Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
RTI and Eligibility: A Comprehensive Review
of Best-Practices2011 ODE/COSA Fall
Conference for Special Education
Administrators
Introduction• Welcome & Introductions
• Overview of the day
• Comprehensive review of essential features (“Best practices “ approach; Checklist)
• Session Etiquette
Big Ideas
• little rti and BIG RTI, or “The Tail that Wagged the Dog”
• RTI focuses directly on core requirements of ALL SLD evaluations, regardless of method
• RTI & LD Eligibility: We are all members of the assessment team
Essential Requirements for LD Eligibility Regardless of
Method• Low Skills• Appropriate core instruction
– Has always been an exclusionary criteria
• Progress Monitoring• Exclusionary Criteria• Student has an SLD AND Educational
Need that Requires Specially Designed Instruction
The Historical Reality of SLD: Doing the Right Thing
• “For more than 25 years, accumulated evidence has strongly suggested that most students labeled SLD are those students with severe educational needs, regardless of the stated eligibility criterion… What is unique about RTI is that educational need is a necessary but not sufficient requirement for SLD identification” (Shinn, 2007)
RTI Adds…
Low Skills And Slow ProgressAndNeed for specially designed instruction
RTI Also Provides…
– Focus on core curriculum– Universal screening for early identification and
intervention– Researched based interventions– Effective progress monitoring used to guide
decision making– Systematic approach to determining
Educational Need
Who is Using RTI?
Zirkel & Thomas, Teaching Exceptional Children, 2010
• All but a handful of states explicitly Require or Recommend RTI
• Degree to which components are clearly defined ranges wildly
SLD Rates (Education Week, Sept 8)
• SLD rates declined from 6.1% in 2001-01 to 5.2% in 2007-08 (15% decline)
(US Dept. of Ed. 2009 Digest of Ed. Statistics)
• Not identifying for financial accountability?
• Shift in eligibility categories?
• Likely related to RTI , early intervention, improvement in instruction
Legal Implications*
• Cases involving RTI are limited– No Supreme Court cases; only 1 Federal Circuit Court of
Appeals– Most cases lower Federal courts or State Hearings Officers
• Some favorable– Students are not Eligible for SPED if weaknesses are
successfully addressed through Gen Ed
• Most decisions against LEAs:– Child-find– Time before evaluation
• No cases regarding lack of cognitive assessment
*Yell, M. & Walker, D. (2010). Legal Basis Of RTI: Analysis and Implications. Exceptionality, 18: 124-137
Bottom Line• Comprehensive system of support
that benefits all students• Early and sustained instructional
support and intervention are integral components
• Systematic approach that directly addresses eligibility criteria
• By definition identifies students with demonstrated need for specially designed instruction
FrameworkEssential Features of an SLD eligibility system
using Response to Intervention.1. Screening2. Core Instruction with fidelity3. Interventions with fidelity4. Progress Monitoring5. Teaming/Data-Based Decision Making: Tier 2
or 3 Group Interventions6. Teaming/Data-Based Decision Making:
Individual Problem Solving7. Special Ed Referral and Evaluation Report
Oregon Response to Intervention LD Evaluation System Component Checklist
Component Action Items In Practice Yes or No?
Policies & Procedures Yes or No?
Person(s) responsible
1. Screening Research-based screener used with ALL students 3 times per year Fidelity checks used to ensure validity of data Screening data used to evaluate core effectiveness Screening data used to identify at-risk students
2. Core Instruction with Fidelity
90 minute core block (reading) Research-based core program Process for ensuring fidelity of core program implementation Explicit, effective instructional practices trained and used Process for ensuring effective instructional practices in classrooms
3. Interventions with Fidelity
Interventions are research-based Implemented interventions are chosen from district protocol Interventions occur outside of 90 minute core instruction Interventionists have appropriate training Process for ensuring fidelity of intervention implementation
4. Progress Monitoring
Research-based progress monitoring measures used Frequency of monitoring is appropriate (i.e. at least 2x monthly for students receiving intensive support and 1x monthly for students receiving strategic support)
Progress monitoring data is graphed Staff member(s) identified who is/are responsible for organizing and storing the progress monitoring data
5. Teaming/Data-Based Decision Making: Group Interventions
System for matching interventions to student need based on multiple data sources
Grade level teams meet to review progress data regularly (e.g. every 4-8 weeks)
Decision Rules created AND followed around: Followed Created When to change interventions What qualifies as an “intervention change”
Intervention plan or tracking form used to document interventions and intervention changes for all students in interventions
1. Screening
2. Core Instruction with Fidelity
3. Interventions with Fidelity
4. Progress Monitoring
5. Teaming/Data-Based Decision Making: Group Interventions
6. Teaming/Data-Based Decision Making: Individual Problem Solving
7. Special Ed Referral and Evaluation Report
1. Screening
Universal Screening: Why
• Required for all students• Determine sufficiency of core for
evaluation questions– “Lack of appropriate instruction”
checkbox
• Standardizing the process
1. Universal Screening
• Research-based screener used with ALL students 3 times per year
• Fidelity checks used to ensure validity of data– Who conducts fidelity checks?– How often?– How is that data used?
