Determining Eligibility for Special Education in an RTI System

1
Determining Eligibility for Special Education in
an RTI System

• Joseph F. Kovaleski, D.Ed., NCSPIndiana
  University of PA
• Indiana, PA
• Caitlin S. Flinn, M.Ed., NCSP
• Exeter Township School District
• Reading, PA

2
Acknowledgements

• This presentation is based on a training module
  developed in collaboration with the Pennsylvania
  Training and Technical Assistance Network
  (PaTTAN) as part of the RTI Pilot Project. Amy
  Smith, Ed Shapiro, and other PaTTAN consultants
  contributed to the development of these
  materials.
• Thanks to Andrew McCrea for contributing to the
  development of the Rate of Improvement slides.

3
Learning Objectives

• Participants will
• Identify assessment procedures for RTI that are
  embedded in a three-tier model of service
  delivery
• Graph and calculate rate of improvement data
• Articulate how RTI is used in the procedure to
  determine eligibility for special education
• Conceptualize new report writing language for
  composing evaluation reports in an RTI model

4
Todays Perspective

• Assume knowledge of RTI and the three-tier model.
  
• Determining eligibility for special education
  using RTI presupposes that the RTI infrastructure
  has been built.
• This session is about using RTI as an alternative
  to ability-achievement discrepancy, not in
  addition to it.
• The perspective will be based on law/regulations
  and best practices.

5

• Most relevant for those ready to use RTI.
• Some aspects of todays presentation are relevant
  to the SLD requirements, even if youre not using
  RTI.
• Application of some procedures and principles can
  begin now as effective practices.

6
Response to Intervention

• Standards aligned core instruction
• Universal screening
• Interventions of increasing intensity
• Research-based practices
• Progress monitoring
• Data analysis teaming
• Parental engagement

7
Observation
8
Criterion 1Does the child achieve adequately
for the childs age or meet State-approved grade
level standards?

• The group may determine the child has an SLD if
  the child
• Does not achieve adequately for the childs 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 childs age or
  State-approved grade-level standards

(v) Reading fluency skills (vi) Reading
comprehension (vii) Mathematics
calculation (viii) Mathematics problem solving
(i) Oral expression (ii) Listening
comprehension (iii) Written expression (iv) Basic
reading skill
Inclusionary Criteria
300.309(a)
9
Observation
10
Sources of Data to Document Lack of Achievement

• Existing Data
• Performance on benchmark assessments
• Terminal performance on progress monitoring
  measures
• Performance on statewide and district-wide
  assessments

• New Data to Collect
• (if necessary)
• Norm-referenced tests of academic achievement
• Curriculum-based evaluation (cf. Howell et al.)

11
Lack of achievement is in relation to age or
grade-level standards.

• The students assessed achievement on all
  measures should be significantly behind age- or
  grade-peers.
• Measures should be reflective of state standards.
• Achievement here is related to age or grade, not
  intellectual level.

12
Normative Comparisons

• Normative group is important decision
• National normative data sets for CBM
• AIMSweb
• Hasbrouck Tindal
• DIBELS

13
Who sets the parameters for being deficient

• How deficient must a student be in order to
  demonstrate inadequate performance/achievement?
• It is the responsibility of individual school
  districts to establish or define appropriate
  assessment parameters.

14
How deficient should a student be to qualify? An
opinion

• Contemporary research has indicated that a score
  of the 30th percentile on nationally normed
  benchmark tests or individual tests of academic
  achievement is equivalent to a proficient score
  on most statewide tests.
• Therefore, to demonstrate inadequate achievement
  relative to this standard, a student should be
  significantly below this level ( e.g., 10th
  percentile) to meet the SLD qualification under
  this component.

15
2.0X calculation

• Divide norm group mean by students score
• Result expressed as a ratio of deficiency
• Example 100 wpm / 50 wpm 2.0X

16
DIBELS benchmarks (with ROI in parentheses based
on 18 weeks between benchmarks, 36 total weeks)
K ISF (0.9)
K PSF 35 (1.0)
K - NWF 25 (0.7)
1 - NWF 50 (1.4)
1 - ORF 40 (1.1)
2 - ORF 90 (1.3)
3 - ORF 110 (0.9)
4 - ORF 118 (0.7)
5 - ORF 124 (0.6)
17
Consider John, a third grader. Well compare his
scores (denominators) with the scores of the norm
group (numerators), using the 3rd grade norms for
ORF and the 1st grade norms for NWF.

• ORF 110 wpm 2.0X
• 55 wpm
• NWF 50 nwpm 2.5X
• 20 nwpm

18
May we use norm-referenced tests of academic
achievement in determining the extent of the
deficiency?

• May we?
• Yes! There is nothing legally that prevents a
  team from doing so.

• Should we?
• It depends on how secure you are with other data
  regarding the students deficiency in relation to
  standards.
• If you have a preponderance of other data, you
  may choose not to use other norm-referenced
  measures.
• If you dont, or if there are other questions
  that can be answered with norm-referenced
  measures, use them.

