Determining Eligibility Within Tennessee’s RTI² Framework

1. Determining Eligibility Within Tennessee’s RTI² Framework TASP 2013 Fall Conference Theresa Nicholls, Ed.S., NCSP Evaluation Services Coordinator Nathan Travis, Ed.S., NCSP Director of Data Services

3. July 1, 2014: SLD Definition

4. “Dual Discrepancy” • Performance Discrepancy (Underachievement) = Condition 1 • Level of performance • Student’s performance is significantly discrepant from norm group • Progress Discrepancy (Response to Intervention) = Condition 2 • Rate of progress • Student’s progress is significantly discrepant from expected progress

5. Condition 1: Underachievement

6. Condition 1: Underachievement *This information does not represent fixed rules to be used in determining eligibility; rather it provides guidance to assist teams in drawing conclusions regarding a student’s level of learning.

7. Ratio of Deficiency: Level(i.e. The Gap) How discrepant is the student’s performance?

8. Let’s Practice Step One: Gap Analysis Worksheet

9. Conclusion: The student is 3.75 times deficient compared to other students in a normative sample.

10. Normative Assessment • In order to substantiate inadequate achievement, an individual, standardized, and norm-referenced measure of academic achievement must be administered after initial consent is obtained in the area of suspected disability (i.e., Basic Reading Skills, Reading Fluency, Reading Comprehension, Written Expression, Mathematics Calculation, and Mathematics Problem Solving). • Must correspond to the deficit area identified through tiered interventions • Intensive intervention must occur within the tiers before inadequate classroom achievement can be assessed. • Research suggests that scores below the 10th national percentile (or standard scores ≥ 1.25 standard deviations below the mean) are considered significant.

11. Systematic Observations • A pattern of strengths and weaknesses in performance shall be documented by two systematic observations in the area of suspected disability. • One may be conducted by a special education teacher and one must be conducted by the School Psychologist or certifying specialist: • Systematic observation of routine classroom instruction, and • Systematic observation during intensive, scientific research-based or evidence-based intervention.

12. Condition 2: Response to Intervention

13. Decision Rules • The Tennessee SLD criteria identifies two decision rules to inform the IEP team analysis of progress monitoring data from intensive, scientific research-based or evidence-based intervention. A student’s rate of progress during intensive intervention is insufficient if either of the following apply: • The rate of progress is less than that of his/her same-age peers, or • The rate of progress is greater than his/her same-age peers but will not result in reaching the average range of achievement in a reasonable period of time.

14. Gap Analysis • Analyze the “Dual Discrepancy” • Step One: How far discrepant is the student’s performance? (Condition One) • Step Two: How does the student’s progress compare to the progress needed to “close the gap”? (Condition Two)

15. Let’s Practice Step Two: Gap Analysis

16. Gap Analysis

17. Ratio of Deficiency: Rate • Norm group ROI/ Student ROI = ratio of deficiency • Step One: Determine Typical Rate of Improvement • Step Two: Determine Student’s Rate of Improvement

18. Let’s Practice

19. Ratio of Deficiency: Rate • Step One: Determine Typical Rate of Improvement • Step Two: Determine Student’s Rate of Improvement • Ratio of Deficiency: .36/.18 = 2 • Conclusion: The student’s progress is 2 times deficient compared to the typical rate of improvement

20. Statistical Methods for Calculating Rate of Improvement • Last Minus First • Slope Formula • ROI Worksheet • Does not consider outliers • Tukey Method • Considers outliers but does not take into account all data in a series • Calculate by hand • Linear Regression • Considered the most precise way to calculate Rate of Improvement. • Software programs • Excel Spreadsheet • RTI data graphing tool • TNSPDG.com or TnCore.org

21. Additional Considerations • Variability in student’s scores: Most variability should be explained by the trend line. In particular, approximately 80% of the plotted data points should fall within 15% of the trend line. If this is not the case, the team may need to consider other environmental and/or motivational factors. • Standard Error of Measurement: School teams should consider confidence intervals and standard error or measurement when making high stakes decisions, including eligibility determinations. • This is a developing area of research

22. Condition 3: Exclusionary Factors

23. Condition Three: Exclusionary Factors

24. Resources www.TNcore.org RTI.questions@tn.gov www.TNSPDG.com Follow RTI² on Twitter @TnRti2

25. Contact Information Theresa Nicholls, Evaluation Services Coordinator Theresa.Nicholls@tn.gov @NichollsTheresa Nathan Travis, Director of Data Services Nathan.Travis@tn.gov @dnathantravis