technical assistance to school districts · web viewtechnical assistance to school districts...

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO SCHOOL DISTRICTS

Identification of Students with Learning

Disabilities under the IDEA 2004

Oregon Response to Intervention

Office of Student Learning & PartnershipsRevised December 2007

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONPublic Service Building255 Capitol Street NE

Salem, Oregon 97310-0203

Phone: (503) 378-3569www.ode.state.or.us

Contributors

Johanna CenaTigard Tualatin School District

Tricia ClairTigard Tualatin School District

Dan GoldmanTigard-Tualatin School District

Petrea Hagen-GildenTigard Tualatin School District

Carol KinchTigard Tualatin School District

Erin LolichTigard Tualatin School District

David Putnam, Jr.Tigard Tualatin School District

Joyce WoodsTigard Tualatin School District

Pamela ZinnTigard Tualatin School District

Review Committee

Ginger Kowalko & Lori SmithBethel School District

Carol MassanariMountain Plains Regional Resource Center

Paula StanovichPortland State University

Keith StanovichUniversity of Toronto

Angela WhalenUniversity of Oregon

It is the policy of the State Board of Education and a priority of the Oregon Department of Education that there will be no discrimination or harassment on the grounds of race, color, sex, marital status, religion, national origin, age or disability in any educational programs, activities or employment. Persons having questions about equal opportunity and nondiscrimination should contact the State Superintendent of Public Instruction at the Oregon Department of Education.

Identification of Students with Learning Disabilities under the IDEA 2004

Oregon Response to Intervention

The Oregon Department of Education hereby gives permission to copy any or all of this document for educational purposes.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PageFORWARD……………………………………………………………………………………… 1

INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………………….. 2

SECTION ONE: CONTEXT AND PARAMETERS FOR A RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION MODEL………………………………………………………………………5

Capacities Required to Adopt RTI………………………………………………………5

Measurement of Academic Growth………………………………………….............. 6Use of Validated Interventions ………………………………………………......... 8Distinguish Types of Educational Difficulties ……………..…...…………………… 9Determine the Effects of Interventions and Make Decisions About Cutoff Criteria........................................................................................

10

IDEA’s Evaluation Paradigm and Response to Intervention in Oregon Regulations…………………………………………………………………………….

14The Regulatory Framework……………………………………………………………

14Where is RTI?.......................................................................................................

15Requirements for All Evaluations……………………………………………………..

21The Role of Norm-Referenced Achievement Testing in RTI………………………

22The Role of Intelligence Testing in RTI………………………………………………

24Summary ................................................................................................................

24

SECTION TWO: IMPLEMENTING RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION (RTI) ............... 25

Leadership....................................................................................................……… 25District Level....................................................................................................... 25School Level.......................................................................................................

26

Teaming.................................................................................................................. 26Team Membership............................................................................................. 26Team Structures......................................................................................……… 27Teamwork and Planning.................................................................................... 27

Research Based Core Reading Curriculum....................................................... 29Valid Screening or Identification Procedures and Decision Rules.................. 31Intervention Protocols and Progress Monitoring.............................................. 32

Intervention Protocols....................................................................................... 32Progress Monitoring...............................................................................………. 33Determining Trends...........................................................................................

33Professional Development .................................................................................. 35

Curriculum & Instruction.................................................................................... 35Fidelity of Implementation..................................................................................... 36General Special Education Policy and Procedure Development 38

Adopting RTI............................................................................................. 38Defining and Adopting Procedures........................................................... 38Decision Rules.......................................................................................... 38Parental Notice and Consent.................................................................... 40Special Education Procedures.................................................................. 40Evaluation Planning and Eligibility Determination..................................... 43Written Report........................................................................................... 47Secondary Students.................................................................................. 56Re-evaluations.......................................................................................... 60

SECTION THREE: PERSPECTIVES ON EVALUATION MODELS................... 61

Changes in LD evaluation: Guiding Questions……………………………. 61

Response to Intervention Models............................................................... 67

Problem Solving or Hypothesis Testing.................................................... 67Pre Referral Approaches........................................................................... 68

Multi-Tiered Instruction.............................................................................. 70Summary....................................................................................................... 71

REFERENCES.................................................................................................... 73

APPENDIX A: GENERAL RESOURCES.......................................................... 78

APPENDIX B: OrRTI RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION READINESS CHECKLIST 80

APPENDIX C: SAMPLE RTI PARENT BROCHURE........................................ 86

FORWARD

It has been two years since the development of the original Oregon RTI Technical Assistance Paper and much has happened since then. There have been a number of legal, scientific, and pragmatic developments with respect to Response to Intervention (RTI), locally and nationally, that have changed the landscape of practice. Here in Oregon, fourteen school districts have participated in the OrRTI Guided Development Project, and an additional nine districts will enter the project during the 2007-08 school year. Much has been learned about RTI practices through the collaboration and reciprocal exchange of ideas with the OrRTI Project districts.

The IDEA regulations enacted in 2006 include provisions with direct bearing on RTI that significantly alter the way in which students suspected of having learning disabilities (LDs) are assessed and may be supported. IDEA 2004 specifically identifies RTI as a possible component of an LD evaluation. This language gives increased political, legal, and educational legitimacy to the use of a RTI model as a framework for LD evaluations. Concurrently and more broadly, the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) has continued to move educators towards an increased focus on educational outcomes and providing high quality, scientifically based instruction to all students. This combination of events will likely have a significant effect on education as a whole, and continue to propel educators toward an articulated system of effective instructional practices, problem solving, and data-based decision making.

The empirical data base in support of RTI as a valid and critical component in identifying students in need of support and driving interventions has grown substantially. Specific tools for implementation of RTI, such as assessment instruments in writing and math, continue to be developed and refined to enhance RTI practices. Additionally, as RTI practices have been increasingly adopted by school districts across the United States and elsewhere, much has been learned about practical issues associated with implementation of this model.

The OrRTI Technical Assistance paper has been revised to reflect the recent developments of the RTI model and its application to better serving students and their families. While the substantive portion of this document remains unchanged, refinements have been made where appropriate.

OrRTI Guidance, December 2007 1

INTRODUCTION

Every day Oregon educators make decisions about children that are of life long importance. Among the most profound of these is the conclusion that a child’s educational struggles are the result of a disability. Educators engage in this difficult task because they know that, despite the dangers inherent in labeling students, important benefits may follow. When the decision is accurate, it can help parents and children understand the source of difficulties. It opens the door to resources, assistance, and accommodations.

Deciding a child does not have a disability is equally important. That conclusion says to general educators that they can effectively educate the student. It tells parents and students that success is attainable through hard work, practice, and engaging instruction, without the need for special education services.

It is critical that schools make these decisions based on the best information possible. For the majority of children in special education, those identified as having a learning disability (LD), this decision has been made in a climate of uncertainty. For decades the field of learning disabilities has struggled with identification issues both in law and in practice. However, since the 2004 reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA 2004), the climate has begun to change.

When IDEA was reauthorized in 1997, the U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) began a process to “carefully review research findings, expert opinion, and practical knowledge … to determine whether changes should be proposed to the procedures for evaluating children suspected of having a specific learning disability” (Federal Register, 1999, p. 12541). This review resulted in a “Learning Disabilities Summit.” At this summit, a series of white papers presented relevant developments in the LD field and provided empirical validation for the use of alternatives to traditional discrepancy models. Following the summit, a series of meetings was conducted to gain consensus in the field regarding issues around LD. The following are consensus statements from the 2002 Learning Disabilities Roundtable report that apply to LD identification and were influential in the 2004 reauthorization process:

Identification should include a student-centered, comprehensive evaluation and problem solving approach that ensures students who have a specific learning disability are efficiently identified.

Decisions regarding eligibility for special education services must draw from information collected from a comprehensive individual evaluation using multiple methods and sources of relevant information.

Decisions on eligibility must be made through an interdisciplinary team, using informed clinical judgment, directed by relevant data, and based on student needs and strengths.


The ability-achievement discrepancy formula should not be used for determining eligibility.

Regular education must assume active responsibility for delivery of high quality instruction, research-based interventions, and prompt identification of individuals at risk while collaborating with special education and related services personnel.

Based on an individualized evaluation and continuous progress monitoring, a student who has been identified as having a specific learning disability may need different levels of special education and related services under IDEA at various times during the school experience.(Source: Office of Special Education Programs (2002). Specific Learning Disabilities: Finding Common Ground, pp. 29-30)

IDEA 2004 represents consensus on at least three points regarding LD identification. These points are: (1) the field should move away from the use of aptitude achievement discrepancy models, (2) there needs to be rapid development of alternative methods of identifying students with learning disabilities, and (3) an RTI model is the most credible available method to replace the aptitude-achievement discrepancy. RTI systematizes the clinical judgment, problem solving, and regular education interventions recommended in the consensus statements above. In RTI, students are provided with carefully designed interventions that are research based, and their response to those interventions is carefully tracked. This information is analyzed and used as one component in determining whether a child has a learning disability.

IDEA 2004 includes two important innovations designed to promote change:

1. States may not require school districts to use a severe discrepancy formula in eligibility determination, and

2. Districts may use an alternative process, including a “response to intervention” (RTI) method described in IDEA 2004, as part of eligibility decisions.

This technical assistance document provides information to assist school districts in designing and adopting an RTI approach that is technically sound, sustainable, and best fits the contextual features of the district. This document also includes a review of current information regarding the use of other evaluation approaches. Whichever model a district uses to implement RTI, such an adoption will affect more than the district’s special education and evaluation departments. RTI requires a way of thinking about instruction, academic achievement, and individual differences that makes it impossible to implement without fully involving general education.

Multiple meanings and inconsistent use of the term “RTI” have led to a great deal of confusion in the field. RTI is often understood as a school organizational model that encompasses research-based core instruction, universal screening and progress monitoring, and data-based decision making. Alternately, RTI is often understood as one component of a comprehensive evaluation for a student suspected of having a


learning disability. Educators often use the term “RTI” to refer to the organizational model in systems which do not use the process for eligibility decision-making. Figure 1 provides a comparison of these two prevailing meanings of the term “RTI”.

When RTI is used as part of an LD evaluation, it must be embedded within a system of multi-tiered instruction. Without an effective, research-based core curriculum, and a continuum of interventions that can be implemented with fidelity, it is impossible to have confidence that a student’s response, or lack of response, to intervention is a true indicator of a learning disability. It is not overstating the case to say that fidelity of instructional intervention is at the very heart of RTI validity.

Figure 1. A Comparison of RTI as a School Organizational Model and as an Evaluation Procedure

School Organizational Model Evaluation Procedure Is a system of organizing general

education curriculum and instruction to meet the needs of all students

Is an evaluation procedure identified in the IDEA as an option for the identification of children with learning disabilities

Integrates all supplementary support programs in order to use resources more efficiently

Is a special education procedure that is limited to assessment

Applies to all students in a school

Applies only to children suspected of having LD

Can exist without using RTI as an evaluation procedure

Cannot be implemented without a multi-tiered organizational model

This paper contains three sections: Context and Parameters for Response to Intervention, Implementing Response to Intervention, and Perspectives on Evaluation Models. Context and Parameters for Response to Intervention provides an overview of the capacities required to adopt a RTI model, discusses parameters for defining low skills and slow progress, and explains how RTI fits in to the Oregon Administrative Rules. Implementing Response to Intervention is a practical guide to developing and sustaining RTI in a school district. Perspectives on Evaluation Models reviews information and research about the various models that have been proposed, described, and implemented and strengths and challenges inherent in each.


SECTION ONE:

CONTEXT AND PARAMETERS FOR RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION

IDEA 2004 allows the use of a student’s “response to scientific, research-based intervention” (20 U.S.C 1414 (B)(6)(A)) as part of an evaluation. Response to Intervention (RTI) functions as an alternative for learning disability (LD) evaluations within the general evaluation requirements of IDEA 2004. The statute continues to include requirements that apply to all disability categories, such as the use of validated, non biased methods, and evaluation in all suspected areas of difficulty. IDEA 2004 adds a new concept in eligibility that prohibits children from being found eligible for special education as having a learning disability in the area of reading if they have not received instruction in reading that includes the five essential components of reading instruction identified by No Child Left Behind. These requirements are those recognized by the National Reading Panel: phonemic awareness, phonics, reading fluency (including oral reading skills), vocabulary development, and reading comprehension strategies. By using RTI, it is possible to identify students early, reduce referral bias, and test various theories for why a child is failing. RTI is included in the law specifically to offer an alternative to discrepancy models.

RTI is not a new approach. It is recognizable under other names such as dynamic assessment, diagnostic teaching, and precision teaching. Those terms, however, have been applied to approaches used to maximize student progress through sensitive measurement of the effects of instruction. RTI applies similar methods to draw conclusions and make LD classification decisions about students. The underlying assumption is that using RTI will identify children whose intrinsic difficulties make them the most difficult to teach. Engaging a student in a dynamic process like RTI provides an opportunity to assess various hypotheses about the causes of a child’s difficulties, such as motivation, or constitutional factors like attention.

Capacities Required to Adopt RTI

Several organizational approaches are available for implementing RTI. These models generally encompass the following four system requirements (Gresham, 2002; Vaughn, 2002):

1. Measurement of academic growth

2. Use of validated interventions

3. Capability of distinguishing types of educational difficulties:

a. Performance deficits from skill deficits

b. Instructional problems from individual learning problems

c. Academic problems that are caused by extrinsic factors from academic problems caused by intrinsic characteristics


4. Capacity to determine the effects of interventions and make decisions about cutoff criteria

These requirements imply both technical and practical capacity that must be considered when an RTI system is developed or adopted.

Measurement of Academic Growth

Fuchs and Fuchs (1998) introduced the important concept that a student, in order to be considered to have a learning disability, must be dually discrepant. It has been demonstrated that, in order for a student to be reliably classified as having LD, low achievement must be accompanied by slow progress. Using low achievement alone results in group membership that will change substantially over time, with students moving into and out of the group. (Francis et al., 2005). In RTI models, eligibility decisions must be made both on the basis of a student’s relative low achievement and on the student’s slow rate of progress.

The measurement of academic growth criterion can be met by use of an empirically well-supported approach referred to as curriculum-based measurement (L.S. Fuchs and D. Fuchs, 1998). Curriculum-based measurement (CBM) uses “critical indicators” of growth such as oral reading fluency, correct word sequences written, and rate of correct mathematical calculations. These measures may be normed on a local or large scale (e.g., national) sample (Shinn, 1988). Alternatively, typical peers may be sampled as a direct comparison group during the assessment phase (Fuchs and Fuchs, 1998). CBMs have been established as valid, easy to use, and economical. Further, because numerous parallel forms can be generated, they can also be used as frequently as daily without threatening their technical adequacy.

To aid in the early identification of students who are not progressing as expected in reading, Good and Kaminski (1996) have developed a number of “indicators” of early literacy development as predictors of later reading proficiency. These measures, included in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS), provide a tool to address the important challenge of early identification of children with potential reading problems. The DIBELS system allows for careful tracking of students on the development of early skills related to phonological awareness, alphabetic understanding, and fluency. The DIBELS system includes a series of benchmarks that assist in the “sorting” of students into tiered groups that have increasing levels of risk. A further benefit of using the DIBELS system is that oral reading fluency measures extend through sixth grade and provide normative data to thousands of school districts in the United States.

The DIBELS measures are provided to Oregon schools at no cost through the Oregon Reading First Project. Further information about DIBELS may be found at http://dibels.uoregon.edu/techreports.


http://dibels.uoregon.edu/techreports

Although CBM measures of reading have been the most extensively researched and developed, CBM measures of spelling, written language, and mathematical skills are available as well. Correct letter sequences within written words are used to assess progress in spelling. To assess growth in written language, students are asked to produce a short writing sample in response to a story starter. The writing sample can then be scored in a variety of ways. The most common metrics have been total words written (TWW), words spelled correctly (WSC), and correct word sequences (CWS). Using a slightly more complex scoring algorithm, such as correct minus incorrect word sequences (CIWS) may be more technically sound (See McMaster & Espin, 2007, for a review). In the area of math, the most common measures of student progress have been brief (2 to 4 minute) computation probes. These probes are scored for the number of correct digits produced (See Foegen, Jiban, & Deno, 2007, for a review). Just as with reading, CBMs in written expression and math can be given repeatedly and frequently, are a sensitive measure of learning over time, and inform needed changes to instruction. Practitioners should use caution when using these measures, as more research is needed to establish reliability and validity in written language and math for some types of decision making.

It should be noted that RTI research and implementation have historically focused on elementary aged children, in part due to ceiling effects with fluency measures of basic skills, and in part due to the difficulty measuring more advanced and complex skills in a concise manner that lends itself to frequent and repeated monitoring. Increasingly, however, measures are being developed and adapted for use with older students. For example, AIMSweb™ provides norms for spelling and writing CBM through eighth grade. Hosp and colleagues (2007) describe the use of measures that are being developed to assess higher level skills in math such as sequencing, concepts and applications, and estimation. Additional information regarding the use of progress monitoring measures with older students is available at: www.studentprogress.org.

As students mature, factors such as motivation and behavior make interpretation of students’ performance increasingly complex. This is true of traditional testing paradigms as well. RTI models frequently combine response to intervention with hypothesis testing or problem solving approaches, both of which become increasingly important for older students. For students in late elementary and secondary schools, careful review of students’ histories is very important.

When considering a student’s academic growth, it is critical to take into account not only current performance, but the likelihood that a student will meet performance expectations in the future. In other words, it is not enough for a student to meet the current benchmark if the student is unlikely to meet the benchmark in future grades. Here in Oregon, educators must be informed about how statewide assessment expectations change over time. For example, during the 2005-06 school year, a third grader taking the Oregon Statewide Assessment in reading needed to score in the 12 th percentile in order to meet the benchmark. A 10th grader needed to score in the 36th percentile in order to meet the reading benchmark. Because the expectation increased so significantly, meeting the third grade reading benchmark was not necessarily


http://www.studentprogress.org/

predictive of meeting the benchmark in future years. Although cut scores have since been adjusted and this discrepancy has been reduced, educators should continue to be mindful of both current achievement and the predictive value of that information.

