1. www.ksdetasn.org Initial Evaluation and Eligibility Determination Workshop Part 1: Introduction and GEIs Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses Method of Evaluation Part 2: Response to Intervention Method of Evaluation Summary

2. www.ksdetasn.org Topics Covered Include Use of General Education Interventions (GEI) data Selecting appropriate method of evaluation Controversies with use of each method Use of the Evaluation & Eligibility Indicators document

3. www.ksdetasn.org This workshop will not… Cover how to conduct GEI Describe due process requirements for evaluation & eligibility determination Promote one method of evaluation Teach how to conduct assessments or which assessment instruments should be used. Teach the implementation of MTSS

4. www.ksdetasn.org Eligibility Determination Is Application of critical thinking skills to the evaluation process Data-based team decision making Professional judgment Is Not The application of rules The administration and interpretation of any specific assessments A singular criteria

5. www.ksdetasn.org Agenda: Part 1 1)Introduction 2)General Education Interventions 3)Determining when to use each method of evaluation 4)Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses method of evaluation 5)The Evaluation and Eligibility Determination Process 6)Case Study 7)Indicator Match 8)Controversies with the Cognitive Correlates Method

6. www.ksdetasn.org Agenda: Part 2 9)Response to Intervention method of evaluation 10)The Evaluation and Eligibility Determination Process 11)Case Study 12)Indicator Match 13)Compare/Contrast the Two Methods 14)Controversies with the RtI Method 15)Questions

7. www.ksdetasn.org GENERAL EDUCATION INTERVENTIONS The Impact of GEI Practices on Evaluation Model

8. www.ksdetasn.org The Evaluation and Eligibility Process For Young Children Begins by For young children who are not yet in kindergarten the Evaluation and Eligibility Process may begin by: – Formal Developmental Screening Process – Referral through Part C – Parental Request – General Education Intervention

9. www.ksdetasn.org The Evaluation and Eligibility Process Students in School Begins with GEI General Education Interventions are the way that Kansas implements the federal Child Find requirement. For children in kindergarten through age 21, Child Find is conducted through the use of General Education Interventions and should also insure the early identification and assessment of disabilities in children.

10. www.ksdetasn.org General Education Interventions Kansas describes two models of GEI – MTSS (protocol interventions + systemic problem-solving) – Individual problem-solving In both models the school must carry out interventions and document the child’s progress The interventions and progress monitoring data will provide information about the child’s needs, including – the intensity of instruction needed – the support required for the child to be successful GEI

11. www.ksdetasn.org GEI Using Individual-Student Problem Solving GEI/SIT/SAT/CARE teams meet to conduct individual problem-solving. Progress monitoring data is used to refine intervention. GEI/SIT/SAT/CARE teams have charts and meeting notes or intervention logs that show the results from the steps above.

12. www.ksdetasn.org GEI Using MTSS Universal screening and the diagnostic process is used to determine student intervention. Interventions is refined & intensified based on the progress monitoring data and the steps for adjusting instruction. If student growth is insufficient, individual student problem-solving is conducted by grade level collaborative teams. Collaborative teams have charts and intervention logs that show the results from all the steps above.

13. www.ksdetasn.org Determining When to Use Each Method of Evaluation Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses Response to Intervention

14. www.ksdetasn.org Common Elements of Both Methods Essential elements that must be present to use both methods: – high quality instruction in general education – evidence-based interventions that are matched to child needs – progress monitoring during intervention process – evaluation data are reliable and valid (Lichtenstein, 2008)

15. www.ksdetasn.org When to Use: Response to Intervention 1)GEI is implemented using MTSS 2)School-wide data collection system used for a)Universal screening b)Progress monitoring c)Diagnostic assessment 3)Collaborative teams are effectively functioning 4)Interventions are being provided in a systematic way using the Self-Correcting Feedback Loop

16. www.ksdetasn.org When to Use: Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses 1)GEI is implemented using individual student problem-solving 2)No school-wide universal screening of essential skills utilizing CBM 3)SIT/SAT/CARE teams develop intervention plans

17. www.ksdetasn.org PATTERN OF STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES Background Information

18. www.ksdetasn.org Clarifications Regarding Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses Is NOT the same as IQ-Achievement discrepancy Is NOT the use of cognitive scores compared to global achievement scores Neither requires nor excludes the use of any specific assessment

