Implementing Wisconsin Criteria for Specific Learning Disability SLD

1. Implementing Wisconsin Criteria for Specific Learning Disability (SLD) Fall 2011 Workshop Fall 2011 SLD Guidance 1 Handouts: Slides (print as handout/3 per page to allow for note taking) Copy of PI 11 numbered rule- attached Overview Document: http://www.dpi.wi.gov/sped/pdf/sld-criteria-implementation-overview-2011.pdf FAQ document: http://www.dpi.wi.gov/sped/pdf/sld-faq-2011.pdf (Nov 11, 2011 version) Inadequate Classroom Achievement Information Sheet: Print in Color http://www.dpi.wi.gov/sped/pdf/sld-is-inadq-clsrm-achmt.pdf Initial SLD Evaluation Checklist: http://www.dpi.wi.gov/forms/doc/felg-sld-001.doc SLD Reevaluation Checklist: http://www.dpi.wi.gov/forms/doc/felg-sld-002.doc ER-1: http://www.dpi.wi.gov/sped/doc/form-er1.doc ER-2: http://www.dpi.wi.gov/sped/doc/form-er2.doc Notes for ER-2: http://www.dpi.wi.gov/sped/pdf/ld-er2guidance.pdf Insufficient Progress Activity- Print in Color RTI Center Document- WI SLD Rule: Guiding Questions For Self-Assessing Readiness for Implementation: http://www.wisconsinrticenter.org/assets/files/SLD_Implementation_checklist%208-12-11.pdf RTI Center Document- WI RtI Brief: Specific Learning Disabilities Rule Implementation and RtI: http://www.wisconsinrticenter.org/assets/files/SLD%20rule%20Brief%205-11-11.pdf Handouts: Slides (print as handout/3 per page to allow for note taking) Copy of PI 11 numbered rule- attached Overview Document: http://www.dpi.wi.gov/sped/pdf/sld-criteria-implementation-overview-2011.pdf FAQ document: http://www.dpi.wi.gov/sped/pdf/sld-faq-2011.pdf (Nov 11, 2011 version) Inadequate Classroom Achievement Information Sheet: Print in Color http://www.dpi.wi.gov/sped/pdf/sld-is-inadq-clsrm-achmt.pdf Initial SLD Evaluation Checklist: http://www.dpi.wi.gov/forms/doc/felg-sld-001.doc SLD Reevaluation Checklist: http://www.dpi.wi.gov/forms/doc/felg-sld-002.doc ER-1: http://www.dpi.wi.gov/sped/doc/form-er1.doc ER-2: http://www.dpi.wi.gov/sped/doc/form-er2.doc Notes for ER-2: http://www.dpi.wi.gov/sped/pdf/ld-er2guidance.pdf Insufficient Progress Activity- Print in Color RTI Center Document- WI SLD Rule: Guiding Questions For Self-Assessing Readiness for Implementation: http://www.wisconsinrticenter.org/assets/files/SLD_Implementation_checklist%208-12-11.pdf RTI Center Document- WI RtI Brief: Specific Learning Disabilities Rule Implementation and RtI: http://www.wisconsinrticenter.org/assets/files/SLD%20rule%20Brief%205-11-11.pdf

2. Workshop Agenda Introduction and Overview IEP Team Evaluation SLD Rule in Detail Three criteria Evaluation activities Documentation requirements Other Issues and Considerations Questions/Discussion Fall 2011 SLD Guidance 2 Introduce Presenters (Paula Volpiansky and Kathy Laffin) Survey Audience for: Program support/diagnostic teachers Special education teachers General education teachers (classroom teachers, reading specialists, Title I) School psychologists Special education administrators General education administrators (principals, curriculum directors) Other? Review agenda and schedule for the day There are built in question/answer times during the day. For large groups- may write questions on note cards or post-it notes, hand in cards if questions related to section not answered during presentation- collected and sorted by presenters. Introduce Presenters (Paula Volpiansky and Kathy Laffin) Survey Audience for: Program support/diagnostic teachers Special education teachers General education teachers (classroom teachers, reading specialists, Title I) School psychologists Special education administrators General education administrators (principals, curriculum directors) Other? Review agenda and schedule for the day There are built in question/answer times during the day. For large groups- may write questions on note cards or post-it notes, hand in cards if questions related to section not answered during presentation- collected and sorted by presenters.

3. Where have we been? Where are we going? “Unexpected Underachievement” Achievement delays despite circumstances that support successful learning; assumes adequate instruction How determined? Past: evidence of in-child deficit: low achievement, significant discrepancy, processing problems Present: low achievement, insufficient response to instruction and intervention. Fall 2011 SLD Guidance 3 To begin, we will look briefly at how our understanding has evolved since the 1960s when SLD emerged as a construct. Historically, the concept of SLD assumed achievement delays in specific academic and school performance skills caused by an underlying disorder of cognition and learning. The delays associated with SLD occurred despite an individual receiving adequate instruction. This has sometimes been referred to as “unexpected underachievement.” For many years, one of the most commonly used indicators of the achievement delays associated with SLD has been ability (IQ) /achievement discrepancy. Over time, research findings have led the field to question the use of discrepancy analysis for identifying students with SLD. This has led to shift from the use of discrepancy to a focus on using direct evidence of the effects of instruction and intensive intervention to identify “unexpected underachievement” and SLD. When using this framework for SLD identification, students meeting eligibility criteria will most likely be those who require extended intensive intervention to make progress toward meeting grade level expectations. To begin, we will look briefly at how our understanding has evolved since the 1960s when SLD emerged as a construct. Historically, the concept of SLD assumed achievement delays in specific academic and school performance skills caused by an underlying disorder of cognition and learning. The delays associated with SLD occurred despite an individual receiving adequate instruction. This has sometimes been referred to as “unexpected underachievement.” For many years, one of the most commonly used indicators of the achievement delays associated with SLD has been ability (IQ) /achievement discrepancy. Over time, research findings have led the field to question the use of discrepancy analysis for identifying students with SLD. This has led to shift from the use of discrepancy to a focus on using direct evidence of the effects of instruction and intensive intervention to identify “unexpected underachievement” and SLD. When using this framework for SLD identification, students meeting eligibility criteria will most likely be those who require extended intensive intervention to make progress toward meeting grade level expectations.

4. Legislative Background Changes in Federal law and regulations Task Force Stakeholder Input and Public Hearings Revised PI 11 rules effective December 1, 2010 Fall 2011 SLD Guidance 4 The evolution of the research on how to best document the achievement delays that define SLD is reflected in several changes in the evaluation requirements for SLD found in IDEA 2004 (The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 2004) and the 2006 federal regulations (34 CFR 300) for implementing IDEA. One significant change was states can no longer require the use of significant discrepancy between intellectual ability and achievement as part of SLD determinations. Another important change was states must permit the use of a process based on a student’s response to scientific, research based intervention. The changes in federal law and regulations required Wisconsin to revise its SLD rule. In 2005, The Department of Public Instruction convened a task force to discuss the relationship of RtI (response to intervention); CEIS (Coordinated Early Intervening Services); and SLD, in light of the IDEA 2004 and its 2006 Regulations and to propose revised state SLD rules. In addition to the input of the task force, the department conducted 2 sets of public hearings to gather broad stakeholder input before finalizing the revised SLD rule. The revised rules were finalized in September 2010 and took effect on December 1, 2010. A three year transition period for ending the use of “significant discrepancy” was included in the rule. The use of significant discrepancy will “sunset” on December 1, 2013, for evaluations of public school students. The rest of our workshop will deal with the implementation of the revised SLD rules. The evolution of the research on how to best document the achievement delays that define SLD is reflected in several changes in the evaluation requirements for SLD found in IDEA 2004 (The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 2004) and the 2006 federal regulations (34 CFR 300) for implementing IDEA. One significant change was states can no longer require the use of significant discrepancy between intellectual ability and achievement as part of SLD determinations. Another important change was states must permit the use of a process based on a student’s response to scientific, research based intervention. The changes in federal law and regulations required Wisconsin to revise its SLD rule. In 2005, The Department of Public Instruction convened a task force to discuss the relationship of RtI (response to intervention); CEIS (Coordinated Early Intervening Services); and SLD, in light of the IDEA 2004 and its 2006 Regulations and to propose revised state SLD rules. In addition to the input of the task force, the department conducted 2 sets of public hearings to gather broad stakeholder input before finalizing the revised SLD rule. The revised rules were finalized in September 2010 and took effect on December 1, 2010. A three year transition period for ending the use of “significant discrepancy” was included in the rule. The use of significant discrepancy will “sunset” on December 1, 2013, for evaluations of public school students. The rest of our workshop will deal with the implementation of the revised SLD rules.

5. Definition of SLD Specific learning disability means a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or using language, spoken or written, that may manifest itself in an imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell or perform mathematical calculations, including conditions such as perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia and developmental aphasia. The term does not include learning problems that are primarily the result of visual, hearing, motor disabilities, cognitive disabilities, emotional disturbance, cultural factors, environmental, or economic disadvantage. PI 11.36(6)(a) Fall 2011 SLD Guidance 5 This is the definition of specific learning disability in Wisconsin’s SLD rule. It mirrors the federal definition of SLD. We do not directly use this definition to make eligibility decisions. Criteria and other evaluation requirements described later in the rule are used to operationalize the definition. This is the definition of specific learning disability in Wisconsin’s SLD rule. It mirrors the federal definition of SLD. We do not directly use this definition to make eligibility decisions. Criteria and other evaluation requirements described later in the rule are used to operationalize the definition.

6. IEP Team Evaluation Referral and Notice Review of existing data Consent for additional testing if needed (60 days unless extension by agreement) IEP Team meeting to determine eligibility IEP developed if student determined to have impairment and need for special education (30 days) Fall 2011 SLD Guidance 6 Before we move ahead to discuss how the SLD rule is applied, we want to provide a quick review of the special education process in general. When a student is referred for an initial evaluation or when a student who has been receiving special education is reevaluated, there are certain steps that must always be followed, no matter what the student’s impairment. First, when an initial written referral is received or the decision is made to conduct a reevaluation (a reevaluation must be conducted at least once every three years, unless the LEA and parent agree one is not needed), the parent is notified in writing of the referral or the start of the evaluation. An IEP team is assigned. The IEP team always includes the parent Members of the IEP review existing data and determine what additional data is needed, if any. An IEP team meeting is not required for this step. This is a very important step as the IEP team must consider what data will be needed to apply the three criteria and determine eligibility. A notice is sent to the parent about the results of the review of existing data and written parental consent is requested if additional data is needed. Once consent is received (or the parent is notified no additional testing is needed) the IEP team has 60 days to complete the evaluation and make an eligibility decision. If at any time after referral, the IEP team finds additional information is needed, such as data from intensive intervention, the IEP team and parent may agree to extend the 60 day timeline to allow for the collection of the necessary data. The agreement with the parent must be in writing and, if any new additional data is needed, consent is required. An IEP team meeting is scheduled, parents receive written notice of them meeting and the meeting is held to determine eligibility If the student is found eligible (or continues to be eligible), an IEP must be developed within 30 days following the eligibility decision. Before we move ahead to discuss how the SLD rule is applied, we want to provide a quick review of the special education process in general. When a student is referred for an initial evaluation or when a student who has been receiving special education is reevaluated, there are certain steps that must always be followed, no matter what the student’s impairment. First, when an initial written referral is received or the decision is made to conduct a reevaluation (a reevaluation must be conducted at least once every three years, unless the LEA and parent agree one is not needed), the parent is notified in writing of the referral or the start of the evaluation. An IEP team is assigned. The IEP team always includes the parent Members of the IEP review existing data and determine what additional data is needed, if any. An IEP team meeting is not required for this step. This is a very important step as the IEP team must consider what data will be needed to apply the three criteria and determine eligibility. A notice is sent to the parent about the results of the review of existing data and written parental consent is requested if additional data is needed. Once consent is received (or the parent is notified no additional testing is needed) the IEP team has 60 days to complete the evaluation and make an eligibility decision. If at any time after referral, the IEP team finds additional information is needed, such as data from intensive intervention, the IEP team and parent may agree to extend the 60 day timeline to allow for the collection of the necessary data. The agreement with the parent must be in writing and, if any new additional data is needed, consent is required. An IEP team meeting is scheduled, parents receive written notice of them meeting and the meeting is held to determine eligibility If the student is found eligible (or continues to be eligible), an IEP must be developed within 30 days following the eligibility decision.

