Presentation on theme: "Determining Eligibility for Special Education in an RTI System"— Presentation transcript:
1 Determining Eligibility for Special Education in an RTI System Joseph F. Kovaleski, D.Ed., NCSP Indiana University of PAIndiana, PACaitlin S. Flinn, M.Ed., NCSPExeter Township School DistrictReading, PA
2 AcknowledgementsThis presentation is based on a training module developed in collaboration with the Pennsylvania Training and Technical Assistance Network (PaTTAN) as part of the RTI Pilot Project. Amy Smith, Ed Shapiro, and other PaTTAN consultants contributed to the development of these materials.Thanks to Andrew McCrea for contributing to the development of the Rate of Improvement slides.
3 Learning Objectives Participants will: Identify assessment procedures for RTI that are embedded in a three-tier model of service deliveryGraph and calculate rate of improvement dataArticulate how RTI is used in the procedure to determine eligibility for special educationConceptualize new report writing language for composing evaluation reports in an RTI model
4 Today’s Perspective Assume knowledge of RTI and the three-tier model. Determining eligibility for special education using RTI presupposes that the RTI infrastructure has been built.This session is about using RTI as an alternative to ability-achievement discrepancy, not in addition to it.The perspective will be based on law/regulations and best practices.
5 Most relevant for those ready to use RTI. Some aspects of today’s presentation are relevant to the SLD requirements, even if you’re not using RTI.Application of some procedures and principles can begin now as effective practices.
6 Response to Intervention Standards aligned core instructionUniversal screeningInterventions of increasing intensityResearch-based practicesProgress monitoringData analysis teamingParental engagement
7 Specific Learning Disability 1.Failure to meet age- or grade-level State standards in one of eight areas:oral expressionlistening comprehensionwritten expressionbasic reading skillreading fluency skillreading comprehensionmathematics calculationmathematics problem solving2.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.ORRTI: Lack of progress in response to scientifically based instruction3.Rule out:Vision, hearing, or motor problemsmental retardationemotional disturbancecultural and/or environmental issueslimited English proficiency4.Rule out lack of instruction by documenting:Appropriate instruction by qualified personnelRepeated assessmentsSpecific Learning DisabilityInclusionaryExclusionaryObservation
8 Inclusionary Criteria Criterion #1:Does the child achieve adequately for the child’s age or meet State-approved grade level standards?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 solvingInclusionary Criteria§ (a)
9 Specific Learning Disability 1.Failure to meet age- or grade-level State standards in one of eight areas:oral expressionlistening comprehensionwritten expressionbasic reading skillreading fluency skillreading comprehensionmathematics calculationmathematics problem solving2.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.ORRTI: Lack of progress in response to scientifically based instruction3.Rule out:Vision, hearing, or motor problemsmental retardationemotional disturbancecultural and/or environmental issueslimited English proficiency4.Rule out lack of instruction by documenting:Appropriate instruction by qualified personnelRepeated assessmentsSpecific Learning DisabilityInclusionaryExclusionaryObservation9
10 Sources of Data to Document Lack of Achievement Existing DataPerformance on benchmark assessmentsTerminal performance on progress monitoring measuresPerformance on statewide and district-wide assessmentsNew Data to Collect(if necessary)Norm-referenced tests of academic achievementCurriculum-based evaluation (cf. Howell et al.)
11 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.
12 Normative Comparisons Normative group is important decisionNational normative data sets for CBMAIMSwebHasbrouck & TindalDIBELS
13 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.
14 How deficient should a student be to qualify? An opinion… Contemporary research has indicated that a score of the 30th percentile on nationally normed benchmark tests or individual tests of academic achievement is equivalent to a proficient score on most statewide tests.Therefore, to demonstrate inadequate achievement relative to this standard, a student should be significantly below this level ( e.g., 10th percentile) to meet the SLD qualification under this component.
15 2.0X calculation Divide norm group mean by student’s score Result expressed as a ratio of deficiencyExample: 100 wpm / 50 wpm = 2.0X
16 DIBELS benchmarks (with ROI in parentheses based on 18 weeks between benchmarks, 36 total weeks): K – ISF(0.9)K – PSF35 (1.0)K - NWF25 (0.7)1 - NWF50 (1.4)1 - ORF40 (1.1)2 - ORF90 (1.3)3 - ORF110 (0.9)4 - ORF118 (0.7)5 - ORF124 (0.6)16
17 Consider John, a third grader Consider John, a third grader. We’ll compare his scores (denominators) with the scores of the norm group (numerators), using the 3rd grade norms for ORF and the 1st grade norms for NWF.ORF: wpm = 2.0X55 wpmNWF: 50 nwpm = 2.5X20 nwpm
18 May we use norm-referenced tests of academic achievement in determining the extent of the deficiency?May we?Yes! There is nothing legally that prevents a team from doing so.Should we?It depends on how secure you are with other data regarding the student’s deficiency in relation to standards.If you have a preponderance of other data, you may choose not to use other norm- referenced measures.If you don’t, or if there are other questions that can be answered with norm- referenced measures, use them.