19. www.ksdetasn.org Basic Premises: Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses Additional assessment, intervention, and evaluation of the student’s strengths and weaknesses are based on the referral question for that individual student When a learning disability is suspected, look at the patterns of cognitive strengths & weakness and how the pattern correlates with patterns of academic strengths & weaknesses

20. www.ksdetasn.org Using Cognitive Correlates When a Learning Disability is Suspected 1.Use the research base to identify links between academic and cognitive skills 2.Assess specific academic skills and identify strengths and weaknesses 3.Assess related abilities/cognitive skills and identify strengths and weaknesses 4.Determine whether cognitive skills unrelated to academic weaknesses are unimpaired (Flanagan, 2011)

21. www.ksdetasn.org Abilities/Cognitive Skills related to Basic Reading Skills Phonological Awareness Processing Speed/Perceptual Speed, including rapid naming (relates to need for automaticity in decoding) Working Memory/short-term memory of meaningful material (e.g., sentence repetition) Paired-associate learning (important for learning phoneme- grapheme relationships)/letter naming Oral language skills: Vocabulary, Listening comprehension, Verbal reasoning (McGrew & Wendling,2010) (Elliott, Fiorello, Cledicianne, & Moldovan, 2010) (Flanagan, Fiorello, & Ortiz, 2010) (Joseph, McCachran, & Naglieri, 2003)

22. www.ksdetasn.org Abilities/Cognitive Skills related to Reading Comprehension Working memory and short-term memory Listening comprehension General language development and vocabulary Auditory processing Quick and automatic processing of letters and words, as well as word reading speed (McGrew & Wendling, 2010) (Elliott, Fiorello, Cledicianne, & Moldovan, 2010) (Flanagan, Fiorello, & Ortiz, 2010)

23. www.ksdetasn.org Abilities/Cognitive Skills related to Arithmetic and Math Computation Working Memory Processing Speed/Perceptual Speed (RAN, counting speed, numerical processing fluency, ability to engage in subitizing) Phonological processing (because counting requires phonological codes for number words) Language skills/comprehension/knowledge (development of number concepts) Fluid Reasoning, Quantitative Reasoning, Deductive Reasoning (McGrew & Wendling, 2010) (Mabbott & Bisanz, 2008) (Murphy, Mazzocco, Hanich, & Early, 2007)

24. www.ksdetasn.org Abilities/Cognitive Skills related to Math Problem-Solving Working Memory Phonological processing (at younger ages) Language skills/comprehension/knowledge (relates to linguistic demands of complex problems) Processing Speed/Perceptual Speed (including rapid processing of numbers and counting speed; apparently facilitates reasoning by freeing up resources in working memory) Fluid Reasoning, Quantitative Reasoning, Deductive Reasoning (McGrew & Wendling, 2010) (Mabbott & Bisanz, 2008) (Murphy, Mazzocco, Hanich, & Early, 2007)

25. www.ksdetasn.org Abilities/Cognitive Skills related to Written Language Comprehension/Knowledge Processing Speed Short-term memory/working memory Long-term retrieval (for early writing development only) (Floyd, McGrew, & Evans, 2008)

26. www.ksdetasn.org Is IQ Testing Helpful for Measuring Cognitive Correlates? Full Scale IQ explains 10-20% of specific areas of achievement Specific cognitive abilities explain 50-70% of specific areas of achievement The consideration of cognitive correlates does not refer to intra-subtest analysis. (Harris, Guardino, Hanson, 2007)

27. www.ksdetasn.org PATTERN OF STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES Evaluation and Eligibility Determinations using

28. www.ksdetasn.org Moving into an Initial Evaluation Referral from Parents Self-Referral from Adult Student At the point that school staff suspect the student may be a student with an exceptionality and needs special education and related services

29. www.ksdetasn.org Documentation Needed Prior to Referral That appropriate instruction was provided to the student, What education interventions and strategies have been implemented, The results of repeated assessments of achievement which reflect the formal assessment of the student’s progress during instruction, That parents have been provided the results The results indicate an evaluation is appropriate

30. www.ksdetasn.org At the Time of Referral 1.Data collected prior to the evaluation are provided to the evaluation team 2.The team determines what data in addition to the existing data will be collected during the evaluation 3.The team prepares the Prior Written Notice and Consent for Evaluation Form 4.The school obtains informed consent from the parent

31. www.ksdetasn.org Outline of Initial Evaluation and Eligibility Determination Process 1.Determine additional data needed – What, if any, additional assessment is needed? – What, if any, additional intervention is needed? 2.Obtain informed parent consent, then collect needed data 3.Conduct two-prong test of eligibility, using Eligibility Indicator Document – Consider Prong 1, including exclusionary criteria – Consider Prong 2 4.Determine eligibility, complete eligibility report

