard 2, Rate of Learning, is met when the student’s learning rate or growth is substantially below grade-level peers and, based on progress monitoring data, a reasonable rate of progress cannot be projected even when the student is provided supplemental instruction of reasonable intensity and duration. Standard 2, Rate of Learning, is met when the student’s attained rate of improvement is substantially below grade-level peers’ typical rate of improvement and, based on progress monitoring data and Gap Analysis, reasonable or targeted rate of improvement cannot be projected even when the student is provided supplemental instruction of reasonable intensity and duration. Rate of learning or growth is determined by comparing the slope of the student’s data points with the slope of the typical student or the expected learning rate, the aim line.

Understanding Rate of Improvement (Slope)
Key Terms: Typical Rate of Improvement-the rate of improvement of a typical student at the same grade level throughout the school year. Targeted Rate of Improvement-the rate of improvement that a targeted student would need to make by the end of the school year in comparison to a typical student. Attained Rate of Improvement-the actual rate of improvement the student ends up achieving as a function of their particular progress across the year. In calculating slope, it’s important to note that it can be done in Excel. Progress monitoring considers student performance over time Change is reflected in slope Slope calculation addresses both the expected and actual rates of performance

Calculations: Typical Rate of Improvement- is calculated by subtracting the beginning of the year expected score from the end of year expected score divided by the total weeks in a school year (36 weeks). Targeted Rate of Improvement- is calculated by subtracting the targeted student’s beginning of the year score from the end of the year expected score divided by the total weeks in a school year (36 weeks). Attained Rate of Improvement- is calculated by subtracting the beginning of the year score from the end of the year attained score divided by the total weeks in a school year (36 weeks). Dr. Edward Shapiro, Ph.D. –Rate of Improvement: Why, How, What Does it Mean?

Three ways to calculate Attained Rate of Improvement: Two-point rate of improvement- subtract the starting score from the ending score and divide by the number of weeks that the progress monitoring was collected. The IRIS Center provides a slope calculator for assistance in the calculation of rate of improvement (slope). (click on resources then assessment (includes progress monitoring), next modules (8), then Perspectives and Resources-scroll to the bottom to find the Slope Calculator). Directions for use of the calculator are also available. Modified two-point rate of improvement-subtract the median score of the first three data points from the median score of the last three data points and divide by the number of weeks that the progress monitoring was collected. Ordinary Least Squares (OLS)- see created by Caitlin Flinn, Andrew McCrae, and Mathew Ferchalk for an in-depth description of the OLS calculation. A disadvantage to the two-point rate of improvement calculation is if you have an outlier score at the end of the data point or at the start. This may look very different from the actual progress the student may be making. When this occurs, the modified two-point rate of improvement will give a better depiction of the actual progress being made or lack of. The modified two-point rate of improvement calculation uses the median (middle) score of the first 3 data points and the median score of the last 3 data points in the series. By using the median score instead of the mean of the three scores, it takes care of an outlier score that is not really an accurate depiction of how the student is performing. A disadvantage to using the modified two-point rate of improvement is that it does not take into account the entire set of progress monitoring data. This calculation uses only six data points. The Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) method for calculating rate of improvement is more complicated; however, it is considered to be the most precise way of performing this calculation.

Understanding Gap Analysis
Gap analysis is a mathematical way of calculating how “low” and how “slow” a student’s progress is now being depicted. By dividing the expected level of performance by the attained rate of performance, an empirical value is obtained. A Gap of more than 2.0 is often considered significant. Appendix D provides a gap analysis worksheet and models to provide guidance. Once the rate of improvement has been calculated and the IT has begun to look at how “slow” and “low” a student is, the problem-solving team can conduct a process known as gap analysis. Gap analysis can be used throughout the SPL process. Using the Gap Analysis worksheets, you can determine the current gap in performance and determine what kind of progress is needed to close the gap. OR determine reasonable amount to be made up per week for this student and determine how many weeks it will take for the student to accomplish this goal. The two examples include AIMSweb and Acuity.

