1. Vision: Every child in every district receives the instruction that they need and deserve…every day. Oregon Response to Intervention Vision: Every child in every district receives the instruction that they need and deserve…every day. SLD Re-Evaluation Process Spring Conference 2014

2. Targets SPED Re-Evaluation: When does it occur and what’s the process? What are the key questions we need to answer in a comprehensive re- 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?

3. Oregon Response to Intervention www.oregonrti.org Tell us about you. Why are you here? What do you currently do in your district?

4. Oregon Response to Intervention www.oregonrti.org Special Education Re-Evaluation Process Evaluation planning meeting Conduct comprehensive evaluation Eligibility meeting IEP meeting

5. Research-Based Core Curriculum w/ Strong Instruction Tier 2/3 Supplemental Intervention ASSESSMENT Formal Diagnostic As needed Formal Diagnostic As needed Progress Monitoring Weekly-Monthly Progress Monitoring Weekly-Monthly Universal Screening 3 times/year Universal Screening 3 times/year DATA-BASED DECISION MAKING Individual Problem Solving Team Schoolwide Screening reviewed 3 times/year Schoolwide Screening reviewed 3 times/year INSTRUCTION Tier 2/3 Supplemental Intervention Intervention Review Team 6-8 weeks Intervention Review Team 6-8 weeks Tier 3 Individualized Intervention Individual Problem Solving Team 6-8 weeks Individual Problem Solving Team 6-8 weeks SPED referral?

6. Oregon Response to Intervention www.oregonrti.org Evaluation Planning Meeting What additional information you need as a team? (Permission to Evaluate Form) –Get caregiver consent 60 school day timeline begins Provide caregiver with Parents Rights brochure

7. Oregon Response to Intervention www.oregonrti.org Comprehensive Evaluation A comprehensive evaluation is always required to determine if a student continues to qualify for Special Education service, regardless of your model of identification. Neither RTI nor PSW in isolation is sufficient for a comprehensive evaluation.

8. Comprehensive SLD Re-Eval: Regardless of Eval Model a)Academic assessment b)Review of records c)Observation (including regular education setting) d)Progress monitoring data g)Other: A.If needed, developmental history B.If needed, an assessment of cognition, etc. C.If needed, a medical statement D.Any other assessments to determine impact of disability Oregon Administrative Rules, 581-015-2170

9. Comprehensive SLD Re-Eval: RTI Model e)…documentation of: A.The type, intensity, and duration of scientific, research- based instructional intervention(s)… B.…rate of progress during the instructional intervention(s); C.A comparison of the student's rate of progress to expected rates of progress. D.Progress monitoring on a schedule that: i.Allows a comparison of the student's progress to… peers; ii.Is appropriate to the student's age and grade placement; iii.Is appropriate to the content monitored; and iv.Allows for interpretation of the effectiveness of intervention. Oregon Administrative Rules, 581-015-2170

10. Oregon Response to Intervention www.oregonrti.org Three key questions Slow Progre ss Low Skills Instruction al 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? =

11. Guidelines for Comprehensive Evaluation

12. Oregon Response to Intervention www.oregonrti.org Evaluating Low Skills Low Skills Is the student significantly different from peers?

13. Oregon Response to Intervention www.oregonrti.org Low Skills: Is the student significantly different from peers?

14. How big of a discrepancy is significant? Data SourceGeneral Suggestions* OAKS Very low? Low? Does not meet? Below the 16 th percentile (1 SD below the mean)? 10 th percentile? CBM’s (screening assessments) In the Intensive/Well Below Benchmark range? Below the 16 th percentile as compared to national and/or local norms (1 SD below the mean)? 10 th percentile? More than 2 times discrepant from peers/benchmark? Standardized (norm-referenced) Achievement Tests Below the 16 th percentile (1 SD below the mean)? 10 th percentile? Below a standard score of 85 (1 SD below the mean)? Core Program Assessments In bottom 20% as compared to peers? Bottom 10%? *These suggestions should be used as approximate guidelines and NOT as rigid cut scores

15. Oregon Response to Intervention www.oregonrti.org RE-Evaluation Report: Low Skills Include a description of the following: 1.Student’s level of performance –CBMs, OAKs, Standardized assessments, Core Program assessments 2.Expected level of performance –Benchmarks, Local norm, National norm 3.Magnitude of the discrepancy –Times discrepant, difference score, percentile rank as compared to average range, etc.

16. Oregon Response to Intervention www.oregonrti.org Re-Eval Report Example: Low Skills In all areas of easyCBM, Student falls in the below average range or below the 10 th %ile. Average rate of improvement for a typical 2 nd grade student in passage reading fluency is 1.5 words per week or approximately 54 total word gain in one year’s time. Student’s average rate of improvement was.5 words per week or 18 total words. Student has also been progress monitored in the areas of word reading and passage reading fluency. Student falls below the 10 th percentile in all areas.

17. Oregon Response to Intervention www.oregonrti.org Evaluating Slow Progress Slow Progre ss Does the student make less than adequate progress despite interventions?

18. Oregon Response to Intervention www.oregonrti.org Slow Progress: Does the student make inadequate progress despite intervention?

19. Oregon Response to Intervention www.oregonrti.org How much progress is enough? How much growth should we expect? –National growth norms What does typical growth look like, on average?

20. National Growth Rates: Reading GradeAverage ORF Growth (WCPM)* Ambitious ORF Growth (WCPM)* Average Maze Growth (WCR)** 1230.4 21.520.4 311.50.4 40.851.10.4 50.50.80.4 60.30.650.4 *Fuchs et al (1993), **Fuchs & Fuchs (2004)

21. Oregon Response to Intervention www.oregonrti.org Comparison to Similar students How does a student’s growth compare to students with similar educational difficulties? –DIBELS Pathways to Progress –AIMSWEB

22. Oregon Response to Intervention www.oregonrti.org How much progress is enough? How much growth should we expect? –National growth norms What does typical growth look like on average? –Local growth norms What does typical growth look like in your district, school, classroom, or intervention group?

23. How much progress is enough? Typical growth rate: 1.4 wcpm per week Student in intervention making “typical” growth

24. 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

25. 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

26. Oregon Response to Intervention www.oregonrti.org Progress Monitoring Data

27. Slow Progress QuestionEvidence from Assessment/Score Slow Progres s? Discrepant From Peers? Does the student exhibit SLOW PROGRES S? Progress Monitoring: 1.1 WCPM/week (Typical = 1.5, Local norm = 2) Y N Diagnostic Assessments: Phonics Screener From 10% to 15% sounds correct in 20 weeks Y N Core Assessments: From 35% average to 40% average in 20 weeks Y N Intervention Assessments: From 45% to 65% in 20 weeks Y N Intervention Matched to Student Need? Y N Intervention Time & Intensity Appropriate? Y N Intervention Delivered with Fidelity? Y N Preponderance of Evidence? Y N Additional Information Needed?

28. Slow Progress QuestionEvidence from Assessment/Score Slow Progres s? Discrepant From Peers? Does the student exhibit SLOW PROGRES S? Progress Monitoring: 1.1 WCPM/week (Typical = 1.5, Local norm = 2) Y N Diagnostic Assessments: Phonics Screener From 10% to 15% sounds correct in 20 weeks Y N Core Assessments: From 35% average to 40% average in 20 weeks Y N Intervention Assessments: From 45% to 65% in 20 weeks Y N Intervention Matched to Student Need? Y N Intervention Time & Intensity Appropriate? Y N Intervention Delivered with Fidelity? Y N Preponderance of Evidence? Y N Additional Information Needed?

29. Slow Progress QuestionEvidence from Assessment/Score Slow Progres s? Discrepant From Peers? Does the student exhibit SLOW PROGRES S? Progress Monitoring: 1.1 WCPM/week (Typical = 1.5, Local norm = 2) Y N Diagnostic Assessments: Phonics Screener From 10% to 15% sounds correct in 20 weeks Y N Core Assessments: From 35% average to 40% average in 20 weeks Y N Intervention Assessments: From 45% to 65% in 20 weeks Y N Intervention Matched to Student Need? Y N Intervention Time & Intensity Appropriate? Y N Intervention Delivered with Fidelity? Y N Preponderance of Evidence? Y N Additional Information Needed?

