RTI and Eligibility: A Comprehensive Review of Best-Practices 2011 ODE/COSA Fall Conference for Special Education Administrators

Introduction Welcome & Introductions Overview of the day Nov 2010 Introduction Welcome & Introductions Overview of the day Comprehensive review of essential features (“Best practices “ approach; Checklist) Session Etiquette Session will describe essential components of LD ID with RTI—there is no “test”, but rather systems components that need to be in place. It requires participation

Big Ideas little rti and BIG RTI, or “The Tail that Wagged the Dog” RTI focuses directly on core requirements of ALL SLD evaluations, regardless of method RTI & LD Eligibility: We are all members of the assessment team

Essential Requirements for LD Eligibility Regardless of Method Low Skills Appropriate core instruction Has always been an exclusionary criteria Progress Monitoring Exclusionary Criteria Student has an SLD AND Educational Need that Requires Specially Designed Instruction

The Historical Reality of SLD: Doing the Right Thing “For more than 25 years, accumulated evidence has strongly suggested that most students labeled SLD are those students with severe educational needs, regardless of the stated eligibility criterion… What is unique about RTI is that educational need is a necessary but not sufficient requirement for SLD identification” (Shinn, 2007)

RTI Adds… Low Skills And Slow Progress Need for specially designed instruction

RTI Also Provides… Focus on core curriculum Universal screening for early identification and intervention Researched based interventions Effective progress monitoring used to guide decision making Systematic approach to determining Educational Need

Who is Using RTI? Zirkel & Thomas, Teaching Exceptional Children, 2010 All but a handful of states explicitly Require or Recommend RTI Degree to which components are clearly defined ranges wildly

SLD Rates (Education Week, Sept 8) SLD rates declined from 6.1% in 2001-01 to 5.2% in 2007-08 (15% decline) (US Dept. of Ed. 2009 Digest of Ed. Statistics) Not identifying for financial accountability? Shift in eligibility categories? Likely related to RTI , early intervention, improvement in instruction

Legal Implications* Cases involving RTI are limited Some favorable No Supreme Court cases; only 1 Federal Circuit Court of Appeals Most cases lower Federal courts or State Hearings Officers Some favorable Students are not Eligible for SPED if weaknesses are successfully addressed through Gen Ed Most decisions against LEAs: Child-find Time before evaluation No cases regarding lack of cognitive assessment *Yell, M. & Walker, D. (2010). Legal Basis Of RTI: Analysis and Implications. Exceptionality, 18: 124-137

Bottom Line Comprehensive system of support that benefits all students Early and sustained instructional support and intervention are integral components Systematic approach that directly addresses eligibility criteria By definition identifies students with demonstrated need for specially designed instruction

Framework Essential Features of an SLD eligibility system using Response to Intervention. Screening Core Instruction with fidelity Interventions with fidelity Progress Monitoring Teaming/Data-Based Decision Making: Tier 2 or 3 Group Interventions Teaming/Data-Based Decision Making: Individual Problem Solving Special Ed Referral and Evaluation Report

3. Interventions with Fidelity 7. Special Ed Referral and Evaluation Report 6. Teaming/Data-Based Decision Making: Individual Problem Solving 5. Teaming/Data-Based Decision Making: Group Interventions 4. Progress Monitoring 3. Interventions with Fidelity 2. Core Instruction with Fidelity 1. Screening

1. Screening

Universal Screening: Why Required for all students Determine sufficiency of core for evaluation questions “Lack of appropriate instruction” checkbox Standardizing the process

1. Universal Screening Research-based screener used with ALL students 3 times per year Fidelity checks used to ensure validity of data Who conducts fidelity checks? How often? How is that data used? Refresher trainings for staff? Retest some students?

1. Universal Screening Screening data used to evaluate core effectiveness Do you have schoolwide meetings to systematically improve core instruction? 80% proficient is the goal Less than 80% proficient should not prevent you from determining a child’s academic deficits are due to lack of instruction. Are you providing instruction in the Big 5? What do observations of core instruction tell you?

1. Universal Screening Screening data used to identify at-risk students Do you have decision rules? Which students receive interventions? How many receive interventions?

LD Checklist: Screening

Talk Time Does your district use a universal screening tool to: Systematically identify students who will receive interventions? Evaluate the health of the core?

2. Core Instruction with Fidelity 1. Screening

Core Instruction: Why Required for all students Determine sufficiency of core for evaluation questions “Lack of appropriate instruction” checkbox Standardizing the process

2. Core Instruction… 90 minute core block (reading) Research-based core program Explicit, effective instructional practices trained and used Instruction is more important than curriculum How do you provide training on effective instruction, active engagement, and behavior management?