Use of Validated Interventions

General education is the first intervention. Many authors (e.g., Kame’enui and Simmons, 2002) conceptualize the first phase of “intervention” to be at the general education basic or core curriculum level. From this perspective, use of a research based core curriculum is a necessary precondition for adopting RTI. Such curricula provide development in the instructional components identified as essential by the National Reading Panel: phonemic awareness, systematic phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and text comprehension. A number of published curricula have been aligned with these instructional components. An issue for consideration in an RTI model is that there should be a mechanism in place for judging the fidelity of implementation of any identified curriculum. See the fidelity discussion in Section Two for further information.

Interventions are supported by research. With respect to more intensive individual interventions, the body of literature on validated procedures is growing. Gresham (2002) reviewed the current body of literature and reached the following conclusions:

1. The concept of a validated intervention protocol is supported by research.

2. A combination of “Direct Instruction” and “Strategy Instruction” is the most productive in effecting growth.

The use of validated instructional protocols presumes that the school has identified sets of instructional interventions, usually of increasing intensity, with demonstrated efficacy. These interventions are varied by curriculum focus, group size, frequency, duration, and motivational conditions. Often, these variables are modified in relation to student characteristics, or student response to the intervention.

Using Direct Instruction and Strategy Instruction means the school has adopted interventions that are based on these well established instructional approaches. Direct Instruction models are characterized by relatively more teacher directed instruction and less independent seatwork. Information is carefully structured and sequenced and is actively presented so as to maximize student attention, involvement, and practice. Consistent procedures for cueing, prompting, and correction are utilized within the context of on-going assessment of student understanding (Huitt, 1996). In Direct Instruction models, student mastery is carefully defined and achieved before moving to the next step in the instructional sequence.

Strategy instruction employs specific, highly elaborated instruction in text comprehension. Validated models of strategy instruction use instructional techniques that are consistent with Direct Instruction. Modeling and planned generalization of skills are typical instructional steps in strategy instruction. Several authors (Pressley, 2000,


Schumaker & Deschler, 2005) have described instructional sequences appropriate to strategy instruction.

Distinguishing Types of Educational Difficulties

Students struggle academically for many reasons. In a RTI model the assumption is that a disability is the least likely cause of a student’s skill deficits. Gresham (2002) describes relevant research demonstrating it is possible to determine if a student’s problems are performance problems (can do, but doesn’t) and instructional problems (wasn’t taught or wasn’t available for teaching). In the case of performance problems, a team may hypothesize that a child’s lack of progress in reading may be caused by off task behavior. In addition to intervening in reading, the team may also add a reinforcement for on-task behavior. Howell and Nolet (2000) detail a number of ways to alter instructional conditions to assess the effects of motivation and other variables on acquisition of knowledge. In the case of instructional problems, the larger instructional context might be analyzed more thoroughly—for example, assessing the growth trends of all children in a class or grade level—to determine if there is a curriculum and instruction problem contributing to skill acquisition for the group as a whole.

These distinctions are often made within the context of what is termed a “problem solving” approach. In this approach, hypotheses are developed that “compete” with the explanation that a child has a disability. These hypotheses are tested by first providing interventions that address the problem identified and then evaluating the student’s progress. For example, changing schools frequently is often a contributor to students’ struggles. In a problem solving approach, the student might be provided with a moderately intense reading program at an appropriate curricular level. By tracking the student’s progress carefully, the team might conclude that the student’s strong response is an indicator that interrupted instruction, rather than the existence of a learning disability, is a reasonable explanation for the student’s academic struggles.

Academic achievement and behavior are closely linked. Students with lower reading skills are more likely to develop avoidance type behavior problems. A recent study demonstrated that low phoneme segmentation scores in kindergarten were strong predictors of office discipline referrals in 5th grade (McIntosh, K., Putnam, B, Filter K. J. & McKenna, M. K. 2006). In some situations it is difficult to distinguish which problem came first, the academic or behavioral difficulty, or if the child “can’t do it” or “won’t do it”. For instructional planning purposes these distinctions, especially identifying the order in which the problems appeared, may be irrelevant, since students who receive both academic and behavior interventions have been demonstrated to make better progress than students who receive one or the other. For LD decision making, addressing both behavior and academic deficits is essential, so that a disability is not masked by poor behavior. A comprehensive RTI approach should include the systematic use of behavior data to develop function-based behavior support plans. This approach assists a team in “unraveling” the relationship between behavior and academic performance. Most teams that are implementing an RTI system consistently


review academic and behavioral data on a group and individual basis. Such a system is depicted in Figure 2.

Figure 2: District-Wide Systems for Student Success

Determine the Effects of Interventions and Make Decisions About Cutoff Criteria

When beginning to use RTI, the first question practitioners often ask is: “How much progress is enough?” The second question, closely following, is “When is an intervention special education?”

Success in answering the first question is predicated on the ability to sensitively measure growth and to know what benchmark the student is working toward. Research in applied behavior analysis and curriculum-based measurement inform the practices necessary to track the effects of interventions. A regularly administered, reliable progress monitoring tool, such as an oral reading fluency measure, must be adopted. The school must also know what is expected of the typically progressing student. Data must be plotted and reviewed, and decisions must be made when the data are examined. Most systems develop decision making rules to guide this process. For example, a decision making rule might be “Change the intervention after a trend line based on 8 or more data points falls below the student’s aimline.” It is worth noting that a “change” in this case refers to a significant change in the student’s instructional


Academic Systems Behavioral Systems

1-5% 1-5%

5-10% 5-10%

80-90% 80-90%

Intensive, Individual Interventions•Individual Students•Assessment-based•High Intensity

Intensive, Individual Interventions•Individual Students•Assessment-based•Intense, durable procedures

Targeted Group Interventions•Some students (at-risk)•High efficiency•Rapid response

Targeted Group Interventions•Some students (at-risk)•High efficiency•Rapid response

Universal Interventions•All students•Preventive, proactive

Universal Interventions•All settings, all students•Preventive, proactive

program, such as a different curriculum, a significant increase in time, or a significantly more intensive format. The team makes this decision by reviewing student data and applying professional judgment. Eight data points are typically considered necessary in order to have a reliable estimate of the student’s true rate of progress. Alternatively, minor adjustments in instruction, such as more frequent rewards or preferential seating, are often suggested after three or four data points fall below the student’s aimline.

The second question, “When is an intervention special education?” is one that involves a system level decision, as well as a clinical decision. First, a systematically determined cut off for a functional performance deficit must be established. This is typically defined as performance that is below the “average” range on a normal distribution. Secondly, an informed group of professionals needs to evaluate the intensity of the intervention provided and either test or make a professional judgment about the effect of the intervention on the student’s learning and the consequence of removing the intervention. Essentially, the first decision involves examining the student’s level of performance and comparing it to the appropriate norm group, while the second decision involves examining the student’s rate of growth with respect to the intensity and duration of the intervention. Students that continue to demonstrate low skills and slow progress despite interventions that are intensive, individualized, and sustained are likely students with learning disabilities or other educational disabilities.

Although there is no regulatory definition of what constitutes low skills and slow progress, a sample framework for operationalizing these terms may be useful. Such a framework is presented in Figures 3 and 4. When considering a student’s learning, the team must compare the amount and intensity of instruction to the student’s current level of performance, as well as the student’s rate of growth. In the RTI paradigm, information about the interaction between intensity of instruction, skill level, and rate of progress, coupled with other data from a comprehensive evaluation, defines whether or not a student has a learning disability.

For example, a student may receive intensive intervention and have very low skills, but is making enough growth to eventually catch up to his or her peers. In this case, the above-average rate of progress is sufficient to suggest that the student’s low skills are the result of factors other than a learning disability. Conversely, another student may receive equally intensive intervention and have only moderately low skills, but continues to make very slow progress and does not close the gap with peers. In fact, if a student’s progress is lower than what is typical of peers, the level of their skills will become increasingly discrepant from peers. Thus, when a student’s rate of progress is limited after receiving intensive, individualized interventions, it is possible that the student has a learning disability despite having only moderately depressed skills (i.e., 30 th percentile) at that point in time. The Dual Discrepancy tables presented in Figures 3 and 4 operationalize intensity of instruction, skill level, and rate of progress, it also provides a framework for interpreting their interaction.


Figure 3: A Dual Discrepancy Framework

Does the student have low skills and rate of growth

below average?

Core Curriculum Only

Core + Up to 30 Minutes of

Supplemental Intervention

(from a standard protocol of research-based interventions)

Core + 45 Minutes of Supplemental

Intervention (from a standard

protocol of research-based interventions)

90th Percentile80th Percentile70th Percentile60th Percentile50th Percentile40th Percentile30th Percentile May Need

InterventionMay Intensify Intervention

Possibly LD

20th Percentile Needs Intervention

Intensify Intervention

Likely LD

10th Percentile Needs Intervention


Likely LD

Is the student’s progress slow? Core Curriculum

Only

Core + Up to 30 Minutes of

Supplemental Intervention

(from a standard protocol of research-based interventions)

Core + 45 Minutes of Supplemental

Intervention (from a standard

protocol of research-based interventions)

Above expected rate of growth

Possibly LD

At expected rate of growth

IntensifyIntervention

Likely LD

Below expected rate of growth

Needs Intervention


Likely LD


Figure 4: Operationalizing Low Skills and Slow Progress

Question #1: What constitutes intensive intervention?For Reading Core Instruction plus 30-45 minutes per day of supplemental instruction

(according to protocol).For Math and Written Expression

Core Instruction plus third tier interventions (according to protocols).

Question #2: What constitutes low skills?Area Measures Parameters

Decoding Phoneme Segmentation FluencyNonsense Word Fluency

WIAT-II

Scores in the Intensive range or the lowest quartile of the strategic range

Standard Score below 90Fluency, Vocabulary, and Comprehension

Oral Reading Fluency

Maze

Oregon Statewide Assessment

WIAT-II

Scores below the 25th percentile in ORF (Hasbrouck/Tindal norms)

Does Not Meet and/or below the 25th percentile

Standard Score below 90Math Computation

CBM

WIAT-II

Scores below the 25th percentile (AimsWeb norms)

Standard Score below 90Math Problem Solving

CBM

Oregon Statewide Assessments

WIAT-II



Standard Score below 90Written Expression

CBM for fluency and conventions

“Best Work” Writing Samples Scored With The Oregon State Scoring Guide


WIAT-II


Multiple pieces earning scores of 1 or 2


Standard Score below 90


Question #3: What constitutes slow progress?Area Measures Parameters

Decoding Phoneme Segmentation FluencyNonsense Word Fluency At or below the average rate of

growth given intensive intervention. Progress is such that the student will not reach the benchmark.

Fluency, Vocabulary, and Comprehension

Oral Reading Fluency

Maze

Oregon Statewide AssessmentMath Computation

CBM

Math Problem Solving

CBM

Oregon Statewide AssessmentsWritten Expression

CBM for fluency and conventions

Writing Samples Scored With The Oregon State Scoring Guide


Figure 4 reiterates that performance must be examined in the context of the intensity and length of intervention. The reader may be surprised to find that students with skills as high as the 30th percentile on a norm-referenced test could be considered as having a learning disability. Bear in mind that this is the case only when a student has received intensive, ongoing intervention over a substantial period of time and the slope of growth is not sufficient to reach the benchmark. Also consider that our education system should be structured in order to prevent an achievement gap. By intervening early with all students in need, we expect that those who have had intensive, explicit instruction will perform higher than those historically considered at-risk.

IDEA’s Evaluation Paradigm and Response to Intervention in Oregon Regulations

The Regulatory Framework

Individuals researching RTI should turn to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (2004) in order to better understand its place in the law. Because of the great interest in RTI in the educational community, readers may be surprised to find the approach is actually a very small component of the law. It is referenced in only one of the IDEA disability categories (specific learning disability.) Generally, the development of specific criteria and specific assessment procedures for identification are left to the states. Clearly, the Congress in 2004 determined there was a special interest in addressing the challenges of LD identification.

There has been some concern in the field and among advocacy groups that use of RTI would result in shallow evaluations bereft of meaningful information regarding individual


student characteristics. Because the overall IDEA evaluation paradigm remains unchanged, those concerns are unfounded—that is, they are unfounded when RTI is properly implemented.

The federal law provides a description of evaluation requirements that can best be thought of as a process, as opposed to a discrete event or prescribed activity. Regardless of the category of disability being considered, there remains a clear mandate to engage in an individualized, carefully crafted evaluation process that has multiple purposes.

Figure 5: The IDEA Evaluation Paradigm

Figure 5 illustrates the evaluation paradigm used in the IDEA. In this regulatory paradigm, a single process is used for multiple purposes. The components of that process must meet “quality” requirements that are detailed below. There are also “content” requirements in both federal and state law. The quality requirements are designed to ensure that an evaluation is valid and individualized. The content requirements ensure the evaluation is relevant to state and local curriculum standards, the general education environment, and long term post school outcomes for the student. These content and quality requirements apply to every evaluation for every eligibility category, and for every evaluation conducted in order to understand a student’s educational needs.

Where is RTI?

Typically, developments in special education methodology receive scant attention from the general education community. RTI, on the other hand, has become a major focus of educational reform nationwide. The general education community has embraced the


The evaluation process is designed by a knowledgeable team

A team determines the student meets state identified criteria in order to be

eligible for special education

A variety of procedures is used in order to provide extensive information about the student in relation to academic, functional, and developmental skills

A team develops an IEP that provides specially designed

instruction, accommodations, and leads to an appropriate placement

A

B

C D

AND

approach as a way of ensuring equity and accountability for all students. The dynamic approach and language of RTI are being applied to the organization of curriculum and instruction in both general and special education settings. As discussed previously in this document, when implemented with integrity, RTI requires a comprehensive, school-wide system of multi-tiered instruction. It is important for special educators to understand, however, the placement and purpose of RTI as a framework for the evaluation and identification of students suspected of having LD. This is its only legally defined application for eligibility decision making at this time.

The inclusion of RTI in the IDEA 2004 was widely anticipated in the educational community as a solution to the problems of over-identification and the technical shortcomings of traditional LD identification approaches. In the IDEA evaluation paradigm shown in Figure 5, RTI would be found in box “C”. This is the step in the evaluation process where a team determines that a student meets specific, objective criteria that are necessary in order to “categorize” the student’s disability for IDEA. In Oregon, there are 11 disability categories. The evaluation section of the Oregon Administrative Rules, (OAR 581-015-2100 through 2180) identifies approximately 30 different evaluation procedures. RTI is only one procedure, and it only applies to one eligibility category—Specific Learning Disability.

In actuality, RTI is only one innovation in the identification of students as LD. Several of the regulatory changes affect all disability categories, such as the requirement that no child be determined to have a disability if the determinant factor is a lack of instruction in reading or mathematics.

Figure 6 below explains the Oregon regulations for eligibility determination when using RTI. Where the component regulation is a direct reflection of a federal requirement, it is noted with an asterisk.

Figure 6: Oregon Regulations and RTI

Regulation Comment

PART I: Evaluation Component1. Academic Assessment: An assessment of the child’s academic achievement toward Oregon grade-level standards;

1. This component addresses the eligibility requirement (found below) that a student with an LD must be deficit relative to age or to meet Oregon grade level standards in key academic areas.* It is noteworthy that the requirement is not for an “academic achievement test.” The more inclusive term “academic assessment” allows for the inclusion of more dynamic information such as curriculum based evaluation measures,


Regulation Commentprogress data, work samples, and statewide assessment scores.

2. Review: A review of cumulative records, previous IEPs or IFSPs and teacher collected work samples;

2. A review of records, especially in reevaluation, is extremely important in the determination of whether inadequate instruction has been a factor in the child’s lack of achievement.* It also provides data necessary to determine if the child’s lack of progress may be caused by some other factor, including the exclusionary factors.*

3. Observation. An observation of the child in the child’s learning environment (including the regular classroom setting) to document the child’s academic performance and behavior in the areas of difficulty, which must consist of: (A) Information from an observation by a qualified professional in routine classroom instruction and monitoring of the child’s performance before the child was referred for an evaluation*, or (B) An observation conducted by a qualified professional (who is a member of the evaluation team) of the child’s academic performance in a regular classroom after the child has been referred for an evaluation and parent consent obtained; or (C) For a child who is less than school age or out of school, an observation in an age-appropriate environment.

3. The requirement to conduct an observation changed two ways in IDEA 2004. First, the regulations now make it clear that observations that were conducted prior to referral may be used,* and second, the law is now specific that the observation must be in the area in which the student is having trouble.*

4. Progress monitoring data, including: (A) Data that demonstrate that before, or as part of, the referral process, the child was provided appropriate instruction in regular education settings, delivered by qualified personnel; and (B) Data based documentation of repeated assessments of achievement at reasonable intervals, reflecting formal assessment of student progress that is directly linked to assessment.*

4. It is noteworthy that this requirement, which seems to be a reference to RTI, is a requirement for ALL LD evaluations, whether the district uses an RTI model or not. This requirement addresses the concern that many students who have been qualified LD have deficits that were actually the result of poor instruction. IDEA 2004 requires that this data be provided to the parent.*

5. For a student evaluated using a response to intervention model as part of a comprehensive evaluation process to determine if the child has a specific learning disability, the evaluation must include documentation of: (A) The type, intensity, and duration of scientific, research-based instructional intervention(s) provided in accordance with the district’s response to intervention model; (B) The student’s rate of progress during the instructional intervention(s); (C) A comparison of the student’s rate of progress to

5. This section is Oregon’s elaboration of the “how to” of RTI. The option to use RTI is provided in IDEA 2004, * but again, it is up to the states to develop an implementation scheme.

