participant portfolio.draft.do not use - plaea › media › cms › participant... · 8...

Child Find and Eligibility Determination for AEA Special Education Support Staff Participant Portfolio

Fall 2011

AEA 8 Special Education Child Find Training Team

2

AEA 8 Special Education Child Find Training Team

Members Pam Ahlrichs, [email protected] Amy Gilman, [email protected]

Theresa Golden, [email protected] Kandy Martin, [email protected] Don Messmer, [email protected]

Lesa Nauss, [email protected] Janelle Swanson, [email protected] Kris Taphorn, [email protected] Denise Wasko, [email protected]

Linda Williamson, [email protected]

Collaborative Support Gary Petersen, [email protected]

Prairie Lakes AEA 8 is an Equal Employment Opportunity/Affirmative Action (EEO/AA) employer and does not discriminate on the basis of race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, gender, disability, religion, age, political party affiliation, or actual or potential parental, family or marital status in its programs, activities or employment practices. Questions or grievances related to this policy may be addressed to Steve Beeghley, Director of Human Resources, 500 6th St. NE, Pocahontas, Iowa 50574. Phone (712) 335-3588 ext. 2016. Email: [email protected]

3

Table of Contents

Need to Know Exclusionary Factors ......................................................................................................................................... 7 Progress: Behavioral Definition .................................................................................................................... 19 Progress: Goal Setting .................................................................................................................................... 33 Progress: Data Collection ............................................................................................................................... 47 Progress: Implementation Integrity ............................................................................................................ 53 Progress: Data Analysis, Decision-Making, and Instructional Changes ........................................... 65 Progress Evaluation ........................................................................................................................................ 75 Discrepancy ........................................................................................................................................................ 87 Needs ................................................................................................................................................................ 111 Eligibility Decision-Making ....................................................................................................................... 131 EER Directions, Sample EERS, and EER Rubric EER Directions .............................................................................................................................................. 134 Academic Sample ........................................................................................................................................... 141 Communication Sample ............................................................................................................................... 150 Behavior Sample ............................................................................................................................................ 160 Early Childhood Sample .............................................................................................................................. 169 EER Rubric ..................................................................................................................................................... 182 Sample IEP R Pages and IEP Page R Reevaluation Questions Guide Early Childhood Sample .............................................................................................................................. 190 Elementary (includes Occupational Therapy Services) Sample ......................................................... 196 Elementary (no longer eligible) Sample .................................................................................................. 199 Secondary Sample .......................................................................................................................................... 204 Speech-Language Services Sample ............................................................................................................ 211 IEP Page R Reevaluation Questions Guide ............................................................................................ 213 Where to Go Glossary ........................................................................................................................................................... 216 References & Websites ................................................................................................................................. 217

4

Eligibility Determination Flowchart

5

Eligibility Decision A Message from the Bureau Chief

“Child Find is a serious civil rights issue. Our obligation starts with the right to evaluation, identification, and placements when circumstances

warrant it. Students with disabilities are a protected class of individuals who have rights that must be protected and their identified needs addressed. Students with disabilities deserve an equal opportunity for life success regardless of disability

status.” Dr. Marty Ikeda, 2010

Notes & Thoughts

how the individual responds to intervention

if the individual is different from standards and unique compared to peers

what and how to teach

whether or not interventions require special education resources

=

7

Exclusionary Factors Introduction: Know, Understand, Do

Know Understand Do

The exclusionary factors to consider when conducting an FIE.

The link between the effect of instruction and exclusionary factors.

Apply exclusionary factors when conducting an FIE.

The types of data that can be used to assess for exclusionary factors.

When the data indicates a child must not be determined to be a child with a disability.

Make data‐based decisions on whether or not a child may be determined to be a child with a disability.

Note

s/Tho

ughts

/Ide

as

8

Exclusionary Factors: The Rules The concept of exclusionary factors appears in two places in the Iowa Administrative Rules of Special Education. The first occurrence relates to eligibility decision making for any child:

41.306(2) Special rule for eligibility determination. A child must not [emphasis added] be determined to be a child with a disability under this chapter: a. If the determinant factor for that determination is:

(1) Lack of appropriate instruction in reading, including the essential components of reading instruction, as defined in Section 1208(3) of the ESEA;

(2) Lack of appropriate instruction in math; or (3) Limited English proficiency; and

b. If the child does not otherwise meet the eligibility criteria under this chapter. Discussion The fundamental principle underlying this Rule is that a child should not be regarded as disabled if 1) he or she has not been given sufficient and appropriate learning opportunities and 2) if the reason that a child is struggling is clearly not a disabling condition. Lack of appropriate instruction in reading. A child must not [emphasis added] be determined to be a child with a disability if the determinant factor for that determination is lack of appropriate instruction in reading, including the essential components of reading instruction, as defined in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. These components are: phonological awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. A lack of appropriate instruction may entail the absence of sufficient instruction or may entail instruction lacking in quality. The absence of instruction may occur due to extended illness coupled with insufficient replacement instruction, a move or moves after which a child is not promptly re-enrolled in school, home schooling that does not provide sufficient learning opportunities, and so forth. Instruction lacking in quality may occur when the components of phonological awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension are not adequately addressed in relationship to a child’s learning progress, a parent providing competent private instruction (home schooling) lacks instructional skills, and in other circumstances. Lack of appropriate instruction in math. A child must not [emphasis added] be determined to be a child with a disability if the determinant factor for that determination is lack of appropriate instruction in math. As with reading, a lack of appropriate instruction may entail the absence of sufficient instruction or may entail instruction lacking in quality. The absence of instruction may occur due to extended illness coupled with insufficient replacement instruction, a move or moves after which a child is not promptly re-enrolled in school, home schooling that does not provide sufficient learning opportunities, and so forth. Instruction lacking in quality may occur when essential concepts and skills are not adequately addressed in relationship to a child’s learning progress, a parent providing competent private instruction (home schooling) lacks instructional skills, and in other circumstances. Limited English proficiency. A child must not [emphasis added] be determined to be a child with a disability if the determinant factor for that determination is limited English proficiency. The comparison of a child’s performance to that of other children with limited English proficiency who have similar linguistic and educational backgrounds If the child does not otherwise meet the eligibility criteria. A child may [emphasis added] be determined to be a child with a disability if eligibility criteria are met, even if a lack of appropriate instruction in reading, a lack of appropriate instruction in math, or limited English proficiency are present. For example, a child with a hearing loss may also have limited English proficiency and have missed instruction due to medical treatments. The team determining eligibility must use its best professional judgment to evaluate the relative contributions of these factors to the child’s educational performance and educational need in making the eligibility determination.

9

The second occurrence of exclusionary factors in the Rules relates to the identification of a child as learning disabled. Few children in Iowa are identified by disability category. However, Iowa is obligated to identify all those children intended to be identified under the federal categories of disability. Therefore, these exclusionary factors must be considered.

41.309(1) Required determinations. The group described in rule 41.306 may determine that a child has a specific learning disability, as defined in subrule 41.50(10), after considering the following three factors:

a. Lack of adequate achievement … b. Lack of adequate progress … c. Exclusionary factors. The group determines that its findings under 41.309(1)a [lack of adequate

achievement] and 41.309(1)b [lack of adequate progress] are not primarily the result of: (1) A visual, hearing, or motor disability; (2) Mental disability; (3) Emotional disturbance; (4) Cultural factors; (5) Environmental or economic disadvantage; or (6) Limited English proficiency.

Discussion Exclusionary factors 1, 2, and 3 are intended to assure the accurate categorization of a child’s disability. Exclusionary factors 4, 5, and 6 are intended to assure that a child is not incorrectly identified as disabled. In this way factors 4, 5, and 6 are identical in intent to those listed in 41.306. Limited English proficiency is, in fact, repeated here. Cultural factors and environmental or economic disadvantage introduce additional areas of decision-making.

Cultural factors may include a cultural background that is different from the primary or dominant culture of the school or community, fewer opportunities that can support or enhance school performance than peers, limited experience in the culture of the school, and limited involvement in organizations or activities of any culture.

Adapted from materials produced by the Texas Education Agency

Environmental disadvantage impacting school performance may include: homelessness, abuse, poor nutrition, limited experiential background, home responsibilities that interfere with the opportunity to develop study habits and participate in school-related activities, disruption in family life, stress, trauma, or lack of emotional support.


Economic disadvantage impacting school performance may include an inability on the part of the family to afford enrichment materials or experiences.


Teams must weigh information relevant to culture, environment and economic circumstance to determine if any factors impact educational performance to the extent that these factors, rather than a disability, have lead to poor educational outcomes.

10

Exclusionary Factors

Purpose of Exclusionary Factors

Not Disabled Disabled

Does not NEED SDI

NEEDS Intensive

Needs SDI

Note

s/Tho

ughts

/Ide

as

11

Lack of Instruction

Available to Receive Instruction Appropriate Instruction Core/Supplemental/Intensive

Note

s/Tho

ughts

/Ide

as

12

Table Activity The Facts: Smartypants School District

Smartypants School District boasts 90% of students meeting state expectations in math.

80% of students are Caucasian; 12% are Hispanic; and 8% are African American. 66% of Hispanic students do not meet state expectations in math. A Hispanic student is being evaluated for academic concerns, including math. The student did not meet state expectations in math.

The Questions:

1. Given the information on Smartypants School District, is the Hispanic student being evaluated unique when compared to setting peers?

2. Is the Hispanic student being evaluated unique when compared to peers with similar experiences?

3. With regard to the Hispanic student being evaluated, is lack of appropriate instruction an exclusionary factor?

Note

s/Tho

ughts

/Ide

as

13

Limited English Proficiency Key Points Acquisition of Basic Interpersonal Communicative Skills (BICS) Acquisition of Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP)

Note

s/Tho

ughts

/Ide

as

14

Limited English Proficiency Language Acquisition or Disability: Questions to Review

o How is the student’s performance when compared to others of like linguistic backgrounds?

o Are the materials and methods used in the evaluation to measure progress, discrepancy and need non‐discriminatory?

o Have assessments been administered in the language and form most likely to yield accurate information on the student’s performance?

o Did the interventions from which progress data is gathered adequately address linguistic variables impacting the student’s performance?

o What is the student’s performance on measure of linguistic aptitude )e.g. BICS, CALP)? Does the student speak and understand the language of instruction?

o Consider the questions designed to help consider whether a concern is primarily the result of language acquisition or if it is a disability.

o What are some data (Review, Interview, Observe, Test/Task) you may collect to answer these questions?

Note

s/Tho

ughts

/Ide

as

15

Language Acquisition vs. Disability Questions to Consider Review Interview Observe Test/Task

How is the student’s performance when compared to others of like linguistic backgrounds?

Are the materials and methods used in the evaluation to measure progress, discrepancy and need non‐discriminatory?

Have assessments been administered in the language and form most likely to yield accurate information on the student’s performance?

Did the interventions from which progress data is gathered adequately address linguistic variables impacting the student’s performance?

What is the student’s performance on measures of linguistic aptitude (e.g. BICS, CALP)? Does the student speak and understand the language of instruction?

16

Cultural Factors, Environmental, or Economic Disadvantage When one or more of these factors may interfere with the opportunity to engage in and benefit from instruction: 1. Determine the skills the student lacks and needs to learn 2. Implement supplemental or intensive instruction/ intervention 3. Monitor student progress

Note

s/Tho

ughts

/Ide

as

17

Exclusionary Factors: Considerations

As general education becomes more engaged and adept at providing a robust core and supplemental program, naturally occurring information should be more available that can be used to derive reliable information about a student’s response to opportunities to learn…..If the evidence shows that under like circumstances, specific individuals do not respond but the majority of others do then it may be reasonable to say exclusion due to lack of instruction is likely not the cause of being non‐responsive. In situations where core effectiveness is not considered an issue, look at the make‐up of the non‐proficient group. Determine if there is a pattern within the non‐proficient group that would suggest that similar groups of students are overly represented in the group. In circumstances where groups of similar students are pooled in the non‐proficient group (Hispanic, African‐American, low SES, IEP, ELL) it would be reasonable to assume that the core and supplemental instruction provided has not met the needs of these more diverse groups and in fact may be discriminating against them. In these situations it would be critical to assure that the targeted individual was an outlier among their peers before considering further whether they individually might have a disability. Failure of whole groups of similar ethnic, racial, or cultural status would suggest that exclusionary factors could be influencing performance. Students who move in from other districts, have had frequent moves, have had poor attendance, or have been educated in another manner than public school should be carefully evaluated to assure that any lack of performance or skill is not attributable to lack of opportunity to learn or access to the general education curriculum. These situations should be treated the same as situations where the opportunity to learn has not been clearly established; the provision of core instruction and supplemental services. Until the opportunity to respond has been established, a lack of access to the general education curriculum through core and supplemental services would be considered an exclusionary factor unless compelling evidence suggested otherwise.

Taken from: Allison (2010) unpublished document

What can schools provide if a student does not qualify for services because of an exclusionary factor? What information regarding exclusionary factors do the teachers and administrators you work with need?

18

Decision Making

What can schools provide if a student does not qualify for services because of an exclusionary factor?

What information regarding exclusionary factors do the teachers and administrators you work with need?

Reflection

What are variables that support your work around exclusionary factors?

What are barriers to determining exclusionary factors?

What are some things that can be done to counteract these barriers?

Note

s/Tho

ughts

/Ide

as

19

Progress: Behavioral Definition & Baseline Data

Know Understand Do The components of a behavioral definition

The accuracy of the behavioral definition impacts problem solving, data collection, progress decisions, and eligibility decisions

Accurately define student behavior

The dimension(s) of behavior

Dimensions of behavior are critical in identifying the measure(s) that will be used to monitor progress. Dimensions of behavior also provide a framework for considering what information is needed for problem analysis, needs decision making, etc.

Identify dimension (s) of behavior for progress monitoring, problem analysis, etc.

Baseline must be stable and representative

Appropriate baseline impacts goal setting and future decision making

Collect stable, representative baseline

Note

s/Tho

ughts

/Ide

as

20

Progress: Behavioral Definition & Baseline Data

Questions Answered

What is the current concern? (behavioral definition) What is the current level of performance? (baseline data) How does the current level of performance compare to expectations? (standard of comparison) Does the gap between current performance and expected performance warrant consideration of an intervention? (is the discrepancy important)

Steps to Describing the Problem 1.

2.

3.

4.

Key Points

Note

s/Tho

ughts

/Ide

as

21

FLITAD: Dimensions of Behavior F = Frequency is the number of times a behavior occurs L = Latency is the elapsed time from the presentation of a stimulus to the response I = Intensity is the strength or force of a behavior T = Topography is the configuration, form or shape of a response or behavior A = Accuracy is the extent to which the behavior meets standards (or is correct) D = Duration is the length of time that passes from onset to offset of a behavior

Note

s/Tho

ughts

/Ide

as

22

Which Dimension? For each of the following pieces of information, indicate which dimension of behavior would be most helpful for the problem solving process. Questions to consider: *What other information might you need to make the best decision? *What other dimensions of behavior could be considered? *What data would influence your thinking regarding dimension? _____ Jason is a fifth grade student who blurts out obscenities many times during each class period.

_____ Mary is a Kindergarten student who does not follow classroom routines or large group directions in the classroom.

_____ Jasmine is a high school junior who arrives to school late each day and frequently is tardy to class periods throughout the day.

_____ Braden tantrums when he is told “no.” Tantrums mean Braden flops to the ground, kicks the floor and/or people who are near him, uses inappropriate vocalizations (growl, screaming), and hits.

_____ Sydney reads connected text with many errors.

_____ Cameron engages in multiple forms of self-injurious behavior, including head banging, scratching, biting, and pulling his fingers back.

_____ Erica’s gait, while standing and walking, is different as compared to typical peers.

_____ Ethan does not engage in socially appropriate interactions with peers during unstructured times of the school day, such as recess and specials (art, PE).

_____ Emily stutters when speaking.

_____ Aiden does not play with peers.

_____ Michaela’s writing includes improper spelling, grammar, and punctuation.

23

Behavioral Definition

Even the best intervention strategy is doomed if it is applied to an improperly defined target behavior.

Reynolds, et al (1984)

Three Criteria: Objective Clear Complete

Note

s/Tho

ughts

/Ide

as

24

Behavioral Definition Full Example: Aggression Definition: Aggression means using hands, feet, other body parts, or objects to touch another student or teacher in a manner that inflicts pain or is unwelcome and the touching does not occur as part of a game/organized activity. Examples of aggression: Poking a student in the arm with a pencil, shoving a student in line, stomping on the teacher’s foot, throwing rocks at students during recess, flicking a student’s hair, flipping a student’s hat Non-examples of aggression: Giving the teacher a “high five”, holding hands with peers to walk to lunch, playing tag, accidentally brushing up against a student in a crowded situation Full Example: Talking Out Definition: Talking out is any verbalization made by the student that was not initiated by the teacher and/or distracts others from the assigned tasks in the classroom. Examples of Talking Out: Answering a question directed to another student by the teacher, saying a swear word, talking when the teacher is giving directions. Non-examples of Talking Out: Answering a question that the teacher directed to the child, yelling to another student during recess, talking with a peer during group work. Full Example: Inaccurate Reading Definition: Inaccurate reading means Jill does not read accurately in grade level fiction or non-fiction texts. Examples: Jill applies erroneous letter-sound correspondences, omits sounds, or substitutes sounds when reading texts that include unknown words. Examples include Jill reading, “bed” for “bread”, “fireman” for “foreman”, etc. Non-examples: includes when Jill echo reads correctly after a peer/adult reads fluently and accurately, or when Jill reads unknown words correctly by applying appropriate decoding strategies.

Note

s/Tho

ughts

/Ide

as

25

Behavioral Definition: Objective, Clear, and Complete

Is this an Objective, Clear, and Complete behavioral definition? If anything is missing, what information needs to be added?

Ben talks out in class. He interrupts during class. During lecture he speaks and makes noises without raising his hand. Talking out includes verbal sounds to peers, teacher or himself. Examples include burping, laughing, saying, “Ooh, call on me.” Non-examples include Ben answering after being called on, or talking to peers during cooperative learning activities. Casey is aggressive to peers. Aggression includes using his open or closed hand to hit, push, shove, or pinch another person. Non-examples include throwing balls or play equipment at peers as appropriate during games, bumping into peers while walking in line. Judi is inaccurate on multiplication problems. Examples include when she has homework. Non-examples are when she uses a calculator.

Claire does not comprehend what she reads. She is unable to answer questions orally or in written format. Damon does not interact well with peers. He screams, spits at, and threatens peers in the hallway, the classroom, and the lunchroom.

26

Meet Maddie

Step One: Behavioral Definition

Maddie has difficulty reading 2nd grade level fiction and non-fiction text fluently. Examples: Maddie reads with pauses of more than 3 seconds between words, and Maddie reads slowly. Non-examples: Maddie reads texts with pauses of less than 3 seconds when reading practiced or familiar texts such as words to songs, poems, familiar stories fluently.

27

Baseline Establish Baseline

1. Choose the appropriate _____________________________________ .

2. Collect enough data to be ___________________________________ .

3. Summarize the data using the _______________________________ .

Note

s/Tho

ughts

/Ide

as

28

Meet Maddie



Step Two: Baseline Data

The dimension of the behavior is: Fluency Maddie’s baseline data includes 2nd grade level probes

Date, time of day Data

9/13, reading class 59 wpm


9/17, during recess 47 wpm




9/17, start of day 37 wpm

29

Standards of Comparison

Note

s/Tho

ughts

/Ide

as

30

Meet Maddie









Step Three: Standard of Comparison

Maddie’s fluency is measured through oral reading fluency measures. Maddie’s median fluency on 2nd grade reading materials is 40 cwpm. Second grade peers at the 50th percentile read 102 cwpm. The discrepancy between Maddie’s current reading fluency and expected median peer performance is 62 wpm.

31

Next Steps

Note

s/Tho

ughts

/Ide

as

32

Meet Maddie









Step Three: Standard of Comparison

Maddie’s fluency is measured through oral reading fluency measures. Maddie’s median fluency on 2nd grade reading materials is 40 cwpm. Second grade peers at the 50th percentile read 102 cwpm. The discrepancy between Maddie’s current reading fluency and expected median peer performance is 62 wpm. Step Four: Next Steps

The team determined the discrepancy was great enough to warrant further intervention. Maddie’s median fluency on 2nd grade reading materials is 40 cwpm. Second grade peers at the 50th percentile read 102 cwpm. The discrepancy between Maddie’s current reading fluency and expected median peer performance is 62 wpm. In this case, the team determined Maddie’s discrepancy warrants further intervention. Additionally, the team would want to consider progress given instruction/intervention to help make decisions regarding Maddie’s next steps.

33

Progress: Goal Setting

Know Understand Do The components of a goal

How goal setting impacts progress monitoring

Set aligned, ambitious goals for individual students

How to choose a standard of comparison/How to determine expected level of performance

The different types of performance standards

Apply the performance standard appropriate to the purpose of the goal

Note

s/Tho

ughts

/Ide

as

34

Progress: Goal Setting Measurable Goals Components of a Goal Condition Behavior Criterion

Note

s/Tho

ughts

/Ide

as

35

Progress: Goal Setting

Questions for “Meaningful” Goals o Is the goal clear and understandable? o Is the goal positively stated?

For some behaviors, you may have a negatively stated goal o Can the goal be justified based on the information collected during problem solving? o Is the goal practical and relevant to the student’s needs? o Is the goal practical and relevant to the student’s age and remaining years in school? o If the goal is met, will the discrepancy from peers be reduced?

Questions for “Measurable & Monitorable” Goals o Does the goal include the condition with timeline, behavior, and criterion? o Is the goal quantifiable? o Can progress on the goal be graphed? o What assessment measure will be used to monitor progress on the goal? Questions for “Used to Make Decisions” o Will progress on this goal reflect adequate growth according to the student’s age/grade

level and remaining years in school? o Will the goal be monitored frequently enough to make instructional decisions? o What instructional decisions will be made based on the progress monitoring of this goal

(continue, increase the goal, discontinue the goal)? For Struggling Students, Just Making Progress Isn’t Good Enough!

Note

s/Tho

ughts

/Ide

as

36

Setting Appropriate Goals Activity Student Information:

Chelsea is a second grade student with a goal area of reading fluency. Her fall baseline is 22 words per minute on 2nd grade materials. What would be an appropriate goal for her spring of 2nd grade (22 weeks from now)?

Group 1 – Set goal based on norms (percentile ranks) Group 2 – Set goal based on ambitious growth standard Group 3 – Set goal based on DIBELS benchmarks

How different are the goals?

Group 1: Group 2: Group 3:

37

Group 1 Information

Finding percentiles using norms 1. Find the appropriate time of year

a. Fall: September, October, November b. Winter: December, January, February c. Spring: March, April, May

2. Find the appropriate grade level with that section of year

3. Go down the column to find the student’s score

4. Go to the column directly to the right to find the percentile corresponding to the score

38

Sample District Norms 2nd Grade Oral Reading Fluency

Fall 2003-04 N = 3399

Score Percentile Score Percentile Score Percentile Score Percentile 0 < 1 67 61 134 96 201 > 99 1 < 1 68 61 135 96 202 > 99 2 < 1 69 62 136 96 203 > 99 3 < 1 70 63 137 96 204 > 99 4 < 1 71 64 138 97 205 > 99 5 < 1 72 66 139 97 206 > 99 6 < 1 73 67 140 97 207 > 99 7 < 1 74 68 141 97 208 > 99 8 < 1 75 69 142 97 209 > 99 9 1 76 69 143 97 200 > 99 10 1 77 70 144 97 211 > 99 11 2 78 71 145 97 212 > 99 12 2 79 72 146 97 213 > 99 13 3 80 73 147 97 214 > 99 14 3 81 74 148 97 215 > 99 15 4 82 75 149 97 216 > 99 16 4 83 76 150 98 217 > 99 17 5 84 77 151 98 218 > 99 18 5 85 77 152 98 219 > 99 19 6 86 78 153 98 220 > 99 20 6 87 79 154 98 221 > 99 21 7 88 80 155 98 222 > 99 22 8 89 81 156 98 223 > 99 23 8 90 81 157 98 224 > 99 24 9 91 82 158 98 225 > 99 25 10 92 83 159 98 226 > 99 26 12 93 83 160 98 227 > 99 27 13 94 84 161 99 228 > 99 28 14 95 85 162 99 229 > 99 29 15 96 85 163 99 230 > 99 30 17 97 85 164 99 231 > 99 31 18 98 86 165 99 232 > 99 32 19 99 86 166 99 233 > 99 33 21 100 87 167 99 234 > 99 34 22 101 87 168 99 235 > 99 35 24 102 87 169 99 236 > 99 36 25 103 88 170 > 99 237 > 99 37 27 104 88 171 > 99 238 > 99 38 28 105 88 172 > 99 239 > 99 39 29 106 89 173 > 99 240 > 99 40 30 107 89 174 > 99 241 > 99 41 31 108 89 175 > 99 242 > 99 42 32 109 90 176 > 99 243 > 99 43 34 110 90 177 > 99 244 > 99 44 35 111 90 178 > 99 245 > 99 45 36 112 91 179 > 99 246 > 99 46 38 113 91 180 > 99 247 > 99 47 40 114 92 181 > 99 248 > 99 48 41 115 92 182 > 99 249 > 99 49 42 116 92 183 > 99 250 > 99 50 43 117 93 184 > 99 251 > 99

39

Score Percentile Score Percentile Score Percentile Score Percentile 51 44 118 93 185 > 99 252 > 99 52 45 119 93 186 > 99 253 > 99 53 46 120 93 187 > 99 254 > 99 54 47 121 94 188 > 99 255 > 99 55 48 122 94 189 > 99 256 > 99 56 49 123 94 190 > 99 257 > 99 57 51 124 94 191 > 99 258 > 99 58 52 125 95 192 > 99 259 > 99 59 53 126 95 193 > 99 260 > 99 60 54 127 95 194 > 99 261 > 99 61 55 128 95 195 > 99 362 > 99 62 56 129 95 196 > 99 263 > 99 63 57 130 95 197 > 99 264 > 99 64 58 131 95 198 > 99 265 > 99 65 59 132 96 199 > 99 66 60 133 96 200 > 99

40


Winter 2003-04 N = 3353

Score Percentile Score Percentile Score Percentile Score Percentile 0 < 1 67 27 134 87 201 > 99 1 < 1 68 28 135 87 202 > 99 2 < 1 69 29 136 88 203 > 99 3 < 1 70 30 137 88 204 > 99 4 < 1 71 31 138 88 205 > 99 5 < 1 72 32 139 89 206 > 99 6 < 1 73 33 140 89 207 > 99 7 < 1 74 35 141 90 208 > 99 8 < 1 75 36 142 90 209 > 99 9 < 1 76 38 143 90 200 > 99 10 < 1 77 39 144 91 211 > 99 11 < 1 78 40 145 91 212 > 99 12 < 1 79 41 146 92 213 > 99 13 < 1 80 42 147 92 214 > 99 14 < 1 81 44 148 92 215 > 99 15 1 82 45 149 92 216 > 99 16 1 83 47 150 93 217 > 99 17 1 84 48 151 93 218 > 99 18 2 85 49 152 93 219 > 99 19 2 86 50 153 94 220 > 99 20 2 87 51 154 94 221 > 99 21 2 88 52 155 94 222 > 99 22 3 89 53 156 94 223 > 99 23 3 90 54 157 95 224 > 99 24 3 91 55 158 95 225 > 99 25 3 92 56 159 95 226 > 99 26 4 93 57 160 95 227 > 99 27 4 94 58 161 95 228 > 99 28 4 95 59 162 96 229 > 99 29 4 96 60 163 96 230 > 99 30 5 97 61 164 96 231 > 99 31 5 98 62 165 96 232 > 99 32 5 99 63 166 96 233 > 99 33 6 100 64 167 96 234 > 99 34 6 101 65 168 96 235 > 99 35 7 102 66 169 96 236 > 99 36 7 103 67 170 97 237 > 99 37 7 104 67 171 97 238 > 99 38 8 105 68 172 97 239 > 99 39 8 106 69 173 97 240 > 99 40 8 107 69 174 97 241 > 99 41 9 108 70 175 97 242 > 99 42 9 109 71 176 97 243 > 99 43 10 110 72 177 98 244 > 99 44 10 111 73 178 98 245 > 99 45 11 112 74 179 98 246 > 99 46 11 113 75 180 98 247 > 99 47 12 114 76 181 98 248 > 99 48 12 115 76 182 98 249 > 99 49 12 116 77 183 98 250 > 99 50 13 117 78 184 98 251 > 99

Score Percentile Score Percentile Score Percentile Score Percentile 51 14 118 78 185 98 252 > 99 52 14 119 79 186 98 253 > 99 53 15 120 79 187 98 254 > 99 54 16 121 80 188 99 255 > 99 55 16 122 81 189 99 256 > 99 56 17 123 81 190 99 257 > 99 57 18 124 82 191 99 258 > 99 58 19 125 83 192 99 259 > 99

41

59 19 126 83 193 99 260 > 99 60 20 127 84 194 99 261 > 99 61 21 128 84 195 > 99 362 > 99 62 22 129 85 196 > 99 263 > 99 63 23 130 85 197 > 99 264 > 99 64 24 131 86 198 > 99 265 > 99 65 25 132 86 199 > 99 66 26 133 87 200 > 99

42


Spring 2003-04 N = 3037

Score Percentile Score Percentile Score Percentile Score Percentile 0 < 1 67 15 134 80 201 99 1 < 1 68 16 135 81 202 > 99 2 < 1 69 17 136 82 203 > 99 3 < 1 70 18 137 82 204 > 99 4 < 1 71 19 138 83 205 > 99 5 < 1 72 20 139 83 206 > 99 6 < 1 73 21 140 84 207 > 99 7 < 1 74 22 141 85 208 > 99 8 < 1 75 23 142 86 209 > 99 9 < 1 76 23 143 86 200 > 99 10 < 1 77 24 144 87 211 > 99 11 < 1 78 25 145 87 212 > 99 12 < 1 79 26 146 87 213 > 99 13 < 1 80 27 147 88 214 > 99 14 < 1 81 28 148 88 215 > 99 15 < 1 82 29 149 89 216 > 99 16 < 1 83 30 150 89 217 > 99 17 < 1 84 31 151 89 218 > 99 18 < 1 85 32 152 90 219 > 99 19 < 1 86 33 153 90 220 > 99 20 1 87 34 154 91 221 > 99 21 1 88 35 155 91 222 > 99 22 1 89 36 156 91 223 > 99 23 1 90 37 157 92 224 > 99 24 1 91 39 158 92 225 > 99 25 2 92 40 159 92 226 > 99 26 2 93 41 160 93 227 > 99 27 2 94 43 161 93 228 > 99 28 2 95 44 162 93 229 > 99 29 2 96 45 163 94 230 > 99 30 3 97 47 164 94 231 > 99 31 3 98 48 165 94 232 > 99 32 3 99 50 166 95 233 > 99 33 3 100 51 167 95 234 > 99 34 3 101 52 168 95 235 > 99 35 4 102 53 169 95 236 > 99 36 4 103 54 170 95 237 > 99 37 4 104 55 171 95 238 > 99 38 4 105 57 172 96 239 > 99 39 4 106 58 173 96 240 > 99 40 4 107 59 174 96 241 > 99 41 5 108 60 175 96 242 > 99 42 5 109 61 176 96 243 > 99 43 5 110 62 177 97 244 > 99 44 5 111 63 178 97 245 > 99 45 6 112 64 179 97 246 > 99 46 6 113 65 180 97 247 > 99 47 6 114 66 181 97 248 > 99 48 7 115 67 182 97 249 > 99 49 7 116 67 183 97 250 > 99 50 7 117 68 184 98 251 > 99

Score Percentile Score Percentile Score Percentile Score Percentile 51 8 118 69 185 98 252 > 99 52 8 119 70 186 98 253 > 99 53 8 120 71 187 98 254 > 99 54 9 121 71 188 98 255 > 99 55 9 122 72 189 98 256 > 99 56 10 123 73 190 98 257 > 99 57 10 124 74 191 98 258 > 99 58 11 125 74 192 98 259 > 99

43

59 11 126 75 193 99 260 > 99 60 11 127 75 194 99 261 > 99 61 12 128 76 195 99 362 > 99 62 12 129 77 196 99 263 > 99 63 13 130 77 197 99 264 > 99 64 13 131 78 198 99 265 > 99 65 14 132 79 199 99 66 15 133 80 200 99

44

Group 2 Information

Reading Rates of Expected Growth per Week Correct Words Per Minute (cwpm) (Fuchs, Fuchs, Hamlett, Walz & Germann, 1993)

Grade Level Realistic Weekly Goal Ambitious Weekly Goal

Grade 1 2.00 3.00 Grade 2 1.50 2.00 Grade 3 1.00 1.50 Grade 4 .95 1.10 Grade 5 .50 .80 Grade 6 .30 .65

*Grades 7 – 12 .30 .65 *Grades 7 – 12 growth rates per week are recommended rates

45

Group 3 Information

Dynamic Indicators of Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Benchmark goals and cut points for risk

DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency (DORF) Words Correct 2nd Grade

Score Level Need for Support

Beginning of Year Middle of Year End of Year

At or above benchmark

Core Support 52 – 275 72 – 275 87 - 275

Below benchmark

Strategic Support 35 – 51 55 – 71 65 - 86

Well below benchmark

Intensive Support 0 – 36 0 – 54 0 - 64

DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency (DORF) Words Correct 3rd Grade

Score Level Need for Support

Beginning of Year

Middle of Year End of Year

At or above benchmark

Core Support 70 – 300 86 – 300 100 - 300

Below benchmark

Strategic Support 55 – 69 68 – 85 80 - 99

Well below benchmark

Intensive Support 0 – 54 0 – 67 0 - 79

46

Goal Examples Preschool In 18 weeks, given the Indicators of Individual Growth and Development Indicators for Infants and Toddlers (IGDIs), Paige will verbally produce 11 correct on rhyming with no more than one error, in 2 minutes, 2 of 3 trials. In 18 weeks, Paige will independently follow large group directions 80% of opportunities during a daily 30-minute observation period for 2 consecutive weeks. Elementary School In 18 weeks, when given a 4th grade, mixed math computation probe, Johnny will compute 40 digits correct in 3 minutes, with no more than 5 errors, 3 consecutive data collection periods. In 12 weeks, when participating in a large group activity, Brandy will raise her hand to wait to be called on by the teacher rather than blurting out 80% of the time during a 30 minute observation period, 2 out of 3 consecutive weeks. Middle School In 15 weeks, when given an 8th grade MAZE comprehension passage and 10 minutes to complete it, Maria will read silently and choose answers scoring 85% accuracy for 3 consecutive weeks. In 12 weeks, when given a 7th grade mixed math probe, Brady will compute 66 digits correct, with 95% accuracy on attempted items, in 5 minutes 2 out of 3 consecutive data collection periods. High School In 12 weeks, given a 10th grade reading comprehension probe, Nate will answer 10 multiple choice questions with 80% accuracy, 3 consecutive weeks. In 18 weeks, given a 10th grade math application probe and 7 minutes, Sara will correctly apply operational strategies to produce 15 correct blanks with less than 2 incorrect responses, during 2 out of 3 data collection periods.