32. www.ksdetasn.org Determine Additional Data Needed Conduct a review of the existing data on the child, including: – Evaluations and information provided by the parents of the child – Current classroom-based, local, and state assessments and classroom-based observations – Observations by teachers and related services providers – Intervention data collected during GEI

33. www.ksdetasn.org Determine Additional Data Needed Identify what additional data, if any, are needed to determine: – The present levels of academic achievement and functional performance (related developmental needs) of the child – Whether the child a child with an exceptionality – Whether the child has a need for special education and related services

34. www.ksdetasn.org Considerations for the Determination of any Necessary Additional Data What information is needed to assure a comprehensive evaluation? Is any information needed to identify services and supports needed by the student?

35. www.ksdetasn.org Collect Additional Data Needed The need for additional data must be decided on an individual basis. The evaluation teams identifies which measures to use and who will collect the data.

36. www.ksdetasn.org Determine Eligibility The Two-Prong Test Exceptionality + Need Eligibility

37. www.ksdetasn.org Eligibility Determination Prong 1 Is the child a child with an exceptionality? 4 Decision

38. www.ksdetasn.org Steps to Answering Prong 1 1.Do the evaluation data match one of the definitions of exceptionality in state/federal regulations? 2.Do any exclusionary criteria apply? 3.Are the data congruent with indicators for that exceptionality?

39. www.ksdetasn.org Match the Definition The definitions for each of the exceptionality categories are listed in the Eligibility Indicators Document (October, 2011). The team considers whether the student’s data match or do not match the definition of the exceptionality category under consideration.

40. www.ksdetasn.org Exclusionary Factors An evaluation team shall not determine a child to be a child with an exceptionality if the determinant factor is: – lack of appropriate instruction in reading, including the essential components of reading instruction (phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary development, reading fluency including oral reading skills, and reading comprehension strategies); or

41. www.ksdetasn.org Exclusionary Factors continued – lack of appropriate instruction in math; or – limited English proficiency; and – the child does not otherwise meet the eligibility criteria as a child with an exceptionality

42. www.ksdetasn.org Answer Prong 1 1.Do the evaluation data match one of the definitions of exceptionality in state/federal regulations? 2.Do any exclusionary criteria apply? 3.Are the data congruent with indicators for that exceptionality?

43. www.ksdetasn.org Eligibility Determination Prong 2 Does the child need special education and related services? 4 Decision

44. www.ksdetasn.org Eligibility Determination Determine Whether the Child Needs Special Education and Related Services as a Result of the Exceptionality. – What are the child’s needs related to the intensity of instruction and supports required for the child to be successful? – Does the child have specific needs which are so unique as to require specially designed instruction in order to access and progress in the general education curriculum?

45. www.ksdetasn.org Answer Prong 2 What is needed for the student to participate in the general or an advanced curriculum or age appropriate activities? Is there a need for specially designed instruction? Is the child’s need for having adapted content, methodology, or delivery of instruction so great that it cannot be provided in regular education without the support of special education?

46. www.ksdetasn.org PATTERN OF STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES Case Study

47. www.ksdetasn.org Case Study Directions Use the following materials: – Lois Lane Case Study (Case Study PSW) – Evaluation & Eligibility Indicators Document As a table: – Review case study – Discuss and respond to questions on last page

48. www.ksdetasn.org Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses Case Study Questions 1.What components of reading skills are most impaired for Lois Lane? 2.What cognitive skills are correlated with basic reading skills? 3.Are any of the above listed cognitive skills found as weaknesses within Lois Lane’s evaluation results? 4.Within Lois Lane’s evaluation, are the cognitive skills that are not related to basic reading skills results found to be unimpaired?

49. www.ksdetasn.org Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses Case Study Questions continued 5.Do the results of the evaluation exhibit a pattern of strengths and weaknesses characteristic of a student with a reading disability in the area of basic reading skills? 6.Do the results of the information collected match the indicators for a specific learning disability for Prong 1? Do any of the exclusionary criteria apply? 7.Do the results of the information collected match the indicators for a specific learning disability for Prong 2?

50. www.ksdetasn.org PATTERN OF STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES Indicator Match Activity

51. www.ksdetasn.org Indicator Match Directions Use the following materials: – Data sets #1 and #2 – Evaluation & Eligibility Indicators Document As a table: – Apply data sets to indicators within different exceptionality categories. – Respond to the questions for each data set.