• Refresher trainings for staff?• Retest some students?
1. Universal Screening
• Screening data used to evaluate core effectiveness– Do you have schoolwide meetings to
systematically improve core instruction?– 80% proficient is the goal– Less than 80% proficient should not
prevent you from determining a child’s academic deficits are due to lack of instruction.
• Are you providing instruction in the Big 5?• What do observations of core instruction tell
you?
1. Universal Screening
• Screening data used to identify at-risk students– Do you have decision rules?
• Which students receive interventions?• How many receive interventions?
LD Checklist: Screening
Talk Time
• Does your district use a universal screening tool to: 1. Systematically identify students who
will receive interventions?2. Evaluate the health of the core?
1. Screening
2. Core Instruction with Fidelity
Core Instruction: Why
• Required for all students• Determine sufficiency of core for
evaluation questions– “Lack of appropriate instruction”
checkbox
• Standardizing the process
2. Core Instruction…
• 90 minute core block (reading) • Research-based core program • Explicit, effective instructional
practices trained and used– Instruction is more important than
curriculum– How do you provide training on effective
instruction, active engagement, and behavior management?
2. …with Fidelity
• Process for ensuring fidelity of core program implementation
• Process for ensuring effective instructional practices in classrooms– What is “fidelity”?
Fidelity to…
•The BIG 5 of Reading•The scope and sequence•State standards
Worksheets Fidelity
2. …with Fidelity
• Process for ensuring fidelity of core program implementation
• Process for ensuring effective instructional practices in classrooms– Who ensures fidelity?– What standards/criteria do you set for
fidelity?
LD Checklist: Core Instruction with Fidelity
Talk Time
• Has your district defined “fidelity to the core” and does your staff have a clear understanding of what that is?
1. Screening
2. Core Instruction with Fidelity
3. Interventions with Fidelity
Interventions: Why
• “Research-based” interventions are required– Defining an “intervention”
• Puts the “intervention” in “Response-to-Intervention”
• Ensures all students are getting targeted instruction– It helps you know “what works” for struggling
students
• Helps demonstrate the need for specially designed instruction
3. Interventions
• Interventions are research-based• Implemented interventions are
chosen from district protocol• Interventions occur outside of 90
minute core instruction• Interventionists have appropriate
training• Process for ensuring fidelity of
intervention implementation
Resources for Evaluating Interventions
• Florida Center for Reading Research– http://www.fcrr.org/fcrrreports/LReports.
aspx
• What Works Clearinghouse– http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/reports/
LD Checklist: Interventions with
Fidelity
Talk Time
• Has your district/school established a protocol with clearly defined interventions?
1. Screening
2. Core Instruction with Fidelity
3. Interventions with Fidelity
4. Progress Monitoring
Progress Monitoring: Why
• Under any SLD identification model, “frequent monitoring” is the law
• Helps objectively evaluate a student’s “response-to-intervention”
4. Progress Monitoring
• Research-based progress monitoring measures used
• Frequency of monitoring is appropriate (i.e. at least 2x monthly for students receiving intensive support and 1x monthly for students receiving strategic support)
• Progress monitoring data is graphed• Staff member(s) identified who is/are
responsible for organizing and storing the progress monitoring data
LD Checklist: Progress Monitoring
Talk Time
• Has your district/school established guidelines for the frequency of progress monitoring?
• Is data graphed?
