Evaluation Planning & Eligibility Identifying Learning Disabilities Under a RTI Model December 8, 2008 Lisa Bates Erin Lolich Dean Richards

Objectives To build awareness about current regulations for determination of a Specific Learning Disability (SLD). To build awareness of planning for evaluations. To build awareness of (SLD) eligibility under a RtI process.

Logistics Please use the sticky notes to write down questions that you may have. Please come back together as a group when asked

Past Practice: Previous beliefs about LD Learning Disability Failure to achieve academically commensurate to the level of one’s cognitive abilities Assumptions Within child focus Cognitive assessments Processing deficits Instruction different Research Little empirical evidence for discrepancy model (Ysseldyke, 2005) Little research for aptitude X treatment interaction

If past beliefs of LD are not supported by research than what is????? Changing View of LD Learning Disability Difficulty achieving at the expected rate and level despite having high quality explicit instruction matched to need. Ex. winter 4th grade: Class reads 105 wcpm on DIBELS but Toren reads 40 wcpm Assumptions All students can learn Learning=Instruction, curriculum, environment, learner (ICEL) Match intensity of need with intensity of problem Research Instruction changes brain activity levels (Shaywitz)

We may be asking you questions to guide your thinking…….

Important Idea: RTI is one component of a COMPREHENSIVE evaluation.

Individualized Approach “Trevor’s evaluation” rather than “LD evaluation” Consider eligibility requirements for all suspected disabilities

General evaluation requirements: ALL special education evaluations must still be conducted so that No single measure is used to determine eligibility Non-biased, technically sound instruments are given as intended, by qualified personnel An evaluation is comprehensive enough to identify all of a student’s special education and related service needs, even if they are not typical to a particular disability AND all special education evaluations still begin with a review of existing information (parents, teachers, statewide assessment, etc.)

General evaluation requirements (cont’d): ALL eligibility evaluations must establish that children may not be determined eligible if the determinant factor is lack of appropriate instruction in reading, including the essential components of reading instruction: Phonemic awareness Phonics Vocabulary Reading fluency Comprehension strategies Or lack of instruction in math Or limited English proficiency

SLD regulations of note: Teams must include for all SLD evaluations “data that demonstrate that prior to or as part of the referral process the child was provided appropriate instruction in regular education settings, delivered by qualified personnel; 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 child’s parents.” This information is to be used to prompt evaluation as appropriate. Districts need to define “repeated” and “reasonable intervals.” Formal assessment could be DIBELS or other CBMs

SLD regulations of note (whether using RTI or not): Observation must be completed in regular classroom in the area of concern If multiple concerns exist, pick the most pervasive. May use either information from an observation in routine classroom instruction and monitoring that was done before referral; or May conduct an observation of the child’s academic performance in the regular classroom after referral (and consent)

SLD regulations of note: The team must establish that the child does not achieve adequately for age or to meet State-approved grade level standards in academic skills, and The student has been provided with learning experiences and instruction appropriate for the child’s age or State- approved grade level standards The contrast is with age and standards, not ability; “To meet” implies looking at rate of progress This determination of low achievement is the foundation for eligibility

SLD regulations of note: Reading fluency has been added to the list of achievement areas basic reading skills reading comprehension oral expression listening comprehension written expression mathematics calculation mathematics problem solving This reflects current research that points to persistent reading fluency problems as an indicator of LD

SLD regulations of note: Once low achievement is established, the team may find a student eligible if: The child does not make progress sufficient to achieve age or State- approved grade level standards when using RTI, or The child exhibits a pattern of strengths and weaknesses in performance, achievement, or both, relative to age, standards, or intellectual development. Always establish the child’s progress: This is result of the RTI evaluation.

SLD regulations of note (when RTI is used): Documentation must include the kind of instructional strategies that were used and the student centered data that was gathered; That parents were notified: about the State’s policies about RTI that include the kind and amount of data that must be gathered and what general education services must be provided, and the kind of instructional strategies that were used to increase the child’s progress; and that the parent has the right to an evaluation

With a partner share the following: Three required components of evaluations in general. Three required components of evaluations for Specific Learning Disabilities.

