Draft Copy – April 18, 2008
Rev. 11/08
HVED Guidelines for Using State
RTI/SLD Eligibility Criteria
Hiawatha Valley Education District
1410 Bundy Blvd
Winona, Mn. 55987
507-452-1200
Draft Copy – April 18, 2008
Introduction:
In light of recent changes in federal regulations, the Hiawatha Valley Education District has adopted a Response-toIntervention Model for identifying students who are having academic problems. The RTI model is based upon the
provision of high quality instruction and interventions that are matched to student needs; frequent monitoring of student
progress in order to make changes in instruction or goals; and the application of that data to important educational
decisions. RTI focuses on early identification of learning needs and the provision of appropriate evidence-based
interventions in order to address skill gaps early to keep them from becoming larger issues.
RTI is intended to be a general education, school-wide system that would provide instruction, support, enhancement and
intervention to all children and youth. Special education and related services are not seen as a separate entity in this
model but, rather, are provided within the context of the overall RTI system.
Basic Assumptions for implementing RTI:
- All children can be effectively taught.
- Students are provided with high quality research-based instruction in the regular classroom.
- It is important to intervene early.
- Schools employ universal screening and progress monitoring to inform instruction.
- A strong majority [recommended goal of 80%] of students in a class are making targets/benchmarks.
- Schools use a multi-tier model of service delivery.
- Schools use a problem-solving method to make decisions within the multi-tier model.
- Instructional decisions are data-based.
- Research-based, scientifically validated interventions are implemented with integrity.
- Assessments are used for three different purposes: 1] universal screening to identify those who are not making
progress at expected rates, 2] diagnostics to determine what children can and cannot do in important academic
and behavioral domains, and 3] progress monitoring to determine if academic interventions are producing
desired effects.
Three Tier Model of Service Delivery
The Hiawatha Valley Education District proposes a Three Tier Model of service delivery for the implementation of RTI.
This system incorporates increasing intensities of instruction provided in direct proportion to the individual needs of
students. Ongoing assessment of students’ proficiency on critical academic skills is an essential aspect of the system.
Progress monitoring data are used to inform instruction at each tier and also to identify the appropriate level of service
for each student in a timely fashion. The student’s response to research-based interventions is used as basic data on
which decisions are made. General educators play an instrumental role in identifying strategies that produce substantial
learning outcomes for all students.
Tier 1: School districts provide a core instructional program that uses a scientifically validated curriculum that has a
high probability of bringing the majority of students to acceptable levels of proficiency. This curriculum should produce
adequate levels of achievement and instruction should be differentiated within the core to meet a broad range of student
needs.
During the provision of this core instruction, schools should be doing universal screening in basic skill areas in order to
identify each student’s level of proficiency. This data can then be analyzed in order for teachers to set group goals for
the next assessment period and plan for whole-class instructional change based upon that data. When core instruction is
sufficient the students who do not meet targets should be considered for Tier 2 interventions.
Draft Copy – April 18, 2008
Tier 2: Tier 2 involves supplemental instruction provided in addition to core instruction and can be developed through a
problem-solving process or through a standard treatment protocol. Parents should be notified when students participate
in Tier 2 instruction [MDE RTI Task Force, 2006].
Problem-Solving Interventions: Teachers bring student concerns to the problem-solving teams. The problemsolving team would use a process that involves functional academic assessments to identify the magnitude of
the discrepancy from peers, agree upon reasons why students are not mastering the required academic skills at
the same rate as their peers, and then develop individualized interventions to address the identified need.
Standard Treatment Protocol Interventions: Provide evidence based practices [from a menu of available
interventions] to those students who display predictable difficulties at this stage [ie. failure to develop early
literacy skills]. These interventions are designed to be used in a systematic manner with all participating
students, are usually delivered in small groups [often 3-6 students] and are often very structured. Progress is
monitored frequently and instruction is fine tuned based on student response.
Tier 3: In Tier 3, intensive instructional interventions are created to increase an individual student’s rate of progress.
Individual diagnostic assessments may be done to determine specific patterns of skills that the individual has and does
not have, for the purpose of designing effective instruction to remediate the student’s deficits.
In Tier 3 the individuality, intensity, and/or duration of the interventions delivered to the student are typically increased.
