Specific Learning Disability Criteriafor School Administrators

Richard HendersonRegional Special Education Consultant

Idaho State University

Objectives To provide participants with specific information

relating to the newly revised SLD criteria. To provide participants the history of SLD in Idaho. To explain why Idaho has changed their criteria. To discuss the eligibility and evaluation criteria and

the procedures. To discuss how administrators can support the

process in their school system.

History of Learning Disabilities

• Debates continue to be part of the learning disabilities history.

• Most evident is the debate between the concepts of learning and it’s relationship to cognitive ability or intelligence.

• Due to this debate, some practitioners rely solely on IQ testing with a few other parts of the whole.

• With IDEA 2004, there were changes toward a system that moved from the concept of discrepancy only to a shift to an RTI framework.

What LD “is” and “is not”“IS”

Specific Learning Disability (SLD) means a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, that may manifest itself in the imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or to do mathematical calculations, including conditions such as perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia.

“IS NOT”

Specific Learning Disability does not include learning problems that are primarily the result of visual, hearing, or motor disabilities, of cognitive impairment, of emotional disturbance, or of environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage. (Flannagan, 2008)

Why the Change?

Aligns with the federal definition.

Is consistent with evidence demonstrating that students can have impairments in very specific areas.

Allows for evaluation and intervention planning to be more closely aligned to address the particular needs of the student.

Why the Change?

• Heterogeneity of SLD—meaning different student profiles can be viewed across school, district, state, and nation.

• Current research evidence is not sufficient to recommend hard cut scores.

• Rationale for the blended model in Idaho.

Three Models Used to Determine Eligibility

• RTI only model

• Patterns of Strengths and Weaknesses

• Blended model ***

Why Idaho Chose a Blended Model• With both camps debating the IQ (discrepancy)

method vs. the RTI method, both groups have moved to the middle of the debate.

• There is a need to use an integrated framework to be consistent with what the expectations for implementing the new SLD criteria in Idaho.

Blended Model• Idaho has chosen to use the blended model to support

using a comprehensive approach to identification.

• The blended model represents the most comprehensive approach, addressing the shortcomings in RTI only (which is lack of explanatory info) and patterns (which is lack of ecological assessment and continuity of how the disability manifests in the natural/educational environment).

Myths vs. Truths

• Myth #1: More students will be identified as LD.

Truth: There is no evidence to suggest thatstudents will over-identified.

• Myth #2: We are back to professional judgment.Truth: You still need to use valid and reliable

data to determine eligibility.

Myths vs. Truths• Myth #3: We have to buy all these expensive tests to

giveto students.

TRUTH: There are assessments tools currently in placeto support the process.

• Myth #4: This too will pass. It won’t last. It’s just the statecoming up with something new.

TRUTH: Sorry, folks. This aligns to IDEA 2004, and it isnot something that is going away.

Did You Review All 5 Steps Prior to Determining Eligibility?

Evaluation Procedures• Step 1: Parent notification and involvement

http://www.sde.idaho.gov/site/special_edu/manual_page.htm

• Step 2: Evaluation must address the eligibility criteria discussed in previous slides4 Parts to the Evaluation:A. Evidence of insufficient progress in response to effective, evidence

based instruction and interventionB. Evidence of low achievement in one or more of the suspected

area(s). C. Evidence of a pattern of strengths and weaknesses in psychological

processing skills that impact learning.D. The team must determine that the student’s learning difficulty is not

primarily the result of

How Does an Administrator Support this Process?

Provides resources for…• Training (Universal screening, Progress, Monitoring, Writing Interventions

for Tier II and III, Content Area Training, Behavior Training, Understanding what preponderance of evidence means and looks like, Exclusionary factors that have to be considered, Data Analysis, Effectiveness of Core Curriculum

• Time to plan—sometimes involves master schedule being analyzed and changed to increase time for core instruction, interventions to be delivered, etc.

• Time to collect student and school data—Do we have enough data to support a “preponderance of evidence” that the student has a learning disability vs. lack of instruction—due to mobility, lack of teaching, etc.

• Time to analyze data as a team—Does the team know what data to collect, how to collect, are their simple tools to support the data collection,

Types of Assessments Screening and Benchmark

Universal measures that give a quick read on whether students have mastered critical skills.

Diagnostic/Prescriptive Individually administered to gain more in-depth information and guide appropriate instruction or intervention plans.

Progress Monitoring Determines whether adequate progress is made based on individual goals regarding critical skills.

Outcome Provides an evaluation of the effectiveness of instruction and indicate student year-end achievement when compared to grade-level performance standards

Additional Professional Development

• The SDE will be providing additional training in phases through the next three years.

• Statewide Special Education Calendar will be released first week of September, 2010.

• Topics currently being researched for development are:– Universal Screening—for a school system approach– Differentiated instruction– Providing appropriate interventions at Tier 2 and 3– Progress monitoring process and tools– Managing classroom data– Peer teaching/co-teaching model– Writing Effective PLOPS/Goals

SLD Website

The Idaho Clearinghouse has developed a learning community called “Specific Learning Disabilities” dedicated to SLD information and events. Please check the website in upcoming months for updates.

http://itcnew.idahotc.com/dnn/specific-learning-disability.aspx

Online Resources• IDEA Partnership’s RTI Collection: www.ideapartnership.org • National Association of School Psychologists: www.nasponline.org• National Association of State Directors of Special Education:

www.nasdse.org • National Center for Learning Disabilities: www.ncld.org • National Center on Culturally Responsive Systems: www.nccrest.org • National Center on Student Progress Monitoring:

www.studentprogress.org • National Center on Response to Intervention: www.rti4success.org • National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities:

www.ldonline.org/njcld • National Research Center on Learning Disabilities: www.nrcld.org • Office of Special Education Programs, IDEA 2004 Building the Legacy:

http://idea.ed.gov/• RTI Action Network: www.rtinetwork.org

Contact Us

Richard Henderson

Regional Special Education Consultant

Idaho State University

hendrich@isu.edu(208) 736-4263