Nicole Kaye Sally Helton OrRTI Annual Conference

Nicole Kaye Sally Helton OrRTI Annual Conference
Nov 2010 Using RTI for Determining Initial SLD Eligibility: Referral, Evaluation, and Instructional Planning Nicole Kaye Sally Helton OrRTI Annual Conference 77 slides Miciak, J., Fletcher, J.M., Stuebing, K.K., Vaughn, S., & Tolar, T.D. (2014). Patterns of cognitive strengths and weaknesses: Identification rates, agreement, and validity for learning disabilities identification. School Psychology Quarterly, 29, The results of this study raise questions about the reliability, validity, and efficiency of PSW methods for the identification of LD. Although advocates of PSW methods make strong evidentiary claims…empirical research validating these methods remains limited. Until such evidence exists, the widespread adoption of PSW methods for LD identification would be premature (p. 34). Both approaches identified a low percentage of students raising the question about the efficiency of the model. The poor agreement betweent he models is an inevitable result of measurement error and the different manner in which the approaches implement the PSW model (p. 35). Further, the failure to find large qualitative differences in the academic performance between groups that met and did not meet criteria for either approach raises questions about the identification model. (p. 35) Conclusions The results of this study highlight several potential challenges to the widespread implementation of PSW methods. Both approaches identified a low percentage of students, raising questions about the efficiency of the model. The poor agreement between the models is an inevitable result of measurement error and the different manner in which the approaches implement the PSW model. Such variability in identification decisions suggests that the models may not be interchangeable and should be independently validated. Further, the failure to find large qualitative differences in academic performance between groups that met and did not meet criteria for either approach raises questions about the utility of the identification model. Until empirical research provides more evidence for the validity, reliability, and utility of PSW methods, resources may be better allocated toward directly assessing important academic skills and addressing deficits through intervention.

Nov 2010 How are you feeling this morning?

Nov 2010 What is your role in your school or district?

Nov 2010 How committed are you and/or your district to using RTI for SLD Decision Making?

Targets Why RTI for SLD Decision Making How the referral process works
Nov 2010 Targets Why RTI for SLD Decision Making How the referral process works What are the key questions we need to answer in a comprehensive evaluation for SLD? What is the purpose of a comprehensive evaluation?

Technical & Adaptive Support Data- Based Decision Making
ORTIi Essential Components ORTIi Essential Components SLD Decision Making Vision Standards of Practice Communi c-ation Technical & Adaptive Support Teaming Structures Data- Based Decision Making Decision Rules Ongoing & Embedded : Training Coaching Fidelity Progress Monitoring Interventions Screening/Early Warning System Culture: High expectations for all student populations, belief that all student populations can learn, belief that the measurement of how well I teach is how well they learn Leadership: Teaming/DBDM: Disaggregate data, Professional Learning & Support:d Core: Sheltered instruction, implicit, opportunities to respond, Core/Coordinated Literacy Leadership Teaming/Data-Based Decision Making Professional Learning & Support Culture High Expectations For ALL Student Populations

The Icing on the Cake

IDEA Established and Supports the use of RTI for SLD
Nov 2010 IDEA Established and Supports the use of RTI for SLD Federal Regulations: Must not require the use of a severe discrepancy between intellectual ability and achievement 34 CFR (c)(10); Must permit the use of a process based on the child's response to scientific, research-based intervention; and May permit the use of other alternative research- based procedures for determining whether a child has a specific learning disability, as defined in 34 CFR (c)(10).

Rationale: RTI IS the Intent of the New IDEA
Nov 2010 Rationale: RTI IS the Intent of the New IDEA Identify (screen) and intervene early “The priority should always be to deliver services, with assessment secondary to this aim” Use continuous progress monitoring to assess interventions and enhance outcomes Move from psychometric/cognitive assessment to direct “assessment of a child’s response to scientifically based instruction” A New Era: Revitalizing Special Education for Children and their Families (July 1, 2002). The Presidents Commission on Excellence in Education A New Era: Revitalizing Special Education for Children and their Families (July 1, 2002). The Presidents Commission on Excellence in Education

