Specific Learning Disability:

1. Specific Learning Disability: Accurate, Defensible, & Compliant Identification Mississippi Department of Education

2. Purpose of the Day • To examine the current practices and policies related to the identification of specific learning disabilities in order to ensure compliance with Mattie T.

3. Expected Outcomes • Participants will be able to calculate compliance with Mattie T. with regard to SLD • Participants will be thoroughly familiar with requirements to support identification of SLD

4. A Caveat About the Day • Remember that the focus of the day is on achieving and maintaining compliance with federal & state law and preferred professional practices. • Any time professional practices are examined, there is a tendency to react defensively. But, there is no intention to offend, only to learn how the school system can become & remain compliant while ensuring better results for students.

5. Compliance with the SLD identification rate differential Calculations: • African-American students with SLD divided by the number of African-American enrollment with SLD x 100 = %age Af-Am with SLD • White (all other) students with SLD divided by number of White students enrollment x 100 = %age White with SLD

6. Compliance with the SLD identification rate differential • Subtraction Problem • ____ %age Af-Am w/SLD • - ____ %age White w/SLD • ____ %points differential (or “SLD identification rate differential”)

7. Compliance with the SLD identification rate differential • “Every LEA (except those specified in subparagraph in subparagraph 20(a)(4) below) shall reduce its SLD identification rate differential to 1.85 within seven years.”

8. Compliance with the SLD identification rate differential • LEAs whose white student enrollment comprises four percent of its total student enrollment or whose white student enrollment is twenty students or less shall be required to attain and maintain a district-wide SLD identification rate of 5.65% or less within seven years.

9. Compliance with the SLD identification rate differential Questions: • What is your current differential for SLD? • How many Af-Am students with SLD would be identified in order to be at the 1.85 percentage point differential?

10. Next Steps ? • Examine Practices of recent Identification of SLD • Determine the degree of implementation of current requirements for 3 Tiers, TST, & contemporary assessment practices. • Consider whether changes are needed to achieve & maintain compliance

11. Individual Protocol • 3 Sections: • Effective Classroom • Teacher Support Team • Individual Assessment • Items on form • Format: Yes or No (No = noncompliance)

12. Most Important Item • Evidence of appropriate academic instruction in reading and mathematics (‘scientifically-based instruction in reading’).

13. Early Intervening Services (EIS) & Response to Intervention (RtI) Decisions(3 Tiers of Teaching) Students successful receiving scientifically-based instruction 1 Note: No Program Titles are listed (70-80%) Students successful receiving intensive research-based services 2 (10 – 30%) 3 (8 -10%)

14. Accountability Questions • Are xx% or more students proficient or above based on latest state performance data or universal screening? • If No, provide assistance in curriculum & instruction until student performance is increased. • If Yes, determine number of remaining students in need of interventions.

15. Early Intervening Services (EIS) & Response to Intervention (RtI) Decisions (4 Tiers of Teaching) Students successfully responding to routine discipline 1 Note: No Program Titles are listed (70 - 85 %) Students successfully responding to small group research-based interventions 2 (15 – 30%) Students responding to individual intensive interventions 3 (3 - 5%)

16. Unstated Assumptions in a Referral The student of concern: • Has experienced appropriate instruction during his/her educational history • Is placed with (an) experienced, prepared teacher(s) in a well-organized, adequately resourced classroom • Is exposed to research-based curricula delivered according to the design • Has teacher(s) using a data oriented, problem solving approach to address concerns • Has an experienced person available to facilitate assistance for the teacher(s) Applies to Tier 1

17. Teacher Support Team General Education Requirements in support of accurate identification of a specific learning disability (SLD)

18. Teacher Support Team • Documentation of presence of appropriate members on the Teacher Support Team to assist in development of intervention strategies?

19. Interventions • Description of a scientifically-based intervention was provided? • Intervention meets minimum requirements? http://www.w-w-c.org/ http://www.promisingpractices.net/ http://coexgov.securesites.net/index.php?keyword=a4366358b747d4 http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/rigorousevid/index.html

20. Data on Progress • Evidence of the use of appropriate data collection methods to monitor student progress? http://www.studentprogress.org/

21. Individual Assessment Professional Implementation of Ethical Practices http://www.nasponline.org/pdf/ProfessionalCond.pdf

22. Observations (1) • Appropriate personnel performed classroom observations to assess student needs?

23. Observations (2) • Observations included quantifiable data comparing student to peers?

24. Adequate Time • Evidence of appropriate time period to fairly evaluate effectiveness of the intervention? http://www.sp-ebi.org/ http://www.nasponline.org/information/pp_prevresearch.html http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/news/coverStories/evidence_based_interventions.php

25. Appropriate Frequency • Intervention sessions were frequent enough that an effect would be expected?

26. Integrity Check • Evidence of evaluation of treatment or procedural integrity measures that ensured proper implementation of intervention components throughout the intervention?

27. Analysis • Results of the intervention were analyzed and evaluated for effectiveness or ineffectiveness to (dis)confirm possible presence of a disability (and proceed to eligibility evaluation)?

28. Trained Personnel • Presence of appropriate personnel on the eligibility team to assist in determining eligibility and recommendations for goals and benchmarks?

29. Appropriate Instruments • Assessment instruments are appropriate for evaluating current referral concerns (e.g., reliable and valid for concern and student characteristics)?

30. Addition • Clerical calculations were performed appropriately?

31. Trained Personnel • Assessment instruments were administered by trained & certified personnel?

32. Ruling Out Other Reasons • Evidence that effects of environment, culture or economic disadvantage were ruled out?

33. Ruling Out Other Reasons • Evidence that effects of visual, hearing or motor disability were ruled out?

34. Ruling Out Other Reasons • Evidence that mental retardation or emotional disability were ruled out as a primary explanation for student needs?

35. Logical Conclusion • Documented specific rationale for eligibility is consistent with the referral concern?

36. Scores Consistent • Test scores were in the appropriate range to support the rationale for the disability?

37. Comprehensiveness • All areas of the disability were appropriately assessed (e.g., intelligence, achievement, adaptive behavior, emotional)?

38. System Resources • Interview of assessment personnel indicates that Assessment Library is adequate to implement Child Find procedures in the LEA?

39. What’s Required for Compliance? • ‘Yes’ to All Requirements • Adequate Documentation to support a ‘YES’ answer to all questions

40. So, What’s Next ? • How will you achieve compliance with the SLD differential ? • How will you maintain compliance with the SLD differential through 2011 ?