1. Evaluation Planning & Eligibility Identifying Learning Disabilities Under a RTI Model October 17, 2008

2. Important Idea: RTI is one component of a COMPREHENSIVE evaluation.

3. Individualized Approach “Trevor’s evaluation” rather than “LD evaluation” Consider eligibility requirements for all suspected disabilities

4. General evaluation requirements: ALL special education evaluations must still be conducted so that No single measure is used to determine eligibility Non-biased, technically sound instruments are given as intended, by qualified personnel An evaluation is comprehensive enough to identify all of a student’s special education and related service needs, even if they are not typical to a particular disability AND all special education evaluations still begin with a review of existing information (parents, teachers, statewide assessment, etc.)

5. General evaluation requirements (cont’d): ALL eligibility evaluations must establish that children may not be determined eligible if the determinant factor is lack of appropriate instruction in reading, including the essential components of reading instruction: Phonemic awareness Phonics Vocabulary Reading fluency Comprehension strategies Or lack of instruction in math Or limited English proficiency

6. SLD regulations of note: Teams must include for all SLD evaluations “data that demonstrate that prior to or as part of the referral process the child was provided appropriate instruction in regular education settings, delivered by qualified personnel; and Data based documentation of repeated assessments of achievement at reasonable intervals, reflecting formal assessment of student progress during instruction, which was provided to the child’s parents.” This information is to be used to prompt evaluation as appropriate. Districts need to define “repeated” and “reasonable intervals.” Formal assessment could be DIBELS or other CBMs

7. SLD regulations of note (whether using RTI or not): Observation must be completed in regular classroom in the area of concern If multiple concerns exist, pick the most pervasive. May use either information from an observation in routine classroom instruction and monitoring that was done before referral; or May conduct an observation of the child’s academic performance in the regular classroom after referral (and consent)

8. SLD regulations of note: The team must establish that the child does not achieve adequately for age or to meet State-approved grade level standards in academic skills, and The student has been provided with learning experiences and instruction appropriate for the child’s age or State-approved grade level standards The contrast is with age and standards, not ability; “To meet” implies looking at rate of progress This determination of low achievement is the foundation for eligibility

9. SLD regulations of note: Reading fluency has been added to the list of achievement areas basic reading skills reading comprehension oral expression listening comprehension written expression mathematics calculation mathematics problem solving This reflects current research that points to persistent reading fluency problems as an indicator of LD

10. SLD regulations of note: Once low achievement is established, the team may find a student eligible if: The child does not make progress sufficient to achieve age or State-approved grade level standards when using RTI, or The child exhibits a pattern of strengths and weaknesses in performance, achievement, or both, relative to age, standards, or intellectual development. Always establish the child’s progress: This is result of the RTI evaluation. TTSD isn’t using this criteria, but you may see it on move-in eligibility statements.

11. SLD regulations of note (when RTI is used): Documentation must include the kind of instructional strategies that were used and the student centered data that was gathered; That parents were notified: about the State’s policies about RTI that include the kind and amount of data that must be gathered and what general education services must be provided, and the kind of instructional strategies that were used to increase the child’s progress; and that the parent has the right to an evaluation

12. Evaluation Planning: What You Know Individual Problem Solving Worksheet Student Intervention Profile Progress Monitoring Data Developmental History

13. Evaluation Planning: What You Need to Know Observation data Achievement data WIAT-II or Woodcock Johnson-Achievement Phonics Inventory Scored Writing Samples CBMs Assessments in other areas of concern Communication Fine motor Social/emotional Perceptual motor/perception Memory Physical/medical (including medical statement) Cognition

14. Evaluation Planning: Parent Participation Before referral: Progress monitoring data/Intervention Info. RTI pamphlet Invitation to participate in EBIS meetings During referral: Procedural Safeguards

15. LD Eligibility Statement Compare the ODE and TTSDODETTSD LD Eligibility Statements: How do they differ?

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

17. Does the Student Have Low Skills? Does the student have low skills? Core Only Core + Up to 30 Minutes of Supplemental Intervention (from the TTSD Protocol) Core + 45 Minutes of Supplemental Intervention (from the TTSD Protocol) 90 th Percentile 80 th Percentile 70 th Percentile 60 th Percentile 50 th Percentile 40 th Percentile 30 th PercentileMay Need MorePossibly LD 20 th PercentileNeeds More Likely LD 10 th PercentileNeeds More Likely LD

18. Defining Low Skills AreaMeasuresParameters Early ReadingPhoneme Segmentation Fluency Nonsense Word Fluency WIAT-II Scores in the Intensive range or the lowest quartile of the strategic range Standard Score below 90 Fluency, Vocabulary, and Comprehension Oral Reading Fluency Oregon Statewide Assessment WIAT-II Scores below the 25 th percentile in ORF (Hasbrouck/Tindal norms) Does Not Meet and/or below the 25 th percentile Standard Score below 90 Math Computation CBMs WIAT-II Scores below the 25 th percentile (AimsWeb norms) Standard Score below 90 Math Problem Solving CBMS Oregon Statewide Assessments WIAT-II Scores below the 25 th percentile (AimsWeb norms) Does Not Meet and/or below the 25 th percentile Standard Score below 90 Written Expression CBMs for fluency and conventions “Best Work” Writing Samples Scored With The Oregon State Scoring Guide Oregon Statewide Assessment WIAT-II Scores below the 25 th percentile (AimsWeb norms) Multiple pieces earning scores of 1 or 2 Does Not Meet and/or below the 25 th percentile Standard Score below 90

19. Defining Intensive Intervention Reading: Core Instruction plus 30-45 minutes per day of supplemental instruction (according to protocol). Math & Written Expression: Core Instruction plus third tier interventions (according to protocols).