47

Progress: Data Collection

Know Understand Do How to determine assessment questions

That assessment questions guide the data collection process

Write appropriate assessment questions during FIE

Types of data

That various types of data are needed to make appropriate eligibility decisions

Gather appropriate data for use during FIE

Historical data can be used during the FIE process

Gather relevant historical data

Note

s/Tho

ughts

/Ide

as

48

Progress: How Do We Collect Data?

Review Interview Observe Test/Task

Note

s/Tho

ughts

/Ide

as

49


Progress Monitoring Data

Current and Historical Data RIOT

Data Source Directness Validity Ease of Use Repeatability Review

Interview Observe

Test/Task

Note

s/Tho

ughts

/Ide

as

50


Is it alterable? Does it inform instruction? ____Kristin’s DIBELS scores indicate she was in the “low risk” range last year ____Sarah’s file indicates that her parents are divorced and her father lives in Missouri

____The special education director told you that Erin’s brother receives special education

services

____Zenia’s teacher thinks that she may have a low IQ

____Tim tells you he plays video games until late every night

____Pam’s teacher indicated that her noncompliant behavior began just after winter break

____Kathy’s mom told you her dad is in jail for drug use

____Sue’s math problems have been noted in her report cards since Kindergarten Assessment Questions and Progress

Note

s/Tho

ughts

/Ide

as

51

Current Case

What data regarding progress do you already have? Next to each, indicate if the data are current or historical progress measures? What assessment questions do you still have related to progress? How can you gather the missing information to answer those questions?

53

Progress: Implementation Integrity

Know Understand Do

Ways to collect implementation integrity data

Implementation integrity is a required component of an FIE decision

Use implementation integrity data during future eligibility decisions

When treatment integrity data are required

Why implementation integrity is important

What to do with treatment integrity data once you have it

Note

s/Tho

ughts

/Ide

as

54

Progress: Implementation Integrity Definition

The degree to which the intervention plan was put into place as originally designed Gresham, 1989; 1998

Treatment integrity helps distinguish between an ineffective intervention and a poorly implemented

intervention

Gresham, Gansle & Noell, 1993

Discussion Point What factors influence implementation integrity?

Note

s/Tho

ughts

/Ide

as

55

Progress: Implementation Integrity Steps to Monitoring Integrity

1. Define the domain

2. Determine acceptable level of implementation

3. Select method of data collection

4. Implement intervention and collect data

5. Examine integrity data

6. Make decision(s)

Note

s/Tho

ughts

/Ide

as

56

No Yes

Yes No

Yes No

Are more than 50% of

students in the small group

making progress?

Check implementation

fidelity

Assume that intervention is

being implemented with fidelity

Is implementation

fidelity acceptable?

Increase intensity of intervention

Improve intervention

implementation

Is student progress

acceptable?

Continue intervention as

is

Examine Instructional Match Adjust intervention as

appropriate

Treatment Integrity

Implementation Integrity

57

Progress: Implementation Integrity Example of an Observation Checklist + - Step Checklist

1 Classroom is organized (e.g., materials are accessible, students can see materials clearly, students are seated appropriately, smooth transitions between lessons)

2 Teacher teaches all lesson parts

3 Teacher corrects all errors using appropriate correction procedures (e.g., corrects all errors immediately; teacher says correct word, student repeats correct word, student begins again)

4

Even, quick pacing is maintained throughout lesson (e.g., approximately 12+ student responses per minute; students are engaged/ quick transitions between lessons; teacher able to follow all parts of script without reading directly from script)

5 Teacher is enthusiastic, provides specific praise throughout lesson

6 Students are engaged and responsive during teacher-led instruction (e.g., at least 80% of responses are group responses; group responses are on signal; individual turns are offered)

7 Students respond with 90% accuracy before moving to next part of lesson

8 Classroom management is evident (e.g., group rules/expectations are clear; misbehavior is ignored or redirected/ specific praise is offered; clear and effective motivation system in place)

9

Evidence that Mastery Tests (criterion-based) are given within the Program (note: tests occur after Lesson 8, 15, and then every 5th lesson in Reading Mastery I)

10

Evidence that individual checkouts (rate and accuracy) are followed (note: checkout occurs after Lesson 108, 109, 110, and then every 5th lesson…115, 120, 125, etc. in Reading Mastery I; after every 5th lesson in Reading Mastery II)

11 One lesson per class period is completed (e.g., lesson length will vary according to group size and skill level but lasts approximately 30-45 minutes)

_________ % Reading Mastery Fidelity

58

Progress: Implementation Integrity Repeated Reading Permanent Product

Intervention Step Permanent Product Pick a story (student must be at least 95% accurate and is reading at least 40 wpm)

1. Student writes a log of date and title of story.

Teacher times first reading 2. Probe with errors marked. 3. Graph of first reading with student initials.

Set goal 4. Goal is set 20-40% higher than baseline. Practice 5. Student circles number of times they

practiced (minimum of three times is evident).

Pass the story (meeting the goal rate with fewer than 3 errors and with appropriate expression)

6. Presence of probe with teacher initials and graph of hot timing with student initials.

Optional: Student does oral (or written) retell Data-based decision making 7. Examine progress monitoring graph for

evidence of phase changes (look at decision-making rules on Intervention Plan).

Method Summary Pros Cons Low Rigor High Rigor

Teacher self-report/log Easy Least reliable (lack of correspondence)

Rating scale Easy Reactivity Reliability

Permanent product Accurate Efficient Less reactive

May have to supplement May have to create

products Direct observation Accurate Reactivity

Time-consuming

59

Phonological Awareness Training for Reading (PATR) Torgeson & Bryant (1994)

Weekly Treatment Integrity Checklist

Intervention Leader: Mr. Hemsely Week: 1/5 Lesson #: 24-28 Students Present: Katie, Nathan, Ryan, Bryce Intervention Level: __ Primary Secondary ___ Tertiary

Phonological Awareness Training: Treatment Integrity Checklist

Component Mon Tues Wed Thurs Fri Component

Integrity Present Present Present Present Present

1. Explained each activity correctly & clearly. 1 1 0 1 1 F 80% 2. Pronounced individual word sounds correctly 1 1 1 1 1 G 100% 3. Presented picture cards in correct sequence 1 1 1 1 1 H 100% 4. Placed picture cards so that every student could

see. 1 1 1 1 1 I 100%

5. Modeled each activity 1 1 1 0 1 J 80% 6. Provided each student an opportunity to

respond. 1 1 1 1 1 K 100%

7. Provided corrective feedback for incorrect answers.

1 1 1 1 1 L 100%

8. Provided positive reinforcement for correct answers (praise0).

1 1 1 1 1 M 100%

9. Maintained appropriate, quick pacing throughout the lesson.

0 0 1 1 1 N 60%

DAILY INTEGRITY A B C D E OVERALL

MEAN FORM 5.2 Weekly Treatment Integrity PATR Note: If the component is present, write “1”; if the component is not present, write “0”. Adapted from F. M. Gresham (1989). “Assessment of treatment Integrity in School consultation and Prereferral Intervention.” School

Psychology Review, 18, 37 – 50.

60

Permanent Product Example

Intervention Step (Date)

M 9/22

T 9/23

W 9/24

T 9/25

F 9/ 26

Component Integrity %

Permanent Product

Lessons are conducted 1. Each lesson is dated in Student Workbook

2. Lesson occurs daily or as specified in the Intervention Plan or IEP (or one lesson may be divided into two sessions)

(Lessons 1-32) Activity F: Sentences and Stories

3. A number is written under each of the three pictures

(Lessons 1-32) Activity G: Spelling

4. Five spelling words and a sentence are written

(Lessons 1-32) Activity H: Practice Activity 1

5. A line is drawn under the phrase that best completes each sentence (or goes with each picture) (or all wh-questions are answered) (or all blanks are filled in with the best word)

6. The number of correct answers is written in the box

(Lessons 1-32) Activity I: Practice Activity 2

7. A line is drawn under each sentence that goes with each picture (or each blank is filled in with the best word) (or all wh-questions are answered)

8. The number of correct answers is written in the box

Checking Up occurs at the end of Lessons 3, 6, 9, 12, 16, 20, 23, 26, 29 and 32

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

9. Written record of errors

Data-based decision making (Note: applicable for students on Intervention Plan or IEP.)

10. Examine progress monitoring graph for evidence of consistent monitoring and phase changes (as specified in the Intervention Plan or IEP)

Daily Integrity %

61

Permanent Product Example

Intervention Step (Date)

M 9/ 22

T 9/23

W 9/24

T 9/25

F 9/ 26

Component Integrity %

Permanent Product

Lessons are conducted 100% 1. Each lesson is dated in Student Workbook

100%

2. Lesson occurs daily or as specified in the Intervention Plan or IEP (or one lesson may be divided into two sessions)

(Lessons 1-32) Activity F: Sentences and Stories 100% 3. A number is written under each of the three

pictures (Lessons 1-32) Activity G: Spelling 40% 4. Five spelling words and a sentence are

written (Lessons 1-32) Activity H: Practice Activity 1

100%

5. A line is drawn under the phrase that best completes each sentence (or goes with each picture) (or all wh-questions are answered) (or all blanks are filled in with the best word)

80% 6. The number of correct answers is written in

the box (Lessons 1-32) Activity I: Practice Activity 2

80%

7. A line is drawn under each sentence that goes with each picture (or each blank is filled in with the best word) (or all wh-questions are answered)

80% 8. The number of correct answers is written in

the box Checking Up occurs at the end of Lessons 3, 6, 9, 12, 16, 20, 23, 26, 29 and 32

n/a n/a

n/a

n/a 100%

9. Written record of errors

Data-based decision making (Note: applicable for students on Intervention Plan or IEP.) 100%

10. Examine progress monitoring graph for evidence of consistent monitoring and phase changes (as specified in the Intervention Plan or IEP)

Daily Integrity % 100 89 89 90 67 100% component 89% session

62

Making Decisions About Implementation and Student Progress Examine intervention integrity and student progress data together to answer the following question:

Has the intervention been implemented with an acceptable level of integrity to evaluate student progress?

High Progress Low Progress

High Implementation Great! You can make decisions regarding needs!

Consider a phase change. We still can’t determine needs.

Low Implementation Look to see what was implemented to determine needs.

Can’t determine needs OR that the intervention wasn’t effective.

Note

s/Tho

ughts

/Ide

as

63

Progress: Implementation Integrity Planning for Next Steps

How can you support the collection and use of implementation integrity data? How can you explain the use of implementation integrity data to teachers and administrators? How can you avoid pitfalls of implementation integrity?

Note

s/Tho

ughts

/Ide

as

65

Progress: Data Analysis, Decision Making & Instructional Changes Why Collect and Analyze Data? Why Chart Data on a Graph? N

otes/T

houg

hts/I

deas

66

Progress: Data Analysis, Decision Making & Instructional Changes Creating a Graph & Make Decisions 1. Label vertical axis

2. Label horizontal axis

3. Chart baseline

4. Separate baseline with a vertical line

5. Mark the median score

6. Draw the goal line

7. Begin the instruction

8. Monitor progress

9. Collect and analyze data regularly

a. trendline analysis b. four point rule

Note

s/Tho

ughts

/Ide

as

67

Application Activity

Kindergarten 15, 17, 16 sound per minute (Phoneme Segmentation Fluency) o 1st: 20, 19, 17 Correct Letters Sounds per minute (Nonsense Word Fluency) o Fluency on grade level probes: o 1st: 17, 22, 25 Words per minute (WPM) o 2nd: 51, 59, 48 (WPM) o 3rd: 83, 87, 89 (WPM) o 4th: 102, 95, 98 (WPM) o 5th: 110, 102, 103 (WPM) o 6th: 120, 112, 114 (WPM) o 7th - 12th: 80, 95, 97 (WPM)

Write a goal for length of intervention Realistic growth rates (words/ week)

Grade 1 2.00 words Grade 2 1.50 words Grade 3 1.00 words Grade 4 .90 words Grade 5 .50 words Grade 6 .30 words Grades 7-12 .30 words (recommended)

Write a goal for length of intervention Ambitious growth rates (words/week)

Grade 1 3.00 words Grade 2 2.00 words Grade 3 1.50 words Grade 4 1.10 words Grade 5 .80 words Grade 6 .65 words Grades 7-12 .65 words (recommended)

Phoneme Segmentation Fluency for Kindergarten Winter Benchmark: ≥ 20 sounds/minute Spring Benchmark: ≥ 40 sounds/minute Nonsense Word Fluency for 1st Grade Winter Benchmark: ≥ 43 Correct Letter Sounds/minute

68

10 Week Progress Monitoring Graph Student: Dist./Bldg: Grade: Goal:

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

Per

form

ance

Indi

cato

r

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

M

T

W

Th

F

Baseline

69

IInntteerrvveennttiioonn

DDaattee//

Phase

PPeerrssoonn((ss))

RReessppoonnssiibbllee IInnssttrruuccttiioonnaall SSttrraatteeggyy MMaatteerriiaallss SSeettttiinngg TTiimmee

CChhaannggeess ttoo tthhee IInntteerrvveennttiioonn

DDaattee//

Phase

PPeerrssoonn((ss))

RReessppoonnssiibbllee IInnssttrruuccttiioonnaall SSttrraatteeggyy MMaatteerriiaallss SSeettttiinngg TTiimmee

70

Decision Making Rules Trendline Analysis Collect at least 7-12 data points before doing a Trendline Analysis Increasing Goal Lines If the trendline of student’s actual performance is above the goal line, consider raising the goal

If the trendline of student’s actual performance is below the goal line, make an instructional change

If the trendline of student’s actual performance is comparable to the goal, continue instruction

Decreasing Goal Lines If the trendline of student’s actual performance is above the goal line, make an instructional change

If the trendline of student’s actual performance is below the goal line, consider raising the goal

If the trendline of student’s actual performance is comparable to the goal, continue instruction

Four Point Decision Making Rule Collect at least 3 weeks of data and 6-8 data points before using this decision rule Increasing Goal Lines: After a minimum of 6-8 data points have been collected over at least 3 weeks:

If the most recent four consecutive data points fall above the goal line, consider raising the goal (Use the median of the last 3 data points as new baseline)

If the most recent four consecutive data points fall below the goal line, an instructional change will be made (Collect 3 weeks of data and 6-8 data points before making another decision)

If most recent four consecutive indicate no consistent pattern, continue instruction (Review last 4 data points when each new data point is graphed)

Decreasing Goal Lines (Inverse the rules for increasing goal line) After a minimum of 6-8 data points have been collected over at least 3 weeks:

If the most recent four consecutive data points are above the goal line, an instructional change will be made (Collect 3 weeks of data and 6-8 data points before making another decision)

If the most recent four consecutive data points are below the goal line, consider lowering the goal (Use the median of the last 3 data points as new baseline)

If most recent four consecutive data points are in an inconsistent pattern, continue instruction (Review last 4 data points when each new data point is graphed)

71

Progress: Data Analysis, Decision Making & Instructional Changes Changing Instruction

Note

s/Tho

ughts

/Ide

as

72

Application Activity

Use graph you started earlier Plot the data points provided below Review the data and make an instructional decision Draw in visual marker that analysis has occurred (a phase line or a comment) Decide on and change in instruction, if necessary

Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Kindergarten (PSF) 17, 20 22, 21 23,22 24, 27 Grade 1 (NWF) 19, 22 23, 23 22, 24 27, 26 Fluency Data Grade 1 28, 22 31, 34 33, 38 35, 37 Grade 2 59, 62 68, 65 60, 64 62, 64 Grade 3 87, 82 80, 85 88, 91 93, 96 Grade 4 96, 98 100, 99 97, 96 97, 98 Grade 5 105, 105 106, 105 109, 110 113, 115 Grade 6 115, 116 118, 120 120, 122 123, 124 Grade 7+ 92, 85 97, 95 96, 97 93, 98

73

Progress: Data Analysis, Decision Making & Instructional Changes Instructional Changes Instructional Procedures

Materials

Teaching Arrangements

Allocated Time

Motivational Strategies

Note

s/Tho

ughts

/Ide

as

74

Progress: Data Analysis, Decision Making & Instructional Changes What types of data? Rate of Acquisition Conditions best for growth

Note

s/Tho

ughts

/Ide

as

75

Progress Evaluation Educational Progress is… • evidence of changes in the individual’s rate of progress which can be attributed to the effects

of intervention, and

• evidence of the individual’s rate of progress compared to the expected rate of progress. Why Collect and Analyze Progress Data? • Individuals with intensive educational needs must

have a strong instructional match • Instructional match is ensured with regular progress

monitoring in relation to individual goals Assumptions • Data analysis of supplemental and/or intensified intervention has occurred

• Intervention was implemented with integrity

• Data were used to guide the decision-making regarding changes

RtI Progress When we talk about making a decision about educational progress in the FIE, we are focusing

on the progress the individual made ____________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

were in place.

Notes & Thoughts

76

Iowa Core concepts and Skills, Early Learning Standards and Benchmarks, or District Standards and Benchmarks Standards for Comparison Identify:

broad based standards

essential concepts and skills (in the area of concern)

that all peers are expected to achieve. Using multiple assessment methods and data sources… There are several items within the Response to Intervention section of the evaluation that utilize multiple data methods and data sources including progress data collected on a frequent and regular basis. Summarize the Individual’s Response a) supplemental or intensified instruction, curriculum, & environmental changes provided to

address the areas of concern

b) how the above were determined to be matched to the individual’s needs

c) how the above were implemented

Notes & Thoughts

77

Analysis Methods Used to Make Progress Comparisons

1. Comparison to same age peer group

2. Comparison to historical progress

3. Comparison to younger peer group

4. Comparison to goal expectation

5. Comparison to mastery level

Notes & Thoughts

Most Salient

Least Salient

78

1. Comparison to Same Age Peers (School Age)

Baseline: At the beginning of the 9-week intervention period, the individual correctly read 15 words in one minute. Peer Comparison: First grade peers in the winter of the year read a median (50th percentile) of 30 correct words per minute. Ending Data (individual): At the end of the intervention period, the child correctly read 22 words per minute. Ending Data (peers): First grade peers read 45 correct words per minute after 9 weeks of intervention. Rate of growth (and comparison): The student improved a total of 7 words in 9 weeks, indicating a rate of growth of .77 words per week. This compares to 1.7 words per week for first grade peers. This rate of growth is less than half the rate of growth of first grade peers and is not sufficient for the individual to narrow the gap in performance compared to peers at their current growth rate.

Comparison to Same Age Peers (Early Childhood)

Baseline: At the beginning of the 9-week intervention period, the individual identified 15 pictures in one minute. Peer Comparison: Classroom peers in the Fall identified 30 pictures per minute Ending Data (individual): At the end of the intervention period, the individual identified 22 pictures in one minute. Ending Data (peers): Classroom peers identified 45 pictures per minute (representing a growth of 15 words per 12 weeks or 1.25 words per week). Rate of growth (and comparison): The individual improved a total of 7 words in 9 weeks, indicating a rate of growth of .77 words per week. This compares to 1.25 words per week for classroom peers. This rate of growth is about 60 % the rate of growth of classroom peers and is not sufficient for the individual to “catch up” to peers at their current growth rate.

79

2. Comparison to Individual’s Historical Progress (School Age)

Baseline: At the beginning of the 9-week intervention period, the individual could remain engaged in a large group learning opportunity for a median of 5 minutes, without becoming agitated and needing to leave the room. Historical information (for comparison): When the school year started (9 weeks before the baseline data were gathered), the individual was able to remain engaged in a large group learning opportunity for a median of 2 minutes without becoming agitated and needing to leave the room. At the end of these 9 weeks the individual remained engaged a median of 5 minutes, representing 3 minutes growth over 9 weeks. Ending Data (target): At the end of the intervention period, the individual was able to remain engaged in a large group learning opportunity for a median of 25 minutes without becoming agitated and needing to leave the room. Rate of growth (and comparison): The individual gained a total of 20 minutes of engaged time in 9 weeks, indicating a rate of growth of just over 2 minutes per week. This compares to .3 minutes per week prior to the start of the intervention period. The individual has demonstrated accelerated growth during the period of intervention; however, the time and staff resources required for the intervention (2 15-minute sessions per day, 5 days per week, in individual review and practice sessions with a trained teaching assistant; teaching assistant in the classroom) is more than could be maintained in a typical third grade classroom.

Comparison to Individual’s Historical Progress (Early Childhood)

Baseline: At the beginning of the 9-week intervention period, the individual could point to 5 nouns (objects named by parent or teacher) during a 15 minute structured play activity. Historical information (for comparison): When the individual entered preschool 9 weeks prior to the start of the intervention, she could point to (and name) 2 nouns. Ending Data (target): At the end of the intervention period, the individual was able to point to 25 nouns during the structured play activities. Rate of growth (and comparison): The individual gained a total of 20 nouns in 9 weeks, indicating a rate of growth of just over 2 words per week. This compares to .3 words per week prior to the start of the intervention period. The child has demonstrated accelerated growth during the period of intervention; however, the time required for the intervention (2-15 minute sessions per day, 3 days per week, in individual drill and practice sessions with a trained teaching assistant) is more than could be maintained in a typical early childhood classroom.

80

3. Comparison to Younger Peer Group (School Age)

Baseline: At the beginning of the 9-week intervention period, the individual (a 6th grader) recognized 25 different Dolch words, according to teacher data. Ending Data (target): At the end of the intervention period, the individual read 40 different words from the Dolch list. Rate of Growth for 1st graders (younger children): According to reports of the first grade teachers, first graders gain between 7 and 8 new Dolch words each week during the second semester of the year. Rate of growth (and comparison): The individual improved a total of 15 words in 9 weeks, indicating a rate of growth of just over 1.5 words per week. The individual’s rate of growth is only about 1/5 (or 20%) of the rate of growth of children who are almost 5 grade levels below the student. This rate of growth would not be sufficient to allow the child to progress to a typical end of year first grade level at this time.

Comparison to Younger Peer Group (Early Childhood)

Baseline: At the beginning of the 9-week intervention period, the individual (age 4) used 25 different words, according to collective reports of daycare staff and parents. Ending Data (target): At the end of the intervention period, the individual used 40 different words, according to collective reports of daycare staff and parents. Rate of Growth for 2 year olds (younger children): According to developmental norms, between the ages of 2 and 3, children’s spoken vocabulary increases from 100 to 500 words (a rate of about 15 words every two weeks). Rate of growth (and comparison): The individual improved a total of 15 words in 9 weeks, indicating a rate of growth of just over 1.5 words per week. The child’s rate of growth is only about 1/5 the rate of growth of children who are almost 2 years younger than the child. This rate of growth would not be sufficient to allow the child to progress to a typical two year old level at this time.

81

4. Comparison to Goal Expectation (School Age)

Goal: In 9 weeks, given 5 factual comprehension questions (taken from 3rd grade level text reading), the student will correctly answer 5 questions, for 3 consecutive trials. Baseline: At the beginning of the 9-week intervention period, the individual was unable to independently answer any comprehension questions at the third grade level. Ending Data (target): At the end of the intervention period, the individual was able to correctly answer 4 of 5 factual comprehension questions at the third grade level. Expected Performance (Comparison): The teacher expects that third grade students will be able to answer 100% of the factual comprehension questions presented to the class (5/5 questions). Rate of growth (and comparison): The individual improved a total of 4 questions per probe in his ability to answer literal comprehension questions. Although the expectation was for him to answer all 5 questions (representing growth of about 1 question every other week), he improved in comprehension by 4 total questions, (representing growth of just less than 1 question every two weeks). Although he did not meet his goal, his rate of progress was not significantly discrepant from the expected rate and the intervention used could be continued in a typical general education environment to see if progress continues to be seen.

Comparison to Goal Expectation (Early Childhood)

Goal: In 9 weeks, given a visual prompt, during free choice time, the child will remain engaged in a self-selected activity for 5 minutes for 3 consecutive 15-minute observation periods. Baseline: At the beginning of the 9-week intervention period, the individual moved from place to place without engaging in any activity for more than a few seconds. Median time per center during observations of free choice time was 37 seconds. Ending Data (target): At the end of the intervention period, the individual was able to attend to and remain in a self-selected activity for a median of 4 ½ minutes during a 15-minute observation. Expected Performance (Comparison): The preschool teacher expects that with a visual cue a student will be able to attend and remain engaged in an activity for 5 minutes, since that is what has worked for several other young 3 year old children. Rate of growth (and comparison): The individual improved a total of almost 4 minutes per observation in his ability to engage in free choice activities. Although the expectation was for him to be engaged for 5 minutes (representing growth of .5 minutes per week), he improved in engagement in an activity by 4 minutes per observation (representing growth of about .4 minutes per week). Although he did not meet his goal, his rate of progress was not far discrepant from the expected rate and the intervention used could be continued in a typical early childhood environment to see if progress continues to be seen.

82

5. Comparison to Mastery Level (School Age)

Baseline: At the beginning of the 9-week intervention period, the individual correctly used the /r/ sound at the beginning of words 25% of the time during conversations. Comparison of mastery at age level: By age 9 over 95% of children are correctly making the /r/ sound at the beginning of words in conversation 100% of the time. Ending Data (target): At the end of the intervention period, the individual correctly used the /r/ sound at the beginning of words 40% of the time. Rate of growth (and comparison): The individual gained 15 percentage points in correct usage of the /r/ sound at the beginning of words over 9 weeks (growing 1.66 percentage points per week). At this rate, it would take the individual nearly 40 weeks to reach a level of mastery typically achieved by over 95% of nine year olds.

Comparison to Mastery Level (Early Childhood)

Baseline: At the beginning of the 9-week intervention period, the individual placed final consonants on words 25 % of the time during play conversations. Comparison of mastery at age level: By age 4 over 95% of children are placing final consonants on words 100% of the time. Ending Data (target): At the end of the intervention period, the individual placed final consonants on words 40% of the time during play conversations. Rate of growth (and comparison): The child gained 15 percentage points in mastery of final consonants over 9 weeks (growing 1.6 percentage points per week). At this rate, it would take the individual nearly 40 weeks to reach a level of mastery typically achieved by over 95% of four year olds.

83

Rate of Progress Formula (End performance) – (Baseline)

Time

Reading Example Comparison (peer, goal expectation, younger peer) End performance 56 cwpm Baseline - 41 cwpm 15 cwpm ÷ 9 weeks = 1.6 cwpm/week Individual’s Performance End performance 43 cwpm Baseline - 34 cwpm 9 cwpm ÷ 9 weeks = 1.0 cwpm/week Examples of Other Data Measures Qualitative information such as Interview information and anecdotal information may be available. This is also considered a part of the evaluation of the progress and helps provide more confidence in the decision making process. Other Components of Progress Evaluation

• Behavioral Definition & Baseline Data • Goal Setting • Data Collection • Implementation Integrity • Data Analysis

Students who are below the expected level of achievement, need to work harder and faster, not slower and easier.

Notes & Thoughts

84

Uniqueness Within Rate of Progress Group Intervention Uniqueness Consideration

What percentage of the students are closing the gap?

Is this individual’s progress uniquely different from students in a similar group or within the individual’s small group?

Other Considerations for Uniqueness of Progress

Independence compared to other students

Comparison on other classroom formative assessments

Individualization of the intervention

Greatest Impact of Interventions on Progress Now… Identify the instruction, interventions and environmental changes under which the individual experienced the most growth or success.

Notes & Thoughts

85

Summarize Significance of Rate of Progress Are the Data Sufficient? When data are sufficient, the educational team is able to make a decision regarding the progress component of the eligibility decision. Are the Data Insufficient? When the data are insufficient for decision making in the progress component, the educational team has the professional obligation to indicate the data are insufficient. The Data Are Inconclusive There may be times when progress data are sufficient (valid & reliable, frequent & repeated) but are inconclusive to make a decision. In this situation, the educational team has the obligation to indicate the data are inconclusive for decision-making. So… Seek Another Consent There may be times when the educational team is gathering progress monitoring data during the evaluation period. If during that time the data suggest a need for continuing with data collection, the team may seek an additional consent from the parent to continue. If this is agreed upon, and an additional consent is given, the team continues with the progress monitoring until the data warrants a confident decision. Rare & Unusual Circumstances Three conditions where the Progress Evaluation would be different: 1. Medical or Health Condition 2. Sudden Status Change 3. Obvious and Immediate Need for Service and Support

Documenting on the EER In these cases, the documentation on the EER would provide statements about the impact of the targeted student’s condition on their educational performance.

Notes & Thoughts

87

Discrepancy Discrepancy is the difference between the individual’s level of performance compared to peers’ level of performance or other expected standards at a single point in time.Iowa Special Education Eligibility Standards, 2006 In addressing discrepancy for the full and individual evaluation, teams consider and document objective evidence to answer the following questions:

1 What are the multiple sources of data that demonstrate the individual’s performance is significantly discrepant from that of peers and expected standards?

2 How does the individual’s current level of performance compare to that of typical peers or expected standards?

3 What is the magnitude of discrepancy?

4 What are the functional implications of the discrepancy? (Meaningful in a practical sense and reliable in a statistical sense.)

Note: Eligibility determination is made using the convergence of data from multiple

sources. Area Education Agency Special Education Procedures (July, 2010), p. 44

Note

s/Tho

ughts

/Ide

as

88

Discrepancy: Data Sources

Let’s RIOT Within the domains in which you work, what types of data do you use to determine discrepancy? Review: Interview: Observation: Test/Task:

Note

s/Tho

ughts

/Ide

as

89

Discrepancy: A High Stakes Decision TOAD: What makes the data we use for discrepancy determination more or less rigorous? Technical Adequacy Standardized Administration Reliability: Consistency Validity: The test measures what it is intended to measure Performance Standard: Data must be able to be compared to a performance standard

to be useful to make decisions Notes: Objectivity Data that refers to observable and measurable characteristics of the problem Objective data can be measured quantitatively or qualitatively

Notes:

Amount Number of data sources Consistent data collected at different times Consistency across data provides more confidence in our decisions

Notes:

Directness of Measure Method of collection: Direct observation/assessment, Review of permanent product,

parent checklist, teacher rating, teacher/parent report The more direct the measure, the more confidence can be placed in the result

Notes:

Note

s/Tho

ughts

/Ide

as

90

Data Source and TOAD Activity Choose one scenario to read and rate the features of TOAD. For aspects that you have indicated medium or are not sure about an answer, write additional assumptions to help you determine if it is high or low in that aspect.