7. Overview: WI SLD Rule Three Criteria: Inadequate classroom achievement (after intervention) Insufficient progress (2 methods) Consideration of exclusionary factors Sources of Data Observation Formal and informal assessment data Documentation requirements Fall 2011 SLD Guidance 7 When considering whether a student has the impairment of SLD for the first time, a referred student must meet each of the three criteria inadequate classroom achievement, AND insufficient progress AND exclusionary factors must be found not to be the primary reason for the inadequate classroom achievement and insufficient progress. The eligibility decision is contingent on all the criteria being met. All evaluations, initial and reevaluations require the IEP team to consider multiple sources of data including data from a systematic observation, and formal and informal evaluation data. These requirements are specified in the rule. The rule also includes documentation requirements. The documentation requirements are more numerous for initial evaluations than for reevaluations. We will review these throughout the workshop as we go through the criteria in detail. The SLD Evaluation Requirements Checklist has been developed as a resource to IEP teams to assist them in completing SLD initial and reevaluations. This checklist is found on pages 6-7 of your handout, Overview: Implementing Wisconsin Criteria for SLD. [refer to handout/link]When considering whether a student has the impairment of SLD for the first time, a referred student must meet each of the three criteria inadequate classroom achievement, AND insufficient progress AND exclusionary factors must be found not to be the primary reason for the inadequate classroom achievement and insufficient progress. The eligibility decision is contingent on all the criteria being met. All evaluations, initial and reevaluations require the IEP team to consider multiple sources of data including data from a systematic observation, and formal and informal evaluation data. These requirements are specified in the rule. The rule also includes documentation requirements. The documentation requirements are more numerous for initial evaluations than for reevaluations. We will review these throughout the workshop as we go through the criteria in detail. The SLD Evaluation Requirements Checklist has been developed as a resource to IEP teams to assist them in completing SLD initial and reevaluations. This checklist is found on pages 6-7 of your handout, Overview: Implementing Wisconsin Criteria for SLD. [refer to handout/link]

8. Wisconsin’s SLD RuleImpairment Criteria Fall 2011 SLD Guidance 8 This graphic represents the three SLD impairment criteria that must be considered when a student is evaluated for potential SLD for the first time: inadequate classroom achievement, insufficient progress, and exclusionary factors. The element in the middle of the graphic, “Need for Special Education” is considered only if the student meets the three SLD impairment criteria. Once a student is identified as having the impairment of SLD and is found to need special education, different criteria are used for reevaluation. We will return to this graphic throughout the day as we discuss each elements in more depth. This graphic represents the three SLD impairment criteria that must be considered when a student is evaluated for potential SLD for the first time: inadequate classroom achievement, insufficient progress, and exclusionary factors. The element in the middle of the graphic, “Need for Special Education” is considered only if the student meets the three SLD impairment criteria. Once a student is identified as having the impairment of SLD and is found to need special education, different criteria are used for reevaluation. We will return to this graphic throughout the day as we discuss each elements in more depth.

9. December 1, 2010 Documentation of Intensive Intervention before assessing Classroom Achievement Inadequate Classroom Achievement defined as 1.25 SD or more below the mean for same age peers Additional Exclusionary Factor: Lack of appropriate instruction in the area(s) under consideration (not just reading and mathematics) Fall 2011 SLD Guidance 9 Before we move on to discuss the elements of the SLD rule in more depth, we want to remind you of the requirements that have been in in effect since December 1, 2010. You should all have implemented these requirements in your districts. The requirement to determine insufficient progress using progress monitoring data from intensive intervention rather than significant discrepancy is not yet required, There is a three-year sunset on the use of significant discrepancy to determine insufficient progress. By December 1, 2013 all schools must transition from using significant discrepancy to using progress monitoring data from intensive intervention to decide if a student demonstrates insufficient progress in one or more areas of concern. Information Processing deficit is no longer a criterion that must be documented when determining a student has the impairment of SLD. We will go over all of these requirements in more depth later. Before we move on to discuss the elements of the SLD rule in more depth, we want to remind you of the requirements that have been in in effect since December 1, 2010. You should all have implemented these requirements in your districts. The requirement to determine insufficient progress using progress monitoring data from intensive intervention rather than significant discrepancy is not yet required, There is a three-year sunset on the use of significant discrepancy to determine insufficient progress. By December 1, 2013 all schools must transition from using significant discrepancy to using progress monitoring data from intensive intervention to decide if a student demonstrates insufficient progress in one or more areas of concern. Information Processing deficit is no longer a criterion that must be documented when determining a student has the impairment of SLD. We will go over all of these requirements in more depth later.

10. Reevaluation Criteria for continuing SLD impairment is the same as prior to December 1, 2010 A student remains eligible if: There is continued demonstrated need for special education AND No exclusionary factors apply Criteria standards for Inadequate Classroom Achievement and Insufficient Progress standards DO NOT apply. Fall 2011 SLD Guidance 10 The SLD rule revisions that took effect Dec. 1, 2010 did not include any changes to the SLD reevaluation process. Upon reevaluation a student remains eligible if they continue to need special education and no exclusions now apply. While it is good practice to review formal and informal achievement and progress data when conducting a reevaluation for SLD, the criteria standards for Inadequate Classroom Achievement and Insufficient Progress standards DO NOT apply Once identified as a student with a disability, special education and related services (except OT and PT) may be added to the IEP without a reevaluation. The IEP team develops an IEP annually to address the student’s disability related needs. The SLD rule revisions that took effect Dec. 1, 2010 did not include any changes to the SLD reevaluation process. Upon reevaluation a student remains eligible if they continue to need special education and no exclusions now apply. While it is good practice to review formal and informal achievement and progress data when conducting a reevaluation for SLD, the criteria standards for Inadequate Classroom Achievement and Insufficient Progress standards DO NOT apply Once identified as a student with a disability, special education and related services (except OT and PT) may be added to the IEP without a reevaluation. The IEP team develops an IEP annually to address the student’s disability related needs.

11. Think-Pair-Share TASK: With your table partners discuss this question and be ready to share your ideas How has the revised rule changed SLD evaluation activities in your district so far? Have the data collection methods or types of evaluation data changed? Fall 2011 SLD Guidance 11 Lets stop for a few minutes to let you discuss the following question about the revised rule. Activity: How has the revised rule changed SLD evaluation activities in your district, if at all, since Dec 2010? Have the data collection methods or types of evaluation data changed? Participants talk at their tables about the questions on the slide; allow 5 min. for discussion. Presenters circulate in the room and take responses from various tables to the questions, and comment as needed. Answer questions as time permits. Total time: 15 Minutes 5 min- small group 10 min large group Lets stop for a few minutes to let you discuss the following question about the revised rule. Activity: How has the revised rule changed SLD evaluation activities in your district, if at all, since Dec 2010? Have the data collection methods or types of evaluation data changed? Participants talk at their tables about the questions on the slide; allow 5 min. for discussion. Presenters circulate in the room and take responses from various tables to the questions, and comment as needed. Answer questions as time permits. Total time: 15 Minutes 5 min- small group 10 min large group

12. Wisconsin’s SLD Rule Fall 2011 SLD Guidance 12 Ok- lets move on and start discussing the SLD criteria in more detail: As we mentioned before, this graphic represents the 3 criteria included in the rule: inadequate classroom achievement, insufficient progress, and exclusionary factors not being primary. The graphic emphasizes the relationship between the 3 criteria; the equal weighting of each component; and the central importance of the “need for special education.” We encourage use of this graphic to illustrate that there are three interdependent criteria that support determination of the impairment of SLD. All three criteria must be considered in an integrated way when IEP teams decide if a referred student has the impairment of SLD for the first time. In order to do so, the IEP team will need to engage in thoughtful discussion about each criterion individually and, then, how the criteria relate to each other using existing data and additional data gathered following the referral. In most cases, this is not expected to be simple task, and will require the collective expertise of all IEP team members. The element in the middle of the graphic, “Need for Special Education” is considered only if the student meets the three SLD impairment criteria. Once a student is identified as having the impairment of SLD and is found to need special education, different criteria are used for reevaluation. Ok- lets move on and start discussing the SLD criteria in more detail: As we mentioned before, this graphic represents the 3 criteria included in the rule: inadequate classroom achievement, insufficient progress, and exclusionary factors not being primary. The graphic emphasizes the relationship between the 3 criteria; the equal weighting of each component; and the central importance of the “need for special education.” We encourage use of this graphic to illustrate that there are three interdependent criteria that support determination of the impairment of SLD. All three criteria must be considered in an integrated way when IEP teams decide if a referred student has the impairment of SLD for the first time. In order to do so, the IEP team will need to engage in thoughtful discussion about each criterion individually and, then, how the criteria relate to each other using existing data and additional data gathered following the referral. In most cases, this is not expected to be simple task, and will require the collective expertise of all IEP team members. The element in the middle of the graphic, “Need for Special Education” is considered only if the student meets the three SLD impairment criteria. Once a student is identified as having the impairment of SLD and is found to need special education, different criteria are used for reevaluation.

13. Overview: WI SLD Rule Eight Areas oral expression listening comprehension written expression basic reading skill reading fluency reading comprehension mathematics calculation mathematics problem solving Fall 2011 SLD Guidance 13 A student may be found to have the impairment of specific learning disability if an IEP finds he or she demonstrated inadequate classroom achievement and insufficient progress one or more of the achievement areas listed on this slide. The IEP team determines which area (s) of concern to consider during the evaluation based on information provided in the referral and considered during the review of existing data. As the IEP team reviews existing data, it would be appropriate to discuss areas of primary concern with the individual who made the referral and other IEP team participants. The IEP team is not required to consider all eight of the possible areas, only those of significant concern at the time of referral and review of existing data. Once a student is found to have the impairment of SLD and a need for special education, an IEP is developed to address the student’s disability related needs. Services in area(s) other than those in which the student met criteria during the initial SLD evaluation may be considered as part of the IEP development process. Before adding a service, the IEP team should consider if the need is related to the student’s disability and must consider LRE including whether general education options can address the need. Special education services, supplementary aids and services or program modifications and supports in additional achievement areas may be added to the student’s IEP, if the IEP team decides a disability related need should be addressed to allow the student to make progress in the general education curriculum, If a teacher or parent believes additional information is needed to revise a student’s IEP to better meet student needs, a reevaluation may need to be conducted. Note: A reevaluation is not automatically required before an IEP team may add, remove or adjust services related to the 8 SLD achievement areas in response to a student’s evolving disability related needs. A student may be found to have the impairment of specific learning disability if an IEP finds he or she demonstrated inadequate classroom achievement and insufficient progress one or more of the achievement areas listed on this slide. The IEP team determines which area (s) of concern to consider during the evaluation based on information provided in the referral and considered during the review of existing data. As the IEP team reviews existing data, it would be appropriate to discuss areas of primary concern with the individual who made the referral and other IEP team participants. The IEP team is not required to consider all eight of the possible areas, only those of significant concern at the time of referral and review of existing data. Once a student is found to have the impairment of SLD and a need for special education, an IEP is developed to address the student’s disability related needs. Services in area(s) other than those in which the student met criteria during the initial SLD evaluation may be considered as part of the IEP development process. Before adding a service, the IEP team should consider if the need is related to the student’s disability and must consider LRE including whether general education options can address the need. Special education services, supplementary aids and services or program modifications and supports in additional achievement areas may be added to the student’s IEP, if the IEP team decides a disability related need should be addressed to allow the student to make progress in the general education curriculum, If a teacher or parent believes additional information is needed to revise a student’s IEP to better meet student needs, a reevaluation may need to be conducted. Note: A reevaluation is not automatically required before an IEP team may add, remove or adjust services related to the 8 SLD achievement areas in response to a student’s evolving disability related needs.

14. SLD Criteria: Exclusionary Factors Exclusionary factors identified in rule Other impairments Environmental, economic or cultural factors Limited English proficiency Lack of appropriate instruction in reading, math or any of the other eight SLD achievement areas being considered Fall 2011 SLD Guidance 14 We begin discussion of the three criteria for SLD determination with the exclusionary factors as they relate to both the determination of inadequate classroom achievement and insufficient progress. The discussion of exclusionary factors and their potential impact on the eligibility decision is an important role of the IEP team. The exclusions named in rule are listed on this slide. With respect to other impairments as an exclusionary factor, it is possible that students with certain other impairments (e.g. EBD, OHI) may also be identified as having SLD. The exclusion applies if the student’s other impairment is the primary reason for the student’s inadequate classroom achievement or insufficient progress. Because SLD and Speech Language Impairment often co-exist, there are some special considerations when there are speech and language concerns addressed as part of the consideration of SLD. This will be discussed later. We begin discussion of the three criteria for SLD determination with the exclusionary factors as they relate to both the determination of inadequate classroom achievement and insufficient progress. The discussion of exclusionary factors and their potential impact on the eligibility decision is an important role of the IEP team. The exclusions named in rule are listed on this slide. With respect to other impairments as an exclusionary factor, it is possible that students with certain other impairments (e.g. EBD, OHI) may also be identified as having SLD. The exclusion applies if the student’s other impairment is the primary reason for the student’s inadequate classroom achievement or insufficient progress. Because SLD and Speech Language Impairment often co-exist, there are some special considerations when there are speech and language concerns addressed as part of the consideration of SLD. This will be discussed later.

15. Applying the Exclusionary Factors How are the exclusionary factors applied to determining SLD eligibility? The IEP team may NOT identify a student as SLD if any of the exclusions is the primary reason for inadequate classroom achievement or insufficient progress Fall 2011 SLD Guidance 15 The IEP team analyzes all available data in terms of the other two criteria in light of the exclusionary factors. If there is evidence that any one of the exclusions is the primary reason for a student’s inadequate classroom achievement or insufficient progress, the IEP team may not find the student to have the impairment of SLD. The IEP team decision regarding whether exclusionary factors apply must be made on a student by student basis. How these factors may or may not apply are likely different for each student. The IEP team analyzes all available data in terms of the other two criteria in light of the exclusionary factors. If there is evidence that any one of the exclusions is the primary reason for a student’s inadequate classroom achievement or insufficient progress, the IEP team may not find the student to have the impairment of SLD. The IEP team decision regarding whether exclusionary factors apply must be made on a student by student basis. How these factors may or may not apply are likely different for each student.