19 Example of report language: Documentation of Deficiency in Level of PerformanceJohn has displayed documented deficiencies in reading skills since kindergarten. He has been at the below basic level on district-wide and statewide tests. His most recent universal screening using DIBELS (January) indicated an oral reading fluency score of 55 words per minute. Compared to typical peers for John's age and grade level (110 wpm), John's deficiency ratio is 2.0X. The Nonsense Word Fluency subtest of DIBELS was also administered. John attained a score of 20 nonsense words per minute on the subtest. Compared to the terminal score achieved by first-graders (50 nwpm), John has a deficiency ratio of 2.5X. Progress monitoring of John's oral reading fluency has indicated that John continues to have difficulty reading in spite of intensive intervention. His terminal score during the last week of March was 53 words per minute. For oral reading fluency John also attained a 20% accuracy rate on the 4Sight test which is considerably below the 80% mark that is typically attained by students in his grade.
20 Implications to consider The student’s IQ level is not considered the criterion against which the student’s academic performance is compared.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 (e.g., RTI).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.
21 Criterion #2: Does the child demonstrate a pattern of strengths and weaknesses or a lack of progress in response to scientifically based instruction?(i) The child does not make sufficient progress to meet age or State-approved grade-level standards in one or more of the areas identified ... when using a process based on the child’s response to scientific, research-based intervention;or (ii) The child exhibits a pattern of strengths and weaknesses in performance, achievement, or both, relative to age, State- approved gradelevel standards, or intellectual development, that is determined by the group to be relevant to the identification of a specific learning disability, using appropriate assessments, consistent with §§ and
22 Specific Learning Disability 1.Failure to meet age- or grade-level State standards in one of eight areas:oral expressionlistening comprehensionwritten expressionbasic reading skillreading fluency skillreading comprehensionmathematics calculationmathematics problem solving2.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.ORRTI: Lack of progress in response to scientifically based instruction3.Rule out:Vision, hearing, or motor problemsmental retardationemotional disturbancecultural and/or environmental issueslimited English proficiency4.Rule out lack of instruction by documenting:Appropriate instruction by qualified personnelRepeated assessmentsSpecific Learning DisabilityInclusionaryExclusionaryObservation22
23 Overview of RoI Define rate of improvement (RoI) Review importance of RoI within context of RtIEstablish a need for consistency when graphing and calculating rate of improvement (RoI)Model how to graph and calculate RoI in Excel
24 With Progress Monitoring Data… How do we know if a student is learning?Look at the data pointsWhere are they on the graph?Are the data points getting closer to the goal or benchmark?Is there a way to measure growth?Make an aimline toward goalLook to see where data points are compared to aimlineCalculate rate of improvement
25 RoI DefinitionRate of Improvement can be described algebraically as the slope of a lineSlope is defined as: the vertical change over the horizontal change on a Cartesian plane. (x-axis and y-axis graph)Also called: Rise over runFormula: m = (y2 - y1) / (x2 - x1)Describes the steepness of a line (Gall & Gall, 2007)
26 RoI DefinitionFinding a student’s RoI is determining the student’s learningCreating a line that fits the data points, a trendlineTo find that line, we use:Linear regressionOrdinary Least Squares
27 Progress MonitoringFrequent measurement of knowledge to inform our understanding of the impact of instruction/intervention.Measures of basic skills (CBM) have demonstrated reliability & validity (see table at
29 So…Rate of Improvement (RoI) is how we understand student growth (learning).RoI is reliable and valid (psychometrically speaking) for use with CBM data.RoI is best used when we have CBM data, most often when dealing with basic skills in reading/writing/math.RoI can be applied to other data (like behavior) with confidence too!RoI is not yet tested on typical Tier I formative classroom data.
