evaluation planning & eligibility

Evaluation Planning & Eligibility

Identifying Learning Disabilities Under a

RTI Model

December 8, 2008Lisa Bates

[email protected]

Erin [email protected]

Dean Richards

[email protected]

ObjectivesTo build awareness about current regulations for determination of a Specific Learning Disability (SLD).

To build awareness of planning for evaluations.

To build awareness of (SLD) eligibility under a RtI process.

LogisticsPlease use the sticky notes to write down questions that you may have.

Please come back together as a group when asked

Past Practice: Previous beliefs about LDLearning Disability

Failure to achieve academically commensurate to the level of one’s cognitive abilities

AssumptionsWithin child focusCognitive assessments

Processing deficitsInstruction

differentResearch

Little empirical evidence for discrepancy model (Ysseldyke, 2005)

Little research for aptitude X treatment interaction

If past beliefs of LD are not supported by research than what is?????

Changing View of LDLearning Disability

Difficulty achieving at the expected rate and level despite having high quality explicit instruction matched to need. Ex. winter 4th grade: Class reads 105

wcpm on DIBELS but Toren reads 40 wcpmAssumptions

All students can learnLearning=Instruction, curriculum,

environment, learner (ICEL)Match intensity of need with intensity of

problemResearch

Instruction changes brain activity levels (Shaywitz)

We may be asking you questions to guide your thinking…….

Important Idea:

RTI is one component of a COMPREHENSIVE evaluation.

Individualized Approach“Trevor’s

evaluation” rather than “LD evaluation”

Consider eligibility requirements for all suspected disabilities

General evaluation requirements:

ALL special education evaluations must still be conducted so that

No single measure is used to determine eligibilityNon-biased, technically sound instruments are given

as intended, by qualified personnelAn evaluation is comprehensive enough to identify all

of a student’s special education and related service needs, even if they are not typical to a particular disability

AND all special education evaluations still begin with a review of existing information (parents, teachers, statewide assessment, etc.)

General evaluation requirements (cont’d):

ALL eligibility evaluations must establish that children may not be determined eligible if the determinant factor is lack of appropriate instruction in reading, including the essential components of reading instruction:

Phonemic awarenessPhonicsVocabularyReading fluencyComprehension strategies

Or lack of instruction in mathOr limited English proficiency

SLD regulations of note: Teams must include for all SLD

evaluations“data that demonstrate that prior

to or as part of the referral process the child was provided appropriate instruction in regular education settings, delivered by qualified personnel; and

Data based documentation of repeated assessments of achievement at reasonable intervals, reflecting formal assessment of student progress during instruction, which was provided to the child’s parents.”

This information is to be used to prompt evaluation as appropriate.

Districts need to define “repeated” and “reasonable intervals.”

Formal assessment could be DIBELS or other CBMs

SLD regulations of note (whether using RTI or not): Observation must be completed in regular classroom in

the area of concern If multiple concerns exist, pick the most pervasive.

May use either information from an observation in routine classroom instruction and monitoring that was done before referral; or

May conduct an observation of the child’s academic performance in the regular classroom after referral (and consent)

SLD regulations of note:

The team must establish that the child does not achieve adequately for age or to meet State-approved grade level standards in academic skills, and

The student has been provided with learning experiences and instruction appropriate for the child’s age or State-approved grade level standards

The contrast is with age and standards, not ability;

“To meet” implies looking at rate of progress

This determination of low achievement is the foundation for eligibility

SLD regulations of note:Reading fluency has been

added to the list of achievement areas basic reading skillsreading comprehensionoral expressionlistening comprehensionwritten expression mathematics calculation mathematics problem solving

This reflects current research that points to persistent reading fluency problems as an indicator of LD

SLD regulations of note: Once low achievement is

established, the team may find a student eligible if:

The child does not make progress sufficient to achieve age or State-approved grade level standards when using RTI, or

The child exhibits a pattern of strengths and weaknesses in performance, achievement, or both, relative to age, standards, or intellectual development.

Always establish the child’s progress: This is result of the RTI evaluation.

