RTI and LD: Case Studies

1. RTI and LD: Case Studies Rhode Island RTI Initiative Module 5 Edition 2, Feb. 2008

2. Goals of this module • To develop understanding of the LD criteria • To gain experience making RTI-based special education decisions • Accepting a Referral • Evaluating for LD • Determining LD

3. There are three decisions within the special education process in which RTI is important • Accepting a Referral – any student • Evaluating • For other disabilities, specific criteria • If learning disabilities suspected, RTI • Determining Learning Disability

4. Accepting a Referral • Great deal should have been done with a student already prior to referral, i.e.: • Parent Consultation • High-quality research-based instruction • Grade-level meeting • Differentiated small group Instruction • Intervention Team Meeting • Tutoring • Parents have received official notice

5. Description of appropriate, high-quality, research-based instruction • Instruction • Interventions • Assessment data

6. Description of appropriate, high-quality, research-based instruction provided in all educational settings and by trained personnel; interventions of appropriate type, progression and intensity, implemented with fidelity and data indicating that frequent, repeated, appropriate assessments of this student's achievement/performance and progress were made, and that results were provided to the child's parents.

7. Student’s Achievement/Performance • Variety of Assessments • on assessment that measures progress towards Grade Level/Span Expectation; • on district reading/math assessments; • on behavioral observations and/or rating scales; • on standardized norm-referenced tests • Is the student’s achievement/performance significantly different from his/her peers? (e.g.: child performs below the +10th percentile in comparison to his or her peers) YES NO 

8. Progress During Instruction and Intervention (1) Has the child received comprehensive classroom instruction (including supplemental strategies and differentiated instruction)? YES NO (2) Has the child received individual and/or small group interventions and frequent progress monitoring by classroom teacher and/or other personnel? YES NO (3) Has the child received two periods (a month each at the very minimum) of intensive interventions and weekly progress monitoring (including clear evidence of fidelity of implementation) YES NO

9. Gap Between Student’s Performance and Peers' • Is the gap between the student’s performance and his/her peers being closed? • Can the student’s progress be maintained without intensive support? YES* NO** • * If yes, describe effective strategies and interventions. • **If no, proceed to consider suspicion of disability.

10. Accept Referral Would you accept the referral? Yes, if the student has had intensive interventions and continues to be significantly underachieving and demonstrates the need for intensive interventions to make progress… = suspicion of a disability

11. Martian • 5th grade boy • Reading at grade-level • Needs additional support in math

12. Referral Meeting 3/24: Mr. and Mrs. Martian, Parents Mr. Jupiter, General Ed. Teacher Ms. Black Hole, Special Educator, Mrs. Comet, School Psychologist Ms. Jones, Guidance Counselor What has been done with this student already Parent Consultation (9/20; 10/29) Math Instruction: Investigations Grade-level meeting (9/25) Differentiated small group Instruction Intervention Team Meeting (11/3, 12/15, 3/5) Tutoring Parents have received official notice Should we accept this referral?

13. Looking back at what we have just done …. • Let’s look at the “earthling” questions we collected… Turn and Talk But….We are on Earth

14. Does have a LD? Martian • Comprehensive Evaluation • Parents • LD questions • Exclusionary Criteria

15. Will comprehensive evaluations change as a result of RTI? If so, how? • Other disabilities – specific evaluation criteria • RTI can be useful • For LD, RTI = criteria • Still – ‘complete and individual’ doesn't change • RTI changes the nature of the comprehensive evaluation away from testing for eligibility to an organization of data already collected on the student’s instructional progress for planning increasingly intense interventions. (NASDSE, 2006)

16. WISC-III Woodcock Johnson–III Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test Motor Screen Bender Teacher Interview Speech Screening Health History Social History Educational History Our Old System Our New System • Intervention Summary Review • Vision-Hearing Screening • Parent and Teacher Interviews • CBM Normative Comparisons • Curriculum-Based Assessments • Observation

17. 300.304 Evaluation Procedures • (4) The child is assessed in all areas related to the suspected disability, including, if appropriate, health, vision, hearing, social and emotional status, general intelligence, academic performance, communicative status, and motor abilities; • Emphasis Added

18. R I O T

19. Martian • Comprehensive Evaluation • Review of RTI Information • Assessments • Intensive Intervention Response • Observation • Additional evaluation based on remaining assessment questions

20. Special Education Reading Specialist Counselor Teacher Assistants School-Based Problem Solving Team EL Teacher Special Educators School Psychologists-Diagnosticians Parents Students Teachers Parents

21. Parents • Involved from the beginning • Documentation about RTI process shared • State's policies regarding data and gen. ed services • Strategies and interventions for increasing child's rate of learning • Parents' right to request an evaluation • Informed consent is required for an evaluation, a reevaluation and for the initial delivery of special education services. • Active member of evaluation team

