Download - Evaluation Planning & Eligibility
Evaluation Planning & Eligibility
Identifying Learning Disabilities Under a
RTI Model
December 8, 2008Lisa Bates
Erin [email protected]
Dean Richards
ObjectivesTo build awareness about current regulations for determination of a Specific Learning Disability (SLD).
To build awareness of planning for evaluations.
To build awareness of (SLD) eligibility under a RtI process.
LogisticsPlease use the sticky notes to write down questions that you may have.
Please come back together as a group when asked
Past Practice: Previous beliefs about LDLearning Disability
Failure to achieve academically commensurate to the level of one’s cognitive abilities
AssumptionsWithin child focusCognitive assessments
Processing deficitsInstruction
differentResearch
Little empirical evidence for discrepancy model (Ysseldyke, 2005)
Little research for aptitude X treatment interaction
If past beliefs of LD are not supported by research than what is?????
Changing View of LDLearning Disability
Difficulty achieving at the expected rate and level despite having high quality explicit instruction matched to need. Ex. winter 4th grade: Class reads 105
wcpm on DIBELS but Toren reads 40 wcpmAssumptions
All students can learnLearning=Instruction, curriculum,
environment, learner (ICEL)Match intensity of need with intensity of
problemResearch
Instruction changes brain activity levels (Shaywitz)
We may be asking you questions to guide your thinking…….
Important Idea:
RTI is one component of a COMPREHENSIVE evaluation.
Individualized Approach“Trevor’s
evaluation” rather than “LD evaluation”
Consider eligibility requirements for all suspected disabilities
General evaluation requirements:
ALL special education evaluations must still be conducted so that
No single measure is used to determine eligibilityNon-biased, technically sound instruments are given
as intended, by qualified personnelAn evaluation is comprehensive enough to identify all
of a student’s special education and related service needs, even if they are not typical to a particular disability
AND all special education evaluations still begin with a review of existing information (parents, teachers, statewide assessment, etc.)
General evaluation requirements (cont’d):
ALL eligibility evaluations must establish that children may not be determined eligible if the determinant factor is lack of appropriate instruction in reading, including the essential components of reading instruction:
Phonemic awarenessPhonicsVocabularyReading fluencyComprehension strategies
Or lack of instruction in mathOr limited English proficiency
SLD regulations of note: Teams must include for all SLD
evaluations“data that demonstrate that prior
to or as part of the referral process the child was provided appropriate instruction in regular education settings, delivered by qualified personnel; and
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.”
This information is to be used to prompt evaluation as appropriate.
Districts need to define “repeated” and “reasonable intervals.”
Formal assessment could be DIBELS or other CBMs
SLD regulations of note (whether using RTI or not): Observation must be completed in regular classroom in
the area of concern If multiple concerns exist, pick the most pervasive.
May use either information from an observation in routine classroom instruction and monitoring that was done before referral; or
May conduct an observation of the child’s academic performance in the regular classroom after referral (and consent)
SLD regulations of note:
The team must establish that the child does not achieve adequately for age or to meet State-approved grade level standards in academic skills, and
The student has been provided with learning experiences and instruction appropriate for the child’s age or State-approved grade level standards
The contrast is with age and standards, not ability;
“To meet” implies looking at rate of progress
This determination of low achievement is the foundation for eligibility
SLD regulations of note:Reading fluency has been
added to the list of achievement areas basic reading skillsreading comprehensionoral expressionlistening comprehensionwritten expression mathematics calculation mathematics problem solving
This reflects current research that points to persistent reading fluency problems as an indicator of LD
SLD regulations of note: Once low achievement is
established, the team may find a student eligible if:
The child does not make progress sufficient to achieve age or State-approved grade level standards when using RTI, or
The child exhibits a pattern of strengths and weaknesses in performance, achievement, or both, relative to age, standards, or intellectual development.
Always establish the child’s progress: This is result of the RTI evaluation.
SLD regulations of note (when RTI is used):Documentation must include the kind of
instructional strategies that were used and the student centered data that was gathered;
That parents were notified:about the State’s policies about RTI that include the
kind and amount of data that must be gathered and what general education services must be provided, and
the kind of instructional strategies that were used to increase the child’s progress; and
that the parent has the right to an evaluation
With a partner share the following:
Three required components of evaluations in general.
Three required components of evaluations for Specific Learning Disabilities.
Evaluation Planning: What You Know
Individual Problem Solving Worksheet
Student Intervention ProfileProgress Monitoring DataDevelopmental History
Pg 24
Pg 31
221920
22253038
3141
3245
5155
RN 30 min
+ Phonics for Reading
Trendline
Briar
Pg 16
Evaluation Planning: What You Need to Know
Observation dataAchievement data (optional assessments, determine
areas of need)WIAT-II or Woodcock Johnson-Achievement Phonics Inventory Scored Writing SamplesCBMs
Assessments in other areas of concernCommunicationFine motorSocial/emotionalPerceptual motor/perceptionMemoryPhysical/medical (including medical statement)Cognition
Evaluation Planning: Parent ParticipationBefore referral:
Progress monitoring data/Intervention Info.
RTI pamphletInvitation to participate in EBIS
meetingsDuring referral:
Procedural Safeguards
221920
22253038
3141
3245
5155
RN 30 min
+ Phonics for Reading
Trendline
Briar
Pg 10
LD Eligibility Statement
Review the TTSD the LD Eligibility Statement
Dual Discrepancy
Low skills (the easier part)
Slow progress despite intensive intervention (The trickier part)
Does the Student Have Low Skills?
Does the student have low skills?
Core Only Core + Up to 30 Minutes of Supplemental Intervention (from the TTSD Protocol)
Core + 45 Minutes of Supplemental Intervention (from the TTSD Protocol)
90th Percentile
80th Percentile
70th Percentile
60th Percentile
50th Percentile
40th Percentile
30th Percentile May Need More Possibly LD
20th Percentile Needs More Needs More Likely LD
10th Percentile Needs More Needs More Likely LD
Defining Low SkillsArea Measures Parameters
Early Reading Phoneme Segmentation FluencyNonsense Word Fluency
WIAT-II
Scores in the Intensive range or the lowest quartile of the strategic range
Standard Score below 90
Fluency, Vocabulary, and Comprehension
Oral Reading Fluency
Oregon Statewide Assessment
WIAT-II
Scores below the 25th percentile in ORF (Hasbrouck/Tindal norms)
Does Not Meet and/or below the 25th percentile
Standard Score below 90
Math Computation
CBMs
WIAT-II
Scores below the 25th percentile (AimsWeb norms)
Standard Score below 90
Math Problem Solving
CBMS
Oregon Statewide Assessments
WIAT-II
Scores below the 25th percentile (AimsWeb norms)
Does Not Meet and/or below the 25th percentile
Standard Score below 90
Written Expression
CBMs for fluency and conventions“Best Work” Writing Samples
Scored With The Oregon State Scoring GuideOregon Statewide Assessment
WIAT-II
Scores below the 25th percentile (AimsWeb norms)
Multiple pieces earning scores of 1 or 2
Does Not Meet and/or below the 25th percentile
Standard Score below 90
Defining Intensive Intervention
Reading: Core Instruction plus 30-45 minutes per day of supplemental instruction (according to protocol).
Math & Written Expression: Core Instruction plus third tier interventions (according to protocols).
Is the student’s progress slow?
Is the student’s progress slow?
Core Only Core + Up to 30 Minutes of Supplemental Intervention (from the TTSD Protocol)
Core + 45 Minutes of Supplemental Intervention (from the TTSD Protocol)
More than 150% of expected rate of growth
110 – 150% of expected rate of growth
Possibly LD (See below)
95 – 110% of expected rate of growth
Likely LD
81 – 95% of expected rate of growth
May Need More May Need More Likely LD
80% or less of expected rate of growth
Needs More Needs More Likely LD
Defining Slow ProgressArea Measures Parameters
Early Reading Phoneme Segmentation FluencyNonsense Word Fluency
What makes sense:
Progress less than the expected rate when receiving intensive interventions. OR
Progress less than 110% of the expected rate when receiving intensive interventions. OR
Progress less than 125% of the expected rate when receiving intensive interventions.
Fluency,Vocabulary,andComprehension
Oral Reading Fluency
Oregon Statewide Assessment
MathComputation
CBMs
Math Problem Solving
CBMSOregon Statewide Assessments
WrittenExpression
CBMs for fluency and conventions
Writing Samples Scored w/ Oregon State Scoring Guide
Oregon Statewide Assessment
Other ConsiderationsContext is key
Typical growthCohort growth
Fidelity of programIntervention
attendance0
102030405060708090
100
15-S
ep1-
Oct
15-O
ctDec
.
Bob
Susie
Jill
Let’s look at Toren’s rate of improvement…..
Fluency Progress
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Date of assessment
Wor
ds C
orre
ct P
er
Min
ute
class
Toren
Linear (class)
Linear (Toren)
Is this class making appropriate growth?
Is Toren making appropriate growth?
Could Toren have LD?
Expected performance of 105 WCPM
Let’s look at Toren’s level of performance.
Is the class at the appropriate level of performance?
Is Toren at the appropriate level of performance?
Could Toren have LD?Expected
performance of 105 WCPM
Eligibility Decision Making
It comes down to the balance: How does the weight of the intervention compare to the rate of progress?
Key Factors to Examine
Instruction matched to need with appropriate intensity, duration, and frequency
Level of performanceRate of performance
221920
22253038
3141
3245
5155
RN 30 min
+ Phonics for Reading
Trendline
Briar
Tommy 1st Grader The level:
Jan: ORF 2 (accuracy 88%) Benchmark: 23
Feb: ORF 4 (accuracy 90%)
March: ORF 16 (accuracy 98%)
The rate:Tommy’s gain
.5 words/week (Jan to Feb) 3 words/week (Feb to March)
Group’s gain .6 words/week (Jan to Feb) 3 words/week (Feb to March)
Core program-Treasures Added 30 min/day of SFA
Tutoring Fidelity check of SFA
Tutoring showed it was not done to fidelity
Staff received training for SFA Tutoring
Realistic gain: 2.0 words/weekAmbitious gain: 3.0 words/week
10
20
30
40
Dec.Scores
Feb.Scores
Jan.Scores
M archScores
AprilScores
MayScores
JuneScores
60
50
SFA Tutoring
Fidelity Check
Tommy
Your TurnPlease review the next case (Rita) on your
own. Determine if she should be referred for a
special education evaluation (why or why not).
Be prepared to share with the group.
10
20
30
40
Dec.Scores
Feb.Scores
Jan.Scores
M archScores
AprilScores
MayScores
JuneScores
60
50
SFA Tutoring
Reading Mastery 30 min
Reading Mastery 45 min
Rita
Your Turn
Please review the next case (Annie) on your own.
Determine what changes you would make for her.
Be prepared to share out.
20 2419
1719
Annie
Time for ReviewIn pairs….
Have one person explain the dual discrepancy to as if you were explaining it to a parent
Have the person explain the dual discrepancy as if you were explaining it to a private psychologist
Be prepared to share out what your experience as the listener
Don’t miss the forest for the trees
Consider the ‘whole’ child
The questions on the eligibility forms merit conversation when considering a referral
The team must determine that the student’s lack of progress is not primarily pdue to:
Lack of appropriate instruction
Existence of another disability
Limited English proficiency
Environmental or Economic Disadvantage
What About…?3 Year Re-evaluationsEvaluation planning is critical step
Thorough review of current information
Same kind of thinking“Weight of progress vs. weight of
support”Disabilities are life-long conditionsSpecial education should work
LD Eligibility ReportsChecklist
Background informationLow skillsResistance to instructionObservationOpportunity to learn the skillsOther disabilitiesCultural factors or economic disadvantageLimited English proficiencyConclusion
LD Eligibility Reports
Sample Report
LD Eligibility ReportsNot so helpful:
“Kevin reads 27 words per minute at the second grade level.”
More helpful:
“Kevin reads 27 words per minute at the second grade level, while the expected level for January is 65 words per minute.”
Report Writing TipsRead and ask: Did I answer the questions I
raised?Reread with different audiences in mind:
Parents Are abbreviations spelled out? Tests explained?
Administrative law judge “What I meant, Your Honor,”
Another district’s learning specialist
How we communicate is important!
Not everyone speaks ‘Edu-speak’
Write for your audience
Quality LD Eligibility Reports
Individually: Quickly read the sample report.
In partners: How does this differ from LD reports in
your district? Which components are useful?