16. Exclusions Cultural, Environmental or Economic Factors, or Limited English Proficiency Possible questions to discuss Is the referred student a member of a cultural, economic or language related subgroup? What is the academic progress (in the area of student concern) of the subgroup compared to ALL students at the grade or age level? Is there other relevant data about the student’s individual performance and instructional history? Fall 2011 SLD Guidance 16 When deciding whether or not an exclusionary factor is the primary reason for a student’s inadequate classroom achievement and insufficient progress, an IEP team may need to review data about the ethnic, economic or language subgroup to which a student may belong. Looking at data about a specific population of students is sometimes referred to as “base rate” analysis. Base rate analysis examines the performance of a subgroup of students compared to the aggregate student group at the same age or grade level. Base rate analysis indicates whether the performance of the subgroup is ALIKE or DIFFERENT from that of the aggregate student group. IEP team may wish to do base rate analysis as they consider the exclusionary factors. If the performance of a subgroup to which the student may belong is significantly lower than that of the aggregate group, an exclusionary factor (ethnic, economic, language) may be the primary reason for the student’s inadequate classroom achievement and insufficient progress. It is possible that even if the student performs similar to students in their subgroup, the student may still have the impairment of SLD. The IEP team will need to review additional student specific information about the student’s instructional history and performance. For example, it is possible that a student whose primary language is not English has never been provided instruction in reading in their native language and thus, low reading skill in the primary language would not rule out SLD. The final decision must be made by the IEP team based on all available data about the student. The department is in the process of developing additional guidance to help IEP teams consider exclusionary factors. When deciding whether or not an exclusionary factor is the primary reason for a student’s inadequate classroom achievement and insufficient progress, an IEP team may need to review data about the ethnic, economic or language subgroup to which a student may belong. Looking at data about a specific population of students is sometimes referred to as “base rate” analysis. Base rate analysis examines the performance of a subgroup of students compared to the aggregate student group at the same age or grade level. Base rate analysis indicates whether the performance of the subgroup is ALIKE or DIFFERENT from that of the aggregate student group. IEP team may wish to do base rate analysis as they consider the exclusionary factors. If the performance of a subgroup to which the student may belong is significantly lower than that of the aggregate group, an exclusionary factor (ethnic, economic, language) may be the primary reason for the student’s inadequate classroom achievement and insufficient progress. It is possible that even if the student performs similar to students in their subgroup, the student may still have the impairment of SLD. The IEP team will need to review additional student specific information about the student’s instructional history and performance. For example, it is possible that a student whose primary language is not English has never been provided instruction in reading in their native language and thus, low reading skill in the primary language would not rule out SLD. The final decision must be made by the IEP team based on all available data about the student. The department is in the process of developing additional guidance to help IEP teams consider exclusionary factors.

17. ExclusionLack of Appropriate Instruction The IEP team may not identify a student as SLD if the reason for inadequate classroom achievement or insufficient progress is a lack of appropriate instruction IEP team considers appropriate general education instruction in the area(s) of concern No requirement to document appropriate instruction in all 8 areas Fall 2011 SLD Guidance 17 If the IEP team finds a student’s inadequate classroom achievement or insufficient progress in the area(s) of concern under consideration is due to a lack of appropriate instruction, it may not identify the student as having the impairment of SLD. When conducting an evaluation to consider potential SLD, the existence of appropriate instruction must be considered in any of the 8 achievement areas being considered, not just reading and math (as is required for evaluations of any other impairment). The IEP team considers whether instruction has been appropriate only for the area(s) of concern being evaluated for the referred student, not necessarily all 8 areas of SLD. When considering the area of reading, federal regulations reference the essential components of reading identified in ESEA which includes: explicit and systematic instruction in phonemic awareness, phonics, reading fluency, vocabulary development, and reading comprehension strategies. 71 Fed. Reg. 46646 (Aug. 14, 2006). If the IEP team finds a student’s inadequate classroom achievement or insufficient progress in the area(s) of concern under consideration is due to a lack of appropriate instruction, it may not identify the student as having the impairment of SLD. When conducting an evaluation to consider potential SLD, the existence of appropriate instruction must be considered in any of the 8 achievement areas being considered, not just reading and math (as is required for evaluations of any other impairment). The IEP team considers whether instruction has been appropriate only for the area(s) of concern being evaluated for the referred student, not necessarily all 8 areas of SLD. When considering the area of reading, federal regulations reference the essential components of reading identified in ESEA which includes: explicit and systematic instruction in phonemic awareness, phonics, reading fluency, vocabulary development, and reading comprehension strategies. 71 Fed. Reg. 46646 (Aug. 14, 2006).

18. Exclusion: Lack of Appropriate Instruction Use student specific information to verify appropriate instruction was provided such as: Core (universal) instruction provided regularly Student attended school regularly to receive instruction Core instruction delivered according to design and methodology by qualified personnel Differentiated instruction in the core curriculum was provided Fall 2011 SLD Guidance 18 The consideration of “appropriate instruction” includes both student specific information and grade level information for all students in the same grade as the student being evaluated. “General education” reflects curriculum and assessments aligned with Wisconsin’s Academic and Common Core Standards made available to all students . Some examples of student specific information the IEP team may wish to review when considering whether “appropriate instruction” has been provided may include: Verification that core (universal) instruction was provided regularly. Data indicating the student attended school regularly to receive instruction. Verification that core instruction was delivered according to its design and methodology Evidence that instruction was provided by qualified personnel. Data indicating differentiated instruction in the core curriculum was provided.* Data indicating the instruction provided was explicit and systematic *Note: where differentiated core instruction ends and supplemental intervention begins is a local decision. “appropriate instruction” includes options made available to all students, including options made available to students based on results of universal screening. The consideration of “appropriate instruction” includes both student specific information and grade level information for all students in the same grade as the student being evaluated. “General education” reflects curriculum and assessments aligned with Wisconsin’s Academic and Common Core Standards made available to all students . Some examples of student specific information the IEP team may wish to review when considering whether “appropriate instruction” has been provided may include: Verification that core (universal) instruction was provided regularly. Data indicating the student attended school regularly to receive instruction. Verification that core instruction was delivered according to its design and methodology Evidence that instruction was provided by qualified personnel. Data indicating differentiated instruction in the core curriculum was provided.* Data indicating the instruction provided was explicit and systematic *Note: where differentiated core instruction ends and supplemental intervention begins is a local decision. “appropriate instruction” includes options made available to all students, including options made available to students based on results of universal screening.

19. Exclusion:Lack of Appropriate Instruction To verify that appropriate instruction was provided, IEP teams may choose to use grade level information such as: Statewide assessment participation and results District wide assessments aligned to standards. Grade level common assessments. Fall 2011 SLD Guidance 19 Grade level information may also be used to verify “appropriate instruction” in the area(s) of student concern. Performance data for all students in the same grade as the referred student may help establish that the core curriculum in the area of student concern (e.g. reading comprehension) is effective for most students. Such data may include: State Assessment Results (Wisconsin Knowledge and Concepts Examination (WKCE)- NOTE: the department is developing a new Balanced Assessment System aligned with the Common Core Standards- the timeline for beginning implementation is currently 2014) District-wide assessments aligned with state and local standards. Grade level common assessments. If the referred student is part of a disaggregated WKCE group, whole grade data for the disaggregated group should also be reviewed and considered along with data about the student’s individual performance and instructional history. The question to consider is whether or not the referred student performs like or unlike peers in the disaggregated group. This may also be relevant when considering exclusionary factors related to a student’s cultural, economic or language subgroup. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For addition information about state standards and performance objectives see http://dpi.wi.gov/standards/index.htm, http://dpi.wi.gov/oea/amo.html, and http://dpi.wi.gov/standards/stds.html Information considered re: exclusionary factors may be documented on the initial and reevaluation checklists and Model Form ER-2. Notes to Accompany ER-2:http://www.dpi.wi.gov/sped/pdf/ld-er2guidance.pdfGrade level information may also be used to verify “appropriate instruction” in the area(s) of student concern. Performance data for all students in the same grade as the referred student may help establish that the core curriculum in the area of student concern (e.g. reading comprehension) is effective for most students. Such data may include: State Assessment Results (Wisconsin Knowledge and Concepts Examination (WKCE)- NOTE: the department is developing a new Balanced Assessment System aligned with the Common Core Standards- the timeline for beginning implementation is currently 2014) District-wide assessments aligned with state and local standards. Grade level common assessments. If the referred student is part of a disaggregated WKCE group, whole grade data for the disaggregated group should also be reviewed and considered along with data about the student’s individual performance and instructional history. The question to consider is whether or not the referred student performs like or unlike peers in the disaggregated group. This may also be relevant when considering exclusionary factors related to a student’s cultural, economic or language subgroup. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For addition information about state standards and performance objectives see http://dpi.wi.gov/standards/index.htm, http://dpi.wi.gov/oea/amo.html, and http://dpi.wi.gov/standards/stds.html Information considered re: exclusionary factors may be documented on the initial and reevaluation checklists and Model Form ER-2. Notes to Accompany ER-2:http://www.dpi.wi.gov/sped/pdf/ld-er2guidance.pdf

20. Think-Pair-Share TASK: With your table partners discuss these questions and be ready to share your ideas Why is a discussion about exclusionary factors important for SLD evaluation? What data might you look at to consider exclusionary factors? How might consideration of these factors change the IEP team meeting discussion? Fall 2011 SLD Guidance 20 Lets stop and let you spend a little time discussing exclusionary factors Activity: Participants talk at their tables about the questions on the slide; allow 5 minutes for discussion. Presenters circulate in the room and take responses from various tables to the questions, and comment as needed. Answer questions as time permits. Total time: 15 Minutes 5 min small group 10 min big group Note: The consideration of exclusionary factors starts during the review of existing data - The IEP team should compile existing data that will allow for consideration of exclusionary factors just as it does for the other two criteria. It is possible that student specific information related to one or more exclusionary factors will need to be collected as part of the evaluation. If addressed: With respect to “inadequate instruction” In the case where there may be evidence of inadequate instruction, it would be appropriate for the IEP team to discuss whether the student would still have low achievement if provided with adequate instruction. Is there any indication of how the student responds when appropriate or consistent instruction is provided? Lets stop and let you spend a little time discussing exclusionary factors Activity: Participants talk at their tables about the questions on the slide; allow 5 minutes for discussion. Presenters circulate in the room and take responses from various tables to the questions, and comment as needed. Answer questions as time permits. Total time: 15 Minutes 5 min small group 10 min big group Note: The consideration of exclusionary factors starts during the review of existing data - The IEP team should compile existing data that will allow for consideration of exclusionary factors just as it does for the other two criteria. It is possible that student specific information related to one or more exclusionary factors will need to be collected as part of the evaluation. If addressed: With respect to “inadequate instruction” In the case where there may be evidence of inadequate instruction, it would be appropriate for the IEP team to discuss whether the student would still have low achievement if provided with adequate instruction. Is there any indication of how the student responds when appropriate or consistent instruction is provided?

21. Sources of DataFull and Individual Evaluation The IEP team must use a variety of assessment tools and strategies to gather relevant functional, developmental, and academic information about the student including information provided by the parent. [34 CFR 300.304 (b)] Includes formal and informal assessment data and systematic observation Fall 2011 SLD Guidance 21 State and Federal law has long required all IEP teams conduct a full and individual evaluation before determining that a student is a student with a disability, eligible to receive special education. The starting point for this requirement is the review of existing data. When the IEP team reviews existing data, it must determine what additional data, if any will be needed to conduct a full and individual evaluation so the team can make an eligibility decision and determine the needs of the student. Data must be collected to allow the IEP team to determine the content of the student’s IEP and information related to enabling the student to be involved in and progress in the general education curriculum. State and Federal law has long required all IEP teams conduct a full and individual evaluation before determining that a student is a student with a disability, eligible to receive special education. The starting point for this requirement is the review of existing data. When the IEP team reviews existing data, it must determine what additional data, if any will be needed to conduct a full and individual evaluation so the team can make an eligibility decision and determine the needs of the student. Data must be collected to allow the IEP team to determine the content of the student’s IEP and information related to enabling the student to be involved in and progress in the general education curriculum.

22. Sources of Data Examples: Standardized, individually administered, norm referenced tests Other classroom assessment data; formative and summative data linked to grade level standards Data from instruction; work products Other observational data Fall 2011 SLD Guidance 22 Reviewing all sources of data during an IEP team evaluation discussion includes examination of formal data (e.g. standardized achievement test; data from intensive intervention) as well as other formal and informal data sources about the student’s classroom work and approach to learning. It is important to triangulate data, or compare and look for consistency or inconsistency among the various types of data reviewed. This careful analysis of a variety of data sources is necessary for verifying that the student’s inadequate classroom achievement and insufficient progress are indicative of the impairment of SLD. One important source of informal data is observation of how a student approaches learning. Observing how a student and processes information and expresses what they have learned has the potential to help identify which interventions and learning strategies might be most effective for a student. Such information may also help identify specific reasons why the student is not responding to certain interventions, and may help pinpoint specific areas of strength and weakness related to achievement.Reviewing all sources of data during an IEP team evaluation discussion includes examination of formal data (e.g. standardized achievement test; data from intensive intervention) as well as other formal and informal data sources about the student’s classroom work and approach to learning. It is important to triangulate data, or compare and look for consistency or inconsistency among the various types of data reviewed. This careful analysis of a variety of data sources is necessary for verifying that the student’s inadequate classroom achievement and insufficient progress are indicative of the impairment of SLD. One important source of informal data is observation of how a student approaches learning. Observing how a student and processes information and expresses what they have learned has the potential to help identify which interventions and learning strategies might be most effective for a student. Such information may also help identify specific reasons why the student is not responding to certain interventions, and may help pinpoint specific areas of strength and weakness related to achievement.

23. Systematic Observation At least one systematic observation of routine classroom instruction is required for all SLD evaluations. One observation may address multiple areas of concern The observation must be conducted by a member of the IEP team Documentation options: ER-1, ER-2, other Fall 2011 SLD Guidance 23 There are specific observation requirements when an IEP team conducts an evaluation of a student suspected of having SLD. There has been an observation requirement in federal regulations and state rules for SLD for many years. The department received several kinds of questions regarding the systematic observation required in SLD eligibility determination. The first relates to the number of required observations. There are two requirements for observation in the rule. At least one observation is always required, even if the significant discrepancy method is used. This observation must occur during routine general education instruction in the area (s) of concern being evaluated and must be conducted by a member of the IEP team. Usually this is someone other than the student’s classroom teacher for the area. The IEP team may rely on existing data from an observation of the student during routine classroom instruction conducted before the referral was made. If the observation occurred prior to referral, the individual conducting the observation must be appointed to the IEP team. There must be systematic observation of routine classroom instruction in each area of student concern. An observation may address multiple areas. Systematic implies it is “planned” beforehand. A systematic observation has the following characteristics What is the focus area (s)- need knowledge of the area What behavior(s) will you be observing (target behavior) that relate to considers in the area(s) How will data be collected so it can be summarized and shared with other IEP team participants There is a second observation required when a school begins using PM data to determine insufficient progress. We will discuss this later. . Documentation of the results of systematic observation may be included on the ER-1, ER-2 or on any attachments to the evaluation report. In accordance with state and federal legislation, it is not necessary to include documentation in more than one place. .There are specific observation requirements when an IEP team conducts an evaluation of a student suspected of having SLD. There has been an observation requirement in federal regulations and state rules for SLD for many years. The department received several kinds of questions regarding the systematic observation required in SLD eligibility determination. The first relates to the number of required observations. There are two requirements for observation in the rule. At least one observation is always required, even if the significant discrepancy method is used. This observation must occur during routine general education instruction in the area (s) of concern being evaluated and must be conducted by a member of the IEP team. Usually this is someone other than the student’s classroom teacher for the area. The IEP team may rely on existing data from an observation of the student during routine classroom instruction conducted before the referral was made. If the observation occurred prior to referral, the individual conducting the observation must be appointed to the IEP team. There must be systematic observation of routine classroom instruction in each area of student concern. An observation may address multiple areas. Systematic implies it is “planned” beforehand. A systematic observation has the following characteristics What is the focus area (s)- need knowledge of the area What behavior(s) will you be observing (target behavior) that relate to considers in the area(s) How will data be collected so it can be summarized and shared with other IEP team participants There is a second observation required when a school begins using PM data to determine insufficient progress. We will discuss this later. . Documentation of the results of systematic observation may be included on the ER-1, ER-2 or on any attachments to the evaluation report. In accordance with state and federal legislation, it is not necessary to include documentation in more than one place. .

24. Wisconsin’s SLD RuleImpairment Criteria Fall 2011 SLD Guidance 24 The next SLD criterion we will discuss is Inadequate Classroom Achievement. The next SLD criterion we will discuss is Inadequate Classroom Achievement.

25. SLD Criteria Inadequate Classroom Achievement When first identified, a student’s classroom achievement is inadequate when the student, in one or more of eight potential areas of SLD, does not achieve adequately for his or her age, OR meet state-approved grade-level standards Assess after intensive intervention Fall 2011 SLD Guidance 25 The rule states that a student’s classroom achievement is inadequate when the score on after intensive intervention, is equal to or more than 1.25 SD below the mean for the student’s age in at least one of the 8 areas of SLD. We will come back to this in a bit. This criterion of Inadequate Classroom Achievement using standardized diagnostic achievement test results replaced the previous requirements for Classroom Achievement Delay. The prior criterion for Classroom Achievement Delay was not based on the results of standardized achievement test data. The use of a standardized, individually administered, diagnostic achievement test score is now required for this criterion. Tests used for determining Inadequate Classroom Achievement may be the same as those used when determining Significant Discrepancy. Currently, we only have measurement tools to address (1) whether the child achieves adequately for his or her age in one or more of the eight potential areas of SLD. We do not yet have tools which measure whether a child (2) meets state-approved grade-level standards in one or more of the eight potential areas of SLD. Such tools may emerge as we shift to assessments based on the Common Core Standards. The rule states that a student’s classroom achievement is inadequate when the score on after intensive intervention, is equal to or more than 1.25 SD below the mean for the student’s age in at least one of the 8 areas of SLD. We will come back to this in a bit. This criterion of Inadequate Classroom Achievement using standardized diagnostic achievement test results replaced the previous requirements for Classroom Achievement Delay. The prior criterion for Classroom Achievement Delay was not based on the results of standardized achievement test data. The use of a standardized, individually administered, diagnostic achievement test score is now required for this criterion. Tests used for determining Inadequate Classroom Achievement may be the same as those used when determining Significant Discrepancy. Currently, we only have measurement tools to address (1) whether the child achieves adequately for his or her age in one or more of the eight potential areas of SLD. We do not yet have tools which measure whether a child (2) meets state-approved grade-level standards in one or more of the eight potential areas of SLD. Such tools may emerge as we shift to assessments based on the Common Core Standards.

26. Intensive Intervention Definition: A systematic use of a technique, program or practice designed to improve learning or performance in specific areas of student need Provided as part of general education; implemented by licensed general education staff Fall 2011 SLD Guidance 26 Before we go ahead, we want to stop and discuss Intensive Intervention. The term “intensive intervention” is used a number of the times in the rule and is used two different ways. The first is the intensive intervention required before assessing Classroom Achievement. The second way the rule uses the term “intensive intervention” is in reference to using progress data from intensive scientific research or evidence based intervention to determine insufficient progress criterion. We will review the 2nd type later, when we discuss the Insufficient Progress criterion. The rule defines “intervention “ as a “systematic use of a technique, program or practice designed to improve learning or performance in a specific area of pupil need. PI 11.02 (6t). The intensive intervention required before administering testing to determine if the student has Inadequate Classroom Achievement is considered part of general education programming. The intensive intervention provided before assessing Inadequate Classroom Achievement must meet the standards for all interventions listed on the next slide. Before we go ahead, we want to stop and discuss Intensive Intervention. The term “intensive intervention” is used a number of the times in the rule and is used two different ways. The first is the intensive intervention required before assessing Classroom Achievement. The second way the rule uses the term “intensive intervention” is in reference to using progress data from intensive scientific research or evidence based intervention to determine insufficient progress criterion. We will review the 2nd type later, when we discuss the Insufficient Progress criterion. The rule defines “intervention “ as a “systematic use of a technique, program or practice designed to improve learning or performance in a specific area of pupil need. PI 11.02 (6t). The intensive intervention required before administering testing to determine if the student has Inadequate Classroom Achievement is considered part of general education programming. The intensive intervention provided before assessing Inadequate Classroom Achievement must meet the standards for all interventions listed on the next slide.

27. Standards for ALL Intensive Interventions Used with individual or small groups Focused on single or small number of discrete skills. Include substantial number of instructional minutes beyond what is provided to all students. Applied in a manner highly consistent with its design, closely aligned to student need. Culturally responsive. Fall 2011 SLD Guidance 27 These standards apply to all intensive interventions: the intervention required before administering standardized achievement test(s) and intervention required when collecting progress monitoring data to determine insufficient progress: All Intensive Interventions must provide additional time beyond the time spent on instruction for ALL students. The focus of intensive intervention is a single discrete skill or a small number of discrete skills taught to individuals or small groups of students. PI 11.02(6m). Finally, IEP teams must be able to document that intensive intervention(s) was closely aligned with student need, culturally appropriate, and was implemented according to design. PI 11.36(6)(f)4 The IEP team determines if these standards have been met. These standards apply to all intensive interventions: the intervention required before administering standardized achievement test(s) and intervention required when collecting progress monitoring data to determine insufficient progress: All Intensive Interventions must provide additional time beyond the time spent on instruction for ALL students. The focus of intensive intervention is a single discrete skill or a small number of discrete skills taught to individuals or small groups of students. PI 11.02(6m). Finally, IEP teams must be able to document that intensive intervention(s) was closely aligned with student need, culturally appropriate, and was implemented according to design. PI 11.36(6)(f)4 The IEP team determines if these standards have been met.

28. CriterionInadequate Classroom Achievement Student’s standard score is 1.25 Standard Deviations below the mean or lower Use an achievement test that is: Individually administered Norm referenced Valid and reliable, and Diagnostic of impairment in area(s) of potential SLD under consideration Fall 2011 SLD Guidance 28 Now lets return to our discussion about the Inadequate Classroom Achievement criterion. As mentioned earlier, upon initial consideration of whether a student has the impairment of SLD, the IEP team must determine the student demonstrates Inadequate Classroom Achievement in at least one area of concern being considered as part of the evaluation. IEP teams must use a technically adequate achievement test. In accordance with the rule this means one that is individually administered, norm referenced, valid, reliable, and diagnostic of impairment in one or more of the eight potential areas of SLD. Information about the technical adequacy of a test is typically available in the examiner’s manual or technical manual available from the test publisher. Composite scores (scores made up on more than one subtest) are preferred. Now lets return to our discussion about the Inadequate Classroom Achievement criterion. As mentioned earlier, upon initial consideration of whether a student has the impairment of SLD, the IEP team must determine the student demonstrates Inadequate Classroom Achievement in at least one area of concern being considered as part of the evaluation. IEP teams must use a technically adequate achievement test. In accordance with the rule this means one that is individually administered, norm referenced, valid, reliable, and diagnostic of impairment in one or more of the eight potential areas of SLD. Information about the technical adequacy of a test is typically available in the examiner’s manual or technical manual available from the test publisher. Composite scores (scores made up on more than one subtest) are preferred.

29. Analysis of Valid, Reliable Standard Score Determine if the score is 1.25 standard deviations (SD) below the mean. Use the technical or examiner’s manual to determine the mean and standard deviation. Example: (mean of 100 and SD of 15) 1.25 SD below 100 is 81.25. On this test, the child’s score must be 81 or below to demonstrate inadequate classroom achievement.. Fall 2011 SLD Guidance 29 If a standard score was obtained from a technically adequate achievement test, the IEP team determines whether the score is 1.25 standard deviations below the mean. Most achievement tests have a standard deviation (SD) of 15, a mean (M) of 100. It is important to check the test manual for this information, as a some tests have an SD of 3, and an M of 10. 1.25 standard deviations below the mean on a test (M=100, SD=15) is 81.25; or on a test (M=10, SD =3) is 6.25. On a test ( M=100, SD=15), the student’s score must be 81.25 or below or on a test (M=10, SD=3), the student’s score must be 6.25 or below to meet the inadequate classroom achievement criterion. The graph on the next slide illustrates and example for a test with a mean of 100 and SD of 15 If a standard score was obtained from a technically adequate achievement test, the IEP team determines whether the score is 1.25 standard deviations below the mean. Most achievement tests have a standard deviation (SD) of 15, a mean (M) of 100. It is important to check the test manual for this information, as a some tests have an SD of 3, and an M of 10. 1.25 standard deviations below the mean on a test (M=100, SD=15) is 81.25; or on a test (M=10, SD =3) is 6.25. On a test ( M=100, SD=15), the student’s score must be 81.25 or below or on a test (M=10, SD=3), the student’s score must be 6.25 or below to meet the inadequate classroom achievement criterion. The graph on the next slide illustrates and example for a test with a mean of 100 and SD of 15

30. Fall 2011 SLD Guidance 30 This chart shows your typical normal curve with several typical cluster score results plotted. The cluster scores have a mean of 100 with a standard deviation of 15. The dotted red line is the 1.25 SD cut score (81.25 on all tests with M=100 SD =15) As you can see, the Reading Comprehension score is clearly above the cut score and in the average range (±1SD) The Reading Fluency score of 79 is clearly below the cut score The Basic Reading score of 83 is close. ---------------Supplemental Note----------------------------------------------- Calculation: 15 (SD) times 1.25 = 18.75 100 (mean) – 18.75 (1.25 SD) = 81.25 Multiply the SD x 1.25 then subtract that from mean of testThis chart shows your typical normal curve with several typical cluster score results plotted. The cluster scores have a mean of 100 with a standard deviation of 15. The dotted red line is the 1.25 SD cut score (81.25 on all tests with M=100 SD =15) As you can see, the Reading Comprehension score is clearly above the cut score and in the average range (±1SD) The Reading Fluency score of 79 is clearly below the cut score The Basic Reading score of 83 is close. ---------------Supplemental Note----------------------------------------------- Calculation: 15 (SD) times 1.25 = 18.75 100 (mean) – 18.75 (1.25 SD) = 81.25 Multiply the SD x 1.25 then subtract that from mean of test

31. Inadequate Classroom Achievement 1.25 SD cut score on reliable/valid test Exceptions When valid, reliable score can not be obtained Behavior, language, other impairment No appropriate standardized tests for student’s age. Must document with other empirical evidence. Scores within 1 SEM (standard error of the measurement) of 1.25 SD may be considered when the student meets all other criteria Fall 2011 SLD Guidance 31 There are two exceptions to the requirement that a student’s score be at least 1.25 SD below the mean: When the student’s test behavior, language proficiency, or another impairment interfere with obtaining a valid, reliable score, OR there are no valid, reliable assessments appropriate for the student’s age, the results of standardized achievement tests should not be used. Then the IEP team documents why a technically adequate achievement testing should not be used, and whether inadequate achievement does or does not exist using other empirical evidence. Some sources of empirical data may include Curriculum Based Measurements (CBMs), portfolios, grading rubrics, district developed formative grade level assessments, unit assessments, criterion based assessments, and statewide or district assessments. We recommend sources based on state or national norms rather than local performance measures be utilized whenever possible. The student may be considered to meet the criterion if his or her test score is within 1 SEM of the cut score, AND the student meets all other criteria (insufficient progress, no exclusionary factors apply). The following slide illustrates an analysis which includes consideration of the 1 SEM exception. There are two exceptions to the requirement that a student’s score be at least 1.25 SD below the mean: When the student’s test behavior, language proficiency, or another impairment interfere with obtaining a valid, reliable score, OR there are no valid, reliable assessments appropriate for the student’s age, the results of standardized achievement tests should not be used. Then the IEP team documents why a technically adequate achievement testing should not be used, and whether inadequate achievement does or does not exist using other empirical evidence. Some sources of empirical data may include Curriculum Based Measurements (CBMs), portfolios, grading rubrics, district developed formative grade level assessments, unit assessments, criterion based assessments, and statewide or district assessments. We recommend sources based on state or national norms rather than local performance measures be utilized whenever possible. The student may be considered to meet the criterion if his or her test score is within 1 SEM of the cut score, AND the student meets all other criteria (insufficient progress, no exclusionary factors apply). The following slide illustrates an analysis which includes consideration of the 1 SEM exception.

32. Fall 2011 SLD Guidance 32 Here is the same graph as earlier with the addition of a chart of the student test scores. Charts of SEMs for test scores are generally found the technical manual/documentation for the test. Teams should use a narrow SEM range if more than one option is provided. (specific guidance will be provided in SLD guide) Unless an exclusion was found to apply or the IEP team determine the scores were invalid for some other reason, the student would be found to demonstrate inadequate classroom achievement in Reading Fluency. If all other criteria applied (Insufficient Progress, no exclusions apply), in this case the IEP team could consider the student to also meet the Inadequate Classroom Achievement criterion in Basic Reading Skill since the student’s score of 83 falls within 1 SEM (2.1) of the cut score of 81.25. SEM=2.1 (see chart) Student’s Score= 83 1.25 SD Cut score= 81.25 83– 2.1=80.9 80.9 is below the cut score of 81.25 Here is the same graph as earlier with the addition of a chart of the student test scores. Charts of SEMs for test scores are generally found the technical manual/documentation for the test. Teams should use a narrow SEM range if more than one option is provided. (specific guidance will be provided in SLD guide) Unless an exclusion was found to apply or the IEP team determine the scores were invalid for some other reason, the student would be found to demonstrate inadequate classroom achievement in Reading Fluency. If all other criteria applied (Insufficient Progress, no exclusions apply), in this case the IEP team could consider the student to also meet the Inadequate Classroom Achievement criterion in Basic Reading Skill since the student’s score of 83 falls within 1 SEM (2.1) of the cut score of 81.25. SEM=2.1 (see chart) Student’s Score= 83 1.25 SD Cut score= 81.25 83– 2.1=80.9 80.9 is below the cut score of 81.25

33. Questions Inadequate Achievement FAQ #: Does a student’s intellectual ability affect how the IEP team applies the inadequate classroom achievement criterion? FAQ #: If a student was administered a standardized achievement test prior to receiving intervention, can the scores from this test be used to decide if the student meets the inadequate classroom achievement criterion? Fall 2011 SLD Guidance 33 Intro FAQ document in Handouts The department has received questions from the field about the new rule, and has developed a document, Frequently Asked Questions about Making SLD Eligibility Decisions, to address them. The document is available on the SLD Page on the DPI website and will be added to as new questions and answers are added. Here a two questions related to Inadequate Achievement that we want to highlight. FAQ # 25 Does a student’s intellectual ability affect how the IEP team applies the inadequate classroom achievement criterion? No. A student’s achievement is considered inadequate when the student’s score, after intensive intervention, on one or more assessments of achievement is equal to or more than 1.25 standard deviations below the mean in one or more of the eight achievement areas, unless the IEP team determines that the student cannot attain valid and reliable standard scores. This standard applies regardless of a student’s intellectual ability. If the student meets criteria as having a cognitive disability (CD), it would exclude them from being identified as having SLD. FAQ # 27 If a student was administered a standardized achievement test prior to receiving intervention, can the scores from this test be used to decide if the student meets the inadequate classroom achievement criterion? No. The decision that a student demonstrates inadequate achievement must be based on scores from testing administered after intensive intervention.Intro FAQ document in Handouts The department has received questions from the field about the new rule, and has developed a document, Frequently Asked Questions about Making SLD Eligibility Decisions, to address them. The document is available on the SLD Page on the DPI website and will be added to as new questions and answers are added. Here a two questions related to Inadequate Achievement that we want to highlight. FAQ # 25 Does a student’s intellectual ability affect how the IEP team applies the inadequate classroom achievement criterion? No. A student’s achievement is considered inadequate when the student’s score, after intensive intervention, on one or more assessments of achievement is equal to or more than 1.25 standard deviations below the mean in one or more of the eight achievement areas, unless the IEP team determines that the student cannot attain valid and reliable standard scores. This standard applies regardless of a student’s intellectual ability. If the student meets criteria as having a cognitive disability (CD), it would exclude them from being identified as having SLD. FAQ # 27 If a student was administered a standardized achievement test prior to receiving intervention, can the scores from this test be used to decide if the student meets the inadequate classroom achievement criterion? No. The decision that a student demonstrates inadequate achievement must be based on scores from testing administered after intensive intervention.

34. ActivityInadequate Classroom Achievement TASK: Use the Inadequate Achievement Handout to complete these activities with your table partners. Discuss the questions at the bottom of the handout, and be ready to share your ideas. Identify on the DPI sample forms, where to document inadequate classroom achievement, and what statement(s) could be made. Fall 2011 SLD Guidance 34 Total time: 15 minutes Activity: Review the diagram on pg. 2 of the handout on Inadequate Achievement. At each table have participants discuss how they would answer each question for the IEP team. Have each table also identify a statement that might be used to be used to document the IEP team decision about inadequate achievement. After 10-15 minutes move around the room and ask different participants to answer each question. Add comments if needed. Handouts needed: **Inadequate Classroom Achievement one pager Initial Criteria Checklist, ER-1 ER-2 Look at the forms and identify where on the forms the IEP team might want to include statements documenting the IEP team decision about whether the student meets the Inadequate Achievement Criterion. Reminder: all criteria and data must be considered before the IEP team makes an eligibility decision. Follow-with question and answers up to this point Total time: 15 minutes Activity: Review the diagram on pg. 2 of the handout on Inadequate Achievement. At each table have participants discuss how they would answer each question for the IEP team. Have each table also identify a statement that might be used to be used to document the IEP team decision about inadequate achievement. After 10-15 minutes move around the room and ask different participants to answer each question. Add comments if needed. Handouts needed: **Inadequate Classroom Achievement one pager Initial Criteria Checklist, ER-1 ER-2 Look at the forms and identify where on the forms the IEP team might want to include statements documenting the IEP team decision about whether the student meets the Inadequate Achievement Criterion. Reminder: all criteria and data must be considered before the IEP team makes an eligibility decision. Follow-with question and answers up to this point

35. Wisconsin’s SLD RuleImpairment Criteria Fall 2011 SLD Guidance 35 We will now move on to the next criterion, Insufficient ProgressWe will now move on to the next criterion, Insufficient Progress

36. Criterion: Insufficient Progress Method 1: Insufficient progress based on a student’s response to intensive scientific, research-based or evidence-based intervention required in public schools December 1, 2013 (aka using progress monitoring data from intensive intervention) Method 2: Significant Discrepancy between academic achievement and intellectual ability; permitted in public schools until November 30, 2013. Fall 2011 SLD Guidance 36 Now lets turn to the other achievement based criterion the IEP team must consider before determining a student has the impairment of SLD for the first time. There are two methods in rule for determining insufficient progress. Method 2, significant discrepancy, has not changed from the previous rule, and is permitted for students enrolled in public schools until November 30, 2013. After December 1, 2013, there will be only one method used for students enrolled in public schools to determine if a student meets the Insufficient Progress criterion. Now lets turn to the other achievement based criterion the IEP team must consider before determining a student has the impairment of SLD for the first time. There are two methods in rule for determining insufficient progress. Method 2, significant discrepancy, has not changed from the previous rule, and is permitted for students enrolled in public schools until November 30, 2013. After December 1, 2013, there will be only one method used for students enrolled in public schools to determine if a student meets the Insufficient Progress criterion.

37. Significant Discrepancy There have been no changes to the standards for determining significant discrepancy The use of Significant Discrepancy will sunset for public school students as of December 1, 2013 Resources on the use of Significant Discrepancy are available on the DPI website at http://dpi.wi.gov/sped/ld.html Fall 2011 SLD Guidance 37 The process for determining significant discrepancy has not changed. The score obtained on the assessment of inadequate classroom achievement may be used to as the achievement score when applying the significant discrepancy formula. The significant discrepancy formula is the difference between standard scores for ability and achievement equal to or greater than 1.75 standard errors of the estimate below expected achievement, using a standard regression procedure. This is a different, separate standard than the inadequate classroom achievement standard. The process for determining significant discrepancy has not changed. The score obtained on the assessment of inadequate classroom achievement may be used to as the achievement score when applying the significant discrepancy formula. The significant discrepancy formula is the difference between standard scores for ability and achievement equal to or greater than 1.75 standard errors of the estimate below expected achievement, using a standard regression procedure. This is a different, separate standard than the inadequate classroom achievement standard.

38. Insufficient Progress using Data from Intensive Intervention Insufficient Progress using progress monitoring data from intensive intervention will be used in all public schools beginning December 1, 2013 The decision to start using this method must be made on a school wide basis and parents must be notified 10 calendar days before its first use Fall 2011 SLD Guidance 38 The method we will discuss now is “Insufficient Response to Intensive, Scientific, Research-based or Evidence-based Intervention” . When using this method, IEP teams determine if the student demonstrates insufficient progress by analyzing data collected during intensive intervention that meet the standards we described earlier. This method will be required for evaluations of all students enrolled in public schools beginning December 1, 2013. The rest or our discussion about Insufficient Progress will focus on this second method. When the LEA decides a school will begin using progress data from intensive intervention to determine if a referred student demonstrates insufficient progress, the LEA must notify all parents of students enrolled in the school of the decision at least 10 calendar days before this criterion is used at the school. Generally, schools should notify parents in the same way they notify parents of other important school policy changes. Posting a notice on the district’s website is not enough. The decision of which criterion to use must be made on a school by school basis. Once the decision is made, the same criterion must be used for all students enrolled in the public school being considered for initial SLD eligibility (whenever considering SLD for the first time). Note: If a student was previously identified as an eligible student with a disability with another impairment and this is the first time SLD is being considered, initial SLD criteria apply. The method we will discuss now is “Insufficient Response to Intensive, Scientific, Research-based or Evidence-based Intervention” . When using this method, IEP teams determine if the student demonstrates insufficient progress by analyzing data collected during intensive intervention that meet the standards we described earlier. This method will be required for evaluations of all students enrolled in public schools beginning December 1, 2013. The rest or our discussion about Insufficient Progress will focus on this second method. When the LEA decides a school will begin using progress data from intensive intervention to determine if a referred student demonstrates insufficient progress, the LEA must notify all parents of students enrolled in the school of the decision at least 10 calendar days before this criterion is used at the school. Generally, schools should notify parents in the same way they notify parents of other important school policy changes. Posting a notice on the district’s website is not enough. The decision of which criterion to use must be made on a school by school basis. Once the decision is made, the same criterion must be used for all students enrolled in the public school being considered for initial SLD eligibility (whenever considering SLD for the first time). Note: If a student was previously identified as an eligible student with a disability with another impairment and this is the first time SLD is being considered, initial SLD criteria apply.

39. Insufficient Progress using Data from Intensive Intervention The student does not make sufficient progress to meet age or state-approved grade-level standards in one or more of the eight areas of potential specific learning disabilities when using a process based on the student’s response to intensive scientific, research-based or evidence-based interventions. Fall 2011 SLD Guidance 39 In the rule, Insufficient Progress base on Insufficient response to intensive, scientific, research-based or evidence-based intervention is defined as follows: The student does not make sufficient progress to meet age or state-approved grade-level standards in one or more of the eight areas of potential specific learning disabilities when using a process based on the child’s response to intensive scientific, research-based or evidence-based interventions. [PI 11.36 (6)(c) 2. a. ] The rule provides additional direction about the process used to produce data for consideration by the IEP team as well as for determining when progress is considered insufficient. In the rule, Insufficient Progress base on Insufficient response to intensive, scientific, research-based or evidence-based intervention is defined as follows: The student does not make sufficient progress to meet age or state-approved grade-level standards in one or more of the eight areas of potential specific learning disabilities when using a process based on the child’s response to intensive scientific, research-based or evidence-based interventions. [PI 11.36 (6)(c) 2. a. ] The rule provides additional direction about the process used to produce data for consideration by the IEP team as well as for determining when progress is considered insufficient.

