NASP Workshop 2011

Document Sample
NASP Workshop 2011 Powered By Docstoc
					Determining Eligibility
for Special Education
  in an RTI System
    Joseph F. Kovaleski, D.Ed., NCSP
        Indiana University of PA
               Indiana, PA

      Caitlin S. Flinn, M.Ed., NCSP
    Exeter Township School District
               Reading, PA
      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.
      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
Today’s 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.
   Most relevant for those ready to use RTI.
   Some aspects of today’s presentation are relevant
    to the SLD requirements, even if you’re not using
    RTI.
   Application of some procedures and principles
    can begin now as effective practices.
    Response to Intervention

 Standards aligned core instruction
 Universal screening

 Interventions of increasing intensity

 Research-based practices

 Progress monitoring

 Data analysis teaming

 Parental engagement
1.                          2.                            3.                             4.

 Failure to meet age-       Discrepancy: Pattern          Rule out:                      Rule out lack of
or grade-level State        of strengths &                                               instruction by
standards in one of         weaknesses, relative          Vision, hearing, or           documenting:
eight areas:                to intellectual ability       motor problems
                            as defined by a severe        mental retardation            Appropriate
oral expression            discrepancy between           emotional disturbance         instruction by
                            intellectual ability and      cultural and/or               qualified personnel
listening
comprehension               achievement, or               environmental issues           Repeated
                            relative to age or            limited English               assessments
written expression                                       proficiency
                            grade.
basic reading skill
reading fluency skill                  OR
reading                    RTI: Lack of progress
comprehension               in response to
mathematics                scientifically based
calculation                 instruction
mathematics
problem solving



                         Inclusionary                                     Exclusionary
                                                   Observation

                                             Specific Learning Disability
Criterion #1:Does the child achieve adequately for the
child’s age or meet State-approved grade level
standards?
The group may determine the child has an SLD if the child:


1.   Does not achieve adequately for the child’s 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 child’s age or State-approved grade-level standards:

     (i) Oral expression               (v) Reading fluency skills
     (ii) Listening comprehension      (vi) Reading comprehension
     (iii) Written expression          (vii) Mathematics calculation
     (iv) Basic reading skill          (viii) Mathematics problem solving




                          Inclusionary Criteria                   § 300.309(a)
1.                          2.                            3.                             4.

 Failure to meet age-       Discrepancy: Pattern          Rule out:                      Rule out lack of
or grade-level State        of strengths &                                               instruction by
standards in one of         weaknesses, relative          Vision, hearing, or           documenting:
eight areas:                to intellectual ability       motor problems
                            as defined by a severe        mental retardation            Appropriate
oral expression            discrepancy between           emotional disturbance         instruction by
                            intellectual ability and      cultural and/or               qualified personnel
listening
comprehension               achievement, or               environmental issues           Repeated
                            relative to age or            limited English               assessments
written expression                                       proficiency
                            grade.
basic reading skill
reading fluency skill                  OR
reading                    RTI: Lack of progress
comprehension               in response to
mathematics                scientifically based
calculation                 instruction
mathematics
problem solving



                         Inclusionary                                     Exclusionary
                                                   Observation

                                             Specific Learning Disability
     Sources of Data to Document Lack of
                Achievement
Existing Data                  New Data to Collect
                               (if necessary)
   Performance on              Norm-referenced tests of
    benchmark assessments          academic achievement

   Terminal performance on
    progress monitoring           Curriculum-based
    measures                       evaluation (cf. Howell et
                                   al.)
   Performance on statewide
    and district-wide
    assessments
      Lack of achievement is in relation to
         age or grade-level standards.


