Problem Solving and Eligibility in RTI: The Role of the School Psychologist Bend-LaPine School District April 14, 2010

Objective Understand the process of evaluating students using a Response to Intervention (RTI) framework, from Tier 1 core instruction through special education eligibility determination. Understand the role of the school psychologist within the RTI framework

Example: Harry Harry: – 2 nd grader – New to the district – Records indicate no previous interventions or major concerns

Example: Harry Screening KindergartenFallWinterSpring ISF (Phonemic Awareness)915 LNF PSF (Phonemic Awareness)1429 NWF (Phonic Decoding)613 Instructional Recommendation BenchmarkStrategic 1 st GradeFallWinterSpring LNF36 PSF (Phonemic Awareness) NWF (Phonic Decoding) ORF (Fluency and Accuracy)319 Instructional Recommendation Strategic Intensive

Harry: 2 nd Grade 2 nd Grade Fall DIBELS: Initial Instructional Placement: – Core Reading Instruction: 90 minutes of Houghton-Mifflin – Tier II Intervention: 30 minutes additional phonic decoding instruction (Phonics for Reading) 2 nd gradeFall NWF (Phonic Decoding)32 ORF (Fluency and Accuracy)27 Instructional Recommendation Strategic

Documentation

Progress Monitoring Phonics for Reading

Progress Monitoring Phonics for Reading Phonics for Reading & Read Naturally

Individual Problem Solving

Understand how to conduct Problem Solving Meetings Purpose What data and materials are needed for the meeting Team membership Focus of meeting Problem Solving Process Define the Problem Determine an Intervention Implement the Intervention Evaluate the Intervention Referral

What is the Purpose of Individual Problem Solving? To review information about the student and possibly gather more information to better understand their needs To develop an individualized intervention Through a systematic process

Understand how to conduct Problem Solving Meetings Purpose What data and materials are needed for the meeting Team membership Focus of meeting Problem Solving Process Define the Problem Determine an Intervention Implement the Intervention Evaluate the Intervention Referral

Before The Problem Solving meeting collect the data 1.Complete a file review (Individual Problem Solving Worksheet)(Individual Problem Solving Worksheet) 2.Teacher sets up a pre-meeting with parents, counselor or school psychologist, and if appropriate, the ELL teacher. Strengths, weaknesses and needs are discussed Parents are given the RTI Brochure Developmental history and ELL data are collected.

TTSD RTI Parent Brochure

ODE RTI Parent Form

Understand how to conduct Problem Solving Meetings Purpose What data and materials are needed for the meeting Team membership Focus of meeting Problem Solving Process Define the Problem Determine an Intervention Implement the Intervention Evaluate the Intervention Referral

Who is at the Problem Solving Meeting? Literacy Specialist Classroom Teacher School Psychologist and/or Counselor Parents Others as needed (ELL Teacher, Principal, Special Education Teacher, School Psychologist, Speech Pathologist)

TTSD Parent Meeting Notice

Understand how to conduct Problem Solving Meetings Purpose What data and materials are needed for the meeting Team membership Focus of meeting Problem Solving Process Define the Problem Determine an Intervention Implement the Intervention Evaluate the Intervention Referral

Problem Solving Meetings are Solution Focused Focus is on: 1.Data 2.Educationally Relevant/Alterable Factors What changes can WE make that will provide the best chance of success for the child?

Activity Sam, a sixth grader, is not making sufficient progress. With a partner, list all the possible reasons why Sam may not be making sufficient progress.

Variables Related to Student Achievement Desire to learn Strategies for learning Knowledge Skills Prior content knowledge Self-efficacy/helplessness Race Genetic potential Gender Birth Order Disposition Health Physical difference IQ Disability category Personal history Quality of instruction Pedagogical knowledge Content knowledge Quality of curriculum Quality of learning environment Quality of evaluation Quality and quantity of time/content Family income and resources Family housing Parent years of schooling Mobility Members of family Family values Socioeconomic status Family history Alterable Unalterable (hard to change) Within the studentExternal to the student

Is it alterable? Is it educationally relevant? 1.Kristin’s DIBELS scores indicate she was in the “low risk” range last year. 2.Sarah’s file indicates that her parents are divorced and her father lives in Missouri. 3.The special education director told you that Erin’s brother receives special education services. 4.Javon missed 24 days of school last year. 25

5.Tim tells you he plays video games until late every night. 6.Pam’s teacher indicated that her noncompliant behavior began just after winter break. 7.Kathy’s mom told you her dad is in jail for drug use. 8.I’ve had all the siblings in that family… I know what John must be like. 26 Is it alterable? Is it educationally relevant?

Focus on what you can change

Understand how to conduct Problem Solving Meetings Purpose What data and materials are needed for the meeting Team membership Focus of meeting Problem Solving Process Define the problem Determine an intervention Implement the intervention Evaluate the intervention Referral

29 The Problem Solving Model 1.Define the Problem: What is the problem and why is it happening?

Define the problem 1.Review Data paying attention to the individual student’s needs a)Progress Monitoring Data

Progress Monitoring Phonics for Reading Phonics for Reading & Read Naturally

Define the problem 1.Review Data paying attention to the individual student’s needs a)Progress Monitoring Data b)Student Intervention Profile

Define the problem 1.Review Data paying attention to the individual student’s needs a)Progress Monitoring Data b)Student Intervention Profile c)File Review Form (Individual Problem Solving Worksheet)(Individual Problem Solving Worksheet)

Define the problem 1.Review Data paying attention to the individual student’s needs a)Progress Monitoring Data b)Student Intervention Profile c)File Review Form (Individual Problem Solving Worksheet) d)Developmental History

Define the problem 1.Review Data paying attention to the individual student’s needs a)Progress Monitoring Data b)Student Intervention Profile c)File Review Form (Individual Problem Solving Worksheet) d)Developmental History e)ELL Data

ELL Data

Define the problem 1.Review Data paying attention to the individual student’s needs a)Progress Monitoring Data b)Student Intervention Profile c)File Review Form (Individual Problem Solving Worksheet) d)Developmental History e)ELL Data f)Cohort Data

40 Aimline Amy Chase Mary Isaiah Cohort Data

41 Aimline Amy Mary Isaiah Cohort Data Chase

Define the problem 1.Review Data paying attention to the individual student’s needs a)Progress Monitoring Data b)Student Intervention Profile c)File Review Form (Individual Problem Solving Worksheet) d)Developmental History e)ELL Data f)Cohort Data 2.Consider if other data is needed

Instruction: How content is taught Curriculum: What content is taught Environment: Accommodations, modifications, & other environmental considerations Learner: Things specific to the student Review: existing information Interview: parents, teachers, student Observe: student during instruction Test: student skills Additional data: ICEL & RIOT LEAST TO MOST INTRUSIVE DIRECT TO INDIRECT

Goal: Convergent Data from Multiple Sources Curriculum RIOT Instruction RIOT Learner RIOT Environment RIOT Multiple Sources and Domains Why the problem is occurring

ICEL

Assessing the Learner Use diagnostic data (as necessary) to further define the problem.

The major purpose for administering diagnostic tests is to provide information that is useful in planning more effective instruction. Additional Diagnostic Data Diagnostic tests should only be given when there is a clear expectation that they will provide new information about a child’s difficulties learning to read that can be used to provide more focused, or more powerful instruction.

Diagnostic Assessment Questions “Why is the student not performing at the expected level?” (Defining the Problem) “What is the student’s instructional need?” (Designing an Intervention)

Digging Deeper In order to be “diagnostic” – Teachers need to know the sequence of skill development – Content knowledge may need further development

Enabling Skills Enabling skills are skills that could be considered prerequisite skills for the demonstration of proficient performances on larger assessments measures They represent the sub-skills of higher order performance demonstration Deficiencies in enabling skills will often result in lower performance on assessments

Phonemic Awareness Developmental Continuum Easy Hard IF DIFFICULTY DETECTED HERE.. THEN check here! Phoneme deletion and manipulation Blending and segmenting individual phonemes Onset-rime blending and segmentation Syllable segmentation and blending Sentence segmentation Rhyming Word comparison Vital for Diagnostic Process!

Diagnostic Assessments Quick Phonics Screener (Jan Hasbrouck) Digging Deeper (Wendy Robinson) CORE Multiple Measures Error Analysis Curriculum-Based Evaluation Procedures (Ken Howell)

Digging Deeper Questions

Core Multiple Measures

Error Analysis 1.Select a 250 word passage on which you estimate that the student will be 80-85% accurate. 2.Record the student’s errors on your copy of the reading probe. 3.Use at least 25 errors for students in grade 1 to conduct an error analysis and at least 50 errors for students in second grade and above. 4.Use an error analysis sheet to conduct error analysis.

Error Analysis

Define the problem 1.Review Data paying attention to the individual student’s needs a)Progress Monitoring Data b)Student Intervention Profile c)File Review Form (Individual Problem Solving Worksheet) d)Developmental History e)ELL Data f)Cohort Data 2.Consider if other data is needed 3.Define the Problem

Problem Definition 1.Objective – observable and measurable 2.Clear – passes “the stranger test” 3.Complete – includes examples (and non- examples when necessary) and baseline data

Example Harry (2 nd grader) is currently reading a median of 44 words correct per minute (wcpm) with 89% accuracy when given 2 nd grade level text. He also answers an average of 3/10 comp questions correct on weekly in-class tests. 2 nd grade students in his school are reading an average of 85 wcpm on 2 nd grade text and answering 9/10 comp questions correct. Non-Example Harry struggles with being a fluent reader and is not meeting the 2 nd grade reading benchmark. He makes a lot of mistakes and is currently reading at a 1 st grade level. He also has difficulties answering comprehension questions at grade level. Problem Definition

Define the problem 1.Review Data paying attention to the individual student’s needs a)Progress Monitoring Data b)Student Intervention Profile c)File Review Form (Individual Problem Solving Worksheet) d)Developmental History e)ELL Data f)Cohort Data 2.Consider if other data is needed 3.Define the Problem 4.As a team, develop a hypothesis and create a plan

Example: Hypothesis Development Problem Definition: Harry (2 nd grader) is currently reading a median of 44 words correct per minute (wcpm) with 89% accuracy when given 2 nd grade level text. He also answers an average of 3/10 comp questions correct on weekly in-class tests. 2 nd grade students in his school are reading an average of 85 wcpm on 2 nd grade text and answering 9/10 comp questions correct.

Hypothesis Development Instruction: Core: large group guided practice, choral reading, and opportunities for partner reading. Intervention: teacher model-lead-test format for teaching simple decodable words and word lists, fluency practice Curriculum: Core: 90 min/day of Houghton-Mifflin with focus on decoding, fluency, comprehension, and vocabulary Intervention: 30 min day of Phonics for Reading, 15 min/day of Read Naturally Environment: Harry’s core is taught in a large group of 25 students. He tends to echo read during more difficult choral readings and waits for other students to say the word. He never raises his hand to volunteer to read. Intervention group: 5-6 students in quiet corner of room. Very engaged Learner: ORF: 44 wcpm with 89% accuracy Weekly comp questions: 3/10 Phonics Screener: Passed all levels except Silent e words (3/10), consonant digraphs (2/10) and r- controlled vowels (1/10) Listening comp: avg 9/10 correct on monthly tests.

Hypothesis Development Data-Based Hypothesis: – Harry’s reading fluency and comprehension problems occur because he does not have strategies for decoding consonant digraphs (ch, sh, etc), silent-e words, and r-controlled vowels (ar, ir, er, or). His fluency and comprehension will improve if he receives additional intensive instruction in these decoding strategies.

Problem Solving Forms Example 1 Example 2

Discussion In a small group, discuss how Defining the Problem and Developing a Hypothesis in Individual Problem Solving is different than “pre-referral” meetings.

68 The Problem Solving Model 1.Define the Problem: What is the problem and why is it happening? 2.Design Intervention: What are we going to do about the problem?