Example of Rate of Improvement
If the line of the attained rate of improvement (slope) of a student’s data points is less than or equal to the typical rate of improvement (slope) for a student at the same grade level, this may suggest that the student’s rate of learning or growth is substantially deficient; or The following conditions will help determine if Standard 2 is met by looking at graphs pertaining to rate of improvement. As noted above, gap analysis will calculate the difference between the expected performance and actual performance of a student being referred for SLD eligibility. If the gap is more than 2.0, it is often considered significant. Green line=Typical Rate of Improvement Red line= Student’s Attained Rate of Improvement

If the student’s attained rate of improvement (slope) line is greater than the typical rate of improvement (slope) for a student at the same grade level, but a convergence would not occur within a reasonable and foreseeable time period as a result of the student’s low level of learning and slow progress would indicate the student’s rate of learning or growth is substantially deficient; or Green line=Typical Rate of Improvement Red line= Student’s Attained Rate of Improvement

If the attained rate of improvement (slope) of the targeted student is less than or equal to half the typical rate of improvement (slope) of a student at the same grade level, the aim line, it may be considered substantially below grade level peers and the standard may be considered to have been met. Typical Rate of Improvement= orange triangles Targeted Rate of Improvement= red squares

Standard 3 – Exclusion Factors
The third standard by which the EC determines the presence of a specific learning disability is the assurance that the student’s underachievement is not primarily the result of any of the following: A visual, hearing, or motor disability; Intellectual disability; Behavioral/emotional disorder; Cultural factors; Environmental or economic disadvantage; or Limited English proficiency.

Considerations for Validating Exclusion Factors
Factor or Condition Screening Procedure Further Comprehensive Assessment Options Vision Check vision records Optometric/ophthalmology exam Hearing Check hearing records Audiological exam Motor Check school health records Medical exam Mental impairment Review school records Cognitive assessment and adaptive behavior tests Emotional/ Behavior disorder Behavior checklists Behavior rating scales, other behavioral assessments Cultural factors Assess cultural status Family interview Environmental or economic disadvantage School records Social worker interview with family (e.g., abuse, poor nutrition, lack of sleep, foster care placement, parent incarceration) Limited English proficiency Home language screening Primary language assessment This slides summarizes the various factors or conditions that exclude a student from being identified as a student with a SLD. Some ideas for screening procedures and knowing when/how to dig deeper are included. (Adapted from Kovaleski, 2009)

Validating Underachievement (Ruling Out Lack of Instruction)
Only after a student has been provided an opportunity to learn with the additional targeted supports provided within the multi-leveled instruction framework should referral and eligibility for special education eligibility under the SLD category Students who demonstrate reasonable progress in TARGETED and INTENSIVE instruction should not be determined eligible under the SLD category even though they may have academic weaknesses. Documentation is required to demonstrate that prior to referral and evaluation the student was provided appropriate instruction in the general education classroom, including data-based documentation of repeated assessment of achievement at reasonable intervals, which is shared with parents. Please remember: A parent has the right to request an evaluation at any time; and if a student is suspected of having a disability, a referral should be made. A student does not have to complete the SPL process prior to a referral for Special Education Services. However, all pertinent information regarding eligibility should be considered.

Considerations for Validating Underachievement
Appropriate instruction in reading, written expression and mathematics Student’s primary language Limited English proficiency Environmental and cultural factors Excessive absences and patterns of attendance Interruptions in schooling Caveat about using excessive absences Give example on primary language vs ESL Finally, in making the SLD decision the EC must ensure that the student’s documented underachievement is not due to lack of appropriate instruction. IDEA is very clear on this criterion and specifically refers to the academic content areas of reading, written expression and mathematics. In determining whether a student was provided appropriate instruction, schools should consider the student’s primary language; limited English proficiency; environmental and cultural factors; excessive absences; interruptions in schooling that might affect progress in the curriculum.