Nov 2010 Bottom Line… “In the absence of this… many children who are placed into special education are essentially instructional casualties and not students with disabilities” A New Era: Revitalizing Special Education for Children and their Families (July 1, 2002). The Presidents Commission on Excellence in Education

Purpose of a Comprehensive Evaluation is to…
Nov 2010 Purpose of a Comprehensive Evaluation is to… Lead to effective programs and improved outcomes “Its all about the students”

Special Education Evaluation Process
Nov 2010 Special Education Evaluation Process Referral Evaluation planning meeting Conduct comprehensive evaluation Eligibility meeting IEP meeting

In an RTI System, you’re a step ahead!
Nov 2010 In an RTI System, you’re a step ahead! Effective Core Instruction with Research Based Curriculum Two Evidence-Based Group Interventions Progress Monitoring Individual Problem Solving One Evidence-Based Individualized Intervention

SPED referral INSTRUCTION DATA-BASED DECISION MAKING ASSESSMENT
Comprehensive Evaluation SPED referral Formal Diagnostic As needed Tier 3 Individualized Intervention Individual Problem Solving Team 6-8 weeks Individual Problem Solving Team Progress Monitoring Weekly-Monthly Tier 2/3 Supplemental Intervention Tier 2/3 Supplemental Intervention Intervention Review Team 6-8 weeks Parent notified at every red flag Individual Education Program (IEP) Universal Screening 3 times/year Research-Based Core Curriculum w/ Strong Instruction Schoolwide Screening reviewed 3 times/year

Referral: Is there suspicion of a disability?
Nov 2010 Referral: Is there suspicion of a disability?

Individual vs. Team Referral
Nov 2010 Individual vs. Team Referral

Parent Referrals Parents have a right to make a referral at any time.
Nov 2010 Parent Referrals Parents have a right to make a referral at any time. The team must consider the referral Cannot refuse the referral due to RTI (OSEP, 2011) Can refuse the evaluation if there is good evidence (i.e., data) indicating the student can be successful with general education supports Must provide written notice to parents if the request to evaluate is refused

Nov 2010 Federal Regulations (Must, Must Not, or May) permit the use of a process based on the child's response to scientific, research-based intervention.

Nov 2010 You must conduct a comprehensive evaluation whenever it is requested by a parent?

Comprehensive SLD Evaluation Regardless of Evaluation Model
Nov 2010 Comprehensive SLD Evaluation Regardless of Evaluation Model Academic assessment Review of records Observation (including regular education setting) Progress monitoring data Other: If needed, developmental history If needed, an assessment of cognition, etc. If needed, a medical statement Any other assessments to determine impact of disability Again, given all of the above statements, why is it that we continue to place so much weight and emphasis on these IQ test scores when we evaluate students? Oregon Administrative Rules,

Four Primary IDEA Criteria for Evaluating Learning Disabilities
Nov 2010 Four Primary IDEA Criteria for Evaluating Learning Disabilities 1. Low Failure to meet age- or grade-level State standards in one of eight areas when provided appropriate instruction: Oral expression Listening comprehension Written expression Basic reading skill Reading fluency skills Reading comprehension Mathematics calculation Mathematics problem solving 2. Slow RTI: Lack of progress in response to scientifically based instruction and intervention -OR- Pattern of strengths and weaknesses in performance, achievement, or both, relative to age, State-approved grade-level standards, or intellectual development 3. Exclusionary Lack of progress not primarily the result of: Vision, hearing, or motor problems Intellectual disability Emotional disturbance Cultural factors Economic or environmental disadvantage Limited English proficiency 4. Exclusionary For all students: Demonstrate that under achievement is not due to lack of appropriate instruction in reading and math. Data demonstrating appropriate instruction Repeated assessments of student progress during instruction Inclusive Observation Exclusive Adapted from Kovaleski, VanDerHeyden & Shapiro, 2013, p.16 Specific Learning Disability

SPED Entitlement Decision
Nov 2010 Three key questions Exclusionary Factors = Low Skills Slow Progress Instructional Need SPED Entitlement Decision Is the student significantly different from peers? Does the student make less than adequate progress despite interventions? Does the student need specially designed instruction?