30 RoI is usually applied to… Tier One students in the early grades at risk for academic failure (low green kids)Tier Two & Three Intervention GroupsSpecial Education Students (and IEP goals)Students with Behavior Plans
31 RoI Foundations Deno, 1985 Curriculum-based measurement General outcome measuresTechnically adequateShortStandardizedRepeatableSensitive to change31
32 RoI Foundations Fuchs & Fuchs, 1998 Hallmark components of Response to InterventionOngoing formative assessmentIdentifying non-responding studentsTreatment fidelity of instructionDual discrepancy modelOne standard deviation from typically performing peers in level and rate32
33 RoI Foundations Ardoin & Christ, 2008 Slope for benchmarks (3x per year)More growth from fall to winter than winter to springMight be helpful to use RoI for fall to winterAnd a separate RoI for winter to spring33
34 RoI Foundations Fuchs, Fuchs, Hamlett, Walz, & Germann, 1993 Typical weekly growth rates in oral reading fluency and digits correctNeeded growth to remediate skillsStudents who had 1.5 to 2.0 times the slope of typically performing peers were able to close the achievement gap in a reasonable amount of time34
35 RoI Foundations Deno, Fuchs, Marston, & Shin, 2001 Slope of frequently non-responsive children approximated slope of children already identified as having a specific learning disability35
36 How many data points?10 data points are a minimum requirement for a reliable trendline (Gall & Gall, 2007)Is that reasonable and realistic?How does that affect the frequency of administering progress monitoring probes?How does that affect our ability to make instructional decisions for students?
37 How can we show RoI?Speeches that included visuals, especially in color, improved recall of information (Vogel, Dickson, & Lehman, 1990)“Seeing is believing.”Useful for communicating large amounts of information quickly“A picture is worth a thousand words.”Transcends language barriers (Karwowski, 2006)Responsibility for accurate graphical representations of data (Flinn, 2008)
38 Skills for Which We Compute RoI ReadingOral Reading FluencyWord Use FluencyReading ComprehensionMAZE/DAZERetell, Word UseEarly Literacy SkillsInitial SoundLetter NamingLetter SoundPhoneme SegmentationNonsense WordSpellingWritten ExpressionTWW, CWS, WSCMathMath ComputationMath ConceptsMath FactsEarly NumeracyOral CountingMissing NumberNumber IdentificationQuantity DiscriminationBehavior
39 Guidelines? Visual inspection of slope Multiple interpretations Instructional servicesNeed for explicit guidelines
40 Ongoing ResearchRoI for instructional decisions is not a perfect processResearch is currently addressing sources of error:Christ, 2006: standard error of measurement for slopeArdoin & Christ, 2009: passage difficulty and variabilityJenkin, Graff, & Miglioretti, 2009: frequency of progress monitoring
41 Future Considerations Questions yet to be empirically answeredWhat parameters of RoI indicate a lack of RtI?How does standard error of measurement play into using RoI for instructional decision making?How does RoI vary between standard protocol interventions?How does this apply to non-English speaking populations?
42 Multiple Methods for Calculating Growth Visual Inspection Approaches“Eye Ball” ApproachSplit Middle ApproachQuantitative ApproachesTukey MethodLast point minus First point ApproachSplit Middle “plus”Linear Regression Approach
48 Tukey Method Divide scores into 3 equal groups Divide groups with vertical linesIn 1st and 3rd groups, find median data point and median week and mark with an “X”Draw line between two “Xs”(Fuchs, et. al., Summer Institute Student progress monitoring for math.
57 Any Method of Visual Inspection RoI Consistency?Any Method of Visual Inspection???Last minus First1.9Tukey Method1.2Split Middle “Plus”2.2Linear Regression2.5
58 RoI Consistency?If we are not all using the same model to compute RoI, we continue to have the same problems as past models, where under one approach a student meets SLD criteria, but under a different approach, the student does not.Without a consensus on how to compute RoI, we risk falling short of having technical adequacy within our model.
59 So, Why Are There So Many Other RoI Models? Ease of applicationFocus on Yes/No to goal acquisition, not degree of growthHow many of us want to calculate OLS Linear Regression formulas (or even remember how)?
