Specific Learning Disabilities

1. Specific Learning Disabilities Guidance for West Virginia Schools and Districts April 2012

2. Guidelines for Identifying Students with Specific Learning Disabilities • Guidelines to inform practice and decision-making • Background information • Strategies and procedures to provide consistency across schools and districts • Resources

3. You Will Know… • The nature, roles and responsibilities of the various teaming structures needed within the SPL framework • Procedures for verifying each of the SLD criteria • Level of Learning • Rate of Learning • Exclusionary Factors • Validating Underachievement • Patterns of Strengths and Weaknesses • How to document the written requirements for SLD determinations

4. You Will Understand… • Eligibility Committee (EC) members need a comprehensive understanding of the student, his/her educational environment, educational history, and response to multi-level instruction • The EC decision-making process relies on high quality: • Collaboration • Data analysis • Documentation • Assessment

5. Policy & Guidance

6. Authority • Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA 2004), permitted the use of a process for identification of students with specific learning disabilities (SLD) that is based on the child’s response to scientific, research-based intervention. (§300.307(a)(2)) • In 2007 the West Virginia Board of Education approved a revision to Policy 2419: Regulations for the Education of Students with Exceptionalities • In 2012 the West Virginia Board of Education Approved a revisions to Policy 2419: Regulations for the Education of Students with Exceptionalities

7. Advance Organizer

8. Connecting SPL and SLD The Framework and the Identification Process

9. Operationalizing SPL • In 2011, Support for Personalized Learning was adopted as a framework for providing personalized learning to all students. • SPL is characterized by a seamless system of high quality instructional practices allowing all students to sustain significant progress, whether they are considered at-risk, exceeding grade-level expectations or at any point along the continuum. • SPL benefits include earlier identification of academic difficulties and a reduction in the number of students inappropriately referred for special education services.

10. SPL Continuum of Support

11. Suggested SPL Guidelines

12. SPL Data-One Element of SLD Eligibility • West Virginia’s SLD eligibility criteria no longer includes the use of the IQ-achievement discrepancy • SPL is one component of the identification of specific learning disabilities. • A specific learning disability determination is based on both educational need and • a student’s low response to high-quality general education instruction. • A body of evidence demonstrating academic skill deficiencies and insufficient progress when provided TARGETED and INTENSIVE instruction is required in documenting eligibility as a student with a specific learning disability.

13. Parents as Partners in the SPL Process The district must document that the student’s parents were notified about the following: • The state’s policies regarding the amount and nature of student performance data that would be collected and the general education services that would be provided; • Strategies for increasing student’s rate of learning; and • The parents’ right to request an evaluation at any time throughout the SPL process • “A Parent’s Guide to Support for Personalized Learning (SPL)” is available at http://wvde.state.wv.us/spl/familycommunity.html

14. Critical Concepts • It is critical that teachers, administrators and evaluators understand • that low achievement alone does not constitute a student with a learning disability. • only after a student is provided TARGETED and INTENSIVE instruction over a sufficient period of time that the conclusion of a SLD may be made. • delivery of sufficient and appropriate multi-level instruction includes the provision of supports at CORE, TARGETED and INTENSIVE levels. • instruction at these increasingly more intense levels ensures that each student is provided an adequate opportunity to learn prior to a SLD determination.

15. Connecting SPL to SLD

16. Advance Organizer

17. Problem Solving and Teaming Laying the Foundation for Decision-Making

18. Problem-Solving Process 1. Identify and Define Needs 2. Analyze the Problem 5. Evaluate and Adjust the Plan 3. Develop a Plan 4. Implement and Monitor the Plan

19. Progress Monitoring • Progress monitoring provides dynamic assessment information to help teachers make instructional decisions. • Frequently collected data provides ongoing guidance to teachers regarding the effectiveness of instruction and whether changes to instruction are needed. • While progress monitoring data are collected prior to and during the referral and evaluation process (every two to three weeks in TARGETED and every one to two weeks in INTENSIVE), it is important that school personnel involved at various decision-making levels (i.e., IT, SAT, MDET, EC) understand the purpose and utility of progress monitoring procedures.  

20. Progress Monitoring • Progress monitoring varies depending on the level of intensity. • For students at the Core level, progress monitoring is provided to all students using on-going universal screening and assessments aligned with instruction. • Students who are receiving more intensive instruction in Targeted and Intensive levels are provided more focused progress monitoring. • Tools that are flexible, efficient, accessible and informative are a priority. • Progress monitoring is the way in which a team can gather the data used to make decisions during the problem-solving process.

21. Progress Monitoring • Progress monitoring assessments function within SPL as a gauge of student performance and bring forward the need for conversation about instruction for groups of students or for individuals. • Assessments in this category most typically target evidence of progress relative to specific, high-priority skills and processes. • Data in this category could come from Acuity testlets or probes, DIBELS Next, West Virginia Writes, as well as other assessments. • Progress monitoring assessment results can be used to adjust scaffolding, instructional pacing and presentation, as well as contribute to a collection of data used to make decisions about most appropriate instruction and placement for individual students. • Progress monitoring data provides valuable information about students’ improvement as a result of a particular instructional method or program and measures instructional change and student growth.

22. Progress Monitoring Guidelines for Charting Student Progress • Draw trend line of student progress (e.g., Tukey method) for 7-8 data points • and compare to the student’s goal line • Trend is not as steep as the goal line, make a teaching change • Trend is steeper than the goal line, raise the goal • May use “four-point rule” if at least three weeks of instruction has • occurred and the last four scores collected all fall above or below the goal line • Four most recent scores all fall below the goal line, make a teaching change • Four most recent scores all fall above the goal line, raise the goal (Stecker & Lembke, 2007)

23. Collaborative Structures Instructional Team Individualized Education Program Student Assistance Team Multidisciplinary Evaluation Team Eligibility Committee

24. Collaborative Structures West Virginia Board of Education Policy 2510, Assuring Quality of Education: Regulations for Education Programs, sets forth requirements at each programmatic level to address the needs of struggling students. • In Grades K-4 schools must provide strategies for early detection and intervention to correct student deficiencies in reading, language arts and mathematics. • At the middle school level, an intervention component ensures mastery of the rigorous content standards and objectives at each grade level. • High school students who do not demonstrate mastery of the content standards and objectives shall be provided extra help and extra time through intervention strategies.

25. Instructional Teams (IT) • Instructional Teams (ITs) are generally comprised of same grade- level teachers and providers of customized instruction. • Naturally fit into the structure of middle schools and are also accommodated by departmental teams at the high school level. • May also include the principal, school psychologist, special education teachers, speech/language pathologist and any other qualified personnel who have knowledge of the student and/or expertise in data analysis and instructional planning.

26. (IT) Focus ITs focus on student progress by: • using screening/interim assessment and other performance data to identify students who are not performing satisfactorily; • grouping students according to specific skill needs; • selecting or developing TARGETED instruction; and • monitoring student progress and the effectiveness of instruction.

27. Student Assistance Teams (SAT) • Policy for Student Assistance Teams (SAT) is set forth in West Virginia Board of Education Policies 2510 and 2419. • SAT may act in lieu of the IT • Members may be the same or similar to the IT

28. SAT Focus • The primary function of the SAT is the review of individual student needs that have persisted despite being addressed by the IT. • A teacher, parent, instructional team (IT), adult student, district or any other interested person or agency may initiate a referral to SAT. • The SAT ensures that multi-level instruction has been implemented and documented by the student’s teacher and/or provider of customized instruction.

29. Importance of IT and SAT • This documentation becomes part of the important existing data that will be used by the Multidisciplinary Evaluation Team (MDET) in determining what additional assessments are needed to determine if the student is a student with a Specific Learning Disability. • Subsequently, the Eligibility Committee (EC) will use the SPL data along with additional information gained from the multidisciplinary evaluation to substantiate its eligibility decision.

30. IT and SATRoles & Responsibilities IT • Teachers working together to: • Identify students for multi-level instruction • Group students • Select and develop targeted instruction • Monitor student progress and effectiveness of instruction SAT • Review documentation collected during TARGETED and INTENSIVE instruction. • Make recommendations for further, broader problem- solving activities • Initiate multidisciplinary evaluations for special education

31. Other Collaborative Teams • MDET – Multidisciplinary Evaluation Team • Reviews SPL documentation and determines additional areas of assessment needed to constitute a multidisciplinary evaluation. • EC - Eligibility Committee • Reviews SPL documentation and additional assessments required by the multidisciplinary evaluation team in an effort to confirm the presence of a Specific Learning Disability. • IEP Team – Individualized Education Plan Team • Reviews the recommendations of the EC and SPL documentation to design a specialized education plan that will allow the child to progress in the State-approved grade-level curriculum.

32. MDET and EC Roles & Responsibilities MDET • Review and discuss existing data collected during multi-level instruction • Determine the need for additional evaluations that inform instruction and eligibility decision-making • Select appropriate assessments to confirm or reject a SLD hypothesis EC • Review and discuss student’s response to multi-level instruction • Review and discuss results of additional evaluations • Determine if multiple data sources indicate a specific learning disability • Document the presence of a SLD

33. Advance Organizer

34. Multidisciplinary Evaluation Components Selecting Assessments to Inform Instruction and Determine SLD

35. Components of an Evaluation for SLD • Data collected throughout the SPL process is used as one component of the multidisciplinary evaluation • The purpose of evaluations is to help the team identify not only why a student is struggling, but also how teachers can design appropriate and individualized specially designed instruction. • In conducting an evaluation, schools are encouraged to select assessment procedures to link eligibility determination to instruction. • A complementary relationship between the SPL process and psychoeducational testing exists in evaluating for a potential learning disability.

36. SPL Documentation Constitutes Existing Data… Most information is gathered through the course of the student’s instruction • A chronology of the student’s educational history • Screening, Interim assessments, formative/classroom assessments and progress monitoring data • Results of diagnostic assessments to inform the instructional process (e.g., Quick Phonics Screener, Phonological Awareness Screening Inventory, Key Math-3, Basic Reading Inventory) • Documentation of the nature, frequency, and duration of TARGETED and INTENSIVE instruction

37. Considerations for Selecting Formal Assessments • In conducting an evaluation, MDETs select assessment procedures that will link eligibility determinations to instruction. • Assessments that focus on specific features of a student’s academic difficulty are more useful than measures that address global academic areas. • For the student who exhibits weaknesses in areas such as memory, attention, or processing speed, the evaluation battery addresses those areas.

38. Cross Battery Assessment (XBA) Approach for Determining SLD • Cross battery assessment(XBA) is a process of selecting subtests that target specific cognitive domains. • XBA results and interpretations inform and guide instructional approaches and strategies for the student. • XBA can be used to determine if a pattern(s) of Strengths and Weaknesses exists between cognitive abilities and achievement • XBA includes multiple measures for arriving at a conclusion that confirms or rejects the hypothesis made by the SAT and MDET. • Lists included in the SLD guidance document Appendix are not exclusive. Professional judgment and expertise should guide the selection of tests. • www.crossbattery.com

39. Observation Requirement • The student suspected of having a SLD must be observed in the learning environment, including the general classroom setting, to document the student’s academic performance and behavior in the areas of difficulty.

40. Observation Requirement • Use information from observation done before the student was referred for an evaluation OR • At least one member of the evaluation team conducts an observation after the student has been referred for evaluation and parent consent is obtained

41. Observation and Parent Consent

42. Parent Requests for Evaluation • The law is clear - a parent may request an evaluation at any time during the SPL process • If a parent requests an evaluation, the district may choose to: • Request permission to evaluate, OR • Decline the request to evaluate and issue prior written notice (PWN) in accordance with the regulations

43. Advance Organizer

44. SLD Eligibility Standards Operationalizing the SLD Criteria

45. SLD Eligibility Standards Policy 2419 frames the SLD eligibility as: • level of learning (Standard 1); • rate of learning (Standard 2); and • exclusion factors (Standard 3), including the validation of the provision of appropriate instruction. • pattern of strengths and weaknesses

46. Standard 1 – Level of Learning The first element in identifying a student with a learning disability addresses the student’s mastery of grade-level content in one or more of the following areas: • oral expression; • listening comprehension; • written expression; • basic reading skill; • reading fluency skills(area added in 2004 revisions to IDEA); • reading comprehension; • mathematics calculation; or • mathematics problem solving.

47. Standard 1 – Level of Learning • Key consideration • student demonstrates significant and persistent low academic achievement even after obtaining evidence of research-based CORE classroom instruction and TARGETED and INTENSIVE instruction.

48. Standard 1 – Level of Learning Possible Verification Sources for Level 1 • Screening and assessment results that include a minimum of 3 data points that reflect at least 9 weeks of TARGETED instruction and at least 6 data points that reflect at least 9 weeks of INTENSIVE instruction that are at or below the 8th percentile are considered significant. Confidence intervals should be considered. • An individually administered norm-referenced achievement test score at or below the 8th percentile is considered significant. Confidence levels for each test administered should be considered. • Student performance relative to State-approved grade-level standards is an essential component of determining the existence of severe underachievement. • CSOs are available in electronic format on the West Virginia Teach 21 website at http://wveis.k12.wv.us/Teach21/public/ngcso/NGSCO.cfm

49. Standard 2 – Rate of Learning • Academic progress or Rate of Learning is the student’s attained rate of improvement compared to the typical rate of improvement in a given content area. • It is through regular assessment of an instruction and its effect on the student’s achievement that student response is determined. • Progress monitoring data provide measurable evidence of changes in the student’s achievement that are attributable to a particular instructional approach.

50. Standard 2 – Rate of Learning • Standard 2, Rate of Learning, is met when the student’s learning rate or growth is substantially below grade-level peers and, based on progress monitoring data, a reasonable rate of progress cannot be projected even when the student is provided supplemental instruction of reasonable intensity and duration. • Standard 2, Rate of Learning, is met when the student’s attained rate of improvement is substantially below grade-level peers’ typical rate of improvement and, based on progress monitoring data and Gap Analysis, reasonable or targeted rate of improvement cannot be projected even when the student is provided supplemental instruction of reasonable intensity and duration.