1. Specific Learning Disability: Guidelines
Identifying Students with Specific Learning Disability
Specific Learning Disability: Guidelines
Procedural Safeguards Webinar Series
April 19, 2011
Amy R. Smith PaTTAN King of Prussia

2. PaTTAN’s Mission
The mission of the Pennsylvania Training and Technical Assistance Network (PaTTAN) is to support the efforts and initiatives of the Bureau of Special Education, and to build the capacity of local educational agencies to serve students who receive special education services.

3. PDE’s Commitment to Least Restrictive Environment (LRE)
Our goal for each child is to ensure Individualized Education Program (IEP) teams begin with the general education setting with the use of Supplementary Aids and Services before considering a more restrictive environment.

4. Agenda Legal Background – IDEA 2006, Chapter 14
Overview of SLD Determination
Criteria # 1: Academic Achievement
Criteria #2: Choosing RTI or discrepancy
Criteria #3: Rule Out Factors
Criteria #4: Rule Out Lack of instruction
Observations
Eligibility Documentation

5. Legal Foundations: IDEA 2004

6. Eligibility for Special Education
Does the child have a disability?
Autism
Deaf-blindness
Deafness
Emotional disturbance
Hearing impairment
Mental retardation
Multiple disabilities
Orthopedic impairment
Other health impairment
Specific learning disability
Speech or Language impairment
Visual Impairment
Does the child need specially designed instruction?
adapting, as appropriate to the needs of an eligible child under this part, the content, methodology, or delivery of instruction—
(i) To address the unique needs of the child that result from the child’s disability; and
(ii) To ensure access of the child to the general curriculum, so that the child can meet the educational standards within the jurisdiction of the public agency that apply to all children.
§ 300.8;

7. Specific Learning Disability
IDEA 2004 SLD Identification options
Must not require the use of a severe discrepancy between intellectual ability and achievement for determining whether a child has a specific learning disability
Must permit the use of a process based on the child’s response to scientific, research-based interventions
May permit the use of other alternative research-based procedures (not included in PA’s Chapter 14)
(a)

8. Inclusionary Criteria
Determining SLD
The group may determine the child has an SLD if the child:
Does not achieve adequately for the child’s age or to meet State-approved grade-level standards in one or more of the following areas, when provided with learning experiences and instruction appropriate for the child’s age or State-approved grade-level standards:
(i) Oral expression
(ii) Listening comprehension
(iii) Written expression
(iv) Basic reading skill
(v) Reading fluency skills
(vi) Reading comprehension
(vii) Mathematics calculation
(viii) Mathematics problem solving
Inclusionary Criteria
§ (a)

9. Inclusionary Criteria
Determining SLD
The group may determine the child has an SLD if the child:
Does not make sufficient progress to meet age or State-approved grade-level standards in one or more of the area when using a process based on the child’s response to scientific, research-based intervention OR
The child exhibits a pattern of strengths and weaknesses in performance, achievement, or both, relative to age, State-approved grade level standards, or intellectual development, that is determined by the group to be relevant to the identification of a specific learning disability, using appropriate assessments
Inclusionary Criteria
§ (a)

10. Exclusionary Criteria
Determining SLD
The group may determine the child has an SLD if:
3. The group determines the results are not primarily the result of -
(i) A visual, hearing, or motor disability;
(ii) Mental retardation;
(iii) Emotional disturbance;
(iv) Cultural factors;
(v) Environmental or economic disadvantage
(vi) Limited English proficiency
Exclusionary Criteria
§ (a)

11. Exclusionary Criteria
Determining SLD
4. To ensure that underachievement is not due to lack of appropriate instruction in reading or math the group must consider:
Data that demonstrate that prior to, or as a part of, the referral process, the child was provided appropriate instruction in regular education settings delivered by qualified personnel
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
Exclusionary Criteria
§ (b)

12. Determining SLD Observations – the public agency or group must:
Ensure that a child is observed in their learning environment to document their academic performance and behavior in areas of difficulty
Decide to use information from
an observation in routine classroom instruction and monitoring of the child’s performance that was done before the child was referred for an evaluation Or
Have at least one member observe academic performance in regular classroom after consent has been given
Observe younger than school-age children in an environment appropriate for a child of that age
§ (a), (b), (c)

13. Determining SLD
The public agency must promptly request parental consent to evaluate:
If prior to referral, a child has not made adequate progress after an appropriate period of time when provided instruction
and
Whenever a child is referred for an evaluation
§ (c)

14. Overview: SLD Determination

15. Four Considerations
Three of the four criteria are the same regardless of which identification model used
One of the four criteria requires a choice
Discrepancy Model
Response to Intervention Model

16. Four Questions for Eligibility
Adequate achievement: Does the child achieve adequately for the child’s age or meet State-approved grade level standards?
Eligibility Model: Does the child demonstrate a pattern of strengths and weakness OR has the child shown a lack of response to scientifically based instruction?
Have other factors or conditions been ruled out?
Are the student’s academic concerns the result of a lack of instruction?
Each of the boxes from the graphic representation just shown, can be considered as questions.
We’ll take each of the boxes ( criteria) separately to discuss the four questions for eligibility in the next part of the presentation.