Pattern(s) of Strengths & Weaknesses

Operationalizing Pattern(s) of Strengths and Weaknesses
In 2004, the reauthorization of IDEA also permitted, but did not require, the use of a third method approach to determine SLD identification. In 2012 the West Virginia Board of Education Approved a revisions to Policy 2419: Regulations for the Education of Students with Exceptionalities to include the determination of a pattern(s) of strengths and weaknesses in SLD eligibility. This approach involves consideration of a pattern of strengths and weaknesses, or both, relative to intellectual development and achievement. (not IQ-Achievement Discrepancy) When PSW is included as part of the comprehensive SLD evaluation the cognitive process(es) that interfere with a student’s ability to perform academically may be identified.

Utilizing PSW to Identify SLD
Assessment results need to be able to advance an understanding of how the student’s academic and cognitive domains interact to increase the diagnostic utility of the multidisciplinary evaluation and provide guidance for instructional strategies This method of evaluation, as it relates to eligibility determination, is described within IDEA as “the use of other alternative research-based procedures for determining whether a child has a specific learning disability.” This method has been known as “the third approach” and may be more commonly referred to as the Pattern(s) of Strengths and Weaknesses approach (PSW). The PSW approach has been in IDEA since 2004 as a third or alternative research-based procedure. WV did not adopt this approach until 2012 when Policy 2419 was revised, ultimately eliminating the IQ-Achievement discrepancy model. WVDE OSP staff and the SLD stakeholders agreed that another option will need to be available for certain circumstances as well as hoping to truly determine if a child has a learning disability. We felt as if all options should be available when determining eligibility. Policy 2419 defines PSW as this: Subsequent to (in addition to) verification of the Level of Learning, Rate of Learning and Exclusion Factors, the EC may confirm the presence of a SLD through assessment of intra-individual differences in performance and intellectual development, including areas such as working and long-term memory, processing speed, executive functioning and non-verbal problem solving. In addition to not achieving adequately on age or State-approved grade-level achievement standards a specific learning disability may be confirmed if the student exhibits a pattern of strengths and weaknesses in performance, achievement, or both, relative to age, State-approved grade-level standards, or intellectual development, that is determined by the EC to be relevant to the identification of a SLD, using appropriate assessments.

What is a Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses?
Actual cognitive area of weakness is significantly lower than expected based on overall cognitive ability Cognitive deficit(s) is specific, not general or pervasive, because overall cognitive ability is at least average Actual academic area of weakness is significantly lower than expected based on overall cognitive ability Academic deficit(s) is unexpected because overall cognitive ability is at least average (and other factors were ruled out, such as inadequate instruction) Cognitive Strengths Average or better overall ability Supported by strengths in academic skills Academic Weakness/Failure Academic Skills/Knowledge Deficits Cognitive Weakness/Deficit Cognitive Ability or Processing Disorder Performance approximately 1SD below the mean or lower (cognitive and academic areas of weakness are related empirically and relationship is ecologically valid) Differences between related cognitive areas of weakness or deficit and academic areas of weakness or deficit are not statistically signficant. Sotelo, Flanagan, and Alfonso (2011). Overview of SLD Identification. In D.P. Flanagan & V.C. Alfonso, Essentials of Specific Learning Disability Identification. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley; Flanagan, Fiorello, and Ortiz (2010); Hale, Flanagan, and Naglieri (2008)

Critical Concepts The PSW approach includes assessment of a wide range of broad and narrow cognitive processes that identify processing strengths and weaknesses. Interpretation of the assessment occurs at the cluster rather than subtest level. Confidence intervals are used for all clusters, thereby reducing measurement error effects. Evaluation results improve understanding of meaningful connections between cognitive and academic domains and provide practical information to teachers and parents. PSW has also been described as a Processing Deficit approach and Cross Battery approach.

