Presentation on theme: "fff Using RtI to Make LD Eligibility Decisions"— Presentation transcript:
1 fff Using RtI to Make LD Eligibility Decisions In the Chicago Public SchoolsSue GammEducational Strategies & Support
2 LD Eligibility based on RtI Framework Next Steps Why Change?LD Eligibility based on RtI FrameworkNext StepsAGENDA for the presentation. Be sure to identify break times when you review the agenda with the audience.Clarify that FAQ’s and tools and resources are incorporated throughout the presentation (not just a separate section).2
3 Resources for Presentation Illinois ASPIRE RtI Eligibility TrainingIllinois Special Education Eligibility and Entitlement Procedures and Criteria within a Response to Intervention (RtI) Framework: A GuidanceFrequently Asked Questions about Special Education Eligibility and Entitlement within a Response to Intervention (RtI) FrameworkOffice of Teaching & Learning: RtI Guidance
6 Hart & Risley, Meaningful Differences Average number of words children heard per hour ranged from 2,153 to 616Extrapolated out, by 4 years of age children heard 13 M to 48 M words
7 Talkative v Taciturn Parents Talkative Parents: children heard they were right 750,000 times & times wrong 120,000 timesTaciturn Parents: children heard they were right 120,000 times & times wrong 250,000 times
8 Importance of Parent Talk Child language based on amount of parental talking and amount and positive nature of the talk.Parental talk accounts for all the variance.
9 Most students are referred for a special ed evaluation because of reading difficulties. Minority Students in Gifted & Special Education (2001)
11 Minority Students in Gifted & Special Education (2001) Reading deficits often reflect an inadequate opportunity to learn & correlated sped referral rates for mild disability areas reflect quality of instruction.Reading failure rates as high as 38-40% can be reduced to ≤6% through early identification & multitiered intervention.Minority Students in Gifted & Special Education (2001)
12 Percentage of SwD with LD ISBE District Profile: 2009
13 2000 National Reading Panel Many children are “instructional casualties” of failed or poor reading instruction.2000 National Reading Panel
14 Change is good. You go first! Judy Elliott,CAO, LAUSDIn many cases, state reviews included a combination of two or more of these approaches.• Reviews of policies, practices, and procedures (includes desk audits; 17)• Reviews of student records (10)• Reviews of existing monitoring data (6)• Onsite visits (5)• Reviews of due process complaints (2)• Additional data collection and analysis (1)
17 Getting StartedDepending on nature and scope, RtI data can meet FIE requirementsPossible evaluation tools:InterviewsObservation of the student in specific, relevant settingsError analysis of work samplesCBAs/functional acad assessments, including CBMs & CBEProgress monitoring dataResults from state and local assessmentsFunctional Behavioral AssessmentsBehavior Rating ScalesVocational assessmentsDevelopmental, academic, behavioral & functional life skills checklistsStandardized (norm-referenced) assessmentsSo, can data collected through the RtI process meet the requirements of a full & individual, comprehensive evaluation? According to ISBE’s FAQ, depending on their nature and scope, they can. And these are examples of evaluation tools that can be used. REINFORCE
18 ISBE Administrative Code Beginning at the start of the school year, Illinois districts must use a process that determines how a student responds to scientific, research-based interventions when determining whether a student is or continues to have a learning disability.A student’s severe discrepancy between achievement & ability is no longer relevant.
20 PROBLEM ID/ STATEMENT OF PROBLEM Describe baseline data & initial performance discrepancy for areas of concern in relevant domains, including information about performance discrepancy prior to intervention. Attach evidence PROBLEM ANALYSIS/STRENGTHS/WEAKNESSES Skill strengths/weaknesses. Attach evidence, including skill versus performance deficits.
21 Inappropriate lack of instruction (R/M) LEP Exclusionary Criteria Determinant FactorsInappropriate lack of instruction (R/M)LEPExclusionary CriteriaInclusionary CriteriaPerformance DiscrepancyEducational ProgressInstructional Needs21
22 Determinant Factors Lack of appropriate instruction in reading Lack of appropriate instruction in mathLimited English language proficiencyIf ANY DETERMINANT factor is present– no eligibilityBUT: case manager notifies principal to correct
23 Inappropriate Lack of Instruction (R/M) LEP Exclusionary Criteria Determinant FactorsInappropriate Lack of Instruction (R/M)LEPExclusionary CriteriaInclusionary CriteriaPerformance DiscrepacyEducational ProgressInstructional Needs23
24 Lack of Appropriate Instruction in Reading/Math IDEA 2004Inserted term “appropriate”Specifies methodology for analyzing these provisions when a student is suspected of having LDIDEA doesn’t describe any methodology for review outside of LD - methodology not required but is permissive
25 Lack of Appropriate Instruction in Reading/Math IDEA MethodologyData demonstrating prior to (or part of) referral process, student provided appropriate instruction in regular ed settings - delivered by qualified personnelData-based documentation of repeated assessments of achievement at reasonable intervals, reflecting formal assessment of student progress during instructionData provided to parents
26 WHEN following is not in place: Lack of Appropriate Instruction in Reading/MathCAN one assume poor reading/math is based on an internal disabilityWHEN following is not in place:Student provided with research & standards based core curriculum/instructionScientific research-based (SRB) interventionsImplementation with fidelityRegular review & analysis?
27 Data Reflects Appropriate Instruction Lack of Appropriate Instruction in Reading/MathData Reflects Appropriate InstructionReading Instruction’s essential components (2001 ESEA): phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary & comprehensionMath Instruction’s essential components: conceptual understanding, procedural fluency, strategic competence, adaptive reasoning, & productive response.National Research Council (2001)
28 Use of SRB Interventions Lack of Appropriate Instruction in Reading/MathUse of SRB InterventionsPrior to/during the FIE process interventions used at Tier 2/Tier 3 levels were:Based on scientific researchAppropriate for studentProvided in addition to core instructionThe Office of Teaching and Learning’s RtI Toolkit will offer best practices associated with multitiered interventions of increasing intensity
29 What is Scientifically-Based? Practices and programs that have been thoroughly and rigorously reviewed to determine whether they produce positive educational results in a predictable mannerDetermination based on objective, external validation
30 Is Differentiated Instruction an Intervention? High quality instruction is differentiated & culturally responsive, effectively meeting diverse learner needs
31 Lack of Appropriate Instruction in Reading/Math Qualified PersonnelInstruction delivered by personnel meeting highly qualified requirements of ESEAStaff implementing core & supplemental instruction must also be adequately trained
32 Lack of Appropriate Instruction in Reading/Math Data SourcesState assessment data (e.g., ISAT, PSAE)Local universal screening data collected multiple times during academic yearProgress monitoring data of SBR interventions collected in regular intervals for individual or groups of students
33 Implementation with Fidelity Lack of Appropriate Instruction in Reading/MathImplementation with FidelityPLAN DEVELOPMENT/INTERVENTIONS Describe previous & current instruction & interventions (Tier I-core, Tier 2-strategic and Tier 3-Intensive) including evidence of scientific base and implementation with fidelity.
34 Principles of Integrity Lack of Appropriate Instruction in Reading/MathPrinciples of IntegrityLength of time curriculum in placeAmount of teacher trainingLength of time student was taught the curriculumDegree to which the instructional methodologies and techniques are usedDegree to which the instructional procedures and materials are used
35 Lack of Appropriate Instruction in Reading/Math Practice StandardsUse of Fidelity of Implementation Checklist based on Instructional Planning FormExisting mechanisms, e.g., school leadership/improvement process, professional development, school/classroom walk-throughs, instructional rounds, fidelity checklists, etc.
36 Unsatisfactory Practices Lack of Appropriate Instruction in Reading/MathUnsatisfactory PracticesInformal descriptions of reading intervention presented at meetings with interventions described only by program name(s) or on limited features, e.g., amount of time daily/weeklyLess structured interview information or self reports completed by the person(s) providing the intervention(s)No independent observations for fidelity of implementation
37 Progress Monitoring (PM) Lack of Appropriate Instruction in Reading/MathProgress Monitoring (PM)Databased documentation of repeated assessments of achievement at reasonable intervals, reflecting formal assessment of student progress during instruction.Consider appropriateness of data, including tools used and way in which monitoring conductedProgress monitored frequently & with fidelity
38 Frequency of Monitoring Lack of Appropriate Instruction in Reading/MathFrequency of MonitoringMonitoring is more frequent as interventions become more intenseIn Tier I: Approximately every 10 weeksTier II: At least twice per monthTier III: At least weeklyOTL Toolkit will give further recommendations about PM tools and processes, best practices, and further instructions on use of GradeBook
39 Lack of Appropriate Instruction in Reading/Math PM AssumptionsDirectly linked to area(s) of concernCompleted over a period of time to assure reliabilityUsed by Instructional Leadership Team (ILT) to determine if interventions should continue because of demonstrated improvement - be changed - or provided with more intensity to support increased progress
40 Lack of Appropriate Instruction in Reading/Math PM Practice StandardsThe PM tool was reviewed by/met National RTI Center standards; was administered individually; and goal(s) developed in advance.Validated but not reviewed by National RTI Center; or progress measured by end-of- unit tests that accompany the intervention program; and goal(s) developed in advance.
41 Lack of Appropriate Instruction in Reading/Math PM Practice StandardsUNSATISFACTORY. Tool neither validated nor meets National RTI Center standards administered in group - NO goals developed in advance - INCLUDES teacher-made tests, ratings or opinionsELL. Above standards apply & must be valid for students with similar acculturation. NOT OK to use tool reflecting increased performance by students with different primary language
42 PM Data Given to Parents Lack of Appropriate Instruction in Reading/MathPM Data Given to ParentsUniversal screening and/or student progress dataProvide in manner that’s easily understood, contains parent-friendly language & provides grade-level performance expectations so parents can compare performanceInform parents about the steps being taken to intensify/change interventions
43 Inappropriate lack of performance (R/M) LEP Exclusionary Criteria Determinant FactorsInappropriate lack of performance (R/M)LEPExclusionary CriteriaInclusionary CriteriaPerformance DiscrepancyEducational ProgressInstructional Needs43
44 English Language Learners Is Determinant Factor Related to Language Proficiency?English Language LearnersIf student’s language proficiency may explain severely low achievement and lack of progress - disaggregate achievement and progress informationCompare student to typical peers and – to extent possible – those with similar language, acculturation & experience.
45 Inappropriate lack of performance (R/M) LEP Exclusionary Criteria Determinant FactorsInappropriate lack of performance (R/M)LEPExclusionary CriteriaInclusionary CriteriaDiscrepant PerformanceEducational ProgressInstructional Needs45
46 Exclusionary Criteria Visual, motor or hearing disability; cognitive disability; emotional disturbance; cultural factors; or environmental or economic disadvantageEffective screening can rule out exclusionary factors; not rule them “in”
47 Inappropriate lack of instruction (R/M) LEP Exclusionary Criteria Determinant FactorsInappropriate lack of instruction (R/M)LEPExclusionary CriteriaInclusionary CriteriaPerformance DiscrepancyEducational ProgressInstructional Needs47
48 Inclusionary Criteria Based on IDEA/Illinois regulations, determine if a student does not:Achieve adequately for age or to meet State- approved grade-level standards in area(s) of concern when provided learning experiences & instruction appropriate for child’s age or State- approved grade-level standardsMake sufficient progress to meet age or State- approved grade-level standards in area(s) of concern when using a process based on the child’s response to scientific, research-based intervention
49 Illinois’ FrameworkDISCREPANCY. Performance significantly discrepant from peer group/standard; not discrepant because of intervention’s intensityEDUCATIONAL PROGRESS. Progressing at significantly slower rate than age appropriate peers; or acceptable progress only because …INSTRUCTIONAL NEEDS. Needs in any areas of concern are significantly different from those of typical peers & of intensity/type exceeding general ed resources
50 Per ISBE, IQ/achievement discrepancy is NOT component of these 3 criteria & team may NOT consider this result when criteria are not metIf the 3 criteria are met but there is NO severe IQ/achievement discrepancy, this result does NOT reverse the findingsSame applies to any data showing pattern of strengths & weaknesses in performance, achievement or bothIf there’s suspicion of cognitive disability, intelligence assessment may be relevant
51 CPS psychologists will NO LONGER assess a student’s IQ/achievement discrepancy for LD
52 Nonverbal LDHas been used to describe significant discrepancy between high verbal & lower performance scores on IQ test & deficits in motor, visual-spacial & social skillsPer ISBE, only areas in IDEA reg are relevant for LD eligibility, which are performance- based & focus on achievement - not processing deficits/behaviorReading (basic skills, fluency skills, comprehension); math (calculation, problem solving); expression (written or oral); and/or listening comprehension
53 Inappropriate lack of instruction (R/M) LEP Exclusionary Criteria Determinant FactorsInappropriate lack of instruction (R/M)LEPExclusionary CriteriaInclusionary CriteriaPerformance DiscrepancyEducational ProgressInstructional Needs53
54 1. Performance Discrepancy Often referred to as “gap” analysisUSE:State assessment data (e.g., ISAT, PSAE);Local universal screening on all students collected multiple times during the academic year; and/orPM data collected regularly
55 1. Performance Discrepancy Practice StandardsScore below 10th percentile on screening tool meeting standards set by the National RTI Center based on peers in their local school; administered individually; and/or on CBM compared to other students in the grade/school.Score below 10th percentile on screening tool not reviewed by National RTI Center; or score below 5th percentile* on validated achievement test individually administered & compared to national norm sample (e.g., WIATII, KTEAII, WJIII). *TBD
56 1. Performance Discrepancy Practice StandardsUNSATISFACTORY. Teacher ratings or opinions, ISAT scores, or end-of-unit or curriculum-made tests; data from screening tools not meeting CPS screening standardsELL. Same as above but student compared with others from same language subgroup
57 1. Performance Discrepancy Team DeterminationDoes discrepancy data meet practice standards?IF NOT: within eval time frame, case manager reschedules meeting & notifies principal/designee to obtain applicable data; or student is not eligibleIs student’s performance significantly below his/her peers/expected standards in one/ more area(s) of concern? Or not due to receipt of interventions
58 1. Performance Discrepancy DocumentationTeam reviews/documents normative rate of progress displayed by peers; and rate of learning required to close performance gapSummarize data & analysis on Eligibility Determination form & Documentation of Evaluation/Intervention Results form, under Discrepancy.
59 Inappropriate lack of instruction (R/M) LEP Exclusionary Criteria Determinant FactorsInappropriate lack of instruction (R/M)LEPExclusionary CriteriaInclusionary CriteriaDiscrepant PerformanceEducational ProgressInstructional NeedsAGENDA for the presentation. Be sure to identify break times when you review the agenda with the audience.Clarify that FAQ’s and tools and resources are incorporated throughout the presentation (not just a separate section).59
60 2. Educational Performance Significantly slower rate than expected; or not only because of receipt of interventionsWere SRB interventions (designed to remediate area of identified need) implemented with fidelity?Consider: targeted intervention, ELL, intensity, amount of time, group size, etc.Use appropriate progress monitoring (conducted at reasonable intervals) to inform continuation and/or modification of interventions?
61 2. Educational ProgressTeam DeterminationWere PM & SRB interventions (including core curriculum) provided per above?IF NOT: within eval time frame, case manager reschedules meeting & notifies principal/designee to obtain applicable data; or student is not eligibleDoes PM data show interventions sufficiently improved rate of learning/reduced performance gap? REVIEW:Baseline performanceRate of Improvement (ROI) - how well - pace/speedROI compared to predetermined ROIDocument on Eligibility Determination form & Educational Progress
62 The student does not have LD 2. Educational ProgressThe student does not have LDWhen progressingAt acceptable rate of progressBased on SRB interventionsTypically provided with comparable intensity to S w/o D
63 Inappropriate lack of instruction (R/M) LEP Exclusionary Criteria Determinant FactorsInappropriate lack of instruction (R/M)LEPExclusionary CriteriaInclusionary CriteriaDiscrepant PerformanceEducational ProgressInstructional Needs63
64 3. Instructional needsSignificantly different needs from typical peers & of intensity/type exceeding general ed resourcesTeam considers:Tier 2/3 intervention factors enabling progressCharacteristics of educational services neededIntensity (rate of practice/feedback, explicitness of instruction)Time (amount of time/day and sessions/week)Group size (individualized, very small)
65 3. Instructional NeedsTeam DeterminationWas PM data used to determine instructional needs that meet best or defensible practices?IF NOT: within eval time frame, case manager reschedules meeting & notifies principal/designee to obtain applicable data; or student is not eligibleAre needs significantly different from those of typical peers & of intensity/type exceeding general ed resources?Document on Eligibility Determination form & Instructional Need
66 Eligibility Determination Does the disability adversely affect educational performance?(discrepancy, educational progress, instructional need)Need for specialized instruction
67 Home Schooled & Parentally Placed Must collect necessary data (new if it did not exist) to determine student’s response to instruction & intervention as part of evaluation.May administer universal screening measures and compare resulting scores to same CPS age/grade, and/or may provide limited consultation or interventions & progress monitoring.
68 Independent EvalsParent does not have any right to an IEE at public expense before CPS completes its evaluation simply because of disagreement to use RtI as part of the evaluation process.If an IEE is at public expense, it must conform to IL and CPS eligibility criteria, including how a student responds to SRB interventions as part of the evaluation procedures for LD.
69 ReevaluationsISBE’s RTI FAQ. Must involve RtI in reevals for LD. Even if RtI not part of initial eval, presumed initial eligibility process valid & disability remains unless data indicates otherwise. (Data could show able to benefit from general ed curriculum without special education/related services.USDE GUIDANCE. “Obviously” team should consider as part of reeval process – appropriateness of instructional & overall special ed program. If appropriate & student unable to exit - strong evidence to maintain eligibility.
70 T&L RtI WebsiteOffice of Teaching & Learning RtI
71 The Perfect Storm RtI without Fidelity ADA /504 Expanded Eligibility IDEADispro-portionalityChild FindVulnerability