Guidelines for Comprehensive Evaluation
Nov 2010 Guidelines for Comprehensive Evaluation

First Question Low Skills
Nov 2010 First Question Low Skills Is the student significantly different from peers?

Nov 2010

Low Skills: Is the student significantly different from peers?
Nov 2010 Low Skills: Is the student significantly different from peers? OAR Eligibility Requirement: The child does not achieve adequately for the child’s age or to meet Oregon grade-level standards in one or more of the following areas: basic reading skills reading fluency skills reading comprehension mathematics calculation mathematics problem solving written expression oral expression listening comprehension When provided with learning experiences and instruction appropriate for the child’s age or Oregon grade-level standards [( (3)(a)]

Significantly discrepant from peers
Nov 2010 Significantly discrepant from peers

Evaluating Low Skills Low Skills
Nov 2010 Evaluating Low Skills Low Skills Is the student significantly different from peers (age & grade level standards)? Despite being provided with appropriate learning experiences & instruction Determine the expected level of performance for the student & how the student’s performance differs Determine if the curriculum & instruction were at the appropriate level for the student to learn? Gather existing data on student’s level of performance

How big of a discrepancy is significant?
Nov 2010 How big of a discrepancy is significant? General Guidelines* Below the 16th percentile? (1 SD below the mean) Below the 10th percentile? Well below benchmark? Bottom 10% as compared to peers? More than 2 times discrepant from peers/expectations? *These are approximate guidelines and NOT rigid cut scores

Calculating Magnitude of Discrepancy
Discrepancy Ratio: Percent of Expected Performance: ÷ 2.4 times discrepant Expected performance Current performance = ÷ 72 wcpm (Winter 2nd Grade) 30 wcpm Equal or less than 50% of proficiency levels… below benchmark and at or below 10th percentile Terminal performance on progress monitoring measures ÷ Smaller Number Larger Number .42 or 42% ÷ = 30 wcpm 72 wcpm (Winter 2nd Grade)

Discrepancy Guidelines
Nov 2010 Discrepancy Guidelines Discrepancy Decision Guidelines = or > 2.0 X (50%) Significantly Discrepant 1.5 X discrepant (67%) Discrepant < 1.0 X discrepant (95%) Not significantly discrepant

Determining Low Skills
Nov 2010 Determining Low Skills Data Guidelines Universal Screener Low National & Local Norms Discrepancy ratio (2.0/50%) Progress Monitoring Low (10th percentile) National Norms SBAC Level 1 (or 2) Curriculum & Individual Diagnostic Assessments Low Local Norms Achievement Tests 10th percentile (National Norms)

Nov 2010

Is there a pattern of low skills?
Nov 2010 Question Evidence from Assessment/Score Low? Discrepant From Peers? Does the student exhibit LOW SKILLS? CBM/Screening & Progress Monitoring: All Intensive Y N Core Program: 40% average, class average 90% Intervention: Passed 65% of checkouts, peers passed 70% SBAC: Did not meet (8th %ile) Achievement Tests: 29th %ile overall (SS: 92), 40th %ile on 2 reading subtests (SS: 96) Other: Phonics Screener: 15% of sounds correct Survey Level Assessment: Instructional Level 3 grades below Preponderance of Evidence? Additional Information Needed? ???

What if the data is mixed?
Nov 2010 What if the data is mixed? Consider divergent data source(s) and possible explanations For Example: Group vs. Individually administered Timed vs. Untimed Multiple chances vs. One-time assessment Accommodations vs. No Accommodations

Evaluation Report: Low Skills
Nov 2010 Evaluation Report: Low Skills Include a description of the following: Student’s level of performance CBMs, SBAC, Standardized assessments, Core Program assessments Expected level of performance Benchmarks, Local norm, National norm Magnitude of the discrepancy Times discrepant, difference score, percentile rank as compared to average range, etc.

Poll Everywhere – fix up
Nov 2010 Poll Everywhere – fix up What assessments do you currently have that you can use to evaluate low skills? SBAC CBMs Achievement test IQ test Core program assessments Diagnostic assessments Do you have district guidelines for what is significantly low?