1. Screening
2. Core Instruction with Fidelity
3. Interventions with Fidelity
4. Progress Monitoring
5. Teaming/Data-Based Decision Making: Group Interventions
Teaming/Data-Based Decision Making: Why
• Ensures appropriate interventions provided prior to or during evaluation
• Standardizes the process– Decision making as a team
5. Teaming/Data-Based Decision Making: Group
Interventions• System for matching interventions to
student need based on multiple data sources– CBM’s: DIBELS, AIMSWEB, easyCBM– In-program assessments: weekly tests, unit
tests, checkouts, mastery tests– Informal diagnostics: phonics screener, DRA,
QRI, CORE assessments, Curriculum-Based Evaluation
– Systematic teacher observational data
5. Teaming/Data-Based Decision Making: Group
Interventions• Grade level teams meet to review progress
data regularly (e.g. every 4-8 weeks)• Decision Rules created AND followed
around:– When to change interventions– What qualifies as an “intervention change”
• Intervention plan or tracking form used to document interventions and intervention changes for all student in interventions
EBIS STUDENT INTERVENTION PROFILE – READING
Student Name: ____________________ Date: ______________ ID Number: _____________ Initial Data Information: Initial Grade Level: __________ Attach DIBELS Individual Student Profile and Progress Monitoring Report or IPAS Report. Most Recent OAKS RIT Scores & %iles: (grade taken ___): R/L ____ M ___ Wr. ___ Sci. ____ ELL Language Level: __________ Math CBM Screening Score: __________ Attendance Issues: _____________YTD Absences ____ YTD Tardies ____ Behavioral Issues: ______________________________________________ (If behavioral concerns, attach SWIS Individual Student Report or data on behavior plan) Number and times of Health Room Visits in past month: ___________________ Intervention #1 Start Date: ____________ Current Grade Level: _______ Targeted Skill: Phonological awareness __ Phonics __ Fluency __ Compr. __ Vocabulary __ Curriculum (From Reading Protocol): __________________________________________ Group Size: 1-3: ____ 4-7: ____ 8 or more: ____ Frequency: DAILY Duration: 10 min (K only): ____ 15 min.: ____ 30 min.: ____ 45 min.: ____Other: __________ End Date: ______________ Attach Progress Monitoring Data Number of intervention sessions attended during intervention period #1_____ Total ses sions possible ____ Notes:
Intervention #2 Start Date: ____________ Current Grade Level: _______ Targeted Skill: Phonological awareness __ Phonics __ Fluency __ Compr. __ Vocabulary __ Curriculum (From Reading Protocol): __________________________________________ Group Size: 1-3: ____ 4-7: ____ 8 or more: ____ Frequency: DAILY Duration: 10 min (K only): ____ 15 min.: ____ 30 min.: ____ 45 min.: ____ other: _________ End Date: ______________ Attach Progress Monitoring Data Number of intervention sessions attended during intervention period #2_____ Total sessions possible ____ Notes:
Intervention #3 Start Date: ____________ Current Grade Level: _______ Targeted Skill: Phonological awareness __ Phonics __ Fluency __ Compr. __ Vocabulary __ Curriculum (From Reading Protocol): _________________________________________ Group Size: 1-3: ____ 4-7: ____ 8 or more: ____ Frequency: DAILY Duration: 10 min (K only): ____ 15 min.: ____ 30 min.: ____ 45 min.: ____ other: _________ End Date: ______________ Attach Progress Monitoring Data Number of intervention sessions attended during intervention period #3_____ Total sessions possible ____ Notes:
Teacher/School K __________________ 1 __________________ 2 __________________ 3__________________ 4 __________________ 5 __________________
LD Checklist: Teaming/Data-Based Decision Making: Group
Interventions
Talk Time
• Do you have clear decision rules and does staff understand how and when to use them?
1. Screening
2. Core Instruction with Fidelity
3. Interventions with Fidelity
4. Progress Monitoring
5. Teaming/Data-Based Decision Making: Group Interventions
6. Teaming/Data-Based Decision Making: Individual Problem Solving
Problem Solving Non-Example
Problem Solving Non-Example
Teaming/Data-Based Decision Making: Why
• Determine what the problem is and why it is happening…… in order to individualize and intensify
instruction
• Rule out alternative hypotheses and exclusionary factors
• Helps demonstrate the need for specially designed instruction
6. Teaming/Data-Based Decision Making: Individual
Problem Solving• Individual problem-solving team
meeting occurs after group interventions are unsuccessful (Number of unsuccessful group interventions prior to initiating problem-solving is based on district policies & procedures)– Meetings occur as needed– How many group interventions before
initiating problem solving?
6. Teaming/Data-Based Decision Making: Individual
Problem Solving• Notice provided to parents regarding
district’s RTI procedures and parent’s right to request an evaluation
• Oregon Department of Education Guidance:– Note: If using a response to intervention model, the
parents must have been notified of the following prior to initiation: ODE and district policies regarding the amount and nature of student performance data to be collected and the general education services to be provided; strategies for increasing the child’s rate of learning; and the parent’s right to request an evaluation.
