C AT H E R I N E C H R I S T OC A L I F O R N I A S TAT E U N I V E R S I T Y , S A C R A M E N T O

C H R I S T O @ C S U S . E D U

SLD ELIGIBILITY

PARTICIPANTS WILL UNDERSTAND:

• Current regulations regarding SLD• How data from a response to

instruction/intervention (RtI) process can be used in SLD eligibility regardless of other eligibility criteria

• The critical elements of eligibility decisions using:• an RtI only model• an RtI/low achievement model • a Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses (PSW) model• an integrated model

• Issues to consider in selecting an eligibility model

OUTLINE

• Influences on Current Practice• Brief Review of Response to Intervention • RtI models for SLD • Patterns of Strengths and Weaknesses • Comprehensive evaluations• Closing Thoughts/Next Steps

CURRENT PRACTICE

• What is not working with the current system?• Results you want to change• Processes that are cumbersome

• What are the different results you would like to see a new system bring?

Keep these in mind

Decisions About

Support for students

Who?

How?

Is it working?

Eligibility

Classification

Legal protections

PROBLEMS IN IDENTIFICATION A RESULT OF:

• Assessment Process• Pre-referral

• Lack of early instructional interventions

• Referral• Lack of clear methods of

documenting student performance

• Assessment• Discrepancy issue• Use of data

• Eligibility Determination • Lack of clear criteria

• Resources • School level

supports for struggling learners

• Classroom level • Who gets referred• How many get referred

• Stakeholder values • Parents• Teachers• Administrators

IS ELIGIBILITY THE WRONG WORD?

“Qualified to participate or be chosen”

“Worthy of being chosen”

Labeled as having a disability? Lowered expectations? ? ?

Does this capture the consequences of being placed in special education?

Merriam -Webster

INFLUENCES ON CURRENT PRACTICE

WHAT/WHO DETERMINES PRACTICE IN IDENTIFICATION OF SLD?

• Federal law/regulations• State law/regulations • Local decisions• Guidelines for best practice

DEFINITION OF SPECIFIC LEARNING DISABILITY (§300.8(C)(10))

• A disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written…

• May manifest itself in the imperfect ability to:• Listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, do mathematical

calculations…

DEFINITION CONTINUED..

• The term “specific learning disability” includes conditions such as:

• perceptual disabilities

• brain injury

• minimal brain dysfunction

• dyslexia

• developmental aphasia

• The term does not include learning problems that are primarily

the result of• visual, hearing, or motor disabilities• mental retardation• emotional disturbance• of environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage

ADDITIONAL PROCEDURES FOR DETERMINING SLD§300.307 (FEDERAL)

• State must adopt criteria (consistent with 300.309 of Part B) for determining whether a child has an SLD as defined in IDEA

• Public agencies must use State criteria in determining whether a child has an SLD

• State criteria may not require use of severe discrepancy between intellectual ability and achievement for determining whether a child has an SLD.

• State criteria must permit use of a process based on the child's response to scientific, research-based intervention.

• State criteria may permit use of other alternative research-based procedures.

CA CODE 30 EC 56337 - DEFINITION OF "SPECIFIC LEARNING DISABILITY" & DETERMINING WHETHER A

PUPIL HAS A SPECIFIC LEARNING DISABILITY

(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law and pursuant to Section 1414(b)(6) of Title 20 of the United States Code, in determining whether a pupil has a specific learning disability as defined in subdivision

(a), a local educational agency is not required to take into consideration whether a pupil has a severe discrepancy between achievement and intellectual ability in oral expression, listening comprehension, written expression, basic reading skill, reading comprehension, mathematical calculation, or mathematical reasoning.

(c) In determining whether a pupil has a specific learning disability, a local educational agency may use a process that determines if the pupil responds to scientific, research-based intervention as a part of the assessment procedures described in Section 1414(b)(2) and (3) of Title 20 of the United States Code and covered in Sections 300.307 to 300.311, inclusive, of Title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

CURRENTLY IN CA

• Ability/Achievement discrepancy is still allowed but not required

• An approach using response to intervention is allowed

• An approach using other research based alternative is allowed

• http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/se/sr/documents/sldeligibltyrti2.pdf

SLD CRITERIA (300.309 (A) (1))

• The child does not achieve commensurate with the child’s age or to meet state approved grade level standards, in one or more of the following areas, when provided with learning experiences appropriate for the child’s age :• (i) Oral expression.• (ii) Listening comprehension.• (iii) Written expression.• (iv) Basic reading skill.• (v) Reading fluency skills.• (vi) Reading comprehension.• (vii) Mathematics calculation.• (viii) Mathematics problem solving

CRITERIA (300.309 (A) (2))

• 2)(i) The child fails to achieve a rate of learning to make sufficient progress to meet State-approved results in one or more of the areas identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section when assessed with a response to scientific, research-based intervention process; or

• (ii) The child exhibits a pattern of strengths and weaknesses in performance, achievement, or both, or a pattern of strengths and weaknesses in performance, achievement, or both, relative to intellectual development, that is determined by the team to be relevant to the identification of a specific learning disability, using appropriate assessments consistent with §§300.304 and 300.305; and

CRITERIA (300.309 (A)(3))

• The group determines that its findings under paragraph (a)(1) and (2) of this section are not primarily the result of--• (i) A visual, hearing, or motor disability;• (ii) Mental retardation;• (iii) Emotional disturbance;• (iv) Cultural factors; or• (v) Environmental or economic disadvantage.

