The Criteria for Determining SLD When Using an RTI-based Process

Part I

1Session 1

Eligibility for Special Education1. Does the child have a

disability?

Autism Deaf-blindness Deafness Emotional disturbance Hearing impairment Intellectual Disability Multiple disabilities Orthopedic impairment Other health impairment Specific learning disability Speech or Language

impairment Traumatic Brain Injury Visual Impairment

2. Does the child need specially designed instruction?

• Adapting, as appropriate to the needs of an eligible child under this part, the content, methodology, or delivery of instruction—

– (i) To address the unique needs of the child that result from the child’s disability; and

– (ii) To ensure access of the child to the general curriculum, so that the child can meet the educational standards within the jurisdiction of the public agency that apply to all

2

Determining SLD

To determine that a child has an SLD, the school district or LEA shall:Use one of the following two procedures for each child:1. A process based on the child’s response to scientific, research-based

intervention, documenting that• Student received high quality instruction in regular education• Research-based interventions were provided to the student• Student progress was regularly monitored

OR2. A process that examines whether a child exhibits a pattern of

strengths and weaknesses, relative to intellectual ability as defined by a severe discrepancy between intellectual ability and achievement or relative to age

3

§ 14.125(a)(2)

ND Administrative Rule (Chapter 67-23-06; Effective July 2012)

• Highlights– “LEA …. may choose to use the process to determine if a

child has a SLD”– “Using RtI to evaluate for Special Education is one

component of an overall system of implementation…”– “Written documentation describing:

1. Child’s achievement concerns and lack of progress;2. Data from interventions3. Explanation of research-based practices4. Explanation of exclusionary factors5. The need for special education”

4

ND Administrative Rule (Chapter 67-23-06; July 2012)

• 67-23-06-02.Use of response to intervention by local education agencies.• A local education agency may adopt a response to intervention process and may

choose to use the process to determine if a child has a specific learning disability consistent with 34 CFR 300.301-311. Prior to implementation of response to intervention during the evaluation of a student suspected of a having a specific learning disability, a local education agency must demonstrate the completeness of its response to intervention process through:

• Evidence of training in the components of the response to intervention framework;• Adoption of evidence based curriculum, instruction and interventions; and• Demonstration that its response to intervention process includes screening,

diagnostic and progress monitoring assessments and other elements of an approved national standard for the components of the framework.

5

RtI Evaluations are Not…

• an easier way to identify students for SLD nor• the ultimate goal of RtI (one final hoop to

jump through)

6

RtI Evaluations Are…

• comprehensive evaluations supported by research and federal guidelines

• focused on student need and aligning those resources to the need

• less assessment of the learner and more use of existing data directly linked to that student’s response to instruction

7

Specific Learning Disability

Inclusionary

Exclusionary

1. Academic Achievement

Failure to meet age- or grade-level State standards in one of eight areas:

oral expression

listening comprehension

written expression

basic reading skill

reading fluency skill

reading comprehension

mathematics calculation

mathematics problem solving

2. Model

Discrepancy: Pattern of strengths & weaknesses, relative to intellectual ability as defined by a severe discrepancy between intellectual ability and achievement, or relative to age or grade.

OR

RTI: Lack of progress in response to scientifically based instruction

3. Rule Out

Vision, hearing, or motor problems

Intellectual Disability

emotional disturbance

cultural and/or environmental issues

limited English proficiency

4. Consider Lack of Instruction

Appropriate instruction by qualified personnel

Repeated assessments

Observation

Four Criteria for Determining Specific Learning Disability

8

Four Questions for SLD Eligibility

1. Adequate achievement: Does the child achieve adequately for the child’s age or meet state-approved grade level standards?

2. Eligibility Model: Does the child shown a lack of response to scientifically based instruction?

3. Have other factors or conditions been ruled out?4. Are the student’s academic concerns the result of a

lack of instruction?

9

Specific Learning Disability

Inclusionary

Exclusionary

1. Academic Achievement

Failure to meet age- or grade-level State standards in one of eight areas:

oral expression

listening comprehension

written expression

basic reading skill

reading fluency skill

reading comprehension

mathematics calculation

mathematics problem solving

2. Model

Discrepancy: Pattern of strengths & weaknesses, relative to intellectual ability as defined by a severe discrepancy between intellectual ability and achievement, or relative to age or grade.