30. Slow Progress QuestionEvidence from Assessment/Score Slow Progres s? Discrepant From Peers? Does the student exhibit SLOW PROGRES S? Progress Monitoring: 1.1 WCPM/week (Typical = 1.5, Local norm = 2) Y N Diagnostic Assessments: Phonics Screener From 10% to 15% sounds correct in 20 weeks Y N Core Assessments: From 35% average to 40% average in 20 weeks Y N Intervention Assessments: From 45% to 65% in 20 weeks Y N Intervention Matched to Student Need? Y N Intervention Time & Intensity Appropriate? Y N Intervention Delivered with Fidelity? Y N Preponderance of Evidence? Y N Additional Information Needed? ???

31. Oregon Response to Intervention www.oregonrti.org Vocabulary Reading Comprehension Phonemic Awareness Phonics (Alphabetic Principle) Oral Reading Accuracy & Fluency 31 Interventions Matched to Student Need

32. Oregon Response to Intervention www.oregonrti.org Intervention Time & Intensity Appropriate In addition to 90 minutes of research- based core instruction –Minimum of 30-45 minutes of daily, supplemental/targeted specially designed instruction using: Explicit, systematic, research-based curricular materials Research-based instructional strategies

33. Oregon Response to Intervention www.oregonrti.org Intervention Delivered with Fidelity Was the specially designed instruction delivered as intended? Did we do what we said we would do?

34. Oregon Response to Intervention www.oregonrti.org Re-Evaluation Report: Slow Progress Include a description of the following: 1.For each intervention provided: –Student rate of progress –Expected rate of progress –A description of the specially designed instruction –What strategies resulted in the largest amount of growth –Fidelity data

35. Oregon Response to Intervention www.oregonrti.org Re-Eval Report Example: Slow Progress

36. Oregon Response to Intervention www.oregonrti.org Re-Eval Report Example: Slow Progress Student has been intervened with in the area of reading since the beginning of her 2 nd grade school year. During her 3 rd grade school year, the intervention was intensified two different times, once she was moved back for additional review and the 2 nd time she was moved into a smaller group and placed with a certified teacher. Student’s performance was not at a rate comparable to her peers, thus she was supported through various methods of intensifying the instruction. In addition, Student started her 2 nd and 3 rd grade year in Reading Mastery Classic lesson. Her performance supports a picture of a skill deficit in reading that is resistant to instruction.

37. Oregon Response to Intervention www.oregonrti.org Three key questions Instruction al Need Does the student need specially designed instruction?

38. Oregon Response to Intervention www.oregonrti.org Does the student continue to need Specially Designed Instruction?

39. Oregon Response to Intervention www.oregonrti.org What is Specially Designed Instruction? Federal Definition: adapting the......... –Content –Methodology and/or –Delivery of instruction

40. Oregon Response to Intervention www.oregonrti.org What is Specially Designed Instruction? Additional components: 1.Needs to be truly necessary rather than merely beneficial 2.Designed or implemented by certified special education personnel 3.Not available regularly in general education

41. Oregon Response to Intervention www.oregonrti.org Content/Curriculum The knowledge and skills being taught to the student are different than those that are taught to typically developing same aged peers –Example a student with an IEP may be working on increasing the number of words that he can spell correctly while typically developing peers are being taught to write short stories with complete paragraphs.

42. Oregon Response to Intervention www.oregonrti.org Methodology/Instruction Different instructional strategies and approaches are being used to teach content to the student than are used with typically developing, same-aged peers. –Example Using Reading Mastery to teach a student to read –Increased modeling, guided practice, corrective feedback, and independent practice/application

43. Oregon Response to Intervention www.oregonrti.org Methodology/Instruction Guidelines What specific instructional strategies resulted in the most growth? –Examine slow progress results How does this instruction compare to what is typically taught at that grade level?