2. …with Fidelity Process for ensuring fidelity of core program implementation Process for ensuring effective instructional practices in classrooms What is “fidelity”?

The BIG 5 of Reading The scope and sequence State standards Fidelity to… The BIG 5 of Reading The scope and sequence State standards

Worksheets Fidelity

2. …with Fidelity Process for ensuring fidelity of core program implementation Process for ensuring effective instructional practices in classrooms Who ensures fidelity? What standards/criteria do you set for fidelity?

LD Checklist: Core Instruction with Fidelity

Talk Time Has your district defined “fidelity to the core” and does your staff have a clear understanding of what that is?

3. Interventions with Fidelity 2. Core Instruction with Fidelity 1. Screening

Interventions: Why “Research-based” interventions are required Defining an “intervention” Puts the “intervention” in “Response-to-Intervention” Ensures all students are getting targeted instruction It helps you know “what works” for struggling students Helps demonstrate the need for specially designed instruction

3. Interventions Interventions are research-based Implemented interventions are chosen from district protocol Interventions occur outside of 90 minute core instruction Interventionists have appropriate training Process for ensuring fidelity of intervention implementation

Resources for Evaluating Interventions Florida Center for Reading Research http://www.fcrr.org/fcrrreports/LReports.aspx What Works Clearinghouse http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/reports/

LD Checklist: Interventions with Fidelity

Talk Time Has your district/school established a protocol with clearly defined interventions?

3. Interventions with Fidelity 4. Progress Monitoring 3. Interventions with Fidelity 2. Core Instruction with Fidelity 1. Screening

Progress Monitoring: Why Under any SLD identification model, “frequent monitoring” is the law Helps objectively evaluate a student’s “response-to-intervention”

4. Progress Monitoring Research-based progress monitoring measures used Frequency of monitoring is appropriate (i.e. at least 2x monthly for students receiving intensive support and 1x monthly for students receiving strategic support) Progress monitoring data is graphed Staff member(s) identified who is/are responsible for organizing and storing the progress monitoring data

LD Checklist: Progress Monitoring

Talk Time Has your district/school established guidelines for the frequency of progress monitoring? Is data graphed?

3. Interventions with Fidelity 5. Teaming/Data-Based Decision Making: Group Interventions 4. Progress Monitoring 3. Interventions with Fidelity 2. Core Instruction with Fidelity 1. Screening

Teaming/Data-Based Decision Making: Why Ensures appropriate interventions provided prior to or during evaluation Standardizes the process Decision making as a team

5. Teaming/Data-Based Decision Making: Group Interventions System for matching interventions to student need based on multiple data sources CBM’s: DIBELS, AIMSWEB, easyCBM In-program assessments: weekly tests, unit tests, checkouts, mastery tests Informal diagnostics: phonics screener, DRA, QRI, CORE assessments, Curriculum-Based Evaluation Systematic teacher observational data

5. Teaming/Data-Based Decision Making: Group Interventions Grade level teams meet to review progress data regularly (e.g. every 4-8 weeks) Decision Rules created AND followed around: When to change interventions What qualifies as an “intervention change” Intervention plan or tracking form used to document interventions and intervention changes for all student in interventions

LD Checklist: Teaming/Data-Based Decision Making: Group Interventions

Talk Time Do you have clear decision rules and does staff understand how and when to use them?

3. Interventions with Fidelity 6. Teaming/Data-Based Decision Making: Individual Problem Solving 5. Teaming/Data-Based Decision Making: Group Interventions 4. Progress Monitoring 3. Interventions with Fidelity 2. Core Instruction with Fidelity 1. Screening

Problem Solving Non-Example

Problem Solving Non-Example

Teaming/Data-Based Decision Making: Why Determine what the problem is and why it is happening… … in order to individualize and intensify instruction Rule out alternative hypotheses and exclusionary factors Helps demonstrate the need for specially designed instruction

6. Teaming/Data-Based Decision Making: Individual Problem Solving Individual problem-solving team meeting occurs after group interventions are unsuccessful (Number of unsuccessful group interventions prior to initiating problem-solving is based on district policies & procedures) Meetings occur as needed How many group interventions before initiating problem solving?

