fff using rti to make ld eligibility decisions in the chicago public schools sue gamm educational...

fff

Using RtI to Make LD Eligibility Decisions In the Chicago Public Schools

Sue Gamm

Educational Strategies & Support

I. Why Change?

II. LD Eligibility based on RtI Framework

III. Next Steps

Resources for Presentation

Illinois ASPIRE RtI Eligibility Traininghttp://www.illinoisaspire.org/welcome/documents.php

Illinois Special Education Eligibility and Entitlement Procedures and Criteria within a Response to Intervention (RtI) Framework: A Guidance

Frequently Asked Questions about Special Education Eligibility and Entitlement within a Response to Intervention (RtI) Framework

Office of Teaching & Learning: RtI Guidance

Why Change?

Hart & Risley, Meaningful Differences

Average number of words children heard per hour ranged from 2,153 to 616

Extrapolated out, by 4 years of age children heard 13 M to 48 M words

Talkative v Taciturn Parents

Talkative Parents: children heard they were right 750,000 times & times wrong 120,000 times

Taciturn Parents: children heard they were right 120,000 times & times wrong 250,000 times

Importance of Parent Talk

Child language based on amount of parental talking and amount and positive nature of the talk.

Parental talk accounts for all the variance.

Most students are referred for a special ed evaluation because of reading difficulties.

Minority Students in Gifted & Special Education (2001)

Designing Change

Reading deficits often reflect an inadequate opportunity to learn & correlated sped referral rates for mild disability areas reflect quality of instruction.

Reading failure rates as high as 38-40% can be reduced to ≤6% through early identification & multitiered intervention.

Minority Students in Gifted & Special Education (2001)

Percentage of SwD with LD

ISBE District Profile: 2009

Many children are “instructional casualties” of failed or poor

reading instruction.

2000 National Reading Panel

Change is good.

You go first!

Judy Elliott,

CAO, LAUSD

LD Eligibility – The RtI Way

FY 2010 is Here!

Getting Started Depending on nature and scope, RtI data can

meet FIE requirements Possible evaluation tools:

• Interviews• Observation of the student in specific, relevant settings• Error analysis of work samples• CBAs/functional acad assessments, including CBMs & CBE• Progress monitoring data• Results from state and local assessments• Functional Behavioral Assessments• Behavior Rating Scales• Vocational assessments• Developmental, academic, behavioral & functional life

skills checklists• Standardized (norm-referenced) assessments

ISBE Administrative Code

Beginning at the start of the 2010-2011 school year, Illinois districts must use a process that determines how a student responds to scientific, research-based interventions when determining whether a student is or continues to have a learning disability.

A student’s severe discrepancy between achievement & ability is no longer relevant.

PROBLEM ID/ STATEMENT OF PROBLEMDescribe baseline data & initial performance

discrepancy for areas of concern in relevant domains, including information about performance discrepancy prior to intervention.

Attach evidence

PROBLEM ANALYSIS/STRENGTHS/WEAKNESSES

Skill strengths/weaknesses. Attach evidence, including skill versus performance deficits.

1. Determinant Factors• Inappropriate lack of

instruction (R/M)• LEP2. Exclusionary Criteria3. Inclusionary Criteria• Performance Discrepancy• Educational Progress• Instructional Needs

Determinant FactorsDeterminant Factors

IDEA 2004Inserted term “appropriate” Specifies methodology for analyzing

these provisions when a student is suspected of having LD

IDEA doesn’t describe any methodology for review outside of LD - methodology not required but is permissive

Lack of Appropriate Instruction in Reading/Math

Lack of Appropriate Instruction in Reading/Math

IDEA MethodologyData demonstrating prior to (or part of)

referral process, student provided appropriate instruction in regular ed settings - delivered by qualified personnel

Data-based documentation of repeated assessments of achievement at reasonable intervals, reflecting formal assessment of student progress during instruction

Data provided to parents

Lack of Appropriate Instruction in Reading/Math Lack of Appropriate Instruction in Reading/Math

Data Reflects Appropriate Instruction

Reading Instruction’s essential components (2001 ESEA): phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary & comprehension

Math Instruction’s essential components: conceptual understanding, procedural fluency, strategic competence, adaptive reasoning, & productive response.

National Research Council (2001)


Use of SRB Interventions Prior to/during the FIE process interventions

used at Tier 2/Tier 3 levels were:• Based on scientific research• Appropriate for student• Provided in addition to core instruction

The Office of Teaching and Learning’s RtI Toolkit will offer best practices associated with multitiered interventions of increasing intensity


What is Scientifically-Based?

Practices and programs that have been thoroughly and rigorously reviewed to determine whether they produce positive educational results in a predictable manner

Determination based on objective, external validation

Is Differentiated Instruction an Intervention?

