shifting gears
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
Shifting Gears

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 124

Shifting Gears - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 102 Views
  • Uploaded on

Shifting Gears. SLD Eligibility Determination in an RtI World. Objectives. Describe practical and conceptual issues related to implementing the specific learning disabilities rule

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Shifting Gears' - geneva


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
shifting gears

Shifting Gears

SLD Eligibility Determination in an RtI World

objectives
Objectives
  • Describe practical and conceptual issues related to implementing the specific learning disabilities rule
  • Apply a problem-solving/response to intervention thinking logic to intervention decisions and disability determinations.
  • Identify the technical assistance resources available through the Florida Department of Education and other resources and tools of relevance to practitioners.
  • Analyze student performance data (level of performance and rate of progress) at both group and individual levels relative to expectations/standards.
shifts in the law alignment of esea and idea
Shifts in the Law . . . Alignment of ESEA and IDEA
  • Improved student outcomes
  • Effective instruction (highly effective teachers & leaders)
  • Early intervention and prevention
  • Use of evidence-based interventions
  • Data-driven accountability & data-based decision making
esea reauthorization key priorities
ESEA Reauthorization – Key Priorities
  • Highly effective teachers & leaders in every school
  • College- and career-ready students (rigorous standards & assessments aligned with standards
  • Equity & opportunity for all students (improving learning and achievement in America’s lowest performing schools)
  • Raise the bar & reward excellence (performance pay)
  • Promote innovation and continuous improvement
rti education reform
RTI & Education Reform
  • What we need . . . is a way of screening children, early in their schooling, that can help schools and educators identify those who may not be responding to instruction – and thus may be at risk for school failure. The technique allows schools, on a school-wide basis, to provide any student more intensive support–and monitor their progress – than may be typically available in every classroom.
  • What we need is . . . “Response to Intervention”

AlexaPosny, Assistant Secretary, OSERS at NASP 2010

critical role of school p sychologists in multi tiered models of support
Critical Role of School Psychologists in Multi-tiered Models of Support

AlexaPosny, OSERS, NASP 2010 Convention

Provide professional development

Provide culturally competent services at all tiers of service delivery

Work closely with teachers and school teams to enhance critical skills

Consult with teachers and other school staff

Advocate for evidence-based and culturally competent practices

Help schools reform practices that result in inequitable and ineffective outcomes

congressional vision purpose 20 uscs 1400
Congressional Vision & Purpose – 20 USCS §1400
  • Vision - “Improving educational rights for children with disabilities is an essential element of our national policy of ensuring equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency for individuals with disabilities.”
  • Purpose:
    • Ensure that children with disabilities have services designed to meet their unique needs and prepare them for further education, employment, and independent living
    • Ensure that educators and parents have the tools to improve educational results for children with disabilities
    • Assess the effectiveness of efforts to educate children with disabilities
improving outcomes for students with disabilities 20 uscs 1400 c 5 f
Improving Outcomes for Students withDisabilities – 20 USCS § 1400(c)(5)(F)
  • Having high expectations & ensuring access to the general education curriculum in the regular education classroom.
  • Coordinating special education with other efforts so that special education becomes a service NOT a place.
  • Providing incentives for whole-school approaches, scientifically based early reading programs, positive behavioral interventions and supports, and early intervening services toreduce the need to label children as disabledin order to address their learning and behavioral needs.
early intervening services 20 uscs 1413 f
Early Intervening Services20 USCS § 1413(f)
  • Professional development that improve staff capacity to deliver scientifically-based academic and behavioral interventions
  • Educational and behavioral evaluations, services, and supports including scientifically-based literacy instruction
shift happens aka it s not your grandmother s school
Shift happens . . . aka, It’s not Your Grandmother’s School

Making the shift to a new paradigm does not simply involve accepting a new set of skills. It also involves giving up certain beliefs and practices in favor of others.

an essential shift in thinking
An Essential Shift in Thinking

The central question is not:

“What about the student is causing the performance discrepancy?”

but

“What about the interaction of the curriculum, instruction, learner and learning environment should be altered so that the student will learn?”

This shift alters everything else

Ken Howell

shifts in practice
Shifts inPractice . . .
  • Focus on intervention rather than placement
  • Use assessment to identify and monitor interventions
  • Base intervention intensity (dosage) on student need rater than label or diagnosis
  • Make decisions based on student outcomes
  • Apply problem solving fluidly
  • ALL students
shift in function of interventions

J

J

L

Intervention

L

Consider ESE

J

Monitor

Progress

J

Problem Solving

Problem Solving

Problem Solving

Problem Solving

Monitor

Progress

L

General

Education

L

Consider ESE if

necessary

Shiftin Function of Interventions

Intervention

Traditional

J

Response to Intervention

the paradigm shift in school psychology
The Paradigm Shift in School Psychology
  • Shift from correlational science of standardized testing to experimental science of interventions guided by problem solving and response to intervention
  • Shift from search for pathology (underlying process deficits, disabilities, and disorders) to one focused on building capacity of systems to improve student competence
  • Shift from deficit perspective focusing on weaknesses to resilience perspective emphasizing strengths & ways to modify the environment to increase probability of success

Jim Ysseldyke – 2009 NASP Legends of School Psychology Address

nasp blueprint iii 2006
NASP Blueprint III (2006)
  • School psychologists should work to improve competencies for all students and build and maintain the capacity of systems to meet the needs of all students
  • School psychologists should be instructional consultants who can assist parents and teachers to understand how students learn and what effective instruction looks like
  • School psychologists must possess a set of skills, including the ability to use problem solving and scientific methodology to create, evaluate and apply empirically validated interventions at both an individual and systems level
slide20

General Education Intervention Procedures, Identification, Evaluation, Reevaluation, and Initial Provision of ESE

Rule 6A-6.0331, F.A.C.

organization of rule 6a 6 0331 f a c
Organization of Rule 6A-6.0331, F.A.C.
  • General Education Intervention Procedures
  • PreK Procedures
  • Initial Evaluation
  • Parental Consent for Initial Evaluation
  • Evaluation Procedures
  • Determination of Eligibility
  • Reevaluation Requirements
  • Additional Evaluation & Reevaluation Requirements
  • Parental Consent for Services
highlights of the general education interventions rule
Why? – Provide a coordinated system of intervention support in general education.

Who? – Students needing additional support to succeed in the general education environment.

How? – Teams applying a problem solving process to develop and implement coordinated general education intervention procedures.

Highlights of the “General Education Interventions Rule”
general education interventions 1
General Education Interventions (1)
  • District responsibility to implement coordinated general education intervention procedures for students needing additional academic and behavioral support to succeed in the general education environment
  • District may carry out activities that include the provision of educational and behavioral evaluations, services, and supports as part of general education intervention procedures
  • Group of qualified professionals and parent may determine that general education interventions are not appropriate for some students
general education interventions 11
General education interventions (1)
  • Parent involvement in process including discussion of RtI
  • Observations in educational environment to document area of concern
  • Review of existing data including attendance
  • Screenings – permits screening or assessments for intervention planning
  • Evidence-based interventions
evidence based interventions 1
Evidence-based interventions (1)
  • Developed through a PS/RtI process that uses student performance data to:
    • Identify the area of concern
    • Analyze the area of concern
    • Select and Implement Interventions, and
    • Monitor the effectiveness of interventions
  • Interventions implemented as designed for a reasonable period of time (fidelity)
  • Intervention intensity matched to student need
  • Ongoing progress monitoring communicated to parents in understandable format
general education intervention memos
General Education Intervention Memos
  • General Education Intervention Requirements for Home Education and Private School Students – June 27, 2008
  • General Education Intervention Prior to Referral for Special Education – December 23, 2008
  • Response to Intervention for Gifted Learners – January 19, 2009 and February 4, 2009
keeping up with ps rti in florida
Keeping up with PS/RtI in Florida
  • Florida’s RtI Website http://www.florida-rti.org/
  • Statewide Projects
    • PS/RtI Project http://www.floridarti.usf.edu/
    • PBS Project http://flpbs.fmhi.usf.edu/
    • TLC Project http://www.rtitlc.ucf.edu/
  • Florida’s SLD Website http://www.fldoe.org/ese/sldr.asp
    • News, Events, & Resources
    • On-line Professional Development
    • Parent Brochure
  • BEESS Weekly Memo
rti resources for parents
RTI Resources for Parents
  • Florida Response to Intervention http://www.florida-rti.org/Partnership/involvement.htm
  • RtI Action Network http://www.rtinetwork.org/Essentia/Family/Schools-Families-and-Response-to-Intervention
  • National Center on Response to Intervention (RtI) – RtI Stakeholders: Familieshttp://www.rti4success.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=12&Itemid=65
  • National Research Center on Learning Disabilities http://www.nrcld.org/topics/parents.html
  • Parent Advocacy Brief – National Center for Learning Disabilitieshttp://www.ncld.org
  • Response to Intervention (RTI) – A Primer for Parents – NASP http://www.nasponline.org
national rti resources
National RTI Resources
  • National Center on Response to Intervention http://www.rti4success.org/
  • RTI Action Network http://www.rtinetwork.org/
  • Center on Instruction http://centeroninstruction.org
  • What Works Clearinghouse http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/
  • NCCRESthttp://www.nccrest.org/
  • Intervention Central http://www.interventioncentral.org/
  • IRIS Center – Vanderbilt http://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/index.html
  • NASP http://nasponline.org/
identification evaluation
Identification & Evaluation

Rule 6A-6.0331 (3) – (8)

initial evaluation 3
Initial Evaluation (3)
  • District must conduct full and individual evaluation before initial provision of special education
  • Documentation that
    • General education interventions were implemented & indicate need
    • General education interventions not appropriate based on nature & severity (determined by team of qualified individuals)
  • If parent requests evaluation, district must complete interventions concurrently with evaluation
  • Conducted by qualified examiners
  • Completed within 60 school days (of attendance) from receipt of parent consent
consent
Consent

6A-6.0331(4)

o btain consent for initial evaluation
Obtain consent for initial evaluation:
  • When student’s response to intervention indicates:
    • Intensive interventions are effective but require a high level of intensity & resources to sustain performance
    • Student does not make adequate progress when given effective core instruction and intensive & individualized evidence-based interventions
  • Whenever a parent initiates a request for an initial evaluation district must
    • Obtain consent and conduct the evaluation, or
    • Provide parent with written notice of refusal
parental consent requirements
Parental Consent Requirements
  • Consent required whenever district proposes to conduct assessment procedures to determine special education eligibility.
  • Consent is not required when sole purpose of assessment is to inform/plan general education instruction or interventions.
  • Consent is not required if team determines that existing data are sufficient to establish special education eligibility.
evaluation procedures
Evaluation procedures

Rule 6A-6.0331(5) and (8)

evaluations for special education eligibility
Evaluations for Special Education Eligibility
  • All of the procedures used to determine whether a student is a student with a disability, and the nature and extent of the special education needs (Rule 6A-6.03411(1)(l), F.A.C.)
  • Team must (6A-6.0331(8), F.A.C.):
    • Review existing evaluation data on student
    • Identify additional data needed if any
  • Evaluation data used to determine:
    • Whether the student is a student with a disability
    • Educational needs of the student
    • Need for special education & related services
in conducting an evaluation district must
In conducting an evaluation district must:
  • Use variety of assessment tools and strategies including
    • Information provided by parent
    • Information enabling student to progress in general ed curriculum
    • Not use any single measure or assessment as sole criterion for determining eligibility
    • Use technically sound instruments
district must ensure that assessment evaluation procedures are
District must ensure that assessment/evaluation procedures are:
  • Selected & administered so as not to be discriminatory
  • Administered in native language or mode of communication
  • Used for purposes for measure is valid & reliable
  • Administered by qualified personnel
  • Selected to accurately reflect student’s aptitude or achievement
  • Assess student in all areas of suspected disability
  • Provide relevant information for determining need
  • Sufficiently comprehensive to identify all of a student’s special education needs
additional evaluation reevaluation requirements 8
Additional Evaluation/Reevaluation Requirements (8)
  • Review existing evaluation data including
    • Evaluations & information provided by parents
    • Classroom, district, and state assessments
    • Observations by teachers & related service providers
  • Identify what additional data, if any, are needed to determine
    • Whether student is student with a disability
    • Educational needs of the student
    • Present levels of academic achievement & related needs
    • Whether student needs special education & related services
  • Administer tests and other evaluation materials needed to answer questions in 2nd bullet
determining evaluation completion date for 60 day timeline
Determining evaluation completion date for 60-Day Timeline
  • Evaluation timeline starts when district receives parental consent
  • Evaluation is complete:
    • After the last assessment procedure is conducted

OR

    • When the team determines there is sufficient information to determine eligibility
  • District must determine eligibility within a reasonable timeframe
eligibility determination
Eligibility Determination

Rule 6A-6.0331(6)

determination of eligibility
Determination of Eligibility
  • Made by group of qualified professionals & parent
  • Draw on data/information from variety of sources
    • Aptitude & achievement tests
    • Student response to instruction/intervention
    • Parent and student input
    • Teacher recommendations
    • Info about student’s physical condition, social/cultural background, and adaptive behavior
  • NOT eligible if determinant factor is:
    • Lack of appropriate instruction in reading
    • Lack of instruction in math
    • Limited English proficiency
rti ese rules
RtI & ESE Rules
  • PS/RtI interventions
  • RtI Eligibility Criteria
  • Consideration of impact of other factors
  • EBD InD LI SLD

benefits of ps rti system in making eligibility determinations
Benefits of PS/RtI System in Making Eligibility Determinations
  • Student needs addressed proactively – early intervention
  • Reduces the number of students misidentified because of mismatch between instruction, curriculum, environment and student need
  • Focus on what works for the student rather than what’s wrong with the student
  • Eligibility determination based on educational need
  • PS/RtI continues after eligibility determination
making ese eligibility decisions in rti framework
Making ESE Eligibility Decisions in RtI Framework
  • What is the student’s educational progress as measured by rate of improvement/progress?
  • What is the discrepancy between the student’s level of performance and peer group and/or standard?
  • What are the instructional needs of the student?
so how do we identify a disability using team judgments based on
So How Do We Identify A Disability? Using Team Judgments based on:

Evidence of lack of response to evidence-based general education interventions OR effective intensive interventions that require sustained effort

Evidence of severe discrepancy from peer performance levels

A data-based description of resources necessary to improve and maintain the individual’s rate of learning at an acceptable level

Convergent evidence logically and empirically supporting the team’s decisions

Tilly, 2009 RTI Innovations Conference

idea 2004 federal regulations
IDEA 2004 & Federal Regulations

Specific Learning Disabilities

idea 2004 definition of a specific learning disability 20 uscs 1400 30
IDEA 2004 – Definition of a Specific Learning Disability, 20 USCS §1400(30)
  • Disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or using language…which may manifest itself in the imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or do mathematical calculations
  • Includes conditions such as perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia
  • Does not include a learning problem primarily the result of visual, hearing, or motor disabilities, of mental retardation, of emotional disturbance, or of environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage
idea 2004 determining a specific learning disability 20 uscs 1414 b 6
IDEA 2004 – Determining a specific learning disability, 20 USCS §1414(b)(6)
  • LEA shall not be required to take into consideration whether a child has a severe discrepancy between achievement and intellectual ability
  • In determining whether a child has a specific learning disability, LEA may use a process that determines if the child responds to scientific, research-based intervention as part of the evaluation process
idea evaluation procedures fed regs
IDEA Evaluation Procedures (Fed Regs)
  • Initial Evaluation - §300.301
  • General evaluation procedures - §300.304
  • Additional evaluation procedures - §300.305
  • Determination of of eligibility - §300.306
  • Specific Learning Disability (SLD) - §300.307 through §300.311

http://idea.ed.gov/explore/home

federal regs for determining sld 34 cfr 300 309
Federal Regs for determining SLD – 34 CFR §300.309
  • Child does not achieve adequately for age or to meet state-approved grade level standards in one or more area
  • Child
    • does not make sufficient progress to meet age or grade standards when using a process based on the child’s response to scientific, research-based intervention; OR
    • exhibits a pattern of strength & weaknesses in performance, achievement, or both, relative to state-approved grade level standards, or intellectual development, determined by group to be relevant to identification of SLD
  • Not primarily the result of any exclusionary factor
federal regs 34 cfr 300 307
Federal Regs – 34 CFR §300.307
  • State must adopt criteria for determining SLD consistent with §300.309
    • Must not require ability-achievement discrepancy
    • Must permit use of process based on response to intervention
    • May permit use of other alternative research-based procedures
  • Public agency must use state criteria
federal regulation caveats
Federal Regulation Caveats
  • Screening for instruction is not an evaluation §300.302
  • Comprehensive evaluation requires a variety of assessment tools NOT multiple tests - §300.304
  • Group determines what (if any) additional data needed - §300.305
  • RtI is a process for determining SLD eligibility - §300.309(a)(2)(i)
  • RtI OR notAND Pattern of strengths and weaknesses
  • IDEA does not require process testing - §300.309 (See 46651 of Federal Register)
how is the sld rule organized
How is the SLD Rule organized?
  • Definition
  • General Education Intervention Procedures and Activities
  • Evaluation
  • Criteria for Eligibility
  • Documentation of Criteria of Eligibility
  • Implementation
definition 1
Definition (1)
  • Disorder in basic learning processes involved in understanding or using language that manifests in difficulties affecting ability to listen, speak, read, write, spell or do mathematics
  • Associated conditions may include dyslexia, dyscalculia, dysgraphia, or developmental aphasia
  • Not primarily the result of sensory, intellectual, or emotional/behavioral disabilities, limited English proficiency, or environmental,cultural, or economic factors
general education interventions 2
General Education Interventions (2)
  • To ensure that lack of progress is not due to lack of appropriate instruction…
    • Data that demonstrate that the student was provided well-delivered scientific, research-based instruction delivered by qualified personnel in general education settings
    • Data-based documentation, provided to parent, of repeated measures of achievement at reasonable intervals, graphically reflecting student’s RtI during instruction
  • Requirements in 6A-6.0331 may satisfy requirement for data-based documentation
evaluation 3
Evaluation (3)
  • Request parental consent to evaluate if
    • Student has not had adequate response to intervention or
    • Effective interventions require sustained and substantial effort and
    • Whenever referral is made
  • Adhere to procedures in 6A-6.0331
  • Adhere to timelines in 6A-6.0331 unless extended by mutual agreement
criteria for eligibility evidence of a specific learning disability 4
Criteria for Eligibility – Evidence of a specific learning disability (4)
  • Does not achieve adequately to meet grade-level standards in one or more of the eight areas based on review of multiple sources - may include norm-referenced and diagnostic assessments
  • Does not make adequate progress to meet grade-level standards based on RtI process, consistent with comprehensive evaluation procedures
  • Findings not primarily result of exclusionary factors
florida sld criteria for eligibility
Florida SLD Criteria for Eligibility

Condition 1

Condition 2

Condition 3

Conditions 1 and 2 not primarily the result of:

Visual, hearing or motor disability

Intellectual disability

Emotional/Behavioral disability

Cultural factors

Irregular attendance

Environmental or economic disadvantage

Classroom behavior

Limited English proficiency

Underachievement in:

Oral expression

Listening comprehension

Written expression

Basic reading skills

Reading fluency skills

Reading comprehension

Mathematics Calculation

Mathematics problem-solving

RTI:

Resource intensive or insufficient response to scientific, research-based intervention

+

+

additional requirements criteria for eligibility 4
Additional Requirements – Criteria for Eligibility (4)
  • Group determining eligibility must include:
    • General education teacher,
    • At least one person qualified to conduct and interpret individual diagnostic examinations,
    • District Designee
  • At least one observation in typical learning environment
written summary of group s analysis 5
Written Summary of Group’s Analysis (5)
  • Basis for determination, behavior during observation, medical findings
  • RtI data confirming 1) performance discrepancy, 2) rate of progress, and 3) educational need
  • Effects of other factors
  • Interventions, support provided, duration, frequency, student response to instruction/intervention data
  • Parent involvement
  • Signatures of agreement
sld communications trail
SLD Communications Trail
  • IDEA 2004
  • RtI TAP – February 2006
  • IDEA Federal Regs – August 2006
  • SLD Interim Memo – March 23, 2007 (Revised March 25, 2008)
  • General Education Intervention Requirements for Home Education and Private School Students Memo – June 27, 2008
  • General Education Interventions – December 23, 2008
  • Response to Intervention for Gifted Learners – January 19, 2009
  • RtI for Gifted Clarification – February 4, 2009
sld communications trail cont
SLD Communications Trail (cont.)
  • Compilation of Stakeholder Concerns & FDOE Responses – April 22, 2009
  • SLD Contact Conference Calls
  • Questions & Answers - SLD TAP – November 2009
  • BEESS Weekly Memo – SLD Updates
    • Questions & Answers – 6A-6.0331 TAP
beess weekly memo sld updates
BEESS Weekly Memo – SLD Updates
  • Comprehensive evaluation – Jan 29, 2010
  • RtI impact on Developmentally Delayed students entering kindergarten – Feb 12, 2010
  • RtI and Accommodations – Feb 22, 2010
  • Comparative data for private school students – March 12, 2010
  • Responsibility for writing Comprehensive Evaluation report – March 5, 2010
  • Weekly Memorandum Excerptshttp://www.florida-rti.org/weekly/WeeklyMemorandum.pdf
generally accepted characteristics of sld
Generally Accepted Characteristics of SLD
  • Learning disabilities are heterogeneous
  • No defining characteristic is common to all SLD
  • Majority of individuals with SLD have disability in the area of reading
  • Cognitive dysfunction underlying most SLD is language based
  • Manifestation of an SLD is contingent upon characteristics of the learning environment
  • Degree of severity varies
  • Persists throughout the lifespan
dsm v learning disabilities proposed
DSM-V Learning Disabilities (Proposed)

A. Group of disorders characterized by difficulties in learning basic academic skills that are not consistent with the person’s chronological age, educational opportunities, or intellectual abilities. Basic academic skills refer to accurate and fluent reading, writing, and arithmetic.

Multiple sources of information are to be used to assess learning, one of which must be an individually administered, culturally appropriate, and psychometrically sound standardized measure of academic achievement.

B. Disturbances in A, without accommodations, significantly interferes with academic achievement or activities of daily living that require these academic skills.

dsm v learning disability rationale
DSM-V Learning Disability - Rationale
  • No previous general criteria for learning disorders.
  • Learning disabilities interfere with the acquisition and use of one or more of the following academic skills: oral language, reading, written language, mathematics. These disorders affect individuals who otherwise demonstrate at least average abilities essential for thinking or reasoning. As such, learning disabilities are distinct from intellectual ability.
  • However, the diagnostic criteria do not depend upon comparisons with overall IQ and are consistent with the change in the USA’s reauthorized IDEA regulations (2004)which state that: “the  criteria adopted by the State must not require the use of a severe discrepancy between intellectual ability and achievement for determining whether a child has a specific learning disability, as defined in 34 CFR 300.8(c)(10).”
hybrid model for ld identification
Hybrid Model for LD Identification
  • Low achievement (Inclusionary criteria)
  • Insufficient response to effective, research-based interventions (Inclusionary criteria)
  • Consideration of impact of other disabilities and contextual factors that interfere with achievement and student response (Exclusionary criteria)

Jack Fletcher, Paper posted on RTI Action Network

hybrid model for ld identification1
Hybrid Model for LD Identification
  • Comprehensive Evaluation
    • In RTI the evaluation is aligned with IDEA 2004 as a comprehensive data gathering process, not a mandated approach to assessment that represents a battery of the same tests with every child
    • In an RTI model, the adaptive impairment (i.e., educational need) is determined prior to consideration of eligibility
  • Important to conceptualize identification of LD as requiring multiple criteria and resist formula-based decision making
comprehensive evaluation nasp position statement on sld
Comprehensive Evaluation – NASP Position Statement on SLD

NASP recommends that initial evaluation of a student with a suspected specific learning disability includes an individual comprehensive assessment, as prescribed by the evaluation team. This evaluation may include measures of academic skills (norm-referenced and criterion-referenced), cognitive abilities and processes, and mental health status (social-emotional development); measures of academic and oral language proficiency as appropriate; and indirect sources of data (e.g., teacher reports). Existing data from a problem-solving process that determines if the child responds to scientific evidence-based intervention may be considered at the time of referral, or new data of this type may be collected as part of the Tier 3 comprehensive evaluation. An eligibility determination should not be based on any single method, measure, or assessment.

rti litigation checklist for sld eligibility determinations
RtI Litigation Checklist for SLD Eligibility Determinations
  • RtI Process – evidence that:
    • Scientific, research-based instruction at each tier
    • Multiple tiers with defined decision points
    • Data-based doc of repeated assessment of student progress
    • Data that demonstrate child was provided appropriate instruction in general education
  • Evaluation Process – evidence that:
    • Promptly requested parental consent
    • Determined that lack of progress not primarily result of other factor
    • Conducted observation of academic performance & behavior in area of difficulty
    • Included evaluation components beyond RtI
    • Needs special education
  • Written Analysis
    • Addressed required elements

Zirkel, The School Psychologist, Spring 2008

guiding tools for instructional problem solving gtips
Guiding Tools for Instructional Problem-Solving (GTIPS)
  • Guiding Principles: Meeting the Needs of All Students
  • Guiding the Problem Solving Process
  • General Education Interventions
  • ESE Eligibility Decisions
  • Eligibility Decisions in Specific Program Areas
  • On-going Problem-solving for All Students
  • Re-evaluation Decisions
purpose
Purpose
  • Guide the application of problem solving within the RtI framework as a system wide school improvement model
  • Provide practical decision making tools that maintain the integrity of the problem solving process
  • Reinforce the primary purpose of instructional decision making (to improve instructional outcomes for all students) while expanding the application of PS/RtI to ESE
foundational beliefs
Foundational Beliefs
  • Evidence-based practices delivered by highly effective personnel
  • Curriculum & instructional approaches have a high probability for success for most students
  • Instruction is differentiated to meet individual needs
  • Assessments are instructionally relevant
  • Systematic problem solving used to make decisions across a continuum of student needs
  • Student data guide decision making
  • Professional development and coaching are provided to ensure effective instruction
  • School culture characterized by leaders who are actively engaged in data-based decision making
  • Students and families are part of a single proactive, seamless educational system
ps rti framework
PS/RtI Framework
  • Characterized by continuum of academic & behavioral supports reflecting fluidity of student needs
  • Three tiers describe level & intensity of instruction/interventions
    • Tier 1: Universal Instruction/Supports
    • Tier 2: Targeted, Supplemental Interventions/Supports
    • Tier 3: Intensive, Individualized Interventions/Supports
  • Problem solving process used to match instructional resources to student need
tiered model of school supports the problem solving process
Tiered Model of School Supports & the Problem-Solving Process

ACADEMIC and BEHAVIOR SYSTEMS

Tier 3: Intensive, Individualized, Interventions.

Individual or small group intervention.

Tier 2: Targeted, Strategic Interventions & Supports.

More targeted interventions and supplemental support in addition to the core curriculum and school-wide positive behavior program.

Tier 1: Core, Universal Instruction & Supports.

General instruction and support provided to all students in all settings.

Revised 10.07.09

guiding questions for problem solving
Guiding questions for problem solving

Decision Making within an RtI Framework

tier 1
Tier 1
  • Are students provided with well-delivered, scientific, research-based core instruction? How do we know?
  • What assessment tools/processes are used to identify instructional needs and student response to instruction?
  • Is core instruction/support effective?
    • % of students achieving standards/benchmarks/expectations?
    • % of students in subgroups achieving standards/benchmarks/expectations?
  • If core instruction is not effective:
    • Is curriculum matched to needs of the student?
    • Is support provided for implementation fidelity?
tier 2
Tier 2
  • What specific supplemental intervention/support is planned to improve the performance of students needing additional instruction & support?
    • Amount of additional time
    • Focus of the intervention
    • Method and frequency of progress monitoring
    • Evidence of fidelity
    • Support for implementation
  • How is the supplemental intervention implemented?
    • Who? What? How long? What support?
tier 21
Tier 2
  • How effective is supplemental instruction?
    • What assessments are used for progress monitoring?
    • How frequently are assessments conducted? How frequently are assessments analyzed by the team?
    • How does the team determine whether the instruction/intervention is effective?
    • What is the decision rule to determine if student requires more intensive support?
    • How are parents involved in process and analysis of level of performance and rate of progress?
tier 3
Tier 3
  • What specific intensive, individualized intervention is planned to improve level of performance and rate of progress?
  • How is the intensive, individualized intervention delivered?
  • How effective is the intensive, individualized intervention?
    • How unique is student’s response in comparison to peers?
    • How do teams determine whether the intervention is effective?
effective teachers teach for america
Effective Teachers – Teach for America
  • Set goals for students
  • Always looking for ways to improve effectiveness
  • Avidly recruited students and families into the learning process
  • Focused on student learning
  • Planned purposefully working backward from desired outcome
  • Worked relentlessly refusing to surrender to poverty, bureaucracy, or budget shortfalls

http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid47620493001?bclid=59754690001&bctid=59858579001

slide91

Are over 20% of students struggling?

