OS SLD Guidance:

An Overview Presentation

Oakland SchoolsUpdated June 2012

Find our Website:

www.oakland.k12.mi.us/sld

The OS SLD Guidance document is

bookmarked and searchable. All links are live!

The OS SLD Guidance Document & FAQ was

designed to:1. Provide background information and context regarding the

current state SLD classification. 2. Outline the critical requirements of the IDEA Federal

Regulations.3. Provide examples of how to operationalize the regulations

consistent with the direction from the USDOE and MDE.

The OS SLD Guidance document is not and has never intended to be specific procedures nor to mandate

an approach or single methodology for SLD identification across the county.

This document recognizes the work of: The MAASE SLD workgroup Wayne RESA Kalamazoo RESA Kent ISD Ottawa Area ISD

Our 20 stakeholders from Oakland County from 14 districts.

Numerous people from individual districts across the state who offered feedback during the drafting of this document.

Purpose of the OS DocumentThe purpose of this document is both to assist

districts in complying with all state rules and federal regulations regarding SLD, and to encourage districts to make a long-term plan for reshaping identification practices.

The intended audience for this document includes special education directors and supervisors, and the MET representatives who have a role in developing district procedures for the identification of a SLD.

What sense do you make of this data?

33.3% Oakland County Average

6

Local Districts in Oakland CountyAs of 9/20/10

PSW RTI CombinationPSW and RTI

Avondale RochesterBerkley Royal OakBirmingham SouthfieldBloomfield TroyBrandon Walled LakeClawson WaterfordClarkston West BloomfieldFarmingtonFerndaleHazel ParkHollyHuron ValleyLake OrionLamphereOak ParkNovi

PontiacSouth Lyon

OxfordClarencevilleMadison

The majority of our districts declared using PSW as part of their SLD eligibility decision as they did not have a fully implemented model. Districts are attempting to build infrastructure toward RTI to use as part of the eligibility decision for SLD which was central to the guidance that we provided.

Oakland Schools TimelineDate Actions

September 2010 1st Stakeholder meeting at Oakland Schools

October 2010 2nd Stakeholder meeting at Oakland Schools

Oct-Nov 2010 Draft initial document; Internal reviews and external reviews

Dec 2010 Released Draft Document

Jan 2011 30-day public comment period; open call for secondary stakeholders

Feb 2011 3rd Stakeholder review/revision ; 1st Secondary Stakeholder Review

March 2011 4th Stakeholder review/revision; 2nd Secondary Stakeholder Review

April- May 2011 Revision, additions (ELL, reevaluation), FAQ

June-July 2011 Final editing; Graphics and Print Production for layout

August 2011 Roll-out of SLD Guidance, FAQ and Website

Oakland Schools Perspective

A hallmark of SLD is that the low achievement is both unexpected and uncommon.

SLD exists on a continuum of severity, and any established cut-point is essentially arbitrary. SLD, however, clearly represents the lower end of the achievement distribution, and is characterized by varying degrees of severity.

The manifestation of SLD is influenced by the complex interactions of variables within the instructional environment.

Cognitive processing deficits have been linked to some SLD areas. Specific cognitive processes correlated with SLD areas other than reading are not well understood.

There is little evidence that the presence of cognitive processing deficits supports the conclusion that the difficulty in achievement is neurobiological in origin as a SLD is an integration of environmental and biological factors. Therefore, using cognitive processing constructs for use in eligibility determination has proven troublesome and remains questionable.

Part of an evaluation for SLD identification requires information about a student’s response to instruction in order to assess if environmental (experiential) and instructional deficits (lack of appropriate instructional opportunity) are the cause of the student’s inadequate achievement.

Oakland Schools Perspective

Oakland Schools Approach to Operationalizing RtI and PSWSee OS SLD Guidance page 1.6-1.7

Evaluating response to scientific, research-based interventionDefining RtI was focused on how districts may evaluate a student’s response to scientific, researched-based intervention; not on developing the entire RtI system. We emphasized using a variety of reliable and valid assessment tools to describe the student’s present level of academic performance, relevant academic discrepancies, and assess alterable variables that reflect the instructional environment.

Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses OptionDefined PSW in an instructionally-based manner that allows the MET to begin to incorporate the principles of RtI into every comprehensive evaluation. This represents a shift away from focusing on assessment of global IQ and cognitive processing and moves towards an analysis of intra-achievement patterns and instructional/environmental variables as a central consideration.

Applying IDEA 2004 Eligibility Criteria

Applying IDEA 2004 Eligibility Criteria

Key Ideas in OS Guidance:•Defined what types of measures can be used to determine inadequate achievement differentiated from PSW

•Defined both the criteria for expected performance and for determining a severe academic deficit.

