psw!case!study! student: !! nd!grade!year,!8/09!through!5/10! · 2015. 7. 16. · psw!case!study!!...

PSW Case Study

Student: Lois Lane 2010-‐11 School Year Grade: 3 Date of Referral for Comprehensive Evaluation: September 2010 General Education Interventions Data for 2nd grade year, 8/09 through 5/10 2nd grade GEI Assessment results DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency (ORF) Lois’ score: Fall: 26 WRC Winter: 25 WRC Spring: 38 WRC Benchmark score: Fall: 44 WRC Winter: 68 WRC Spring: 90 WRC Phonological Awareness Skills Test (PAST) Fall (9/09):

- Concept of Spoken Word 6/6 - Rhyme Recognition 6/6 - Rhyme Production 6/6 - Syllable Blending 5/6 - Syllable Segmentation 6/6 - Syllable Deletion 6/6 - Isolation of Initial Sounds 6/6 - Isolation of Final Sounds 6/6 - Phoneme Blending 6/6 - Phoneme Segmentation 6/6 - Deletion of Initial Sound 3/6 - Deletion of Final Sound 4/6 - Deletion of First Sound in Blends 1/6 - Phoneme Substitution 2/6

Quick Phonics Screener (QPS)

QPS Subtest Fall (9/09) Winter (1/10) Spring (5/10) 2: VC and CVC words 40% nonsense

85% sentence 70% nonsense 80% sentence

70% nonsense 95% sentence

3: Beginning and Ending Consonant Digraphs



4: CVCC and CCVC words 90% nonsense 90% sentence


5: silent e words 80% nonsense 90% sentence


6: r-‐controlled vowels 60% nonsense 60% sentence

20% nonsense

7: advanced consonant sounds

40% nonsense

Intervention

- One thirty-‐minute session of reading instruction daily from the Title reading teacher, and one 15 minute session of reading instruction in a small group taught by a para, both in addition to core instruction

- Imagine It for repeated readings with easily decodable materials - Read Naturally for fluency skills - Phonics Boost for phonics skills

Record Review DIBELS ORF results from first grade (2008-‐09 school year) Lois’ 1st grade scores: Winter: 17 WRC Spring: 22 WRC 1st grade Benchmark: Winter: 20 WRC Spring: 40 WRC Dolch Word Recognition Lists (lists 1, 2, and 3) in spring of first grade year: 36/60 or 60% accuracy The General Education Intervention provided during her 1st grade year was a daily classroom reading intervention working on word families, sight words, and sentences with word families. Reading grade in first and second grade was N (needs improvement). Math grade in 1st and 2nd grade was S (satisfactory). Math scores on the district formative during the second grade year were first quarter 93%, second quarter 100%, and third quarter 75%. Lois passed vision and hearing screening in first and second grade. Health history is typical. She does not receive free/reduced lunch. English is her primary language. Interview with classroom and Title Reading teachers Lois loves looking through books and listening during read-‐aloud time, but she is often frustrated by reading tasks. She seems to be a bright girl and she is doing fine in math. She is kind to younger children and has good social relationships with her peers. She is often quiet in a large group setting, but converses easily with adults one-‐on-‐one. She has good listening comprehension skills. 3rd grade Fall Screening Results (2010-‐11 school year) DIBELS ORF: 37 WRC (At Risk range); 3rd grade Fall Benchmark: 77 WRC. Lois was provided with general education interventions throughout her first and second grade year. She made slow progress during her second grade year, with ORF progress monitoring scores better in the spring, and QPS progress monitoring scores better in the winter. This was despite daily reading instruction outside of the classroom setting, which was increased support compared to first grade. After looking at the fall screening results, the GEI team decided to refer Lois for a special education evaluation.