Office of Special Education Programs
Memo, Jan 2010• Indicates that a school’s RTI system
cannot be used to delay an Evaluation for Eligibility under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
• “States and LEAs have an obligation to ensure that evaluations of children suspected of having a disability are not delayed or denied because of implementation of an RTI strategy”
• A parent request for evaluation can still be denied by the school district if the child is not suspected of having a disability. However…
• “It would be inconsistent with the evaluation provisions… for an LEA to reject a referral and delay provision of an initial evaluation on the basis that a child has not participated in an RTI framework”
Office of Special Education Programs
Memo, Jan 2010
6. Teaming/Data-Based Decision Making: Individual
Problem Solving• Staff with pertinent information
about target student attend the problem-solving meeting– Literacy Specialist– Classroom Teacher– School Psych and/or Counselor– Parents– Others as needed (ELL Teacher,
Principal, Special Education Teacher, Speech Pathologist)
Problem Solving Meetings are Solution Focused
• Focus is on:1. Data2. Educationally Relevant/Alterable
Factors
What changes can WE make that will provide the best chance of success for
the child?
Focus on what you can change
Focus on what you can change
Variables Related to Student Achievement
•Desire to learn•Strategies for learning•Knowledge•Skills•Prior content knowledge•Self-efficacy/helplessness
•Race •Genetic potential•Gender•Birth Order•Disposition•Health•Physical difference•IQ•Disability category •Personal history
•Quality of instruction• Pedagogical knowledge• Content knowledge
•Quality of curriculum•Quality of learning environment•Quality of evaluation •Quality and quantity of time/content
•Family income and resources•Family housing•Parent years of schooling•Mobility•Members of family•Family values•Socioeconomic status•Family history
Alterable
Unalterable(hard to change)
Within the student External to the student
Is it alterable? Is it educationally
relevant?1. Kristin’s DIBELS scores indicate she was in
the “low risk” range last year.2. Sarah’s file indicates that her parents are
divorced and her father lives in Missouri.3. The special education director told you that
Erin’s brother receives special education services.
4. Javon missed 24 days of school last year.5. Pam’s teacher indicated that her
noncompliant behavior began just after winter break.
62
63
The Problem Solving Process
1. Define the Problem: • What is the problem and
why is it happening?2. Design Intervention:
• What are we going to do about the problem?
3. Implement and Monitor: • Are we doing what we
intended to do?4. Evaluate Effectiveness:
• Did our plan work?
Defining the Problem
• Need to further define the problem to know how to develop an individualized intervention
• Gather as much information as needed to define the problem prior to the Problem Solving Meeting
• Use existing data first, then determine if you need more
6. Teaming/Data-Based Decision Making: Individual
Problem Solving• The following information is brought
to the problem-solving meeting:– Documentation of prior interventions with
progress monitoring data– A file review – A developmental history – English Language Learner information is
collected (if appropriate)– Data comparing student to intervention cohort– Other relevant diagnostic data (if appropriate)
66
10
20
30
40
Dec.S cores
Feb.S cores
J an.S cores
Marc hS cores
AprilS cores
MayS cores
J uneS cores
60
50
AimlineAmy
Chase
Mary
Isaiah
Cohort Data
67
10
20
30
40
Dec.S cores
Feb.S cores
J an.S cores
Marc hS cores
AprilS cores
MayS cores
J uneS cores
60
50
Aimline
Amy
Mary
Isaiah
Cohort Data
Chase
VocabularyReading Comprehension
Phonemic Awareness
Phonics(Alphabetic Principle)
Oral ReadingFluency & Accuracy
What do you know? What do you still need to know?
What do you know? What do you still need to know?
• Is there an attendance issue?• Are there health/vision issues?• Are there language issues?• Are there acculturation issues?
6. Teaming/Data-Based Decision Making: Individual
Problem Solving• Documented problem definition, problem
hypothesis, and intervention plan are developed at the individual problem-solving meeting
Problem Definition: Example
• Harry (2nd grader) is currently reading a median of 44 words correct per minute (wcpm) with 83% accuracy when given 2nd grade level text. He also answers an average of 3/10 comp questions correct on weekly in-class tests. 2nd grade students in his school are reading an average of 85 wcpm with 97% accuracy on 2nd grade text and answering 9/10 comp questions correct.
