program support meeting specific learning disabilities april 2008 n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Program Support Meeting Specific Learning Disabilities April 2008 PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Program Support Meeting Specific Learning Disabilities April 2008

Program Support Meeting Specific Learning Disabilities April 2008

582 Views Download Presentation
Download Presentation

Program Support Meeting Specific Learning Disabilities April 2008

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Program Support MeetingSpecific Learning DisabilitiesApril 2008 Presented by: Kathy Laffin WI Dept of Public Instruction

  2. PART I: Identifying Specific Learning Disabilities Interconnections: Identification of Young Children Speech Language Specific Learning Disabilities

  3. Cognitive Disability Orthopedic Impairment Visual Impairment Hearing Impairment Speech or Language Impariment Specific Learning Disability Emotional Behavioral Disability Autism Traumatic Brain Injury Other Health Impairment Significant Developmental Delay Impairment Areas


  5. Significant Developmental Delay (a) Significant developmental delay means children, ages 3, 4 and 5 years of age or below compulsory school attendance age, who are experiencing significant delays in the areas of physical, cognition, communication, social—emotional or adaptive development.

  6. Significant Developmental Delay (b) All other suspected impairments under this section shall be considered before identifying a child’s primary impairment as significant developmental delay.

  7. Significant Developmental Delay (c) A child may be identified as having significant developmental delay when delays in development significantly challenge the child in two or more of the following five major life activities: 1. Physical activity in gross motor skills 2. Cognitive activity 3. Communication activity in expressive language 4. Emotional activity 5. Adaptive activity

  8. Significant Developmental Delay (d) Documentation of significant developmental delays under par. (c) and their detrimental effect upon the child’s daily life shall be based upon qualitative and quantitative measures including all of the following: 1. A developmental and basic health history, including results from vision and hearing screenings and other pertinent information from parents …. 2. Observation of the child in his or her daily living environment… 3. Results from norm—referenced instruments OR other instruments to document the significant delays….

  9. NOTE additional information at including Q & A document

  10. State Performance Plan

  11. State Performance Plan • The Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) of 2004 requires DPI to have in place a State Performance Plan that evaluates the State's efforts to implement the requirements and purposes of IDEA and describes how the State will improve performance. • As part of the State Performance Plan, DPI, with stakeholder input, set measurable and rigorous targets for indicators established by OSEP under the priority areas. • For indicators related to compliance, OSEP set the target at 100%. For indicators related to disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups, OSEP set the target at 0%.


  13. State Performance PlanSpecial Education Procedural Compliance Self-Assessment • The Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (WDPI) conducts cyclical compliance monitoring of public agencies. • Cyclical compliance monitoring is conducted through a public agency self-assessment of special education requirements. Each year the WDPI verifies the self-assessments of selected public agencies. The assessment uses samples of students' individualized education program records, interviews, and other sources. • The requirements are related to Wisconsin's Continuous Improvement and Focused Monitoring System (CIFMS) priorities and IDEA State Performance Plan indicators. • All public agencies will be monitored during the current IDEA State Performance Plan (SPP) cycle, ending with the 2010-2011 school year. One-fifth of the public agencies are monitored each year beginning with the 2006-2007 school year.

  14. IDEA Preschool Discretionary Grants SPP #7 Child Outcomes SPP #8 Family Outcomes SPP #6 Preschool Educational Environments SPP #12 Transition from Part C State Performance Plan System of Personnel Development Early Childhood Program Support/Leadership Networks and Community Partnerships

  15. Child OutcomePart B Indicator #7 Percent of preschool children with IEPs who demonstrate improved: A. Positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships); B. Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language/communication and early literacy); and C. Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs. Districts participate in the collection of data for this indicator in the same year in which they complete the self-assessment of procedural compliance. Entry data is collected on all preschool-age children who initially enter special education in the district during the cycle year. Exit data for all these children is collected when they exit from preschool programs or turn age 6.

  16. Child OutcomePart B Indicator #7

  17. Preschool Educational Environments Part B Indicator #6 Percent of preschool children with IEPs who received special education and related services in settings with typically developing peers (e.g., early childhood settings, home, and part-time early childhood/part-time early childhood special education settings). Information is collected annually through the ‘child count’ process.

  18. Family OutcomesPart B Indicator #8 Percent of parents with a child receiving special education services who report that schools facilitated parent involvement as a means of improving services and results for children with disabilities.. This indicator applies to all of Part B (3-21). Data are collected through a sampling strategy in line with the self assessment cycle.

  19. Transitions from Part Part B Indicator #12 Percent of children referred by Part C prior to age 3, who are found eligible for Part B, and who have an IEP developed and implemented by their third birthdays. Data are collected annually with the Local Performance Plan (LPP).

  20. Transitions from Part C Part B Indicator #12 DRAFT Timeline – Pending Part C Regulations Child’s 3rd Birthday No more than 9 months prior and not later than 90 days prior to the 3rd birthday. At least 9 months prior to the third birthday 120 days prior to the third birthday 15 + 60 30 B-3 transition planning activities and IFSP documentation Transition Planning Conference Referral Received Electronically or in writing Up to 15 business days Undefined; up to parent. Within 60 calendar days Within 30 calendar days After parent consent IEP Meeting to Determine Eligibility Request Parent Consent for Evaluation Receive Parent Consent for Evaluation IEP and Placement Developed IEP Implemented OR Notice sent that no additional data are needed 60 Within 60 calendar days

  21. For More Information State: • • Listing of Statewide Training and Technical Assistance Personnel: • National: • The National Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center: • The National Early Childhood Transition Center: • Naitonal Individualizing Preschool Inclusion Project • The National Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center • • The Center for the Social Emotional Foundations of Early Learning CSEFEL Mary L. Peters Educational Consultant / 619 Coordinator

  22. Speech and Language (SL) • Special Education Service • Related Service SL Eligibility Checklist:

  23. Speech or Language (SL) Impairment • Speech or Language Impairment means: An impairment of speech or sound production, voice, fluency, or language that significantly affects educational performance or social, emotional or vocational development. PI 11.36(5)(a)

  24. SL Eligibility CriteriaOral Communication • Language • Norm Referenced Measures -1.75 S.D. • Interferes with oral communication • Informal Assessment • PI 11.36(5)

  25. Eligibility CriteriaOral Communication • Alternate Method • Formal tests are inappropriate • Requires two informal measurement procedures • Affects child’s educational performance or social, emotional, or vocational development

  26. SL Eligibility CriteriaSpeech Or Sound Production • Norm Or Criterion Referenced Testing • Below 1.75 S.D. on test of articulation or phonology (or) • Sound errors beyond the time when 90% of typically developing children have acquired the sound (or)

  27. SL Eligibility CriteriaSpeech Or Sound Production • One or more of the child’s phonological patterns of sound are at least 40% disordered (or) • The child scores in the moderate to profound range of phonological process use on formal test AND

  28. SL Eligibility CriteriaSpeech Or Sound Production • Intelligibility of the child’s speech is significantly affected • Anecdotal reporting (e.g. parent report) • Intelligibility ratio (analysis of child’s speech) • PI 11.36(5)

  29. Eligibility Criteria: Voice • Documentation of a vocal impairment • Atypical characteristic of loudness, pitch, quality, or resonance for child’s age and gender • Not due to temporary factors • Allergies, respiratory virus, puberty • PI 11.36(5)

  30. Eligibility Criteria: Fluency • Speaking behaviors characteristic of a fluency disorder are present • Repetitions, irregular speaking rate, anxiety toward speaking, avoidance of speaking situations • PI 11.36(5)

  31. Eligibility CriteriaExclusions • Mild, transitory or developmentally appropriate speech or language difficulties.. unless the child requires speech or language services in order to benefit from his or her educational programs in school, home, and community environments.

  32. Eligibility CriteriaExclusions • Dialectal differences or from learning English as a second language • Difficulties with auditory processing… • Tongue thrust • Elective or selective mutism or school phobia

  33. A comparison ofinstruction to therapy According to purpose, knowledge base, sequence, and individualization Ehren, 1999, 2000

  34. Role • Speech and language therapy framework focuses on underlying processes, skills, and strategy remediation with a problem solving approach rather than a sheltered academic environment.

  35. Purpose • Instruction • Deals with learning new information and skills in the normal course of development • Therapy • Deals with remediation or compensating for deficient skills that have not fully developed or that have been lost

  36. Knowledge Base • Instruction • Requires basic understanding of language and language processes. • Therapy • Necessitates in-depth knowledge of language, language development and language disorders

  37. Sequence • Instruction • Uses a teaching sequence based on external criteria, such as curriculum standards and progression • Therapy • Requires that the sequence of activities be based on individual needs and individual degree of progress

  38. Individualization • Instruction • Oriented toward group goals; does not always address individual needs due to time constraint and number of students; typically uses standard approach (i.e.. Third-grade content taught in third grade) • Therapy • Requires selection of individual goals; must address individual needs; requires a diagnostic or prescriptive approach

  39. Speech and Language And the IEP team process

  40. IEP Team Makes Decisions • IEP team determinations: • Eligibility • Present level of academic achievement and functional performance • Goals • Services to meet the child’s needs, as identified in the goals • Amount/frequency/duration of services

  41. IEP Team Makes Decisions • The IEP team determines how the communication needs will be met: • In the general education curriculum OR • Through another special education provider OR • That the communication needs require speech and language services

  42. Questions to ask…. • If the IEP team is considering another special education provider/service to meeting the communication needs of the child….. • Can the teacher or other service provider identify when a communication breakdown has occurred? • Can they recognize that it is related to the individual’s communication disability? • Do they know the appropriate procedures to implement to bring about change at that time?

  43. Questions to ask…. • What is the level of understanding, experience, and training relative to the language disability and the necessary language interventions the child needs to be successful? • What will be the level of contact between the teacher and the SLP? • What method (s) will be used to determine if the language need is being met?

  44. Current SLD Criteria • Classroom Achievement Delay • Significant Discrepancy • Information Processing • Absence of any exclusionary factors • Data from observation SLD Checklist (Initial Evaluation): SLD Checklist (Re-evaluation):

  45. Making Decisions: SLD-SL-SDD - Using the IEP to provide services. - What about achievement delay? - What about WI certification requirements? - What about re-evaluation? - Other questions?

  46. Summary: SLD Assessment Guide • Students are considered to have a primary speech and language impairment if they meet speech and language impairment criteria and do not display a significant discrepancy in basic reading skill, reading comprehension, written language, mathematical calculation, or mathematical reasoning. Pg. 72

  47. Addressing The Exclusionary Factors Identification of SLD

  48. Definition: Exclusions Exclusions mean “LD is not primarily the result of other conditions that can impede learning” which are listed in federal regulations as: • A visual, hearing, or motor disability; • Mental retardation; • Emotional disturbance; • Cultural factors; • Environmental or economic disadvantage; or • Limited English proficiency. § 300.309 (a)(3)

  49. Lack of Appropriate Instruction § 300.309 (b) To ensure that underachievement in a child suspected of having a specific learning disability is not due to lack of appropriate instruction in reading or math, the group must consider, as part of the evaluation . . . (1) Data that demonstrate that prior to, or as a part of, the referral process, the child was provided appropriate instruction in regular education settings, delivered by qualified personnel; and (2) Data-based documentation of repeated assessments of achievement at reasonable intervals, reflecting formal assessment of student progress during instruction, which was provided to the child’s parents.