6. Teaming/Data-Based Decision Making: Individual Problem Solving Notice provided to parents regarding district’s RTI procedures and parent’s right to request an evaluation Oregon Department of Education Guidance: Note: If using a response to intervention model, the parents must have been notified of the following prior to initiation: ODE and district policies regarding the amount and nature of student performance data to be collected and the general education services to be provided; strategies for increasing the child’s rate of learning; and the parent’s right to request an evaluation.

Office of Special Education Programs Memo, Jan 2010 Indicates that a school’s RTI system cannot be used to delay an Evaluation for Eligibility under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). “States and LEAs have an obligation to ensure that evaluations of children suspected of having a disability are not delayed or denied because of implementation of an RTI strategy”

Office of Special Education Programs Memo, Jan 2010 A parent request for evaluation can still be denied by the school district if the child is not suspected of having a disability. However… “It would be inconsistent with the evaluation provisions… for an LEA to reject a referral and delay provision of an initial evaluation on the basis that a child has not participated in an RTI framework”

6. Teaming/Data-Based Decision Making: Individual Problem Solving Staff with pertinent information about target student attend the problem-solving meeting Literacy Specialist Classroom Teacher School Psych and/or Counselor Parents Others as needed (ELL Teacher, Principal, Special Education Teacher, Speech Pathologist)

Problem Solving Meetings are Solution Focused Nov 2010 Problem Solving Meetings are Solution Focused Focus is on: Data Educationally Relevant/Alterable Factors What changes can WE make that will provide the best chance of success for the child? Data are used to determine the best hypothesis as to why the student isn’t making sufficient progress.

Focus on what you can change

Focus on what you can change

Variables Related to Student Achievement Within the student External to the student Quality of instruction Pedagogical knowledge Content knowledge Quality of curriculum Quality of learning environment Quality of evaluation Quality and quantity of time/content Desire to learn Strategies for learning Knowledge Skills Prior content knowledge Self-efficacy/helplessness Alterable Race Genetic potential Gender Birth Order Disposition Health Physical difference IQ Disability category Personal history Family income and resources Family housing Parent years of schooling Mobility Members of family Family values Socioeconomic status Family history Unalterable (hard to change)

Is it alterable? Is it educationally relevant? Nov 2010 Kristin’s DIBELS scores indicate she was in the “low risk” range last year. Sarah’s file indicates that her parents are divorced and her father lives in Missouri. The special education director told you that Erin’s brother receives special education services. Javon missed 24 days of school last year. Pam’s teacher indicated that her noncompliant behavior began just after winter break. This can be an activity. Let them do it in pairs first then ask for answers. You can also do thumbs up/ thumbs down for educationally relevant or alterable Yes no yes These are all just starting points. These aren’t final answers. The answers really depend upon the problem and your research questions. Polishing Our Practice

The Problem Solving Process I-LEARN Nov 2010 The Problem Solving Process Define the Problem: What is the problem and why is it happening? Design Intervention: What are we going to do about the problem? Implement and Monitor: Are we doing what we intended to do? Evaluate Effectiveness: Did our plan work? Give some examples of using these steps to solve a problem. July 2006

Defining the Problem Need to further define the problem to know how to develop an individualized intervention Gather as much information as needed to define the problem prior to the Problem Solving Meeting Use existing data first, then determine if you need more

6. Teaming/Data-Based Decision Making: Individual Problem Solving The following information is brought to the problem-solving meeting: Documentation of prior interventions with progress monitoring data A file review A developmental history English Language Learner information is collected (if appropriate) Data comparing student to intervention cohort Other relevant diagnostic data (if appropriate)

Cohort Data Aimline Isaiah Mary Amy Chase Nov 2010 1 2 3 4 D e c . S o 2 3 4 D e c . S o r s F b J a n M h A p i l y u 6 5 Isaiah Mary Aimline Amy Chase

Cohort Data Aimline Amy Isaiah Chase Mary Nov 2010 1 2 3 4 D e c . S o 2 3 4 D e c . S o r s F b J a n M h A p i l y u 6 5 Aimline Amy Isaiah Mary Chase

Is additional diagnostic data needed? Nov 2010 Is additional diagnostic data needed?

What do you know? What do you still need to know? Reading Comprehension Vocabulary Oral Reading Fluency & Accuracy Phonics (Alphabetic Principle) Phonemic Awareness

What do you know? What do you still need to know? Is there an attendance issue? Are there health/vision issues? Are there language issues? Are there acculturation issues?