Nov 2010 How confident are you in your ability to determine whether a student has significantly low skills compared with peers?

Second Question Low Skills Slow Progress
Nov 2010 Second Question Low Skills Slow Progress Is the student significantly different from peers? Does the student make less than adequate progress despite interventions?

Nov 2010 Slow Progress: Does the student make inadequate progress despite intervention?

Nov 2010 Slow Progress: Does the student make inadequate progress despite intervention? OAR Eligibility Requirement: The student does not make sufficient progress to meet age or Oregon grade-level standards based on the student’s response to scientific, research-based intervention [ (3)(b)]

How much progress is enough?
Nov 2010 How much progress is enough?

Typical growth rate: 1.4 wcpm per week Student in intervention making “typical” growth

Nov 2010 How much progress is enough? Students in interventions must make more progress than the typical student in order to close the gap. Typical growth rate: 1.4 wcpm per week Student in intervention making ambitious growth: 2 wcpm per week

Nov 2010 How much progress is enough? Students in interventions are receiving more instructional support than the typical student. Typical growth rate: 1.4 wcpm per week Student in intervention making ambitious growth: 2 wcpm per week

Nov 2010 How much progress is enough? In order to answer know how much progress is enough, we need to compare Rates of Improvement (ROI’s): Attained ROI Actual growth of the target student as compared to Typical ROI Expected growth of a student who starts the year at benchmark and remains at benchmark through Winter and Spring Targeted ROI Growth needed for the student to meet the end-of-year benchmark Peer ROI Growth of students receiving the same instruction as the target student

Attained ROI 3rd Grade DIBELS ORF 54 – 36 = 18 WCPM 100
Nov 2010 Attained ROI Intervention Change 54 – 36 = 18 WCPM 100 18 WCPM / 20 Weeks = 0.9 WCPM/week 3rd Grade DIBELS ORF 54 36 Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May

Nov 2010 How much progress is enough? In order to answer know how much progress is enough, we need to compare Rates of Improvement (ROI’s): Attained ROI Actual growth of the target student as compared to Typical ROI Expected growth of a student who starts the year at benchmark and remains at benchmark through Winter and Spring Targeted ROI Growth needed for the student to meet the end-of-year benchmark Peer ROI Growth of students receiving the same instruction as the target student 0.9 WCPM/week

Typical ROI 3rd Grade DIBELS ORF 100 – 70 = 30 WCPM
Nov 2010 Typical ROI 100 – 70 = 30 WCPM 30 WCPM / 36 Weeks = 0.83 WCPM/week 100 86 3rd Grade DIBELS ORF 70 Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May

Nov 2010 How much progress is enough? In order to answer know how much progress is enough, we need to compare Rates of Improvement (ROI’s): Attained ROI Actual growth of the target student as compared to Typical ROI Expected growth of a student who starts the year at benchmark and remains at benchmark through Winter and Spring Targeted ROI Growth needed for the student to meet the end-of-year benchmark Peer ROI Growth of students receiving the same instruction as the target student 0.9 WCPM/week 0.83 WCPM/week

Targeted ROI 3rd Grade DIBELS ORF 100 – 36 = 64 WCPM
Nov 2010 Targeted ROI 100 – 36 = 64 WCPM 64 WCPM / 36 Weeks = 1.77 WCPM per week 100 86 3rd Grade DIBELS ORF 70 36 Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May

Nov 2010 How much progress is enough? In order to answer know how much progress is enough, we need to compare Rates of Improvement (ROI’s): Attained ROI Actual growth of the target student as compared to Typical ROI Expected growth of a student who starts the year at benchmark and remains at benchmark through Winter and Spring Targeted ROI Growth needed for the student to meet the end-of-year benchmark Peer ROI Growth of students receiving the same instruction as the target student 0.9 WCPM/week 0.83 WCPM/week 1.77 WCPM/week