44. Oregon Response to Intervention www.oregonrti.org Delivery/Environment The way in which instruction is delivered is different than what is provided to typically developing peers. –Examples Needs to be taught in small group Needs to have more frequent reinforcement

45. Oregon Response to Intervention www.oregonrti.org Delivery/Environment Guidelines What are the specific environmental needs that the student needs? –Frequent reinforcement –Visual cues for behavior –Smaller group size Are these needs beyond the scope of what general education can provide? –What are your district resources? –Can you provide the support on-going?

46. Oregon Response to Intervention www.oregonrti.org Instructional Need? How do you distinguish if it is an instructional need (i.e. Beyond the scope of what general education can provide)?

47. Oregon Response to Intervention www.oregonrti.org How you determine instructional need? It comes down to the balance: How does the weight of the intervention compare to the rate of progress?

48. Oregon Response to Intervention www.oregonrti.org Learner What additional supports are needed to help the student be successful? –Family collaboration –Assistive technology –Community supports

49. Oregon Response to Intervention www.oregonrti.org Re-Evaluation Report: Instructional Need Include a description of the student’s needs: 1.Instruction –The strategies that resulted in the most student growth 2.Curriculum –The specific skills/strategies that the student needs to master 3.Environment –The learning environment that the student needs to be successful 4.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)

50. Oregon Response to Intervention www.oregonrti.org Re-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.

51. Oregon Response to Intervention www.oregonrti.org Three key questions

52. Oregon Response to Intervention www.oregonrti.org Exclusionary Factors: Has the student had ample opportunity to learn?

53. Oregon Response to Intervention www.oregonrti.org 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)

54. Oregon Response to Intervention www.oregonrti.org What do we mean by appropriate instruction? (i)A lack of appropriate instruction in reading, including in the essential components of reading instruction Explicit & systematic instruction in the Big 5........ –Phonemic awareness –Phonics –Vocabulary development –Reading fluency –Reading comprehension strategies

55. Oregon Response to Intervention www.oregonrti.org What evidence do we have of appropriate instruction: Core/Intervention? QuestionsData Sources? 1.Was the student provided instruction in the Big 5? 2.Was the instruction provided with a reasonable degree of fidelity? 3.Is there evidence that other students are benefitting from the instruction?

56. Oregon Response to Intervention www.oregonrti.org Primary cause is not due to Limited English Proficiency English language development –Are they making progress? –Does the ELD match their academic level? Acculturation Cohort groups How do their skills and growth compare to students with similar language, acculturation, etc.?

57. Oregon Response to Intervention www.oregonrti.org Factors Attendance Vision/hearing Motor impairment Emotional Disturbance Cultural Factors Environment or Economic Disadvantage Data sources Health screenings Medical reports Developmental history Parent interviews Primary cause is not due to other factors Is there any other possible reason why the student is struggling?

58. Oregon Response to Intervention www.oregonrti.org

59. Oregon Response to Intervention www.oregonrti.org Re-Evaluation Report: Exclusionary Factors Include a description of the following: 1.The effectiveness of general ed instruction (e.g., fidelity, instructional strategies observed, etc) 2.Attendance 3.English proficiency & acculturation (if appropriate) –Growth as compared to peers with similar backgrounds 4.Evidence from developmental history, medical reports, health screenings, parent interviews that rule out other exclusionary factors.

60. Oregon Response to Intervention www.oregonrti.org Re-Eval 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, Parent noted on the developmental history that she talked late, and her first word was “Elmo”.

61. Oregon Response to Intervention www.oregonrti.org Three key questions Slow Progre ss Low Skills Instruction al 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? =

65. Oregon Response to Intervention www.oregonrti.org Talk time….. How confident would you be in using this method to make a student re-eligible for special education under the SLD category? What do you or your district need to do to gain confidence in using this method?

66. Oregon Response to Intervention www.oregonrti.org Thank You! Questions/Comments? Follow us!!!!! Twitter: @oregonrti Sally Helton shelton@ttsd.k12.or.us Shelby DiFonzo sdifonzo@ontario.k12.or.us

67. 67 Break Time Please remember to complete the evaluation form for this session