MTSS: Implementation Considerations

1. MTSS: Implementation Considerations Steven Beldin

2. RtI Baseline Targeted Intervention Frequent Progress Monitoring

3. Special Education Process RtI

4. IDEA 04 Not withstanding section 607(b), when determining whether a child has a specific learning disability as defined in section 602, a local education agency shall not be required to take into consideration whether a child has a severe discrepancy between achievement and intellectual ability in oral expression, basic reading skill, reading comprehension, mathematical calculation, or mathematical reasoning (20 U.S.C. 1414(b)(6)(A)).

5. IDEA 04 In determine whether a child has a specific learning disability, a local educational agency may use a process that determines if the child responds to scientific research-based intervention as a part of the evaluation procedures described in paragraphs (2) and (3) (20 U.S.C. 1414(b)(6)(B)).

6. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 300.307   Specific learning disabilities. (a) General. A State must adopt, consistent with §300.309, criteria for determining whether a child has a specific learning disability as defined in §300.8(c)(10). In addition, the criteria adopted by the State— (1) Must not require the use of a severe discrepancy between intellectual ability and achievement for determining whether a child has a specific learning disability, as defined in §300.8(c)(10); (2) Must permit the use of a process based on the child’s response to scientific, research-based intervention; and (3) May permit the use of other alternative research-based procedures for determining whether a child has a specific learning disability, as defined in §300.8(c)(10). (b) Consistency with State criteria. A public agency must use the State criteria adopted pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section in determining whether a child has a specific learning disability. (Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e–3; 1401(30); 1414(b)(6))

7. Background • Fordham Foundation/Progressive Policy Institute: Rethinking Special Education (2001) • OSEP: Learning Disabilities Summit (2001) ldsummit.air.org • National Research Council: Minority Over-Representation in Special Ed (2002) www.nap.edu/catalog/10128 • President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education (2002)

8. Recommendations from those reports: • Focus on results – not process • Embrace a model of prevention not a model of failure • Intervene early with evidence based practices • Consider children with disabilities as general education children first Jack Fletcher, Ph.D “Reauthorizing Learning Disabilities: Evidence-Based Approaches to Prevention and Remediation”

9. Historical Backgroundof SLD Criteria

10. “Historically, the field of learning disabilities could not be characterized as one that has been built on the strongest base of empirical support or unanimity of professional agreement regarding the causes, identification practices, and remedial strategies.”“Response to Intervention in the identification of Learning Disabilities:Empirical Support and Future Challenges.” 2005. Gresham, F., VanDerHeyden, A., Witt, J.

11. 1963

12. Specific Learning Disability means a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language spoken or written, which may manifest itself in an imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or to do mathematical calculations. The term includes conditions such as perceptual handicaps, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia. The term does not include children who have learning problems which are primarily the result of visual, hearing, or motor handicaps, or mental retardation, of emotional disturbance or of environmental, cultural or economic disadvantage. National Advisory Committee on Handicapped Children (1968)

13. 1975

14. December 29, 1977 Proposed LD discrepancy formula in the initial PL 94-142 Regulations: CA(IQ/300 + 0.17) – 2.5 = SLD Severe Level of Discrepancy Federal Register, Dec., 1977

15. 1980s • Critical scrutiny of evaluation procedures (Ysseldyke) • Increased use of standardized tests and discrepancy formulas • Stanley Deno develops CBM procedures

16. Several separate research studies strongly suggest that IQ-Achievement discrepancy is not a valid identification criterion for SLD. • Discrepant and non-discrepant low achievers are not significantly different in terms of achievement, behavior or processes related to reading. • Discrepant and non-discrepant low achievers do not differ in their response to instruction • The discrepancy approach does not inform instructional decisions.

17. Instruction is the essential factor in student achievement, not IQ.

18. Research regarding the effect of instructional intervention on brain functioning: • Fletcher, J., Francis, D., Shaywitz, S., Lyon, G.R., Forrman, B., Stuebing, K., et all., (1998). Intelligent Testing and the discrepancy model for children with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 13, 186-203. • Blachman, B. & Schatschneider, C, Fletcher, J.M, Francis, D.J., Clonan, S., Shaywitz, B.A., & Shaywitz, S.E. (2004). Effects of Intensive Reading Remediation for Second and Third Graders and a One Year Follow-Up. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 444-461. • Shaywitz et al (2004). Re-Wiring the Brain: Ameliorating Neural Deficits of Dyslexia Through Instructional Intervention. Biological Psychiatry, 55(9) 921-935. • Simos, P., et al. (2002). Dyslexia-specific brain activation profile becomes normal following successful remedial training. Neurology;58:1203-1213

19. Curriculum Based Measurement (CBM)

20. Skills that can be measured through CBM: • Letter identification • Letter sound fluency • Phoneme segmentation fluency • Oral reading fluency • Reading comprehension • Writing fluency • Spelling • Early numeracy skills • Computation fluency • Math concepts/applications

21. Measurement Components • Baseline • Data Points • Aim Line • Trend Line

22. Decision Making Rules • Students who score below the 25th percentile on general outcome benchmark screening receive targeted intervention, and progress is monitored on a weekly basis. Provide more intensive intervention for those at or below the 10th percentile. • Eight data points, over at least 4 weeks of instruction, are required to determine a trend line.

23. Decision Making Rules, Continued • Increase the intensity of intervention when the data points are below the goal line for three consecutive data points, or when the trend line is not on course to meet the goal. • At least two changes in intervention are required before referral for special education evaluation (not applicable to parent request for evaluation).

24. Formative Evaluation—Is simply data enough?

25. Formative Evaluation: Is data and a goal enough?

26. Formative Evaluation: Are data, goals & trends enough?

27. Formative Evaluation is Impossible without all data:Goals Make Progress Decisions Easier

28. Special Education Process • Special education process steps and timeline requirments begin with referral for evaluation due to suspected disability by parents or school staff.

29. Comprehensive Evaluation Begins with Review of Existing Information, which is comprehensive. Based on that review identify what additional data, if any, are needed to determine: • The present levels of academic achievement and related developmental needs of the child; • Whether the child needs special education and related services. • If the child is a child with a disability, and the educational needs of the child; 8/3/2006 IDEA Regulations300.305

30. SLD Eligibility Determination 300.311 • The child does not achieve adequately for the child’s age or to meet State approved grade level standards in an academic skill area when provided with appropriate instruction (NKCSD: 1 SD below grade level). AND • The child does not make sufficient progress to meet age or State-approved grade-level standards, in response to research based interventions (NKCSD: the trend line is below the expected rate of improvement, with at least two changes in intervention).

31. SLD Eligibility Determination, continued • Exclusionary factors are determined not to be present, or are not the primary cause of underachievement and lack of progress.

32. No child may be determined to be eligible if the determinant factor for that eligibility determination is lack of appropriate instruction in reading, including the essential components of reading instruction (as defined by section 1208(3) of the ESEA), or lackof appropriate instruction in math or limited English proficiency 34 CFR 300.306(b)(1).

33. Reading Instruction1208(3) of the ESEA defines the essential components of reading instruction as follows:The term essential components of reading instruction' means explicit and systematic instruction in— (A) phonemic awareness; (B) phonics; (C) vocabulary development; (D) reading fluency, including oral reading skills; and (E) reading comprehension strategies.

34. Math InstructionEffective math instruction should include • (A) conceptual understanding; • (B) procedural fluency; • (C) strategic competence; • (D) adaptive reasoning; and • (E) productive response. .(National Mathematics Advisory Panel, National Research Council, 2008)

35. RTI Action Network, SLD Identification Toolkit Rtinetwork.org

36. Missouri DESE RtI Guidance Documents: • https://dese.mo.gov/sites/default/files/RtIGuidance08.pdf and …/RtIguidelines08.pdf

38. Issues and needs in implementation • Let go of the concept that IQ sets a limit to expected student academic achievement. • Acquire, develop and disseminate resources for best practices in teaching, intervention and progress monitoring. • Provide a structure for intervention, linked to data-based decision making. • Provide guidance on what constitutes evidence - based instruction and intervention. • Explore flexible use of staff for early intervention.

39. Current Allocation Of Staff Special education and Related service Providers Remedial instruction, Title I, and ELL Teachers Regular Education Teachers

40. Include resources for intensive intervention.

41. Intensive Intervention • Increase in time • Smaller group or individual • Modifications to standard protocol based on student needs • Change in environment • Guided by a data-driven problem solving process.

42. Dyslexia Missouri Revised Statutes Section 167.950 and Section 633.420

43. Dyslexia Definition • The term “dyslexia” means a disorder that is neurological in origin, characterized by difficulties with accurate and fluent word recognition, and poor spelling and decoding abilities that typically result from a deficit in the phonological component of language, often unexpected in relation to other cognitive abilities and the provision of effective classroom instruction, and of which secondary consequences may include…

44. Dyslexia definition, continued • …problems in reading comprehension and reduced reading experience that can impede growth of vocabulary and background knowledge.

45. We Make the Road by Walking Myles Horton/Paulo Freire

46. Balance with encouragement.

47. Just DO IT! • A school district can plan for an extraordinarily long period of time for an initiative like MTSS. • At some point, pick a date, jump in and JUST DO IT!