1. A Three-Tiered Model: early intervention for students “at- risk” for learning difficulties CASP Convention 2004 Allan Lloyd-Jones Special Education Consultant California Department of Education alloydjo@cde.ca.gov

2. Background IDEA 1997 LD Summit – August 2001 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 President’s Commission on Special Education Robert Pasternack’s Statements on Reform Reauthorization of IDEA (HR 1350, SB 1248)

3. LD Summit (August 2001) Criticized wait to fail model Criticized disconnect between current assessment practices and marker variables Criticized ability-achievement discrepancy approach Pointed to response to instruction as alternative evaluation procedure

4. PRESIDENT’S COMMISION ON EXCELLENCE IN SPECIAL EDUCATION: FINDINGS Current system – process above results Current system – wait to fail model Dual system- general and special Inadequate parent options and recourse Culture of compliance Identification methods lack validity Better teacher preparation needed Rigorous research and evidence-based practice Focus on compliance and bureaucratic imperatives not academic achievement

5. PRESIDENT’S COMMISION ON EXCELLENCE IN SPECIAL EDUCATION: RECOMMENDATIONS Embrace a model of prevention not failure Change the way we assess for LD Eliminate the necessity for IQ-achievement discrepancy Shift to academically relevant assessments.

6. PRESIDENT’S COMMISION ON EXCELLENCE IN SPECIAL EDUCATION: RECOMMENDATIONS (cont.) Change focus from eligibility determination to successful interventions Use response to instruction as a key measure Apply scientifically based instruction before referring for evaluation.

7. Robert Pasternack’s Testimony to the House Committee… Statement by Robert Pasternack, Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services On Learning Disabilities before the House of Representatives Education and the Workforce Committee, Subcommittee on Education Reform

8. Dr. Pasternack’s Statements Half of the students receiving special education are LD. 80% to 90% of students with LD have reading disabilities. Most students can learn to read with scientifically based instruction.

9. Over half the students in California receiving special education services in 2002- 03 are identified as having a Specific Learning Disability (SLD)

10. Dr. Pasternack’s Statements (cont.) Studies of responsiveness to intervention generally do not find relationships with IQ or IQ-discrepancy IQ tests do not measure cognitive skills like phonological awareness that are closely associated with LD in reading.

11. (5) SPECIAL RULE FOR ELIGIBILITY DETREMINATION – In making a determination of eligibility under paragraph (4)(A), a child shall not be determined to be a child with a disability if the determinant factor for such determination is— ‘‘(A) lack of scientifically-based instruction practices and programs that contain the essential components of reading instruction (as that term is defined in section 1208(3) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965); ‘‘(B) lack of instruction in math; ‘‘(C) limited English proficiency. HR 1350 P.107.

12. (6) SPECIFIC LEARNING DISABILITIES (A) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding section 607 of this Act, or any other provision of law, when determining whether a child has a specific learning disability as defined under this Act, the local educational agency shall not be required to take into consideration whether the child has a severe discrepancy between achievement and intellectual ability in oral expression, listening comprehension, written expression, basic reading skill, reading comprehension, mathematical calculation, or mathematical reasoning. HR 1350 P. 107

13. ‘‘(B) ADDITIONAL AUTHORITY.— In determining whether a child has a specific learning disability, a local educational agency may use a process which determines if a child responds to scientific, research-based intervention HR 1350 P. 108.

14. Tier I Tier II Tier III Screen and monitor progress A THREE TIERED APPROACH TO ADDRESSING LEARNING NEEDS Identify and address processing weaknesses Intervene and measure Response to Intervention (RtI)

15. Tier I Tier II Tier III Provide intensive, research based interventions focused on weaknesses Early screening for indictors of processing weakness Monitor and record academic growth for all students Provide additional instruction for “at risk students” Focused academic assessment for students showing minimal response to intervention A THREE TIERED APPROACH TO ADDRESSING LEARNING NEEDS Refer for Special Education assessment with a focus on processing weaknesses If student shows continued lack of response to intervention Provide a core research based reading program Provide ongoing professional development on reading instruction Rule out MR, ED other exclusionary factors Continue to monitor and record academic growth and measure response to intervention (RtI)

16. Tier I Early screening measures: Dynamic Indicators of Early Basic Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Test of Phomemic Awareness (TOPA) Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP) Subtests measuring phonemic awareness, rapid automatic naming, graphomotor fluency, vocabulary e.g. WJ-III, WIAT-II, NEPSY, DAS, WISC-III Early screening for indictors of processing weakness Provide additional instruction for “at risk students Provide a core research based reading program Provide ongoing professional development on reading instruction Monitor and record academic growth for all students

17. Tier II Focused academic assessment measures: Measures to record and monitor academic growth: WJIII (Academic Scales) WIAT II Process Assessment of the Learner (PAL) Fox in a Box Group Reading and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE) Reading RESULTS ( California Reading & Literature Project, CDE) Focused academic assessment for students showing minimal response to intervention Provide intensive, high quality interventions focused on weaknesses Continue to monitor and record academic growth and measure response to intervention (RtI)

18. Tier III Special Education assessment: Verify that student is significantly sub-average in academic performance Rule out exclusionary factors (attendance, cultural, linguistic) Rule out other diagnoses e.g. Not Sensory Impairment, Not MR, Not ED Identify areas of significant processing weakness Verify link between academic weaknesses and processing weakness Student shows continued lack of response to intervention Refer for Special Education Assessment with a focus on processing weaknesses