View
1
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
9/29/14
1
S
Specific Learning Disabilities: Tennessee’s
New Eligibility Standards
Janet Panter, Ph.D. Memphis Center for Women & Families
Today’s Outline
S Specific Learning Disability S Definition S Role of private evaluations
S Common Core State Standards
Today’s Outline (continued)
S RTI2 S Framework & TN Model S Decision-making process S Universal screening instrument S Tiers I, II, and III S Referral to Special Education S SLD Criteria
S Conclusions
9/29/14
2
S
Specific Learning Disability
What We Consider SLD (Mark Shinn, APA Presentation)
S Severe low achievement relative to peers
S Usually in reading
S Many students not referred (the “bottomless pit”)
S Girls with severe unmet reading achievement needs slip through the cracks
S SLD is often accompanied by S Feelings of “inability,” and failure, S Parental concern S Mildly disruptive classroom behavior, that can place children and youth on a
negative educational and socio-emotional trajectory
Outside Evaluations
In the case of a private evaluation and/or diagnosis (e.g. Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder or Visual Processing), the team should consider information presented to help inform instruction and intervention. The student must be provided academic interventions congruent with the RTI ² guidelines if the team suspects the presence of a Specific Learning Disability as either a primary or secondary disability.
9/29/14
3
SLD: Federal Definition
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), as reauthorized in 2004, states that a process that determines whether the child responds to scientific, research-based interventions may be used to determine if a child has a specific learning disability. IDEA also requires that an evaluation include a variety of assessment tools and strategies and cannot rely on any single procedure as the sole criterion for determining eligibility.
S Can only define SLD within context of instruction & intervention being provided
S Relevant context for TN are the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) . . .
S Referred to in the media as
Common Core
S
Common Core
9/29/14
4
What is Common Core?
S The Common Core State Standards are a set of clear standards for Math and English Language Arts.
S The standards were developed to ensure every student graduates high school prepared for college or the workforce.
CCSS: Purpose
The Common Core State Standards are meant to S Provide clear, consistent understanding of what of
student expectations S So, teachers & parents know what to do to help
students S Designed to be robust and relevant to the world S Reflect knowledge & skills young people need for
college & career success
CCSS: What standards do…
S State what students should know at the conclusion of a course of study.
S Address the content and skills required for employment and civic participation.
S Provide support for teachers in developing and sharing curriculum and instructional best practices.
S Standards define learning expectations, but not curriculum.
9/29/14
5
S
RTI2 RESPONSE TO INSTRUCTION &
INTERVENTION
A New Day: What is RTI2?
Response to Instruction & Intervention (RTI2) is a student-centered multi-tiered approach of structure and support. Students' progress is closely monitored at each stage of intervention to determine the need for further research-based instruction and/or intervention in general education, in special education, or both.
RTI2 Framework
The RTI2 framework is a 3-Tier model that provides an ongoing process of instruction and interventions that allow students to make progress at all levels, particularly those students who are struggling or advancing.
9/29/14
6
Universal Screener
S Brief screening assessment of academic skills
S Administered to all students
S Do students have the skills they need to achieve grade level standards
S Data also serve as benchmark
S Administered 3 times/year grades K-8
9/29/14
7
Universal Screener (continued)
S Student tested at appropriate grade level, not level of instruction
S Other relevant data may also be collected
S State provides rubric for evaluating these screening measures
S Different procedures for grades 9-12
Tier I Instruction
S General Education teacher
S High quality, differentiated instruction
S Core instruction should meet the needs of 80-85% of students
S If 80-85% of students are not at grade level, core curriculum & the delivery of instruction should be evaluated (& adjusted)
Tier I Decision-Making
9/29/14
8
Tier I Instructional Time (In minutes)
Tier%I% K(2% 3(5% 6(12%ELA% 150$$
$$
90$$(120$recommended)$
55$$(90$with$blocks)$
Math% 60$$(75$for$2nd$grade)$
$
90$$ 55$$(90$with$blocks)$
!
