1. fff Using RtI to Make LD Eligibility Decisions In the Chicago Public Schools Sue Gamm Educational Strategies & Support

2. Why Change? LD Eligibility based on RtI Framework Next Steps

3. Resources for Presentation • Illinois ASPIRE RtI Eligibility Training http://www.illinoisaspire.org/welcome/documents.php • Illinois Special Education Eligibility and Entitlement Procedures and Criteria within a Response to Intervention (RtI) Framework: A Guidance • Frequently Asked Questions about Special Education Eligibility and Entitlement within a Response to Intervention (RtI) Framework • Office of Teaching & Learning: RtI Guidance

4. Why Change?

6. Hart & Risley, Meaningful Differences • Average number of words children heard per hour ranged from 2,153 to 616 • Extrapolated out, by 4 years of age children heard 13 M to 48 M words

7. Talkative v Taciturn Parents • Talkative Parents: children heard they were right 750,000 times & times wrong 120,000 times • Taciturn Parents: children heard they were right 120,000 times & times wrong 250,000 times

8. Importance of Parent Talk • Child language based on amount of parental talking and amount and positive nature of the talk. • Parental talk accounts for all the variance.

9. Most students are referred for a special ed evaluation because of reading difficulties. Minority Students in Gifted & Special Education (2001)

10. Designing Change

11. Reading deficits often reflect an inadequate opportunity to learn & correlated sped referral rates for mild disability areas reflect quality of instruction. • Reading failure rates as high as 38-40% can be reduced to ≤6% through early identification & multitiered intervention. • Minority Students in Gifted & Special Education (2001)

12. Percentage of SwD with LD ISBE District Profile: 2009

13. Many children are “instructional casualties” of failed or poor reading instruction. 2000 National Reading Panel

14. Change is good. You go first! Judy Elliott, CAO, LAUSD

15. LD Eligibility – The RtI Way

16. FY 2010 is Here!

17. Getting Started • Depending on nature and scope, RtI data can meet FIE requirements • Possible evaluation tools: • Interviews • Observation of the student in specific, relevant settings • Error analysis of work samples • CBAs/functional acad assessments, including CBMs & CBE • Progress monitoring data • Results from state and local assessments • Functional Behavioral Assessments • Behavior Rating Scales • Vocational assessments • Developmental, academic, behavioral & functional life skills checklists • Standardized (norm-referenced) assessments

18. ISBE Administrative Code • Beginning at the start of the 2010-2011 school year, Illinois districts must use a process that determines how a student responds to scientific, research-based interventions when determining whether a student is or continues to have a learning disability. • A student’s severe discrepancy between achievement & ability is no longer relevant.

19. New LD Eligibility Form

20. PROBLEM ID/ STATEMENT OF PROBLEM Describe baseline data & initial performance discrepancy for areas of concern in relevant domains, including information about performance discrepancy prior to intervention. Attach evidence PROBLEM ANALYSIS/STRENGTHS/WEAKNESSES Skill strengths/weaknesses. Attach evidence, including skill versus performance deficits.

21. Determinant Factors • Inappropriate lack of instruction (R/M) • LEP • Exclusionary Criteria • Inclusionary Criteria • Performance Discrepancy • Educational Progress • Instructional Needs

22. Determinant Factors • Lack of appropriate instruction in reading • Lack of appropriate instruction in math • Limited English language proficiency If ANY DETERMINANT factor is present – no eligibility BUT: case manager notifies principal to correct

23. Determinant Factors • Inappropriate Lack of Instruction (R/M) • LEP • Exclusionary Criteria • Inclusionary Criteria • Performance Discrepacy • Educational Progress • Instructional Needs

24. Lack of Appropriate Instruction in Reading/Math IDEA 2004 • Inserted term “appropriate” • Specifies methodology for analyzing these provisions when a student is suspected of having LD • IDEA doesn’t describe any methodology for review outside of LD - methodology not required but is permissive

25. Lack of Appropriate Instruction in Reading/Math IDEA Methodology • Data demonstrating prior to (or part of) referral process, student provided appropriate instruction in regular ed settings - delivered by qualified personnel • Data-based documentation of repeated assessments of achievement at reasonable intervals, reflecting formal assessment of student progress during instruction • Data provided to parents

26. Lack of Appropriate Instruction in Reading/Math CAN one assume poor reading/math is based on an internal disability WHEN following is not in place: • Student provided with research&standards based core curriculum/instruction • Scientific research-based (SRB) interventions • Implementation with fidelity • Regular review & analysis?

27. Lack of Appropriate Instruction in Reading/Math Data Reflects Appropriate Instruction • Reading Instruction’s essential components (2001 ESEA): phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary & comprehension • Math Instruction’s essential components: conceptual understanding, procedural fluency, strategic competence, adaptive reasoning, & productive response. National Research Council (2001)

28. Lack of Appropriate Instruction in Reading/Math Use of SRB Interventions • Prior to/during the FIE process interventions used at Tier 2/Tier 3 levels were: • Based on scientific research • Appropriate for student • Provided in addition to core instruction • The Office of Teaching and Learning’s RtI Toolkit will offer best practices associated with multitiered interventions of increasing intensity

29. What is Scientifically-Based? • Practices and programs that have been thoroughly and rigorously reviewed to determine whether they produce positive educational results in a predictable manner • Determination based on objective, external validation

30. Is Differentiated Instruction an Intervention? High quality instruction is differentiated & culturally responsive, effectively meeting diverse learner needs

31. Lack of Appropriate Instruction in Reading/Math Qualified Personnel • Instruction delivered by personnel meeting highly qualified requirements of ESEA • Staff implementing core & supplemental instruction must also be adequately trained

32. Lack of Appropriate Instruction in Reading/Math Data Sources • State assessment data (e.g., ISAT, PSAE) • Local universal screening data collected multiple times during academic year • Progress monitoring data of SBR interventions collected in regular intervals for individual or groups of students

33. Lack of Appropriate Instruction in Reading/Math Implementation with Fidelity PLAN DEVELOPMENT/INTERVENTIONS Describe previous & current instruction & interventions (Tier I-core, Tier 2-strategic and Tier 3-Intensive) including evidence of scientific base and implementation with fidelity.

34. Lack of Appropriate Instruction in Reading/Math Principles of Integrity • Length of time curriculum in place • Amount of teacher training • Length of time student was taught the curriculum • Degree to which the instructional methodologies and techniques are used • Degree to which the instructional procedures and materials are used

35. Lack of Appropriate Instruction in Reading/Math Practice Standards • Use of Fidelity of Implementation Checklist based on Instructional Planning Form • Existing mechanisms, e.g., school leadership/improvement process, professional development, school/classroom walk-throughs, instructional rounds, fidelity checklists, etc.

36. Lack of Appropriate Instruction in Reading/Math Unsatisfactory Practices • Informal descriptions of reading intervention presented at meetings with interventions described only by program name(s) or on limited features, e.g., amount of time daily/weekly • Less structured interview information or self reports completed by the person(s) providing the intervention(s) • No independent observations for fidelity of implementation

37. Lack of Appropriate Instruction in Reading/Math Progress Monitoring (PM) Databased documentation of repeated assessments of achievement at reasonable intervals, reflecting formal assessment of student progress during instruction. • Consider appropriateness of data, including tools used and way in which monitoring conducted • Progress monitored frequently & with fidelity

38. Lack of Appropriate Instruction in Reading/Math Frequency of Monitoring Monitoring is more frequent as interventions become more intense • In Tier I: Approximately every 10 weeks • Tier II: At least twice per month • Tier III: At least weekly OTL Toolkit will give further recommendations about PM tools and processes, best practices, and further instructions on use of GradeBook

39. Lack of Appropriate Instruction in Reading/Math PM Assumptions • Directly linked to area(s) of concern • Completed over a period of time to assure reliability • Used by Instructional Leadership Team (ILT) to determine if interventions should continue because of demonstrated improvement - be changed - or provided with more intensity to support increased progress

40. Lack of Appropriate Instruction in Reading/Math PM Practice Standards • The PM tool was reviewed by/met National RTI Center standards; was administered individually; and goal(s) developed in advance. • Validated but not reviewed by National RTI Center; or progress measured by end-of-unit tests that accompany the intervention program; and goal(s) developed in advance.

41. Lack of Appropriate Instruction in Reading/Math PM Practice Standards • UNSATISFACTORY. Tool neither validated nor meets National RTI Center standards - administered in group - NO goals developed in advance - INCLUDES teacher-made tests, ratings or opinions • ELL. Above standards apply & must be valid for students with similar acculturation. NOT OK to use tool reflecting increased performance by students with different primary language

42. Lack of Appropriate Instruction in Reading/Math PM Data Given to Parents • Universal screening and/or student progress data • Provide in manner that’s easily understood, contains parent-friendly language & provides grade-level performance expectations so parents can compare performance • Inform parents about the steps being taken to intensify/change interventions

43. Determinant Factors • Inappropriate lack of performance (R/M) • LEP • Exclusionary Criteria • Inclusionary Criteria • Performance Discrepancy • Educational Progress • Instructional Needs

44. Is Determinant Factor Related to Language Proficiency? English Language Learners • If student’s language proficiency may explain severely low achievement and lack of progress - disaggregate achievement and progress information • Compare student to typical peers and – to extent possible – those with similar language, acculturation & experience.

45. Determinant Factors • Inappropriate lack of performance (R/M) • LEP • Exclusionary Criteria • Inclusionary Criteria • Discrepant Performance • Educational Progress • Instructional Needs

46. Exclusionary Criteria • Visual, motor or hearing disability; cognitive disability; emotional disturbance; cultural factors; or environmental or economic disadvantage • Effective screening can rule out exclusionary factors; not rule them “in”

47. Determinant Factors • Inappropriate lack of instruction (R/M) • LEP • Exclusionary Criteria • Inclusionary Criteria • Performance Discrepancy • Educational Progress • Instructional Needs

48. Inclusionary Criteria Based on IDEA/Illinois regulations, determine if a student does not: • Achieve adequately for age or to meet State-approved grade-level standards in area(s) of concern when provided learning experiences & instruction appropriate for child’s age or State-approved grade-level standards • Make sufficient progress to meet age or State-approved grade-level standards in area(s) of concern when using a process based on the child’s response to scientific, research-based intervention

49. Illinois’ Framework • DISCREPANCY. Performance significantly discrepant from peer group/standard; not discrepant because of intervention’s intensity • EDUCATIONAL PROGRESS. Progressing at significantly slower rate than age appropriate peers; or acceptable progress only because … • INSTRUCTIONAL NEEDS. Needs in any areas of concern are significantly different from those of typical peers & of intensity/type exceeding general ed resources

50. Per ISBE, IQ/achievement discrepancy is NOT component of these 3 criteria & team may NOT consider this result when criteria are not met • If the 3 criteria are met but there is NO severe IQ/achievement discrepancy, this result does NOT reverse the findings • Same applies to any data showing pattern of strengths & weaknesses in performance, achievement or both • If there’s suspicion of cognitive disability, intelligence assessment may be relevant