SLD Body of Evidence and Eligibility Denver Public Schools, 2011

Outcomes  Participants will understand the required components of a comprehensive body of evidence for SLD determination  Participants will identify the different tools available to build the required body of evidence  Participants will understand how to analyze data to support the determination of sufficient vs. insufficient progress

Background and Overview  There is no longer the need to determine that a significant discrepancy between aptitude (IQ) and level of achievement exists. The validity and reliability of the discrepancy approach to SLD identification has been seriously challenged for many years through extensive research  Consensus reports and empirical synthesis indicate a need for major changes in the approach to identifying children with SLD. Models that incorporate RtI represent a shift in special education toward goals of better achievement and improved behavioral outcomes for children with SLD... -Federal Register, vol. 71, no.156; p

Background and Overview  In the state of Colorado it is required that a problem- solving process (Response to Intervention/RtI) be implemented prior to, or as a part of, the evaluation for a Specific Learning Disability.

Background and Overview The IEP team must determine that…  The student has one or more Academic Skill Deficits as compared to age-level peers or grade-level benchmarks AND  The student is making Insufficient Progress in response to a research/evidence-based intervention

Background and Overview  8 areas of SLD: 1. Oral Expression 2. Listening Comprehension 3. Written Expression 4. Basic Reading Skills 5. Reading Fluency Skills 6. Reading Comprehension 7. Mathematical Calculation 8. Mathematical Problem Solving

Academic Skill Deficit  The decision as to what constitutes a “significant” academic skill deficit is a complex one that requires a degree of professional judgment and must be based on valid and reliable data. In identifying the existence of SLD, a determination must be made that a student continues to have a significant academic skill deficit even after obtaining evidence of effective instruction in the general education classroom and the provision of targeted and/or intensive interventions.  The finding of an academic skill deficit should not be based on any one measure. The convergence of multiple sources of data must be considered by the IEP team.

Academic Skill Deficit  In order to determine the presence of an academic skill deficit, the student’s body of evidence must contain at least:  one norm-referenced assessment for each of the 8 areas of SLD being considered, AND  all criterion referenced measures that are appropriate for the student’s grade level, AND  at least 6 grade level CBM scores for each area of SLD being considered when such CBMs are available (if CBMs are not available, the body of evidence must include at least 6 data points from mastery-based measures)

Academic Skill Deficit Norm-Referenced (Targeted) Assessments  The body of evidence must include at least one individually- administered norm-referenced assessment in each of the 8 areas of SLD being considered  Examples include CTOPP, Key Math, TOWL, etc. (see attached document for a list of recommended norm-referenced assessments for each area of SLD)  Scores at or below the 12 th percentile may be considered to represent a significant academic skill deficit

Academic Skill Deficit Criterion Referenced Measures (District and State Assessments)  The body of evidence must include all criterion referenced measures that are appropriate for the student’s grade level  Examples include CSAP, CELA, DRA-2, SRI, Acuity, DPS Benchmark/Interim Assessments, STAR Assessments, etc.  The following results may be considered to represent a significant academic skill deficit:  Results that are at or below 50% of the grade level expectancy (for example, if the expectation is that a student answer grade level comprehension questions with 80% accuracy and a student’s accuracy through repeated trials is at 40% or less, then a significant deficit might be indicated)  Results that are 1.5 (or more) years below grade level expectations

Academic Skill Deficit Curriculum Based Measurements (CBMs)  The body of evidence must include at least 6 grade level CBMs in each area of SLD being considered (if CBMs are not available for an area being considered, the body of evidence must include at least 6 data points from mastery-based measures)  Examples of CBMs include the measures on DIBELS, AIMSweb, EasyCBM, and Intervention Central as well as those created by Denver Public Schools  The following results may be considered to represent a significant academic skill deficit:  At least 6 grade level CBM data points that suggest significant gaps of 2 or more (using the gap analysis)  At least 6 grade level CBM data points that fall in the Well Below Average range according to the DPS CBM Benchmark Guidelines  At least 6 grade level CBM data points that are at or below the 12 th percentile based on national norms (e.g., AIMSweb Aggregate Norm Tables)

Insufficient Progress  In order to determine whether or not a student is making sufficient or insufficient progress in response to research-based intervention in each area of concern, problem solving teams must monitor student progress toward norms/benchmarks during the intervention and evaluation phase.

Insufficient Progress  The following types of progress monitoring tools may be used to analyze a student’s progress in response to research-based intervention:  CBMs with Research-Based Norms/Benchmarks (see attached document for a list of recommended CBMs for each area of SLD)  Criterion-Referenced/Mastery-Based Measures (ONLY when formal CBMs do not exist for the skill being monitored)

Insufficient Progress  CBMs are available through:  DPS Special Education (Free)  DIBELS Next (Free):  Intervention Central (Free):  AIMSweb (Paid subscription required):  EasyCBM (paid subscription required):  DPS Special Education has developed CBM Benchmark Guidelines for IEP teams. These benchmark guidelines can be applied to the probes from any of the CBM sites listed above.