SLD regulations of note (when RTI is used):Documentation must include the kind of

instructional strategies that were used and the student centered data that was gathered;

That parents were notified:about the State’s policies about RTI that include the

kind and amount of data that must be gathered and what general education services must be provided, and

the kind of instructional strategies that were used to increase the child’s progress; and

that the parent has the right to an evaluation

With a partner share the following:

Three required components of evaluations in general.

Three required components of evaluations for Specific Learning Disabilities.

Evaluation Planning: What You Know

Individual Problem Solving Worksheet

Student Intervention ProfileProgress Monitoring DataDevelopmental History

221920

22253038

3141

3245

5155

RN 30 min

+ Phonics for Reading

Trendline

Briar

Evaluation Planning: What You Need to Know

Observation dataAchievement data (optional assessments, determine

areas of need)WIAT-II or Woodcock Johnson-Achievement Phonics Inventory Scored Writing SamplesCBMs

Assessments in other areas of concernCommunicationFine motorSocial/emotionalPerceptual motor/perceptionMemoryPhysical/medical (including medical statement)Cognition

Evaluation Planning: Parent ParticipationBefore referral:

Progress monitoring data/Intervention Info.

RTI pamphletInvitation to participate in EBIS

meetingsDuring referral:

Procedural Safeguards

221920

22253038

3141

3245

5155

RN 30 min


Trendline

Briar

LD Eligibility Statement

Review the TTSD the LD Eligibility Statement

Dual Discrepancy

Low skills (the easier part)

Slow progress despite intensive intervention (The trickier part)

Does the Student Have Low Skills?

Does the student have low skills?

Core Only Core + Up to 30 Minutes of Supplemental Intervention (from the TTSD Protocol)

Core + 45 Minutes of Supplemental Intervention (from the TTSD Protocol)

90th Percentile

80th Percentile

70th Percentile

60th Percentile

50th Percentile

40th Percentile

30th Percentile May Need More Possibly LD

20th Percentile Needs More Needs More Likely LD

10th Percentile Needs More Needs More Likely LD

Defining Low SkillsArea Measures Parameters

Early Reading Phoneme Segmentation FluencyNonsense Word Fluency

WIAT-II

Scores in the Intensive range or the lowest quartile of the strategic range

Standard Score below 90

Fluency, Vocabulary, and Comprehension

Oral Reading Fluency

Oregon Statewide Assessment

WIAT-II

Scores below the 25th percentile in ORF (Hasbrouck/Tindal norms)

Does Not Meet and/or below the 25th percentile


Math Computation

CBMs

WIAT-II

Scores below the 25th percentile (AimsWeb norms)


Math Problem Solving

CBMS

Oregon Statewide Assessments

WIAT-II




Written Expression

CBMs for fluency and conventions“Best Work” Writing Samples

Scored With The Oregon State Scoring GuideOregon Statewide Assessment

WIAT-II


Multiple pieces earning scores of 1 or 2



Defining Intensive Intervention

Reading: Core Instruction plus 30-45 minutes per day of supplemental instruction (according to protocol).

Math & Written Expression: Core Instruction plus third tier interventions (according to protocols).

Is the student’s progress slow?

Is the student’s progress slow?

Core Only Core + Up to 30 Minutes of Supplemental Intervention (from the TTSD Protocol)

Core + 45 Minutes of Supplemental Intervention (from the TTSD Protocol)

More than 150% of expected rate of growth

110 – 150% of expected rate of growth

Possibly LD (See below)


Likely LD


May Need More May Need More Likely LD

80% or less of expected rate of growth

Needs More Needs More Likely LD

Defining Slow ProgressArea Measures Parameters

Early Reading Phoneme Segmentation FluencyNonsense Word Fluency

What makes sense:

Progress less than the expected rate when receiving intensive interventions. OR

Progress less than 110% of the expected rate when receiving intensive interventions. OR

Progress less than 125% of the expected rate when receiving intensive interventions.

Fluency,Vocabulary,andComprehension

Oral Reading Fluency


MathComputation

CBMs

Math Problem Solving

CBMSOregon Statewide Assessments

WrittenExpression

CBMs for fluency and conventions

Writing Samples Scored w/ Oregon State Scoring Guide


Other ConsiderationsContext is key

Typical growthCohort growth

Fidelity of programIntervention

attendance0

102030405060708090

100

15-S

ep1-

Oct

15-O

ctDec

.

Bob

Susie

Jill

Let’s look at Toren’s rate of improvement…..

Fluency Progress

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Date of assessment

Wor

ds C

orre

ct P

er

Min

ute

class

Toren

Linear (class)

Linear (Toren)

Is this class making appropriate growth?

Is Toren making appropriate growth?

Could Toren have LD?

Expected performance of 105 WCPM

Let’s look at Toren’s level of performance.

Is the class at the appropriate level of performance?

Is Toren at the appropriate level of performance?

Could Toren have LD?Expected

performance of 105 WCPM

Eligibility Decision Making

It comes down to the balance: How does the weight of the intervention compare to the rate of progress?

Key Factors to Examine

Instruction matched to need with appropriate intensity, duration, and frequency

Level of performanceRate of performance

221920

22253038

3141

3245

5155

RN 30 min


Trendline

Briar

Tommy 1st Grader The level:

Jan: ORF 2 (accuracy 88%) Benchmark: 23

Feb: ORF 4 (accuracy 90%)

March: ORF 16 (accuracy 98%)

The rate:Tommy’s gain

.5 words/week (Jan to Feb) 3 words/week (Feb to March)

Group’s gain .6 words/week (Jan to Feb) 3 words/week (Feb to March)

Core program-Treasures Added 30 min/day of SFA

Tutoring Fidelity check of SFA

Tutoring showed it was not done to fidelity

Staff received training for SFA Tutoring

Realistic gain: 2.0 words/weekAmbitious gain: 3.0 words/week

10

20

30

40

Dec.Scores

Feb.Scores

Jan.Scores

M archScores

AprilScores

MayScores

JuneScores

60

50

SFA Tutoring

Fidelity Check

Tommy

Your TurnPlease review the next case (Rita) on your

own. Determine if she should be referred for a

special education evaluation (why or why not).

Be prepared to share with the group.

10

20

30

40

Dec.Scores

Feb.Scores

Jan.Scores

M archScores

AprilScores

MayScores

JuneScores

60

50

SFA Tutoring

Reading Mastery 30 min

Reading Mastery 45 min

Rita

Your Turn

Please review the next case (Annie) on your own.

Determine what changes you would make for her.

Be prepared to share out.

20 2419

1719

Annie

Time for ReviewIn pairs….

Have one person explain the dual discrepancy to as if you were explaining it to a parent

Have the person explain the dual discrepancy as if you were explaining it to a private psychologist

Be prepared to share out what your experience as the listener

Don’t miss the forest for the trees

Consider the ‘whole’ child

The questions on the eligibility forms merit conversation when considering a referral

The team must determine that the student’s lack of progress is not primarily pdue to:

Lack of appropriate instruction

Existence of another disability

Limited English proficiency

Environmental or Economic Disadvantage

What About…?3 Year Re-evaluationsEvaluation planning is critical step

Thorough review of current information

Same kind of thinking“Weight of progress vs. weight of

support”Disabilities are life-long conditionsSpecial education should work

LD Eligibility ReportsChecklist

Background informationLow skillsResistance to instructionObservationOpportunity to learn the skillsOther disabilitiesCultural factors or economic disadvantageLimited English proficiencyConclusion

LD Eligibility Reports

Sample Report

LD Eligibility ReportsNot so helpful:

“Kevin reads 27 words per minute at the second grade level.”

More helpful:

“Kevin reads 27 words per minute at the second grade level, while the expected level for January is 65 words per minute.”

Report Writing TipsRead and ask: Did I answer the questions I

raised?Reread with different audiences in mind:

Parents Are abbreviations spelled out? Tests explained?

Administrative law judge “What I meant, Your Honor,”

Another district’s learning specialist

How we communicate is important!

Not everyone speaks ‘Edu-speak’

Write for your audience

Quality LD Eligibility Reports

Individually: Quickly read the sample report.

In partners: How does this differ from LD reports in

your district? Which components are useful?

evaluation planning & eligibility

Documents

appropriate instruction

comprehensive evaluation

eligibility evaluations

special education evaluations

students special education

awareness of sld eligibility

rti process

awareness of planning