PSW Case Study

Comprehensive Evaluation Results for Lois Lane 2010-‐11 School Year Grade: 3

Date of Referral for Comprehensive Evaluation: September 2010 Date of Evaluation: October 2010 Statement of Presenting Problem Lois has difficulty with reading skills in phonics and fluency. She has been provided with interventions to address her decoding skills and rate of reading, but her progress in both skills has been slow, despite the provision of additional instructional time using evidence-‐based interventions for reading. Evaluation Results Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children – IV (WISC IV) Index Standard Score Percentile Rank Verbal Comprehension 102 55 Perceptual Reasoning 117 87 Working Memory 71 3 Processing Speed 112 70 Full Scale 103 58 Verbal Comprehension 32 ss

- Similarities 10 ss - Vocabulary 10 ss - Comprehension 12ss

Perceptual Reasoning 38 ss - Block Design 13 ss - Picture Concepts 13 ss - Matrix Reasoning 12 ss

Working Memory 10 ss - Digit Span 5 ss - Letter-‐Number Seq. 5 ss

Processing Speed 24 ss - Coding 13 ss - Symbol Search 11 ss

Gray Oral Reading Test (GORT-‐IV)

- Rate: 1 percentile rank - Accuracy: 5 percentile rank - Fluency: 2 percentile rank - Comprehension: 16 percentile rank - Sum of Fluency and Comprehension: 4 percentile rank - Oral Reading Quotient: 73

Phonetic Spelling Inventory Feature Guide—Level 1 (from Words Their Way)

- Initial & Final Consonants: 6/6 - Short Vowels: 5/6 - Digraphs: 6/8 - Blends: 8/13 - Long Vowel Patterns 3/6 - Vowel Teams 2/6 - Syllable & Affixes 3/8 - Total 66% accuracy

QPS

QPS Subtest Fall (10/10) 2: VC and CVC words 50% nonsense

80% sentence 3: Beginning and Ending Consonant Digraphs




6: r-‐controlled vowels 40% nonsense

Note: The evaluation team concluded that the regression in scores on the QPS on nonsense words since testing last year was due to loss of previously learned skills when more complex phonetic skills were introduced in core instruction. Lois continues to do well at the sentence level because these words are real words and many are familiar to her by sight. Observation Lois was observed during whole-‐group reading instruction. At this time she was working with materials on her grade level and not at her instructional level. With this material she read one word at a time and her reading was slow and laborious. She frequently needed to stop to sound out words and sometimes used incorrect phonics sounds. She appeared to rely on sight words and context clues when reading. When encouraged by the teacher, she persevered at sounding out words, and often produced the correct word after extended effort. She seemed to recognize whether or not the word she sounded out made sense in the context of the sentence.

PSW Case Study

Small Group Activity for Training – Groups/team work together to answer questions

Interpreting the Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses Model

1. What components of reading skills are most impaired for Lois Lane?

2. What cognitive skills are correlated with this impaired component of reading

skills?

3. Are any of the above listed cognitive skills found as weaknesses within Lois

Lane’s evaluation results? 4. Are the cognitive skills within Lois Lane’s evaluation that are not related to basic

reading skills results found to be unimpaired?

5. Do the results of the evaluation exhibit a pattern of strengths and weaknesses

characteristic of a student with a learning disability in the area of basic reading skills?

6. Do the results of the information collected match the indicators for a learning disability for Prong 1?

7. Do the results of the information collected match the indicators for a learning

disability for Prong 2? 8. Do any of the exclusionary criteria apply?

Interpreting the Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses Model –Answer Sheet

1. What components of reading skills are most impaired for Lois Lane? Basic reading skills, especially phonics and fluency. Low scores in reading comprehension seem to be due primarily to decoding difficulties.

2. What cognitive skills are correlated with basic reading skills? a. Phonological Awareness b. Processing Speed/Perceptual Speed, including rapid naming c. Working Memory/Short-‐term memory of meaningful material d. Paired-‐associate learning e. Oral language skills: Vocabulary, Listening comprehension, Verbal

reasoning

3. Are any of the above listed cognitive skills found as weaknesses within Lois Lane’s evaluation results? Yes, working memory and some phonological awareness skills. It is important for teams to recognize that even though general education interventions did remediate phonemic awareness skills, they were a significant weakness for this student.