   The student’s 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.
    Normative Comparisons

   Normative group is important decision

   National normative data sets for CBM
     AIMSweb

     Hasbrouck   & Tindal
     DIBELS
    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.
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.
2.0X calculation

   Divide norm group mean by student’s score

   Result expressed as a ratio of deficiency

   Example: 100 wpm / 50 wpm = 2.0X
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)
Consider John, a third grader. We’ll 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
May we use norm-referenced tests of
academic achievement in determining
the extent of the deficiency?
   May we?                            Should we?
   Yes! There is nothing legally      It depends on how secure you
    that prevents a team from           are with other data regarding
    doing so.                           the student’s 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 don’t, or if there are
                                        other questions that can be
                                        answered with norm-
                                        referenced measures, use
                                        them.
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.
Implications to consider
   The student’s IQ level is not considered the
    criterion against which the student’s 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.
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
 child’s 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



              21
1.                          2.                            3.                             4.

 Failure to meet age-       Discrepancy: Pattern          Rule out:                      Rule out lack of
or grade-level State        of strengths &                                               instruction by
standards in one of         weaknesses, relative          Vision, hearing, or           documenting:
eight areas:                to intellectual ability       motor problems
                            as defined by a severe        mental retardation            Appropriate
oral expression            discrepancy between           emotional disturbance         instruction by
                            intellectual ability and      cultural and/or               qualified personnel
listening
comprehension               achievement, or               environmental issues           Repeated
                            relative to age or            limited English               assessments
written expression                                       proficiency
                            grade.
basic reading skill
reading fluency skill                  OR
reading                    RTI: Lack of progress
comprehension               in response to
mathematics                scientifically based
calculation                 instruction
mathematics
problem solving



                         Inclusionary                                     Exclusionary
                                                   Observation

                                             Specific Learning Disability
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
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
                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)
     Alsocalled: Rise over run
     Formula: m = (y2 - y1) / (x2 - x1)
     Describes the steepness of a line (Gall & Gall, 2007)
                  RoI Definition
   Finding a student’s RoI is determining the
    student’s learning
     Creating   a line that fits the data points, a trendline
   To find that line, we use:
     Linearregression
     Ordinary Least Squares
         Progress Monitoring
   Frequent measurement of knowledge to inform
    our understanding of the impact of
    instruction/intervention.
   Measures of basic skills (CBM) have
    demonstrated reliability & validity (see table at
    www.rti4success.org).
           Classroom Instruction (Content Expectations)


                        Measure Impact (Test)


           Proficient!               Non Proficient

Use Diagnostic                Content Need?       Basic Skill Need?
Test to Differentiate

                              Intervention        Intervention
                              Progress Monitor    Progress Monitor
                                                  With CBM
                              If CBM is
                              Appropriate
                              Measure            Rate of Improvement
McCrea, 2010
                      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.
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
           RoI Foundations
   Deno, 1985
     Curriculum-based   measurement
      General outcome   measures
      Technically adequate
      Short
      Standardized
      Repeatable
      Sensitive to change
             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
              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
            RoI Foundations
   Fuchs, Fuchs, Hamlett, Walz, & Germann,
    1993
     Typicalweekly 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
              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
     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?
      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)
Skills for Which We Compute RoI

   Reading                           Math
       Oral Reading Fluency
                                        Math Computation
       Word Use Fluency
                                        Math Concepts
       Reading Comprehension
           MAZE/DAZE                   Math Facts
           Retell, Word Use            Early Numeracy
       Early Literacy Skills                 Oral Counting
           Initial Sound                     Missing Number
           Letter Naming                     Number Identification
           Letter Sound
                                              Quantity
           Phoneme Segmentation               Discrimination
           Nonsense Word
   Spelling                          Behavior
   Written Expression
       TWW, CWS, WSC
              Guidelines?
   Visual inspection of slope

   Multiple interpretations

   Instructional services

   Need for explicit guidelines
           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
      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?
        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
The Visual Inspection
    Approaches
                   120
                                      Eye Ball Approach
                                                                                                        104


                   100



                                                                                    83   83
                                                                               80
                   80                                              75                                         74
Words Per Minute




