moving to rti for sld eligibility: it’s the right thing and now is the right time
DESCRIPTION
Moving to RTI for SLD Eligibility: It’s the Right Thing and Now is the Right Time. OrRTI Problem Solving and SLD Decision-Making January 15, 2013. Todays Targets. Why RTI for SLD Identification? What does the process look like? Perceived Barriers to Implementation. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Moving to RTI for SLD Eligibility:It’s the Right Thing and Now is the Right Time
OrRTI Problem Solving and SLD Decision-
MakingJanuary 15, 2013
Todays Targets
• Why RTI for SLD Identification?
• What does the process look like?
• Perceived Barriers to Implementation
Why RTI for SLD Identification?
1. An alternative to historical problems with SLD identification
2. A shifting focus on identifying and supporting instructional needs
3. More direct answers to evaluation questions (e.g. determining a lack of “appropriate instruction”, what is “instructional need?”, etc.)
4. Legally supported and legally defensible
1. Historical Problems• Traditional Models of Identification–Technically inadequate• SLD occurs on a continuum, but test
scores used as a categorical marker• Cognitive assessments do not reliably
distinguish students with SLD (Fletcher et al, 2011)
Academic skills
1. Historical Problems• Traditional Models of Identification–Applied inconsistently• “For more than 25 years, accumulated evidence has strongly suggested that most students labeled SLD are those students with severe educational needs, regardless of the stated eligibility criterion” (Shinn, 2007)
Weak link to effective interventions
Aptitude by Treatment Interactions (ATIs)
“Empirical data have failed to support this popular and logically appealing idea.” Burns, et. al. (2007)
Cognitive Profiles Effective Interventions
Working Memory Deficit
Working Memory training
Auditory Processing Strength
Focus on Auditory Information
Effective and Ineffective Practices
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
Effec
t Siz
e
Comprehension
Strate
gies*
*
Math
Interventions*
*
Direct
Instructi
on**
Form
ative
Evalu
ation*
Feedbac
k*
Modality-
Matched
Instructi
on**
Aptitude by Treatm
ent
Interactions*
* Hattie, 2009; ** Kavale, 2007
“Although some students with significant learning difficulties have underlying neurological or information-processing disorders, research does not support the notion that practitioners can identify these disorders and then treat them in isolation.”
What improves academic outcomes is: “effective, systematic, and explicit instruction to identify and address weak or missing academic skills.” (Vaughn et al, 2012)
2. Focus on Instructional Need
• Traditional identification models focus on determining unalterable cognitive processes that impact learning
Reading and the Brain• 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
Reading and the Brain
However…“…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)
2. Focus on Instructional Need
• Traditional identification models focus on determining unalterable cognitive processes that impact learning
• Knowing a disability exists does not provide specific information on effective intervention
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.
2. Focus on Instructional Need
• Traditional identification models focus on determining unalterable cognitive processes that impact learning
• Knowing a disability exists does not provide specific information on effective intervention
• Response to Intervention is focused on determining the conditions that enable learning, rather than on the disability that prevents learning
16
The Water…
IC
EFocus on “the water”-• Instruction• Curriculum• Environment
Instruction: Curriculum:
Environment: Learner:
How you teach
What you teach
Where you teach
Who you teach
Student Learning
3. Evaluation Questions
• Appropriate instruction• Progress monitoring• Identifying instructional need
SLD Evaluation Requirements
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
Data documenting “appropriate instruction” and “formal assessment
of student progress”
Without the infrastructure of an RTI system,
how will you answer these questions?
Instructional need• You also must include “(i) A determination
of whether, as a result of the disability, the child needs special education services”
“Problem solving assessment typically takes a more direct approach to the measurement of need than has been the case in historical special education practice”
- Reschly, Tilly, & Grimes (1999)
OAR 581-015-2170
4. Legally SupportedReauthorization 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
National Prevalence Rates
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
6.14.9
13.3 13.1
(19% Decrease)
• SLD Rates vary by states from 2.0% to 8.4%
• Variability in how states identify SLD and report prevalence rates
• Decrease is likely related to RTI, early intervention, improvement in instruction, and growth in other disability categories (OHI and Autism)
% of Students with Disabilities
% of Students with SLD
4. …and Legally Defensible
• 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)
4. …and Legally Defensible
• LAW: Despite dire predictions in the special education literature of major problems of RTI in terms of child-find litigation and repeated warnings from the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) not to use RTI to delay or deny IDEA evaluations, RTI has generated relatively negligible child find litigation under the IDEA, with the outcomes being notably deferential to districts(Betesh, Brown, Thompson, & Zirkel, 2012)
4. …and Legally Defensible
• LAW (Cont): …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)
Where districts get into trouble
• Problem: Refusing a parental request for SPED evaluation because the school’s RTI process hasn’t been completed. (OSEP memo, 2011)
• Solution: Clearly communicate with parents throughout RTI process. Refer to collected data to determine if there is a reason to suspect the student may have a disability. Always directly address parental concerns and requests in a timely manner.
Where districts get into trouble
• Problem: Delaying a special education evaluation when there is reason (e.g. data) to suspect a student may have disability.
• Solution: Create and follow decision rules that guide decision-making process for when students do not make adequate progress in interventions. Rely on data/evidence to determine suspicion of disability.
Where districts get into trouble
• Problem: Keeping students in interventions beyond “reasonable” amounts of time (El Paso ISD v. Richard R, 2008)
• Solution: Create and follow decision rules that ensure students receive timely and appropriate support.
Where districts get into trouble
• Problem: Using only screening and progress monitoring data to determine eligibility (RTI alone?!?!?!)
• Solution: Ensure a comprehensive evaluation includes all the pieces outlined in state regulations.
Where districts get into trouble
• NONE of these problems are inherent to RTI applied even reasonably well.
• They are problems primarily with child find and negligent assessment practices
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, 581-015-2000
“Evaluation” ≠ “Testing”
Comprehensive SLD Eval:
Regardless of Eval Modela) 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
Is a Cognitive Test Required?
NO
Comprehensive SLD Eval:
RTI Modele) …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
What does the process look like?
Core• Curric.• Instruction• Fidelity
Intervene• Gp. Intrvn. • Prog. Mon.• Ind. Prob.
Solving
SPED• Referral• Eval. Planning • Eval. & Eligibility
Three key questions
Slow ProgressLow Skills Instructional
Need
SPED Entitlement
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
ExplorationFear of litigationBelief that RTI does not identify the “right” students”
InstallationAn ineffective core programLack of research-based interventionsNo system to measure fidelityLack of data systems
Implementation What is “adequate” progress?How much of a discrepancy is “significant”?Determining if deficit is due to lack of appropriate instruction or English language proficiency
Overcoming Perceived Barriers
Why RTI for SLD Identification?
1. An alternative to historical problems with SLD identification
2. A shifting focus on identifying and supporting instructional need
3. More direct answers to evaluation questions (e.g. determining a lack of “appropriate instruction”, what is “instructional need?”, etc.)
4. Legally supported and legally defensible
Why RTI…
• Assessment is part of a comprehensive system of support that benefits all students
• Early and sustained instruction and interventions can change functioning
Why RTI?“If we don’t intervene early, substantially, and continuously when we know this can change a student’s neurological and educational functioning, prior to eligibility and placement into an isolated SPED program that we know may not help them, we are negligent and culpable”
• Guidance from ODE• Barriers• SPED Process and Procedures
Where We’re Going