4. Are the cognitive skills within Lois Lane’s evaluation that are not related to basic

reading skills results found to be unimpaired? Yes, perceptual reasoning, which is not correlated with basic reading skills, was found to be the highest index score.

5. Do the results of the evaluation exhibit a pattern of strengths and weaknesses characteristic of a student with a learning disability in the area of basic reading skills? Yes.

6. Do the results of the information collected match the indicators for a learning disability for Prong 1? Yes, there is data to support indicators in all three categories within Prong 1. The indicator related to the Pattern method of evaluation is supported as well as other indicators. There is a preponderance of data supporting the indicators for this prong.

7. Do the results of the information collected match the indicators for a learning

disability for Prong 2? Yes, for example, “Despite modifications of instruction, curriculum, and environment, the student does not make sufficient progress to meet age or state-‐approved grade level standards in one area.” Several of the indicators apply and there is a preponderance of data supporting the indicators for this prong. (Note: One of the issues with this case study is that most GEI data, especially progress monitoring data, is missing. Evaluation teams need to make sure that they locate the GEI data and that a summary of the GEI data is provided within the evaluation report.)

8. Do any of the exclusionary criteria apply? No.

RTI Case Study

Student: Luke Skywalker 2011 – 2012 School Year Grade: 2 Building: Neptune Elementary

Information about Neptune Elementary Reading Assessment Plan:

Tier Assessment Assessment Level Frequency Tier 1 -‐ Core AIMSweb Universal

Screening NWEA MAP

Kg – 6th grade

3rd – 6th grade

3 times per year

2 times per year Tier 2 -‐

Supplemental AIMSweb progress

monitoring

Instructional level

Every other week

Tier 3 -‐ Intensive AIMSweb progress monitoring

Instructional level

Every week

Reading Intervention Plan: Intervention

Level Instructional

Recommendation Length & Frequency

Group Size

Core All levels 90 minutes daily Whole class Class-‐wide Intervention

More than 40% of class in Group 2, 3, or 4

Incorporated into daily instruction

Whole class

Supplemental Score in yellow range 4 times per week Groups of 3 -‐ 5 Intensive Score in red range 5 times per week Groups of 1 -‐ 3

Intervention Decision Rules: Targeted Students

Data Review Schedule

Decision Point Increase Intensity

Decrease Intensity

Class-‐wide intervention

Check results of grouping after every universal screening

At least 40% of classroom falls in same group

Supplemental Intervention

Every 6 weeks (after 3 new data points)

3 consecutive data points

3 consecutive points below aimline

3 consecutive points above aimline

Intensive

Intervention

Every 3 weeks (after 3 new data points

3 consecutive data points

3 consecutive points below aimline

3 consecutive points above aimline

Luke Skywalker Intervention Information (Grade 2, 2010-‐11 school year) Luke is a new student at Neptune elementary. His classroom teacher has reviewed his file from his previous school, which reported that he has a history of difficulty in reading and received interventions throughout his first grade year. Those interventions focused on developing phonemic awareness and knowledge of letter-‐sound associations. No progress monitoring data was provided. His file noted that he did well in other subjects, had good attendance, good focus and work habits, and good relations with peers and adults. His primary language is English, and he qualifies for F/R lunch. The results of the first universal screening in August showed Luke to be in the well below average (red) range. His second grade classroom included two students in the well below average (red) range, three students in the below average (yellow) range, and 16 students in the average or above (green, blue, and white) range. Luke’s score on the oral reading fluency screener was 14 WRC, with 85% accuracy. The target for his grade level for the fall screening is 55 WRC with 95% accuracy. The Group Sort places Luke in Group 2: slow and inaccurate. The diagnostic process was conducted to determine his instructional focus. Luke was given the Quick Phonics Screener to assess his basic phonics skills. This assessment requires him to use increasingly complex phonics skills with both nonsense words, and in a sentence.