40. Insufficient Progress using Data from Intensive Intervention What is progress monitoring? A scientifically based practice to assess student response to intervention Uses valid and reliable PM tools (probes) brief, direct measures of specific academic skills, with multiple equal or nearly equal forms, that are sensitive to small changes in student performance, and provide valid, reliable measures of performance during intervention. PI 11.02 (9) Fall 2011 SLD Guidance 40 Lets talk about how the data from intervention is gathered for consideration. This criterion for determining Insufficient progress is based on the use of progress monitoring data collected during intensive intervention Progress monitoring is a scientifically based practice for determining a student’s response to intensive intervention. Progress monitoring requires the use of a scientifically based tool to measure progress, such as a probe. The probes used must provide reliable and valid data about the area or areas of concern that are the target of the intervention. Based on the definition of “probe” in the rule, locally developed progress monitoring tools are not likely to meet the required standard. The IEP team determines if the progress data being considered meets the requirements of the rule. NOTE: For resources on Progress Monitoring Tools or Intensive Interventions, go toe the Wisconsin RtI Center Website: http://www.wisconsinrticenter.org/educators/rti-for-my-school/tools.html . There are a number of useful tools and links to extensive information on this topic at this site. Lets talk about how the data from intervention is gathered for consideration. This criterion for determining Insufficient progress is based on the use of progress monitoring data collected during intensive intervention Progress monitoring is a scientifically based practice for determining a student’s response to intensive intervention. Progress monitoring requires the use of a scientifically based tool to measure progress, such as a probe. The probes used must provide reliable and valid data about the area or areas of concern that are the target of the intervention. Based on the definition of “probe” in the rule, locally developed progress monitoring tools are not likely to meet the required standard. The IEP team determines if the progress data being considered meets the requirements of the rule. NOTE: For resources on Progress Monitoring Tools or Intensive Interventions, go toe the Wisconsin RtI Center Website: http://www.wisconsinrticenter.org/educators/rti-for-my-school/tools.html . There are a number of useful tools and links to extensive information on this topic at this site.

41. Standards for ALL Intensive Interventions Used with individual or small groups Focused on single or small number of discrete skills. Include substantial number of instructional minutes beyond what is provided to all students. Applied in a manner highly consistent with its design, closely aligned to student need. Culturally responsive. Fall 2011 SLD Guidance 41 Earlier in the presentation we noted there were two uses of the term “Intensive Intervention” in the rule. The first was the intensive intervention required before assessing classroom achievement using an individually administered standardized achievement test (Inadequate Classroom Achievement criterion). In general, this is the same expectation for intervention as has been required for many years. The second use of the term, “Intensive Intervention” is when a school begins using progress monitoring data to determine Insufficient Progress. Lets review: The rule defines “intervention “ as a “systematic use of a technique, program or practice designed to improve learning or performance in a specific area of pupil need. PI 11.02 (6t). “Intensive Intervention” means interventions used with individual or small groups of pupils, focusing on single or small numbers of discrete skills, with substantial numbers of instructional minutes in addition to those provided to all pupils. These standards apply to all intensive interventions: intervention required before administering standardized achievement test(s) to determine Inadequate Classroom Achievement and the interventions required when collecting progress monitoring data to determine insufficient progress based on a student’s response to scientific-research or evidenced based intervention. Earlier in the presentation we noted there were two uses of the term “Intensive Intervention” in the rule. The first was the intensive intervention required before assessing classroom achievement using an individually administered standardized achievement test (Inadequate Classroom Achievement criterion). In general, this is the same expectation for intervention as has been required for many years. The second use of the term, “Intensive Intervention” is when a school begins using progress monitoring data to determine Insufficient Progress. Lets review: The rule defines “intervention “ as a “systematic use of a technique, program or practice designed to improve learning or performance in a specific area of pupil need. PI 11.02 (6t). “Intensive Intervention” means interventions used with individual or small groups of pupils, focusing on single or small numbers of discrete skills, with substantial numbers of instructional minutes in addition to those provided to all pupils. These standards apply to all intensive interventions: intervention required before administering standardized achievement test(s) to determine Inadequate Classroom Achievement and the interventions required when collecting progress monitoring data to determine insufficient progress based on a student’s response to scientific-research or evidenced based intervention.

42. Standards for Intensive Interventions to Consider Insufficient Progress using PM Must meet standards for all intensive interventions ADDITIONAL features: Scientific research-based or evidence-based. Closely aligned to individual learning needs (area of concern) Implemented with adequate fidelity At least TWO interventions required Fall 2011 SLD Guidance 42 Two intensive interventions meeting this standard are required when a school adopts the method of determining Insufficient Progress using progress monitoring (PM) data for students enrolled in the school. In the SLD rule this is formally referred to as Insufficient Progress based on “insufficient response to intensive, scientific, research-based or evidence-based intervention”. The standards for Intensive Interventions implemented with the student when collecting progress monitoring data to determine Insufficient Progress are more rigorous than the interventions required prior to assessing classroom achievement. They must meet the standards for ALL intensive interventions (on previous slide) as well as some additional standards. They must be : scientific research-based or evidence-based and implemented with adequate fidelity; meaning applied in a manner highly consistent with its design, and provided at least 80% of recommended weeks, sessions, or minutes per session. The rule requires a minimum of two such intensive interventions that address the area(s) of concern under consideration. It is possible for one intervention to address more than one area of concern (eg. reading comprehension and reading fluency could be addressed by the same intervention). Although, good practice, two interventions meeting this standard are not required when applying the Significant Discrepancy criterion. We encourage districts to begin this process before transitioning away from the use of the significant discrepancy method. NOTE: For resources on Progress Monitoring Tools or Intensive Interventions, go toe the Wisconsin RtI Center Website: http://www.wisconsinrticenter.org/educators/rti-for-my-school/tools.html . Two intensive interventions meeting this standard are required when a school adopts the method of determining Insufficient Progress using progress monitoring (PM) data for students enrolled in the school. In the SLD rule this is formally referred to as Insufficient Progress based on “insufficient response to intensive, scientific, research-based or evidence-based intervention”. The standards for Intensive Interventions implemented with the student when collecting progress monitoring data to determine Insufficient Progress are more rigorous than the interventions required prior to assessing classroom achievement. They must meet the standards for ALL intensive interventions (on previous slide) as well as some additional standards. They must be : scientific research-based or evidence-based and implemented with adequate fidelity; meaning applied in a manner highly consistent with its design, and provided at least 80% of recommended weeks, sessions, or minutes per session. The rule requires a minimum of two such intensive interventions that address the area(s) of concern under consideration. It is possible for one intervention to address more than one area of concern (eg. reading comprehension and reading fluency could be addressed by the same intervention). Although, good practice, two interventions meeting this standard are not required when applying the Significant Discrepancy criterion. We encourage districts to begin this process before transitioning away from the use of the significant discrepancy method. NOTE: For resources on Progress Monitoring Tools or Intensive Interventions, go toe the Wisconsin RtI Center Website: http://www.wisconsinrticenter.org/educators/rti-for-my-school/tools.html .

43. Insufficient Progress using Data from Intensive Intervention How frequently must progress monitoring occur? Progress monitoring data from intensive intervention must be gathered weekly or more often. When an intensive intervention does not call for weekly progress monitoring data, another appropriate progress monitoring tool must be used to gather data at least weekly. Fall 2011 SLD Guidance 43 The rule requires progress monitoring data be gathered weekly or more often. If an intensive intervention is designed to be monitoring on less than a weekly basis, the intervention may continue to be used IF a valid, reliable progress monitoring tool is available to collect progress monitoring data weekly or more often on the area or areas addressed by the intervention. (FAQ #31) If reliable and valid progress data cannot be collected because of the absence of intensive scientific, research-based or evidence-based interventions, or scientifically-based progress monitoring tools for an area of concern appropriate for the student’s grade, then the IEP team should consider other empirical evidence of the student’s progress in response to intensive intervention. In such cases, the IEP team documents its decision about the area of concern using other empirical evidence. NOTE: For resources on Progress Monitoring Tools or Intensive Interventions, go toe the Wisconsin RtI Center Website: http://www.wisconsinrticenter.org/educators/rti-for-my-school/tools.html . There are a number of useful tools and links to extensive information on this topic at this site. The rule requires progress monitoring data be gathered weekly or more often. If an intensive intervention is designed to be monitoring on less than a weekly basis, the intervention may continue to be used IF a valid, reliable progress monitoring tool is available to collect progress monitoring data weekly or more often on the area or areas addressed by the intervention. (FAQ #31) If reliable and valid progress data cannot be collected because of the absence of intensive scientific, research-based or evidence-based interventions, or scientifically-based progress monitoring tools for an area of concern appropriate for the student’s grade, then the IEP team should consider other empirical evidence of the student’s progress in response to intensive intervention. In such cases, the IEP team documents its decision about the area of concern using other empirical evidence. NOTE: For resources on Progress Monitoring Tools or Intensive Interventions, go toe the Wisconsin RtI Center Website: http://www.wisconsinrticenter.org/educators/rti-for-my-school/tools.html . There are a number of useful tools and links to extensive information on this topic at this site.

44. Insufficient Progress using Data from Intensive Intervention Determining Insufficient Progress Establish baseline For each intervention, baseline is set using the median score of 3 probes. Begin Intervention Collect weekly or more frequent progress monitoring (PM) data Use baseline and subsequent PM data to analyze progress using least squares regression. Fall 2011 SLD Guidance 44 So, how does the IEP team determine if a student demonstrates insufficient progress using progress monitoring data from intensive intervention? Here are the basic steps: Establish baseline- For each intervention, baseline is set using the median score of 3 probes. To find the median, you put the baseline scores in order from low to high and use the score in the middle (see next slide) Begin Intervention Collect weekly or more frequent progress monitoring (PM) data Use baseline and subsequent PM data to analyze progress using least squares regression. So, how does the IEP team determine if a student demonstrates insufficient progress using progress monitoring data from intensive intervention? Here are the basic steps: Establish baseline- For each intervention, baseline is set using the median score of 3 probes. To find the median, you put the baseline scores in order from low to high and use the score in the middle (see next slide) Begin Intervention Collect weekly or more frequent progress monitoring (PM) data Use baseline and subsequent PM data to analyze progress using least squares regression.

45. Fall 2011 SLD Guidance 45 Here is an example of how baseline scores might be plotted in a manner consistent with the rule. The scores from three probes are arranged in order from low to high. The median (or middle score), in this case “55” becomes the baseline from which the expected progress line (or “aim line” or goal line) will be drawn. This baseline will serve as the starting point of measuring progress and for analyzing how the student’s rate of progress compares to the expected rate of progress toward meeting grade level standards. Here is an example of how baseline scores might be plotted in a manner consistent with the rule. The scores from three probes are arranged in order from low to high. The median (or middle score), in this case “55” becomes the baseline from which the expected progress line (or “aim line” or goal line) will be drawn. This baseline will serve as the starting point of measuring progress and for analyzing how the student’s rate of progress compares to the expected rate of progress toward meeting grade level standards.

46. Insufficient Progress using Data from Intensive Intervention What is least squares regression and how is it used? A statistical method for analyze multiple data points Places PM data on a line and illustrates progress as a “slope” A steeper slope means a greater change in achievement from baseline A flatter slope means a smaller change from baseline Fall 2011 SLD Guidance 46 Least squares regression is a statistical method for summarizing the relationship between two variables. In the SLD rule, this method is used to analyze multiple data points [the student’s rate of progress relative to goal/expected rate of progress needed to demonstrate sufficient progress toward grade level expectation] We will show you an example after the next slide. There should be staff in most of your districts who are familiar with this statistical procedure for graphing data. Many school psychologists can serve as a resource on this topic. Least squares regression is a statistical method for summarizing the relationship between two variables. In the SLD rule, this method is used to analyze multiple data points [the student’s rate of progress relative to goal/expected rate of progress needed to demonstrate sufficient progress toward grade level expectation] We will show you an example after the next slide. There should be staff in most of your districts who are familiar with this statistical procedure for graphing data. Many school psychologists can serve as a resource on this topic.

