SLD Eligibility Policy

Agenda Review SLD definition Models of SLD identification ID’s Revised SLD Eligibility Criteria and Procedures Questions

SLD Definition A specific learning disability means a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, which may manifest itself in an imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or to do mathematical calculations, including conditions such as perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia. Specific learning disability does not include learning problems that are primarily the result of visual, hearing, or motor disabilities, of mental retardation, of emotional disturbance, or of environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage. (34 CFR Sec (c)(10))

Models of SLD Eligibility RTI only Patterns of Strengths and Weaknesses Blended model ***

Overview of ID SLD Policy Federal & State Definition ID CriteriaProcedure 1.Imperfect ability to learn 1.Disorder in a basic psychological process 1.Not a result of other factors 1.Evidence of insufficient progress and achievement 2.Pattern of strengths and weaknesses in psychological processing skills that impacts learning 3.Student’s lack of achievement is not the primary result of other factors 1.Progress Monitoring Data (CBM), ISAT, Achievement Tests 2.Assessment of psychological processing skills 3.Team consideration of other factors (examining evidence when other factors suspected)

Why the change to SLD? Aligns with the federal definition Consistent with evidence demonstrating that students can have impairments in very specific areas Allows for evaluation and intervention planning to be more closely aligned to address the particular needs of the student

Why aren’t there magic numbers? Heterogeneity of SLD Current research evidence is not sufficient to recommend hard cut scores

Imperfect Ability to Learn ID CriteriaEvaluation Procedures The student does not make sufficient progress in response to effective, evidence-based instruction and intervention for the child’s age or to meet state-approved grade-level standards in one or more areas Evidence of insufficient progress in response to effective, evidence-based instruction and intervention indicates the student’s performance level and rate of improvement are significantly below that of grade-level peers.  Grade level performance  Verification that appropriate instruction was provided  Progress monitoring w/ CBMs  Observation

Imperfect Ability to Learn ID CriteriaEvaluation Procedures The student demonstrates low achievement in the area(s) of suspected disability listed above as evidenced by a norm-referenced, standardized achievement assessment. For culturally and linguistically diverse students, the preponderance of evidence must indicate low achievement. Evidence of low achievement in one or more of the suspected area(s). This evidence must indicate performance that is significantly below the mean on a cluster, composite, or 2 or more subtest scores of a norm-referenced, standardized, achievement assessment in the specific academic area(s) of suspected disability.  Preponderance of evidence for students who are culturally and linguistically diverse

Guidelines for Students who are Culturally & Linguistically Diverse Preponderance of Evidence – Multiple sources of data converge to indicate that a student’s learning problems are not due to cultural, linguistic or other factors (Prereferral information) Compiled socio-cultural information – e.g. parental education level, time in country, time in school, mobility Parent involvement and input Targeted interventions – multi-lingual instructional support

Disorder in a Basic Psychological Process ID Criteria (abbreviated)Evaluation Procedures Evidence of a pattern of strengths and weaknesses in psychological processing skills that impact learning. Assessment is linked to the failure to achieve adequately Must rely on standardized assessments Assessments must be conducted by a professional who is qualified to administer and interpret the assessment results Student’s performance demonstrates a pattern of strengths and weaknesses that help explain why and how the student’s learning difficulties occur

Psychological Processes Related to the area of academic deficit In reading, phonological processing, processing speed (rapid automatized naming), orthographic coding, basic auditory and visual perception skills, semantic & oral language processing In math, the research is less well defined, but working memory, processing speed, number sense, visual perception and attention skills are emerging as important underlying processes

Psychological Processes Assist in Identification Phonological Processing Working Memory Assist in Intervention Planning Numerous research based interventions target phonological processing deficits, especially for young children Students with memory issues need structure, repetition, summarization strategies

Exclusionary Criteria ID CriteriaEvaluation Procedures The team must determine that the student’s learning difficulty is not primarily the result of: a)A visual, hearing, or motor impairment b)Cognitive impairment c)Emotional disturbance d) Environmental or economic disadvantage e)Cultural factors f) Limited English Proficiency The team reviews existing student data to determine whether further evaluation is needed to rule out these factors as primary causes of the student’s learning difficulties.

Implementation Timeline

School Year Professional development IEP teams may use either SLD eligibility determination criteria with the expectation that teams will begin to implement the new 2009 SLD criteria Submit one completed SLD eligibility determination per school using new 2009 criteria to the SDE by May 15, 2010 Submitted eligibility determination documents will be reviewed by a trained team and results for that one student will be placed in the Compliance Tracking Tool by June 30, 2010.

School Year Professional development continues All items submitted in the Compliance Tracking Tool for the IEP submitted in May, 2010 will be corrected no later than May, 2011 Beginning August 1, 2010, IEP teams will use the 2009 SLD criteria to determine special education eligibility for all new referrals of students suspected of having a specific learning disability. Additional guidance will be provided for IEP teams to use for three year re-evaluations and other situations where students have already been determined eligible for special education.

School Year Professional development continues IEP teams will use the 2009 SLD criteria to determine eligibility for all students suspected of having a specific learning disability.

20 RTI and SLD Identification Web Resources Idaho Response to Intervention: IDEA Partnership’s RTI Collection: National Association of School Psychologists: National Association of State Directors of Special Education: National Center for Learning Disabilities: National Center on Culturally Responsive Systems: National Center on Student Progress Monitoring: National Center on Response to Intervention: National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities: National Research Center on Learning Disabilities: Office of Special Education Programs, IDEA 2004 Building the Legacy: RTI Action Network:

21 References Klotz, M. B., & Canter, A. (2007). Response To Intervention (RTI): A primer for parents, Retrieved July 18, 2008 from Lichtenstein, R. (2008). Best practices in identification of learning disabilities. Best Practices in School Psychology V, 17, 2, (pp ). National Association of School Psychologists. (2007). Position statement on identification of students with specific learning disabilities. Retrieved July 18, 2008 from U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs. Q and A: Response to Intervention (RTI) and Early Intervening Services (EIS). Retrieved July 18, 2008 from

Questions? Jacque Hyatt