QPS Subtest Date: 8/10 2: VC and CVC words 80% nonsense

90% sentence 3: Beginning and Ending Consonant Digraphs


4: CVCC and CCVC words


5: silent e words


6: r-‐controlled vowels


7: advanced consonant sounds

Not administered

Because he showed mastery of skills with subtests 2 and 3, further testing of phonemic awareness skills was not deemed necessary. Luke was placed in a protocol intervention for improving accuracy with a small group of three students who receive intensive intervention for 60 minutes daily (in addition to core), delivered by a reading specialist. The intervention was Build-‐Up,

which is a scripted evidence-‐based program with a primary emphasis on phonics. Additional diagnostic assessment using ORF probes at the first grade level showed that he scored at the 27th percentile with 96% accuracy on first grade norms. This means his instructional level is second grade and his progress will be monitored using second grade oral reading fluency probes. His goal on the ORF measure will be 69 WRC, which is the 25%ile on end-‐of-‐the-‐year second grade norms. He will also have a goal of 95% accuracy. 1st Progress Monitoring Review:

Week Screen 2 3 WRC 12 13 15

Accuracy 85% 85% 87% Luke’s progress in WRC is below his aimline. The building decision rule is that intensifying instruction should be considered. Luke’s teacher analyzed his errors on the oral reading fluency probe and confirmed that the current intervention materials seemed appropriate. 2nd Progress Monitoring Review: Week Screen 2 3 4 5 6 WRC 12 13 15 17 17 18

Accuracy 85% 85% 87% 88% 88% 89% Luke is showing frustration during core instruction in reading. He is also exhibiting some frustration during small group intervention. Although the intervention seems to be appropriate for him, the other students are making faster progress than he is. The collaborative team thought about how to adjust the intervention by considering the following issues:

-‐ Luke has been receiving his scheduled intervention time. -‐ The intervention has been provided with fidelity. -‐ The team decided to increase the pacing of instruction, and to provide more

opportunities to respond per minute for Luke. -‐ The team decided to provide more modeling of the phonics skills being

taught and practiced. -‐ The team decided to provide more scaffolding during intervention time. -‐ The team decided to do some post-‐testing on the QPS since he seems to be

mastering some phonics skills. 3rd Progress Monitoring Review: Week Screen 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 WRC 12 13 15 17 17 18 19 20 20

Accuracy 85% 85% 87% 88% 88% 89% 90% 90% 91%

Luke’s mother expressed concerns about his reading at a parent conference. She said he is highly motivated and hard working except in reading. He has even cried when asked to do reading homework. The collaborative team is concerned about Luke’s lack of progress and decides to change him to a smaller group with only one other student. This is in part because the other students in his group are making faster progress, and there is another student who might be a better fit. The team decides to continue with the current phonics program, but decides to add some work on sight work recognition, since he seems to be trying to apply phonetic rules to irregular words. The classroom teacher will administer the Fry word series as a pre-‐test and to identify words he needs to work on with sight word recognition. Update from collaborative team -‐ the results of the assessment of sight word recognition using the Fry Instant Words showed the following results:

First 100 Words (approximately first grade)

Second 100 Words (approximately second grade)

Group 1a 15/25 Group 2a 5/25 Group 1b 12/25 Group 2b 3/25 Group 1c 10/25 Group 1d 8/25

4th Progress Monitoring Review: Week Screen 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 WRC 12 13 15 17 17 18 19 20 20

Accuracy 85% 85% 87% 88% 88% 89% 90% 90% 91% Week 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Screen WRC 22 23 24

Accuracy 91% 92% 93% QPS update results for Luke: QPS Subtest 8/10 10/10 2: VC and CVC words 80% nonsense

