SLD Evaluation Process (pt. 1)

SLD Evaluation Process (pt. 1)
January 2016

Targets What are the key components of the special education evaluation process? What are the key questions we need to answer in a comprehensive evaluation for SLD? Does the student have significantly low skills? Does the student make slow progress despite intensive interventions? Does the student have an instructional need? Are the struggles primarily due to one of the exclusionary factors? Despite the student receiving appropriate instruction & intensive interventions!

SPED Entitlement Decision
Four Key Questions Exclusionary Factors = Low Skills Slow Progress Instructional Need SPED Entitlement Decision Is the student significantly different from peers (age & grade level standards)? Does the student make less than adequate progress despite interventions? Does the student need specially designed instruction? Despite appropriate instruction & intensive research based interventions

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

Referral Is there a suspicion of a disability? = SPED Entitlement Decision Slow Progress Low Skills Instructional Need

What is your evidence?

A Note About 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

A Team Makes the Referral

District Guidance OSEP- can’t delay an evaluation according to child find but Need to intervene long enough to to allow students to make meaningful progress District Provide Guidelines How long should you intervene? (6-10 weeks) What level of progress is adequate? (ROI)

Evaluation Planning Meeting Steps
1. Determine if a student needs to have a comprehensive evaluation. Low Skills Slow Progress Instructional Need 2. Decide what additional data are needed to determine eligibility and develop an IEP 3. Get parent consent and provide Parent Rights Brochure

1. Determine if a student needs to have a comprehensive evaluation. Low Skills Slow Progress Instructional Need Progress Monitoring IPS Forms Universal Screener Intervention info Developmental/Academic history Diagnostic data EL data

2. Decide what additional data are needed to determine eligibility and develop an IEP Low Skills Slow Progress Instructional Need Progress Monitoring Universal Screener Other? Intervention info Diagnostic data EL data

2. Decide what additional data are needed to determine eligibility and develop an IEP Exclusionary Factors Culture Medical Other? Attendance Social/Emotional Developmental/Academic history Other disabilties EL data

3. Get parent consent and provide Parent Rights Brochure

Comprehensive SLD Eval: RTI Model
…documentation of: The type, intensity, and duration of scientific, research-based instructional intervention(s)… …rate of progress during the instructional intervention(s); A comparison of the student's rate of progress to expected rates of progress. Progress monitoring on a schedule that: Allows a comparison of the student's progress to… peers; Is appropriate to the student's age and grade placement; Is appropriate to the content monitored; and Allows for interpretation of the effectiveness of intervention. Oregon Administrative Rules,

Four Key Questions Exclusionary Factors = Low Skills Slow Progress Instructional Need SPED Entitlement Decision Is the student significantly different from peers (age & grade level standards)? Does the student make less than adequate progress despite interventions? Does the student need specially designed instruction? Despite appropriate instruction & intensive research based interventions

Guidelines for Comprehensive Evaluation

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

What data do we use? Universal Screener Progress Monitoring
Curriculum Assessments Individual Diagnostic Assessments SBAC Achievement Tests Make slide red

Low Skills: Is the student significantly different from peers?

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

Determine Expected Performance
Data Expected Performance Universal Screener National & Local Norms/Benchmarks Progress Monitoring National & Local Norms SBAC At least Level 3 Curriculum & Individual Diagnostic Assessments Grade level performance & Criteria set by district or school Achievement Tests 16th percentile or higher

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)

How far behind is the student?
Universal Screener Expected performance National Norms Compare with expectation on a national level Local Norms Compare with expectation at a local level District level norms Grade level Multiple levels of norms give us a more complete picture of how the student compares to others in multiple settings. How far behind is the student?

National Norms Norm Referenced (easyCBM)
Report whether a student performed better or worse than a hypothetical average student Criterion Referenced (DIBELS Next) Measure student performance against a predetermined criteria or standard

Nov 2010 National Norms

Low National Norms

Local Norms District Jordon: Winter ORF 30 (well below benchmark)
Is your district higher or lower than national norms? Jordon: Winter ORF 30 (well below benchmark) National Norm: 6th percentile Local Norm: 8th percentile Erika: Winter ORF 30 (well below benchmark) National Norm: 6th percentile Local Norm: 30th percentile

Talk Time How might a difference between national and local norms in your school district impact team decision making? What guidance might you provide as a district?

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)

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

Evaluation Report Description
Jordon, a second grader, read 30 wcpm (Well Below Benchmark) on his winter DIBELS Next Benchmark Assessment. Benchmark in the winter of second grade is 72 wcpm. Jordon’s performance placed him at the 8th percentile for second grade students in the Sunshine District and 42% (2.4 X discrepant) of the expected performance for second grade.

Data Guidelines Universal Screener Low National & Local Norms Discrepancy ratio (2.0/50%) Progress Monitoring Low (10th percentile) median score of last 3 data points SBAC Level 1 (or 2) Curriculum & Individual Diagnostic Assessments Low Local Norms Achievement Tests 10th percentile (National Norms)

Low Skills: Progress Monitoring
47, 43, 64

Evaluation Report Description
Jordon’s progress monitoring on ORF/Accuracy continues to be low (median scores of his last 3 assessments are the following: ORF 28 & accuracy 90%) indicating that he has difficulty reading grade level text accurately and fluently. His performance places him on average at the 9th percentile.

