RTI and LD: Case Studies

1
RTI and LD Case Studies

• Rhode Island RTI Initiative
• Module 5
• Edition 2, Feb. 2008

2
Goals of this module

• To develop understanding of the LD criteria
• To gain experience making RTI-based special
  education decisions
• Accepting a Referral
• Evaluating for LD
• Determining LD

3
There are three decisions within the special
education process in which RTI is important

• Accepting a Referral any student
• Evaluating
• For other disabilities, specific criteria
• If learning disabilities suspected, RTI
• Determining Learning Disability

4
Accepting a Referral

• Great deal should have been done with a student
  already prior to referral, i.e.
• Parent Consultation
• High-quality research-based instruction
• Grade-level meeting
• Differentiated small group Instruction
• Intervention Team Meeting
• Tutoring
• Parents have received official notice

5
Description of appropriate, high-quality,
research-based instruction

• Instruction
• Interventions
• Assessment data

6

• Description of appropriate, high-quality,
  research-based instruction provided in all
  educational settings and by trained personnel
  interventions of appropriate type, progression
  and intensity, implemented with fidelity and data
  indicating that frequent, repeated, appropriate
  assessments of this student's achievement/performa
  nce and progress were made, and that results were
  provided to the child's parents.

7
Students Achievement/Performance

• Variety of Assessments
• on assessment that measures progress towards
  Grade Level/Span Expectation
• on district reading/math assessments
• on behavioral observations and/or rating scales
• on standardized norm-referenced tests
• Is the students achievement/performance
  significantly different from his/her peers?
  (e.g. child performs below the 10th percentile
  in comparison to his or her peers)
  YES NO 

8
Progress During Instruction and Intervention
(1) Has the child received comprehensive
classroom instruction (including supplemental
strategies and differentiated instruction)?
YES NO (2) Has the child received individual
and/or small group interventions and frequent
progress monitoring by classroom teacher and/or
other personnel? YES NO (3) Has the child
received two periods (a month each at the very
minimum) of intensive interventions and weekly
progress monitoring (including clear evidence of
fidelity of implementation) YES NO
9
Gap Between Students Performance and Peers'

• Is the gap between the students performance and
  his/her peers being closed?
• Can the students progress be maintained without
  intensive support? YES NO
• If yes, describe effective strategies and
  interventions.
• If no, proceed to consider suspicion of
  disability.

10
Accept Referral
Would you accept the referral?
Yes, if the student has had intensive
interventions and continues to be significantly
underachieving and demonstrates the need for
intensive interventions to make progress
suspicion of a disability
11
Martian

• 5th grade boy
• Reading at grade-level
• Needs additional support in math

12
Should we accept this referral?

• Referral Meeting 3/24
• Mr. and Mrs. Martian, Parents
• Mr. Jupiter, General Ed. Teacher
• Ms. Black Hole, Special Educator,
• Mrs. Comet, School Psychologist
• Ms. Jones, Guidance Counselor

• What has been done with this student already
• Parent Consultation (9/20 10/29)
• Math Instruction Investigations
• Grade-level meeting (9/25)
• Differentiated small group Instruction
• Intervention Team Meeting (11/3, 12/15, 3/5)
• Tutoring
• Parents have received official notice

13
But.We are on Earth
14
Does have a LD?
Martian

• Comprehensive Evaluation
• Parents
• LD questions
• Exclusionary Criteria

15
Will comprehensive evaluations change as a result
of RTI? If so, how?

• Other disabilities specific evaluation criteria
• RTI can be useful
• For LD, RTI criteria
• Still complete and individual doesn't change
• RTI changes the nature of the comprehensive
  evaluation away from testing for eligibility to
  an organization of data already collected on the
  students instructional progress for planning
  increasingly intense interventions.
• (NASDSE, 2006)

16
Our Old System
Our New System

• Intervention Summary Review
• Vision-Hearing Screening
• Parent and Teacher Interviews
• CBM Normative Comparisons
• Curriculum-Based Assessments
• Observation

• WISC-III
• Woodcock JohnsonIII
• Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test
• Motor Screen
• Bender
• Teacher Interview
• Speech Screening
• Health History
• Social History
• Educational History

17
300.304 Evaluation Procedures

• (4) 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
• Emphasis Added

18

R I O T
19
Martian

• Comprehensive Evaluation
• Review of RTI Information
• Assessments
• Intensive Intervention Response
• Observation
• Additional evaluation based on remaining
  assessment questions

20
Parents
Students Teachers Parents
21
Parents

• Involved from the beginning
• Documentation about RTI process shared
• State's policies regarding data and gen. ed
  services
• Strategies and interventions for increasing
  child's rate of learning
• Parents' right to request an evaluation
• Informed consent is required for an evaluation, a
  reevaluation and for the initial delivery of
  special education services.
• Active member of evaluation team

22
Learning Disability Determination 

• AND b) Educational Progress
• Summarize groups conclusion regarding the
  evidence that the student does not make
  sufficient progress to meet age or State-approved
  grade level/span expectations, based on childs
  limited responsiveness to intensive scientific,
  research-based interventions which have been
  implemented with fidelity. Longer-term intensive
  interventions are necessary for progress.

• a) Achievement Gap
• Summarize groups conclusion regarding the
  evidence from multiple sources that a students
  current achievement is significantly different
  than his/her age peers (after provision of
  appropriate general education learning
  experiences including at least two periods of
  intensive interventions).

