evaluation and eligibility using rti hermiston school district march 12, 2010

Evaluation and Eligibility Using

RTIHermiston School District

March 12, 2010

ObjectiveObjective

• Understand the process of evaluating students using a Response to Intervention (RTI) framework, from Tier 1 core instruction through special education eligibility determination.

Example: HarryExample: Harry

• Harry:– 2nd grader – New to the district– Records indicate no previous

interventions or major concerns

Example: Harry Example: Harry ScreeningScreening

Kindergarten Fall Winter Spring

ISF (Phonemic Awareness) 9 15

LNF 13 29 42

PSF (Phonemic Awareness) 14 29

NWF (Phonic Decoding) 6 13Instructional Recommendation Benchmark Strategic Strategic

1st Grade Fall Winter Spring

LNF 36

PSF (Phonemic Awareness) 32 36 40

NWF (Phonic Decoding) 15 21 24

ORF (Fluency and Accuracy) 3 19Instructional Recommendation Strategic Strategic Intensive

Harry: Harry: 22ndnd Grade Grade

• 2nd Grade Fall DIBELS:

• Initial Instructional Placement:– Core Reading Instruction: 90 minutes w/

Harcourt– Tier II Intervention: 30 minutes additional phonic

decoding instruction (Phonics for Reading)

2nd grade Fall

NWF (Phonic Decoding) 32

ORF (Fluency and Accuracy) 27

Instructional Recommendation

Strategic

DocumentationDocumentationStudent Intervention Profile

Student Name _____________________________________________________________ Date ______________ Grade Level ________ Teacher Name _____________________________________________________________ Initial Data Information

DIBELS OAKS (RIT) Writing Sample

ISF PSF NWF ORF Reading Math Ideas Organization Sentence Fluency

Conventions

Attendance Issues

Behavior Issues

CORE Participation – Harcourt CORE Instructional Time (actual time block):

Small Group Instruction: Group Size

Time in Small Group Teacher in Small Group

Frequency Notes/ Progress: Additional Interventions Date Started: End Date: Time of Intervention: Curriculum:


Time in Small Group Teacher in Small Group

Frequency Notes/ Progress: Additional Interventions Date Started: End Date: Time of Intervention: Curriculum:


Time in Small Group Teacher in Group

Frequency Notes/ Progress:

Progress MonitoringProgress Monitoring

2731

3530

2532

343835

Phonics for Reading


2731

3530

2532

343835

32

Phonics for Reading

4041

35354244

Phonics for Reading & Read Naturally

Individual Problem Solving

Understand how to conduct Understand how to conduct Problem Solving MeetingsProblem Solving Meetings

• Purpose• What data and materials are needed for the

meeting• Team membership• Focus of meeting• Problem Solving Process

• Define the Problem• Determine an Intervention• Implement the Intervention• Evaluate the Intervention

• Referral

What is the Purpose of What is the Purpose of Individual Problem Solving?Individual Problem Solving?

• To review information about the student and possibly gather more information to better understand their needs

• To develop an individualized intervention

• Through a systematic process





• Referral

BeforeBefore The Problem Solving The Problem Solving meeting collect the datameeting collect the data

1. Complete a file review (Individual Problem Solving Worksheet)

2. Teacher sets up a pre-meeting with parents, counselor or school psychologist, and if appropriate, the ELL teacher.• Strengths, weaknesses and needs are discussed• Parents are given the RTI Brochure• Developmental history and ELL data are collected.

Individual Problem Solving Worksheet File Review and Problem Identification

Student Name:_______________________________________ Grade: ________ Date: ______________________ Teacher: ______________________ Team Members: _________________________________________________ Attendance Review

Grade K 1 2 3 4 5 School Year

School Attended Present Absent

Days Total Grand Total # of days present _________ divided by total number of days ________ = % attendance _________ Review of report cards, progress reports, and teacher remarks. Record information below. Achievement Review - READING K 1 2 3 4 5 Benchmark PSF: 35

NWF: 25 NWF: 50 ORF: 40 – 60

ORF: 90 ORF: 110 OAKS: 204

ORF: 118 OAKS: 211

ORF: 124 OAKS: 218

Student Score:

PSF: NWF:

NWF: ORF:

ORF: ORF: OAKS:

ORF: OAKS:

ORF: OAKS:

Report Card Scores:

Other Information (summary of teacher concerns, services received, etc.)

