determining sld eligibility using an rti model

Vision: Every child in every district receives the instruction that they need and deserve…every day.

Oregon Response to Intervention

Vision: Every child in every district receives the instruction that they need and deserve…every day.

Determining SLD Eligibility Using an RTI Model

Jon Potter, Ph.D. David Putnam, Ph.D.

Oregon Response to InterventionAshland, OR

November 22, 2013


www.oregonrti.org

RTI for SLD: WHY

1. OSEP/IDEA/OARS support using RTI2. Most perceived barriers are

unfounded MYTHS3. Negligible legal action; mostly

deferential to districts (Betesh, Brown, Thompson, & Zirkel, 2012)

4. RTI better serves the educational needs of students


www.oregonrti.org

OSEP/IDEA/OARS ALL

SUPPORT USING RTI


www.oregonrti.org

IDEA Established and Supports the use of RTI for SLD

A State must adopt…criteria for determining whether a child has a specific learning disability. In addition, the criteria adopted by the State: • Must not require the use of a severe discrepancy

between intellectual ability and 34 CFR 300.8(c)(10); • Must permit the use of a process based on the child's

response to scientific, research-based intervention; and• May permit the use of other alternative research-

based procedures for determining whether a child has a specific learning disability, as defined in 34 CFR 300.8(c)(10).


www.oregonrti.org

IDEA Established and Supports the use of RTI for SLD

Reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (2004) allows (encourages!) the use of RTI for SLD eligibility

Permitted Required05

101520253035404550

Response to InterventionSevere Dis-crepancyThird alternative

# of

Sta

tes

Source: Zirkel & Thomas 2010


www.oregonrti.org

IDEA Supports Using RTI:

All SLD evaluations must include:

“(A) Data that demonstrate that before, or as part of, the referral process, the child was provided appropriate instruction in regular education settings”

“(B) Data-based documentation of repeated assessments of achievement at reasonable intervals, reflecting formal assessment of student progress that is directly linked to instruction.”

OAR 581-015-2170


www.oregonrti.org

MOST PERCEIVED BARRIERS ARE UNFOUNDED MYTHS


www.oregonrti.org

Myth: RTI is not “a full and individual evaluation”, but PSW is

Reality: • In isolation, neither is a full and

comprehensive evaluation

• Both can be a piece of a comprehensive evaluation


www.oregonrti.org

Under 34 CFR 300.304, the public agency must ensure:The child is assessed in all areas related to the suspecteddisability, including, if appropriate, health, vision, hearing, social and emotional status, general intelligence, academicperformance, communicative status, and motor abilities [34 CFR 300.304(c)(4)]

The evaluation is sufficiently comprehensive to identify all of the child’s special education and related services needs [34 CFR 300.304(c)(6)]

Myth: RTI is not “a full and individual evaluation”, but PSW is


www.oregonrti.org

Comprehensive SLD EvaluationRegardless of Model

a) Academic assessmentb) Review of recordsc) Observation (including regular education

setting)d) Progress monitoring datag) Other:

A. If needed, developmental historyB. If needed, an assessment of cognition, etc.C. If needed, a medical statementD. Any other assessments to determine impact of

disability Oregon Administrative Rules, 581-015-2170


www.oregonrti.org

Myth: The Definition of SLD Mandates Evaluation of

Cognitive Processing

• Interpretation of the definition is not left to individuals. Regulations Interpret

• The Federal Register, IDEA, and OARs clearly interpret: Assessment of cognitive processing is not required for SLD


www.oregonrti.org

“The Department does not believe that an assessment of psychological or cognitive processing should be required in determining whether a child has an SLD. There is no current evidence that such assessments are necessary or sufficient for identifying SLD. Further, in many cases, these assessments have not been used to make appropriate intervention decisions. .…In many cases, assessments of cognitive processes simply add to the testing burden and do not contribute to interventions… ”

(Federal Register, vol. 72, no. 156, p.46651)

Myth: The Definition of SLD Mandates Evaluation of

Cognitive Processing


www.oregonrti.org

“But we want to know if they are REALLY SLD”

Traditional, Cognitive Models of Identification Have Been Applied Inconsistently

“For more than 25 years, accumulated evidence has strongly suggested that most students labeled SLD are those students with severe educational needs (i.e., have performance discrepancies compared to students in their own communities), regardless of the stated eligibility criterion”

Shinn, M. R. (2007)


www.oregonrti.org

“But we want to know if they are REALLY SLD”

Evidence for SLD decision-making

“There is a plethora of data that demonstrate that the SD and PSW methods are, despite their psychometric mystique, likely to miss children with “real” learning disabilities* and misidentify others who are actually instructional casualties (ICs), as children having SLD.”

