1  

OS SLD Guidance:

An Overview Presentation

Oakland Schools Updated June 2012

Find our Website:

www.oakland.k12.mi.us/sld

The OS SLD Guidance document is bookmarked and searchable. All links are live!

The OS SLD Guidance Document & FAQ was designed to: 1.  Provide  background  informa4on  and  context  regarding  the  

current  state  SLD  classifica4on.    2.  Outline  the  cri4cal  requirements  of  the  IDEA  Federal  

Regula4ons.  3.  Provide  examples  of  how  to  opera4onalize  the  regula4ons  

consistent  with  the  direc4on  from  the  USDOE  and  MDE.          

The OS SLD Guidance document is not and has never intended to be specific procedures nor to mandate an approach or single

methodology for SLD identification across the county.

2  

This document recognizes the work of: �  The MAASE SLD workgroup �  Wayne RESA �  Kalamazoo RESA �  Kent ISD �  Ottawa Area ISD �  Our 20 stakeholders from Oakland County from 14

districts.

�  Numerous people from individual districts across the state who offered feedback during the drafting of this document.

Purpose of the OS Document � The  purpose  of  this  document  is  both  to  assist  districts  in  complying  with  all  state  rules  and  federal  regula4ons  regarding  SLD,  and  to  encourage  districts  to  make  a  long-­‐term  plan  for  reshaping  iden4fica4on  prac4ces.    

� The  intended  audience  for  this  document  includes  special  educa4on  directors  and  supervisors,  and  the  MET  representa4ves  who  have  a  role  in  developing  district  procedures  for  the  iden4fica4on  of  a  SLD.    

What sense do you make of this data?

33.3% Oakland County Average

6

3  

Local Districts in Oakland County As of 9/20/10

PSW RTI Combination PSW and RTI

Avondale Rochester Berkley Royal Oak Birmingham Southfield Bloomfield Troy Brandon Walled Lake Clawson Waterford Clarkston West Bloomfield Farmington Ferndale Hazel Park Holly Huron Valley Lake Orion Lamphere Oak Park Novi

Pontiac South Lyon

Oxford Clarenceville Madison

The  majority  of  our  districts  declared  using  PSW  as  part  of  their  SLD  eligibility  decision  as  they  did  not  have  a  fully  implemented  model.    Districts  are  aRemp4ng  to  build  infrastructure  toward  RTI  to  use  as  part  of  the  eligibility  decision  for  SLD  which  was  central  to  the  guidance  that  we  provided.      

Oakland Schools Timeline Date Actions

September 2010 1st Stakeholder meeting at Oakland Schools

October 2010 2nd Stakeholder meeting at Oakland Schools

Oct-Nov 2010 Draft initial document; Internal reviews and external reviews

Dec 2010 Released Draft Document

Jan 2011 30-day public comment period; open call for secondary stakeholders

Feb 2011 3rd Stakeholder review/revision ; 1st Secondary Stakeholder Review

March 2011 4th Stakeholder review/revision; 2nd Secondary Stakeholder Review

April- May 2011 Revision, additions (ELL, reevaluation), FAQ

June-July 2011 Final editing; Graphics and Print Production for layout

August 2011 Roll-out of SLD Guidance, FAQ and Website

Oakland Schools Perspective

� A  hallmark  of  SLD  is  that  the  low  achievement  is  both  unexpected  and  uncommon.        

         � SLD  exists  on  a  con4nuum  of  severity,  and  any  established  cut-­‐point  is  essen4ally  arbitrary.  SLD,  however,  clearly  represents  the  lower  end  of  the  achievement  distribu4on,  and  is  characterized  by  varying  degrees  of  severity.  

 � The  manifesta4on  of  SLD  is  influenced  by  the  complex  interac4ons  of  variables  within  the  instruc4onal  environment.    

4  

�  Cogni4ve  processing  deficits  have  been  linked  to  some  SLD  areas.  Specific  cogni4ve  processes  correlated  with  SLD  areas  other  than  reading  are  not  well  understood.    

�  There  is  liRle  evidence  that  the  presence  of  cogni4ve  processing  deficits  supports  the  conclusion  that  the  difficulty  in  achievement  is  neurobiological  in  origin  as  a  SLD  is  an  integra4on  of  environmental  and  biological  factors.  Therefore,  using  cogni4ve  processing  constructs  for  use  in  eligibility  determina4on  has  proven  troublesome  and  remains  ques4onable.  