22. a) Achievement Gap Summarize group’s conclusion regarding the evidence from multiple sources that a student’s current achievement* is significantly different than his/her age peers (*after provision of appropriate general education learning experiences including at least two periods of intensive interventions). AND b) Educational Progress Summarize group’s conclusion regarding the evidence that the student does not make sufficient progress to meet age or State-approved grade level/span expectations, based on child’s limited responsiveness to intensive scientific, research-based interventions which have been implemented with fidelity. Longer-term intensive interventions are necessary for progress. Learning Disability Determination  In one or more of the eight areas, does the student’s performance meet the description under (a) Achievement Gap AND (b) Educational Progress

23. Exclusionary Criteria This finding is NOT primarily the result of: • A visual, hearing, or motor disability • Mental retardation • Emotional disturbance • Cultural factors • Environmental or economic disadvantage • Limited English Proficiency If any one of the following is a consideration, it is NOT the DETERMINANT FACTOR of the group’s finding: • Student has lacked appropriate instruction in literacy or in math • Student has had extended absences or repeated change of schools • Student has had an inconsistent or inappropriate educational program

24. Martian's Special Education Decisions • Evaluation • LD Determination

25. What about us? Turn and Talk Awareness, Infrastructure Building, Implementation

26. Description of appropriate, high-quality, research-based instruction • Instruction • Interventions • Assessment data

27. Description of appropriate, high-quality, research-based instruction provided in all educational settings and by trained personnel; interventions of appropriate type, progression and intensity, implemented with fidelity and data indicating that frequent, repeated, appropriate assessments of this student's achievement/performance and progress were made, and that results were provided to the child's parents.

28. Martian • Look at information • Jot down points for a summary statement • Share points and come to consensus

29. Student’s Achievement/Performance • Variety of Assessments • on assessment that measures progress towards Grade Level/Span Expectation; • on district reading/math assessments; • on behavioral observations and/or rating scales; • on standardized norm-referenced tests • Is the student’s achievement/performance significantly different from his/her peers? (e.g.: child performs below the +10th percentile in comparison to his or her peers) YES NO 

30. Martian • Investigation Unit Tests • Math Calculation CBMs • 4th grade Math Grades • 4th grade NECAP Unit One 45%, Unit Two 60% Mult/Div 20 digits, 60% accuracy Add/Sub 29 digits, 80% accuracy Problem Solving Approaching Standard Calculations Below Standard Effort At Standard Partially Proficient

31. Progress During Instruction and Intervention (1) Has the child received comprehensive classroom instruction (including supplemental strategies and differentiated instruction)? YES NO (2) Has the child received individual and/or small group interventions and frequent progress monitoring by classroom teacher and/or other personnel? YES NO (3) Has the child received two periods (at the very minimum a month each) of intensive interventions and weekly progress monitoring (including clear evidence of fidelity of implementation) YES NO

32. Martian Investigations Small group differentiation • Classroom Instruction • Intervention One • Intervention Two Math Calculations with partner and TA Math Calculations with partner and TA Explicit instruction (Mul, Div, Fractions) in small group • Weekly Progress Monitoring • Fidelity of Implementation

33. Gap Between Student’s Performance and Peers' • Is the gap between the student’s performance and his/her peers being closed? • Can the student’s progress be maintained without intensive support? YES* NO** • * If yes, describe effective strategies and interventions. • **If no, proceed to consider suspicion of disability.

34. Martian's Math CBMAddition and Subtraction 3rd Grade End of the Year Benchmark is 32 Correct Digits

35. Martian's Math CBM Multiplication and Division

36. Martian 36 Correct Digits Addition/Subtraction, ROI .5 Met 3rd grade benchmark 28 Correct Digits Multiplication/Division, ROI .7 Average 5th grade 38 Correct Digits, <10th percentile local norms Investigation Unit 3 Re-take 83% Investigations Unit 4 76% (Average 90%, bottom quarter) Investigations Unit 5 70% (Average 88%, bottom tenth) Two on-going small group interventions in math, beyond one hour math block

37. Accept Referral Would you accept the referral? Yes, Martian has had intensive interventions and continues to be significantly underachieving and he demonstrates the needs for intensive interventions to make progress.

38. Lauren Lauren, a third grader, is entering your district late in the year. Her family has provided records from her previous school district, which has been giving her additional support in reading for two years. You are a member of your school's team, which is meeting as a Referral Review Team to consider next steps for Lauren. Parents have received official notice.

39. Lauren:What shall we do? Divide into two groups: (1) Interventions and (2) Assessment Review Lauren's case in preparation for the Referral Team Meeting based on your group's assignment. 6 participants role-play a meeting 3 from Interventions, 3 from Assessment Remaining participants fishbowl and provide feedback after the meeting regarding Lauren and the process taken by the team.

40. Fishbowl Participants Fishbowl participants: • What did you see that you feel reflects best practice in systematic problem solving to support learning for all students/RTI? • What questions do you have? • What would you have approached or done differently?

41. Lauren: Critique of Idaho's Process How do you help your staff understand the materials from Idaho? How do you translate it to RI RTI language? • What did you like about the process they used? What are best practices? • What concerns do you have? • What would you do differently?

42. RTI, LD 3 THINGS I LEARNED TODAY 2 THINGS I STILL HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT 1 THING I KNOW OUR SCHOOL NEEDS TO DO