• In one or more of the eight areas,
• does the students performance meet the
  description under
• (a) Achievement Gap
  AND (b) Educational Progress

23
Exclusionary Criteria

• This finding is NOT primarily the result of
• A visual, hearing, or motor disability
• Mental retardation
• Emotional disturbance
• Cultural factors
• Environmental or economic disadvantage
• Limited English Proficiency
• If any one of the following is a consideration,
  it is NOT the DETERMINANT FACTOR of the groups
  finding
• Student has lacked appropriate instruction in
  literacy or in math
• Student has had extended absences or repeated
  change of schools
• Student has had an inconsistent or inappropriate
  educational program

24
Martian's Special Education Decisions

• Evaluation
• LD Determination

25
What about us?
Turn and Talk
Awareness, Infrastructure Building,
Implementation
26
Description of appropriate, high-quality,
research-based instruction

• Instruction
• Interventions
• Assessment data

27

• Description of appropriate, high-quality,
  research-based instruction provided in all
  educational settings and by trained personnel
  interventions of appropriate type, progression
  and intensity, implemented with fidelity and data
  indicating that frequent, repeated, appropriate
  assessments of this student's achievement/performa
  nce and progress were made, and that results were
  provided to the child's parents.

28
Martian

• Look at information
• Jot down points for a summary statement
• Share points and come to consensus

29
Students Achievement/Performance

• Variety of Assessments
• on assessment that measures progress towards
  Grade Level/Span Expectation
• on district reading/math assessments
• on behavioral observations and/or rating scales
• on standardized norm-referenced tests
• Is the students achievement/performance
  significantly different from his/her peers?
  (e.g. child performs below the 10th percentile
  in comparison to his or her peers)
  YES NO 

30
Martian

• Investigation Unit Tests
• Math Calculation CBMs
• 4th grade Math Grades
• 4th grade NECAP

Unit One 45, Unit Two 60
Mult/Div 20 digits, 60 accuracy Add/Sub 29
digits, 80 accuracy
Problem Solving Approaching Standard Calculations
Below Standard Effort At Standard
Partially Proficient
31
Progress During Instruction and Intervention
(1) Has the child received comprehensive
classroom instruction (including supplemental
strategies and differentiated instruction)?
YES NO (2) Has the child received individual
and/or small group interventions and frequent
progress monitoring by classroom teacher and/or
other personnel? YES NO (3) Has the child
received two periods (at the very minimum a month
each) of intensive interventions and weekly
progress monitoring (including clear evidence of
fidelity of implementation) YES NO
32
Martian

• Classroom Instruction
• Intervention One
• Intervention Two

Investigations Small group differentiation
Math Calculations with partner and TA
Math Calculations with partner and TA Explicit
instruction (Mul, Div, Fractions) in small group

• Weekly Progress Monitoring
• Fidelity of Implementation

33
Gap Between Students Performance and Peers'

• Is the gap between the students performance and
  his/her peers being closed?
• Can the students progress be maintained without
  intensive support? YES NO
• If yes, describe effective strategies and
  interventions.
• If no, proceed to consider suspicion of
  disability.

34
Martian's Math CBMAddition and Subtraction
3rd Grade End of the Year Benchmark is 32 Correct
Digits
35
Martian's Math CBM Multiplication and Division
36
Martian
36 Correct Digits Addition/Subtraction, ROI .5
Met 3rd grade benchmark 28 Correct Digits
Multiplication/Division, ROI .7 Average 5th
grade 38 Correct Digits, lt10th percentile
local norms Investigation Unit 3 Re-take
83 Investigations Unit 4 76 (Average 90,
bottom quarter) Investigations Unit 5 70
(Average 88, bottom tenth)
Two on-going small group interventions in math,
beyond one hour math block
37
Accept Referral
Would you accept the referral?
Yes, Martian has had intensive interventions and
continues to be significantly underachieving and
he demonstrates the needs for intensive
interventions to make progress.
38
Lauren

• Lauren, a third grader, is entering your district
  late in the year. Her family has provided
  records from her previous school district, which
  has been giving her additional support in reading
  for two years.
• You are a member of your
• school's team, which is meeting
• as a Referral Review Team to
• consider next steps for Lauren.
• Parents have received official
• notice.

39
LaurenWhat shall we do?

• Divide into two groups
• (1) Interventions and (2) Assessment
• Review Lauren's case in preparation for the
  Referral Team Meeting based on your group's
  assignment.
• 6 participants role-play a meeting
• 3 from Interventions, 3 from Assessment
• Remaining participants fishbowl and provide
  feedback after the meeting regarding Lauren and
  the process taken by the team.

40
Fishbowl Participants

• Fishbowl participants
• What did you see that you feel reflects best
  practice in systematic problem solving to support
  learning for all students/RTI?
• What questions do you have?
• What would you have approached or done
  differently?

41
Lauren Critique of Idaho's Process

• How do you help your staff understand the
  materials from Idaho? How do you translate it to
  RI RTI language?
• What did you like about the process they used?
  What are best practices?
• What concerns do you have?
• What would you do differently?

42
RTI, LD

• 3 THINGS I LEARNED TODAY
• 2 THINGS I STILL HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT
• 1 THING I KNOW OUR SCHOOL NEEDS TO DO