Hagen-Gilden, P., & Lolich, E. (2011)*Walker, D., & Daves, D. (2010)


www.oregonrti.org

The decision to Evaluate Cognitive Processing…Case by Case

• COSTS • BENEFITS?• DIFFERENT/MORE

ACCURATE DECISIONS?• BETTER

INTERVENTIONS• IMPACT ON STUDENT

ACHIEVEMENT?• BETTER IEPS?

• TIME• FTE• OTHER RESOURCES• SHIFTS

RESPONSIBILITY FROM INSTRUCTION TO LEARNER


www.oregonrti.org

NEGLIGIBLE LEGAL ACTION; MOSTLY DEFERENTIAL TO

DISTRICTS


www.oregonrti.org

Myth: RTI will lead to legal trouble, especially with Child Find

LORE: The response to intervention (RTI) approach for identifying students with specific learning disabilities will generate a spate of losing litigation concerning child find under the IDEA.

(Betesh, Brown, Thompson, & Zirkel, 2012)


www.oregonrti.org

Despite “dire predictions” few child find issues with RTI itself

LAW: …thus far no published court decision has specifically concerned RTI and child find, and the few pertinent hearing officer decisions have been deferential to school districts (e.g., Cobb County School District, 2012; Joshua Independent School District, 2010).

(Betesh, Brown, Thompson, & Zirkel, 2012)


www.oregonrti.org

AN RTI APPROACHBETTER SERVES

THE EDUCATIONAL NEEDS OF ALL STUDENTS


www.oregonrti.org

Impact on SPED: Research Support

“Use of RTI has resulted in lower rates of SLD (Burns, Appleton, & Stehouwer, 2005) improved proportionality or indicators of equity, earlier delivery of special education services, and increased student achievement (Marston, Muyskens, Lau, & Canter, 2003)”

A. M. VanDerheyden & M. K. Burns (2010)


www.oregonrti.org

Identification Rates: OrRTI

Avg. % of Students Identified SLD

24 out of 29 districts moved in the direction of the mean

State Average: 2011 3.1

OrRTI Cadres 1-6 Prior to Entering 4.7OrRTI Cadres 1-6 in 2011 (at least 1 year after entering) 3.5

Reduction 26%

3 year change in SLD Identification Rates (OrRTI School Districts)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

-6.0

-5.0

-4.0

-3.0

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

Chan

ge in

% o

f st

uden

ts Id

enti

fied

as S

LD

Cadre 1

Cadre 2

Cadre 3

Cadre 4

= State Avg

16/23 districts decreased the % of students identified as SLD


www.oregonrti.org

SLD RatesWhat about you?


www.oregonrti.org

SLD: Static or Dynamic?

• Children who struggle with reading have both functional and structural differences in their brains as compared to non-impaired students.

Articulation/Word Analysis

Word Form

Word Analysis


www.oregonrti.org

Convergence: Neuroscience

The good news…“…an intensive evidence-based (phonologic) reading intervention brings about significant and durable changes in brain organization, so that brain activation patterns resemble those of typical readers” (Shaywitz et al, 2004)

The bad news…We sometimes rush to evaluation and eligibility instead of providing the intensive EBP needed


www.oregonrti.org

Effect of SPED Placement

• Average effect size of traditional special education placement practices = +0.12 (Kavale, 2007)

• What does this mean?• SPED Identification and placement

typically provides little educational benefit to students.

• Its what we DO in special education that can make a difference.


www.oregonrti.org

RTI

1. Minimizes “Instructional Casualties” 2. Focuses on “Instructional Need”3. Provides information for meaningful,

data-based IEPs4. Creates a broader, deeper,

continuum of services for SLD students

5. Places responsibility firmly on instruction


www.oregonrti.org

RTI for SLD

How

Targets

• SPED Referral: When does it occur and what’s the process?

• What are the key questions we need to answer in a comprehensive evaluation for SLD?– Does the student have significantly low skills?– Does the student make slow progress despite

intensive interventions?– Does the student have an instructional need?– Are the struggles primarily due to one of the

exclusionary factors?

Research-Based Core Curriculum w/ Strong Instruction

Tier 2/3 Supplemental Intervention

ASSESSMENT

Formal DiagnosticAs needed

Progress MonitoringWeekly-Monthly

Universal Screening3 times/year

DATA-BASED DECISION MAKING

Individual Problem Solving Team

Schoolwide Screening reviewed

3 times/year

INSTRUCTION

Tier 2/3 Supplemental Intervention

Intervention Review Team

6-8 weeks

Tier 3 Individualized Intervention

Individual Problem Solving Team

6-8 weeks

SPED referral?


www.oregonrti.org

Is there suspicion of a disability?

Suspicion of a Disability

Team Referral


www.oregonrti.org

Parent Referrals

• The team must consider the referral–Cannot refuse the referral due to RTI (OSEP,

2011)–Can refuse the evaluation if there is good

evidence (i.e., data) indicating the student can be successful with general education supports–Must provide written notice to parents if the

request to evaluate is refused

Parents have a right to make a referral at any time


www.oregonrti.org

What happens after a referral is made?

Relevant information is collected/consolidated along with a SPED referral form:• Intervention data, developmental history, problem

solving form(s), progress monitoring data, diagnostic data (ICEL), language info

An Evaluation Planning Meeting is conducted to determine if a student needs to have a comprehensive evaluation.


www.oregonrti.org

Evaluation Planning Meeting

• Do you need to conduct a Special Education evaluation?

• What additional information you need as a team? (Permission to Evaluate Form)–Get caregiver consent 60 school day timeline

begins• Provide caregiver with Parents Rights

brochure


www.oregonrti.org

Comprehensive Evaluation

A comprehensive evaluation is always required to determine if a student qualifies for Special Education service, regardless of your model of identification.

Simply using screening and progress monitoring data to determine SPED eligibility (i.e., “RTI only”) is unethical, illegal, and a very poor interpretation of RTI practice and law.


www.oregonrti.org

Comprehensive Evaluation

(10) "Evaluation" means procedures used to determine whether the child has a disability, and the nature and extent of the special education and related services that the child needs.

Oregon Administrative Rules, 581-105-2000

Comprehensive SLD Eval:Regardless of Eval Model

a) Academic assessmentb) Review of recordsc) Observation (including regular education

setting)d) Progress monitoring datag) Other:

A. If needed, developmental historyB. If needed, an assessment of cognition, etc.C. If needed, a medical statementD. Any other assessments to determine impact of

disabilityOregon Administrative Rules, 581-015-2170

Comprehensive SLD Eval:RTI Model

e) …documentation of:A. The type, intensity, and duration of scientific,

research-based instructional intervention(s)…B. …rate of progress during the instructional

intervention(s);C. A comparison of the student's rate of progress to

expected rates of progress.D. Progress monitoring on a schedule that:

i. Allows a comparison of the student's progress to… peers;

ii. Is appropriate to the student's age and grade placement;

iii. Is appropriate to the content monitored; andiv. Allows for interpretation of the effectiveness of

intervention.Oregon Administrative Rules, 581-015-2170


www.oregonrti.org

Talk Time

• How does your district currently define “comprehensive evaluation” for SLD eligibility? What components are typically included?

• Does it provide comprehensive information that leads to effective instructional decision making?


www.oregonrti.org

Three key questions

Slow Progress

Low Skills

Instructional Need

SPED Entitleme

nt Decision

Is the student significantly different from peers?

Does the student make less than adequate progress despite interventions?

Does the student need specially designed instruction?

=Exclusionary Factors

Guidelines for

Comprehensive

Evaluation


www.oregonrti.org

Low Skills: Is the student significantly different from

peers?


www.oregonrti.org

Significantly discrepant from peers

How big of a discrepancy is significant?

How big of a discrepancy is significant?

• General Guidelines*– Below the 16th percentile? (1 SD

below the mean)– Below the 10th percentile?–Well below benchmark?– Bottom 10% as compared to peers?–More than 2 times discrepant from

peers/expectations?

*These are approximate guidelines and NOT rigid cut scores

Calculating Magnitude of Discrepancy

Absolute discrepancy:

Discrepancy Ratio:

Expected performance Current performance–

÷Larger Number Smaller Number

72 wcpm (Winter 2nd Grade) 32 wcpm

=

= -40 wcpm–

72 wcpm (Winter 2nn Grade) 32 wcpm÷

2.25 times

discrepant

What if the data is mixed?

Consider divergent data source(s) and possible explanations

For Example: Group administered vs. Individual administered? Timed vs. Untimed? Multiple chances vs. One-time assessment? Accommodations vs No Accommodations


www.oregonrti.org

Slow Progress: Does the student make inadequate progress

despite intervention?


www.oregonrti.org

How much progress is enough?


www.oregonrti.org


• How much growth should we expect?– National growth norms• What does typical growth look like, on

average?

National Growth Rates: Reading

Grade

Average ORF

Growth (WCPM)*

Ambitious ORF

Growth (WCPM)*

Average Maze

Growth (WCR)**

1 2 3 0.42 1.5 2 0.43 1 1.5 0.44 0.85 1.1 0.45 0.5 0.8 0.46 0.3 0.65 0.4

*Fuchs et al (1993), **Fuchs & Fuchs (2004)


www.oregonrti.org

Comparison to Similar students

• How does a student’s growth compare to students with similar educational difficulties?– DIBELS Pathways to Progress– AIMSWEB


www.oregonrti.org


• How much growth should we expect?– National growth norms• What does typical growth look like on

average?– Local growth norms• What does typical growth look like in your

district, school, classroom, or intervention group?


Typical growth rate:1.4 wcpm per weekStudent in intervention making “typical” growth


Students in interventions must make more progress than the typical student in order to close the gap.

Typical growth rate:1.4 wcpm per weekStudent in intervention making ambitious growth:2 wcpm per week


Students in interventions are receiving more instructional support than the typical student.

Typical growth rate:1.4 wcpm per weekStudent in intervention making ambitious growth:2 wcpm per week

What interventions have been provided?

In addition to 90 minutes of research-based core instruction• Minimum of 30-45 minutes of daily,

supplemental/targeted interventions using:• Explicit, systematic, research-based curricular

materials• Research-based instructional strategies


Phonemic Awareness, Phonics, Fluency, Vocabulary, Comprehension?

Computation, Problem Solving, Math Fluency, etc.?Written expression?


Do you have evidence of implementation?• Observations• Checklists• Rubrics


www.oregonrti.org

As a reminder…

• The primary purpose of interventions is NOT to just ensure that boxes can be checked and students can be found eligible for SPED services.

• The primary purpose of interventions is to provide needed support to struggling students.

Low Skills

Slow Progres

s

Talk Time: Which of these components are in place, and what are your targets for

improvement?


www.oregonrti.org

Disability is not enough

• A diagnosis from a doctor or clinician (i.e., dyslexia, etc) does not automatically qualify a student for special education services.

• The student must have an instructional need for specially designed instruction


www.oregonrti.org

Instructional Need: Does the student need Special Education services?


www.oregonrti.org

Need for Special Education services

What does the student need to be successful?


www.oregonrti.org

What conditions result in the most growth?

30 Minutes daily Phonics for Reading (8 students)

Reduce group size to 4, increase OTR’s

Increase to 45 minutes daily, add behavior plan

• What instructional strategies have resulted in the most growth?• Explicitness of instruction, pacing of instruction,

active engagement strategies, etc.• Are these strategies beyond the scope of what

general education can consistently provide?

• What are the particular skills and strategies that the student needs to learn?• Be specific

• Are these skills below grade level?

• What environment is needed for the student to be successful?• Behavioral supports, physical setup of learning

environment, group size, etc.• Is this beyond the scope of what general

education can consistently provide?

• What additional supports are necessary for the student to be successful?• Family collaboration, community supports, assistive

technology, etc.• Are these beyond the scope of general

education supports?

Talk Time

Within in your district, how do you systematically collect information in each of the following domains:1. Instruction– The strategies that resulted in the most student growth

2. Curriculum– The specific skills/strategies that the student needs to

master3. Environment– The learning environment that the student needs to be

successful4. Additional learning supports– Any additional supports/collaborations that are needed


www.oregonrti.org

Exclusionary Factors: Has the student had ample

opportunity to learn?

Has the student had ample opportunity to learn?

• Core walkthrough data in the student’s classroom?• Was core delivered with fidelity?

• Performance of other students in the classroom?• Are other students in the classroom

successful/proficient?


• English language development• Acculturation• Cohort groups• How do their skills and growth compare to students

with similar language, acculturation, etc.?


• Health screenings• Medical reports• Developmental history• Parent interviews

• Is there any other possible reason why the student is struggling?


www.oregonrti.org

Three key questions

Slow Progress

Low Skills

Instructional Need

SPED Entitleme

nt Decision

Is the student significantly different from peers?

Does the student make less than adequate progress despite interventions?

Does the student need specially designed instruction?

=Exclusionary Factors

determining sld eligibility using an rti model

Documents

rti oregon response

use of rti

childs response

psw isoregon response

rti modeljon potter

individual evaluation

sld evaluations

appropriate instruction