                                                             63           64
                                                       62

                   60                                                                         56




                         41

                   40




                   20




                    0
                         1    2   3    4   5   6   7   8      9    10     11   12   13   14   15   16   17    18
                                                            School Week
      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)
                   120
                                               Split Middle
                                                                                                           104


                   100



                                                                                       83   83   X(83)
                                                                                  80
                   80                                                 75                                         74
Words Per Minute




                                                                63           64
                                                          62
                                                  X(63)                                          56
                   60


                                          X (9)
                         41

                   40




                   20




                    0
                         1    2   3   4    5      6   7   8      9    10     11   12   13   14   15   16   17    18
                                                               School Week
The Quantitative
  Approaches
                   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.studentprogress.org/library/training.asp)
                   120



                                          Tukey Method                                                 104


                   100



                                                                                   83   83
                                                                              80
                   80                                             75                                         74

                                                                                                  X(74)
Words Per Minute




                                                            63           64
                                                      62

                   60                 X(62)                                                  56




                         41

                   40




                   20




                    0
                         1    2   3   4   5   6   7   8      9    10     11   12   13   14   15   16   17    18
                                                           School Week
        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

 12/10=1.2
            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
                   120



                                      Last minus First                                                 104


                   100



                                                                                   83   83
                                                                              80
                   80                                             75                                         74
Words Per Minute




                                                            63           64
                                                      62

                   60                                                                        56




                         41

                   40




                   20




                    0
                         1    2   3   4   5   6   7   8      9    10     11   12   13   14   15   16   17    18
                                                           School Week
       Last Minus First
 Y2-Y1/X2-X1=RoI
 (74-41)/(18-1)=RoI

 33/17=1.9
                   120
                                  Split Middle “Plus”
                                                                                                            104


                   100
                                                                                                 X(83)
                                                                                       83   83
                                                                                  80
                   80
                                                          X(63)       75                                          74
Words Per Minute




                                                                63           64
                                                          62

                   60                                                                             56


                                          X (9)
                         41

                   40




                   20




                    0
                         1    2   3   4    5      6   7   8      9    10     11   12   13   14    15   16   17    18
                                                               School Week
     Split Middle “Plus”
 Y2-Y1/X2-X1=RoI
 (83-63)/(15.5-6.5)=RoI

 20/9=2.2
                   120
                                      Linear Regression                                            y = 2.5138x + 42.113


                                                                                                           104


                   100



                                                                                    83   83
                                                                               80
                   80                                              75                                             74
Words Per Minute




                                                             63           64
                                                       62

                   60                                                                         56




                         41

                   40




                   20




                    0
                         1    2   3    4   5   6   7   8      9    10     11   12   13   14   15    16     17     18
                                                            School Week
  RoI Consistency?
 Any Method of      ???
Visual Inspection
Last minus First    1.9

 Tukey Method       1.2

  Split Middle      2.2
    “Plus”
    Linear          2.5
  Regression
        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.
    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)?
        Literature shows that Linear
        Regression is Best Practice
   Student’s daily test scores…were entered into a
    computer program…The 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
               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.
              Growth (RoI) Research
              using 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.
     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)
                  Actual Student Data & Benchmark
                       3rd grade DIBELS ORF


120                                                                                             120
                                                                         y = 2.5138x + 42.113                                                                            y = 1.0588x + 90.941
                                                                         y = 0.8824x + 76.118                                                                                y = 1.8872x + 74.81


100                                                                                             100




80                                                                                              80




60                                                                                              60




40                                                                                              40




20                                                                                              20




 0                                                                                               0
      1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16     17     18              1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16        17     18




      Student SLOPE=2.5                                                                               Student SLOPE=1.89
      Benchmark ROI=0.88                                                                              Benchmark ROI=1.06
              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
DIBELS  (6th
           Ed.) ORF
Change in Criteria
        Fall to   Winter to
        Winter     Spring
  2nd    24          22
  3rd     15         18
  4th     13         13
  5th     11         9
  6th     11         5
    AIMSweb Norms