�  Part  of  an  evalua4on  for  SLD  iden4fica4on  requires  informa4on  about  a  student’s  response  to  instruc4on  in  order  to  assess  if  environmental  (experien4al)  and  instruc4onal  deficits  (lack  of  appropriate  instruc4onal  opportunity)  are  the  cause  of  the  student’s  inadequate  achievement.  

Oakland Schools Perspective

Oakland Schools Approach to Operationalizing RtI and PSW See OS SLD Guidance page 1.6-1.7 Evaluating response to scientific, research-based intervention �  Defining RtI was focused on how districts may evaluate a student’s response

to scientific, researched-based intervention; not on developing the entire RtI system.

�  We emphasized using a variety of reliable and valid assessment tools to describe the student’s present level of academic performance, relevant academic discrepancies, and assess alterable variables that reflect the instructional environment.

Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses Option �  Defined PSW in an instructionally-based manner that allows the MET to begin

to incorporate the principles of RtI into every comprehensive evaluation. �  This represents a shift away from focusing on assessment of global IQ and

cognitive processing and moves towards an analysis of intra-achievement patterns and instructional/environmental variables as a central consideration.

Applying  IDEA  2004  Eligibility  Criteria  

5  

Applying  IDEA  2004  Eligibility  Criteria  

Key  Ideas  in  OS  Guidance:  •  Defined    what  types  of  measures  can  be  

used  to  determine  inadequate  achievement  differen4ated  from  PSW

       •  Defined  both  the  criteria  for  expected  

performance  and  for  determining  a  severe  academic  deficit.      

     See  OS  SLD  Guidance  p.  4.5  

Applying IDEA 2004 Eligibility Criteria

Key  Ideas  in  OS  Guidance:  •  Provided  a  chart  with  Indicators  of  

Appropriate  Instruc4on  that  include  sources  for  documenta4on  consistent  with  the  view  of  using    mul4ple  strategies  in  mul4ple  domains.    Also,  provided  sugges4ons  on  what  to  do  if  you  do  not  have  the  informa4on.  (See  OS  SLD  Guidance  page  5.8)  

•  Provided  two  examples  of  data  used  to  document  appropriate  instruc4on      (See  OS  SLD  Guidance  p.  5.6-­‐5.7)  

6  

Applying  IDEA  2004  Eligibility  Criteria  Key  Ideas  in  OS  Guidance:  •  Provided  four  examples  of  insufficient  

progress  (See  OS  SLD  Guidance  6.8-­‐6.11)  

•  Provided  nine  steps  for  determining  response  that  can  be  used  as  integrity  checks  including  (See    OS  SLD  Guidance  6.12-­‐6.18):          •  Parent  no4fica4on  •  Interven4on  characteris4cs  •  Establishing  measureable  goals  •  Use  of  valid  and  reliable  progress  

monitoring  tools  •  Decision  rules  established  •  Data  displayed  and  graphed  •  Mul4ple  interven4on  rounds  •  Interven4on  integrity  •  Rate  of  Improvement/Slope  

Impact  for  Leadership    If  you  are  building  your  RtI  Infrastructure,  keep  the  end  in  mind.    Issues  like  treatment  integrity  and  procedural  fidelity  have  to  be  planned  from  the  beginning.    

7  

 

Academic achievement with respect to grade-level

expectations.

Academic achievement with respect to age-level

expectations.

Classroom performance with respect to grade-level expectations.

 

Age-appropriate functional / intellectual skills

Basic Psych. Processes

Progress monitoring,

CBM screening or

criterion-referenced assessments

MEAP Norm-

referenced achievement

tests

Curriculum assessments Grades Teacher

report Classroom

observation Observation, interviews, IQ assessment

See Pgs. 3-6 of OSPA article * for description

of PSW models

Basic Reading S N W S N W S N W S N W S N W S N W S N W

S N W S N W

Reading Fluency S N W S N W S N W S N W S N W S N W S N W Reading Comp. S N W S N W S N W S N W S N W S N W S N W Math Calc. S N W S N W S N W S N W S N W S N W S N W Math Prob. Solving

S N W S N W S N W S N W S N W S N W S N W

Written Express. S N W S N W S N W S N W S N W S N W S N W Oral Express. S N W S N W S N W S N W S N W S N W S N W Listening Comp. S N W S N W S N W S N W S N W S N W S N W

Variation of the PSW Graphic Organizer: Stakeholder Feedback

What  the  OS  Stakeholders  Liked:  � Emphasis  on  mul4ple  types  of  data  (tes4ng,  observa4on,  etc.)  

