Sanford (2008) 1 Comprehensive Evaluation of Specific Learning Disabilities: Legal Requirements and Best Practices Amanda Sanford, Ph.D. Portland State University Kimberly Ingram, Ph.D. Oregon Department of Education

Agenda: Comprehensive Evaluation Legal Requirements New Models Recommendations for implementation

Legal Requirements Specific Learning Disabilities Requirement of Comprehensive Evaluation

Definition of Specific Learning Disability: Defined at §300.8(c)(10) as… A disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written… …May manifest itself in the imperfect ability to: listen think speak read write spell do mathematical calculations…

Definition of Specific Learning Disability perceptual disabilities brain injury minimal brain dysfunction dyslexia developmental aphasia …including conditions such as: and visual, hearing, or motor disabilities mental retardation emotional disturbance of environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage Does not include learning problems that are primarily the result of: or

What are hallmark characteristics of individuals with learning disabilities ? (e.g. dyslexia) How could we measure it (to determine if the child has a learning disability)? How could this information be used to plan instruction (IEP planning process)?

Changes to SLD Eligibility Requirements 34 CFR & OAR Added progress monitoring component (all) Added option of RTI (OAR - based on district model) Changed “severe discrepancy” to “pattern of strengths and weaknesses” Observation – before or during

SLD Evaluation Components – Required for both RTI & PSW Academic assessment (academic achievement toward Oregon grade level standards) Review of cumulative records, IEPs, teacher collected work samples Observation in learning environment (by qualified professional) – before or during Progress monitoring data instruction component assessment component

SLD Evaluation Components – Both (if needed) Assessment of cognition, fine motor, perceptual motor, communication, social- emotional, memory (if student exhibits impairment in one or more of these areas) Medical statement

Comprehensive Evaluation OAR (3) (3) Conduct of evaluation. In conducting the evaluation, the public agency must: (a) Use a variety of assessment tools and strategies to gather relevant functional, developmental, and academic information about the child, including information provided by the parent that may assist in determining: (A) Whether the child is a child with a disability under OAR through OAR ; and (B) The content of the child’s IEP, including information related to enabling the child to be involved in and progress in the general education curriculum (or for a preschool child, to participate in appropriate activities);

Comprehensive Evaluation OAR (3) (3) Conduct of evaluation. In conducting the evaluation, the public agency must: (b) Not use any single measure or assessment as the sole criterion for determining whether a child is a child with a disability and for determining an appropriate educational program for the child; and

Comprehensive Evaluation OAR (4) Assessments and other evaluation materials used to assess a child under this part: (A) Are selected and administered so as not to be discriminatory on a racial or cultural basis; (C) Are used for the purposes for which the assessments or measures are valid and reliable;

Comprehensive Evaluation OAR (3) Checklist: Use a variety of assessment tools Not use any measure as sole criterion Are reliable and valid for the purpose used

New models The old discrepancy model New models

Sanford (2008) 15 Options to determining eligibility of learning disability And exhibits one of the following: Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses (PSW) Response to Intervention (RTI)

Sanford (2008) 16 Patterns of Strengths and Weaknesses OAR subsection 3 (c) For a student evaluated using a model that is based on the student's strengths and weaknesses, in relation to one or more of the areas in subsection (3)(a), the student exhibits a pattern of strengths and weaknesses in classroom performance, academic achievement, or both, relative to age, Oregon grade- level standards, or intellectual development, that is determined by the group to be relevant to the identification of a specific learning disability.

Sanford (2008) 17 District interpretation of Patterns of Strengths and Weaknesses Interpretations: this language may have come from research like Sally Shaywitz’s: “… a circumscribed, encapsulated weakness is often surrounded by a sea of strengths: reasoning, problem solving, comprehension, concept formation, critical thinking, general knowledge, and vocabulary ” Shaywitz (2003). IQ-Achievement discrepancy: some continue to use