The general guidelines reflect the state’s effort to allow districts to embrace new methods of progress monitoring and curriculum based


Regulation Commentexpected rates of progress; (D) Progress monitoring on a schedule that: (i) Allows a comparison of the student’s progress to

the performance of peers;(ii) Is appropriate to the student’s age and grade placement;(iii) Is appropriate to the content monitored; and(iv) Allows for the interpretation of the effectiveness of the intervention.

assessments that are rapidly developing in the field.

6. For a student evaluated using a model that is based on the student’s strengths and weaknesses, the evaluation must include an assessment of the student’s strengths and weaknesses in classroom performance and academic achievement, relative to age, Oregon grade level standards, or intellectual development.*

6. This is a new federal option. While this language taken out of context might be taken to endorse a discrepancy approach, it is important to place this type of evaluation in the context of other requirements, such as the progress reporting requirement (above) and the requirement that any child found eligible must be achieving so that he or she cannot reach grade and age appropriate standards (below).*

7. Other: (A) If needed, a developmental history; (B) If needed, an assessment of cognition, fine motor, perceptual motor, communication, social or emotional, and perception or memory if the child exhibits impairments in one or more of these areas; (C) If needed, a medical statement or health assessment indicating whether there are any physical factors that may be affecting the child’s educational performance; and (D) Any other assessments required to determine the impact of the suspected disability:

(i) On the child’s educational performance for a school-age child; or

(ii) On the child’s developmental progress for a preschool child.

Team MembershipFor consideration of eligibility in the area of specific learning disabilities, the eligibility team must include: (A) A group of qualified professionals and the parent; (B) The child’s regular classroom teacher, or if the child does not have a regular classroom teacher, a regular classroom teacher qualified to teach a child of his or her age, or for a child less than school age, a preschool teacher; and (C) A person qualified to conduct individual diagnostic examinations of children, such as a school psychologist, speech-language pathologist, or other qualified professional.

This section does not contain major changes in practice. The only place in the federal law the regular classroom teacher is specifically identified as an eligibility team member is in the LD eligibility section. This underscores the importance of the context of the educational environment and experience in making any decision to identify a child as having a learning


Regulation Commentdisability.

Eligibility Determination1. The child does not achieve adequately for the child’s age or to meet Oregon 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 Oregon grade level standards:* (A) Basic reading skills; (B) Reading fluency skills;* (C) Reading comprehension; (D) Mathematics calculation; (E) Mathematics problem-solving; (F) Written expression; (G) Oral expression; or (H) Listening comprehension.

1. This is the language that requires that, regardless of the model under which a student is evaluated for LD, the comparison is not “achievement level to intelligence quotient,” but rather “achievement level to age or grade placement.”*

This criterion limits eligibility to students who demonstrate below grade or age level skills and progress, regardless of other characteristics of testing such as testing profiles.

(B) is an important federal addition reflecting research identifying oral reading fluency as an LD marker.*

2. For a student evaluated using a response to intervention model, (in relation to one or more of the areas in “1” above), the student does not make sufficient progress to meet age or Oregon grade-level standards based on the student’s response to scientific, research-based intervention.*

2. Note that in this criterion there is room to include the student who makes progress, albeit somewhat slow, toward standards. If the intervention is very intense and is substantially the same level of intervention typically found in special education, and the student will fail to make sufficient progress without the intervention to meet grade or age standards, the student still may be found eligible. This is an important distinction, since a primary purpose of RTI is to prevent intractable school failure caused by lack of progress, and accompanying motivation and self-esteem problems. In other words, the student may demonstrate some response to intensive intervention and still be found eligible.

3. For a student evaluated using a model that is based on the student’s strengths and weaknesses, (in relation to one or more of the areas in “1” above), the student exhibits a pattern of strengths and weaknesses in classroom performance, academic achievement, or both, relative to age, Oregon grade-level standards, or intellectual development, that is determined by the group to be relevant to the identification of a specific learning disability.*

3. The challenge for this criterion, should a district adopt it, is identifying patterns that have been demonstrated empirically to be markers of LD.*


Regulation Comment4. The child’s rate of progress or pattern of strengths and weaknesses is not primarily the result of: (A) A visual, hearing, or motor impairment; mental retardation, or emotional disturbance; (B) Cultural factors; (C) Environmental or economic disadvantage; or (D) Limited English proficiency.

4. Districts utilizing an RTI approach that includes some level of problem solving generally will have complete data to address these “exclusionary factors.”

5. For a child to be eligible for special education services as a child with a specific learning disability, the eligibility team must also determine that: (A) The child’s disability has an adverse impact on the child’s educational performance; and (B) The child needs special education services as a result of the disability.

5. RTI requires schools provide substantial supplementary instruction as part of the general education program. As such, it becomes difficult to decide where a type and level of instruction can be differentiated as “specially designed instruction,” or “special education.” One way to look at this question is to examine the characteristics of instruction that the students with the most severe academic deficits receive in order to make and maintain a sufficient level of progress, and to classify that as “specially designed instruction”.

The Evaluation Report

1. The eligibility team must prepare an evaluation report and written statement of eligibility documenting its findings, including; (A) The evaluation data considered in determining the child’s eligibility; (B) A determination of whether the child meets the minimum criteria for a specific learning disability; (C) The relevant behavior, if any, noted during the observation of the child and the relationship of that behavior to the child’s academic functioning; (D) The educationally relevant medical findings, if any; (E) If the child participated in a response to intervention process, documentation that the parents were notified in a timely manner about: the state’s policies regarding the amount and nature of student performance data that would be collected, and the general education services that would be provided, as part of the response to intervention process; strategies for increasing the child’s rate of learning; and the parent’s right to request an evaluation.* (F) The determination of the team concerning the effects of a visual, hearing, or motor disability; mental retardation; emotional disturbance, cultural factors, environmental or economic disadvantage, or limited English

1. The requirement in (E) to inform parents addresses concerns that under RTI, parents would not understand what to expect or how to ensure their children received a timely evaluation. In essence, this requires a district to inform parents about their RTI process and their child’s involvement in it.*

In (G) there is a requirement to indicate whether the determinant factor is due to a lack of instruction in reading or math. Specifically, the federal law requires that no child be found eligible as a child with a learning disability if he or she has not received instruction in the “five big ideas of reading”: phonemic awareness, phonics, oral reading fluency, vocabulary, and reading comprehension.*


Regulation Commentproficiency on the child’s achievement level; and (G) A determination of whether the primary basis for the suspected disability is

(i) A lack of appropriate instruction in reading or math;*(ii) Limited English Proficiency.

(H) A determination of whether the child’s disability has an adverse impact on the child’s educational performance; (I) A determination of whether, as a result of the disability, the child needs special education services; and (J) The signature of each member of the team indicating agreement or disagreement with the eligibility determination.

Requirements for All Evaluations

In returning to the overarching IDEA evaluation paradigm, districts must be aware of and ensure that their procedures address the following requirements:

A “full and individual initial evaluation” shall be conducted. . . “to determinewhether the child is a child with a disability. . . and to determine the educationalneeds of the child (20 U.S.C. 1414 (a)(1)(A) and (C) (i) (I) and (II).) Theserequirements and those discussed below obligate teams to consider all aspectsof a child’s functioning. While RTI may address whether a child responds tointervention, it may not adequately describe the effects of emotional andbehavioral problems or language and cultural factors on performance. It isimportant that, at a well articulated point in any process, formal and individualevaluation is conducted and that areas in addition to those addressed in the RTIprocess are considered.

An initial evaluation must be conducted within “60 school days” of obtainingparental consent (OAR 581-015-2105). . . and “The agency proposing toconduct an initial evaluation. . . shall obtain informed consent from the parent ofsuch child before conducting the evaluation.” (20 U.S.C. 1414 (a)(1)(D). Theserequirements mean that the process for RTI must be carefully articulated. It must beclear to teams that there is a specific point at which the intervention process ispart of a special education evaluation. Parental consent must be obtained at thatpoint, and the parent must understand that the procedure being implemented willcontribute to a decision about whether the student has a learning disability and iseligible for special education.

Evaluation procedures must: …“use a variety of assessment tools and strategiesto gather relevant functional, developmental, and academic information, includinginformation from the parent” and may “not use any single measure orassessment as the sole criterion.” The procedures must include the use of“technically sound instruments that assess the relative contribution of cognitiveand behavioral factors.” (20 U.S.C. 1414 (b)(2)(A)(B) and (C). Further, (3)(A)(i-v)


continue the requirements that nonbiased assessment procedures are used andthat procedures are administered by qualified, trained, and knowledgeablepersonnel. (3)(B) reiterates that the child must be “assessed in all areas ofsuspected disability.” These requirements make it clear that a single form ofassessment—RTI—may not be used to either find children eligible or define all oftheir educational needs. Teams must continue to consider whether a student ismost appropriately identified as a child with LD as opposed to another disability,such as emotional disturbance. They must select tools so that evaluations are tailored to children’s presenting issues.

(3)(A)(i) and (ii) and (5)(C) require that assessments conducted “are selected andadministered so as not to be discriminatory on a racial or cultural basis” and are“provided and administered in the language and form most likely to yield accurateinformation on what the child knows and can do academically, developmentallyand functionally”. . .and that a team may not determine a child is eligible forspecial education if the “determinant factor for such determination is. . .limitedEnglish proficiency.” The effects of second language acquisition and culturalvariations must be considered for English language learners and interventionsthat are designed for those students must be appropriate. The procedures usedin RTI are aligned with recommended best practices for ELL students, but it is important that the design of interventions and the interpretation of ELL students’ responses to interventions be informed by individuals who are very knowledgeable about the education of ELL students, and are adapted to the unique needs of ELL students (Klinger, J., McCray, A. & Barrera, M., 2007).

The Role of Norm-Referenced Achievement Testing in RTI

Historically, norm-referenced tests of achievement have been a primary pillar in the assessment of students with LD within the ability-achievement paradigm. While this is no longer the case within the RTI framework, there is still a role for traditional achievement testing. Federal regulations and the OARS require the use of a variety of assessment instruments, and stipulate that the identification of a child as having a learning disability cannot be based on a single assessment procedure. Data from achievement tests may be used as second point of reference on a student’s skill level, or provide information on other areas of concern not addressed by screening and progress monitoring assessments tools. Further, norm-referenced tests of achievement may provide additional diagnostic information that may be useful for treatment planning and identification decisions.

Fletcher, Lyon, Fuchs, & Barnes (2007) outline a heterogeneous model of LD with five primary subgroups: a) Reading word recognition and spelling; b) Reading comprehension; c) Reading fluency and automaticity; d) Mathematics computation and problem solving, e) Written expression, including handwriting, spelling, and/or composition. The authors go on to describe six patterns of achievement strengths and weaknesses that yield empirically supported targets for intervention. For example, students with deficits in word reading and spelling, combined with relative strengths in


math computation, often have significant phonological processing problems. This additional information can be useful in defining the source of a student’s problems and helping to direct intervention efforts, particularly with students that are not responding to early efforts at remediation, or older students whose difficulties have compounded and become more complex. These skills and the corresponding patterns of strengths and weaknesses may be assessed with frequently used norm-referenced tests of achievement such as the Woodcock-Johnson Achievement Battery -III (WJ-III; Woodcock, McGrew, & Mather, 2001), or the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test-II (WIAT-II; Wechsler, 2001).

Figure 7: Achievement patterns, presumed causes, and targets for intervention.

Pattern Weaknesses (SS < 90, or percentile rank <25)

Strengths (SS 7 points/ ½ SD or more above weakness)

Possible sources of difficulty

Intervention targets to consider

1. Word recognition and spelling

Math calculation(and ≥90)

Phonological processing

Phonemic awareness, phonics, single word decoding

2. Reading fluency Word recognition Automaticity of word reading; rapid naming of letters

Rapid naming of letters; Oral reading fluency;

3. Reading comprehension

Word recognition Problems with vocabulary, receptive language, working memory, attention

Specific skill or strategy instruction for reading comprehension; vocabulary development

4. Math computation Word recognition and spelling (and ≥ 90)

Executive functions & attention, working memory, motor and spatial skills

Math computation and procedures

5. Spelling 1. Motor skills in younger children;2. Residual from phonological language problems in older children

Spelling, letter patterns (orthography), practice in writing

6 Word recognition, reading fluency, reading comprehension, spelling, math computation

Word recognition and math problems characterized by pervasive language and working memory problems

Reading (especially word recognition) and math concepts and procedures

Note: Adapted from Fletcher, Lyon, Fuchs, & Barnes, (2007)

Figure 7 outlines the patterns of achievement and associated interventions articulated by Fletcher et al. (2007). In addition to providing guidance for intervention targets, these patterns may help with the identification of specific types of LD. In either case, it is important to recognize that it is the pattern of relative strengths and weaknesses that is important, and that cut-off scores are not meant to be absolute figures. Rather, the suggested scores are meant to highlight relative magnitude of deficit or difference. As


with all test scores, interpretations should be made within the context of other sources of information and professional judgment.

The Role of Intelligence Testing in RTI

The general IDEA 2004 evaluation requirements dictate that teams makeindividual decisions about the scope of evaluation and specific evaluation toolsthat are used for a student. However, the question of whether or not to give anIQ test to a student is of great interest to professionals as they contemplate thischange. The final section of this paper reviews many of the problems related to usingintelligence testing with students who have or are suspected of having learningdisabilities, and readers are encouraged to review that information when makingpolicy decisions about the use of IQ tests. Profiling a student’s cognitive skills has little instructional value (Stanovich, 2005). There is substantial overlap between skills measured on IQ tests and academic skills, and poor achievement affects students’ performance on components of IQ tests. Generally, teams are encouraged to limit the use of IQ tests unless mental retardation is suspected.

Summary

RTI models have the capacity to improve outcomes for and provide support to students who are both low achieving and LD. They do, however, require substantial cooperation between general and special education. They also require that procedures be used within general education to impact the general education curriculum and teacher practices. Widespread progress monitoring of all students, systematic intervening within general education, and collegial problem solving are hallmarks of RTI.

IDEA 2004 anticipates the resource requirements of such an approach, allowing for use of up to 15% of Part B funds for “early intervening” services for students who are not yet identified as having a disability. Districts can both adopt a new diagnostic approach and benefit children before their low performance becomes an intractable achievement deficit that may be accompanied by low motivation and behavioral problems. However, districts must carefully determine which model of RTI is most appropriate within their system and implement standardized procedures aligned to state criteria.


SECTION TWO:

IMPLEMENTING RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION (RTI)

Response to intervention assessment requires changes in the ways resources are used and a very close relationship between general and special education. General educators need to understand the approach and why all of their students need to be closely monitored—especially in the development of early academic skills. Special educators must understand the limitations of traditional assessment systems and adopt highly prescribed and systematic interventions. Most importantly, general and special educators need to work together to implement and maintain the system. This chapter details the following system requirements for RTI:

1. Leadership

2. Teaming

3. Research based core reading curriculum

4. Valid screening or identification procedures and decision rules

5. Intervention protocols and progress monitoring

6. Professional development

7. Fidelity of implementation

8. Policy and procedure development including special education procedures

Leadership

District Level

Moving from a discrepancy approach to RTI requires on-going support to teams and to individuals. A leadership team at the district level will help schools move forward and sustain new practices. This team needs to be able to:

Provide expertise when problems are encountered or practices are questioned

Provide training related to LD identification, forming and maintaining teams, best practice in reading instruction, analyzing and interpreting data, and fidelity checks

Ensure that administrators and special educators receive training sufficient to explain this approach to colleagues and parents

Identify the need for and provide support to teams with respect to research based interventions and progress monitoring methods

Help obtain and commit resources for screening, assessment and interventions

Interpret new information in the field regarding LD


Judge the fidelity of implementation of components of RTI and trouble shoot.

Plan to sustain the system.

School Level

Horner and Sugai (2000), who have worked extensively with school wide systems that address behavior supports through team processes, emphasize the importance of the school principal having a primary role on any such team. The philosophical and instructional leadership provided by the principal is essential to a team’s ability to establish its mission, overcome difficulties and sustain its work over time.

Teachers serve a critical role on both district and school level teams. They offer a vital “on the ground” perspective about strengths and weaknesses of the RTI system and help to assess professional development priorities. This leadership and understanding of the process also serves teachers well as key communicators between the school and parent community.

Teaming

Teaming is an essential component of an RTI system. As described throughout this paper, RTI requires cooperation among special education, general education, and compensatory programs such as Title I and Title III (English language learners/ELL). Considerations to take into account include team membership, team structures, and teamwork and planning.

Team Membership

Experience in implementing Effective Behavior and Instructional Supports indicates that decisions about team membership be considered carefully. Generally, the team must have one or more members who:

Have the authority to allocate school resources and assign work (administrative support)

Can provide leadership for the team, organize and implement agendas, monitor role clarity and fidelity

Are able to effect changes in the general education instructional program for groups of students (such as skill grouping)

Can organize and present screening data

Are able to plan for and provide research based individualized interventions (such as a small group working on decoding multi-syllabic words)

Can set goals for students, plan for progress monitoring, plot data, and interpret data to determine the effectiveness of interventions

Are able to train classroom teachers and paraprofessionals to progress monitor and provide interventions


Represent the involvement of special education, ELL, Title, and other support programs

Team Structures

Schools may find that more than one team best serves their needs, as illustrated below in Figure 8. For example, initial data analysis and planning may be accomplished through a grade level team. At that level, a group of teachers might find that fewer than 80% of their students are meeting expectations and decide to investigate ways to strengthen their instructional program. If the core program is meeting the needs of at least 80% of the students, the teachers may decide to strengthen instruction for students who are marginally below expectations through skill grouping and differentiating instruction across classes. This level of team must have measurement, progress monitoring, and administrative resources available.

Another level of the team might meet to plan interventions for students who are not making expected progress in the programs designed by the grade level teams. This team must maintain strong ties to the general education classroom and possess all of the capacities listed above.