CA SELPA DRAFT DOCUMENT

• “Teams need to be especially careful not to recommend special education services because of the severity of academic difficulties exhibited by the student if the primary reasons for the difficulties are due to any of the exclusionary factors. It is not legal for multidisciplinary teams to recommend placement for special education services so that a given student may receive services if one or more exclusionary factors are primary reasons for academic problems. Decisions to place students in special education without appropriate identification of the disability ultimately results in additional harmful outcomes for the student. Likewise, the misinterpretation of exclusionary factors should not be a vehicle to keep students with SLD from receiving services that they are legally entitled to receive.”

NEED THE FOLLOWING FOR SLD

§300.309(a)(1)

• Underachievement (age or grade level standards) in at least 1 of 8 identified areas

§300.309(a)(2)(i) or (ii)

• response to intervention OR

• patterns of strengths and weaknesses

§300.309(a)(3)

• not primarily due to any of exclusionary factors

BUT there is more….

CRITERIA (300.309 (B))

• For a child suspected of having a specific learning disability, the group must consider, as part of the evaluation described in §§300.304 through 300.306, data that demonstrates that—

• 1) Prior to, or as a part of the referral process, the child was provided appropriate high-quality, research-based instruction in regular education settings, consistent with section 1111(b)(8)(D) and (E) of the ESEA, including that the instruction was delivered by qualified personnel; and

REQUIRED COMPONENTS

• Low achievement• Lack of progress• Role of exclusionary factors• Determination of appropriate instruction• Need for special education• Observation• Specific documentation of disability • Other considerations

• Variety of assessment tools• Refrain from use of one measure as sole criterion• Use technically sound instruments assessing relative contribution

of behavioral, cognitive, physical and development factors

NASP POSITION STATEMENT (2007)

• Relying primarily upon ability/achievement discrepancy at odds with scientific research and best practice

• Identification and intervention…most effectively implemented within a multi-tiered system of service delivery

• Comprehensive evaluation by qualified professionals is an essential step in the identification of SLD

• School psychologists play a key role in making appropriate decisions. They have unique and valuable expertise in the area of learning disabilities

• Critical for school psychologists to continue to upgrade their knowledge and skills.

NASP CONTINUED

• Specific learning disabilities are endogenous, characterized by neurologically based deficits in cognitive processes

• Deficits are specific – impact particular cognitive processes that interfere with academic learning

• SLD are heterogeneous• SLD may co-exist with other conditions• Over 80% of SLD are reading • Manifestation is contingent upon type of instruction,

supports, accommodations, demands• Early intervention can reduce impact of SLD• SLD vary in severity – moderate to severe can impact

throughout life span

NASP SUMMARIZED

• Advocates use of multi-tiered service delivery model

• Special education involves intensive, individualized services based on results of comprehensive evaluation

• School psychologists have expertise useful in all levels of multi-tiered system

DECISIONS, DECISIONS

• The “OR” ? Decision ?• Discrepancy approach • OR• Response to intervention (w/ or w/o achievement) • OR• Pattern of strengths and weaknesses• OR

• Integrated Approach

• The Next Decision • What constitutes a comprehensive evaluation

• ..\..\..\..\Videos\RealPlayer Downloads\EDS Airplane.flv

DISCREPANCY APPROACH

• Wait to fail • (is this really

discrepancy model’s fault?)

• Psychometric issues with global scores

• Global scores not a strong predictor of response to basic skills interventions

• Not used to inform interventions

• Addresses issue of unexpected underachievement

• Global scores are most psychometrically sound

• IQ accounts for 40-50 % of academic achievement

• Predicts response to some interventions

Is it all bad?

LOW ACHIEVEMENT/ RTI APPROACH

• May or may not include standardized, nationally - normed achievement test • CA SELPA draft suggests use of nationally-normed

achievement test as primary factor

• Emphasis is on academic measures • Include assumption that lack of response

indicates presence of a processing disorder• Question use of cognitive assessments as being

relevant to intervention

PATTERN OF STRENGTH AND WEAKNESSES

• Seek to operationalize the IDEA definition of SLD • Recognize that learner attributes affect learning

rate• Support the value of a comprehensive evaluation

to the understanding of and educational planning for a student

• May or may not include theories regarding links between cognitive processes and specific areas of academic achievement

WHAT IS THE SAME IN BOTH MODELS?

• Low achievement• Exclusionary factors• Appropriate instruction and progress monitored

• Although progress monitoring may look different in the two models

• Need for special education

So – first let’s talk about how data from RtI process can help with each of these

Or MULTI-TIERED SYSTEM OF SERVICE DELIVERY

RTI CORE COMPONENTS IMPORTANT IN SLD DETERMINATION

What is happening in your school/district?

As we go through core components think about where your current RtI model is?