High quality instruction is differentiated & culturally responsive, effectively meeting diverse learner needs

Qualified Personnel

Instruction delivered by personnel meeting highly qualified requirements of ESEA

Staff implementing core & supplemental instruction must also be adequately trained


Data Sources

State assessment data (e.g., ISAT, PSAE)

Local universal screening data collected multiple times during academic year

Progress monitoring data of SBR interventions collected in regular intervals for individual or groups of students


Implementation with Fidelity

PLAN DEVELOPMENT/INTERVENTIONS Describe previous & current instruction

& interventions (Tier I-core, Tier 2-strategic and Tier 3-Intensive) including evidence of scientific base and implementation with fidelity.


Principles of Integrity Length of time curriculum in place

Amount of teacher training

Length of time student was taught the curriculum

Degree to which the instructional methodologies and techniques are used

Degree to which the instructional procedures and materials are used


Practice Standards Use of Fidelity of Implementation Checklist

based on Instructional Planning Form

Existing mechanisms, e.g., school leadership/improvement process, professional development, school/classroom walk-throughs, instructional rounds, fidelity checklists, etc.


Unsatisfactory Practices Informal descriptions of reading intervention

presented at meetings with interventions described only by program name(s) or on limited features, e.g., amount of time daily/weekly

Less structured interview information or self reports completed by the person(s) providing the intervention(s)

No independent observations for fidelity of implementation


Progress Monitoring (PM)Databased documentation of repeated assessments of achievement at reasonable intervals, reflecting formal assessment of student progress during instruction. Consider appropriateness of data, including tools used and way in which monitoring conducted Progress monitored frequently & with fidelity


Frequency of Monitoring

Monitoring is more frequent as interventions become more intenseIn Tier I: Approximately every 10 weeksTier II: At least twice per month Tier III: At least weekly

OTL Toolkit will give further recommendations about PM tools and processes, best practices, and further instructions on use of GradeBook


PM Assumptions Directly linked to area(s) of concern Completed over a period of time to assure

reliability Used by Instructional Leadership Team

(ILT) to determine if interventions should continue because of demonstrated improvement - be changed - or provided with more intensity to support increased progress


PM Practice Standards The PM tool was reviewed by/met

National RTI Center standards; was administered individually; and goal(s) developed in advance.

Validated but not reviewed by National RTI Center; or progress measured by end-of-unit tests that accompany the intervention program; and goal(s) developed in advance.


PM Practice Standards UNSATISFACTORY. Tool neither validated

nor meets National RTI Center standards - administered in group - NO goals developed in advance - INCLUDES teacher-made tests, ratings or opinions

ELL. Above standards apply & must be valid for students with similar acculturation. NOT OK to use tool reflecting increased performance by students with different primary language


PM Data Given to Parents Universal screening and/or student progress

data

Provide in manner that’s easily understood, contains parent-friendly language & provides grade-level performance expectations so parents can compare performance

Inform parents about the steps being taken to intensify/change interventions


English Language Learners

If student’s language proficiency may explain severely low achievement and lack of progress - disaggregate achievement and progress information

Compare student to typical peers and – to extent possible – those with similar language, acculturation & experience.

Is Determinant Factor Related to Language Proficiency? Is Determinant Factor Related to Language Proficiency?

Visual, motor or hearing disability; cognitive disability; emotional disturbance; cultural factors; or environmental or economic disadvantage

Effective screening can rule out exclusionary factors; not rule them “in”

Exclusionary CriteriaExclusionary Criteria

Based on IDEA/Illinois regulations, determine if a student does not:Achieve adequately for age or to meet State-approved grade-level standards in area(s) of concern when provided learning experiences & instruction appropriate for child’s age or State-approved grade-level standardsMake sufficient progress to meet age or State-approved grade-level standards in area(s) of concern when using a process based on the child’s response to scientific, research-based intervention

Inclusionary CriteriaInclusionary Criteria

Illinois’ Framework DISCREPANCY. Performance significantly

discrepant from peer group/standard; not discrepant because of intervention’s intensity

EDUCATIONAL PROGRESS. Progressing at significantly slower rate than age appropriate peers; or acceptable progress only because …

INSTRUCTIONAL NEEDS. Needs in any areas of concern are significantly different from those of typical peers & of intensity/type exceeding general ed resources

Per ISBE, IQ/achievement discrepancy is NOT component of these 3 criteria & team may NOT consider this result when criteria are not met If the 3 criteria are met but there is NO severe IQ/achievement discrepancy, this result does NOT reverse the findingsSame applies to any data showing pattern of strengths & weaknesses in performance, achievement or bothIf there’s suspicion of cognitive disability, intelligence assessment may be relevant

CPS psychologists will NO LONGER

assess a student’s IQ/achievement

discrepancy for LD

Nonverbal LD Has been used to describe significant

discrepancy between high verbal & lower performance scores on IQ test & deficits in motor, visual-spacial & social skills

Per ISBE, only areas in IDEA reg are relevant for LD eligibility, which are performance-based & focus on achievement - not processing deficits/behavior

Reading (basic skills, fluency skills, comprehension); math (calculation, problem solving); expression (written or oral); and/or listening comprehension

Often referred to as “gap” analysisUSE:

State assessment data (e.g., ISAT, PSAE);

Local universal screening on all students collected multiple times during the academic year; and/or

PM data collected regularly

1. Performance Discrepancy1. Performance Discrepancy

Practice StandardsScore below 10th percentile on screening tool

meeting standards set by the National RTI Center based on peers in their local school; administered individually; and/or on CBM compared to other students in the grade/school.