Problem Definition: Non-Example
• Harry struggles with being a fluent reader and is not meeting the 2nd grade reading benchmark. He makes a lot of mistakes and is currently reading at a 1st grade level. He also has difficulties answering comprehension questions at grade level and does poorly on his weekly reading tests.
Problem Hypothesis
“Why is the student not performing at the expected level?”
(Problem Hypothesis)
“What is the student’s instructional need?”
(Designing an Intervention)
Hypothesis Development
• Data-Based Hypothesis: – Harry’s reading fluency and
comprehension problems occur because he does not have strategies for decoding consonant digraphs (ch, sh, etc), silent-e words, and r-controlled vowels (ar, ir, er, or). His fluency and comprehension will improve if he receives additional intensive instruction in these decoding strategies.
Intervention Design
Develop an Intervention Plan
• What skill is needed?• What curriculum will be used?• What instructional strategies will be
used?• How long will the student receive the
intervention?• Who will provide the intervention?
Develop an Intervention Plan
Before beginning your final intervention you must answer the question:
How will your team define a successful intervention?
How do you document your:
Problem definition?Problem hypothesis? Intervention plan?
Problem Solving Worksheet Sample
Tigard-Tualatin School District
Implement and Monitor
Fidelity of Implementation
• Fidelity to curriculum– All lesson parts taught following outlined procedures– Curriculum decision rules followed (lesson checkouts,
mastery tests, etc)
• Fidelity to research-based instructional procedures– High pacing (high rate of student opportunities to
respond)– Corrective feedback– Behavior management system evident– Students are accurate before moving on to new
material
Talk Time
• Do you currently have a system for intensifying and individualizing interventions when students continue to struggle?
Evaluate Effectiveness
6. Teaming/Data-Based Decision Making: Individual
Problem Solving• Individualized intervention plans are
reviewed and further steps determined based on district policies & procedures.– When does the team come back
together to review the intervention’s effectiveness?
• Progress monitoring data• Fidelity Data• Cohort Data
6. Teaming/Data-Based Decision Making: Individual
Problem Solving• Individualized intervention plans are
reviewed and further steps determined based on district policies & procedures.– If student continues to have low skills
and slow progress after at least ___ weeks of individualized intervention (see district decision rules), the student is automatically referred for Special Education Evaluation.
– TTSD SPED Policies & Procedures
LD Checklist: Teaming/Data-Based Decision Making: Individual Problem
Solving
1. Screening
2. Core Instruction with Fidelity
3. Interventions with Fidelity
4. Progress Monitoring
5. Teaming/Data-Based Decision Making: Group Interventions
6. Teaming/Data-Based Decision Making: Individual Problem Solving
7. Special Ed Referral and Evaluation Report
Comprehensive Evaluation
• “It’s a data-gathering process that includes child observation. It may or may not use standardized tests…. If you’re in an RTI context, its to understand why the child has not responded to instruction. “
• Jack Fletcher, Ph.D.
Comprehensive Evaluation
• (10) "Evaluation" means procedures used to determine whether the child has a disability, and the nature and extent of the special education and related services that the child needs.
Oregon Administrative Rules, 581-015-2000
Comprehensive SLD Eval:
Regardless of Eval Modela) Academic assessmentb) Review of recordsc) Observation (including regular education
setting)d) Progress monitoring datag) Other:
A. If needed, developmental historyB. If needed, an assessment of cognition, etc.C. If needed, a medical statementD. Any other assessments to determine impact of
disabilityOregon Administrative Rules, 581-015-2170
Comprehensive SLD Eval:
RTI Modele) …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; andiv. Allows for interpretation of the effectiveness of
intervention.
Oregon Administrative Rules, 581-015-2170
SPED Referrals and Evaluations
• All staff need to understand: – There is a standardized legal process to
followSpecific questions must be answered to determine a student is eligible for special education:
1. The student has low achievement2. The student has made limited progress
despite receiving interventions3. The student has an instructional need
SPED Referrals and Evaluations
• All staff need to understand:
Determining whether or not a student has a disability is one of the most high stakes decision a school can make for
a child
Special Education Process
• Referral• Evaluation Planning Meeting• Eligibility Determination Meeting
What should be included in the referral?
• The information gathered from the problem solving meeting– File review– Student Intervention Profile– Developmental history– Recent progress monitoring data– ELL information– Data comparing student to intervention cohort– Diagnostic data if needed– Hypothesis worksheet
• Completed special education referral form
What do you do after you receive the referral?