CORE COMPONENTS (CDE, 2008)

• High quality classroom instruction

• Research based instruction

• Research based interventions

• Fidelity of program implementation

• Universal screening• Continuous classroom

monitoring

• Progress monitoring during instruction and intervention

• Staff development and collaboration

• Parent involvement• One component of

process for determining SLD

• Addresses need for data based instruction and documentation of progress

32

INSTRUCTION/INTERVENTION WITHIN TIERED FRAMEWORK

Individualized Instruction

General Ed Intervention

s

MOST CRITICAL:CORE

INSTRUCTION

QUESTIONS TO ASK REGARDING INTERVENTIONS/INSTRUCTION

For which students is the Core sufficient and not sufficient, and why?

What specific supplemental and intensive instruction/curriculum is needed?

How will specific supplemental and intensive tiers be implemented?

Are these interventions research based?

How will the overall effectiveness of supplemental and intensive tiers be monitored?

RESPONSIVENESS: MONITORING PROGRESS AND RESPONSE TO INSTRUCTION/INTERVENTION

FEW: Progress Monitoring 1+ times per week

SOME: Progress Monitoring 1 to 4 times per month

All: Universal Screening1 to 3 times per year

Overall program checkupIdentify at risk

METHODS FOR MONITORING PROGRESS

• Embedded assessments• Benchmark assessments• Permanent work products

• amount• Accuracy• Quality (grade)

• Homework assignments• Curriculum Based Measurement (CBM)

• Dynamic Indicators of Basic Skills (DIBELS• Early Literacy Skills

What assessments do teachers say are useful to them?

DECISION POINTS Monitor Progress

of students receiving

interventions

In instructional range?

Yes No

Making adequate progress?

Less intense intervention

Continue intervention

Yes

NoIncrease interventio

n

DID PROGRAM IMPROVE PERFORMANCE?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 150

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

CWPM Aim Line

Program Change

Before Change Rate of Growth:.6 CWPM/week

After Change Rate of Growth:{3 CWPM/week

39

www.rtinetwork.org www.rti4success.org

www.floridarti.usf.edu

www.iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/

40

RESOURCES: RTI

• www.rtinetwork.org • Wwwlfloridarti.usf.edu • www.rti4success.org• www.nrcld.org• www.nasdse.org• www.wested.org/nercc/rti.htm• www.sonoma.k12.ca.us/content.php?SubsiteId=1

0• http://idea.ed.gov/explore/home

USE OF RTI DATA IN SLD ELIGIBILITY

LOW ACHIEVEMENT (CDE, 2009)

• The progress-monitoring data collected during the RtI2 process will assist in identifying the overall effectiveness of the intervention for each student. General outcome and mastery measures will show low achievement for a student with an SLD when he/she is compared with his/her peers.

• These measures should substantiate that the skill level of the student suspected of having an SLD does not support the student’s ability to acquire and/or demonstrate age/grade-level appropriate standards-based skills in one or more of the areas listed in 34 CFR 300.309(a)(1)

LOW ACHIEVEMENT (CDE, 2009)

• It is recommended that evidence of low achievement be obtained by examining several sources. • Progress monitoring measures

• On progress monitoring is level of performance

• Classroom work products• Standards based assessment• Nationally norm-referenced assessments

Elgin is within acceptable range at 48 CWPM in fall 2nd grade

Evie is below 10th percentile at 48 CWPM in fall 3rd grade

Benchmark Testing to Identify At Risk Students

LACK OF PROGRESS

• With an RTI2 process, progress-monitoring data can help to answer the following questions:• Is the general education curriculum effective for most

students?• Which of the students are not responding sufficiently to

the general education curriculum?• Is targeted intervention effective for most students (or a

particular student’s peers)?• Has a particular student made sufficient progress when

provided with a range of interventions directed toward targeted skills?

COMPARE STUDENT TO PEERS

INDIVIDUAL PROGRESS MONITORING GOOD RTI FOLLOWING A CHANGE

EXCLUSIONARY FACTORS

• Culturally responsive instruction is a key element for student success. Ideally, the intervention should provide data substantiating its effectiveness with culturally diverse, limited-English proficient, and/or environmentally/economically disadvantaged students……..

• The target student’s progress-monitoring data can be compared to that of similar students or to predetermined targets when provided with interventions that have been shown to be effective with culturally diverse, limited-English proficient, and/or environmentally/economically disadvantaged students. ……..

APPROPRIATE INSTRUCTION

• A foundation of an RtI2 approach is the provision of research-based curricula provided by trained personnel.

• Progress-monitoring data allow a school or district to determine if a curriculum is appropriate for its population. It is expected that most students will learn when provided with the general education curriculum as verified by progress-monitoring data. Similarly, progress-monitoring data obtained during targeted intervention will reflect the effectiveness of the intervention for students with similar needs

RTI ONLY MODELS FOR SLD ELIGIBILITY

RATIONALE FOR RTI MODEL

• Discrepancy doesn’t work• Assessments should be directly related to

instruction/intervention• No need to do cognitive assessment or identify

processing disorder• Not required in federal law• Does not lead to intervention planning

• Students who don’t respond to appropriate instruction/intervention are displaying unexpected underachievement

• Focus on importance of general education services

RTI ONLY MODEL

Evidence of Under-

achievement

Instructional Factors

Ruled Out

Exclusionary Factors

Ruled Out

Data from multi –tiered service delivery model (RtI) is used to answer these questions

