9/29/14  

1  

S

Specific Learning Disabilities: Tennessee’s

New Eligibility Standards

Janet Panter, Ph.D. Memphis Center for Women & Families

Today’s Outline

S Specific Learning Disability S Definition S Role of private evaluations

S Common Core State Standards

Today’s Outline (continued)

S  RTI2 S  Framework & TN Model S  Decision-making process S  Universal screening instrument S  Tiers I, II, and III S  Referral to Special Education S  SLD Criteria

S  Conclusions

9/29/14  

2  

S

Specific Learning Disability

What We Consider SLD (Mark Shinn, APA Presentation)

S  Severe low achievement relative to peers

S  Usually in reading

S  Many students not referred (the “bottomless pit”)

S  Girls with severe unmet reading achievement needs slip through the cracks

S  SLD is often accompanied by S  Feelings of “inability,” and failure, S  Parental concern S  Mildly disruptive classroom behavior, that can place children and youth on a

negative educational and socio-emotional trajectory

Outside Evaluations

 In the case of a private evaluation and/or diagnosis (e.g. Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder or Visual Processing), the team should consider information presented to help inform instruction and intervention. The student must be provided academic interventions congruent with the RTI ² guidelines if the team suspects the presence of a Specific Learning Disability as either a primary or secondary disability.

9/29/14  

3  

SLD: Federal Definition

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), as reauthorized in 2004, states that a process that determines whether the child responds to scientific, research-based interventions may be used to determine if a child has a specific learning disability. IDEA also requires that an evaluation include a variety of assessment tools and strategies and cannot rely on any single procedure as the sole criterion for determining eligibility.

S Can only define SLD within context of instruction & intervention being provided

S Relevant context for TN are the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) . . .

S Referred to in the media as

Common Core

S

Common Core

9/29/14  

4  

What is Common Core?

S The Common Core State Standards are a set of clear standards for Math and English Language Arts.

S The standards were developed to ensure every student graduates high school prepared for college or the workforce.

CCSS: Purpose

The Common Core State Standards are meant to S  Provide clear, consistent understanding of what of

student expectations S  So, teachers & parents know what to do to help

students S  Designed to be robust and relevant to the world S  Reflect knowledge & skills young people need for

college & career success

CCSS: What standards do…

S  State what students should know at the conclusion of a course of study.

S  Address the content and skills required for employment and civic participation.

S  Provide support for teachers in developing and sharing curriculum and instructional best practices.

S  Standards define learning expectations, but not curriculum.

9/29/14  

5  

S

RTI2 RESPONSE TO INSTRUCTION &

INTERVENTION

A New Day: What is RTI2?

Response to Instruction & Intervention (RTI2) is a student-centered multi-tiered approach of structure and support. Students' progress is closely monitored at each stage of intervention to determine the need for further research-based instruction and/or intervention in general education, in special education, or both.

RTI2 Framework

 The RTI2 framework is a 3-Tier model that provides an ongoing process of instruction and interventions that allow students to make progress at all levels, particularly those students who are struggling or advancing.

9/29/14  

6  

Universal Screener

S Brief screening assessment of academic skills

S Administered to all students

S Do students have the skills they need to achieve grade level standards

S Data also serve as benchmark

S Administered 3 times/year grades K-8

9/29/14  

7  

Universal Screener (continued)

S Student tested at appropriate grade level, not level of instruction

S Other relevant data may also be collected

S State provides rubric for evaluating these screening measures

S Different procedures for grades 9-12

Tier I Instruction

S  General Education teacher

S  High quality, differentiated instruction

S  Core instruction should meet the needs of 80-85% of students

S  If 80-85% of students are not at grade level, core curriculum & the delivery of instruction should be evaluated (& adjusted)

Tier I Decision-Making

9/29/14  

8  

Tier I Instructional Time (In minutes)

Tier%I% K(2% 3(5% 6(12%ELA% 150$$

$$

90$$(120$recommended)$

55$$(90$with$blocks)$

Math% 60$$(75$for$2nd$grade)$

$

90$$ 55$$(90$with$blocks)$

!

Tier I Ongoing Assessment

Tier I Fidelity Monitoring

S Fidelity – accuracy/extent to which core materials & other curricula are used as intended by author/publisher

S LEA must have fidelity monitoring process

S Required at least once a marking period

9/29/14  

9  

Tier II

S  Should meet needs of 10-15% of students S  Students below cut score on universal screener

receive Tier II instruction S  Cut scores based on national norms

S  Below 25th percentile is considered “at-risk” S  Interventions are systematic & research-based S  Teacher-student ratio

S  1:5 for K-5 S  1:6 for 6-12

Tier II Decision-Making

Tier II Instructional Time (In minutes)

Tier%II% K(2% 3(5% 6(12%ELA% 20#(K#only)#

30##

30# 30#

Math% 20#(30#for#2nd)#

#

30# 30#

!

9/29/14  

10  

Tier II Progress Monitoring

S  Curriculum Based Measurement (CBM) probes that parallel the ones used in universal screening

S  In area of deficit with instrument sensitive to change

S  Quantifies students’ Rate of Improvement (ROI)

S  Required at least every other week

Tier II Progress Monitoring

(continued)

S Conducted with measures that are at the student’s skill/instructional level

S Student’s skill/instructional level is determined by survey-level assessment

Tier II Fidelity Monitoring

S  Systematic monitoring by responsible instructional leader (e.g., principal)

S  Determines the extent to which the delivery of an intervention adheres to the protocols or program models as originally developed

S  LEA must have fidelity monitoring procedures in place

S  At least 3 times in a marking period

9/29/14  

11  

Tier III

S  In addition to Tier I instruction S  Interventions should meet needs of 3-5% of

students S  More intense than Tier II intervention

S  Lack of adequate progress in Tier II or students who below designated score on universal screener (<10th percentile)

Tier III (continued)

S  Intervention groups must be small S Grades K-5 1:3 S Grades 6-8 1:6 S Grades 9-12 1:12

Tier III Decision-Making

9/29/14  

12  

Tier III Instructional Time (In minutes)

Tier%III% K(2% 3(5% 6(12%ELA% 40#45%(K%only)%

45#60%%

45#60% 45#55%(45#60%blocks)%

Math% 40#45%(45#60%for%2nd)%

%

45#60% 45#55%(45#60%blocks)%

!

Tier III Progress Monitoring

S  At least every other week

S  For referral to special education …

S  Minimum of 8-10 data points for biweekly monitoring

S  Minimum of 10-15 data points for weekly monitoring

Tier III Fidelity Monitoring

S  Fidelity is monitored at all levels throughout the process

S  Total of 8 checks required

S  3 checks in Tier II (2 of which are direct observation)

S  5 checks in Tier III (3 of which are direct observation)

S  Ongoing fidelity documentation of intervention

9/29/14  

13  

Referral to Special Education

S  When data indicate Tier III instruction is ineffective

S  Evaluation may be in conjunction with second half of Tier III but may not be concluded before Tier III interventions are proven ineffective at end of Tier III

SLD Definition Made Easy

“Dual Discrepancy”

S  Condition 1: Performance Discrepancy (Underachievement) S  Level of performance

S  Student’s performance is significantly discrepant from norm group

S  Condition 2: Progress Discrepancy (Response to Intervention) S  Rate of progress

S  Student’s progress is significantly discrepant from expected progress 39

9/29/14  

14  

S

Condition 1: Underachievement

40

Condition 1: Underachievement Sources of Data to Document Underachievement  

Source   Criteria to Consider*  

Performance on Universal Screening (i.e. Benchmark assessment)  

Median score ≤ 10th national percentile Or

Median score which is 2.0 x deficient compared to norm group  

Terminal performance on progress monitoring measures  

Last three data points ≤ 10th national percentile  

Performance on State or district wide assessments  

Basic or Below Basic performance on state mandated test in area of concern  

Norm-referenced test of academic achievement  

Composite scores ≥ 1.25 standard deviations below the mean in area of suspected disability  

41

*This information does not represent fixed rules to be used in determining eligibility; rather it provides guidance to assist teams in drawing conclusions regarding a student’s level of learning.

Ratio of Deficiency: Level (i.e. The Gap)

            Is Gap Significant?    

_____________ /   _____________ =   _____________  

□ Yes □ No  Current benchmark Expectation  

Current performance   Current Gap  

42

How discrepant is the student’s performance?

9/29/14  

15  

Gap Analysis Example

            Is Gap Significant?    

____15_______ /   _____4________ =   ____3.75______  

√Yes □ No  Current benchmark Expectation  

Current performance   Current Gap  

43

Conclusion: The student is 3.75 times deficient compared to other students in a normative sample.

Normative Assessment

S  In  order  to  substan8ate  inadequate  achievement,  an  individual,  standardized,  and  norm-­‐referenced  measure  of  academic  achievement  must  be  administered  aDer  ini8al  consent  is  obtained  in  the  area  of  suspected  disability  (i.e.,  Basic  Reading  Skills,  Reading  Fluency,  Reading  Comprehension,  WriQen  Expression,  Mathema8cs  Calcula8on,  and  Mathema8cs  Problem  Solving).    S  Must  correspond  to  the  deficit  area  iden5fied  through  5ered  interven5ons  

S  Intensive  interven8on  must  occur  within  the  8ers  before  inadequate  classroom  achievement  can  be  assessed.    

S  Research  suggests  that  scores  below  the  10th  na8onal  percen8le  (or  standard  scores  ≥  1.25  standard  devia8ons  below  the  mean)  are  considered  significant.

44

Systematic Observations

S  A  paQern  of  strengths  and  weaknesses  in  performance  shall  be  documented  by  two  systema5c  observa8ons  in  the  area  of  suspected  disability.    