OR

RTI: Lack of progress in response to scientifically based instruction

3. Rule Out

Vision, hearing, or motor problems

Intellectual Disability

emotional disturbance

cultural and/or environmental issues

limited English proficiency

4. Consider Lack of Instruction

Appropriate instruction by qualified personnel

Repeated assessments

Observation

Four Criteria for Determining Specific Learning Disability

10

11

ASSESSING ACHIEVEMENT LEVEL

Does the child achieve adequately for the child’s age or meet state-approved grade level standards?

Criterion #1:

ASSESSING ACHIEVEMENT LEVEL One or more of the 8 subcategories of SLD

oral expression listening comprehension written expression basic reading skill reading fluency skill reading comprehension mathematics calculation mathematics problem solving

12

Lack of achievement is in relation to age or grade-level standards

• The student’s assessed achievement, in at least one of the eight SLD areas, should be significantly behind age- or grade-peers on multiple measures

• Achievement here is related to age or grade, not intellectual level

13

How low should a student’s skills be to qualify?

• Research has indicated that a score of the 30-40th percentile on nationally normed benchmark tests or individual tests of academic achievement is equivalent to a proficient score on most statewide tests.

14

How low should a student’s skills be to qualify?

AIMSweb:– Target = Approximately 45%ile = 80% chance of

being proficient on the state assessment

DIBELs:– Benchmark = 80% likelihood of meeting

subsequent grade-level reading outcome goals

15

How low should a student’s skills be to qualify?

• A student should be significantly below this level

• Recommendations from researchers and other states (rough parameters):– 10th percentile– 2.0x discrepant – 1.5 Standard Deviation – 2 grade levels behind

16

What assessments?• First use any existing standardized norm referenced

assessments whenever possible:– CBM such as AIMSweb/DIBELs (RCBM, MAZE, TEL, TEN,

MCOMP, MCAP, CWS)– NWEA – STAR Reading or Math Assessment– NDSA– Classroom Formative Evaluation or other diagnostic

assessments (DRAs, CBE, etc.)• If necessary local (grade or class level) comparisons can be

created (will need to use the 2.0x formula)

17

2.0X Calculation (creating a local comparison)

• Divide norm group score by student’s score

• Result expressed as a ratio of deficiency

• Example: 120 wcpm / 60 wcpm = 2.0X

• In this example, the result is 2.0X, which is verbalized as “2 times deficient in relation to local norm”

18

19

John – grade 3Sonia – grade 5

Compare their attained scores (denominators) with the scores of their grade level norm group (numerators).

John - 3rd ORF: 100 wcpm = 2.0X 50 wcpm

Sonia - 5th ORF: 130 wcpm = 2.36X 55 wcpm

Examples

May we use individual norm-referenced tests of academic achievement in determining the extent of the deficiency?

May we?

• Yes! There is nothing legally that prevents a team from doing so.

Should we?• It depends on how secure

you are with other data regarding the student’s deficiency in relation to standards

• If you have a preponderance of other data (two+ assessments that converge and other supporting information), there is no reason to conduct more assessment

• If you don’t, you may have reason to conduct use them

20

Additional Guideline FAQs

#8: Should we compare a student’s performance to that of age level peers or to grade level standards when determining discrepancy/gap and rate of progress? What about a student who has been retained?

– Each district’s decision, more common to use grade level– Early childhood may use age based norms– For peers that may have been retained, grade level

standards are recommended

21

Additional Guideline FAQs

#23. Can existing evaluation data be used to meet the requirements of a comprehensive evaluation? When are additional data necessary beyond the use of existing data when using RtI in determining eligibility?

– Yes, screening data, observations, CBE, progress monitoring data are all necessary components of an RtI evaluation that typically exist at the point of Spec. Ed. Evaluation. (and may be sufficient)

– The school team, which includes the parents, has the discretion to determine if additional data is necessary to complete the evaluation process

22

Specific Learning Disability

Inclusionary

Exclusionary

1. Academic Achievement

Failure to meet age- or grade-level State standards in one of eight areas:

oral expression

listening comprehension

written expression

basic reading skill

reading fluency skill

reading comprehension

mathematics calculation

mathematics problem solving

2. Model

Discrepancy: Pattern of strengths & weaknesses, relative to intellectual ability as defined by a severe discrepancy between intellectual ability and achievement, or relative to age or grade.

OR

RTI: Lack of progress in response to scientifically based instruction

3. Rule Out

Vision, hearing, or motor problems

Intellectual Disability

emotional disturbance

cultural and/or environmental issues

limited English proficiency

4. Consider Lack of Instruction

Appropriate instruction by qualified personnel

Repeated assessments

Observation

Next Steps

23