60 Literature shows that Linear Regression is Best Practice Student’s daily test scores…were entered into a computer program…The data analysis program generated slopes of improvement for each level using an Ordinary-Least Squares procedure (Hayes, 1973) and the line of best fit.This procedure has been demonstrated to represent CBM achievement data validly within individual treatment phases (Marston, 1988; Shinn, Good, & Stein, in press; Stein, 1987).Shinn, Gleason, & Tindal, 1989
61 Growth (RoI) Research using Linear Regression Christ, T. J. (2006). Short-term estimates of growth using curriculum based measurement of oral reading fluency: Estimating standard error of the slope to construct confidence intervals. School Psychology Review, 35,Deno, S. L., Fuchs, L. S., Marston, D., & Shin, J. (2001). Using curriculum based measurement to establish growth standards for students with learning disabilities. School Psychology Review, 30,Good, R. H. (1990). Forecasting accuracy of slope estimates for reading curriculum based measurement: Empirical evidence. Behavioral Assessment, 12,Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., Walz, L. & Germann, G. (1993). Formative evaluation of academic progress: How much growth can we expect? School Psychology Review, 22,
62 Growth (RoI) Research using Linear Regression Jenkins, J. R., Graff, J. J., & Miglioretti, D.L. (2009). Estimating reading growth using intermittent CBM progress monitoring. Exceptional Children, 75,Shinn, M. R., Gleason, M. M., & Tindal, G. (1989). Varying the difficulty of testing materials: Implications for curriculum-based measurement. The Journal of Special Education, 23,Shinn, M. R., Good, R. H., & Stein, S. (1989). Summarizing trend in student achievement: A comparison of methods. School Psychology Review, 18,
63 Incorporating Research More growth from fall to winter than winter to spring for benchmarks (3x per year)Christ & Ardoin (2008)Christ, Yeo, Silberglitt (in press)Fien, Park, Smith, & Baker (2010)More growth from winter to spring than fall to winterGraney, Missall, & Martinez (2009)
64 Actual Student Data & Benchmark 3rd grade DIBELS ORF Student SLOPE=2.5Benchmark ROI=0.88Student SLOPE=1.89Benchmark ROI=1.06
65 McCrea (2010) Looked at Rate of Improvement in small 2nd grade sample Found differences in RoI when computed for fall and spring:Ave RoI for fall: WCPMAve RoI for spring: 1.21 WCPMUnpublished data65
66 DIBELS (6th Ed.) ORF Change in Criteria Fall to WinterWinter to Spring2nd24223rd15184th135th1196th566
67 AIMSweb Norms 1st 18 31 2nd 25 17 3rd 22 15 4th 16 13 5th 6th 12 Based on 50th PercentileFall to WinterWinter to Spring1st18312nd25173rd22154th16135th6th1267
68 Speculation as to why Differences in RoI within the Year Relax instruction after high stakes testing in March/April; a state test effect.Depressed BOY benchmark scores due to summer break; a rebound effect (Clemens).Instructional variables could explain differences in Graney (2009) and Ardoin (2008) & Christ (in press) results (Silberglitt).Variability within progress monitoring probes (Ardoin & Christ, 2008) (Lent).68
69 Get Out Your Laptops!Open Microsoft ExcelI loveROI69
70 Graphing RoI For Individual Students Programming Microsoft Excel to Graph Rate of Improvement:Fall to Winter
71 Setting Up Your Spreadsheet In cell A1, type 3rd Grade ORFIn cell A2, type First SemesterIn cell A3, type School WeekIn cell A4, type BenchmarkIn cell A5, type the Student’s Name (Swiper Example)
72 Labeling School WeeksStarting with cell B3, type numbers 1 through 18 going across row 3 (horizontal).Numbers 1 through 18 represent the number of the school week.You will end with week 18 in cell S3.
73 Labeling DatesNote: You may choose to enter the date of that school week across row 2 to easily identify the school week.
74 Entering Benchmarks (3rd Grade ORF) In cell B4, type 77. This is your fall benchmark.In cell S4, type 92. This is your winter benchmark.
75 Entering Student Data (Sample) Enter the following numbers, going across row 5, under corresponding week numbers.Week 1 – 41Week 8 – 62Week 9 – 63Week 10 – 75Week 11 – 64Week 12 – 80Week 13 – 83Week 14 – 83Week 15 – 56Week 17 – 104Week 18 – 74
76 *CAUTION*If a student was not assessed during a certain week, leave that cell blankDo not enter a score of Zero (0) it will be calculated into the trendline and interpreted as the student having read zero words correct per minute during that week.
77 Graphing the Data Highlight cells A4 and A5 through S4 and S5 Follow Excel 2003 or Excel directions from here
78 Graphing the Data Excel 2003 Excel 2007 Across the top of your worksheet, click on “Insert”In that drop-down menu, click on “Chart”Excel 2007Click InsertFind the icon for LineClick the arrow below Line
79 Graphing the Data Excel 2003 Excel 2007 A Chart Wizard window will appearExcel 20076 graphics appear
80 Graphing the Data Excel 2003 Excel 2007 Choose “Line” Choose “Line with markers…”Excel 2007Choose “Line with markers”
81 Graphing the Data Excel 2007 Excel 2003 Your graph appears “Data Range” tab“Columns”
82 Graphing the Data Excel 2003 Excel 2007 “Chart Title” “School Week” X Axis“WPM’ Y AxisExcel 2007To change your graph labels, click on your graphThen your options appear at the topClick on one of the Chart Layouts
83 Graphing the Data Excel 2003 Excel 2007 Choose where you want your graphExcel 2007Your chosen layout is applied to the graphYou can click on the labels to change them
84 Graphing the Trendline Excel 2003Right click on any of the student data pointsExcel 2007
85 Graphing the Trendline Excel 2003Choose “Linear”Excel 2007
86 Graphing the Trendline Excel 2003Choose “Custom” and check box next to “Display equation on chart”Excel 2007
87 Graphing the Trendline Clicking on the equation highlights a box around itClicking on the box allows you to move it to a place where you can see it better
88 Graphing the Trendline You can repeat the same procedure to have a trendline for the benchmark data pointsSuggestion: label the trendline Expected ROIMove this equation under the first
90 Individual Student Graph The equation indicates the slope, or rate of improvement.The number, or coefficient, before "x" is the average improvement, which in this case is the average number of words per minute per week gained by the student.