S  One  may  be  conducted  by  a  special  educa5on  teacher  and  one  must  be  conducted  by  the  School  Psychologist  or  cer5fying  specialist:  a.   Systema5c  observa8on  of  rou8ne  classroom  instruc8on,  and  b.   Systema5c  observa8on  during  intensive,  scien8fic  research-­‐

based  or  evidence-­‐based  interven8on.    

45

9/29/14  

16  

S

Condition 2: Response to Intervention

46

Decision Rules

S  The Tennessee SLD criteria identifies two decision rules to inform the IEP team analysis of progress monitoring data from intensive, scientific research-based or evidence-based intervention. A student’s rate of progress during intensive intervention is insufficient if either of the following apply:

S  The rate of progress is less than that of his/her same-age peers,

or

S  The rate of progress is greater than his/her same-age peers but will not result in reaching the average range of achievement in a reasonable period of time.

47

Gap Analysis

48

   _________      

   /  

   ____________      

   =  

   _____________  

Is  this  reasonable*?  

Difference       Weeks  leD  in  the  year       Rate  of  Improvement  Needed  

□ Yes □ No  OR  

   ___________        

   /  

   _____________        

   =  

   _____________  

Difference       Student’s  Current  ROI       Number  of  weeks  to  meet  goal  

   ____________        

   -­‐  

   _____________        

   =  

   ____________  

End  of  year  benchmark       Current  performance       Difference  

9/29/14  

17  

Step Two: Gap Analysis

Student’s  current  performance:   4 Correct Digits

Student’s  current  rate  of  improvement  (ROI):  

.18

End  of  year  benchmark  expecta5on:   20 Correct Digits

Number  of  weeks  leH  in  the  school  year:   25 Weeks

49

Gap Analysis

50

   ___16____      

   /  

   _____25_____      

   =  

   _____.64______  

Is  this  reasonable*?  

Difference       Weeks  leD  in  the  year       Rate  of  Improvement  Needed  

□ Yes □ No  OR  

   ___16______        

   /  

   _____.18______        

   =  

   ____89_______  

Difference       Student’s  Current  ROI       Number  of  weeks  to  meet  goal  

   ____20______        

   -­‐  

   _____4_______        

   =  

   _____16_____  

End  of  year  benchmark  

    Current  performance       Difference  

Ratio of Deficiency: Rate

51

                       

(_____________   -   _____________)   /   ______36_______  

=  ___________  

Spring benchmark expectation  

    Fall benchmark expectation  

    Number of weeks  

    Typical ROI (slope)  

                           

(_____________   -   _____________)   /   _____________   =   ___________  

Score on last probe

administered  

    Score on first probe administered  

    Number of weeks  

    Student ROI (slope)  

9/29/14  

18  

Let’s Practice

Student’s  score  on  first  probe  administered:  

2 CD

Student’s  score  on  last  probe  administered:  

4 CD

Fall  benchmark  expecta5on:   7 CD

Spring  benchmark  expecta5on:   20 CD

Number  of  weeks   11 Weeks

52

Ratio of Deficiency: Rate

53

                       

(_____20______   -   _____7_______)   /   ______36_____   =  ____.36_____  

Spring benchmark expectation  

    Fall benchmark expectation  

    Number of weeks  

    Typical ROI (slope)  

                           

(_____4_______   -   _____2_______)   /   ____11_______   =   ____.18_____  Score on last

probe administered  

    Score on first probe administered  

    Number of weeks  

    Student ROI (slope)  

S

Condition 3: Exclusionary Factors

54

9/29/14  

19  

Exclusionary Factor:   Source of Evidence:  

Visual, Motor, or Hearing Disability  

Sensory screenings, medical records, observation  

Intellectual Disability   Classroom performance, academic skills, language development, adaptive functioning (if necessary), IQ (if necessary)  

Emotional Disturbance   Classroom observation, student records, family history, medical information, emotional/behavioral screenings (if necessary)  

Cultural Factors   Level of performance and rate of progress compared to students from same ethnicity with similar backgrounds  

Environmental or Economic Factors  

Level of performance and rate of progress compared to students from similar economic backgrounds, situational factors that are student specific  

Limited English Proficiency   Measures of language acquisition and proficiency (i.e., BICs and CALPs), level of performance and rate of progress compared to other ELL students with similar exposure to language and instruction  

Excessive Absenteeism   Attendance records, number of schools attended within a 3 year period, tardies, absent for 23% of instruction and/or intervention  55

References & Resources

S  TN State Personnel Development Grants website with RTI2 Information & Resources S  http://www.tnspdg.com

S  TN Special Education Assessment S  http://www.state.tn.us/education/student_support/

eligibility.shtml

S  RTI Action Network S  http://www.rtinetwork.org

References & Resources (continued)

S  Jim Wright’s Intervention Central S  http://www.interventioncentral.org

S  Mark Shinn’s Resources & Downloads S  http://www.markshinn.org/resources-downloads.html