Observation, interview, review of records, rating scales

Level and rate of learning

SHOWS UNDERACHIEVEMENT

• LEVEL of achievement is significantly different from peers

• What data shall be required to show underachievement?• National norms on progress monitoring tools• Local norms • Criterion referenced benchmarks

• Suggestions to use 7th to 15th level as cutoff for low achievement

GAP ANALYSIS

• Colorado • http://

www.cde.state.co.us/cdesped/download/pdf/SLD_Guidelines.pdf

• Divide benchmark by student performance• 60 CWPM/20 CWPM = 3 > 2 is criteria

• Determine goal for end of year• Ex – 20 weeks • Benchmark at end of year 90 CWPM• Student will need to gain 90-20 = 70 words over 20

weeks• Evaluate realistic expectations for growth

STUDENT FAILS TO SHOW PROGRESS

• RATE of learning is significantly different from peers • Technically sound tools are used to measure

progress • How long should progress monitoring data be

collected for? • Through what tiers?

• How often should progress monitoring data be collected?• At tier 1 – every 2 weeks to one month• At tier 2 – every 1 to 2 weeks • New studies suggest less often may be as useful

• How is data delivered to parents?

STUDENT FAILS TO SHOW PROGRESS

• What is adequate progress? • Variety of methods to set goals

• Expectations for level of performance • School/district benchmarks

• Professional opinion• Base on critical skill level • Reasonable growth

• Expected growth • Based on previous growth• Based on what can be expected from research based interventions

• Decision rules are in place that are applied to all students.

• Not sufficient to meet goal • 4 dot rule to 12 data points

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 350

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Gap Analysis

Peers Kaylene Aimline

LOOK AT BOTH LEVEL AND RATE = DUAL DISCREPANCY (NEED DECISION RULES)

time 1 time 2 time 30

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

normstudent

Compare to self

Compare to others

RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION

INSTRUCTIONAL FACTORS

• Provided with research based instruction/intervention

• Successful core instruction• At least 80% of students are successful in tier 1 classroom

instruction

• Instruction and intervention were provided with fidelity• Fidelity

• Checklists• Observations• Self report • Fidelity

INSTRUCTIONAL FACTORS RULED OUT (CONTINUED)

• The student was provided interventions of sufficient duration. Options include:• Two rounds of tier 2• Suggested length of intervention program used • Usually 10-16 weeks in tier 2

• A sufficient number of evidence based interventions were provided • Standard protocol vs. problem solving protocol• Matched to student’s instructional needs

• What does this mean in terms of appropriate instruction? • Is additional assessment needed?

• A sufficient amount of progress monitoring data was collected• 6 to 12 data points

EXAMPLES OF CRITERIA

• ..\..\..\Learning Disabilities\State documents\Wisconson.pdf

• ..\..\..\Learning Disabilities\RTI model\SLD_Guidelines colorado.pdf

ACADEMIC UNDERPERFORMANCE

• Currently Annie is reading at 25 CWPM in 4th grade text

• How to determine underperformance:• Did she meet goal? • In comparison to national norms and at-risk status

• 50th percentile = 105 CWPM • Using rule of 2 105/25 = 4+, she is well below this level

• In relation to at risk level = 42: she is below this level

• In comparison to local peers • 50th percentile for local peers is 90

• Using rule of 2 she is below this level

SUMMARY

• Annie is a ten year old who is entering 4th grade at Royal Oak. She was referred because of academic concerns regarding her reading. Annie has been receiving reading support services for one year, throughout 3rd grade. Interventions have included SIPPS and Language!. Prior to intervention goals were established for Oral Reading Fluency. Annie did not meet her goals and she continues to perform below grade expectations in Oral Reading Fluency (10th percentile).

LOCAL OR NATIONAL NORMS?

REVISIT ANNIEON NATIONAL NORMS 95/45 = >2

LOCAL NORMS 75/45 = <2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 145

15

25

35

45

55

65

75

85

95

CWPM

WHAT NEEDS TO BE IN PLACE?

• Core curriculum successful with 80% of students• Team that understands RtI process and its

implementation in addressing student needs • Clearly defined multi tier model of service delivery• Decision rules

• Criteria for movement within tiers • Criteria for adequate/inadequate progress

• Methods for monitoring intervention fidelity• Intervention is the “test”

• Methods for screening and progress monitoring that result in data easily understood by teachers and parents

  Winston Wilma

Instruction

What do we need to know about instruction?

Current level

What do we need to know about their current level of functioning?

How can we measure it?Progress in RtI

What do we need to know about their progress in response to intervention?

USING RTI DATA ONLY TO DETERMINE SLD?

  Winston Wilma

Instruction

Both had appropriate instruction and intervention in

tiers 1 and 2Current level

35 CWPM in fall 3rd : at

risk

37 CWPM in fall 3rd: at

risk Progress in RtI

During last Tier 2 intervention grew at a rate of .4 CWPM

(below expectations)

In an RTI only model both Winston and Wilma would qualify as SLD

RTI/LOW ACHIEVEMENT MODELS FOR SLD

ELIGIBILITY

RTI/LOW ACHIEVEMENT

Evidence of Under-

achievement

Instructional Factors

Ruled Out

Exclusionary Factors

Ruled Out

Nationally normed achievement test below set percentile. RtI Plus suggests 7th percentile

RtI Data is used to assure that student had quality instruction

CA SELPA DRAFT DOCUMENT: RTI PLUS

• Response to Intervention data is used primarily to assure that student has had adequate instruction/intervention

• Below 7th percentile on nationally normed achievement test.