� Emphasis  on  mul4ple  types  of  assessments  (norm  reference,  CR,  MEAP)  

� Ease  of  training  staff  to  implement  � Ease  of  explaining  SLD  eligibility  to  parents.    

S N W Chart

8  

�  Teams  were  circling  4  weaknesses  or  3  strengths  anywhere  on  the  PSW  chart    to  achieve  a  “paRern”.    

�  Mul4ple  measures  were  in  one  box:    How  do  you  reflect  this?  �  It  lost  the  concept  of  inadequate  achievement  as  an  essen4al  criteria.    �  With  all  the  measures  side  by  side,  it  appeared  that  every  type  of  

assessment  had  the  same  weight.  Not  each  score  in  each  area  should  be  weighted  the  same.  

�  Does  not  communicate  the  decision-­‐making  involved.  Since  the  evidence  is  not  listed,  it  was  difficult  to  defend  the  team’s  decision.      

�  Students  who  met  criteria  for  inadequate  achievement  in  reading,  wri4ng,  and  math  areas,  but  had  no  academic  strengths  were  determined  not  eligible.    This  excluded  our  most  profound  students  with  SLD.  This  led  to  over-­‐tes4ng  to  find  a  strength.    

Variation of the PSW Graphic Organizer: Stakeholder Feedback

S N W Chart

�  Emphasis  appeared  to  be  on  the  “number  of  Strengths  and  Weakness”  and  less  on  the  informa4on  that  it  reflected.    There  is  no  numerical  formula  that  equals  convergence.      

 �  The  form  became  a  barrier  during  MET  discussions.    Staff  were  digging  back  in  their  reports  to  find  the  actual  score  or  more  informa4on  because  they  were  only  leh  with  an  S      N  or  W.      v  For  instance,  something  could  be  a  strength  but  there  is  a  difference  between  achievement  score  of  96  and  an  achievement  score  of  116.    Reducing  a  student  to  three  categories  of  scores  lost  the  richness  of  integra4ng  the  data.    

Variation of the PSW Graphic Organizer: Stakeholder Feedback

S N W Chart

Applying  IDEA  2004  Eligibility  Criteria  

Key  Ideas  in  OS  Guidance:  •  Criteria  set  for  PSW  that  

includes  inadequate  Achievement  Data  (OS  SLD  Guidance  p.  7.13)  

   •  Direc4ons  on  how  to  Apply  

the  PaRern  of  Strengths  and  Weaknesses  Op4on  (see  p.  7.4-­‐7.12)    

       •  Include  relevant  SLD  paRerns  

and  Associated  Characteris4cs  that  teams  are  using  their  data  to  compare  (See  SLD  Guidance  p.  7.5)  

   

9  

25

10  

Applying  IDEA  2004  Eligibility  Criteria  

Key  Ideas  in  OS  Guidance:  •  Dimensions  that  the  team  should  consider  when  establishing  need.    (See  OS  SLD  Guidance  p.  8.2)  

   

Applying  IDEA  2004  Eligibility  Criteria  

Key  Ideas  in  OS  Guidance:    

•  Encourage  both  screening  and  in  depth  strategies  to  rule  out  exclusionary  factors  (see  OS  SLD  Guidance  p.  9.3)    

•  Expanded  sec4on  of  ELL  with  key  decision  points  for  the  difference  between  ELL  and  SLD  (see  OS  SLD  Guidance  p.  9.6  –  9.7).    

11  

12  

What is on the horizon? �  An electronic PSW form �  A supplement to the FAQ document on

evaluations and the use of the REED document

�  An Integrity Checklist for report writing �  A side-by-side document with legal citations

to supplement the sample procedures �  Increased training and professional learning

opportunities �  An update to the document and FAQ to

incorporate changes in the Michigan Administrative Rules from Oct. 2011

OS SLD Team �  Dr. Susan M. Koceski, School Psychologist 248.209.2536 �  Abby Cypher-Kitchen, Special Education Consultant 248.209.2577 �  Matt Korolden, Compliance Consultant 248.209.2552 �  Carly Staunton, System Design Consultant 248.209.2074 �  Karen Rockhold, Supervisor 248.209.2286

Additional Training and Product Support �  Bill Barley �  Pam Allen �  Deborah Norton