Amanda Sanford, Ph.D. Portland State University Kimberly Ingram, Ph.D.

1. Comprehensive Evaluation of Specific Learning Disabilities:Legal Requirements and Best Practices Amanda Sanford, Ph.D. Portland State University Kimberly Ingram, Ph.D. Oregon Department of Education Sanford (2008)

2. Agenda: Comprehensive Evaluation Legal Requirements New Models Recommendations for implementation

3. Legal Requirements Specific Learning Disabilities Requirement of Comprehensive Evaluation

4. Definition of Specific Learning Disability: Defined at §300.8(c)(10) as… A disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written… …May manifest itself in the imperfect ability to: • listen • think • speak • read • write • spell • do mathematical calculations…

5. Definition of Specific Learning Disability …including conditions such as: • perceptual disabilities • brain injury • minimal brain dysfunction • dyslexia • developmental aphasia and • visual, hearing, or motor disabilities • mental retardation • emotional disturbance • of environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage Does not include learning problems that are primarily the result of: or

6. What are hallmark characteristics of individuals with learning disabilities ?(e.g. dyslexia)http://www.readingrockets.org/shows/watch#brain How could we measure it (to determine if the child has a learning disability)? How could this information be used to plan instruction (IEP planning process)?

7. Changes to SLD Eligibility Requirements34 CFR 300.307 - 311 & OAR 581-015-2170 Added progress monitoring component (all) Added option of RTI (OAR - based on district model) Changed “severe discrepancy” to “pattern of strengths and weaknesses” Observation – before or during

8. SLD Evaluation Components – Required for both RTI & PSW Academic assessment (academic achievement toward Oregon grade level standards) Review of cumulative records, IEPs, teacher collected work samples Observation in learning environment (by qualified professional) – before or during Progress monitoring data instruction component assessment component

9. SLD Evaluation Components – Both (if needed) Assessment of cognition, fine motor, perceptual motor, communication, social-emotional, memory (if student exhibits impairment in one or more of these areas) Medical statement

10. Comprehensive EvaluationOAR 581-015-2110 (3) (3) Conduct of evaluation. In conducting the evaluation, the public agency must: (a) Use a variety of assessment tools and strategies to gather relevant functional, developmental, and academic information about the child, including information provided by the parent that may assist in determining: (A) Whether the child is a child with a disability under OAR 581-015-2130 through OAR 581-015-2180; and (B) The content of the child’s IEP, including information related to enabling the child to be involved in and progress in the general education curriculum (or for a preschool child, to participate in appropriate activities);

11. Comprehensive EvaluationOAR 581-015-2110 (3) (3) Conduct of evaluation. In conducting the evaluation, the public agency must: (b) Not use any single measure or assessment as the sole criterion for determining whether a child is a child with a disability and for determining an appropriate educational program for the child; and

12. Comprehensive EvaluationOAR 581-015-2110 (4) Assessments and other evaluation materials used to assess a child under this part: (A) Are selected and administered so as not to be discriminatory on a racial or cultural basis; (C) Are used for the purposes for which the assessments or measures are valid and reliable;

13. Comprehensive EvaluationOAR 581-015-2110 (3) Checklist: Use a variety of assessment tools Not use any measure as sole criterion Are reliable and valid for the purpose used

14. New models The old discrepancy model New models

15. Options to determining eligibility of learning disability • And exhibits one of the following: • Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses • (PSW) • Response to Intervention • (RTI) Sanford (2008)

16. Patterns of Strengths and Weaknesses • OAR 581-015-2170 subsection 3 (c) For a student evaluated using a model that is based on the student's strengths and weaknesses, in relation to one or more of the areas in subsection (3)(a), the student exhibits a pattern of strengths and weaknesses in classroom performance, academic achievement, or both, relative to age, Oregon grade-level standards, or intellectual development, that is determined by the group to be relevant to the identification of a specific learning disability. Sanford (2008)

17. District interpretation of Patterns of Strengths and Weaknesses • Interpretations: this language may have come from research like Sally Shaywitz’s: “… a circumscribed, encapsulated weakness is often surrounded by a sea of strengths: reasoning, problem solving, comprehension, concept formation, critical thinking, general knowledge, and vocabulary” Shaywitz (2003). • IQ-Achievement discrepancy: some continue to use Sanford (2008)

18. Often = Always? Interpretations: PSW language may have come from research like Sally Shaywitz’s: “… a circumscribed, encapsulated weakness is often surrounded by a sea of strengths: reasoning, problem solving, comprehension, concept formation, critical thinking, general knowledge, and vocabulary” Shaywitz (2003). Problem with logic: State Governors are often born in the United States Therefore, if you are born in the United States, you are a State Governor Or: Therefore, if you are not born in the united states, you are not a State Governor Therefore, if you have a “sea of” cognitive strengths and one encapsulated weakness, you have a learning disability If you do not have a “sea of” cognitive strengths and one encapsulated weakness, you do not have a learning disability IQ-Achievement discrepancy: some continue to use 18 Sanford (2008)

19. Some districts continue to use simple IQ-Achievement Discrepancy 145 6% Simple Discrepancy 130 Potentially eligible seldom referred (unless other Concerns) 115 WJ Read 100 85 Lowest 6% in reading skills 70 SOL -- Simply out of Luck. Not eligible for special education services. 55 WISC-III 55 70 85 100 115 130 145 FSIQ Sanford (2008) Shinn, Good, & Parker 1998

20. Problems with IQ-achievement discrepancy?(Fletcher, et al. 2001) • We are not providing special education services to those children MOST in need of individualized instruction • The decisions are unreliable: • A small difference in score on one measure could change who we say is eligible • We are spending a lot of time on this process • (and time is money!!!) • This information does not help us make efficient decisions to support learning • This decision often requires that a student “waits to fail” or waits until their discrepancy is large enough to receive services Sanford (2008)

21. District interpretation of Patterns of Strengths and Weaknesses • Proposed new models: one urban school district’s example • Achievement subtest below 90 • The student’s IQ must be in the average range with a standard score of 80 or above • An academic weakness exists when there is a significant difference using the regression chart between the student’s IQ and the standard score in a content area on a standardized achievement test • An academic strength exists when the standard score in a content area of a standardized achievement test is at or above the student’s IQ Sanford (2008)

22. Eligible under category of Mental Retardation Potentially Eligible Pattern of Strength and Weakness – is it better? 145 Not eligible due to IQ below 80 6% Simple Discrepancy 130 115 WJ Read Score below 90 (lowest 25%) demonstrates “academic need” 100 85 Lowest 6% in reading skills 70 SOL -- Simply out of Luck. Not eligible for special education despite substantial need. 55 Sanford (2008) WISC-III 55 70 85 100 115 130 145 FSIQ Adapted from Shinn, Good, & Parker 1998

23. Problems with this PSW model? • We are not providing special education services to those children MOST in need of individualized instruction (and we’re denying it to more children with this model) • The decisions are unreliable: • A small difference in score on one measure could change who we say is eligible • We are spending a lot of time on this process • (and time is money!!!) • This information does not help us make efficient decisions to support learning • This decision often requires that a student “waits to fail” or waits until their discrepancy is large enough to receive services Sanford (2008)

24. Comprehensive EvaluationOAR 581-015-2110 (3) • Checklist: • Use a variety of assessment tools • yes • Not use any measure as sole criterion • 1 measure used to exclude students (IQ test) • Are reliable and valid for the purpose used • Subtracting subtests decreases reliability

25. Another district interpretation of Patterns of Strengths and Weaknesses • Pattern demonstrated by • At least three “points of evidence” indicating a strength or weakness in one SLD area • Academic Achievement • Grade level expectations (DIBELS, CBM, Reading Kit) • Age expectations (WIAT, WJ III, OWLS, KTEA) • Intellectual development (WISC IV, CAS, TOLD, etc.) • Classroom Performance • Grade level expectations (OSAT/CBM) • Age expectations (Grades, anecdotal) • Intellectual development (observation) • At least one strength and one weakness in cognitive processing with supporting observations Sanford (2008) http://www.ode.state.or.us/offices/slp/sld_eugene_psw_pp.ppt

26. PSW Cut-offs & Measures Guidance http://www.ode.state.or.us/offices/slp/sld_eugene_psw_pp.ppt Sanford (2008)

27. Example of one part of the requirement: Requirement: a student must demonstrate, “At least one strength and one weakness in cognitive processing with supporting observations” • To document a strength and weakness in cognitive processing: • Norm-referenced standardized assessment of cognitive or language processing: • Strength: index score above 25th percentile (SS>90) • Weakness: • index score below 16th percentile (SS<85) AND • index score is significantly below the mean of the student’s index scores *Weakness = Normative Weakness (compared to population) AND Relative Weakness (within student) • One (of several) option to measure cognitive processing: • CAS http://www.ode.state.or.us/offices/slp/sld_eugene_psw_pp.ppt Sanford (2008)

28. Defining a cognitive strength or weakness • A student must demonstrate at least one of each: • Strength: • a score above the 25th %ile • Weakness: • At least one score must be below the 16th %ile AND • must be significantly below the students’ mean score Sanford (2008) http://www.ode.state.or.us/offices/slp/sld_eugene_psw_pp.ppt

29. Qualifies: has a strength and weakness Strength • CAS scores • Planning = 95 (37th%ile) • Attention = 78 (7th %ile) • Simultaneous = 96 (40th %ile) • Successive =104 (61st%ile) • Mean CAS score = 93.25 (31st %ile) • Attention score is <16th percentile AND significantly below the mean score (using tables in CAS manual) • Evidence of a cognitive processing weakness in the area of attention Weakness Sanford (2008) http://www.ode.state.or.us/offices/slp/sld_eugene_psw_pp.ppt

30. Does not qualify: has no documented strength, and low score (“weakness”) is not below mean No Strength • CAS scores • Planning = 86 (18th%ile) • Attention = 78 (7th %ile) • Simultaneous = 83 (13th %ile) • Successive =87 (19st%ile) • Mean CAS score = 83.5 (14th %ile) • Attention score is <16th percentile BUT is not significantly below the mean score (using tables in CAS manual) • No evidence of a cognitive processing weakness in the area of attention Weakness? Sanford (2008) http://www.ode.state.or.us/offices/slp/sld_eugene_psw_pp.ppt

31. Does not qualify: has a documented strength, but low score (“weakness”) is not below mean Has a strength (score above 25th %ile) • CAS scores • Planning = 95 (37th%ile) • Attention = 84 (14th %ile) • Simultaneous = 83 (13th %ile) • Successive =87 (19st%ile) • Mean CAS score = 85 (16th %ile) • Attention score is <16th percentile BUT is not significantly below the mean score (using tables in CAS manual) • No evidence of a cognitive processing weakness in the area of attention Weakness is below 16th %ile, but not significantly below the mean Sanford (2008)

32. Does not qualify: has a documented strength, but low score (“weakness”) is not below 16th %ile (even if it is below the mean) Strength • CAS scores • Planning = 95 (37th%ile) • Attention = 86 (18th %ile) • Simultaneous = 96 (40th %ile) • Successive =104 (61st%ile) • Mean CAS score = 95.25 (31st %ile) • Attention score is NOT <16th percentile but IS significantly below the mean score (using tables in CAS manual) • No evidence of a cognitive processing weakness in the area of attention No Weakness Sanford (2008)

33. May Qualify Does Not Qualify Does Not Qualify Which student needs the most help? Does Not Qualify Sanford (2008)

34. Comprehensive EvaluationOAR 581-015-2110 (3) • Checklist: • Use a variety of assessment tools • yes • Not use any measure as sole criterion • 1 measure used to exclude students (IQ test) • Are reliable and valid for the purpose used • Subtracting subtests decreases reliability • There is not evidence to suggest that a specific of general “strength” is required to diagnose an individual with learning disabilities.

35. Recommendations • Avoiding pitfalls • Recommended practices

36. Avoiding pitfalls • Subtracting subtests: • Reduces reliability of tests • They were not designed for that purpose • Require a high performance on one ability/measure/cluster of measures in order to provide students services due to a disability in another area

37. Recommendations: to ensure compliance • Make sure that your assessments • 1. Include progress monitoring as a part of comprehensive evaluation (new requirement) – (see The National Center on Student Progress Monitoring: www.studentprogress.org and Research Institute on Progress Monitoring: www.progressmonitoring.net) • 2. Ensure appropriate instruction is provided – (new requirement) • 3. determine whether or not a child has need for special education services

38. Recommendations • To determine eligibility: • 1. Identify: what are the necessary hallmark characteristics of children with learning disabilities? • 2. How can we reliably and validly measure those characteristics? • 3. What additional assessments could we use to validate and increase the reliability of our decisions? • 4. How do we use this information to plan instruction? • Using the pattern of a students strengths and weaknesses (or areas of academic need) are necessary and relevant to planning a student’s IEP

39. Indicators of learning disabilities • Performing below expectations (compared to age, grade, or state standards) • Has “processing deficits” • (e.g. dyslexia: students have deficits in phonological processing, fluency, and RAN) • These could be documented using a variety of assessments • Look for converging patterns of performance (e.g. low performance on in-class reading assessments, formal curriculum-based measurement, and phonological processing on a cognitive assessment) • Looking at many assessments that indicate the same thing increases reliability • Subtracting measures or requiring one area to be high while another area is low reduces reliability (and there is not evidence to suggest that it meaningfully differentiates between individuals with or without learning disabilities)

40. Examples of comprehensive evaluations

41. Fletcher, J.M., Lyon, G.R., Barnes, M., Stuebing, K.K., Francis, D.J., Olson, R.K., Shaywitz, S.E., & Shaywitz, B.A. (2001, August). Classification of learning disabilities: An evidence-based evaluation. Paper presented at the Office of Special Education Programs and U.S. Department of Education Learning Disabilities Summit, Washington, DC.