1. T HE N UTS AND B OLTS OF THE N EW S PECIFIC L EARNING D ISABILITY (SLD) C RITERIA Presented by: Jacque Hyatt, Co-Director, Idaho SDE Special Education Division January 21, 2010 1

2. I DAHO L IVE ! G ENERAL I NFORMATION 2

3. T RAINING O BJECTIVES 3 To provide participants with specific information relating to the newly revised SLD criteria. To provide participants the history of SLD in Idaho. To explain why Idaho has changed their criteria. To discuss the eligibility and evaluation criteria and the procedures.

4. H ISTORY OF L EARNING D ISABILITIES 4 Debates continue to be part of the learning disabilities history. Most evident is the debate between the concepts of learning and it’s relationship to cognitive ability or intelligence. Due to this debate, some practitioners rely solely on IQ testing with a few other parts of the whole. With IDEA 2004, there were changes towards a system that moved from the concept of discrepenancy only to a shift to an RTI framework.

5. W HAT LD IS AND IS NOT 5 “IS” Specific Learning Disability (SLD) means a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, that may manifest itself in the imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or to do mathematical calculations, including conditions such as perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia. “IS NOT” Specific Learning Disability does not include learning problems that are primarily the result of visual, hearing, or motor disabilities, of cognitive impairment, of emotional disturbance, or of environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage. (Flannagan, 2008)

6. W HY THE C HANGE ? Aligns with the federal definition. Is consistent with evidence demonstrating that students can have impairments in very specific areas. Allows for evaluation and intervention planning to be more closely aligned to address the particular needs of the student. 6

7. W HY THE C HANGE ? Heterogeneity of SLD—meaning different student profiles can be viewed across school, district, state, and nation. Current research evidence is not sufficient to recommend hard cut scores. Rationale for the blended model in Idaho. 7

8. T HREE M ODELS U SED TO D ETERMINE E LIGIBILITY RTI only model Patterns of Strengths and Weaknesses Blended model *** 8

9. W HY I DAHO H AS C HOSEN A B LENDED M ODEL With both camps debating the IQ (discrepancy) method vs. the RTI method, both groups have moved to the middle of the debate. There is a need to use an integrated framework to be consistent with what the expectations for implementing the new SLD criteria in Idaho. 9

10. B LENDED MODEL Idaho has chosen to use the blended model to support using a comprehensive approach to identification. The blended model represents the most comprehensive approach, addressing the shortcomings in RTI only (which is lack of explanatory info) and patterns (which is lack of ecological assessment and continuity of how the disability manifests in the natural/educational environment) 10

11. M YTHS VS. T RUTHS Myth Number One: More students will be identified as LD. Truth: There is no evidence to suggest that students will over-identified. Myth Number Two: We are back to professional judgment. Truth: You still need to use valid and reliable data to determine eligibility. 11

12. M YTHS VS. T RUTHS MYTH: We have to buy all these expensive tests to give to students. TRUTH: There are assessments tools that are currently in place to support the process. MYTH: This too will pass. It won’t last. It’s just the SDE coming up with something new. TRUTH: Sorry, folks. This aligns to IDEA 2004 and it is not something that is going away. 12

13. E LIGIBILITY C RITERIA Step I: The student does not make sufficient progress in response to effective, evidence based instruction and intervention for the child’s age or to meet state- approved grade level standards in one or more of the following areas: a. Oral expression b. Listening comprehension c. Written expression d. Basic reading skills e. Reading comprehension f. Reading fluency g. Mathematics calculation or h. Mathematics problem solving 13

14. E LIGIBILITY C RITERIA Step 2: And: The student demonstrates low achievement in the area(s) of suspected disability listed above as evidenced by a norm-referenced, standardized achievement assessment. For culturally and linguistically diverse students, the preponderance of evidence must indicate low achievement. 14

15. E LIGIBILITY C RITERIA Step 3: And: The student demonstrates a pattern of strengths and weaknesses in psychological processing skills that impact learning. 15

16. E LIGIBILITY C RITERIA STEP 4: And: The student’s lack of achievement is not primarily the result of: a. A visual, hearing, or motor impairment; b. Cognitive impairment c. Emotional disturbance d. Environmental, cultural or economic disadvantage e. Limited English Proficiency f. A lack of appropriate instruction in reading, including the essential components of reading; g. A lack of appropriate instruction in math. 16

17. E LIGIBILITY C RITERIA Step 5 And: The disability adversely impacts the student’s educational performance and the student requires specially designed instruction. 17

18. D ID YOU REVIEW ALL 5 STEPS PRIOR TO DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY ? 18 Step 5 Step 4 Step 3 Step 2 Step 1 ALL steps must be met.

19. E VALUATION P ROCEDURES Step 1: The evaluation for determining SLD eligibility and requirements for parent notification and involvement shall be conducted in accordance with the procedures detailed in Section 3, Chapter 4 of the Idaho Special Education Manual. http://www.sde.idaho.gov/site/special_edu/manual_ page.htm 19

20. E VALUATION P ROCEDURES Step 2: The evaluation must address the eligibility criteria as listed in previous slides. To meet these criteria, the following information is required: 20

21. E VALUATION P ROCEDURES Part A: Evidence of insufficient progress in response to effective, evidence-based instruction and intervention indicates the student’s performance level and rate of improvement are significantly below that of grade-level peers. 21

22. E VALUATION P ROCEDURES Data used to support Part A: Data that helps establish that the core curriculum is effective for most students. Information documenting that prior to, or as part of, the referral process, the student was provided appropriate instruction in general education settings. Data-based documentation of student progress during instruction and intervention using standardized, norm- referenced progress monitoring measures in the area of disability. A record of an observation of the student’s academic performance and behavior in the child’s learning environment (including the general classroom setting) has been conducted by an evaluation team member other than the student’s general education teacher. 22

23. E VALUATION P ROCEDURES Part B: Evidence of low achievement in one or more of the suspected area(s). These include: Oral expression Listening comprehension Written expression Basic reading skills Reading comprehension Reading fluency Mathematics calculation or Mathematics problem solving 23

24. E VALUATION P ROCEDURES NOTE: This evidence must indicate performance that is significantly below the mean on a cluster, composite, or 2 or more subtest scores of a norm- referenced, standardized, achievement assessment in the specific academic area(s) of suspected disability. 24

25. E VALUATION P ROCEDURES NOTE: There are cases when the use of norm-referenced assessment is not appropriate, for example, students who are culturally and linguistically diverse. Refer to guidance documents regarding procedures on evaluating students who are culturally and linguistically diverse and the use of preponderance of evidence. 25

26. E VALUATION P ROCEDURES Part C: Evidence of a pattern of strengths and weaknesses in psychological processing skills that impact learning. 26

27. E VALUATION P ROCEDURES Note: An assessment of psychological processing skills is linked to the failure to achieve adequately in the academic area(s) of suspected disability and must rely on standardized assessments. These assessments must be conducted by a professional who is qualified to administer and interpret the assessment results. The student’s performance on a psychological processing assessment demonstrates a pattern of strengths and weaknesses that help explain why and how the student’s learning difficulties occur. Such tests may include measures of memory, phonological skills, processing speed as well as other measures which explicitly test psychological processing. 27

28. E VALUATION P ROCEDURES PART D: The following criteria must be considered when evaluating the student’s low achievement. The team must determine that the student’s learning difficulty is not primarily the result of: A visual, hearing, or motor impairment Cognitive impairment Emotional disturbance Environmental or economic disadvantage Cultural factors Limited English Proficiency 28

29. T YPES OF A SSESSMENTS  Screening and Benchmark Universal measures that give a quick read on whether students have mastered critical skills.  Diagnostic/Prescriptive Individually administered to gain more in-depth information and guide appropriate instruction or intervention plans.  Progress Monitoring Determines whether adequate progress is made based on individual goals regarding critical skills.  Outcome Provides an evaluation of the effectiveness of instruction and indicate student year-end achievement when compared to grade-level performance standards 29

30. U PCOMING W EBINARS This series of three webinars will lead participants through completing the eligibility forms. WEBINAR I: How to complete Section A of the eligibility forms Dr. Evelyn Johnson and Theresa Fritch January 28, 2010 2:00 PST 3:00 MST WEBINAR II: How to complete Sections B & C of the eligibility forms Dr. Evelyn Johnson and Theresa Fritch February 11, 2010 2:00 PST 3:00 MST WEBINAR III: How to complete Sections D & E of the eligibility forms Dr. Evelyn Johnson and Theresa Fritch February 25, 2010 2:00 PST 3:00 MST 30

31. P ROPOSED T IMELINE January 2010 thru March 2010, webinar on specifics of SLD and how to complete forms. May 15, 2010 submission of a sample file via the compliance tracker. Responses to schools and districts with file problems will be over the summer. August 1, 2010 districts/schools begin using the new eligibility criteria for all special education students. 31

32. A DDITIONAL P ROFESSIONAL D EVELOPMENT The SDE will be providing additional training in phases through the next three years. Topics currently being researched for development are: Classroom management Differentiated instruction Providing appropriate interventions at Tier 2 and 3 Progress monitoring process and tools Managing classroom data Peer teaching/co-teaching model Writing Effective PLOPS/Goals 32

33. SLD W EBSITE The Idaho Clearinghouse is developing a webpage dedicated to SLD information and events. Please check the website in upcoming months for updates. http://itcnew.idahotc.com/dnn/ 33

34. O NLINE R ESOURCES IDEA Partnership’s RTI Collection: www.ideapartnership.org www.ideapartnership.org National Association of School Psychologists: www.nasponline.org www.nasponline.org National Association of State Directors of Special Education: www.nasdse.org www.nasdse.org National Center for Learning Disabilities: www.ncld.org www.ncld.org National Center on Culturally Responsive Systems: www.nccrest.org www.nccrest.org National Center on Student Progress Monitoring: www.studentprogress.org www.studentprogress.org National Center on Response to Intervention: www.rti4success.org www.rti4success.org National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities: www.ldonline.org/njcld www.ldonline.org/njcld National Research Center on Learning Disabilities: www.nrcld.org www.nrcld.org Office of Special Education Programs, IDEA 2004 Building the Legacy: http://idea.ed.gov/ http://idea.ed.gov/ RTI Action Network: www.rtinetwork.org www.rtinetwork.org 34

35. Q UESTION AND A NSWER S ESSION 35

36. C ONTACT I NFORMATION Jacque Hyatt, Co Director, SDE Division of Special Education, jshyatt@sde.idaho.govjshyatt@sde.idaho.gov 36