Manifestations of Cognitive Ability Weaknesses and Empirically-based Recommendations and Intervention (Flanagan, Alfonso, & Mascolo, 2011, 2012) CHC Broad Cognitive Abilities/ Neuropsychological Functions Brief Definition General Manifestations of Cognitive/ Neuropsychological Weakness Specific Manifestations of the Cognitive/ Recommendations/ Interventions Short-Term Memory (Gsm) Ability to hold information in immediate awareness and use or transform it within a few seconds Difficulties With: -Following multi-step oral and written instructions -Remembering information long enough to apply it -Remember the sequence of information -Rote memorization -Maintaining one’ place in a math problem or train of thought while writing Reading Difficulties: -Reading Comprehension (i.e., understanding what is read) -Decoding multisyllabic words -Orally retelling or paraphrasing what one has read Math Difficulties: -Rote memorization of facts -Remembering mathematical procedures -Multi-step problems and regrouping -Extracting information to be used in word problems Writing Difficulties: -Spelling multisyllabic words -Redundancy in writing (word and conceptual levels) -Identifying main idea of a story -Note-taking -Use meaningful stimuli to assist with encoding and allow for experiential learning (i.e., learning while doing) -Provide opportunities for repeated practice and review -Provide supports (e.g., lecture notes, guided notes, study guides, written directions) to supplemental oral instruction -Break down instructional steps for student -Provide visual support (e.g., times table) to support acquisition of basic math facts -Outline math procedures for student and provide procedural guides or flashcards for the student to use when approaching problems -Highlight important information within word problems -Have student write all steps and show all work for math computations. -Teach chunking strategies This is one example from Dr. Flanagan’s presentation Titled: New Developments in CHC Theory, SLD Identification and the Cross-Battery Approach Presented in February This presentation also provides charts for Fluid Reasoning, Crystallized Intelligence, Auditory Processing, Long-Term Retrieval, Visual Processing, Processing Speed, Attention, and Executive Functioning.

Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses (continued)
PSW is important because it may establish links between specific cognitive processes and academic areas of concern. These links have the potential to subsequently inform supplemental instruction and/or specially designed instruction. The identification of processing deficits can lead to more effective instructional and compensatory strategies for students who have not responded adequately to TARGETED and INTENSIVE instruction within the SPL approach. Appendix F, G, & H provides examples and descriptions of common assessments used to determine if a PSW exists.

Connecting SPL, PSW & SLD

A Hybrid Approach An integrated approach to SLD determination, a combination of SPL/RTI and the Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses (PSW) model, may be advantageous because it hypothesizes a link between the observed low academic performance/ inadequate growth and the responsible cognitive processing weaknesses. In an integrated or hybrid approach to SLD determination it is important to first document the provision of relevant scientifically based core curricula and high quality instruction. The description of the learner’s response to this learning environment is then paired with assessment and used to help determine why the student was not responsive to this instruction. Some points to consider as we move away from the discrepancy model toward the SPL process for identifying SLD…

A Hybrid Approach (continued)
It is hoped that an integrated approach may ensure that when greater intensity of instruction is not successful eligible students will receive individualized instruction based on their unique patterns of both academic and cognitive processing strengths and weaknesses. Appendix A comprehensively defines the eight areas of SLD and provides resources for each area. Appendix J illustrates the decision-making process teams would proceed through when integrating SPL and PSW.

Documentation Requirements

Documentation Documentation requirements include but are not limited to: a chronology of the student’s educational history; progress monitoring data; specific documentation of the nature and intensity of general classroom instruction; comprehensive documentation of the nature, frequency and duration of multi-leveled instruction results; additional achievement/performance data; and formal evaluation reports. The EC also must document its conclusions on the SLD Team Report. The report must be dated, and evaluation team members must certify in writing whether the report reflects each team member’s conclusion.