90% sentence 90% nonsense 100% sentence

3: Beginning and Ending Consonant Digraphs







6: r-‐controlled vowels



7: advanced consonant sounds NA 30% nonsense

The collaborative team feels that Luke is less frustrated in his current intervention group. The team believes the data shows he is making good progress with reading accuracy and his phonics skills. They continue to be concerned about his slow progress with reading fluency, despite the increase in word analysis skills. The sight word recognition program may help with the fluency and it has only been in place 3 weeks, so the team decides to continue the current interventions. 5th Progress Monitoring Review: Week 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Screen WRC 22 23 24 26 24 27

Accuracy 91% 92% 93% 93% 90% 93% Luke seems to have hit a plateau with accuracy and is still making slow growth in fluency. Luke has shown good growth with the Fry words lists. A post-‐test showed:

-‐ Group 1a 25/25 words -‐ Group 1b 25/25 words -‐ Group 1c 20/25 words

Luke continues to work on the lists for Groups 1c, 1d, and 2a. A testing update with the QPS showed mastery of r-‐controlled vowels. The universal screener will be given again at week 18, after which the team will make a decision about changing materials. 6th Progress Monitoring Review: Week 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Screen WRC 22 23 24 26 24 27 28 29 30

Accuracy 91% 92% 93% 93% 90% 93% 94% 95% 95% The results of the last universal screening show that Luke scored 30 WRC, with 95% accuracy. This ORF score is still below the 10th percentile, in the well below average (red) range. However, Luke’s score with accuracy has reached the goal for second graders. As a result of these scores, Luke will change from Group 3 (slow fluency and low accuracy) to Group 2 (slow and accurate), and the focus for instruction changes from accuracy to fluency. Luke has been moved to a new group and new intervention. He will continue with 60 minutes of intervention, delivered in two 30-‐minute sessions. He is now in a group with two other students, who are working on fluency at his instructional level. The protocol intervention being used for fluency is Six Minute Solution, along with repeated oral reading practice, including partner reading. These protocol interventions are repeated twice daily. Luke will continue to work on the Fry words and any advanced consonant sounds not yet mastered.

7th Progress Monitoring Review: Week 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Screen WRC 22 23 24 26 24 27 28 29 30

Accuracy 91% 92% 93% 93% 90% 93% 94% 95% 95% Week 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 WRC 31 29 32

Accuracy 94% 95% 95% The collaborative team had hoped to see faster growth in fluency now that Luke is in a fluency-‐focused intervention. However, since this intervention has been in place for just three weeks, the team will wait until the next progress review before making any adjustments. Luke continues to progress in sight word recognition as measured by the Fry lists, with the current post-‐testing results:

-‐ Group 1c 25/25 words -‐ Group 1d 25/25 words -‐ Group 2a 12/25 words

8th Progress Monitoring Review: Week 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 WRC 31 29 32 34 34 35

Accuracy 94% 95% 95% 95% 96% 95% The team is concerned and frustrated by Luke’s lack of progress in fluency. His team has decided that they need to conduct more individualized problem solving and a formal diagnostic assessment, to try to customize his intervention plan. Additional staff members (the school psychologist and resource teacher) will be added to the collaborative team to assist with the individualized problem solving process. Luke’s parents have been provided with frequent updates on his progress and challenges, but they will also be invited to participate in the individualized problem-‐solving meetings. The reading specialist will administer the TOWRE to try to obtain more information about Luke’s reading skills in order to customize his intervention plan. Problem-‐Solving Meeting with collaborative team, additional staff and parent The team met to review additional information about Luke. A review of Luke’s current performance in the classroom shows that he is struggling with completing work in reading, but that he is doing well in other classes. Luke’s scores on the AIMSweb universal assessment for math in the fall and winter have been above target for Computation. On the math Concepts and Application test Luke scored in the below average range in both the fall and winter. However, additional diagnostic testing showed that if the test was read to him, he could answer many of the