6. Teaming/Data-Based Decision Making: Individual Problem Solving Documented problem definition, problem hypothesis, and intervention plan are developed at the individual problem-solving meeting

Problem Definition: Example Harry (2nd grader) is currently reading a median of 44 words correct per minute (wcpm) with 83% accuracy when given 2nd grade level text. He also answers an average of 3/10 comp questions correct on weekly in-class tests. 2nd grade students in his school are reading an average of 85 wcpm with 97% accuracy on 2nd grade text and answering 9/10 comp questions correct.

Problem Definition: Non-Example Harry struggles with being a fluent reader and is not meeting the 2nd grade reading benchmark. He makes a lot of mistakes and is currently reading at a 1st grade level. He also has difficulties answering comprehension questions at grade level and does poorly on his weekly reading tests.

Nov 2010 Problem Hypothesis “Why is the student not performing at the expected level?” (Problem Hypothesis) “What is the student’s instructional need?” (Designing an Intervention)

Hypothesis Development Data-Based Hypothesis: Harry’s reading fluency and comprehension problems occur because he does not have strategies for decoding consonant digraphs (ch, sh, etc), silent-e words, and r-controlled vowels (ar, ir, er, or). His fluency and comprehension will improve if he receives additional intensive instruction in these decoding strategies.

Intervention Design

Develop an Intervention Plan What skill is needed? What curriculum will be used? What instructional strategies will be used? How long will the student receive the intervention? Who will provide the intervention?

Develop an Intervention Plan Before beginning your final intervention you must answer the question: How will your team define a successful intervention?

How do you document your: Problem definition? Problem hypothesis? Intervention plan?

Problem Solving Worksheet Sample Tigard-Tualatin School District

Intervention Plan Sample Heartland Area Education Agency (Iowa)

Implement and Monitor

Fidelity of Implementation Fidelity to curriculum All lesson parts taught following outlined procedures Curriculum decision rules followed (lesson checkouts, mastery tests, etc) Fidelity to research-based instructional procedures High pacing (high rate of student opportunities to respond) Corrective feedback Behavior management system evident Students are accurate before moving on to new material

Talk Time Do you currently have a system for intensifying and individualizing interventions when students continue to struggle?

Evaluate Effectiveness

6. Teaming/Data-Based Decision Making: Individual Problem Solving Individualized intervention plans are reviewed and further steps determined based on district policies & procedures. When does the team come back together to review the intervention’s effectiveness? Progress monitoring data Fidelity Data Cohort Data

6. Teaming/Data-Based Decision Making: Individual Problem Solving Individualized intervention plans are reviewed and further steps determined based on district policies & procedures. If student continues to have low skills and slow progress after at least ___ weeks of individualized intervention (see district decision rules), the student is automatically referred for Special Education Evaluation. TTSD SPED Policies & Procedures

LD Checklist: Teaming/Data-Based Decision Making: Individual Problem Solving

3. Interventions with Fidelity 7. Special Ed Referral and Evaluation Report 6. Teaming/Data-Based Decision Making: Individual Problem Solving 5. Teaming/Data-Based Decision Making: Group Interventions 4. Progress Monitoring 3. Interventions with Fidelity 2. Core Instruction with Fidelity 1. Screening

Comprehensive Evaluation “It’s a data-gathering process that includes child observation. It may or may not use standardized tests…. If you’re in an RTI context, its to understand why the child has not responded to instruction. “ Jack Fletcher, Ph.D.

Comprehensive Evaluation (10) "Evaluation" means procedures used to determine whether the child has a disability, and the nature and extent of the special education and related services that the child needs. Oregon Administrative Rules, 581-015-2000

Comprehensive SLD Eval: Regardless of Eval Model Academic assessment Review of records Observation (including regular education setting) Progress monitoring data Other: If needed, developmental history If needed, an assessment of cognition, etc. If needed, a medical statement Any other assessments to determine impact of disability Oregon Administrative Rules, 581-015-2170

Comprehensive SLD Eval: RTI Model …documentation of: The type, intensity, and duration of scientific, research-based instructional intervention(s)… …rate of progress during the instructional intervention(s); A comparison of the student's rate of progress to expected rates of progress. Progress monitoring on a schedule that: Allows a comparison of the student's progress to… peers; Is appropriate to the student's age and grade placement; Is appropriate to the content monitored; and Allows for interpretation of the effectiveness of intervention. Oregon Administrative Rules, 581-015-2170

SPED Referrals and Evaluations All staff need to understand: There is a standardized legal process to follow Specific questions must be answered to determine a student is eligible for special education: The student has low achievement The student has made limited progress despite receiving interventions The student has an instructional need