17. Specific Learning Disability1.
Failure to meet age- or grade-level State standards in one of eight areas:
oral expression
listening comprehension
written expression
basic reading skill
reading fluency skill
reading comprehension
mathematics calculation
mathematics problem solving 2.
Discrepancy: Pattern of strengths & weaknesses, relative to intellectual ability as defined by a severe discrepancy between intellectual ability and achievement, or relative to age or grade. OR
RTI: Lack of progress in response to scientifically based instruction 3.
Rule out:
Vision, hearing, or motor problems
mental retardation
emotional disturbance
cultural and/or environmental issues
limited English proficiency 4.
Rule out lack of instruction by documenting:
Appropriate instruction by qualified personnel
Repeated assessments
Specific Learning Disability
Inclusionary
Exclusionary
First two boxes are inclusionary. The 3rd and 4th boxes are exclusionary.
Lack of progress – box 2: basically a reference to progress monitoring.
Rule Out: can be ruled out by full evaluation, but it is sufficient to rule it out through screening. Must be documented in report.
All four boxes are required You must pick one of the options in box 2.
Repeated assessments: routine screening. Should be shared with parents on regular basis.
Observation

18. Assessing Achievement Level
Does the child achieve adequately for the child’s age or meet State-approved grade level standards?
Assessing Achievement Level
Criterion #1:

19. Specific Learning Disability1.
Failure to meet age- or grade-level State standards in one of eight areas:
oral expression
listening comprehension
written expression
basic reading skill
reading fluency skill
reading comprehension
mathematics calculation
mathematics problem solving 2.
Discrepancy: Pattern of strengths & weaknesses, relative to intellectual ability as defined by a severe discrepancy between intellectual ability and achievement, or relative to age or grade. OR
RTI: Lack of progress in response to scientifically based instruction 3.
Rule out:
Vision, hearing, or motor problems
mental retardation
emotional disturbance
cultural and/or environmental issues
limited English proficiency 4.
Rule out lack of instruction by documenting:
Appropriate instruction by qualified personnel
Repeated assessments
Specific Learning Disability
Inclusionary
Exclusionary
Observation 19

20. Chapter 14: Legal
The MDE team must address whether the child does not achieve adequately for the child’s age or meet state-approved grade-level standards in one or more of the following areas, when provided with learning experiences and scientifically based instruction appropriate for the child’s age or state approved grade levels standards: oral expression, listening comprehension, written expression, basic reading skill, reading fluency skills, reading comprehension, mathematics calculation, or mathematics problem solving.

21. Lack of achievement is in relation to age or grade-level standards.
The student’s assessed achievement on all measures should be significantly behind age- or grade-peers.
Measures should be reflective of state standards.
Achievement here is related to age or grade, not intellectual level

22. Failure to meet age or grade level standards
The student’s IQ level is not considered the criterion against which the student’s academic performance is compared.

23. Who sets the parameters for being ‘Deficient’?
How deficient must a student be in order to demonstrate inadequate performance/achievement?
It is the responsibility of individual school districts to establish or define appropriate assessment parameters.

24. 2 Implications to consider
Students with intelligence levels in the ‘slow learner” range may not be excluded from having SLD if they display significantly inadequate academic achievement and if they meet the other criteria.
Conversely, students with high levels of intelligence must display inadequacies in relation to their age or the state standards for their grade in order to meet this criterion.

25. Choice: RTI Model or Discrepancy Model
Eligibility Model: Does the child demonstrate a pattern of strengths and weakness OR has the child shown a lack of response to scientifically based instruction?
Choice: RTI Model or Discrepancy Model
Criterion #2

26. Specific Learning Disability1.
Failure to meet age- or grade-level State standards in one of eight areas:
oral expression
listening comprehension
written expression
basic reading skill
reading fluency skill
reading comprehension
mathematics calculation
mathematics problem solving 2.
Discrepancy: Pattern of strengths & weaknesses, relative to intellectual ability as defined by a severe discrepancy between intellectual ability and achievement, or relative to age or grade. OR
RTI: Lack of progress in response to scientifically based instruction 3.
Rule out:
Vision, hearing, or motor problems
mental retardation
emotional disturbance
cultural and/or environmental issues
limited English proficiency 4.
Rule out lack of instruction by documenting:
Appropriate instruction by qualified personnel
Repeated assessments
Specific Learning Disability
Inclusionary
Exclusionary
Observation 26