47. Insufficient Progress using Data from Intensive Intervention When is the rate of progress considered insufficient? The same or less than same-age peers OR greater than same-age peers but will not result in reaching the average range of achievement in a reasonable period of time OR greater than same-age peers but resources needed to obtain rate of progress cannot be maintained in general education Fall 2011 SLD Guidance 47 When is the rate of progress considered insufficient? The key analysis for determining whether a student demonstrates sufficient or insufficient progress is, “Can you expect the gap between the student’s achievement and grade level expectations to close in a reasonable period of time?” For this to occur, the student’s progress needs to be accelerated beyond that of students who are meeting expectations. If the student’s progress is showing reasonable acceleration, the IEP team still needs to consider if the student’s progress as depicted by the trend line, sufficient and sustainable given the resources available in general education? A referred student’s rate of progress is insufficient when any one of these decision rules are met: The rate of progress is: (rate= slope of progress/ steepness of line) The same or less than same-age peers greater than same-age peers but will not result in reaching the average range of achievement in a reasonable period of time greater than same-age peers but the intensity of resources needed to obtain rate of progress cannot be maintained in general education The department is working on a generic tool to help LEAs chart progress data in a statistically valid and reliable way and will be providing additional guidance on applying this part of the rule well before the end of the sunset period. Please remember, you do not have to complete an analysis of progress data using this method until your school has begun implementing this method for determining Insufficient Progress for all public school students enrolled at the school (required by December 1, 2013). Additional guidance will be made available well before the end of the sunset on significant discrepancy. When is the rate of progress considered insufficient? The key analysis for determining whether a student demonstrates sufficient or insufficient progress is, “Can you expect the gap between the student’s achievement and grade level expectations to close in a reasonable period of time?” For this to occur, the student’s progress needs to be accelerated beyond that of students who are meeting expectations. If the student’s progress is showing reasonable acceleration, the IEP team still needs to consider if the student’s progress as depicted by the trend line, sufficient and sustainable given the resources available in general education? A referred student’s rate of progress is insufficient when any one of these decision rules are met: The rate of progress is: (rate= slope of progress/ steepness of line) The same or less than same-age peers greater than same-age peers but will not result in reaching the average range of achievement in a reasonable period of time greater than same-age peers but the intensity of resources needed to obtain rate of progress cannot be maintained in general education The department is working on a generic tool to help LEAs chart progress data in a statistically valid and reliable way and will be providing additional guidance on applying this part of the rule well before the end of the sunset period. Please remember, you do not have to complete an analysis of progress data using this method until your school has begun implementing this method for determining Insufficient Progress for all public school students enrolled at the school (required by December 1, 2013). Additional guidance will be made available well before the end of the sunset on significant discrepancy.

48. Fall 2011 SLD Guidance 48 Let me show you a couple of examples of some of the data your IEP teams might analyze when you start implementing this part of the rule in your school. Red dots= 3 baseline points ordered low to high: Green dash line with the star endpoint = the expected rate of progress/improvement (Labeled ROP), starting from the student’s median baseline point. - based on 125% acceleration of average (based on research- even most effective interventions provide for 125-150% acceleration of average growth) Black dash line with blue data points- student’s actual probe scores collected during interventions Solid line = the student’s progress line calculated using least squares regression using the student’s actual data. This line is sometimes also known as the trend line. We emphasize, this is the beginning point of decision-making. These initial graphs do not include all the of the information needed to make decisions- For example, a normative data line (how peers at same grade/same time of year are performing) will be added to help IEP teams consider whether the gap will be closed in a reasonable amount of time. An example of a graph with this data is shown on the next slide. Additional data such as information about the student’s performance during core instruction and whether exclusionary factors may be the reason for documented insufficient progress based on PM data, will also need to be analyzed before a final decision about whether the student demonstrates insufficient progress can be reached. Let me show you a couple of examples of some of the data your IEP teams might analyze when you start implementing this part of the rule in your school. Red dots= 3 baseline points ordered low to high: Green dash line with the star endpoint = the expected rate of progress/improvement (Labeled ROP), starting from the student’s median baseline point. - based on 125% acceleration of average (based on research- even most effective interventions provide for 125-150% acceleration of average growth) Black dash line with blue data points- student’s actual probe scores collected during interventions Solid line = the student’s progress line calculated using least squares regression using the student’s actual data. This line is sometimes also known as the trend line. We emphasize, this is the beginning point of decision-making. These initial graphs do not include all the of the information needed to make decisions- For example, a normative data line (how peers at same grade/same time of year are performing) will be added to help IEP teams consider whether the gap will be closed in a reasonable amount of time. An example of a graph with this data is shown on the next slide. Additional data such as information about the student’s performance during core instruction and whether exclusionary factors may be the reason for documented insufficient progress based on PM data, will also need to be analyzed before a final decision about whether the student demonstrates insufficient progress can be reached.

49. Fall 2011 SLD Guidance 49 There has been quite a bit of discussion about the normative data line (line depicting “average range” grade level performance) we decided to add it to this slide, even though it is not on your copies and not in the activity we will be doing later. When the department releases the next level of guidance about implementing this part of the rule there will be additional information, including guidelines for the use of normative data. Ask Audience: Looking at this data, would you say the student’s rate of progress is: The same or less than same-age peers? OR greater than same-age peers but will not result in reaching the average range of achievement in a reasonable period of time? OR greater than same-age peers but resources needed to obtain rate of progress cannot be maintained in general education? [in this example, #1 applies] Why do you say this? Does this data set raise any other questions? Remember, before a final decision is made, the IEP team will compare to normative data and will need to consider exclusionary factors and any other relevant data. The team will also want to confirm this data trend with other formal and informal data about the student’s classroom achievement and functional behavior. There has been quite a bit of discussion about the normative data line (line depicting “average range” grade level performance) we decided to add it to this slide, even though it is not on your copies and not in the activity we will be doing later. When the department releases the next level of guidance about implementing this part of the rule there will be additional information, including guidelines for the use of normative data. Ask Audience: Looking at this data, would you say the student’s rate of progress is: The same or less than same-age peers? OR greater than same-age peers but will not result in reaching the average range of achievement in a reasonable period of time? OR greater than same-age peers but resources needed to obtain rate of progress cannot be maintained in general education? [in this example, #1 applies] Why do you say this? Does this data set raise any other questions? Remember, before a final decision is made, the IEP team will compare to normative data and will need to consider exclusionary factors and any other relevant data. The team will also want to confirm this data trend with other formal and informal data about the student’s classroom achievement and functional behavior.

50. Activity Insufficient Progress using PM Data TASK: Use the activity handout to discuss whether the student meets the Insufficient Progress criterion. Be ready to share your ideas. Review the data charts in relation to the three insufficient progress decision rules Discuss the example questions Identify on the DPI sample forms where you might document the IEP team determination and what statement(s) might be made Fall 2011 SLD Guidance 50 Pull out handouts- Reference to Initial Evaluation Checklist, ER-1, ER-2 Discussion Notes: Consider Variability of data- In the first example, based on the data, what was your observation about the difference between the student’s response during Intervention phase 1 vs. intervention #2? What might be some reasons the student’s data points were so variable in the second example? Could there be a reason other than SLD for this pattern of progress? What kind of information would you need to find out? Debrief note- Reinforce that this will not always be an easy or straightforward decision. The analysis of progress data will require significant IEP team analysis and discussion. Pull out handouts- Reference to Initial Evaluation Checklist, ER-1, ER-2 Discussion Notes: Consider Variability of data- In the first example, based on the data, what was your observation about the difference between the student’s response during Intervention phase 1 vs. intervention #2? What might be some reasons the student’s data points were so variable in the second example? Could there be a reason other than SLD for this pattern of progress? What kind of information would you need to find out? Debrief note- Reinforce that this will not always be an easy or straightforward decision. The analysis of progress data will require significant IEP team analysis and discussion.

51. Additional Requirements: Insufficient Progress using PM Data Additional IEP Team member roles: Licensed person qualified to assess data on individual rate of progress Licensed person who implemented scientific, research-based or evidence-based, intensive interventions Licensed person qualified to conduct individual diagnostic evaluations Student’s general education teacher; or individual licensed to teach a student of the same age (required of all IEP teams) Fall 2011 SLD Guidance 51 When the school has begun using progress monitoring data from intensive intervention to determine Insufficient Progress for its students enrolled in the public school, additional IEP team member roles are required. The slide lists the additional IEP team member roles. The last role listed is not an additional role as it is required of all IEP teams, irrespective of the impairment being considered. When the school has begun using progress monitoring data from intensive intervention to determine Insufficient Progress for its students enrolled in the public school, additional IEP team member roles are required. The slide lists the additional IEP team member roles. The last role listed is not an additional role as it is required of all IEP teams, irrespective of the impairment being considered.

52. Additional Team Member Roles One team member can serve multiple roles Only required for initial evaluation when using data from intensive intervention to determine insufficient progress. Required beginning December 1, 2013 Documented on: “Notice of Receipt of Referral and Start of Initial Evaluation.” Fall 2011 SLD Guidance 52 One IEP team member can serve multiple roles. Districts are encouraged to use discretion in assigning multiple roles to a single staff person so that each distinct function can be appropriately served during the IEP team meeting. The additional roles are NOT required for reevaluation or when a school is still using the significant discrepancy criterion. The roles and names (if known at the time of appointment of the team) of each IEP team member must be listed on the “Notice of Receipt of Referral and Start of Initial Evaluation.” Note: Link to forms page is on slide One IEP team member can serve multiple roles. Districts are encouraged to use discretion in assigning multiple roles to a single staff person so that each distinct function can be appropriately served during the IEP team meeting. The additional roles are NOT required for reevaluation or when a school is still using the significant discrepancy criterion. The roles and names (if known at the time of appointment of the team) of each IEP team member must be listed on the “Notice of Receipt of Referral and Start of Initial Evaluation.” Note: Link to forms page is on slide

53. Additional Observation Required When a school begins using data from intensive intervention to determine Insufficient Progress: At least 1 systematic observation of routine classroom instruction At least 1 systematic observation during intensive intervention These are separate observations. Both types required by December 1, 2013 Fall 2011 SLD Guidance 53 This morning we discussed the systematic observation of the student during routine classroom instruction, required for all SLD evaluations, no matter which method is used to determine insufficient progress. When a school begins to use data from a student’s response to intensive intervention to determine insufficient progress for students with suspected SLD enrolled at the school, IEP teams will need to document at least two observations were completed: One is the systematic observation of the student during routine instruction in the area(s) of concern and the other is during the intensive intervention implemented to meet the insufficient progress requirement. The other is at least one systematic observation of the student during intensive, scientific, research or evidence based intervention Both types of observation will be required beginning on Dec. 1, 2013. Note: The purpose of observation is to gather data about how the student performs during instruction/intervention; i.e. the learning behavior of the student during core instruction and intervention in the area(s) of concern. This morning we discussed the systematic observation of the student during routine classroom instruction, required for all SLD evaluations, no matter which method is used to determine insufficient progress. When a school begins to use data from a student’s response to intensive intervention to determine insufficient progress for students with suspected SLD enrolled at the school, IEP teams will need to document at least two observations were completed: One is the systematic observation of the student during routine instruction in the area(s) of concern and the other is during the intensive intervention implemented to meet the insufficient progress requirement. The other is at least one systematic observation of the student during intensive, scientific, research or evidence based intervention Both types of observation will be required beginning on Dec. 1, 2013. Note: The purpose of observation is to gather data about how the student performs during instruction/intervention; i.e. the learning behavior of the student during core instruction and intervention in the area(s) of concern.

54. Additional Observation Required During intervention by someone other than the person providing intervention Purpose to observe the student and their response to the intensive intervention being provided In addition to the systematic observation during general classroom instruction Individual conducting observation is a member of the IEP team Fall 2011 SLD Guidance 54 The additional systematic observation must take place during at least one of the intensive interventions. Only 1 observation during intensive intervention is required, although 2 intensive observations are required. The purpose of the observation during intervention is to document how the student is responding to intensive instruction. Districts can designate the person who will do the observation, and that person should also be a member of the IEP team. Again, this observation is in addition to the systematic observation in general education Documentation of the results of systematic observation , like that from the observation of routine classroom instruction may be included on either the evaluation report (ER-1), the ER-2 (Additional Requirements for SLD), or on any attachments to the evaluation report. It is not necessary to include documentation in more than one place on IEP documents. State and federal law only require documentation to be stated once (construction clause). Also see FAQ The additional systematic observation must take place during at least one of the intensive interventions. Only 1 observation during intensive intervention is required, although 2 intensive observations are required. The purpose of the observation during intervention is to document how the student is responding to intensive instruction. Districts can designate the person who will do the observation, and that person should also be a member of the IEP team. Again, this observation is in addition to the systematic observation in general education Documentation of the results of systematic observation , like that from the observation of routine classroom instruction may be included on either the evaluation report (ER-1), the ER-2 (Additional Requirements for SLD), or on any attachments to the evaluation report. It is not necessary to include documentation in more than one place on IEP documents. State and federal law only require documentation to be stated once (construction clause). Also see FAQ

55. Additional Requirements: Insufficient Progress Using Data from Intervention Additional notifications to parents Progress monitoring data collected Strategies for improving rate of learning including intensive interventions used Parent right to request an evaluation May document on the ER-2 Notify all parents of enrolled students 10 days before start using this criterion when a school begins to use data from intensive intervention for this criterion, must do so for ALL initial SLD evaluations Fall 2011 SLD Guidance 55 When using progress monitoring data from intensive intervention to determine insufficient progress, parents must be notified about the strategies for improving rate of learning and the intensive interventions being used, and the progress monitoring data collected. Parents must also be informed of their right to request a special education evaluation at any time. LEAs are already required , as part of the LEA’s child find obligation, to, at least annually, inform parents and persons required by law to make referrals about the LEA’s referral and evaluation procedures, including the parent’s right to request a special education evaluation. A special education referral can not be delayed or denied because of a school’s RtI s system or because intensive intervention was not completed prior to the parent wanting to make a referral. Additional Note: See OSEP memo: http://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/memosdcltrs/osep11-07rtimemo.pdf As mentioned earlier, 10 days before a school begins using progress monitoring data from intensive interventions to determine if a student meets the insufficient progress criterion, it must notify all parents of enrolled students of this intent. Once a school begins to use this method, it must do so for ALL SLD referrals. All schools will be required to use this method for initial SLD evaluations of all public school students beginning December 1, 2013. Note: 10 days= calendar days. Notification should be made in the manner generally used to notify parents of school wide policy and procedure changes. Putting the notice on the district’s website is not enough. When using progress monitoring data from intensive intervention to determine insufficient progress, parents must be notified about the strategies for improving rate of learning and the intensive interventions being used, and the progress monitoring data collected. Parents must also be informed of their right to request a special education evaluation at any time. LEAs are already required , as part of the LEA’s child find obligation, to, at least annually, inform parents and persons required by law to make referrals about the LEA’s referral and evaluation procedures, including the parent’s right to request a special education evaluation. A special education referral can not be delayed or denied because of a school’s RtI s system or because intensive intervention was not completed prior to the parent wanting to make a referral. Additional Note: See OSEP memo: http://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/memosdcltrs/osep11-07rtimemo.pdf As mentioned earlier, 10 days before a school begins using progress monitoring data from intensive interventions to determine if a student meets the insufficient progress criterion, it must notify all parents of enrolled students of this intent. Once a school begins to use this method, it must do so for ALL SLD referrals. All schools will be required to use this method for initial SLD evaluations of all public school students beginning December 1, 2013. Note: 10 days= calendar days. Notification should be made in the manner generally used to notify parents of school wide policy and procedure changes. Putting the notice on the district’s website is not enough.

56. Insufficient Progress Using Data from Intervention in Non-public Settings IEP team may use significant discrepancy to determine insufficient progress for parentally placed private school students and students receiving home-based private education Fall 2011 SLD Guidance 56 Public schools lack the authority to require private schools or home-based education programs to provide intensive intervention or produce progress monitoring data that meet the standard in the rule. Therefore, even when all schools in a district have begun using progress monitoring data from intensive intervention to determine insufficient progress, an IEP team may continue to use significant discrepancy to determine insufficient progress for parentally placed private school students and students receiving home-based private education. As with any special education evaluation, an LEA must use a variety of assessment tools and strategies to gather relevant functional, developmental, and academic information about the student, including information provided by the parent. When evaluating parentally placed private school and home-schooled students for SLD, all eligibility criteria apply, including the requirement to consider the exclusionary factor of “appropriate general education instruction”. The IEP team may not identify a student as having a specific learning disability if it determines the findings of inadequate classroom achievement and insufficient progress were due to a lack of appropriate instruction in the area(s) of concern under consideration. For parentally placed private school and home-schooled students, the IEP team may obtain information from parents and teachers about the curricula used and the student’s progress with various teaching strategies when considering whether the student received appropriate general education instruction. Also see FAQ Public schools lack the authority to require private schools or home-based education programs to provide intensive intervention or produce progress monitoring data that meet the standard in the rule. Therefore, even when all schools in a district have begun using progress monitoring data from intensive intervention to determine insufficient progress, an IEP team may continue to use significant discrepancy to determine insufficient progress for parentally placed private school students and students receiving home-based private education. As with any special education evaluation, an LEA must use a variety of assessment tools and strategies to gather relevant functional, developmental, and academic information about the student, including information provided by the parent. When evaluating parentally placed private school and home-schooled students for SLD, all eligibility criteria apply, including the requirement to consider the exclusionary factor of “appropriate general education instruction”. The IEP team may not identify a student as having a specific learning disability if it determines the findings of inadequate classroom achievement and insufficient progress were due to a lack of appropriate instruction in the area(s) of concern under consideration. For parentally placed private school and home-schooled students, the IEP team may obtain information from parents and teachers about the curricula used and the student’s progress with various teaching strategies when considering whether the student received appropriate general education instruction. Also see FAQ

57. Documentation Requirements Whether or not the SLD impairment criteria are met, and the basis for the decision. Relevant behavior, if any, noted during required observation and the relationship of observed behavior to academic functioning. Educationally relevant medical findings, if any Intensive intervention applied highly consistent with design, closely aligned to student need, and culturally appropriate. Signature of each IEP team member Fall 2011 SLD Guidance 57 Once the IEP team considers all available data and the three required criteria; inadequate classroom achievement, insufficient progress, and exclusionary factors, the team must make a determination as to whether the student has the impairment of SLD. If the student is found to have SLD or any other impairment, the team then goes on to consider if the student has a need for special education as a result of the impairment(s). The documentation requirements on this slide are specific to SLD evaluations and are the responsibility of the IEP team. The department has developed model forms (ER-1 and ER-2) that IEP teams may use to meet the documentation requirements. The SLD Evaluation Requirements Checklist can be used by the IEP teams as a reference to guide discussion and check if it has met all the requirements for an SLD initial or reevaluation.Once the IEP team considers all available data and the three required criteria; inadequate classroom achievement, insufficient progress, and exclusionary factors, the team must make a determination as to whether the student has the impairment of SLD. If the student is found to have SLD or any other impairment, the team then goes on to consider if the student has a need for special education as a result of the impairment(s). The documentation requirements on this slide are specific to SLD evaluations and are the responsibility of the IEP team. The department has developed model forms (ER-1 and ER-2) that IEP teams may use to meet the documentation requirements. The SLD Evaluation Requirements Checklist can be used by the IEP teams as a reference to guide discussion and check if it has met all the requirements for an SLD initial or reevaluation.

58. Other Considerations Fall 2011 SLD Guidance 58

59. SLD & Speech/Language SLD can co-exist with Speech and Language (S/L) impairment When only concern(s) is oral expression or listening comprehension IEP team MAY consider if the student has S/L SLP recommended on IEP teams considering oral expression; listening comprehension SLP required if S/L being considered Fall 2011 SLD Guidance 59 The department’s guidance on this topic is similar to guidance previous to the 2010 rule revision. If the only area(s) of concern are oral expression or listening comprehension the IEP team may decide to consider if the student has a speech and language impairment. The department recommends that an speech and language therapist be included on IEP team when oral expression or listening comprehension are being considered as part of an SLD evaluation, even if S/L is not being considered as a possible impairment. An SLP must be included on the IEP team if the impairment of S/L is being considered. SLD can coexist with S/L (S/L is not exclusionary). The department’s guidance on this topic is similar to guidance previous to the 2010 rule revision. If the only area(s) of concern are oral expression or listening comprehension the IEP team may decide to consider if the student has a speech and language impairment. The department recommends that an speech and language therapist be included on IEP team when oral expression or listening comprehension are being considered as part of an SLD evaluation, even if S/L is not being considered as a possible impairment. An SLP must be included on the IEP team if the impairment of S/L is being considered. SLD can coexist with S/L (S/L is not exclusionary).

60. SLD Criteria & Young Children Some considerations Great variability in early achievement skills Early experience can greatly influence skill development; adequate instruction is a concern Assessments at this age level may lack adequate reliability Some areas of achievement cannot be assessed appropriately at a young age (e.g. written expression) Fall 2011 SLD Guidance 60 There is no change from the departments previous guidance on this topic. There are no age requirements for identifying students with SLD. However, given the wide variation of normal development, paired with the limited amount of time most children from age three to first grade have had to develop and demonstrate the academic skills addressed in the SLD rule, IEP teams should be prudent in identifying SLD in this age group. When the student demonstrates significant delay, but there is not sufficient information to determine if the student meets SLD criteria, the impairment of Significant Developmental Delay (SDD) may be considered for children ages 3 through 5. Additional general education interventions should also be considered and implemented as appropriate. It is anticipated the prevalence of learning disabilities in preschool through early elementary age children will continue to be very low. There is no change from the departments previous guidance on this topic. There are no age requirements for identifying students with SLD. However, given the wide variation of normal development, paired with the limited amount of time most children from age three to first grade have had to develop and demonstrate the academic skills addressed in the SLD rule, IEP teams should be prudent in identifying SLD in this age group. When the student demonstrates significant delay, but there is not sufficient information to determine if the student meets SLD criteria, the impairment of Significant Developmental Delay (SDD) may be considered for children ages 3 through 5. Additional general education interventions should also be considered and implemented as appropriate. It is anticipated the prevalence of learning disabilities in preschool through early elementary age children will continue to be very low.

61. Transfer Students Transfer provisions are consistent with those for all students with disabilities A student determined to be eligible for special education and related services remains eligible upon transfer to another school or LEA until an IEP team determines otherwise. PI 11.06(e)(4) 34 CFR 300.323 (e) and (f) 6/24/2011 WDPI 61 The transfer requirements for students previously identified as SLD are no different from the requirements that apply to any students with a disability. The new LEA is considered eligible for services unless an IEP team determines otherwise. Upon enrollment, the LEA provides comparable services to the existing IEP until the LEA either adopts the existing IEP or holds an IEP meeting to review, and, if needed, revise the IEP. If a student transfers from another state and the LEA determines an evaluation is required to determine eligibility under Wisconsin criteria, the new LEA conducts an initial evaluation. Until the evaluation is conducted, in consultation with the parent, the LEA must provide FAPE, including services comparable to those in the student’s previous IEP. If the student transfers from another Wisconsin school district and the LEA determines an evaluation is required, it would be considered a reevaluation. The transfer requirements for students previously identified as SLD are no different from the requirements that apply to any students with a disability. The new LEA is considered eligible for services unless an IEP team determines otherwise. Upon enrollment, the LEA provides comparable services to the existing IEP until the LEA either adopts the existing IEP or holds an IEP meeting to review, and, if needed, revise the IEP. If a student transfers from another state and the LEA determines an evaluation is required to determine eligibility under Wisconsin criteria, the new LEA conducts an initial evaluation. Until the evaluation is conducted, in consultation with the parent, the LEA must provide FAPE, including services comparable to those in the student’s previous IEP. If the student transfers from another Wisconsin school district and the LEA determines an evaluation is required, it would be considered a reevaluation.

62. The SLD Rule & RtI Systems A fully implemented RtI system is NOT required to implement the SLD rule Resources available at http://www.wisconsinrticenter.org/educators/sld-rti.html WI RtI Brief: Specific Learning Disabilities Rule Implementation and RtI WI SLD Rule: Guiding Questions For Self-Assessing Readiness for Implementation Fall 2011 SLD Guidance 62 The Wisconsin SLD rule does not require a fully implemented RtI system although districts are encouraged to put into practice a comprehensive RtI framework. Note: As appropriate reference new tool SIR- RtI School wide Implementation Review at http://www.wisconsinrticenter.org/educators/rti-for-my-school/school-wide-implementation-review-sir.html. This tool has been developed to help schools in their effort to implement school wide systems of support. The tool allows schools to evaluate their level of implementation and points them to relevant training and resources to help them move forward. The minimal requirement to implement the new rule for determining insufficient progress using progress monitoring data with a referred student’s enrolled in a public school, is the school must have the capacity to implement two intensive scientific research or evidenced based interventions with the referred student and collect weekly progress monitoring data consistent with the standards in the rule. The department has developed a position paper on the relationship between comprehensive RtI systems and the SLD rule and has developed a self- assessment tool to assist districts in determining their readiness to implement the insufficient progress criterion using data from intensive intervention. Lets take some time to look at the self-assessment document and discuss questions related to it. The Wisconsin SLD rule does not require a fully implemented RtI system although districts are encouraged to put into practice a comprehensive RtI framework. Note: As appropriate reference new tool SIR- RtI School wide Implementation Review at http://www.wisconsinrticenter.org/educators/rti-for-my-school/school-wide-implementation-review-sir.html. This tool has been developed to help schools in their effort to implement school wide systems of support. The tool allows schools to evaluate their level of implementation and points them to relevant training and resources to help them move forward. The minimal requirement to implement the new rule for determining insufficient progress using progress monitoring data with a referred student’s enrolled in a public school, is the school must have the capacity to implement two intensive scientific research or evidenced based interventions with the referred student and collect weekly progress monitoring data consistent with the standards in the rule. The department has developed a position paper on the relationship between comprehensive RtI systems and the SLD rule and has developed a self- assessment tool to assist districts in determining their readiness to implement the insufficient progress criterion using data from intensive intervention. Lets take some time to look at the self-assessment document and discuss questions related to it.

63. Activity TASK: With your table partners review the Guiding Questions For Self-Assessing Readiness for Implementation and discuss: Which areas are already being implemented well in your school? Which areas are most challenging to put in place? Be ready to share your ideas Fall 2011 SLD Guidance 63 Activity: Introduce the self-assessment checklist as participants follow along with their copy. Review the questions on the slide, asking that individuals read through the self-assessment independently and make notes; then have a table conversation. Allow 15-20 minutes for small group. Use 10 minutes to take comments from participants and address questions if possible. Total Time: 30 Minutes Activity: Introduce the self-assessment checklist as participants follow along with their copy. Review the questions on the slide, asking that individuals read through the self-assessment independently and make notes; then have a table conversation. Allow 15-20 minutes for small group. Use 10 minutes to take comments from participants and address questions if possible. Total Time: 30 Minutes

64. SLD Listserv Email Updates One SLD contact from each district. To join, send an email to join-sld@lists.dpi.wi.gov If you were on the old LD PST list, you should have been automatically added Check for email from kathleen.trotta@dpi.wi.gov Fall 2011 SLD Guidance 64

65. Resources Documents referenced in this presentation are available on the DPI Website at: http://www.dpi.wi.gov/sped/ld.html For more information contact the Special Education Team at 608-266-1781 or dpisped@dpi.wi.gov For information about implementing RtI systems: http://www.wisconsinrticenter.org/home.html Fall 2011 SLD Guidance 65 Closing: Evaluation form Next steps Questions and Answers Thank participants Closing: Evaluation form Next steps Questions and Answers Thank participants