SPED Referrals and Evaluations All staff need to understand: Determining whether or not a student has a disability is one of the most high stakes decision a school can make for a child

Special Education Process Referral Evaluation Planning Meeting Eligibility Determination Meeting

What should be included in the referral? The information gathered from the problem solving meeting File review Student Intervention Profile Developmental history Recent progress monitoring data ELL information Data comparing student to intervention cohort Diagnostic data if needed Hypothesis worksheet Completed special education referral form

What do you do after you receive the referral? Review referral data to determine what other information is needed to complete the SLD Eligibility Form Low skills Slow progress Documentation of interventions Observation of student in general education setting Information about Exclusionary Factors Set date and notify parents about the Evaluation Planning Meeting

Evaluation Planning Meeting Conduct Evaluation Planning Meeting Determine if you need to evaluate Do you need any additional information? Is the student exhibiting low skills and slow progress across data sources? Determine and document what additional information you need as a team (Permission to Evaluate Form) Get parent permission to evaluate in the areas you determined Provide care giver with Parents Rights brochure

How do you know if a student has SLD? Low academic skills Slow Progress Instructional Need

Determining if the student has low skills: Data indicating the student has significantly low skills as compared to research-based norms and benchmarks. State SLD Eligibility Form

Low skills Low skills CBM: DIBELS, AIMSweb, easyCBM What is the student’s current performance? Where should the student be at for the grade level? (norm or benchmark) State Testing: OAKS What is the student’s percentile? Achievement Tests: WIAT-2, WJ-III What is the student’s standard score and percentile?

How Low is Low? General Guidelines (district determines guidelines) CBMs Intensive range? Below the 16th percentile? More than 2 times discrepant? OAKS Achievement Tests

What if the data are mixed? CBM data: indicate intensive range AND OAKS data: indicate average range What data do you place more emphasis on? CBM data Look at in program assessments too

Talk Time What assessments can your school/district use to determine if a student’s academic skills are significantly low?

Determining if a student is making slow progress: Data indicating the student has not made significant progress to close their achievement gap… State SLD Eligibility Form: Slow Progress…

What is slow progress? Data indicating the student has not made significant progress to close his/her achievement gap… Decision rule about points below the aimline Typically 4 consecutive data points below the aimline Trendline What is adequate growth? National growth rates Cohort growth rates

National Growth Rates Grade Realistic Ambitious 1 2.0 words/week 3 1.0 words/week 4 .85 words/week 1.1 words/week 5 .50 words/week .80 words/week Source: Fuchs et al, (1993)

Cohort Data Aimline Isaiah Mary Amy Chase 1 2 3 4 D e c . S o r s F b 2 3 4 D e c . S o r s F b J a n M h A p i l y u 6 5 Isaiah Mary Aimline Amy Chase

Evaluation Report includes the following: Slow Progress Progress monitoring data Chart and graph Comparison of the expected rate of progress Interventions provided In conjunction with the progress monitoring data

Determining Instructional Need: Data indicating the student has an instructional need for special education services (included description of needed instructional supports)

How you determine instructional need? It comes down to the balance: How does the weight of the intervention compare to the rate of progress?

Evaluation report includes the following: Instructional Need Data indicating the student has an instructional need for special education services (included description of needed instructional supports) Student has been provided with an explicit research based intervention Student has made limited progress despite receiving the explicit research based intervention

Evaluation report includes the following: Observation An observation of the child’s academic performance and behavior in a regular education setting (related to the area of concern) State SLD Eligibility Form

What is the focus of the observation?: An observation of the child’s academic performance and behavior in a regular education setting (related to the area of concern) What observational data do you have that can help instructional planning? Opportunities to Respond Correct Academic Responding Student Engagement (On-Task vs. Off-Task) Comparison to classroom peers

Evaluation report includes the following: Data indicating exclusionary factors (language, health, another disability, lack of instruction etc) are not the primary cause of the student’s learning deficit

How do you determine if there is a lack of appropriate instruction? Attendance Instruction Remember……Less than 80% at benchmark for the grade level should not prevent you from determining a child’s academic deficits are due to lack of instruction. Examine classroom instruction Are students engaged in the instruction? Is the student engaged in the instruction? Is it explicit enough?

LD Checklist: Special Ed Referral & Evaluation Report

Baby Steps

Baby Steps

RTI: IT’S OK The LD Roundtable recommended it IDEA Established it Most states recommend or require it NASP supports it The Courts have upheld it It’s the RIGHT THING TO DO

Thoughts? Questions?