Figure 8: Two General Education Teams Manage RTI Prior to Referral

Some schools use one central team to perform all functions of data analysis and intervention planning, at the classroom, small group, and individual level. Using a single level team requires a substantial commitment of time and resources to both conducting the work of the team and maintaining the “health” of team functioning.

Teamwork and Planning

Teaming in order to analyze student progress using standardized data and decision making means that on occasion individuals will need to engage in difficult communication about student outcomes, fidelity of implementation of curriculum, or


Grade Level Team evaluates effectiveness of core program and plans initial group interventions

Centralized team plans targeted

small group and individual

interventions

Evaluation Team plans and conducts RTI related assessment

On-going data gathering and analysis at group and individual level. Decision rules drive decisions about including students in interventions and referral decisions. Standard formats are used for data presentation and analysis.

Teams move students through interventions that increase in intensity based on individual student outcomes.

special education decisions. Where teaming is not a norm, deliberate planning for team formation and functioning is required. When a group is adopting both new practices and new ways of doing work, individuals may experience significant stress. A professional facilitator can help a team define its mission, establish norms, and improve skills like conflict management and negotiation. Successful teams establish working agreements about conducting meetings, decision making, interactions, and roles. Examples of such agreements are:

Team members will encourage each other to express their opinions.

Decision rules will be used to guide the team’s work.

Once a decision is made, team members will support that decision.

Meetings will start and end on time.

Team members will bring necessary information to the meetings.

The agenda will be followed.

Decisions will be made through a consensus process.

The principal makes final decisions about allocation of resources.

Teams should revisit their working agreements periodically to ensure they continue to be relevant and are being implemented.

As the team is formed, a year long plan of work should be established. There will be a cycle of reviewing school wide data, group intervention data, and individual intervention data that requires projecting agendas for meetings and planning to organize information to be considered. A typical calendar used for implementing an RTI model follows in Figure 9.


Research-Based Core Curriculum

IDEA 2004 requires teams to determine students not eligible for special education if their difficulties are attributed to lack of instruction in the essential components of reading instruction as identified in No Child Left Behind (phonemic awareness, alphabetic principle, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension) or math. Effective core curricula are expected to provide sufficient instruction so that at least 80% of students meet expectations without additional support.

Information on research-based core curricula may be found at the following websites: Oregon’s Reading First Project: http://oregonreadingfirst.uoregon.edu. Florida Center for Reading Research: http://fcrr.org What Works Clearinghouse: www.whatworksclearinghouse.org

Reading is set apart as especially important because the majority of students with learning disabilities are identified with problems learning to read. Other academic areas are substantiated with less research, but curricula and instruction may be validated by meeting these guidelines:

1. The curriculum that is being used has been analyzed and is aligned with benchmarks.

2. Instruction is intense, regular, and differentiated to meet the skill needs of individual students.

3. At least 80% of students are meeting expectations such as benchmarks.


Beginning of year Define group membership, establish group norms, plot work for the year. Review current school wide data on academic achievement, behavior, attendance, etc.

3 times per year Gather and review data (based on screening or in class assessments). Review membership in groups considered at benchmark or at risk.

Monthly Review data on students who are in intensive interventions. Change membership of intervention groups or change individual interventions.

End of year Review data on all students based on quarterly and statewide assessments. Identify students for extended year opportunities. Identify students for immediate intervention or evaluations to be implemented in September.

Figure 9: Example of a Yearly RTI Team Plan of Work

http://www.whatworksclearinghouse.org/

http://fcrr.org/

http://oregonreadingfirst.uoregon.edu/

It is particularly important to examine the “80%” criterion. This expectation is a general guideline, and teams should adjust that expectation upward if the general achievement in the school is typically higher than 80%. In some schools, the expectation is more appropriately 85% or even 90%. Performance in each classroom is expected to be close to the school average.

While the criteria may be adjusted upward, it should not be adjusted downward. It should be assumed that, if 80% of students in a district, school, or classroom are not meeting benchmarks, the problem is with either the content of the core curriculum, or the intensity, frequency, and fidelity of instruction. In the case that less than 80% of students are meeting benchmarks, it is not advisable to include large numbers of students in interventions. First, placing large numbers of students in interventions is not cost-efficient, and presents logistical challenges. Second, valuable time and resources should be directed toward increasing the fidelity of the core. In this case, the following considerations may be helpful in formulating an action plan:

Is the core curriculum being taught as designed? Is instructional time uninterrupted? Are their sufficient motivators? Are students actively engaged? Are cues and correction procedures clear? Is there sufficient time to practice skills? Are students flexibly skill-grouped across the grade level? Is the lowest skill-group substantially smaller and taught by the most-skilled

instructor? Is the core curriculum research-based, a strong match to state and district

standards, and meeting student needs?

Figure 10 is a conceptual representation of the 80% rule applied with increasingly intense interventions.


Valid Screening or Identification Procedures and Decision Rules

School personnel need to know when a student is at risk of failure in a core academic subject. Whether a district adopts a problem solving, pre referral, or tiered model of RTI, teachers and teams need to know when to select a student for intervention. This requires that valid data are examined on a regular schedule and that students are selected for intervention on this basis. Data that may inform these decisions include:

1. Screening tools reviewed by the National Center on Student Progress Monitoring www.studentprogress.org

2. Curriculum-Based Measures

3. Fluency measures with norms that are local or based on national studies

4. Statewide assessments

5. Locally developed measures that can be interpreted on consistent, objective criteria

6. Behavior and attendance data that can be interpreted on consistent, objective criteria

7. Teacher concern

Using clearly defined criteria and decision rules—for example, “Students who are in the lowest 10% of the class (according to reading fluency data) will be selected for interventions”—helps to overcome problems in referral bias, lack of teacher experience,


Figure 10: Conceptual Depiction of the 80% Rule

All students are provided research based instruction. If 80% are not meeting the benchmark, core instruction is evaluated.

About 15% of students are provided research based interventions of moderate intensity.

About 5% of students are provided research based intensive interventions.


or differences in teachers’ level of tolerance with respect to students who are struggling. Decision rules are also necessary to ensure that students who are not responding adequately move to more intensive or appropriate interventions, and that a decision is made to initiate the special education referral process when needed. An example of this kind of decision rule is “Change the intervention when the student does not meet the aimline for four consecutive data points.”

It is very important that data are reviewed on ALL students in the school, on an ongoing basis. Even though students are eligible to receive services through special education, ELL, or Title I, their achievement and progress is part of the total system and must be continuously tracked.

Intervention Protocols and Progress Monitoring

Intervention Protocols

There is some concern that decisions made within an RTI framework will lack uniformity. This concern is based at least partially on the difficulty in documenting what interventions have been provided and their levels of intensity and duration. Those concerns may be addressed by carefully standardizing interventions. Gresham (2002) reviewed research in reading interventions and determined that a combination of Direct Instruction and Strategy Instruction produces the greatest effect for struggling students. Other authorities (National Reading Panel, 2000; Shaywitz, 2004) add fluency instruction as an important component of interventions for many students. Examples of curricula that may be used for interventions may be found at http://oregonreadingfirst.uoregon.edu.

Interventions are intensified when a student’s progress continues to be inadequate. Intensity may be increased in many ways, such as reducing group size, increasing the duration or frequency of lessons, or increasing behavioral contingencies.

As interventions become more intense, it is difficult to provide both general education curriculum and interventions to a student. It is recommended that when there simply isn’t enough time in the school day to provide an intensive intervention, programming such as extended school day be considered. Another approach is to provide the systematic basic skills instruction and practice in the intervention setting and include students in language and comprehension instruction in the general education classroom. For example, in math the student would be included in the general education classroom for conceptual, vocabulary, and math reasoning instruction. In the case that a student is two or more years behind grade level, it may be advisable to replace the general education curriculum with an extremely intensive alternative program. However, unless a student is so significantly behind his or her peers that the student cannot understand the regular curriculum, the goal is to provide the general education plus intervention. There are two main reasons for this recommendation. First, students with learning disabilities need more instruction to catch up to their peers. Second, there is no replacement for the rich content, vocabulary, and interaction with


http://oregonreadingfirst.uoregon.edu/

non-disabled peers found in general education. A menu of interventions should be developed that match area of deficit, curricula, and intensity to specific student profiles.

The following steps may be used in designing an intervention:

1. Identify students with similar skill deficits (e.g., math fact fluency).

2. Specify each child’s deficit level (e.g., writes 10 correct facts per minute).

3. Identify a curriculum that is specific to the skill deficit(s).

4. Identify an instructor who has been trained to use the curriculum.

5. Decide how long the intervention will progress before review.

6. Develop a progress monitoring chart for each student that includes a clearly marked benchmark and aim line.

Progress Monitoring

Progress monitoring is assessment of students’ academic performance on a regular basis in order to determine whether children are benefiting from instruction and to build more effective programs for those who are not. Standard methods of progress monitoring prevent inconsistency in decision making and eligibility decisions. Progress monitoring for these purposes must include clear benchmarks for performance and reliable, easy to administer measures such as curriculum-based measurement (CBM).

Progress monitoring involves the following steps:

1. Establish a benchmark for performance and plot it on a chart (e.g., “read orally at grade level 40 words per minute by June”). It must be plotted at the projected end of the instructional period, such as the end of the school year.

2. Establish the student’s current level of performance (e.g., “20 words per minute”).

3. Draw an aim line from the student’s current level to the performance benchmark. This picture represents the slope of progress required to meet the benchmark.

4. Monitor the student’s progress frequently (e.g., every Monday). Plot the data.

5. Analyze the data on a regular basis, applying decision rules (e.g., “the intervention will be changed after 6 data points that are below the aimline”).

6. Draw a trend line to validate that the student’s progress is adequate to meet the goal over time.


Figure 11: An Example Progress Monitoring Chart with Aim Line

Source: National Center on Student Progress Monitoring website: www.studentprogress.org/library/training.asp

Determining Trends

It is very important that data be analyzed sufficiently to determine whether changes in instruction are required for the student to meet the performance benchmark. This analysis is enhanced when data are graphed. Trend lines, graphic indications of a student’s overall slope of progress, are necessary to determine whether progress is sufficient to meet the goal. There are several technical approaches to determining trend lines, among which is the Tukey Method (illustrated in Figure 12).

Robust progress monitoring procedures such as graphing results and using trend lines are required in order to apply consistent decision rules. Examples of decision rules are found in the “Policy and Procedures” section of this chapter.

An excellent resource for learning about progress monitoring and establishing goals may be found at the website for the National Center on Student Progress Monitoring, found at www.studentprogress.org.


The X is the end-of-term performance goal. A goal-line is drawn from the median of the first three scores to the performance goal.

X


http://www.studentprogress.org/library/training.asp

Figure 12: Developing a Trend Line Using the Tukey Method

Source: National Center on Student Progress Monitoring website: www.studentprogress.org/library/training.asp

Professional Development

Professional development is perhaps the keystone of a robust RTI system. It is essential that school and district leaders commit the necessary time and resources to high-quality, ongoing professional development. Unfortunately, in public education it is all too common to provide comprehensive training on a topic in the course of one school year, and fail to revisit the training in subsequent years. Professional development must be sustainable; thorough training should be provided for new staff each year. Veteran staff should have the opportunity to receive refresher training. Since RTI encompasses such a wide-variety of training needs, professional development sessions should be mapped out on a school district calendar well in advance of the pertinent school year. The topics listed below are those the authors have found to be important in implementing the Oregon Guided Development Project. Districts should consider developing local and regional capacity in these and other areas related to RTI.

The following topics have been identified during OrRTI training as being important:

Curriculum & Instruction Core reading, writing and math programs Specific intervention programs Instructional coaching/strategies


Step 1: Divide the data points into three equal sections by drawing two vertical lines. (If the points divide unevenly, group them approximately.)

Step 2: In the first and third sections, find the median data-point and median instructional week. Locate the place on the graph where the two values intersect and mark with an “X.”

Step 3: Draw a line through the two “X’s,” extending to the margins of the graph. This represents the trend-line or line of improvement.

(Hutton, Dubes, & Muir, 1992)

X

X

http://www.studentprogress.org/library/training.asp

Behavior Maintaining Positive Behavior Support systems Conducting Functional Behavior Assessments

Teaming Establishing a team Conflict resolution

Data Administering & scoring screeners and CBMs Analyzing and interpreting data

Understanding LD Disseminate current research in LD and reading Evaluation planning Eligibility decisions and report writing

Fidelity Train staff in the use of fidelity checklists Self-assessment tools for teaming, use of decision rules

Fidelity of Implementation

Fidelity is the most common term used in educational literature to describe the importance of consistency in our instructional practices, administration of assessment, and decision-making. In other words, it is the delivery of a practice in the way in which it was designed to be delivered (Reschly & Gresham, 2006). Fidelity is paramount to the RTI system because for students suspected of having a learning disability, RTI may replace or supplement standardized tests as a part of the eligibility determination. Just as any modifications to the administration of standardized test would alter the validity of the results, so do modifications to curriculum delivery, screeners and decision rules. One of the great promises of RTI is that this method will reduce arbitrary decision making in LD identification and overidentification. In order for this promise to come to fruition, the educational community must ensure fidelity of the RTI system is routinely assessed. Reading First has lead the way in developing fidelity checks for a number of research-based reading programs (both core and intervention). Other fidelity tools are being developed on a smaller scale. An in-depth discussion of fidelity of implementation and RTI may be found at the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities website under Responsiveness to Intervention (RTI): How to Do It at: www.nrcld.org/rti_manual/. One such example of a fidelity checklist is shown in Figure 13. This is a generic checklist developed to address instructional practices that should be evident regardless of the specific curriculum used.


http://www.nrcld.org/rti_manual/

Figure 13: Reading Fidelity Checklist


Name of Instructor: _____________________ School: _____________________

Name of Observer: _____________________ Date: _____________________

Number of Students in Group: ___________ Start & Stop Times: ___________

Name of Reading Program: _____________ Total Time of Observation: _____________

Level of Implementation: 4: Very Strong, 3: Strong, 2: Adequate, 1: Needs Improvement, 0: Not Observed

Behavior Rating CommentsInstructor starts lesson on time ______ _____________________________

Instructor follows procedures ______ _____________________________and wording in lesson

Uses error correction procedure ______ _____________________________

Instructor maintains good pacing ______ _____________________________and enthusiasm

Instructor uses clear signals ______ ___________________________

Gives students individual turns ______ _____________________________

Instructor uses specific praise ______ _____________________________ (e.g. “I like the way you. . .”)

Students engaged in lesson ______ _____________________________

Enforcement of school rules ______ _____________________________(hats off, chairs flat, appropriate language)

Behavior expectations are ______ _____________________________posted and frequently reviewed

Uses positive communication ______ _____________________________with students (e.g. “Please walk” vs. “Don’t run!”)

Percentage of time spent on-task ______ _____________________________

Comments:__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

General and Special Education Policy and Procedure Development

Adopting RTI

This paper has emphasized that RTI is a system that affects both general and special education. Districts that have successfully implemented these approaches experience substantial system-wide benefits for all children. However, obtaining “buy-in” and cooperation for use of resources is essential. Administrative support from the top down and teacher support from the bottom up are vital to success and sustainability.

Initially, RTI will require extra resources for training and time for teams to work together. Support services such as ELL and Title I may need to be reorganized. Funds may need to be set aside to provide interventions. Commitment and planning need to be in place before RTI is implemented.

IDEA 2004 offers districts the opportunity to support the RTI process by using IDEA funds for “early intervening services.” These are coordinated services that are preventative in nature and function within the general education context.

Defining and Adopting Procedures

When moving to an RTI approach, a set of fluid activities (data review, intervention implementation, and analysis) are used much like we have used traditional testing instruments. These activities may be difficult for some teams to track. Individuals must conduct those activities in standardized ways, documenting their work, and using standardized decision making guidelines. This prevents arbitrary decision making, and ensures students move through the system and are considered for evaluation and eligibility in a timely manner.

Decision Rules

This essential procedural component has been referenced several times. An example of decision rules used by the Effective Behavior and Instructional Support (EBIS) (Sadler, 2002) are:

1. Organize the lowest 20% of students in the grade level (in a small school, organizing across grade levels may be more appropriate) to receive interventions.

2. Students in group interventions are monitored weekly.

3. Students in individual interventions are monitored at least 1 time weekly.

4. Change interventions when 4 consecutive data points do not meet the student’s goal line.

5. Move students to an individual intervention after two unsuccessful group interventions.


6. Refer a student for special education after one unsuccessful individually designed intervention.

The details of decision rules such as these will vary from district to district depending on a variety of contextual variables. Bethel School District has developed a set of RTI Procedures that includes the decision rules for moving across levels of intervention, and includes a description of the support. These procedures are displayed in Figure 14. The table provides a macro view of the decision rules and the features of support at each level. Bethel’s complete document provides details of the specific procedures used to determine trend lines, evaluate progress, etc.

Figure 14. Bethel RTI Procedures(Adapted from Beth Harn, University of Oregon, 2007)

Supplemental Small Group Instruction: For students identified as at–risk based on universal screening the following general features of instructional support will be provided:Feature of Support Detail of Support

Instructional Time Core instructional time plus supplemental (e.g., 30 -45 minutes) each day

Program/Materials Strategic enhancement (pre-teaching or re-teaching) of critical core program features in coordination with general education teacher – or – systematic use of research-based supplemental materials to target areas of concern (i.e., fluency, alphabetic principle)

Decision Rules for Evaluating Student Progress

Student progress will be monitored twice a month in relation to district developed weekly progress rates (see additional table articulating rates per grade-level. Student trend lines will be evaluated to ensure progress is positive (i.e., consistent performance around the goal line) or if modifications to intervention are warranted (i.e., consistent performance below goal line)

Grouping Supplemental small group support will be providedInterventionist Title I staff in coordination with general education

Individually Designed Instruction: For students who have received the supplemental/targeted support system for at-least 8 weeks (i.e., some may received an additional 8-week session if the team feels minor adjustment to instruction may meet instructional needs), instruction will be intensified by tailoring support for the student in the following manner:

Feature of Support Detail of SupportInstructional Time Core instructional time may be strategically supplanted (i.e., instructional

time on skills well beyond the skills of the student) plus the student will receive supplemental instructional support (e.g. 30-45 minutes) each day

Program/Materials Systematic use of research-based supplemental/intervention materials to target area(s) of concern (i.e., fluency, alphabetic principle

Decision Rules for Student progress will be monitored weekly in relation to district


Evaluating Student Progress

developed weekly progress rates (see additional table articulating rates per grade-level) or in relation to the goal developed by the TAT group. Student trend lines will be evaluated to ensure progress is positive (i.e., consistent performance around the goal line), or if modifications to intervention are warranted or if progress warrants a suspicion of a learning disability (i.e., referral to special education).

Grouping Supplemental individual or small group support will be provided.Interventionist Title 1/Special education staff in coordination with general education

Parental Notice and Consent

Procedures must establish clearly when and how parents are involved in the RTI process. As always, the guiding principle in communication with parents should be to provide information early and seek input often. Districts using an RTI process as part of LD eligibility decisions are required to provide parents with information regarding instructional supports in general, and the RTI process in particular. An example of the Oregon Department of Education’s handout that can be used for this purpose is located in the Appendix C.

Specific questions to answer when developing and implementing an RTI program include: “When are parents invited to team meetings?” “When are parents provided with procedural safeguards?” “When is parental consent required?” Consent is not required for screening and progress monitoring which all students participate in as part of the general education program. Of course, it is best practice to share this data with parents. Parents should be made aware of any interventions that occur beyond the core curriculum. Further, they should be invited to participate in the planning of any individual interventions. If the team determines that a student is not making adequate progress after two group interventions and one individually-designed intervention, a special education referral will likely be made, and it is at this point that parental consent for evaluation is required.

Special Education Procedures

As described in the general section on RTI, evaluation requirements in IDEA 2004 remain in effect when implementing this approach. Teams need to be very clear about an evaluation planning process that utilizes response to intervention as one component of a full and individual evaluation. Districts need to develop well defined procedures and ensure teams are trained before implementing RTI. The flow chart in Figure 15 provides a visual representation of how a student might move through RTI process and ultimately to a referral for an evaluation of special education eligibility.


Figure 15: Example of a Student’s Movement through the RTI Process

A second, alternative representation of this process within the RTI framework is provided below in Figure 16. This figure depicts the sequence of movement through Bethel School District’s RTI process.


Daisy participates in thegeneral curriculum

EBIS Team reviews screening data and places Daisy in group intervention

(parents notified by classroom teacher)Daisy isn’t doing well

Daisyimproves

DaisyImproves

EBIS Team develops individually designed

Intervention

Resumes generalprogram

(parents notified by classroom teacher)

Daisydoesn’timprove

Daisydoesn’timprove

Special Education referral is initiated

Daisy probably recycles

Daisy may recycle

Intervention is intense and LD

is suspected

Improvement is good and other

factors are suspected as

cause

Parents are notified of RTI policies and procedures, formal

Invitation to participate in process

Evaluation planning meeting, procedural safeguards provided,

consent obtained,60 school day timeline starts.

Figure 16: An Second Example of a Student’s Movement through the RTI Process


Evaluation Planning and Eligibility Determination

Using a response to intervention model (RTI) to decide a student has LD involves systematic application of professional judgment. Through the review of data obtained from multiple sources, consideration of those data within specific contexts, and thoughtful discourse, a team is prepared to make an eligibility decision. More complex than relying on a simple numerical formula, this process produces decisions that reflect the benefit of collective knowledge, expertise, and insight of the team.

Teams should think of the eligibility determination in terms of a conversation through which issues are viewed from several perspectives, competing factors are weighed and sorted, and the most likely explanation for a child’s lack of achievement is found. Remember, the key issue teams are investigating is whether students evidence a dual discrepancy, that is, low achievement as well as poor progress when provided with intervention.

Use the following five questions to guide the conversation, and ultimately, the decision and report of findings:

1. Is our information complete?

Teams must keep in mind that RTI is just one component of a comprehensive evaluation under IDEA 2004. In addition to the specific information regarding the student’s response to intervention, the team also must gather the following information:

File review : Thorough review of a student’s file provides critical information within the RTI model, especially as students move through the grades. Frequent moves between schools and excessive absences should be noted, as should participation in special programs such as Title I or ELL. Comments on report cards can provide helpful information for the team, especially in creating a historical record of the child’s achievement in the current area of concern. Note: While the file review is required for the eligibility determination, it is most helpful to complete it prior to the special education referral. Information gleaned from a student’s file is instrumental in identifying needs and developing interventions to address those needs. It is strongly recommended that teams plot the student’s achievement, absenteeism, and other important factors so that there is a chronological history by school year. By doing so, teams may be able to see relationships between achievement and events in the student’s life. This information addresses some of the exclusionary factors (see below) and helps the team consider other explanations for the student’s difficulties. Consider the following example:

o Tasha is an ELL student who moved to the United States when she was four years old. Now in fifth grade, her low achievement is a concern to her teacher. She is noted to have good English social language skills. When the team conducts a file review, they find that Tasha’s family moved from town to town until she was in second


grade. She spent second, third and fourth grade at the same school. The team examines her academic growth on statewide assessments and notes that, from second to third and third to fourth grades, Tasha’s RIT scores (composite scores in reading or math) increased almost 1.5 times expected growth, with minimal ELL services. Tasha’s file review suggests she is progressing in a way not typical of children with LD.

Observation : Consider the child’s behavior, and characteristics of the environment, while working in the area of difficulty within the regular classroom.

Assessments in other areas of concern : The team must address all areas of concern raised by parents and staff in the initial referral and during the evaluation planning process. While this doesn’t mean that standardized assessments will be completed in response to every issue raised, it is necessary to document consideration of each. If other disability categories are considered by the team, all of the required elements for those categories must be completed.

Assessments to determine the impact of the disability and educational need : Progress monitoring data gathered through the intervention process is the primary assessment in this area, with published achievement tests serving to complete the picture.

Though not required elements of evaluation, teams may determine that the following information is needed on a case-by-case basis:

Developmental history

Teacher interviews

Assessment of intellectual ability

Medical statement

2. Does the student have very low skills?

Teams need to consider data from multiple sources, including CBM, DIBELS, Statewide Assessments, published achievement tests, and work samples. Viewing the student’s skill development within the context of age level expectations is key – are these skills very low in comparison to other students this age? Reporting results in standard scores, percentiles, and RIT scores (statewide assessments) provide an important context for interpretation.

3. Does the student fail to learn at a sufficient rate in response to intensive, research-based instruction?

Careful consideration of the child’s progress over time, relative to expected progress, is required. The team reviews the intensity and duration of instruction in relationship to the skills gained. It is helpful to find a way to assign “weight” to both


the intervention and the progress, perhaps visualizing each as rocks on a scale. Consider these examples:

Example A: A fourth grade student receives 10 minutes per day of math fact fluency instruction that is in addition to the core math program. Mixed fact fluency grows from 28 to 39 correct digits per minute during a three week period. The grade level target is 53 words per minute, and the student’s progress is clearly following the aim line to hit the target. This intervention, relatively “light”, could be pictured as a small rock on one side of a scale. The progress, fairly “heavy”, could be pictured as a medium rock on the other side of the scale. In this case, the student is responding well to the instruction, with progress deemed to “outweigh” the intervention.

Example B: A first grade student receives 45 minutes per day of decoding and fluency instruction that is in addition to the core reading program. Oral Reading Fluency grows from 6 to 10 words per minute in an 8 week period, while other children in the intervention group, who had similar skill levels at the start of intervention, have gained an average of 22 words per minute during this same time. It is clear that this child is not on track to hit the expected level of performance by the end of first grade. In this case, the intervention is judged to be quite “heavy” and can be visualized as a large rock on the scale. The child’s progress, in contrast, is “light”, best visualized as a small pebble on the opposite side of the scale. This student’s rate of progress is insufficient given the intervention weight. Example C: A second grade student receives 20 minutes per day of guided practice in writing process framework in addition to the core writing program. Total words written grows from 4 to 12 words per minute in an 8 week period, while other children in the intervention group have gained an average of 18 total words written per minute during this same time. This child is not on track to hit the expected 27 total words written by the end of second grade, and this is the child’s third writing intervention this school year. This student’s intervention is judged to be heavy and can be visualized as a large rock on the scale. The child’s progress is minimal, or visualized as a small rock on the opposite side of the scale. This student’s rate of progress is insufficient given the intervention weight.

Keep in mind that the answers to questions 2 and 3 must both be “yes” in order to determine that a student has a learning disability. Students with learning disabilities are those who, despite evidence-based intervention too intense to be considered general education, demonstrate very low skills and rates of progress. The percentile used as a guideline for “how low” will vary depending on local norms, but will likely fall below the 30th percentile. While this may seem like a relatively high upper limit given historical approaches that require a student to be at least below the 16 th percentile, it is important to bear in mind that students that would qualify as LD with this level of performance would also have to present with a slow rate of progress despite intensive interventions. Assuming that a slow rate of progress is below that of typical peers, this student will continue to struggle while falling farther behind,


even though they are receiving intensive intervention. Also bear in mind that a primary goal of all education, and especially Special Education, is to catch students before they fall irreparably far behind, and to maintain their skills in a functional range. This is why the concept of a “weighty” intervention contrasted with a “light” response is so important. Additionally, in cases of students receiving intensive intervention and achievement above this “very low” range, teams may document that without continued intervention the student’s achievement will fall below the targeted percentile.

4. Do we have conflicting data and, if so, how do we make sense of it?

Generally teams find a convergence of data indicating whether or not a student has a learning disability. Occasionally, there will be a lack of convergence. For example, some data sources may reflect very low skills and others indicate better achievement. In these cases, the team must decide which sources are most compelling in answering the eligibility team’s questions. This process involves consideration of the demands of each assessment, including content, speed, and fluency. For example, a child may score better on an untimed test of decoding skills in which self-corrections are counted as correct (such as many published achievement tests), than on a timed test of decoding skills (such as Nonsense Word Fluency in DIBELS). In this case, a team may decide that the timed assessment is a better indication of the child’s reading development because automaticity reflects higher level skills. In general, lower scores may better represent a student’s skills if the assessment is more comprehensive or involves more complex demands than the other test used.

5. Are there other explanations for the student’s low skills and lack of progress?

IDEA 2004 carries forward “exclusionary factors” to be considered in eligibility determinations. That is, has the team considered competing explanations for the student’s lack of achievement? Best practice dictates that these issues be explored early in the intervention process. Specific factors to consider include:

A lack of appropriate instruction in reading and math: Are high levels of mobility and/or absenteeism the underlying cause of the student’s low skills? Has the student been enrolled in classrooms or schools in which research-based curricula weren’t used or quality of instruction is in doubt? Awkward as these issues may be for teams to discuss openly, they must be addressed and documented.

The existence of a sensory problem or another disability : What are the results of current vision and hearing screenings, and is there a history of problems in either area? Are there suspicions of other disabilities and, if so, has the team documented consideration of each? In some cases, teams must carefully sort and analyze information in order to rule out behavioral or health issues or mental retardation as the source of difficulty.


Limited English Proficiency : When a learning disability is suspected in a student for whom English is a second language, it is imperative that the team include an ELL staff member familiar with the child. In addition to the required components of a learning disabilities evaluation, the team should develop a language profile for this child that includes:

o Current levels of oral, reading, and writing proficiency in both the primary language and English

o The number of years the student has lived in the U.S.

o The student’s educational history in the country of origin

o Literacy development of other children in the family

o The primary language in the home

o The parents’ literacy profile

Deliberations of the team will center on this child’s academic achievement in comparison to other ELL students with similar language profiles. In the judgment of the team, does the student’s ELL status fully explain the low skills?

Environmental or Economic Disadvantage: It is important for the team to thoroughly explore family stressors that may be impacting academic achievement. Factors to consider include frequent moves, homelessness, divorce, unemployment, and extended illnesses or death in the family. Additionally, document whether the child has had access to enriching experiences such as opportunity for conversation with adults, pre-school, and books in the home.

The final determination of eligibility will come out of this guided conversation. Team members will recognize students who, despite intensive and systematic instruction, fail to gain basic skills at a satisfactory rate. Some find this process intimidating at first, as it requires conclusion based on professional judgment. Keep in mind, however, that these judgments are based on expertise coupled with hard data obtained through evidence-based practices. Made with the benefit of a team approach, these are decisions that make sense in light of current research, educational need, and practice.

Written Report

IDEA 2004 requires that teams produce a written report to document the eligibility determination process under an RTI approach. Much more than merely reporting scores on tests, this report serves to document the thinking that lead to the eligibility decision. Districts are encouraged to adopt a standard template for LD Eligibility Reports and require its use in all cases. In training staff to adopt a uniform approach to LD Eligibility Reports, it is helpful to provide a checklist similar to the one in Figure 17


for staff to use in evaluating reports they produce. Key components of the report template and checklist should be the same.

Figure 17: Learning Disabilities Eligibility Report Checklist

The following elements are required for each section of initial LD Eligibility Reports. If information is missing, or questions are unanswered, the team is not ready to make an eligibility determination.

Name: School:Birthdate: Grade:Evaluator:Section 1: Background Information Source(s) Reason for the referral (state areas of

concern and disability/disabilities suspected)

Previous testing History in special programs (special

education, Title I, ELL) Parent concerns and perspective,

including background of disabilities, especially in areas related to current difficulties

Cumulative file Individual Problem Solving Worksheet Report cards Developmental history

Section 2: Students who qualify for special education as having learning disabilities have very low skills.

Source(s)

Review of existing information including teacher collected work samples

List Oregon Assessment of Knowledge & Skills (OAKS) scores, both current and historical

List all DIBELS subtest scores (both current and historical)o Insert DIBELS or IDEL tables (at end

of checklist)o Summarize actual growth to expected

growth and student scores to average scores

List individual achievement test results in standard scores by subtesto Include standard scores for tests

given in the pasto For any subtests with SS below 90,

describe the specific skill deficits that contribute to the low score

o List classroom assessment scores and curriculum based measures (includes pre- and post-tests, math

Required in area of concern (K-3) Reading DIBELS Phonics Inventory WIAT-II: Listening Comprehension Math CBMs WIAT-II: Numerical Operations &

Mathematics ReasoningWriting Writing and/or Spelling CBM WIAT-II: Written Expression or TOWL-III

Optional in area of concern (K-3)Reading WIAT-II: Pseudoword Decoding, Word

Reading, Reading ComprehensionWriting WIAT-II: Spelling

Required in area of concern (4-5)Reading


and writing CBM) Analyze historical data. - Have scores always been low?

o If not, a learning disability is unlikely. - Are scores relatively low?

o Has the student had intensive assistance to maintain skills at that level?

- Are the state/district assessments and individual achievement tests consistent?o If not, get one more piece of

information about the skills in question.

o Confirm results with reports from teachers, which must be consistent.

If inconsistent results are reported, decide which is valid and justify the decision.o Consider the demands of each

assessment (content, speed, fluency)o Lower scores may be considered

valid if they reflect performance on a test that is more comprehensive or involves more complex demands than other assessments used.

Finish with a summary statement about the student’s low skills.o Describe the student’s academic

weaknesses.o Note if the significant skill deficits

combine with strengths to form a pattern of achievement that has been demonstrated to be associated with an LD subgroup. Strengths should be informally assessed by reviewing report cards and work samples. If gathered information is inconclusive, conduct curriculum based measures in potential areas of strength.

1) Reading Disability: Word Recognitiono Weaknesses: phonological

processing, spellingo Strengths: math computation,

spatial and motor skills2) Reading Disability: Fluency

o Weaknesses: fluencyo Strengths: word recognition

3) Reading Disability: Comprehensiono Weaknesses: vocabulary,

receptive language, working

DIBELS WIAT-II: Reading Comprehension

Math CBM WIAT-II: Numerical Operations &

Mathematics ReasoningWriting

Writing and/or Spelling CBM WIAT-II: Written Expression or

TOWL-III Two scored writing samples using

Oregon rubric

Optional in area of concern (4-5)Reading

WIAT-II: Listening Comprehension Writing

WIAT-II: Spelling

Required in area of concern (6-12)Reading

CBM WIAT-II: Pseudoword Decoding,

Word Reading, Reading Comprehension

Math CBM WIAT-II: Numerical Operations &

Mathematics ReasoningWriting

Writing and/or Spelling CBM WIAT-II: Written Expression or

TOWL-III Two scored writing samples using

Oregon rubric

Optional in area of concern (6-12)Writing

WIAT-II: Spelling

Cumulative file Individual Problem Solving Worksheet Report cards Work samples Teacher reports Cumulative file Individual Problem Solving Worksheet Report cards State/District Assessment Results Individual Achievement Test Results Work samples


memory, attentiono Strengths: phonological

processing4) Math Disability

o Weaknesses: math computation, attention, working memory, motor and spatial skills

o Strengths: word recognition, spelling, vocabulary

5) Written Expression Disabilityo Weaknesses: handwriting,

spelling, compositiono Strengths: math computation

Teacher reports

Section 3: Students with learning disabilities have academic skill deficits that are resistant to well-planned and implemented research based interventions that were designed to increase the child’s rate of learning.

Source(s)

State the student’s baseline skill level (a number), and how that relates to the general population.

State the selected interventions and the basis upon which they were chosen. Include:o Specific curriculum/method usedo How much time per dayo Length of interventiono Group sizeo Level and type of reinforcement usedo If needed, additional behavior

interventions Describe the student’s response to the

intervention (progress monitoring data, including the measure and frequency).o How does this relate to the general

population?o How does this relate to progress of

intervention cohort? Does this progress support a picture of a

skill deficit that is resistant to instruction?

Progress monitoring data Student Intervention Profile Information from interventionist

Section 4: The student’s academic performance and behavior were observed in a regular classroom setting.