19
Example of report language

• Documentation of Deficiency in Level of
  Performance
• John has displayed documented deficiencies in
  reading skills since kindergarten. He has been
  at the below basic level on district-wide and
  statewide tests. His most recent universal
  screening using DIBELS (January) indicated an
  oral reading fluency score of 55 words per
  minute. Compared to typical peers for John's age
  and grade level (110 wpm), John's deficiency
  ratio is 2.0X. The Nonsense Word Fluency subtest
  of DIBELS was also administered. John attained a
  score of 20 nonsense words per minute on the
  subtest. Compared to the terminal score achieved
  by first-graders (50 nwpm), John has a deficiency
  ratio of 2.5X. Progress monitoring of John's oral
  reading fluency has indicated that John continues
  to have difficulty reading in spite of intensive
  intervention. His terminal score during the last
  week of March was 53 words per minute. For oral
  reading fluency John also attained a 20 accuracy
  rate on the 4Sight test which is considerably
  below the 80 mark that is typically attained by
  students in his grade.

20
Implications to consider

• The students IQ level is not considered the
  criterion against which the students academic
  performance is compared.
• Students with intelligence levels in the slow
  learner range may not be excluded from having
  SLD if they display significantly inadequate
  academic achievement and if they meet the other
  criteria (e.g., RTI).
• Conversely, students with high levels of
  intelligence must display inadequacies in
  relation to their age or the state standards for
  their grade in order to meet this criterion.

21
Criterion 2 Does the child demonstrate a
pattern of strengths and weaknesses or a lack of
progress in response to scientifically based
instruction?

• (i) The child does not make sufficient progress
  to meet age or State-approved grade-level
  standards in one or more of the areas identified
  ... when using a process based on the
  childs response to scientific,
  research-based intervention
• or 
• (ii) The child exhibits a pattern of strengths
  and weaknesses in performance, achievement, or
  both, relative to age, State-approved
  gradelevel standards, or intellectual development,
  that is determined by the group to be relevant
  to the identification of a specific learning
  disability, using appropriate assessments,
  consistent with 300.304 and 300.305

22
Observation
23
Overview of RoI

• Define rate of improvement (RoI)
• Review importance of RoI within context of RtI
• Establish a need for consistency when graphing
  and calculating rate of improvement (RoI)
• Model how to graph and calculate RoI in Excel

24
With Progress Monitoring Data

• How do we know if a student is learning?
• Look at the data points
• Where are they on the graph?
• Are the data points getting closer to the goal
  or benchmark?
• Is there a way to measure growth?
• Make an aimline toward goal
• Look to see where data points are compared to
  aimline
• Calculate rate of improvement

25
RoI Definition

• Rate of Improvement can be described
  algebraically as the slope of a line
• Slope is defined as the vertical change over the
  horizontal change on a Cartesian plane. (x-axis
  and y-axis graph)
• Also called Rise over run
• Formula m (y2 - y1) / (x2 - x1)
• Describes the steepness of a line (Gall Gall,
  2007)

26
RoI Definition

• Finding a students RoI is determining the
  students learning
• Creating a line that fits the data points, a
  trendline
• To find that line, we use
• Linear regression
• Ordinary Least Squares

27
Progress Monitoring

• Frequent measurement of knowledge to inform our
  understanding of the impact of instruction/interve
  ntion.
• Measures of basic skills (CBM) have demonstrated
  reliability validity (see table at
  www.rti4success.org).

28
Classroom Instruction (Content Expectations)
Measure Impact (Test)
Proficient!
Non Proficient
Content Need?
Basic Skill Need?
Use Diagnostic Test to Differentiate
Intervention Progress Monitor With CBM
Intervention Progress Monitor
If CBM is Appropriate Measure
Rate of Improvement
McCrea, 2010
29
So

• Rate of Improvement (RoI) is how we understand
  student growth (learning).
• RoI is reliable and valid (psychometrically
  speaking) for use with CBM data.
• RoI is best used when we have CBM data, most
  often when dealing with basic skills in
  reading/writing/math.
• RoI can be applied to other data (like behavior)
  with confidence too!
• RoI is not yet tested on typical Tier I formative
  classroom data.

30
RoI is usually applied to

• Tier One students in the early grades at risk for
  academic failure (low green kids)
• Tier Two Three Intervention Groups
• Special Education Students (and IEP goals)
• Students with Behavior Plans

31
RoI Foundations

• Deno, 1985
• Curriculum-based measurement
• General outcome measures
• Technically adequate
• Short
• Standardized
• Repeatable
• Sensitive to change

32
RoI Foundations

• Fuchs Fuchs, 1998
• Hallmark components of Response to Intervention
• Ongoing formative assessment
• Identifying non-responding students
• Treatment fidelity of instruction
• Dual discrepancy model
• One standard deviation from typically performing
  peers in level and rate

33
RoI Foundations

• Ardoin Christ, 2008
• Slope for benchmarks (3x per year)
• More growth from fall to winter than winter to
  spring
• Might be helpful to use RoI for fall to winter
• And a separate RoI for winter to spring

34
RoI Foundations

• Fuchs, Fuchs, Hamlett, Walz, Germann, 1993
• Typical weekly growth rates in oral reading
  fluency and digits correct
• Needed growth to remediate skills
• Students who had 1.5 to 2.0 times the slope of
  typically performing peers were able to close the
  achievement gap in a reasonable amount of time

35
RoI Foundations

• Deno, Fuchs, Marston, Shin, 2001
• Slope of frequently non-responsive children
  approximated slope of children already identified
  as having a specific learning disability

36
How many data points?

• 10 data points are a minimum requirement for a
  reliable trendline (Gall Gall, 2007)
• Is that reasonable and realistic?
• How does that affect the frequency of
  administering progress monitoring probes?
• How does that affect our ability to make
  instructional decisions for students?

37
How can we show RoI?

• Speeches that included visuals, especially in
  color, improved recall of information (Vogel,
  Dickson, Lehman, 1990)
• Seeing is believing.
• Useful for communicating large amounts of
  information quickly
• A picture is worth a thousand words.
• Transcends language barriers (Karwowski, 2006)
• Responsibility for accurate graphical
  representations of data (Flinn, 2008)

38
Skills for Which We Compute RoI

• Reading
• Oral Reading Fluency
• Word Use Fluency
• Reading Comprehension
• MAZE/DAZE
• Retell, Word Use
• Early Literacy Skills
• Initial Sound
• Letter Naming
• Letter Sound
• Phoneme Segmentation
• Nonsense Word
• Spelling
• Written Expression
• TWW, CWS, WSC

• Math
• Math Computation
• Math Concepts
• Math Facts
• Early Numeracy
• Oral Counting
• Missing Number
• Number Identification
• Quantity Discrimination
• Behavior

39
Guidelines?

• Visual inspection of slope
• Multiple interpretations
• Instructional services
• Need for explicit guidelines

40
Ongoing Research

• RoI for instructional decisions is not a perfect
  process
• Research is currently addressing sources of
  error
• Christ, 2006 standard error of measurement for
  slope
• Ardoin Christ, 2009 passage difficulty and
  variability
• Jenkin, Graff, Miglioretti, 2009 frequency of
  progress monitoring

41
Future Considerations

• Questions yet to be empirically answered
• What parameters of RoI indicate a lack of RtI?
• How does standard error of measurement play into
  using RoI for instructional decision making?
• How does RoI vary between standard protocol
  interventions?
• How does this apply to non-English speaking
  populations?

42
Multiple Methods for Calculating Growth

• Visual Inspection Approaches
• Eye Ball Approach
• Split Middle Approach
• Quantitative Approaches
• Tukey Method
• Last point minus First point Approach
• Split Middle plus
• Linear Regression Approach

43
The Visual Inspection Approaches
44
Eye Ball Approach
45
Split Middle Approach

• Drawing through the two points obtained from the
  median data values and the median days when the
  data are divided into two sections
• (Shinn, Good, Stein, 1989)

46
Split Middle
X(83)
X(63)
X (9)
47
The Quantitative Approaches
48
Tukey Method

• Divide scores into 3 equal groups
• Divide groups with vertical lines
• In 1st and 3rd groups, find median data point and
  median week and mark with an X
• Draw line between two Xs
• (Fuchs, et. al., 2005. Summer Institute Student
  progress monitoring for math. http//www.studentpr
  ogress.org/library/training.asp)

49
Tukey Method
X(74)
X(62)
50
Calculating Slope Tukey Method

• 3rd median point minus the 1st median point
• Divided by the number of data points minus one
• (74-62)/(11-1) slope
• 12/101.2

51
Last minus First

• Iris Center last probe score minus first probe
  score over last administration period minus first
  administration period.
• Y2-Y1/X2-X1 RoI
• http//iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/resources.html

52
Last minus First
53
Last Minus First

• Y2-Y1/X2-X1RoI
• (74-41)/(18-1)RoI
• 33/171.9

54
Split Middle Plus
X(83)
X(63)
X (9)
55
Split Middle Plus

• Y2-Y1/X2-X1RoI
• (83-63)/(15.5-6.5)RoI
• 20/92.2

56
Linear Regression
57
RoI Consistency?
Any Method of Visual Inspection ???
Last minus First 1.9
Tukey Method 1.2
Split Middle Plus 2.2
Linear Regression 2.5
58
RoI Consistency?

• If we are not all using the same model to compute
  RoI, we continue to have the same problems as
  past models, where under one approach a student
  meets SLD criteria, but under a different
  approach, the student does not.
• Without a consensus on how to compute RoI, we
  risk falling short of having technical adequacy
  within our model.

59
So, Why Are There So Many Other RoI Models?

• Ease of application
• Focus on Yes/No to goal acquisition, not degree
  of growth
• How many of us want to calculate OLS Linear
  Regression formulas (or even remember how)?

60
Literature shows that Linear Regression is Best
Practice

• Students daily test scoreswere entered into a
  computer programThe data analysis program
  generated slopes of improvement for each level
  using an Ordinary-Least Squares procedure (Hayes,
  1973) and the line of best fit.
• This procedure has been demonstrated to represent
  CBM achievement data validly within individual
  treatment phases (Marston, 1988 Shinn, Good,
  Stein, in press Stein, 1987).
• Shinn, Gleason, Tindal, 1989

61
Growth (RoI) Research using Linear Regression

• Christ, T. J. (2006). Short-term estimates of
  growth using curriculum based measurement of oral
  reading fluency Estimating standard error of the
  slope to construct confidence intervals. School
  Psychology Review, 35, 128-133.
• Deno, S. L., Fuchs, L. S., Marston, D., Shin,
  J. (2001). Using curriculum based measurement to
  establish growth standards for students with
  learning disabilities. School Psychology Review,
  30, 507-524.
• Good, R. H. (1990). Forecasting accuracy of slope
  estimates for reading curriculum based
  measurement Empirical evidence. Behavioral
  Assessment, 12, 179-193.
• Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., Walz, L.
  Germann, G. (1993). Formative evaluation of
  academic progress How much growth can we expect?
  School Psychology Review, 22, 27-48.

