Download
1 / 52
520 likes | 647 Views
Updated August 2001. WI DPI. 2. SLD Definition. Specific learning disability means a severe learning problem due to a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in acquiring, organizing or expressing information that manifests itself in school as an impaired ability to lis
E N D
1. PI 11 Revisions Specific Learning Disabilities
Eligibility Criteria
effective July 1, 2001 Following over four years of public testimony, recommendations made by a broad-based task force, public hearings, and legislative review, new SLD eligibility criteria has been approved andgo into effect on July 1, 2001.
The purpose of this workshop to go over the new eligibility rules for identifying students with Specific Learning Disabilities (SLD) so you can begin to implement them on July 1.
We don’t expect that we will answer all your questions today. This is just the beginning stage of implementation. We will be developing a guide with additional information this spring and summer and hope to be able to make it available next fall. Paula Volpiansky will hold a number of meetings next year to address follow-up questions.
We have broken today’s workshop into two segments. During the first segment we will fairly quickly go over what the new rules say. In the second segment, we will go back over the major criteria and provide an explanation of the intent of and guidelines for implementing the rules.
We ask that you do not stop us to ask questions during the first part of the presentation, but hold your questions until the second segment. We have provided you with index cards to jot your questions down so you don’t forget them. We will set aside some time later for questions and try to answer as many as possible before the end of the day. We will ask you for your cards before the end of presentation. After all the workshops are finished in May, we intend to compile the questions and publish a Q & A bulletin. Also, we will be putting the speaker notes from this presentation on the website this spring.
Review Handouts
Agenda
PowerPoint -regression table -case example
SLD in plain language -criteria checklist
summary of changes -criteria guidesheets
PI 11 rules
Ask who is in audience- teachers, psychs, DSEs, parents, other Following over four years of public testimony, recommendations made by a broad-based task force, public hearings, and legislative review, new SLD eligibility criteria has been approved andgo into effect on July 1, 2001.
The purpose of this workshop to go over the new eligibility rules for identifying students with Specific Learning Disabilities (SLD) so you can begin to implement them on July 1.
We don’t expect that we will answer all your questions today. This is just the beginning stage of implementation. We will be developing a guide with additional information this spring and summer and hope to be able to make it available next fall. Paula Volpiansky will hold a number of meetings next year to address follow-up questions.
We have broken today’s workshop into two segments. During the first segment we will fairly quickly go over what the new rules say. In the second segment, we will go back over the major criteria and provide an explanation of the intent of and guidelines for implementing the rules.
We ask that you do not stop us to ask questions during the first part of the presentation, but hold your questions until the second segment. We have provided you with index cards to jot your questions down so you don’t forget them. We will set aside some time later for questions and try to answer as many as possible before the end of the day. We will ask you for your cards before the end of presentation. After all the workshops are finished in May, we intend to compile the questions and publish a Q & A bulletin. Also, we will be putting the speaker notes from this presentation on the website this spring.
Review Handouts
Agenda
PowerPoint -regression table -case example
SLD in plain language -criteria checklist
summary of changes -criteria guidesheets
PI 11 rules
Ask who is in audience- teachers, psychs, DSEs, parents, other
2. Updated August 2001 WI DPI 2 SLD Definition Specific learning disability means a severe learning problem due to a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in acquiring, organizing or expressing information that manifests itself in school as an impaired ability to listen, reason, speak, read, write, spell or do mathematical calculations, despite appropriate instruction in the general education curriculum. The new criteria align Wisconsin’s definition and criteria for learning disabilities closely with federal regulations.
As we go through the presentation, we will point out some of the differences between PI 11 rules prior to July 1 and the new criteria in effect beginning with evaluation decisions made on and after July 1, 2001.
You have a resource handout in your packet, “Summary of Changes” (resource #2) that provides additional comments about the new criteria.
Lets start with the definition.
The new definition is virtually the same as before with one addition...The new criteria align Wisconsin’s definition and criteria for learning disabilities closely with federal regulations.
As we go through the presentation, we will point out some of the differences between PI 11 rules prior to July 1 and the new criteria in effect beginning with evaluation decisions made on and after July 1, 2001.
You have a resource handout in your packet, “Summary of Changes” (resource #2) that provides additional comments about the new criteria.
Lets start with the definition.
The new definition is virtually the same as before with one addition...
3. Updated August 2001 WI DPI 3 SLD Definition Specific learning disability may include conditions such as perceptual disability, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia and developmental aphasia Specific learning disability may include conditions such as perceptual disability, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia and developmental aphasia
This does not change the meaning of SLD. This wording was added to maintain consistency with federal law.
Students with diagnoses such as those listed, and others such as non-verbal learning syndrome or central auditory processing disorder, must still meet Wisconsin criteria for “impairment” and “need for special education” consistent with PI 11, Ch. 115 and IDEA to be considered a child with a disability eligible for special education services.Specific learning disability may include conditions such as perceptual disability, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia and developmental aphasia
This does not change the meaning of SLD. This wording was added to maintain consistency with federal law.
Students with diagnoses such as those listed, and others such as non-verbal learning syndrome or central auditory processing disorder, must still meet Wisconsin criteria for “impairment” and “need for special education” consistent with PI 11, Ch. 115 and IDEA to be considered a child with a disability eligible for special education services.
4. Updated August 2001 WI DPI 4 SLD Criteria Revisions Through June 30, 2001
Significant Discrepancy
functional achievement
expected achievement
in-child deficit
Normal/potential for normal intellectual functioning
Exclusions As of July 1, 2001
Classroom Achievement
severe delays compared to same age and ability peers
Significant Discrepancy
ability vs. achievement
Information Processing Deficit
Exclusions
Speech and Language Considerations
Reevaluation and Exit Criteria There have been changes in both the terminology used and in the application of the criteria themselves.
Old rules required a significant discrepancy between expected achievement and functional achievement. New rules address “classroom” achievement delays and significant discrepancy separately. Significant discrepancy is determined with the help of a formula that compares standard scores from individually administered standardized tests. Also, the same criteria are used for children of all ages.
New rules require documentation of an in-child deficit. New rules address this general area as well. The terminology has been changed. The new rules also provide general guidelines for identifying an “information processing deficit”
Old rules require documentation of normal or potential for normal ability with the understanding that a child may not be excluded solely because his or her IQ is below 90. New rules eliminate this statement but, this does not change the population of children who may be considered for SLD.
Old exclusions have been replaced with the federal list of exclusions.
There is also clarification on identifying students who exhibit discrepancies only in language areas.
Finally, more specific guidelines are provided for making reevaluation and exit decisions
We will go over each of the new provisions in a few momentsThere have been changes in both the terminology used and in the application of the criteria themselves.
Old rules required a significant discrepancy between expected achievement and functional achievement. New rules address “classroom” achievement delays and significant discrepancy separately. Significant discrepancy is determined with the help of a formula that compares standard scores from individually administered standardized tests. Also, the same criteria are used for children of all ages.
New rules require documentation of an in-child deficit. New rules address this general area as well. The terminology has been changed. The new rules also provide general guidelines for identifying an “information processing deficit”
Old rules require documentation of normal or potential for normal ability with the understanding that a child may not be excluded solely because his or her IQ is below 90. New rules eliminate this statement but, this does not change the population of children who may be considered for SLD.
Old exclusions have been replaced with the federal list of exclusions.
There is also clarification on identifying students who exhibit discrepancies only in language areas.
Finally, more specific guidelines are provided for making reevaluation and exit decisions
We will go over each of the new provisions in a few moments
5. Updated August 2001 WI DPI 5 SLD Criteria Revisions Areas of Achievement Delay & Discrepancy oral expression
listening comprehension
written expression
basic reading skill
reading comprehension
mathematics calculation
mathematics reasoning These are the areas that are looked at when determining whether the child meets classroom achievement and discrepancy criteria.
WI has adopted the same seven areas as in federal law. A child must have a severe delay in classroom achievement AND a significant discrepancy between ability and achievement in at least one of these areas to be considered for identification as a child with SLD.
IEP teams in Wisconsin have been considering the federal list of achievement areas for some time.
Listening Comprehension refers to the student’s ability to understand what he or she hears. If a student can understand language, but does not do well on a standardized listening comprehension test because of other factors such as behavior or poor attention, the person who is interpreting the test results needs to determine whether the score is a true measure of listening comprehension.
Written expression” refers to the ability to express oneself in written form. While written expression may affected by spelling errors, spelling problems alone do not qualify a child as having a disorder in written expression. Evaluation of this component should consider written expression without the effect of spelling. Poor handwriting is not considered within this category.
“Basic reading skill” refers to the student’s ability to decode text. (decoding and reading fluency). Phonological awareness (the ability to break words into syllables and sounds and identify similarities in sound patterns), sound/symbol relationships and other prerequisite reading skills are also considered basic reading skills.
“Most of you should be familiar with the other items on this list. These are the areas that are looked at when determining whether the child meets classroom achievement and discrepancy criteria.
WI has adopted the same seven areas as in federal law. A child must have a severe delay in classroom achievement AND a significant discrepancy between ability and achievement in at least one of these areas to be considered for identification as a child with SLD.
IEP teams in Wisconsin have been considering the federal list of achievement areas for some time.
Listening Comprehension refers to the student’s ability to understand what he or she hears. If a student can understand language, but does not do well on a standardized listening comprehension test because of other factors such as behavior or poor attention, the person who is interpreting the test results needs to determine whether the score is a true measure of listening comprehension.
Written expression” refers to the ability to express oneself in written form. While written expression may affected by spelling errors, spelling problems alone do not qualify a child as having a disorder in written expression. Evaluation of this component should consider written expression without the effect of spelling. Poor handwriting is not considered within this category.
“Basic reading skill” refers to the student’s ability to decode text. (decoding and reading fluency). Phonological awareness (the ability to break words into syllables and sounds and identify similarities in sound patterns), sound/symbol relationships and other prerequisite reading skills are also considered basic reading skills.
“Most of you should be familiar with the other items on this list.
6. Wisconsin Eligibility Criteria Before I describe each criterion, I’d like to remind you of the two questions that must be addressed by IEP teams when considering whether a child is a child with a disability
First,
Does the child meet eligibility criteria for having one of the impairments listed in state law? and then, as a result,
Does the child need special education to address the needs associated with the impairment?
Remember while addressing these two questions, the team also identifies the needs of the child.Before I describe each criterion, I’d like to remind you of the two questions that must be addressed by IEP teams when considering whether a child is a child with a disability
First,
Does the child meet eligibility criteria for having one of the impairments listed in state law? and then, as a result,
Does the child need special education to address the needs associated with the impairment?
Remember while addressing these two questions, the team also identifies the needs of the child.
7. Updated August 2001 WI DPI 7 Severe delays in Classroom Achievement
Significant Discrepancy between intellectual ability and academic achievement
Information Processing Deficit linked to classroom achievement delays and significant discrepancy
Exclusions
Speech and language considerations Let’s focus on question #1 first. Does the child meet eligibility criteria for SLD?
Upon initial identification, the following five considerations must be addressed. We will discuss reevaluation later:
1. Does the student have a severe delay in classroom achievement?
2. Does the student exhibit a significant discrepancy between intellectual ability and academic achievement?
3. Does the student display an Information Processing Deficit linked to the classroom achievement delays and significant discrepancy?
4. Do any of the exclusions apply?
5. And finally, there is an additional consideration if the child demonstrates an achievement delay and discrepancy only in the language areas of expressive language and/or listening comprehension.
Please remember that this new criteria will be applied, after 7/1/01, to new referrals only. IEP teams will not be required to apply the new criteria to students already receiving LD services.
Lets now go over what the new rules say about each of these. I would like to remind you that in this part of the presentation, we will be going over each section of the new rules briefly. We will not stop to answer questions at this time. During the 2nd part of the presentation, we will go back and provide further explanation of each of these components. We will provide time for as many of you as possible to ask questions during the second part of the presentation.
Please use the cards we have given you to jot down questions you have as we present. Let’s focus on question #1 first. Does the child meet eligibility criteria for SLD?
Upon initial identification, the following five considerations must be addressed. We will discuss reevaluation later:
1. Does the student have a severe delay in classroom achievement?
2. Does the student exhibit a significant discrepancy between intellectual ability and academic achievement?
3. Does the student display an Information Processing Deficit linked to the classroom achievement delays and significant discrepancy?
4. Do any of the exclusions apply?
5. And finally, there is an additional consideration if the child demonstrates an achievement delay and discrepancy only in the language areas of expressive language and/or listening comprehension.
Please remember that this new criteria will be applied, after 7/1/01, to new referrals only. IEP teams will not be required to apply the new criteria to students already receiving LD services.
Lets now go over what the new rules say about each of these. I would like to remind you that in this part of the presentation, we will be going over each section of the new rules briefly. We will not stop to answer questions at this time. During the 2nd part of the presentation, we will go back and provide further explanation of each of these components. We will provide time for as many of you as possible to ask questions during the second part of the presentation.
Please use the cards we have given you to jot down questions you have as we present.
8. Updated August 2001 WI DPI 8 Classroom Achievement The child’s ability to meet the instructional demands of the classroom and achieve commensurate with age and ability peers in one or more of the achievement areas listed is severely delayed During the evaluation, the IEP team determines how the student performs in reference to the general education curriculum compared to their same age and ability peers.
Research and experience tells us that there is a fairly wide range of expected normal achievement in each grade. This range is often quite large for students in the primary grades.
In the rule, “Same age and ability” generally refers to the range of students in the same grade as the child who is being evaluated.
During the evaluation, the IEP team determines how the student performs in reference to the general education curriculum compared to their same age and ability peers.
Research and experience tells us that there is a fairly wide range of expected normal achievement in each grade. This range is often quite large for students in the primary grades.
In the rule, “Same age and ability” generally refers to the range of students in the same grade as the child who is being evaluated.
9. Updated August 2001 WI DPI 9 Significant Discrepancy There is a significant discrepancy between intellectual ability and academic achievement in one or more area The team must also document whether a significant discrepancy between intellectual ability and achievement exists.
The concept of significant discrepancy has not changed, but guidelines for identifying a significant discrepancy have. The new rules direct IEP teams to use a regression procedure based on a comparison of standard scores rather than an expectancy formula that compares expected grade or age performance based on IQ and years in school. The regression procedure is widely recognized as the most valid method for determining significant differences between scores on standardized tests. IEP teams will no longer use the Bond and Tinker formula for calculating discrepancy. The new regression procedure will be used for students of all ages.
We will discuss the regression formula more and show you how to apply it in the second part of the presentation
The team must also document whether a significant discrepancy between intellectual ability and achievement exists.
The concept of significant discrepancy has not changed, but guidelines for identifying a significant discrepancy have. The new rules direct IEP teams to use a regression procedure based on a comparison of standard scores rather than an expectancy formula that compares expected grade or age performance based on IQ and years in school. The regression procedure is widely recognized as the most valid method for determining significant differences between scores on standardized tests. IEP teams will no longer use the Bond and Tinker formula for calculating discrepancy. The new regression procedure will be used for students of all ages.
We will discuss the regression formula more and show you how to apply it in the second part of the presentation
10. Updated August 2001 WI DPI 10 Information Processing Deficit The team will document an information processing deficit linked to the achievement delay and significant discrepancy The criterion for an information processing deficit replaces the “in-child” deficit guideline.
Updated terminology is used, and we’ve tried to provide more guidance as to what is meant by an Information Processing Deficit.
This criterion reflects increasing research evidence that links information processing deficits as one of the distinguishing characteristics of students with specific learning disabilities, as opposed to students with achievement problems alone. The criterion for an information processing deficit replaces the “in-child” deficit guideline.
Updated terminology is used, and we’ve tried to provide more guidance as to what is meant by an Information Processing Deficit.
This criterion reflects increasing research evidence that links information processing deficits as one of the distinguishing characteristics of students with specific learning disabilities, as opposed to students with achievement problems alone.
11. Updated August 2001 WI DPI 11 Information Processing Deficit An information processing deficit means a pattern of severe problems with storage, organization, acquisition, retrieval, expression, or manipulation of information An information processing deficit is defined in the rules as a pattern of severe problems with storage, organization, acquisition, retrieval, expression, or manipulation of information rather than relative strengths and weaknesses.
This criterion is intended to rule out learning problems due solely to external factors (i.e. the problems are part of the child’s learning system) and provide useful information for instructional planning, whether or not the child is found eligible for services. It can provide useful information about how the child learns.
The guideline emphasizes the importance of linking information processing deficits with achievement delays and discrepancy. This requirement is intended to prevent the identification of children who may have processing weaknesses that do not significantly interfere with academic achievement. An information processing deficit is defined in the rules as a pattern of severe problems with storage, organization, acquisition, retrieval, expression, or manipulation of information rather than relative strengths and weaknesses.
This criterion is intended to rule out learning problems due solely to external factors (i.e. the problems are part of the child’s learning system) and provide useful information for instructional planning, whether or not the child is found eligible for services. It can provide useful information about how the child learns.
The guideline emphasizes the importance of linking information processing deficits with achievement delays and discrepancy. This requirement is intended to prevent the identification of children who may have processing weaknesses that do not significantly interfere with academic achievement.
12. Updated August 2001 WI DPI 12 Exclusions The team may not identify an individual as having SLD if the team determines that the significant discrepancy between ability and achievement is primarily due to:
Other impairments specified in state and federal law
Insufficient instruction in reading or mathematics
Limited English proficiency
Environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage The list of exclusions has been revised to be consistent with federal regulations.
A child is excluded if the team determines the discrepancy is primarily due to:
Other Impairments: [federal language is : visual, hearing, or motor impairment; Cognitive Disability, Emotional Behavioral Disability]
Insufficient instruction in reading or math
Limited English Proficiency
Environmental, cultural or economic disadvantage
Exclusions for extended absence, continuous inadequate instruction, curriculum planning, or instructional strategies are not in the new rules but may continue to be considered under the general exclusion for insufficient instruction.
Motivation as exclusion was eliminated because of its subjective nature.
Functioning at grade level but with potential for greater achievement (from current rules) may be considered during the analysis of “classroom achievement delay” and “need for special education”.
Students whose achievement delays are primarily due to cognitive disabilities continue to be excluded.
Students with speech and language impairments are not excluded from consideration as having SLD if they meet SLD criteria with the following consideration: The list of exclusions has been revised to be consistent with federal regulations.
A child is excluded if the team determines the discrepancy is primarily due to:
Other Impairments: [federal language is : visual, hearing, or motor impairment; Cognitive Disability, Emotional Behavioral Disability]
Insufficient instruction in reading or math
Limited English Proficiency
Environmental, cultural or economic disadvantage
Exclusions for extended absence, continuous inadequate instruction, curriculum planning, or instructional strategies are not in the new rules but may continue to be considered under the general exclusion for insufficient instruction.
Motivation as exclusion was eliminated because of its subjective nature.
Functioning at grade level but with potential for greater achievement (from current rules) may be considered during the analysis of “classroom achievement delay” and “need for special education”.
Students whose achievement delays are primarily due to cognitive disabilities continue to be excluded.
Students with speech and language impairments are not excluded from consideration as having SLD if they meet SLD criteria with the following consideration:
13. Updated August 2001 WI DPI 13 Speech and Language Considerations If the IEP team is concerned that a discrepancy exists in oral language or listening comprehension, the team shall include a person qualified to assess speech and language impairments
A child who is found to have a significant discrepancy in oral expression and/or listening comprehension only and who meets eligibility criteria for speech and language impairment shall be considered to have a primary impairment in the area of speech and language An individual qualified to assess speech and language impairments must be included on the IEP team if there is a concern that a discrepancy exists in oral expression or listening comprehension.
Students who have a significant discrepancy only in oral expression, listening comprehension or both, AND who meet eligibility criteria for speech and language impairment are considered to have a primary speech and language impairment.
There may be a few cases in which a student may not meet criteria for speech and language because the speech and language criteria and the LD criteria do not use exactly the same score cutoff and discrepancy models. This is the most likely to occur with students with higher cognitive scores, but in any case will be rare.
An individual qualified to assess speech and language impairments must be included on the IEP team if there is a concern that a discrepancy exists in oral expression or listening comprehension.
Students who have a significant discrepancy only in oral expression, listening comprehension or both, AND who meet eligibility criteria for speech and language impairment are considered to have a primary speech and language impairment.
There may be a few cases in which a student may not meet criteria for speech and language because the speech and language criteria and the LD criteria do not use exactly the same score cutoff and discrepancy models. This is the most likely to occur with students with higher cognitive scores, but in any case will be rare.
14. Updated August 2001 WI DPI 14 Re-evaluation and Exit Criteria Classroom achievement and significant discrepancy criteria must only be met upon initial evaluation.
A child who has a specific learning disability shall continue to demonstrate a need for special education (including specially designed instruction) because of their learning disability and not meet any of the exclusions The new rules provide guidance for reevaluations and consideration of exit from special education
Classroom achievement and significant discrepancy criteria must only be met upon initial evaluation. This interpretation is consistent with current rules.
Upon reevaluation, a child with SLD who continues to demonstrate a need for special education (including specially designed instruction) because of his/her specific learning disability, and who does not meet any of the exclusions, continues to be an eligible child with a disability.
Upon reevaluation, IEP teams should continue to review existing classroom achievement data, and if deemed necessary,collect additional classroom achievement or standardized test data
While the level of achievement delay needed to meet the “severe delay in classroom achievement” criteria upon initial evaluation is not used to make reevaluation decisions, the student’s level of classroom achievement should be determined in order to identify whether the student meets exit criteria and to identify the student’s needs including a need for continuing special education.
Likewise, significant discrepancy cut-off criteria must only be met upon initial identification. Administration of standardized tests is not required for reevaluation, but may be done if the IEP team believes it is needed to make a continuing eligibility decision. If the IEP team has sufficient documentation to determine that a student no longer exhibits any discrepancy between ability and achievement upon reevaluation, the team should proceed to consider whether the child continues to require special education to address a specific learning disability. The new rules provide guidance for reevaluations and consideration of exit from special education
Classroom achievement and significant discrepancy criteria must only be met upon initial evaluation. This interpretation is consistent with current rules.
Upon reevaluation, a child with SLD who continues to demonstrate a need for special education (including specially designed instruction) because of his/her specific learning disability, and who does not meet any of the exclusions, continues to be an eligible child with a disability.
Upon reevaluation, IEP teams should continue to review existing classroom achievement data, and if deemed necessary,collect additional classroom achievement or standardized test data
While the level of achievement delay needed to meet the “severe delay in classroom achievement” criteria upon initial evaluation is not used to make reevaluation decisions, the student’s level of classroom achievement should be determined in order to identify whether the student meets exit criteria and to identify the student’s needs including a need for continuing special education.
Likewise, significant discrepancy cut-off criteria must only be met upon initial identification. Administration of standardized tests is not required for reevaluation, but may be done if the IEP team believes it is needed to make a continuing eligibility decision. If the IEP team has sufficient documentation to determine that a student no longer exhibits any discrepancy between ability and achievement upon reevaluation, the team should proceed to consider whether the child continues to require special education to address a specific learning disability.
15. Updated August 2001 WI DPI 15 Re-evaluation and Exit Criteria Upon reevaluation, the IEP team shall determine whether a child who is performing to generally accepted classroom expectations in the general education curriculum without specially designed instruction continues to be a child with a disability Upon reevaluation, the IEP team needs to consider the degree to which the child is able to meet general education expectations in the general education setting.
If the student no longer needs specialized instruction and can meet general education performance standards with general education instructional options, interventions or strategies, the student continues to have the impairment of SLD but may no longer be a child who needs special education, and in that case would no longer an eligible child with a disability under state and federal law.
The IEP team must discuss this carefully and determine whether the child continues to be eligible for services.
The transition period for children exiting special education is eliminated from the law since a decrease in services over time will be reflected in the IEP.
A reevaluation continues to be required if the team believes the child is no longer a child with a disability.
If the student receives more than one type of service; i.e. special education as well as a related service, or has a primary and secondary disability (such as LD and Speech and Language) it is permissible to dismiss the child from one of these services through the IEP review process. A reevaluation is required only if the team feels the student may no longer require any services.
Upon reevaluation, the IEP team needs to consider the degree to which the child is able to meet general education expectations in the general education setting.
If the student no longer needs specialized instruction and can meet general education performance standards with general education instructional options, interventions or strategies, the student continues to have the impairment of SLD but may no longer be a child who needs special education, and in that case would no longer an eligible child with a disability under state and federal law.
The IEP team must discuss this carefully and determine whether the child continues to be eligible for services.
The transition period for children exiting special education is eliminated from the law since a decrease in services over time will be reflected in the IEP.
A reevaluation continues to be required if the team believes the child is no longer a child with a disability.
If the student receives more than one type of service; i.e. special education as well as a related service, or has a primary and secondary disability (such as LD and Speech and Language) it is permissible to dismiss the child from one of these services through the IEP review process. A reevaluation is required only if the team feels the student may no longer require any services.
16. Updated August 2001 WI DPI 16 An observation in the general classroom setting by an IEP team participant other than the classroom teacher continues to be required Other Provisions There are just a few other provisions that must be carried out by IEP teams when considering whether a child is or continues to be a child with the impairment of SLD.
These provisions have not changed from prior law or rules. They are not found in PI 11, but are in federal regulations 34 CFR 300.542 and 300.543.
An observation in the general classroom setting by an IEP team participant other than the classroom teacher is required
There are just a few other provisions that must be carried out by IEP teams when considering whether a child is or continues to be a child with the impairment of SLD.
These provisions have not changed from prior law or rules. They are not found in PI 11, but are in federal regulations 34 CFR 300.542 and 300.543.
An observation in the general classroom setting by an IEP team participant other than the classroom teacher is required
17. Updated August 2001 WI DPI 17 Evaluation Report Requirements Whether the child has a SLD
Basis for making the determination
Relevant behavior noted during the observation of the child
Relationship of that behavior to the child's academic functioning
Educationally relevant medical findings, if any The IEP Team evaluation report for a child being evaluated or reevaluated for SLD continues to include the following statements. These are listed on DPI form I-6
NO NEED TO READ SLIDEThe IEP Team evaluation report for a child being evaluated or reevaluated for SLD continues to include the following statements. These are listed on DPI form I-6
NO NEED TO READ SLIDE
18. Updated August 2001 WI DPI 18 Evaluation Report Requirements Whether there is a severe discrepancy between achievement & ability that is not correctable without special education & related services
The determination of the team concerning the effects of environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage Continued from prior- No need to read slide Continued from prior- No need to read slide
19. Updated August 2001 WI DPI 19 Evaluation Report Requirements In addition, each team member shall certify in writing whether the report reflects his or her conclusion. If it does not reflect his or her conclusion, the team member must submit a separate statement presenting his or her conclusions
In addition, each team member shall continue to certify in writing whether the report reflects his or her conclusion. If it does not reflect his or her conclusion, the team member must submit a separate statement presenting his or her conclusions.
In addition, each team member shall continue to certify in writing whether the report reflects his or her conclusion. If it does not reflect his or her conclusion, the team member must submit a separate statement presenting his or her conclusions.
20. Updated August 2001 WI DPI 20 A child with a disability means a child who, by reason of any of the impairments listed in 115.76 (5) needs special education and related services Remember, question #1 is: “Does the child have an impairment”? Now lets briefly address question #2- Is there a need for special education?
Throughout the determination of whether the student meets eligibility criteria for an impairment, the IEP team also discusses the student’s educational needs.
When the IEP team determines the student has an impairment, it must then make a decision about whether the student needs special education and related services as the result of this impairment. Remember, question #1 is: “Does the child have an impairment”? Now lets briefly address question #2- Is there a need for special education?
Throughout the determination of whether the student meets eligibility criteria for an impairment, the IEP team also discusses the student’s educational needs.
When the IEP team determines the student has an impairment, it must then make a decision about whether the student needs special education and related services as the result of this impairment.
21. Updated August 2001 WI DPI 21 Need For Special Education Pi 11.35(3) “Disability” means impairment and need for special education
Not automatic “Disability” means impairment plus need for special education
Need for special education is an important issue that is often overlooked - A student does not “automatically “ need special education just because s/he meets the criteria for an impairment.
“Disability” means impairment plus need for special education
Need for special education is an important issue that is often overlooked - A student does not “automatically “ need special education just because s/he meets the criteria for an impairment.
22. Updated August 2001 WI DPI 22 Need For Special Education
Why does the child, because of the needs resulting from the impairment require special education? The team should ask “why does this impairment, and the needs resulting from the impairment, require special education?
Is special education and an IEP really needed to address the child’s needs? Or,
Could instructional strategies, options, or interventions be implemented in general education to address the child’s needs?
When a child is evaluated or reevaluated for the impairment of SLD, the IEP team should be well poised to answer the “need for special education” question.
When a child with suspected SLD is initially evaluated, information relevant to answering questions about the “need for special education” are discussed in the process of determining whether the child meets SLD criteria, particularly during the discussion of classroom achievement and information processing.
Considering the student’s continued need for special education is built into the reevaluation and exit criteria for SLD.
The team should ask “why does this impairment, and the needs resulting from the impairment, require special education?
Is special education and an IEP really needed to address the child’s needs? Or,
Could instructional strategies, options, or interventions be implemented in general education to address the child’s needs?
When a child is evaluated or reevaluated for the impairment of SLD, the IEP team should be well poised to answer the “need for special education” question.
When a child with suspected SLD is initially evaluated, information relevant to answering questions about the “need for special education” are discussed in the process of determining whether the child meets SLD criteria, particularly during the discussion of classroom achievement and information processing.
Considering the student’s continued need for special education is built into the reevaluation and exit criteria for SLD.
23. Updated August 2001 WI DPI 23 Need For Special Education Needs that cannot be met in regular education as structured at the time the evaluation was conducted
The new rules state: As part of an evaluation or reevaluation conducted by the IEP team in determining whether a child is or continues to be a child with a disability, the IEP team shall identify the following three items:
1. First, The child’s needs that cannot be met through the regular education program as structured at the time the evaluation was conducted.`
For example: The student’s reading skills are so poor that she can not independently read classroom texts and other written materials and therefore can not complete class assignments on her own.
When discussing this the IEP team must remember that schools have an obligation to address through regular education some level of variability in the classroom. This first consideration requires the IEP team to scrutinize the regular education environment to identify needs that cannot be met in that environment as structured. The IEP team must discuss the match-mismatch between the student’s needs and the regular education program. If there is a match between regular education and the child’s needs then the IEP team may decide that the child may have an impairment but does not need special education.
If there is a mismatch and the mismatch is too great to allow for meeting the student’s needs, the IEP team’s analysis is not yet finished.
The new rules state: As part of an evaluation or reevaluation conducted by the IEP team in determining whether a child is or continues to be a child with a disability, the IEP team shall identify the following three items:
1. First, The child’s needs that cannot be met through the regular education program as structured at the time the evaluation was conducted.`
For example: The student’s reading skills are so poor that she can not independently read classroom texts and other written materials and therefore can not complete class assignments on her own.
When discussing this the IEP team must remember that schools have an obligation to address through regular education some level of variability in the classroom. This first consideration requires the IEP team to scrutinize the regular education environment to identify needs that cannot be met in that environment as structured. The IEP team must discuss the match-mismatch between the student’s needs and the regular education program. If there is a match between regular education and the child’s needs then the IEP team may decide that the child may have an impairment but does not need special education.
If there is a mismatch and the mismatch is too great to allow for meeting the student’s needs, the IEP team’s analysis is not yet finished.
24. Updated August 2001 WI DPI 24 Modifications, if any, in regular education that allow the student access to the general education curriculum and to meet the educational standards that apply to all students such as:
Adaptation of content
Adaptation of methodology
Adaptation of delivery of instruction The IEP team must go on to the next level of analysis.The law states the IEP team must identify:
2. Modifications, if any, that can be made in the regular education program, such as adaptation of content (give eg.), methodology (give eg), or delivery of instruction (give eg.) to meet the child’s needs identified that will allow the child to access the general education curriculum and meet the educational standards that apply to all children.
It is not acceptable to take the position that the student must fit into the regular education program as structured within the narrow limits. As I said before, schools have an obligation to adequately address a range of needs in all regular education programs.
As the IEP team starts to discuss modifications that may be needed in regular education they should take into consideration the following;
What is involved in implementing the modification? ( Time to implement, time for training, preparation, short -term v. on-going)
Can the modification be used with more students then the student being evaluated?
Is this modification based on the general education classroom curriculum?
If appropriate modifications can be made in regular education that meet the student’s needs, the IEP team may find that the student has an impairment but does not need special education.
**NOTE: Changes that do not alter the expectations or general content of what is being taught are still considered to be within the general education curriculum. If options can be provided relatively easily within the general education curriculum to address the child’s needs and allow them to access the general curriculum and to meet the standards that apply to all children, the child may not demonstrate a need for special education.
Examples: Adaptation of content
taped or scanned text, provide low readability texts, large print or fewer items on worksheets to help the student maintain concentration and help them be better able to visually track information, colored overlays to help with tracking, providing a number of alternate assignments choices to students.
Adaptation of methodology
writing key words on the board when teaching a new concept, providing study guides or unit “maps” in graphic format, providing written or graphic information to support what is presented orally, providing more examples, directly teach strategies needed to complete instructional activities (e.g. teach the writing process, comprehension strategies, editing skills, problem-solving strategies, etc.), use of computer assisted software such as spell checkers, text readers, voice activated software, books on tape
Adaptation of delivery of instruction
small vs. large group instruction, providing a study carrel for student to complete work in
extra time to complete assignments. The IEP team must go on to the next level of analysis.The law states the IEP team must identify:
2. Modifications, if any, that can be made in the regular education program, such as adaptation of content (give eg.), methodology (give eg), or delivery of instruction (give eg.) to meet the child’s needs identified that will allow the child to access the general education curriculum and meet the educational standards that apply to all children.
It is not acceptable to take the position that the student must fit into the regular education program as structured within the narrow limits. As I said before, schools have an obligation to adequately address a range of needs in all regular education programs.
As the IEP team starts to discuss modifications that may be needed in regular education they should take into consideration the following;
What is involved in implementing the modification? ( Time to implement, time for training, preparation, short -term v. on-going)
Can the modification be used with more students then the student being evaluated?
Is this modification based on the general education classroom curriculum?
If appropriate modifications can be made in regular education that meet the student’s needs, the IEP team may find that the student has an impairment but does not need special education.
**NOTE: Changes that do not alter the expectations or general content of what is being taught are still considered to be within the general education curriculum. If options can be provided relatively easily within the general education curriculum to address the child’s needs and allow them to access the general curriculum and to meet the standards that apply to all children, the child may not demonstrate a need for special education.
Examples: Adaptation of content
taped or scanned text, provide low readability texts, large print or fewer items on worksheets to help the student maintain concentration and help them be better able to visually track information, colored overlays to help with tracking, providing a number of alternate assignments choices to students.
Adaptation of methodology
writing key words on the board when teaching a new concept, providing study guides or unit “maps” in graphic format, providing written or graphic information to support what is presented orally, providing more examples, directly teach strategies needed to complete instructional activities (e.g. teach the writing process, comprehension strategies, editing skills, problem-solving strategies, etc.), use of computer assisted software such as spell checkers, text readers, voice activated software, books on tape
Adaptation of delivery of instruction
small vs. large group instruction, providing a study carrel for student to complete work in
extra time to complete assignments.
25. Updated August 2001 WI DPI 25 Need For Special Education Additions or modifications, if any, not provided in the general curriculum
Replacement content
Expanded core curriculum
Other supports The last consideration the IEP team needs to address is
3. Additions or modifications, if any, that the child needs which are not provided through the general education curriculum, including replacement content, expanded core curriculum or other supports. (Give example)
Does the student have needs that are not met in regular education even after that environment is carefully scrutinized and appropriate modifications are explored?
If so, as the IEP team considers the student’s needs, it will need to identify any instruction and supports outside of the regular education curriculum that the student would need to address the needs arising from the impairment.
Examples
Replacement content-
alternate reading curriculum (explicit, systematic, multisensory)
Expanded core curriculum
explicit and systematic comprehension strategy instruction
-explicit and systematic writing strategy instruction
Other supports
extensive reteaching of skills
1:1 instruction or tutoring
“guided” study hall
The last consideration the IEP team needs to address is
3. Additions or modifications, if any, that the child needs which are not provided through the general education curriculum, including replacement content, expanded core curriculum or other supports. (Give example)
Does the student have needs that are not met in regular education even after that environment is carefully scrutinized and appropriate modifications are explored?
If so, as the IEP team considers the student’s needs, it will need to identify any instruction and supports outside of the regular education curriculum that the student would need to address the needs arising from the impairment.
Examples
Replacement content-
alternate reading curriculum (explicit, systematic, multisensory)
Expanded core curriculum
explicit and systematic comprehension strategy instruction
-explicit and systematic writing strategy instruction
Other supports
extensive reteaching of skills
1:1 instruction or tutoring
“guided” study hall
26. From Rules to Practice Taking a Closer Look at SLD Eligibility Criteria We will now go through each section of the rules taking a closer look. We would like to begin to help you focus on how IEP Teams can interpret the rules and apply them during IEP team evaluation beginning July 1.
As we go through the sections, I’d like you think about typical SLD evaluations and how you would apply the new criteria to them. There have always been and will continue to be unusual and difficult cases that will require more intensive evaluation and discussion in order to reach consensus on whether the child meets eligibility criteria. The purpose of the workshop today is to help you gain a working knowledge of the new criteria. This is best done if we focus on typical situations.
We will now go through each section of the rules taking a closer look. We would like to begin to help you focus on how IEP Teams can interpret the rules and apply them during IEP team evaluation beginning July 1.
As we go through the sections, I’d like you think about typical SLD evaluations and how you would apply the new criteria to them. There have always been and will continue to be unusual and difficult cases that will require more intensive evaluation and discussion in order to reach consensus on whether the child meets eligibility criteria. The purpose of the workshop today is to help you gain a working knowledge of the new criteria. This is best done if we focus on typical situations.
27. Updated August 2001 WI DPI 27 Triangulation is the Key This diagram represents how each criterion relate to each other.
The items in white must be considered when deciding whether the child has the impairment of SLD. The three elements around the triangle are those that directly define the impairment of SLD. SLD means severe delay in classroom achievement AND significant discrepancy AND information processing deficit. If these criteria are met and exclusions do not apply, the IEP team goes on to determine whether the child needs special education to address the impairment.
We used an equilateral triangle to remind you that all of the criteria for the impairment should receive balanced and equal consideration AND all criteria must be met.
The triangle also represents an important concept of scientific inquiry:triangulation. The data collected prior to referral and during the evaluation process, must be looked at together and show a consistent pattern of SLDfor a decision to be made that the child meets SLD criteria. If there are inconsistencies, the IEP team must look at the data and determine why. If the answers are not in the data, the IEP team may need to ask and answer additional questions. This is very important.
Example: a 5th grade student is showing severe classroom achievement problems. He is are failing tests and not completing or turning in very poorly done work. The teacher suspects reading comprehension and written language problems. When given standardized tests, however, the team finds that the student’s achievement scores are in the average range in all areas. This information does not triangulate. It does not show a consistent pattern. At this point, the team needs to ask, why? Why does the student seem to have mastered skills as measured on standardized tests, but is not showing this in the classroom.
The team considers exclusions as a double-check to be sure difficulties are not due to other factors.
We will be focusing on three elements around the triangle for the rest of the presentation: severe delay in classroom achievement, significant discrepancy, and information processing deficit. Please remember, these elements only apply to initial identification
After we go over each element, we will stop and answer some of your questions. We ill answer as many questions as time allows, but we will likely not get to all of them, so please remember to write down your questions on the index cards we provided. We will take them back with us and develop a question and answer bulletin which should be available before the beginning of the school year. This diagram represents how each criterion relate to each other.
The items in white must be considered when deciding whether the child has the impairment of SLD. The three elements around the triangle are those that directly define the impairment of SLD. SLD means severe delay in classroom achievement AND significant discrepancy AND information processing deficit. If these criteria are met and exclusions do not apply, the IEP team goes on to determine whether the child needs special education to address the impairment.
We used an equilateral triangle to remind you that all of the criteria for the impairment should receive balanced and equal consideration AND all criteria must be met.
The triangle also represents an important concept of scientific inquiry:triangulation. The data collected prior to referral and during the evaluation process, must be looked at together and show a consistent pattern of SLDfor a decision to be made that the child meets SLD criteria. If there are inconsistencies, the IEP team must look at the data and determine why. If the answers are not in the data, the IEP team may need to ask and answer additional questions. This is very important.
Example: a 5th grade student is showing severe classroom achievement problems. He is are failing tests and not completing or turning in very poorly done work. The teacher suspects reading comprehension and written language problems. When given standardized tests, however, the team finds that the student’s achievement scores are in the average range in all areas. This information does not triangulate. It does not show a consistent pattern. At this point, the team needs to ask, why? Why does the student seem to have mastered skills as measured on standardized tests, but is not showing this in the classroom.
The team considers exclusions as a double-check to be sure difficulties are not due to other factors.
We will be focusing on three elements around the triangle for the rest of the presentation: severe delay in classroom achievement, significant discrepancy, and information processing deficit. Please remember, these elements only apply to initial identification
After we go over each element, we will stop and answer some of your questions. We ill answer as many questions as time allows, but we will likely not get to all of them, so please remember to write down your questions on the index cards we provided. We will take them back with us and develop a question and answer bulletin which should be available before the beginning of the school year.
28. Updated August 2001 WI DPI 28 Classroom Achievement A severe delay in classroom achievement generally means the child can not do the same academic work as his or her peers after receiving sufficient and meaningful instruction
The student’s performance is compared to same age and ability peers First, lets look more closely at classroom achievement
The rule requires the IEP team to determine that, upon initial identification, the child’s ability to meet the instructional demands of the classroom and to achieve commensurate with his or her age and ability levels is severely delayed in one or more of the areas listed.
As mentioned before, when interpreting this rule, “age and ability” generally refer to the range of students in the same grade. The concept of a range is used because students in the same grade will vary in chronological age and intellectual ability. Also, specific data are generally not available for every student to allow for valid comparisons with students of exactly the same age or same intellectual ability level. Of course, the IEP team should give special consideration to the performance of students who are significantly younger, older, or whose intellectual functioning is well outside the average range.
Classroom achievement is sometimes referred to as “functional achievement”. In general, a severe delay in classroom achievement means the child can not do the same academic work as his or her peers after receiving sufficient and meaningful instruction. The student can not achieve even when reasonable strategies, interventions, modifications, or other approaches such as extra time or extra help are provided.
In applying the criteria, the IEP team needs to ask, is the student’s achievement very different from others in his or her grade?
A student in the “low” reading group, for example, may or may not demonstrate a severe delay in classroom achievement. Typically students with SLD have performance so delayed or learning needs so different that there is no reading group the student fits into that provides meaningful instruction at an appropriate level for the student.
If the student is making reasonable progress and is functioning within the range of acceptable performance in his or her instructional group, the student is not likely to demonstrate either a severe delay in classroom achievement or a need for special education. While such a student may have achievement and processing weaknesses and learning needs that should be addressed in general education, the student may not meet eligibility criteria.
It is important to remember that the IEP team must also consider whether a significant discrepancy exists, whether the child has an information processing deficit, and whether any exclusions apply prior to determining whether the student has a SLD. First, lets look more closely at classroom achievement
The rule requires the IEP team to determine that, upon initial identification, the child’s ability to meet the instructional demands of the classroom and to achieve commensurate with his or her age and ability levels is severely delayed in one or more of the areas listed.
As mentioned before, when interpreting this rule, “age and ability” generally refer to the range of students in the same grade. The concept of a range is used because students in the same grade will vary in chronological age and intellectual ability. Also, specific data are generally not available for every student to allow for valid comparisons with students of exactly the same age or same intellectual ability level. Of course, the IEP team should give special consideration to the performance of students who are significantly younger, older, or whose intellectual functioning is well outside the average range.
Classroom achievement is sometimes referred to as “functional achievement”. In general, a severe delay in classroom achievement means the child can not do the same academic work as his or her peers after receiving sufficient and meaningful instruction. The student can not achieve even when reasonable strategies, interventions, modifications, or other approaches such as extra time or extra help are provided.
In applying the criteria, the IEP team needs to ask, is the student’s achievement very different from others in his or her grade?
A student in the “low” reading group, for example, may or may not demonstrate a severe delay in classroom achievement. Typically students with SLD have performance so delayed or learning needs so different that there is no reading group the student fits into that provides meaningful instruction at an appropriate level for the student.
If the student is making reasonable progress and is functioning within the range of acceptable performance in his or her instructional group, the student is not likely to demonstrate either a severe delay in classroom achievement or a need for special education. While such a student may have achievement and processing weaknesses and learning needs that should be addressed in general education, the student may not meet eligibility criteria.
It is important to remember that the IEP team must also consider whether a significant discrepancy exists, whether the child has an information processing deficit, and whether any exclusions apply prior to determining whether the student has a SLD.
29. Updated August 2001 WI DPI 29 Classroom Achievement The IEP team makes the determination of severe delay based on data that describes how the student performs in the general education curriculum In order to establish a pattern of severely delayed classroom achievement it is necessary to gather information about a student’s classroom achievement over time. For example, a student doesn’t suddenly develop a learning disability in the 9th grade. There should be some evidence of achievement problems over time.
It is important to stress that the decision about whether a severe delay in classroom achievement exists must be supported by student performance data.
The analysis of classroom achievement should provide instructionally relevant information about the student’s performance in the curriculum used in the student’s classes.
Classroom achievement data are usually collected by the child’s general education teachers and is almost always available during the review of existing data. In fact, it is information from classroom achievement data that is likely to be cited by classroom teachers when they initiate a referral for a special education evaluation.
Although rare, additional data about classroom achievement may need to be collected by any of the IEP team participants as part of the evaluation process.
The specific data used may vary.In order to establish a pattern of severely delayed classroom achievement it is necessary to gather information about a student’s classroom achievement over time. For example, a student doesn’t suddenly develop a learning disability in the 9th grade. There should be some evidence of achievement problems over time.
It is important to stress that the decision about whether a severe delay in classroom achievement exists must be supported by student performance data.
The analysis of classroom achievement should provide instructionally relevant information about the student’s performance in the curriculum used in the student’s classes.
Classroom achievement data are usually collected by the child’s general education teachers and is almost always available during the review of existing data. In fact, it is information from classroom achievement data that is likely to be cited by classroom teachers when they initiate a referral for a special education evaluation.
Although rare, additional data about classroom achievement may need to be collected by any of the IEP team participants as part of the evaluation process.
The specific data used may vary.
30. Updated August 2001 WI DPI 30 Classroom Achievement Sources of Data individual reading inventory/running records
district grade level benchmark checklists
written language rubrics
analysis of daily work
portfolio assessment
student interview/self-assessment results on WKCE or WRCT
report cards/progress reports
observations by family
results of interventions
observation of academic & other relevant learning behavior
other curriculum referenced assessments These are some examples of data the IEP team may use to determine whether a severe delay in classroom achievement exists.
Scores from individually administered diagnostic instruments such as the Woodcock Johnson Tests of Achievement are not acceptable measures of classroom achievement. These are used for the determination of significant discrepancy which we will discuss after the break.
Likewise, grade equivalent scores derived from standardized tests are not acceptable since they do not provide accurate information about the student’s true ability to read text in their classrooms or about a student’s progress toward achieving district standards.
The IEP team determines the criteria for “severe delay” A school district may agree to set specific standards and rubrics based on the Wisconsin Model Academic Standards for grade level benchmarks to help guide the IEP team when making the decision about what constitutes a “severe” delay.
While scores on statewide and district tests such as the WKCE may provide an indicator of delayed classroom achievement, they may not be the only documentation used for this criterion. The team should review student work samples, and other curriculum-based measures of student achievement such as skill checklists, running records, individual reading inventories etc. when considering this component.
Please remember, the team must also determine whether sufficient instruction and reasonable general education instructional options, strategies or modifications have been provided prior to determining that the child has severely delayed achievement. Team participants will do this specifically when they consider “Need for Special Education”. These are some examples of data the IEP team may use to determine whether a severe delay in classroom achievement exists.
Scores from individually administered diagnostic instruments such as the Woodcock Johnson Tests of Achievement are not acceptable measures of classroom achievement. These are used for the determination of significant discrepancy which we will discuss after the break.
Likewise, grade equivalent scores derived from standardized tests are not acceptable since they do not provide accurate information about the student’s true ability to read text in their classrooms or about a student’s progress toward achieving district standards.
The IEP team determines the criteria for “severe delay” A school district may agree to set specific standards and rubrics based on the Wisconsin Model Academic Standards for grade level benchmarks to help guide the IEP team when making the decision about what constitutes a “severe” delay.
While scores on statewide and district tests such as the WKCE may provide an indicator of delayed classroom achievement, they may not be the only documentation used for this criterion. The team should review student work samples, and other curriculum-based measures of student achievement such as skill checklists, running records, individual reading inventories etc. when considering this component.
Please remember, the team must also determine whether sufficient instruction and reasonable general education instructional options, strategies or modifications have been provided prior to determining that the child has severely delayed achievement. Team participants will do this specifically when they consider “Need for Special Education”.
31. Questions Classroom Achievement
32. Updated August 2001 WI DPI 32 BREAK 15-20 min break depending on number of people 15-20 min break depending on number of people
33. Updated August 2001 WI DPI 33 Intellectual Ability = Full scale IQ or Composite Score
Achievement= Standard score (SS) from valid & reliable standardized individual diagnostic test
Significant Discrepancy- Difference between SS for ability and achievement greater than or equal to -1.75 SeE below the norm using a standard regression procedure Significant Discrepancy The IEP team must also document a significant discrepancy between intellectual ability and academic achievement using standardized tests.
The rules direct IEP teams to use full scale or composite scores for determining significant discrepancy. There is general agreement in the academic field that composite scores on tests with multiple measures are the most valid and reliable indicators of overall cognitive ability. IEP team participants conducting evaluations must use the most valid instrument available to measure student skills and abilities.
We expect that in accordance with Chapter 115 and IDEA the IEP team will include at least one individual who is qualified to administer and interpret each of the tests administered during the evaluation. These individuals should, in accordance with the law and testing ethics, be able to select instruments that provide valid and reliable test results. We hope to provide a list of commonly used standardized tests with comments on their use late this summer or early fall.
A 1.75 standard error of the estimate was selected because it statistically identifies about 4% of the population as having a significant discrepancy. This level of prevalence is considered to be an accurate estimate of the incidence rate for SLD (2-5% of the population).
Although the actual regression formula is quite complicated, the procedure is very easy to apply and relatively easy to understand. The actual formula is provided in Appendix A of new PI 11 rules.
Response if asked about use of factors scores/VIQ-PIQ Split-
The WISC-3 is the only test that provides Verbal and Performance IQ scores. Verbal IQ and Performance IQ are factor scores and not good indicators of overall general intellectual ability ( “G”) by themselves. While highly regarded, the WISC-3 is only one standardized instrument for measuring intellectual ability. Other valid instruments such as the Stanford Binet, the Leiter, the new Woodcock Johnson Tests of Cognitive Abilities III and several others provide composite scores. There may be more valid instruments for students with certain impairments, such as severe language disabilities. The IEP team must also document a significant discrepancy between intellectual ability and academic achievement using standardized tests.
The rules direct IEP teams to use full scale or composite scores for determining significant discrepancy. There is general agreement in the academic field that composite scores on tests with multiple measures are the most valid and reliable indicators of overall cognitive ability. IEP team participants conducting evaluations must use the most valid instrument available to measure student skills and abilities.
We expect that in accordance with Chapter 115 and IDEA the IEP team will include at least one individual who is qualified to administer and interpret each of the tests administered during the evaluation. These individuals should, in accordance with the law and testing ethics, be able to select instruments that provide valid and reliable test results. We hope to provide a list of commonly used standardized tests with comments on their use late this summer or early fall.
A 1.75 standard error of the estimate was selected because it statistically identifies about 4% of the population as having a significant discrepancy. This level of prevalence is considered to be an accurate estimate of the incidence rate for SLD (2-5% of the population).
Although the actual regression formula is quite complicated, the procedure is very easy to apply and relatively easy to understand. The actual formula is provided in Appendix A of new PI 11 rules.
Response if asked about use of factors scores/VIQ-PIQ Split-
The WISC-3 is the only test that provides Verbal and Performance IQ scores. Verbal IQ and Performance IQ are factor scores and not good indicators of overall general intellectual ability ( “G”) by themselves. While highly regarded, the WISC-3 is only one standardized instrument for measuring intellectual ability. Other valid instruments such as the Stanford Binet, the Leiter, the new Woodcock Johnson Tests of Cognitive Abilities III and several others provide composite scores. There may be more valid instruments for students with certain impairments, such as severe language disabilities.
34. Updated August 2001 WI DPI 34 What is the Regression Formula The regression formula allows students with a range of intellectual abilities to be considered for learning disabilities identification with statistical precision. Current literature on the use of various discrepancy formulas supports its use.
Standard scores are used to with the regression method
EXPLAIN PICTURE: NOTE:
The two curves show how IQ and expected achievement scores compare.
IQ does not exactly predict achievement scores. Furthermore the difference between IQ and expected achievement scores are not always the same. As a student’s IQ moves further away from the mean of 100, the difference between IQ and expected achievement scores grows with the achievement score being closer to the mean of 100 than the IQ score.
Students with IQs below 100 have expected achievement scores higher than their IQ (CLICK ARROW) and students with IQs above 100 have expected achievement scores that are lower than their IQ (CLICK ARROW). This is caused by the tendency for expected achievement scores to regress or cluster more closely around the mean.
Do examples: Let me show you some examples
A student with an IQ of 100 will tend to have achievement standard scores around 100
A student with an IQ of 85 will tend to have achievement scores around 91, (CLICK) closer to 100 than their IQ and a difference of 6 points
A student with an IQ of 120 will tend to have achievement scores around 112, (CLICK) closer to 100 than their IQ score and a difference of 8 point.The regression formula allows students with a range of intellectual abilities to be considered for learning disabilities identification with statistical precision. Current literature on the use of various discrepancy formulas supports its use.
Standard scores are used to with the regression method
EXPLAIN PICTURE: NOTE:
The two curves show how IQ and expected achievement scores compare.
IQ does not exactly predict achievement scores. Furthermore the difference between IQ and expected achievement scores are not always the same. As a student’s IQ moves further away from the mean of 100, the difference between IQ and expected achievement scores grows with the achievement score being closer to the mean of 100 than the IQ score.
Students with IQs below 100 have expected achievement scores higher than their IQ (CLICK ARROW) and students with IQs above 100 have expected achievement scores that are lower than their IQ (CLICK ARROW). This is caused by the tendency for expected achievement scores to regress or cluster more closely around the mean.
Do examples: Let me show you some examples
A student with an IQ of 100 will tend to have achievement standard scores around 100
A student with an IQ of 85 will tend to have achievement scores around 91, (CLICK) closer to 100 than their IQ and a difference of 6 points
A student with an IQ of 120 will tend to have achievement scores around 112, (CLICK) closer to 100 than their IQ score and a difference of 8 point.
35. Regression plot: IQ vs. Reading Comprehension with Significant Discrepancy line Here is another way to show you the concept of regression, this time using a scatterplot diagram. This diagram represents a real sample population.
The scatterplot shows the IQ and reading comprehension scores for 120, third grade children using an IQ/Achievement test correlation of .60 For example the point outlined in red is for a child with an IQ of 82 who received a standard score of 90 on a reading comprehension test.
The top line (or regression line) cuts through the mean (or average) reading score at each IQ point. So for example the average achievement score for all the students in this sample with IQs of 110 who were give the reading comprehension test was about 105. The regression line is like a floating average. All points above and below the line tend to balance out.
The mean (or regression line) also represents the best estimate or expected achievement for a student with a given intellectual ability score.
You can also see that the expected achievement score tends to be higher than IQ for children with IQs above 100 and lower than IQ for children with IQs below 100.
The bottom line represents the 1.75 SeE cut-off, Wisconsin’s guideline for significant discrepancy. SeE represents the standard deviation or variability of scores from the regression line.
In this sample, 6 students or 5% were found to have a significant discrepancy. The anticipated rate in the population is just over 4% so this sample is pretty close to what we’d expect to find.
Here is another way to show you the concept of regression, this time using a scatterplot diagram. This diagram represents a real sample population.
The scatterplot shows the IQ and reading comprehension scores for 120, third grade children using an IQ/Achievement test correlation of .60 For example the point outlined in red is for a child with an IQ of 82 who received a standard score of 90 on a reading comprehension test.
The top line (or regression line) cuts through the mean (or average) reading score at each IQ point. So for example the average achievement score for all the students in this sample with IQs of 110 who were give the reading comprehension test was about 105. The regression line is like a floating average. All points above and below the line tend to balance out.
The mean (or regression line) also represents the best estimate or expected achievement for a student with a given intellectual ability score.
You can also see that the expected achievement score tends to be higher than IQ for children with IQs above 100 and lower than IQ for children with IQs below 100.
The bottom line represents the 1.75 SeE cut-off, Wisconsin’s guideline for significant discrepancy. SeE represents the standard deviation or variability of scores from the regression line.
In this sample, 6 students or 5% were found to have a significant discrepancy. The anticipated rate in the population is just over 4% so this sample is pretty close to what we’d expect to find.
36. Updated August 2001 WI DPI 36 Regression Formula Calculation This computer program was developed to automatically calculate all variables in the regression formula. The regression formula provides a comparison between achievement scores and cognitive ability that accounts for the regression of achievement scores toward the mean.
You can determine the expected achievement as well as whether a significant discrepancy exists by entering the standard scores for intellectual ability and achievement. You can change the mean and standard deviation as needed for the test you are using. Since we we ask that you the most reliable tests possible, you should not change the reliabilities provided. Achievement tests with reliabilities lower than .90 are of questionable use for making eligibility decisions. Test with with reliability coefficients lower than . ???. Should never be used for calculating the regression formula.
Let’s look at a few examples. This will help you understand how achievement scores generally regress toward the mean. Students with high intellectual ability (IQs) tend to have achievement scores lower than their intellectual ability score (closer to the mean of 100) and students with low intellectual ability tend to have achievement scores higher than their ability score (closer to the mean of 100)
Demonstrate how to use
Put in 85 for IQ score- look at expected achievement- It is higher, closer to the mean of 100
Put in 120- look at expected achievement- it is lower than the IQ, closer to the mean of 100
Put in some achievement scores to show the “z” score. The “z” score needs to be 1.75 or greater for a student to be eligible. Please note that you can not always get an exact “z” score of 1.75. A cut-off that is off by a couple of hundredths (not tenths) should be considered a discrepancy. If the z-score is greater or equal to 1.75 then a significant discrepancy exists.
You should change the correlation if the test manual provides one, otherwise leave it at .62. Do one more example with IQ 95, Achievement. 76 then correlation .78 (math) and .42(listening comp.) to show how it affects cut-off
You can download a copy of this excel program from the LD program page on the DPI Special Education Team homepage at http://www.dpi.state.wi.us/dpi/dlsea/een/ld.html (on handout)This computer program was developed to automatically calculate all variables in the regression formula. The regression formula provides a comparison between achievement scores and cognitive ability that accounts for the regression of achievement scores toward the mean.
You can determine the expected achievement as well as whether a significant discrepancy exists by entering the standard scores for intellectual ability and achievement. You can change the mean and standard deviation as needed for the test you are using. Since we we ask that you the most reliable tests possible, you should not change the reliabilities provided. Achievement tests with reliabilities lower than .90 are of questionable use for making eligibility decisions. Test with with reliability coefficients lower than . ???. Should never be used for calculating the regression formula.
Let’s look at a few examples. This will help you understand how achievement scores generally regress toward the mean. Students with high intellectual ability (IQs) tend to have achievement scores lower than their intellectual ability score (closer to the mean of 100) and students with low intellectual ability tend to have achievement scores higher than their ability score (closer to the mean of 100)
Demonstrate how to use
Put in 85 for IQ score- look at expected achievement- It is higher, closer to the mean of 100
Put in 120- look at expected achievement- it is lower than the IQ, closer to the mean of 100
Put in some achievement scores to show the “z” score. The “z” score needs to be 1.75 or greater for a student to be eligible. Please note that you can not always get an exact “z” score of 1.75. A cut-off that is off by a couple of hundredths (not tenths) should be considered a discrepancy. If the z-score is greater or equal to 1.75 then a significant discrepancy exists.
You should change the correlation if the test manual provides one, otherwise leave it at .62. Do one more example with IQ 95, Achievement. 76 then correlation .78 (math) and .42(listening comp.) to show how it affects cut-off
You can download a copy of this excel program from the LD program page on the DPI Special Education Team homepage at http://www.dpi.state.wi.us/dpi/dlsea/een/ld.html (on handout)
37. Updated August 2001 WI DPI 37 Significant Discrepancy The regression procedure may not be used if the IEP team determines the child can not attain valid and reliable scores because of the child’s test behavior, language, age, or if another impairment interferes with the attainment of valid and reliable scores The regression formula is valid and reliable for use with children of any age as long a the test scores used in its calculation are reliable and valid.
Determining a student’s intellectual ability, and ultimately whether the student meets eligibility criteria, is an IEP team decision.
IEP teams must continue to justify the basis of their decision if they are unable to use the regression formula because valid standardized test scores can not be obtained due to a child’s test behavior, age, or other interfering factors. We expect this to be an extremely rare occurrence.
In the very rare case when a child’s impairment does not allow accurate measurement of intellectual ability or achievement using traditional standardized tests, the IEP team must use other means to document that a discrepancy exists and the basis for the decision.
In all cases, the decision of whether a significant discrepancy exists must be based on hard data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE- If question asked about VIQ vs. PIQ vs. no IQ
Recommendation from professors around state and in WISC-3 test administration manual is to use FSIQ except when child has sensory impairment such as blindness of deafness. It is up to the IEP team to use the most valid estimate of a child’s intellectual functioning. Please review test manuals regarding cautions on the use of factor scores to determine general intellectual ability.
The regression formula is valid and reliable for use with children of any age as long a the test scores used in its calculation are reliable and valid.
Determining a student’s intellectual ability, and ultimately whether the student meets eligibility criteria, is an IEP team decision.
IEP teams must continue to justify the basis of their decision if they are unable to use the regression formula because valid standardized test scores can not be obtained due to a child’s test behavior, age, or other interfering factors. We expect this to be an extremely rare occurrence.
In the very rare case when a child’s impairment does not allow accurate measurement of intellectual ability or achievement using traditional standardized tests, the IEP team must use other means to document that a discrepancy exists and the basis for the decision.
In all cases, the decision of whether a significant discrepancy exists must be based on hard data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE- If question asked about VIQ vs. PIQ vs. no IQ
Recommendation from professors around state and in WISC-3 test administration manual is to use FSIQ except when child has sensory impairment such as blindness of deafness. It is up to the IEP team to use the most valid estimate of a child’s intellectual functioning. Please review test manuals regarding cautions on the use of factor scores to determine general intellectual ability.