Source(s)

Observation must occur in area of concern

Note relevant behavior and its relationship to academic functioning

Observation data


Section 5: The student has been provided the opportunity to learn the skills.

Source(s)

Document the level of instructional stability throughout the student’s educational experienceo Mobility (# of schools attended)o Attendance (over the years)o Reason(s) for excessive absenceso Cumulative effect of absences

(“Missed 20 days per year for 4 years, equating to one semester missed”)

Describe key characteristics of the core instruction the student has received in area of concerno Research based? Mention specific

curricula, if known.o Has the student received instruction

in phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, comprehension and vocabulary?

o Amount/intensity?o Training of instructor (certified? IA?)o Size of group

Cumulative file Individual Problem Solving Worksheet Student Intervention Profile Developmental history Report cards Teacher interviews

Section 6: The student does not have another disability or sensory problem.

Source(s)

Report results of current vision and hearing screenings.

Report historical difficulties with vision and hearing as reported by parent (infections, tubes, surgeries)

Have there ever been suspicions of other disabilities? Consider:o Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity

Disordero Autism Spectrum Disordero Other Health Impairmento Communicationo Emotional Disturbanceo Mental Retardation

Report results of evaluations done regarding any areas of concern raised at the time of referral or during the evaluation. This is the place to explain, if you decided not to assess those areas, why you didn’t.

This is the section to report results of functional behavior assessments,

Cumulative file Individual Problem Solving Worksheet Developmental History Report cards Teacher interviews Assessment results Minutes of Evaluation Planning Medical Statement


Conners scales, language assessments, etc.

If an IQ test was given, this is the place to note statistically unusual performance.

Section 7: The student’s problem is not the result of cultural factors or environmental or economic disadvantage.

Source(s)

Describe the student’s school history starting with preschool.

Describe pertinent information about family literacy levels.

Describe pertinent information about the family’s social history that could account for stressors, such as:o Frequent moveso Homelessnesso Divorceo Unemploymento Extended illnesses or deaths in the

family

Cumulative file Individual Problem Solving Worksheet Developmental History

Section 8: The student’s problem is not the result of limited English proficiency.

Source(s)

Identify the student’s primary and secondary languages.

Report current levels of:o Primary Language Oral Proficiencyo Primary Language Writing Proficiencyo Primary Language Reading

Proficiencyo English Oral Proficiencyo English Writing Proficiencyo English Reading Proficiencyo Acculturation Screening Results

How many years has the student lived in the US?

And What is the home language? And What is the parents’ literacy proficiency? And What is a typical academic profile for a

student with this language and family history?

Cumulative file Individual Problem Solving Worksheet Parent Interview LAS scores Acculturation Screening

Section 9: Is there sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that this student is eligible for special education as a student with a learning disability?

Sources(s)


This is the place that the “basis for determination” is stated clearly.o Does the student have low skills?o Has the student made slow progress

despite intensive intervention?o Have all exclusionary factors been

ruled out?o Note if the significant skill deficits

combine with strengths to form a pattern of achievement that has been demonstrated to be associated with an LD subgroup.

Every component of the report in sections 1-8.

Discussion of the team.

Secondary Students

Just as elementary students benefit from a multi-tiered instructional system, so do secondary students. Many Oregon schools are instituting secondary literacy programs designed to intervene with all students who do not read at grade level. Well designed programs include many of the requirements of a RTI model: research based interventions, universal screening, progress monitoring, and decision rules. RTI at the secondary level is similar to elementary with more emphasis on problem solving.

When considering a RTI model at a secondary level, it is important to remember that initial identification almost always occurs at early primary grade levels. However, sometimes there are other variables (i.e. second language acquisition or disrupted schooling) that can interfere with early identification and result in a small number of students being identified as having a learning disability at the secondary level. Moving a secondary student through this type of system at a secondary level is relatively new and the majority of the RTI research is on elementary age students. The following is an example of how a secondary student could move through this system:


Figure 18: Example of a Secondary Student’s Movement through the RTI Process

Donald participates in thegeneral curriculum

Effective Support Teamreviews achievement and behavioral

data (school wide) and places Donald in group intervention*Donald isn’t

doing well

Donaldimproves

Donaldimproves

Effective Support Team conducts

Individual Problem Solving

Resumesgeneralprogram

Donalddoesn’timprove

Donalddoesn’timprove

Special Education referral is initiated

Donald probably recycles

Donald may recycle

Intervention is intense and LD

is suspected

Improvement is good and other

factors are suspected as

cause

Evaluation planning meeting, Procedural safeguards provided,

consent obtained,60 school day timeline starts

* Note: In some cases students may move directly from an Effective Support Team school wide review meeting to an individual problem solving meeting. For example, a file review of a student new to the district or the benchmark data for a given student may indicate that Individual Problem Solving is warranted without a group intervention occurring first.

Secondary students are often complex and a thorough problem solving process is an imperative part of the process. Distinguishing between other competing explanations of academic failure and a learning disability becomes increasingly difficult as the student gets older. The problem solving process includes a complete review of the student’s history: achievement on state assessments, other district assessments, attendance, mobility, special program participation (ELL, Title I) and previous education. Upon completion of this review teams will most likely determine that a student needs more than one intervention. For example, secondary students who struggle academically are likely to display avoidance type behaviors (off-task, class clown, lack of homework completion). In this situation, a team would need to intervene in both behavior and reading to determine an accurate response to intervention. In the case of an English Language Learner who is struggling in reading, a team would have to ensure that the student not only receives appropriate reading interventions, but also that her language acquisition needs were being met. A thorough record review is an important part of intervention planning and later considering referral and eligibility. The team must consider when the student’s problems likely developed, and if these problems correlate with other events such as illness, parent divorce, or other life stressors. The individual


problem solving worksheet (Figure 19) is a useful tool in identifying the emergence of academic difficulties and potential explanations for these difficulties.


Figure 19. Individual Problem Solving Worksheet

INDIVIDUAL PROBLEM SOLVING WORKSHEETFile Review and Problem Identification

Date: School: Grade: Teacher: Current Services:Student Name: Team Members:

ATTENDANCE REVIEW(based on an average of 171 school days per year)

Grade K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12School Year

School AttendedDays Total 171 342 513 684 855 1026 1197 1368 1539 1710 1881 2052 2223 Student

Attendance per Year

Total for all Years

Grand Total of Days of School Attended:______ Divide by 171:______. Years + Months of Actual Attendance:______

Review of report cards, progress reports, and teacher remarks by grade level significant for:Reading achievement:

Math achievement:

Behavior (including attending skills):

Language skills:

Other:


INDIVIDUAL PROBLEM SOLVING WORKSHEET (continued)

STUDENT:_______________________ DATE: _________ACHIEVEMENT REVIEW – READING

Grade K 1 2 3 4BENCHMARKS PSF: 35 NWF: 25

NWF: 50 (Winter)ORF: 40-60 ORF: 90

ORF: 110OAKS: 204

ORF: 118 OAKS: 211

EXPECTED GAINS N/A

ORF: 1.9 Words per Week



ORF: .9 Words per Week OAKS: 7 points

STUDENT SCORE PSF: NWF: ORF: ORF: ORF:

OAKS: ORF: OAKS:

SIGNIFICANCE

Grade 5 6 7 8 10BENCHMARKS

ORF: 124OAKS: 218

ORF: 125OAKS: 222 OAKS: 227 OAKS: 231 OAKS: 236

EXPECTED GAINS

ORF: .9 Words per Week OAKS: 7 points

ORF: .7 Words per Week OAKS: 5 points OAKS: 6 points OAKS: 5 points OAKS: 8 points

STUDENT SCORE

ORF: OAKS:

ORF: OAKS: OAKS: OAKS: OAKS:

SIGNIFICANCE


Other information: Summary of teacher concerns, referral questions, etc.



STUDENT:_______________________ DATE: _________ACHIEVEMENT REVIEW - MATH MULTIPLE CHOICE

Grade 3 4 5 6 7 8 10

BENCHMARKS OAKS: 205 OAKS: 212 OAKS: 218 OAKS: 221 OAKS: 226 OAKS: 230 OAKS: 236

EXPECTED GAINS N/A OAKS: 6 points OAKS: 7 points OAKS: 5 points OAKS: 6 points OAKS: 5 points OAKS: 8

pointsSTUDENT SCORE OAKS: OAKS: OAKS: OAKS: OAKS: OAKS: OAKS:

SIGNIFICANCE

Other information: Summary of teacher concerns, referral questions, etc.

ACHIEVEMENT REVIEW - WRITINGGrade 4 Grade 7 Grade 10

COMPOSITEBENCHMARK

32 to 39 (28 to 31 may conditionally meet. The district may declare the student met if all work sample requirements are met)

Minimum of 3 in each trait.


Minimum of 3 in each trait.


Minimum of 3 in each trait.STUDENTSCORE(Note areas of


concern by traits)



STUDENT:_______________________ DATE: _________HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT

Summarizing evidence above, address questions below:1. Does evidence support that the student’s problems may be primarily due to problems with attention, motivation, or other behavioral difficulty?

2. Does evidence support that the student’s problems may be primarily due to attendance problems, or frequent school interruptions? If so, indicate reasons for absences and interruptions.

3. Does evidence support that the student’s problems may be primarily due to other concerns like trauma, family concerns, or other disabilities? Describe. Be sure to note when these issues occurred and their correlations with any academic concerns.

4. Does evidence suggest the student may have a learning disability? Indicate next steps.


Reevaluations

Special education is supposed to work. Students who receive intensive, well planned instruction should be responding and achieving at or close to grade-level standards. Often students who benefit from a RTI model score in the average range on standardized achievement tests or score at benchmark on state assessments. When considering continued eligibility, teams must consider the intensity of intervention that the child receives to sustain his or her progress. Research tells us that students with learning disabilities require ongoing, explicit instruction in both foundational skills and strategy instruction (See Gresham, 2002). As the curriculum becomes more demanding and complex, students with learning disabilities need to learn strategies to access the general education curriculum (Schumaker & Deshler, 2005). IEP teams need to decide if the student would continue to achieve at an adequate rate without specially designed instruction.

Students who were previously made eligible under a discrepancy model may or may not continue to be eligible using RTI. Sometimes students who access a quality intervention for the first time will respond quickly. In that case, a team may decide they are not resistant to instruction and the low skills were a result of other variables (i.e. behavior, mobility, lack of quality instruction, or English language acquisition). Other times, students remain eligible because the intervention is individualized and there are no competing explanations for the student’s low skills and slow progress. In this case, the team determines that the student is resistant to instruction and continues to meet LD eligibility criteria. Districts need to have procedures in place, especially at the secondary level, to evaluate students who move into the district previously made eligible under the discrepancy model.

SECTION THREE

PERSPECTIVES ON EVALUATION MODELS

How do you know if a student has a learning disability? This question has intrigued and plagued educators, psychologists, and families for more than a quarter of a century. Numerous definitions have been promoted, with most of them having at their core the notions of specific and discrete processing difficulties that in turn cause unexpected underachievement. Educators, clinicians, and lawmakers have struggled, however, with finding a valid and reliable method of setting criteria that differentiate children with LD from other children who are low achieving. Following is a summary of some of the issues pertinent to the decision to include a new approach to LD evaluation in IDEA 2004.

Changes in LD evaluation: Guiding Questions

1. What has the law required for LD eligibility?

Although various definitions for LD have been promoted since the 1970’s, the codified definition of LD has remained essentially unchanged since 1977, when P.L. 94-142 was implemented.

The term “specific learning disability” means a disorder in one or more of the psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, which may manifest itself in an imperfect ability to listen, speak, read, write, spell, or to do mathematical calculations. The term includes such conditions as perceptual handicaps, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia and developmental aphasia. The term does not include children who have learning disabilities which are primarily the result of visual, hearing, or motor handicaps, or mental retardation, or emotional disturbance, or of environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage. (USOE, 1977, p. 65083)

This definition has persisted, with minor organization and wording changes, through subsequent authorizations of IDEA. It is in the implementation of the definition through establishing eligibility criteria in federal regulations that the construct of discrepancy has been used:

(a) A team may determine that a child has a specific learning disability if:(1) The child does not achieve commensurate with his or her age and ability

levels in one or more of the areas listed in paragraph (a) (2) of this section, when provided with learning experiences appropriate for the child’s age and ability levels; and

(2) The team finds that the child has a severe discrepancy between achievement and intellectual ability in one or more of the following areas:(i) Oral expression;(ii) Listening comprehension;(iii) Written expression;(iv) Basic reading skill;(v) Reading comprehension;(vi) Mathematics calculation; or(vii) Mathematics reasoning


(USOE, 1977, p 65083)

Neither the Federal definition nor the criteria provide guidance on implementing the important exclusionary factors. Further, it is left to states to determine how to measure the severe discrepancy. The methods utilized by states include variations of simple discrepancy formulas in which IQ and achievement standard scores are compared, regression formulas which remedy measurement problems that exist due to correlations between IQ and achievement, differences in standard scores on academic achievement measures, percentage discrepancy, and professional judgment. Fourteen states, including Oregon, have left the method of determining severe discrepancy to individual school districts (Reschly et al., 2003).

Oregon’s implementation of LD identification is located in administrative rules that describe evaluation procedures and criteria. Like all disability categories in Oregon, the regulations set out a definition which is consistent with federal law, a set of required evaluation activities and tools, and criteria that must be met if a team is to find a student eligible. Oregon’s criteria state that an eligibility team must determine that:

3) To be eligible as a child with a specific learning disability, the child must meet the following minimum criteria:

(a) The child does not achieve adequately for the child's age or to meet Oregon 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 Oregon grade-level standards:

(A) Basic reading skills:

(B) Reading fluency skills;

(C) Reading comprehension;

(D) Mathematics calculation;

(E) Mathematics problem-solving;

(F) Written Expression;

(G) Oral expression; or

(H) Listening comprehension.

(b) For a student evaluated using a response to intervention model, in relation to one or more of the areas in subsection (3)(a), the student does not make sufficient progress to meet age or Oregon grade-level standards based on the student's response to scientific, research-based intervention.

(c) For a student evaluated using a model that is based on the student's strengths and weaknesses, in relation to one or more of the areas in subsection (3)(a), the


student exhibits a pattern of strengths and weaknesses in classroom performance, academic achievement, or both, relative to age, Oregon grade-level standards, or intellectual development, that is determined by the group to be relevant to the identification of a specific learning disability.

(d) The child's rate of progress in subsection (3)(b) or pattern of strengths and weaknesses in subsection (3)(c) is not primarily the result of:

(A) A visual, hearing, or motor impairment; mental retardation or emotional disturbance;

(B) Cultural factors;

(C) Environmental or economic disadvantage; or

(D) Limited English proficiency.

(4) For a child to be eligible for special education services as a child with a specific learning disability, the eligibility team must also determine that:

(a) The child's disability has an adverse impact on the child's educational performance; and

(b) The child needs special education services as a result of the disability.

As in all other categories, the team must also determine that the disability has an adverse impact on the child’s educational performance (K-12) or the child’s developmental progress (age 3 to school age).

2. What events led to changes in LD identification in IDEA 2004?

Through decades of educational practice, it became generally accepted that a “severe discrepancy” was a learning disability, or a proxy for a learning disability, and its underlying processing disorders. It is now widely acknowledged that there is not a scientific basis for the use of a measured IQ achievement discrepancy as either a defining characteristic of or a marker for LD. Though numerous authorities (Fletcher et al., 1998; Lyon et al., 2001; Stanovich, 2005) have identified problems with discrepancy models, it has persisted as the most widely used diagnostic concept. In the 1997 reauthorization process, the concern with discrepancy approaches reached a head and the U.S. Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) committed to a vigorous program of examining and summarizing evidence around LD identification. That effort resulted in the Learning Disabilities Summit (referred to in the introduction to this document), as well as subsequent roundtable meetings involving representatives of major professional organizations. While preparing for the 2004 IDEA reauthorization, OSEP conducted the 2002 Learning Disabilities Roundtable to generate a series of consensus statements about the field of learning disabilities. With respect to the use of discrepancy formulas, the members stated:


Roundtable participants agree there is no evidence that ability-achievement discrepancy formulas can be applied in a consistent and educationally meaningful (i.e., reliable and valid) manner. They believe SLD eligibility should not be operationalized using ability-achievement discrepancy formulas (pg. 8).

Other points of consensus from the Roundtable include:

Identification should include a student-centered, comprehensive evaluation and problem-solving approach that ensures students who have a specific learning disability are efficiently identified (pg. 6).

Decisions on eligibility must be made through an interdisciplinary team, using informed clinical judgment, directed by relevant data, and based on student needs and strengths (pg. 29).

3. What are major issues related to the use of the concept of discrepancy? Why change?

Issue #1: Discrepancy models fail to differentiate between children who have LD and those who have academic achievement problems related to poor instruction, lack of experience, or other problems. It is generally agreed that the model of achievement-ability discrepancy that has been employed was influenced by research conducted by Rutter and Yule (1975) (Reschly, et al., 2003). This research found two groups of low achieving readers, one with discrepancies and one without. It was this finding that formed the basis for the idea that a discrepancy was meaningful for both classification and treatment purposes. Later analyses of this research, and attempts to replicate it, have failed to produce support for the “two group” model for either purpose. In fact, it is now accepted that reading occurs in a normal distribution and that students with dyslexia or severe reading problems represent the lower end of that distribution (Fletcher et al., 2002). For a thorough discussion of this important issue, see Fletcher et al., 1998.

Issue #2: Discrepancy models discriminate against certain groups of students: students outside of “mainstream” culture and students who are in the upper and lower ranges of IQ. Due to psychometric problems, discrepancy approaches tend to under-identify children at the lower end of the IQ range, and over-identify children at the upper end. This problem has been addressed by various formulas that correct for the regression to the mean that occurs when two correlated measures are used. However, using regression formulas does not address issues such as language and cultural bias in IQ tests, nor does it improve the classification function of a discrepancy model (Steubing, et al., 2002).