Instruction is uniquely tailored to individual students with data gathered at least weekly and a focus on individual
goals. Decisions are made based upon rules and specific timelines. Specialists, other staff, and parents should be
informed and involved in the process [MDE RTI Task Force, 2006].
Essential components for Tier III general education interventions include:
- Consultation between general education and special education instructional/support staff.
- Measurable and goal-directed attempts to solve the problem
- Communication with parents
- Collection of data related to the presenting problem
- Individualized intervention design implemented with integrity
- Systematic progress monitoring to measure effects of the intervention
Standards of Eligibility:
Making an entitlement (eligibility) decision for special education services for students with a possible learning disability
involves a problem-solving process that includes the Response-to-Intervention component. Data that are relevant to the
area of concern and are collected during the course of the RTI process will be considered in the eligibility decision.
The need for further evaluative procedures at this point depends on the sufficiency of existing data in addressing all of
the referral questions and in developing interventions that will be effective in improving the student’s rate of learning.
Eligibility for special education should be reserved for those students who are well below their peers and who have not
demonstrated progress when provided with demonstrably effective instructional interventions, or who have
had interventions that improve performance but these interventions cannot be effectively maintained in Tier 3.
These entitlement decisions are made by assessment teams based on the data collected and using the standards and
criteria determined by HVED. Students are eligible for special education under the category of Specific Learning
Disability (SLD) when the additional criteria listed below are met:
[Note: criteria related to level and slope of student performance data are provided as guidelines. Teams must also
use professional judgment to make eligibility decisions.]
Draft Copy – April 18, 2008
1. Documentation of the multi-tiered intervention process - the problem-solving team has submitted documentation
that the Problem-Solving process has been completed [including at least two data-based interventions].
There are three major elements to address when making an eligibility decision: Progress, Discrepancy, and Need.
Each element has corresponding “components” that must be documented and “required questions” that must be
answered and documented. [see appendix]
2. The Student’s level of achievement is significantly discrepant from local expectations. In determining whether level
of achievement is significantly discrepant from local expectations, teams should determine whether the student’s level
of performance on a standardized measure (NWEA MAP, AIMSweb, MCA-II, etc.) related to the referral concern is
at or below the 5th percentile based on state or federal norms. Best practice would suggest requiring students’ level of
performance be at or below the 5th percentile on TWO standardized measures, one of which could include local
norms. The discrepancy identified through GOM data should be corroborated by other RIOT and ICEL data collected
by the team.
3. The student’s rate of progress (slope) is significantly discrepant from target expectations. Teams should determine
whether the student’s slope is below a confidence interval around the target slope. Target slope is determined by the
rate of growth of the benchmark target scores. At least 12 data points over at least 7 school weeks are required in
order to establish the rate of progress.
[See Appendix for charts for target slope and confidence intervals at each grade level.]
4. The team has identified instructional needs that are ongoing, substantial, and require additional services that cannot
be provided or sustained by general education and that can only be met using special education services.
5. There is evidence of an information processing condition.
6. The team verifies that the severe low achievement is not primarily the result of any of the following:
• Visual, hearing, or motor impairment;
• Mental retardation;
• Emotional disturbance;
• Cultural difference;
• Limited English proficiency;
• Environmental or economic disadvantage;
• Lack of scientifically-based instruction in the basic skill areas of reading and math.
In addition to initial eligibility, the standards will be applied when:


Conducting a reevaluation
Exiting from all special education services.
For an individual who is not determined to be eligible for special education services, the data are used to develop
further educational interventions.
Draft Copy – April 18, 2008
APPENDIX
Standards for Determining Eligibility: The determination of eligibility for special education services will rely
on establishing both the presence of a disability and a need for special education instructional support and related
services. There are three major elements to address when making an eligibility decision: Progress, Discrepancy,
and Need. Each element has corresponding “components” that must be documented and “required questions” that
must be answered and documented. The individual’s educational progress, discrepancy, and need are considered
within the context of his or her unique circumstances. Additionally, the team is expected to use assessment
practices that are sensitive to ecological factors [racial, ethnic, social, cultural, familial, and linguistic].
[A] EDUCATIONAL PROGRESS: The individual’s rate of improvement is compared to the expected
rate of improvement. Progress data provide objective evidence of changes in an individual’s progress that is
justifiably attributed to the effect of the intervention.
