TDOE’s accountability system has two overarching objectives

2. TDOE’s accountability system has two overarching objectives Growth for all students, every year and Faster growth for those students who are furthest behind

3. TDOE Beliefs • Every student can learn, demonstrate growth, and has the right to actively participate in high quality, research-based education that maximizes their potential in the least restrictive environment. • Specialized education is a continuum of services, not a place. • Relationships with all stakeholders, based on respect and understanding will result in making decisions in the best interest of ALL students. • Every staff member has the responsibility to teach, support and encourage ALL students. • Strong leadership at every level is the foundation of a collaborative and inclusive environment that supports ALL students. • High quality professional learning in conjunction with family and community support, empowers all stakeholders to collaboratively build capacity for the success of ALL students.

4. Key Goals of Special Populations • Improving Student Outcomes • Prevention • Intervention • Achievement • Outcomes • Manage Performance • Effective employees at every level of the organization with a focus on improving student outcomes.

5. Key Points of RTI² • QUALITY instruction provided to ALL students! • DATA reporting to parents! • Improved OUTCOMES for students! • Identify struggling learners EARLY!

6. The Goals of RTI²: • To close the achievement gap • To identify students who need intervention to access the “core content” early

7. The Timeframe for Implementation of RTI² • Policy Change: As of July 1, 2014, RTI² will be the framework used to identify a student with a Specific Learning Disability • Districts that are not ready to use this data for eligibility purposes in middle and high school may have been granted a phase-in for use of the discrepancy model until: • July 1, 2015 for Middle School • July 1, 2016 for High School

8. All Three Tiers of RTI² occur within General Education

12. Interventions • The intervention must have empirical evidence supporting its use in remediating the area of suspected disability (e.g., Basic Reading Skills). • Must be skills based • Not re-teaching of the standards • The interventionist must be trained in the use of the intervention

13. Progress Monitoring • Progress monitoring is a way for teachers to take a snapshot of how students are doing on a specific skill. It shows how well the intervention is working. • Progress monitoring helps determine whether an intervention is successful or needs to be changed. • This information is shared with parents on a regular basis. • Parent letters • Data graphs

14. If Progress Monitoring Shows An Intervention Is Not Working • If progress monitoring shows that a child is not responding to the intervention, another approach or intervention may be tried. • If a higher level of support is needed, students may be given more intense intervention that further focuses on the supporting skills they need to be successful learners (i.e. Tier III) • Students who do not respond to Tier III interventions may be referred for special education (i.e. the most intense intervention)

15. Change of Intervention Within a Tier • Time of Day • Person providing the instruction • The “type” of intervention • Frequency of intervention sessions

16. Data Points: used to make sound decisions • 8-10 data points if progress monitoring every other week • 10-15 data pointsif progress monitoring weekly Prior to changing the intensity (i.e. tier) of intervention….

17. Student Screening: Does this require permission? • Students may be screened by a specialist (e.g., school psychologist or reading specialist) at any time within the tiers to provide instructional and/or program planning information. • Consent is not required for screenings that inform instruction/interventions within the tiers. Example: Phonics screening to determine specific interventions.

18. Initial Evaluations • If data indicates a student’s progress is not sufficient, then the team may obtain Notice and Consent for Initial Evaluation. • The team must complete all evaluations and establish the student’s eligibility for service within the initial evaluation timeline (i.e. 60 calendar days). • The student will remain in intervention and will continue to be progress monitored while the requested evaluations are being completed. • All information collected including the student’s responsiveness to intervention will be a part of the student’s eligibility determination.

19. Changes to SLD definition • Historically, SLD has been identified through a “discrepancy model” using an IQ test to determine the difference between predictedachievement and actual achievement. • “Wait to Fail” model • Did not address possible reasons for low achievement • Over identified students who had not received adequate intervention • Under identified students who needed intervention but did not “qualify”

20. SLD Definition as of July 1, 2014

21. Re-evaluations as of July 1, 2014 • All re-evaluations for students with a Specific Learning Disability will be grounded in progress monitoring data. • Existing data including ongoing assessments of progress and focused/diagnostic evaluations will be reviewed through the Re-evaluation Summary Report to determine if additional information is needed. • Formal and informal assessments, including progress monitoring data, will be used to determine the amount of services/intervention required to close the achievement gap. • The intensity of intervention required (special education versus general education) will be used to negate or substantiate continued eligibility. • For districts granted a phase-in for Middle/High School, teams will continue to use existing discrepancy model for continued eligibility.

22. What happens if a Parent Requests an Evaluation? • The team must complete the agreed upon components of the evaluation within the initial evaluation timeline. • The student may be eligible for services as a student with a Specific Learning Disability based only on the RTI² Framework. • No option to use discrepancy model. • If the team lacks sufficient evidence to establish the student’s eligibility for services: • the team may agree to request an extension of the evaluation timeline. OR • the student will be made ineligible untilsufficient data can be collected.

23. Students with an IEP • Special education services are still determined by the IEP team. • ALL students should have access to core instruction and this instruction should take place in the general ed setting by a general ed teacher to the greatest extent possible. • Additional intervention provided through special education should be provided in addition to core instruction. • Students with disabilities should not be excluded from tiered (i.e. general education) interventions if data determines this is appropriate.

24. Consider this…Special Education is not a place! It is the most Intensive Intervention! Special Education Interventions: • The same problem solving approach used in the general education RTI² framework will be used in special education. • Interventions will be tailored to the student in the area of identified disability, and progress toward their IEP goals will be monitored weekly or every other week. • If students fail to respond to interventions provided through special education, an IEP team meeting will be reconvened. • Special education intervention will be the most intensive interventions provided.

25. Resources TNCore www.TNcore.org Tennessee State Personnel Development Grant www.TNSPDG.com Support and Training for Parents of Exceptional Parents information@tnstep.org

26. Contact Information Theresa Nicholls, Evaluation Services Coordinator Theresa.Nicholls@tn.gov @NichollsTheresa Tie Hodack, Director of Instructional Planning Tie.Hodack@tn.gov @HodackTie Nathan Travis, Director of Data Services Nathan.Travis@tn.gov @dnathantravis