Peer ROI 3rd Grade DIBELS ORF 104 – 68 = 36 WCPM 104
Nov 2010 Peer ROI 104 – 68 = 36 WCPM 104 36 WCPM / 36 Weeks = 1 WCPM per week All 3rd Graders in District (last year) 100 3rd Grade DIBELS ORF 68 68 68 – 40 = 28 WCPM 40 28 WCPM / 20 Weeks = 1.4 WCPM per week All 3rd Graders in similar intervention Group Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May

Nov 2010 How much progress is enough? In order to answer know how much progress is enough, we need to compare Rates of Improvement (ROI’s): Attained ROI Actual growth of the target student as compared to Typical ROI Expected growth of a student who starts the year at benchmark and remains at benchmark through Winter and Spring Targeted ROI Growth needed for the student to meet the end-of-year benchmark Peer ROI Growth of students receiving the same instruction as the target student 0.9 WCPM/week 0.83 WCPM/week 1.77 WCPM/week 1 WCPM/week 1.4 WCPM/week

Comparisons Comparison 1.77 1.4 1.25 1 0.9 0.83 ROI Targeted ROI
Nov 2010 Comparisons Comparison ROI (WCPM/week) Targeted ROI 1.77 Peer ROI (Intervention Group) 1.4 Peer ROI (Similar ELL) 1.25 Peer ROI (All District) 1 Attained ROI 0.9 Typical ROI 0.83

Comparison to Similar students
Nov 2010 Comparison to Similar students How does a student’s growth compare to students with similar educational difficulties? DIBELS Pathways to Progress Picture of Roland fix up To learn more attend Roland Good’s Session: 9:15 to 10:45 Friday In Hellman

DIBELS Next (Pathways of Progress)
Nov 2010 Based on a comparison to other students with similar beginning skills (i.e., other 3rd graders reading around 27 cwpm in the Fall) Well Above Typical Above Typical Typical Below Typical Well Below Typical

Slow Progress 50 WCPM 23 WCPM 27 WCPM 22 1.04 1.2 1.75 1.3 1.4
Nov 2010 Questions Does the student make “adequate” progress? Does the student exhibit SLOW PROGRESS? What is the student’s Attained Rate of Improvement (ROI)?: End performance - Beginning performance / # of Instructional Weeks = Attained ROI (Circle One) The Typical ROI is: which is… …Less than the Attained ROI …Greater than the Attained ROI Target ROI is: which is… Peer (District) ROI: which is… Peer (Intervention Group) ROI: which is… Intervention Matched to student need? Y N Intervention time & intensity appropriate? Intervention delivered with fidelity? Preponderance of Evidence? Additional Information Needed 50 WCPM 23 WCPM 27 WCPM 22 1.04 1.2 1.75 1.3 1.4

Intervention Matched to Student Need
Reading Comprehension Reading Comprehension Vocabulary Foundational Skills Oral Reading Accuracy & Fluency Phonics (Alphabetic Principle) Phonemic Awareness

Intervention Time & Intensity Appropriate
Nov 2010 Intervention Time & Intensity Appropriate In addition to 90 minutes of research-based core instruction Minimum of minutes of daily, supplemental/targeted interventions using: Explicit, systematic, evidence-based curricular materials Evidence-based instructional strategies How many instructional sessions/weeks was the intervention provided for?

Intervention Delivered with Fidelity
Nov 2010 Intervention Delivered with Fidelity Were the interventions delivered as intended? Did we do what we said we would do?

Intervention Delivered with Fidelity
Nov 2010 Intervention Delivered with Fidelity Wickstrom et al studied 33 intervention cases. Teachers agreed to do an intervention and were then observed in class. 33/33 on a self report measure indicated that they had used the intervention as specified by the team. 0/33 Teachers had fidelity above 10%. Slide taken from a presentation by Joseph Witt

Nov 2010

Slow Progress ??? 50 WCPM 23 WCPM 27 WCPM 22 1.04 1.2 1.75 1.3 1.4
Nov 2010 Questions Does the student make “adequate” progress? Does the student exhibit SLOW PROGRESS? What is the student’s Attained Rate of Improvement (ROI)?: End performance - Beginning performance / # of Instructional Weeks = Attained ROI (Circle One) The Typical ROI is: which is… …Less than the Attained ROI …Greater than the Attained ROI Target ROI is: which is… Peer (District) ROI: which is… Peer (Intervention Group) ROI: which is… Intervention Matched to student need? Y N Intervention time & intensity appropriate? Intervention delivered with fidelity? Preponderance of Evidence? Additional Information Needed 50 WCPM 23 WCPM 27 WCPM 22 1.04 1.2 1.75 1.3 1.4 ???