38. Updated August 2001 WI DPI 38 Significant Discrepancy The IEP team may consider a discrepancy exists if the student’s standardized tests scores approach, but does not meet the cut-off AND the student meets all other criteria If the calculation comes close to, but does not meet the cut-off, the IEP team may consider a significant discrepancy exists if the students meets all other criteria.
This is acceptable because there is some error in every test score. No score is exact, but rather represents a range of where the actual score really is. For example a score of 100 in Math Calculation on the Woodcock Johnson Tests of Achievement could actually be a score anywhere between 96 and 103. You need to consider this when you analyze test scores for use with the regression formula.
When we say close we mean by hundredths if using the regression program or around 1 pt. on the regression table.
If the calculation comes close to, but does not meet the cut-off, the IEP team may consider a significant discrepancy exists if the students meets all other criteria.
This is acceptable because there is some error in every test score. No score is exact, but rather represents a range of where the actual score really is. For example a score of 100 in Math Calculation on the Woodcock Johnson Tests of Achievement could actually be a score anywhere between 96 and 103. You need to consider this when you analyze test scores for use with the regression formula.
When we say close we mean by hundredths if using the regression program or around 1 pt. on the regression table.
39. Updated August 2001 WI DPI 39 Using Regression Tables FSIQ= 105
Oral Expression= 97
Listening Comp.= 90(.54)
Basic Reading Skill= 78 (.59)
Reading Comp.= 86 (.73)
Written Expression= 80 (.55)
Math Computation= 95
Math Reasoning= 100 Now you will have the opportunity to see how easy the regression formula is to apply.
Please take out your regression chart (handout). The left hand column corresponds to the students full scale or composite score for intellectual ability. The top row corresponds to the correlation of the tests you used to measure intellectual ability and achievement. Many tests publish these correlations. You can find them the the test administration manuals. When you select the correlation always use the 95th confidence interval. If the test manual does not list the correlation for the tests you used, use the column marked .62. I included correlations for the areas that could be at the level of significant discrepancy. You really don’t need to do the calculations for the areas that are close to IQ because these clearly would not constitute a significant discrepancy.
The chart we gave you can only be used with standard scores with a mean of 100 and a SD of 15. You can however use the computer program we showed you with any tests . If the correlation is not listed, you may use the correlation that is closest. If you want/need to be more precise, use the computer program.
The numbers in the chart are the achievement cut-scores. If the student’s score is at or below the cut-score then a significant discrepancy exists.
Let try it.
Do the first one as a large group, then instruct them to work with a partner to do the rest.
Answer- There is a significant discrepancy in basic reading skill and written expression.
Remember a student is not SLD unless all criteria are met. Now you will have the opportunity to see how easy the regression formula is to apply.
Please take out your regression chart (handout). The left hand column corresponds to the students full scale or composite score for intellectual ability. The top row corresponds to the correlation of the tests you used to measure intellectual ability and achievement. Many tests publish these correlations. You can find them the the test administration manuals. When you select the correlation always use the 95th confidence interval. If the test manual does not list the correlation for the tests you used, use the column marked .62. I included correlations for the areas that could be at the level of significant discrepancy. You really don’t need to do the calculations for the areas that are close to IQ because these clearly would not constitute a significant discrepancy.
The chart we gave you can only be used with standard scores with a mean of 100 and a SD of 15. You can however use the computer program we showed you with any tests . If the correlation is not listed, you may use the correlation that is closest. If you want/need to be more precise, use the computer program.
The numbers in the chart are the achievement cut-scores. If the student’s score is at or below the cut-score then a significant discrepancy exists.
Let try it.
Do the first one as a large group, then instruct them to work with a partner to do the rest.
Answer- There is a significant discrepancy in basic reading skill and written expression.
Remember a student is not SLD unless all criteria are met.
40. Updated August 2001 WI DPI 40 Using Regression Tables- Results In the example, basic reading, written expression and reading comprehension are at the level of significant discrepancy from intellectual ability. The student’s obtained scores are either at or below the cut-offs
It is not be necessary to calculate discrepancy cut-scores for areas that are clearly not discrepant unless requested by an IEP team participant. For this student, the areas of oral expression, math calculation and math reasoning are clearly within the range of her ability and within the average range in the general population. Cut-scores were not calculated for these areas. Cut-scores were calculated for areas of suspected significant discrepancy (basic reading skills, reading comprehension, listening comprehension and written expression). In the example, basic reading, written expression and reading comprehension are at the level of significant discrepancy from intellectual ability. The student’s obtained scores are either at or below the cut-offs
It is not be necessary to calculate discrepancy cut-scores for areas that are clearly not discrepant unless requested by an IEP team participant. For this student, the areas of oral expression, math calculation and math reasoning are clearly within the range of her ability and within the average range in the general population. Cut-scores were not calculated for these areas. Cut-scores were calculated for areas of suspected significant discrepancy (basic reading skills, reading comprehension, listening comprehension and written expression).
41. Questions
42. Updated August 2001 WI DPI 42 What is Information Processing? How sensory input is transformed, reduced, elaborated, stored, retrieved and used
An information processing deficit means a pattern of severe problems with storage, organization, acquisition, retrieval, expression, or manipulation of information The IEP team must also consider information processing when it evaluates a child for suspected SLD.
But what is “information processing?
Information processing refers to an individual’s ability to take in information, make sense of it, and plan and create a response. It is how sensory input is transformed, reduced, elaborated, stored, retrieved and used
The new rules state that an information processing deficit means a pattern of severe problems with storage, organization, acquisition, retrieval, expression, or manipulation of information
Most of you are familiar with the concept of metacognitive or higher order processing. These skills are part of information processing.
The IEP team must also consider information processing when it evaluates a child for suspected SLD.
But what is “information processing?
Information processing refers to an individual’s ability to take in information, make sense of it, and plan and create a response. It is how sensory input is transformed, reduced, elaborated, stored, retrieved and used
The new rules state that an information processing deficit means a pattern of severe problems with storage, organization, acquisition, retrieval, expression, or manipulation of information
Most of you are familiar with the concept of metacognitive or higher order processing. These skills are part of information processing.
43. Updated August 2001 WI DPI 43 Information Processing Deficit Acquisition- Accurately gaining, receiving, and/or perceiving information
Storage- adding information to existing information
Organization- structuring information Let’s define each of the information processing areas listed in the rule
Acquisition is related to the student’s ability to take in information (input)-Accurately gaining, receiving, and/or perceiving information. One common example is phonological awareness. The child may simply not be able to “hear” that a word is made up of sound parts (syllables) or individual sounds (phonemes) even though the child doesn’t have a hearing loss.
Storage- mean adding information to existing information. We commonly call this long and short term memory or working memory (like RAM on a computer). Many students with SLD have memory deficits.
Organization- many students with SLD have difficulty both storing information in an organized way as well as organizing information as they work with it to get to a desired outcome (i.e. when they use what is called, working memory). Organization refers to adding information to existing information. A student with organization problems may have quite a bit of information stored, but may have trouble locating the information because it is not organized, much like what would happen if you threw papers into a file cabinet without using file folders. Some students show organizational difficulties when they can’t sequence events in the correct order. Messy work, incomplete assignments, and impulsive responses that indicates a lack of planning may be other signs of organizational problems Let’s define each of the information processing areas listed in the rule
Acquisition is related to the student’s ability to take in information (input)-Accurately gaining, receiving, and/or perceiving information. One common example is phonological awareness. The child may simply not be able to “hear” that a word is made up of sound parts (syllables) or individual sounds (phonemes) even though the child doesn’t have a hearing loss.
Storage- mean adding information to existing information. We commonly call this long and short term memory or working memory (like RAM on a computer). Many students with SLD have memory deficits.
Organization- many students with SLD have difficulty both storing information in an organized way as well as organizing information as they work with it to get to a desired outcome (i.e. when they use what is called, working memory). Organization refers to adding information to existing information. A student with organization problems may have quite a bit of information stored, but may have trouble locating the information because it is not organized, much like what would happen if you threw papers into a file cabinet without using file folders. Some students show organizational difficulties when they can’t sequence events in the correct order. Messy work, incomplete assignments, and impulsive responses that indicates a lack of planning may be other signs of organizational problems
44. Updated August 2001 WI DPI 44 Information Processing Deficit Manipulation- applying, using or altering information
Retrieval- locating or recalling stored information upon demand
Expression- communicating information
Manipulation is what a student does with the information they are trying to process. It involves applying, using or altering information. For example, when a student is asked to describe the main idea of a story, they have to manipulate the information provided in order to infer meaning and identify the main idea. Other problems with manipulation might include difficulty interpreting social cues or applying knowledge and skills to new situations.
Retrieval refers to the ability to locate or recall stored information upon demand. We often encounter retrieval problems when we can define a concept, but can’t come up with the actual word. A common example would be the student that seems to “get” how to do long division during a one to one lesson with a teacher, but when given a worksheet to do independently, can’t remember the algorithm to use. The information might be stored to do division, but the student might need a prompt to recall the algorithm (e.g. the “divide, multiply, subtract, bring-down chant, cue card, etc.) Some students who have trouble with retrieval, can recall information, but do so very slowly. In fact, slow processing, or processing speed can affect any of the information processing areas.
The last process, expression, is related to the student’s ability to communicate information either with words, gestures, illustrations, or in writing. The student may know the answer, but may not be able to construct a response. Trouble with oral, reading, and writing fluency are indicative of expressive problems. Students with these problems may not participate in class, or may ask or answer questions that may seem unrelated to the content being discussed in class. Manipulation is what a student does with the information they are trying to process. It involves applying, using or altering information. For example, when a student is asked to describe the main idea of a story, they have to manipulate the information provided in order to infer meaning and identify the main idea. Other problems with manipulation might include difficulty interpreting social cues or applying knowledge and skills to new situations.
Retrieval refers to the ability to locate or recall stored information upon demand. We often encounter retrieval problems when we can define a concept, but can’t come up with the actual word. A common example would be the student that seems to “get” how to do long division during a one to one lesson with a teacher, but when given a worksheet to do independently, can’t remember the algorithm to use. The information might be stored to do division, but the student might need a prompt to recall the algorithm (e.g. the “divide, multiply, subtract, bring-down chant, cue card, etc.) Some students who have trouble with retrieval, can recall information, but do so very slowly. In fact, slow processing, or processing speed can affect any of the information processing areas.
The last process, expression, is related to the student’s ability to communicate information either with words, gestures, illustrations, or in writing. The student may know the answer, but may not be able to construct a response. Trouble with oral, reading, and writing fluency are indicative of expressive problems. Students with these problems may not participate in class, or may ask or answer questions that may seem unrelated to the content being discussed in class.