Required Questions: Educational Progress:
1. How does this individual’s actual rate of improvement compare to the expected rate of
improvement?
2. Have the intervention(s) been developed, implemented, and monitored with integrity?
3. Under what conditions did the individual experience the most growth?
[B] DISCREPANCY: The difference between the individual’s levels of performance compared to peers’
levels of performance, or other expected standards, at a single point in time.
A standard of comparison is selected and used to evaluate the individual’s performance as compared to
peers’ performance on the same standard. The standard chosen must be relevant to the targeted area of
concern. It could include local district, HVED, State, or national comparisons.
Required Questions: Discrepancy
1. What are the multiple sources of data that demonstrate the individual’s performance is significantly
discrepant from that of peers or expected standards?
2. How does the individual’s current level of performance compare to that of typical peers or
expected standards?
3. What is the magnitude of the discrepancy?
4. How important and significant is this discrepancy? (Meaningful in a practical sense and reliable in
a statistical sense.)
[C] INSTRUCTIONAL NEED: The conclusion that the educational interventions required by the
individual to be successful cannot be sustained without special education services.
Required Questions: Instructional Need:
1. What are the individual’s needs in the areas of instruction, curriculum, and environment?
2. What are the instructional strategies, accommodations, and modifications that will enable the
individual’s learning performance to improve?
3. What accommodations and modifications were provided which enhanced the individual’s
performance and allowed opportunity to acquire educationally relevant skills?
4. What, if any, ecological variables contribute to interventions / accommodations / modifications not
enhancing the individual’s performance? Explain.
5. What is the pervasiveness of the area of concern across settings and time?
6. What ongoing, substantial, additional services are needed that cannot be provided by general
education?
Draft Copy – April 18, 2008
Assessment Domains
There are four main assessment domains: Instruction, Curriculum, Environment, and Learner (ICEL). LEAs are
encouraged to assess these domains via functional assessment methods. Functional assessment methods are methods
that lead to interventions with a high probability of success.
Functional assessments can occur by Review, Interview, Observation, and Test/assessment (RIOT).
• Instructional domain. This includes the selection and use of materials, placement of individual in
materials, clarity of instructions, communication of expectations and criteria for success, direct instruction
with explanation and cues, sequencing of lessons designed to promote success, variety of practice activities
and pace of presentation of new content.
• Curriculum domain. This includes the long range direction of instruction, instructional
philosophy/approaches, instructional materials, stated outcomes for the course of study, standards and
benchmarks, content of the course of study, arrangement of the content, and pace of the curriculum
sequence leading to the outcomes.
• Environmental domain. This includes the physical arrangement of the room, furniture/equipment,
classroom/school rules, management plans, routines, expectations, peer context, peer and family influence,
and task pressure.
• Learner domain. This is the last area to consider when planning interventions. At the point of considering
the learner, it should be known that the curriculum and instruction are appropriate and the environment is
positive. This area includes individual academic performance data.
Interventions:
General or regular education interventions should include consultation between general and special education
instructional or support staff, measurable and goal directed attempts to solve the problem, communication with
parents, collection of data related to the presenting problem, intervention design and implementation, and systematic
progress monitoring to measure effects of the intervention.
Decision-making involves looking at the performance of all students and determining if interventions need to be
implemented at the school, classroom, or individual level. For example, if more than 20% of a class is achieving at a
less than acceptable level, this would indicate changes need to be considered in the general education curriculum, in
instruction, and/or in the environment. If approximately 80% of the group is being successful, interventions would
focus on small group strategic interventions based upon the needs of the students. If less than 5% of the students
who receive group interventions are being unsuccessful, interventions need to be intensive and individualized based
upon an individual student’s needs.
The length of an intervention evaluation is a team decision and should be based on the number of data points
that are collected. Teams need a minimum of 12 data points, over 7 weeks, as a threshold for generating a reliable
slope estimate [rate of improvement].
Draft Copy – April 18, 2008
Documentation of the intervention process must include a written plan based upon an individual student’s problem
and include the following basic components:
- clear statement of the problem and definition of the target behavior.
- problem analysis which leads to an intervention decision.
- baseline or pretreatment level of performance.
- goals to indicate the desired outcome of the intervention.
