Eligibility for Specific Learning Disability

1. Eligibility for Specific Learning Disability Charter Schools November, 2010

2. Quick review • Still 13 areas of eligibility categories • All students being considered for IDEA eligibility must till meet the 3 prong test • M..Does the student MEET one of the 13 areas • A..Does the suspected disability AFFECT the student’s education performance • N..Does the student NEED specialized instruction and related services in order to benefit from his/her education • Definition of a specific learning disability has not changed

3. Specific Learning Disability • 8 sub categories • Oral Language • Listening Comprehension • Written Expression • Basic Reading • Reading Fluency • Reading Comprehension • Mathematics Calculation • Mathematics Problem Solving

4. METHODS • A--RTI • B--Severe Discrepancy • C--Combination of A & B • No switching back and forth. • Your policy and procedure manual must state which method is used as part of SLD eligibility

5. Parent refuses • What is the process?

6. Assessment • …refers to the collection of data through the use of multiple measures, including standardized and informal instruments and procedures. • This information can and should be used to help ensure that the a comprehensive evaluation accurately reflects how a student is performing.

7. Evaluation • Follows assessment • Incorporates information from ALL sources • Integrating, interpreting and summarizing

8. Goal of assessment and evaluation (pre-existing and indirect) is to enable the school team to create a profile of the students strengths and weaknesses in order to make decisions about identification, eligibility, services and instruction

9. Comprehensive Evaluation • Regardless of the method an LEA uses in determining if a student is a student with specific learning disability….there must be a comprehensive evaluation. Fed. Reg. v.71 No.158 pgs 46647-46648 • Accurate decisions regarding a student with disabilities • Not to over identify and not to under-identify

10. Variables • Motivation • Engagement • Student’s interest • Self-efficacy • Teacher instruction/content knowledge • Teacher interest in student

11. Guiding Principles • No single data source is sufficient in identifying a student with a learning disability • Multidisciplinary teams are expected to consider all aspect of a student’s learning and behavior

12. Comprehensive assessment measures, procedures, and practices are necessary to enable the multidisciplinary team to differentiate learning disabilities from underachievement and other types of learning and behavior problems.

13. Use a valid and the most current version of any standardized assessment. • Use multiple measures, including both standardized and nonstandardized assessments and other data sources • Case history/interviews • Evaluations and information provided by parents

14. Direct observations that yield informal (anecdotal) information • Data-based information (timed readings,etc) in multiple settings and on more than one occasion • Curriculum-based assessments, task and error pattern analysis(mis-cue analysis) • Portfolios • Progress monitoring during instruction and over time.

15. Remember “rule outs’ or exclusionary factors • Examine functioning or ability levels across domains of motor, sensory, memory (working memory) organization • Adhere to recommended and accepted procedures for administration, scoring and reporting of standardized norms. Express in standard scores….easy to compare across standardized tests • Age or grade are not appropriate to report

16. Provide confidence interval and error of measure (if available) • SEM is built into the ESTIMATOR • Integrate the standardized and informal data collected • Balance and discuss the information gathered from all sources which describes the student’s current level of academic performance and functional skills to inform decisions.

17. Concomitant Issues • Students with other disabilities may also have a learning disability • Autism • Language • Emotional • ELL

18. Decisions Should Not be Based on: • Absence of an appropriate placement or availability of services • Lack of funds or resources • Desire or intention to generate special education funds • Philosophy of administrator or school board

20. Decision Alternatives • 1. Student is determined eligible notify team responsible for developing IEP (unless same team) • 2.Student is determined NOT to be eligible, pertinent curricular and instructional information should be forwarded to the student’s general classroom

21. 3. Student found NOT to require special education and related services at the time, the possibility of requiring support or services under 504 may need to be explored. • 504 is not a default • Parents can not choose 504 over special education services…it isn’t a buffet.

22. 4. If it is decided that the student needs NO special considerations at the present time, student (if appropriate) and teacher are informed. The evaluation team should make instructional and other recommendations.

23. SLD Guidelines • ESTIMATOR website • www.estimator.srlonline.org

24. Prevalence rates/dip in SLD