SLD Team Report Includes all areas in which a SLD may be manifested (e.g., reading, mathematics, written expression) Includes IDEA requirements Is completed when a student is suspected of having a SLD Accompanies the Eligibility Committee Report An electronic version of the SLD Team Report is available on the Office of Special Programs website at html. You have a copy of the latest revision to the SLD Team Report which must be completed for each student suspected of having a SLD. It is to accompany the Eligibility Committee Report. It will be online soon at the URL noted on the slide. It’s been created in Excel and must not be changed. The Appendix provides an SLD Team Report. This report is a fillable form online for you to access.

Reevaluation & Private Schools

Reevaluations Review existing evaluation data
Current IEP and progress toward meeting annual goals Evaluations and information provided by parent/student Current classroom-based, local or state assessments and classroom-based observations Observations by teachers and related service providers Conduct additional evaluations if needed At least every three years, an eligible student is reevaluated to determine if he/she continues to be a student with a disability who is in need of special services. Policy 2419 requires the district to conduct, as appropriate, an individual multidisciplinary evaluation to determine the student’s continuing educational needs. In making a decision to continue the eligibility of a student with a SLD, teams should consider the increased levels and rates of learning that are the positive results of special education supports. Likewise, the EC should thoroughly discuss the potential negative effects on student achievement that would occur from the removal of special education supports.

SPL and Private Schools
SPL is a component of the evaluation process for SLD Same evaluation components and procedures apply Option to collect documentation as part of the referral process May consider determining eligibility by using the Pattern(s) of Strengths and Weaknesses approach. Good communication with private schools regarding the implications for eligibility is essential. You may want to distribute the Parent Brochure or provide access information to the online version. For districts with large numbers of private school referrals, you may want to present this information formally and provide opportunities for private school staff to ask questions.

Data that demonstrate that prior to or as part of the referral process, the student was provided appropriate instruction in general education settings; and Data-based documentation of repeated assessments of achievement at reasonable intervals, reflecting formal assessment of student progress during instruction, which was provided to the student’s parents (i.e., benchmark, interim and progress monitoring data).

The evaluation team, which includes the parent, private school representatives and district personnel, develop a data collection plan as part of the multidisciplinary evaluation. Every effort should be made to inform the parent and private school personnel of the need to address the student’s academic difficulties through the provision of intervention and use of frequent progress monitoring. Again, good communication is critical.

SLD Document Resources
Frequently Asked Questions Glossary of Terms Online Resources References Appendix The Appendix may be the most valuable piece of this document. The 8 areas of SLD is very comprehensive. 8 areas of SLD (Definitions, Implications, Characteristics, Assessment, Intervention and Progress Monitoring) Documentation Requirements Examples of XBA Research Based Assessments for Reading Achievement Research Based Assessments for Mathematics Achievement

The Appendix 8 Areas of SLD Diagnostic Assessments SLD Glossary
Gap Analysis Worksheet Goal Setting in Reading Worksheet Examples of Cross-Battery for Reading Performance Research-Based Assessment Domains for Reading Achievement Research-Based Assessment Domains for Mathematical Achievement Cognitive Processes and Interventions/Strategies Process for Confirming/Substantiating a Specific Learning Disability Using an Integrated SPL and PSW Approach SLD Academic Skill Deficit Worksheet Documenting Eligibility Requirements for SLD SLD Team Report Please take a look at 8 areas of SLD. This section provides for each area Definition and Implications, Characteristics and Assessment, Progress Monitoring, Interventions, Websites with information on research and instruction in Math, and References. This could be a complete training within itself!

A “3-2-1 Reflection” What are 3 big ideas/insights you have gained today? What are 2 questions that your team will use to focus and responsively refocus your support to your district? What is 1 action your team has agreed to take in the very near future?

Contact Information Pat Homberg, Executive Director Susan Beck, Coordinator Allen Sexton, Coordinator Office of Special Programs

Specific Learning Disabilities

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Specific Learning Disabilities"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

Specific Learning Disabilities

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Specific Learning Disabilities"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback