Scott Brown DPI Education Consultant Special Education Team

Scott Brown DPI Education Consultant Special Education Team
Wisconsin’s Specific Learning Disabilities Rule: Workshop for School Teams Scott Brown DPI Education Consultant Special Education Team

Overview of the SLD Rule
It is important to understand the information about the SLD rule that will be shared with you through the next several slides applies to a school which has started to determine insufficient progress from research based intensive interventions, and is no longer using significant discrepancy. This is to avoid any unnecessary confusion. I am making the assumption that your IEP teams are well versed in applying the significant discrepancy criterion and thus this is not the focus of this training. However, if you have specific questions about discrepancy method, I would be happy to answer those also at the end of the workshop today. Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction

Revised WI SLD Rule Three Criteria:
SLD Guidance Revised WI SLD Rule Three Criteria: Inadequate classroom achievement (after intervention) Insufficient progress Consideration of exclusionary factors Sources of Data Observation Formal and informal assessment data Documentation requirements When considering whether a student has the impairment of SLD for the first time (there is separate criteria for reevals), a referred student must meet each of the three criteria inadequate classroom achievement, AND insufficient progress AND exclusionary factors must be found not to be the primary reason for the inadequate classroom achievement and insufficient progress. The eligibility decision is contingent on all the criteria being met. The criteria are equally weighted. All evaluations, initial and reevaluations require the IEP team to consider multiple sources of data including data from a systematic observation, and formal and informal evaluation data. These requirements are specified in the rule. The rule also includes documentation requirements. The documentation requirements are more numerous for initial evaluations than for reevaluations. We will review these throughout the workshop as we go through the criteria in detail. SLD Evaluation Requirements Checklists have been developed as a resource to IEP teams to assist them in completing SLD initial and reevaluations. You can find a link to these checklists and other SLD eligibility resources on the DPI SLD webpage ( WI Department of Public Instruction

SLD Guidance Definition of SLD Specific learning disability means a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or using language, spoken or written, that may manifest itself in an imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell or perform mathematical calculations, including conditions such as perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia and developmental aphasia. The term does not include learning problems that are primarily the result of visual, hearing, motor disabilities, cognitive disabilities, emotional disturbance, cultural factors, environmental, or economic disadvantage. PI 11.36(6)(a) This is the definition of specific learning disability in Wisconsin’s SLD rule. It mirrors the federal definition of SLD. It has not changed. What has changed is how we DETERMINE whether a student is a child with a specific learning disability. We do not directly use this definition to make eligibility decisions. Criteria and other evaluation requirements described later in the rule are used to operationalize the definition. It is important to understand that the definition of SLD has not changed, but rather how we determine if a student is a child with the impairment of SLD HAS changed. A similar situation has occurred repeatedly over the years in the medical community. For example, we knew that pneumonia existed for many, many years before modern technology helped us identify it. We still know pneumonia exists but we no longer rely on strictly a stethoscope and a fever for a diagnosis. X-rays and lab work can confirm the suspected diagnosis of pneumonia and avoid the unnecessary use of antibiotics for viral infections. Our methods for determining a specific learning disability have improved as we have learned more about how students learn and respond to quality core instructional practices and interventions. WI Department of Public Instruction

How Did We Get Here? To begin, we will look briefly at how our understanding has evolved since the 1960’s when SLD emerged as a construct. Historically, the concept of SLD assumed achievement delays in specific academic and school performance skills caused by an underlying disorder of cognition and learning. The delays associated with SLD occurred despite an individual receiving adequate instruction. This has sometimes been referred to as “unexpected underachievement.” For many years, one of the most commonly used indicators of the achievement delays associated with SLD was ability (IQ) /achievement discrepancy which is commonly documented using a significant discrepancy formula. Over time, research findings have led the field to question the use of discrepancy analysis for identifying students with SLD. This has led to shift from the use of discrepancy to a focus on using direct evidence of the effects of instruction and intensive intervention to identify SLD. Federal law and regulations related to the identification of students with specific learning disabilities occurred with the reauthorization of IDEA in Wisconsin’s revised SLD rule was finalized in September 2010, took effect on December 1, 2010, and included a three year transition period for the implementation of the insufficient progress criterion.

December 1, 2010 The evolution of the research on how to best document the achievement delays that define SLD is reflected in several changes in the evaluation requirements for SLD found in IDEA 2004 and the 2006 federal regulations for implementing IDEA. One significant change was states can no longer require the use of significant discrepancy between intellectual ability and achievement as part of SLD determinations. Another important change was states must permit the use of a process based on a student’s response to scientific, research based intervention. These changes in federal law and regulations required Wisconsin to revise its SLD rule. In 2005, the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction convened a task force to discuss the relationship of RTI (Response to Intervention) CEIS (Coordinated Early Intervening Services) and SLD in light of IDEA 2004 and its 2006 regulations and to propose revised state SLD rules. The revised rules were finalized in September 2010 and took effect on December 1, A three year transition period for ending the use of significant discrepancy was included in the rule. The use of significant discrepancy will “sunset” on December 1, 2013 for evaluations of public school students. Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction

SLD Guidance December 1, 2010 Documentation of intensive intervention before assessing Classroom Achievement. Inadequate Classroom Achievement defined as 1.25 SD or more below the mean for same age peers. Additional Exclusionary Factor: Lack of appropriate instruction in the area(s) under consideration (not just reading and mathematics). Information processing is no longer required. Before we move ahead to discuss the components of the SLD rule in depth, we want to remind you of the requirements which went into effect on December 1, You should have already implemented these requirements in your schools. One intensive intervention must be implemented with the student prior to academic testing. We will discuss the requirements for intensive interventions later in the presentation. 1.25 below mean – or or below on standardized test with mean of 100 and SD of 15. To clarify, the former SLD rule also included a “classroom achievement delay” criterion but it was documented differently using mostly informal classroom data. Now, classroom achievement must be analyzed using standardized, individually administered, diagnostic achievement test score. Tests used for determining inadequate classroom achievement may be the same as those used when determining significant discrepancy. Lack of appropriate instruction applies to all areas being considered. The area(s) an IEP team may consider consist of the 8 achievement areas within SLD and we’ll review those shortly. The requirement to determine insufficient progress using progress monitoring data from intensive intervention rather than significant discrepancy is not yet required. There is a three-year sunset on the use of significant discrepancy to determine insufficient progress. By December 1, 2013 all schools must transition from using significant discrepancy to using progress monitoring data from 2 intensive, scientific research or evidence based interventions to decide if a student demonstrates insufficient progress in one or more areas of concern. Information Processing deficit is no longer a criterion when determining a student has the impairment of SLD. WI Department of Public Instruction

Documentation Requirement
F. The student received intensive intervention, which was applied in a manner highly consistent with its design, closely aligned to pupil need, and culturally appropriate. Document intensive intervention implemented with student prior to achievement testing using form ER-2, question F. You should also summarize this on ER-1 under “prior interventions and their effects.”

IEP Process Referral/Notice Review Existing Data Consent (if needed)
Additional Assessment (if needed) Eligibility Determination IEP placement (if eligible) Before we move ahead to discuss how the SLD rule is applied, we want to provide a quick review of the special education process in general. Please refer to your handout for a complete walkthrough of the initial and reevaluation processes. This summarizes the documentation requirements and related timelines for these processes. Our focus today does not include all special education documentation requirements, nor the entire special education IEP process. We have provided this handout as a resource for that as our focus will be primarily on initial SLD evaluations and only the requirements for that process. When a student is referred for an initial evaluation or when a student who has been receiving special education is reevaluated, there are certain steps that must always be followed, no matter what the student’s impairment. First, when an initial written referral is received or the decision is made to conduct a reevaluation (a reevaluation must be conducted at least once every three years, unless the LEA and parent agree one is not needed), the parent is notified in writing of the referral or the start of the evaluation. An IEP team is assigned. The IEP team always includes the parent. Members of the IEP team review existing data and determine what additional data is needed, if any. An IEP team meeting is not required for this step. This is a very important step as the IEP team must consider what data will be needed to apply the three criteria and determine eligibility (with is both the impairment AND the need for special education). A notice is sent to the parent about the results of the review of existing data and written parental consent is requested if additional data is needed. Once consent for evaluation is received (or the parent is notified no additional testing is needed) the IEP team has 60 days to complete the evaluation and make an eligibility decision. If at any time after referral (during an initial evaluation for SLD), the IEP team finds additional information is needed, such as data from intensive intervention, the IEP team and parent may agree to extend the 60 day timeline to allow for the collection of the necessary data. The agreement with the parent must be in writing and, if any new additional data is needed, another notice and consent is required. An IEP team meeting is scheduled, parents receive written notice of the meeting date, time and location and the meeting is held to determine eligibility If the student is found eligible (or continues to be eligible), an IEP must be developed within 30 days following the eligibility decision. Parental consent for initial placement is required before an initial IEP can be implemented.

Caution: Review of Existing Data
IEP team should clearly identify each area of potential SLD that will be evaluated. Inadequate classroom achievement Observations Testing Insufficient Progress Interventions Data collection and analysis Exclusionary factors IEP teams may wish to pay particular attention to the review of existing data. The middle row contains the three criteria which must be met in SLD eligibility determinations. The bottom row are the data collection requirements to establish each of the criteria. Although a formal meeting is NOT required, you and your IEP teams may find a is meeting to review existing data is extremely helpful in an SLD evaluation to clearly define what areas of concern are being evaluated. Each of the SLD criteria must be met for each area of concern (the 8 achievement areas of SLD). For example, an observation and achievement testing must be conducted in each of the 8 areas in which there are concerns. At least 2 scientific research or evidence based interventions must be implemented, observed and progress monitoring data collected and analyzed for each area of concern. Finally, the IEP team must determine that the inadequate classroom achievement and insufficient progress are not caused primarily by any of the exclusionary factors for each area of concern. While still conducting a full and individual evaluation, having a meeting at this stage in the process may help the team better focus its efforts on the area(s) of greatest concern. Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction

Eight Areas oral expression listening comprehension written expression
SLD Guidance Eight Areas oral expression listening comprehension written expression basic reading skill reading fluency reading comprehension mathematics calculation mathematics problem solving These 8 areas should look familiar to all of you. A student may be found to have the impairment of specific learning disability if an IEP finds he or she demonstrated inadequate classroom achievement and insufficient progress and no exclusionary factors are identified as the PRIMARY cause of either the inadequate classroom achievement or insufficient progress in one or more of these eight areas. The IEP team determines which area (s) of concern to consider during the evaluation based on information provided in the referral and considered during the review of existing data. As the IEP team reviews existing data, it would be appropriate to discuss areas of primary concern with the individual who made the referral and other IEP team participants. The IEP team is not required to consider all eight of the possible areas, only those of significant concern at the time of referral and review of existing data. Once a student is found to have the impairment of SLD and a need for special education, an IEP is developed to address the student’s disability related needs. Services in area(s) other than those in which the student met criteria during the initial SLD evaluation may be considered as part of the IEP development process. Before adding a service, the IEP team should consider if the need is related to the student’s disability and must consider LRE including whether general education options can address the need. Special education services, supplementary aids and services or program modifications and supports in additional achievement areas may be added to the student’s IEP if the IEP team decides a disability related need should be addressed to allow the student to make progress in the general education curriculum. If a teacher or parent believes additional information is needed to revise a student’s IEP to better meet student needs, a reevaluation may need to be conducted.

Sunset of Significant Discrepancy
December 1, 2013 Until December 1, 2013 significant discrepancy can still be used to determine a specific learning disability. However, beginning on December 1, 2013 all public schools must transition from using significant discrepancy to using progress monitoring data from intensive intervention to decide whether a public school student demonstrates insufficient progress in one or more areas of concern. As of this same date, all elements of the revised rule are required for all evaluations where a specific learning disability is being considered by and IEP team. When using the insufficient progress criteria for SLD identification, students meeting eligibility criteria will most likely be those who require extended intensive intervention to make progress toward meeting grade level expectations.

Additional Team Members
SLD Guidance Additional Team Members Licensed person qualified to assess data on individual rate of progress Licensed person who implemented scientific, research- based or evidence-based, intensive interventions Licensed person qualified to conduct individual diagnostic evaluations Student’s general education teacher; or individual licensed to teach a student of the same age (required of all IEP teams) One team member can serve multiple roles PI 11.36(6)(d)3. It is important to understand the team membership requirements have also changed and must include all of the above. Reminder: the LEA appoints the team and designates the team member’s name and role on the written notice DPI form IE-1, Notice of Receipt of referral and start of initial evaluation. An IEP team member can serve multiple roles on the IEP team, but should not serve so many roles as to limit his/her effectiveness. WI Department of Public Instruction

School Wide Notification
Once a school begins to use response to intensive intervention method, it must be used for ALL SLD eligibility decisions for students enrolled at the school. School-based not district-based decision. Parents of ALL enrolled students must be notified at least 10 days before implementation. Sample notification link on DPI SLD web page. When a school decides to begin using progress data from intensive intervention to determine if a referred student demonstrates insufficient progress, the LEA must notify all parents of students enrolled in the school of the decision at least 10 calendar days before this criterion is used at the school. Generally, schools should notify parents in the same way they notify parents of other important school policy changes. Posting a notice on the district’s website is not enough. The decision of which criterion to use must be made on a school by school basis. Once the decision is made, the same criteria must be used for all students enrolled in the public school who are being considered for initial SLD eligibility (whenever considering SLD for the first time). Note: if a student was previously identified as an eligible student with a disability with another impairment and this is the first time SLD is being considered, initial criteria apply.

NEED FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION?
AWSA:6/26/2012 Exclusionary Factors NEED FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION? IMPAIRMENT? Insufficient Progress Inadequate Classroom Achievement This graphic is intended to illustrate how the three equally weighted criteria must be met before a student can be considered to have the impairment of SLD. Also, instead of being a stand-alone criterion, exclusionary factors are the lens through which the other criteria are considered. In other words, IEP teams must determine whether a student’s inadequate classroom achievement and/or insufficient progress are caused PRIMARILY by one of the exclusionary factors and – if so – cannot find the student to be a student with a disability. Once the IEP team has determined the student has an impairment, it must go on to answer the second question as to whether the student needs special education.

Exclusionary Factors We’ll first discuss exclusionary factors, since – again – these serve as the lens through which the other criteria are considered. Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction

Exclusionary Factors NEED FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION? IMPAIRMENT? Insufficient Progress Inadequate Classroom Achievement Exclusionary factors should not be considered as an after-thought nor should the discussion take place at the end of the evaluation process.

Exclusionary Factors Environmental or economic disadvantage, or cultural factors. Lack of appropriate instruction in reading, math or any other areas of SLD being considered. Limited English proficiency. Other impairments. PI11.36(6)(d)1. We begin discussion of the three criteria for SLD determination with the exclusionary factors as they relate to both the determination of inadequate classroom achievement and insufficient progress. The discussion of exclusionary factors and their potential impact on the eligibility decision is an important role of the IEP team. The exclusions named in the SLD rule are listed on this slide.

Applying Exclusionary Factors
SLD Guidance Applying Exclusionary Factors Exclusionary Factors The IEP team may not identify a student with SLD if inadequate classroom achievement or insufficient progress is primarily due to an exclusionary factor. The IEP team analyzes all available data relative to the other two criteria (inadequate classroom achievement and insufficient progress) in light of the exclusionary factors. If there is evidence that any one of the exclusions is the primary reason for a student’s inadequate classroom achievement or insufficient progress, the IEP team may not find the student to have the impairment of SLD. The IEP team decision regarding whether exclusionary factors apply must be made on a student by student basis. How these factors may or may not apply are likely different for each student.

Lack of Appropriate Instruction
SLD Guidance Is there evidence that the student received appropriate instruction in the area of concern? Core instruction provided regularly? Core instruction delivered according to design and methodology by qualified personnel? Differentiated instruction in the core curriculum was provided? If the IEP team finds a student’s inadequate classroom achievement or insufficient progress in the area(s) of concern under consideration is due to a lack of appropriate instruction, it may not identify the student as having the impairment of SLD. When conducting an evaluation to consider potential SLD, the existence of appropriate instruction must be considered in any of the 8 achievement areas being considered, not just reading and math (as is required for evaluations of any other impairment). The IEP team considers whether instruction has been appropriate only for the area(s) of concern being evaluated for the referred student, not necessarily all 8 areas of SLD. When considering the area of reading, federal regulations reference the essential components of reading identified in ESEA which includes: explicit and systematic instruction in phonemic awareness, phonics, reading fluency, vocabulary development, and reading comprehension strategies. 71 Fed. Reg (Aug. 14, 2006). The consideration of “appropriate instruction” includes both student specific information and grade level information for all students in the same grade as the student being evaluated. “General education” reflects curriculum and assessments aligned with Wisconsin’s Academic and Common Core Standards that apply to all students. Some examples of student specific information the IEP team may wish to review when considering whether “appropriate instruction” has been provided may include: Verification that core (universal) instruction was provided regularly. Data indicating the student attended school regularly to receive instruction. Verification that core instruction was delivered according to its design and methodology Evidence that instruction was provided by qualified personnel. Data indicating differentiated instruction in the core curriculum was provided.* Data indicating the instruction provided was explicit and systematic

A. Information demonstrating that the student was provided appropriate instruction in regular education. This is where you document whether the student has received appropriate instruction in the area(s) of concern.

Environmental or Economic Disadvantage
SLD Guidance Environmental or Economic Disadvantage Mobility Attendance Family change Recent trauma It is important to understand that just because a student’s history may include elements of an exclusionary factor, the student can still be found to be a student with a SLD unless the exclusionary factor is considered the PRIMARY reason for the insufficient progress or inadequate classroom achievement. Some of the areas the IEP team may want to discuss are: Mobility – has the student moved frequently and faced significant disruptions to their learning or the consistency of their school experience? Attendance: has the student been excessively absent such that it has impacted his/her ability to learn the curriculum? How does the student learn when he/she is present – do they catch on quickly or does he/she continue to struggle? Family Change: has there been a recent family event or sudden change that could impact the student’s learning and achievement, and be the primary reason for the student’s inadequate achievement or insufficient progress? Trauma: Has the student experienced a recent trauma that would be the primary reason for failure to adequately achieve? Again, simply by virtue of the fact that a student may have experienced one or more of these things does not automatically exclude them from SLD eligibility. The team must determine whether the event(s) is/are the PRIMARY cause of the student’s failure to learn.

Cultural Differences or Limited English Proficiency
Native language and culture Proficiency in first and second language Consistency of cultural expectations with school expectations IEP teams should consider the potential effects of a student’s native language and culture on achievement as well as the student’s proficiency in their first language. What is their level of literacy in their first language? What is the level of their social language in comparison to their academic language? What language is primarily spoken at home? Are the learning difficulties caused primarily by limited English proficiency or are the same difficulties present when instruction/assessment occurs in the student’s native language? Again, a student who is an English Language Learner can also have SLD, but the team must determine that a lack of English proficiency is not the primary cause of the student’s inadequate achievement or insufficient progress.

Other Impairments SLD can co-exist with some of the other impairments
Cannot co-exist with cognitive disability. Primacy considerations. With respect to other impairments as an exclusionary factor, it is possible that students with certain other impairments (e.g., EBD, OHI) may also be identified as having SLD. The exclusion applies if the student’s other impairment is the primary reason for the student’s inadequate classroom achievement or insufficient progress.

I. The effects of a visual, hearing or physical (motor) disability; cognitive disability, emotional disturbance; cultural factors; environmental or economic disadvantage; or limited English proficiency on the student’s achievement level. Document effects of other impairments, cultural factors and environmental or economic disadvantage, Limited English proficiency here. If any of these are the primary cause of a student’s inadequate achievement or insufficient progress, the IEP team cannot find the student to be a student with SLD. Decisions about exclusions may also be documented on the SLD checklists.

Inadequate Classroom Achievement
Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction

Exclusionary Factors NEED FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION? IMPAIRMENT? Insufficient Progress Inadequate Classroom Achievement We’ll now discuss the second of the criteria: Inadequate Classroom Achievement

Individually Administered Achievement Test
1.25 SD cut score on reliable/valid test. Must be administered after intensive intervention. Same cut score standard applies regardless of intellectual ability. Applies to each area of potential concern. PI 11.36(6)(6)1. As we mentioned in the beginning when we discussed the changes that went into effect in 2010, inadequate classroom achievement is established when a student scores at least 1.25 SD below the mean on a norm referenced, valid and reliable, individually administered standardized achievement test. Note that we will discuss the term intensive intervention and how it is used within the SLD rule in different ways later in the presentation. It is important to note now that the intervention we’re referring to here is one that: includes a substantial number of minutes in addition to core instruction (that all students get); implemented individually or with a small group of students; focused on a single or small number of skills; applied in manner highly consistent with its design and closely aligned to student need. It is important to note that IQ or intellectual ability is NOT part of the eligibility determination. The only time a team may need to administer an IQ test is if there is reason to suspect the existence of a cognitive disability. If a standard score was obtained from a technically adequate achievement test, the IEP team determines whether the score is 1.25 standard deviations below the mean. Most achievement tests have a standard deviation (SD) of 15, a mean (M) of 100. It is important to check the test manual for this information, as a some tests have an SD of 3, and an M of 10. 1.25 standard deviations below the mean on a test (M=100, SD=15) is 81.25; or on a test (M=10, SD =3) is 6.25. On a test ( M=100, SD=15), the student’s score must be or below or on a test (M=10, SD=3), the student’s score must be 6.25 or below to meet the inadequate classroom achievement criterion. The rule contains two exceptions to using the student’s standard score from an individually administered achievement test to determine Inadequate Classroom Achievement after intensive intervention. The first exception states if the student meets all other criteria for the impairment of SLD, the IEP team may consider scores within 1 standard error of the measurement (SEM) of the 1.25 standard deviation to meet the criterion for Inadequate Classroom Achievement. To apply the first exception the IEP team must: Determine that no exclusionary factor applies, progress is insufficient and the achievement scores obtained are valid. Look up the SEM for the cluster/subtest and student’s age using charts of SEMs found in the test’s technical manual. Subtract the SEM from the student’s standard score. Determine whether the resulting score is below the cut score of for an assessment with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15; or below the cut score of 6.25 for an assessment with a mean of 10 and a standard deviation of 3. If an assessment has a different mean and standard deviation, the cut scores will be different. Example: Data: (Note: this may be used IF the student also demonstrates insufficient progress AND no exclusionary factors apply) 1.25 SD cut score for the assessment: 81.25 Student standard score (SS) for basic reading skill: 83 SEM for basic reading skill at student’s age with SS of 83 (from technical manual): 2.1 Method: Subtract the SEM from the student’s standard score. Calculation: 83(SS) – 2.1(SEM) = 80.9 Analysis: 80.9 is below the cut score of Therefore the student’s score of 83 is at or below 1 SEM of the cut score of and can be used determine in adequate classroom achievement. The second exception occurs when a valid, reliable standard score cannot be obtained due to the student’s test behavior, language proficiency, another interfering impairment, or the absence of a valid, reliable test for the student’s age. In such cases the IEP team may not use the achievement test score to determine Inadequate Classroom Achievement. Instead, the IEP team must document why a technically adequate achievement test could not be used, and whether the student demonstrates Inadequate Classroom Achievement using other empirical evidence. Some sources of other empirical data about the student’s achievement might include curriculum based measures (CBMs), portfolios, grading rubrics, district developed formative grade level assessments, criterion-based assessments, classroom assessments, statewide or district assessments, student work products and other formal and informal indicators of achievement. Data sources based on state or national norms rather than local performance measures are recommended whenever possible. It is important to note that these exceptions should be rare and used only in extenuating circumstances.

IEP teams may document inadequate classroom achievement using the eligibility checklist. If the checklist is not used, IEP teams must document the results elsewhere in the evaluation report. For example, IEP teams may document inadequate classroom achievement using DPI sample form ER 2 shown on the next slide or in the evaluation report using DPI sample form ER-1 in the section “Information from Assessments and Other Sources.”

This shows the portion of ER-2 where the IEP could document the inadequate classroom achievement criterion.

Insufficient Progress
Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction

Exclusionary Factors NEED FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION? IMPAIRMENT? Insufficient Progress Inadequate Classroom Achievement We’ll now cover the third and final of the SLD impairment criteria: insufficient progress.

Insufficient Progress
Insufficient response to intensive, scientific research-based or evidence-based interventions. Progress monitoring data from at least 2 intensive interventions in EACH area of potential SLD required. Baseline data and at least weekly progress monitoring is required. Rate of progress Is compared to same-age peers.

2 “Types” of Intensive Interventions
1 required prior to academic testing for inadequate classroom achievement. Required of all SLD evaluations. Type 2: 2 required for EACH area of potential SLD concern. More rigorous than those required in #1. If implemented PRIOR to academic testing, may count for #1 also. Required for enrolled public school students after school begins using new criteria. As we mentioned earlier, we’ll discuss the meanings of the term “intensive intervention” as used in the SLD rule. Since the term is used two ways, we have separated them into ‘type 1’ and ‘type 2’ for discussion purposes. The first (type 1) is the intensive intervention required before assessing Classroom Achievement. The second way the rule uses the term “intensive intervention” is in reference to using progress data from intensive scientific research or evidence based interventions to determine insufficient progress criterion. The rule defines “intervention “ as a “systematic use of a technique, program or practice designed to improve learning or performance in a specific area of pupil need. PI (6t). The intensive intervention required before administering testing to determine if the student meets the Inadequate Classroom Achievement criterion is considered part of general education programming. The intensive intervention provided before assessing Inadequate Classroom Achievement must meet the standards for all interventions listed on the next slide. Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction

Standards for ALL (Type 1& 2) Intensive Interventions
SLD Guidance Standards for ALL (Type 1& 2) Intensive Interventions Used with individual or small groups. Focused on single or small number of discrete skills. Include substantial number of instructional minutes beyond what is provided to all students. Applied in a manner highly consistent with its design, closely aligned to student need. Culturally responsive. PI 11.02(6m) PI 11.36(6)(f)4 These standards apply to all intensive interventions: the intervention required before administering standardized achievement test(s) and intervention required when collecting progress monitoring data to determine insufficient progress: All intensive interventions must provide additional time beyond the time spent on instruction for ALL students. The focus of intensive intervention is a single discrete skill or a small number of discrete skills taught to individuals or small groups of students. PI 11.02(6m). Finally, IEP teams must be able to document that intensive intervention(s) was closely aligned with student need, culturally appropriate, and was implemented according to design. PI 11.36(6)(f)4 The IEP team determines if these standards have been met. WI Department of Public Instruction

Additional Standards for Interventions with Progress Monitoring
SLD Guidance Additional Standards for Interventions with Progress Monitoring Must meet standards for all intensive interventions “Type 2” ADDITIONAL features: Scientific research-based or evidence-based. Closely aligned to individual learning needs (area of concern) Implemented with adequate fidelity Consistent with design At least 80% of the recommended number of weeks, sessions, minutes At least TWO interventions required for EACH area of concern PI 11.02(1), PI 11.36(6)(c)2.a. Two intensive interventions meeting this standard are required when a school adopts the method of determining Insufficient Progress using progress monitoring (PM) data for students enrolled in the school. Remember that use of this criterion is required for ALL evaluations of public school students as of December 1, In the SLD rule this is formally referred to as Insufficient Progress based on “insufficient response to intensive, scientific, research-based or evidence-based intervention”. The standards for the intensive interventions implemented with the student when collecting progress monitoring data to determine Insufficient Progress are more rigorous than the standards for the interventions required prior to assessing classroom achievement. They must meet the standards for ALL intensive interventions (on previous slide) as well as some additional standards. They must be : scientific research-based or evidence-based and implemented with adequate fidelity; meaning applied in a manner highly consistent with its design, and provided at least 80% of recommended weeks, sessions, or minutes per session. The rule requires a minimum of two such intensive interventions that address the area(s) of concern under consideration. It is possible for one intervention to address more than one area of concern (eg. reading comprehension and reading fluency could be addressed by the same intervention). If valid and reliable progress data cannot be collected because of the absence of intensive, scientific research or evidence based interventions, or scientifically based progress monitoring tools for an area of concern appropriate for the student’s grade, then the IEP team should consider other empirical evidence of the student’s progress in response to intensive intervention. In such cases, the IEP team documents its decision about the area of concern using other empirical evidence. WI Department of Public Instruction

Progress Monitoring What is progress monitoring?
SLD Guidance Progress Monitoring What is progress monitoring? A scientifically based practice to assess student response to intervention Uses valid and reliable tools (probes) Brief, direct measures of specific academic skills Multiple equal or nearly equal forms Sensitive to small changes in student performance Provides valid, reliable measures of performance during intervention. PI (9) Lets talk about how the data from intervention is gathered for consideration. This criterion for determining Insufficient progress is based on the use of progress monitoring data collected during intensive intervention Progress monitoring is a scientifically based practice for determining a student’s response to intensive intervention. Progress monitoring requires the use of a scientifically based tool to measure progress, such as a probe. The probes used must provide reliable and valid data about the area or areas of concern that are the target of the intervention. Based on the definition of “probe” in the rule, locally developed progress monitoring tools are not likely to meet the required standard. The IEP team determines if the progress data being considered meets the requirements of the rule. NOTE: For resources on Progress Monitoring Tools or Intensive Interventions, go to the Wisconsin RtI Center Website: . There are a number of useful tools and links to extensive information on this topic at this site. WI Department of Public Instruction

Charting Progress Data
This tool is being made available by DPI to assist teams in representing and analyzing student progress data from the implementation of scientific research or evidence based interventions (at least 2 for each area of concern). This tool is housed on the SLD webpage and is intended as a supplement to the SLD technical assistance guide. Instructions for using this tool can be found both on the SLD webpage (posted with the graphing tool) as well as in the technical assistance guide. While not required to use this tool, IEP teams may find it helpful in charting progress data to compare the students progress to that of his/her peers at the 25th percentile of achievement.

This is an example of the graph produced by DPI’s simple graphing tool to assist schools in charting progress monitoring data. This chart utilizes least squares regression to calculate the slope of the student’s progress and draw a line of best fit. The pink line is the normative data line representing the rate of progress of the student’s same age peers. The three benchmarks along it are the fall, winter and spring levels of achievement for the student’s same age peers at the 25th percentile. The blue data points are the weekly probes administered with the student with a line of best fit drawn through them. IEP teams should focus on the gap between the student and his/her peers as they apply the decision rules for the insufficient progress criterion we’ll review next.

When is Progress Insufficient?
SLD Guidance When is Progress Insufficient? Progress is the same or less than same-age peers OR Progress is greater than same-age peers but will not result in reaching the average range of achievement in a reasonable period of time OR Progress is greater than same-age peers but the intensity of resources necessary to obtain this rate of progress cannot be maintained in general education Insufficient progress is defined in the SLD rule as: “the student does not make sufficient progress to meet age or state approved grade level standards in one or more of the eight areas of potential SLD when using a process based on a child’s response to intensive, scientific research based or evidence based interventions.” IEP teams apply these three decision rules in order to determine whether a student’s progress is insufficient. The key analysis for determining whether a student demonstrates sufficient or insufficient progress is, “can you expect the gap between the student’s achievement and grade level expectations to close in a reasonable period of time?” For this to occur, the student’s progress needs to be accelerated beyond that of students who are meeting expectations. If the student’s progress is showing reasonable acceleration, the IEP team still needs to consider if the student’s progress, as depicted by the trend line, is sufficient and sustainable given the resources available in general education.

Decision rule: The rate of progress is the same or less than that of his/her same-age peers.
In this instance, the student is making progress but it is at the same rate as his/her peers. This means that, despite intensive intervention delivered in addition to core instruction, the gap between the student’s growth in oral reading fluency and his/her peers’ growth is not likely to narrow or close. It is likely the IEP team would determine the student’s progress to be insufficient should this be the outcome after both required interventions are implemented with the student.

In this example, it is clear the student is progressing at a slower rate than his/her peers and the gap in achievement between the student and his/her peers is expanding. The IEP team may investigate further into the story behind the data to determine whether the intervention and/or probes were implemented with fidelity or other factors about the implementation of the intervention affected the student’s performance. The IEP team should also consider the other data it has collected about the student to determine whether the data triangulates (is consistent with) other findings, including the exclusionary factors and inadequate classroom achievement criteria.

Decision rules: The rate of progress is greater than his/her same-age peers but will not result in reaching the average range of achievement in a reasonable period of time. OR Progress is greater than same age peers but the intensity of the resources necessary to obtain this rate of progress cannot be maintained in general education. This graph shows the student is making progress and the gap between peers is closing. In this case, the IEP team would discuss if the rate of progress is sufficient for one to expect the student to reach the average range of performance for his or her grade in a reasonable period of time or if the intensity of resources needed to obtain this rate of progress cannot be maintained in general education. The IEP team determines what constitutes a reasonable period of time. Teams might consider the student’s age and the gap in achievement between the student and his/her peers when determining what is a reasonable period of time. For instance, an older student whose achievement is significantly below his/her peers may improve at a rate greater than his/her peers but may also take longer to reach the average range of achievement simply given that he/she is further behind. The IEP team may consider this progress to be sufficient based on the students continued rate of improvement and steady progress toward reaching the average range of achievement.

When a student demonstrates considerable variability in his/her scores, the IEP team may need to investigate further to determine the cause of the variability. For instance, does a pattern exist related to the time of day or week during which the probe was administered? Might this be correlated with the variability of any of the scores? Was the intervention and/or probe implemented with fidelity? In such cases, the team must proceed cautiously as the greater the variability of scores, the greater the possibility of inaccurate interpretation. If the IEP team finds the data to be unreliable, it may consider whether it has sufficient data to make an eligibility determination.

Determining Insufficient Progress
SLD Guidance Determining Insufficient Progress Establish baseline: For each intervention, baseline is set using the median score of 3 probes. Begin Intervention. Collect weekly or more frequent progress monitoring (PM) data. Use baseline and subsequent PM data to analyze progress using least squares regression. Intensive interventions may be implemented before referral or as part of an evaluation for SLD. This is a summary of the steps to establishing the insufficient progress criterion.

Document whether the students response to intensive intervention is sufficient using this form to document. Teams should consider whether the student’s insufficient progress is caused primarily by one or more exclusionary factors (see last section of this checklist). If this is the case, the team may not identify the student as a student with a disability. On form ER-2, document the student’s response to intensive, scientific research or evidence based interventions and the basis for determining whether the student’s response is insufficient (i.e., which decision rule applies?) – question H. Document student-specific data under question J. This is the data on which the determination of insufficient progress was determined. Also document how the student’s parents were informed of the implementation of interventions and progress monitoring data.

IEP teams may document whether the students response to intensive intervention is sufficient using this checklist. Teams should consider whether the student’s insufficient progress is caused primarily by one or more exclusionary factors (see last section of this checklist). If this is the case, the team must not identify the student as a student with a disability.

Systematic Observation
SLD Guidance Systematic Observation Routine Classroom Instruction All evaluations and re-evaluations. At least one observation during core instruction in each area of concern. One observation may address multiple areas of concern. The observation must be conducted by a member of the IEP team. Intensive Intervention (initial public school students, when using PM) At least one during intensive intervention for EACH area of SLD concern. Must be conducted by someone OTHER than the person providing the intervention. PI 11.36(6)(e)2.b. PI 11.36(6)(e)2.d. When a school begins to use data from a student’s response to intensive intervention to determine insufficient progress for students with suspected SLD enrolled at the school, IEP teams will need to document at least two observations were completed: One is the systematic observation of the student during routine instruction in the area(s) of concern (required for all initial and reevaluations) The other is at least one systematic observation of the student during intensive, scientific, research or evidence based intervention (required when considering SLD for the first time during evaluations of students enrolled in public schools). Both types of observation will be required beginning on Dec. 1, 2013. Note: The purpose of observation is to gather data about how the student performs during instruction/intervention; i.e. the learning behavior of the student during core instruction and intervention in the area(s) of concern. The additional systematic observation must take place during at least one of the intensive interventions. Only 1 observation during intensive intervention is required, although 2 intensive observations are required for each area of concern. The purpose of the observation during intervention is to document how the student is responding to intensive instruction. Districts can designate the person who will do the observation, and that person should also be a member of the IEP team. Again, this observation is in addition to the systematic observation in general education of routine classroom instruction. Documentation of the results of systematic observation , like that from the observation of routine classroom instruction may be included on either the evaluation report (ER-1), the ER-2 (Additional Requirements for SLD), or on any attachments to the evaluation report. It is not necessary to include documentation in more than one place on IEP documents. State and federal law only require documentation to be stated once (construction clause). WI Department of Public Instruction

D. Relevant behavior noted during observation of the student in his or her learning environment (including the regular classroom) and the relationship of that behavior to the student’s academic functioning (if using observational data of the student’s academic performance and behavior done prior to the referral for the evaluation, see ER-1). Document systematic observation of core instruction in the area of concern here. Teams can also include a brief summary on ER-1 (Information from Assessments: Other Sources) or could reference ER-2.

RTI & SLD RTI is helpful but not required for compliance with SLD rule
Goal of RTI system is to improve outcomes for ALL students Most direct link is documenting “insufficient progress” SLD rule links general education instructional support with special education eligibility Special education referrals cannot be delayed Timeline may be extended based on mutual agreement The SLD rule does not require schools to have implemented an RTI framework in order to be in compliance. As such, schools are required only to have identified and implemented interventions that meet the criteria set forth in the rule in order to make an eligibility determination for SLD. RtI is a multilevel system of support to improve outcomes for ALL students – including those with IEPs. It is entirely possible for a student with an IEP to receive behavior and/or academic interventions through an RTI system just as it is for students without disabilities. Schools that have implemented an RTI system will find data collection, intervention implementation, progress monitoring and data analysis much easier and smoother. Further, schools using an RTI system will more quickly and systematically identify students who are not making adequate progress before the student’s achievement is so low staff or parents feel they make a special education referral. One of the most significant paradigm shifts within the SLD rule is the implication that regular and special education staff work closely together. The implementation of general education interventions prior to identification must be done within the scope of general education. If a student is later identified as a student with a specific learning disability, special educators and general educators will have a substantial amount of data and information on which to base instructional decisions and continue to support the student. A school may not delay a special education referral. This includes schools that have implemented an RtI framework and wish to provide interventions to a student. Once a referral is made, the timeline mandated under IDEA begins and the school must act on the referral. The IDEA evaluation timeline may be extended if both the parents and school agree that additional time to implement interventions, gather data or continue interventions already begun. This agreement must be in writing.

Reevaluations http://dpi.wi.gov/forms/doc/felg-sld-002.doc
The SLD rule revisions which took effect on December 1, 2010 did not include any changes to the SLD reevaluation process. Upon reevaluation a student remains eligible if they continue to need special education and no exclusions now apply. While it is good practice to review formal and informal achievement and progress data when conducting a reevaluation for SLD, the criteria standards for Inadequate Classroom Achievement and Insufficient Progress do not apply.

SLD Evaluation Requirements Checklist
This checklist can be found on the SLD webpage at The purposes of this summary is to assist IEP teams in understanding what is required for an initial vs. reevaluation as well as understand the requirements of Wisconsin’s SLD rule.

Exceptions Significant discrepancy:
Parentally placed private school students Home based private education Public schools lack the authority to require private schools or home-based education programs to provide intensive intervention or produce progress monitoring data that meets the standard of the SLD rule. Thus, even when all schools in a district have begun using progress monitoring data from intensive intervention to determine insufficient progress, an IEP team may continue to use significant discrepancy to determine insufficient progress for parentally placed private school students or students receiving home-based private education. As with any special education evaluation, an LEA must use a variety of assessment tools and strategies to gather relevant functional, developmental and academic information about the referred student, including information provided by the parent.

Transfer Students Transfer from one to Wisconsin LEA to another Wisconsin LEA Out of state to a Wisconsin LEA Transfer from one Wisconsin LEA to another before eligibility is determined When a student found eligible for SLD in a Wisconsin LEA using the significant discrepancy criterion transfers to a Wisconsin LEA using data from intensive intervention to determine insufficient progress, a reevaluation is not required upon transfer. The student continues to be eligible for special education until the IEP team determines the student is no longer eligible or the parent revokes consent for a provision of special education services. If a student transfers into Wisconsin from another state, the receiving LEA may either determine an evaluation is needed or adopt the previous evaluation. If the receiving LEA determines that an evaluation is needed, the receiving LEA conducts an initial evaluation and initial SLD eligibility criteria are used. Until the evaluation is conducted, in consultation with the parents, the receiving LEA must provide FAPE (free, appropriate, public education), including services comparable to those in the student’s existing IEP. When a referred student transfers from one Wisconsin LEA to another Wisconsin LEA before an eligibility determination is made, the new LEA must ensure prompt completion of the evaluation. When the new LEA and the prior LEA are using different methods for analyzing insufficient progress (e.g. significant discrepancy vs. progress monitoring data from intensive intervention), the criteria used by the new LEA would apply. The new LEA would review the status of the evaluation at the time of transfer to determine if additional data was needed to apply their criteria for determining insufficient progress. Information from the previous LEA would be considered as part of this process.

AWSA:6/26/2012 Exclusionary Factors NEED FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION? IMPAIRMENT? Insufficient Progress Inadequate Classroom Achievement

Need for Special Education
AWSA:6/26/2012 Impairment Need for Special Education Student with Disability It is important to remember that a student needs to be found to have an impairment AND a need for special education before a finding is made that the student is one with a disability. This applies not only to SLD but all areas of disability in the Wisconsin code.

DPI Specific Learning Disabilities
Wisconsin Framework for Response to Intervention/ Instruction (RtI) Read Wisconsin Wisconsin RtI Center What Works Clearinghouse Doing What Works National Center on Response to Intervention National Center on Intensive Interventions These are a number of resources schools may access for tools to help implement the rule. Several resources related to SLD, including the technical assistance guide, intervention selection tool and progress data graphing tool, are housed on the SLD webpage or linked from there. Others listed here are websites you might visit for additional intervention ideas. Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction

Thank You

Scott Brown Education Consultant – Specific Learning Disabilities Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction

Scott Brown DPI Education Consultant Special Education Team

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Scott Brown DPI Education Consultant Special Education Team"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

Scott Brown DPI Education Consultant Special Education Team

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Scott Brown DPI Education Consultant Special Education Team"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback