Evaluation Is a process, not an event; Is individual to the student; Is comprehensive in design; Is used to inform eligibility; Is the same process whether or not the district is implementing RTI.

What are the steps in the evaluation process? Referral for a special education evaluation; Evaluation planning; Prior Notice About Evaluation/Consent for Evaluation; Evaluation (60 school days); Evaluation Summary; Schedule Eligibility Determination meeting.

Evaluation Planning: Using the following tools: Student file review Individual Problem Solving Worksheet Student Intervention Profile Progress Monitoring Data The team answers the question: What do we already know about the child? Review of existing data

Evaluation Planning: Using the following tools: General Requirements for evaluation Eligibility Statement (for today’s discussion-SLD) The team answers the question: What do we still need to know before we can determine if the child is eligible under IDEA? Evaluation decisions

General evaluation requirements: Evaluation may not consist of a single measure; Technically sound instruments must be used; Assessments must be administered by qualified personnel and in accordance with the test requirements; Evaluation must identify all of the student’s special education and related service needs; The evaluation must address whether the determinant factor of a child’s performance is: lack of appropriate instruction in reading, including the essential components of reading instruction: Phonemic awareness Phonics Vocabulary Reading fluency/ oral reading skills Comprehension strategies Lack of instruction in math; Or limited English proficiency.

Notification of use of RTI Parent notification about: the State’s policies describing the amount and nature of student performance data to be collected and the general education services to be provided as part of the district’s RTI model; the strategies used to increase the child’s rate of learning; and the parent ‘s right to request an evaluation. Note: Notification provided at the time of evaluation. Notification documented as part of eligibility.

Required Evaluation Components for SLD (using RTI or discrepancy model) 1)Documentation of review of existing information. 2)An assessment of the child’s academic achievement toward Oregon Grade-level standards. 3)An observation conducted in the regular classroom (the child’s “learning environment”).

Required Evaluation Components for SLD (using RTI or discrepancy model) 4) Progress monitoring data that: Demonstrates that prior to or as part of the referral process the child was provided appropriate instruction, delivered by qualified personnel, in regular education settings. Documents repeated assessments of achievement at reasonable intervals, reflecting formal assessment of student progress that is directly linked to instruction. Districts define “repeated” and “reasonable intervals.” Formal assessment could be DIBELS, math CBMs or work samples created for this purpose

Required Evaluation Components for SLD (using RTI) 5) Documentation of the scientifically based interventions attempted and the child’s response to these interventions.

Optional Evaluation Components for SLD (using RTI or discrepancy model) Developmental history; Assessment of intellectual ability; Other assessments in the areas of cognition, fine motor, perceptual motor, communication, social/emotional, perception, or memory; Medical or health assessment.

Evaluation Timeline

Evaluation Report Written document; Addresses all components of the evaluation; Used by the eligibility in making their determination; Used by the IEP team to develop an individualized educational program.

Establish the child’s achievement and rate of progress. Low achievement and slow progress are the foundation for determining SLD eligibility using RTI.

Discuss and debrief: Using the documents we have discussed: Review the evaluation components listed on the eligibility form and identify the evaluation component that is different if a district is using RTI as part of evaluation; Review the eligibility statement for SLD and identify the eligibility decisions that are considered as part of evaluation planning when a district is implementing RTI.; Identify the step or steps of the evaluation process that will change as you implement RTI.

Eligibility Determination Identifying Learning Disabilities Under an RTI Model

Eligibility Decision Making Dual Discrepancy With a partner, list the two component ideas of “dual discrepancy”. (Hint…it doesn’t involve an IQ score.)

Dual Discrepancy Low skills (The easier part) Slow progress despite intensive intervention (The trickier part)

Does the Student Have Low Skills? Determine parameters Maintain consistency School to school Grade to grade Child to child

Is Progress Slow? “How much is enough?” Context is Key Typical growth 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?

