Evaluation and Eligibility Determination for Gifted Using Response to Intervention

Agenda New Gifted Resources Why Use Response to Intervention? General Education Interventions (GEI) The Evaluation and Eligibility Determination Process Response to Intervention Method of Evaluation The Two-Prong Test of Eligibility Using the Indicators Document Linking evaluation data to the IEP This is a brief training about using the Response to Intervention method of evaluation with students who may be gifted. Additional information about evaluation and eligibility determination, including both the Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses and RTI methods, is available in the Special Education Process Handbook at www.ksde.org and on the TASN website, at www.ksdetasn.org.

New Gifted Resources Gifted FAQs https://www.ksdetasn.org/resources/2483 Identifying Underrepresented Populations for Gifted--Coming Soon

Underrepresented Populations in Gifted Services In Kansas Subgroup Percent of state enrollment Percent of state gifted placement SES Eligible for Free/Reduced lunch Not eligible for F/R lunch (paid)   45.7% 54.3% 14.7% 85.3% English Learners (EL) 5.0% 0.4% Gender Male Female 51.3% 48.7% 57.2% 42.8% Ethnicity White African American Hispanic Asian Multi-ethnic AI/AN (American Indian) NH/PI (Pacific Islander) 64.1% 6.7% 20.1% 3.1% 5.3% 1.8% <0.1% 77.8% 6.9% 7.8% 0.1% This chart shows Kansas demographics for the 18-19 school year. The recommendations for better identification within these subgroups share a great deal of commonality. In general, the recommendations that appear most often across studies and subgroups are: conduct screening, use local norms, use multiple measures and multiple criteria, and conduct nondiscriminatory assessment. The importance of authentic procedures includes assessing rate of progress within material that the child has been taught, without assumptions about opportunities for prior learning. Whenever curriculum-based methods of assessment are used, the standard should be comparison to other students who possess background and educational experiences that are as close as possible to the target student being assessed. The implementation of this practice may lead to the need to develop local norms. All the data collected regarding the student being assessed for gifted identification needs to be considered in the context of that student’s experiences and background. Because this background may be very different from that of students on whom the most frequently used tests are normed, there may be a need for screening to identify students not typically identified as gifted, and using multiple measures and multiple criteria instead of using inappropriate assessments. No matter what assessment methods are used, teams need to look for convergence in the data. This convergence should reveal patterns of performance indicating a child with high ability and achievement when compared to students of similar experience, language, and background. These recommendations for the various subgroups for whom there are underrepresentation concerns fall within the realm of conducting an evaluation using a Response to Intervention approach. We have also been hearing of inappropriate evaluation practices being used that fail to meet state requirements for a nondiscriminatory assessment (See the FAQ guidance). While an RTI approach can be used for any student’s evaluation, it is especially important that teams consider using RTI for evaluations of students who are within an underrepresented subgroup.

Why Use Response to Intervention? As a way to conduct a nondiscriminatory assessment for students of poverty or for students with racial, ethnic, or language differences. As a way to utilize the information already available about a student, if your building uses Kansas MTSS, and thus reduce the time needed for testing.

General Education Interventions

General Education Interventions Kansas describes two models of GEI MTSS (protocol interventions + systemic problem-solving) Individual problem-solving In both models the school must carry out interventions and document the child’s progress The interventions and progress monitoring data will provide information about the child’s needs, including the intensity of instruction needed the supports required for the child to be successful There are two models for the GEI process in Kansas. Within a school-wide multi-tiered system, children will receive GEI as a part of the system in place for all students. Data collected at each tier should guide school personnel as to the next steps to take based on the child’s response to interventions tried. Tier 2 interventions are generally protocol interventions, selected on the basis of screening and diagnostic assessment. For students receiving Tier 3 interventions, individualized problem solving is probably needed to design the intensive individualized support the child will receive. Parents are to be provided with copies of the child data collected as interventions are implemented and monitored. For students who appear to have high ability when compared to peers, Tier 2 often consists of protocol interventions for high achievers to provide curriculum extensions. Tier 3 may provide intense and individualized interventions for students from underrepresented subgroups, who appear to be learning faster than their peers with similar ethnic and educational experience backgrounds. The individual problem-solving process is typically carried out through the collaborative teams. These teams design and provide support to any child who may be experiencing difficulty (academic or behavior). Typically, these teams carry out a problem-solving process which results in the refinement of an intervention plan which documents the child’s area of concern, the interventions implemented, the data reflecting the child’s response to the intervention, and the recommendations as a result of the child’s response to the intervention. However, all steps should include parent involvement – not just informing parents, but including them in decision-making whenever possible. Remember, GEIs are required by state regulation before a student is placed in special education. If a parent insists that evaluation begin immediately, GEIs must be conducted concurrently with the initial evaluation. GEI

GEI Using MTSS Universal screening, the diagnostic process, and other available information is used to determine student intervention. Interventions are refined & intensified based on progress monitoring data and data-based decision making for adjusting instruction. Collaborative teams have charts and intervention logs that show the results from all the steps above. For buildings using MTSS, the GEI process is carried out by the collaborative teams. For GEI in schools implementing MTSS, data from universal screening and the diagnostic process is used to determine student intervention. Frequent progress monitoring and data analysis occurs, and this information is used in a problem solving process to refine the intervention. Instruction is intensified as needed, based on the progress monitoring data and the steps for adjusting instruction. If student growth is insufficient, individual problem-solving is conducted. This planning, which may include formal diagnostic assessment, is used to customize the intervention Collaborative teams have charts and intervention logs that show the results from all the steps above. Use of MTSS requires additional parent notification—see page 25 of the Special Education Process Handbook.

GEI Using Individual-Student Problem Solving GEI/SIT/SAT/CARE teams meet to conduct individual problem-solving. Progress monitoring data is used to refine intervention. GEI/SIT/SAT/CARE teams have charts and meeting notes or intervention logs that show the results from the steps above. In the individual student problem solving approach, GEI teams meet to conduct problem-solving for individual students. This planning, which may include data from screening and diagnostic assessment, is used to develop student interventions. Frequent progress monitoring and data analysis occurs, and this information is used to refine the intervention. Instruction is modified as needed, based on the progress monitoring data. Collaborative teams have charts and meeting notes or intervention logs that show the results from the steps above. See the Special Education Process Handbook for more information about general education interventions.

What are examples of GEIs for potential gifted students? During “Walk to Intervention” time, student receives learning extensions adapted for the individual’s needs and characteristics Accelerated placement or advanced placement classes (if allowed for general education students) Individual projects in an area of interest or strength The general education interventions provided for students who may be gifted should be based on student need. These are examples of possible interventions, but many others may be used, based on the needs of the student.

Challenges to Successful Interventions for High Performing Students Peer pressure not to be a high achiever Student may not wish to take on more (or more difficult) work Social mores against high achievement (especially for girls) Responsibilities for sibling care For older students, job responsibilities Some students may be reluctant to participate in interventions, or to be identified for gifted programming. Here are some possible challenges. Can you identify others?

Evaluation and Eligibility Determination Using Response To Intervention

Basic Premises of Response to Intervention GEI data are available from district and classroom assessments, including universal screening and perhaps the diagnostic process. GEI data are available from progress monitoring individually planned interventions. Decisions about additional assessments, interventions, and evaluation are based upon the referral question and student needs. The MTSS framework requires that buildings have planned for and engage in universal screening, the diagnostic process, and progress monitoring of students in interventions. These data should all be included in the data-based decision making process engaged in by evaluation and eligibility determination teams. Additional assessment, intervention, and evaluation are always based on the student’s needs, delineated by the referral, regardless of the evaluation method being used. Because the quality of the decision-making process will depend on the quality of the assessments used and interventions provided, it is important that all components of the MTSS framework be implemented with fidelity.

Moving into an Initial Evaluation Referral from Parents Self-Referral from Adult Student At the point that school staff suspect the student may be a student with an exceptionality and needs special education, a referral must be made There are 3 ways that a child may end up at an initial evaluation: The parent requests an initial evaluation An adult student (age 18+) requests an initial evaluation School staff suspect that a student may be a student with an exceptionality and need special education services. Typically school staff determine this through the GEI process of intervention and progress monitoring and requires specific documentation prior to moving into an Initial Evaluation as discussed on the next slide.

Documentation Needed Prior to Referral That appropriate instruction was provided to the student, What education interventions and strategies have been implemented, The results of repeated assessments of achievement which reflect the formal assessment of the student’s progress during instruction, That parents have been provided the results The results indicate an evaluation is appropriate Remember that there are additional parent notification requirements within the MTSS model. What is needed for referral: Interventions and strategies have been implemented to support the student’s presenting academic or behavior needs Only when the student’s progress indicates a potential exceptionality should the team make a referral for an initial evaluation for special education School personnel have specific data as evidence the student’s needs are beyond what general education can provide and an evaluation is appropriate

Outline of Initial Evaluation and Eligibility Determination Process Determine additional data needed What, if any, additional assessment is needed? What, if any, additional intervention is needed? Obtain informed parent consent, then collect needed data Determine eligibility using two-prong test of eligibility Consider Prong 1—presence of an exceptionality Consider Prong 2—need for special education Each of these points will be discussed in the following slides.