• “SLD in any RtI approach is significantly low academic achievement that is not caused by instructional or exclusionary factors”

• Less focus on RtI data than in other models…• ”response data are not always equal to achievement data

in overall quality due to issues related to intervention fidelity and other factors.”

  Winston Wilma

Instruction

Both had appropriate instruction and intervention in

tiers 1 and 2Current level

35 CWPM in fall 3rd : at risk

37 CWPM in fall 3rd: at risk

Progress in RtI

During last Tier 2 intervention grew at a rate of .4 CWPM (below

expectations)Additional Achievement Test Data

What measures would be used? Why might these measures be used in

addition to RTI data? What criteria would be appropriate?

  Winston Wilma

Instruction Both had appropriate instruction and intervention in

tiers 1 and 2Current level 35 CWPM in fall 3rd : at

risk 37 CWPM in fall 3rd:

at risk

Progress in RtI

During last Tier 2 intervention grew at a rate of .4 CWPM (below expectations)

ADD ACHIEVEMENT DATA

Basic Reading 78/7th 81/11th

Reading Comp 75/5th 86/17th

Math 75/5th 98/45th

Written Express.

75/5th 80/10th

Listening Comp

80/10th 103/57th Using a 7th percentile cutoff for significantly low underachievement, only Winton would qualify as

SLD and needing special education.

SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGIST SKILL SET

• How would your role change in this model of LD identification?

• What more would you need to know to be an effective member of a team under these conditions?

WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS OF AN RTI APPROACH?

• Identify problems early• Streamline referral process• Rule out instructional factors• ??

WHAT ARE CRITICISMS OF RTI ONLY AND RTI/LOW ACHIEVEMENT MODELS?

• Focus on early reading • Measurement issues

• Lack of consensus on best practices for measuring progress

• Lack of consensus on what constitutes sufficient progress• Cutoffs can be arbitrary – don’t reflect real differences

• Issues of instruction/intervention • What are evidence based interventions across academic

areas? • How to determine fidelity?• How much instruction/intervention?

• Are difficult to apply at secondary level

WHAT ARE CRITICISMS OF RTI ONLY AND RTI/LOW ACHIEVEMENT ONLY MODELS?

• Does not address definition of a specific learning disability

• Failure to respond can occur for several reasons other than SLD

• Will not distinguish between overall low achievement and specific low achievement • Places all low achievers (not due to exclusionary factors) in

special education

• Does not address needs of high ability students with specific learning disabilities

• Will all low achievers end up in special education?

Percent of students Far Below Basic – Orange County 2010

ELA 3rd ELA 9th Math 6th

Black 8% 5% 4%

Hispanic 12% 7% 5%

White 2% 2% 2%

WHO ARE THE LOW ACHIEVING STUDENTS

ONE SIZE FITS ALL APPROACH TO INTERVENTION?

Cognitive Area Kyle Kalisha Verbal Skills 80 110 Phono. Processing 100 78 Short Term Memory 90 82 Fluid Reasoning 95 95 Rapid Naming 85 95 Long Term Memory 80 102

How would the interventions be different

for Kyle and Kalisha?

IQ/ACHIEVEMENT DISCREPANCY MODEL

  Winston Wilma

Instruction Both had appropriate instruction and intervention

Current level 35 CWPM in fall 3rd : at risk

37 CWPM in fall 3rd: at risk

Progress in RtI

During last Tier 2 intervention grew at a rate of .4 CWPM (below expectations)

ADD ACHIEVEMENT DATA

Basic Reading 78/7th 81/11th

Reading Comp 75/5th 86/17th

Math 75/5th 98/45th

Written Express.

75/5th 80/10th

Listening Comp

80/10th 103/57th

IQ/ACHIEVEMENT DISCREPANCY

Global IQ 79 97

Discrepancy Analysis

4 pt < 22pt. 17 pts. < 22 pt. In IQ/Achievement Discrepancy Model Neither Winston

or Wilma Qualifies

PATTERN OF STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES FOR SLD ELIGIBILITY

RATIONALE FOR PSW MODELS

• The need for an eligibility model that can be used across grade levels and academic subjects.

• The co-occurrence of disabilities among students with special needs (e.g. ADHD and reading disability). Evaluation within a PSW model would provide information required for a comprehensive evaluation to “… identify all of the child’s special education and related services needs, whether or not commonly linked to the disability category in which the child is classified.”

RATIONALE FOR PSW MODELS

• Recognition that learner attributes affect learning rate.

• The need to provide more information about within learner traits in relation to environmental demands. • RtI data provides information about instructional

environment• The potential presence of SLD in students with who

may function academically close to grade level but still be displaying unexpected underachievement in particular academic areas.

• Need to address definition of SLD • Evidence that students with different cognitive

profiles respond differently to interventions.