52. www.ksdetasn.org Skills Needed to apply Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses Knowledge of theories of cognitive skills Knowledge of causation and correlates research Knowledge of assessments of specific skills (including cognitive, academic, behavioral, and other skills) Knowledge of evidence-based intervention strategies related to specific skill deficits

53. www.ksdetasn.org Reflect as a Team What skills do we need to develop? – For example, do I know what skills are included in basic reading and the cognitive correlates? In math computation and the cognitive correlates? – Do I have access to assessments, tools, and processes to measure these cognitive and academic skills? What practices do we need to change? What information do we need to share?

54. www.ksdetasn.org Controversies with the Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses On-going lack of support for aptitude by treatment interaction Information regarding recommended abilities to be assessed is based on correlations between assessment components and performance of typical achievers vs. students previously identified as having SLD Everybody has their favorite test (authored by themselves) Question of whether measures of cognitive skills provide added value beyond measures of academic skills

55. www.ksdetasn.org Evaluation and Eligibility Decision Making Workshop Part 2: The RtI Method of Evaluation in an MTSS Framework Summary

56. www.ksdetasn.org Agenda: Part 1 (Review) 1)Introduction 2)General Education Interventions 3)Determining when to use each method of evaluation 4)Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses method of evaluation 5)The Evaluation and Eligibility Determination Process 6)Case Study 7)Indicator Match 8)Controversies with the Cognitive Correlates Method

57. www.ksdetasn.org Agenda: Part 2 9)Response to Intervention method of evaluation 10)The Evaluation and Eligibility Determination Process 11)Case Study 12)Indicator Match 13)Compare/Contrast the Two Methods 14)Controversies with the RtI Method 15)Questions

58. www.ksdetasn.org Common Elements of Both Methods Essential elements that must be present to use both methods: – high quality instruction in general education – evidence-based interventions matched to child needs – progress monitoring during intervention process – evaluation data are reliable and valid

59. www.ksdetasn.org Determining When to Use Each Method of Evaluation Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses Response to Intervention

60. www.ksdetasn.org When to Use: Response to Intervention 1)GEI is implemented using MTSS 2)School-wide data collection system used for a)Universal screening b)Progress monitoring c)Diagnostic assessment 3)Collaborative teams are effectively functioning 4)Interventions are being provided in a systematic way using the Self-Correcting Feedback Loop

61. www.ksdetasn.org When to Use: Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses 1)GEI is implemented using individual student problem-solving 2)No school-wide universal screening of essential skills utilizing CBM 3)SIT/SAT/CARE teams develop intervention plans on a student-by-student basis

62. www.ksdetasn.org Response to Intervention within an MTSS Framework MTSS provides a system-wide framework for educational change with a focus on preventing learning and behavioral difficulties. RtI provides a method for conducting an evaluation to determine eligibility under IDEA.

63. www.ksdetasn.org Clarifications Regarding Kansas MTSS MTSS cannot delay or deny an initial evaluation Movement in the tiers is not sequential Tier 3 is not special education Success or failure in any tier does not determine need for referral nor eligibility for special education All tiers of instruction must be available for all students regardless of entitlement eligibility

64. www.ksdetasn.org RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION Background Information

65. www.ksdetasn.org Basic Premises: RtI within an MTSS Framework Data comes from universal screening, diagnostic process, and progress monitoring. Additional assessment, intervention, and evaluation are based upon the referral question. MTSS is implemented with fidelity

66. www.ksdetasn.org Rationale for the RtI Model Protection against over- and under-identification errors is obtained by – using universal screening with criteria for selecting at-risk intervention groups, – delivering interventions strategies of sufficient power, and – judging effects of remedial efforts. Because instruction is manipulated to judge its effect on learning directly, false positive identification errors are less likely. Ensuring adequate instruction as a prerequisite to individual evaluation positively impacts disproportionality problems. Requiring direct measures of child performance in context enhances identification accuracy. (VanDerHeyden & Jimerson, 2005)

67. www.ksdetasn.org Steps of Applying Response to Intervention 1.Use universal screening data to apply standard protocol of intervention. 2.Use progress monitoring data to customize interventions. 3.Determine presence of dual discrepancy. (Fuchs & Fuchs,1998) (McMaster, Fuchs, Fuchs, & Compton, 2005)