questions. Because his difficulty with this test seems due to his reading skill rather than any problem with math concepts, he was not included in any additional support. Luke especially likes science, and his teacher and parents report that he watches public TV shows about science at home, and describes each program in great detail to his teacher the next day. His understanding about topics related to science seems to be beyond his current age level. His classroom teacher notes that they discuss any science, social studies, and math materials orally in class and that Luke’s listening comprehension is good. But she is concerned that he will have more difficulty in future grades, when he has to get more information from reading texts. All the members of the collaborative team report that Luke has good behavior, except that he sometimes becomes frustrated when trying to read more difficult material. He relates well to other students, likes physical games at recess, and has many friends. He usually exhibits good work habits in both large group and small group settings. Luke’s health history is unremarkable, and he has passed both vision and hearing screening this year. Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE)

Sight word efficiency 28 percentile Phonetic decoding efficiency 26 percentile

These results for the TOWRE are at the low end of the average range, and indicate that while Luke needs to improve these skills, they are probably not so low as to be the main roadblock to improving his reading fluency. Based on the information reviewed, the team decided to try to increase the intensity of Luke’s intervention by placing him in a smaller group, with just one other student. 9th Progress Monitoring Review Week 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 WRC 31 29 32 34 34 35 36 35 36

Accuracy 94% 95% 95% 95% 96% 95% 94% 96% 95% Luke’s rate of progress has been flat and is not accelerating as had been hoped. The current intervention will continue, to provide more time for the more intense instruction to have an effect. 10th Progress Monitoring Review Week 28 29 30 31 32 Screen 34 35 36 WRC 37 36 38

Accuracy 93% 95% 95% The team decided that Luke should be referred for an evaluation for special

education, based on his lack of progress despite receiving increasingly intensive interventions. His parents were present for this team meeting and data review. They were provided with the Notice of Special Education Action and their parental rights. The team reviewed the information that had already been collected. The presenting problem is Luke’s reading fluency, and there are no concerns about his behavior and social skills, and no concerns about his cognitive ability, based on his performance in classes other than reading and his good listening comprehension skills. The team decided to collect additional information regarding Luke’s memory skills, to see if that might be impacting his reading fluency. They felt that some evaluation of his oral language skills (both receptive and expressive) might be appropriate as well. Finally, the resource teacher will conduct a classroom observation of Luke’s performance during reading class. Ongoing progress monitoring data will continue to be collected while the evaluation is being conducted. The consent for evaluation form was completed by the team and signed by the parent.

Progress Monitoring Graph

RTI Case Study

Comprehensive Evaluation Results for Luke Skywalker 2010-‐11 School Year Grade: 2

Date of Entry into Tier 3 intervention: August 2010 Date of Referral for Evaluation: March 2011 Date of Evaluation: April 2011 Test of Memory and Learning, 2nd ed. (TOMAL-‐2) Index Standard Score Percentile Rank Verbal Memory 97 42 Nonverbal Memory 102 55 Composite Memory 99 47 Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals, 4th ed. (CELF-‐4) Core and Indices Standard Score Percentile Rank Core Language Score 111 77 Receptive Language 101 50 Expressive Language 120 91 Language Structure 108 70 Language Content 117 87 Language Memory 97 42 Working Memory 94 34 Classroom Observation In the classroom Luke was animated and enjoyed being social with his friends. He showed a good sense of humor, smiled often, and enjoyed being active. He tended to lose confidence in tasks that required reading. When given a passage to read, he groaned, but began to work on the task. His oral reading was laborious, and he frequently stopped to sound out words. Once he sounded out a word, then said, “Oh, I knew that word!” as if he had forgotten to try to recognize some words by sight. He used correct decoding skills but had difficulty in smoothly blending the sounds together. He did appear to be trying to make sure that the words he sounded out made sense in the context of the passage. On-‐going progress monitoring assessment has been conducted for two weeks, and the spring universal screener was also given. Luke continues to make slow progress, but the gap between himself and his peers is growing larger. Week 28 29 30 31 32 Screen 34 35 36 WRC 37 36 38 38 39 40

