1 / 75

Determining SLD Eligibility Using an RTI Model

Determining SLD Eligibility Using an RTI Model. Jon Potter, Ph.D. David Putnam, Ph.D. Oregon Response to Intervention Ashland, OR November 22, 2013 . RTI for SLD: WHY. OSEP / IDEA/OARS support using RTI Most perceived barriers are unfounded MYTHS

melvyn
Télécharger la présentation

Determining SLD Eligibility Using an RTI Model

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Determining SLD Eligibility Using an RTI Model Jon Potter, Ph.D. David Putnam, Ph.D. Oregon Response to Intervention Ashland, OR November 22, 2013

  2. RTI for SLD: WHY • OSEP/IDEA/OARS support using RTI • Most perceived barriers are unfounded MYTHS • Negligible legal action; mostly deferential to districts(Betesh, Brown, Thompson, & Zirkel, 2012) • RTI better serves the educational needs of students

  3. OSEP/IDEA/OARS ALL SUPPORT USING RTI

  4. IDEA Established and Supports the use of RTI for SLD A State must adopt…criteria for determining whether a child has a specific learning disability. In addition, the criteria adopted by the State: • Must not require the use of a severe discrepancy between intellectual ability and 34 CFR 300.8(c)(10); • Must permit the use of a process based on the child's response to scientific, research-based intervention; and • May permit the use of other alternative research-based procedures for determining whether a child has a specific learning disability, as defined in 34 CFR 300.8(c)(10).

  5. IDEA Established and Supports the use of RTI for SLD Reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (2004) allows (encourages!) the use of RTI for SLD eligibility Source: Zirkel & Thomas 2010

  6. IDEA Supports Using RTI: All SLD evaluations must include: “(A) Data that demonstrate that before, or as part of, the referral process, the child was provided appropriate instruction in regular education settings” “(B) Data-based documentation of repeated assessments of achievement at reasonable intervals, reflecting formal assessment of student progress that is directly linked to instruction.” OAR 581-015-2170

  7. MOST PERCEIVED BARRIERS ARE UNFOUNDED MYTHS

  8. Myth: RTI is not “a full and individual evaluation”, but PSW is Reality: • In isolation, neither is a full and comprehensive evaluation • Both can be a piece of a comprehensive evaluation

  9. Myth: RTI is not “a full and individual evaluation”, but PSW is Under 34 CFR 300.304, the public agency must ensure: The child is assessed in all areas related to the suspected disability, including, if appropriate, health, vision, hearing, social and emotional status, general intelligence, academic performance, communicative status, and motor abilities [34 CFR 300.304(c)(4)] The evaluation is sufficiently comprehensive to identify all of the child’s special education and related services needs [34 CFR 300.304(c)(6)]

  10. Comprehensive SLD EvaluationRegardless of Model • Academic assessment • Review of records • Observation (including regular education setting) • Progress monitoring data • Other: • If needed, developmental history • If needed, an assessment of cognition, etc. • If needed, a medical statement • Any other assessments to determine impact of disability Oregon Administrative Rules, 581-015-2170

  11. Myth: The Definition of SLD Mandates Evaluation of Cognitive Processing • Interpretation of the definition is not left to individuals. Regulations Interpret • The Federal Register, IDEA, and OARs clearly interpret:Assessment of cognitive processing is not required for SLD

  12. Myth: The Definition of SLD Mandates Evaluation of Cognitive Processing “The Department does not believe that an assessment of psychological or cognitive processing should be required in determining whether a child has an SLD. There is no current evidence that such assessments are necessary or sufficient for identifying SLD. Further, in many cases, these assessments have not been used to make appropriate intervention decisions. .…In many cases, assessments of cognitive processes simply add to the testing burden and do not contribute to interventions…” (Federal Register, vol. 72, no. 156, p.46651)

  13. “But we want to know if they are REALLY SLD” Traditional, Cognitive Models of Identification Have Been Applied Inconsistently “For more than 25 years, accumulated evidence has strongly suggested that most students labeled SLD are those students with severe educational needs (i.e., have performance discrepancies compared to students in their own communities),regardless of the stated eligibility criterion” Shinn, M. R. (2007)

  14. “But we want to know if they are REALLY SLD” Evidence for SLD decision-making “There is a plethora of data that demonstrate that the SD and PSW methods are, despite their psychometric mystique, likely to miss children with “real” learning disabilities*and misidentify others who are actually instructional casualties (ICs), as children having SLD.” Hagen-Gilden, P., & Lolich, E. (2011) *Walker, D., & Daves, D. (2010)

  15. COSTS BENEFITS? The decision to Evaluate Cognitive Processing…Case by Case • TIME • FTE • OTHER RESOURCES • SHIFTS RESPONSIBILITY FROM INSTRUCTION TO LEARNER DIFFERENT/MORE ACCURATE DECISIONS? BETTER INTERVENTIONS IMPACT ON STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT? BETTER IEPS?

  16. NEGLIGIBLE LEGAL ACTION; MOSTLY DEFERENTIAL TO DISTRICTS

  17. Myth: RTI will lead to legal trouble, especially with Child Find LORE: The response to intervention (RTI) approach for identifying students with specific learning disabilities will generate a spate of losing litigation concerning child find under the IDEA. (Betesh, Brown, Thompson, &Zirkel, 2012)

  18. Despite “dire predictions” few child find issues with RTI itself LAW: …thus far no published court decision has specifically concerned RTI and child find, and the few pertinent hearing officer decisions have been deferential to school districts (e.g., Cobb County School District, 2012; Joshua Independent School District, 2010). (Betesh, Brown, Thompson, & Zirkel, 2012)

  19. AN RTI APPROACH BETTER SERVES THE EDUCATIONAL NEEDS OF ALL STUDENTS

  20. Impact on SPED: Research Support “Use of RTI has resulted in lower rates of SLD (Burns, Appleton, & Stehouwer, 2005) improved proportionality or indicators of equity, earlier delivery of special education services, and increased student achievement (Marston, Muyskens, Lau, & Canter, 2003)” A. M. VanDerheyden & M. K. Burns (2010)

  21. Identification Rates: OrRTI Avg. % of Students Identified SLD 24 out of 29 districts moved in the direction of the mean

  22. 3 year change in SLD Identification Rates (OrRTI School Districts) Cadre 1 Cadre 2 Cadre 3 Cadre 4 16/23 districts decreased the % of students identified as SLD = State Avg

  23. SLD Rates What about you?

  24. SLD: Static or Dynamic? Word Analysis Articulation/Word Analysis Word Form Children who struggle with reading have both functional and structural differences in their brains as compared to non-impaired students.

  25. Convergence: Neuroscience The good news… “…an intensive evidence-based (phonologic) reading intervention brings about significantand durablechanges in brain organization, so that brain activation patterns resemble those of typical readers” (Shaywitz et al, 2004) The bad news… We sometimes rush to evaluation and eligibility instead of providing the intensive EBP needed

  26. Effect of SPED Placement • Average effect size of traditional special education placement practices = +0.12 (Kavale, 2007) • What does this mean? • SPED Identification and placement typically provides little educational benefit to students. • Its what we DOin special education that can make a difference.

  27. RTI • Minimizes “Instructional Casualties” • Focuses on “Instructional Need” • Provides information for meaningful, data-based IEPs • Creates a broader, deeper, continuum of services for SLD students • Places responsibility firmly on instruction

  28. RTI for SLD How

  29. Targets • SPED Referral: When does it occur and what’s the process? • What are the key questions we need to answer in a comprehensive evaluation for SLD? • Does the student have significantly low skills? • Does the student make slow progress despite intensive interventions? • Does the student have an instructional need? • Are the struggles primarily due to one of the exclusionary factors?

  30. ASSESSMENT DATA-BASED DECISION MAKING INSTRUCTION SPED referral? Individual Problem Solving Team 6-8 weeks Individual Problem Solving Team Formal Diagnostic As needed Tier 3 Individualized Intervention Tier 2/3 Supplemental Intervention Tier 2/3 Supplemental Intervention Progress Monitoring Weekly-Monthly Intervention Review Team 6-8 weeks Research-Based Core Curriculum w/ Strong Instruction Schoolwide Screening reviewed 3 times/year Universal Screening 3 times/year

  31. Is there suspicion of a disability?

  32. Suspicion of a Disability Team Referral

  33. Parent Referrals • Parents have a right to make a referral at any time • The team must consider the referral • Cannot refuse the referral due to RTI (OSEP, 2011) • Can refuse the evaluation if there is good evidence (i.e., data) indicating the student can be successful with general education supports • Must provide written notice to parents if the request to evaluate is refused

  34. What happens after a referral is made? Relevant information is collected/consolidated along with a SPED referral form: • Intervention data, developmental history, problem solving form(s), progress monitoring data, diagnostic data (ICEL), language info An Evaluation Planning Meeting is conducted to determine if a student needs to have a comprehensive evaluation.

  35. Evaluation Planning Meeting • Do you need to conduct a Special Education evaluation? • What additional information you need as a team? (Permission to Evaluate Form) • Get caregiver consent 60 school day timeline begins • Provide caregiver with Parents Rights brochure

  36. Comprehensive Evaluation A comprehensive evaluation is always required to determine if a student qualifies for Special Education service, regardless of your model of identification. Simply using screening and progress monitoring data to determine SPED eligibility (i.e., “RTI only”) is unethical, illegal, and a very poor interpretation of RTI practice and law.

  37. 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, 581-105-2000

  38. Comprehensive SLD Eval:Regardless of Eval Model Oregon Administrative Rules, 581-015-2170 • Academic assessment • Review of records • Observation (including regular education setting) • Progress monitoring data • Other: • If needed, developmental history • If needed, an assessment of cognition, etc. • If needed, a medical statement • Any other assessments to determine impact of disability

  39. Comprehensive SLD Eval:RTI Model Oregon Administrative Rules, 581-015-2170 • …documentation of: • The type, intensity, and duration of scientific, research-based instructional intervention(s)… • …rate of progress during the instructional intervention(s); • A comparison of the student's rate of progress to expected rates of progress. • Progress monitoring on a schedule that: • Allows a comparison of the student's progress to… peers; • Is appropriate to the student's age and grade placement; • Is appropriate to the content monitored; and • Allows for interpretation of the effectiveness of intervention.

  40. Talk Time • How does your district currently define “comprehensive evaluation” for SLD eligibility? What components are typically included? • Does it provide comprehensive information that leads to effective instructional decision making?

  41. Three key questions Exclusionary Factors = Low Skills Slow Progress SPED Entitlement Decision Instructional Need Is the student significantly different from peers? Does the student make less than adequate progress despite interventions? Does the student need specially designed instruction?

  42. Guidelines for Comprehensive Evaluation

  43. Low Skills: Is the student significantlydifferent from peers?

  44. Significantly discrepant from peers How big of a discrepancy is significant?

  45. How big of a discrepancy is significant? *These are approximate guidelines and NOTrigid cut scores • General Guidelines* • Below the 16th percentile? (1 SD below the mean) • Below the 10th percentile? • Well below benchmark? • Bottom 10% as compared to peers? • More than 2 times discrepant from peers/expectations?

  46. Calculating Magnitude of Discrepancy – Expected performance Current performance -40 wcpm = – 72 wcpm(Winter 2nd Grade) 32 wcpm ÷ Larger Number Smaller Number 2.25 times discrepant ÷ = 72 wcpm(Winter 2nn Grade) 32 wcpm Absolute discrepancy: Discrepancy Ratio:

  47. What if the data is mixed? Consider divergent data source(s) and possible explanations For Example: Group administered vs. Individual administered? Timed vs. Untimed? Multiple chances vs. One-time assessment? Accommodations vs No Accommodations

  48. Slow Progress: Does the student make inadequate progress despite intervention?

  49. How much progress is enough?

  50. How much progress is enough? • How much growth should we expect? • National growth norms • What does typical growth look like, on average?

More Related