Identification of Students with SLD within an RtI/MTSS Framework Accurate Eligibility and Effective Instructional Practices Dr. George M. Batsche Director

Identification of Students with SLD within an RtI/MTSS Framework

Accurate Eligibility and Effective Instructional Practices

Dr. George M. BatscheDirector Institute for School Reform

University of South [email protected]

Today’s Agenda• Goal: Understand the relationship between the SLD Eligibility

Requirements in a Response to Intervention/Multi-Tiered System of Supports Model

• Objective 1: Common Language/Common Understanding of RtI and MTSS• Objective 1: Understand the general and specific requirements for SLD

eligibility in IDEA• Objective 2: Align the general and specific requirements for SLD

eligibility with appropriate data collection methods in an RtI Model• Objective 3: Apply domains of intensity and severity to SLD eligibility• Objective 4: Align the critical components of a multi-tiered system,

problem-solving and RTI to eligibility requirements and effective instructional practices

Response to Intervention

• RtI is the practice of (1) providing high-quality instruction/intervention matched to student needs and (2) using learning rate over time and level of performance to (3) make important educational decisions.

(Batsche, et al., 2005)

• Problem-solving is the process that is used to develop effective instruction/interventions.

MTSS• A Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS) is a term used

to describe an evidence-based model of schooling that uses data-based problem-solving to integrate academic and behavioral instruction and intervention.

• The integrated instruction and intervention is delivered to students in varying intensities (multiple tiers) based on student need.

• “Need-driven” decision-making seeks to ensure that district resources reach the appropriate students (schools) at the appropriate levels to accelerate the performance of all students to achieve and/or exceed proficiency .

Levels of Implementation and Analysis

• Student• Classroom• Grade• Subject Area• Building• District

6

RtI & the Problem-Solving Process

ACADEMIC and BEHAVIOR SYSTEMS

Tier 3: Intensive, Individualized Interventions & Supports.

The most intense (increased time, narrowed focus, reduced group size) instruction and intervention based upon individual student need provided in addition to and aligned with Tier 1 & 2 academic

and behavior instruction and supports.

Tier 2: Targeted, Supplemental Interventions & Supports.

More targeted instruction/intervention and supplemental support in addition to and aligned with the core academic and behavior curriculum.

Tier 1: Core, Universal Instruction & Supports.

General academic and behavior instruction and support provided to all students in all settings.

Revised 12/7/09

Tier 1GOAL: 100% of students pass

benchmark assessments

Tier 1 effective if approx. 80% are meeting benchmark assessments with only access to Core.

Tier 2For approx. 20% of

students

Tier 1 Core

+ Supplemental

…to pass benchmark assessments.

Tier 2 Effective if approx. 70-80% of students in group improve performance (i.e., gap is closing)

Tier 3For Approx 5% of

Students

Tier 1 Core

+Supplemental

+Intensive Individual

Instruction


Tier 3 Effective if there is progress (i.e., gap closing).

=+

Three Tiered Model of Student SupportsHow would you summarize this graph?

.

100.0%

0.0%0.0%

50.0%

0.0%

50.0%

100.0%

0.0%0.0%

80.0%

20.0%

0.0%

85.4%

10.2%

4.5%

80.0%

0.0%

20.0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

07-08 Asian-Islander(1st)

07-08 Black (1st) 07-08 Hispanic (1st) 07-08 Multi-Racial(1st)

07-08 White 07-08 Unreported

Van R. Butler Elementary School 07-08 First Grade

Instructional Level by Ethnicity

Intial Strategic Intensive

100.0%

0.0%0.0%

100.0%

0.0%0.0%

100.0%

0.0%0.0%

100.0%

0.0%0.0%

95.3%

3.6%1.3%

78.6%

14.3%

7.2%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

07-08 Asian-Islander(2nd)

08-09 Black (2nd) 08-09 Hispanic (2nd) 08-09 Multi-Racial(2nd)

08-09 White (2nd) 08-09 Unreported(14)

Van R. Butler Elementary School 08-09 Second Grade

Instructional Level by Ethnicity

Intial Strategic Intensive

What Elements MUST Be Present to Have and Integrated MTSS Model?

• Academic Skills and Academic Behaviors are identified for all students (Skill Integration)

• The data are presented in a way that reflects the relationship between academic skills and behaviors (Data Integration)

• The instruction provided in Tiers 2 and 3 integrates Tier 1 instruction (goals/standards, materials, performance expectations.) (Tier Integration)

• The instruction provided in Tier 1 integrates the effective instructional strategies and performance expectations from Tiers 2 and 3 (Tier Integration)

Why Integrate Academics and Behavior into the Same Planning and Implementation Process?

Highly Effective Practices:Research

• The evidence of a transactional relationship (confined, collateral, combined) with reading and behavioral interventions. (Bruhn & Watt, 2013; Cook et al., 2013)

• High quality academic instruction (e.g., content matched to student

success level, frequent opportunity to respond, frequent feedback) by itself can reduce problem behavior (Filter & Horner, 2009; Preciado, Horner, Scott, & Baker, 2009, Sanford, 2006)

• Implementation of school-wide positive behavior support leads to increased academic engaged time and enhanced academic outcomes (Algozzine & Algozzine, 2007; Horner et al., 2009; Lassen, Steele, & Sailor, 2006)

• “Viewed as outcomes, achievement and behavior are related; viewed as causes of the other, achievement and behavior are unrelated. (Algozzine, et al., 2011)

• Children who fall behind academically will be more likely to find academic work aversive and also find escape-maintained problem behaviors reinforcing (McIntosh, 2008; McIntosh, Sadler, & Brown, 2010)

13

Some Fundamental Principles• Academic Engaged Time (AET)

– AET predicts student performance better than any other variable, including:

• IQ• Language• SES• Disability• Culture/Race

– Amount of time students are engaged in quality instruction

– Includes evidence-based instructional strategies– Matched to student context, culture and relevance– With student engagement in the process

AET

• Academic Engaged Time (AET)– 330 minutes of instruction/day– 1650 minutes/week– 56,700 minutes/year– 15,700 minutes for Reading

• Minutes are finite in number• Loss of minutes=Loss of achievement• Minutes are the currency we use for

instruction

Some Fundamental Principles

• Rate of Growth• Where is the student now?• Where is the student supposed to be?• How much time do we have to get there?• Is that time realistic?

– Rate of growth is the best measure of student response to instruction and intervention

– Rate of growth is used within an early warning system to determine if students will attain benchmarks before time runs out and while we have time left to modify instruction

– Rate of Growth is the best measure of effectiveness of instruction AND the most fair measure.

Which Line Represents the Greatest Growth?

Test 1 (Sept. 2013) Test 2 (Dec. 2013) Test 3 (Feb. 2014)0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Discovery Education Assessment Results: Math

Mikenzi

Class Average

Grade Average

Per

cent

Cor

rect

Which Line Grew the Most?How Do You Interpret Drop?

12-Feb-14

19-Feb-14

26-Feb-14

5-Mar-

14

12-Mar-

14

19-Mar-

14

26-Mar-

14

2-Apr-1

4

9-Apr-1

4

16-Apr-1

4

23-Apr-1

4

30-Apr-1

40

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

On-task Classroom Behavior

MikenziTrend LinePeersGoal LineAim Line

% o

f Tim

e O

n-ta

sk (2

0 m

in.)

Baseline

Is this effective Instruction?

Contemporary Issues Influencing SLD Eligibility

• New education standards that focus on critical thinking, reasoning and problem-solving

• Expectations for ALL students to attain proficiency on standards—outcomes matter

• Over-identification of students with SLD– False Positives and False Negatives

• Advances in research and technology• Data from implementation studies• Focus on problem-solving and assessment to improve the

impact of instruction—not a focus on labels.• Eligibility debates or Effective instruction debates?

Table Top Discussion

• Are SLD students in your school/district achieving proficiency at rates that are acceptable to you?– What are the rates of proficiency of SLD students in

your district?

• If not, what do you believe are the top 2 reasons why students with SLD are not achieving proficiency at rates that are acceptable to you?

Learning Disabilities:Definition

• SLD refers to a heterogeneous group of psychological processing disorders manifested by significant difficulties in the acquisition and use of language, reading, writing, or mathematics. These disorders are intrinsic to the individual and may occur across the life span.