27. Criteria for Determining SLD
To determine that a child has an SLD, the school district or IU must use one of the following procedures:
A process based on the child’s response to scientific, research-based intervention, documenting that:
Student received high quality instruction in regular education
Research-based interventions were provided to the student
Student progress was regularly monitored
PA refers to this as Response to Instruction and Intervention (RtII)
§14.125(a), § (a)

28. Criteria for Determining SLD
To determine that a child has an SLD, the school district or IU must use one of the following procedures (continued):
2. A process that examines whether a child exhibits a pattern of strengths and weaknesses, relative to intellectual ability as defined by a severe discrepancy between intellectual ability and achievement or relative to age or grade.
§14.125(a), § (a)

29. Determination of SLD
Assessment Differences Between Discrepancy Model and RtII Model:
Discrepancy Model must assess whether the child does not achieve adequately for their age or to meet State-approved grade level standards and whether the child exhibits a pattern of strengths and weaknesses in performance, achievement or both relative to age, State-approved grade level standards or intellectual development
RtII Model must assess whether the child does not achieve adequately for their age or to meet State-approved grade level standards and the child does not make sufficient progress to meet age or State-approved grade-level standards

30. Response to Instruction and Intervention
Option :

31. Determination of Rate of Improvement
Progress monitoring is a rigorous assessment technique that is based in research on applications of repeated measurement techniques featuring brief and frequent measurements.

32. Monitoring Slope of Progress
Important part of the PM process is the evaluation of student performance over time
Behavior over time is reflected in rate of change or slope
Slope calculation needs to be for BOTH the expected and actual levels of student performance

33. How low is low? How slow is slow?
How deficient does the student need to be to qualify?
There is not a research consensus on this issue at this time.
Note that there never was a research consensus on the extent of the ability-achievement discrepancy.
However, there is a good deal of research underway addressing this question (e.g., Christ, Ardoin, et al).

34. In the meantime…
The decision on how deficient a student needs to be to qualify rests with the MDE.
A rough guide: A student with a learning disability should be severely deficient in level and display a poor response to research-based interventions (slope) such that he or she is not likely to meet benchmarks in a reasonable amount of time without intensive specially designed instruction.

35. Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses: Discrepancy
Option :

36. Discrepancy Model
Districts that choose not to utilize and assessment of a student’s RTII in the SLD identification process must use “a process that examines whether a child exhibits a pattern of strengths and weaknesses, relative to intellectual ability as defined by a severe discrepancy between ability and achievement
(discrepancy model) or relative to age or grade”
(a) [2] [ii]

37. Discrepancy Model
The evaluation team would administer a test of intelligence to determine a student’s IQ as well as norm-referenced tests of academic achievement so that the discrepancy between scores from the two measures can be appraised.

38. Discrepancy Parameters
Evaluation teams using the discrepancy model must determine the discrepancy relative to age or grade. The federal or state regulations do not delineate the extent of the discrepancy that is needed under the SLD designation.

39. Criteria for Determining SLD
Each school district and IU must develop procedures for determination of SLD that conform to State criteria
Procedures must be included in special education plans
§14.125(a), § (a)

40. Can you use both models?
A district my use both the RTII model and the discrepancy model in particular situations. A district with a plan to phase in RTII over a three to five year period may use RTII in one building and the discrepancy model in another.
Districts may also choose to use RTII for SLD determination at the elementary level and discrepancy model at the secondary level.
These and other exceptions must be documented and approved through the special education plan approval process.

41. Rule out other factors or conditions
Have other factors or conditions been ruled out?
Rule out other factors or conditions
Criterion: #3

42. Specific Learning Disability1.
Failure to meet age- or grade-level State standards in one of eight areas:
oral expression
listening comprehension
written expression
basic reading skill
reading fluency skill
reading comprehension
mathematics calculation
mathematics problem solving 2.
Discrepancy: Pattern of strengths & weaknesses, relative to intellectual ability as defined by a severe discrepancy between intellectual ability and achievement, or relative to age or grade. OR
RTI: Lack of progress in response to scientifically based instruction 3.
Rule out:
Vision, hearing, or motor problems
mental retardation
emotional disturbance
cultural and/or environmental issues
limited English proficiency 4.
Rule out lack of instruction by documenting:
Appropriate instruction by qualified personnel
Repeated assessments
Specific Learning Disability
Inclusionary
Exclusionary
Observation 42