Score below 10th percentile on screening tool not reviewed by National RTI Center; or score below 5th percentile* on validated achievement test individually administered & compared to national norm sample (e.g., WIATII, KTEAII, WJIII). *TBD


Practice Standards

UNSATISFACTORY. Teacher ratings or opinions, ISAT scores, or end-of-unit or curriculum-made tests; data from screening tools not meeting CPS screening standards

ELL. Same as above but student compared with others from same language subgroup


Team Determination1. Does discrepancy data meet practice

standards?

IF NOT: within eval time frame, case manager reschedules meeting & notifies principal/designee to obtain applicable data; or student is not eligible

2. Is student’s performance significantly below his/her peers/expected standards in one/ more area(s) of concern? Or not due to receipt of interventions


Documentation Team reviews/documents normative rate

of progress displayed by peers; and rate of learning required to close performance gap

Summarize data & analysis on Eligibility Determination form & Documentation of Evaluation/Intervention Results form, under Discrepancy.


Significantly slower rate than expected; or not only because of receipt of interventions

1.Were SRB interventions (designed to remediate area of identified need) implemented with fidelity?

Consider: targeted intervention, ELL, intensity, amount of time, group size, etc.

2. Use appropriate progress monitoring (conducted at reasonable intervals) to inform continuation and/or modification of interventions?

2. Educational Performance2. Educational Performance

Team Determination Were PM & SRB interventions (including core

curriculum) provided per above? IF NOT: within eval time frame, case manager reschedules

meeting & notifies principal/designee to obtain applicable data; or student is not eligible

Does PM data show interventions sufficiently improved rate of learning/reduced performance gap? REVIEW:

• Baseline performance• Rate of Improvement (ROI) - how well - pace/speed• ROI compared to predetermined ROI

Document on Eligibility Determination form & Educational Progress

2. Educational Progress2. Educational Progress

The student does not have LD

When progressingAt acceptable rate of progress Based on SRB interventionsTypically provided with comparable intensity to S w/o D

2. Educational Progress2. Educational Progress

Significantly different needs from typical peers & of intensity/type exceeding general ed resources

Team considers:Tier 2/3 intervention factors enabling progressCharacteristics of educational services needed

•Intensity (rate of practice/feedback, explicitness of instruction)•Time (amount of time/day and sessions/week)•Group size (individualized, very small)

3. Instructional needs3. Instructional needs

Team Determination Was PM data used to determine instructional

needs that meet best or defensible practices?

IF NOT: within eval time frame, case manager reschedules meeting & notifies principal/designee to obtain applicable data; or student is not eligible

Are needs significantly different from those of typical peers & of intensity/type exceeding general ed resources?

Document on Eligibility Determination form & Instructional Need

3. Instructional Needs3. Instructional Needs

Does the disability adversely affect educational performance?

(discrepancy, educational progress, instructional need)

Need for specialized instruction

Eligibility DeterminationEligibility Determination

Home Schooled & Parentally Placed

Must collect necessary data (new if it did not exist) to determine student’s response to instruction & intervention as part of evaluation.

May administer universal screening measures and compare resulting scores to same CPS age/grade, and/or may provide limited consultation or interventions & progress monitoring.

Independent EvalsParent does not have any right to an IEE at

public expense before CPS completes its evaluation simply because of disagreement to use RtI as part of the evaluation process.

If an IEE is at public expense, it must conform to IL and CPS eligibility criteria, including how a student responds to SRB interventions as part of the evaluation procedures for LD.

ReevaluationsISBE’s RTI FAQ. Must involve RtI in reevals

for LD. Even if RtI not part of initial eval, presumed initial eligibility process valid & disability remains unless data indicates otherwise. (Data could show able to benefit from general ed curriculum without special education/related services.

USDE GUIDANCE. “Obviously” team should consider as part of reeval process – appropriateness of instructional & overall special ed program. If appropriate & student unable to exit - strong evidence to maintain eligibility.

T&L RtI Website

Office of Teaching & Learning RtI

www.chicagoteachingandlearning.org/tl-cross-content/online-resources-a-community-partners.html

RtI without Fidelity

ADA /504 Expanded Eligibility

Child Find Vulnerability

IDEA Dispro-portionality

The Perfect Storm

I. Why Change?

II. LD Eligibility based on RtI Framework

III. NEXT STEPS

fff using rti to make ld eligibility decisions in the chicago public schools sue gamm educational...

Documents