Specific learning disability means a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, that may manifest itself in the imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or to do mathematical calculations, including conditions such as perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia. Specific learning disability does not include learning problems that are primarily the result of: visual, hearing, or motor disabilities; significant limited intellectual capacity; significant identifiable emotional disability; cultural factors; environmental or economic disadvantage; or limited English proficiency

• “However, there is also the scientific concept of LD that I think is very important. Research, in particular, must begin to focus on children who meet multiple exclusionary criteria, including evidence of intractability to quality instruction. Otherwise intervention and other kinds of studies will continue to combine children who haven't been taught well with those who are difficult to teach and we won't learn what we need to learn about children who have low achievement and who are hard to teach. From this perspective, I think we can evaluate hypotheses about true LD and give some meaning to the classification.”

Jack M. Fletcher, Ph.D.Department of PsychologyUniversity of Houston Health Sciences Center

A State must adopt, consistent with 34 CFR 300.309, criteria for determining whether a child has a specific learning disability as defined in 34 CFR 300.8(c)(10). In addition, the criteria adopted by the State:

Must not require the use of a severe discrepancy between intellectual ability and achievement for determining whether a child has a specific learning disability, as defined in 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).

Why Not Require IQ AchievementDiscrepancy

• Not research based for determining the presence/absence of a SLD

• Students with and without the discrepancy but with low achievement do not differ in behavior, achievement, cognitive skills or response to instruction (Stuebing, et al, 2002; Siegel, 1992)

• IQ does not predict response to instruction/intervention (Stuebing et al., 2009)

• Cut points from single measures do not address the “why” of the low achievement.

Cognitive/Psychological Processing and PSW Assessments-USDOE

• “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.” (IDEIA, 2004, p. 46651)

Outcomes of PSW Assessment on Identification: Research Evidence

• Steubing et al., 2012 (School Psychology Review– Three methods of PSW assessments– 10,000 Cases (Simulation)– Identification rates of SLD were low- 3%– Accurate identification of “Not SLD)– Large over-identification rates

• 2598 Students Identified as SLD• 467 were correct, 2131 were incorrect• Accuracy for different methods: 1.6% to 52%

Why Was the RtI Option Added?• RtI focuses on the academic needs of students at the first sign of a

problem.• RtI is grounded in a systematic data-based problem-solving process• RtI is an evidence-based alternative to the discrepancy model (not

evidence based for SLD identification)• It is more efficient and contextually based• Reduces identification bias• Focus in on student outcomes in the context of the instructional

environment• Designed to evaluate the impact of instruction simultaneously with

the eligibility process• Is nested within the context of a “Comprehensive Evaluation.”

What is the difference between a student who is significantly “behind” and one with a SLD?

31

Intensity vs. Severity

Intensity is measured by how far behind a student is academically or how different the behavior is from peers or norms.

Severity is degree to which the student does or does not respond to evidence-based and well delivered intervention.

A student could have an intense problem, but catch up quickly. Not Severe

A student could have an intense problem, but NOT respond to well delivered interventions. Severe

Decision Matrix

33

Intensity vs. Severity

An INTENSE problem is not necessarily a severe problem.

Students with disabilities exhibit BOTH intensity AND severity

Table Top Discussion

• Currently, HOW do you measure each of the following for a student with a suspected reading disability?

– Intensity?

– Severity?

The Relationship Between Severity, Intensity of Instruction and Eligibility for SLD

Severity

• IF severity is defined as the degree to which students do or do not respond to increasingly intensified instruction

• THEN we must have a common language/common understanding of what is meant by intensified instruction and how we deliver intensified instruction

Intensifying Instruction

• Time– More time, more practice and rehearsal, more opportunity for

feedback

• Focus– Narrowing the range of instruction

• Reading: 5 Big Ideas, SOME of the 5 Big Ideas

• Type– More explicit, more frequent, errorless

Tier 1GOAL: 100% of students pass

benchmark assessments

Tier 1 effective if approx. 80% are meeting benchmark assessments with only access to Core.

Tier 2For approx. 20% of

students

Tier 1 Core

+ Supplemental


Tier 2 Effective if approx. 70-80% of students in group improve performance (i.e., gap is closing)

Tier 3For Approx 5% of

Students

Tier 1 Core

+Supplemental

+Intensive Individual

Instruction


Tier 3 Effective if there is progress (i.e., gap closing).