1. Determine Additional Data Needed Conduct a review of the existing data on the child, including: Evaluations and information provided by the parents of the child Current classroom-based, local, and state assessments and classroom-based observations Observations by teachers and related services providers Intervention data collected during GEI The evaluation team needs to consider all data that is currently available including evaluations and information provided by the parents, current classroom-based, local, or State assessments, and classroom-based observations, and observations by teachers and related service providers; and the child’s response to scientifically, research-based interventions, if implemented. The review of existing data, as part of the evaluation, may be conducted without a meeting and without consent from the parents (K.A.R. 91-40-8(c)(d); K.A.R. 91-40-27(e)). However, it is always important to involve parents in this process if possible. Reference p. 36 of the Process Handbook for review of additional data requirements.

Determine Additional Data Needed Identify what additional data, if any, are needed to determine: The present levels of academic achievement and functional performance of the child. If the child is identified as eligible, this information will constitute the PLAAFPs of the IEP Whether the child a child with an exceptionality Whether the child has a need for special education and related services Review is based on data obtained during GEI process. It is possible to decide no additional data is needed to complete the evaluation.

Think Carefully about Needed Assessment The definition of gifted has three requirements: performing or demonstrating the potential for performing at significantly higher levels of accomplishment in one or more academic fields due to intellectual ability when compared to others of similar age, experience, and environment Do you have data that provides evidence of these three requirements? Think about the information you already have regarding this student. Don’t spend time in testing if you already have evidence regarding these three requirements. If you have trouble identifying the types of evidence that can be used, look at the Indicators Document, available on the KSDE website, www.ksde.org. Many of the indicators reflect the type of information collected within the RTI method of evaluation. Some examples of this type of information is below: Here are some examples of evidence for requirement #1: Measures, record reviews, interviews, and/or observations indicate child demonstrates superior reasoning and problem solving ability. Progress monitoring indicates child’s skill level in one or more academic areas is much above that of peers. Grade Point Average, classroom assessments, portfolios, or rubrics indicate significant excellence in academics. District, state, and national assessments indicate significant excellence in academics. Provide opportunities for learning and monitor rate of progress Here are some examples of evidence for requirement #2: Measures, record reviews, interviews, and/or observations indicate child shows persistent intellectual curiosity and asks searching questions. Measures, record reviews, interviews, and/or observations indicate child shows initiative and originality in intellectual work. Ease of task completion indicates a significantly high level of intellectual ability. Rate of acquisition and retention indicate a significantly high level of intellectual ability. Products from home or school indicate a significantly high level of intellectual ability. Here are some examples of evidence for requirement #3: Multiple characteristics of giftedness exhibited when interventions provide adaptations, enrichment, or acceleration as compared to peers, with consideration given to cultural or linguistic differences. Persistence to task and generalization of knowledge gained indicate a remarkably high level of accomplishment. Coursework analysis indicates a significantly high level of intellectual ability and excellence in academics when provided with interventions. Performance significantly higher than peers in one or more areas on benchmark assessments, curricular objectives, or state assessments, with consideration given to cultural or linguistic differences. Compare the student to other students who possess similar background and educational experiences (may need to develop local norms) Do you already have data providing evidence of these three requirements? If not, how will you collect the needed data?

Plan a Non-biased Assessment Tests must be selected based on their appropriateness for use with students with the characteristics of the referred student Consider: language background, ethnicity, cultural background, socio-economic background, educational history, etc. Think about those factors before planning the evaluation and select assessment methods and processes that take those factors into account. Don’t automatically give a nationally normed IQ or academic test if they are not appropriate for the referred student. Do not complete a traditional evaluation and then decide that you shouldn’t apply district eligibility criteria for gifted because of factors related to the student’s ethnicity, primary language, poverty, etc. You must think about those factors before planning the evaluation and select assessment methods that take those factors into account. These factors must be considered when planning the evaluation, not when determining eligibility.

Considerations for the Determination of any Necessary Additional Data What information is needed to ensure a comprehensive evaluation? Is any information needed to identify services and supports needed by the student? The need for additional data must be decided on an individual basis. The team could decide no additional data is needed. The evaluation teams identifies which measures to use and who will collect the data. You must answer each of the following questions as you are determining what additional data is needed: What information is needed to assure a comprehensive evaluation? What domains and abilities need to be assessed related to the child’s current needs? Are there any issues related to attention, behavior, etc.? Ensuring a comprehensive evaluation does not mean you have to conduct a test in every area. It does mean you need to collect enough information to know whether or not any area of functioning is a concern. This information may come, for example, from a teacher’s report, or an observation, or a file review. Any reporting regarding the areas of functioning should not only indicate the student’s level of functioning, but how you collected that information. Is any information needed to identify services and supports needed by the student? Are there any interventions that need to be conducted during evaluation to identify needed services and supports? These considerations for additional data to be collected during the evaluation need to be individualized. The evaluation team should not be administering the exact same test battery to all students being evaluated for eligibility for gifted services.

2. Obtain Informed Parent Consent Then Collect Needed Data Provide PWN and obtain parent consent for the evaluation. Complete the initial evaluation by collecting the needed additional data. Make sure that you have completed a comprehensive evaluation. Make sure you have conducted a nondiscriminatory evaluation. Make sure you follow the 60 school day timeline Provide PWN and obtain parental consent for the evaluation. Collect the additional data that the team decided was needed to ensure a comprehensive evaluation. Ensure that the evaluation is a non-biased evaluation. The 60 school day timeline begins when the signed parent permission for evaluation is received by the school. The timeline ends when the student’s IEP is implemented, if the student is eligible.

RTI Practices Assess educationally relevant cultural and linguistic factors Provide opportunities for learning and monitor rate of progress Compare the student to other students who possess similar background and educational experiences (may need to develop local norms) Support conclusions via data convergence and multiple indicators The importance of using authentic procedures includes assessing rate of progress within material that the child has been taught, without assumptions about opportunities for prior learning. Whenever curriculum-based methods of assessment are used, the standard should be comparison to other students who possess background and educational experiences that are as close as possible to the target student being assessed. The implementation of this practice may lead to the need to develop local norms. All the data collected regarding the student being assessed for gifted identification needs to be considered in the context of that student’s experiences and background. Because this background may be very different from that of students on whom the most frequently used tests are normed, there may be a need for screening to identify students not typically identified as gifted, and the use of multiple measures and multiple criteria instead of using inappropriate assessments. Ortiz (2014) points out that no matter what assessment methods are used, teams need to look for convergence in the data. This convergence should reveal patterns of performance indicating a child with high ability and achievement when compared to students of similar experience, language, and background.

3. Determine Eligibility The Two-Prong Test: Exceptionality + Need When interpreting evaluation data for the purpose of making an eligibility determination, the team must ensure that the child meets the definition of one of the categories of exceptionality and, as a result of that exceptionality, needs special education and related services (KAR 91-40-1(k)(w)). This is known as the two-prong test of eligibility. If a child meets the definition of an exceptionality category but does not need special education and related services, s/he will not be determined to be eligible. If the child has a need for special education and related services but does not meet the definition of an exceptionality category, s/he will not be determined to be eligible. Eligibility

Eligibility Determination Is Is Not Application of critical thinking skills to the evaluation process Data-based team decision making Professional judgment The application of rules The administration and interpretation of any specific assessments Based on a single score Sometimes it seems that what practitioners want is a single cut score for determining whether or not a student is eligible for gifted services. That criterion doesn’t exist. The eligibility team needs to document the data on which they base their decisions and the critical thinking that underlies professional judgment. The next slides will try to lead you through that thinking process. (Note: we hear many complaints that a student qualified for gifted except for his/her IQ score. This is determining eligibility based on a single criteria, which is prohibited)

Eligibility Determination Prong 1 Is the child a child with an exceptionality? "Exceptional children" means children with disabilities and gifted children (KAR 91-40-1 (w)). 4 Decision

Steps to Answering Prong 1 Do the evaluation data match one of the definitions of exceptionality in state/federal regulations? Are the data congruent with indicators for that exceptionality? Note that exclusionary criteria do not apply to the category of gifted. When considering the first prong of the two-prong test of eligibility, the team reviews the initial evaluation and other data to determine whether or not the child is a child with an exceptionality. To do this, team members compare the data about the child to see if there is a match to one of the exceptionality categories defined in the regulations.

