Evaluation Planning & Eligibility

1. Evaluation Planning & Eligibility Identifying Learning Disabilities Under a RTI Model December 8, 2008 Lisa Bates lbates@ttsd.k12.or.us 503-431-4079 Erin Lolich elolich@ttsd.k12.or.us 503-431-4136 Dean Richards drichards@ttsd.k12.or.us 503-431-4135

2. Objectives • To 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.

3. Logistics • Please use the sticky notes to write down questions that you may have. • Please come back together as a group when asked

4. Past Practice: Previous beliefs about LD • Learning Disability • Failure to achieve academically commensurate to the level of one’s cognitive abilities • Assumptions • Within child focus • Cognitive assessments • Processing deficits • Instruction • different • Research • Little empirical evidence for discrepancy model (Ysseldyke, 2005) • Little research for aptitude X treatment interaction

6. If past beliefs of LD are not supported by research than what is????? Changing View of LD • Learning 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 wcpm • Assumptions • All students can learn • Learning=Instruction, curriculum, environment, learner (ICEL) • Match intensity of need with intensity of problem • Research • Instruction changes brain activity levels (Shaywitz)

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

8. Important Idea: • RTI is one component of a COMPREHENSIVE evaluation.

9. Individualized Approach • “Trevor’s evaluation” rather than “LD evaluation” • Consider eligibility requirements for all suspected disabilities

10. General evaluation requirements: • ALL special education evaluations must still be conducted so that • No single measure is used to determine eligibility • Non-biased, technically sound instruments are given as intended, by qualified personnel • An 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.)

11. 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 awareness • Phonics • Vocabulary • Reading fluency • Comprehension strategies • Or lack of instruction in math • Or limited English proficiency

12. 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

13. 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)

14. 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

15. SLD regulations of note: • Reading fluency has been added to the list of achievement areas • basic reading skills • reading comprehension • oral expression • listening comprehension • written expression • mathematics calculation • mathematics problem solving • This reflects current research that points to persistent reading fluency problems as an indicator of LD

16. 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.

17. 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

18. With a partner share the following: • Three required components of evaluations in general. • Three required components of evaluations for Specific Learning Disabilities.

19. Evaluation Planning: What You Know • Individual Problem Solving Worksheet • Student Intervention Profile • Progress Monitoring Data • Developmental History

20. Pg 24

21. Pg 31

22. RN 30 min + Phonics for Reading Briar Trendline 22 31 51 22 25 41 55 19 30 32 20 38 45

23. Pg 16

24. Evaluation Planning: What You Need to Know • Observation data • Achievement data (optional assessments, determine areas of need) • WIAT-II or Woodcock Johnson-Achievement • Phonics Inventory • Scored Writing Samples • CBMs • Assessments in other areas of concern • Communication • Fine motor • Social/emotional • Perceptual motor/perception • Memory • Physical/medical (including medical statement) • Cognition

25. Evaluation Planning: Parent Participation • Before referral: • Progress monitoring data/Intervention Info. • RTI pamphlet • Invitation to participate in EBIS meetings • During referral: • Procedural Safeguards

26. RN 30 min + Phonics for Reading Briar Trendline 22 31 51 22 25 41 55 19 30 32 20 38 45

28. Pg 10

29. LD Eligibility Statement • Review the TTSD the LD Eligibility Statement

31. Dual Discrepancy • Low skills (the easier part) • Slow progress despite intensive intervention (The trickier part)

32. Does the Student Have Low Skills?

33. Defining Low Skills

34. 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).

35. Is the student’s progress slow?

36. Defining Slow Progress

37. Other Considerations • Context is key • Typical growth • Cohort growth • Fidelity of program • Intervention attendance

38. Let’s look at Toren’s rate of improvement….. • Is this class making appropriate growth? • Is Toren making appropriate growth? • Could Toren have LD? Expected performance of 105 WCPM

39. 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

40. Eligibility Decision Making • It comes down to the balance: How does the weight of the intervention compare to the rate of progress?

41. Key Factors to Examine • Instruction matched to need with appropriate intensity, duration, and frequency • Level of performance • Rate of performance

42. RN 30 min + Phonics for Reading Briar Trendline 22 31 51 22 25 41 55 19 30 32 20 38 45

43. 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/week • Ambitious gain: 3.0 words/week

44. SFA Tutoring Fidelity Check Tommy

45. Your Turn • Please 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.

46. Reading Mastery 30 min Reading Mastery 45 min SFA Tutoring Rita

47. Your Turn • Please review the next case (Annie) on your own. • Determine what changes you would make for her. • Be prepared to share out.

48. Annie 17 19 20 24 19

49. Time for Review • In 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

50. Don’t miss the forest for the trees • Consider the ‘whole’ child • The questions on the eligibility forms merit conversation when considering a referral