43. Rule Out Factors Vision, hearing, or motor problems Mental retardation
Emotional disturbance
Cultural and/or environmental issues
Limited English proficiency

44. Rule out lack of instruction.
Has the student been provided with appropriate instruction?
Rule out lack of instruction.
Criterion#4:

45. Specific Learning Disability1.
Failure to meet age- or grade-level State standards in one of eight areas:
oral expression
listening comprehension
written expression
basic reading skill
reading fluency skill
reading comprehension
mathematics calculation
mathematics problem solving 2.
Discrepancy: Pattern of strengths & weaknesses, relative to intellectual ability as defined by a severe discrepancy between intellectual ability and achievement, or relative to age or grade. OR
RTI: Lack of progress in response to scientifically based instruction 3.
Rule out:
Vision, hearing, or motor problems
mental retardation
emotional disturbance
cultural and/or environmental issues
limited English proficiency 4.
Rule out lack of instruction by documenting:
Appropriate instruction by qualified personnel
Repeated assessments
Specific Learning Disability
Inclusionary
Exclusionary
Observation 45

46. Chapter 14: Regulations
Ensure that underachievement in a child suspected of having a specific learning disability is not due to lack of appropriate instruction in reading or mathematics by considering documentation that: prior to or as part of the referral process, the child was provided scientifically-based instruction in general education settings, delivered by qualified personnel, as indicated by observations of routine classroom instruction.
[a] [i]

47. Question: Was the student effectively taught?
Key Questions to Address
Is a Standards-Based Curriculum in Place?
Is it based on scientific research?
If a scientifically validated curriculum is in place, is there evidence that it is being delivered at a sufficient level of fidelity?

48. Question: Was the student effectively taught?
Key Questions to Address
Has the student been provided with individualized supports in the general education classroom?
Has the student been provided with a sufficiently intense individualized intervention using research-based instructional procedures?

49. Repeated Assessments
Repeated assessments of achievement or behavior, or both, conducted at reasonable intervals, reflecting formal monitoring of student progress during the interventions.
Information regarding the student’s progress should be periodically provided to the student’s parents.

50. Observations

51. IDEA 2006
The public agency must ensure that the child is observed in the child’s learning environment, including the regular classroom setting to document the child’s academic performance and behavior in the areas of difficulty.
Use information from the child’s performance that was done before the referral for an evaluation Or
At least one member of the evaluation team conduct an observation in the general education classroom after the child has been referred for an evaluation and parental consent.

52. Documentation of Eligibility

53. Required Documentation
Regardless of whether you choose the RTII model or the discrepancy model, there are 8 common elements which must be documented for eligibility; then based upon the model there is variance to what else is needed.

54. Required elements for either model
Relevant behavior noted during the observation
Relationship of behavior to the child’s academic functioning
Educationally relevant medical findings
Effects of the student’s environment, culture, or economic background
Documentation that prior to the referral for evaluation the student was provided with appropriate instruction by highly qualified personnel

55. Required elements for either model
6. Data-based documentation, given to the parents, of repeated assessments at reasonable intervals reflecting progress. 7. An observation in the student’s learning environment, including the general education classroom, document academic performance and behavior in the areas of difficulty. 8. Documentation of the rule-out statements.

56. Additional documentation – discrepancy model
The extent to which the student is not achieving relative to age or state grade level standards
Whether a child exhibits a pattern of strengths and weaknesses, relative to intellectual ability as defined by a severe discrepancy between intellectual ability, achievement, or relative to age or grade.

57. Additional documentation – RTII Model
The extent to which the student is not achieving relative to age or state grade-level standards
The student’s progress in response to scientifically based instruction

58. Special Considerations

59. Using RTII for SLD eligibility
The use of RTII in the identification process for SLD is only allowed after an LEA applies for and is granted permission by the Bureau of Special Education
Using Response to Instruction and Intervention (RtII) for SLD Determination: Application for Approval
Using Response to Instruction and Intervention (RtII) for SLD Determination: Scoring Rubric

60. May other instruments be administered?
Yes.
Tests of cognitive processing
Tests of visual motor integration
Tests of auditory processing
Tests of receptive and expressive language
Etc.
When conducting a comprehensive evaluation
MDT determines what is needed and seeks permission from parent

61. Questions?

62. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Department of Education
Contact Information
Amy Smith
X 7262
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Tom Corbett, Governor
Pennsylvania Department of Education
Ronald J. Tomalis, Secretary
Carolyn C. Dumaresq, Ed. D., Deputy Secretary
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education
John J. Tommasini, Director
Bureau of Special Education
Patricia Hozella, Assistant Director