1. The Criteria for Determining SLD When Using an RTI-based Process Part I
In the previous session you were presented the main components of RtI, given a brief history of RtI, and introduced to the essential components of RtI from the National Center for RtI. You also were presented the two main models for RtI implementation, problem solving and standard protocol.
This session will begin with a brief overview of SLD Determination using an RtI model. This session will also discussion methods and assessments used to determine the significance of a student’s discrepancies in academic achievement.
Session 1

2. Eligibility for Special Education
Does the child have a disability?
Autism
Deaf-blindness
Deafness
Emotional disturbance
Hearing impairment
Intellectual Disability
Multiple disabilities
Orthopedic impairment
Other health impairment
Specific learning disability
Speech or Language impairment
Traumatic Brain Injury
Visual Impairment
Does the child need specially designed instruction?
Adapting, as appropriate to the needs of an eligible child under this part, the content, methodology, or delivery of instruction—
(i) To address the unique needs of the child that result from the child’s disability; and
(ii) To ensure access of the child to the general curriculum, so that the child can meet the educational standards within the jurisdiction of the public agency that apply to all
As you already know, anytime you are evaluating a student for special education eligibility, you must answer the two prong question: Does the child have a disability and do they need specially designed instruction.
Using RtII as the eligibility model does not change the two prong question. A MDT must continue to consider whether the child has a disability in one of the disability categories and whether the student has a need for specialized instruction.
Components of RtI, such as the use of data from prereferral interventions, can be and should be used for many of the disability categories (e.g., one might use behavior intervention data and PBSP as a piece of the determination data for OHI and ED, or one might use social behavior intervention data for Autism). In many cases additional assessments may also be necessary. However, the RtI model current being discussed is for use in determining whether a student meets eligibility for the category of SLD. This is where RtI is discussed in IDEA and where most implementation regarding identification for Special Education has been conducted across the nation.

3. Determining SLD
To determine that a child has an SLD, the school district or LEA shall:
Use one of the following two procedures for each child:
A process based on the child’s response to scientific, research-based intervention, documenting that
Student received high quality instruction in regular education
Research-based interventions were provided to the student
Student progress was regularly monitored OR
A process that examines whether a child exhibits a pattern of strengths and weaknesses, relative to intellectual ability as defined by a severe discrepancy between intellectual ability and achievement or relative to age
As written in IDEA, a district is able to use either the (1) Response to Intervention (RtII) model or the (2) Discrepancy model to determine the existence of an SLD.
A MDT must identify which model they will use to determine eligibility at the beginning of the evaluation process.
§ (a)(2)

4. ND Administrative Rule (Chapter 67-23-06; Effective July 2012)
Highlights
“LEA …. may choose to use the process to determine if a child has a SLD”
“Using RtI to evaluate for Special Education is one component of an overall system of implementation…”
“Written documentation describing:
Child’s achievement concerns and lack of progress;
Data from interventions
Explanation of research-based practices
Explanation of exclusionary factors
The need for special education”
14 states currently have some components of RtI as mandatory in their SLD evaluation process. However, The vast majority of states in the nation, including ND, allow both and delegate the choice to the LEA.
North Dakota has recently written an administrative rule effective July 2012 that allows LEA’s the opportunity to choose which process they will use for a particular student being evaluated for a SLD. The rule focuses on RtI evaluation as one small component in an overall system of RtI implementation. It also discusses the need for written documentation describing the five components oulined in this slide. DPI is currently working with TIEnet developers to have an IWAR that guides MDTs through the written components that are required.

5. ND Administrative Rule (Chapter 67-23-06; July 2012)
Use of response to intervention by local education agencies.
A local education agency may adopt a response to intervention process and may choose to use the process to determine if a child has a specific learning disability consistent with 34 CFR Prior to implementation of response to intervention during the evaluation of a student suspected of a having a specific learning disability, a local education agency must demonstrate the completeness of its response to intervention process through:
Evidence of training in the components of the response to intervention framework;
Adoption of evidence based curriculum, instruction and interventions; and
Demonstration that its response to intervention process includes screening, diagnostic and progress monitoring assessments and other elements of an approved national standard for the components of the framework.
The ND guidelines also refer to an LEA demonstrating a foundational implementation of RtI prior to using RtI as an eligibility model. The RtI Integrity Rubric from the National Center for RtI, as discussed by the previous presenter, outlines the necessary components that a district who is interested in implementing RtI should focus on (Screening, Progress Monitoring, Multi-level Prevention System, Data-Based Decision Making). No system is expected to have flawless implementation, but in order to use the RtI eligibility model many of these components must be in place.

6. RtI Evaluations are Not…
an easier way to identify students for SLD
nor
the ultimate goal of RtI (one final hoop to jump through)
You may know professionals who feel that RtI will be an easier model to get kids access to special education services. If you ask teachers and psychologists who are currently using this model for identification, they would tell you that this process requires the analysis of multiple data sources and if implemented correctly it is not any easier for a child to be identified. It will identify students based on their academic need and responsiveness to intervention however, not based on intellectual ability as identified though IQ tests.
All efforts in an RtI system go toward early intervention with as much intensity as necessary to prevent special education. However, no matter how ideal an RtI system may be, there will still be some students who have disabilities in reading, written expression, or math. This is the mentality of a true RtI system. It is not about doing interventions to get them done so a referral can be made for special education. It is about doing interventions to prevent further intervention and at least to begin closing an achievement gap.

7. RtI Evaluations Are…
comprehensive evaluations supported by research and federal guidelines
focused on student need and aligning those resources to the need
less assessment of the learner and more use of existing data directly linked to that student’s response to instruction
You will come to understand through these sessions that RtI evaluations are comprehensive. The MDT uses data from various sources that are directly aligned to student need in order to determine whether the student has a disability. Data is analyzed to look for trends and convergent data sources are either found from existing assessments or are gathered by directly assessing the student. Questions about resources necessary to teach a particular child are asked. Specific information is also gathered about what instruction and curriculum the student will need in order to learn at an appropriate rate.
An RtI evaluation should be informative to the teachers that are responsible for teaching the child. It will provide them with direct information about what has worked and has not worked in instructing the particular child. And RtI evaluation will give teachers strategies for developing specific interventions if changes to instruction/intervention are necessary.

8. Four Criteria for Determining Specific Learning Disability
1. Academic Achievement
Failure to meet age- or grade-level State standards in one of eight areas:
oral expression
listening comprehension
written expression
basic reading skill
reading fluency skill
reading comprehension
mathematics calculation
mathematics problem solving
2. Model
Discrepancy: Pattern of strengths & weaknesses, relative to intellectual ability as defined by a severe discrepancy between intellectual ability and achievement, or relative to age or grade. OR
RTI: Lack of progress in response to scientifically based instruction
3. Rule Out
Vision, hearing, or motor problems
Intellectual Disability
emotional disturbance
cultural and/or environmental issues
limited English proficiency
4. Consider Lack of Instruction
Appropriate instruction by qualified personnel
Repeated assessments
Specific Learning Disability
Inclusionary
Exclusionary
Let’s begin to get into the details of an RtI evaluation.
This graphic is commonly used to depict the four criteria needed for eligibility of SLD. It is used throughout the sessions as orientation to where we are in the process.
There are four criteria to consider when identifying a student as eligible for special education under the category of SLD:
2 Inclusionary and 2 Exclusionary
Three of the four criteria (one, three, and four on the slide) are the same regardless of which identification model used. The assessments analyzed for the four criteria may vary depending on the model selected. In both models there does have to be a failure to meet age or grade level standards in one or more of the 8 sub areas, various factors ruled out prior to SLD consideration, and there needs to be data indicating appropriate instruction in reading and math.
One of the four criteria requires a choice. The choice is whether the team is going to use the Discrepancy Model or the RtI Model.
Observation

9. Four Questions for SLD Eligibility
Adequate achievement: Does the child achieve adequately for the child’s age or meet state-approved grade level standards?
Eligibility Model: Does the child shown a lack of response to scientifically based instruction?
Have other factors or conditions been ruled out?
Are the student’s academic concerns the result of a lack of instruction?
The four criteria can be formulated into four questions to consider when conducting an RtI evaluation. These four questions/criteria will guide our RtI eligibility trainings.
They are:
Does the child achieve adequately for the child’s age or meet state-approved grade level standards?
Does the child shown a lack of response to scientifically based instruction?
Have other factors or conditions been ruled out?
Are the student’s academic concerns the result of a lack of instruction?

10. Four Criteria for Determining Specific Learning Disability
1. Academic Achievement
Failure to meet age- or grade-level State standards in one of eight areas:
oral expression
listening comprehension
written expression
basic reading skill
reading fluency skill
reading comprehension
mathematics calculation
mathematics problem solving
2. Model
Discrepancy: Pattern of strengths & weaknesses, relative to intellectual ability as defined by a severe discrepancy between intellectual ability and achievement, or relative to age or grade. OR
RTI: Lack of progress in response to scientifically based instruction
3. Rule Out
Vision, hearing, or motor problems
Intellectual Disability
emotional disturbance
cultural and/or environmental issues
limited English proficiency
4. Consider Lack of Instruction
Appropriate instruction by qualified personnel
Repeated assessments
Specific Learning Disability
Inclusionary
Exclusionary
Throughout the presentation, when we begin a new section, the criterion we are discussing will be highlighted in yellow.
This session will continue with a focus on criteria 1, academic achievement, which is often called discrepancy from peers in an RtI model.
Observation

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

12. Assessing achievement level
One or more of the 8 subcategories of SLD
oral expression
listening comprehension
written expression
basic reading skill
reading fluency skill
reading comprehension
mathematics calculation
mathematics problem solving
In order to meet eligibility, a child would have to be significantly discrepant from grade level peers in one or more of the 8 sub categories of LD.
IN order to meet eligibility for SLD, data and interventions to support each area that is being evaluated must be preset. (i.e. interventions/data for reading, interventions/data for math)

13. Lack of achievement is in relation to age or grade-level standards
The student’s assessed achievement, in at least one of the eight SLD areas, should be significantly behind age- or grade-peers on multiple measures
Achievement here is related to age or grade, not intellectual level
The inclusion of “state standards” as the benchmark against which the student’s academic achievement is measured is new to IDEA. It reflects a connection with NCLB in relation to bringing all students to proficiency. The student must be significantly behind in one of the eight SLD areas listed on Criterion 1 graphic.
In criterion #1, the student’s lack of achievement is related to measures that reflect the state’s standards. Consequently, assessment devices used in the evaluation process should have a high correlation with standards.
It is an important note is that the “discrepancy” is not in relation to intelligence, but in relation to grade level state standards.

14. How low should a student’s skills be to qualify?
Research has indicated that a score of the 30-40th percentile on nationally normed benchmark tests or individual tests of academic achievement is equivalent to a proficient score on most statewide tests.
In order to know how low the student’s skills are in relation to peers and standards, one must first know what score is considered ‘grade-level’ or proficient.
Read Slide…

15. How low should a student’s skills be to qualify?
AIMSweb:
Target = Approximately 45%ile = 80% chance of being proficient on the state assessment
DIBELs:
Benchmark = 80% likelihood of meeting subsequent grade-level reading outcome goals
Both AIMSweb and DIBELs (two of the more widely used RtI screening and progress monitoring systems) align their targets/benchmarks to this research.
Summarize Slide…

16. How low should a student’s skills be to qualify?
A student should be significantly below this level
Recommendations from researchers and other states (rough parameters):
10th percentile
2.0x discrepant
1.5 Standard Deviation
2 grade levels behind
What is significant?
The recommendation may vary based on the availability of assessments and the types of assessments in a local school or district. When a school has access to a data system that will calculate either national or local percentiles than that is the best comparison to grade level peers. Other data such as 2x discrepant, 1.5 SD, or 2 grade levels behind can be used if necessary.
A number of other states and various CBM researchers have suggested the 10th percentile as a possible benchmark for the basic consideration of eligibility for SLD, as it is considerably below the proficiency level of the 30-40%ile. It should be emphasized that this is a guideline, or a rough parameter based on current thinking in the field. Students scores may be around the 10%ile, but using convergent data from various assessments will help the MDT determine if the student is discrepant. For example, a student might be at the 5th percentile on one measure, the 10%ile on a second measure, and the 13%ile on a third measure. If this student also has a lack of progress and the exclusionary factors do not apply they still may be considered SLD.
1.5 SD = between the 10-5%iles – standard score of 76-80

17. What assessments?
First use any existing standardized norm referenced assessments whenever possible:
CBM such as AIMSweb/DIBELs (RCBM, MAZE, TEL, TEN, MCOMP, MCAP, CWS)
NWEA
STAR Reading or Math Assessment
NDSA
Classroom Formative Evaluation or other diagnostic assessments (DRAs, CBE, etc.)
If necessary local (grade or class level) comparisons can be created (will need to use the 2.0x formula)
It is likely you will have more than enough data available already and will have no need for further testing. It is best to first use any existing data to minimize the need for unnecessary assessment. This process is about being efficient, so don’t do more assessment that is necessary to thoroughy answer the question being asked. For this criteria we are looking for a minimum of 2 or more assessments that show a significant discrepancy from peers, one of which needs to be a curriculum based measurement.

18. 2.0X Calculation (creating a local comparison)
Divide norm group score by student’s score
Result expressed as a ratio of deficiency
Example: 120 wcpm / 60 wcpm = 2.0X
In this example, the result is 2.0X, which is verbalized as “2 times deficient in relation to local norm”
The 2x formula would only be necessary if you do not have access to percentile scores and need to determine the magnitude of a discrepancy. The 2x formula gives another way to operationalize the extent of a student’s deficiency in relation to assessments based on state standards such as curriculum based measurement.
The criterion is calculated as follows:
Identify the score of the norm group being used as the comparison (median score of a grade level sample or national norm)
Place that number in the numerator.
Place in the denominator the student’s assessed score on the CBM measure
Divide the two numbers.
The result is expressed as a ratio. In this example, the result is 2.0X, which is verbalized as 2 times deficient in relation to norms.
Dr. Mark Shinn, an expert in RtI an Curriculum Based Measurement, has suggested the 2.0X level as a criterion to consider for SLD eligibility. Again, this is not a state-approved parameter, but is based on current thinking in the field.

19. Examples
John – grade 3 Sonia – grade 5 Compare their attained scores (denominators) with the scores of their grade level norm group (numerators).
John - 3rd ORF: wcpm = 2.0X
50 wcpm
Sonia - 5th ORF: 130 wcpm = 2.36X
55 wcpm
Here are two more examples of calculating the extent of the student’s deficiency using CBM norms. Both of these students would meet criterion #1, using Shinn’s recommendations.

20. Yes! There is nothing legally that prevents a team from doing so.
May we use individual norm-referenced tests of academic achievement in determining the extent of the deficiency?
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 (two+ assessments that converge and other supporting information), there is no reason to conduct more assessment
If you don’t, you may have reason to conduct use them
May we?
Yes! There is nothing legally that prevents a team from doing so.
There is nothing legally preventing a MDT from using a norm-referenced test of academic achievement such as a woodcock Johnson test of achievement as one measure to determine the discrepancy from peers. It is up to each individual MDT meeting on an individual student to decide how much data are needed to make a determination as to whether the student meets criterion #1 of the SLD RtI model. The minimum requirement written in the ND Guidelines is two convergent data sources.
It should be noted that individual norm-referenced tests of academic achievement are not required if there is sufficient other data to document the student’s deficiency in a defendable way. The other data may include the student’s performance on:
Benchmark tests administered in universal screening
Terminal assessments in a series of progress monitoring assessments
State tests
Other local group tests
“Diagnostic” assessments conducted during tiers 2 and 3 by specialists (e.g., curriculum-based evaluation [CBE], DRA, etc.)

21. Additional Guideline FAQs
#8: Should we compare a student’s performance to that of age level peers or to grade level standards when determining discrepancy/gap and rate of progress? What about a student who has been retained?
Each district’s decision, more common to use grade level
Early childhood may use age based norms
For peers that may have been retained, grade level standards are recommended
These final two slides are questions and answers that are available in the state FAQ document regarding RtI SLD determination.
Ultimately, it is each district’s decision whether to compare a student’s performance to age level peers or to grade level standards to determine discrepancy/gap and rate of progress within an RtI framework. Because grade level standards are typically connected to state learning standards, it is more common for districts to use grade level standards. A possible exception to using grade level standards involves implementation of an RtI framework in early childhood settings. Due to the significant variability in academic and behavioral development at early ages, early childhood research and best practice would support the use of age-based norms, including benchmarking scores.
In terms of grade retention, schools and districts are strongly encouraged to utilize more effective alternatives to grade retention (i.e., scientifically research-based instructional and intervention strategies) to address the skill needs of students. However, in those instances when a student has been retained, school teams should consider the fact that he/she has not been exposed to the same instruction as his/her age level peers and will take the state assessment for the grade level in which he/she is currently enrolled. Therefore, it is recommended that grade level standards be used to determine the student’s discrepancy/gap and rate of progress.

22. Additional Guideline FAQs
#23. Can existing evaluation data be used to meet the requirements of a comprehensive evaluation? When are additional data necessary beyond the use of existing data when using RtI in determining eligibility?
Yes, screening data, observations, CBE, progress monitoring data are all necessary components of an RtI evaluation that typically exist at the point of Spec. Ed. Evaluation. (and may be sufficient)
The school team, which includes the parents, has the discretion to determine if additional data is necessary to complete the evaluation process
Yes, screening data, observations, CBE, and progress monitoring data are all necessary components of an RtI evaluation that typically exist at the point of evaluation. This data can and should be used.
The team may decide that the collection of additional data is necessary when they do not feel that they have enough data to meet the eligibility requirements (instances where this might be necessary include…. insufficient evidence regarding the level of discrepancy between the target student and his/her age level peers or grade level standard, a pattern of student performance over time has not been established, insufficient evidence for the implementation integrity of the interventions, not able to identify the instructional characteristics that produce a positive impact on the student’s performance, or one or more of the exclusionary criteria have not been ruled out).

23. Specific Learning Disability
Next Steps
1. Academic Achievement
Failure to meet age- or grade-level State standards in one of eight areas:
oral expression
listening comprehension
written expression
basic reading skill
reading fluency skill
reading comprehension
mathematics calculation
mathematics problem solving
2. Model
Discrepancy: Pattern of strengths & weaknesses, relative to intellectual ability as defined by a severe discrepancy between intellectual ability and achievement, or relative to age or grade. OR
RTI: Lack of progress in response to scientifically based instruction
3. Rule Out
Vision, hearing, or motor problems
Intellectual Disability
emotional disturbance
cultural and/or environmental issues
limited English proficiency
4. Consider Lack of Instruction
Appropriate instruction by qualified personnel
Repeated assessments
Specific Learning Disability
Inclusionary
Exclusionary
This concludes the session on overviewing the eligibility model and determining academic achievement. The next session will focus on criterian 2 measuring a student’s rate of progress and on the importance of progress monitoring in an RtI model.
Thank you
Observation