- description of the actual procedures and strategies including what is to be done, when, how, and by whom.
- measurement strategy-a plan for measuring outcomes that can be used to make data-based adjustments as
needed during the course of the intervention.
- decision making plan- a plan for frequency of data collections and methods used to summarize and
evaluate data.
- on-going monitoring-performance levels at predetermined monitoring times that are represented visually
on graph or table.
- outcome data-level of performance after intervention.
- treatment integrity-a process for monitoring the degree to which an intervention is implemented as
planned, and corrections/adjustments are made as needed.
Integrity of implementation of an intervention can be checked by:
- self report or log kept by the interventionist [review steps in the intervention, how often intervention will
be done]
- review of permanent products from the intervention [work samples, progress monitoring data, etc]
- direct observation of the intervention [i.e. number of observations, who will do the observations,
observation notes]
- rating scales or rubrics used to judge or summarize observations of implementation of the intervention
[review steps in intervention, review intervention script, etc]
Number of interventions needed: The recommendation is that at least two interventions should have been attempted
to remediate the problem. Best practice would suggest that the outcomes and lengths of interventions are determined
based upon the goals set, the anticipated acquisition of skills or performance levels, and the information obtained
through the monitoring process. If an intervention is implemented with integrity and progress is monitored, then the
data obtained are more important and provide more information for decision making than does the passage of time
or the number of interventions attempted.
It is not intended that every possible intervention be exhausted in each case, as this would lead to unreasonable
delay for students who may need special education services.
Progress Monitoring:
Progress monitoring is a scientifically based practice used to assess students’ academic performance on a regular
basis and to evaluate the effectiveness of the instruction they are receiving. It can be implemented with individual
students or an entire class. The information gathered through progress monitoring is used throughout the RTI
process to make important instructional decisions about the student.
Curriculum-Based Measurement is a scientifically validated means to carry out systematic progress monitoring. It
provides a standardized and reliable method for assessing the development of basic skills in reading, spelling, and
math. It can be used to monitor student progress across the entire school year (Deno, 2003; Deno, 1985; Marston,
Mirkin, Deno, 1984). Students are given standardized academic probes at regular intervals [weekly, bi-weekly, or
monthly] to help quantify both short and long term goals for how proficient students will be by the end of the school
year.
Draft Copy – April 18, 2008
Curriculum Based Measurement can be used by teachers for three purposes:
 Universal screening to identify students in need of additional or different forms of instruction.
 Monitor student’s progress towards academic competence.
 Improve instructional programs.
CBM can be used to determine whether the student’s progress is adequate and if the instructional program used is
effective. Using CBM, teachers can assess student performance using very brief, simple tests. Results obtained help
establish a student’s desired rate of progress [goal line], as well as actual rate of progress [trend line]. These results
can be graphically displayed to help determine the effectiveness of the program and whether or not changes in
instruction are warranted. Standard CBM rules guide decisions about the adequacy of student progress and the need
to revise goals and instructional programs. Decisions based on CBM can be based on the most recent consecutive
scores or on the trend line. It is recommended that a minimum of 12 data points are needed to adequately determine
a stable trend line of student progress.
Decision rules based on the most recent 4 consecutive scores:
 If the most recent four consecutive scores are above the goal line, the student’s end of the year performance
goal needs to be increased.
 If the most recent 4 consecutive scores are below the goal line, the instructional program needs to be revised.
Decision rules based on the trend line:
 If the student’s trend line is steeper than the goal line, the student’s end of the year performance goal needs to
be increased.
 If the student’s trend line is flatter than the goal line, the instructional program needs to be revised.
 If the student’s trend line and goal line are the same, no changes need to be made.
*These data point requirements are different than those mentioned earlier in this document and would not be
appropriate for determined Special Education eligibility.
References:
Deno, S.L. (1985) Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children,
52, 219-232.
Deno, S. L. (2003). Developments in curriculum-based measurement. The Journal of Special
Education, 37(3), 184-192.
Marston, D., Mirkin, P., Deno, S. (1984). Curriculum-based measurement: An alternative to
traditional screening, referral and identification. The Journal of Special Education, 18(2), 109-117.