• Review referral data to determine what other information is needed to complete the SLD Eligibility Form– Low skills– Slow progress– Documentation of interventions– Observation of student in general education
setting– Information about Exclusionary Factors
• Set date and notify parents about the Evaluation Planning Meeting
Evaluation Planning Meeting
• Conduct Evaluation Planning Meeting– Determine if you need to evaluate
• Do you need any additional information?• Is the student exhibiting low skills and slow
progress across data sources?
– Determine and document what additional information you need as a team (Permission to Evaluate Form)
– Get parent permission to evaluate in the areas you determined
– Provide care giver with Parents Rights brochure
How do you know if a student has SLD?
• Low academic skills
• Slow Progress
• Instructional Need
• Data indicating the student has significantly low skills as compared to research-based norms and benchmarks.
Determining if the student has low skills:
State SLD Eligibility Form
Low skills
• Low skills – CBM: DIBELS, AIMSweb, easyCBM
• What is the student’s current performance?• Where should the student be at for the
grade level? (norm or benchmark)
– State Testing: OAKS• What is the student’s percentile?
– Achievement Tests: WIAT-2, WJ-III• What is the student’s standard score and
percentile?
How Low is Low?
• General Guidelines (district determines guidelines)– CBMs
• Intensive range?• Below the 16th percentile?• More than 2 times discrepant?
– OAKS• Below the 16th percentile?
– Achievement Tests• Below the 16th percentile?
What if the data are mixed?
• CBM data: indicate intensive rangeAND
• OAKS data: indicate average range• What data do you place more
emphasis on?– CBM data– Look at in program assessments too
Talk Time
• What assessments can your school/district use to determine if a student’s academic skills are significantly low?
• Data indicating the student has not made significant progress to close their achievement gap…
Determining if a student is making slow progress:
State SLD Eligibility Form: Slow Progress…
• Data indicating the student has not made significant progress to close his/her achievement gap…– Decision rule about points below the
aimline• Typically 4 consecutive data points below the
aimline• Trendline
– What is adequate growth?• National growth rates• Cohort growth rates
What is slow progress?
National Growth Rates
Grade Realistic Ambitious
1 2.0 words/week 3.0 words/week
2 1.5 words/week 2.0 words/week
3 1.0 words/week 1.5 words/week
4 .85 words/week 1.1 words/week
5 .50 words/week .80 words/week
Source: Fuchs et al, (1993)
110
10
20
30
40
Dec.S cores
Feb.S cores
J an.S cores
Marc hS cores
AprilS cores
MayS cores
J uneS cores
60
50
AimlineAmy
Chase
Mary
Isaiah
Cohort Data
Evaluation Report includes the following:
Slow Progress• Progress monitoring data
– Chart and graph
• Comparison of the expected rate of progress
• Interventions provided– In conjunction with the progress
monitoring data
• Data indicating the student has an instructional need for special education services (included description of needed instructional supports)
Determining Instructional Need:
How you determine instructional need?
• It comes down to the balance: How does the weight of the intervention compare to the rate of progress?
• Data indicating the student has an instructional need for special education services (included description of needed instructional supports)– Student has been provided with an
explicit research based intervention– Student has made limited progress
despite receiving the explicit research based intervention
Evaluation report includes the following: Instructional
Need
• An observation of the child’s academic performance and behavior in a regular education setting (related to the area of concern)
Evaluation report includes the following: Observation
State SLD Eligibility Form
• An observation of the child’s academic performance and behavior in a regular education setting (related to the area of concern)
• What observational data do you have that can help instructional planning?
– Opportunities to Respond– Correct Academic Responding– Student Engagement (On-Task vs. Off-Task)– Comparison to classroom peers
What is the focus of the observation?:
• Data indicating exclusionary factors (language, health, another disability, lack of instruction etc) are not the primary cause of the student’s learning deficit
Evaluation report includes the following:
How do you determine if there is a lack of appropriate instruction?
• Attendance• Instruction
Remember……Less than 80% at benchmark for the grade level should not prevent you from determining a child’s academic deficits are due to lack of instruction.
• Examine classroom instruction– Are students engaged in the instruction?– Is the student engaged in the instruction?– Is it explicit enough?
LD Checklist: Special Ed Referral & Evaluation
Report
Baby Steps
Baby Steps
RTI: IT’S OK• The LD Roundtable recommended it
• IDEA Established it
• Most states recommend or require it
• NASP supports it
• The Courts have upheld it
• It’s the RIGHT THING TO DO
Thoughts?Questions?