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)/ 10th percentle Curriculum & Individual Diagnostic Assessments Low Local Norms Achievement Tests 10th percentile (National Norms)

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)/ 10th percentle Curriculum & Individual Diagnostic Assessments Low on district and grade criteria/standards Achievement Tests 10th percentile (National Norms)

Curriculum & Individual Diagnostic Assessment
How far behind is the student? What are the skill deficits? Is the curriculum & instruction at the appropriate level for the student to learn? What is the student’s instructional level? Mastery, instructional, frustration Helps rule out lack of appropriate instruction & useful for instructional planning

Curriculum Assessments
Core assessments Grade Jordon scored on average 50% on the unit test & the class scored on average 90% that measured comprehension skills Intervention Assessments Group Jordon read on average 37 wcpm (80% accuracy) on his recent Reading Mastery checkouts, while students in his group read 45 wcpm (97% accuracy) Jordon passed 3/5 of his last Reading Mastery checkouts while his group passed 5/5. Make slide red

What are the skill deficits?
Foundational Skills Reading Comprehension Vocabulary Oral Reading Accuracy & Fluency Phonics (Alphabetic Principle) Phonemic Awareness

Individual Diagnostic Assessment
Phonics Screeners Core Multiple Measures DIBELS Deep Jordan can read cvc words with 65% accuracy CCSS-ELA-Literacy R.L. 2.4 A Read grade-level text with purpose and understanding.

Determining Student’s Instructional Level
Children with weak skills often show poor learning because the content is too challenging Level Direct Instruction Independent Work Mastery n/a > 97% Instructional 70-85% 93-97% Frustration < 70% < 93% If student is at frustrational elvel then materials can be adjusted (made easier) so that the student can respond with 93% accuracy for independent work and with 70% accuracy when working with the teacher. For example, is direct support might be needed if student accuracy is low, because they need more corrective feedback from the teaher Example…. If a student is below the 25th percentile they are at the frustrational level. Ensuring instruction is at the appropriate instructional level can help rule out “lack of appropriate instruction”

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)/ 10th percentle Curriculum & Individual Diagnostic Assessments Low Local Norms Achievement Tests 10th percentile (National Norms)

Achievement Tests Do you need this additional information? Low Skills:
How is the student performing in relation to state approved standards? Students may perform lower on an achievement test not because they are at greater risk than other students who perform higher, but rather because they have been taught different skills. Can you verify that the achievement test that you are using is aligned with standards and the curriculum?

Distinguishing Low Skills with EL Students
Evaluation teams must consider how language and cultural factors may impacting a students a students academic skill attainment.

Language Level & Reading Skills

Typical reading skills

Is there a pattern of low skills?
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 are mixed?
Consider divergent data source(s) and possible explanations For Example: Group administered vs. Individual administered? Timed vs. Untimed? Multiple chances vs. One-time assessment? Accommodations vs No Accommodations

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.

Team Time What assessments do you currently have that you can use to evaluate lows skills? Do you have district guidelines for what is significantly low? If not, how will those be developed?

Evaluating Slow Progress
Does the student make less than adequate progress despite interventions?

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

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
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

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

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
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

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
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

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 0.9 0.83 ROI Targeted ROI
(WCPM/week) Targeted ROI 1.77 Peer ROI (Intervention Group) 1.4 Peer ROI (All District) 1 Attained ROI 0.9 Typical ROI 0.83

Compare ELL students to a peer group based on the 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 Not all ELL students are the same!

All 3rd Grade ELLs with similar:
Peer ROI: ELL Student All 3rd Grade ELLs with similar: Language Native language proficiency English Language proficiency Time in school Time in country 60 – 35 = 25 WCPM 28 WCPM / 20 Weeks = 1.25 WCPM per week 100 3rd Grade DIBELS ORF 60 35 Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May

Comparisons Comparison 1.77 1.4 1.25 1 0.9 0.83 ROI Targeted 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
How does a student’s growth compare to students with similar educational difficulties? DIBELS Pathways to Progress

DIBELS Next (Pathways of Progress)
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

Progress Monitoring Data

Slow Progress 50 WCPM 23 WCPM 27 WCPM 22 1.04 1.2 1.75 1.3 1.4
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 Matched to Student Need: ELL Considerations
Did they also receive a language intervention? “Not all currently used interventions in literacy (especially for primary grade students) include adequate attention to these areas [listening & reading comprehension], and thus they may need to be augmented for English learners.” Institute for Education Sciences, 2004 Is there a high degree of “fluidity” of instruction for ELL’s across the day? Do we have decision rules for placement and movement of ELL’s in interventions? Did we follow them?

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
Were the interventions delivered as intended? Did we do what we said we would do?

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

Slow Progress ??? 50 WCPM 23 WCPM 27 WCPM 22 1.04 1.2 1.75 1.3 1.4
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
Include a description of the following: For each intervention provided: Student rate of improvement Expected rate of improvement A description of the intervention What intervention strategies resulted in the largest amount of growth Fidelity data

Progress Monitoring Data

Eval Report Example: 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

Eval 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.

Team Time Does your district have guidelines for how “adequate progress” is defined? How can you determine that interventions are: Appropriately matched? The right time and intensity? Delivered with fidelity?

SLD Evaluation Process (pt. 1)

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "SLD Evaluation Process (pt. 1)"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

SLD Evaluation Process (pt. 1)

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "SLD Evaluation Process (pt. 1)"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback