SLD Body of Evidence and Eligibility
Denver Public Schools, 2011
Outcomes

Participants will understand the required components of
a comprehensive body of evidence for SLD determination

Participants will identify the different tools available to
build the required body of evidence

Participants will understand how to analyze data to
support the determination of sufficient vs. insufficient
progress
Background and Overview

There is no longer the need to determine that a significant
discrepancy between aptitude (IQ) and level of achievement
exists. The validity and reliability of the discrepancy approach
to SLD identification has been seriously challenged for many
years through extensive research

Consensus reports and empirical synthesis indicate a need for
major changes in the approach to identifying children with SLD.
Models that incorporate RtI represent a shift in special education
toward goals of better achievement and improved behavioral
outcomes for children with SLD...
-Federal Register, vol. 71, no.156; p. 46647
Background and Overview

In the state of Colorado it is required that a problemsolving process (Response to Intervention/RtI) be
implemented prior to, or as a part of, the evaluation for a
Specific Learning Disability.
Background and Overview
The IEP team must determine that…

The student has one or more Academic Skill Deficits as
compared to age-level peers or grade-level benchmarks
AND

The student is making Insufficient Progress in response to a
research/evidence-based intervention
Background and Overview

8 areas of SLD:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Oral Expression
Listening Comprehension
Written Expression
Basic Reading Skills
Reading Fluency Skills
Reading Comprehension
Mathematical Calculation
Mathematical Problem Solving
Academic Skill Deficit

The decision as to what constitutes a “significant” academic
skill deficit is a complex one that requires a degree of
professional judgment and must be based on valid and reliable
data. In identifying the existence of SLD, a determination must
be made that a student continues to have a significant
academic skill deficit even after obtaining evidence of effective
instruction in the general education classroom and the
provision of targeted and/or intensive interventions.

The finding of an academic skill deficit should not be
based on any one measure. The convergence of multiple
sources of data must be considered by the IEP team.
Academic Skill Deficit

In order to determine the presence of an academic skill
deficit, the student’s body of evidence must contain at
least:



one norm-referenced assessment for each of the 8 areas of
SLD being considered,
AND
all criterion referenced measures that are appropriate for the
student’s grade level,
AND
at least 6 grade level CBM scores for each area of SLD being
considered when such CBMs are available (if CBMs are not
available, the body of evidence must include at least 6 data
points from mastery-based measures)
Academic Skill Deficit
Norm-Referenced (Targeted) Assessments

The body of evidence must include at least one individuallyadministered norm-referenced assessment in each of the 8
areas of SLD being considered

Examples include CTOPP, Key Math, TOWL, etc. (see attached
document for a list of recommended norm-referenced
assessments for each area of SLD)

Scores at or below the 12th percentile may be considered to
represent a significant academic skill deficit
Academic Skill Deficit
Criterion Referenced Measures (District and State Assessments)

The body of evidence must include all criterion referenced measures
that are appropriate for the student’s grade level

Examples include CSAP, CELA, DRA-2, SRI, Acuity, DPS
Benchmark/Interim Assessments, STAR Assessments, etc.

The following results may be considered to represent a significant
academic skill deficit:


Results that are at or below 50% of the grade level expectancy (for
example, if the expectation is that a student answer grade level
comprehension questions with 80% accuracy and a student’s accuracy
through repeated trials is at 40% or less, then a significant deficit might be
indicated)
Results that are 1.5 (or more) years below grade level expectations
Academic Skill Deficit
Curriculum Based Measurements (CBMs)



The body of evidence must include at least 6 grade level CBMs in
each area of SLD being considered (if CBMs are not available for an
area being considered, the body of evidence must include at least 6
data points from mastery-based measures)
Examples of CBMs include the measures on DIBELS, AIMSweb,
EasyCBM, and Intervention Central as well as those created by
Denver Public Schools
The following results may be considered to represent a significant
academic skill deficit:



At least 6 grade level CBM data points that suggest significant gaps of 2 or
more (using the gap analysis)
At least 6 grade level CBM data points that fall in the Well Below Average
range according to the DPS CBM Benchmark Guidelines
At least 6 grade level CBM data points that are at or below the 12th
percentile based on national norms (e.g., AIMSweb Aggregate Norm
Tables)
Insufficient Progress

In order to determine whether or not a student is
making sufficient or insufficient progress in response to
research-based intervention in each area of concern,
problem solving teams must monitor student progress
toward norms/benchmarks during the intervention and
evaluation phase.
Insufficient Progress

The following types of progress monitoring tools may be
used to analyze a student’s progress in response to
research-based intervention:

CBMs with Research-Based Norms/Benchmarks (see attached
document for a list of recommended CBMs for each area of
SLD)

Criterion-Referenced/Mastery-Based Measures (ONLY when
formal CBMs do not exist for the skill being monitored)
Insufficient Progress

CBMs are available through:






DPS Special Education (Free)
DIBELS Next (Free): http://www.dibels.org/next.html
Intervention Central (Free):
http://www.interventioncentral.org
AIMSweb (Paid subscription required):
http://www.aimsweb.com
EasyCBM (paid subscription required): http://easycbm.com
DPS Special Education has developed CBM Benchmark
Guidelines for IEP teams. These benchmark guidelines
can be applied to the probes from any of the CBM sites
listed above.
Insufficient Progress
IEP teams must use research-based measures
(CBMs) if they exist for the skill(s) being
monitoring. The use of criterion
referenced/mastery-based measures should only be
used to monitor progress when CBMs are
unavailable.
Insufficient Progress

In order to determine sufficient/insufficient progress, IEP teams
are required to:

Gather at least 6 grade level data points (CBMs if they exist;
mastery-based measures if CBMs don’t exist) in each area of SLD
being considered

Administer a new grade level progress monitoring probe (CBMs if
they exist; mastery-based measures if CBMs don’t exist) after the
student has received at least 5 hours of research-based intervention
(e.g., teachers can administer a new Oral Reading Fluency CBM each
week to students who are receiving 60 minutes per day of researchbased intervention in the area of reading fluency)
Insufficient Progress
IEP teams must analyze the progress monitoring data to
determine whether or not the student is making sufficient
or insufficient progress in response to the research-based
intervention in each area of concern. IEP teams should
analyze the data in the following ways:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Calculate the gap
Calculate the student’s rate of improvement (ROI)
Determine the necessary rate of improvement to reach the
average range in a specific time period
Calculate the number of weeks it will take the student to
reach the average range at his/her current grade level
Calculate the student’s projected score at a specific time
period
Insufficient Progress
Example: A 4th grader received the following scores on ORF during the fall semester:
9/1: 30
9/8: 33
9/15: 32
9/22: 37
9/29: 38
10/6: 35
10/13: 37
104/30 = 3.5
104/33 = 3.2
104/32 = 3.3
104/37 = 2.8
104/38 = 2.7
104/35 = 3.0
104/37 = 2.8
a. Using the DPS Benchmark guidelines, find the expected benchmark (50th percentile)
score for the appropriate grade level and season
b. Divide the expected benchmark score by each of the student’s scores
Insufficient Progress
Example: A 4th grader received the following scores on ORF during the fall semester:
9/1: 30
9/8: 33
9/15: 32
9/22: 37
9/29: 38
10/6: 35
10/13: 37
Student’s most recent score: 37
Students first score: 30
# of weeks between first and last score: 6
(37-30) / 6 = 1.17
Insufficient Progress
79
42
37
7
42
6
a. Using the DPS Benchmark guidelines, find the lowest score in the “at or above
average range” for the appropriate grade level and season
b. Find the student’s current (most recent score)
c. Subtract student’s current (most recent score) from the lowest score in the “at or
above average range” to calculate the “necessary gain to catch up”
d. Determine how many weeks are left until the next benchmark period (or end of
year)
e. Divide the necessary gain to catch up by the number of weeks left until the next
benchmark period (or end of year)
Insufficient Progress
42
1.17
35.9
a. Refer to Step 3 to find the “necessary gain to catch up”
b. Refer to Step 2 to find the student’s current rate of improvement (ROI)
c. Divide the “necessary gain to catch up” by the student’s rate of improvement
Insufficient Progress
7
1.17
37
42.8
a. Refer to step 3 to find the number of weeks until the next benchmark period (or
until end of the year)
b. Refer to step 2 to find the student’s current rate of improvement (ROI)
c. Find the student’s current (most recent) score
d. Multiply the # of weeks left by the student’s ROI; then add the student’s current
score
Insufficient Progress
Determination of Sufficient vs. Insufficient Progress:
The determination of sufficient vs. insufficient progress is an IEP team decision
based on the student’s progress in response to the research-based intervention
he/she received. Ultimately, it is up to the IEP team to decide whether or not the
child’s progress is sufficient to close the gap in an “acceptable” and “reasonable”
amount of time. The following examples of progress may be considered “Sufficient
Progress” by IEP teams:






Progressing from Well Below Average Range to Below Average Range by the next Benchmark
period
Progressing from Well Below Average Range to At or Above Average Range by the next
Benchmark period
Progressing from Below Average Range to At or Above Average Range by the next Benchmark
period
Progressing from at or below the 12th percentile to at or above the 13th percentile by the next
Benchmark period
A Rate of Improvement that is at least 1.5 times that of the expected rate of improvement
at the student’s grade level
A Rate of Improvement that is sufficient to close the gap by the next Benchmark period
Other Components

Exclusionary Factors

Observations

Cognitive Processes
Exclusionary Factors

It is the decision of the IEP team to rule out other factors
(vision, hearing, and motor disabilities; SLIC; SIED; cultural
factors; environmental or economic disadvantage; and
limited English proficiency) as the PRIMARY cause of the
student’s underachievement. However, it must be clear
that a student for whom one of these factors applies,
could also be appropriately identified as having a Specific
Learning Disability.
Observation

The body of evidence for SLD must include an
observation in each area of concern as well as an
observation in an area that is not a concern
Cognitive Processes




Although it is no longer recommended to administer
cognitive testing for SLD eligibility, it is still recommended
that IEP teams identify the one or more cognitive
processes that are interfering with the student’s learning
in the area(s) of concern
These cognitive processes can be identified by an analysis
of the entire body of evidence
Examples of cognitive processes are phonological
processing, working memory, processing speed, etc.
More information will be provided in the near future
regarding the identification of such cognitive processes
Questions?