Achievement Review – MATH K 1 2 3 4 5 Benchmark

OAKS: 205 OAKS: 212 OAKS: 218

Student Score:

OAKS: OAKS: OAKS:

Report Card Scores:


Achievement Review – WRITING K 1 2 3 4 5 Benchmark 32 to 39 Min.

TTSD RTI Parent TTSD RTI Parent BrochureBrochure

ODE RTI Parent FormODE RTI Parent Form





• Referral

WhoWho is at the Problem is at the Problem Solving Meeting?Solving Meeting?

• Literacy Specialist• Classroom Teacher• Counselor and/or School Psychologist• Parents• Others as needed (ELL Teacher,

Principal, Special Education Teacher, School Psychologist, Speech Pathologist)

TTSD Parent Meeting TTSD Parent Meeting NoticeNotice





• Referral

Problem Solving Meetings Problem Solving Meetings are Solution Focusedare Solution Focused

• Focus is on:1. Data2. Educationally Relevant/Alterable

Factors

What changes can WE make that will provide the best chance of success for

the child?

ActivityActivity

• Sam, a sixth grader, is not making sufficient progress.

• With a partner, list all the possible reasons why Sam may not be making sufficient progress.

Variables Related to Student Variables Related to Student AchievementAchievement

•Desire to learn•Strategies for learning•Knowledge•Skills•Prior content knowledge•Self-efficacy/helplessness

•Race •Genetic potential•Gender•Birth Order•Disposition•Health•Physical difference•IQ•Disability category •Personal history

•Quality of instruction•Pedagogical knowledge•Content knowledge

•Quality of curriculum•Quality of learning environment•Quality of evaluation •Quality and quantity of time/content

•Family income and resources•Family housing•Parent years of schooling•Mobility•Members of family•Family values•Socioeconomic status•Family history

Alterable

Unalterable(hard to change)

Within the student External to the student

Is it alterable? Is it alterable? Is it educationally Is it educationally

relevant?relevant?

1. Kristin’s DIBELS scores indicate she was in the “low risk” range last year.

2. Sarah’s file indicates that her parents are divorced and her father lives in Missouri.

3. The special education director told you that Erin’s brother receives special education services.

4. Javon missed 24 days of school last year.

26

http://www.aea11.k12.ia.us/

5. Tim tells you he plays video games until late every night.

6. Pam’s teacher indicated that her noncompliant behavior began just after winter break.

7. Kathy’s mom told you her dad is in jail for drug use.

8. Tonya has a diagnosis of Cerebral Palsy.9. I’ve had all the siblings in that family… I

know what John must be like.27

Is it alterable? Is it alterable? Is it educationally Is it educationally

relevant?relevant?


Focus on what you can Focus on what you can changechange




• Define the problem• Determine an intervention• Implement the intervention• Evaluate the intervention

• Referral

30

The Problem Solving The Problem Solving ModelModel

1. Define the Problem: • What is the problem and

why is it happening?


Define the problemDefine the problem

1. Review Data paying attention to the individual student’s needs

a) Progress Monitoring Data


2731

3530

2532

343835

32

Phonics for Reading

4041

35354244




a) Progress Monitoring Datab) Student Intervention Profile



a) Progress Monitoring Datab) Student Intervention Profilec) File Review Form (Individual Problem Solving

Worksheet)

Individual Problem Solving Worksheet File Review and Problem Identification

Student Name:_______________________________________ Grade: ________ Date: ______________________ Teacher: ______________________ Team Members: _________________________________________________ Attendance Review

Grade K 1 2 3 4 5 School Year

School Attended Present Absent

Days Total Grand Total # of days present _________ divided by total number of days ________ = % attendance _________ Review of report cards, progress reports, and teacher remarks. Record information below. Achievement Review - READING K 1 2 3 4 5 Benchmark PSF: 35

NWF: 25 NWF: 50 ORF: 40 – 60

ORF: 90 ORF: 110 OAKS: 204

ORF: 118 OAKS: 211

ORF: 124 OAKS: 218

Student Score:

PSF: NWF:

NWF: ORF:

ORF: ORF: OAKS:

ORF: OAKS:

ORF: OAKS:

Report Card Scores:


Achievement Review – MATH K 1 2 3 4 5 Benchmark

OAKS: 205 OAKS: 212 OAKS: 218

Student Score:

OAKS: OAKS: OAKS:

Report Card Scores:


Achievement Review – WRITING K 1 2 3 4 5 Benchmark 32 to 39 Min.