Based on 50th   Fall to Winter   Winter to
 Percentile                       Spring
    1st              18             31
    2nd              25             17
    3rd              22             15
    4th              16             13
    5th              17             15
    6th              13             12
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).
Get Out Your Laptops!
     Open Microsoft Excel



            I love
             ROI
     Graphing RoI
For Individual Students
 Programming Microsoft Excel to Graph
        Rate of Improvement:
            Fall to Winter
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 Student’s Name

  (Swiper Example)
    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.
            Labeling Dates
   Note: You may choose to enter the date of
    that school week across row 2 to easily
    identify the school week.
            Entering Benchmarks
              (3rd Grade ORF)
   In cell B4, type 77. This      In cell S4, type 92. This
    is your fall benchmark.         is your winter
                                    benchmark.
    Entering Student Data (Sample)

   Enter the following        Week 12 – 80
    numbers, going across      Week 13 – 83
    row 5, under
                               Week 14 – 83
    corresponding week
    numbers.                   Week 15 – 56
   Week 1 – 41                Week 17 – 104
   Week 8 – 62                Week 18 – 74
   Week 9 – 63
   Week 10 – 75
   Week 11 – 64
            *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.
      Graphing the Data
 Highlight cells A4 and A5 through S4
  and S5
 Follow Excel 2003 or Excel 2007
  directions from here
            Graphing the Data
   Excel 2003                     Excel 2007
     Across the top of your         Click Insert
      worksheet, click on            Find the icon for Line
      “Insert”                       Click the arrow below
     In that drop-down menu,         Line
      click on “Chart”
              Graphing the Data
   Excel 2003                     Excel 2007
       A Chart Wizard window          6 graphics appear
        will appear
            Graphing the Data
   Excel 2003               Excel 2007
     Choose “Line”              Choose “Line with
     Choose “Line with           markers”
      markers…”
            Graphing the Data
   Excel 2003              Excel 2007
     “Data Range” tab          Your graph appears
     “Columns”
            Graphing the Data
   Excel 2003                  Excel 2007
     “Chart Title”               To change your graph
     “School Week” X Axis         labels, click on your graph
     “WPM’ Y Axis                Then your options appear
                                   at the top
                                  Click on one of the Chart
                                   Layouts
              Graphing the Data
   Excel 2003                     Excel 2007
       Choose where you want        Your chosen layout is
        your graph                    applied to the graph
                                     You can click on the
                                      labels to change them
      Graphing the Trendline
   Excel 2003                          Excel 2007
     Right   click on any of the student data points
      Graphing the Trendline
   Excel 2003               Excel 2007
     Choose   “Linear”
      Graphing the Trendline
   Excel 2003                     Excel 2007
     Choose“Custom” and check box next to “Display
     equation on chart”
      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
      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
Individual Student Graph:
Fall to Winter
    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.
    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 you’ve
    already created a graph, enter additional scores in
    Row 5 in the corresponding school week.
    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.
Programming Excel
  First Semester
     Calculating Needed RoI
   Calculating Benchmark RoI
 Calculating Student’s Actual RoI
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
   Student’s Actual RoI
     Based on the available data points, this is the
      student’s actual rate of improvement per week
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 student’s 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).
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(B4:S4,B3:S3)
   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.
Calculating Student Actual RoI

   Click on cell U5
   In the fx line (at top of sheet) type this formula
    =SLOPE(B5:S5,B3:S3)
   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.
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
Looking at Percent of
Expected Growth
               Tier I                 Tier II               Tier III

  Greater
than 150%
 Between                                                  Possible LD
 110% &
  150%
 Between                                                   Likely LD
95% & 110%
 Between     May Need             May Need                 Likely LD
80% & 95%      More                 More
Below 80%    Needs More         Needs More                 Likely LD

                        Tigard-Tualatin School District
                                 (www.ttsd.k12.or.us)
     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.
              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).
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
       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)
        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).
    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.
How deficient is the student’s
ROI? The 2.0X calculation
   Divide norm group mean ROI by student’s ROI
   Result expressed as a ratio of deficiency
   Example:
              1.0 wpm/wk         = 2.0X
              0.5 wpm/wk
2.0X calculation
   Divide norm group mean ROI by student’s 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


Elliot’s deficiency in ROI exceeds 2.0X
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 Elliot’s grade (0.9
  wpm/week), Elliot’s range is 3.0X deficient.
                  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.).
          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.
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)
1.                          2.                            3.                             4.