Issue #3: Discrepancy models do not effectively predict which students will benefit from or respond differentially to instruction. The research around this issue has examined both progress and absolute outcomes for children with and without discrepancy, and has not supported the notion the two groups will respond differentially to instruction (Stanovich, 2005). Poor readers with discrepancies and poor readers without discrepancies perform similarly on skills considered to be important to the development of reading skills (Gresham, 2002).


Issue #4: The use of discrepancy models requires children to fail for a substantial period of time—usually years—before they are far enough behind to exhibit a discrepancy. In order for children to exhibit a discrepancy, two tests need to be administered—an IQ test, such as the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, and an achievement test, such as a Woodcock Johnson Tests of Achievement. Because of limitations of achievement and IQ testing, discrepancies often do not “appear” until late second, third, or even fourth grade. Educators and parents have experienced the frustration of knowing a child’s skills are not adequate and not typical of the child’s overall functioning, and being told to “wait a year” to re-refer the child. While waiting for a discrepancy to appear, other persistent problems associated with school failure develop such as poor self concept, compromised motivation, vocabulary deficits, and deficits associated with limited access to written content. Considering all of the methodological problems associated with discrepancy formulas, this feature is the one that is most problematic for parents and practitioners—so problematic, that by the late 1990’s the discrepancy approach was referred to as the “wait and fail” approach by federal officials (Lyon, 2002).

4. If authorities believe underlying processing disorders are the cause of learning disabilities, why doesn’t IDEA 2004 include a model based on measuring processing problems?

It is a relatively common practice for LD assessment to include descriptions of “processing” or “patterns of cognitive ability.” Frequently, the conclusions that are made are based on a student’s performance on subtests of intelligence measures, memory tests, and language evaluations. While interesting results may sometimes be produced, drawing conclusions about the presence of a disability based on such results is not substantiated by research (Torgeson, 2002; Fletcher et al., 1998).

Assessment of processing deficits in order to diagnose LD has a history even longer than that of discrepancy approaches. Indeed, frustration with the reliability and validity of processing assessment contributed to the proposal to use the severe discrepancy in LD criteria (Hallahan & Mercer, 2002). The result was the inclusion of the concept of processing deficits in the federal definition of LD, but no criteria related to processing. There are clear advantages to this approach that make continued focus on processing variables attractive for both research and practice. Of particular importance is the concept that, if direct assessment of intrinsic processing was possible, so might be early and intensive preventative education that would avoid the associated pitfalls of school failure.

Research in processing measurement continues at the neurological, cognitive or psychological, and task oriented level. Various authors continue to examine variables such as rapid naming (Cardoso-Martins & Pennington, 2004), working memory (Swanson, 1999), and temporal processing (Tallal, et al 1996). Unfortunately, difficulties inherent in this research have limited its practical application. Torgeson (2002) summarizes these difficulties:

Any deficit in academic outcome or performance that fits the definition of a learning disability always involves a complex mixture of a processing weakness (or weaknesses) present at some point in development (perhaps not even concurrently present), an instructional context in which the processing weakness


operates, the child’ motivational and emotional reaction to the learning difficulties caused by the processing weakness, and the domain-specific knowledge acquired to support performance on the task (p. 589).

In other words, it is not possible to separate out all of the complicated factors that contribute to a child’s performance on tasks and make the assumption that an intrinsic cognitive process is being measured. While there may be promising research underway, a methodology for discrete diagnosis or classification based on processing differences is unavailable and certainly could not be included in LD criteria. At this time, it is probably appropriate to follow the advice of McGrady (2002) and continue a research program for assessment of intrinsic processes independent of school practice.

5. Are there other indicators of LD that are more valid and reliable?Generally, attempts to reliably define and measure psychological processing difficulties have yielded limited results that render them without practical application. However, related to this research, certain skills have been identified as robust predictors of academic performance. These skills may be characterized as “critical indicators” or “marker variables.” When embracing this approach, one accepts that the indicator may represent both constitutional and learned skills, and that the variable represents an important capability. Using this approach, researchers have identified measures of phonological awareness and early literacy knowledge such as letter sound relationships as powerful early predictors of later reading performance (Good & Kaminski, 2002). Similarly, fluent reading of connected text continues to be highly correlated with growth in both word reading and comprehension, and represents meaningful ways to screen and progress monitor in reading (L.S. Fuchs & D. Fuchs, 1998). Using this approach provides a method of screening to identify students with potentially persistent academic problems, and assessing them further.

Fortunately, these variables have been identified for the most prevalent of school identified learning disabilities, those in the area of reading. Similar measures for domains such as math reasoning, calculation, and written language have not been as thoroughly investigated. Research is, however, converging that suggests that deficits in these academic areas may serve as LD subgroup markers as well (See Fletcher, et al., 2007, for a discussion of these markers).

Regardless of whether deficits in these academic areas function independently as “true” markers for LD, these skills are critical for academic success and direct assessment of these skills has high instructional validity. Moreover, repeated measurement over time using discrete skill probes increases the size of data set and establishes longitudinal trends, increasing the reliability of the measures. At minimum, reliable and valid measures of a student’s learning over time in critical academic skill areas is a central and important piece of any LD evaluation. It is important to remember that the evaluation of a student’s response to intervention is one source of information to be used in the context of a comprehensive and individualized evaluation that includes multiple sources of information.

Use of these indicators is a key practice that underlies the Response to Intervention approach. Since they are valid measures of current performance and good


predictors of later performance, they can be used to prevent the most serious of problems with discrepancy models—the problem of waiting for children to fail before they receive help.

Response to Intervention Models

A number of models have been utilized to implement RTI. Various authors have labeled their approaches as being of a specific type—such as those described below—but in reality the approaches share similarities. For example, the “problem solving” model is used at certain points in the “tiered model.” Both the problem solving and the tiered models may involve direct teacher referral to teams that may result in a form of what has been thought of as pre referral intervention.

Problem Solving or Hypothesis Testing

Problem solving approaches typically involve a team of teachers who engage in a systematic process of problem identification, problem analysis, intervention implementation and evaluation of intervention effects. Problem solving approaches focus on assessment, intervention, and decision-making for an individual student, and attempt to maximize the match between an individual student’s instructional needs and the features and intensity of the intervention provided. Problem solving approaches are frequently combined with multi-tiered instruction approaches or pre-referral approaches (described below), but have also been used alone. One underlying assumption in problem solving is that the presence of a disability is the least likely and therefore least common explanation for failure.

In problem solving approaches, teams of teachers and other specialists will typically review a student’s history, current academic skills, and other instructional needs (e.g., existing behavior support plan, intensity of instruction indicated) in an attempt to identify issues other than disability that might explain the student’s failure. Team members also consider variables related to the curriculum, instruction, and classroom/school environment that may impact the student’s academic success. Other problems a teacher or team investigates could include interrupted school experiences caused by frequent moving or illness, lack of student “availability” for instruction due to trauma or behavioral challenges, inadequate previous instruction, or the presence of other disabilities.

Marston, Canter, Lau, & Muyskens (2002) describe the widespread use of the problem solving approach in the Minneapolis Public School system. This system uses problem solving within the context of “Intervention Assistance Teams.” In Minneapolis, general education teachers are trained to identify problems, design interventions, and determine whether their interventions are effective. If they are not, the Intervention Assessment Team assists in developing and providing other interventions. If those interventions fail, the student is referred to a “Student Support Team” for a special education evaluation. This system relies heavily on the capacity of its general and special education teachers to use curriculum based measurement (CBM) to track student progress and has well defined procedures for moving students through levels of intervention.

In order for a problem solving approach to meet the general IDEA 2004 evaluation requirements, meet RTI requirements, and overcome shortcomings associated with OrRTI Guidance, December 2007 70

more traditional assessment models, schools must adopt the following system components:

1. Use of data-based decision rules to prompt referral

2. Adopted standards for intervention design

3. Uniform progress monitoring procedures

4. Decision rules for judging effectiveness of interventions

The relative strengths and challenges inherent in a “pure” problem solving approach are summarized below:

Strengths

Intervention selection and design is based on the needs of an individual student, which maximizes the match between the student’s instructional needs and the features and intensity of intervention.

Problem solving approaches address the “exclusionary” requirements of LD evaluation.

Problem solving approaches provide a standard decision making protocol based on data

A problem solving approach fits easily into systems that many schools already have in place, such as teacher assistance teams.

Problem solving approaches may not require the adoption of extensive new assessment technology.

Educationally relevant information is gathered throughout the process.

Challenges

Problem solving models alone do not address problems like referral bias.

Problem solving models alone do not provide a system-wide approach to the prevention of learning difficulties through provision of effective general education instruction, early identification of at-risk students and intervention.

May be an inefficient use of resources, since problems are addressed one at a time, based on referrals.

Pre Referral Approaches

Pre referral models were conceived in the 1980’s as a method of addressing over-identification in special education through prevention of inappropriate referrals. Essentially, this model systematizes requirements that general education teachers modify instructional and classroom management approaches in order to better meet the needs of diverse learners. The assumption is that poor academic performance is often the reflection of students’ unmet instructional or curricular needs rather than an intrinsic disability. Through pre referral, teachers are guided to differentiate instruction in order to maximize the number of students who benefit from the general education program.


The most typical pre referral models have at their heart a teacher assistance team, known by a variety of names including care teams, student study teams, and student assistance teams. The team processes cases of students who are identified by their teachers as struggling. The team may design specific interventions or make suggestions to the teacher for possible interventions. If positive results are documented, no referral is made to special education. If, however, a lack of improvement is noted, the student is referred for a special education evaluation.

Major shortcomings of the pre referral model for use in RTI include referral bias and negative perceptions of the process among classroom teachers. Factors such as teachers’ years of training and experience and the socioeconomic status of students have been shown to influence which students are identified as struggling (Drame, 2002). Referrals may be based as much on how overwhelmed teachers are feeling at any given moment as on a student’s level of skill development or performance. Additionally, the pre referral process can be viewed as a series of hoops through which a teacher must jump before being “allowed” to make a special education referral rather than as a meaningful avenue for addressing students’ needs (Slonski-Fowler & Truscott, 2004).

Perhaps the most significant drawback of a pre referral model is that the teacher must deal with each struggling student individually. Given that up to 20% of students are likely to have significant difficulty learning to read (Shaywitz, 2004), this approach makes it difficult to provide meaningful resources to all students. While it is likely that students with the most apparent and immediate needs will be referred for interventions, intervening with students one by one forces teachers into educational triage. Meanwhile, students with marginal problems will continue to struggle and perhaps fall further behind (Gerber & Semmel, 1984; Gresham, MacMillan & Bocian, 1997).

Pre referral models may be more or less prescriptive with respect to decision rules for identifying students, intervention design, and progress monitoring. Many of the model’s weaknesses can be addressed by adopting standard practices that are designed and monitored by the teacher assistance team. Adopting procedures to ensure uniformity in decision making is critical to utilization of a pre referral model for RTI. Without specific system components, a pre referral system will not meet the general IDEA 2004 evaluation requirements or the RTI requirements, and will fail to remedy the shortcomings of traditional assessment paradigms. Specifically, the following would be required:

1. Use of data-based decision rules to prompt referral

2. Adopted standards for intervention design

3. Uniform progress monitoring procedures

4. Decision rules for judging the effectiveness of interventions

Pre referral strengths and challenges include:

Strengths

Many school districts currently have pre referral systems in place.

Pre referral utilizes a team approach to identifying students.


Pre referral provides for systematic response to students’ difficulties before evaluation.

Pre referral has the potential to build capacity for individual teachers to differentiate instruction for struggling learners.

It may be combined with typical components of other models, such as problem solving approaches.


Challenges

Pre referral does not inherently address the problem of referral bias, as it depends on idiosyncratic responses of teachers to academic difficulty.

Traditionally, pre referral models do not use a prescribed intervention protocol or standard protocol for decision-making.

The reporting of effects of intervention is often anecdotal and lacks standard format for data presentation.

Students are dealt with “one at a time,” which may delay intervention to students with less severe deficits.

Multi-tiered Instruction

The three-tiered model is based on literature in the area of public health (Caplan & Grunebaum, 1967) and Positive Behavior Support (Walker et al., 1996). Using the public health analogy, systematic practices for healthy individuals (strong and normally developing readers) and those at risk of developing health conditions (students showing early signs of struggling) will prevent severe problems from developing and will also allow for identification of individuals with the potential to develop severe problems.

The underlying assumption of this prevention oriented approach is that approximately 80% of students will benefit from implementation of a research-based core curriculum program that is being delivered with a high degree of fidelity. This level of “intervention” is referred to as “primary” or “Tier I.” An estimated 15% of students will need additional intervention support beyond the core curriculum (“secondary” or “Tier II”) , and about 5% who have not responded to primary and secondary efforts may require more intensive individualized support ( “Tertiary” or “Tier III” level).

This approach requires the use of a universal screening program. The three-tiered model has been implemented successfully in Oregon as the Effective Behavior and Instructional Support system (Sadler, 2002). In this model, teams of teachers examine a standard set of data that is gathered on a periodic schedule. Students are sorted into groups that are provided with increasingly intensive interventions depending on their achievement and response to intervention. Movement through the tiers is a dynamic process, with students entering and exiting according to their progress data.

In this model, it is assumed that students who do not respond to the most intensive intervention are likely to have a learning disability. Frequently, the tiered approach is combined with more traditional assessment models or with problem solving procedures before a student is determined to have a disability. This approach requires “blurring” of OrRTI Guidance, December 2007 73

the lines between general and special education, as well as close cooperation or merging of compensatory education services and services for English language learners.

Relative strengths and challenges of the tiered model include:

Strengths

All struggling students are identified. Prevention and early identification are possible.

Students may be “sorted” into levels of severity and interventions may be tailored to each group.

Decision making is based on standardized progress monitoring information.

Intervention decisions can be standardized.

Results in an efficient use of resources, due to a systems approach that promotes effective instruction for all students across all levels of the system.

It may be combined with typical components of other models, such as problem solving approaches.


Challenges

Resources must be committed for universal screening.

It may require skill grouping across classes during intervention sessions to ensure sufficient intensity.

Ensuring that every child at risk is identified and provided intervention requires establishment of broad groupings, which may result in allocation of resources on children who are not actually in need.

The most suitable and efficient screening and progress monitoring tools are available in reading. Additional tools are available in writing, spelling and math, although some of these tools are more resource-intensive.

Summary

Reliable, valid classification of LDs has been one of the more difficult and elusive diagnostic challenges of this past century. Progress towards meeting this challenge appears to have been slowed by the widespread acceptance and regulatory validation of the ability-achievement discrepancy model which has had an enormous impact on not only the manner in which LDs are identified, but in the very definition of LD itself. As discussed above, recent legal changes, advances in research, and shifts in educational practice have moved the field past this impasse and allowed for progress towards a consensus in the field regarding the evaluation and identification of learning disabilities.

Fletcher, et al. (2007) describe a hybrid model of evaluation and identification of LD that may well represent the direction of the field. They identify three components of an evaluation process that are essential for accurate identification of students with LDs. The first step is the student’s response, or lack of response, to a sequence of increasingly intense and specific instructional interventions. Second, if the student’s OrRTI Guidance, December 2007 74

difficulties persist despite these interventions, then norm-referenced tests, particularly in the achievement domain, are indicated to better understand the nature of the student’s difficulties, ensure that all areas of academic functioning have been examined, and assist with individualized intervention planning. Finally, if these assessments suggest the presence of LD, then a comprehensive evaluation is conducted to address exclusionary criteria and rule out competing explanations as necessary. Fletcher and his colleagues stress that this final evaluation component need not be a lengthy, standardized battery, but should be brief and limited to relevant areas of concern.

While RTI is only one part of the evaluation and identification process, it plays a central and unifying role in these efforts by requiring an articulated set of educational services for all children. These services include: 1.) universal assessment and ongoing progress monitoring; 2) multi-tiered, scientifically supported instructional practices for all students; and 3) Active team collaboration and problem solving, and effective data-based decision making. RTI, when implemented effectively, leads to significant improvements in educational practices and outcomes for all students.


REFERENCES

Bianco, R., Navarrete, M., Rinaldi, L., Samson, C., Watson, S. M. (2007). Addressing the Educational Needs of Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Learners With and Without LD. Council for Learning Disabilities Infosheet.

Caplan, G., & Grunebaum, H. (1967). Perspectives on primary prevention. A review. Archives of General Psychiatry, 17, 331-346.

Cardoso-Martins, C., & Pennington, B. F. (2004). The relationship between phonemic awareness and rapid serial naming skills and literacy acquisition: The role of developmental period and reading ability. Scientific Studies of Reading, 8(1), 27-52.

Collier, C. (2004). Separating difference from disability. 3rd ed. Ferndale, WA.: Cross Cultural Developmental Education Services.

Collier, V. (1995). Promoting academic success for ESL students: Understanding second language acquisition for school. New Jersey Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages-Bilingual Education.

Cummins, J. (1984) Bilingualism and special education: Issues in assessment and pedagogy. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.

Cummins, J. (1986). Empowering minority students: A framework for intervention. Harvard Educational Review, 56, 18-36.

Drame, E. R. (2002). Sociocultural context effects on teacher’s readiness to refer for learning disabilities. Council for Exceptional Children, 69(1), 41-53.

Flanagan, D., Ortiz, S. Alfonso, V. & Mascolo, J. (2006). The achievement test desk reference: A guide to learning disability identification. 2nd (Ed.). New York: Allyn & Bacon.

Fletcher, J. M., Francis, D. J., Shaywitz, S. E., Lyon, G. R., Foorman, B. R., Steubing, K. K., & Shaywitz, B. A. (1998). Intelligent testing and the discrepancy model for children with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 13(4), 186-203.