Evaluation Report: Slow Progress
Nov 2010 Evaluation Report: Slow Progress Intervention Dates Group Size Duration Attained ROI (Student growth) Expected ROI (Intervention Group growth) Phonics for Reading 10/26 – 12/19 7 30 min daily 1 WCPM/Week 1.4 WCPM/Week Phonics for Reading & Read Naturally 1/15 – 3/2 PFR – 30 min daily RN – 15 min daily 1.2 WCPM/Week Phonics for Reading (Double Dose) & Read Naturally 3/10 – 5/1 4 PFR – 60 min daily 0.8 WCPM/Week 1.3 WCPM/Week

Evaluation Report Example: Slow Progress
Nov 2010 Evaluation Report Example: Slow Progress Student has received reading intervention since the beginning of her 2nd grade school year. Since the beginning of the year, intervention has been intensified two different times. An additional 15 minutes of fluency instruction/practice was added, and then the student received a double dose of phonics instruction bringing their total reading intervention time to 75 minutes daily, in addition to 90 minutes of core instruction. Multiple observations of the interventions indicated that they were delivered with a high degree of fidelity (all observations above 85% fidelity). Through all 3 interventions, the student’s growth was not at a rate comparable to her peers, thus she was supported through various methods of intensifying the instruction. Her performance indicates a need for intensive reading support with resources in addition to general education.

Nov 2010 Does your district have guidelines for how "adequate progress" is defined?

Nov 2010 What is the Attained Rate of Improvement if a student gains 11 words correct per minute after 22 weeks

Third Question Low Skills Slow Progress Instructional Need
Nov 2010 Third Question Low Skills Slow Progress Instructional Need Is the student significantly different from peers? Does the student make less than adequate progress despite interventions? Does the student need specially designed instruction?

Does the student need Specially Designed Instruction?
Nov 2010 Does the student need Specially Designed Instruction?

Instructional Need: Does the student need Special Education services?
Nov 2010 Instructional Need: Does the student need Special Education services? OAR Eligibility Requirement: The child needs special education services as a result of the disability [ (4)(b)]

Need for Special Education services
Nov 2010 Need for Special Education services What does the student need to be successful?

What is Specially Designed Instruction?
Nov 2010 What is Specially Designed Instruction? Federal Definition: adapting the Content Methodology and/or Delivery of instruction

What is Specially Designed Instruction?
Nov 2010 What is Specially Designed Instruction? Additional components: Needs to be truly necessary rather than merely beneficial Designed or implemented by certified special education personnel Not available regularly in general education

What conditions result in the most growth?
Nov 2010 What conditions result in the most growth? 30 Minutes daily Phonics for Reading (8 students) Reduce group size to 4, increase OTR’s Increase to 45 minutes daily, add behavior plan

Nov 2010 Instructional Need? How do you distinguish if it is an instructional need (i.e. Beyond the scope of what general education can provide)?

How you determine instructional need?
Nov 2010 How you determine instructional need? It comes down to the balance: How does the weight of the intervention compare to the rate of progress?

Instructional Need? Question: Evidence/Data of Need
Nov 2010 Instructional Need? Question: Evidence/Data of Need Different than typically provided in general ed? Does the student have an Instructional Need for special education services? Instruction/Methodology Y N Curriculum/Content Y N Environment/Delivery Y N Additional Information Needed? Beyond what general ed can provide?