Susie 2 nd Grader Fall: ORF 22 Winter: ORF 55 Gain: 2.37 words/week Typical gain: 1.5 words/week Core program + SMART volunteer + Read Naturally 2 times per week +Phonics for Reading and Read Naturally 5 times per week

Ellie 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

Emily 1st Grader 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

Keep the End in Mind Required components Other relevant components Exclusionary factors Avoid the “whoops”

Exclusionary Factors What are the exclusionary factors teams must explore? In teams, identify and highlight the exclusionary factors

Are there other explanations for the student’s low skills and lack of progress? Lack of appropriate instruction Existence of another disability Limited English proficiency Environmental or Economic Disadvantage

Key Tool “Individual Problem Solving Worksheet” … properly filled out

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

Jim 5th grader Reads 77 words per minute (target is 150 wpm) Scores below average benchmark on the State- wide assessment Core reading program 30 minutes of additional reading program 5x a week Jim was adopted from Russia 2 years ago ELL teacher interviews family and finds out he didn’t attend school before he came the U.S.

Marisol 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 90wpm in Spanish and English

Eligibility Decision Making It comes down to the balance.

Emphasis on Problem Solving Approach. Kids don’t catch LD. All kids benefit from multi-tiered instruction. Secondary Students…

Problem Solving Approach What are we going to do? Carry out the plan. Did our plan work? What is the problem and why is it happening ?

EXAMPLE A well- planned math intervention. Implement intervention. Review student’s Progress. A student is struggling to understand fractions.

EXAMPLE Implement behavior plan along with reading intervention. Implement both. Review student’s Progress. Student is struggling.

Is Pheobe eligible under SLD? 10 th grader Failing classes Reads 100 wpm and answers 70% of comprehension questions correctly Met OSAT 3 rd, 4 th, 5 th, 6 th, and 7 th grade in reading and math. A dramatic decline in attendance in 8 th grade.

Is Mark eligible under SLD? 9 th grader Failing classes Not attending school Reads 100 wpm and answers 70% of comprehension questions correctly Title I reading program Met 3 rd grade benchmark, but not 5 th, 8 th or 10 th Parents hired Sylvan Learning Center in 5 th through 7 th grade

Key Tool “Individual Problem Solving Worksheet” … properly filled out

Continuing Eligibility Evaluation planning is critical step Disabilities are life-long conditions Special education should work Same kind of thinking “Weight of progress vs. weight of support”

Is Carol still eligible? 6 th grader Has LD in reading Currently reads 120 wpm WIAT-II scores between 83 and 97 Met OSAT past 3 years Passing grades SDI=fluency lab, 60 minutes/wk SDI=reading class 45 minutes/day Homework takes 3+ hours per night

LD Eligibility Reports Create and follow a template

LD Eligibility Reports Not so helpful: “Kevin reads 27 words per minute at the second grade level.” More helpful: “Kevin reads 27 words per minute at the second grade level, while the expected level for January is 65 words per minute.”

Quality LD Eligibility Reports Individually: Quickly read the sample report, highlighting 4 or 5 sentences that provide especially useful information. As a Group: Share what you’ve highlighted. What makes this report useful?

Eligibility Determination Identifying Learning Disabilities Under an RTI Model

Tier I, II, and III All students have access to embedded literacy strategies across content areas This years focus: Frayer Model Anticipation Guide Word Sorts DR/TA or KWL Group Summarizing Definition Word Chart Tier III Tier II Tier I

Tier I: What do students receive?  General Ed Classes  Access to Content Literacy Strategies  A limited number of students are monitored by the Literacy Specialist Target = 80% of student population

Content Literacy Strategies Purpose/Prior Knowledge Anticipation Guide Vocabulary DevelopmentDefinition Word Chart Frayer Model Word Sorts Cues and Questioning/ Patterns DRTA KWL ReflectionGroup Summarizing

Tier II: What do students receive?  General Ed Classes  Access to Content Literacy Strategies  Strategic Intervention  Soar to Success (Middle School)  Comprehension Strategies (High School) Target = 15% Student Population

Tier III: What do students receive?  Access to Content Literacy Strategies  Comprehensive reading and writing support  LANGUAGE! (High School)  LANGUAGE! (Middle School) Target: 5%