FUCHS, HALE AND KEARNS (2011)

• “…indisputable need for more and different instructional approaches for children chronically unresponsive to generally effective direct instruction.

• …recent research conducted by cognitive psychologists, neuroscientists and others has increased understanding of children's cognitive processing and how deficits may affect academic performance

• …growing body of research that suggests - however tentative - the importance of cognitively focused approaches to instruction.”

PSW CRITERIA FOR ELIGIBILITY

Evidence of Under-

achievement

Instructional Factors Ruled

Out

Shows Pattern of Strengths

and Weaknesses

Exclusionary Factors Ruled

Out

Pattern of strengths and weaknessesWeakness in academic areaWeakness in psychological processOtherwise normal pattern of performance

Pattern of strengths and weaknesses as outlined in federal law does not necessarily require cognitive assessment

Weakness in

Academic Area

• Data from RtI• Normative

Achievement Tests• Data from Standards• Data from Benchmarks

Link Between Academic and

CognitiveProcess

• Use CHC/Neuropsych Theory

• Narrow abilities• WISC IV_WIAT• Ex: short term memory• Auditory memory

Weakness in

Cognitive Process

• Test specific methods• Performance on

measure of processing below given percentile

Pattern of Strengths

and Weaknesses

..\..\..\Learning Disabilities\PSW model\Academic cognitive links.pdf

Otherwise Normal Pattern

of Performance

OTHERWISE NORMAL PATTERN OF PERFORMANCE

• Academic • CST scores in basic or above• Norm referenced achievement tests at 25th percentile or

above

• Psychological processing• Interpretive methods within tests• Administration of different processing assessments with

scores at 25th percentile or above

• Comparison of deficits and strengths

STATE GUIDELINES

• ..\..\..\RTI\SELPA work group\Texas PSW.docx• ..\..\..\Learning Disabilities\PSW model\Oregon SL

D analysis.pdf• ..\..\..\Learning Disabilities\PSW model\Wayne cou

nty grid.pdf

VARIATIONS OF PSW MODEL

• Flanagan, Ortiz and others• Operational Definition

• Hale and Fiorello• Concordance-Discordance Model • Cognitive Hypothesis Testing• WIAT/WISC

• Berninger • PAL II • Flow chart for identification of dyslexia• Identification of math disability

• Naglieri• Discrepancy/consistency Model

OPERATIONAL DEFINITION (FLANAGAN, ORTIZ, ALFONSO AND OTHERS)

• Normative deficit in academic functioning• Exclusionary factors are determined to not be the cause of

deficit• Normative deficit in cognitive ability/process• Exclusionary factors are revisited• Empirical or logical link between area of academic

underachievement and cognitive deficit. Otherwise normal pattern of functioning.

• Underachievement substantially impacts life functioning• Flanagan, D. P., Ortiz, S. O., Alfonso, V. C., & Dynda, A. M.

(2006). Integration of response to intervention and norm-referenced tests in learning disability identification: Learning from the Tower of Babel. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 807-825

Are identified weaknesses present in an otherwise typical pattern of functioning (i.e. the student also demonstrates strengths in some areas of achievement and psychological processing)?

Does the student demonstrate a weakness in academic performance and/or achievement relative to age or grade level standards? (verified by more than one data source)?

Has the student demonstrated a lack of progress when given appropriate instruction and intervention?

Does the student have a weakness in one or more of the basic psychological processes (verified by more than one data source)?

Is the identified basic psychological process related to the area of academic underachievement?

Are identified weaknesses present in an otherwise typical pattern of functioning?

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Then the student shows a pattern of strengths and weaknesses that may be relevant to the identification of a learning disability

Then

DOES DORA HAVE A SLD?

• ..\..\..\Learning Disabilities\PSW model\Practice scores.docx

• ..\..\..\Learning Disabilities\PSW model\Academic cognitive links.pdf

• ..\..\..\Learning Disabilities\PSW model\Dora LD Worksheet 1.pdf

• What information could inform the intervention? • What would be important accommodations for

Dora?

CONCORDANCE – DISCORDANCE MODEL

• Hale and Fiorello 2004 • Used to determine statistical significance of

differences between cognitive processes and achievement• Expect significant difference between processing

strength and weakness• Expect significant difference between processing

strength and achievement deficit• Expect no significant difference between processing

weakness and achievement deficit

• ..\..\..\Learning Disabilities\Graphics\Hale and Fiorello Worksheet.docx

STEPS IN CONCORDANCE-DISCORDANCE

(HALE, 2006; HALE, WYCOFF, FIORELLO, 2011)

Evaluate global composite scores,

factor scores?

Examine achievement tests

for evidence of academic deficit?

Determine if cognitive deficit is

associated with academic deficit.

Obtain reliability coefficients for

cognitive strengths, deficits and

academic deficits.

Calculate SED formula for discordance between cog

strength and deficit.

Do same for cog strength and acad

deficit.

Do same to establish

concordance between cog and

acad. deficit.

Do C-DM findings have ecological

validity?

