The Nuts and Bolts of the New Specific Learning Disability (SLD) Criteria

1
The Nuts and Bolts of the New Specific Learning
Disability (SLD) Criteria

• Presented by
• Jacque Hyatt, Co-Director, Idaho SDE Special
  Education Division
• January 21, 2010

2
Idaho Live! General Information
3
Training Objectives

• To provide participants with specific information
  relating to the newly revised SLD criteria.
• To provide participants the history of SLD in
  Idaho.
• To explain why Idaho has changed their criteria.
• To discuss the eligibility and evaluation
  criteria and the procedures.

4
History of Learning Disabilities

• Debates continue to be part of the learning
  disabilities history.
• Most evident is the debate between the concepts
  of learning and its relationship to cognitive
  ability or intelligence.

• Due to this debate, some practitioners rely
  solely on IQ testing with a few other parts of
  the whole.
• With IDEA 2004, there were changes towards a
  system that moved from the concept of
  discrepenancy only to a shift to an RTI framework.

5
What LD is and is not

• IS
• Specific Learning Disability (SLD) 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.

• IS NOT
• Specific Learning Disability does not include
  learning problems that are primarily the result
  of visual, hearing, or motor disabilities, of
  cognitive impairment, of emotional disturbance,
  or of environmental, cultural, or economic
  disadvantage.
• (Flannagan, 2008)

6
Why the Change?

• Aligns with the federal definition.
• Is consistent with evidence demonstrating that
  students can have impairments in very specific
  areas.
• Allows for evaluation and intervention planning
  to be more closely aligned to address the
  particular needs of the student.

7
Why the Change?

• Heterogeneity of SLDmeaning different student
  profiles can be viewed across school, district,
  state, and nation.
• Current research evidence is not sufficient to
  recommend hard cut scores.
• Rationale for the blended model in Idaho.

8
Three Models Used to Determine Eligibility

• RTI only model
• Patterns of Strengths and Weaknesses
• Blended model

9
Why Idaho Has Chosen A Blended Model

• With both camps debating the IQ (discrepancy)
  method vs. the RTI method, both groups have moved
  to the middle of the debate.
• There is a need to use an integrated framework to
  be consistent with what the expectations for
  implementing the new SLD criteria in Idaho.

10
Blended model

• Idaho has chosen to use the blended model to
  support using a comprehensive approach to
  identification.
• The blended model represents the most
  comprehensive approach, addressing the
  shortcomings in RTI only (which is lack of
  explanatory info) and patterns (which is lack of
  ecological assessment and continuity of how the
  disability manifests in the natural/educational
  environment)

11
Myths vs. Truths

• Myth Number One More students will be identified
  as LD.
• Truth There is no evidence to suggest that
  students will over-identified.
• Myth Number Two We are back to professional
  judgment.
• Truth You still need to use valid and reliable
  data to determine eligibility.

12
Myths vs. Truths

• MYTH We have to buy all these expensive tests
  to give to students.
• TRUTH There are assessments tools that are
  currently in place to support the process.
• MYTH This too will pass. It wont last. Its
  just the SDE coming up with something new.
• TRUTH Sorry, folks. This aligns to IDEA 2004
  and it is not something that is going away.

13
Eligibility Criteria

• Step I
• The student does not make sufficient progress in
  response to effective, evidence based instruction
  and intervention for the childs age or to meet
  state-approved grade level standards in one or
  more of the following areas
• a. Oral expression
• b. Listening comprehension
• c. Written expression
• d. Basic reading skills
• e. Reading comprehension
• f. Reading fluency
• g. Mathematics calculation or
• h. Mathematics problem solving

14
Eligibility Criteria

• Step 2
• And
• The student demonstrates low achievement in the
  area(s) of suspected disability listed above as
  evidenced by a norm-referenced, standardized
  achievement assessment. For culturally and
  linguistically diverse students, the
  preponderance of evidence must indicate low
  achievement.

15
Eligibility Criteria

• Step 3
• And
• The student demonstrates a pattern of strengths
  and weaknesses in psychological processing skills
  that impact learning.

16
Eligibility Criteria

• STEP 4
• And
• The students lack of achievement is not
  primarily the result of
• a. A visual, hearing, or motor impairment
• b. Cognitive impairment
• c. Emotional disturbance
• d. Environmental, cultural or economic
  disadvantage
• e. Limited English Proficiency
• f. A lack of appropriate instruction in reading,
  including the essential
• components of reading
• g. A lack of appropriate instruction in math.

17
Eligibility Criteria

• Step 5
• And
• The disability adversely impacts the students
  educational performance and the student requires
  specially designed instruction.

18
Did you review all 5 steps prior to determining
eligibility?
ALL steps must be met.
19
Evaluation Procedures

• Step 1
• The evaluation for determining SLD eligibility
  and requirements for parent notification and
  involvement shall be conducted in accordance with
  the procedures detailed in Section 3, Chapter 4
  of the Idaho Special Education Manual.
• http//www.sde.idaho.gov/site/special_edu/manual_p
  age.htm

20
Evaluation Procedures

• Step 2
• The evaluation must address the eligibility
  criteria as listed in previous slides.
• To meet these criteria, the following information
  is required

21
Evaluation Procedures

• Part A
• Evidence of insufficient progress in response to
  effective, evidence-based instruction and
  intervention indicates the students performance
  level and rate of improvement are significantly
  below that of grade-level peers.

22
Evaluation Procedures

• Data used to support Part A
• Data that helps establish that the core
  curriculum is effective for most students.
• Information documenting that prior to, or as part
  of, the referral process, the student was
  provided appropriate instruction in general
  education settings.
• Data-based documentation of student progress
  during instruction and intervention using
  standardized, norm-referenced progress monitoring
  measures in the area of disability.
• A record of an observation of the students
  academic performance and behavior in the childs
  learning environment (including the general
  classroom setting) has been conducted by an
  evaluation team member other than the students
  general education teacher.

23
Evaluation Procedures

• Part B
• Evidence of low achievement in one or more of
  the suspected area(s). These include
• Oral expression
• Listening comprehension
• Written expression
• Basic reading skills
• Reading comprehension
• Reading fluency
• Mathematics calculation or
• Mathematics problem solving

24
Evaluation Procedures

• NOTE
• This evidence must indicate performance that is
  significantly below the mean on a cluster,
  composite, or 2 or more subtest scores of a
  norm-referenced, standardized, achievement
  assessment in the specific academic area(s) of
  suspected disability.

25
Evaluation Procedures

• NOTE
• There are cases when the use of norm-referenced
  assessment is not appropriate, for example,
  students who are culturally and linguistically
  diverse. Refer to guidance documents regarding
  procedures on evaluating students who are
  culturally and linguistically diverse and the use
  of preponderance of evidence.

26
Evaluation Procedures

• Part C
• Evidence of a pattern of strengths and
  weaknesses in psychological processing skills
  that impact learning.

27
Evaluation Procedures

• Note
• An assessment of psychological processing skills
  is linked to the failure to achieve adequately in
  the academic area(s) of suspected disability and
  must rely on standardized assessments. These
  assessments must be conducted by a professional
  who is qualified to administer and interpret the
  assessment results.
• The students performance on a psychological
  processing assessment demonstrates a pattern of
  strengths and weaknesses that help explain why
  and how the students learning difficulties
  occur.
• Such tests may include measures of memory,
  phonological skills, processing speed as well as
  other measures which explicitly test
  psychological processing.

28
Evaluation Procedures

• PART D
• The following criteria must be considered when
  evaluating the students low achievement. The
  team must determine that the students learning
  difficulty is not primarily the result of
• A visual, hearing, or motor impairment
• Cognitive impairment
• Emotional disturbance
• Environmental or economic disadvantage
• Cultural factors
• Limited English Proficiency

29
Types of Assessments

• Screening and Benchmark
• Universal measures that give a quick read on
  whether students have mastered critical skills.
• Diagnostic/Prescriptive Individually
  administered to gain more in-depth information
  and guide appropriate instruction or intervention
  plans.
• Progress Monitoring Determines whether adequate
  progress is made based on individual goals
  regarding critical skills.
• Outcome Provides an evaluation of the
  effectiveness of instruction and indicate student
  year-end achievement when compared to grade-level
  performance standards

30
Upcoming Webinars

• This series of three webinars will lead
  participants through completing the eligibility
  forms.
• WEBINAR I
• How to complete Section A of the eligibility
  forms
• Dr. Evelyn Johnson and Theresa Fritch
• January 28, 2010
• 200 PST
• 300 MST
• WEBINAR II
• How to complete Sections B C of the eligibility
  forms
• Dr. Evelyn Johnson and Theresa Fritch
• February 11, 2010
• 200 PST
• 300 MST
• WEBINAR III
• How to complete Sections D E of the eligibility
  forms
• Dr. Evelyn Johnson and Theresa Fritch
• February 25, 2010

31
Proposed Timeline

• January 2010 thru March 2010, webinar on
  specifics of SLD and how to complete forms.
• May 15, 2010 submission of a sample file via the
  compliance tracker. Responses to schools and
  districts with file problems will be over the
  summer.
• August 1, 2010 districts/schools begin using the
  new eligibility criteria for all special
  education students.

32
Additional Professional Development

• The SDE will be providing additional training in
  phases through the next three years.
• Topics currently being researched for development
  are
• Classroom management
• Differentiated instruction
• Providing appropriate interventions at Tier 2 and
  3
• Progress monitoring process and tools
• Managing classroom data
• Peer teaching/co-teaching model
• Writing Effective PLOPS/Goals

33
SLD Website

• The Idaho Clearinghouse is developing a webpage
  dedicated to SLD information and events. Please
  check the website in upcoming months for updates.
• http//itcnew.idahotc.com/dnn/

34
Online Resources

• IDEA Partnerships RTI Collection
  www.ideapartnership.org
• National Association of School Psychologists
  www.nasponline.org
• National Association of State Directors of
  Special Education www.nasdse.org
• National Center for Learning Disabilities
  www.ncld.org
• National Center on Culturally Responsive Systems
  www.nccrest.org
• National Center on Student Progress Monitoring
  www.studentprogress.org
• National Center on Response to Intervention
  www.rti4success.org
• National Joint Committee on Learning
  Disabilities www.ldonline.org/njcld
• National Research Center on Learning
  Disabilities www.nrcld.org
• Office of Special Education Programs, IDEA 2004
  Building the Legacy http//idea.ed.gov/
• RTI Action Network www.rtinetwork.org

35
Question and Answer Session
36
Contact Information

• Jacque Hyatt, Co Director, SDE Division of
  Special Education, jshyatt_at_sde.idaho.gov