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

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

Resources for Presentation Illinois ASPIRE RtI Eligibility Training http://www.illinoisaspire.org/welcome/documents.php 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  

Why Change?

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

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

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.

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

Designing Change

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

Percentage of SwD with LD ISBE District Profile: 2009

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

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

LD Eligibility – The RtI Way

FY 2010 is Here!

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

ISBE Administrative Code Beginning at the start of the 2010-2011 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.

New LD Eligibility Form

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

T&L RtI Website Office of Teaching & Learning RtI www.chicagoteachingandlearning.org/tl-cross-content/online-resources-a-community-partners.html

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

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