20. Is the student’s progress slow? Core Only Core + Up to 30 Minutes of Supplemental Intervention (from the TTSD Protocol) Core + 45 Minutes of Supplemental Intervention (from the TTSD Protocol) More than 150% of expected rate of growth 110 – 150% of expected rate of growth Possibly LD (See below) 95 – 110% of expected rate of growth Likely LD 81 – 95% of expected rate of growth May Need More Likely LD 80% or less of expected rate of growth Needs More Likely LD

21. AreaMeasuresParameters Early ReadingPhoneme Segmentation Fluency Nonsense Word Fluency What makes sense:  Progress less than the expected rate when receiving intensive interventions. OR  Progress less than 110% of the expected rate when receiving intensive interventions. OR  Progress less than 125% of the expected rate when receiving intensive interventions. Fluency, Vocabulary, and Comprehension Oral Reading Fluency Oregon Statewide Assessment Math Computation CBMs Math Problem Solving CBMS Oregon Statewide Assessments Written Expression CBMs for fluency and conventions Writing Samples Scored w/ Oregon State Scoring Guide Oregon Statewide Assessment Defining Slow Progress

22. Other Considerations Context is key Typical growth Cohort growth Fidelity of program Intervention attendance

23. Eligibility Decision Making It comes down to the balance: How does the weight of the intervention compare to the rate of progress?

24. Briar 2 nd Grader Fall: ORF 22 Winter: ORF 55 Gain: 2.37 words/week Typical gain: 1.5 words/week 90 mins. Classroom Reading Instruction SMART volunteer Read Naturally 30 min. 4 times per week Changed to Phonics for Reading and Read Naturally 30 min. per day

25. Tommy 25th percentile on OAKS Math Composite in 3 rd grade Remains at 25 th percentile in 4 th and 5th “Low average” Core program 5 min./day computer- assisted practice 30 min./day Connecting Math Concepts

26. Rita 1st Grader The rate: Gain: 6-10wpm in 8 weeks Other students gain 22 wpm in the same period of time The weight: MacMillan 90 min./day Triumphs 45 min./day

27. Annie 2 nd grader The rate: Reads 45 words per minute (target is 90 wpm) The weight: MacMillan 45 min./day Reading Mastery 90 min./day The context: Moved to the district 4 months ago Has been in 4 schools Recently moved in with a relative due to abuse in the home

28. Mark 5th grader The rate: Reads 77 words per minute (target is 150 wpm) Scores below average benchmark on the State- wide assessment The weight: Core reading program 30 minutes of additional reading program 5x a week The context: 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.

29. Don’t miss the forest for the trees Consider the ‘whole’ child The questions on the eligibility forms merit conversation when considering a referral

30. Dianna 3rd grader Reads 45 words per minute in Spanish (target is 85 words per minute) Reads 15 words per minute in English Lectura 90 min./day Phonics for Reading 30 min./day Has been in the same school since Kindergarten The other students in her cohort group read an average of 90wpm in Spanish and English

31. The team must determine that the student’s lack of progress is not due to: Lack of appropriate instruction Existence of another disability Limited English proficiency Environmental or Economic Disadvantage

32. Keep the End in Mind: Avoid the “Oops” Required components Other relevant components Exclusionary factors

33. What About…? English Language Learners Most useful approach Interventions in language of core program Cohort comparison critical Review Section 8 on LD Eligibility Report Checklist

34. Is the problem the result of limited English proficiency? 1. Identify primary and secondary languages. 2. Report current levels of Oral, Writing, and Reading proficiency in primary language and in English.

35. (LEP Continued) 3. What is the home language? 4. What is the parents’ literacy proficiency? 5. What is a typical academic profile for a student with this language and family history?

36. For ELL Students Response to Intervention Progress compared to cohort  AND Problem Solving Approach

37. What About…? 3 Year Re-evaluations Same kind of thinking “Weight of progress vs. weight of support” Disabilities are life-long conditions Special education should work

38. 3 Year Re-evaluations (cont.) Evaluation planning is critical step Thorough review of current information May be enough to continue eligibility “Weight of progress vs. weight of support”

39. LD Eligibility Reports Checklist Background information Low skills Resistance to instruction Observation Opportunity to learn the skills Other disabilities Cultural factors or economic disadvantage Limited English proficiency Conclusion

40. LD Eligibility Reports Sample Report

41. 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.”

42. Report Writing Tips Read and ask: Did I answer the questions I raised? Reread with different audiences in mind: Parents Are abbreviations spelled out? Tests explained? Administrative law judge “What I meant, Your Honor,” Another district’s learning specialist Proofread your report for grammar

43. Think Columbo Not everyone speaks ‘Edu-speak’ Write for your audience

44. Quality LD Eligibility Reports Individually: Quickly read the sample report. In partners: How does this differ from LD reports in your district? Which components are useful?