Are between 5% and 20% of students struggling?

Are 5% or fewer students struggling?

Go to problem definition

Examine curriculum, instruction, & environment for needed changes or adaptations & develop school or group intervention

Develop small group intervention

Evaluate intervention

approaches to developing progress monitoring measures
Approaches to Developing Progress Monitoring Measures

Curriculum Sampling

Systematically sample items from the annual curriculum on each measure

Robust Indicators (GOM)

Identify a global behavior that either encompasses many skills taught in the annual curriculum or is predictive of proficiency in the annual curriculum

florida formative assessment progress monitoring tools
Florida Formative Assessment/Progress Monitoring Tools
  • Reading
    • Florida Assessments for Instruction in Reading (FAIR)
    • FCRR – http://www.fcrr.org
  • Math
    • Formative assessments – being developed
    • FCR-STEM – http://www.fcrstem.org
progress monitoring tools
Progress Monitoring Tools
  • AIMSwebhttp://www.aimsweb.com/
  • mCLASShttp://www.wirelessgeneration.com/solutions/mclass-dibels.html
  • DIBELS https://dibels.uoregon.edu/
  • Easy CBM http://easycbm.com/
  • STEEP RTI http://www.isteep.com/login.aspx
  • RTI Plus http://www.educationprocesssolutions.com/solutions.html
progress monitoring tools cont
Progress Monitoring Tools (cont.)
  • Spectrum K12 EXCEED http://www.spectrumk12.com/
  • MBSP – Monitoring Basic Skills Progress
  • Intervention Central http://www.interventioncentral.org/
  • Edcheckuphttp://www.edcheckup.com/
  • Yearly Progress Pro http://www.ctb.com/ctb.com/control/main?p=home
  • Accelerated Math http://www.renlearn.com/am/
  • Algebra Assessment and Instruction http://www.ci.hs.iastate.edu/aaims/
  • GSV – Growth Scale Values?
selecting a progress monitoring tool
Selecting a Progress Monitoring Tool
  • Key questions
    • What are you looking for in a PM tool?
    • What are the most important criteria you will consider?
  • Evaluate needs based on
    • Content area & grade level
    • Reliability/Validity
    • Frequency of administration:
    • Cost
    • Data management capability
    • Technology requirements
    • Staff training
    • Student accommodations
ps rti intervention issues
PS/RtI Intervention Issues
  • Matching instruction/intervention to needs of the student
  • Scheduling – finding time & resources to develop interventions
  • Decision rules for movement – How much time at each tier? What ROI indicates need to intensify?
  • Lack of consistency between schools
  • Composition of problem solving team
  • Ensuring/Supporting fidelity
evaluating intervention effectiveness
Evaluating Intervention Effectiveness
  • Is the intervention evidence-based?
  • How effective is the intervention with students from similar backgrounds?
  • How intense is the intervention? – the dosage (time, focus of intervention, personnel)
  • Was the intervention implemented as planned?
decisions regarding treatment strength
Decisions Regarding Treatment Strength
  • Stronger treatments generally result in greater change than weaker treatments
  • Evidence-based treatments are stronger than treatments lacking sufficient empirical evidence
  • Treatment strength may be diluted or enhanced by treatment integrity
  • Treatment integrity does not necessarily result in stronger treatments
  • Each component of a given treatment is not equally strong
  • Treatment strength ultimately determined by the magnitude of the change it produces
graphing http www oswego edu mcdougal web site 4 11 2005 index html
Graphing http://www.oswego.edu/~mcdougal/web_site_4_11_2005/index.html
school psychologists beliefs practices re treatment integrity ti
School Psychologists: Beliefs/Practices re: Treatment Integrity (TI)
  • 98% agreed that TI a key factor when evaluating interventions & using data for eligibility decisions
  • 13% of PS team records would contain statement that TI was monitored
  • Only 5% of PS team records contain evidence of TI as numerical index (mean percentage of time interventions steps were implemented as intended)
  • Only 18.5% of published studies on interventions for children with learning disabilities provided documentation of TI (Gresham et al., 2000)

Cochrane & Lane (2008) Survey investigating school psychologists’ measurement of treatment integrity

levels of treatment integrity
Levels of Treatment Integrity
  • Lack of integrity of Three-Tier Model
  • Lack of integrity of Problem-solving Process
  • Lack of integrity of Intervention Implementation
assessing treatment integrity intervention fidelity
Assessing Treatment Integrity (Intervention Fidelity)
  • Self-report – implementer completes checklist recording critical components of the intervention plan (e.g., checklists of integrity of instruction completed by teacher
  • Direct observation – observation of the implementer & recording presence or absence of each step of intervention plan (e.g., walkthroughs - observation of teacher performance during instructional period; completion of checklists)
  • Link to treatment fidelity checklists:http://www.coe.iup.edu/kovaleski/http://www.aea11.k12.ia.us:16080/idm/checkists.html
convergent evidence scaling ces rubric
Convergent Evidence Scaling (CES) Rubric

Roach & Elliott (2008), Best Practices V

tools for monitoring fidelity of implementation
Tools for Monitoring Fidelity of Implementation
  • Developing Interventions
    • Problem Solving Worksheet (GTIPS)
    • Intervention Documentation Worksheet – Group and Individual (GTIPS)
  • Evaluating PS/RtI Process
    • Self-Assessment of Problem Solving Implementation (SAPSI)
    • Tier I & II Observation Checklist
    • Problem Solving Team Checklist
do not expect correct intervention implementation
Do not expect correct intervention implementation
  • Most interventions fail because they are not properly implemented
  • Untreated integrity problems become student learning deficits, school-wide learning problems, and false positive decision errors
  • Intervention implemented with integrity functionally different (integrity problems affect dose and quality of intervention )
  • Integrity of implementation positively correlated with student learning gains
  • Intervention support, monitoring and follow-up are required

Amanda VanDerHeyden, LRP Conference – May 20, 2010

characteristics that influence integrity
Characteristics that Influence Integrity

Roach & Elliott (2008), Best Practices V

intervention integrity decisions
Intervention Integrity Decisions

Evidence-based intervention linked to verified hypothesis planned

Evidence-based intervention implemented

Student Outcomes (SO) Assessed

Treatment Integrity (TI) Assessed

Continue Intervention

+SO +TI

Data-based Decisions

Implement strategies to promote treatment integrity

-SO -TI

Modify/change Intervention

-SO +TI

From Lisa Hagermoser Sanetti, 2008 NASP Convention

florida sld criteria for eligibility1
Florida SLD Criteria for Eligibility

Condition 1

Condition 2

Condition 3

Conditions 1 and 2 not primarily the result of:

Visual, hearing or motor disability

Intellectual disability

Emotional/Behavioral disability

Cultural factors

Irregular attendance

Environmental or economic disadvantage

Classroom behavior

Limited English proficiency

Underachievement in:

Oral expression

Listening comprehension

Written expression

Basic reading skills

Reading fluency skills

Reading comprehension

Mathematics Calculation

Mathematics problem-solving

RTI:

Resource intensive or insufficient response to scientific, research-based intervention

+

+

evidence that achievement not adequate when provided appropriate learning opportunities
Evidence that achievement not adequate when provided appropriate learning opportunities
  • Does convergence of data from multiple sources validate that student is not achieving adequately based on grade level standards or chronological age?
  • Was student provided with learning experiences and instruction appropriate for age?
  • Is there evidence that student was provided research-based instruction delivered by qualified personnel?
    • What is the evidence?
    • Is curriculum matched to needs of students?
    • What data substantiate the effectiveness of core instruction?
evidence of inadequate progress with research based instruction intervention
Evidence of inadequate progress with research-based instruction/intervention
  • How unique is the student’s current level of performance compared to:
    • Grade-level peers at state, district, school, class level
    • Grade-level peers in relevant subgroups
    • Age peers on nationally normed assessments
  • How unique is the student’s rate of progress compared to:
    • Grade-level peers at state, district, school, class level
    • Grade-level peers in relevant subgroups
    • Age peers on nationally normed assessments
evidence of inadequate progress with research based instruction intervention1
Evidence of inadequate progress with research-based instruction/intervention
  • Was team’s decision based on student’s response to research-based instruction?
  • Were parents provided documentation of repeated measures of achievement? What? How often? How communicated?
  • Was student’s level of performance & rate of progress adequate to meet expectations through general education resources within a reasonable amount of time
evidence that inadequate response not primarily the result of exclusionary factors
Evidence that inadequate response not primarily the result of exclusionary factors

Is level of performance and rate of progress primarily the result of:

  • Other Disabilities?
    • Visual, motor, or hearing disability?
    • Intellectual disability?
    • Emotional/behavioral disability?
  • Student Background & Experience?
    • Cultural factors?
    • Environmental or economic factors?
    • Limited English proficiency?
evidence that inadequate response not primarily the result of exclusionary factors1
Evidence that inadequate response not primarily the result of exclusionary factors

Is level of performance and rate of progress primarily the result of:

  • Opportunity to learn?
    • Irregular pattern of attendance/disrupted schooling
    • Classroom behavior
    • Lack of instruction
documentation of team s decision based on convergence of data
Documentation of Team’s Decision Based on Convergence of Data

Written Summary of Group’s Analysis

evidence of educational need
Evidence of Educational Need
  • Specify the educational interventions and supports necessary to sustain the expected level of performance and adequate rate of progress
  • Do the data establish a need for individualized interventions that significantly differ in intensity & duration from what can be provided through general education resources?
ad