Sanford (2008) 18 Often = Always? Interpretations: PSW language may have come from research like Sally Shaywitz’s: “… a circumscribed, encapsulated weakness is often surrounded by a sea of strengths: reasoning, problem solving, comprehension, concept formation, critical thinking, general knowledge, and vocabulary ” Shaywitz (2003). Problem with logic: State Governors are often born in the United States Therefore, if you are born in the United States, you are a State Governor Or: Therefore, if you are not born in the united states, you are not a State Governor Therefore, if you have a “sea of” cognitive strengths and one encapsulated weakness, you have a learning disability If you do not have a “sea of” cognitive strengths and one encapsulated weakness, you do not have a learning disability IQ-Achievement discrepancy: some continue to use

Sanford (2008) 19 Some districts continue to use simple IQ-Achievement Discrepancy WJ Read WISC-III FSIQ Lowest 6% in reading skills 6% Simple Discrepancy SOL -- Simply out of Luck. Not eligible for special education services. Potentially eligible seldom referred (unless other Concerns) Shinn, Good, & Parker 1998

Sanford (2008) 20 Problems with IQ-achievement discrepancy? (Fletcher, et al. 2001) We are not providing special education services to those children MOST in need of individualized instruction The decisions are unreliable: A small difference in score on one measure could change who we say is eligible We are spending a lot of time on this process (and time is money!!!) This information does not help us make efficient decisions to support learning This decision often requires that a student “waits to fail” or waits until their discrepancy is large enough to receive services

Sanford (2008) 21 District interpretation of Patterns of Strengths and Weaknesses Proposed new models: one urban school district’s example Achievement subtest below 90 The student’s IQ must be in the average range with a standard score of 80 or above An academic weakness exists when there is a significant difference using the regression chart between the student’s IQ and the standard score in a content area on a standardized achievement test An academic strength exists when the standard score in a content area of a standardized achievement test is at or above the student’s IQ

Sanford (2008) 22 Potentially Eligible Eligible under category of Mental Retardation Pattern of Strength and Weakness – is it better? WJ Read WISC-III FSIQ Lowest 6% in reading skills 6% Simple Discrepancy SOL -- Simply out of Luck. Not eligible for special education despite substantial need. Score below 90 (lowest 25%) demonstrates “academic need” Not eligible due to IQ below 80 Adapted from Shinn, Good, & Parker 1998

Sanford (2008) 23 Problems with this PSW model? We are not providing special education services to those children MOST in need of individualized instruction (and we’re denying it to more children with this model) The decisions are unreliable: A small difference in score on one measure could change who we say is eligible We are spending a lot of time on this process (and time is money!!!) This information does not help us make efficient decisions to support learning This decision often requires that a student “waits to fail” or waits until their discrepancy is large enough to receive services

Comprehensive Evaluation OAR (3) Checklist: Use a variety of assessment tools yes Not use any measure as sole criterion 1 measure used to exclude students (IQ test) Are reliable and valid for the purpose used Subtracting subtests decreases reliability

Sanford (2008) 25 Another district interpretation of Patterns of Strengths and Weaknesses Pattern demonstrated by At least three “points of evidence” indicating a strength or weakness in one SLD area Academic Achievement Grade level expectations (DIBELS, CBM, Reading Kit) Age expectations (WIAT, WJ III, OWLS, KTEA) Intellectual development (WISC IV, CAS, TOLD, etc.) Classroom Performance Grade level expectations (OSAT/CBM) Age expectations (Grades, anecdotal) Intellectual development (observation) At least one strength and one weakness in cognitive processing with supporting observations

Sanford (2008) 26 PSW Cut-offs & Measures Guidance

Sanford (2008) 27 Example of one part of the requirement: Requirement: a student must demonstrate, “At least one strength and one weakness in cognitive processing with supporting observations” To document a strength and weakness in cognitive processing: Norm-referenced standardized assessment of cognitive or language processing: Strength: index score above 25th percentile (SS>90) Weakness: index score below 16th percentile (SS<85) AND index score is significantly below the mean of the student’s index scores *Weakness = Normative Weakness (compared to population) AND Relative Weakness (within student) One (of several) option to measure cognitive processing: CAS

Sanford (2008) 28 Defining a cognitive strength or weakness A student must demonstrate at least one of each: Strength: a score above the 25 th %ile Weakness: At least one score must be below the 16 th %ile AND must be significantly below the students’ mean score

Sanford (2008) 29 Qualifies: has a strength and weakness CAS scores Planning = 95 (37 th %ile) Attention = 78 (7 th %ile) Simultaneous = 96 (40 th %ile) Successive =104 (61 st %ile) Mean CAS score = (31 st %ile) Attention score is <16th percentile AND significantly below the mean score (using tables in CAS manual) Evidence of a cognitive processing weakness in the area of attention Strength Weakness

Sanford (2008) 30 Does not qualify: has no documented strength, and low score (“weakness”) is not below mean CAS scores Planning = 86 (18 th %ile) Attention = 78 (7 th %ile) Simultaneous = 83 (13 th %ile) Successive =87 (19 st %ile) Mean CAS score = 83.5 (14 th %ile) Attention score is <16th percentile BUT is not significantly below the mean score (using tables in CAS manual) No evidence of a cognitive processing weakness in the area of attention No Strength Weakness?

Sanford (2008) 31 CAS scores Planning = 95 (37 th %ile) Attention = 84 (14 th %ile) Simultaneous = 83 (13 th %ile) Successive =87 (19 st %ile) Mean CAS score = 85 (16 th %ile) Attention score is <16th percentile BUT is not significantly below the mean score (using tables in CAS manual) No evidence of a cognitive processing weakness in the area of attention Has a strength (score above 25 th %ile) Weakness is below 16 th %ile, but not significantly below the mean Does not qualify: has a documented strength, but low score (“weakness”) is not below mean

Sanford (2008) 32 CAS scores Planning = 95 (37 th %ile) Attention = 86 (18 th %ile) Simultaneous = 96 (40 th %ile) Successive =104 (61 st %ile) Mean CAS score = (31 st %ile) Attention score is NOT <16th percentile but IS significantly below the mean score (using tables in CAS manual) No evidence of a cognitive processing weakness in the area of attention Strength No Weakness Does not qualify: has a documented strength, but low score (“weakness”) is not below 16 th %ile (even if it is below the mean)

Sanford (2008) 33 Which student needs the most help? Does Not QualifyMay Qualify Does Not Qualify

Comprehensive Evaluation OAR (3) Checklist: Use a variety of assessment tools yes Not use any measure as sole criterion 1 measure used to exclude students (IQ test) Are reliable and valid for the purpose used Subtracting subtests decreases reliability There is not evidence to suggest that a specific of general “strength” is required to diagnose an individual with learning disabilities.

Recommendations Avoiding pitfalls Recommended practices

Avoiding pitfalls Subtracting subtests: Reduces reliability of tests They were not designed for that purpose Require a high performance on one ability/measure/cluster of measures in order to provide students services due to a disability in another area

Recommendations: to ensure compliance Make sure that your assessments 1. Include progress monitoring as a part of comprehensive evaluation (new requirement) – (see The National Center on Student Progress Monitoring: and Research Institute on Progress Monitoring: 2. Ensure appropriate instruction is provided – (new requirement) 3. determine whether or not a child has need for special education services

Recommendations To determine eligibility: 1. Identify: what are the necessary hallmark characteristics of children with learning disabilities? 2. How can we reliably and validly measure those characteristics? 3. What additional assessments could we use to validate and increase the reliability of our decisions? 4. How do we use this information to plan instruction? Using the pattern of a students strengths and weaknesses (or areas of academic need) are necessary and relevant to planning a student’s IEP

Indicators of learning disabilities Performing below expectations (compared to age, grade, or state standards) Has “processing deficits” (e.g. dyslexia: students have deficits in phonological processing, fluency, and RAN) These could be documented using a variety of assessments Look for converging patterns of performance (e.g. low performance on in-class reading assessments, formal curriculum-based measurement, and phonological processing on a cognitive assessment) Looking at many assessments that indicate the same thing increases reliability Subtracting measures or requiring one area to be high while another area is low reduces reliability (and there is not evidence to suggest that it meaningfully differentiates between individuals with or without learning disabilities)

Examples of comprehensive evaluations

Fletcher, J.M., Lyon, G.R., Barnes, M., Stuebing, K.K., Francis, D.J., Olson, R.K., Shaywitz, S.E., & Shaywitz, B.A. (2001, August). Classification of learning disabilities: An evidence-based evaluation. Paper presented at the Office of Special Education Programs and U.S. Department of Education Learning Disabilities Summit, Washington, DC.