Worksheet)d) Developmental History

HERMISTON SCHOOL DISTRICT #8R Developmental History

(A questionnaire for school planning)

Date_____________________________________ Name of Student________________________________________________________________________________Sex: M F Last First MI Address____________________________________________________________________________Zip Code____________ Home Phone_____________________ Work Phone_____________________ School___________________________ Grade____ Teacher____________________ Date of Birth_____/____/_____ Age______/_______ Language _________________/__________________ Month Day Year Years Months Child Home Questionnaire Completed by________________________________ Relationship____________________________ Informant_______________________________________________Relationship____________________________ Name (if different from above) Family: Adult with whom the child is living: Natural Mother ____ How long ____ Natural Father ____ How long ____ Stepmother ____ How long ____ Stepfather ____ How long ____ Adoptive Mother ____ How long ____ Adoptive Father ____ How long ____ Foster Mother ____ How long ____ Foster Father ____ How long ____ Other (Specify) _____________________________________________________________________________

Parent’s Name ________________________________________________________________________ Age __________

Address _________________________________________________________________ Zip Code ____________

Circle highest grade completed in school 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 College 1 2 3 4

Ages of children in family – first born to last

1._______________________________________M F Age____ 4.____________________________________M F Age____

2._______________________________________M F Age____ 5.____________________________________M F Age____

3._______________________________________M F Age____ 6.____________________________________M F Age____

Number of children at home______________________________________________________________________________

Describe how other children get along in school____________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Do other members of the family have similar problems? ______________________________________________________

CIRCLE ONE YES NO Has the child ever lived with someone or been in foster care for a period of time? If yes, explain: _________

______________________________________________________________________________________ YES NO Has either parent or any of the children had a problem (chronic major illness, mental illness, alcoholism, major

surgery, unemployment, imprisonment, etc.) which may relate to the child’s problems? If yes, explain______ _______________________________________________________________________________________

YES NO Have there been any major family incidents or tragedies (deaths, rapes, pregnancies) which may be related to

the child’s problems? If yes, explain_________________________________________________________




Worksheet)d) Developmental Historye) ELL Data

ELL DataELL Data




Worksheet)d) Developmental Historye) ELL Dataf) Cohort Data

42

10

20

30

40

Dec.Scores

Feb.Scores

Jan.Scores

MarchScores

AprilScores

MayScores

JuneScores

60

50

AimlineAmy

Chase

Mary

Isaiah

Cohort DataCohort Data

43

10

20

30

40

Dec.Scores

Feb.Scores

Jan.Scores

MarchScores

AprilScores

MayScores

JuneScores

60

50

Aimline

Amy

Mary

Isaiah

Cohort DataCohort Data

Chase





2. Consider if other data is needed

• Instruction: How content is taught

• Curriculum: What content is taught

• Environment: Accommodations, modifications, & other environmental considerations

• Learner: Things specific to the student

• Review: existing information

• Interview: parents, teachers, student

• Observe: student during instruction

• Test: student skills

Additional data: ICEL & Additional data: ICEL & RIOTRIOT

LEAST TO MOST INTRUSIVE

DIRECT TO INDIRECT

Goal: Convergent Data from Multiple Sources

Curricu

lum

RIOT

InstructionRIOT

Learner

RIOT

Environme

ntRIOT

Multiple Sources and Domains

Why the problem is occurring

ICELICEL


Assessing the LearnerAssessing the Learner

• Use diagnostic data (as necessary) to further define the problem.

•The major purpose for administering diagnostic tests is to provide information that is useful in planning more effective instruction.

Additional Diagnostic Additional Diagnostic DataData

• Diagnostic tests should only be given when there is a clear expectation that they will provide new information about a child’s difficulties learning to read that can be used to provide more focused, or more powerful instruction.


Diagnostic Assessment Diagnostic Assessment QuestionsQuestions

“Why is the student not performing at the expected level?”

(Defining the Problem)

“What is the student’s instructional need?”

(Designing an Intervention)

Digging DeeperDigging Deeper

• In order to be “diagnostic”– Teachers need to know the sequence of

skill development– Content knowledge may need further

development

Enabling SkillsEnabling Skills

• Enabling skills are skills that could be considered prerequisite skills for the demonstration of proficient performances on larger assessments measures

• They represent the sub-skills of higher order performance demonstration

• Deficiencies in enabling skills will often result in lower performance on assessments

Phonemic Awareness Phonemic Awareness Developmental ContinuumDevelopmental Continuum

Easy

Hard

IF DIFFICULTY

DETECTED

HERE..

THEN checkhere!

• Phoneme deletion and manipulation• Blending and segmenting individual

phonemes• Onset-rime blending and segmentation• Syllable segmentation and blending• Sentence segmentation• Rhyming• Word comparison

Vital for

Diagnostic

Process!


Diagnostic AssessmentsDiagnostic Assessments

• Quick Phonics Screener (Jan Hasbrouck)

• Digging Deeper (Wendy Robinson)• CORE Multiple Measures• Error Analysis• Curriculum-Based Evaluation

Procedures (Ken Howell)

Digging Deeper QuestionsDigging Deeper Questions


Core Multiple MeasuresCore Multiple Measures

Error AnalysisError Analysis

1. Select a 250 word passage on which you estimate that the student will be 80-85% accurate.

2. Record the student’s errors on your copy of the reading probe.

3. Use at least 25 errors for students in grade 1 to conduct an error analysis and at least 50 errors for students in second grade and above.

4. Use an error analysis sheet to conduct error analysis.

Error AnalysisError Analysis





2. Consider if other data is needed3. Define the Problem

Problem DefinitionProblem Definition

1. Objective – observable and measurable2. Clear – passes “the stranger test”3. Complete – includes examples (and non-

examples when necessary) and baseline data


Example• Harry (2nd grader) is currently

reading a median of 44 words correct per minute (wcpm) with 89% accuracy when given 2nd grade level text. He also answers an average of 3/10 comp questions correct on weekly in-class tests. 2nd grade students in his school are reading an average of 85 wcpm on 2nd grade text and answering 9/10 comp questions correct.

Non-Example• Harry struggles with

being a fluent reader and is not meeting the 2nd grade reading benchmark. He makes a lot of mistakes and is currently reading at a 1st grade level. He also has difficulties answering comprehension questions at grade level.

Problem DefinitionProblem Definition



a) Progress Monitoring Datab) Student Intervention Profilec) File Review Form (Individual Problem Solving Worksheet)d) Developmental Historye) ELL Dataf) Cohort Data

2. Consider if other data is needed3. Define the Problem

4. As a team, develop a hypothesis and create a plan (Individual Student Action Plan)

Individual Student Action Plan Student Name:_______________________________________ Grade: ________ Date: ______________________ Teacher: ______________________ Team Members: _________________________________________________

To be completed by the LIT BLOCK team: Develop a hypothesis based on the evidence from the individual problem solving worksheet, addressing the questions below: 1. Does the evidence support that the student’s problems may be primarily due to problem with attention, motivation, or other behavioral difficulty? Indicate next steps. 2, Does evidence support that the student’s problems may be primarily due to attendance problems, or frequency school interruptions? If so, indicate reasons for absences and interruptions. Indicate next steps. 3. Does evidence support that the student’s problems may be primarily due to other concerns like trauma, family concerns, or other disabilities? Describe. Be sure to note when these issues occurred and their correlations with any academic concerns. 4. Does evidence suggest the student may have a learning disability? Indicate next steps.

INDIVIDUAL INTERVENTION PLAN: Program(s):

Case Manager

Number in group

Time

Frequency

Next meeting date to check progress:

Example: Hypothesis Example: Hypothesis DevelopmentDevelopment

Problem Definition: Harry (2nd grader) is currently reading a median of 44 words correct per minute (wcpm) with 89% accuracy when given 2nd grade level text. He also answers an average of 3/10 comp questions correct on weekly in-class tests. 2nd grade students in his school are reading an average of 85 wcpm on 2nd grade text and answering 9/10 comp questions correct.