Insufficient Progress IEP teams must use research-based measures (CBMs) if they exist for the skill(s) being monitoring. The use of criterion referenced/mastery-based measures should only be used to monitor progress when CBMs are unavailable.

Insufficient Progress  In order to determine sufficient/insufficient progress, IEP teams are required to:  Gather at least 6 grade level data points (CBMs if they exist; mastery-based measures if CBMs don’t exist) in each area of SLD being considered  Administer a new grade level progress monitoring probe (CBMs if they exist; mastery-based measures if CBMs don’t exist) after the student has received at least 5 hours of research-based intervention (e.g., teachers can administer a new Oral Reading Fluency CBM each week to students who are receiving 60 minutes per day of research- based intervention in the area of reading fluency)

Insufficient Progress IEP teams must analyze the progress monitoring data to determine whether or not the student is making sufficient or insufficient progress in response to the research-based intervention in each area of concern. IEP teams should analyze the data in the following ways: 1. Calculate the gap 2. Calculate the student’s rate of improvement (ROI) 3. Determine the necessary rate of improvement to reach the average range in a specific time period 4. Calculate the number of weeks it will take the student to reach the average range at his/her current grade level 5. Calculate the student’s projected score at a specific time period

Insufficient Progress Example: A 4th grader received the following scores on ORF during the fall semester: 9/1: 30 9/8: 33 9/15: 32 9/22: 37 9/29: 38 10/6: 35 10/13: 37 a.Using the DPS Benchmark guidelines, find the expected benchmark (50 th percentile) score for the appropriate grade level and season b.Divide the expected benchmark score by each of the student’s scores 104/30 = /33 = /32 = /37 = /38 = /35 = /37 = 2.8

Insufficient Progress Example: A 4th grader received the following scores on ORF during the fall semester: 9/1: 30 9/8: 33 9/15: 32 9/22: 37 9/29: 38 10/6: 35 10/13: 37 Student’s most recent score: 37 Students first score: 30 # of weeks between first and last score: 6 (37-30) / 6 = 1.17

Insufficient Progress a.Using the DPS Benchmark guidelines, find the lowest score in the “at or above average range” for the appropriate grade level and season b.Find the student’s current (most recent score) c.Subtract student’s current (most recent score) from the lowest score in the “at or above average range” to calculate the “necessary gain to catch up” d.Determine how many weeks are left until the next benchmark period (or end of year) e.Divide the necessary gain to catch up by the number of weeks left until the next benchmark period (or end of year)

Insufficient Progress a.Refer to Step 3 to find the “necessary gain to catch up” b.Refer to Step 2 to find the student’s current rate of improvement (ROI) c.Divide the “necessary gain to catch up” by the student’s rate of improvement

Insufficient Progress a.Refer to step 3 to find the number of weeks until the next benchmark period (or until end of the year) b.Refer to step 2 to find the student’s current rate of improvement (ROI) c.Find the student’s current (most recent) score d.Multiply the # of weeks left by the student’s ROI; then add the student’s current score

Insufficient Progress Determination of Sufficient vs. Insufficient Progress: The determination of sufficient vs. insufficient progress is an IEP team decision based on the student’s progress in response to the research-based intervention he/she received. Ultimately, it is up to the IEP team to decide whether or not the child’s progress is sufficient to close the gap in an “acceptable” and “reasonable” amount of time. The following examples of progress may be considered “Sufficient Progress” by IEP teams:  Progressing from Well Below Average Range to Below Average Range by the next Benchmark period  Progressing from Well Below Average Range to At or Above Average Range by the next Benchmark period  Progressing from Below Average Range to At or Above Average Range by the next Benchmark period  Progressing from at or below the 12 th percentile to at or above the 13 th percentile by the next Benchmark period  A Rate of Improvement that is at least 1.5 times that of the expected rate of improvement at the student’s grade level  A Rate of Improvement that is sufficient to close the gap by the next Benchmark period

Other Components  Exclusionary Factors  Observations  Cognitive Processes

Exclusionary Factors  It is the decision of the IEP team to rule out other factors (vision, hearing, and motor disabilities; SLIC; SIED; cultural factors; environmental or economic disadvantage; and limited English proficiency) as the PRIMARY cause of the student’s underachievement. However, it must be clear that a student for whom one of these factors applies, could also be appropriately identified as having a Specific Learning Disability.

Observation  The body of evidence for SLD must include an observation in each area of concern as well as an observation in an area that is not a concern

Cognitive Processes  Although it is no longer recommended to administer cognitive testing for SLD eligibility, it is still recommended that IEP teams identify the one or more cognitive processes that are interfering with the student’s learning in the area(s) of concern  These cognitive processes can be identified by an analysis of the entire body of evidence  Examples of cognitive processes are phonological processing, working memory, processing speed, etc.  More information will be provided in the near future regarding the identification of such cognitive processes

Questions?