Match the Definition The definitions for each of the exceptionality categories are listed in the Eligibility Indicators Document (August, 2018). The team considers whether the student’s data match or do not match the definition of the exceptionality category under consideration. There are 3 requirements for Prong 1 for Gifted. Do you have data that match one of the definitions of exceptionality in state/federal regulations? The definitions for each of the exceptionality categories are listed in the Eligibility Indicators Document . The team considers whether the student’s data match or do not match the definition of the exceptionality category under consideration.

Using the Indicators Document Prong 1: Definition of gifted—3 Requirements: performing or demonstrating the potential for performing at significantly higher levels of accomplishment in one or more academic fields due to intellectual ability when compared to others of similar age, experience, and environment The Indicators Document provides examples of evidence you might collect to support each of the 3 requirements under Prong 1 Look at the examples of evidence for each of the 3 requirements. What data might you collect that supports each of the 3 requirements? What does requirement #3 mean to you? Do you think it means you need to conduct a non-biased evaluation?

Eligibility Determination Prong 2 Does the child need special education and related services? The second prong of the test of eligibility is to determine whether or not the child needs special education and related services as a result of the exceptionality. 4 Decision

Prong 2 Determine Whether the Child Needs Special Education and Related Services as a Result of the Exceptionality. What are the child’s needs related to the intensity of instruction and supports required for the child to be successful? Does the child have specific needs which are so unique as to require specially designed instruction in order to access and make progress in the general education curriculum? What data has the team collected that can be used to answer these questions. The results of general education interventions are typically most helpful for providing the type of information needed.

Steps to Answering Prong 2 What is needed for the student to participate in the general or an advanced curriculum? Is there a need for specially designed instruction? Is the child’s need for having adapted content, methodology, or delivery of instruction so great that it cannot be provided in regular education without the support of special education? It is helpful for teams to remember that by definition special education means specially designed instruction (KAR 91-40-1(kkk)), and, that specially designed instruction means adapting the content, methodology or delivery of instruction to address the unique needs of a child that result from the child’s exceptionality to ensure access of the child to the general education curriculum in order to meet the educational standards that apply to all children (KAR 91-40-1 (lll)). This implies that in order to have a need for special education, the child has specific needs which are so unique as to require specially designed instruction in order to access and make progress in the general education curriculum. The team must review the evaluation data in such a way as to understand the extent of the child’s needs with regard to specially designed instruction. Teams should be able to use the data to describe the intensity of the support needed to assist the child in accessing and progressing in the general education curriculum. It is only through this discussion that the team can determine whether or not the child’s need for having adapted content, methodology, or delivery of instruction is so great that it cannot be provided without the support of special education. The indicators for Prong 2 for each of the exceptionality categories are listed in the Eligibility Indicators Document (August, 2018). Consider whether the data are congruent with the indicators for Prong 2. Most data for Prong 2 comes from the General Education Interventions process or from interventions conducted during the evaluation process.

Using the Indicators Document Prong 2: Need for special education (specially designed instruction) and related services Examples of evidence: Progress monitoring data Evidence of mastery Changes/modifications needed Intensity of supports needed Look at examples in the Indicators Document under Prong 2 for Gifted. What data do you collect that support the determination of need for special education and related services?

Complete Eligibility Report Specific to RTI: (iv) If the child has participated in a process that assesses the child’s response to scientific, research-based intervention, the report must also document the instructional strategies used; and the student-centered data collected. Documentation that the child’s parents were notified about the process, including the following information: the State’s policies regarding the amount and nature of student performance data that would be collected and the general education services that would be provided; strategies for increasing the child’s rate of learning; and the parent’s right to request an evaluation (K.A.R. 91-40-10(e), (f); K.A.R. 91-40-9(a)(2)(3); 34 C.F.R. 300.309(a)(3); 34 C.F.R. 300.311(a)). See all reporting requirements in the Special Education Process Handbook. These requirements are specific to Response to Intervention method of evaluation. Note that many of the requirements need to be met during the general education intervention process.

Linking Evaluation to IEP The evaluation provides information for the Present Levels of Academic Achievement and Functional Performance (PLAAFPs) Information required in the PLAAFPs: Current performance for both academic achievement and functional performance Statement describing the impact of the child’s exceptionality on his/her ability to access and make progress in the general education curriculum Baseline data for goals Everything in the IEP is based on the PLAAFPs. Does your evaluation information contribute to all of the PLAAFP requirements? Do you have current performance information for BOTH academic achievement and functional performance? Do you have sufficient information to write a statement describing the impact of the child’s exceptionality?

Questions? Deb McVey (TASN) Melissa Valenza (KSDE) deb4tasn@sunflower.com Melissa Valenza (KSDE) mvalenza@ksde.org