Data Source: Checklist Before you start, talk about how you use checklists.

Scenario: You are reviewing a checklist to determine if a student is able to perform key elements of a behavior. Here are some assumptions:

The checklist was developed by a person or persons with expertise in the content area, so assume all the elements are important and representative of the behavior you are trying to measure.

The checklist was completed by a trained person who directly observed the student to determine if the student performed each element on the checklist.

You will be able to calculate the % of elements the student demonstrated. The checklist was completed three different times during three separate observations of the student.

Rigor of Data Source Based on the assumptions listed above, rate each of the following by circling High, Medium, or Low

Technical Adequacy High Medium LowObjectivity High Medium LowAmount High Medium LowDirectness High Medium Low

Performance Comparison Select the appropriate performance comparisons.

AEA Norms Iowa Norms National Norms District or building norm Teacher Expectations Criteria based on district standards Medical Standards Research standard Developmental standard Peer comparison Parent expectations Criterion from a school policy Other

Decisions (Problem validation, Intervention progress evaluation, Eligibility during FIE, etc.) What decisions can be made with these data? (Data from checklists) Please provide your rationale.

91

Data Source: Short Duration Fluency Measures (IGDIs, DIBELS, IOWAN, CBMs) Before you start, talk about which of these you have used. Scenario: The student was given a short duration fluency measure such as an IGDI, DIBELS, IOWAN, CBMs etc. Here are some assumptions:

The measure is one that is supported by research and was adequately field tested prior to use. The measure was administered and scored using standardized procedures by trained

personnel. The measure was repeated at least three times on three different days.


Technical Adequacy High Medium Low Objectivity High Medium Low Amount High Medium Low Directness High Medium Low



Decisions (Problem validation, Intervention progress evaluation, Eligibility for during FIE, etc.) What decisions can be made with these data? (Data from short duration fluency measures.) Please provide your rationale.

92

Data Source: Teacher Report of Behavior/Skills Before you start, talk about how you use teacher reports. Scenario: You are reviewing a report from a teacher about a student’s behavior(s) or the teacher’s observation of the student’s performance of a skill(s). Here are some assumptions:

The teacher is known by you to be an objective and accurate reporter. The input the teacher provided is relevant to the behavior of concern. The input is provided directly by the teacher to you in person or in writing





Decisions (Problem validation, Intervention progress evaluation, Eligibility during FIE, etc.) What decisions can be made with these data? (Data from teacher report of student behavior/skills.) Please provide your rationale.

93

Data Source: Published Test (Direct gathering of student performance using a published test) Before you start, talk about the tests you use. Scenario: In order to assess a student’s performance you use a published test. You administer it to the student and are reviewing the results. Here are some assumptions:

The test has sufficient technical adequacy. The test items are relevant to the behavior you are assessing. The test has national norms. Standard administration procedures were used.





Decisions (Problem validation, Intervention progress evaluation, Eligibility during FIE, etc.) What decisions can be made with these data? (Data from published tests.) Please provide your rationale.

94

Data Source: Analysis of Permanent Product Before you start, talk about how you use permanent products. Scenario: In order to assess a student’s performance you are analyzing a permanent product (assignment, writing sample, etc.) you received from the student’s teacher. Here are some assumptions:

The permanent product was gathered by the teacher because he/she judged it to be representative of typical performance

The teacher directions to complete the product were followed by the student The content of the permanent product are relevant to the area of concern.





Decisions (Problem validation, Intervention progress evaluation, Eligibility during FIE, etc.) What decisions can be made with these data? (Data from analysis of permanent products.) Please provide your rationale.

95

Data Source: Published Rating Scale Before you start, talk about how you use rating scales. Scenario: In order to assess a student’s performance you ask several individuals who know the student to complete a published rating scale. Here are some assumptions:

The rating scale contains at least some behaviors relevant to the area of concern. More than one individual completed the rating scale. The individuals who completed the rating scale know the student well. The rating scale has national norms.





Decisions (Problem validation, Intervention progress evaluation, Eligibility during FIE, etc.) What decisions can be made with these data? (Data from published rating scales.) Please provide your rationale.

96

Discrepancy: Performance Standards Standard Source & Example Question Answered Strengths Weaknesses

Normative comparisons

Collect data from many individuals on the same measure

How does an individual’s performance compare to the performance of others?

Helps understand relative standing or ranking as compared to others.

May gloss over absolutes (average among a group of all low performers may still not be good enough).

Local Norm Collected locally (classroom, school, district, AEA) District norms for math applications

AEA norms for preschool IGDIs

•Is Sue’s behavior similar to other students in the same grade in her building? How do Tori’s writing skills compare to a representative sample of students within Heartland?

• Highly relevant comparisons at classroom and school level • Can be collected for uncommon data elements

• Regional norms (AEA) may not be appropriate for some buildings or classrooms • Local norm may be out of line with other data (high or low achieving school)

National Norms

Collected by test publisher or other external source ITBS/ITED scores

• Is Eva’s reading within the typical range? • Does Jim’s math achievement exceed 95% of students in the national sample?

• Often collected using rigorous sampling to allow inferences about the population in general • Provides an external reference for performance

• May not reflect local achievement differences (high or low achieving school) • Not available for many measures • May be poorly collected, outdated or not well documented.

User Norms Dynamic norms based on user‐data NWEA/MAP

scores AEA DIBELS

norms (they are recalculated annually based on AEA school data collection)

• How well does Sam perform relative to others using this test?

• Close ties to the users of the test allow for inferences about student performance relative to others in the school.

• May not represent performance of the general population. There may be systematic biases affecting whose performance is included in the norms.

Peer Comparison

Collected by evaluator from others in the same environment Data collected on

playground behavior

How many words per minute peers copy from the board

• How does Matt’s assignment completion compare to classmates?

• Can be generated and applied to unique measures without any other standard • Direct ties to current setting.

• At risk of sampling errors • May produce inaccurate comparison relative to other standards.

These descriptions are not intended to be in order of rigor.

97

Standard Source & Example Question Answered Strengths Weaknesses Criterion Based Standards

Expectations or targets from data, opinion or law.

Is Gwen doing as well as we want?

Presents an absolute target or criterion for success

In some cases, the basis on which the criteria were established may be questionable

Research Standard

Empirical research results provide data‐based targets DIBELS

benchmarks 0‐3 IGDI ECI

Is Len meeting targets that indicate he is likely to be successful?

• Provides clear targets that have been backed up by research • May involve articulated targets across various measures

• May not be available for many measures • Can be challenging to develop – require large samples of data gathered systematically • Not an absolute, just a statistical estimate. A score of X may not actually represent success.

Developmental Standard

Observation, data collection and/or clinical judgment Listening skills

(DASL) Iowa Articulation

Norms Ages and Stages

Questionnaire Creative

Curriculum

• Has Will met the 3‐year milestones? • Is Pat’s motor development on track?

• Helps connect a child’s skills to typical developmental patterns

• Targets may or may not be accurate

Parent Expectation

Parent input Specific behavior

expectations

• Is Ben complying with parent expectations?

• Meaningful to parents

May be out of line with other targets

May not be well defined

May not be reasonable

Teacher Expectations

Teacher/service provider input Classroom

behavior expectations

Expected accuracy An expected level

of independence

• Does Ruth’s behavior comply with teacher expectations?

• Directly connected to classroom • Meaningful to the teacher

• May be out of line with other targets • May not be reasonable • May not be well defined

Policy Standard

School rules and policies Attendance District

Benchmarks Iowa Early

Learning Standards (IELS)

• Is Meg meeting district requirements for credits?

• Highly relevant to the current environment

• May be out of line with other targets


98

Standard Source & Example Question Answered Strengths Weaknesses Medical Standard

Accepted medical standards American

Academy of Pediatrics

Visual Acuity American

Medical Association

Does Kristi have a vision loss?

Provide clear criteria

Nationally and internationally accepted

May not be aligned with educational expectations

May be out of line with other targets


99

Discrepancy: Acceptable Performance

The performance standard that is chosen should represent performance that is considered appropriate Specific cutoff scores are not identified, consider: 12th percentile Years behind in curriculum At least one standard deviation For preschool aged children, a 25 percent or more delay from expectations may be

considered discrepant These are not absolutes

Appropriate for the Stakes of the Decision As the stakes of the decision rise, the performance standard should be more direct Standards with higher rigor should be used for higher stakes decisions (TOAD)

Quality of Standards Standards that can be observed and measured accurately (direct) should be considered first (when available) and other standards used as convergent data 1. Norm (local, AEA, Iowa, national) 2. Peer performance 3. District‐wide assessment data 4. Professional standard 5. Review and interview information

Note

s/Tho

ughts

/Ide

as

100

Discrepancy: Uniqueness Uniqueness specifically refers to a comparison with local peers, comparing the student to other with similar experiences. Discrepancy vs. Unique

Approaching, At or Above Standard

Below Standard

Approaching, At or Above Peer Performance

Student is not discrepant and not unique

Student is discrepant but not unique

Well Below Peer Performance

Student is not discrepant but is unique

Student is discrepant and unique

Note

s/Tho

ughts

/Ide

as

101

Discrepancy: Uniqueness Making a Comparison to Setting Peers What Questions can be Addressed When These Data Are Used to Make a Comparison to Setting Peers?

National Norms

Classroom Peer Comparison

ITBS Iowa PR

District Norms

DIBELS Benchmarks

Disproportionality Considerations Uniqueness Considerations

Note

s/Tho

ughts

/Ide

as

102

Discrepancy: Uniqueness Application

Consider an FIE case in which you are currently engaged

For each domain of evaluation, what information do you have regarding discrepancy?

Do you have comparison information to determine if the student is unique from

setting peers?

If not, how can you make those comparisons given the data you have?

Note

s/Tho

ughts

/Ide

as

103

Discrepancy: Determining Significance of Discrepancy Comparing Data Nominal Ordinal Interval Ratio

Note

s/Tho

ughts

/Ide

as

104

Four Types of Data

Can we…? Add + No No Yes Yes Subtract No No Yes Yes Multiply x No No No Yes Divide ÷ No No No Yes

Nominal A scale of

measurement in which numbers stand for names.

Ordinal (status) A way of measuring that ranks (puts them in an order) on

some variable. The difference between the ranks needs not be equal (unequal intervals between units of measure).

Interval A scale or measurement that describes variables in such a way that the distance between any two adjacent units of measure (or intervals) is the same, but in which there is no meaningful zero point ‐ can add and subtract.

Ratio (Growth) A measurement or scale in which any two adjoining

values are the same distance apart and in which there is a true zero point ‐ can add,

subtract, multiply and divide.

Examples: 1 = Proficient 2 = Non Proficient

1 = Females 2 = Males

*Likert Scale – could be nominal or ordinal

Examples: 1. Percentile Rank (PR), National Percentile Rank (NPR), Iowa Percentile Rank (IPR), AEA CBM Percentile Ranks

2. ICAM Scores 3. Class Rank 4. Grade & Age Equivalents 5. BRI/DRA Scores 6. Rubric Scores

Examples:1. Year (A.D.) 2. Fahrenheit 3. Celsius 4. Standard Scores

(WJ, Stanford, WIAT, IQ, etc)

Examples: 1. ITBS National Standard

Score (NSS) 2. MAP ‐ RIT Scores 3. CBM Raw Scores 4. Percent (percent correct,

percent on task, etc…) 5. Frequency, duration, etc…

Raw scores 6. Lexile scores

Can Calculate: Mode

Can Calculate: Median and Mode

Can Calculate: Median and Mode

Can Calculate: Mean, Median and Mode

We can also: Calculate number and percents within categories, establish baselines and track data across years

Nominal Ordinal Interval Ratio

105

Interpreting GradeEquivalent Scores

John R. Hills The Florida State University

School teachers use grade‐equivalent (GE) scores from commercially published standardized tests because they feel that a grade equivalent is meaningful. Unlike scores such as percentiles, stanines, or scaled scores, GE scores tell you directly what they mean – or do they? Try the following examples. Just indicate whether the stated interpretation of the GE score is sound, true or false. Please circle either T of F for each question. Mark a response for each question as there is no penalty for guessing. This is an untimed test. T F 1. Tim is a sixth grader. He obtained a GE score of 9.2 in reading. This means that Tim scored

well above average sixth graders on reading. T F 2. A GE score for Tim of 9.2 means that he can read as well as ninth graders in the second

month of the school year. T F 3. Tim’s GE score of 9.2 on reading means that when a group of ninth graders in their second

month were tested on ninth grade reading material, they received scores equivalent to Tim’s score.

T F 4. Tim’s GE score of 9.2 on reading means that Tim could well be put in a class of ninth

graders for material in which reading skills were important. T F 5. Tim’s 9.2 GE in reading means that in a flexible school in which children work on materials

at their own level. Tim should be put into a ninth grade class for instruction in reading. Reprinted with permission from Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, Spring 1983.

106

GradeEquivalent Scores

Question 1 is true. The others are false. Explanations: 1. Because GE scores are developed by obtaining the mean or median performance at each of several

grade levels on a test whose content covers the several grades, a student who scores above the grade in which he is enrolled has performed above average for students in his grade.

2. A student can obtain a high GE score without being able to do the work of students at the grade

level indicated by his score. Tim may have obtained a 9.2 score by getting all the items that were designed for grades 4, 5, 6, and 7 correct and many not have done particularly well on items designed for grades 8 and 9, if there were any.

3. Often the GEs associated with high or low number‐correct scores are obtained by extrapolation. It

is possible that no ninth grader was ever tested with the test given Tim. 4. Because Tim could have gotten a GE score of 9.2 by doing well on the easier or lower level items of

the test, one cannot tell from these scores whether he could participate effectively with ninth graders or not.

5. In most schools, reading is not taught in the ninth grade except perhaps for remediation of

ineffective reading skills. So it does not make sense to consider putting Tim into ninth grade instruction in reading. Even if reading (or any subject for which a 9.2 GE was obtained) were taught at the ninth grade, one would not know whether Tim should be put into a higher level of instruction without evaluating whether he had the prerequisite skills. The GE score cannot be relied on to indicate that ninth grade skills have been mastered.

107

Discrepancy: Determining Significance of Discrepancy Magnitude of the Discrepancy Absolute Difference Percentile Ranks Discrepancy Ratios

Note

s/Tho

ughts

/Ide

as

108

Determining the Magnitude of Discrepancy: Q & A

Q: When answering the discrepancy question, should I use percentile ranks or times discrepant?

A: If the student data you are reporting can be compared to a norm – local, AEA, state or national – use percentile ranks. You can report the percentile rank in either the peer performance section or the discrepancy section in the EER. If norms are not available, then to give some indication as to the magnitude of the discrepancy convert the difference between what is expected and the student’s performance into a time discrepant rather than just reporting the raw difference.

Q: When using percentile ranks, what do I report as the expected performance?

A: There are a variety of ways one could choose to report the expected performance, but it is important to know what they represent. The 25th percentile to the 75th percentile represents where 50% of the students fell and

typically is referred to as the average range. The 16th percentile to the 84th percentile represents plus or minus one standard deviation

and can also be referred to as the average range thought it would include both the low‐average and high‐average ranges as well.

Q: When reporting an expected performance, should I be using a single number or a range?

A: It depends. There are instances where we have research‐based standards that have identified a minimal level of acceptable performance in order to be successful over time. In those instances, we would report that single score or expectation. There are also situations where we have a small peer sample and we report the median performance; the caution in doing this is that it can give the impression that there is a very narrow range of acceptable performance and that most students are performing at or above that score. Therefore, reporting a range of expected performance communicates that there is a band of performance that is occurring and considered acceptable.

Q: Should we be comparing student performance to local norms or to AEA norms? A: If there are district or building norms that are recent, reliable and valid, we suggest you use the

local norm. It is important that the student was assessed using the same type of probes/materials that were used to create the benchmarking or norming data. If the local norms were developed from the same materials and procedure used for the AEA norms, you could choose to report both percentile ranks. Just be sure to label the percentile rank as either local or AEA.

109

Q: For the ITBS/ITED, should I report the Iowa Percentile Rank (IPR) or the National Percentile Rank (NPR)?

A: Like with other data, you should compare the student’s performance to the most local standard

– in this case, the Iowa norms. However, some districts’ data are not reporting the IPRs so you will only have the NPRs. Just be sure to label the percentile rank as either Iowa or National.

Q: When answering the discrepancy question and percentile ranks are not available to indicate

the magnitude of discrepancy how do I calculate times discrepant?

A: You would divide the small number into the larger number to calculate the times discrepant. Here are some examples: If the student was reading 30 words correct per minute, but the expected performance was

110, you would divide 110 by 30 and get 3.666666… Therefore, the student’s performance was 3.7 times discrepant.

If the student is getting out of his/her seat without permission 7 times per period, but the expected performance was 2 times, you would divide 7 by 2 and get 3.5. Therefore, the student’s performance is 3.5 times discrepant.

There is one exception to this procedure. In those cases, where either the student performance or expected performance is 0, you cannot divide the larger number by 0. The times discrepant would simply be the higher number. Here are some examples: If the student was hitting students 8 times a day, but the expected performance was 0 times,

the student’s performance would be 8 times discrepant. If the student was completing 0 of the morning routine steps, but the expected performance

was to complete at least 4 steps, the student’s performance would be 4 times discrepant. Q: When using times discrepant to indicate the magnitude of the discrepancy, what is considered

significantly discrepant?

A: Unfortunately, there is not a black and white answer to this question. Typically, you will see 2 times discrepant or greater is considered significantly discrepant and anything less than 1.5 times discrepant is not considered significantly discrepant. It is that range from 1.5 to 1.9 that will require professional judgment. There are many factors that need to be considered: the specific behavior, how the expected range was identified (e.g., median performance, minimal expectation, lowest group performance), the scale and range of numbers, etc. Time discrepant is not the ideal measure, but it gives more indication as to the magnitude of discrepancy than simply reporting the raw difference.

Adapted from materials prepared by Sandy Nelson, Supervisor of Special Education Consultants; Kristi Upah, Supervisor of School Psychological Services; Kathy Bertsch, Staff Development Specialist for School Psychology; Misty Christensen, Staff Development Specialist for Special Education Consultants.

110

Discrepancy: Determining Significance of Discrepancy Guidelines for Reporting Significance of Discrepancy Use percentile rank when:

Use absolute difference when:

Use discrepancy ratio when:

Significance Guidelines

Percentile rank: near the 12th percentile

Discrepancy ratio: 2.0 times discrepant

Standard score: 1‐2 standard deviations below the mean

Number of years behind

Some sensory and medical standards

Think About and Plan

Are these consistent to what you have used in the past to determine significance of a

discrepancy?

What needs do you have for future discussion (either as a discipline or with your schools)

Note

s/Tho

ughts

/Ide

as

111

Needs: Introduction

Determining a student’s needs is about asking the “right” questions.

List the questions you frequently use to begin the functional assessment process.

Know Understand Do

How to determine a child’s specific needs in the areas of Instruction, Curriculum, and Environment (ICEL)

The link between problem analysis and instructional needs

Determine which needs are a result of a disability

Elements of ICEL

How ICEL and RIOT fit into the problem analysis process during intervention decisions and eligibility decisions

Make data‐based decisions that are aligned to meet individual student needs

Principles of functional assessment

Interplay of rate of instruction, discrepancy and educational needs in determining eligibility and providing a continuum of effective program supports/services

Adjust instructional strategies, curricular focus, and environment based on data

Note

s/Tho

ughts

/Ide

as

112

Needs: Determining Educational Needs

Every student in school has educational needs

During FIE, we also determine which (if any) needs are a result of the child’s disability

Educational Needs: Components Instruction

Curriculum Environment

Note

s/Tho

ughts

/Ide

as

113

Educational Needs (Needs for Specially Designed Instruction) IDEA requires that students have a disability in order to receive special education. As a result of the disability, there must also be some negative impact on the individual which interferes with the students’ opportunity to learn or receive benefit from the general education program alone. This diminished capacity and the understanding of what it will take to benefit from the educational program is the essential element in defining the education needs of each individual in special education. We provide students special education services only when the combination of disability and educational need co‐exist. Is has been and is still the case that a student can either have a disability and not need specially designed instruction or have needs but not be disabled. 41.111(2)(a) Highquality general education instruction; general education interventions. As a component of efficient and effective, high‐quality general education instruction, it shall be the responsibility of the general education program of each LEA to provide additional support and assistance to all students who may need such additional support and assistance to attain the educational standards of the LEA applicable to all children. Receipt of such additional support and assistance, when considered alone, does not create a suspicion that a child is an eligible individual under this chapter. Activities under this paragraph shall be provided by general education personnel, with occasional or incidental assistance from special education instructional and support personnel. This seems to set an early standard for basing support and assistance, yet undefined, on needs that students have. It also says that the provision for these needs alone does not create a suspicion of a disability. This could be considered the cornerstone of what we can come to expect from general education. 41.306(3) Procedures for determining eligibility and educational need. a. In interpreting evaluation data for the purpose of determining if a child is a child with a disability under this chapter, and the educational needs of the child, each public agency must: (1) Draw upon information from a variety of sources, including aptitude and achievement tests, parent input, and teacher recommendations, as well as information about the child’s physical condition, social or cultural background, and adaptive behavior; and (2) Ensure that information obtained from all of these sources is documented and carefully considered. b. If a determination is made that a child has a disability and needs special education and related services, an IEP must be developed for the child in accordance with these rules. c. All determinations of eligibility must be based on the individual’s disability (progress and discrepancy) and need for special education. Educational Disability is defined in the Statewide Procedures manual as: A disability for purposes of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA, 2004) is referred to in this document as an “educational disability.” An educational disability requiring the services of Special Education is a skills deficit, a health or physical condition, a functional limitation, or a pattern of behavior that adversely affects educational performance. An educational disability

1) results in educational performance that is significantly and consistently different, diminished, or inappropriate when compared to the expectations for peers and 2) significantly interferes with:

a) access to general education settings and opportunities, b) developmental progress,

114

c) involvement and progress in the general curriculum, or d) interpersonal relationships or personal adjustment.

The following is the rule description of what special education is. It seems to imply that the focus on needs should be construed to predominantly relate to instruction. 41.39(1) General. ―Special education means specially designed instruction, at no cost to the parents, to meet the unique needs of a child with a disability, including:

a. Instruction conducted in the classroom, in the home, in hospitals and institutions, and in other settings; and b. Instruction in physical education

This makes me think that needs should be those things that address, reduce, remediate, or accommodate for functional limitations, patterns of behavior or skill deficits. In other words, the things that would provide “benefit” for the student that is minimized because of their disability. In line with this thinking, educational needs should address opportunity for access to general education, what will allow for making progress, and improved relationships. 41‐39(3)(c) defines specially designed instruction as “adapting, as appropriate to the needs of an eligible child under this chapter, the content, methodology, or delivery of instruction:

1. To address the unique needs of the child that result from the child’s disability; and 2. To ensure access of the child to the general curriculum, so that the child can meet the

educational standards within the jurisdiction of the public agency that apply to all children.” Of most importance is the, “adapting, as appropriate…the content, methodology, or delivery of instruction”. This is the direct connection to the FIE and EER components of educational need. Content would be what children need to know…and what they can and cannot do. These are the things that need to be taught. Methodology would be how we want children to be instructed that has the highest probability of enhanced learning outcomes in order to receive benefit. In other words, how should the student be taught? The delivery of instruction seems to relate to both how to teach and the environmental structures required to get it done. Group size, opportunity for feedback, teacher to student ratio, use of technology, etc. would all be in play. If content addresses curriculum, methodology addresses instruction, and delivery of instruction addresses instruction and environmental conditions we can establish instructional/educational needs for a student who is eligible and in need of special education if we address things like the following:

Instructional variables that impact unique learning needs, provide access to general education, provide benefit, and ensure opportunity to learn

Curriculum content needs that will impact the unique learning needs, provide educational benefit, and increase access to the general education curriculum

Environmental conditions that will assure access, provide instructional opportunity, provide educational benefit, and lead to knowledge of how to maximize learning while minimizing barriers to learning

Written by Randy Allison (2010)

115

Needs: Educational Needs within the Educational System “The presence of a disability does not equate to the need for special education services.”

Needs are determined by analyzing information collected regarding student progress data, discrepancy data and exclusionary factors.

Iowa Code, Chapter 281, 41.39 (3) c

“Specially designed instruction” means adapting, as appropriate to the needs of an eligible child under this chapter, the content, methodology, or delivery of instruction:

(1) To address the unique needs of the child that result from the child’s disability; and

(2) To ensure access of the child to the general curriculum, so that the child can meet the educational standards within the jurisdiction of the public agency that apply to all children.

Note

s/Tho

ughts

/Ide

as

116

Needs: Structure

Content: Curriculum

Methodology: Instruction

Delivery of Instruction: Instruction/Environment

Guiding Questions

Taken from the Special Education Procedures Manual (July 2010)

1. What are the individual’s needs in the areas of instruction, curriculum, and

environment?

2. What are the instructional strategies that enable the individual’s learning performance to improve?

3. What, if any ecological variables contribute to the interventions/accommodations/modifications not enhancing the individual’s performance?

4. What features of the intervention (instructional strategies, curricular focus, accommodations, modifications) provided most greatly enhanced the individual’s performance and allowed opportunity to acquire educationally relevant skills?

5. What is the pervasiveness of the area of concern across settings and time?

6. What ongoing, substantial, additional services are needed that cannot be provided solely with general education resources?

Note

s/Tho

ughts

/Ide

as

117

Needs: Educational Obligations

Which of the identified needs if any, will require services and supports that exceed the capacity and obligation of the general education program and resources?

Capacity Considerations Iowa Code, Chapter 281, 41.111 (2) Highquality general education instruction; general education interventions

a. As a component of efficient and effective, highquality general education instruction, it shall be the responsibility of the general education program of each LEA to provide additional support and assistance to all students who may need such additional support and assistance to attain the educational standards of the LEA applicable to all children.

Note

s/Tho

ughts

/Ide

as

118

Functional Assessment The term functional assessment means different things to different people. It is important to define characteristics of functional assessment so a mutual understanding is possible. Characteristics of functional assessment are (a) relevant to the problem, (b) direct, (c) multi‐dimensional, (d) formulates ideas about remedial strategies, (e) incorporates direct and repeatable measures, (f) are individually focused, and (g) are reliable and valid.

1) Functional assessment is relevant to the identified problem. It is not a global screening or a comprehensive battery. Functional assessment addresses only the specific, applicable area(s) of concern.

2) Functional assessment is direct. By using actual materials from the curriculum, the direct relatedness between the decision being made and the methods used is obvious and undeniable. Functional assessment calls for a clear connection between what question is being answered and what data are being gathered.

3) Functional assessment is multidimensional. Functional assessment allows for multiple sources of information (instruction, curriculum, environment, and student characteristics) to be considered through multiple methodologies (review, interview, observation, and tests or tasks). Higher stakes decisions typically require more and different data sources and methodologies. Be cautious. More data does not necessarily mean better data. Make sure the data answer the question.

4) The purpose of functional assessment is to identify interventions that might solve the problem. By knowing the expectation, being aware of the actual level of performance, and having an understanding about why the student is performing at that level, the practitioner is in a position to develop and implement interventions that have more than a chance shot at working.

5) Measures are direct and repeatable. This allows for frequent progress monitoring for making instructional changes, fine‐tuning, and for overall evaluation of effectiveness.

6) Functional assessment is individually focused. There are no “standard batteries.” Specifically identified problems receive specific assessment and remedial action based on the analysis of the problem.

7) Functional assessment, being drawn from actual curriculum and directly related to an identified problem, is highly reliable and valid. All too often assessments are assumed to measure relevant skills. However, many published, standardized, norm‐referenced tests do not match well with what is expected at the local level, therefore they are not highly correlated to the assessment question(s) or the problem(s) of concern. As a result, these assessments do not result in information that has the reliability and validity mandated for specific individual student decisions.

Data Based Decision Making Manual (Heartland AEA 11)

“Functional assessment calls for a clear connection between what question is being answered and what data are being gathered.”

119

Needs: Determining Educational Needs

Assessment Questions Determining Educational Needs ICEL & RIOT

Note

s/Tho

ughts

/Ide

as

120

Content of Assessment Domains

Instruction

This domain includes:

instructional decision‐making regarding selection and use of materials,

instructional decision‐making regarding placement of students in materials,

progress monitoring, clarify of instructions, communication of expectations & criteria for success,

direct instruction with explanations and cues, sequencing of lesson designs to promote success,

variety of practice activities, and pace of presentation of new content.

Curriculum This domain includes:

long range direction for instruction, instructional philosophy/approaches, instructional materials, intent, stated outcomes for the course of study, arrangement of the content/instruction, pace of the steps leading to the outcome, and general learner criteria as identified in the school improvement plan, LEA curriculum and benchmarks.

Environment This domain includes:

physical arrangement of the room,

furniture/equipment,

rules,

management plans,

routines,

expectations,

peer context,

peer and family influence, and

task pressure.

Learner This is the last domain to consider. Addressed when:

the curriculum and instruction are appropriate, and

the environment is positive.

This domain includes student performance data:

academic, and

social/behavioral.

121

Needs: Using RIOT to Assess ICEL

Domain Known Information Data (RIOT) indicating this

information?

Unknown Relevant Information/Assessment

Questions? Procedures (RIOT) for

collecting this information? Instruction: Instructional strategies and methods that enable learning, reinforcement, motivational strategies

Curriculum: Content of instruction, specific skills and concepts the individual needs to learn

Environment: Adaptations to procedures, schedules, routines, behavioral expectations, room or seating arrangements, adaptive supports that inhibit or accelerate learning

Learner: What additional supports are needed for the learner?

Note

s/Tho

ughts

/Ide

as

122

Needs: Using RIOT to Assess ICEL Examples

Instruction:

How explicit does the instruction need to be for the student to have an increased rate of acquisition? If we adjust the number of teacher modeled examples and the guided practice examples, does the student’s progress increase?

How large is the impact of pairing instruction of the classroom expectations verbally with visual cues for the student?

Are there ample practice opportunities for each skill taught? Does the student require additional practice opportunities?

Curriculum: What is the skill level of the individual in reading decoding skills (e.g. Accuracy,

Fluency, Application)? How accurate and fluent is the student with their use of their arm brace crutches? Which speech sounds does the student need to learn? What preschool classroom expectations does the child need to taught? Environment: Does a fixed interval reinforcement schedule of 5 minutes result in greater gains as

compared to a variable interval reinforcement schedule of 10 minutes? Does a reduced group size (from 7 to 4 students) result in greater achievement? Does the student maintain the same rate of progress when the teacher reduces

feedback to every fourth opportunity as opposed to every opportunity?

Learner:

How does the learner respond to verbal praise versus tangible incentives? Does the student’s response vary when directions are presented pictorially or written,

versus orally? How does the student’s behavior change when pre‐teaching of expectations occurs in

each setting?

Note

s/Tho

ughts

/Ide

as

123

Assessment Methods and Sources Matrix Assessment Domains/Data Sources

Domain: InstructionR Review I Interview O Observe T Test Lesson plans Permanent products (e.g. written pieces, worksheets, projects) for skill/degree of difficulty requirements Benchmarks/ standards

Teachers about: effective teaching practices instructional decision making

regarding choice of materials, placement of students

sequencing/pacing of instruction choice of screening, diagnostic and

formative assessments product methods

(e.g. dictation, oral retell, paper pencil, projects)

groupings used decision making regarding

instructional change accommodations/ modifications used reinforcement strategies allowable repetition or direct

instruction who is providing the

supplemental/intensive instruction what supportive technology is used

Teacher’s instructional style/preferred style of presenting Clarity of instructions/ directions Effective teaching practices Communication of benchmarks/expectations and criteria for success How new information is presented Percent of time with direct instruction, whole group instruction, practice time, etc. How the teacher gains/ maintains student attention

Instructional Placement Tests (diagnostic assessments) Assessment alternatives (e.g. projects, portfolios, retell) Progress data (formative evaluation)

Domain: CurriculumR Review I Interview O Observe T Test Curriculum selected scientific researched

based implemented with

integrity Scope and sequence of text books Permanent products (e.g. books, worksheets, curriculum guides) Benchmarks/ Standards

Teachers/Curriculum Director core curriculum support curriculums used for

supplemental and intensive instruction

supplemental teaching materials Teachers/Counselors expanded core curriculum (e.g.

friendship skills, study skills) Teacher(s) philosophical orientation of

curriculum (e.g. whole language, phonics)

expectations of district for pacing/coverage of curriculum

content/outcomes of course modifications of benchmarks made

for students readability of textbook prerequisite skills/prior

understanding needed for success allowable repetition for

mastery/understanding technology integration

Peer group response to curricular demands Variety of practice opportunities Allowance for peer sharing/ mentoring during work time

Readability/ level of text books End of chapter/ unit tests Readability level/difficulties of tests

124

Determining Educational Needs Abby

Background Information

Abby is a second grade student struggling with reading. She is currently being evaluated for special education eligibility. The only area of concern at this time is reading. Abby had a great attendance record in Kindergarten and first grade, and this year she has had regular attendance as well. Her parents report they read to Abby each night and that she enjoys being read to. Abby’s parents report she has passed vision and hearing tests at the pediatrician’s office in the past, and do not have concerns in these areas.

Behavioral Definition:

Abby reads text slowly and inaccurately. Examples include decoding words inaccurately (inaccurate use of vowel sounds and vowel blends in the middle of words, and common consonant blends when attempting to read unfamiliar words), and oral reading with pauses of greater than 3 seconds. Non‐examples include when Abby echo reads correctly after a peer/adult reads fluently and accurately, or when Abby reads unknown words correctly by applying appropriate decoding strategies with pauses of less than 3 seconds.

Dimension of Behavior: Fluency and Accuracy

Baseline information: Stable and representative baseline data was collected in September using Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Oral Reading Fluency probes, administered and scored in a standardized fashion. Scores on 2nd grade fluency probes were: 23 cwpm, 26 cwpm, and 24 cwpm. Median score = 24 wpm, which represents performance at the 9th percentile on AEA norms and is Well Below Benchmark using national DIBELS benchmark standards.

Goal set on September 20, 2010: By May 30, 2011 when given 2nd grade DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency probes using standardized administration and scoring procedures, Abby will read 87 cwpm.

(Goal set with the following in mind: Goal attainment would put Abby within the “At or Above Benchmark” range on DIBELS and at the 33rd percentile on AEA norms.)

The team will utilize the four‐point decision making rule. After a minimum of 6‐8 data points have been collected over a minimum of 3 weeks, the team will analyze the last four consecutive data points. If the last four consecutive data points are below the goal line, the team will determine an appropriate instructional change.

125

Instruction and Intervention Information:

Core: Abby receives core instruction provided by her classroom teacher Mr. Brooks. The district uses Houghton‐Mifflin reading curriculum materials for core instruction. Mr. Brooks has arranged students into flexible groups for reading instruction based on DIBELS benchmark results. Ninety minutes of language instruction is scheduled daily. Observations conducted in the classroom indicate Mr. Brooks using the curriculum with fidelity. All second grade students are given DIBELS measures three times per year. Twenty of the 24 students in Mr. Brook’s second grade classroom are making progress as expected and reaching benchmarks.

Current Supplemental Instruction: Abby receives 25 minutes of instruction three times weekly provided by the reading specialist, Mrs. Christensen. This supplemental instruction is provided in a group of 6 students. Mrs. Christensen uses Phonics for Reading materials as a basis for instruction with this group. Teacher implementation logs indicate Mrs. Christensen has used this curriculum with 95% component integrity over 98% of opportunities. Abby has been receiving this supplemental instruction since the beginning of the year. September through November, Mrs. Christensen collected progress monitoring data bi‐weekly for all students in the group. Beginning in December, Mrs. Christensen collected progress monitoring data each week for Abby. Mrs. Christensen’s progress monitoring chart has comments and phase changes indicated. (See attached progress monitoring chart.) Phase I: Phonics for Reading 3 times per week for 25 minutes per session. Phase II: Phonics for Reading 4 times per week for 25 minutes per session. Added: paired verbal reinforcement with tangible reinforcement. Phase III: Abby will receive Phonics for Reading instruction 5 times per week for 25 minutes per session. Group size will be reduced from six students to three students.

Note: All other students in this supplemental group are making adequate progress toward the benchmark goals in reading.

Historical Supplemental Instruction: Abby was identified as a student needing additional supports in reading in Kindergarten. She has routinely had support from the reading specialist beginning in January of 2008 (Kindergarten year).

Consent for FIE obtained on January 17, 2011.

ABBY: What do we know? What other specific assessment questions do you have to help

determine her educational needs?

126

ABBY: What do we know? What other specific assessment questions do you have to help determine her educational needs? EXAMPLE

Domain Known Information Data (RIOT) indicating this

information?

Unknown Relevant Information? Procedures (RIOT) for collecting this

information? Instruction: Instructional strategies and methods that enable learning, reinforcement, motivational strategies

Explicit instruction following “I Do, We Do, You Do” model increases student progress (Progress Review, Interview). Pre‐teaching of decoding skills during the same instructional session increases student performance in supplemental setting. (Observation, Progress Data Review, Interview) Abby’s rate of acquisition increases with supplemental instruction that is provided on consistent basis in a small group setting. (Data Review)

How does Abby’s accuracy and fluency change when she is pre‐taught the specific decoding skill directly ahead of core instruction? (Observation) Are there ample practice opportunities and opportunities for corrective/motivational feedback in core instructional periods? During supplemental instructional periods? (Observation, Progress Data Review, Interview)

Curriculum: Content of instruction, specific skills and concepts the individual needs to learn

Core Instruction: 90 minutes using research based Houghton‐Mifflin, implemented with integrity (Observation, Interview) Supplemental: 25 minutes 3x/week using research based Phonics for Reading, implemented with integrity (Observation, Review of Permanent Products, and Interview)

Are skills taught during supplemental instruction using Phonics for Reading specifically aligned with Abby’s reading decoding deficits? (Test/Task) In addition to the skills being taught through core and supplemental instruction, are there additional skills that Abby needs to master? (Test/Task)

Environment: Adaptations to procedures, schedules, routines, behavioral expectations, room or seating arrangements, adaptive supports that inhibit or accelerate learning

Core Instruction: When Abby sits in close proximity to teacher who provides corrective feedback, performance increases. (Observation, Review of Progress Data, Interview) Supplemental Instruction: Abby’s rate of acquisition does not change significantly when verbal and tangible incentives are paired together. (Review of Progress Data)

Does seating arrangement (proximity) to instructor impact Abby’s performance in supplemental instruction groups? (Observation and Review of Progress Data) Does a reduction in group size, which impacts number of opportunities to respond, receive feedback, error correction, etc. for supplemental instruction increase Abby’s rate of acquisition? (Task Observation with Review of Data)

Learner: What additional supports are needed for the learner?

Abby’s rate of acquisition increases when she is provided instruction in a smaller group. (Review of Progress Data)

Does Abby’s response change when formal incentives are incorporated in her core instruction? (Review of Progress Data)

128

Needs: Data Sources and Analysis for Educational Needs Data Sources for Determining Needs Progress Data Discrepancy Data Diagnostic Data Problem Analysis

Determining Needs: Conditions for Most Growth Intervention Successful? Intervention Unsuccessful? Discrepancy Data

Note

s/Tho

ughts

/Ide

as

129

Needs: Instructional Focus Continuum

Accurate at Skill? Accuracy

If no,

If yes,

Fluent at Skill? Fluency

If no,

If yes,

Able to Apply Skill? Application

If no,

If yes,

Note

s/Tho

ughts

/Ide

as

130

Needs: Diagnostic/Problem Analysis Data

What specific instructional strategies, curriculum, and environmental variations enable learning for this student? Under what instructional conditions did the student make the most growth?

With which curricular focus does the student make the most growth?

What environmental conditions enhance learning for the student?

Meeting the educational needs of EVERY student!

Note

s/Tho

ughts

/Ide

as

131

Eligibility Decision-Making The presence of a disability does not necessarily equate to the need for special education services.

Decision-Making If needs __________ a result of an educational disability, team may meet needs using:

Special education resources

General education resources

If needs are not a result of an educational disability, team must determine how the individual’s needs will be met using _________________________________________________________ . Which, of the identified needs, if any, will require services and supports that exceed the

__________________________ and _______________________ of the general education

program and resources?

NOTES: Capacity considerations: group size, minutes of instruction, intensification of curricular materials, motivational strategies required for student to make progress, specificity of the instruction (direct instruction as opposed to discovery learning) Obligation: comes from the code—Jan 2010 addition—Gen. Ed. program is obligated to provide additional supports that children need. In addition to core instruction students may need supplemental or intensive instruction support in the general education program.

Does Not Demonstrate Disability

Demonstrates Disability

Doe

s N

ot

Dem

onst

rate

N

eed

General Education Services General Education Services

With or Without 504 Accommodations

Dem

onst

rate

s N

eed General Education Services

With Additional Support Special Education Services

and Supports

Notes & Thoughts

Disability ≠Special Education

132

Decision-Making The Data Are Sufficient When data are sufficient to indicate a disability or the lack of a disability, the educational team is able to make a decision regarding the eligibility decision. The Data Are Insufficient When the data are insufficient for decision-making, the educational team has the professional obligation to indicate the data are insufficient, therefore the individual is not eligible. The Data Are Inconclusive There may be times when evaluation data are sufficient, but are inconclusive to make a decision. In this situation, the educational team has the obligation to indicate the data are inconclusive for decision-making. So… Seek Another Consent If during the evaluation the data suggest a need for continuing with data collection, the team may seek an additional consent from the parent to continue. In this event, the original evaluation is concluded, an EER written and an eligibility determination meeting held with a Prior Written Notice provided summarizing that the individual is not eligible.

Rare & Unusual Circumstances Three conditions where the evaluation could be different: 1. Medical or Health Condition 2. Sudden Status Change 3. Obvious and Immediate Need for Service and Support Documenting Rare & Unusual Circumstances on the EER In these cases, the documentation on the EER would provide statements about the impact of the individual’s condition on educational performance.

Conclusion: High Stakes Decision!

Notes & Thoughts

133

EER Directions, Sample EERS, and EER Rubric

EER Directions .............................................................................................................................. 134

Academic Sample ........................................................................................................................... 141

Communication Sample ................................................................................................................ 150

Behavior Sample ............................................................................................................................. 160

Early Childhood Sample ............................................................................................................... 169

EER Rubric ..................................................................................................................................... 182

134

Evaluation Report Directions Several examples have been developed for the Educational Evaluation Report (EER). These examples may be accessed by clicking on the following links. a) Academic Example b) Communication Example c) Behavior Example d) Early Childhood Example

1. Eligibility Meeting. The actual date the meeting is held to determine eligibility.

2. Demographic Information. It is imperative that the demographic information is complete and accurate. This includes the individual’s name, date of birth, resident and attending district information and parent information.

3. Individuals Contributing to this Evaluation. List all AEA and LEA staff who contributed to the

completion of the full and individual initial evaluation.

4. Contact Person for this Report. The designated AEA contact person/case manager for this evaluation is responsible for ensuring that information is gathered, the evaluation is completed, and that all documentation is submitted. This person serves as the contact if additional information or clarifications are needed.

5. The Purpose of the Evaluation. This section informs parents as to the purpose of the evaluation and the information gathered to complete the evaluation.

Individual Information

6. Performance Domains. (See AEA Special Education Procedures Manual, Child Find Chapter, Section Consent for additional information). Check the domains to be included in the Full and Individual Initial Evaluation as identified on the Consent for Full and Individual Initial Evaluation form. Note: The performance domains provide a framework for consideration of the individual’s

instructional needs. They are defined as follows: Academic – Grade level achievement of standards related to listening

comprehension, oral expression, basic reading skills, reading comprehension, math calculation, math problem solving and written expression

Behavior – Awareness of self, identification and expression of emotions, self-regulation and interaction of others

Physical – Gross motor skills, fine motor skills, and mobility for learning, living and working

Health – General condition of the body or mind, especially in terms of the presence or absence of illness, injury or impairment

Hearing/Vision – The ability to perceive sound and/or the ability to see Communication – Receptive and expressive language (form, content or use),

including but not limited to, language (social communication), vocabulary, speech sound production, voice (nasality) and fluency

Adaptive Behavior – Every day living skills, work skills or school functioning skills that an individual learns in the process of adapting to his/her surroundings.

7. Reminder: For children ages 3 through 5 who are not yet in kindergarten No additional action is necessary. This is simply a reminder.

135

8. Area(s) of concern. List areas of concern (using the descriptors listed under each performance domain in #6 above) to be addressed in this evaluation. For example, basic reading skills under the domain of academics; self-regulation under the domain of behavior; receptive vocabulary skills under the domain of communication. Academic Communication Behavior Early Childhood

9. Concerns are pervasive across different times and/or different settings. Describe the evidence

to support whether or not the area of concern is pervasive across different times and settings. Academic Communication Behavior Early Childhood

10. Individual’s strengths. A statement about the individual’s educationally relevant strengths in the

areas of concern is provided here. This statement should include information about the strengths that will assist the team in planning to meet the individual’s educational needs. Areas of strength that have no impact or relevance in the school setting should not be included. Academic Communication Behavior Early Childhood

11. Access and opportunity to learn. Describe ways in which access and opportunity were assured for

this individual to learn what was expected. Include evidence as to whether or not the individual was provided with appropriate core and supplemental instruction delivered by qualified personnel. Academic Communication Behavior Early Childhood

12. Exclusionary factors. Provide a brief description of whether or not the concerns are primarily

caused by any of the following exclusionary factors: Limited English proficiency A lack of appropriate instruction in reading, including the essential components of

reading instruction A lack of appropriate instruction in math

Appropriate instruction in reading is defined in IDEA 2004 as: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary and comprehension. Further guidance on team considerations for these three exclusionary factors is found in the AEA Special Education Procedures Manual. Academic Communication Behavior Early Childhood

13. Ecological factors (e.g., race, ethnicity, culture, language, or life circumstances). Describe

any relevant information regarding race, ethnicity, culture, language or life circumstances that affect the individual’s performance in the area(s) of concern. If factors are identified here, fully address them later in the report (Needs section). If these factors do not influence educational performance it is acceptable to indicate “no factors were identified”.

Academic Communication Behavior Early Childhood

Educational Progress Several examples have been developed for the Educational Evaluation Report (EER). These examples may be accessed by clicking on the following links. a) Academic Example b) Communication Example c) Behavior Example d) Early Childhood Example

14. Standards: List one or more Iowa Core essential concepts and skills, Early Learning Standards, or District Benchmarks/Standards of the core instruction program in the area(s) of concern for the individual’s age and/or grade level. Identify the standards that align with the functional implications of the area(s) of concern. Iowa Core essential concepts and skills are the preferred standards, however LEA Standards and Benchmarks may be used as well.


15. Using multiple assessment methods and data sources…Description reported in this section should be sufficient enough that the reader can identify all three of the elements listed in the evaluation prompts.

a. the elements utilized for supplemental or intensified instruction, curriculum, and environmental changes that address the area of concern.

b. details to explain how the supplemental, or intensified instruction, curriculum, and environmental changes match with the needs identified for the individual.

c. details of how the supplemental or intensified instruction, curriculum, and environmental changes were implemented (include changes made to the plan, and whether or not the plan was implemented as designed).


16. Standard for Comparison/Expected Performance: Provide information that (identifies) indicates the standard of comparison and the expected level of performance determined prior to engaging in supplemental or intensive instruction. Expected performance must include a numeric value.


17. Baseline: Provide information that indicates the individual’s performance prior to engaging in supplemental

or intensive instruction. Baseline must include a numeric value. Baseline performance should be indicated for each area of instructional focus.


18. Performance following Supplemental or Intensified Instruction: Provide information that indicates the individual’s performance and expected performance after engaging in supplemental or intensive instruction. These must include a numeric value.


19. Rate of Progress: Document the analysis comparing the individual’s rate or slope of progress to the

expected rate or slope of progress. Academic Communication Behavior Early Childhood

20. Small Group Comparison: If the individual participated in supplemental instruction with a group of peers, describe his or her rate of progress compared to the progress made by the other individuals in that group. If the individual did not receive a group intervention, the question may be answered, “No other students received the same intervention.”


137

21. Supports Yielding the Most Growth: Describe the instruction, interventions, curricular materials, and/or environmental changes that assisted the individual in making the most growth or having the most success.


22. Progress Conclusion: Write a summative assessment conclusion that describes the magnitude and

significance of the rate of progress difference(s). Include the educational implications for the difference(s). The summary should reference the data above, as well as implementation integrity.


138

Discrepancy Examples of the discrepancy section for the Educational Evaluation Report may be accessed by clicking on the following links. These links refer to the discrepancy table for items 10-16.

23. Performance Domain: Identify the performance domain(s) listed on the Individual Information Section of the

EER. Each performance domain identified on the Consent for Full and Individual Initial Evaluation form should

be addressed in this section.

Academic Communication Behavior Early Childhood 24. Area of Concern (column): Indicate the area(s) of concern for the data being reported.

Select from the descriptors under each performance domain (refer to AEA Special Education Procedures Manual for additional guidance). This should match the area of concern(s) identified in the Individual Information section earlier in this EER. There may be multiple areas of concern within the same domain (i.e. Basic Reading

and Math Computation both in the domain of Academics.)


25. Data Source (column): For each area of concern, using multiple data sources, identify each source of data. A convergence of data is needed to make a discrepancy decision. Examples of data sources could include a review of cumulative record, parent interviews, classroom observations, ITBS, DIBELS ORF, etc.


26. Date(s) (column): Indicate the date(s) that the data was gathered or the assessments were completed. Data reported here should be sufficiently current and relevant to decision-making. For example, ending performance data from progress monitoring should be used as opposed to baseline data. Academic Communication Behavior Early Childhood

27. Peer/Expected Performance (column): Indicate expected performance level using established numerical

standards of comparison. Possible standards include: percentile ranks; standard scores; peer performance; age/grade levels; developmental norms; medical standards; local district, AEA, state, or national norms; etc. An

appropriate expectation would be based on a minimal level of performance relative to the comparison group. Academic Communication Behavior Early Childhood

28. Individual’s Current Performance (column): Identify the discrepancy following acceptable measurement

conventions for nominal, ordinal, ratio and interval data. Academic Communication Behavior Early Childhood

29. Discrepancy from Expected Performance (column): Identify the discrepancy following acceptable measurement conventions for nominal, ordinal, ratio and interval data.


139

30. Significance of Discrepancy: Using a convergence of data, determine whether or not the individual’s performance is significantly discrepant from that of peers and/or expected performance standards/levels. (Refer to the Magnitude of Discrepancy Section of the AEA Special Education Procedures Manual). Utilize the numeric data from the discrepancy table as well as other relevant descriptive data to determine whether or not a convergence of data has been established. Convergence means there is a preponderance of data that clearly demonstrates the discrepancy conclusion reported. Consideration should be given to those measures which are direct and functional, requiring little inference.


31. Uniqueness Consideration: Determine whether or not the individual’s performance is unique when compared to the performance of others in a comparable group receiving the same or similar instruction. This comparison allows for a local discrepancy comparison as well as allowing the team to consider setting and instruction when making a discrepancy decision. The uniqueness consideration is a local comparison of an individual to a smaller subgroup in terms of the conditions (instruction, setting) within which learning takes place and the characteristics (peer makeup within a group) of a comparable group. To consider uniqueness, the same discrepancy data are often used, but the standard of comparison is different. For example, a DIBELS reading score can be compared to a research-based benchmark in the discrepancy comparison above and to

the percent of students in the grade level or small instructional group as a measure of uniqueness.


140

Educational Needs Examples of the needs section for the Educational Evaluation Report may be accessed by clicking on the following links.

32. Based on evidence from…Carefully integrate and analyze the evidence collected within this evaluation to address the progress and discrepancy components, AND the functional implications of these data, to determine the individual’s needs in instruction, curriculum, environment, and additional learning supports. A description of each of these (instructional, curriculum, environment and learning supports) should be written to address the individual needs whether or not special education services are necessary.


32a. Instruction: Describe the individual’s needs in the area of instruction. Instruction is how the individual

needs to be taught. For example: Does the individual need to receive instruction frequently and for a significant duration of time? Are there specific instructional practices that have been shown to be successful for the individual (i.e. additional modeling, frequent feedback, reinforcement)? It may be appropriate to indicate that the current instructional program in place within the general education setting (including supplemental supports) is sufficient to meet the individual’s needs.


32b. Curriculum needs. Describe the individual’s needs for curriculum content, expectations, concepts, or skills in each area of concern. It may be appropriate to indicate that the current curricula in place within the general education setting (including supplemental supports) are sufficient to meet the individual’s needs.


32c. Environment. Specify the individual’s needs for the learning environment (i.e. context for learning,

adaptations to procedures, schedules, routines, behavioral expectations, room or seating arrangements, or materials that are needed). It may be appropriate to indicate that the current environmental supports in place within the general education setting are sufficient to meet the individual’s needs.


32d. Additional learning supports. Identify additional learning supports needed by the individual (i.e.

family supports or involvement, community partnerships, transition supports, supports for engagement, assistive technology, and other accommodations). It may be appropriate to indicate that the current learning supports in place within the general education setting are sufficient to meet the individual’s needs.


33. Which of the above needs…Consider the needs identified above in the areas of instruction, curriculum,

environment, and additional learning supports. Recognizing that each of these components (instruction, curriculum, environment and learning supports) are part of the general education program, clearly identify which, if any, of the individual’s needs exceed the capacity and obligation of the general education program to provide. If all of the individual’s needs can be met within the capacity or obligation of the general education program, indicate that as well.


141

EER Academic Sample

Individual Information: The evaluation must include educationally relevant information that is important for eligibility decision-making. The information describes how the individual is provided access and opportunity to learn what is expected, and that his/her difficulty is not the result of other, more plausible factors.

Which Performance Domain(s) will be the focus of this evaluation? ☒Academic ☐Behavior ☐Physical

☐Health ☐Hearing/Vision ☐Communication ☐Adaptive Behavior

Reminder: For a child not yet in kindergarten, data from this evaluation may be utilized with other known information to complete the Early Childhood Outcomes summary form in the areas of:

Positive social-emotional skills Acquisition and use of knowledge & skills Appropriate behaviors to meet needs

What is the area(s) of concern?

Reading - Basic Reading Skills Written Expression

What evidence suggests that concerns are pervasive across different times and/or different settings?

Report cards and data collected from the Basic Reading Inventory (BRI) and DIBELS show that Sammy has scored significantly below his peers since kindergarten. His difficulty in the area of reading has affected his performance across content areas. Sammy’s parents report that he does not enjoy reading. In addition, Sammy is often able to demonstrate his wealth of knowledge and understanding verbally, but is unable to do so in written form.

What are the individual’s strengths that support his or her educational success in the area(s) of concern?

Sammy enjoys when the teacher reads to the class and listening to audio books. He can correctly answer questions that are asked about things that are read to him. He is able to share verbally, his knowledge on a topic.

Within the areas of concern, describe a) ways in which access and opportunity were assured for this individual to learn what was

expected Sammy has received core reading and written language instruction each year of school. The core reading instruction has focused on the Iowa Core essential concepts and skills. Additionally, Sammy has received supplemental instruction in the area of reading and writing provided by classroom teachers and/or the district reading specialist each year beginning in first grade. Sammy’s attendance has been good and he participates in this instruction on a regular basis.

b) whether or not the concerns are primarily caused by any of the following exclusionary factors: Limited English proficiency A lack of appropriate instruction in reading, including the essential components of

reading instruction A lack of instruction in math

142

Sammy is a native English speaker and language is not an issue. He has attended the same school since kindergarten. He has received core instruction in reading, including the essential components of reading instruction as well as supplemental instruction in the classroom since Kindergarten. He also has had core instruction in math and has progressed and performed at expected levels. Based on his access to viable supplemental instruction, a lack of appropriate instruction has been ruled out as the primary cause of Sammy’s reading and written expression difficulties.

c) any ecological factors (e.g., race, ethnicity, culture, language, or life circumstances) that affect the individual’s educational performance No ecological factors were found to impact Sammy’s reading and written expression concerns.

143

Educational Progress: Progress means performance over time. In addressing progress, the team considers data that have been collected about the individual’s performance over time in relation to the interventions that have been provided. The evaluation must provide evidence as to whether or not the individual’s performance is persistently below the educational standard(s), or age or grade level expectation(s).

List the Iowa Core essential concepts and skills, Early Learning Standards and Benchmarks, or District Standards and Benchmarks of the core instructional program in the area(s) of concern for the individual’s age and/or grade level. Reading

Iowa Core Essential Concept and Skill: Literacy Range of Reading and Level of Text Complexity: By the end of the year, read and comprehend literature, including stories and poetry, in the grade 2 text complexity band proficiently, with scaffolding as needed at the high end of the range. Phonics and Word Recognition:

Know and apply grade-level phonics and word analysis skills in decoding words. Distinguish long and short vowels when reading regularly spelled one-syllable words Recognize and read grade-appropriate irregularly spelled words.

Fluency: Read with sufficient accuracy and fluency to support comprehension

Read on-level text with purpose and understanding. Read on-level text orally with accuracy, appropriate rate, and expression on successive readings. Use context to confirm or self-correct word recognition and understanding, rereading as

necessary.

Writing Iowa Core Essential Concept and Skill: Written Expression (Grade 2 Writing Standards) Text Types and Purposes: By the end of the year:

Write narratives which recount a well elaborated event or short sequence of events, include details to describe actions, thoughts, and feelings, use temporal words to signal event order, and provide a sense of closure.

Write information/explanatory texts which introduce a topic, use facts and definitions to develop points, and provide a concluding statement or section.

Write narratives in which they recount a well elaborated event or short sequence of events, include details to describe actions, thoughts, and feelings, use temporal words to signal event order, and provide a sense of closure.

Production and Distribution of Writing: By the end of the year...

With guidance and support from adults and peers, focus on a topic and strengthen writing as needed by revising and editing.

Using multiple assessment methods and data sources, including progress data collected on a frequent and regular basis, summarize the individual’s response to the supplemental or intensified instruction that was provided (including the individual’s rate of skill acquisition compared to expected rate of acquisition). Describe:

a) the supplemental or intensified instruction, curriculum, & environmental changes provided to address the areas of concern;

144

b) how the above were determined to be matched to the individual’s needs; c) how the above were implemented (e.g. implemented as designed, changes to the plan made)

Basic Reading Skills Error analysis, teacher interview, and a review of classroom work indicated that Sammy’s reading difficulties primarily lie in the area of reading decoding. Targeted supplemental instruction was provided for a period of 12 weeks with daily 20 minute sessions specifically targeting reading decoding skills using direct instruction materials that provided multiple opportunities for modeling, practice and feedback. Permanent products and teacher logs were used to examine the implementation of the intervention and it was determined that the intervention was implemented 100% of the sessions indicated. Additionally, each component of the intervention was implemented 100% of sessions as well. This exceeded the expectation of 80% implementation integrity. The intervention remained the same throughout the 12-week period of time. Written Expression Skills Review of classroom writing products suggested that Sammy’s written expression problem lies both in mechanics as well as the expression of his ideas. Although a targeted intervention was not provided in this area, Sammy’s teacher reports that she has spent extra time helping Sammy document his ideas throughout the year. Additionally, she reported that Sammy has an older student who helps him revise his writing in class.

What is the standard for comparison and the expected level of performance (i.e. prior to supplemental or intensified instruction)?

Basic Reading Skills Peer performance was the performance standard established for the intervention. Based on local district norms, typical 2nd grade peers read 60 wpm at the time the intervention began. Written expression Peer performance was the performance standard used. At the beginning of this evaluation period, a sample of 5 classroom writing samples showed a median of 75% correct writing sequences (CWS) when given a story starter, 1 minute to think, and 3 minutes to write.

What was the individual’s level of performance prior to supplemental or intensified instruction (i.e., baseline)?

Basic Reading Skills Sammy read 15 words per minute in a one minute timed sample with 1 miscue (93% accuracy). His reading was slow and labored, although he was able to accurately identify most words he encountered. Written Expression Prior to the full and individual initial evaluation, Sammy wrote with a median of 42% accuracy in correct writing sequences. Errors in mechanics, including spelling, punctuation and capitalization were seen in all samples. Additionally, Sammy didn’t include many details in his writing.

Following supplemental or intensified instruction, what are the individual’s level of performance and the expected level of performance?

Basic Reading Skills

145

By the end of the 12 week instructional intervention Sammy read 25 words per minute with 1 miscue (96% accuracy). Typical peers read 78 words per minute and are expected to read with at least 95% accuracy.

Written Expression Currently, Sammy writes with a median of 44% accuracy. Additional peer writing samples indicated they continued to write with 75% accuracy at this time. Sammy’s writing continues to include many mechanical errors. Additionally, he continues to struggle with the amount he writes and the level of detail in his writing.

What is the individual’s rate of progress compared to the expected rate of progress?

Basic Reading Skills Based on peer rate of progress, Sammy’s expected rate of gain was 1.5 words per week. Sammy gained 10 words over the 12 week period. His rate of growth was .9 words per week. This represents a difference of .6 fewer words per week growth compared to the expectation. Written Expression During the past 6 weeks, Sammy was able to write with a 2 percentage point increase in accuracy (ending with 44% accuracy in his writing). This is approximately .33 percentage point accuracy increase per week. This rate exceeds the rate of peers who maintained 75% accuracy during the same time period. However, at a rate of growth of .33 percentage point in accuracy, it would take a substantial amount of instructional time (94 weeks) and additional resources for Sammy to close the gap difference between his performance and that of peers.

Additionally, if the individual received supplemental instruction in a small group, describe his/her response in comparison to how the other individuals in the group responded (may be answered “No other students received the same intervention”).

Basic Reading Skills Sammy’s instruction took place in a small group of 3 students. His progress (.9 words per week) was significantly less than the other two members of the group, one of whom demonstrated the 1.5 words per week growth expected and where the other demonstrated 2 words per week growth.

Written Expression Additional assistance and support was provided to Sammy to address the written expression area; however, a targeted supplemental intervention was not provided.

Identify the instruction, interventions and environmental changes under which the individual experienced the most growth or success.

Basic Reading Skills Sammy benefited most from repeated modeling, practice and frequent feedback during instruction. He also benefited from repeated reading strategies using first-grade level materials that were used as part of core instruction. Sammy was also highly motivated to graph his own progress.

Written Expression When given more individualized assistance in the class setting, Sammy benefited from direct and explicit instruction in forming complete sentences with accurate capitalization, punctuation, and spelling.

Using the data above and any other relevant information, summarize the significance of this individual’s rate of progress compared to the expected rate of progress.

146

Basic Reading Skills Sammy’s rate of progress given small group instruction on skills related to decoding and fluency and multiple opportunities for practice using a controlled curriculum did not result in the expected rate of progress and was not sufficient to demonstrate that he is narrowing the gap between his performance and peer performance. At this rate of progress, the gap between Sammy’s skills and his peers will continue to increase over time. Additionally, his slow reading will require him to spend more time reading and will likely impact his comprehension of the material he reads. Overall, these data would suggest that when given intensified opportunities to learn Sammy continues to make insufficient progress. In order to make the progress he did, Sammy required one to one and small group instruction using materials which were explicit and provided many opportunities to respond and receive feedback. Use of these materials required specialized teacher training.

Written Expression Although Sammy’s progress in written expression is greater than his peers who maintained their level of performance, his progress is slow and it would take him a substantial amount of time (94 weeks) to close the gap compared to current peer performance. He continues to need support to close the gap between his skills and those of peers.

147

Educational Discrepancy: Discrepancy is the difference between the individual’s current level of performance and the expected level of performance for individuals of the same age, grade, or other established standards. The evaluation relies on multiple sources of data for each area of concern to describe whether or not the individual is significantly discrepant from peers or educational standards, and if the individual’s performance is unique within a comparable group.

Report the discrepancy results for each Performance Domain identified on the Consent for Full and Individual Initial Evaluation. Performance Domain: Academics

Area of Concern

Data Source Date(s) Peer/ Expected Performance

Individual’s Current Performance

Discrepancy from Expected Performance


DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency (ORF)

9/27/10; 10/1/10; 10/4/10

78 Correct Words Per Minute (CWPM)

25 CWPM 3.1 times discrepant or 53 CWPM


DIBELS Nonsense Word Fluency (NWF)

9/27/10; 10/1/10; 10/4/10

50 CWPM 23 CWPM 2.2 times discrepant or 27 word difference


ITBS Total Reading (National Norms)

10/2010 16th Percentile Rank (PR) to 84th PR (+/- 1 standard deviation)

13th PR Near 12th Percentile


Jerry Johns Basic Reading Inventory

10/10/10 95% accuracy with preprimer, primer, first, and second grade word lists

90% accuracy on preprimer word, 75% accuracy on primer, 30% on 1st grade list, 15% on 2nd grade list

5%age point difference for preprimer 20%age point difference for primer 65%age point difference for 1st grade list 80%age point difference for 2nd grade list

Written Expression

Curriculum-Based Measurement: Total Words Written

9/27/10; 10/1/10; 10/4/10

11 - 22 Total Words Written (16th - 84th PR)

8 Total Words Written (8th PR)

Below the 12th PR

148

Written Expression

Curriculum-Based Measurement: Correct Writing Sequences

9/27/10; 10/1/10; 10/4/10

39% - 72% Correct Writing Sequences (16th - 84th PR)

44% Correct Writing Sequences (45th PR)

Above the 12th PR

Written Expression

Beginning Writing Rubric

9/15 10/15

Expected performance is a score of 21

Rubric score of 9 Discrepancy of 12 points (43% difference)

Written Expression

ITBS Language Total

10/2010 16th to 84th PR 11th PR Below the 12th PR

Using the data above, and any other relevant information (including qualitative, descriptive information), summarize the significance of the discrepancy, if any, between the individual’s current level of performance (following the provision of adequate general education instruction and supplemental or intensified instruction) and that of peers or other educational standards.

Basic Reading Skills The convergence of data indicates Sammy’s performance is significantly below that of same grade peers. He struggles to decode new words and lacks the skills to decode even the most basic CVC words with fluency. However, based on teacher interview and review of classroom work, it was determined that Sammy is able to comprehend what he reads and what is read to him. Written Expression Skills Sammy writes significantly less than peers. Although he performs within the average range in terms of his writing accuracy, he has difficulty with production. Additionally, based on performance measured on the writing rubric, he struggles with authorship factors of written expression as well. Teacher and student interview data indicate that Sammy has difficulty coming up with ideas for his writing and organizing his thoughts prior to writing.

Using the data above, and any other relevant information (including qualitative, descriptive information), summarize whether or not the individual’s performance (following the provision of adequate general education instruction and supplemental or intensified instruction) is unique or an outlier from a comparable group.

Sammy’s performance in reading is significantly different from same grade peers in his building. Eighty-six percent of students in the second grade scored at or above the 41st percentile rank on the reading comprehension portion of the ITBS while Sammy scored at the 13th percentile. Additionally, 85% of second graders met the benchmark for DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency this fall. Compared to students in his small group intervention, Sammy’s performance is below that of all three other students in the group, whose performance now meets benchmark expectations. Sammy continues to read well below benchmark expectations. Sammy’s written expression skills are unique when compared with others in his same grade. Eighty-nine percent of second graders in his school scored at or above the 41st percentile rank on the language portion of the ITBS while Sammy scored at the 11th percentile. Additionally, 84% of students in his same class scored at or above the 50th percentile rank on district norms for total words written and correct writing sequences. Sammy scored at the 8th and 45th percentiles respectively.

149

Educational Needs: Educational needs are the instructional strategies, services, activities and supports, and the accommodations and modifications required in order for the individual to be involved and make progress in the general curriculum. The evaluation describes the individual’s educational needs in the areas of instruction, curriculum, environment and additional learning supports.

Based on evidence from the analysis of the Progress and Discrepancy components, the functional implications of the individual’s performance, as well as other educationally relevant information, describe the individual’s needs within:

Instruction (i.e. instructional strategies and methods that will enable learning, reinforcement/motivational strategies)

Sammy’s instruction in both reading and written expression needs to be provided in an explicit manner. This should follow a model, lead, test (or “I do, we do, then you do”) format with many opportunities for guided practice and feedback. Sammy needs additional practice with skills that are introduced in class instruction and needs repeated practice with skills in order to acquire these. Distributed practice with skills throughout the day and in different contexts has also been shown to benefit Sammy. In addition to the core instruction, this focused instruction should occur no less than 30 minutes per day in order to accelerate his rate of progress. This instruction should follow a research-based scope and sequence that increases in complexity as he masters skills.

Curriculum (i.e. content of instruction, specific skills and concepts the individual needs to learn) Basic Reading Skills: Sammy’s instruction in reading will focus on the following skills:

increasing accuracy for word recognition identifying vowel sounds in words decoding blends and multisyllabic words increasing fluency and accuracy in reading connected text.

Written Expression: Sammy will benefit from instruction focused on the following skills:

encoding letter sounds and vowel patterns to spell words developing ideas for writing planning and organizing in preparation for writing applying appropriate writing mechanics

Environment (i.e. adaptations to procedures, schedules, routines, behavioral expectations, room or seating arrangements, adaptive supports)

Sammy benefits from a small group setting in which he can have additional opportunities to respond and consistent feedback and error correction. Additionally, he benefits from an environment where instruction is motivating and reinforcing.

Additional Learning Supports (i.e. family supports or involvement, community partnerships, transition supports, supports for engagement, assistive technology, other accommodations that are needed)

Sammy’s parents can be shown how to practice the word recognition skills he’s learning in school to help at home.

Which of the above needs, if any, will require services and supports that exceed the capacity and obligation of the general education program and resources?

In addition to focused, small group instruction in the content areas of reading and written expression within the general education program, Sammy needs small group and intensive, individualized instruction with curriculum modifications that go beyond the general education program scope and sequence. Distributed practice of skills can be integrated into the school day using general education resources but additional resources are required to fully support implementation.

150

EER Communication Sample

Individual Information: The evaluation must include educationally relevant information that is important for eligibility decision making. The information describes how the individual is provided access and opportunity to learn what is expected, and that his/her difficulty is not the result of other, more plausible factors.

Which Performance Domain(s) will be the focus of this evaluation? ☐Academic ☐Behavior ☐Physical

☐Health ☐Hearing/Vision ☒Communication ☐Adaptive Behavior



What is the area(s) of concern? Communication

Receptive Language – listening comprehension (following oral directions, answering questions) Expressive Language – expressing ideas (vocabulary, basic concepts)


Tommy struggles with following directions and oral speaking both at home and at school. His mother reported that he has difficulty following oral directions in both English and Spanish. Progress reports from Head Start indicated that he has been falling below benchmark in the areas of language development and literacy. Tommy’s Head Start teacher reported that he pays attention during class instruction but is often unable to complete independent work tasks. When asked a question, he will always respond but usually his response is not related to the question being asked. He is able to answer basic Yes/No type questions in reference to his immediate needs. Tommy enjoys listening to stories but is unable to correctly answer story comprehension questions or complete other follow-up literature activities without additional adult assistance.


Tommy attends school regularly, is very cooperative, wants to learn, and gets along well with his peers. Progress reports from Head Start indicate that Tommy meets developmental outcomes in the areas of: creative arts, social-emotional development, approaches to learning, and physical health development. A review of health records reported no known concerns with vision, hearing or health.

151


expected

A review of records indicated that Tommy has been enrolled in the Head Start program for two years. He attends the program 4 days weekly from 9:00 AM – 2:30 PM. His classroom has 15 children, one teacher and one classroom associate. Within the Head Start curriculum, Tommy participates in large group literacy lessons daily. He also has opportunities for additional practice in small group settings and has been provided supplemental instruction to reinforce listening and concept development.

b) whether or not the concerns are primarily caused by any of the following exclusionary factors:

Limited English proficiency A lack of appropriate instruction in reading, including the essential components of

reading instruction A lack of instruction in math

Based upon examination of Head Start curriculum and Tommy’s response to age appropriate large and small group supplemental instruction delivered in the area of literacy skills within the classroom, it was determined that concerns with Tommy’s listening comprehension and oral expression are not the result of any of the exclusionary factors listed above (i.e., Limited English Proficiency and/or a lack of appropriate instruction in reading or math). Tommy lives in a bilingual home and was born in the United States. The family speaks both Spanish and English in their home. Concerns with communication are seen by Tommy’s family when Tommy speaks Spanish at home as well. Tommy’s teacher has tried repeating questions for Tommy and cues him to watch what the other children are doing to improve his direction following skills. When asked what is the one area that would most impact Tommy’s learning and class participation, the teacher stated that she would like to see him be able to answer questions and understand basic concepts/vocabulary.

c) any ecological factors (e.g., race, ethnicity, culture, language, or life circumstances) that affect

the individual’s educational performance

There do not appear to be any ecological factors related to Tommy’s language, culture, or life circumstances that are affecting his educational performance at this time.

152


List the Iowa Core essential concepts and skills, Iowa Early Learning Standards and Benchmarks, or District Standards and Benchmarks of the core instructional program in the area(s) of concern for the individual’s age and/or grade level.

Tommy is working toward the Iowa Early Learning Standard in Area 10 (Communication, Language and Literacy), 10.1 Language Understanding and Use, Children understand and use communication and language for a variety of purposes. The benchmarks Tommy is struggling with include: shows a steady increase in listening, speaking and vocabulary; and asks and answers a variety of questions.

Using multiple assessment methods and data sources, including progress data collected on a frequent and regular basis, summarize the individual’s response to the supplemental or intensified instruction that was provided (including the individual’s rate of skill acquisition compared to expected rate of acquisition).

Describe: a) the supplemental or intensified instruction, curriculum, & environmental changes

provided to address the areas of concern; b) how the above were determined to be matched to the individual’s needs; c) how the above were implemented (e.g. implemented as designed, changes to the plan

made)

Initial concerns expressed by the Head Start teacher provided evidence that Tommy was having difficulty understanding and answering wh-questions. When he participated in large group literacy lessons in the classroom, the teacher read a story and stopped briefly to ask questions as she read. The classroom teacher reported that Tommy has difficulty answering questions in class about personal experiences and does not demonstrate recall of classroom activities. He had difficulty organizing his thoughts to express ideas clearly when compared to classmates who are able to do these tasks.

A 6-week intervention in the area of language development was conducted as part of Tommy’s initial evaluation, implemented within general education by the teacher and teacher associate with monitoring and consultation by the speech-language pathologist. The intervention focused on wh-questions (e.g. who, what, where, why, when, how) related to literacy and consisted of multiple readings of the same book over three sessions by the teacher/associate. After multiple readings, Tommy was asked questions about things/events in the story. The reader kept track of correct responses on a score sheet which indicated if a correct response was provided without cues, when cues were added or when choices of answers were provided. Data were taken at each reading, charted, and analyzed. The Speech Language Pathologist (SLP) consulted with the teacher to monitor student responses to questions and assist with determining the level of prompt/cue needed to increase correct answers. In addition, dynamic assessment procedures were conducted by the SLP prior to and during the 6-week intervention. This assessment indicated Tommy did not understand the meaning of wh-question words. To teach wh- questions, the SLP presented Tommy with a short story using the “dialogic” reading strategies of Before, During and After. As the story was read, the SLP stopped and asked questions about each page. Based upon the observational data reported by the Head Start teacher

153

and SLP, it was determined that designing a targeted intervention to address Tommy’s apparent skill deficit with understanding wh-questions would be an appropriate match to his needs.

Tommy’s parents also participated in the intervention by reviewing a weekly story map that was sent home, asking questions about the story that had been read at preschool that week, and providing additional practice. His brother participated by reading a story to Tommy at bedtime and informally asking questions as he read the story. Over the course of the week, parents noted the number of questions that Tommy was able to answer correctly, and recorded when the story map activities and questioning activities were completed. Based on teacher logs and permanent products that were kept, it was determined that Tommy’s 6-week targeted intervention was implemented as designed. No adjustments needed to be made over the duration of the intervention period as the plan was implemented in the Head Start and home settings.


Peer performance or expectations was the standard for comparison used. Age level, typical peers in Tommy’s Head Start classroom were able to express ideas, follow directions and answer comprehension questions about stories read to them with an average of 80% accuracy.


Tommy was attentive during story based activities and seemed to enjoy the interactive activities, but he struggled to answer teacher questions even when cued. Tommy was not able to answer any of the wh-questions correctly but did appear to understand that questions required answers. When wh-questions were asked with choice options, his accuracy improved. It was noted that he answered Yes/No type questions correctly most of the time. Tommy’s baseline for the three conditions of answering mixed wh-questions was

0% accuracy for answering when no cues were provided 20% accuracy for answering when cues were provided 40% accuracy for answering when choice (answer) options were provided

This baseline was established by the SLP as she presented Tommy with a short story using the dialogic reading strategies of ‘Before, During and After’. Tommy correctly scored 0/5 for who, what, and where questions. He did appear to understand that questions required answers and Yes/No type questions were answered correctly 80% of the time. When provided with a combination of mixed questions (i.e., yes/no and who, what, when, where), Tommy answered only 2/10 or 20% of the total questions correctly.


Tommy demonstrated improvement in his responses to answer wh-questions. Following the supplemental instruction, Tommy’s performance for the three wh-conditions was:

20% accuracy for answering when no cues were provided 50% accuracy for answering when cues were provided 60% accuracy for answering when choices (answers to choose from) were provided

154

The teacher also noted that accuracy improved further when content was chunked into smaller amounts of information. Tommy also demonstrated an improvement in using key concepts and vocabulary when summarizing information to answer questions or repeat oral directions.

Furthermore, Tommy demonstrated progress in his participation and interaction during the small group reading activities although he continued to require multiple readings with varying levels of prompts in order to perform at the same level as peers. He was able to answer ‘wh-questions’ when given specific picture cues.


Tommy gained percentage points in answering mixed wh-questions over the 6 week intervention period. Data indicated answering wh-questions

without cues grew 20 percentage points, with cues grew 30 percentage points, and through the choice option grew 20 percentage points

Given the above, it would take Tommy at least another 18 weeks (growing at the rate of 3.3 percentage points per week) to reach the 80% level of accuracy that typically developing 4 year olds demonstrate for answering wh-questions without prompts.


No other students received the same intervention.


Guided practice strategies and more opportunities to practice answering questions enabled Tommy to learn wh-questioning skills with errorless learning and supportive feedback. He showed significant improvement in comprehending wh-questions by the end of the intervention period although he continued to need a combination of specific and general prompts to achieve higher degrees of accuracy. Team teaching and peer coaching were effective means for improving Tommy’s question comprehension skills with the SLP sharing the role of the primary provider with other communication partners (Head Start teacher and associates).


Results of Tommy’s intervention plan were generally successful but his problem with listening comprehension (following directions and answering oral questions) and oral expression (vocabulary and basic concepts) was not completely resolved. The growth in Tommy’s responses to answer wh-questions over the course of the intervention period (i.e., 20 percentage points over 6 weeks for uncued responses, 30 percentage points for cued) suggests that specific instructional, curricular, and environmental conditions have been identified that will help him improve his listening comprehension skills. However, his rate of growth for this learning task (i.e., a gain of 3.3 percentage points per week for uncued) does not represent a rate that will allow Tommy to significantly narrow or close the gap when his learning is compared to peers. It is important to note that Tommy is not demonstrating an independent level of performance for answering wh-questions which most of his peers can do with a

155

high degree of accuracy (+80% on average). He still requires specific cues/prompts to assist his understanding of the various types of wh-questions. The more independent level that peers have acquired for answering questions also indicates that they are acquiring vocabulary and concepts at a faster rate. Taking these factors into consideration, Tommy’s rate of progress is significantly behind that of his peers. Based on rate of progress data, it was concluded that the resources needed to maintain the intervention are beyond what is reasonable in general education.

156


Report the discrepancy results for each Performance Domain identified on the Consent for Full and Individual Initial Evaluation. Performance Domain:______Communication_____

Area of Concern Data Source Date(s) Peer/Expected Performance



Listening Comprehension and

Oral Expression: Answering wh-

questions

Wh-question accuracy

during intervention

period

3/3/2011 –

4/14/2011

80% accuracy answering mixed wh-

questions (who, what, when,

where)

20% accuracy answering mixed

wh-questions

60 percentage points of accuracy below expectation



questions


during intervention

period

3/3/2011 –

4/14/2011


questions (who, what, when, where)

30% accuracy answering mixed wh-questions with

cues

50 percentage point in accuracy difference



questions


during intervention

period

3/3/2011 –

4/14/2011


questions (who, what, when,

where)

50% accuracy answering mixed wh-questions with answer choices provided

30 percentage point in accuracy difference



questions

Prompts required to answer wh-questions correctly

3/3/2011 –

4/14/2011

10% of questions asked

40% of questions asked

30 percentage point difference in the frequency of prompts needed


Oral Expression: Concepts/vocabulary

Boehm Test of

Basic Concepts 3rd

Edition Preschool

Level

3/31/2011 Percentile Rank: 58th

Percentile Rank: 9th

Below the 12th Percentile

157

Oral Expression: Concepts/Vocabulary

Language Sample:

Social (Play) Conversation

(100 utterances)

3/31/2011 Predicted Mean Length of Utterance

(MLU): 5.63

(59-61 months)

Mean Length of Utterance: 3.78

1.85 MLU difference

Standard Deviation:- 1.56

(below mean)

Oral Expression: Language Sample:

Social (Play) Conversation

(50 utterances)

4/7/2011 Age 5-0: Mean Different Words

= 132.4 Standard

Deviation = 27.2 words

Mean Total Words = 286.2

Standard Deviation = 75.5

words

Type-Token Ratio: .59

Total Number of Different Words = 79

Total Number of Words = 134

Standard Deviation(Different Words):

-1.96 (below mean)

Standard Deviation(Total Words):

-2.06 (below mean)


Results of the current evaluation indicate that there is a significant discrepancy between Tommy’s level of performance and that of peers following the provision of adequate general education instruction and supplemental instruction and targeted intensified instruction. As described previously, Tommy demonstrated growth over the targeted intervention period with his ability to answer wh-questions but his rate of progress acquiring listening comprehension and oral expression were considered not enough to close the discrepancy gap without ongoing intensive instruction. Further evaluation of Tommy’s vocabulary and basic concept skills was completed to obtain additional quantitative data and qualitative perspective on the types of skills that he will need to learn for achieving with emergent literacy in reading and mathematics as he enters kindergarten in the upcoming Fall. The Boehm Test of Basic Concepts-3 Preschool was administered by the SLP to more specifically assess Tommy’s understanding of basic relational concepts important for language and cognitive development, as well as for later success in school. The concepts assessed are fundamental to understanding directions, classroom routines, and are an important aspect of emergent literacy. Tommy’s raw score of 37 (out of a possible 52 points) corresponded to a Percentile Rank of 9. This means that his knowledge of basic concepts is extremely low when compared to age-level peers. The majority of the children in Tommy’s age range know most of the basic concepts or lack understanding of just a few of them. Concepts in error for Tommy included the following: across, both, before, farthest, shortest, last, together, some but not many, between, least, same, middle. As Tommy moves from preschool to kindergarten and first grade, knowledge of these basic concept words will become increasingly critical for understanding what is being communicated in the classroom. Further assessment of expressive language skills was also completed by the SLP to examine Tommy’s grammatical skills (language structure) in relation to increases in his utterance length as determined by meaning units, or morphemes. A language sample of 100 utterances was elicited during a play/spontaneous speaking scenario in the speech room. The Mean Length of Utterance (MLU) calculated for Tommy’s sample was 3.78 which means that he produced on average 3.78 morphemes per utterance in his spontaneous speech. Peers (age 59-61 months) have a predicted

158

MLU of 5.63 which is significantly higher in comparison. Tommy’s MLU was found to be -1.56 standard deviations below the mean for his chronological age. Qualitative analysis of Tommy’s language sample indicated use of the following grammatical morphemes: present progressive tense of verb (-ing); regular plural – s; preposition in; preposition on; possessive – s; regular past tense of verb – ed. Observations of Tommy’s questioning skills indicate he has difficulty with asking questions as well as answering them. He uses a rising intonation on his phrase or sentence when asking most yes/no type of questions. There is some evidence that he is beginning to invert the auxiliary and the subject noun to form grammatically correct yes/no questions i.e., Can I eat this one? or Is that the one? Analyzing the complexity of his production of wh-questions, it was noted that Tommy asks only one wh-question i.e., What this/that? A Type-Token Ratio was also calculated by the SLP on a 50 utterance language sample of spontaneous speech elicited during a conversational/play scenario with Tommy in his Head Start classroom using toys and picture books as stimulus materials. The procedure was used to analyze Tommy’s vocabulary diversity. It allowed examination of the relationship between the total number of different words used and the total number of words used. Tommy’s language sample contained 79 different words spoken out of a total of 134 words in the 50 utterance sample. These results indicated that the vocabulary diversity found in Tommy’s sample was significantly different from peers. The number of different words he produced in the sample was – 1.96 standard deviations below the mean for his chronological age. These findings substantiate that Tommy’s acquisition of vocabulary and basic concept skills are significantly below age level expectations and that he is not using a diverse vocabulary in his verbal interactions.


Tommy is not meeting the Head Start language/literacy standards and benchmarks which places him at critical risk for literacy failure. His lower level of achievement makes him unique compared to almost all students in his Head Start classroom. Results of language sample analysis also describe the magnitude of Tommy’s difficulties with vocabulary and concepts in comparison to peer performance. Most of the results from language sample analysis show significant differences in his receptive and/or expressive language skills of 1.5 – 2.0 deviations below the mean.

159


Based on evidence from the analysis of the Progress and Discrepancy components, the functional implications of the individual’s performance, as well as other educationally relevant information, describe the individual’s needs within: Instruction (i.e. instructional strategies and methods that will enable learning, reinforcement/motivational

strategies) Tommy needs intensive 1:1 and small group instruction to improve his receptive and expressive language. This instruction should include many opportunities for direct teaching of key concepts with guided practice and corrective feedback, using a hierarchy of visual and verbal cues and prompts, and multiple opportunities to practice a skill. He benefits from hearing literacy materials provided through multiple presentations. The Dialogic Reading Strategy might be one approach to consider, since Tommy has already had an opportunity to learn and use this strategy.

Curriculum (i.e. content of instruction, specific skills and concepts the individual needs to learn)

Tommy needs to continue to receive direct instruction in his preschool classroom using Head Start literacy materials. Supplemental instruction in a 1:1 or small group using the same curriculum will provide routine situations for pre-teach or re-teach of new concepts as well as multiple practice opportunities. Teaching of specific vocabulary (labeling, describing attributes, categorization) and basic concepts (spatial, quantity, quality, time) to increase understanding of word meanings are needed and provide an additional focus to his preschool curriculum. Tommy needs curricular content chunked into smaller segments with frequent review and questioning to check for comprehension while listening.

Environment (i.e. adaptations to procedures, schedules, routines, behavioral expectations, room or seating

arrangements, adaptive supports) Tommy needs verbal/visual/physical cues and prompts to assist him in focusing on classroom instruction. He benefits from small group teaching and many practice opportunities with guided feedback and a gradual reduction in the level of cues/prompts needed for him to demonstrate mastery of new concepts/vocabulary.

Additional Learning Supports (i.e. family supports or involvement, community partnerships, transition

supports, supports for engagement, assistive technology, other accommodations that are needed)

Tommy will continue to need the positive and patient support of his family to assist him with learning. The family could provide multiple opportunities for Tommy to listen and interact with stories that are read repeatedly. These would provide additional opportunities for him to practice newly acquired skills.


Tommy will need ongoing intensive instruction for learning skills/strategies to improve his ability to comprehend orally presented information in the classroom and to express himself adequately enough to allow his full participation in the preschool (and kindergarten) curricula. The instructional, curricular and environmental needs identified above suggest resources in addition to general education are needed. The speech-language pathologist’s ongoing role will need to be primarily collaborative and consultative support to the ongoing intensive instruction within general education. These needed services and supports exceed the capacity and obligation of the general education program/resources.

160

EER Behavior Sample

Individual Information: The evaluation must include educationally relevant information that is important for eligibility decision making. The information describes how the individual is provided access and opportunity to learn what is expected, and that his/her difficulty is not the result of other, more plausible factors.

Which Performance Domain(s) will be the focus of this evaluation?

☐Academic ☒Behavior ☐Physical

☐Health ☐Hearing/Vision ☐Communication ☐Adaptive Behavior



What is the area(s) of concern? Behavior

The areas of concern are interactions with others and self-regulation, including aggression and task behavior.


Concerns about Adam’s behavior have been expressed by his first grade teacher and were first noted in his kindergarten report card. These behaviors have been observed to occur throughout the day in school when he is expected to follow directions or interact appropriately with peers. Concerns were also reported by his parents in the home setting and during child care. The parents report that Adam has difficulty following directions at home and is sometimes aggressive toward his younger sister or other children while at day care.


Adam wants to please adults and enjoys attention from teachers and peers. He is able to follow directions when engaged in an activity he likes or prefers. Appropriate peer interaction has been observed when Adam is in a play setting with a game he has chosen. A review of health records reported no known concerns with vision, hearing or health.

Within the areas of concern, describe a) ways in which access and opportunity were assured for this individual to learn what was expected

Adam was provided with similar instruction as peers in the area of social behavior. The school utilizes the Character Counts curriculum, as part of their school-wide Positive Behavioral Intervention and Supports (PBIS) framework implemented throughout the district. School and classroom rules are posted, they were taught to students at the beginning of the year, and are reviewed periodically, with positive behaviors being acknowledged daily in non-classroom and classroom settings. In addition, Adam received small group and individual supplemental instruction from the guidance counselor and classroom teacher.

161

Adam’s attendance is excellent. He has missed no days of school this year and only missed 2 days all of last year.

b) whether or not the concerns are primarily caused by any of the following exclusionary factors: Limited English proficiency A lack of appropriate instruction in reading, including the essential components of reading

instruction A lack of instruction in math

Adam comes from an English speaking home. He receives core instruction in both reading and math. He performs within the low average range of the class in both reading and math and has never required supplemental instruction in any other area besides social behavior.

c) any ecological factors (e.g., race, ethnicity, culture, language, or life circumstances) that affect the individual’s educational performance

An interview with the teacher and parent identified no ecological factors that appear to impact Adam’s behavior at this time.

162


List the Iowa Core essential concepts and skills, Early Learning Standards and Benchmarks, or District Standards and Benchmarks of the core instructional program in the area(s) of concern for the individual’s age and/or grade level. The Iowa Core has identified Essential Skills and Concepts which address student behavior. The following address behaviors that are a concern for Adam: Essential Skill / Social Studies - Behavioral Sciences

Understands interactions between self and peer group Understands that disagreements occur between friends. Understands that rules let people understand what to expect and so can reduce the number of

disputes. Understands that telling and listening is a way that people can learn from others

Essential Skills / 21st Century Skills – Employability

Communicate and work appropriately with others to complete tasks. Concept - exhibit appropriate behavior in various situations. Identify behaviors that cause conflict.

Respect others Work positively and effectively with others. Exhibit appropriate behavior in various situations. Identify behaviors that cause conflict Cooperate with others

Use different perspectives to increase innovation and the quality of work. Generate ideas with assistance.

Are aware of others’ feelings and opinions. Appropriately accept constructive feedback.

Use all the appropriate principles of communication effectively. Listen to others. Follow directions. Express ideas.

District Standards and Expectations: Adam’s district, in their implementation of PBIS, has identified school-wide expectations in the areas of demonstrating respectful, responsible, and safe behaviors in all school settings. Additionally, the school follows the Character Counts model using the Six Pillars. Using multiple assessment methods and data sources, including progress data collected on a frequent and regular basis, summarize the individual’s response to the supplemental or intensified instruction that was provided (including the individual’s rate of skill acquisition compared to expected rate of acquisition). Describe: a) the supplemental or intensified instruction, curriculum, & environmental changes provided to

address the areas of concern; b) how the above were determined to be matched to the individual’s needs; c) how the above were implemented (e.g. implemented as designed, changes to the plan made)

163

FBA information was gathered through interviews, record review and observations (e.g. direct, scatterplot) and it was hypothesized that the function of Adam’s lack of following directions and aggressive behavior was to avoid less preferred tasks. Based on that information, a behavior intervention plan, matched to the function of Adam’s behavior and his needs, was developed and implemented for 6 weeks. Adam received individual instruction on replacement behaviors for his aggression. The instruction targeted times when Adam was faced with situations where he was required to comply with non-preferred tasks when requested by teachers or peers. In order to address the aggressive behaviors, Adam was taught a “walk away” strategy which served the same function of escaping the task but did not cause harm to others. In individual instruction Adam learned other methods of communicating with peers such as negotiating for decision making (we’ll do what you want this time and then next time what I want), moving to an alternate activity rather than simply walking away from the situation and for expressing his frustration without using physical solutions. He was placed on a reinforcement system (time on the computer - a personal choice) for each day he was able to demonstrate a non-aggressive choice. When Adam was aggressive, he was required to work with the guidance counselor to review the incident, decide how to handle it differently in the future, and generate an appropriate consequence. A behavior intervention plan was also developed for work completion, which served the same escape function. Adam’s success was accomplished by ensuring that work given to him was at his instructional level, teaching him several replacement behaviors (e.g. changing the order of work completion, asking for a short break before beginning the assigned task), and providing him with guided assistance on the first one or two items. Adam was taught these intervention components through modeling, individual, and small group instruction for a total of 25 minutes per day. Reinforcement was provided through social reinforcements (e.g. verbal praise, thumbs up, smiles from adult assisting), and through tangibles (e.g. sticker chart on his desk, positive notes home). Additionally, Adam was taught that tasks would not be removed when he refused or was aggressive, and his schedule would freeze until the work was attempted. He occasionally stayed after school (with parent support) to finish any work not completed due to these identified behaviors. These interventions were monitored by the School Psychologist using direct observation as well as performance data gathered by the classroom teacher, a review of the daily communication sheet, a log of aggressive events, and an interview with the guidance counselor. The components of the intervention were implemented a median of 75% of observed times. This is lower than the 80% criteria defined for implementation integrity. The components of preteaching and the positive notes home were the two components with lower implementation. A review of the data indicates that the lower implementation integrity did not have a significant impact on the effectiveness of the intervention.


The expected level of performance for Adam was established at zero acts of physical aggression, based on grade level and school policy expectations, which state that no acts of physical aggression are permitted. In the area of work completion, Adam’s goal was the performance standard utilized as an expectation. This goal was based on classroom information where the average work completion rate for the class for the two weeks prior to the intervention was 87%. Therefore, Adam’s goal was 87% work completion.


164

Prior to the intervention, Adam had a median of 7 aggressive acts per week. His aggressive acts included pushing and hitting when he did not get his way or when he was required to complete a non-preferred activity. Typical physical “horseplay” at recess, physical education, or other non-aggressive interactions were not counted as aggressive acts. If Adam sat and did not begin work, it was not counted as an aggressive behavior; however, if he shoved his pencil box off his desk or threw papers, for example, it was counted as aggression. Teacher interview data indicated that it was difficult to deescalate Adam’s aggressive behaviors once he became upset. Removing him from the setting was often needed. Prior to the intervention, Adam completed 35% of work assigned, which included some in-class assignments, but zero homework assignments. Additionally, in order to complete his in-class assignments, Adam needed frequent redirection and much adult assistance.


Adam’s goal was to reduce his aggressive acts by at least one each week, and by the end of the 6 week intervention to have 2 or fewer aggressive acts per week when interacting with peers or when completing work. Although the grade level and school policy expectations is zero, team members determined it was reasonable to reduce the aggression in both areas as stated. His teacher reported that Adam was positively engaged in setting the goal to reduce his aggressive behaviors. By the end of the intervention period, Adam reduced the number of aggressive acts to one per week. Teacher reports also indicate Adam was more accepting to interventions by adults and the time needed to deescalate his behaviors was significantly decreased. At the end of the intervention, Adam was completing a median of 80% of work assigned to him. The expectation for completion was 87%.


Adam decreased the number of aggressive acts from 7 to 1 per week which is a decrease of 1 aggressive act per week. This is consistent with his goal and meets the expected rate of progress. Adam’s work completion increased from 35% to 80%, representing a growth rate of 7.5% per week. This showed significant growth and brought Adam’s task completion into a range close to that of peers in his class.


Adam was a part of a small group intervention as part of the task behavior component of the intervention, although other components were individualized for Adam. Similar to Adam, the 4 other students who were a part of the small group instruction have all made progress as expected. Small group supports have been discontinued, but they continue to receive reinforcement for appropriate behavior.


Teaching Adam alternatives to aggression, giving him the choice of the order he completes his work, and providing him with consistent positive reinforcement for making good choices have provided the most success. A strength that was identified early in the intervention was Adam’s desire to please adults and his peers, so the social reinforcement has been important. He also seemed to be motivated by tangibles, such as stickers on his chart and positive notes home.

165


A review of the intervention data, anecdotal comments from the teacher, counselor and parent, and follow-up observations of Adam all indicate he made good progress during the intervention phase. He made the expected progress based upon the instruction provided and the goal set for his behavior. Intervention implementation data suggests that some components may not have been implemented at the predetermined integrity level; however, the results have been positive. His social behaviors and rate of progress are not significantly different than peers. This intervention and the supports have been provided with general education resources, facilitated by the classroom teacher and guidance counselor. Data suggest that Adam will be able to maintain his behavior, and most likely continue to improve, given the supports that are in place.

166


Report the discrepancy results for each Performance Domain identified on the Consent for Full and Individual Initial Evaluation. Performance Domain: Behavior

Area of Concern

Data Source Date(s) Peer/ Expected Performance



Self-regulation related to task completion

Classroom Observation - Tally of tasks completed

1/8 1/13 1/15

3 tasks 4 tasks 3 tasks

3 tasks 4 tasks 2 tasks

10% difference following intervention

Interaction with others; self-regulation

Playground Observation - Tally of aggressive actions in 10 days

9/26 - 10/4

0 per week 1 per week

1 per week

Self-regulation; task completion

Classroom Interval Observations

9/26-10/4

On-task 92% of intervals

On-task 60% of intervals

32 percentage points

or 35% difference

Interaction with others; self-regulation

Office Referrals - Disciplinary data

9/26 - 10/4

90% of first grade peers had no office referrals 10% had 1 office referral

2 office referrals

2 times discrepant


Adam’s performance in the areas of non-completion of work using aggression, and aggression when not getting his way were significant prior to intervention. Although he continues to demonstrate aggressive behaviors more frequently than same age/grade peers, his ending performance levels following the intervention are not significantly different than peers. Adam is now better able to comply with directions given by adults and maintain appropriate social behavior when confronted with situations that used to result in aggressive behavior.

Using the data above, and any other relevant information (including qualitative, descriptive information), summarize whether or not the individual’s performance (following the provision of adequate general education instruction and supplemental or intensified instruction) is unique or an

167

outlier from a comparable group.

Adam’s behavior was significantly different than his peers when the intervention began, and he continues to have some discrepancy from peers. He has, however, made significant improvement. Interviews with the guidance counselor, teacher and parents and a review of the data suggest that Adam’s performance is not unique compared to others receiving similar intervention components. In addition, interviewees predict that Adam will continue to improve given the supports in place.

168


Based on evidence from the analysis of the Progress and Discrepancy components, the functional implications of the individual’s performance, as well as other educationally relevant information, describe the individual’s needs within: Instruction (i.e. instructional strategies and methods that will enable learning, reinforcement/motivational strategies)

Adam benefits from direct instruction including modeling, both positive and negative reinforcement strategies, assistance when beginning tasks, asking for help when unsure how to work through an assignment, and frequent feedback. Providing Adam with choices with respect to work completion and pre-teaching skills to use when solving disagreements rather than aggression improves behavior.

Curriculum (i.e. content of instruction, specific skills and concepts the individual needs to learn) Adam needs to continue to learn skills related to appropriate physical social skills and skills regarding following directions and task completion. Additionally, he needs continued support in learning core expectations for behavior. An alternative curriculum is not needed to teach Adam the skills necessary to complete work and solve disagreements with peers. The curriculum used in the guidance program was taught in a small group setting and he benefited from practicing the skills with an adult and peers. Continued involvement in the core curriculum, including the Character Counts program, will benefit Adam. No curriculum modifications have been identified.


Like many students, Adam benefits from having posted expectations, pre-corrections, and a high ratio of positive feedback when he is meeting those behavioral expectations. He, like his peers, has benefited from having the expectations taught and acknowledged in all school settings, with the Character Counts emphasis and PBIS framework. He has benefited from identifying aggression triggers with the guidance counselor in a private session and engaging in problem solving alternative ways to handle them in the future. No further adaptations to the educational environment have been identified. School staff need to identify a location where Adam can go when his schedule freezes. In that location, Adam will work on the task and social reinforcers will be lessened (quiet, distraction free, easy access). In addition, staff will need to be identified to supervise this time, when it occurs.


Adam will receive continued support of the school-wide Character Counts, PBIS and guidance activities. The home school communication system has also been beneficial, with Adam’s parents reinforcing his successes.


Currently, the core behavior expectations, instructional program, and supplemental instruction opportunities delivered through the general education program are sufficient to meet Adam’s needs.

169

EER Early Childhood Sample 4 year old mid-year of preschool Individual Information: The evaluation must include educationally relevant information that is important for eligibility decision making. The information describes how the individual is provided access and opportunity to learn what is expected, and that his/her difficulty is not the result of other, more plausible factors.

Which Performance Domain(s) will be the focus of this evaluation? ☒Academic ☐Behavior ☐Physical

☐Health ☐Hearing/Vision ☐Communication ☒Adaptive Behavior



What is the area(s) of concern?

Academic –Literacy and Mathematics Adaptive Behavior - School Functioning


Clay’s teacher reports concern regarding Clay’s following of the daily routine. She notes that he struggles to complete activities that all others in the class have mastered - e.g. morning arrival routine, snack routine, lunch routine, transitions for specific center activities, clean up, preparing to go home, lining up. The teacher also reported that he has difficulty following directions. Clay’s teacher reports that he has difficulty with listening to and recalling details of a story. Observation data indicate Clay has difficulty focusing on and attending during large- and small-group instruction comparable to same age peers. These difficulties are also observed at home when parents read stories to Clay. The classroom teacher also reports that Clay is struggling with beginning math concepts (e.g. rote counting, more/less, one to one correspondence) as seen in play activities as well as in structured teaching lessons. Clay’s parents indicate that they, too, have seen these difficulties when working on counting and feel he has not made much progress. Clay’s difficulties in the math and literacy areas have continued throughout the school year.


Clay is outgoing, caring about his peers, and eager to participate and be a part of the group. He has a positive approach to establishing and sustaining positive relationships with peers and adults. His peers appear to initiate interactions with him as evidenced by several asking him to join what they are doing, and he joins in and sustains positive interactions with them. He offers apologies when he feels he has interfered with the play of peers. He is able to manage his feelings and can make friends easily. He is cooperative with peers and easy going.

170

Clay enjoys simple puzzles and playing with building toys. He is able to problem solve with 5-6 piece puzzles without assistance. He is able to make simple structures with large blocks to use with play activities. Clay’s general understanding and use of language skills appear to be age appropriate. He can express his wants and needs. His peers can understand him. Clay can use descriptive language on topics he is familiar with.


expected Clay has been attending preschool since the beginning of this year and been provided with an appropriate preschool curriculum in addition to supplemental and intensified opportunities. He has been present all but two days of this preschool year. He has participated in whole group, small group and some individual lessons on skills he is struggling with. Mrs. Primrose reports using a variety of prompting techniques to engage Clay when he becomes distracted or loses interest. She has also provided him more opportunities throughout the day to practice counting skills as well as story retelling. Mrs. Primrose also indicated that in addition to whole group directions, she makes sure that Clay has heard the directions by making eye contact and/or using his name. b) whether or not the concerns are primarily caused by any of the following exclusionary factors: Limited English proficiency

A lack of appropriate instruction in reading, including the essential components of reading instruction

A lack of instruction in math

English is the primary language spoken in the home. The preschool program uses Creative Curriculum for Preschool which is a research based developmentally appropriate curriculum, and the Teaching Strategies GOLD Assessment System (curriculum based assessment), meets the Iowa Quality Preschool Program Standards and embeds the content areas of the Iowa Early Learning Standards into daily instruction (includes both literacy and math). Based on the access and opportunity provided, Clay’s participation and attendance in the preschool program for the past 5 months and his response to the opportunities provided, the concerns identified are not a result of these exclusionary factors.

c) any ecological factors (e.g., race, ethnicity, culture, language, or life circumstances) that affect the individual’s educational performance Clay’s mother is American and his father has immigrated from Africa and speaks fluent French. Parents are working together with the preschool staff to help their child. No ecological factors have been identified which adversely impact educational performance. .

171


Domain: Academic List the Iowa Core essential concepts and skills, Early Learning Standards and Benchmarks, or District Standards and Benchmarks of the core instructional program in the area(s) of concern for the individual’s age and/or grade level. The district uses both the Iowa Early Learning Standards and the Teaching Strategies GOLD Objectives for Development and Learning to guide instruction. While there are several standards that apply, the following are the critical standards, benchmarks and skills Clay is not meeting and are directly related to this assessment data. Iowa Early Learning Standards (Academic Performance Domain) 10 - Communication, Language, and Literacy 10.2 - Early Literacy GOLD Objectives (Academic Performance Domain) Objective 18. Comprehends and responds to books and other texts (corresponds to IA ELS 10) 18a. Interacts during "read-alouds" and book conversations 18c. Retells stories Iowa Early Learning Standards (Academic Performance Domain) 11-Math and Science 11.1 Comparison and number—Children understand amount including use of numbers in counting Gold Objectives (Academic Performance Domain) Objective 20. Uses number concepts and operations (corresponds to IA ELS 11) 20a. Counts 20b. Quantifies-more. less, equals, etc. Using multiple assessment methods and data sources, including progress data collected on a frequent and regular basis, summarize the individual’s response to the supplemental or intensified instruction that was provided (including the individual’s rate of skill acquisition compared to expected rate of acquisition). · Describe:


b) how the above were determined to be matched to the individual’s needs; c) how the above were implemented (e.g. implemented as designed, changes to the plan

made)

Literacy: (Comprehends and responds to books and other texts) Clay struggles with the literacy objectives related to comprehension and responding to books. To work on comprehension strategies including story retelling, making predictions, understanding vocabulary, sequencing, the teacher used a variety of center-based activities in a small group, described in more depth above. The instructional focus included vocabulary and story retell

172

(beginning, middle and end). Clay and the peers were taught the meaning of unfamiliar words and encourage to use the new vocabulary in their retell. The use of character names and prompting about story details were emphasized. The teacher used visuals (picture cards, character cards) as initial instructional supports. Parents supported the literacy activities in the classroom during their reading at home. This intervention took place every day for 30 minutes (3 days a week) over a six-week period of time. Teacher logs were used to monitor the implementation of the intervention and it was shown that the activities were implemented 95% of expected sessions. Mathematics: (Uses number concepts and operations) In addition to the core math instruction, additional guided practice activities were provided several times each day with respect to math concepts (concepts, one-to-one correspondence, sets). Several opportunities were provided for counting to 10 (e.g. during center times, snack time), for and with the teacher. Mrs. Primrose documented at least 10 structured counting activities that Clay participated in per day for at least three days per week. In addition, parents were asked to provide 2-3 counting activities as part of their daily interactions with Clay (e.g. count the forks we are putting on the table, count the number of clothing pieces you have to put on/take off). Teacher logs were used to monitor the implementation of the intervention and it was shown that the activities were implemented 90% of expected sessions. What is the standard for comparison and the expected level of performance (i.e. prior to supplemental or intensified instruction)? Literacy: Ninety percent of peers in the classroom and developmental expectations indicate children are able to provide information about three detail elements, retell a beginning, middle and end of the story, identify the main characters of a story, and identify an average of 8 out of 12 story elements. Math: Using a goal expectation comparison based on developmental norms, Clay would be expected to verbally count objects to 10 for 90% of the trials, state how many in all, and consistently use the terms more, less, and the same.


Literacy: Twelve story elements were assessed. These included: character names (up to 3), retelling details (up to 3), sequencing (beginning, middle and end), telling parts in order (up to 2). Clay’s baseline on story retell from the above story elements was a median of 2 out of 12 elements. Clay was best able to identify character names consistently. Math: When given a group of objects (between 1 and 10), Clay was able to accurately count the objects a median of 25% of trials. He was able to identify the concept of “more” 100% of the time but had difficulty with the concepts of “less” and “same”, identifying them 50% of the time.


Literacy: By the end of the six week intervention Clay could recall and identify an average of 6 of 12 elements of a simple story. He could consistently identify two characters, tell at least three things that happened, and tell how the story ended. Peers were able to recall and identify 9 out of 12 story elements by the end of the intervention period. Math: When given a group of objects (between 1 and 10), Clay was able to accurately count the objects a median of 50% of the trials. The expectation, based on a goal, was that Clay would be able to accurately count objects (in a group of 1 to 10) 90% of trials. Clay continued to identify the concept of “same” 100% of the time, and identified “more” and “less” 50% of the time.

174

What is the individual’s rate of progress compared to the expected rate of progress? Literacy: Clay’s score at the end of the intervention was 6, with peers scoring 9 during the same time period. His rate of growth was .7 points per week which exceeded the expected rate of growth (.17 point per week). At this rate with the current instruction in place, Clay is expected to match current peer performance within 6 weeks. Math: For counting objects up to 10, Clay grew 25 percentage points in 6 weeks, showing a rate of progress of approximately 4 percentage points growth per week. This was less than the expected growth of 10.8 percentage points per week. Clay made no progress in identifying the concepts of “more” and “same”.

Additionally, if the individual received supplemental instruction in a small group, describe his/her response in comparison to how the other individuals in the group responded (may be answered “No other students received the same intervention”). For Academic Domain Two other students receiving similar intervention in literacy skills have now mastered all the elements identified in the intervention. Clay is slightly discrepant from those peers and from developmental expectations. Identify the instruction, interventions and environmental changes under which the individual experienced the most growth or success.

Literacy: Intervention/support strategies that resulted in improvement in his performance included repeated reading of the story, participation with peers, use of highly engaging materials, peer modeling, visual supports for retell, frequent opportunities to practice the skills, and simple stories with repetitive content. When using these strategies and supports, Clay was able to identify three of the events of a story. Using story sequence cards he could retell the story in order but without the visual supports of sequencing cards he was only able to identify the end of the story. Math: Clay benefited from the repeated direct instruction, distributed practice, and frequent feedback of counting and counting objects.


For Academic Domain Math: In the area of math, Clay’s rate of progress is significantly less than expected and he continues to require more direct instruction, visual supports and prompts to support learning (small group, peer modeling) than typical preschoolers. To sustain and improve his rate of growth, continued, consistent intervention and monitoring will be necessary in this area (math). Literacy: Clay made expected, or better than expected progress in the area of literacy given the type and amount of instruction and supports that were in place. His performance is no longer different than expected.

175


Report the discrepancy results for each Performance Domain identified on the Consent for Full and Individual Initial Evaluation. Performance Domain: Academic

Area of Concern

Data Source Date(s) Peer/Expected Performance



Basic Reading

Student retell testing

2/21/11 9 out of 12 (75%) identified story

elements identified by classroom peers

6 out of 12 (50%) story elements

3 basic story elements difference

25 percentage

points difference

Basic Reading

Brigance Age Scores

2/17/11 Total Score 4 year - 6 month

Total Score 3 year - 4 month

14 month delay (26% delay)

Basic Reading

Teaching Strategies Gold Assessment

2/22/11 Interacts during "read-alouds" and book conversations (18a): levels 3-6 Retells stories (18c): levels 2-6

18a) Level 3 18c) Level 2

At the low end of the acceptable ranges At the low end of the acceptable ranges

Basic Math

Student testing 2/21/11 Peers identify the concepts of more/less/equal 92% of trials. Peers count sets of objects up to 10 correctly 90% of trials. Peers rote count to a median of 15 Peers count with 1:1 correspondence up to 7 - 100% and up to 15 - 90% of the time

Identified concepts of more/less/ equal 50% of trials. Counted sets of objects up to 10 correctly 50% of trials. Rote counts to a median of 9 Counts 1:1 to 7 - 50% of the time and 0 % of the time to 15

46% difference in concepts of more/less/ equal* 44% difference in counting objects in sets* 1.7 times discrepant Counts to 7 - 50% difference Counts to 15 - 100% difference*

176

Basic Math

Brigance Age Scores

2/17/11 Total Score 4 year- 6 month

Total Score 2 year - 10 month

20 month delay (37% delay)

Basic Math

Teaching Strategies Gold

2/22/11 Counts (20a): Level 5-6 Identifies concepts -more. less, equals, etc. (20b): levels 4-6

20a) Level 3 20b) Level 3

20a) Two levels below expectation 20b) One level below expectation

*Note - It is not required to document the process of calculating the percent of difference within the EER; however, this percent is calculated by taking the difference between the percent of accuracy scores (92-50=42) and dividing by the peer accuracy performance (92) to obtain the percent of difference (42/92 = 46%).


For Academic Domain Literacy: Based on the data collected, Clay is falling slightly below expectations and peer performance in literacy. With time, it is expected that the small difference between his performance and peer performance will continue to decrease. Classroom observations and teacher report reveal that classmates transfer knowledge gained in one literacy activity to other similar activities (e. g. concept of character in a story, sequencing beginning/middle/end). Clay requires re-teaching and repeated practice to recall story elements. He is less likely to transfer knowledge from one activity to another (e.g. refers to character in previous story, recalls story element from previous story). Math: Based on the above data collected as part of this assessment, Clay is significantly below peers and expectations in the area of math. The range of difference is between 37% and 46%, thus exceeding the discrepancy indicator of 25% or more delay/difference.


For Academic Domain Clay’s performance is unique when compared to setting peers in the area of math. In the area of literacy his performance is somewhat unique when compared to setting peers, but not unique when compared to widely held expectations. Literacy: Two other students receiving similar intervention in literacy skills have now mastered all the elements identified on the original progress too. Clay is slightly discrepant from those peers and from developmental expectations. Math: Since Clay received individual instruction there is no peer group who received similar intervention. Compared to the next higher performing peer he is unique with respect to counting with one to one correspondence (next higher peer performance counts objects to 10) and rote counting (next higher peer performance is consistently rote counting to 12).

177


Domain: Adaptive Behavior List the Iowa Core essential concepts and skills, Early Learning Standards and Benchmarks, or District Standards and Benchmarks of the core instructional program in the area(s) of concern for the individual’s age and/or grade level. The district uses both the Iowa Early Learning Standards and the Teaching Strategies GOLD Objectives for Development and Learning to guide instruction. While there are several standards that apply, the following are the critical standards, benchmarks and skills Clay is not meeting and are directly related to this assessment data. Iowa Early Learning Standards (Adaptive Behavior Performance Domain - School Functioning) 8-Approaches to learning 8.2 Engagement and Persistence—children purposefully choose and persist in experiences and activities GOLD Objectives (Adaptive Behavior Performance Domain - School Functioning) Objective 11. Demonstrates positive approaches to learning (corresponds to IA ELS 8) 11a. Attends and engages 11b. Persists Using multiple assessment methods and data sources, including progress data collected on a frequent and regular basis, summarize the individual’s response to the supplemental or intensified instruction that was provided (including the individual’s rate of skill acquisition compared to expected rate of acquisition). · Describe:


b) how the above were determined to be matched to the individual’s needs; c) how the above were implemented (e.g. implemented as designed, changes to the plan

made)

School Functioning: (attending to task, persisting with task) To increase attending and engagement, the teacher provided small group instruction in the classroom for Clay and 2 classmates with the goal of increasing Clay’s engagement time over the period of intervention. The teacher used center based activities (library interest area, writing center) and materials, but supplemented them with high interest, interactive, teacher directed activities. Structured activities were repeated 30 minutes daily (3 times per week) for a six week period. Positive reinforcement was added to the intervention to reinforce Clay’s attention to task. Off task behavior was redirected with minimal prompting (e.g. use of name, tap on table). To improve Clay’s attention and engagement in the large group and center times, Mrs. Primrose used a variety of prompts (e.g. proximity, physical guidance, nonverbal prompts, visual and verbal cuing). While these strategies are used for all students from time to time, Mrs. Primrose indicated that she uses one of the strategies every time Clay is given a direction or the students are preparing to transition. She hoped to fade from intrusive (using his name, eye contact) to less intrusive over time. Teacher logs were used to monitor the implementation of the intervention and it was shown that the

178

activities were implemented 100% of expected sessions. What is the standard for comparison and the expected level of performance (i.e. prior to supplemental or intensified instruction)? School Functioning: Using a goal expectation comparison and given the context and parameters of the task, it was determined that Clay would sustain attention to an academic task 70% of the time after a 6 week intervention period.


School Functioning: Clay was able to sustain attention to an academic task a median of 50% of the time. Clay attends for longer periods of time during hands-on academic activities than during activities in which he needs to listen and respond.


School Functioning: After 6 weeks of intervention, Clay is able to sustain attention to an academic task 75% of the time. Clay’s goal during this time was to attend to an academic task 70% of the time. Clay’s teacher reports that fewer prompts/cues are needed to engage Clay at the start of activities or during transitions.


School Functioning: Clay’s attention increased from 50% of the time to 75% of the time. This represents a growth rate of approximately 4 percentage points per week which exceeds the expected rate of growth (3.3 percentage points per week).


For Adaptive Behavior Domain For the school functioning intervention, all 3 students in the group, including Clay, have shown similar improvement in the percentage of time they sustain attention to academic tasks


School Functioning: Clay is spending less time wandering the room and more time engaged in activities through the various strategies that have been employed. Sustaining his attention to tasks that are more academic in nature has been more difficult than his sustaining of attention during free play and center time. Allowing Clay to select during his morning routine, his center choices and his free play activity choice, has resulted in increased time engaged in these activities.


For Adaptive Domain Clay made expected, or better than expected progress in the areas of school functioning given the type and amount of instruction and supports that were in place. His performance is no longer different than peers.

179


Report the discrepancy results for each Performance Domain identified on the Consent for Full and Individual Initial Evaluation. Performance Domain: Behavior and Academic

Area of Concern

Data Source Date(s) Peer/Expected Performance


Discrepancy from Expected

Performance

School Functioning

Classroom observation

2/20/11 Sustains attention 80% of intervals observed for peers in the classroom

Sustains attention 75% of intervals

observed

5 percentage point difference

School Functioning

Teaching Strategies

Gold Assessment

2/22/11 11a) Attends and engages - levels 5-7 11b) Persists - levels 4-6

11a) level 5 11b) level 4

Within the range of acceptable performance

*Note - It is not required to document the process of calculating the percent of difference within the EER; however, this percent is calculated by taking the difference between the percent of accuracy scores (92-50=42) and dividing by the peer accuracy performance (92) to obtain the percent of difference (42/92 = 46%).


For Adaptive Behavior Domain School Functioning: Based on the data collected throughout the intervention and evaluation period, Clay is no longer discrepant from his peers in the area of attending and engagement. He is able to engage for longer periods for academic tasks and is able to stick with free time/center time when the option is preselected.


For Adaptive Behavior Domain Clay’s performance is not unique when compared to peers and developmental expectations. His teacher reports that his need for prompting/cuing occurs less frequently. It is expected that Clay will continue to make growth in this area. .

180


Based on evidence from the analysis of the Progress and Discrepancy components, the functional implications of the individual’s performance, as well as other educationally relevant information, describe the individual’s needs within:

Instruction (i.e. instructional strategies and methods that will enable learning, reinforcement/motivational strategies)

Intervention data suggest that Clay learns best when taught in small groups with familiar peers, using strategies that require frequent responding and repetition. Pre-teaching vocabulary words using visual supports and picture cues is another instructional strategy that has been successful. Clay also persists with activities longer if he is given consistent positive feedback for successful responses or closer approximations (encouragement for trying, modeling correct response and correcting errors as they occur). Math direct instruction produced limited results and it is clear that this will need to be provided in a small group with multiple opportunities for practice and frequent feedback.

Curriculum (i.e. content of instruction, specific skills and concepts the individual needs to learn)

The use of a developmentally appropriate curriculum and curriculum based assessment which is frequently monitored is important in helping Clay to achieve skills at his developmental level. Specific instructional objectives should be linked to the curriculum objectives of 1) Demonstrates positive approaches to learning, 2) Comprehends and responds to books and other texts, and 3) Uses number concepts and operations. Hands on materials are useful in promoting engagement and participation.


In order to maintain attention and engagement, Clay needs a predictable schedule that provides consistency from day to day. His learning is facilitated with visual supports throughout the classroom, such as clear boundaries around interest areas, shelves marked to indicate where to store materials, a system for transitions from one activity to another, and general organization to encourage him to be independent.

Frequent opportunities to respond and repeated practice are needed for Clay to master a concept. Multiple opportunities to practice in a variety of different activities and environments should be provided (i.e., counting during snack, center time, line up, outdoor play, etc.).


As frequent distributed practice is important for Clay, parents should be provided with ideas of developmentally appropriate activities related to literacy and math that they can do with Clay at home and in community settings.

181


Due to the intensity of direct instruction, including frequent and immediate corrective feedback, and the amount of time needed to deliver this instruction in the area of math, the resources required to address these needs likely exceed the capacity and obligation of the general education program. Supports currently provided in the area of adaptive behavior and reading have been successful for Clay and it is anticipated that these can be continued with general education support. Given the improved attention and persistence with tasks, monitoring continued reading growth can be done through the general education program.

182

AEA 267 Eligibility Documentation Rubric

Individual

Information 3 2 1

1. What is the area of concern?

The area(s) of concern hasbeen identified either by the subdomains or by specific skill.

The area(s) of concern needs to be identified by the subdomains or by specific skill.

2. Evidence identifying concerns are pervasive across different times and settings

Evidence is clearly described which indicates whether or not the concerns are pervasive across different times and settings.

Evidence needs to be clearly described which indicates whether or not the concerns are pervasive across different times and settings.

3. Individual’s strengths that support his/her educational success in the area(s) of concern

Individual’s strengths are identified that are clearly and directly related to the area of concern.

Individual’s strengths need to be identified that are clearly and directly related to the area of concern.

4. Within the areas of concern, describe ways in which access and opportunity were assured for the individual

The description of evidence clearly indicates that access and opportunity to viable core and supplemental instruction were provided to the individual.

The description of evidence needs to clearly indicate that access and opportunity to viable core and supplemental instruction were provided to the individual.

5. Within the areas of concern describe whether or not the concerns are primarily caused by any of the Exclusionary factors

A detailed description provides evidence addressing all three Exclusionary Factors (ELL, lack of instruction in reading, lack of instruction in math).

A detailed description provides evidence addressing two of the three Exclusionary Factors (ELL or lack of instruction in reading or lack of instruction in math).

A detailed description provides evidence addressing only one or none of the Exclusionary Factors (ELL, lack of instruction in reading, lack of instruction in math) and needs to address all three Exclusionary Factors.

6. Within the areas of concern, describe any ecological factors that affect the individual’s educational performance

Factors affecting the individual’s performance that result from race, ethnicity, culture, language or life circumstances have been described in detail. If the individual is not affected by any ecological factors, a statement is provided indicating such.

A statement or acknowledgement of consideration of these factors needs to be provided.

183

Educational Progress 3 2 1

7. Iowa Core essential concepts and skills, Early Learning Standards and Benchmarks or District Standards and benchmarks are listed

Relevant standards, essential concepts and skills, and/or benchmarks are listed.

Standards, essential concepts and skills, and/or benchmarks need to be listed or need to be directly relevant.

8. Description of: a) the supplemental or intensified instruction, curriculum, and environmental changes provided to address the area of concern; b) the match to the individual’s need; and c) the integrity of implementation (i.e., what was provided beyond Core instruction)

Clear and complete description of all three elements (a,b,c) using relevant information

Descriptions are noted but need to be more clear and complete and/or include all of the elements (a,b,c) and/or include relevant information

Needs to include clear and complete description of all three elements (a,b,c) using relevant information

9. Standard for comparison and expected level of performance (prior to supplemental or intensified instruction)

The standard of comparison and the expected level of performance are clearly identified and matched to the performance being measured.

The standard of comparison or the expected level of performance needs to be clearly identified and matched to the performance being measured.

The standard of comparison and the expected level of performance need to be clearly identified and matched to the performance being measured.

10. Individual’s level of performance prior to supplemental/intensified instruction (i.e., baseline)

Individual’s baseline performance data are clearly described, and aligned with the standard of comparison

Individual’s baseline performance data need to be clearly described or aligned with the standard of comparison

Individual’s baseline performance data need to be clearly described and aligned with the standard of comparison

11. Individual’s level of performance and the expected level of performance following supplemental/intensified instruction

Ending performance level for the individual and the expected level of performance are clearly noted; data are aligned with baseline

Ending performance level needs to be clearly noted for the individual or the expected level of performance; data are aligned with baseline

Ending performance level needs to be clearly noted for the individual and the expected level of performance; or data are not aligned with baseline

12. What is the individual’s rate of progress compared to the expected rate of progress (Ending performance minus beginning performance ÷ by number of weeks of intervention = rate of progress)

All three elements are clearly described: 1) Timeline of the intervention period, 2) the individual’s rate of progress and 3) the individual’s rate compared with the expected rate of progress.

Two of the three elements are clearly described: 1) Timeline of the intervention period, and/or 2) the individual’s rate of progress and/or 3) the individual’s rate compared with the expected rate of progress.

Two or more of the three elements need to be clearly described: 1) Timeline of the intervention period, and/or 2) the individual’s rate of progress and/or 3) the individual’s rate compared with the expected rate of progress.

184

13. If the individual received supplemental instruction in a small group, describe his/her response in comparison to how other individuals in the group responded. This item may not apply. (Noting this in column 3 would be appropriate.)

The individual’s rate of progress in comparison to other individuals who received the same supplemental instruction (rate of progress) is clearly described or it is noted that no other students received the same supplemental instruction.

The individual’s rate of progress in comparison to other individuals who received the same supplemental instruction (rate of progress) needs to be clearly described or it needs to be noted that no other students received the same supplemental instruction.

14. Identify the instruction, interventions and environmental changes under which the individual experienced the most growth or success.

The instruction, interventions and environmental changes under which the individual experienced the most growth or success are clearly identified.

The instruction, interventions and environmental changes are noted, but those for which the individual experienced the most growth or success need to be clearly identified.

The instruction, interventions and environmental changes need to be noted, and those for which the individual experienced the most growth or success need to be clearly identified.

15. Using the progress data above, and any other relevant information summarize the significance of the individual’s rate of progress compared to the expected rate of progress. (Summarize means to provide an explanation of the magnitude of the difference and state the implications of this difference.)

The significance of any difference between the individual’s rate of progress and expected rate of progress is clearly summarized.

The significance of any difference between the individual’s rate of progress and expected rate of progress is noted, but needs to be clearly summarized.

Needs to note and clearly summarize the significance of any difference between the individual’s rate of progress and expected rate.

185

Educational Discrepancy 3 2 1

16. Performance domain identified from Consent for Full and Individual Evaluation

All performance domains identified on the Consent for Full and Individual Evaluation are included as a focus of the evaluation documented in the EER.

All performance domains identified on the Consent for Full and Individual Evaluation needs to be included as a focus of the evaluation documented in the EER.

17. Area of concern Concerns are clearly listed and specific to the identified Performance Domain.

Concerns are clearly listed or specific to the identified Performance Domain.

Concerns need to beclearly listed and specific to the identified Performance Domain.

18. Data Source Evidence of multiple data sources is provided and data sources are aligned with area(s) of concern.

Evidence of multiple data sources is provided or data sources are aligned with area(s) of concern.

Evidence of multiple data sources needs to be provided and data sources need to be aligned with area(s) of concern.

19. Dates All dates are stated and indicate current measures.

All dates are stated or indicate current measures.

All dates need to be stated and need to indicate current measures.

20. Peer/Expected performance (Appropriate means that a reasonable expected range or comparison point is used. Accurately expressed means the numeric value matches the expectation.)

Peer/Expected performance levels are an appropriately identified expectation and accurately expressed.

Peer/Expected performance levels are an appropriately identified expectation or accurately expressed.

Peer/Expected performance levels need to be appropriately identified expectation and needs to be accurately expressed.

21. Individual’s current performance

Individual’s current level of performance is clearly described using numeric values and is the same measure as the peer/expected performance.

Individual’s current level of performance is clearly described using numeric values or is the same measure as the peer/expected performance.

Individual’s current level of performance needs to be clearly described using numeric values and needs to be the same measure as the peer/expected performance.

22. Discrepancy from Expected Performance

Discrepancy is clearly derived from the difference between the peer/expected performance and the individual’s current performance.

Discrepancy needs to be derived from the difference between the peer/expected performance and the individual’s current performance.

23. Using the data, summarize the significance of the discrepancy

Data are summarized anddiscrepancy indicators used to judge the significance are clearly described.

Data are summarized ordiscrepancy indicators used to judge the significance are clearly described.

Data need to be summarized and discrepancy indicators used to judge the significance need to be clearly described.

24. Using the data, summarize whether or not the individual’s performance is unique or an outlier from a comparable group. (Uniqueness for discrepancy)

Uniqueness for discrepancy is stated and a clear connection is made to a comparable peer group.

Uniqueness for discrepancy stated or a clear connection is made to comparable group.

Uniqueness for discrepancy needs to be stated and a connection to comparable group needs to be made.

186

Educational Need 3 2 1

25. Based on evidence from the analysis of progress and discrepancy components, describe the individual’s needs in INSTRUCTION

Specific instructional strategies/methods, motivational strategies/reinforcement that will enable learning are clearly summarized and aligned with supporting data documented in other parts of the EER.

Specific instructional strategies/methods, motivational strategies/reinforcement that will enable learning need to be clearly described or aligned with supporting data.

Specific instructional strategies/methods, motivational strategies/reinforcement that will enable learning need to be clearly described and aligned with supporting data.

26. Based on evidence from the analysis of progress and discrepancy components, describe the individual’s needs in CURRICULUM

The specific content of instruction including specific skills and concepts the individual needs to learn are clearly summarized and aligned with supporting data documented in other parts of the EER.

The specific content of instruction including specific skills and concepts the individual needs to learn need to be clearly described or aligned with supporting data.

The specific content of instruction including specific skills and concepts the individual needs to learn need to be clearly described and aligned with supporting data.

27. Based on evidence from the analysis of progress and discrepancy components, describe the individual’s needs in ENVIRONMENT

Consideration is given to environmental factors including adaptations to procedures, schedules, routines, behavioral expectations, room or seating, and other adaptive supports and are clearly summarized and aligned with supporting data documented in other parts of the EER.

Consideration is given to environmental factors including adaptations to procedures, schedules, routines, behavioral expectations, room or seating, and other adaptive supports need to be clearly described or aligned with supporting data.

Consideration is given to environmental factors including adaptations to procedures, schedules, routines, behavioral expectations, room or seating, and other adaptive supports need to be clearly described and aligned with supporting data

28. Based on evidence from the analysis of progress and discrepancy components, describe the individual’s needs in ADDITIONAL LEARNING SUPPORTS

Consideration is given to additional learning supports including family supports or involvement, community partnerships, transition supports, supports for engagement, assistive technology, and/or other accommodations are clearly described and aligned with supporting data documented in other parts of the EER.

Consideration is given to additional learning supports including family supports or involvement, community partnerships, transition supports, supports for engagement, assistive technology, and/or other accommodations need to be clearly described or aligned with supporting data.

Consideration is given to additional learning supports including family supports or involvement, community partnerships, transition supports, supports for engagement, assistive technology, and/or other accommodations need to be clearly described and aligned with supporting data.

29. Which of the above needs, exceed the capacity and obligation of the general education program and resources?

Summary clearly identifies the needs that will require services and supports that exceed the capacity and obligation of the general education program and resources.

Summary needs to clearly identify the needs which will require services and supports that exceed the capacity and obligation of the general education program and resources.

187

General 3 2 1 30. GEN 1

(use of data) All four types of quantitative data (Nominal, Ordinal, Interval, Ratio) are used appropriately

Some quantitative data used appropriately, but need to use all quantitative data appropriately

All quantitative data need to be used appropriately

31. GEN 2 (RIOT)

Evidence of all four assessment methods: Review, Interview, Observe, Test/Task (RIOT) are used

Needs to evidence one or two additional assessment methods

Needs to evidence three or more additional assessment methods

189

Sample IEP R Pages and IEP Page R Reevaluation Questions Guide

Early Childhood Sample ............................................................................................................... 190

Elementary (includes Occupational Therapy Services) Sample .......................................... 196

Elementary (no longer eligible) Sample.................................................................................... 199

Secondary Sample .......................................................................................................................... 204

Speech-Language Services Sample ............................................................................................. 211

IEP Page R Reevaluation Questions Guide ............................................................................. 213

190

IEP Page R Early Childhood Sample Student: Mitchell Grade: Kindergarten 1) What progress has the student made compared to peers or the expected standard? The areas of concern include: Cognitive: Approaches to Learning: Problem Solving and Social Emotional Skills: Resolve conflicts with peers. Area 8 Approaches to Learning: 8.3 Problem Solving, Standard: Children demonstrate strategies for reasoning and problem solving; shows interest in and finds a variety of solutions to questions, tasks, or problems and chooses to explore a variety of activities and experiences with a willingness to try new challenges. Area 8 Approaches to Learning: 8.2 Engagement and Persistence, Standard: Children purposefully choose and persist in experiences and activities; persists in and completes a variety of both caregiver-directed and self-initiated tasks/activities and maintains concentration on a task. Area 9 9.4 Peer Relationships, Standard: Children develop the ability to interact with peers respectfully and to form positive peer relationships; sustains interactions with peers, develops friendships with other peers, negotiates with others to resolve disagreements, takes turns with others. Mitchell received EARLY Access Services from 10/2009-8/2010 from the AEA 267 Early Childhood Special Educator and the AEA 267 Speech and Language Pathologist. Mitchell was taught problem solving: matching, learning new skills and increasing communication skills. Speech and Language Services in increasing communication skills continued throughout the 2010-2011 school year. Early Childhood Special Education Services were ended due to ending data and Assessment results demonstrating at age level skills. Initial concerns expressed by the Head Start Teacher provided evidence that Mitchell was having difficulty problem solving when learning new skills and when in conflict with peers, and attending, engaging, and persisting in learning new skills. Mitchell has received supplemental and intensified instruction from his general education teacher over the past 3 months. The teacher implemented directly teaching the skill in finding and then reinforced learning through daily practice of a game called, mouse, mouse where’s your house, in learning to find colors and shapes. Baseline data shows that Mitchell is able to match colors and shapes independently and scored 0/27 on the problem solving rubric of skills in finding and naming colors and shapes. With Supplemental and Intensive Instruction: 1:1 direct teaching of finding a variety of colors and shapes through gestural and verbal models, prompts, and cues within a less distracted area in the general education classroom, along with daily repeated practice; he performed this skill scoring 4/27 on the problem solving rubric. He was also provided 1:1 direct teaching of problem solving skills by finding a variety of solutions to resolve disagreements conflicts with peers. Baseline data shows that he scored 0/12 on the problem solving rubric. Mitchell did not yet demonstrate the skills of problem solving when in conflict with peers. He was directly taught the skills: get the teacher and use your words in a1:1 and 1:2 setting, through picture paired with gestural and verbal cues. Mitchell was taught using visual (pictures/social story), gestural, and verbal models, prompts, and cues and repeated practice daily. He performed this skill by scoring 3/12 on the problem solving rubric. Typical peers score 11/12 on the problem solving rubric and are learning a new skill set. In comparison to same age peers Mitchell demonstrates skills much like a child that is much younger. Mitchell’s rate of improvement in comparison to same age peers: peers learned the skills over 3 months-time to a proficient level. Mitchell has not yet learned the skills to a proficient level with 1:1 teaching supplemental and intensive instruction and support from the Classroom Teacher and/or teacher’s assistant throughout the school day.

In the area of engagement and persistence the taught skills were embedded in the above areas of concern. However, with increased skill it was noted that Mitchell’s attention and persistence in tasks have increased as well. No data was collected in the area of engagement and persistence. Based on teacher logs and permanent products that were kept, it was determined that Mitchell’s 3 month targeted interventions were implemented as designed. Adjustments were made by the Early Childhood Special Educator and Classroom Teacher to increase learning of skills. The increase in the number of opportunities was the adjustment, which supported Mitchell in learning new skills. Mitchell experiences the most growth

191

when taught skills 1:1, repeated practice in small group, and then repeated practice in the large group setting. Peers learned the skill through practice in the large group general education setting. At this rate Mitchell will catch up to same age peers over 9 months- time. However, peers will be learning a new skill set and it may be difficult for Mitchell to actually catch up to same age peers. There were no other peers in the classroom that have had supplemental and intensive instruction in the concern areas.

2) What discrepancy, if any, still exists between the student's performance and that of peers or the expected standard?

Areas of Concern: Cognitive: Approaches to Learning: Problem Solving and Social Emotional Development.

Area of Concern

Data Source Date (s) Peer Expected Performance

Individual’s Expected Performance

Discrepancy

Cognitive Skills

Developmental Assessment of Young Children

5/23/2011 Standard Score 85-100

Standard Score 83

Standard Score 85-100

Academic Skills

Brigance Screen 9/2010 and 10/2010

72/100 and 85/100

27/100 and 35/100

72/100 and 85/100

Problem Solving

Work Sampling System

Fall 2010 Winter 2011 Spring 2011

In Progress /Proficient

Not Yet Proficient

Approaches to Learning: Problem Solving

GOLD Assessment

Observations 2/15/2011 through 5/24/2011

Problem Solving Level 3 yellow and green color bands

Problem Solving Level 2 red, orange, and yellow color bands

Level 3-4 yellow and green color bands.

The Developmental Assessment of Young Children (DAYC) was administered to gain standard score information. Mitchell demonstrated a standard score of 83 which is more than one standard deviation below the mean and demonstrates a significant delay in Cognitive Skills. Same aged peers demonstrate a standard score between 85-100, 85 being the low typical range. Given this information it shows Mitchell’s Cognitive skills are below what is expected and this discrepancy is significant to Mitchel learning new skills both now and in the future. The Brigance Screen demonstrates a score that is far below what typical peers are scoring across the curriculum. Mitchell came into his preschool classroom having far less knowledge of academic skills than typical peers. A score of 52 and below is an indicator that there may be delays in learning. Mitchell scored 27/100 and 35/100 while typical peers scored 72/100 to 85/100. Given this information it was thought that Mitchell would make the needed gains to catch up to same age peers throughout the school year. Although the Brigance Screen is not readministered at the end of the school year other assessment information is gathered to demonstrate growth in learning in the Fall, Winter, and Spring. The Work Sampling System Assessment was administered in the Fall 2010, Winter 2011, and Spring 2011. Mitchell scored the following in the area of problem solving skills: not yet. This information means that he does not yet demonstrate the skills of problem solving new learning in the general education classroom. Typical peers have been assessed at the same times of the year and demonstrate the following: in progress or proficient. This means that peers are demonstrating problem solving skills as expected and are either in the

192

process of learning problem solving skills or are proficient in demonstrating problem solving skills in the classroom. These skills include learning of new skills. Michael is demonstrating significant delays in the area of problem solving in comparison to same age peers. Results of the current evaluation indicate that there is a significant discrepancy between Mitchell’s level of performance and that of peers following the provision of adequate general education instruction, supplemental, and intensified instruction. Mitchell demonstrated growth over the 3 month intervention period with his ability to problem solve in learning new skills, but his rate of progress in acquiring the problem solving skills were considered significantly discrepant from peer expectations, standards, and benchmarks. Observations of Mitchell’s problem solving skills indicate he has difficulty being consistent in learning the skills from day to day. He seems to lose information and then regains part of the information which makes it more difficult for him to gain the skills as expected.

Area of Concern

Data Source Date (s) Peer Expected Performance

Individual Expected Performance


Social Emotional Skills

Developmental Assessment of Young Children (DAYC)

5/23/2011 Standard Score 85-100

Standard Score 94 with gaps in skills

gaps in skills


Devereaux Early Childhood Assessment (DECA)

3/29/2011 Percentile: Initiative, Self Control, Attachment, and Total Protective Factors 25-75 Behavior 75-25

Percentile: Initiative: 5 Self-Control: 12 Attachment: 21 Total Protective Factors: 5 Behavior 92

Percentile: Initiative, Self Contol, Attachment, Total Protective Factors 25-75 Behavior 75-25


Behavior Incidence Reports

9/24/2010 through 5/24/2011

0-2 aggressions per week

1-2 aggressions per week

0 aggressions per week

Problem Solving Conflicts with Peers

Problem Solving Rubric

3/15/2011 through 5/24/2011

Peers scored 11/12 Mitchell scored 3/12

8/12 is the discrepancy

Social Emotional Skills Social Emotional Skills

GOLD Assessment GOLD Assessment

2/15/2011 through 5/24/2011 2/15/2011 through 5/24/2011

Balances the needs and rights of self and others: take turns: Level 3-4 yellow and green color bands. Problem Solving: Seeks adult help to resolve social problems, Level 4-6 yellow and green color bands

Balances the needs and rights of self and others: takes turns: Level 2 orange and yellow color bands Problem Solving: Seeks adult help to resolve social problems, Level 2 red and orange color bands

Balances the needs and rights of self and others: takes turns: Levels 3-4 yellow and green color bands Problem Solving: Seeks adult help to resolve social problems, Level 3-6 yellow and green color

193

bands The GOLD Assessment was used and observational data was collected. In the area of problem solving, Mitchell demonstrates a score at Level 2 orange and yellow color bands, which is 2 years behind typical peers who score between Level 4-6 yellow and green color bands. Mitchell’s ability to use problem solving skills to resolve conflicts with peers is significantly delayed in comparison to same age peers and requires intensified instruction to make slight gains in the skill. He has difficulty understanding what to do in conflict and requires teacher support to assist him in problem solving situations. Michael is learning to follow the teacher’s model through imitation of problem solving skills during conflict with peers. Typical peers are problem solving conflicts with other peers through a variety of problem solving techniques. The Devereaux Early Childhood Assessment was administered in the Fall 2010 and the Spring 2011. The Spring Assessment information revealed the following: Mitchell’s scores in the area of initiative, self-control, attachment, total protective factors, and behavior demonstrate concerns in each of these areas. Typical peers demonstrated scores between 25-75 in each of these areas. Typical peers scored in the typical range. This information reveals that Mitchell is demonstrating difficulty in social emotional skills within the general education setting and in comparison to same age peers he is demonstrating significant delays. Using the Social Problem Solving Rubric in resolving conflict with peers Mitchell began with a baseline score of 0/12 with teaching the problem solving skills of get the teacher and use your words Mitchell gained the skill of imitating the teacher’s model in resolving conflicts with peers. Typical peers get the teacher regularly and are independent in this skill. Typical peers also use their words to get their point across and to resolve conflicts with other peers more independently. Across the Problem Solving Rubric peers are able to use up to 4 problem solving skills at an independent level. Mitchell requires the teacher to provide the model for him to imitate to use problem solving skills. This is significantly discrepant from same age peers as same age peers have not received supplemental nor intensified instruction in this area of learning. With supplemental and intensified instruction Mitchell has made slight gains, but continues to need significant supports to perform the skills.

194

Data sources from the chart above as well as teacher and parent interviews describing Mitchell’s problem solving skill performance both at home and at school indicates that this is a significant discrepancy from peers. Rate of progress data suggests that Mitchell could possibly improve to the level of typical expectations over 9 months- time. However, by then typical peers will have a new skill set and it is unlikely that Mitchell will catch up to same age peers. Typical peers use a variety of problem solving techniques to learn new skills and to resolve conflicts with peers. Mitchell does not yet demonstrate the skills typical to same age peers. Mitchell’s skills are unique in comparison to same age peers, expectations, and standards and benchmarks.

3) What evidence is there that the student continues to need special education and related services to be successful?

Mitchell needs special education services provided in both individual and small group settings in the areas of problem solving skills and problem solving conflicts with peers, in learning new skills, Mitchell demonstrates the need for consistent intensive 1:1, small group, and large group instruction to learn new skills. With the supports that have been provided in the general education classroom (supplemental and intensified instruction) it is known that Mitchell needs continued teacher models, extra practice, concrete materials, social stories, visual (picture) prompts and cues, and repeated practice of skills across settings. Mitchell is motivated by materials that are of interest to him, spider man, bat man, cars, trucks, blocks, etc., and will be needed in teaching new skills. He has benefitted from using peer models and teaching in the moment within the small and large group setting. Mitchell needs direct teaching of turn-taking and sharing as part of the problem solving and resolving conflicts with peers. Mitchell needs to continue to receive direct instruction in both 1:1 pull-out and his general education classroom setting using Head Start Curriculum and Materials. Supplemental and intensified instruction will continue to teach new skills by both the Early Childhood Special Educator and the Classroom Teacher. Teaching of specific problem solving skills in learning new concepts and skills and in resolving conflicts with peers will be taught and data recorded on the corresponding rubrics. The rubrics will guide the teaching of skills to increase problem solving skill acquisition across settings. The environment needs to be structured, including a learning area with table and chair, structured center time play, consistent rules, routines, and expectations. A schedule of the day is used to teach Mitchell what to predict and anticipate throughout the day, including individual and small group learning times. Mitchell needs preferential seating close to the teacher at learning times. This assists him in increasing attention to tasks and activities by decreasing distractions. The teacher and family are continuing to work on skills daily to increase problem solving skills in learning new information and problem solving conflicts with peers. The family has been given resources to support work on the problem solving skills over the summer months. 4) What additions or modifications to the special education and related services are needed to enable the

student to meet the IEP goals and to participate, as appropriate, in the general education curriculum? Mitchell will continue to need positive and patient support from his teacher’s and family to assist him with learning. He would benefit from consistent communication from school to home and home to school to increase consistency across settings. Problem Solving Skills and Problem Solving Conflicts with peers needs to be taught at Mitchell's developmental level 30-33 months of age.

195

5) Does the student continue to be eligible for special education services, based on the information

contained in Questions 1-4?

Yes, due to significant needs in the areas of concern, the supports needed to increase skills in the areas of concern, the gaps in Mitchell’s skills and learning in comparison to same age peers, and the discrepancy in skills in comparison to the standards and benchmarks Mitchell is eligible for special education services in the areas of need. 6) Under what conditions will the IEP team consider exiting the student from special education services? When Mitchell’s skills are more typical to same age peers, when he is successful in the general education setting, when he is able to maintain skills more independently, and when Mitchell is accessing the general education curriculum as expected according to peer comparisons and standards and benchmarks.

196

IEP Page R Elementary Sample (with Occupational Therapy Services) Student: Lewis Doe 1) What progress has the student made compared to peers or the expected standard? Language: Typical same-aged parents produce 25-26 letter sounds. Lewis produces 15 out of 26 letter sounds. Lewis continues to have difficulty focusing on receptive and expressive language tasks, which impacts his ability to provide accurate responses to questions. Visuals help him focus on vocabulary and specific contextual information from classroom activities. Number recognition: Typical students at the end of kindergarten year are able to recognize numbers 0-10. Lewis recognizes numbers 0-3. Writing Letters of the Alphabet: Typical students his age are able to write about 26 out of 26 of the letters of the alphabet correctly and without a model. Lewis was able to write 0 out of 26 letters for his baseline. He can consistently write only the letter "L" in Lewis. An indicator for readiness for writing letters is to be able to accurately imitate basic shapes. Lewis is unable to consistently imitate pre-writing shapes such as horizontal line, vertical line, cross (+), circle, square, and triangle. Fine Motor Skills: Lewis has difficulty independently tracing the letters in his name. Fine motor manipulation has improved during the school year. His very short attention span and distractibility makes it very difficult for him to practice fine motor activities. It has been difficult to progress monitor his fine motor skills numerically. 2) What discrepancy, if any, still exists between the student's performance and that of peers or the expected

standard?

The district standard is that all students at the end of kindergarten entering first grade are able to use the grammatical and mechanical conventions of written language. The grade level benchmark is (L._K.02.01 )- Students are able to print numbers and letters with spacing between words and sentences. Lewis is able to write the first letter of his first name independently and consistently. Writing Letters/Numbers/Shapes and Drawing Pictures: On the kindergarten writing assessment Lewis scored 0. Typical peer average was 6.Typical students at the end of kindergarten are able to write almost all of the upper and lowercase letters with a model. Lewis requires hand over hand assistance for writing letters. He writes the capital letter “L” in his first name. Typical students at the end of the kindergarten year are able to draw a recognizable picture with the beginning of a label or simple sentence in their journal. Lewis is dependent in this area. He is unable to draw a simple picture. Lewis completes this task with complete associate assistance. Reading: On the reading checklist administered to all kindergarten students, Lewis scored 64, Typical peer average on the assessment was 72. On the DIBELS assesment given this fall: Lewis scored 7 (18%) on the Initial Sound Fluency. Typical peer mean score was 12.9. On the Letter Naming Fluency Lewis scored 7 (18%) Typical peer mean was 25.9. Lewis currently recognizes 2 sight words. Typical peers recognize 5 words. On the Letter Naming Fluency Levi scored 7 (18%) Typical peer mean was 25.9. On the Reading Checklist Levi scored 64. Typical peer average was 79. Typical students at the end of kindergarten are beginning to segment word family words and reading them as a word. (Segmenting (saying letter sound) but not reading it as a word.) Same-aged typical peers are able to recognize and produce rhyming words. Lewis does not recognize or produce rhyming words. Math: Lewis scored 52 on the kindergarten math checklist. Typical peer average was 79. Typical students at the end of kindergarten year are able to count with one to one correspondence with numbers to 5. Lewis is unable to count objects to match an amount or number. Language and Speech: Lewis scored 7 (18%) on the Initial Sound Fluency of the DIBELS. Typical peer mean score was 12.9. Same-aged typical peers are readily able to engage in reciprocal conversations with others using appropriate social skills and to reliably answer questions related to personal information, as well as to answer

197

questions related to books/information that they have heard. Lewis is unable to engage in reciprocal conversation or answer personal questions. 3) What evidence is there that the student continues to need special education and related services to be

successful?

Instruction: Provide multi-sensory ways to draw and write (Examples: crayons, chalk, etc.) As noted above, visuals help him focus on vocabulary and specific contextual information from classroom activities Lewis learns best when he watches other students and can model from them. Teacher should demonstrate how to form shapes/letters/numbers, then have him try. Provide alternative ways to respond –(examples: visual choices- to pick up or point to; use of limited words, etc.) and active learning. Instruction in math will address math computation, story problems, and math concepts. Curriculum: The curriculum should be adapted in content, provided by or under the direction of a certified special education teacher in the areas of reading, written language, and math. Instruction will include phonemic awareness, sight vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension. In the area of math, the curriculum should be adapted in content. Environment: From observation data Lewis continues to need assistance from an additional adult in the classroom. This is for student’s safety due to his pica (putting inedible items in his mouth). Lewis needs assistance with hand over hand learning with activities such as scissor cutting, writing letters, and similar activities. Lewis attends better when he sits near the teacher and has his feet stabilized flat on the floor. Lewis needs to be provided with movement activities throughout the day to help him focus better on learning. Learning Supports: A visual picture schedule has proven to be helpful in helping Lewis to follow the daily routine at school. He continues to need vocal and physical reminders to check his schedule. He becomes upset when he does not have the schedule to check. 4) What additions or modifications to the special education and related services are needed to enable the

student to meet the IEP goals and to participate, as appropriate, in the general education curriculum? Lewis displays deficits in his cognitive, communication, fine motor, adaptive and social skills. Lewis's difficulty answering and focusing on teacher/peer questions impacts social and academic responses. He has great difficulty in engaging in new learning activities without adult assistance. He is motor driven and without proper supports, he is in constant motion. Due to his constant climbing, running, and putting non-edibles in his mouth, safety precautions are needed. Lewis will require constant adult supervision in all daily activities while he is at school. Lewis does best when the day is a normal routine. He has become more independent in the kindergarten setting this fall. He still tends to wander if there has not been a normal routine. From examining the existing data on Lewis’s IEP goals and re-evaluation it was decided that Lewis needs to have extra support to stay on task and to follow the day-to-day schedule in the general education classroom. This extra support allows Lewis to learn in the general education setting. Lewis has pica and needs constant supervision to assure he does not put improper items in his mouth for safety reasons. Lewis also needs assistance with toileting and other self-help skills. As a result of timed and supervised practice in getting dressed for recess and going home, Lewis remains much slower than his peers. This year has been a big adjustment- from preschool to kindergarten. 5) Does the student continue to be eligible for special education services, based on the information


Yes, Lewis continues to be eligible for special education services, based on the information contained in Questions 1-4. Lewis continues to be discrepant in all domain areas: academic, adaptive behavior, physical, and communication. Lewis has been given a medical diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder. He has good attendance at school. Recently he has shown an interest in fine motor skills and in writing letters of the alphabet. 6) Under what conditions will the IEP team consider exiting the student from special education services?

198

The IEP team will consider exiting Lewis from special education services when he has met his IEP goals and is able to perform academically in the general education setting with typical general education interventions. Exiting from speech-language support services will be considered under the following possible conditions: 1) Lewis has met his speech-language goal(s), 2) Lewis demonstrates a lack of participation or motivation in the speech room to improve speech and language skills, 3) Lewis demonstrates limited progress during the IEP year, 4) carryover goals can be met through the efforts of other professionals in the education environment, or 5) at parent request. Exiting from occupational therapy support services will be considered under the following possible conditions: 1) Lewis has met his fine motor goal, 2) Lewis demonstrates limited progress during the IEP year, 3) carryover goals can be met through the efforts of other professionals in the educational environment, or 5) at parent request.

199

IEP Page R Elementary (no longer eligible) Sample Student: Valerie

1) What progress has the student made compared to peers or the expected standard? Valerie's IEP began in May 2009 while she was enrolled in another district. Valerie has attended 6 different districts since she began receiving special education services. Therefore her IEP has been amended several times. She had goal areas in reading, writing and math. The current re-evaluation was initiated to determine if Valerie continues to be eligible for special education services. Initial IEP Goals (2009-2010) The 2009-2010 initial IEP was amended in October 2009 when Valerie moved to another district. Reading Standard: Students will read a wide range of materials from various cultures to understand and appreciate the material and to understand themselves and others. Benchmark: Students use a variety of word recognition strategies to decode words, to learn the meanings of words and to apply that knowledge while reading for meaning. Peer Expectation: Kindergarten students are expected to identify at least 25 basic kindergarten sight words Goal: Valerie will correctly identify all of the 25 basic kindergarten sight words on 3 consecutive trials. Progress: Valerie’s IEP stated that Valerie would receive specially designed instruction in letter sound correspondence, although it is unknown what this entailed more specifically or how the services were implemented. At the beginning of the IEP, she was able to identify 5/25 words, and by the end of the IEP 32 weeks later she was correctly identifying 24 of them, nearly meeting the goal. Math Standard: Numbers and operations: All students will understand and represent numbers, the relationship among numbers and the meaning of operations in order to compute fluently and make reasonable estimates. Benchmark: Students will select and apply appropriate numerical representations Peer expectation: Kindergarten students are expected to rote count to 50 and identify numbers to 50 with 100% accuracy by the end of the school year. Goal: Valerie will rote count and identify numbers to 50 with 100% accuracy on 3 consecutive trials. Progress: Her IEP stated that she would receive instruction in number recognition and rote counting. It is unknown what this instruction entailed more specifically or the degree of integrity regarding the implementation of services associated with this goal. At the beginning, Valerie was able to rote count to 50 with 13% accuracy and identify 8% of her numbers to 50. She made good growth on this goal as well and by the end of the IEP, 32 weeks later, Valerie was able to rote count to 50 with 96% accuracy and identify numbers to 50 with 84% accuracy. She did not meet the goal by the time that the IEP was reviewed but made good growth, although less than expected as typical peers are able to rote count and identify numbers with 100% accuracy. Writing Standard: All students will use writing to share information and knowledge, to influence and persuade, and to create and/or entertain. Benchmark: Students will write to communicate ideas, opinions and feelings effectively. Peer expectation: Kindergarten students are expected to write all 52 upper and lower case letters without a visual model by the end of the school year. Goal: Valerie will write all 52 upper and lower case letters of the alphabet legible and within line limits without a visual model. Her IEP states that she received instruction in penmanship. It is unknown what this instruction entailed more specifically or the implementation of the services related to this goal. Progress: Valerie made good progress on this goal. She was able to write 30 at baseline and by March of 2010, 20 weeks later, she was able to write 50, excluding the letter Z due to letter reversal, nearly meeting the goal. Her progress in this area caught her up with her peers, so was adequate in the area of writing. 2010-2011 IEP

200

Valerie was not enrolled in school from August 2010-October 2010. Her 2010-2011 IEP was amended in October 2010, when she moved into a new district. She remained in this district for only 4 weeks before coming to her current district. There is nothing specific in the IEP regarding instruction towards IEP goals over those 4 weeks, the services were described as reading instruction, math instruction and writing instruction. Since Valerie was not exposed to instruction for an extended period of time, it is difficult to determine whether or not her progress towards her goals was adequate. Reading Standard: All students will read a wide range of materials from various cultures to understand and appreciate the materials and to understand themselves and other Benchmark: Use a variety of word recognition strategies to decode words, to learn the meanings of words, and to apply that knowledge while reading for meaning. Peer expectation: Students are expected to identify all 200 high frequency first grade sight words by the end of first grade. Goal: Valerie will correctly identify 200/200 first grade sight words. Progress: At the beginning of data collection Valerie identified 30 words and by the time she left the school 4 weeks later she identified 39 words. Valerie gained slightly over 2 words per week. At this rate she would have gained approximately 65 more words by the end of the IEP. If that progress were maintained she would not have met her goal by the time that the IEP was reviewed. Therefore, her progress in this area was below the expectations of the team that set her sight word goal. Math Standard: Understands and applies problem solving strategies. Benchmark: Uses a variety of strategies to solve problems Peer expectation: According to the IEP, “other students her age are more consistent in their math skills and are beginning to show the ability to perform simple addition and subtraction problems.” There is nothing in the IEP related to how typical peers would perform specific to the goal below. Goal: Valerie will complete 50 addition and subtraction mixed math computation problems in 10 minutes. Progress: The first data points show she was able to complete 6 problems and when she left the school 4 weeks later she completed 9 problems, a gain of approximately 1 problem per week. If her progress continued at that rate, Valerie would have been able to complete approximately 41 problems by the time the IEP was reviewed in May 2011. This would have gotten her close to her goal of 50 problems. So Valerie’s progress on this goal was slightly below the expectation set by the IEP team. Writing It is unknown the exact reason, but no writing goal was written for the 2010-2011 IEP. Valerie made good progress on her previous writing goal, so the team may have determined that she no longer required special education services in the area of writing. On Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS), Valerie has moved from the 4th percentile when compared to kindergarten students nationally in phoneme segmentation fluency in spring of 2009, to the 28th percentile compared to first grade students nationally in December of 2010. She has moved from the 2nd percentile on nonsense word fluency in spring of 2009, when compared to kindergarten students nationally, to the 58th percentile in December 2010, when compared to other first grade students nationally.

201

In general, the data suggests that Valerie makes good progress towards her goals when she receives interventions in a specific area. It is unclear the specifics of the specially designed instruction she received, however, it is clear that Valerie is capable of acquiring reading, math and writing skills quickly enough to close the gap with her peers and meet or nearly meet several of her IEP goals. Valerie has moved from below average to the average range in reading. She no longer required a writing goal for her latest IEP, and her math skill deficits have moved from number recognition to addition and subtraction, which are skills that her same age peers are also working on acquiring.

2) What discrepancy, if any, still exists between the student's performance and that of peers or the expected standard?

Reading Valerie was given AEA 267 Curriculum Based Measurement (CBM) probes. Average scores fall between the 16th and 84th percentiles. Valerie scored in the average range on all reading tests. Her percentile ranks are as follows: Phoneme segmentation fluency- 18th percentile, low average Nonsense word fluency- 71st percentile, average range Oral reading fluency- 75th percentile, average range Oral reading fluency errors- 67th percentile, average range In the classroom, Valerie is reading at grade level (Level G) as measured by her IRI (Individual Reading Inventory) score. This score measures both reading fluency and comprehension. Typical peers score at the E, F, or G levels. Valerie is also meeting the classroom expectation in sight word recognition. Valerie currently knows 117/220 sight words. The district expectation is that first grade students know 110/220 sight words by the end of first grade. Valerie’s teacher indicated that she does not have concerns with Valerie's reading abilities. There is no data to suggest that Valerie’s reading skills are discrepant or unique from her peers. Math Valerie was given AEA 267 CBM probes in math. Average scores fall between the 16th and 84th percentiles. Valerie’s scores are as follows: Number recognition- 55th percentile, average range Addition- 7th percentile, below average Subtraction- 33rd percentile, average range Valerie's scores on number recognition and subtraction were in the average range when compared to first grade students throughout AEA 267. The only math area where she fell below average was addition. Valerie’s teacher also indicated that Valerie seems to struggle with addition in the classroom. She performed below expectation on the district wide addition assessment, scoring only 4 correct problems, 21 problems below the expectation. However, out of 21 students in her classroom 7 other students have not met the district expectation of 25 correct problems. Therefore, Valerie is not unique in her inability to meet the district expectation on the addition assessment. Valerie has only taken one test in the classroom which focused on place value. She performed below the expectation of 71% correct on this test. However, she did not receive all of the instruction prior to the test since she had just arrived at the building. Four other students also did not meet the district expectation on this test, once again indicating that Valerie is not unique when compared to peers on this assessment. Valerie is currently discrepant from peers in addition facts as measured by both AEA 267 probes and classroom testing, however, she is not unique from peers in these areas.