Fletcher, J. M., Lyon, G. R., Barnes, M., Steubing, K. K. Francis, D. J., Olson, R. K., Shaywitz, S. E., & Shaywitz, B. A. (2002). Classification of learning disabilities: An evidence-based evaluation. In Bradley, R., Danielson, L., & Hallahan, D. P. (Eds.). Identification of Learning Disabilities: Research to Practice. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers

Fletcher, J. M., Lyon, G. R., Fuchs, L. S., & Barnes, M. (2007). Learning disabilities: From identification to intervention. The Guilford Press: NY.

Foegen, A., Jiban, C., & Deno, S. (2007). Progress monitoring measures in mathematics: A review of the literature. Journal of Special Education 41(2), 121-139.


Francis, D. J., Fletcher, J. M., Stuebing, K. K., Lyon, G. R., Shaywitz, B. A., & Shaywitz, S. E. (2005). Psychometric approaches to the identification of LD: IQ and achievement scores are not sufficient. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(2), 98-108.

Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1998). Treatment validity: A unifying concept for reconceptualizing the identification of learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 13(4), 204-219.

Gerber, M. M., & Semmel, M. I. (1984). Teacher as imperfect test: Reconceptualizing the referral process. Educational Psychologist, 19, 1-12.

Good, R. H., Kaminski, R. A. (1996). Assessment for instructional decisions: Towards a proactive/prevention model of decision-making for early literacy skills. School Psychology Quarterly, 11, 326-336.

Good, R. H. & Kaminski, R. A. (2002). DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Passages for First through Third Grades (Technical Report No. 10). Eugene, OR: University of Oregon.

Good, R. H., Kaminski, R. A., Smith, S., Simmons, D., Kame’enui, E., & Wallin, J. (2003). Reviewing outcomes: Using DIBELS to evaluate a school’s core curriculum and system of additional intervention in kindergarten. In S. R. Vaughn & K. L. Briggs (Eds.), Reading in the classroom: Systems for observing teaching and learning. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Gresham, F. M. (2002). Responsiveness to intervention: An alternative approach to the identification of learning disabilities. In Bradley, R., Danielson, L., & Hallahan, D. P. (Eds.). Identification of Learning Disabilities: Research to Practice. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Gresham, F. M., MacMillan, D., & Bocian, K. (1997). Teachers as “tests”: Differential validity of teacher judgments in identifying students at-risk for learning difficulties. School Psychology Review, 26, 47-60.

Hallahan, D. P., & Mercer, C. D. (2002). Learning disabilities: Historical perspectives. In Bradley, R., Danielson, L., & Hallahan, D. P. (Eds.). Identification of Learning Disabilities: Research to Practice. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Hosp, M. K., Hosp, J. L., & Howell, K. W. (2007). The ABCs of CBM. New York: The Guilford Press.

Horner, R. H., Sugai G., & Horner, H. F. (2000). A school-wide approach to student discipline. The School Administrator, 2(57), 20-23.

Howell, K. W., & Nolet, V. (2000). Curriculum-based evaluation: Teaching and decision-making (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomas Learning.


Huitt, W. (1996). Summary of principles of direct instruction. Educational Psychology Interactive. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University. Retrieved July 6, 2005, from http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/instruct/dirprn.html.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-446.

Kame’enui, E. J., & Simmons, D. C. (2002). From an “exploded view” of beginning reading toward a schoolwide beginning reading model: Getting to scale in complex host environments. In Bradley, R., Danielson, L., & Hallahan, D. P. (Eds.). Identification of Learning Disabilities: Research to Practice. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Lyon, G. R. (2002, June 6). Learning disabilities and early intervention strategies: How to reform the special education referral and identification process. Hearing before the Committee on Education and the Workforce. Retrieved August 3, 2005 from http://edworkforce.house.gov/hearings/107th/edr/idea6602/lyon.htm.

Lyon, G. R., Fletcher, J. M., Shaywitz, S. E., Shaywitz, B. A., Torgeson, J. K., Wood, F.B., Schulte, A., & Olson, R. (2001). Rethinking learning disabilities. In C. E. Finn Jr., A. J. Rotherham, & C. R. Hokanson Jr. (Eds.), Rethinking special education for a new century (pp. 259-287). Washington, DC: Progressive Policy Institute & The Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.

Marston, D., Canter, A., Lau, M., & Muyskens, P. (2002, June). Problem solving: Implementation and evaluation in Minneapolis schools. NASP Communiqué, 30(8). Retrieved July 21, 2005, from http://www.nasponline.org/publications/cq308minneapolis.html

McGrady, H. J. (2002). A commentary on “empirical and theoretical support for direct diagnosis of learning disabilities by assessment of intrinsic processing weaknesses.” In Bradley, R., Danielson, L., & Hallahan, D. P. (Eds.). Identification of Learning Disabilities: Research to Practice. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

McIntosh, K., Putnam, B. Filter K. J. & McKenna, M. K. (2006, March). Interactions between academic skills and problem behavior: Results from current research studies. Symposium presented at the Third International Conference on Positive Behavior Support, Reno, NV.

McMaster, K. & Espin, C. (2007). Technical features of Curriculum-Based Measurement in writing: A literature review. Journal of Special Education 41(2), 68-84.

National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. United States: National Institutes of Health

Pressley, M. (2000). Comprehension instruction: What makes sense now, what might make sense soon. In Kamil, M. L., Mosenthal, P. B., Pearson, P. D., & Barr, R. (Eds.) Handbook of Reading Research: Volume III. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.OrRTI Guidance, December 2007 78

http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/instruct/dirprn.html

Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education (2002). Specific Learning Disabilities: Finding Common Ground. Washington, DC.

Oregon Administrative Rules. (2007). Division 15, Special Education, Department of Education. (OAR 581-015-2100 through 2180)

Reschly, D.J., & Gresham, F.M. (2006, April). Implementation fidelity of SLD identification procedures. Presentation at the National SEA Conference on SLD Determination: Integrating RTI within the SLD Determination Process, Kansas City, MO.

Reschly, D. J., Hosp, J.L., Schmied C. M. (2003). And miles to go…: State SLD requirements and authoritative recommendations. Retrieved July 21, 2005, from Vanderbilt University, National Research Center on Learning Disabilities Web site: http://www.nrcld.org/research/states

Rutter, M. & Yule, W. (1975). The concept of specific reading retardation. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 16, 181-197.

Sadler, C. (2002, October). Building capacity in school-wide PBS. Conference conducted at the School-wide Positive Behavior Support: An Implementer’s Forum on Systems Change, Naperville, Illinois.

Schumaker, J. B., & Deshler, D. D. (2005). Teaching adolescents to be strategic learners. In D. D. Deshler & J. B. Schumaker (Eds.), High school students with disabilities: Strategies for accessing the curriculum. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Shaywitz, Sally (2004). Overcoming Dyslexia: A New and Complete Science-Based Program for Reading Problems at Any Level. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Shinn, M. (1988). Development of curriculum-based local norms for use in special education decision-making. School Psychology Review, 17 (1), 61-80.

Slonski-Fowler, K., & Truscott, S. D. (2004). General education teachers’ perceptions of the peripheral intervention team process. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 15(1), 1-39.

Stanovich, K. E. (2005). The future of a mistake: Will discrepancy measurement continue to make the learning disabilities field a pseudoscience? Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 28(2), 103-106.

Steubing, K. K., Fletcher, J. M., LeDoux, J. M., Lyon, G. R., Shaywitz S. E., & Shaywitz B. A. (2002). Validity of IQ-discrepancy classification of learning disabilities: A meta-analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 39(2), 469-518.

Swanson, H. L. (1999). What develops in working memory? A life span perspective. Developmental Psychology, 35, 986-1000.

Torgesen, J. K. (2002). Empirical and theoretical support for direct diagnosis of learning disabilities by assessment of intrinsic processing weaknesses. In Bradley, R., OrRTI Guidance, December 2007 79

http://www.nrcld.org/research/states

Danielson, L., & Hallahan, D. P. (Eds.). Identification of Learning Disabilities: Research to Practice. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

U.S. Office of Education. (1977). Assistance to states for education of handicapped children: Procedures for evaluating specific learning disabilities. Federal Register, 42(250), 65082-65085.

U.S. Office of Education. (1999). Assistance to states for the education of children with disabilities and the early intervention program for infants and toddlers with disabilities. Federal Register, 64(48), 12505-12554.

Vaughn, S. (2002). Using response to treatment for identifying students with learning disabilities. In Bradley, R., Danielson, L., & Hallahan, D. P. (Eds.). Identification of Learning Disabilities: Research to Practice. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Vogt, M. E., & Shearer, B. A. (2003). Reading specialists in the real world: A sociocultural view. Boston: Pearson Education

Walker, H. M., Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., Bullis, M., Sprague, J. R., Bricker, D., & Kaufman, M.J. (1996). Integrated approaches to preventing anti-social behavior patterns among school-age children and youth. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 4(4), 194-209.

Woodcock, R., McGrew, K., & Mather, N. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson III, Tests of Achievement. Itasca, IL: Riverside.

Wechsler, D. (2001). Wechsler Individual Achievement Test (2nd ed.). San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.


Appendix A: General Resources

BOOKSAvery, C. (2001). Teamwork is an individual skill. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler

Publishers.

Bradley, R., Danielson, L., Hallahan, D. (2002). Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bridges, W. (2003) Managing transitions: Making the most of change (2nd Ed.). De Capo Press: Cambridge.

Fletcher, J., Lyon, G., Fuchs, L., Barnes, M. (2007). Learning disabilities: From identification to intervention. New York: Guilford Press.

Hosp, M. K., Hosp, J. L., & Howell, K. W. (2007). The ABCs of CBM. New York: The Guilford Press.

Shaywitz, S. (2003). Overcoming dyslexia. New York: Vintage Books.

Stanovich, K. E. (2000). Progress in understanding reading: Scientific foundations and new frontiers. New York: The Guilford Press.

WEBSITES

Oregon Department of Education: OrRTI Initiative www.ode.state.or.us/initiatives/idea/rti.aspx

Northwest Regional Comprehensive Center (NWRCC) http://www.nwrel.org/nwrcc/

National Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) www.pbis.org/main.htm

National Center on Student Progress Monitoring (NCSPM) www.studentprogress.org/

Rethinking Learning Disabilities www.ppionline.org/documents/SpecialEd_ch12.pdf

Children of the Code www.childrenofthecode.org

Reading Rockets www.readingrockets.org/shows/empowering

Florida Center for Reading Research www.fcrr.org


http://www.ppionline.org/documents/SpecialEd_ch12.pdf


http://www.nwrel.org/nwrcc/

http://www.ode.state.or.us/initiatives/idea/rti.aspx

National Reading Panel www.nationalreadingpanel.org/

National Research Center on Learning Disabilities www.nrcld.org

Wrights Law www.wrightslaw.com

National Center for Learning Disabilities www.ncld.org

IRIS Center: Peabody/Vanderbilt Online Modules www. iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/onlinemodules.html

Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies (PALS) www.kc.vanderbilt.edu/pals/

What Works Clearinghouse www.whatworksclearinghouse.org

AIMSweb™www.aimsweb.com/

Center on Instruction www.centeroninstruction.org

Oregon Reading First www.oregonreadingfirst.uoregon.edu

Jim Wright Online: Intervention Central www.jimwrightonline.com/


http://www.jimwrightonline.com/

http://www.oregonreadingfirst.uoregon.edu/

http://www.aimsweb.com/

http://www.whatworksclearinghouse.org/

http://www.kc.vanderbilt.edu/pals/

http://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/onlinemodules.html

http://www.ncld.org/

http://www.wrightslaw.com/

http://www.nationalreadingpanel.org/

Appendix B: OrRTI Response to Intervention Readiness Checklist

Response to InterventionReadiness Checklist 8/07

Is your district ready and committed to adopt a Response to Intervention (RTI) model to assist you in providing high-quality instruction and intervention matched to student need, monitoring progress to make decisions about changes in instruction and applying student response data to important education decisions such as the identification of learning disabilities? This checklist is provided to assist in answering that question.

Key systemic areas addressed through the checklist are: Leadership/Commitment Teaming Curriculum Screening

District Name: ___________________________________ Date: _______________

Primary Contact for Learning Disabled (LD) Identification Issues:

____________________________________ __________ ____________________Name/Title/Signature Phone E-mail

Staff Completing the Checklist:

____________________________________ ________________________________Name/Title/Signature Name/Title/Signature




Leadership Established Willing to Implement No

District level support at the highest levels, including agreement to adopt an RTI model and allocate required resourcesUnderstanding of and commitment to a long term change process (3 or more years)Long term commitment of resources (staff, time and materials) for screening, assessment, and interventionsDistrict leadership team with basic knowledge of the research relative to RTI and the desire to learn moreExpertise at the district level with respect to research based practices for academics and behavior

Narrative: For “Established” items documented in the space below include specific information related to the involvement of the school board, central office administrators, principals, CIP goals, days dedicated to professional development, and team meeting time. (Use additional space as necessary.)

Narrative: For “Willing to Implement” items, describe current conditions that would support change in each area. (Use additional space as necessary.)

Teaming Established Willing to Implement No

OrRTI Guidance 2007 84

Use of collaborative teaming (general and special education) at both the district and school levelsPrincipal leadership and staff (general and special education) willing to participate at each schoolGeneral education, special education, and compensatory programs work together at both the district and school levels

Narrative: For “Established” items documented in the space below include specific information related to teaming structures currently in place at the district and school levels and specific initiatives that involve collaboration between general education, special education and compensatory programs. (Use additional space as necessary.)



Curriculum Established Willing to Implement No

Use of a research validated core reading program across elementary schoolsUse of, or ability to acquire evidence-based intervention materialsCapacity to provide ongoing training and support to ensure fidelity of implementation

Narrative: For “Established” items documented in the space below list the core reading program(s) adopted by the district, any supplemental intervention materials currently in use, and systems in place to provide training related to their implementation. (Use additional space as necessary.)

Narrative: For “Willing to Implement” items, describe current conditions that would support change in each area. Include possible options for funding additional curricular materials that may be necessary. (Use additional space as necessary.)


Screening Established Willing to Implement No

School-wide structures in place to facilitate systematic review of and programming to enhance student performance (examples: EBS, PBS, or EBIS)*Established student level data collection and management system that is tied to the content (example: DIBELS, AIMSweb™)*Capacity to implement progress monitoring

Narrative: For “Established” items in the space below describe the data collection and management system used by the district, including details about the current progress monitoring system and calendar. (Use additional space as necessary.)


*Examples:EBS=Effective Behavioral SupportPBS= Positive Behavioral SupportEBIS= Effective Behavioral and Instructional SupportDIBELS= Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills


Summary Statement (check one):

_____ Yes, after review of our responses on the completed Readiness Checklist, our district is applying to be included in the OrRTI Guided Development Project. We understand this is a commitment to implement an RTI model for LD eligibility within the timeline provided through this project.

_____ After review of our responses on the completed Readiness Checklist, our district is moving ahead with implementation of the Response to Intervention approach to LD Identification. While we are not applying to be part of the OrRTI Guided Development Project, we understand that implementation of the RTI model will be a focus of audits included as part of the Systems Performance Review & Improvement (SPR&I) process.

_____ No, After review of our responses on the completed Readiness Checklist, our district has identified system requirements which need to be in place before we adopt the Response to Intervention approach to LD Identification.

Superintendent Signature Date

Director of Special Education Signature Date

Principal Signature (required for each elementary principal) Date








Appendix C: ODE Sample RTI Parent Brochure

(Sample)

Parent Notification when using Response to Intervention under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Response to Intervention (RTI)

Response to Intervention (RTI) is a way of organizing instruction and assessment that has two purposes:

1. To identify children needing help in reading, math, and writing, and prevent the development of serious learning problems; and 2. To identify children who, even when they get extra help, make very limited progress. Research has shown that these children sometimes have learning disabilities.

General education services to be provided and strategies for increasing the child’s rate of learning

Each school district using a RTI model must have standard intervention protocols for each level of intervention and the curricula and interventions that will be used for students at each level. Typically, RTI models provide interventions at universal, targeted, and intensive levels.

Universal level: These are research based interventions used with all students at a particular age or grade level.

Targeted level: These are research-based interventions used with students whose progress places them at some risk for not meeting instructional goals and whose deficiencies are easily grouped with other students with similar deficiencies.

Intensive level: These are research-based interventions that are used with students whose progress places them at high risk for not meeting instructional goals and whose deficiencies are so unique as to require individualized instructional approaches.

School districts have decision rules regarding the amount and nature of student performance data that will be collected as part of the district’s RTI model. Progress monitoring must be conducted on a schedule that:

Allows comparison of the child’s progress to the performance of peers, Is appropriate to the child’s age and grade placement, Is appropriate to the content monitored, and Allows for interpretation of the effectiveness of the intervention.

[Insert description of the RTI model used by the district, and the curriculum, interventions and strategies used at each level. Include information about the


amount and nature of progress monitoring data to be collected as part of the district’s RTI model]

When children continue to have difficulty:

The school will tell you whether your child begins to make sufficient progress or if your child has continued difficulty. If you and the school have tried several interventions, and progress is still limited, you may be asked to give your consent for an evaluation. The purpose of such an evaluation is to determine what your child’s educational needs are, and to consider whether he or she might have a learning disability.

Parent participation:

Parents are essential to children’s success in school. When a child needs supplemental instruction, school staff will describe that instruction to you. School staff will also ask you to tell them about anything you think might affect your child’s learning. For example, it is important for the school to know if a child has missed a lot of school, experienced a trauma, or is having problems with friends at school. These types of problems may affect a student’s progress, and if we know about them, we can design an intervention more effectively. Parents frequently partner with the school to provide extra practice to develop skills. If you do want to provide extra support at home, you can work with the school to make yourself part of your child’s program.

Parent request for evaluation:

A parent may request an evaluation for special education at any time, including during any stage of the RTI process. To request a special education evaluation, contact the school principal, a special education teacher or counselor at your child’s school, or the district’s special education director.

[District may insert specific names and contact information]


technical assistance to school districts · web viewtechnical assistance to school districts...

Documents