Intervention Development Goal setting: – Measurable – Able to be Monitored – Meaningful By June 9, 2010 when given a 2 nd grade level DIBELS passage, Harry will read 80 wcpm with 95% accuracy. Moves Harry from intensive to strategic AND 3 wcpm per week growth

Goal Setting: Things to Consider 1.What is the goal? 1.Criterion context Research-based benchmarks/proficiency 2.Normative context Minimum of 25 th percentile (bottom limit of average) 2.By when? – Long term goals set at the proficiency standard – Short term goals set for incremental step towards proficiency 3.What growth can we reasonably expect? – National Growth rates (Fuchs, AIMSWEB, Hasbrouck & Tindal) – District Growth rates – Cohort growth rates

Goal Setting Tips Grade Level vs. Instructional Level – If student is accurate (>95%) on grade level, monitor at grade level – When in doubt, monitor at the higher level When a student reaches the 50 th %ile on instructional level, consider moving up a monitoring level (Shapiro, 2008) ABC – Always Be Closing (the gap)

Discussion In a small group, discuss how Designing an Intervention at the Individual Problem Solving Meeting is different than “pre-referral” meetings.

75 The Problem Solving Model 1.Define the Problem: What is the problem and why is it happening? 2.Design Intervention: What are we going to do about the problem? 3.Implement and Monitor: Are we doing what we intended to do?

Implement the Intervention Harry’s intervention: 60 minutes daily of Phonics for Reading, focusing on silent-e words, consonant digraphs and r-controlled vowels, provided in a 30-minute block of 5 students and an additional 30-minute block of 3 students, 5x/week. 15 minutes 5x/week of Read Naturally in a group of 6 students.

Fidelity of Implementation Fidelity to curriculum – All lesson parts taught following outlined procedures – Curriculum decision rules followed (lesson checkouts, mastery tests, etc) Fidelity to research-based instructional procedures – High pacing (high rate of student opportunities to respond) – Corrective feedback – Behavior management system evident – Students are accurate before moving on to new material

79 The Problem Solving Model 1.Define the Problem: What is the problem and why is it happening? 2.Design Intervention: What are we going to do about the problem? 3.Implement and Monitor: Are we doing what we intended to do? 4.Evaluate Effectiveness: Did our plan work?

Evaluate the intervention Determine how effective the intervention was for the student Progress monitoring data Fidelity Data Cohort Data

Progress Monitoring Phonics for Reading Phonics for Reading & Read Naturally Double dose PFR & Read Naturally

Fidelity Data Based on observations of the intervention conducted on 3/10/10, 3/17/10 and 4/16/10, an average of 95% of intervention components were implemented with fidelity with a minimum of 90% implementation.

How did the intervention work?

What if the intervention doesn’t work?

SPED Referral If student continues to have low skills and slow progress after at least ___ weeks of individualized intervention (see decision rules), the student is automatically referred for Special Education Evaluation. The following data is compiled and provided as part of the SPED referral: Individual Problem Solving Worksheet Student Intervention Profile Progress Monitoring Data Developmental History ELL Language Data (ELL checklist)

LD Eligibility Evaluation Steps Referral for a special education evaluation Evaluation planning Prior Notice About Evaluation/Consent for Evaluation Evaluation (60 school days) Evaluation Summary Report Eligibility Determination meeting

SPED Referral Typically made by the RTI team Parents may make a referral at any time If another disability is suspected, proceed to referral while intervening Remember: Referral does not equal evaluation. Once a student is referred, the evaluation planning team (including the parents) convene to determine if an evaluation is appropriate. Before the meeting, parents receive procedural safeguards. At the end of the meeting, parents receive prior notice of the team’s decision.