68. www.ksdetasn.org Dual Discrepancy 1.Low level of performance (after appropriate interventions) when compared to peers and 2.Low rate of growth (after appropriate interventions) when compared to peers or The interventions needed to obtain adequate level of performance or adequate learning rate are too demanding to be implemented with integrity without special education and related services

69. www.ksdetasn.org Reasons for Use of Dual Discrepancy Students who differ from peers on dual discrepancy have more severe academic and behavioral problems than students who have IQ-achievement discrepancies or low achievement No gender or ethnic bias identified through use of dual discrepancy Requirements based solely on low achievement lack sensitivity and coverage compared to dual discrepancy Identification of students needing the most intensive interventions happened at an earlier age with dual discrepancy criteria than with traditional IQ-achievement discrepancy (Burns & Riley-Tillman, 2009) (Speece, Case, & Molloy, 2003)

70. www.ksdetasn.org RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION Evaluation and Eligibility Determinations using

71. www.ksdetasn.org Moving into an Initial Evaluation Referral from Parents Self-Referral from Adult Student At the point that school staff suspect the student may be a student with an exceptionality and need special education and related services

72. www.ksdetasn.org Documentation Needed Prior to Referral That appropriate instruction was provided to the student, What education interventions and strategies have been implemented, The results of repeated assessments of achievement which reflect the formal assessment of the student’s progress during instruction, That parents have been provided the results The results indicate an evaluation is appropriate

73. www.ksdetasn.org At the Time of Referral 1.Data collected prior to the evaluation are provided to the evaluation team 2.The team determines what data in addition to the existing data will be collected during the evaluation 3.The team prepares the Prior Written Notice and Consent for Evaluation Form 4.The school obtains informed consent from the parent

74. www.ksdetasn.org Outline of Initial Evaluation and Eligibility Determination Process 1. Determine additional data needed – What, if any, additional assessment is needed? – What, if any, additional intervention is needed? 2. Obtain informed parent consent, then collect needed data 3. Conduct two-prong test of eligibility, using Eligibility Indicator Document – Consider Prong 1, including exclusionary criteria and presence of dual discrepancy – Consider Prong 2 4. Determine eligibility, complete eligibility report

75. www.ksdetasn.org Determine Additional Data Needed Conduct a review of the existing data on the child, including- – Evaluations and information provided by the parents of the child – Current classroom-based, local, and state assessments and classroom-based observations – Observations by teachers and related services providers

76. www.ksdetasn.org Determine Additional Data Needed Identify what additional data, if any, are needed to determine: – The present levels of academic achievement and functional performance (related developmental needs) of the child – Whether the child a child with an exceptionality – Whether the child has a need for special education and related services

77. www.ksdetasn.org Considerations for the Determination of any Necessary Additional Data What information is needed to assure a comprehensive evaluation? Is any information needed to identify services and supports needed by the student?

78. www.ksdetasn.org Collect Additional Data Needed The need for additional data must be decided on an individual basis. The evaluation teams identifies which measures to use and who will collect the data.

79. www.ksdetasn.org Determine Eligibility The Two-Prong Test Exceptionality + Need

80. www.ksdetasn.org Eligibility Determination Prong 1 Is the child a child with an exceptionality?

81. www.ksdetasn.org Steps to Answering Prong 1 1.Do the evaluation data match one of the definitions of exceptionality in state/federal regulations? 2.Do any exclusionary criteria apply? 3.Are the data congruent with indicators for that exceptionality? 4.Does the student exhibit a “dual discrepancy”?

82. www.ksdetasn.org Match the Definition The definitions for each of the exceptionality categories are listed in the Eligibility Indicators Document (October, 2011). The team considers whether the student’s data match or do not match the definition of the exceptionality category under consideration.

83. www.ksdetasn.org Exclusionary Factors An evaluation team shall not determine a child to be a child with an exceptionality if the determinant factor is: lack of appropriate instruction in reading, including the essential components of reading instruction (phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary development, reading fluency including oral reading skills, and reading comprehension strategies); or

84. www.ksdetasn.org Exclusionary Factors (continued) lack of appropriate instruction in math; or limited English proficiency; and the child does not otherwise meet the eligibility criteria as a child with an exceptionality

85. www.ksdetasn.org Dual Discrepancy 1.Low level of performance (after appropriate interventions) when compared to peers – Use universal screening data 2.Low rate of growth (after appropriate interventions) when compared to peers – Use progress monitoring data  You must have data to show both low level of performance and low rate of growth in order to meet the dual discrepancy criteria.