91 Individual Student Graph The rate of improvement, or trendline, is calculated using a linear regression, a simple equation of least squares.To add additional progress monitoring/benchmark scores once you’ve already created a graph, enter additional scores in Row 5 in the corresponding school week.
92 Individual Student Graph The slope can change depending on which week (where) you put the benchmark scores on your chart.Enter benchmark scores based on when your school administers their benchmark assessments for the most accurate depiction of expected student progress.
93 Programming Excel First Semester Calculating Needed RoICalculating Benchmark RoICalculating Student’s Actual RoI
94 Quick Definitions Needed RoI Benchmark RoI Student’s Actual RoI The rate of improvement needed to “catch” up to the next benchmark.Benchmark RoIThe rate of improvement of typically performing peers according to the normsStudent’s Actual RoIBased on the available data points, this is the student’s actual rate of improvement per week
95 Calculating Needed RoI In cell T3, type Needed RoIClick on cell T5In the fx line (at top of sheet) type this formula =((S4-B5)/18)Then hit enterYour result should read:This formula simply subtracts the student’s actual beginning of year (BOY) benchmark from the expected middle of year (MOY) benchmark, then dividing by 18 for the first 18 weeks (1st semester).
96 Calculating Benchmark RoI In cell U3, type Benchmark RoIClick on cell U4In the fx line (at top of sheet) type this formula =SLOPE(B4:S4,B3:S3)Then hit enterYour result should read:This formula considers 18 weeks of benchmark data and provides an average growth or change per week.
97 Calculating Student Actual RoI Click on cell U5In the fx line (at top of sheet) type this formula =SLOPE(B5:S5,B3:S3)Then hit enterYour result should read:This formula considers 18 weeks of student data and provides an average growth or change per week.
98 Making Decisions: Best Practice Research has yet to establish a blue print for ‘grounding’ student RoI data.At this point, teams should consider multiple comparisons when planning and making decisions.NationalUser Norms (AIMSWEB, DIBELS)Local, District, Grade Level, School Building
99 Looking at Percent of Expected Growth Tier ITier IITier IIIGreater than 150%Between 110% & 150%Possible LDBetween 95% & 110%Likely LDBetween 80% & 95%May Need MoreBelow 80%Needs MoreTigard-Tualatin School District (
100 Making Decisions: Lessons From the Field When tracking on grade level, consider an RoI that is 100% of expected growth as a minimum requirement, consider an RoI that is at or above the needed as optimal.So, 100% of expected and on par with needed become the limits of the range within a student should be achieving.
101 What about Students Not on Grade Level? Determining Instructional LevelIndependent/Instructional/FrustrationalInstructional often b/w 40th or 50th percentile and 25th percentile.Frustrational level below the 25th percentile.AIMSweb: Survey Level Assessment (SLA).
102 Setting Goals off of Grade Level 100% of expected growth not enough.Needed growth only gets to instructional level benchmark, not grade level.Risk of not being ambitious enough.Plenty of ideas, but limited research regarding Best Practice in goal setting off of grade level.Best Practices V – Shapiro Chapter
103 Possible Solution (A)Weekly probe at instructional level and compare to expected and needed growth rates at instructional level.Ambitious goal: 200% of expected RoI(twice the expected RoI)
104 Possible Solution (B)Weekly probe at instructional level for sensitive indicator of growth.Monthly probes (give 3, not just 1) at grade level to compute RoI.Goal based on grade level growth (more than 100% of expected).
105 When to make a change in instruction and intervention? Enough data points (6 to 10)?Less than 100% of expected growth.Not on track to make benchmark (needed growth).Not on track to reach individual goal.
106 How deficient is the student’s ROI? The 2.0X calculation Divide norm group mean ROI by student’s ROIResult expressed as a ratio of deficiencyExample:1.0 wpm/wk = 2.0X0.5 wpm/wk
107 2.0X calculation Examples Joe Elliot .9 wpm/wk = .44X .9 wpm/wk = 3.0X Divide norm group mean ROI by student’s ROIResult expressed as a ratio of deficiencyExample:1.0 wpm/wk = 2.0X0.5 wpm/wkExamplesJoe Elliot.9 wpm/wk = .44X wpm/wk = 3.0X2.1 wpm/wk wpm/wkElliot’s deficiency in ROI exceeds 2.0X
108 Example of Report Language: Documentation of Deficiency in Rate of ImprovementThroughout the current intervention period, Elliot has displayed little progress. At the beginning of the intervention, Elliot scored 56 wpm on oral reading fluency probes. His last score at the end of the intervention was 59 wpm. Elliot's calculated rate of improvement during this period was 0.3 wpm/week. Compared to the typical rate of improvement for students in Elliot’s grade (0.9 wpm/week), Elliot’s range is 3.0X deficient.
109 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.).
110 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.
111 Criterion: #3: Rule out other factors or conditions The group may determine the child has an SLD if:3. The group determines the results are not primarily theresult 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 proficiencyExclusionary Criteria§ (a)
112 Specific Learning Disability 1.Failure to meet age- or grade-level State standards in one of eight areas:oral expressionlistening comprehensionwritten expressionbasic reading skillreading fluency skillreading comprehensionmathematics calculationmathematics problem solving2.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.ORRTI: Lack of progress in response to scientifically based instruction3.Rule out:Vision, hearing, or motor problemsmental retardationemotional disturbancecultural and/or environmental issueslimited English proficiency4.Rule out lack of instruction by documenting:Appropriate instruction by qualified personnelRepeated assessmentsSpecific Learning DisabilityInclusionaryExclusionaryObservation112
113 Rule Out: Vision Screening procedure Check vision records (school nurse)If positive, assess…Optometric or ophthalmology examPossible extraneous factor or condition that could account for learning problemVisual ImpairmentAdapted from Reschly (2005)
114 Rule Out: Hearing Screening procedure Check hearing records (school nurse)If positive, assess…Audiological examPossible extraneous factor or condition that could account for learning problemHearing ImpairmentAdapted from Reschly (2005)
115 Rule Out: Motor Screening procedure Check school health records (school nurse); observations of motoric problemsIf positive, assess…Physical or occupational therapy exam; medical examinationPossible extraneous factor or condition that could account for learning problemPhysical Disability or Health ImpairmentAdapted from Reschly (2005)
116 Example of Report Language: Documentation of Rule-out of Other Disabilities and ConditionsSensory Impairments: John's vision has been screened on an annual basis by the school. No visual problems have been detected. Vision problems are ruled out as a possible reason for John's academic difficulties.
117 Rule Out: Mental Retardation Screening procedureReview of school records indicating typical functioning in other academic and adaptive behaviorIf positive, assess…Intelligence test; test of adaptive behaviorPossible extraneous factor or condition that could account for learning problemMental RetardationAdapted from Reschly (2005)
118 Example of Report Language Documentation of Rule-out of Other Disabilities and ConditionsMental Retardation: John displays many indications of typical intellectual ability. He has scores in the proficient range on tests of arithmetic skills since kindergarten, including state tests and universal screenings. His developmental milestones were age-appropriate, and he displays adaptive skills that are appropriate for his age and grade level according to both his parents and his teacher’s report on the Behavior Assessment for Children (BASC) II. Based on this information, mental retardation can be ruled out as a possible reason for John's academic difficulties.
119 Rule Out: Emotional Disturbance Screening procedureBehavioral checklistsIf positive, assess…Behavior rating scales, other assessments of behavior and affectPossible extraneous factor or condition that could account for learning problemEmotional disturbanceAdapted from Reschly (2005)
120 Example of Report Language: Documentation of Rule-out of Other Disabilities and ConditionsEmotional Disturbance: John displays appropriate behavior in the classroom. He is attentive and tries hard. He gets along well with his peers and teachers. According to the results of the Behavior Assessment for Children (BASC) II, his parents and teacher report typical behavior on both externalizing and internalizing subscales. John is often frustrated by his difficulties in learning to read, but these emotions appear to be secondary to his reading disability. Based on these data, emotional disturbance can be ruled out as a possible reason for John's academic difficulties.
121 Rule Out: Cultural Factors Screening procedureAssess cultural status (e.g., Acculturation Quick Scale)If positive, assess…Interview with familyPossible extraneous factor or condition that could account for learning problemLevel of acculturation; cultural differencesAdapted from Reschly (2005)
122 Rule Out: Environmental or Economic Disadvantage Screening procedureSchool recordsIf positive, assess…“Social work” interview with familyPossible extraneous factors or conditions that could account for learning problemChild abuse, lack of sleep, poor nutrition, etc.Adapted from Reschly (2005)
123 Rule Out: Limited English Proficiency Screening procedureHome language screening (required by law)If positive, assess…Primary language assessmentPossible extraneous factor or condition that could account for learning problemMay not have BICS or CALP necessary for learning academic contentAdapted from Reschly (2005)
124 Example of Report Language: Documentation of Rule-out of Other Disabilities and ConditionsCulture and Language: John is an African- American student whose primary home language is English. Although he participates in the free and reduced lunch program, it is not believed that acculturation, language, or environmental circumstances are the primary cause of John's academic difficulties.
125 Criterion #4: RULE OUT LACK OF INSTRUCTION A child must not be determined to be a child with adisability under this part—(1) If the determinant factor for that determination is—(i) Lack of appropriate instruction in reading, including the essential components of reading instruction (as defined in section 1208(3) of the ESEA);(ii) Lack of appropriate instruction in math, or(iii) Limited English proficiency;(§ [b])
126 Exclusionary Criteria 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 personnelData-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 parentsExclusionary Criteria§ (b)
127 Specific Learning Disability 1.Failure to meet age- or grade-level State standards in one of eight areas:oral expressionlistening comprehensionwritten expressionbasic reading skillreading fluency skillreading comprehensionmathematics calculationmathematics problem solving2.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.ORRTI: Lack of progress in response to scientifically based instruction3.Rule out:Vision, hearing, or motor problemsmental retardationemotional disturbancecultural and/or environmental issueslimited English proficiency4.Rule out lack of instruction by documenting:Appropriate instruction by qualified personnelRepeated assessmentsSpecific Learning DisabilityInclusionaryExclusionaryObservation127
128 NCLB §1208(3) (3) ESSENTIAL COMPONENTS OF READING INSTRUCTION.— The term ‘essential components of reading instruction’ means explicit and systematic instruction in—(A) phonemic awareness;(B) phonics;(C) vocabulary development;(D) reading fluency, including oral reading skills; and(E) reading comprehension strategies.
129 IDEA Language§ (b): To ensure that underachievement in a child suspected of having a specific learning disability is not due to lack of appropriate instruction in reading or math, the group must consider, as part of the evaluation described in §§ through — (1) 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; and (2) 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.
130 Key Questions to Address Is a Standards-Based Curriculum in Place(Tier 1)?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?
131 Was the student effectively taught? Key Questions to AddressHas the student been provided with individualized supports in the general education classroom (Tier 1)?Has the student been provided with a sufficiently intense individualized intervention using research-based instructional procedures (Tier 2)?
132 Core Reading Program General Principles Serves as the base of reading instructionProvides complete instruction in the key components of readingDesigned for all settings and all studentsIs preventive and proactiveIncorporates a high probability of student proficiency (80%)
133 Core Reading Program Program Design Aligned student materials and assessmentsSmall and large group instructional activitiesScaffolding to support initial learning and transference of skillsCumulative review
134 Q. What do we do in those situations in which core programs are recommended, but the review of the literature does not identify a solid research base?A. Supplemental reading programs provide additional instruction in one or more areas of reading to support the core.One size does not fit all—may need to supplement or modify (Oregon Reading First, 2004)CoreCore plus supplementalCore plus interventionInterventionIntervention plus supplemental
135 Effective Instructional Design Allocation of timeConnection to supplemental materialsGrouping strategiesImplementedFlexibleActive student engagementEffective classroom managementHigh levels of academic learning time
136 If a scientifically validated curriculum is in place, is there evidence that it is being delivered at a sufficient level of fidelity?
137 Tier 1 Fidelity Check: Process How long has the curriculum been in place?Were teachers adequately trained?Are teachers using the prescribed materials?Is the curriculum being delivered for a sufficient amount of time?How long has the student been taught in this curriculum?Is the curriculum being delivered according to prescribed directions?
138 Considerations to assess the provision of appropriate instruction Principal’s observation of teacher performance through classroom visits and observations conducted during the instructional period for the targeted content/subject area on a regular basis.Checklists of integrity of instruction completed by teachers as self- check measuresChecklists of integrity of instruction completed among teachers as peer-check measuresCompletion of checklists by content specialists or curriculum supervisors working with teachers.138
139 Fidelity Check Options Use of a prepared checklist of critical features of the instructional program:Teacher self-monitoringPeer coachingLesson plan review by principalObservation by principalMany programs leave permanent products that reflect fidelity.
140 Tier 1 Fidelity Check: Outcomes Has the general education curriculum succeeded in bringing a high percentage of students to proficiency?The sufficiency of the general education curriculum should be judged by its outcomes in terms of overall student performance.