 Failure to meet age-       Discrepancy: Pattern          Rule out:                      Rule out lack of
or grade-level State        of strengths &                                               instruction by
standards in one of         weaknesses, relative          Vision, hearing, or           documenting:
eight areas:                to intellectual ability       motor problems
                            as defined by a severe        mental retardation            Appropriate
oral expression            discrepancy between           emotional disturbance         instruction by
                            intellectual ability and      cultural and/or               qualified personnel
listening
comprehension               achievement, or               environmental issues           Repeated
                            relative to age or            limited English               assessments
written expression                                       proficiency
                            grade.
basic reading skill
reading fluency skill                  OR
reading                    RTI: Lack of progress
comprehension               in response to
mathematics                scientifically based
calculation                 instruction
mathematics
problem solving



                         Inclusionary                                     Exclusionary
                                                   Observation

                                             Specific Learning Disability
         Rule Out: Vision
Screening procedure        Check vision records
                           (school nurse)


If positive, assess…       Optometric or
                           ophthalmology exam


Possible extraneous        Visual Impairment
factor or condition that
could account for
learning problem

                               Adapted from Reschly (2005)
         Rule Out: Hearing
Screening procedure        Check hearing records
                           (school nurse)


If positive, assess…       Audiological exam



Possible extraneous        Hearing Impairment
factor or condition that
could account for
learning problem
                               Adapted from Reschly (2005)
       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   Physical Disability or Health
or condition that could      Impairment
account for learning
problem

                                    Adapted from Reschly (2005)
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.
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   Mental Retardation
 condition that could account
 for learning problem


                                       Adapted from Reschly (2005)
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
  teacher’s 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.
          Rule Out:
    Emotional Disturbance

Screening procedure        Behavioral checklists



If positive, assess…       Behavior rating scales,
                           other assessments of
                           behavior and affect

Possible extraneous        Emotional disturbance
factor or condition that
could account for
learning problem
                              Adapted from Reschly (2005)
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.
Rule Out: Cultural Factors

Screening procedure        Assess cultural status
                           (e.g., Acculturation Quick
                           Scale)

If positive, assess…       Interview with family



Possible extraneous        Level of acculturation;
factor or condition that   cultural differences
could account for
learning problem

                               Adapted from Reschly (2005)
   Rule Out: Environmental
   or
   Economic Disadvantage
Screening procedure        School records



If positive, assess…       “Social work” interview
                           with family


Possible extraneous        Child abuse, lack of
factors or conditions that sleep, poor nutrition, etc.
could account for
learning problem

                                Adapted from Reschly (2005)
Rule Out: Limited English
Proficiency
 Screening procedure        Home language
                            screening (required by
                            law)

 If positive, assess…       Primary language
                            assessment


 Possible extraneous        May not have BICS or
 factor or condition that   CALP necessary for
 could account for          learning academic
 learning problem           content

                                 Adapted from Reschly (2005)
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.
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;
(§300.306[b])
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
       child’s parents




                          Exclusionary Criteria
                                                                       § 300.309(b)
1.                          2.                            3.                             4.

 Failure to meet age-       Discrepancy: Pattern          Rule out:                      Rule out lack of
or grade-level State        of strengths &                                               instruction by
standards in one of         weaknesses, relative          Vision, hearing, or           documenting:
eight areas:                to intellectual ability       motor problems
                            as defined by a severe        mental retardation            Appropriate
oral expression            discrepancy between           emotional disturbance         instruction by
                            intellectual ability and      cultural and/or               qualified personnel
listening
comprehension               achievement, or               environmental issues           Repeated
                            relative to age or            limited English               assessments
written expression                                       proficiency
                            grade.
basic reading skill
reading fluency skill                  OR
reading                    RTI: Lack of progress
comprehension               in response to
mathematics                scientifically based
calculation                 instruction
mathematics
problem solving



                         Inclusionary                                     Exclusionary
                                                   Observation

                                             Specific Learning Disability
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.
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 child’s parents.
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?
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)?
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%)
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
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 all—may need to supplement or
      modify (Oregon Reading First, 2004)
       Core
       Core plus supplemental
       Core plus intervention
       Intervention
       Intervention plus supplemental
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
If a scientifically validated
  curriculum is in place, is there
  evidence that it is being
  delivered at a sufficient level of
  fidelity?
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?
Considerations to assess the
provision of appropriate instruction
   Principal’s 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.
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.
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.
                                                   Expected
                                                   Performance




 Words
 per
 minute




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

 Has a plan been developed that targets the
  student’s deficiency through supplemental
  intervention in the general education
  classroom (differentiated instruction)?
 Is the supplemental program based on
  research?
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
    student’s 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”?
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.
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?
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?
                                                                  Words Read Correctly per Minute
                            St
                               u




                                            0
                                                10
                                                             20
                                                                    30
                                                                            40
                                                                                            50
                                                                                                   60
                                                                                                                  70
                                                                                                                                 80
                                                                                                                                      90

                                   de
                                     nt
                            St          1
                               u
                                                                                                                            77
                                   de
                                     nt




Adapted from Witt (2006)
                            St          2
                               u
                                                                                                                            75


                                   de
                                     nt
                            St          3
                               u
                                                                                                                       71



                                   de
                                     nt
                            St          4
                               u
                                                                                                             64



                                   de
                                     nt
                            St          5
                               u
                                                                                                             64




                                   de
                                     nt
                            St          6
                               u
                                                                                                            62




                                   de
                                     nt
                            St          7
                               u
                                                                                                       59




                                   de
                                     nt
                            St          8
                               u
                                                                                                  56




                                de
                                   nt
                           St         9
                              u
                                                                                             49




                               de
                                  nt
                           St        10
                              ud
                                                                                       45
                                                                                                                                           Original Scores




                                 en
                                   t1
                           St
                              ud      1
                                                                                      43




                                 en
                                   t1
                           St
                              ud      2
                                                                                      43




                                 en
                                   t1
                           St
                              ud      3
                                                                                  41




                                 en
                                   t1
                           St
                              ud      4
                                                                                 40




                                 en
                                   t1
                           St
                              ud      5
                                                                              39




                                 en
                                   t1
                           St
                              ud      6
                                                                              39
                                                                                                                                           Post-InterventionScores




                                 en
                                   t1
                           St
                              ud      7
                                                                             38




                                 en
                                   t1
                           St         8
                                                        15




                              ud
                                                                                  41




                                 en
                                   t1
                           St         9
                                                     13




                              ud
                                 en
                                                                             38




                                   t2
                                      0
                                                     13 14
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, John’s 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.)
(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 district’s 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.)
         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 student’s progress
    should be periodically provided to the student’s
    parents.
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
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.
    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
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 student’s academic or social-
  emotional skills.
      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.
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 student’s RTI indicate.
        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)
Contact Information:
Joseph F. Kovaleski, D.Ed., NCSP       Caitlin S. Flinn, MEd, NCSP
                                    Exeter Township School District
   Indiana University of PA
      Indiana, PA 15705                       Reading, PA
        724/357-3785

     jkov@iup.edu                  caitlinflinn@rateofimprovement.com
www.coe.iup.edu/kovaleski
                                   www.rateofimprovement.com

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:8
posted:4/11/2012
language:English
pages:158