Instructional Need? Question: Evidence/Data of Need
Nov 2010 Instructional Need? Question: Evidence/Data of Need Different than typically provided in general ed? Does the student have an Instructional Need for special education services? Instruction/Methodology: Y N Curriculum/Content Y N Environment/Delivery Y N Additional Information Needed? Beyond what general ed can provide? Reading Mastery 5 days a week/ 60 minutes in addition to core: increased explicitness, OTRs Intervention: Reading Mastery (65% passing rate) Diagnostic: 15% sounds (cvc) PM: ORF (1.1 WCPM/week), cohort (2.2 wcpm) OAKS: 8th percentile Small group instruction: group of 4

Evaluation Report: Instructional Need
Nov 2010 Evaluation Report: Instructional Need Include a description of the student’s needs: Instruction The strategies that resulted in the most student growth Curriculum The specific skills/strategies that the student needs to master Environment The learning environment that the student needs to be successful Additional learning supports Any additional supports/collaborations that are needed If found eligible, this section of the report should be directly tied to the student’s IEP (e.g., specially-designed instruction, related services, accommodations, and supplementary aids and services)

Eval Report Example: Instructional Need
Nov 2010 Eval Report Example: Instructional Need Student’s skills and rate of progress are significantly below grade level. The student does appear to benefit from repeated instruction, repeated modeling, high rates of having an opportunity to respond to instruction (10 opportunities per minute), and frequent positive feedback for correct academic responding of identified skills in reading for 60 additional minutes per day. This support is beyond the scope of what general education supports can provide.

Nov 2010 What are the three components of Specially Designed Instruction?

Rule out Exclusionary Factors
Nov 2010 Rule out Exclusionary Factors Exclusionary Factors = Low Skills Slow Progress Instructional Need SPED Entitlement Decision Is the student significantly different from peers? Does the student make less than adequate progress despite interventions? Does the student need specially designed instruction?

Exclusionary Factors: Has the student had ample opportunity to learn?
Nov 2010 Exclusionary Factors: Has the student had ample opportunity to learn?

Exclusionary Factors: Has the student had ample opportunity to learn?
Nov 2010 Exclusionary Factors: Has the student had ample opportunity to learn? OAR Eligibility Requirement: A determination of whether the primary basis for the suspected disability is (i) a lack of appropriate instruction in reading (including the essential components of reading) or math; or (ii) Limited English proficiency [ (5)(g)]

Primary cause is not due to Lack of Appropriate Instruction
Nov 2010 Primary cause is not due to Lack of Appropriate Instruction Misconception Need to be at 80% on universal screening assessments to indicate student has had appropriate instruction Fact Cannot deny an evaluation solely based on the percentage of students at benchmark What if the district is at 50% of students at benchmark?, 30%? does not mean there are no students who need special education services)

What do we mean by appropriate instruction?
Nov 2010 What do we mean by appropriate instruction? A lack of appropriate instruction in reading , including in the essential components of reading instruction Explicit & systematic instruction in the Big Phonemic awareness Phonics Vocabulary development Reading fluency Reading comprehension strategies

Nov 2010 What evidence do we have of appropriate instruction: Core/Intervention? Questions Data Sources? Was the student provided instruction in the Big 5? Was the instruction provided with a reasonable degree of fidelity? Is there evidence that other students are benefitting from the instruction? Common mistakes: Over testing; ensuring that data is being examined. Make sure to look at first T 1 instruction, then tier II and III. What die the interventions look like? Cancer story. Intervention Implementation Integrity: Correctly chosen, supported, consistently and accurately implemented.

Primary cause is not due to Limited English Proficiency
Nov 2010 Primary cause is not due to Limited English Proficiency Cohort groups How do their skills and growth compare to students with similar language, acculturation, etc.? 5 L’s Language (native) Level of native language proficiency Level of English language proficiency Length of time in school Length of time in country

Primary cause is not due to Limited English Proficiency
Nov 2010 Primary cause is not due to Limited English Proficiency To learn more come to: Special Considerations for English Learners in the SLD Eligibility Process Friday, 9:15 – 10:45 in Joplin/Seeger

Is there any other possible reason why the student is struggling?
Nov 2010 Is there any other possible reason why the student is struggling? Intellectual Disability Hearing Impairment Vision Impairment Deaf Blindness Communication Disorder Emotional Disturbance Orthopedic Impairment Traumatic Brain Injury Other Health Impairment Autism Spectrum Disorder Specific Learning Disability A full evaluation may not be needed to rule out other disability categories. Rather if a screening assessment or procedure make it clear that the condition being considered is not present, the team may use that evidence to rule out other conditions.

