J Hanson et al LD and RTI presentation
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

J Hanson et al LD and RTI presentation

on

  • 5,193 views

This is a presentation on LD and RTI developed by J. Hanson (Portland Public Schools) and colleagues that he has made available to others for viewing via IQ's Corner ...

This is a presentation on LD and RTI developed by J. Hanson (Portland Public Schools) and colleagues that he has made available to others for viewing via IQ's Corner (www.intelligencetesting.blogspot.com)

Statistics

Views

Total Views
5,193
Views on SlideShare
5,182
Embed Views
11

Actions

Likes
2
Downloads
225
Comments
0

2 Embeds 11

http://www.slideshare.net 7
http://www.linkedin.com 4

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

J Hanson et al LD and RTI presentation J Hanson et al LD and RTI presentation Presentation Transcript

  • Specific Learning Disability: What are the new requirements? Suzy Harris, Attorney at Law & James Hanson, Oregon School Psychologists Association (Revised from June 2007 COSA presentation by David Guardino, James Hanson, and Suzy Harris) South Coast ESD August 22, 2007
  • Objectives
    • Review requirements for SLD eligibility, including changes in IDEA 2004 & OARs
    • Review progress monitoring requirement (all)
    • Review two types of SLD evaluation –
      • Response to Intervention (RTI)
      • Pattern of strengths and weaknesses (PSW)
    • Step by Step Implementation Process
    • Things to consider
  • Changes to SLD Eligibility Requirements 34 CFR 300.307 - 311 & OAR 581-015-2170
    • Added progress monitoring component (all)
    • Added option of RTI (OAR - based on district model)
    • Changed “severe discrepancy” to “pattern of strengths and weaknesses”
    • Observation – before or during
    • Exclusionary factors remain
    View slide
  • SLD Evaluation Components – Both RTI & PSW
    • Academic assessment (academic achievement toward Oregon grade level standards)
    • Review of cumulative records, IEPs, teacher collected work samples
    • Observation in learning environment (by qualified professional) – before or during
    • Progress monitoring data (see slide 6)
      • instruction component
      • assessment component
    View slide
  • SLD Evaluation Components – Both (if needed)
    • Developmental history
    • Assessment of cognition, fine motor, perceptual motor, communication, social-emotional, memory (if student exhibits impairment in one or more of these areas)
    • Medical statement
    • Impact of disability on educational performance
  • Determining if a student has a specific learning disability
    • Like any other disability determination under IDEA, can’t be based on any single criterion – meaning a single test, assessment, observation, or report.
    • An evaluation of a student suspected of having SLD must include a variety of assessment tools and strategies .
    • Evaluation must include input from student’s parents and an observation of the student’s academic performance and behavior in the general education classroom.
  • Eligibility Team OAR 581-015-2170(2)
    • Group of qualified professionals
    • Parents
    • Regular classroom teacher
    • Person qualified to conduct individual diagnostic evaluations using instruments that meet OAR requirements (school psychologist, speech pathologist, etc.)
  • Qualified evaluators OAR 581-015-2110(4)(a)(D)&(E)
    • Assessments and other evaluation materials must be:
    • “administered by trained and knowledgeable personnel” and
    • “administered in accordance with any instructions provided by the producer of the assessments.”
  • Evaluation Planning Process OAR 581-015-2115
    • Review of existing data by IEP team (and other qualified professionals)
    • Determine what additional data is needed (if any)
    • If yes – identify – give notice & get written parent consent
    • Explain process, anticipate timeline needs
  • Eligibility form and parent notification
    • Eligibility form:
      • Combined RTI-PSW
    • Parent Notification:
      • Sample to use & combine with district RTI information (for RTI only)
      • Timing of notice
  • What is progress monitoring? 34 CFR 300.309(b)
    • Purpose is to rule out lack of appropriate instruction in reading and math as reason for underachievement.
      • Instruction : Before (or as part of) referral process, student had appropriate instruction in reg ed settings by qualified personnel.
      • Assessment : Student had repeated assessments of achievement at regular intervals & results provided to parents
    • Is the result of over 20 years of research
    • Demonstrates strong reliability and validity
    • Produces accurate, meaningful information about students’ academic levels and growth
    • Can be used with all children to determine if they are benefiting from general instruction
    • Can be used with failing children to enhance instructional programs
    • Is sensitive to student improvement
    Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM)
  • How To Do CBM
    • Identify skills in the year-long curriculum
    • Determine weight of skills in the curriculum
    • Create multiple alternate test forms
      • each test samples the entire year’s curriculum
      • each test contains the same types of problems
    • Give tests frequently (weekly/monthly)
    • Review results
    • Modify instruction as appropriate
  • Options (either – or both)
    • Response to Intervention
    • Research-based curriculum
    • Assessment of progress
    • Tiered interventions
    • Part of comprehensive evaluation
    • Pattern of Strengths & Weaknesses
    • Norm-referenced assessment based
      • Academic comparison
      • Academic-cognitive comparison
    • Part of comprehensive evaluation
  • RTI – Typical three (or four) tiered intervention