45. Updated August 2001 WI DPI 45 Information Processing and SLD Most people have and compensate for information processing weaknesses
An information processing weakness or difference is not a deficit unless it causes problems with academic achievement
There must be a link between the processing deficit and achievement delays It is important to recognize most academic skills, particularly more complex skills like reading comprehension, written expression and mathematical reasoning require the coordinated operation of most if not all of these processing skills in order for the student to demonstrate successful learning.
Most people have processing strengths and weaknesses BUT most individuals are able to compensate for their weaknesses so they can learn with reasonable efficient. Their processing weaknesses do not significantly affect the student’s ability to learn. This is not the case with students with SLD.
There may be many reasons that students have achievement problems. When learning breaks down, it is important to identify why. If the answer is because of something within the child’s learning system, then it is likely the student has a true SLD. The analysis of information processing skills is critical in making this determination.
In short, an information processing weakness or difference is not a deficit under WI rules, unless it causes severe problems with achievement. There must be a link.
For example, if a student is having severe problems with decoding text, the team must distinguish whether the learning delay is due to the fact that certain skills have not been sufficiently or explicitly taught or whether it is due, let’s say, to the student’s difficulty distinguishing sound patterns and making sense of letter:sound relationships. If the student is able to discriminate sounds and relate them to symbols, it is unlikely that the cause of the decoding problem is due to a SLD.
Likewise, a student may have measurable weaknesses in visual processing and discrimination, and may even frequently reverse letters, but if the student is making sufficient progress in reading, then it is likely that the processing problem is just a weakness and not an actual deficit. It is important to recognize most academic skills, particularly more complex skills like reading comprehension, written expression and mathematical reasoning require the coordinated operation of most if not all of these processing skills in order for the student to demonstrate successful learning.
Most people have processing strengths and weaknesses BUT most individuals are able to compensate for their weaknesses so they can learn with reasonable efficient. Their processing weaknesses do not significantly affect the student’s ability to learn. This is not the case with students with SLD.
There may be many reasons that students have achievement problems. When learning breaks down, it is important to identify why. If the answer is because of something within the child’s learning system, then it is likely the student has a true SLD. The analysis of information processing skills is critical in making this determination.
In short, an information processing weakness or difference is not a deficit under WI rules, unless it causes severe problems with achievement. There must be a link.
For example, if a student is having severe problems with decoding text, the team must distinguish whether the learning delay is due to the fact that certain skills have not been sufficiently or explicitly taught or whether it is due, let’s say, to the student’s difficulty distinguishing sound patterns and making sense of letter:sound relationships. If the student is able to discriminate sounds and relate them to symbols, it is unlikely that the cause of the decoding problem is due to a SLD.
Likewise, a student may have measurable weaknesses in visual processing and discrimination, and may even frequently reverse letters, but if the student is making sufficient progress in reading, then it is likely that the processing problem is just a weakness and not an actual deficit.
46. Updated August 2001 WI DPI 46 Information Processing What is the nature of the student’s achievement delays? When evaluating student’s information processing skills, the IEP team explores the nature of the student’s achievement delays.
Additional Reference: MN Dept. of Children, Families and Learning (1998). SLD Companion Manual. Minneapolis, MN: Author When evaluating student’s information processing skills, the IEP team explores the nature of the student’s achievement delays.
Additional Reference: MN Dept. of Children, Families and Learning (1998). SLD Companion Manual. Minneapolis, MN: Author
47. Updated August 2001 WI DPI 47 Information Processing Sources of Data standardized cognitive & information processing tests
error analysis of responses on standardized tests
error analysis of responses on performance-based assessments evaluation of daily work
student interview/self assessment
diagnostic teaching
outside agency evaluations
observations of family members IEP teams may evaluate a student’s information processing skills based on observations, interviews, and other data collection procedures. It is important to identify information processing strengths as well as areas of difficulty and use that information to assist in making eligibility decisions as well decisions about the students instructional needs.
Here are some sources of data that the IEP team may use to determine that an information processing deficit exists.
Remember that the IEP team MUST triangulate this data with other information to verify that any processing weaknesses are indeed linked to achievement delays and areas of discrepancy.
One last note. You should NOT use the cut-off scores on the regression table to identify an information processing deficit. The regression table compares the scores of two different tests. What you are looking at when you use a standardized cognitive ability or information processing test is within child, within test comparisons. The regression table is only to be used for between test comparisons. IEP teams may evaluate a student’s information processing skills based on observations, interviews, and other data collection procedures. It is important to identify information processing strengths as well as areas of difficulty and use that information to assist in making eligibility decisions as well decisions about the students instructional needs.
Here are some sources of data that the IEP team may use to determine that an information processing deficit exists.
Remember that the IEP team MUST triangulate this data with other information to verify that any processing weaknesses are indeed linked to achievement delays and areas of discrepancy.
One last note. You should NOT use the cut-off scores on the regression table to identify an information processing deficit. The regression table compares the scores of two different tests. What you are looking at when you use a standardized cognitive ability or information processing test is within child, within test comparisons. The regression table is only to be used for between test comparisons.
48. Questions Information Processing
49. Updated August 2001 WI DPI 49 Case Application Example Read the case to decide if the student meets eligibility for the impairment of SLD
Is there a severe delay in classroom achievement?
Is there a significant discrepancy between intellectual ability and academic achievement?
Does the child have an information processing deficit linked to the achievement delay and discrepancy?
Do any of the exclusions apply?
Are there any questions you need more information about before you could make a decision? Now we will give you the opportunity to apply what you have learned.
Read the case in you handouts. See if you can answer the questions. You may work with a person next to you if you’d like.
Is there a severe delay in classroom achievement?
Is there a significant discrepancy between intellectual ability and academic achievement?
Does the child have an information processing deficit linked to the achievement delay and discrepancy?
Do any of the exclusions apply?
Are there any questions you need more information about before you could make a decision?
Give 15 min. Now we will give you the opportunity to apply what you have learned.
Read the case in you handouts. See if you can answer the questions. You may work with a person next to you if you’d like.
Is there a severe delay in classroom achievement?
Is there a significant discrepancy between intellectual ability and academic achievement?
Does the child have an information processing deficit linked to the achievement delay and discrepancy?
Do any of the exclusions apply?
Are there any questions you need more information about before you could make a decision?
Give 15 min.
50. Updated August 2001 WI DPI 50 Summary Triangulation is the Key In summary, the data analyzed must provide a consistent pattern of SLD.
Any inconsistencies across data should be analyzed. Finding out why the results are inconsistent often provided critical information about
whether the child actually has an impairment and
the needs of the child.
For example, a child may demonstrate significant achievement problems in math in the classroom, but may score in the average range on a standardized achievement test and in the basic or proficient category on the WKCE. The child may also show very slow processing speed. The team needs to ask, “The child is able to demonstrate average math skills on standardized tests, but then why is she not showing this during classroom instruction?” Perhaps when given sufficient time and a quiet environment the child concentrates better and can demonstrate adequate skills. This would not indicate SLD, but a mismatch between the instructional setting/methods and the student’s learning style. It is possible, with reasonable general education options, interventions, or modifications, the child could be successful.
Data from observation, classroom performance measures (including informal and criterion referenced tools), and standardized tests must collectively support the finding that the student meets eligibility criteria.
In the case you just looked at data regarding the student’s basic reading skills triangulated. The teacher reported severe delays in decoding and trouble remembering sight words. The classroom benchmark checklist showed weaknesses in these areas as well. Standard scores showed a significant discrepancy in basic reading skills. Finally both informal and formal data regarding information processing skills showed deficits in related areas of phonological awareness, auditory processing, and failure to recall and use strategies to help her read. In summary, the data analyzed must provide a consistent pattern of SLD.
Any inconsistencies across data should be analyzed. Finding out why the results are inconsistent often provided critical information about
whether the child actually has an impairment and
the needs of the child.
For example, a child may demonstrate significant achievement problems in math in the classroom, but may score in the average range on a standardized achievement test and in the basic or proficient category on the WKCE. The child may also show very slow processing speed. The team needs to ask, “The child is able to demonstrate average math skills on standardized tests, but then why is she not showing this during classroom instruction?” Perhaps when given sufficient time and a quiet environment the child concentrates better and can demonstrate adequate skills. This would not indicate SLD, but a mismatch between the instructional setting/methods and the student’s learning style. It is possible, with reasonable general education options, interventions, or modifications, the child could be successful.
Data from observation, classroom performance measures (including informal and criterion referenced tools), and standardized tests must collectively support the finding that the student meets eligibility criteria.
In the case you just looked at data regarding the student’s basic reading skills triangulated. The teacher reported severe delays in decoding and trouble remembering sight words. The classroom benchmark checklist showed weaknesses in these areas as well. Standard scores showed a significant discrepancy in basic reading skills. Finally both informal and formal data regarding information processing skills showed deficits in related areas of phonological awareness, auditory processing, and failure to recall and use strategies to help her read.
51. Updated August 2001 WI DPI 51 Summary Triangulation is the Key All criteria must be met
Evaluation data points to a pattern of SLD
severe classroom achievement delay and significant discrepancy in at least one area
information processing deficit must be linked to the achievement delay and discrepancy
exclusions may not be the primary reason for the classroom delay and discrepancy In summary, once all the evaluation data is analyzed there should be a clear pattern of SLD in order for a child to meet eligibility criteria.
All criteria must be met
severe classroom achievement delay and significant discrepancy in at least one area (must be at least one in the same area)
information processing deficit must be linked to the achievement delay and discrepancy
exclusions may not be the primary reason for the classroom delay and discrepancy
Potential alternate explanations for classroom achievement delays such as sufficient general education instruction or English as a second language. Other possible interfering factors that may be the primary reason for the achievement delays and discrepancy, including other impairments should be ruled out. In summary, once all the evaluation data is analyzed there should be a clear pattern of SLD in order for a child to meet eligibility criteria.
All criteria must be met
severe classroom achievement delay and significant discrepancy in at least one area (must be at least one in the same area)
information processing deficit must be linked to the achievement delay and discrepancy
exclusions may not be the primary reason for the classroom delay and discrepancy
Potential alternate explanations for classroom achievement delays such as sufficient general education instruction or English as a second language. Other possible interfering factors that may be the primary reason for the achievement delays and discrepancy, including other impairments should be ruled out.
52. Questions Thank you for coming. We hope this was a helpful introduction to the new eligibility criteria
Please check the Website intermittently. We will be posting additional resources related to implementing new SLD criteria throughout this school year. Thank you for coming. We hope this was a helpful introduction to the new eligibility criteria
Please check the Website intermittently. We will be posting additional resources related to implementing new SLD criteria throughout this school year.