62
Growth (RoI) Researchusing Linear Regression

• Jenkins, J. R., Graff, J. J., Miglioretti, D.L.
  (2009). Estimating reading growth using
  intermittent CBM progress monitoring. Exceptional
  Children, 75, 151-163.
• Shinn, M. R., Gleason, M. M., Tindal, G.
  (1989). Varying the difficulty of testing
  materials Implications for curriculum-based
  measurement. The Journal of Special Education,
  23, 223-233.
• Shinn, M. R., Good, R. H., Stein, S. (1989).
  Summarizing trend in student achievement A
  comparison of methods. School Psychology Review,
  18, 356-370.

63
Incorporating Research

• More growth from fall to winter than winter to
  spring for benchmarks (3x per year)
• Christ Ardoin (2008)
• Christ, Yeo, Silberglitt (in press)
• Fien, Park, Smith, Baker (2010)
• More growth from winter to spring than fall to
  winter
• Graney, Missall, Martinez (2009)

64
Actual Student Data Benchmark 3rd grade DIBELS
ORF
Student SLOPE2.5 Benchmark ROI0.88
Student SLOPE1.89 Benchmark ROI1.06
65
McCrea (2010)

• Looked at Rate of Improvement in small 2nd grade
  sample
• Found differences in RoI when computed for fall
  and spring
• Ave RoI for fall 1.47 WCPM
• Ave RoI for spring 1.21 WCPM

66
DIBELS (6th Ed.) ORF Change in Criteria
Fall to Winter Winter to Spring
2nd 24 22
3rd 15 18
4th 13 13
5th 11 9
6th 11 5
67
AIMSweb Norms
Based on 50th Percentile Fall to Winter Winter to Spring
1st 18 31
2nd 25 17
3rd 22 15
4th 16 13
5th 17 15
6th 13 12
68
Speculation as to why Differences in RoI within
the Year

• Relax instruction after high stakes testing in
  March/April a state test effect.
• Depressed BOY benchmark scores due to summer
  break a rebound effect (Clemens).
• Instructional variables could explain differences
  in Graney (2009) and Ardoin (2008) Christ (in
  press) results (Silberglitt).
• Variability within progress monitoring probes
  (Ardoin Christ, 2008) (Lent).

69
Get Out Your Laptops!

• Open Microsoft Excel

I love ROI
70
Graphing RoIFor Individual Students

• Programming Microsoft Excel to Graph Rate of
  Improvement
• Fall to Winter

71
Setting Up Your Spreadsheet

• In cell A1, type 3rd Grade ORF
• In cell A2, type First Semester
• In cell A3, type School Week
• In cell A4, type Benchmark
• In cell A5, type the Students Name (Swiper
  Example)

72
Labeling School Weeks

• Starting with cell B3, type numbers 1 through 18
  going across row 3 (horizontal).
• Numbers 1 through 18 represent the number of the
  school week.
• You will end with week 18 in cell S3.

73
Labeling Dates

• Note You may choose to enter the date of that
  school week across row 2 to easily identify the
  school week.

74
Entering Benchmarks(3rd Grade ORF)

• In cell B4, type 77. This is your fall benchmark.

• In cell S4, type 92. This is your winter
  benchmark.

75
Entering Student Data (Sample)

• Enter the following numbers, going across row 5,
  under corresponding week numbers.
• Week 1 41
• Week 8 62
• Week 9 63
• Week 10 75
• Week 11 64

• Week 12 80
• Week 13 83
• Week 14 83
• Week 15 56
• Week 17 104
• Week 18 74

76
CAUTION

• If a student was not assessed during a certain
  week, leave that cell blank
• Do not enter a score of Zero (0) it will be
  calculated into the trendline and interpreted as
  the student having read zero words correct per
  minute during that week.

77
Graphing the Data

• Highlight cells A4 and A5 through S4 and S5
• Follow Excel 2003 or Excel 2007 directions from
  here

78
Graphing the Data

• Excel 2003
• Across the top of your worksheet, click on
  Insert
• In that drop-down menu, click on Chart

• Excel 2007
• Click Insert
• Find the icon for Line
• Click the arrow below Line

79
Graphing the Data

• Excel 2003
• A Chart Wizard window will appear

• Excel 2007
• 6 graphics appear

80
Graphing the Data

• Excel 2003
• Choose Line
• Choose Line with markers

• Excel 2007
• Choose Line with markers

81
Graphing the Data

• Excel 2007
• Your graph appears

• Excel 2003
• Data Range tab
• Columns

82
Graphing the Data

• Excel 2003
• Chart Title
• School Week X Axis
• WPM Y Axis

• Excel 2007
• To change your graph labels, click on your graph
• Then your options appear at the top
• Click on one of the Chart Layouts

83
Graphing the Data

• Excel 2003
• Choose where you want your graph

• Excel 2007
• Your chosen layout is applied to the graph
• You can click on the labels to change them

