Specific Learning Disability Criteria for School Administrators

1
Specific Learning Disability Criteriafor School
Administrators

• Richard Henderson
• Regional Special Education Consultant
• Idaho State University

2
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.
• To discuss how administrators can support the
  process in their school system.

3
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 toward a
  system that moved from the concept of discrepancy
  only to a shift to an RTI framework.

4
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)
5
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.

6
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.

7
Three Models Used to Determine Eligibility

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

8
Why Idaho Chose 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.

9
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).

10
Myths vs. Truths

• Myth 1 More students will be identified as LD.
• Truth There is no evidence to suggest that
• students will over-identified.
• Myth 2 We are back to professional judgment.
• Truth You still need to use valid and reliable
• data to determine eligibility.

11
Myths vs. Truths

• Myth 3 We have to buy all these expensive tests
  to give
• to students.
• TRUTH There are assessments tools currently in
  place
• to support the process.
• Myth 4 This too will pass. It wont last. Its
  just the state
• coming up with something new.
• TRUTH Sorry, folks. This aligns to IDEA 2004,
  and it is
• not something that is going away.

12
Did You Review All 5 Steps Prior to Determining
Eligibility?
13
Evaluation Procedures

• Step 1 Parent notification and involvement
• http//www.sde.idaho.gov/site/special_edu/manual_p
  age.htm
• Step 2 Evaluation must address the eligibility
  criteria discussed in previous slides
• 4 Parts to the Evaluation
• Evidence of insufficient progress in response to
  effective, evidence based instruction and
  intervention
• Evidence of low achievement in one or more of the
  suspected area(s).
• Evidence of a pattern of strengths and weaknesses
  in psychological processing skills that impact
  learning.
• The team must determine that the students
  learning difficulty is not primarily the result of

14
How Does an Administrator Support this Process?

• Provides resources for
• Training (Universal screening, Progress,
  Monitoring, Writing Interventions for Tier II and
  III, Content Area Training, Behavior Training,
  Understanding what preponderance of evidence
  means and looks like, Exclusionary factors that
  have to be considered, Data Analysis,
  Effectiveness of Core Curriculum
• Time to plansometimes involves master schedule
  being analyzed and changed to increase time for
  core instruction, interventions to be delivered,
  etc.
• Time to collect student and school dataDo we
  have enough data to support a preponderance of
  evidence that the student has a learning
  disability vs. lack of instructiondue to
  mobility, lack of teaching, etc.
• Time to analyze data as a teamDoes the team know
  what data to collect, how to collect, are their
  simple tools to support the data collection,

15
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

16
Additional Professional Development

• The SDE will be providing additional training in
  phases through the next three years.
• Statewide Special Education Calendar will be
  released first week of September, 2010.
• Topics currently being researched for development
  are
• Universal Screeningfor a school system approach
• 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

17
SLD Website

• The Idaho Clearinghouse has developed a learning
  community called Specific Learning Disabilities
  dedicated to SLD information and events. Please
  check the website in upcoming months for updates.
• http//itcnew.idahotc.com/dnn/specific-learning-di
  sability.aspx

18
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

19
Contact Us

• Richard Henderson
• Regional Special Education Consultant
• Idaho State University
• hendrich_at_isu.edu
• [phone]