TIER I: Core, UniversalAcademic and Behavior

39

GOAL: 100% of students achieve at high levels

Tier I: Implementing well researched programs and practices demonstrated to produce good outcomes for the majority of students.Tier I: Effective if at least 80% are meeting benchmarks with access to Core/Universal Instruction.Tier I: Begins with clear goals:1.What exactly do we expect all students to learn ?2.How will we know if and when they’ve learned it?3.How you we respond when some students don’t learn?4.How will we respond when some students have already learned?

Questions 1 and 2 help us ensure a guaranteed and

viable core curriculum

Effective Instruction (Foorman et al., 2003; Foorman & Torgesen, 2001; Arrasmith, 2003; & Rosenshine, 1986)

Characteristic Guiding Questions Well Met Somewhat Met

Not Met

Goals and Objectives Are the purpose and outcomes of instruction clearly evident in the lesson plans? Does the student understand the purpose for learning the skills and strategies taught?

Explicit Are directions clear, straightforward, unequivocal, without vagueness, need for implication, or ambiguity?

Systematic Are skills introduced in a specific and logical order, easier to more complex? Do the lesson activities support the sequence of instruction? Is there frequent and cumulative review?

Scaffolding Is there explicit use of prompts, cues, examples and encouragements to support the student? Are skills broken down into manageable steps when necessary?

Corrective Feedback Does the teacher provide students with corrective instruction offered during instruction and practice as necessary?

Modeling Are the skills and strategies included in instruction clearly demonstrated for the student?

Guided Practice Do students have sufficient opportunities to practice new skills and strategies with teacher present to provide support?

Independent Application Do students have sufficient opportunities to practice new skills independently?

Pacing Is the teacher familiar enough with the lesson to present it in an engaging manner? Does the pace allow for frequent student response? Does the pace maximize instructional time, leaving no down-time?

Instructional Routine Are the instructional formats consistent from lesson to lesson?

TIER II: Supplemental, Targeted

41

Tier II For approx. 20% of students

Core +

Supplemental

…to achieve benchmarksTier II Effective if at least 70-80% of students improve performance (i.e., gap is closing towards benchmark and/or progress monitoring standards).1.Where are the students performing now?2.Where do we want them to be?3.How long do we have to get them there?4.How much do they have to grow per year/monthly to get there?5.What resources will move them at that rate?

3 Fs + 1 S + Data + PD = Effective & Powerful Instruction

• Frequency and duration of meeting in small groups – every day, etc.

• Focus of instruction (the What) – work in vocabulary, phonics, comprehension, etc.

• Format of lesson (the How) – determining the lesson structure and the level of scaffolding, modeling, explicitness, etc.

• Size of instructional group – 3, 6, or 8 students, etc.

• Use data to help determine the 3 Fs and 1 S (the Why)

• Provide professional development in the use of data and in the 3 Fs and 1 S

TIER III: Intensive, Individualized

43

Tier III For Approx 5% of Students

Core

+Supplemental

+Intensive Individual Instruction

…to achieve benchmarks

1.Where is the student performing now?2.Where do we want him to be?3.How long do we have to get him there?4.What supports has he received?5.What resources will move him at that rate?

Tier III Effective if there is progress (i.e., gap closing) towards benchmark and/or progress monitoring goals.

Characteristics of Intensive Interventions:

Tier 3

More instructional time

More powerful instruction involves:

Smaller instructional groups

Clearer and more detailed explanations

More systematic instructional sequences

More extensive opportunities for guided practice

More opportunities for error correction and feedback

More precisely targeted at right level

resources

skill

“Whose Issue Is It?”

• Effective Tier 1– 80% of students successful

• Effective Tier 2– 70% of students successful

• Tier 3– These are students who are not successful when 80% of their peers

were successful in Tier 1 and the 20% who were not, were successful in Tier 2

– They truly are the “few”– WHY would they not respond to effective instructional practices that

95% of students responded to?

Instructional Sufficiency and Fidelity

• Sufficiency– The instruction was delivered in sufficient

amounts—DOSAGE

• Fidelity– The instruction was delivered the way is was

intended to be delivered

Fidelity

• Tier 1– Walk Throughs– PLC Meetings/Supports– Teacher to Teacher Support– Coaching Support

• Tier 2/3– Intervention Support

Intervention Support Protocol

• Review Student Data/Progress

• Identify Barriers to Implementation– Identify– Reduce/Eliminate

• Review Steps/Strategies/Procedures for Drift

Intervention Support/Fidelity

• Pre-meeting– Review data– Review steps to intervention– Determine logistics

• First 2 weeks– 2-3 meetings/week– Review data– Review steps to intervention– Revise, if necessary

Intervention Support/Fidelity• Following weeks

– Meet at least weekly– Review data– Review steps– Discuss Revisions

• Approaching benchmark– Review data– Schedule for intervention fading– Review data

From Definitions to Eligibility

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act

• (5) SPECIAL RULE FOR ELIBIGILITY DETERMINATION- In making a determination of eligibility under paragraph (4)(A), a child shall not be determined to be a child with a disability if the determinant factor for such determination is—

(A) lack of appropriate instruction in reading, including in the essential components of reading instruction (as defined in section 1208(3) of the ESEA of 1965);(B) lack of appropriate instruction in math; or(C) limited English proficiency.

Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act

• In general._Notwithstanding section 607(b), when determining whether a child has a specific learning disability as defined in section 602(29), a local educational agency shall not be required to take into consideration whether a child has a severe discrepancy between achievement and intellectual ability in …

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act

• (B) Additional authority._In determining whether a child has a specific learning disability, a local educational agency may use a process that determines if the child responds to scientific, research-based intervention.

• Process refers to “Problem Solving Process”• Responds refers to “Response to Intervention”

New Regulations: LD• The child does not achieve adequately for the• child’s age or to meet State-approved grade-level standards• in one or more of the following areas, when provided with• learning experiences and instruction appropriate for the• child’s age or State-approved grade–level standards:

• The child does not make sufficient progress to• meet age or State-approved grade-level standards in one or• more of the areas identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this• section when using a process based on the child’s response• to scientific, research-based intervention;

New Regulations: LD

• Data that demonstrate that prior to, or as a part of, the referral process, the child was provided appropriate instruction in regular education settings, delivered by qualified personnel; and

• (2) Data-based documentation of repeated assessments of achievement at reasonable intervals, reflecting formal assessment of student progress during instruction, which was provided to the child’s parents.

New Regulations: LD

• If the child has participated in a process that• assesses the child’s response to scientific, research-based• intervention-–• (i) The instructional strategies used and the• student-centered data collected; and

• (ii) The documentation that the child’s parents were• notified about--• (A) The State’s policies regarding the amount and• nature of student performance data that would be collected• and the general education services that would be provided;• (B) Strategies for increasing the child’s rate of Learning AND the relationship between student

behavior and academic performance.

Basic Issues in Eligibility Determination

• Student must have the CHARACTERISTICS of the disability

• Student must demonstrate a NEED for the program

» (IDEIA, 2004)

Steps in the Eligibility Process

• Appropriate Instruction– Regular Education– Data-based documentation of response to instruction

• Low Achievement/Discrepancy– Age– State Approved Grade Level Standards

• One of 8 areas only• Lack of Sufficient Progress OR

– PSW Relevant to Identification of SLD

• Observation-Relationship Between Academics/Behavior• Exclusions Ruled Out• Comprehensive Evaluation

Sufficiency of Appropriate Instruction

Include Attendance, Frequent School Changes-

Anything Would Inform “Lack”

Effectiveness of Instruction

“Exposed to Effective Instruction in Reading and Math”

District Example

Tier 1 Data Example

H

Low AchievementDiscrepancy

8 Areas

Eligible Areas

• Problem Identification– Oral Expression– Listening Comprehension– Written Expression– Basic Reading Skill– Reading Fluency Skills– Reading Comprehension– Mathematics Calculation– Mathematics Problem-Solving

Steps in the Eligibility Process• The child does not achieve

adequately for the child’s age or to meet state-approved grade-level standards

– GAP Analysis from Tier 1– Student/peer performance– Effective instruction

AND

Instructional Effectiveness Review-Focus of Instruction

Student(s)

Benchmark

Peers


Student(s)

Benchmark

Peers


Student(s)

Benchmark

Peers

Which Line Represents the Greatest Growth?