Accuracy 93% 95% 95% 95% 97% 95%

Summary of Data regarding Dual Discrepancy Discrepant from Peers: Level of Achievement Oral Reading Fluency Words per Minute National Percentile Rank

2nd Grade Fall 12 Below 10th percentile

2nd Grade Winter 30 Below 10th percentile

2nd Grade Spring 40 Below 10th percentile

Discrepant from Peers: Growth Rate Academic Year

End of Year (EOY) Mean -‐ Beginning of Year (BOY) Mean = Amount of increase during year

Divided by 36 instructional weeks

= Rate of Increase (ROI)

Expected Peer Rate of Increase for 2nd grade

End of Year Score -‐ Beginning of Year Score

= Amount of Increase during year Divided by # instructional weeks

= Rate of Increase (ROI)

Luke’s Rate of Increase in 2nd grade

2010 -‐ 2011 School year

BOY: 52 WRC EOY: 105 WRC

46 wcpm increase 53/36 = 1.47 ROI

BOY: 12 WRC EOY: 40 WRC

28 wcpm increase 28/33 = 0.85 ROI

RTI Case Study

Small Group Activity for Training – Groups/team work together to answer questions

Interpreting the Response to Intervention Method

1. At the time of referral, do you think the team already had sufficient data to: a. Describe Luke’s current performance and educational needs?

b. Determine the presence of an exceptionality, including exclusionary criteria?

c. Determine the need for specially designed instruction?

In other words, do you think they needed to collect the additional data they decided to collect? 2. Do you think the team needed to collect additional data beyond what they

decided to collect during the evaluation? 3. Do you think the evidence from general education interventions and the initial

evaluation shows a dual discrepancy (discrepant from peers in both level and rate of growth)?

4. Do the results of the information collected match the indicators for a specific

learning disability for Prong 1? 5. Do the results of the information collected match the indicators for a specific

learning disability for Prong 2? 6. Do any of the exclusionary criteria apply?

Interpreting the Response to Intervention Model in an MTSS Framework – Answer Sheet

1. At the time of referral, do you think the team already had sufficient data to:

a. Describe Luke’s current performance and educational needs? b. Determine the presence of an exceptionality, including exclusionary

criteria? c. Determine the need for specially designed instruction?

In other words, do you think they needed to collect the additional data they decided to collect? Teams might argue that there was already sufficient information and no other information needed to be collected. It is important to point out that the regs require that an observation be conducted if a learning disability is suspected. (Teams seldom decide not to collect at least some additional data.) The question that often comes from the audience is “Do you really expect collaborative teams to collect all this data and make all these adjustments for a student in interventions?” The answer to that question is Yes. Collaborative teams in buildings implementing MTSS should have screening and progress monitoring data and intervention logs with all this information. The issue is making sure that the evaluation team locates that information and summarizes it adequately within an evaluation report.

2. Do you think the team needed to collect additional data beyond what they decided to collect during the evaluation? Some folks may argue that the team needed to collect IQ data in order to have a comprehensive evaluation. It is important to point out that an IQ test is not required, that there was no suspicion of inadequate cognitive functioning, and some information about cognition had already been collected by noting that his achievement in other domains was average or better.

3. Do you think the evidence from general education interventions and the initial evaluation shows a dual discrepancy (discrepant from peers in both level and rate of growth)? Yes.


learning disability for Prong 1? There is a match for several indicators, including the indicator that refers to the presence of a dual discrepancy. Several of the indicators apply and there is a preponderance of data supporting the indicators for this prong.


learning disability for Prong 2? Yes, for example, “Student progress monitoring data shows that the student’s behavior of concern is resistant to targeted supplemental and intensive interventions.” Several of the indicators apply and there is a preponderance of data supporting the indicators for this prong.

6. Do any of the exclusionary criteria apply? No.

psw!case!study! student: !! nd!grade!year,!8/09!through!5/10! · 2015. 7. 16. · psw!case!study!!...

Documents