Hypothesis DevelopmentHypothesis Development

Instruction:Core: large group guided practice , choral reading, and opportunities for partner reading. Intervention: teacher model-lead-test format for teaching simple decodable words and word lists, fluency practice

Curriculum:Core: 90 min/day of Harcourt with focus on decoding, fluency, comprehension, and vocabularyIntervention: 30 min day of Phonics for Reading, 15 min/day of Read Naturally

Environment:Harry’s core is taught in a large group of 25 students. He tends to echo read during more difficult choral readings and waits for other students to say the word. He never raises his hand to volunteer to read.Intervention group: 5-6 students in quiet corner of room. Very engaged

Learner:ORF: 44 wcpm with 89% accuracyWeekly comp questions: 3/10 Phonics Screener: Passed all levels except Silent e words (3/10), consonant digraphs (2/10) and r-controlled vowels (1/10)Listening comp: avg 9/10 correct on monthly tests.

Hypothesis DevelopmentHypothesis Development

• Data-Based Hypothesis: – Harry’s reading fluency and

comprehension problems occur because he does not have strategies for decoding consonant digraphs (ch, sh, etc), silent-e words, and r-controlled vowels (ar, ir, er, or). His fluency and comprehension will improve if he receives additional intensive instruction in these decoding strategies.

DiscussionDiscussion

• In a small group, discuss how Defining the Problem and Developing a Hypothesis in Individual Problem Solving is different than “pre-referral” meetings.

70




2. Design Intervention: • What are we going to do

about the problem?


Intervention Intervention DevelopmentDevelopment

• Goal setting:– Measurable– Able to be Monitored– Meaningful

By June 9, 2010 when given a 2nd grade level DIBELS passage, Harry will read 80 wcpm with 95% accuracy.

Moves Harry from intensive to strategic

AND 3 wcpm per week growth

Goal Setting: Goal Setting: Things to ConsiderThings to Consider

1. What is the goal? 1. Criterion context

• Research-based benchmarks/proficiency

2. Normative context• Minimum of 25th percentile (bottom limit of average)

2. By when?– Long term goals set at the proficiency standard– Short term goals set for incremental step towards

proficiency

3. What growth can we reasonably expect?– National Growth rates (Fuchs, AIMSWEB, Hasbrouck & Tindal)– District Growth rates– Cohort growth rates

Goal Setting TipsGoal Setting Tips

• Grade Level vs. Instructional Level– If student is accurate (>95%) on grade

level, monitor at grade level– When in doubt, monitor at the higher level

• When a student reaches the 50th %ile on instructional level, consider moving up a monitoring level (Shapiro, 2008)

• ABC– Always Be Closing (the gap)

Individual Student Action Plan Student Name:_______________________________________ Grade: ________ Date: ______________________ Teacher: ______________________ Team Members: _________________________________________________

To be completed by the LIT BLOCK team: Develop a hypothesis based on the evidence from the individual problem solving worksheet, addressing the questions below: 1. Does the evidence support that the student’s problems may be primarily due to problem with attention, motivation, or other behavioral difficulty? Indicate next steps. 2, Does evidence support that the student’s problems may be primarily due to attendance problems, or frequency school interruptions? If so, indicate reasons for absences and interruptions. Indicate next steps. 3. Does evidence support that the student’s problems may be primarily due to other concerns like trauma, family concerns, or other disabilities? Describe. Be sure to note when these issues occurred and their correlations with any academic concerns. 4. Does evidence suggest the student may have a learning disability? Indicate next steps. INDIVIDUAL INTERVENTION PLAN: Program(s):

Case Manager

Number in group

Time

Frequency

Next meeting date to check progress:

DiscussionDiscussion

• In a small group, discuss how Designing an Intervention at the Individual Problem Solving Meeting is different than “pre-referral” meetings.

77





about the problem?

3. Implement and Monitor: • Are we doing what we

intended to do?


Implement the Implement the InterventionIntervention

Harry’s intervention:• 60 minutes daily of Phonics for

Reading, focusing on silent-e words, consonant digraphs and r-controlled vowels, provided in a 30-minute block of 5 students and an additional 30-minute block of 3 students, 5x/week.

• 15 minutes 5x/week of Read Naturally in a group of 6 students.

Fidelity of Fidelity of ImplementationImplementation

• Fidelity to curriculum– All lesson parts taught following outlined

procedures– Curriculum decision rules followed (lesson

checkouts, mastery tests, etc)

• Fidelity to research-based instructional procedures– High pacing (high rate of student opportunities to

respond)– Corrective feedback– Behavior management system evident– Students are accurate before moving on to new

material

81





about the problem?

3. Implement and Monitor: • Are we doing what we

intended to do?

4. Evaluate Effectiveness: • Did our plan work?


Evaluate the Evaluate the interventionintervention

Determine how effective the intervention was for the student

• Progress monitoring data• Fidelity Data• Cohort Data


2731

3530

2532

343835

32

Phonics for Reading

4041

35354244


4551

55596058

Double dose PFR & Read Naturally

Fidelity DataFidelity Data

• Based on observations of the intervention conducted on 3/10/10, 3/17/10 and 4/16/10, an average of 95% of intervention components were implemented with fidelity with a minimum of 90% implementation.

How did the intervention How did the intervention work?work?

What if the intervention What if the intervention doesn’t work?doesn’t work?

SPED ReferralSPED Referral

• If student continues to have low skills and slow progress after at least ___ weeks of individualized intervention (see decision rules), the student is automatically referred for Special Education Evaluation.

• The following data is compiled and provided as part of the SPED referral:• Individual Problem Solving Worksheet• Student Intervention Profile• Progress Monitoring Data• Individual Student Action Plan• Developmental History• ELL Language Data (ELL checklist)

LD Eligibility Evaluation LD Eligibility Evaluation StepsSteps

• Referral for a special education evaluation

• Evaluation planning• Prior Notice About

Evaluation/Consent for Evaluation• Evaluation (60 school days)• Evaluation Summary Report• Eligibility Determination meeting

SPED ReferralSPED Referral

• Typically made by the RTI team• Parents may make a referral at any time• If another disability is suspected, proceed

to referral while intervening

• Remember: Referral does not equal evaluation. Once a student is referred, the evaluation planning team (including the parents) convene to determine if an evaluation is appropriate. Before the meeting, parents receive procedural safeguards. At the end of the meeting, parents receive prior notice of the team’s decision.

OAR’s: Notice and OAR’s: Notice and ConsentConsent

(a) Before conducting any evaluation or reevaluation, the public agency must provide notice to the parent in accordance with OAR 581-015-2310 that describes any evaluation procedures the agency proposes to conduct as a result of the evaluation planning process.

(b) Before conducting any evaluation or reevaluation, the public agency must obtain informed written consent for evaluation in accordance with OAR 581-015-2090 and 581-015-2095.

(c) If the public agency refuses an evaluation or reevaluation requested by the parent, the public agency must provide the parent with prior written notice under OAR 581-015-2310.

EvaluationEvaluation

Identifying Learning Disabilities

Under an RTI Model

Dual DiscrepancyDual Discrepancy

• Low Low achievement achievement and and Slow Progress Slow Progress (despite intensive (despite intensive interventions) are the interventions) are the foundation for foundation for determining SLD determining SLD eligibility using RTI.eligibility using RTI.• Also must consider Also must consider Instructional NeedInstructional Need..

1. Does the Student Have 1. Does the Student Have SignificantlySignificantly Low Skills? Low Skills?

• Determine parameters– Differentiate low from significantly low

• Below 16th %ile• 2 times discrepant• Standard score below 85

• Maintain consistency– Between schools, grades, and children

• Significantly low on multiple measures as compared to multiple groups

2. Is Progress Slow?2. Is Progress Slow?

• How much is enough?• Progress monitoring growth

rates• Yearly RIT gains• Where is the goal set?• Use your decision rules

• Context is key• Typical growth

• National norms• District norms

• Cohort growth

Is the Intervention Intensive?Is the Intervention Intensive?

• Scientific, research-based (IDEA 2004)• Sufficient frequency and duration• Implemented with fidelity

Eligibility Decision MakingEligibility Decision Making

It comes down to the balance. How does the “weight” of the intervention compare to the “weight” of progress?

3. Instructional Need3. Instructional Need

• Students need to receive the intensive instruction in order to make adequate progress.– Need to describe the instruction in either it’s

content, methodology, and/or delivery– Review progress data in relation to

intervention strategies implemented

Note… special education is not remedial education.

Avoid Exclusionary FactorsAvoid Exclusionary Factors

• Lack of appropriate instruction

• Existence of another disability

• Limited English proficiency

• Environmental or Economic Disadvantage

LD Evaluation Report :LD Evaluation Report :Background InfoBackground Info

State SLD Eligibility Form

TTSD LD Report TemplateSection 1: Background Information (written by learning specialist or school psychologist)

•Reason for the referral (state areas of concern and disability/disabilities suspected)•Previous testing •History in special programs (special education, Title I, ELL, 504)•Parent concerns and perspective, including background of disabilities, especially in areas related to current difficulties

LD Evaluation Report :LD Evaluation Report :1. Significantly Low Skills1. Significantly Low Skills


LD Evaluation Report :LD Evaluation Report :1. Significantly Low Skills1. Significantly Low Skills

TTSD LD Report TemplateSection 2: Students who qualify for special education as having learning disabilities have very low skills relative to expectations for the student’s age, or relative to the student’s progress toward Oregon achievement. •Review existing information including teacher collected work samples•Complete tables and analyze assessment results•Summarize actual growth to expected growth and student scores to average scores•Analyze historical data:

•Have scores always been low? If not, a learning disability is unlikely.•Are scores relatively low? Has the student had intensive assistance to maintain skills at that level?•Are the state/district assessments and individual achievement tests consistent? If not, get one more piece of information about the skills in question. Confirm results with reports from teachers, which must be consistent.•If inconsistent results are reported, decide which is valid and justify the decision. Consider the demands of each assessment (content, speed, fluency). Lower scores may be considered valid if they reflect performance on a test that is more comprehensive or involves more complex demands than other assessments used.•Finish with a summary statement about the student’s skills.

1. Significantly Low 1. Significantly Low Skills:Skills:

General GuidelinesGeneral Guidelines1. Low Skills:

– Actual level of performance is significantly below expected level of performance (on multiple measures)

• DIBELS scores• Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM) scores for math,

reading, writing • OAKS percentile ranks• Other standardized test scores (WJ, WIAT, GRADE, etc)

percentile ranks

…as compared to expected level

LD Evaluation Report :LD Evaluation Report :ObservationObservation


TTSD LD Report Template Section 4: The student’s academic performance and behavior were observed in a regular classroom setting. •Observation must occur in area of concern•Note relevant behavior and its relationship to academic functioning

LD Evaluation Report :LD Evaluation Report :2. Slow Progress… Despite 2. Slow Progress… Despite

InterventionsInterventionsState SLD Eligibility Form: Slow

Progress…

State SLD Eligibility Form: …Despite Intensive Interventions

LD Evaluation Report :LD Evaluation Report :2. Slow Progress… Despite 2. Slow Progress… Despite

InterventionsInterventionsTTSD LD Report Template

Section 3: Students with learning disabilities have academic skill deficits that are resistant to well-planned and implemented research based interventions that were designed to increase the child’s rate of learning. •Report baseline scores and how those scores compare to the general population •Describe each intervention and any changes or modifications •Describe fidelity of interventions (dates of observation, met __ % of fidelity checklist criteria)•Analyze progress, compare to general population and intervention cohort•Finish with summary statement and recommendations for future instruction (the student responded well to specific, contingent praise, sticker reinforcers, etc.)

2. Slow Progress (despite research-based instruction and interventions matched to student need)

– Baseline level of performance…– Ending level of performance…– Growth rates…

…as compared to expected level– Description of decision-making based on

district decision rules

2. Slow Progress:2. Slow Progress:General GuidelinesGeneral Guidelines

2. Slow Progress:2. Slow Progress:General GuidelinesGeneral Guidelines

2. Slow Progress (cont)– Summary of each level of instruction/intervention (could include):

• Curriculum used• Brief description of skills addressed• # of weeks/months implemented; days per week, min

per day• Group size

– Fidelity of implementation data:• e.g. Observations of the Phonics for Reading

intervention on 10/16/09, 11/2/09, and 11/17/09 indicate that an average of 97% of intervention components were implemented with fidelity.

3. Instructional Need– Summary of why the student requires specially

designed instruction in order to make progress towards the district standards and benchmarks

• Examples:

“Progress monitoring data indicate that Amy requires direct, explicit phonics instruction in a small group of no more than 4-5 students in order to make sufficient progress towards reading benchmarks.”

“Data indicates that Scott only made significant progress to catch him up to his typical peers when provided with small group instruction focusing on number sense activities. This instruction was provided for 30 minutes for 5 days per week, in addition to his 60 minutes of Core math instruction. Without this additional support, Scott made no progress towards catching up to his peers.”

3. Instructional Need:3. Instructional Need:General GuidelinesGeneral Guidelines

State SLD Eligibility Form: State SLD Eligibility Form: Additional Sections If Additional Sections If

NecessaryNecessary

TTSD Evaluation Report TTSD Evaluation Report Template:Template:

Exclusionary FactorsExclusionary Factors• Section 5: The student has been provided the opportunity to

learn the skills. • Describe the student’s instructional stability and reasons for

excessive absences• Describe core instruction in the area of concern (amount, intensity,

training of instructor, size of group

• Section 6: The student does not have another disability or sensory problem. • Report current vision and hearing• Report historical medical concerns or suspected disabilities• Report results of outside evaluations or medical diagnoses• Report results of FBAs, Conners, language assessments, etc.• Explain the decision if the team decided not to evaluate those

areas• If an IQ test was given, note statistically unusual performance

TTSD Evaluation Report TTSD Evaluation Report Template:Template:

Exclusionary FactorsExclusionary Factors• Section 7: The student’s problem is not the result of cultural

factors or environmental or economic disadvantage.• Describe the student’s educational history, including preschool and

enrichment opportunities• Describe pertinent information about family literacy levels • Describe pertinent information about family stressors such as moves,

homelessness, divorce, employment, family illness, etc.

• Section 8: The student’s problem is not the result of limited English proficiency. (written by English Language Learner Specialist)• The student’s English language acquisition may be characterized

as . . .• The other student’s in his/her group are progressing in English at . . .• The student’s reading/written language/math progress is

predictable/unpredictable given his/her language, culture and educational experience. (Explain)

Eligibility DeterminationEligibility Determination

1. Significantly Low

Skills

2. Slow

Progress


Exclusionary

Factors

Slow and

Low


3. Instructional

Need

• 1st Grader• Winter ORF: 5• Gain: 6-10 wpm in

8 weeks• Other students

gain 22 wpm in the same period of time

• Core program• +45 minutes of

decoding and fluency program

EmilyEmily

• 3rd grader• 25thth percentile

on ORF• Remains at 25th

percentile• “Low average”

• Core program• 20 minutes/day

additional practice

• 40 minutes/day explicit instruction and guided practice

EllieEllie

• 2nd grader• Reads 45 words

per minute (target is 90 wpm)

• Core program• +45 minutes

additional Reading Mastery

• New to the district • Has been in 4

different school districts

• Recently moved in with a relative

JohannaJohanna

• 5th grader

• Reads 77 words per minute (target is 124 wpm)

• Scores below average benchmark on the State-wide assessment

• Core reading program• 30 minutes of

Corrective Reading 5x a week

• Natasha was adopted from Russia 2 years ago

• ELL teacher interviews family and finds out she didn’t attend school before she came the U.S.

NatashaNatasha

• 3rd grader• Reads 45 words per

minute in Spanish• Reads 5 words per

minute in English

• Core Spanish reading program

• Additional interventions in Spanish 5x a week since 1st grade

• Has been in the same school since Kindergarten

• The other students in her cohort group read an average of 90 wpm in Spanish and English

MarisolMarisol

Eligibility Determination Eligibility Determination meetingmeeting

• Held within 60 school days of receiving parental consent.

• The team, including the parents, decides if the student is eligible for special education services; NOT individuals.

Questions/Comments

evaluation and eligibility using rti hermiston school district march 12, 2010

Documents

meetingspurposewhat

purpose of individual

ell data

needed ell teacher

file review individual

reading phonics

core reading instruction

intervention rti framework