Evaluation Planning: What You Know Individual Problem Solving Worksheet Student Intervention Profile Progress Monitoring Data Developmental History

Pg 24

Pg 31

RN 30 min + Phonics for Reading Trendline Briar

Pg 16

Evaluation Planning: What You Need to Know Observation data Achievement data (optional assessments, determine areas of need) WIAT-II or Woodcock Johnson-Achievement Phonics Inventory Scored Writing Samples CBMs Assessments in other areas of concern Communication Fine motor Social/emotional Perceptual motor/perception Memory Physical/medical (including medical statement) Cognition

Evaluation Planning: Parent Participation Before referral: Progress monitoring data/Intervention Info. RTI pamphlet Invitation to participate in EBIS meetings During referral: Procedural Safeguards

RN 30 min + Phonics for Reading Trendline Briar

Pg 10

LD Eligibility Statement Review the TTSD the LD Eligibility StatementTTSD

Dual Discrepancy Low skills (the easier part) Slow progress despite intensive intervention (The trickier part)

Does the Student Have Low Skills? Does the student have low skills? Core Only Core + Up to 30 Minutes of Supplemental Intervention (from the TTSD Protocol) Core + 45 Minutes of Supplemental Intervention (from the TTSD Protocol) 90 th Percentile 80 th Percentile 70 th Percentile 60 th Percentile 50 th Percentile 40 th Percentile 30 th PercentileMay Need MorePossibly LD 20 th PercentileNeeds More Likely LD 10 th PercentileNeeds More Likely LD

Defining Low Skills AreaMeasuresParameters Early ReadingPhoneme Segmentation Fluency Nonsense Word Fluency WIAT-II Scores in the Intensive range or the lowest quartile of the strategic range Standard Score below 90 Fluency, Vocabulary, and Comprehension Oral Reading Fluency Oregon Statewide Assessment WIAT-II Scores below the 25 th percentile in ORF (Hasbrouck/Tindal norms) Does Not Meet and/or below the 25 th percentile Standard Score below 90 Math Computation CBMs WIAT-II Scores below the 25 th percentile (AimsWeb norms) Standard Score below 90 Math Problem Solving CBMS Oregon Statewide Assessments WIAT-II Scores below the 25 th percentile (AimsWeb norms) Does Not Meet and/or below the 25 th percentile Standard Score below 90 Written Expression CBMs for fluency and conventions “Best Work” Writing Samples Scored With The Oregon State Scoring Guide Oregon Statewide Assessment WIAT-II Scores below the 25 th percentile (AimsWeb norms) Multiple pieces earning scores of 1 or 2 Does Not Meet and/or below the 25 th percentile Standard Score below 90

Defining Intensive Intervention Reading: Core Instruction plus minutes per day of supplemental instruction (according to protocol). Math & Written Expression: Core Instruction plus third tier interventions (according to protocols).

Is the student’s progress slow? Core Only Core + Up to 30 Minutes of Supplemental Intervention (from the TTSD Protocol) Core + 45 Minutes of Supplemental Intervention (from the TTSD Protocol) More than 150% of expected rate of growth 110 – 150% of expected rate of growth Possibly LD (See below) 95 – 110% of expected rate of growth Likely LD 81 – 95% of expected rate of growth May Need More Likely LD 80% or less of expected rate of growth Needs More Likely LD

Defining Slow Progress AreaMeasuresParameters Early ReadingPhoneme Segmentation Fluency Nonsense Word Fluency What makes sense:  Progress less than the expected rate when receiving intensive interventions. OR  Progress less than 110% of the expected rate when receiving intensive interventions. OR  Progress less than 125% of the expected rate when receiving intensive interventions. Fluency, Vocabulary, and Comprehension Oral Reading Fluency Oregon Statewide Assessment Math Computation CBMs Math Problem Solving CBMS Oregon Statewide Assessments Written Expression CBMs for fluency and conventions Writing Samples Scored w/ Oregon State Scoring Guide Oregon Statewide Assessment

Other Considerations Context is key Typical growth Cohort growth Fidelity of program Intervention attendance

Let’s look at Toren’s rate of improvement….. Is this class making appropriate growth? Is Toren making appropriate growth? Could Toren have LD? Expected performance of 105 WCPM

Let’s look at Toren’s level of performance. Is the class at the appropriate level of performance? Is Toren at the appropriate level of performance? Could Toren have LD? Expected performance of 105 WCPM

Eligibility Decision Making It comes down to the balance: How does the weight of the intervention compare to the rate of progress?

Key Factors to Examine Instruction matched to need with appropriate intensity, duration, and frequency Level of performance Rate of performance

Briar 2 nd Grader The level: Sept: ORF 22 (accuracy 87%) Benchmark: 51 October: ORF 25 (accuracy 86%) December: ORF 55 (accuracy 89%) Benchmark: 72 The rate: Gain: 2.37 words/week Realistic gain: 1.5 words/week Ambitious gain: 2.0 Skill Need: Phonics and Fluency 90 mins. Research-based core reading program SMART volunteer 60 min. per week Read Naturally 30 min. daily (Sept to Oct) Added Phonics for Reading (Oct to Dec)

RN 30 min + Phonics for Reading Trendline Briar

Tommy 1st Grader The level: Jan: ORF 2 (accuracy 88%) Benchmark: 23 Feb: ORF 4 (accuracy 90%) March: ORF 16 (accuracy 98%) The rate: Tommy’s gain.5 words/week (Jan to Feb) 3 words/week (Feb to March) Group’s gain.6 words/week (Jan to Feb) 3 words/week (Feb to March) Core program-Treasures Added 30 min/day of SFA Tutoring Fidelity check of SFA Tutoring showed it was not done to fidelity Staff received training for SFA Tutoring Realistic gain: 2.0 words/week Ambitious gain: 3.0 words/week

SFA TutoringFidelity Check Tommy

Your Turn Please review the next case (Rita) on your own. Determine if she should be referred for a special education evaluation (why or why not). Be prepared to share with the group.

Rita 1st Grader The level: January: ORF 5 (75% accuracy) Benchmark: 23 February: ORF 8 (77% accuracy) March: ORF 13 (79% accuracy) April: ORF 16 (78% accuracy) The rate: Rita: Gain: 11 wpm in 12 weeks Class: Gain: 30 wpm gain in the same 12 weeks Skill need: phonics and fluency The weight: MacMillan 90 min./day Jan to Feb: Added SFA Tutoring 30 min/day Feb to March: Reading Mastery 30 min/day March to April: Reading Mastery 45 min/day Realistic gain: 2.0 words/week Ambitious gain: 3.0 words/week

SFA Tutoring Reading Mastery 30 min Reading Mastery 45 min Rita

Your Turn Please review the next case (Annie) on your own. Determine what changes you would make for her. Be prepared to share out.

Annie 2 nd grader The level: September: ORF 20 words per minute Benchmark: 51 wpm October: ORF 24 The rate: Annie: 1.0 words/week Group: 1.7 words/week Realistic gain: 1.5 words/week Ambitious gain: 2.0 words/week The weight: MacMillan 45 min./day Reading Mastery 90 min./day The context: Moved to the district this year ago Has been in 4 schools in two years Recently moved in with a relative due to abuse in the home Do you want to change to a different curriculum or add incentives?

Annie

Time for Review In pairs…. Have one person explain the dual discrepancy to as if you were explaining it to a parent Have the person explain the dual discrepancy as if you were explaining it to a private psychologist Be prepared to share out what your experience as the listener

Don’t miss the forest for the trees Consider the ‘whole’ child The questions on the eligibility forms merit conversation when considering a referral

The team must determine that the student’s lack of progress is not primarily pdue to: Lack of appropriate instruction Existence of another disability Limited English proficiency Environmental or Economic Disadvantage

What About…? 3 Year Re-evaluations Evaluation planning is critical step Thorough review of current information Same kind of thinking “Weight of progress vs. weight of support” Disabilities are life-long conditions Special education should work

LD Eligibility Reports Checklist Background information Low skills Resistance to instruction Observation Opportunity to learn the skills Other disabilities Cultural factors or economic disadvantage Limited English proficiency Conclusion

LD Eligibility Reports Sample Report

LD Eligibility Reports Not so helpful: “Kevin reads 27 words per minute at the second grade level.” More helpful: “Kevin reads 27 words per minute at the second grade level, while the expected level for January is 65 words per minute.”

Report Writing Tips Read and ask: Did I answer the questions I raised? Reread with different audiences in mind: Parents Are abbreviations spelled out? Tests explained? Administrative law judge “What I meant, Your Honor,” Another district’s learning specialist

How we communicate is important! Not everyone speaks ‘Edu- speak’ Write for your audience

Quality LD Eligibility Reports Individually: Quickly read the sample report. In partners: How does this differ from LD reports in your district? Which components are useful?