COGNITIVE HYPOTHESIS TESTING (HALE AND FIORELLO, 2004)

• Stress importance of RtI processes preceding referral for comprehensive evaluation

• Use problem solving process to develop theory regarding problem and test accordingly

• Use demands analysis and concordance-discordance strategies to help analyze data

• Confirm/disconfirm hypothesis with additional data• Administer any additional necessary tests• Record review, history• Observation• Interviews

• Develop plausible intervention, implement and collect data on efficacy ; use single subject methodology to evaluate intervention

• Hale et al . ( 2006 ). Implementation of IDEA: Integrating response to intervention and cognitive assessment methods . Psychology in the Schools ,

BERNINGER (2011)

•

• Hallmark Impaired Phenotypes• Characteristics• Assessments

• Working Memory Architecture • Coding units for storing

and processing information about words

• Loops for cross code coordination

• Executive functions

Curriculum and

Instruction

Learner Attribute

s

Materials and Tools

Learning is a function of:

• Affect how student responds to instruction

• Inform intervention

BERNINGER: DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS FOR DYSLEXIA (PAL II)

• Rule out exclusionary factors such as language, other developmental disorders

• Administer test of verbal comprehension, reading , spelling, decoding and fluency• Is verbal comprehension at least 90?• Is reading/spelling measure below average and 1 SD below verbal

comprehension?

• Is student impaired (below 25th percentile) on phonological coding, orthographic coding, rapid naming? Having reading related difficulties in classroom

• If yes, consider diagnosis of dyslexia• ..\2010\B flow chart.pdf• ..\..\..\Learning Disabilities\PSW model\Edgar dyslexia asse

ssment.pdf

DISCREPANCY/CONSISTENCY (NAGLIERI)

• Significant difference between processing and achievement strengths and achievement weakness

• Similar scores between processing and achievement weaknesses

• Significant difference between processing and achievement strengths and processing weakness

• Children with disabilities show different PASS profiles

  Winston Wilma

Instruction Both had appropriate instruction/intervention

Current level

35 CWPM in fall 3rd : at risk

37 CWPM in fall 3rd: at risk

Progress in RtI

During last Tier 2 intervention grew at a rate of .4 CWPM (below expectations)

Achievement Test Data

Below 7th percentile in reading

No achievement below 7th percentile

Additional Cognitive Test Data

What cognitive measures would be appropriate? What is the purpose of additional cognitive

testing?

  Winston Wilma

RtI Only Both Winston and Wilma Met Criteria

Basic Reading 78/7th 81/11th

Reading Comp 75/5th 86/17th

Math 75/5th 98/45th

Written Express.

75/5th 80/10th

Listening Comp 80/10th 107/65th

ADD COGNITIVE DATA

Long term Mem 79/9th 98/45th

Short term 77/6th 82/12th

Fluid Reason 77/6th 102/55th

Verbal Ability 80/10th 108/69th

Phono. Process 85/16th 79/9th

Rapid Naming 85/16th 80/10th

ADVANTAGES? DISADVANTAGES?

In YOUR district/school what might be some of the advantages of using a PSW approach?

In YOUR district/school what might be some of the disadvantages of using a PSW approach?

SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGIST SKILL SET

• How would your role change in this model of LD identification?

• What more would you need to know to be an effective member of a team under these conditions?

WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS OF A PSW APPROACH

• Provides more information about student • Identify both strengths and weaknesses• Inform intervention• Demystify • Future educational planning

• Discriminates among low achieving students • Using C-DM approach 25% fewer students identified than

with discrepancy • Avoid labeling all low achieving students

• Can provide more consistent criteria across districts • Set criteria can be established for difference among

scores

WHAT ARE CRITICISMS OF PSW MODELS?

• Takes more time for individualized testing• Relationship between cognitive assessment and

achievement is unclear• All low performing students need support of

special education• Cultural/linguistic bias of cognitive assessments • Federal law does not require identification of a

processing disorder

DEFINITIONAL DIFFERENCES

RtI/Low Achievement

• Lack of sufficient response to appropriate instruction is evidence of a specific learning disability. These students needs cannot be met and general education ; they require and need the services of special education.

Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses

• There are many reasons why students don’t respond – not all SLD. Special education is targeted to students with SPECIFIC learning disabilities that necessitate the supports of special education.

WHAT ARE OTHER DISTRICTS/STATES DOING?

• Moving toward RtI data only• Keeping discrepancy criteria in transition

• Combination of RtI and processing deficit• Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses (PSW)• Allowing both RtI model and PSW• Allowing RtI and Discrepancy

ROLES OF RTI AND COGNITIVE ASSESSMENT

How can cognitive

assessm

ent help

identify SLD? What

diagnostic markers

or indicators d

o you

gain from cognitiv

e

assessm

ent in th

e

SLD identification

process?

How can these two methods complement each other in the SLD identification process?

How can RtI help to identify SLD? What diagnostic markers or indicators do you gain from RtI in the SLD process?

• “…indisputable need for more and different instructional approaches for children chronically unresponsive to generally effective direct instruction.

• …recent research conducted by cognitive psychologists, neuroscientists and others has increased understanding of children's cognitive processing and how deficits may affect academic performance

• …growing body of research that suggests - however tentative - the importance of cognitively focused approaches to instruction.”