86. www.ksdetasn.org Answer Prong 1 1.Do the evaluation data match one of the definitions of exceptionality in state/federal regulations? YES 2.Do any exclusionary criteria apply? NO 3.Are the data congruent with indicators for that exceptionality? YES 4.Does the student demonstrate a ‘dual discrepancy’? YES (or the intensity of the successfully intervention is beyond regular education)

87. www.ksdetasn.org Eligibility Determination Prong 2 Does the child need special education and related services? 4 Decision

88. www.ksdetasn.org Eligibility Determination Determine Whether the Child Needs Special Education and Related Services as a Result of the Exceptionality. – What are the child’s needs related to the intensity of instruction and supports required for the child to be successful? – Does the child have specific needs which are so unique as to require specially designed instruction in order to access and progress in the general education curriculum?

89. www.ksdetasn.org Answer Prong 2 What is needed for the student to participate in the general or an advanced curriculum or age appropriate activities? Data Is there a need for specially designed instruction? YES Is the child’s need for having adapted content, methodology, or delivery of instruction so great that it cannot be provided in regular education without the support of special education? YES

90. www.ksdetasn.org RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION Case Study

91. www.ksdetasn.org Case Study Directions Use the following materials: – RTI Case Study about Luke Skywalker – Evaluation & Eligibility Indicators Document As a table: – Review case study – Discuss and respond to questions on last page

92. www.ksdetasn.org Response to Intervention Case Study Questions 1.At the time of referral, do you think the team already had sufficient data to: – Describe Luke’s current performance and educational needs? – Determine the presence of an exceptionality, including exclusionary criteria? – Determine the need for specially designed instruction? 2.Do you think the team needed to collect additional data beyond what they decided to collect during the evaluation?

93. www.ksdetasn.org Response to Intervention Case Study Questions (continued) 3.Do you think the evidence from general education interventions and the initial evaluation shows a dual discrepancy (discrepant from peers in both level and rate of growth)? 4.Do the results of the information collected match the indicators for a specific learning disability for Prong 1? Do any of the exclusionary criteria apply? 5.Do the results of the information collected match the indicators for a specific learning disability for Prong 2?

94. www.ksdetasn.org RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION Indicator Match Activity

95. www.ksdetasn.org Indicator Match Directions Use the following materials: – Data sets for 2 different children (Data Set #3 and #4) – Evaluation & Eligibility Indicators Document As a table: – Apply data sets to indicators within different exceptionality categories. – Respond to the questions on the data worksheet for each data set.

96. www.ksdetasn.org Skills Needed to apply Response to Intervention Understanding of the problem-solving process Knowledge of curriculum and instruction Knowledge of empirically-based interventions Knowledge of curriculum-related assessment procedures Knowledge of intervention monitoring Knowledge of decision-making procedures

97. www.ksdetasn.org Reflect as a Team What skills do we need to develop? What practices do we need to change? What information do we need to share?

98. www.ksdetasn.org Indicator Match Directions Use the following materials: – Data sets for 2 different children (Data Set #5 and #6) – Evaluation & Eligibility Indicators Document As a table: – Determine the appropriate evaluation method – Apply data sets to indicators within different exceptionality categories. – Respond to the questions on the data worksheet for each data set.

99. www.ksdetasn.org Comparison Directions Use the following materials: – Notes from workshop – Chart paper and markers As a table: – Use the paper and markers provided to develop a Venn diagram regarding additional similarities and differences in the methods – Post your diagram when you are finished – Do a gallery walk when all the diagrams are posted

100. www.ksdetasn.org Comparing the two Methods: Examples What’s the same? – Regulatory requirements for evaluation What’s different? – RtI Method in an MTSS Framework uses a system focus for intervention and data collection for General Education Interventions. – Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses Method uses a student by student approach for General Education Interventions.

101. www.ksdetasn.org Controversies with the Response to Intervention Method Variability in identifying non-responders depending on: – Amount of difference from peers regarding level of performance – Amount of difference in rate of improvement and how rate of improvement is measured Does the RtI Method constitute a comprehensive evaluation? Variability across locations of what constitutes Tier 2/3 interventions (especially regarding intensity) Contextual situation-dependent nature of who is identified

102. www.ksdetasn.org Planning for Next Steps Read the professional literature, especially the reading list (Resource A) provided in the resources. Reflect on your own knowledge, skills, and practice Determine how information from the professional literature and this training should be integrated into your personal practice