84
Graphing the Trendline

• Excel 2003
• Right click on any of the student data points

• Excel 2007

85
Graphing the Trendline

• Excel 2003
• Choose Linear

• Excel 2007

86
Graphing the Trendline

• Excel 2003
• Choose Custom and check box next to Display
  equation on chart

• Excel 2007

87
Graphing the Trendline

• Clicking on the equation highlights a box around
  it
• Clicking on the box allows you to move it to a
  place where you can see it better

88
Graphing the Trendline

• You can repeat the same procedure to have a
  trendline for the benchmark data points
• Suggestion label the trendline Expected ROI
• Move this equation under the first

89
Individual Student GraphFall to Winter
90
Individual Student Graph

• The equation indicates the slope, or rate of
  improvement.
• The number, or coefficient, before "x" is the
  average improvement, which in this case is the
  average number of words per minute per week
  gained by the student.

91
Individual Student Graph

• The rate of improvement, or trendline, is
  calculated using a linear regression, a simple
  equation of least squares.
• To add additional progress monitoring/benchmark
  scores once youve already created a graph, enter
  additional scores in Row 5 in the corresponding
  school week.

92
Individual Student Graph

• The slope can change depending on which week
  (where) you put the benchmark scores on your
  chart.
• Enter benchmark scores based on when your school
  administers their benchmark assessments for the
  most accurate depiction of expected student
  progress.

93
Programming ExcelFirst Semester

• Calculating Needed RoI
• Calculating Benchmark RoI
• Calculating Students Actual RoI

94
Quick Definitions

• Needed RoI
• The rate of improvement needed to catch up to
  the next benchmark.
• Benchmark RoI
• The rate of improvement of typically performing
  peers according to the norms
• Students Actual RoI
• Based on the available data points, this is the
  students actual rate of improvement per week

95
Calculating Needed RoI

• In cell T3, type Needed RoI
• Click on cell T5
• In the fx line (at top of sheet) type this
  formula ((S4-B5)/18)
• Then hit enter
• Your result should read 2.83333...
• This formula simply subtracts the students
  actual beginning of year (BOY) benchmark from the
  expected middle of year (MOY) benchmark, then
  dividing by 18 for the first 18 weeks (1st
  semester).

96
Calculating Benchmark RoI

• In cell U3, type Benchmark RoI
• Click on cell U4
• In the fx line (at top of sheet) type this
  formula SLOPE(B4S4,B3S3)
• Then hit enter
• Your result should read 0.8825...
• This formula considers 18 weeks of benchmark data
  and provides an average growth or change per week.

97
Calculating Student Actual RoI

• Click on cell U5
• In the fx line (at top of sheet) type this
  formula SLOPE(B5S5,B3S3)
• Then hit enter
• Your result should read 2.5137...
• This formula considers 18 weeks of student data
  and provides an average growth or change per week.

98
Making Decisions Best Practice

• Research has yet to establish a blue print for
  grounding student RoI data.
• At this point, teams should consider multiple
  comparisons when planning and making decisions.
• National
• User Norms (AIMSWEB, DIBELS)
• Local, District, Grade Level, School Building

99
Looking at Percent of Expected Growth
Tier I Tier II Tier III
Greater than 150
Between 110 150 Possible LD
Between 95 110 Likely LD
Between 80 95 May Need More May Need More Likely LD
Below 80 Needs More Needs More Likely LD
100
Making Decisions Lessons From the Field

• When tracking on grade level, consider an RoI
  that is 100 of expected growth as a minimum
  requirement, consider an RoI that is at or above
  the needed as optimal.
• So, 100 of expected and on par with needed
  become the limits of the range within a student
  should be achieving.

101
What about Students Not on Grade Level?

• Determining Instructional Level
• Independent/Instructional/Frustrational
• Instructional often b/w 40th or 50th percentile
  and 25th percentile.
• Frustrational level below the 25th percentile.
• AIMSweb Survey Level Assessment (SLA).

102
Setting Goals off of Grade Level

• 100 of expected growth not enough.
• Needed growth only gets to instructional level
  benchmark, not grade level.
• Risk of not being ambitious enough.
• Plenty of ideas, but limited research regarding
  Best Practice in goal setting off of grade level.
  
• Best Practices V Shapiro Chapter

103
Possible Solution (A)

• Weekly probe at instructional level and compare
  to expected and needed growth rates at
  instructional level.
• Ambitious goal 200 of expected RoI
• (twice the expected RoI)

104
Possible Solution (B)

• Weekly probe at instructional level for sensitive
  indicator of growth.
• Monthly probes (give 3, not just 1) at grade
  level to compute RoI.
• Goal based on grade level growth (more than 100
  of expected).

105
When to make a change in instruction and
intervention?

• Enough data points (6 to 10)?
• Less than 100 of expected growth.
• Not on track to make benchmark (needed growth).
• Not on track to reach individual goal.

106
How deficient is the students ROI? The 2.0X
calculation

• Divide norm group mean ROI by students ROI
• Result expressed as a ratio of deficiency
• Example
• 1.0 wpm/wk 2.0X
• 0.5 wpm/wk

107
2.0X calculation

• Divide norm group mean ROI by students ROI
• Result expressed as a ratio of deficiency
• Example
• 1.0 wpm/wk 2.0X
• 0.5 wpm/wk
• Examples
• Joe
  Elliot
• .9 wpm/wk .44X
  .9 wpm/wk 3.0X
• 2.1 wpm/wk
  .3 wpm/wk

Elliots deficiency in ROI exceeds 2.0X
108
Example of Report Language

• Documentation of Deficiency in Rate of
  Improvement
• Throughout the current intervention period,
  Elliot has displayed little progress. At the
  beginning of the intervention, Elliot scored 56
  wpm on oral reading fluency probes. His last
  score at the end of the intervention was 59 wpm.
  Elliot's calculated rate of improvement during
  this period was 0.3 wpm/week. Compared to the
  typical rate of improvement for students in
  Elliots grade (0.9 wpm/week), Elliots range is
  3.0X deficient.

109
How low is low? How slow is slow?
How deficient does the student need to be to
qualify?

• There is not a research consensus on this issue
  at this time.
• Note that there never was a research consensus
  on the extent of the ability-achievement
  discrepancy.
• However, there is a good deal of research
  underway addressing this question (e.g., Christ,
  Ardoin, et al.).

110
In the meantime

• The decision on how deficient a student needs to
  be to qualify rests with the MDE.
• A rough guide A student with a learning
  disability should be severely deficient in level
  and display a poor response to research-based
  interventions (slope) such that he or she is not
  likely to meet benchmarks in a reasonable amount
  of time without intensive specially designed
  instruction.

111
Criterion 3 Rule out other factors or
conditions

• The group may determine the child has an SLD if
• 3. The group determines the results are not
  primarily the
• result of -
• (i) A visual, hearing, or motor disability
• (ii) Mental retardation
• (iii) Emotional disturbance
• (iv) Cultural factors
• (v) Environmental or economic disadvantage
• (vi) Limited English proficiency

Exclusionary Criteria
300.309(a)
112
Observation
113
Rule Out Vision
Screening procedure Check vision records (school nurse)
If positive, assess Optometric or ophthalmology exam
Possible extraneous factor or condition that could account for learning problem Visual Impairment
Adapted from Reschly (2005)
114
Rule Out Hearing
Screening procedure Check hearing records (school nurse)
If positive, assess Audiological exam
Possible extraneous factor or condition that could account for learning problem Hearing Impairment
Adapted from Reschly (2005)
115
Rule Out Motor
Screening procedure Check school health records (school nurse) observations of motoric problems
If positive, assess Physical or occupational therapy exam medical examination
Possible extraneous factor or condition that could account for learning problem Physical Disability or Health Impairment
Adapted from Reschly (2005)
116
Example of Report Language

• Documentation of Rule-out of Other Disabilities
  and Conditions
• Sensory Impairments John's vision has been
  screened on an annual basis by the school. No
  visual problems have been detected. Vision
  problems are ruled out as a possible reason for
  John's academic difficulties.

117
Rule Out Mental Retardation
Screening procedure Review of school records indicating typical functioning in other academic and adaptive behavior
If positive, assess Intelligence test test of adaptive behavior
Possible extraneous factor or condition that could account for learning problem Mental Retardation
Adapted from Reschly (2005)
118
Example of Report Language

• Documentation of Rule-out of Other Disabilities
  and Conditions
• Mental Retardation John displays many
  indications of typical intellectual ability. He
  has scores in the proficient range on tests of
  arithmetic skills since kindergarten, including
  state tests and universal screenings. His
  developmental milestones were age-appropriate,
  and he displays adaptive skills that are
  appropriate for his age and grade level according
  to both his parents and his teachers report on
  the Behavior Assessment for Children (BASC) II.
  Based on this information, mental retardation can
  be ruled out as a possible reason for John's
  academic difficulties.

119
Rule Out Emotional Disturbance
Screening procedure Behavioral checklists
If positive, assess Behavior rating scales, other assessments of behavior and affect
Possible extraneous factor or condition that could account for learning problem Emotional disturbance
Adapted from Reschly (2005)
120
Example of Report Language

• Documentation of Rule-out of Other Disabilities
  and Conditions
• Emotional Disturbance John displays appropriate
  behavior in the classroom. He is attentive and
  tries hard. He gets along well with his peers
  and teachers. According to the results of the
  Behavior Assessment for Children (BASC) II, his
  parents and teacher report typical behavior on
  both externalizing and internalizing subscales.
  John is often frustrated by his difficulties in
  learning to read, but these emotions appear to be
  secondary to his reading disability. Based on
  these data, emotional disturbance can be ruled
  out as a possible reason for John's academic
  difficulties.

121
Rule Out Cultural Factors
Screening procedure Assess cultural status (e.g., Acculturation Quick Scale)
If positive, assess Interview with family
Possible extraneous factor or condition that could account for learning problem Level of acculturation cultural differences
Adapted from Reschly (2005)
122
Rule Out Environmental or Economic Disadvantage
Screening procedure School records
If positive, assess Social work interview with family
Possible extraneous factors or conditions that could account for learning problem Child abuse, lack of sleep, poor nutrition, etc.
Adapted from Reschly (2005)
123
Rule Out Limited English Proficiency
Screening procedure Home language screening (required by law)
If positive, assess Primary language assessment
Possible extraneous factor or condition that could account for learning problem May not have BICS or CALP necessary for learning academic content
Adapted from Reschly (2005)
124
Example of Report Language

• Documentation of Rule-out of Other Disabilities
  and Conditions
• Culture and Language John is an African-American
  student whose primary home language is English.
  Although he participates in the free and reduced
  lunch program, it is not believed that
  acculturation, language, or environmental
  circumstances are the primary cause of John's
  academic difficulties.

125
Criterion 4 RULE OUT LACK OF INSTRUCTION

• A child must not be determined to be a child with
  a
• disability under this part
• (1) If the determinant factor for that
  determination is
• (i) Lack of appropriate instruction in reading,
  including the essential components of reading
  instruction (as defined in section 1208(3) of
  the ESEA)
• (ii) Lack of appropriate instruction in math, or
• (iii) Limited English proficiency
• (300.306b)

126

• To ensure that underachievement is not due to
  lack of appropriate instruction in reading or
  math the group must consider
• 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
• Data-based documentation of repeated assessments
  of achievement at reasonable intervals,
  reflecting formal assessment of student progress
  during instruction, which was provided to the
  childs parents

Exclusionary Criteria
300.309(b)
127
Observation
128
NCLB 1208(3)

• (3) ESSENTIAL COMPONENTS OF READING INSTRUCTION.
• The term essential components of reading
  instruction means explicit and systematic
  instruction in
• (A) phonemic awareness
• (B) phonics
• (C) vocabulary development
• (D) reading fluency, including oral reading
  skills and
• (E) reading comprehension strategies.

129
IDEA Language

• 300.309(b) To ensure that underachievement in a
  child suspected of having a specific learning
  disability is not due to lack of appropriate
  instruction in reading or math, the group must
  consider, as part of the evaluation described
  in  300.304 through 300.306 
• (1) 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 childs parents. 

130
Key Questions to Address

• Is a Standards-Based Curriculum in Place
• (Tier 1)?
• Is it based on scientific research?
• If a scientifically validated curriculum is in
  place, is there evidence that it is being
  delivered at a sufficient level of fidelity?

131
Was the student effectively taught?
Key Questions to Address

• Has the student been provided with individualized
  supports in the general education classroom (Tier
  1)?
• Has the student been provided with a sufficiently
  intense individualized intervention using
  research-based instructional procedures (Tier
  2)?

132
Core Reading Program

• General Principles
• Serves as the base of reading instruction
• Provides complete instruction in the key
  components of reading
• Designed for all settings and all students
• Is preventive and proactive
• Incorporates a high probability of student
  proficiency (80)

133
Core Reading Program

• Program Design
• Aligned student materials and assessments
• Small and large group instructional activities
• Scaffolding to support initial learning and
  transference of skills
• Cumulative review

134
Q. What do we do in those situations in which
core programs are recommended, but the review of
the literature does not identify a solid research
base?

• A. Supplemental reading programs provide
  additional instruction in one or more areas of
  reading to support the core.
• One size does not fit allmay need to supplement
  or modify (Oregon Reading First, 2004)
• Core
• Core plus supplemental
• Core plus intervention
• Intervention
• Intervention plus supplemental

135
Effective Instructional Design

• Allocation of time
• Connection to supplemental materials
• Grouping strategies
• Implemented
• Flexible
• Active student engagement
• Effective classroom management
• High levels of academic learning time

136

• If a scientifically validated curriculum is in
  place, is there evidence that it is being
  delivered at a sufficient level of fidelity?

137
Tier 1 Fidelity Check Process

• How long has the curriculum been in place?
• Were teachers adequately trained?
• Are teachers using the prescribed materials?
• Is the curriculum being delivered for a
  sufficient amount of time?
• How long has the student been taught in this
  curriculum?
• Is the curriculum being delivered according to
  prescribed directions?

138
Considerations to assess the provision of
appropriate instruction

• Principals observation of teacher performance
  through classroom visits and observations
  conducted during the instructional period for the
  targeted content/subject area on a regular basis.
• Checklists of integrity of instruction completed
  by teachers as self-check measures
• Checklists of integrity of instruction completed
  among teachers as peer-check measures
• Completion of checklists by content specialists
  or curriculum supervisors working with teachers.

139
Fidelity Check Options

• Use of a prepared checklist of critical features
  of the instructional program
• Teacher self-monitoring
• Peer coaching
• Lesson plan review by principal
• Observation by principal
• Many programs leave permanent products that
  reflect fidelity.

140
Tier 1 Fidelity Check Outcomes

• Has the general education curriculum succeeded in
  bringing a high percentage of students to
  proficiency?
• The sufficiency of the general education
  curriculum should be judged by its outcomes in
  terms of overall student performance.

141
Expected Performance
Words per minute
However, so do all of his classmates.
Keshawn (green) performs well below expectations.
Adapted from Witt (2006)
142
Next Question Has the student been provided with
individualized supports in the general education
classroom?

• Has a plan been developed that targets the
  students deficiency through supplemental
  intervention in the general education classroom
  (differentiated instruction)?
• Is the supplemental program based on research?

143
Has the student been provided with a sufficiently
intense individualized intervention using
research-based instructional procedures (Tier 2)?

• Has a plan been developed that targets the
  students deficiency through supplemental
  intervention in the general education classroom
  (differentiated instruction)?
• Is the supplemental program based on research?
• Have the interventions used featured a
  research-based standard protocol?

144
A Standard Protocol Intervention

• is scientifically based.
• has a high probability of producing change for
  large numbers of students.
• is usually delivered in small groups.
• is designed to be used in a standard manner
  across students.
• is often scripted or very structured.

145
Tier 2 Process Analysis (cont.)

• Has the intervention been implemented with a high
  degree of fidelity?
• Has progress monitoring occurred at least weekly
  during the course of the intervention?
• Has a building-level team (e.g., IST) helped to
  design and guide the implementation of the
  intervention?

146
Tier 2 Analysis Outcomes

• Is there evidence that the individualized
  intervention provided to the student has
  facilitated meaningful progress for other
  students receiving the same supports?

147
Adapted from Witt (2006)
148
Examples of Report Language

• Documentation of Effective Instruction and
  Intervention
• John has received appropriate instruction in
  reading throughout his four years at Lincoln
  Elementary School (K-3). Since kindergarten,
  Johns teachers have used the SRA Reading Mastery
  reading series, which uses explicit instructional
  procedures to teach the big ideas in reading.
  This research-based program has been successful
  in bringing 80 of the current third graders to
  proficiency. All of John's teachers have had
  extensive training with SRA. Fidelity checks
  conducted by reading coaches and the school
  principal indicate that the SRA program has been
  used with a high degree of fidelity.
  (Documentation of the fidelity checks are on file
  in the principal's office.)

149
(cont.)

• John has been provided with intensive reading
  interventions at tier 2 of Lincoln's three-tier
  model since September of 2008. He has been
  provided with small-group interventions to
  address his difficulties in phonemic awareness
  and decoding skills, using the Early Reading
  Intervention (ERI) program (Scott Foresman). ERI
  has been identified by the Florida Center for
  Reading Research as a research-based practice,
  and has been shown to significantly increase the
  proficiency of students at tiers 2 and 3 in
  Lincoln School. Fidelity checks conducted by the
  districts reading coordinator indicate that the
  reading teachers who implemented the ERI program
  have done so with a high degree of fidelity.
  (Documentation of the fidelity checks are on file
  in the principal's office.)

150
Repeated Assessments

• Repeated assessments of achievement or behavior,
  or both, conducted at reasonable intervals,
  reflecting formal monitoring of student progress
  during the interventions.
• Information regarding the students progress
  should be periodically provided to the students
  parents.

151
Frequency of Repeated Assessments

• Repeated assessment information may come from
• Universal Screening
• Typically conducted 3 times a year
• Strategic intervention
• Typically progress monitored once a month
• Intense intervention ( tier 2)
• Typically progress monitored once a week

152
Examples of Report Language

• Documentation of Repeated Measures of Assessment
• Since kindergarten, John has been assessed during
  the universal screening in reading three times
  per year (fall, winter, spring). Since his
  involvement with tier two interventions this
  year, John's progress has been monitored using
  curriculum-based measurement (CBM) on a weekly
  basis. Results of both universal screening and
  progress monitoring have been provided to his
  parents through written reports and periodic
  parent conferences.

153
May other instruments be administered?
Yes.

• Tests of cognitive processing
• Tests of visual motor integration
• Tests of auditory processing
• Tests of receptive and expressive language
• Etc.

When conducting a comprehensive evaluation MDT
determines what is needed
154
Should other instruments be administered?
Consider treatment validity.

• The selection of any assessment instrument or
  procedure is solely dependent on its ability to
  provide specific information about scientifically
  validated instructional strategies that have a
  high probability of producing meaningful change
  in the students academic or social-emotional
  skills.

155
Can you use both models?

• According to an OSEP letter to the field, a
  district may use both the RTI model and the
  discrepancy model in particular situations. A
  district with a plan to phase in RTI over a three
  to five year period may use RTI in one building
  and the discrepancy model in another.
• Districts may also choose to use RTI for SLD
  determination at the elementary level and
  discrepancy model at the secondary level.
• These and other exceptions must be documented and
  approved through the special education plan
  approval process.

156
However

• If a district chooses RTI as its procedure for a
  particular school, all students identified with
  SLD in that school must meet the RTI eligibility
  criteria, in addition to what may be indicated on
  other assessments.
• Conversely, if a district chooses the
  ability-achievement (A-A) discrepancy as its
  procedure for a particular school, all students
  identified with SLD in that school must meet the
  A-A eligibility criteria, in addition to what
  other assessments or the students RTI indicate.

157
Protecting Parents Rights

• The public agency must promptly request parental
  consent to evaluate
• If prior to referral, a child has not made
  adequate progress after an appropriate period of
  time when provided instruction
• and
• Whenever a child is referred for an evaluation

300.309(c)
158
Contact Information

• Joseph F. Kovaleski, D.Ed., NCSP
• Indiana University of PAIndiana, PA
  15705724/357-3785
• jkov_at_iup.eduwww.coe.iup.edu/kovaleski

• Caitlin S. Flinn, MEd, NCSP
• Exeter Township School District
• Reading, PA
• caitlinflinn_at_rateofimprovement.com
• www.rateofimprovement.com