141 However, so do all of his classmates. Expected PerformanceWords per minuteHowever, so do all of his classmates.Keshawn (green) performs well below expectations.Adapted from Witt (2006)
142 Is the supplemental program based on research? Next Question: Has the student been provided with individualized supports in the general education classroom?Has a plan been developed that targets the student’s deficiency through supplemental intervention in the general education classroom (differentiated instruction)?Is the supplemental program based on research?
143 Has the student been provided with a sufficiently intense individualized intervention using research-based instructional procedures (Tier 2)?Has a plan been developed that targets the student’s deficiency through supplemental intervention in the general education classroom (differentiated instruction)?Is the supplemental program based on research?Have the interventions used featured a research- based “standard protocol”?
144 A Standard Protocol Intervention … is scientifically based.has a high probability of producing change for large numbers of students.is usually delivered in small groups.is designed to be used in a standard manner across students.is often scripted or very structured.
145 Tier 2 Process Analysis (cont.) Has the intervention been implemented with a high degree of fidelity?Has progress monitoring occurred at least weekly during the course of the intervention?Has a building-level team (e.g., IST) helped to design and guide the implementation of the intervention?
146 Tier 2 Analysis: Outcomes Is there evidence that the individualized intervention provided to the student has facilitated meaningful progress for other students receiving the same supports?
148 Examples of Report Language: Documentation of Effective Instruction and InterventionJohn has received appropriate instruction in reading throughout his four years at Lincoln Elementary School (K- 3). Since kindergarten, John’s teachers have used the SRA Reading Mastery reading series, which uses explicit instructional procedures to teach the “big ideas” in reading. This research-based program has been successful in bringing 80% of the current third graders to proficiency. All of John's teachers have had extensive training with SRA. Fidelity checks conducted by reading coaches and the school principal indicate that the SRA program has been used with a high degree of fidelity. (Documentation of the fidelity checks are on file in the principal's office.)
149 (cont.)John has been provided with intensive reading interventions at tier 2 of Lincoln's three-tier model since September of He has been provided with small-group interventions to address his difficulties in phonemic awareness and decoding skills, using the Early Reading Intervention (ERI) program (Scott Foresman). ERI has been identified by the Florida Center for Reading Research as a research-based practice, and has been shown to significantly increase the proficiency of students at tiers 2 and 3 in Lincoln School. Fidelity checks conducted by the district’s reading coordinator indicate that the reading teachers who implemented the ERI program have done so with a high degree of fidelity. (Documentation of the fidelity checks are on file in the principal's office.)
150 Repeated AssessmentsRepeated 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.
151 Frequency of Repeated Assessments Repeated assessment information may come from:Universal ScreeningTypically conducted 3 times a yearStrategic interventionTypically progress monitored once a monthIntense intervention ( tier 2)Typically progress monitored once a week
152 Examples of Report Language: Documentation of Repeated Measures of AssessmentSince kindergarten, John has been assessed during the universal screening in reading three times per year (fall, winter, spring). Since his involvement with tier two interventions this year, John's progress has been monitored using curriculum-based measurement (CBM) on a weekly basis. Results of both universal screening and progress monitoring have been provided to his parents through written reports and periodic parent conferences.
153 May other instruments be administered? Yes.Tests of cognitive processingTests of visual motor integrationTests of auditory processingTests of receptive and expressive languageEtc.When conducting a comprehensive evaluationMDT determines what is needed
154 Should other instruments be administered? Consider treatment validity. The selection of any assessment instrument or procedure is solely dependent on its ability to provide specific information about scientifically validated instructional strategies that have a high probability of producing meaningful change in the student’s academic or social- emotional skills.
155 Can you use both models?According to an OSEP letter to the field, a district may use both the RTI model and the discrepancy model in particular situations. A district with a plan to phase in RTI over a three to five year period may use RTI in one building and the discrepancy model in another.Districts may also choose to use RTI 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.155
156 However…If a district chooses RTI as its procedure for a particular school, all students identified with SLD in that school must meet the RTI eligibility criteria, in addition to what may be indicated on other assessments.Conversely, if a district chooses the ability-achievement (A-A) discrepancy as its procedure for a particular school, all students identified with SLD in that school must meet the A-A eligibility criteria, in addition to what other assessments or the student’s RTI indicate.
157 Protecting Parents’ Rights 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 instructionandWhenever a child is referred for an evaluation§ (c)
158 Contact Information:Joseph F. Kovaleski, D.Ed., NCSPIndiana University of PA Indiana, PA /Caitlin S. Flinn, MEd, NCSPExeter Township School DistrictReading, PA