Primary cause is not due to other factors
Nov 2010 Primary cause is not due to other factors Factors Data sources Attendance Vision/hearing Motor impairment Emotional Disturbance Cultural Factors Environment or Economic Disadvantage Health screenings Medical reports Developmental history Parent interviews Attendance: make sure to not just look at the absences but tardies as well. If they have a high number of tardies, what are they missing? Vision/hearing: Has these things been checked recently? Motor Impairments: Any past history? Cultural factors: acculturation, language, etc. When looking at environment or economic disadvantage, the team needs to determine if the conditions are impeding the student’s learning as well as if students in similar sceneries are meeting grade level standards. Is there any other possible reason why the student is struggling?

Evaluation Report: Exclusionary Factors
Nov 2010 Evaluation Report: Exclusionary Factors Include a description of the following: The effectiveness of general ed instruction (e.g., fidelity, instructional strategies observed, etc) Attendance English proficiency & acculturation (if appropriate) Growth as compared to peers with similar backgrounds Evidence from developmental history, medical reports, health screenings, parent interviews that rule out other exclusionary factors.

Evaluation Report: Exclusionary Factors
Nov 2010 Evaluation Report: Exclusionary Factors Student has passed her most recent hearing and vision screenings. Overall, Student is very healthy and only goes to the doctor when needed. It was noted in the problem solving meeting that she has a hard time focusing and will get distracted by others around her. Student met most of her developmental milestones on time other than talking, Ms. Williams noted that her speech development was delayed.

Determining Eligibility: pulling it all together
Nov 2010 Determining Eligibility: pulling it all together

Make a Clear Decision In RTI We Move From Nov 2010
From I think I feel to I know based on data

SPED Entitlement Decision
Nov 2010 Three key questions Exclusionary Factors = Low Skills Slow Progress Instructional Need SPED Entitlement Decision Is the student significantly different from peers? Does the student make less than adequate progress despite interventions? Does the student need specially designed instruction?

Is this slow progress? True = A False = B Typical growth rate:
1.4 wcpm per week Student in intervention making “typical” growth

Nov 2010 I want to learn more about:

Enjoy the Conference! Session Title
Nov 2010 Enjoy the Conference! Session Title Time Room Intervention Review Meeting Process 4: 2:45-4:00 Sousa DIBELS Next Pathways of Progress 5: 9:15 – 10:45 Hellman English Learners in the SLD Eligibility Process 5: 9:15-10:45 Joplin/Seeger Individual Problem Solving 6: 11:00 – 12:15 Developing A Healthy Intervention System 7: 1:15 – 2:30 Vistas II

Nov 2010 Questions?

If we know that: RTI done well can benefit all students, and
Nov 2010 If we know that: RTI done well can benefit all students, and Intensive, targeted interventions can significantly change a student’s academic and neurological functioning, and IDEA, the OARS, and the courts support the use of RTI, and Merely placing students in SPED may not improve their chances for success, then Don’t we have an ethical obligation to implement fully and aggressively?

RTI Done Right, Not RTI Lite
Nov 2010 RTI Done Right, Not RTI Lite Places onus firmly on instruction and increase achievement for all students Minimizes “Instructional Casualties” Focuses on “Instructional Need” Provides information for meaningful, data-based IEPs Creates a broader, deeper, and articulated continuum of services for SLD students

Twitter: @ortiiconnect16
Nov 2010 Questions? Nicole Kaye, ORTIi Implementation Coach: Sally Helton, ORTIi Implementation Coach: Follow us!!!!!

Nicole Kaye Sally Helton OrRTI Annual Conference

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Nicole Kaye Sally Helton OrRTI Annual Conference"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

Nicole Kaye Sally Helton OrRTI Annual Conference

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Nicole Kaye Sally Helton OrRTI Annual Conference"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback