The Criteria for Determining SLD When Using an RTI-based Process Parts 3 - 4

1. The Criteria for Determining SLD When Using an RTI-based Process Parts 3 - 4 Session 4

2. 1. Academic Achievement • Failure to meet age- or grade-level State standards in one of eight areas: • oral expression • listening comprehension • written expression • basic reading skill • reading fluency skill • reading comprehension • mathematics calculation • mathematics problem solving 2. Model Discrepancy: Pattern of strengths & weaknesses, relative to intellectual ability as defined by a severe discrepancy between intellectual ability and achievement, or relative to age or grade. OR RTII: Lack of progress in response to scientifically based instruction • 3. Rule out: • Vision, hearing, or motor problems • Intellectual Disability • emotional disturbance • cultural and/or environmental issues • limited English proficiency • 4. Consider Lack of Instruction • Appropriate instruction by qualified personnel • Repeated assessments Inclusionary Exclusionary Specific Learning Disability Four Criteria for Determining Specific Learning Disability Observation PA GUIDELINES, 08

3. Have other factors or conditions been ruled out as the primary function of learning trends? -Informal assessment and data gathering (RIOT) Rule out other factors or conditions Criterion #3:

4. How to Assess Exclusionary Factors • Screening data can rule out exclusionary factors • If screening data indicates a concern, the IEP team must conduct further evaluation • There is no legal requirement that an in-depth evaluation of any of these areas occur if it is not judged appropriate or necessary by the team.

5. How to Assess Exclusionary Factors RIOT • Review:existing information • Interview:parents, teachers, student • Observe:student during instruction • Test:student skills LEAST TO MOST INTRUSIVE DIRECT TO INDIRECT

6. Rule Out: Vision/Hearing/Motor Adapted from Reschly (2005)

7. Rule Out: Intellectual Disabilities Adapted from Reschly (2005)

8. Rule Out: Emotional Disturbance Adapted from Reschly (2005)

9. Rule Out: Cultural Factors Adapted from Reschly (2005)

10. Rule Out: Environmental or Economic Disadvantage Adapted from Reschly (2005)

11. Rule Out: Limited English Proficiency Adapted from Reschly (2005)

12. Operationalizing Exclusionary Factors Exclusionary factors template, Albers 2013

13. 1. Academic Achievement • Failure to meet age- or grade-level State standards in one of eight areas: • oral expression • listening comprehension • written expression • basic reading skill • reading fluency skill • reading comprehension • mathematics calculation • mathematics problem solving 2. Model Discrepancy: Pattern of strengths & weaknesses, relative to intellectual ability as defined by a severe discrepancy between intellectual ability and achievement, or relative to age or grade. OR RTII: Lack of progress in response to scientifically based instruction • 3. Rule out: • Vision, hearing, or motor problems • Intellectual Disability • emotional disturbance • cultural and/or environmental issues • limited English proficiency • 4. Consider Lack of Instruction • Appropriate instruction by qualified personnel • Repeated assessments Inclusionary Exclusionary Specific Learning Disability Four Criteria for Determining Specific Learning Disability Observation PA GUIDELINES, 08

14. Has the student been provided with appropriate instruction? -Informal assessment and data gathering (RIOT) RULE OUT LACK OF INSTRUCTION Criterion #4:

15. Regulations Ensure that underachievement in a child suspected of having a specific learning disability is not due to lack of appropriate instruction in reading or mathematics by considering documentation that: • prior to or as part of the referral process, the child was provided scientifically-based instruction in general education settings, delivered by qualifiedpersonnel, as indicated by observations of routine classroom instruction. 14.125 [a] [i]

16. Special Rule for Eligibility Determination A child must not be determined to be a child with a disability under this part— (1) If the determinant factor for that determination is— (i) Lack of appropriate instruction in reading, including the essential components of reading instruction (as defined in section 1208(3) of the ESEA); (ii) Lack of appropriate instruction in math, or (iii) Limited English proficiency; (§300.306[b])

17. The School’s Responsibility: • Enhance Tier 1 instruction through identification of system needs • Core curriculum delivered with fidelity and rigor • Incorporate tiered interventions for all students (ELL, IEP, Secondary, Preschool) • Differentiated instruction • Appropriate interventions based on time, intensity, and instruction • Use data to develop appropriate individual interventions

18. Question: Was the student effectively taught? • Key Questions to Address • Has the student been provided with individualized supports in the general education classroom? • Has the student been provided with a sufficiently intense individualized intervention using research-based instructional procedures? • Has staff received sufficient training in delivery of curriculum and interventions? • Is adequate time spent in instruction?

19. Question: Was the student effectively taught? Key Questions to Address • Is a standards-based core curriculum in place in ELA and or math? • Is it based on and validated by scientific research? • If a scientifically validated curriculum is in place, is there evidence that it is being delivered at a sufficient level of fidelity?

20. Question: Has the student been provided with a sufficiently intense individualized intervention using research-based instructional procedures (Tier 2/3)? Has a plan been developed that targets the student’s deficiency through supplemental intervention in the general education classroom (differentiated instruction)? Is the supplemental program based on research? Key Questions to Address

21. Tier 2/3 Process Analysis Has the intervention been implemented with a high degree of fidelity (all components, consider absences or interruptions)? Has progress monitoring occurred at least weekly during the course of the intervention? Has a building-level team helped to design and guide the implementation of the intervention?

22. Tier 2/3 Analysis: Outcomes Is there evidence that the individualized intervention provided to this student has facilitated meaningful progress for other students receiving the same supports? (E.g. Tier II should be effective for 70% or more of the student receiving it: Batsche)

23. Operationalizing Exclusionary Factors Exclusionary factors template, Albers 2013

24. OBSERVATIONS

25. IDEA 2004 • Use information from the child’s performance that was done before the referral for an evaluation Or • At least one member of the evaluation team conduct an observation in the general education classroom after the child has been referred for an evaluation and parental consent The public agency must ensure that the child is observed in the child’s learning environment, including the regular classroom setting to document the child’s academic performance and behavior in the areas of difficulty

26. Why observe? Should assist in the documentation that appropriate instruction was provided, also to inform the decisions about recommended instructional changes and educational need.

27. Five Characteristics of Observations • To measure specific behaviors • Behaviors are operationally defined in a precise manner • Conducted under standardized procedures and are objectively managed • Time and places are carefully selected • Scoring and Summarizing of data are standardized (inter-rater reliability) • Hintze, Volpe, & Shapiro, 2007, p.319

28. Next Steps This concludes this section of the training. More information can be found in the Frequently Asked Question Document that will be made available to you soon.