-Fuchs, Hale and Kearns (2011)

RTI/PSW COMBINED WHERE ACTIVITIES EXAMPLE

TIER 1 General Education

Classroom

Universal Screening Progress Monitoring as Needed

Differentiated Instruction

Benchmark CBM

Core Curriculum

TIER 2 General Education Support

Progress Monitoring

Standard Protocol Intervention (Menu Approach based on

academic screening)

CBM LiPS/SIPPS

Intervention based on PM data

TIER 3 General Education

Support

Progress Monitoring Academic/Cognitive Problem

Solving Assessment Intervention based on results

Phono. Process/Naming Speed/Skills

Read Naturally

REFERRAL TO

SPECIAL EDUCATION

Review of response to

instruction/intervention Comprehensive Evaluation

Accommodations

Modifications Individualize interventions

EXAMPLE: MARISA ACTIVITIES RESULT

TIER 1 General Ed

Universal Screening Progress Monitoring as Needed

Differentiated Instruction

Marisa is a middle second grade student Performing below peers on DIBELS screening Provided with workshop and small group in

classroom

TIER 2 General ED

Progress Monitoring

Standard Protocol Intervention (Menu Approach based on

academic screening)

Made minimal progress in classroom and referred to Problem Solving team.

School uses Reading Mastery for all with option for Read Naturally only

TIER 3 General ED

Progress Monitoring Academic/Cognitive Problem

Solving Assessment Intervention based on results

Limited progress Deficits in naming speed. Phono processing

within normal range. Lacks knowledge of phonics and sight words.

Added LiPS to Reading Mastery

REFERRAL TO SPECIAL

EDUCATION

Review of response to

instruction/intervention Comprehensive Evaluation

Deficits in all measures of processing

speed/short term memory. Good language skills, reasoning, listening

comprehension Recommendations??

Identification of child

learning and instructional

needs

Appropriate instruction

Response to

instruction

Academic functioning

Cognitive functioning

Exclusionary factors

Goodness of fit to SLD

pattern

COMPREHENSIVE EVALUATION

NASP JULY 2007

• NASP recommends that initial evaluation of a student with a suspected specific learning disability includes an individual comprehensive assessment, as prescribed by the evaluation team.

• This evaluation may include: • measures of

• academic skills (norm-referenced and criterion-referenced), • cognitive abilities and processes, and mental health status

(social-emotional development);

• measures of academic and oral language proficiency as appropriate;

• classroom observations; and • indirect sources of data (e.g., teacher and parent reports).

NASP JULY 2007

• Existing data from a problem-solving process that determines if the child responds to scientific evidence-based intervention may be considered at the time of referral, or

• New data of this type may be collected as part of the Tier 3 comprehensive evaluation.

• An eligibility determination should not be based on any single method, measure, or assessment.

COMPREHENSIVE EVALUATION

• Meeting the criteria outlined in 34 CFR 300.309 requires a comprehensive evaluation and consideration of special education eligibility. The U.S. Department of Education (USDOE) Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) remarked in comments accompanying the regulations in Section 300.304 that the public agency may not use any single procedure as the sole criterion for determining whether a child is a child with a disability.

COMPREHENSIVE EVALUATION CONTINUED…

• In addition, USDOE Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) states in its presentation, “Building the Legacy: IDEA 2004”, that a comprehensive evaluation for identifying an SLD must:Not be replaced by an RtI2 process.Use a variety of data-gathering tools and strategies even if

RtI2 is used.May include the results of RtI2 as one component of the

information reviewed. Not rely on a single procedure as the sole criterion for

determining eligibility

CLOSING THOUGHTS

A PLACE FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE

• Person who looks at whole child• Consider emotional factors• Consider environmental factors• Consider reciprocal nature of instruction and

learningCritical Question

Will the information I gain from this assessment help the student?

A PLACE FOR COGNITIVE ASSESSMENT?

• In helping to design interventions?• Will academic assessment completely cover this?• Will an intervention be different for a child with

80 IQ versus child with 120 IQ? • Will an intervention be different for a child with

delayed processing speed?• Will an intervention be different for a child with

severe memory deficits? • Do we need cognitive assessments to • identify areas of strength and weakness?

OPINIONS

Diagnostic assessments consisting of a variety of “types” of tests (achievement, psychological, social-emotional) are useful in the RtI process and are essentialto comprehensive evaluations

“The real future of school psychology lies in maintaining the emphasis on being psychologists” – Gene Cash, 2009

RESOURCES

• Berninger (2007). Process assessment of the learner – 2nd edition.

• Berninger (2008). Defining, differentiating, dyslexia, dysgraphia and oral language learning disability within a working memory model.

• Flanagan & Alfonso (2011). Essentials of specific learning disability identification. Wiley and Sons

• Flanagan, Ortiz & Alfonso (2007). Essentials of cross battery with CD/Rom 2nd edition. Wiley and Sons.

• Fletcher et al (2007). Learning disabilities: From identification to intervention. New York: Guilford

RESOURCES

• Hale & Fiorello (2004). School neuropsychology: A practitioner’s handbook. New York: Guilford

• The Learning Disabilities Association of America’s White Paper on Evaluation, Identification, and Eligibility Criteria. Available at www.ldanatl.org

for Students with Specific Learning Disabilities• Reynolds & Shaywitz (2009). Response to

intervention prevention and remediation, yes: Diagnosis, no. Child Development Perspective

Thank You for

Your Attention