Test 1 (Sept. 2013) Test 2 (Dec. 2013) Test 3 (Feb. 2014)0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Discovery Education Assessment Results: Math

Mikenzi

Class Average

Grade Average

Per

cent

Cor

rect

Which Line Grew the Most?How Do You Interpret Drop?

12-Feb-14

19-Feb-14

26-Feb-14

5-Mar-

14

12-Mar-

14

19-Mar-

14

26-Mar-

14

2-Apr-1

4

9-Apr-1

4

16-Apr-1

4

23-Apr-1

4

30-Apr-1

40

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

On-task Classroom Behavior

MikenziTrend LinePeersGoal LineAim Line

% o

f Tim

e O

n-ta

sk (2

0 m

in.)

Baseline

What Data Do You Use to Determine Discrepancy Between Standards and Student

Performance?

Steps in the Eligibility Process• The child does not make sufficient

progress to meet age or to meet state-approved standards when using a process based on the child’s response to scientific, research-based intervention

– Problem-Solving Process– RtI Data from Tiers 2 and 3– Poor response to intervention– Lack of functional independence

Problem Solving Process

EvaluateResponse to

Intervention (RtI)

Problem AnalysisValidating ProblemIdent Variables that

Contribute to ProblemDevelop Plan

Define the ProblemDefining Problem/Directly Measuring Behavior

Implement PlanImplement As Intended

Progress MonitorModify as Necessary

Problem-Analysis(Comprehensive Evaluation)

• Student– Skills, Engagement, Reading Processes, Health, Readiness

• Curriculum– Difficulty, Presentation, Length, Format, Relevance,

• Peer– Expectations, Reinforcement, Values, Support

• Teacher/Instruction– Frequency of interaction, Reinforcement, Presentation Style

• Classroom/School– Rules, Distractions, Seating, Schedule, Physical Plant

• Home/Family

Decision Rules:What Constitutes Sufficient Progress?

Decision Rules

• Response to Intervention Rules

• Linking RtI to Intervention Decisions

Decision Rules: What is a “Good” Response to Intervention?

• Positive Response– Gap is closing

– Can extrapolate point at which target student(s) will “come in range” of target--even if this is long range

– Level of “risk” lowers over time

• Questionable Response– Rate at which gap is widening slows considerably, but gap is still

widening

– Gap stops widening but closure does not occur

• Poor Response– Gap continues to widen with no change in rate.

Performance

Time

Positive Response to Intervention

Expected Trajectory

Observed Trajectory

Good RtI

Decision Rules: What is a “Questionable” Response to Intervention?




widening


– Level of “risk” remains the same over time


Performance

Time

Questionable Response to Intervention

Expected Trajectory

Observed Trajectory

Questionable RtI

Decision Rules: What is a “Poor” Response to Intervention?




widening



– Level of “risk” worsens over time

Performance

Time

Poor Response to Intervention

Expected Trajectory

Observed Trajectory

Aimline= 1.50 words/week

Trendline = 0.95 words/week

Performance

Time

Response to Intervention

Expected Trajectory

Observed Trajectory

Positive

Questionable

Poor

Decision Rules: Linking RtI to Intervention Decisions

• Positive• Continue intervention with current goal

• Continue intervention with goal increased

• Fade intervention to determine if student(s) have acquired functional independence.


• Questionable– Was intervention implemented as intended?

• If no - employ strategies to increase implementation integrity

• If yes -

– Increase intensity of current intervention for a short period of time and assess impact. If rate improves, continue. If rate does not improve, return to problem solving.


• Poor– Was intervention implemented as intended?

• If no - employ strategies in increase implementation integrity

• If yes -

– Is intervention aligned with the verified hypothesis? (Intervention Design)

– Are there other hypotheses to consider? (Problem Analysis)

– Was the problem identified correctly? (Problem Identification)

Aimline= 1.50 words/week

Trendline = 0.95 words/week

Aimline= 2 percent/week

Trendline = 3 percent/week

Type of Instruction Needed:Specially Designed or Intensified?

Intensive vs Specially Designed

• Intensive instruction:– Most time we can provide– Narrowest focus– Designed to overcome barriers (e.g., loss of

opportunity, lack of sufficient instructional time, background, language) that are not the result of a disability

• Specially Designed Instruction– Designed to reduce or eliminate the barriers related to

a disability

Characteristics of Specially Designed Instruction

• Focus is to reduce or eliminate the impact of a disability on academic and/or behavioral progress

• Designed specifically for an individual student following individual problem-solving

• Could be implemented in Tiers 1, 2 and/or 3• Examples include: text to speech, unique

teaching strategies to teach a skill or alternatives to a skill, feedback protocols

IDEIA Comprehensive Evaluation

• Relevant behavior noted during the observation and relationship of Bx to academic functioning– Data from required

observation

Behavior Observation:Questions to be Answered

• What is the student behavior during difficult academic tasks?– % On-Task Attention– Level of Productivity (e.g., work completed)– Accuracy of work Completed

• Is this pattern different from academic tasks which are not difficult for the student?

• What is the relationship between target student behavior and behavior of students who can do the task? (average student)

Good Attendance = Less than 5% of school days missed throughout the school year (8 or fewer days)Fair Attendance = 5%-10% of school days missed throughout the school year (8.5-16.5 days)Poor Attendance = 10% or more of school days missed throughout the school year - i.e. chronically absent (17+ days)

Good Attendance = Less than 5% of school days missed throughout the school year (8 or fewer days)Fair Attendance = 5%-10% of school days missed throughout the school year (8.5-16.5 days)Poor Attendance = 10% or more of school days missed throughout the school year - i.e. chronically absent (17+ days)

Chronic PBRs = top 25% of all students with PBRs. Elementary = 3+; Middle School = 6+; High School = 4+

Chronic PBRs = top 25% of all students with PBRs. Elementary = 3+; Middle School = 6+; High School = 4+

IDEIA Comprehensive Evaluation• The findings are not primarily the result

of:– Sensory or Motor Disability– Mental Retardation

• Assess Adaptive Behavior First

– Emotional Disturbance• Data from observation• Observation and

performance data– Cultural Factors

• AYP Data for Race (NCLB)• Comparative AYP for Culture

(Local Norms)– Environmental or Economic

Disadvantage• AYP Data for Low SES

– Limited English Proficiency• AYP Data for LEP

Rule Out: ED• Behavior Observation

– Compare behavior to peers through systematic observation procedures

– Document any “behaviors” that cluster with particular disorders

• Behavior Rating Scales that document “emotional disorder/disturbance” (if necessary--remember these behaviors must adversely effect academic or social performance)

Rule Out: Culture/Race

• Collect data on other students of same culture on target behaviors/concerns and compare with target student.

• Use NCLB data (or benchmark data) to compare performance of target student with data from those students who share demographics.

Rule Out: Economic Disadvantage

• Compare performance of target student with the NCLB or district data on other students on the “free/reduced lunch program. FRLP”– If other FRLP students are performing at a significantly higher level,

then it is less likely that economic disadvantage is the primary reason.– If other FRLP students share the same performance levels, then the

team must consider core instruction issues with these students.

Rule Out: English Language Proficiency

• Compare performance of target student with the NCLB or district data on other ELL students.– If other ELL students are performing at a significantly higher level, then

it is less likely that economic disadvantage is the primary reason.– If other ELL students share the same performance levels, then the

team must consider core instruction issues with these students.

Eligibility Summary• Replacement behavior in one of the 8 SLD areas.• Interventions implemented with integrity and documented.• Behavior is not interfering with student performance.• A significant GAP exists between the students current level of

performance and state approved, grade-level benchmarks.

Eligibility Summary• The student has received intensive intervention services.• The student has demonstrated questionable or poor RtI OR• The student cannot sustain benchmark performance without

the intensive interventions.• Sensory/motor disability, MR, ED, Cultural factors, Economic

Disadvantage, and Language issues have been ruled out • Comprehensive Evaluation using the Problem-Solving Process

has identified effective specially designed instructional strategies

Documents

Identification of Students with SLD within an RtI/MTSS Framework Accurate Eligibility and Effective Instructional Practices Dr. George M. Batsche Director