202

Writing Valerie was given an AEA 267 CBM writing probe. Average scores fall between the 16th and 84th percentiles. Valerie scored in the average range compared to first grade students throughout AEA 267, falling at the 35th percentile. Valerie also met the district expectation on the “Framing Your Thoughts” writing assessment given in the classroom, even without having received all of the instruction that the other students had received. Valerie’s teacher does not have any concerns regarding her writing abilities. There is no data to suggest that Valerie’s skills are discrepant from her peers in writing.


Valerie’s performance compared to her peers indicates that she is functioning mostly in the average range and therefore needs consistent access to the core curriculum in reading, writing and math in order to make academic progress. In math, Valerie needs some supplemental assistance with her addition skills. She is currently discrepant from her peers in this area. Valerie has good number sense skills. She can identify most of her numbers to 50 and is able to discriminate between quantities with counters or when just given the numeral. She can tell which is smaller and which is larger. She can rote count past 50 and she is able to subtract as well as her peers. Skill deficits in the area of addition should be addressed through supplemental assistance to her core instruction with a specific focus on adding integers. An intervention such as Touch Math may be appropriate for this need area.

4) What additions or modifications to the special education and related services are needed to enable the student to meet the IEP goals and to participate, as appropriate, in the general education curriculum?

Valerie may need some supplemental assistance in the general education classroom in addition or other areas to increase her skills.

5) Does the student continue to be eligible for special education services, based on the information


Valerie has not received appropriate instruction in reading and math over the past two school years due to her excessive absences and transience between school districts. Since spring of 2009, she has switched school 7 times and has been enrolled in 6 different school districts. During the 2009-2010 school year, she was enrolled at three different school districts. The year before (2008-2009), she was enrolled in at least 2. Valerie missed school for the months of August and September 2011 due to a domestic violence situation in her home. Valerie’s attendance has led her to miss key components of instruction. Since she has also switched districts several times, she has been exposed to different curriculums providing little continuity in her skill development. Valerie is not discrepant from her peers in reading and while she is discrepant from her peers in addition facts, she has the necessary skills to improve in this area and performed within the average range on other math skills. Her needs in math do not exceed the capacity or obligation of general education and can be addressed through general education interventions. Valerie has also made adequate progress to catch up with her peers in several areas and met or nearly met several of her IEP goals. There is no data to support that Valerie has a disability which significantly impacts her educational advancement. It is likely that the small discrepancies she does have are a result of a lack of access and opportunity to learn the material than a disability requiring special education services. Valerie is no longer eligible for special education services. Consistent appropriate instruction at grade level is all Valerie requires to be successful in the general education setting at this time.

6) Under what conditions will the IEP team consider exiting the student from special education services?

203

Valerie will be exited from special education services because there are significant factors, other than an underlying disability, influencing her academic progress. She is not significantly discrepant from her peers in any academic area, although she may need additional general education intervention to work on isolated skills, particularly in addition.

204

IEP Page R Secondary Sample Student: Ryan Doe Grade: 7 1) What progress has the student made compared to peers or the expected standard? 1.1 Identify the area(s) of concern: Reading 1.2 List the relevant standards, essential concepts and skills and/or benchmarks relevant to the area(s) of concern: State of Iowa Core Content Standard and Grade Level Benchmark(s) upon which this goal is based: Students can comprehend what they read in a variety of literary and informational texts. Benchmark- Students can comprehend what they read in a variety of literary and informational texts. Benchmark- Students can draw conclusions, make inferences, and deduce meaning. Benchmark- Students can infer traits, feelings, and motives of characters. Benchmark: Students can identify the writer’s views or purpose. District Standard and Grade Level Benchmark(s) upon which this goal is based: Standard 4- Student uses the general skills and strategies of the reading process. Benchmark 7.4.1-Understands the meaning of unfamiliar words using a variety of strategies (e.g. thesauri, dictionary/context clues, prefixes, and suffixes). Benchmark 7.4.3- Uses a variety of strategies as an aid to comprehension (summarization, prediction, connection/e.g. pause, reread, and consults another source). Benchmark 7.4.4- Identifies literary elements as an aid to comprehension (e.g. point of view, foreshadowing, flashback/symbolism, main/sub plot, resolution of conflict). 1.3 Describe the intensified instruction and curriculum used to address the area(s) of concern with a match to

individual’s need, and the degree of implementation integrity: Ryan has received special education services in the area of reading since first grade. He has received supplemental reading support in the special education setting for the past 6 years. Instructional times have ranged from 20-25 minutes per day. Specially designed skill instruction focuses on reading comprehension; summarizing main idea, making inferences, retelling, drawing conclusions, and carryover of independent reading skills into the general education classroom. Ryan participates in the core reading curriculum in the general education setting daily and completes lessons/activities taken from the intervention manual in the reading series during his study hall time in the special education classroom. Additional specially designed skill instruction focuses on rereading familiar passages, reading aloud to an adult, silent reading, partner reading (taking turns reading with a peer and listening to each other's rate), highlighting comprehension questions before reading passages, highlighting comprehension answers or clue words in passages, reading smaller or shorter passages for comprehension practice, completing RIT reading comprehension activities on the MISIC website (MAP testing website) once per week, and ITBS test prep practice worksheets on reading comprehension before district wide testing dates begin. The special education teacher monitors Ryan's performance in his general education reading class and meets with his core reading teacher every other week for 20-30 minutes. Both teachers discuss Ryan's involvement and progress in the general education reading curriculum regarding his skill level and needed accommodations to participate in the upcoming unit of study (i.e. planner checks, daily review of content skills, retakes on tests below 70%, study guides, curriculum pacing, assignment print-outs). The middle school principal attends the 7th grade curriculum pacing meetings once per month for implementation integrity. In 7th grade (this school year), Ryan began the Second Chance reading program for 30 minutes per day, taught by the special education teacher during his study hall time, in addition to his supplemental reading support in the special education setting. Ryan was recommended for the Second Chance reading program due to low performance scores on the MAP, ITBS, Gates-MacGinitie reading tests, and Nonfiction 400-word fluency/comprehension reading probes.

205

Past reading goals (1st through 4th grades) focused on sight vocabulary and fluency, which he met successfully. In 5th and 6th grades, IEP reading goals focused on comprehension due to poor performance on classroom reading tests/quizzes, grade level reading comprehension/fluency probes, and district-wide standardized reading assessments. 1.4 Identify the standard(s) for progress comparison and the expected level(s) of performance for students: IEP reading goal- On untimed, Level 6.0 reading passages, typical peers are able to score 80% or higher on ten comprehension questions. 1.5 Baseline performance for the individual (at the beginning of the goal period). IEP reading goal- On untimed, Level 6.0 reading passages, Ryan's median score is 50% accuracy on ten comprehension questions. 1.6 List the ending performance (at the end of the goal period) for the individual and for the expected level of

performance. IEP reading goal- On untimed, Level 6.0 reading passages, Ryan's median score was 70% accuracy on ten comprehension questions. 1.7 List the timeline (# of weeks in goal/intervention period). 36 school weeks in IEP goal period. 1.8 Identify the individual’s rate of progress compared to the expected rate of progress. In 7th grade, on his IEP reading goal; trend line analysis indicates limited progress, with many peaks and lows, well below the goal aim line. His scores ranged from 90% accuracy to 40% accuracy on comprehension questions. Ryan only met the goal criteria (to score 90% accuracy on comprehension questions) once out of 17 data collection trials. His special education teacher indicated that Ryan was allowed to look back in the passage for answers. This could suggest that his performance could have been even lower without look backs. In 6th grade, Ryan participated in a 45-day re-integration trial. During that time, conflicting anecdotal, IEP progress monitoring, and district wide assessment data suggested that Ryan was not successful in the general education reading program alone. Trend line analysis on his IEP reading goal (Level 6.0 reading passages comprehension scores) indicates his comprehension performance decreased during his reintegration trial in reading, without special education services and support. Before his trial began, his median score was 70% on comprehension on Level 6 passages and after his trial ended in February, his median score dropped to 50% accuracy on comprehension and remained there until the end of the school year. In 5th grade, on his IEP reading goal; trend line data analysis indicates many peaks and lows in his comprehension scores, with several phase lines, and assessment materials changed frequently. Ryan's scores ranged from 20% accuracy to 80% accuracy and were not consistent. The data indicates that Ryan moved onto the next grade level passages even though he did not have 4 consecutive scores that met the goal criteria. Ryan began his reading goal with 4th grade material, and quickly moved onto 5th grade level passages, and onto 6th grade passages, once he scored above 80% on accuracy on any four data collections days, not consecutive data points. 1.9 Summarize the magnitude of difference, if any, between the individual’s rate of progress and the expected rate

of progress. Ryan's difficulties with reading comprehension significantly interfere with his ability to understand, apply and demonstrate grade level reading skills on classroom assignments, homework, and tests/quizzes. He is considered “instructional” at the 4th grade reading level (3 years below grade level expectations) and requires significant accommodations and modifications to the core reading curriculum. His deficits in reading have affected his ability to

206

comprehend material presented in core classes, particularly reading, science and social studies. Ryan often does poorly on quizzes and tests, even when many accommodations are provided. 1.10 Identify the instruction, interventions, and environmental changes under which the individual experiences the

most growth or success. In the past, Ryan demonstrated problems with late, missing, and/or incomplete assignments. His special education teacher gave him a daily printed assignment sheet, in which homework assignments were highlighted and taped into his planner. That also provided daily communication between school and home. After implementation of the daily assignment sheet, Ryan had significantly fewer late or missing assignments. Earlier in the school year, Ryan was not taking advantage of test retakes below 70% accuracy, which positively impacts his classroom grade. His teachers and parents have agreed that Ryan no longer has the option to choose if he wants to retake a test/quiz. Ryan is expected to re-take all tests or quizzes that are below 70% accuracy. The average score between the test and re-take test will be reported out on his final classroom grade. In terms of reading skills, Ryan's 7th grade general education reading teacher reports decoding and vocabulary are areas of relative strength. She also notes that he prefers to work with students who are more in line with his abilities (he was strategically paired with stronger readers in his 5th and 6th grade reading classes and did not enjoy this). Ryan’s 7th grade special education teacher reports that he uses/relies on life experiences, pictures/visual cues, and non-verbal cues as comprehension strategies to recall details. While studying for test/quizzes, he can demonstrate the skills with notes and the information close by, but when presented with a test without notes, he cannot remember the answers. He often says, "I don't know" or "I can't remember." His teachers and parents have agreed that Ryan is allowed to look back in the passage or use class notes on all re-take reading tests and assignments. 2) What discrepancy, if any, still exists between the student's performance and that of peers or the expected

standard? 2.1 Using multiple assessment methods and a variety of data sources, identify for each area of concern; the

expected level of performance, the individuals current level of performance, the discrepancy/difference between the individual’s and expected performance levels (using the same measures for comparison).

MAP Reading Test, Fall 2010: Expected Performance- Proficiency is considered at 212. Individual Performance- Ryan’s RIT score was 178, placing him at the 2nd national percentile rank. Discrepancy Difference- A significant difference of 34 RIT score points exists between Ryan and peers, placing him below the 10th percentile. MAP Reading Test, Fall 2009: Expected Performance- Proficiency is considered at 201. Individual Performance- Ryan’s RIT score was 167. Discrepancy Difference- A significant difference of 34 RIT score points exists between Ryan and peers, placing him below the 10th percentile. MAP Reading Test, Fall 2008: Expected Performance- Proficiency is considered at 190. Individual Performance- Ryan’s RIT score was 177. Discrepancy Difference- A moderate difference of 13 RIT score points exists between Ryan and peers, placing him below the 25th percentile. ITBS Reading Tests, Winter 2010: Expected Performance- District considers proficiency at 40th national percentile rank. Typical peers score between the 25th and 75th percentile ranks. Individual Performance- Total Reading, 7th national percentile rank; Vocabulary, 13th NPR; Comprehension, 5th NPR.

207

Discrepancy Difference- Ryan’s Total Reading and Comprehension reading scores are below the 10th percentile, a significant discrepancy exists. His Vocabulary score is between the 12th and 25th percentile ranks, a moderate discrepancy exists. ITBS Reading Tests, Winter 2009: Expected Performance- District considers proficiency at 40th national percentile rank. Typical peers score between the 25th and 75th percentile ranks. Individual Performance- Total Reading, 13th national percentile rank; Vocabulary, 9th NPR; Comprehension, 19th

NPR. Discrepancy Difference- Ryan’s Vocabulary reading score is below the 10th percentile, a significant discrepancy exists. His Comprehension and Total Reading scores are between the 12th and 25th percentile ranks, a moderate discrepancy exists. ITBS Reading Tests, Winter 2008: Expected Performance- District considers proficiency at 40th national percentile rank. Typical peers score between the 25th and 75th percentile ranks. Individual Performance- Total Reading, 14th national percentile rank; Vocabulary, 14th NPR; Comprehension, 15th

NPR. Discrepancy Difference- Ryan’s Vocabulary, Comprehension, and Total Reading scores are between the 12th and 25th percentile ranks, a moderate discrepancy exists. Basic Reading Inventory (BRI) by Jerry Johns, given on 12/14/2010: Expected Performance- Independent Level: This is the level at which students read fluently and make few (0-1) word recognition and comprehension errors. Instructional Level: At this level, the reader makes some errors (2-3) but comprehension is adequate. This is the level at which the student will benefit most from instruction. Frustration Level: This is the level at which reading is often slow and halting and the reader makes many errors (4 or more). *The goal on the BRI is for the student to score at the "Independent Level" by the end of the year on grade level material. Individual Performance- Ryan performed at the Instructional Level on Grade Level 4.0 sight word recognition (identified 15 out of 20 words), 4.0 grade level reading passages (had 7 miscues and read 87 words per minute), and comprehension skills (scored 8 out of 10 questions correctly). On the listening level tests (with the adult reading aloud a short passage and Ryan only listening to the story); Ryan scored at the Frustration Level on Grade Level 4.0 passages, he scored 50% accuracy on comprehension questions, and he scored 60% accuracy at the 5th grade level. He missed 4 out of 5 recalling fact/detail questions and one implicit question. It was observed that Ryan can decode fairly well, has good vocabulary and background knowledge strengths, but he cannot remember direct, important details immediately following a paragraph being read aloud to him. Ryan scored better on explicit type of questions, his answers were logical and made sense, however they didn't always directly relate to the story or topic. This could suggest he relied heavily on his strong background knowledge and personal experiences to answer the questions. Ryan struggled with implicit types of questions or recalling fact/ detail, which are taken directly from the text. Discrepancy Difference- Ryan performed at the Frustration Level on Grade Levels 5, 6, 7 passages on all subtests, 3 levels below 7th grade level expectations. CELF-R Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals was given on 12/13/2010: *only the oral directions, recalling sentences, and listening to paragraphs subtests were given. Revised CELF-R was administered to look at listening and oral comprehension/memory skills. Expected Performance- Proficiency is considered at the 40th national percentile rank. The standard scores for the subtests have a mean of 10 and a standard deviation of 3. Individual Performance- CELF-R Standard Score Percentile Oral Directions 11 63 Recalling Sentences 5 5 Listening to Paragraphs 3 1

208

The Oral Directions subtest was the only subtest that included visuals cues. Ryan did point to the choices using both hands at the same time and not in the sequential order of the presentation of the items. This may have been a strategy used to help his performance. On the Recalling Sentences subtest, he generally was able to repeat the idea of the sentence by repeating exactly what was spoken or expressing the same idea, but altering the exact words. Looking at sentence length as a factor revealed that sentences which were repeated exactly word for word averaged 8.7 words with the shortest sentence being 5 words and the longest sentence being 16 words. When looking at the structure of the sentences. Ryan did not appear to have any difficulty producing the various grammatical structures. The sentences that gave him the most difficult used multiple adjective descriptors and multiple clauses to create the longer sentences. These multiples were either repositioned, reworded, or omitted from the sentence while retaining the intended meaning of the sentence. In the Listening to Paragraphs subtest, Ryan either guessed or responded that “he didn't know” the answer to the questions asked. This could indicate difficulty retaining strictly verbal information presented without visual cues. Discrepancy Difference: The Oral directions subtest was within an average range. The Recalling Sentences subtest was 1+ standard deviations below the mean and the Listening to Paragraphs was 2+ standard deviations below the mean, a significant discrepancy exists. 2.2 Summarize the significant of the discrepancy (data are summarized in quantitative and qualitative terms and

compared to eligibility criteria/indicators). Ryan’s reading skills are significantly discrepant on the ITBS reading tests, MAP reading tests, Gates-MacGinitie reading test, and the Basic Reading Inventory (BRI). His reading performance over the past three years on district wide assessments places him below the 10th percentile, in the significant discrepancy range. Ryan's listening skills were also significantly discrepant on two subtests on the CELF-R, and the BRI. This would suggest that he needs visuals paired with verbal instruction as much as possible. In 7th grade, Ryan’s classroom grade in reading has ranged from 59% accuracy to 67% accuracy, with special education support and accommodations. 2.3 Using the data above, summarize whether or not the individuals’ performance is unique or an outlier from a

comparable group. Ryan’s performance on standardized reading assessments (MAP, ITBS) is unique when compared to same aged peers in 7th grade. On the fall, 2010 MAP reading test; Ryan’s RIT score was 178, placing him at the 2nd national percentile rank. On the NWEA Overall Class Breakdown Report, divided by RIT scores in Ryan’s 7th Grade Homeroom class of 24 students; Ryan was the only student in the lowest RIT subgroup. His class breakdown is as follows: RIT scores below 181, 1 student; RIT scores from 181-190, 6 students; RIT scores from 191-200, 4 students; RIT scores from 201-210, 7 students; RIT scores from 211-220, 5 students; and RIT scores 221+, 1 student. On the NWEA Entire Grade Breakdown Report, divided by RIT scores in Ryan’s entire grade level of 45 students; Ryan was one of two students in the lowest RIT subgroup, but his RIT score was the lowest in 7th grade. His grade level breakdown is as follows: RIT scores below 181, 2 students; RIT scores from 181-190, 11 students; RIT scores from 191-200, 11 students; RIT scores from 201-210, 10 students; RIT scores from 211-220, 8 students; and RIT scores 221+, 3 students. On the winter, 2010 ITBS reading tests; Ryan’s Total Reading and Comprehension scores were below the 10th percentile. On the Overall Class Breakdown Report, students divided by percentile ranks in his 7th Grade Homeroom class of 24 students; Ryan scored the lowest percentile rank on Comprehension, 5th NPR and on Total Reading, 7th NPR. On the Entire Grade Breakdown Report, students were divided by percentile ranks in the entire 7th Grade of 45 students; Ryan scored the lowest percentile rank on Comprehension and the second lowest on Total Reading. The BRI, Gates-MacGinitie, and the CELF-R tests were not given to the entire 7th Grade class, so there is no data to summarize Ryan’s performance in comparison to grade level peers to determine uniqueness.

209


3.1 Based on evidence from the analysis of progress and discrepancy components, describe the individual’s needs in

the areas of; a. Instruction (How the individual needs to be instructed) b. Curriculum (What the instruction needs to focus on) c. Environment (Context– adaptations to the environment to facilitate learning) d. Additional Learning Supports (i.e. family supports, transition supports, community services, etc.)

Instruction- Ryan needs intensive, direct and guided reading instruction at the 4th grade level. Ryan's decoding and vocabulary are areas of relative strength. He also prefers to work with students who are more in line with his abilities. Teachers report that Ryan uses/relies on life experiences, pictures/visual cues, and non-verbal cues as comprehension strategies to recall details. Curriculum- Specially designed reading curriculum should focus on comprehension, vocabulary, summarizing main ideas, recalling important details, and other reading strategies in the special class setting. In the areas of language arts, math, science, and social studies, materials should be adapted in reading content. Environment- From observation data, Ryan continues to need additional adult assistance in the general education classroom for modified reading tasks, preferential seating near place of instruction or adult, frequent checks for understanding, planner checks, extra examples including visuals, and assistance with and monitoring of note-taking. Additional Learning Supports- Ryan is allowed to re-take all reading tests or quizzes that are below 70% accuracy. The average score between the test and re-take test will be reported out on his final classroom grade. He is also allowed to look back in the passage or use class notes on all re-take reading tests and assignments. Ryan should be provided a daily printed assignment sheet, in which homework assignments are highlighted and taped into his planner. This also allows daily communication between school and home. Ryan responds best to single-step directions and extra processing time for reading tasks. 4) What additions or modifications to the special education and related services are needed to enable the

student to meet the IEP goals and to participate, as appropriate, in the general education curriculum? 4.1 Describe any additions beyond the current IEP that need to be considered for the new IEP, if the individual

continues to be eligible. The IEP team is recommending that Ryan receive direct, reading instruction in the special education classroom setting from the special education teacher to address discrepant reading skills. This is a change from his former IEP, where he has received supplemental reading support from the special education teacher. He will also receive additional adult assistance for modified reading tasks in the general education language arts, math, science, and social studies classes. 5) Does the student continue to be eligible for special education services, based on the information

contained in Questions 1-4? 5.1 Provide a summary statement clearly indicating whether or not the individual continues to have a disability

(progress and discrepancy) and which needs, if any, exceed the capacity and obligation of the general education program and resources.

1. Evidence concerns are pervasive across different times and settings 2. Summarize the individual’s strengths that support his/her educational success in the area of concern 3. Describe ways access and opportunity were assured 4. Describe whether concerns are caused by any of the exclusionary factors 5. Describe ecological factors that affect individual’s educational performance

210

Yes, Ryan continues to be eligible for special education services, based on the above information contained in questions 1-4. He continues to demonstrate significant reading discrepancies on standardized reading assessments over the past three years. Ryan's reading skills are significantly lower than grade level expectations and typical peer performance. His performance on standardized reading assessments (MAP, ITBS) is also unique when compared to same aged peers in 7th grade. Ryan’s current level of supplemental support has not been increased since first grade, even though the data over the past three years would have supported this. There are no ecological or exclusionary factors that affect Ryan’s educational performance; he has a private reading tutor during school breaks, attends the After School Program for homework completion as needed, has no attendance concerns, and actively participates in sports and extracurricular programs. Ryan's parents check the homework website and his planner, as well as the grades that are posted online, regularly and are proactive in communication with school staff via email, phone, or in person meetings. 6) Under what conditions will the IEP team consider exiting the student from special education services? 6.1 Identify the performance that would be needed, and the criteria/ indicators/ expectations that would need to be

met in order for the individual to be considered for exiting special services. Consideration for exiting Ryan from special education services will occur when he has met his IEP reading goal(s) and consistently demonstrating grade level skills in reading with only general education supports and accommodations. IEP progress monitoring data and district-wide data, such as ITBS and MAPS, will also be used in the decision-making process for exiting Ryan from special education services.

211

IEP Page R Speech-Language Services Sample Student: Hunter 1) What progress has the student made compared to peers or the expected standard?

In the area of communication, Hunter has been working on Forest City Standard: Demonstrates competence in speaking and listening as tools for learning; Benchmark: Uses language for a variety of purposes. To address this standard and benchmark, expressive language skills, specifically sentence structure (grammar), were targeted. Over the last IEP period, Hunter received Speech-language support services in a skill-building model for 160 minutes per month. This was implemented through 2, 20- minutes, one-on-one sessions per week with the Speech-language Pathologist using picture sequence stories and repeated practice of syntax targets that included past tense verbs, use of has/have, was/were, want/wants, and present progressive structure (is + verb + ing). This instruction was provided 70% of the intended time as reported by SLP attendance record and logs. Accommodations in the classroom in the form of verbal prompts from the teacher were also implemented during one-on-one and small group instruction. There is no documentation of implementation integrity for the use of these verbal prompts. Hunter began the last IEP period using complete and correct sentences when retelling three picture sequence stories with 60% accuracy. By December 2010, he met this goal, retelling picture sequence stories with 89% accuracy. To advance the goal, Hunter was asked to retell a story probe with no picture support using grammatically correct sentences. He is currently retelling a story probe using grammatically correct sentences with a median of 67% accuracy (67%, 50%, 70%). First grade peers are able to retell a story probe using grammatically correct sentences with at least 80% accuracy during guided reading activities. Hunter’s rate of progress is slower than that of peers who have mastered this skill. Although Hunter has made progress and Is now using has/have, want/wants, and present progressive (is + verb +ing) he continues to use the following grammar errors: was/were, regular and irregular past tense verbs, run-on and incomplete sentences. It appears that the instruction that made the most documented impact was one-on-one instruction with the Speech-language Pathologist. 2) What discrepancy, if any, still exists between the student's performance and that of peers or the expected

standard?

According to Normal Communication Acquisition, 2003, by Thinking Publications, children age 4-5 years imitate regular and irregular past tense verb forms, 5-6 years produce present progressive (is, are, was, were, + verb + ing), and 6-7 years produce irregular past tense verbs. Hunter’s peers are using grammatically correct sentences to retell a story probe with at least 80% accuracy during guided reading comprehension checks. Hunter continues to have difficulty with expressive language skills (grammar). Errors include: was/were, regular and irregular past tense verbs, run-on and incomplete sentences. He is using grammatically correct sentences to retell a story probe with a median of 67% accuracy (67%, 50%, 70%). This is a difference of 23 percentage points. This is a significant difference when compared to 6-year old peers who have mastered and maintained this skill. At the time of this re-evaluation Hunter and one other student from his classroom were identified as needing instruction/intervention for this skill area. 3) What evidence is there that the student continues to need special education and related services to be

successful? Hunter's performance with expressive language skills continues to be discrepant from peers and the expected standard. He has made past progress with expressive language skills when provided direct Speech-language support services that are provided one-on-one, including direct instruction for grammar/syntax, multiple practice opportunities with feedback and correction, and opportunities to be taught and use self-monitoring strategies. The curriculum included story probes at his current age/grade level that provide practice of syntax targets that have been identified along with practice during conversation. This instruction is best given in a quiet, non-distracting environment where multiple repetitions can be completed. In addition, the teacher will give Hunter verbal prompts to use complete and correct sentences. This will be done using a hierarchy of general to direct prompts. 1) General-“Tell me again.” or “Was that right?” 2) Specific- “Not he catched it, but ___” or “Catched?” 3) Direct Model- “Caught. Can you tell me that again?” or “He caught it. Tell me the whole sentence again.” 4) What additions or modifications to the special education and related services are needed to enable the

student to meet the IEP goals and to participate, as appropriate, in the general education curriculum?

212

Hunter has a history of middle ear fluid. This AEA audiologist will check Hunter’s hearing and middle ear function at least once each school year. Additional evaluations will be completed at the request of parent, teacher, or physician. 5) Does the student continue to be eligible for special education services, based on the information

contained in Questions 1-4? Hunter continues to be eligible for Speech-language support services. He has a disability in the area of expressive language skills (grammar) as demonstrated by his slow progress and discrepancy of skills for using complete and correct sentences to retell a story. He is consistently using grammar errors during one-on-one sessions with the Speech-language Pathologist and during guided reading activities in the general classroom. Hunter has shown he can learn and maintain the use of the grammar structures that have been taught explicitly and practiced repeatedly. Hunter has been in attendance for a majority of speech sessions that were provided over the last IEP period. Hunter’s expressive language concerns are not caused by a lack of instruction in the reading and math areas or by Limited English proficiency. There are also no known ecological factors contributing to this concern. 6) Under what conditions will the IEP team consider exiting the student from special education services? Hunter will be exited from Speech-language support services when his expressive language skills are no longer discrepant from peers and the expected standards. Specifically, Hunter will be exited from Speech-language support services when he is retelling a story probe using complete and correct sentences/correct grammar at least 80% of the time and is able to maintain use of this skill for 3 months.

213

IEP Page R Reevaluation Questions Guide

Question #1: What progress has the student made compared to peers or the expected standard?

1. Identify the area(s) of concern 2. List relevant standards, essential concepts and skills and/or benchmarks relevant to the area(s) of

concern 3. Describe the intensified instruction and curriculum used to address the area(s) of concern with a

match to individual’s need, and the degree of implementation integrity 4. Identify the standard(s) for progress comparison and the expected level(s) of performance 5. List the baseline performance for the individual (at the beginning of the goal period) 6. List the ending performance (at the end of the goal period) for the individual and for the expected

level of performance 7. List the timeline (# of weeks in goal/intervention period … could be 3 school years) 8. Identify the individual’s rate of progress compared to the expected rate of progress 9. Summarize the magnitude of difference, if any, between the individual’s rate of progress and the

expected rate of progress 10. Identify the instruction, interventions and environmental changes under which the individual

experienced the most growth or success

Question #2: What discrepancy, if any, still exists between the student's performance and that of peers or the expected standard?

1. Using multiple assessment methods and a variety of data sources, identify for each area of concern;

a. the expected level of performance b. the individual’s current level of performance c. the discrepancy/difference between the individual’s and expected performance levels (using

the same measures for comparison) 2. Summarize the significance of the discrepancy (data are summarized in quantitative and qualitative

terms and compared to eligibility criteria/indicators) 3. Using the data above, summarize whether or not the individual’s performance is unique or an outlier

from a comparable group

214

Question #3: What evidence is there that the student continues to need special education and related services to be successful?

Based on evidence from the analysis of progress and discrepancy components, describe the individual’s needs in the areas of;

a. Instruction (How the individual needs to be instructed) b. Curriculum (What the instruction needs to focus on) c. Environment (Context– adaptations to the environment to facilitate learning) d. Additional Learning Supports (i.e. family supports, transition supports, community services, etc.)

Question #4: What additions or modifications to the special education and related services are needed

to enable the student to meet the IEP goals and to participate, as appropriate, in the general education curriculum?

Describe any additions beyond the current IEP that need to be considered for the new IEP, if the individual continues to be eligible. Question #5: Does the student continue to be eligible for special education services, based on the

information contained in Questions 1-4? Provide a summary statement clearly indicating whether or not the individual continues to have a disability (progress and discrepancy) and which needs, if any, exceed the capacity and obligation of the general education program and resources.

1. Evidence concerns are pervasive across different times and settings 2. Summarize the individual’s strengths that support his/her educational success in the area of concern 3. Describe ways access and opportunity were assured 4. Describe whether concerns are caused by any of the exclusionary factors 5. Describe ecological factors that affect individual’s educational performance

Question #6: Under what conditions will the IEP team consider exiting the student from special

education services? Identify the performance that would be needed, and the criteria/indicators/expectations that would need to be met in order for the individual to be considered for exiting special education services.

215

Where to Go Glossary ............................................................................................................................................ 216

References & Websites .................................................................................................................. 217

216

Glossary Accommodation: is a support or service provided to help an individual access the general curriculum and validly demonstrate learning for either instruction and/or assessment.

Full and Individual Evaluation: process used to determine an individual’s eligibility and entitlement to special education and support or related services. Modification: is a change made to the content and performance expectation for an individual Intervention: is direct instruction on a specified skill with data collection aligned to assess the effectiveness of the instruction Response to Intervention (RtI): an education approach which integrates assessment and intervention within a multi-tier prevention system to maximize student achievement and to reduce behavior problems. Screening: refers to a test or assessment given to a whole class or group Specially Designed Instruction: means adapting, as appropriate to the needs of an eligible child, the content, methodology, or the delivery of instruction: (1) to address the unique needs of the child that result from the child’s disability; and (2) to ensure access of the child to the general curriculum, so that the child can meet the educational standards within the jurisdiction of the public agency that apply to all children.

217

References Area Education Agency Special Education Procedures; Iowa Area Education Agencies; July, 2011. Iowa Administrative Code, Chapter 41; December, 2009.

Special Education: 30 Myths in 30 Minutes; Thomas A. Mayes Use of Special Education Funds: Questions and Answer; Iowa Department of Education’s Bureau of Student and Family Support Services, October 12, 2010.

Websites

CSEPD home site: https://sites.google.com/a/aea8.k12.ia.us/aea-special-education-training/

Iowa Department of Education: www.iowa.gov/educate/ Iowa IDEA: http://www.iowaidea.org/

participant portfolio.draft.do not use - plaea › media › cms › participant... · 8...

Documents