OAR’s: Notice and Consent (a) Before conducting any evaluation or reevaluation, the public agency must provide notice to the parent in accordance with OAR that describes any evaluation procedures the agency proposes to conduct as a result of the evaluation planning process. (b) Before conducting any evaluation or reevaluation, the public agency must obtain informed written consent for evaluation in accordance with OAR and (c) If the public agency refuses an evaluation or reevaluation requested by the parent, the public agency must provide the parent with prior written notice under OAR

Evaluation Identifying Learning Disabilities Under an RTI Model

Dual Discrepancy Low achievement and Slow Progress (despite intensive interventions) are the foundation for determining SLD eligibility using RTI. Low achievement and Slow Progress (despite intensive interventions) are the foundation for determining SLD eligibility using RTI. Also must consider Instructional Need. Also must consider Instructional Need.

1. Does the Student Have Significantly Low Skills? Determine parameters – Differentiate low from significantly low Below 16 th %ile 2 times discrepant Standard score below 85 Maintain consistency – Between schools, grades, and children Significantly low on multiple measures as compared to multiple groups

2. Is Progress Slow? How much is enough? Progress monitoring growth rates Yearly RIT gains Where is the goal set? Use your decision rules Context is key Typical growth National norms District norms Cohort growth

Is the Intervention Intensive? Scientific, research-based (IDEA 2004) Sufficient frequency and duration Implemented with fidelity

Eligibility Decision Making It comes down to the balance. How does the “weight” of the intervention compare to the “weight” of progress?

3. Instructional Need Students need to receive the intensive instruction in order to make adequate progress. – Need to describe the instruction in either it’s content, methodology, and/or delivery – Review progress data in relation to intervention strategies implemented Note… special education is not remedial education.

Avoid Exclusionary Factors Lack of appropriate instruction Existence of another disability Limited English proficiency Environmental or Economic Disadvantage

LD Evaluation Report : Background Info State SLD Eligibility Form TTSD LD Report Template Section 1: Background Information (written by learning specialist or school psychologist) Reason for the referral (state areas of concern and disability/disabilities suspected) Previous testing History in special programs (special education, Title I, ELL, 504) Parent concerns and perspective, including background of disabilities, especially in areas related to current difficulties

LD Evaluation Report : 1. Significantly Low Skills State SLD Eligibility Form

LD Evaluation Report : 1. Significantly Low Skills TTSD LD Report Template Section 2: Students who qualify for special education as having learning disabilities have very low skills relative to expectations for the student’s age, or relative to the student’s progress toward Oregon achievement. Review existing information including teacher collected work samples Complete tables and analyze assessment results Summarize actual growth to expected growth and student scores to average scores Analyze historical data: Have scores always been low? If not, a learning disability is unlikely. Are scores relatively low? Has the student had intensive assistance to maintain skills at that level? Are the state/district assessments and individual achievement tests consistent? If not, get one more piece of information about the skills in question. Confirm results with reports from teachers, which must be consistent. If inconsistent results are reported, decide which is valid and justify the decision. Consider the demands of each assessment (content, speed, fluency). Lower scores may be considered valid if they reflect performance on a test that is more comprehensive or involves more complex demands than other assessments used. Finish with a summary statement about the student’s skills.

1. Significantly Low Skills: General Guidelines 1. Low Skills: – Actual level of performance is significantly below expected level of performance (on multiple measures) DIBELS scores Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM) scores for math, reading, writing OAKS percentile ranks Other standardized test scores (WJ, WIAT, GRADE, etc) percentile ranks …as compared to expected level

LD Evaluation Report : Observation State SLD Eligibility Form TTSD LD Report Template Section 4: The student’s academic performance and behavior were observed in a regular classroom setting. Observation must occur in area of concern Note relevant behavior and its relationship to academic functioning

LD Evaluation Report : 2. Slow Progress… Despite Interventions State SLD Eligibility Form: Slow Progress… State SLD Eligibility Form: …Despite Intensive Interventions

LD Evaluation Report : 2. Slow Progress… Despite Interventions TTSD LD Report Template Section 3: Students with learning disabilities have academic skill deficits that are resistant to well-planned and implemented research based interventions that were designed to increase the child’s rate of learning. Report baseline scores and how those scores compare to the general population Describe each intervention and any changes or modifications Describe fidelity of interventions (dates of observation, met __ % of fidelity checklist criteria) Analyze progress, compare to general population and intervention cohort Finish with summary statement and recommendations for future instruction (the student responded well to specific, contingent praise, sticker reinforcers, etc.)

2. Slow Progress (despite research-based instruction and interventions matched to student need) – Baseline level of performance… – Ending level of performance… – Growth rates… …as compared to expected level – Description of decision-making based on district decision rules 2. Slow Progress: General Guidelines

2. Slow Progress (cont) – Summary of each level of instruction/intervention (could include): Curriculum used Brief description of skills addressed # of weeks/months implemented; days per week, min per day Group size – Fidelity of implementation data: e.g. Observations of the Phonics for Reading intervention on 10/16/09, 11/2/09, and 11/17/09 indicate that an average of 97% of intervention components were implemented with fidelity.

3. Instructional Need – Summary of why the student requires specially designed instruction in order to make progress towards the district standards and benchmarks Examples: “Progress monitoring data indicate that Amy requires direct, explicit phonics instruction in a small group of no more than 4-5 students in order to make sufficient progress towards reading benchmarks.” “Data indicates that Scott only made significant progress to catch him up to his typical peers when provided with small group instruction focusing on number sense activities. This instruction was provided for 30 minutes for 5 days per week, in addition to his 60 minutes of Core math instruction. Without this additional support, Scott made no progress towards catching up to his peers.” 3. Instructional Need: General Guidelines

State SLD Eligibility Form: Additional Sections If Necessary

TTSD Evaluation Report Template: Exclusionary Factors Section 5: The student has been provided the opportunity to learn the skills. Describe the student’s instructional stability and reasons for excessive absences Describe core instruction in the area of concern (amount, intensity, training of instructor, size of group Section 6: The student does not have another disability or sensory problem. Report current vision and hearing Report historical medical concerns or suspected disabilities Report results of outside evaluations or medical diagnoses Report results of FBAs, Conners, language assessments, etc. Explain the decision if the team decided not to evaluate those areas If an IQ test was given, note statistically unusual performance

TTSD Evaluation Report Template: Exclusionary Factors Section 7: The student’s problem is not the result of cultural factors or environmental or economic disadvantage. Describe the student’s educational history, including preschool and enrichment opportunities Describe pertinent information about family literacy levels Describe pertinent information about family stressors such as moves, homelessness, divorce, employment, family illness, etc. Section 8: The student’s problem is not the result of limited English proficiency. (written by English Language Learner Specialist) The student’s English language acquisition may be characterized as... The other student’s in his/her group are progressing in English at... The student’s reading/written language/math progress is predictable/unpredictable given his/her language, culture and educational experience. (Explain)

Eligibility Determination 1. Significantly Low Skills 2. Slow Progress

Eligibility Determination Exclusionary Factors Slow and Low

Eligibility Determination 3. Instructional Need

1st Grader Winter ORF: 5 Gain: 6-10 wpm in 8 weeks Other students gain 22 wpm in the same period of time Core program +45 minutes of decoding and fluency program Emily

3 rd grader 25th th percentile on ORF Remains at 25 th percentile “Low average” Core program 20 minutes/day additional practice 40 minutes/day explicit instruction and guided practice Ellie

2 nd grader Reads 45 words per minute (target is 90 wpm) Core program +45 minutes additional Reading Mastery New to the district Has been in 4 different school districts Recently moved in with a relative Johanna

5th grader Reads 77 words per minute (target is 124 wpm) Scores below average benchmark on the State-wide assessment Core reading program 30 minutes of Corrective Reading 5x a week Natasha was adopted from Russia 2 years ago ELL teacher interviews family and finds out she didn’t attend school before she came the U.S. Natasha

3rd grader Reads 45 words per minute in Spanish Reads 5 words per minute in English Core Spanish reading program Additional interventions in Spanish 5x a week since 1 st grade Has been in the same school since Kindergarten The other students in her cohort group read an average of 90 wpm in Spanish and English Marisol

Eligibility Determination meeting Held within 60 school days of receiving parental consent. The team, including the parents, decides if the student is eligible for special education services; NOT individuals.

Questions/Comments