See OS SLD Guidance p. 4.5

Applying IDEA 2004 Eligibility Criteria

Key Ideas in OS Guidance:•Provided a chart with Indicators of Appropriate Instruction that include sources for documentation consistent with the view of using multiple strategies in multiple domains. Also, provided suggestions on what to do if you do not have the information. (See OS SLD Guidance page 5.8)

•Provided two examples of data used to document appropriate instruction (See OS SLD Guidance p. 5.6-5.7)

Applying IDEA 2004 Eligibility CriteriaKey Ideas in OS Guidance:•Provided four examples of insufficient progress (See OS SLD Guidance 6.8-6.11)

•Provided nine steps for determining response that can be used as integrity checks including (See OS SLD Guidance 6.12-6.18):

• Parent notification• Intervention characteristics• Establishing measureable goals• Use of valid and reliable progress

monitoring tools• Decision rules established• Data displayed and graphed• Multiple intervention rounds• Intervention integrity• Rate of Improvement/Slope

Impact for Leadership If you are building your RtI Infrastructure, keep the end in mind. Issues like treatment integrity and procedural fidelity have to be planned from the beginning.

 

Academic achievement with respect to grade-level

expectations.

Academic achievement with respect to age-level

expectations.

Classroom performance with respect tograde-level expectations.

 

Age-appropriate functional / intellectual skills

Basic Psych. Processes

Progress monitoring,

CBM screening

or criterion-referenced assessment

s

MEAP

Norm-referenced

achievement tests

Curriculum assessment

sGrades

Teacher report

Classroom observation

Observation, interviews, IQ assessment

See Pgs. 3-6 of OSPA

article * for description of PSW models

Basic Reading S N W S N W S N W S N W S N W S N W S N W

S N W S N W

Reading Fluency S N W S N W S N W S N W S N W S N W S N W

ReadingComp. S N W S N W S N W S N W S N W S N W S N W

Math Calc. S N W S N W S N W S N W S N W S N W S N W

Math Prob.Solving

S N W S N W S N W S N W S N W S N W S N W

Written Express. S N W S N W S N W S N W S N W S N W S N W

Oral Express. S N W S N W S N W S N W S N W S N W S N W

ListeningComp. S N W S N W S N W S N W S N W S N W S N W

Variation of the PSW Graphic Organizer: Stakeholder Feedback

What the OS Stakeholders Liked:Emphasis on multiple types of data (testing, observation, etc.)Emphasis on multiple types of assessments (norm reference, CR, MEAP)Ease of training staff to implementEase of explaining SLD eligibility to parents.

S N W Chart

Teams were circling 4 weaknesses or 3 strengths anywhere on the PSW chart to achieve a “pattern”.

Multiple measures were in one box: How do you reflect this? It lost the concept of inadequate achievement as an essential criteria. With all the measures side by side, it appeared that every type of

assessment had the same weight. Not each score in each area should be weighted the same.

Does not communicate the decision-making involved. Since the evidence is not listed, it was difficult to defend the team’s decision.

Students who met criteria for inadequate achievement in reading, writing, and math areas, but had no academic strengths were determined not eligible. This excluded our most profound students with SLD. This led to over-testing to find a strength.

Variation of the PSW Graphic Organizer: Stakeholder Feedback

S N W Chart

Emphasis appeared to be on the “number of Strengths and Weakness” and less on the information that it reflected. There is no numerical formula that equals convergence.

The form became a barrier during MET discussions. Staff were digging back in their reports to find the actual score or more information because they were only left with an S N or W. For instance, something could be a strength but there is a

difference between achievement score of 96 and an achievement score of 116. Reducing a student to three categories of scores lost the richness of integrating the data.

Variation of the PSW Graphic Organizer: Stakeholder Feedback

S N W Chart

Applying IDEA 2004 Eligibility Criteria

Key Ideas in OS Guidance:•Criteria set for PSW that includes inadequate Achievement Data (OS SLD Guidance p. 7.13)•Directions on how to Apply the Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses Option (see p. 7.4-7.12)

•Include relevant SLD patterns and Associated Characteristics that teams are using their data to compare (See SLD Guidance p. 7.5)

25

Applying IDEA 2004 Eligibility Criteria

Key Ideas in OS Guidance:•Dimensions that the team should consider when establishing need. (See OS SLD Guidance p. 8.2)

Applying IDEA 2004 Eligibility Criteria

Key Ideas in OS Guidance:

•Encourage both screening and in depth strategies to rule out exclusionary factors (see OS SLD Guidance p. 9.3)

•Expanded section of ELL with key decision points for the difference between ELL and SLD (see OS SLD Guidance p. 9.6 – 9.7).

What is on the horizon? An electronic PSW form A supplement to the FAQ document on

evaluations and the use of the REED document

An Integrity Checklist for report writing A side-by-side document with legal citations

to supplement the sample procedures Increased training and professional learning

opportunities An update to the document and FAQ to

incorporate changes in the Michigan Administrative Rules from Oct. 2011

OS SLD Team Dr. Susan M. Koceski, School Psychologist

248.209.2536 Abby Cypher-Kitchen, Special Education Consultant

248.209.2577 Matt Korolden, Compliance Consultant 248.209.2552 Carly Staunton, System Design Consultant

248.209.2074 Karen Rockhold, Supervisor

248.209.2286

Additional Training and Product Support Bill Barley Pam Allen Deborah Norton