    • Tier one : Research-based curricula for all students with periodic universal screening toward state standards.
    • Tier two: Targeted, intensive small group interventions and more frequent progress monitoring for students identified as not making expected progress in universal screening.
    • Tier three: More intensive intervention (small group or individual) and may include referral and special education evaluation (or maybe considered 4 th tier).
  • SLD Evaluation Components – RTI OAR 581-015-2170(5)(e)
    • Documentation of:
    • Type, intensity, duration of interventions in accordance with district’s RTI model
    • Rate of progress during interventions
    • Comparison to expected rates
    • Higher progress monitoring requirements: allows comparison, appropriate to age and grade, appropriate to content, allows for interpretation of effectiveness of intervention.
  • Research findings
    • CBM with “goal raising rule” for students responding well:
        • effect size .52 SD
    • CBM with “change the program rule” for students not responding well:
        • effect size .72 SD
    • Results in teachers planning more comprehensive reading programs
        • Fletcher, et.al. 2007
  • SLD Evaluation Components – Pattern of Strengths or Weaknesses
    • Must include assessment of student’s strengths & weaknesses:
      • classroom performance & academic achievement
      • relative to age, Oregon grade-level standards or intellectual development
  • How to determine pattern of strengths & weaknesses?
    • Cognitive – academic approaches :
      • Consistency between weakness in specific cognitive process related to specific academic area based on norm-referenced tests (in context of “otherwise normal ability profile”.)
        • Flanagan, Oritz & Alfonso, 2007
        • Naglieri, 1999
        • Fiorello & Hale, 2004
    • Academics only approach
    • Continued use of discrepancy formula ?
  • Main Idea of PSW
    • Many academic and cognitive abilities in the average range
    • Specific academic weaknesses
    • Specific cognitive weaknesses
    • Research-based links between the academic and cognitive weaknesses
    • Unrelated cognitive abilities are average or above
    • Full Scale IQ is irrelevant, except for MR
  • Not Full Scale IQ
    • Explosive growth of scientific knowledge about true “processes” that enable acquisition of reading, math and writing
      • E.g. Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) Theory of Cognitive Abilities: The Cognitive “Table of the Elements”
      • CHC theory applies to cognitive, academic, and speech/language tests
    • Structural changes to factors on all “IQ” tests in the last five years
      • Full Scale IQ explains only 10-20% of specific areas of achievement
      • Specific cognitive abilities explain 50-70% of specific areas of achievement
  • Cognitive Skills related to Reading Abilities
    • Phonemic Awareness (Phonemic Awareness)
    • Verbal Reasoning/Vocabulary (Vocabulary, Comprehension)
    • Rapid Automatic Naming (Fluency)
    • Working Memory (Decoding)
    • Processing Speed (Fluency, Comprehension)
    • Associative Memory (Decoding)
      • All inform content and delivery of instruction
  • Cognitive Skills related to Math Abilities
    • Quantitative (magnitude comparison)
    • Long Term Memory Storage and Retrieval including RAN (fluent number identification)
    • Working Memory, Processing Speed, & Oral Language (counting strategies and number sense)
    • Processing Speed (calculations)
    • Fluid Intelligence (thinking about relationships among concepts, deduction and induction, higher order algebra)
    • Some researchers cite Visual/Spatial Thinking (higher order geometry); some don’t
  • Why use this approach?
    • When we test students with poor reading or math achievement, we expect to find that at least one of the cognitive abilities that underlies achievement is compromised. If there is no cognitive weakness, it’s probably not a neurological difference!
    • IQ/Achievement discrepancies with no impairments in related cognitive skills – may indicate false positives for SLD: instructional casualties, ADHD, emotional problems, second language issues, and/or environmental challenges.
    • Cognitive testing is a part of the problem solving process.
  • Patterns of Strengths & Weaknesses: Flanagan & Ortiz’s Aptitude-Achievement Consistency (2007)
    • After RTI and/or documentation of instruction and progress monitoring and rule out exclusionary factors
    • Documentation of underachievement-norm referenced achievement test (Standard Score <85, RPI <75/90)
    • Measure all cognitive abilities that research shows support the specific area of achievement at specific age of child
    • At least one of those abilities must be below 85 or 75/90 and have documented ecological correlates
    • Cognitive abilities that don’t relate are average or above: “otherwise normal ability profile”
    • Computer Program: “SLD Assistant”
    • The Essentials of Cross Battery Assessment: Second Edition Wiley, New York.
  • Consistency Discrepancy (Naglieri) and Concordance-Discordance (Fiorello & Hale)
    • Processing Strength to Academic Strength (no significant difference)
    • Processing Strength to Academic Weakness (significant difference)
    • Processing Weakness to Academic Weakness (no significant difference)
    • Processing Strength to Processing Weakness (significant difference)
  • Another approach: Academics only
    • Word recognition & spelling <90 (phonological poor, spatial & motor skills good)
    • Reading fluency <90, accuracy good (automaticity problem: RAN poor)
    • Reading comprehension <90, 7 points below word reading (vocabulary, working memory & attention poor, phonics good)
    • Math computations <90, all reading good (executive functioning, working memory & attention poor, phonics and vocabulary good)
    • Spelling <90 (residuals of poor phonics, fluency often impaired)
    • Word recognition, fluency, comprehension, spelling & math <90 (language and working memory poor)
    • Fletcher et. al. (2007)
    • Learning Disabilities: From Identification to Intervention
  • What about continued use of discrepancy formula?
    • Explosive growth of scientific knowledge about true “processes” that enable reading, math and writing
    • Changes in last five years to all “IQ” tests
    • Global achievement scores (FSIQ) account for only 35-50% of total achievement variance (and only 10-20% for specific skills).
    • Specific cognitive abilities explain 50-70% of specific areas of achievement
  • Implementation: Step-by-Step process
    • Step 1:
      • Determination of underachievement
    • Step 2:
      • Determination of Response to Interventions or Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses (or both)
    • Step 3:
      • Rule out lack of appropriate instruction as determining factor
    • Step 4:
      • Rule out other factors as primary basis
  • Step 1: Determination of Underachievement
    • Does the student fail to achieve adequately for his age in one or more of the following eight areas:
        • Basic reading skill
        • Reading fluency skills
        • Reading comprehension
        • Mathematics calculation
        • Mathematics problem solving
        • Written expression
        • Oral expression
        • Listening comprehension
    • Consider student’s performance related to Oregon’s state’s academic content standards in these areas .
  • Step 2: Determination of Response to Interventions or a Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses (or Both)
    • RTI:
    • Does the student fail to make sufficient progress in achievement considered adequate for his age (or enrolled grade-level standards) when provided with a series of scientific, research-based interventions?
    • PSW:
    • Do the results of the student’s assessments and evaluations show a pattern of strengths and weaknesses in academic performance, achievement (or both), or intellectual development?
  • Step 3: Determination of Appropriate Instruction
    • Consider progress monitoring data to rule out lack of appropriate instruction as basis for underachievement.
    • Appropriate instruction in reading must include explicit and systematic instruction in essential components of reading including :
      • phonemic awareness,
      • phonics,
      • vocabulary development,
      • reading fluency, including oral reading skills, and
      • reading comprehension strategies.
  • Step 3: Continued
    • If the group charged with determining whether a student has an SLD decides that this documentation is not adequate, a decision may be made to delay making a final determination and continue to collect additional information about the student.
    • In order to extend the time by which the evaluation will be completed, parents must consent to the time extension.
  • Step 4: Rule out other factors as primary basis for underachievement
    • Students whose lack of achievement can be attributed primarily to one of the following factors should not be determined to have an SLD.
      • visual, hearing, or motor disability
      • mental retardation
      • emotional disturbance
      • cultural factors
      • environmental or economic disadvantage
      • limited English proficiency
    • Such students may be served in other disability categories of IDEA or through programs for at-risk or disadvantaged students, such as Title I of the No Child Left Behind Act.
  • Resources
    • Oregon School Psychologists Association (OSPA): www.ospaonline.com
    • National Center on Student Progress Monitoring: www.studentprogress.org/
    • National Research Center on Learning Disabilities: www.nrcld.org/index.shtml
    • Center on Instruction:
      • www.centeroninstruction.org /
    • ODE website & RTI initiative: www.ode.state.or.us/search/page/?id=315
    • NASP Resources: www.nasponline.org/resources/index.aspx
  • OSPA Conference on CBM Resources-October 12, Seaside
    • District-Generated Alternate Forms
    • DIBELS Progress Monitoring
    • Aimsweb
    • Easy CBM
    • Early numeracy CBM
  • OSPA SLD Toolkit-www.ospaonline.com
    • Observation Matrix Form
    • Covers Big Ideas of reading and Concepts of Print
    • Cross Referenced with Torgeson principles of effective instruction
    • Class activity, student response, functional fit
  • Possible methods and resources for performance on state standards
    • Examination of student’s score on state tests
    • State Standards Matrix for reading, math and writing, K-3 available on www.ospaonline.com website
    • Meant to be emailed among evaluation team members including general education teacher so they can put all of their results into an integrated team report
    • Replaces narrative of academic results
    • Links assessment to instruction
    • Useful across the state when children change residence.
  • English Language Learners
    • Response to Intervention
    • Patterns of Strengths and Weaknesses
    • Cultural and Language Acquisition
    • Additional examination of specific patterns
  • Developing a process for SLD identification: Things to consider
      • If using RTI, what curriculum, what tools to use for measuring progress and what decision points to use for triggering movement from one tier to another.
      • If PSW, what variables of comparison to use that have research base?
  • Discussion
    • What is your district using?
    • What works?
    • What are the challenges?
    • How can you improve your system if not ready to fully implement a RTI model?
    • Where can you find support?