Tier I Ongoing Assessment
Tier I Fidelity Monitoring
S Fidelity – accuracy/extent to which core materials & other curricula are used as intended by author/publisher
S LEA must have fidelity monitoring process
S Required at least once a marking period
9/29/14
9
Tier II
S Should meet needs of 10-15% of students S Students below cut score on universal screener
receive Tier II instruction S Cut scores based on national norms
S Below 25th percentile is considered “at-risk” S Interventions are systematic & research-based S Teacher-student ratio
S 1:5 for K-5 S 1:6 for 6-12
Tier II Decision-Making
Tier II Instructional Time (In minutes)
Tier%II% K(2% 3(5% 6(12%ELA% 20#(K#only)#
30##
30# 30#
Math% 20#(30#for#2nd)#
#
30# 30#
!
9/29/14
10
Tier II Progress Monitoring
S Curriculum Based Measurement (CBM) probes that parallel the ones used in universal screening
S In area of deficit with instrument sensitive to change
S Quantifies students’ Rate of Improvement (ROI)
S Required at least every other week
Tier II Progress Monitoring
(continued)
S Conducted with measures that are at the student’s skill/instructional level
S Student’s skill/instructional level is determined by survey-level assessment
Tier II Fidelity Monitoring
S Systematic monitoring by responsible instructional leader (e.g., principal)
S Determines the extent to which the delivery of an intervention adheres to the protocols or program models as originally developed
S LEA must have fidelity monitoring procedures in place
S At least 3 times in a marking period
9/29/14
11
Tier III
S In addition to Tier I instruction S Interventions should meet needs of 3-5% of
students S More intense than Tier II intervention
S Lack of adequate progress in Tier II or students who below designated score on universal screener (<10th percentile)
Tier III (continued)
S Intervention groups must be small S Grades K-5 1:3 S Grades 6-8 1:6 S Grades 9-12 1:12
Tier III Decision-Making
9/29/14
12
Tier III Instructional Time (In minutes)
Tier%III% K(2% 3(5% 6(12%ELA% 40#45%(K%only)%
45#60%%
45#60% 45#55%(45#60%blocks)%
Math% 40#45%(45#60%for%2nd)%
%
45#60% 45#55%(45#60%blocks)%
!
Tier III Progress Monitoring
S At least every other week
S For referral to special education …
S Minimum of 8-10 data points for biweekly monitoring
S Minimum of 10-15 data points for weekly monitoring
Tier III Fidelity Monitoring
S Fidelity is monitored at all levels throughout the process
S Total of 8 checks required
S 3 checks in Tier II (2 of which are direct observation)
S 5 checks in Tier III (3 of which are direct observation)
S Ongoing fidelity documentation of intervention
9/29/14
13
Referral to Special Education
S When data indicate Tier III instruction is ineffective
S Evaluation may be in conjunction with second half of Tier III but may not be concluded before Tier III interventions are proven ineffective at end of Tier III
SLD Definition Made Easy
“Dual Discrepancy”
S Condition 1: Performance Discrepancy (Underachievement) S Level of performance
S Student’s performance is significantly discrepant from norm group
S Condition 2: Progress Discrepancy (Response to Intervention) S Rate of progress
S Student’s progress is significantly discrepant from expected progress 39
9/29/14
14
S
Condition 1: Underachievement
40
Condition 1: Underachievement Sources of Data to Document Underachievement
Source Criteria to Consider*
Performance on Universal Screening (i.e. Benchmark assessment)
Median score ≤ 10th national percentile Or
Median score which is 2.0 x deficient compared to norm group
Terminal performance on progress monitoring measures
Last three data points ≤ 10th national percentile
Performance on State or district wide assessments
Basic or Below Basic performance on state mandated test in area of concern
Norm-referenced test of academic achievement
Composite scores ≥ 1.25 standard deviations below the mean in area of suspected disability
41
*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.
Ratio of Deficiency: Level (i.e. The Gap)
Is Gap Significant?
_____________ / _____________ = _____________
□ Yes □ No Current benchmark Expectation
Current performance Current Gap
42
How discrepant is the student’s performance?
9/29/14
15
Gap Analysis Example
Is Gap Significant?
____15_______ / _____4________ = ____3.75______
√Yes □ No Current benchmark Expectation
Current performance Current Gap
43
Conclusion: The student is 3.75 times deficient compared to other students in a normative sample.
Normative Assessment
S In order to substan8ate inadequate achievement, an individual, standardized, and norm-‐referenced measure of academic achievement must be administered aDer ini8al consent is obtained in the area of suspected disability (i.e., Basic Reading Skills, Reading Fluency, Reading Comprehension, WriQen Expression, Mathema8cs Calcula8on, and Mathema8cs Problem Solving). S Must correspond to the deficit area iden5fied through 5ered interven5ons
S Intensive interven8on must occur within the 8ers before inadequate classroom achievement can be assessed.
S Research suggests that scores below the 10th na8onal percen8le (or standard scores ≥ 1.25 standard devia8ons below the mean) are considered significant.
44
Systematic Observations
S A paQern of strengths and weaknesses in performance shall be documented by two systema5c observa8ons in the area of suspected disability.
S One may be conducted by a special educa5on teacher and one must be conducted by the School Psychologist or cer5fying specialist: a. Systema5c observa8on of rou8ne classroom instruc8on, and b. Systema5c observa8on during intensive, scien8fic research-‐
based or evidence-‐based interven8on.
45
9/29/14
16
S
Condition 2: Response to Intervention
46
Decision Rules
S 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:
S The rate of progress is less than that of his/her same-age peers,
or
S 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.
47
Gap Analysis
48
_________
/
____________
=
_____________
Is this reasonable*?
Difference Weeks leD in the year Rate of Improvement Needed
□ Yes □ No OR
___________
/
_____________
=
_____________
Difference Student’s Current ROI Number of weeks to meet goal
____________
-‐
_____________
=
____________
End of year benchmark Current performance Difference
9/29/14
17
Step Two: Gap Analysis
Student’s current performance: 4 Correct Digits
Student’s current rate of improvement (ROI):
.18
End of year benchmark expecta5on: 20 Correct Digits
Number of weeks leH in the school year: 25 Weeks
49
Gap Analysis
50
___16____
/
_____25_____
=
_____.64______
Is this reasonable*?
Difference Weeks leD in the year Rate of Improvement Needed
□ Yes □ No OR
___16______
/
_____.18______
=
____89_______
Difference Student’s Current ROI Number of weeks to meet goal
____20______
-‐
_____4_______
=
_____16_____
End of year benchmark
Current performance Difference
Ratio of Deficiency: Rate
51
(_____________ - _____________) / ______36_______
= ___________
Spring benchmark expectation
Fall benchmark expectation
Number of weeks
Typical ROI (slope)
(_____________ - _____________) / _____________ = ___________
Score on last probe
administered
Score on first probe administered
Number of weeks
Student ROI (slope)
9/29/14
18
Let’s Practice
Student’s score on first probe administered:
2 CD
Student’s score on last probe administered:
4 CD
Fall benchmark expecta5on: 7 CD
Spring benchmark expecta5on: 20 CD
Number of weeks 11 Weeks
52
Ratio of Deficiency: Rate
53
(_____20______ - _____7_______) / ______36_____ = ____.36_____
Spring benchmark expectation
Fall benchmark expectation
Number of weeks
Typical ROI (slope)
(_____4_______ - _____2_______) / ____11_______ = ____.18_____ Score on last
probe administered
Score on first probe administered
Number of weeks
Student ROI (slope)
S
Condition 3: Exclusionary Factors
54
9/29/14
19
Exclusionary Factor: Source of Evidence:
Visual, Motor, or Hearing Disability
Sensory screenings, medical records, observation
Intellectual Disability Classroom performance, academic skills, language development, adaptive functioning (if necessary), IQ (if necessary)
Emotional Disturbance Classroom observation, student records, family history, medical information, emotional/behavioral screenings (if necessary)
Cultural Factors Level of performance and rate of progress compared to students from same ethnicity with similar backgrounds
Environmental or Economic Factors
Level of performance and rate of progress compared to students from similar economic backgrounds, situational factors that are student specific
Limited English Proficiency Measures of language acquisition and proficiency (i.e., BICs and CALPs), level of performance and rate of progress compared to other ELL students with similar exposure to language and instruction
Excessive Absenteeism Attendance records, number of schools attended within a 3 year period, tardies, absent for 23% of instruction and/or intervention 55
References & Resources
S TN State Personnel Development Grants website with RTI2 Information & Resources S http://www.tnspdg.com
S TN Special Education Assessment S http://www.state.tn.us/education/student_support/
eligibility.shtml
S RTI Action Network S http://www.rtinetwork.org
References & Resources (continued)
S Jim Wright’s Intervention Central S http://www.interventioncentral.org
S Mark Shinn’s Resources & Downloads S http://www.markshinn.org/resources-downloads.html
Recommended