Life After the Pilot: Transition Back to Categorical Placements Bill Trant, Director of Special Education NHCS Nancy Kreykenbohm, RTI Coordinator NHCS Leigh Gates, RTI Liaison NHCS

Life After the Pilot: Transition Back to Categorical Placements Agenda Background What’s New What’s the Same What’s Next Wrap-up (suggestions and implications) Wiki link:

Make a Venn Diagram: You will use it for the wrap-up activity. Recommendations for NHCS Implications for your Implementation Major Take Aways

Background A Brief History

IDEIA Reauthorization begins October 2001 President Bush issues Executive Order to establish Commission on Excellence in Special Education. Issues to be studied include: appropriate early intervention in reading instruction impact of early intervention on referral and identification of children for special education impact on special education funding on decisions to serve, place, or refer children ways to distribute funds that will lead to better results and eliminate incentives that prevent children from receiving quality educational services

Factors Overrepresentation of minority students in special education Poor rates of special education students graduating from high school compared to the general population Scientific, research-based instruction works whether a student is disabled or not and differs by need not by categorical placement

NCDPI Forms a Task Force: 2001 Specific Learning Disability: Definition Required Screenings and Evaluations Non-categorical identification Proposes Pilot Study of Problem-Solving Model Later Called Response to Intervention, then Responsiveness to Instruction

2004 IDEA Definition of LD “Specific learning disability” means a disorder in 1 or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, which disorder may manifest itself in the imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or to do mathematical calculations. Such term includes such conditions as perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia. Such term does not include a learning problem that is primarily the result of visual, hearing, or motor disabilities, of mental retardation, of emotional disturbance, or of environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage

January-June 2004 Pilot Sites Chosen Study begins. Initially using DIBELS for reading as Curriculum Based Assessment (CBA) Study expands to other academic skills including Math and Written Language Basic Skill Builders chosen as base for CBA

School Year: Intensive Training for State Pilot Schools Borrowed from Heartland Education Agency (IOWA), Florida, and Horry County Schools (SC) State Pilot: 2 school teams from each of the following counties: Bertie, Burke, Guilford, Harnett and New Hanover 60 plus hours of training

New Hanover County Pilot Schools 5 additional school teams the first year 6 additional schools annually until K-8 schools were trained and implementing in

YEAR ONE What is Problem Solving and Why Do We Need It? PSM in Detail Norming ( ) Probes and Progress Monitoring Basic Reading Strategies and Interventions Reading Comprehension Strategies and Interventions Math Strategies and Interventions Written Expression Strategies and Interventions Behavior: Baseline Data, Interventions, and Progress Monitoring How Does the PSM Process Work? How Do We Put It All Together?

Focus of Evaluation Procedures Does scientific, research-based instruction provided with integrity and fidelity improve the student’s skills enabling him/her to be successful in the general education classroom? What type of progress is the student making? Does his/her growth rate indicate that the student will soon be proficient in the necessary skills? How much support is needed for the student to be successful? Do the instructional methods and amount of direct instruction approximate those provided by an personalized education plan, an individual accommodation plan, or an individualized education plan?

Waivers for Pilot Sites November 2005 Approved by the State Board of Education for Pilot Sites to use Entitlement rather than categorical identification for Specific Learning Disabled, Other Health Impaired, Seriously Emotionally Disabled, and Intellectually Disabled-Mildly Impaired March 2008 Waiver Continued July 2011 Waiver Discontinued

Question: Discuss with your Neighbors What challenges would you expect a school system to face moving from a non-categorical to a categorical RTI approach?

What’s New How did we meet the new DPI requirements?

Crosswalk We developed a crosswalk DPI requirements Our process We created checklists DPI requirement The Source The Document

Online Special Education Manual %20Education%20and%20Related%20Serv ices%20Manual%20- %20WEB%20VERSION1.htm

Question: Discuss with your Neighbors What specific strategies could be used to gain buy-in from stakeholders for the change process from a non-categorical to categorical RTI approach?

What’s the Same How did we blend the DPI categorical requirements with the non-categorical RTI approach?

RTI Adverse Effect, Specially Designed Instruction & Exclusion Criteria

Categorical Identification Each high-incidence identification category (SLD, OHI, SED, ID-MI) has three common elements: Disability must adversely affect academic performance Disability must require specially designed instruction Disability can not be the result of a number of factors – exclusion criteria

Adverse Effect Criteria NCDPI and IDEA eligibility criteria specify that in order for a student to be eligible for special education, the student must have disability that has an adverse effect on educational performance.

Need for Specially Designed Instruction Criteria NCDPI and IDEA eligibility criteria specify that in order for a student to be eligible for special education, the student demonstrate the need for specially designed instruction.

Exclusion Criteria NCDPI and IDEA also require documentation supporting that the disability is not the result the lack of appropriate instruction, cultural, economic and/or environmental factors.

RTI Process Required NCDPI requires documentation of at least “Two scientific research-based interventions to address academic and/or behavioral skill deficiencies and documentation of the results of the interventions, including progress monitoring documentation” for LD, OHI, SED and ID-MI

RTI meets the Criteria In the past, teams used judgment and weak interventions and not data and instruction to address both these long standing criteria and the new criteria Data collected through our former non- categorical RTI process provides an evidence-based approach to support the team decision making for the common and new criteria

What are these Criteria? Performance criteria in academics and/or behavior in response to instructional intervention Growth criteria in academics and/or behavior in response to instructional intervention Instructional intensity criteria applied to addressing the academic and/or behavioral focus

What are these Criteria? Exclusion Criteria: The student performance information is NOT the result of: Not receiving appropriate reading instruction Describe the instruction received during the period of early (K- 2) reading instruction. What was the student’s attendance during the period of early (K-2) reading instruction? Not receiving appropriate math instruction Describe the instruction received during the period of early (K- 2) math instruction. What was the student’s attendance during the period of early (K-2) math instruction?

What are these Criteria? Exclusion Criteria: The student performance information is NOT the result of: Cultural factors Are behavioral concerns appropriate within the student’s cultural context? Environmental factors Are behavioral or learning concerns (e.g. abuse, neglect, loss, family dynamic or health issues) associated with environmental factors in the school, home or community? Economic factors Are behavioral or learning concerns associated within context of the culture of poverty?

What are these Criteria? Exclusion Criteria: The student performance information is NOT the result of: Limited English Proficiency Stages of Second Language Acquisition when exposed to that language in school (times are approximate and may vary among learners Stage 1: Pre-productive/Silent6 months Stage 2: Early Productive6 months Stage 3: Speech Emergence 1.5 years Stage 4: Intermediate Proficiency1.5 years (LEP exclusion factor) Stage 5: Advance Proficiency 5-7 years

Performance Criteria: Academics Performance well below peers on two or more skill areas. The performance criteria can be met in one of three ways in the two skill areas: At or below the “Well Below Proficiency” standard established through county-wide norms on progress monitoring for a grade level RTI skill area. OR Performance two times or more discrepant from classroom or grade level norm. Compare student’s score at the end of Tier III with mean of classroom or grade level norm. OR The projected number of weeks it will take the student to reach the Proficiency standard is 18 weeks or more. Consideration of fewer weeks to the Proficiency standard can be made during the last nine weeks of the school year. Trend line analysis may be helpful in supporting this criteria as well.

Performance Criteria: Behavior Performance well below peers as evidenced by performance below goal(s) set below. Replacement behavior goal set at 100% for behavior that is or may be harmful to self and/or others. Examples include, but are not limited to: assault (any act of such nature to excite an apprehension of a harmful or offensive physical contact with the person of another) and battery (intentional and un-permitted physical contact with the person of another). is not harmful to self or others but causes significant disruption of the learning environment as defined by acting in any manner so as to interfere with any teacher’s ability to conduct a class or other school activity. These behaviors may require removal of the student from the classroom in some instances. Examples include but are not limited to cursing and tantrums.

Performance Criteria: Behavior Performance well below peers as evidenced by performance below goal(s) set below. Replacement behavior goal set at 75% for behavior that: Involves noncompliance without overt aggressive behaviors generally referred to as insubordination (the refusal to carry out a reasonable request by a staff member and/or refusal to abide by reasonable school and/or classroom standards). Examples include, but are not limited to ignoring adult requests or directives to return to seat, start assignment, and redirect to assignment or assigned physical space. Involves lack of work completion Involves time off task.

Growth Criteria: Academics Rate of growth below peers: The team must compare the student’s rate of growth in each probe area for the time span appropriate for the length of intervention (Fall to Winter, Winter to Fall, or Fall to Spring), Proficiency Standard, and Well Below Proficiency. The rate of growth for the student should approximate growth at the Well Below Proficiency standard for this criterion to be met. One exception is when the rate of growth on the normed data at the Well Below Proficiency standard is the same or higher than for students at the Mean and students at the Well Below Proficiency

Growth Criteria: Behavior Rate of growth below peers: The trend line of the data must be compared to the aimline based on either the 100% or 75% goal. If the trend line is not projected to intersect with the aimline in 18 weeks or more, the rate of growth criteria has been met.

Instructional Intensity Criteria Intensity and nature of instruction in Tier 3 must resemble specially designed instruction. Records must include documentation of the appropriateness, fidelity, and integrity of interventions provided. This includes Academic and Behavior instruction

Exclusion Criteria A review of current and past ICEL data using RIOT ICEL = Instruction, Curriculum, Environment and Learner RIOT = Review, Interview, Observe, Test Performance and growth data is NOT the result of the exclusion criteria factors: lack of appropriate instruction, cultural, environmental or linguistic factors

What’s Next What are our next steps?

Next Steps RTI Survey RTI & Behavior Process Improvement Group Fidelity Project Professional Development Plan Continuing to Develop the Unified Approach b/w Special Education & Instruction

Wrap-Up Two Questions: First, discuss with your neighbors Then, share-out with the group

Wrap-Up Questions: First, Discuss. Then, Share. 1.Based on your implementation experiences, what suggestions do you have for NHCS moving forward? 2.Based on the presentation, what are possible implications for your RTI implementation?

Life After the Pilot: Transition Back to Categorical Placements Bill Trant, Director of Special Education NHCS Nancy Kreykenbohm, RTI Coordinator NHCS Leigh Gates, RTI Liaison NHCS