Draft Copy – April 18, 2008
Key Definitions:
Response-to-Intervention: Evaluating whether a student is benefiting from a scientifically-based instructional
program through frequent and continuous measurement of performance and data-based decision-making. Special
education services are provided to those students who fail to respond to well designed interventions, experience low
achievement, and do not demonstrate evidence for exclusionary criteria.
Problem-Solving Model: Solutions to instructional and behavioral problems are generated through a Five Step
process: (1) Problem Identification, (2) Problem Analysis, (3) Plan Development, (4) Plan Implementation, and (5)
Plan Evaluation.
Standard Treatment Protocol: Requires the use of the same empirically validated treatment for all children with
similar problems. It is generally delivered in small groups and is often very structured. Progress is monitored
frequently and instruction is fine tuned, based upon student response.
Level of Performance: Refers to current rate of performance on General Outcome Measures [ie. A student who was
administered three reading probes and had scores of 100/5, 91/3, and 102/6, would have a median score of 100/5
and this would be that student’s level of current performance.
Slope: Rate of growth or improvement over time. [ie. in the area of Reading, growth rates typically are referred to as
the number of words gained per week]. A weekly growth rate is calculated based upon frequent progress
monitoring using 8-10 data points.
Dually Discrepant: In order for students to be eligible for special education under the category of SLD, they must
be dually discrepant from local district, HVED, State, or national norms on level of performance and slope [rate of
growth].
Target Scores: Performance on benchmark assessments, using General Outcome Measures, are linked to
performance on the state mandated Minnesota Comprehensive Assessments-II. This creates a series of target
scores at each grade level/assessment period for a General Outcome Measure, such that students who are at or
above the target score have a high probability of reaching grade level proficiency on the upcoming MCAs.
[There are two tiers of target scores] Students scoring at the Tier I target have a 75% likelihood of passing the
MCA-IIs. Students scoring at the Tier II target have a 25% likelihood of passing the MCA-IIs. Additionally, in
establishing the targets, the aim is to have the accuracy of predictions of success on the MCA-IIs not fall below
80% (ie. aim is to establish the target such that 80% of the students predicted to pass the MCA-IIs do indeed
pass them).
Normative Scores: Normative scores provide information about how a student performed relative to some
comparison group. For example, a student who scores in the 50th percentile performed as well or better than
50% of the students in the comparison group. This score would likely be considered in the “average” range of
students nationwide, depending on the purpose of the assessment.
Exclusionary Criteria: Students can not be labeled SLD if their learning problems are primarily the result of a
visual, hearing, or motor impairment, mental retardation, emotional disturbance, cultural difference, limited
English proficiency, environmental, or economic disadvantage, or lack of scientifically-based instruction in
basic skill areas.
Draft Copy – April 18, 2008
RIOT: An acronym for Review, Interview, Observe, Test. These are the four sources from which data regarding
an identified concern may be collected. Problem-Solving teams must consider each source in collecting
information to define a problem or to complete an analysis of why the problem is occurring.
ICEL: An acronym for Instruction, Curriculum, Environment, Learner. These are the four domains from which
data regarding an identified concern may be collected. Problem-solving teams must consider each domain when
collecting information to define a problem or to complete an analysis of why the problem is occurring.
ROI: An acronym for Rate of Improvement. This term refers to the slope of student growth as measured
through frequent assessment of skills.
Scientifically Based Instruction / Intervention: This is a term often used interchangeably with terms like
evidence based or research based intervention. Instructional techniques, interventions, or curriculum that are
based on studies that (a) use empirical methods, (b) include rigorous and adequate data analyses, (c) use
measurements or observational methods that provide reliable and valid data, (d) employ experimental or quasiexperimental designs, (e) are replicable, and (f) undergo a formal peer review process.
CBM: A reliable and valid assessment system for monitoring student progress in basic academic skill areas such
as reading, writing, spelling, and mathematics. CBM procedures, including test administration, scoring, and
interpretation, are standardized. The content of the CBM tests may be drawn from a specific curriculum or may
represent generalized outcomes for a student at that grade level. In either case, CBM test content represents
important, global outcomes for the year and not just an individual objective or series of objectives representing
current instructional lessons. Students are given short alternate assessments of these important grade-level skills
frequently across the school year and their scores are plotted on a graph. Teachers are then able to use these
CBM scores in a formative way to gauge student progress over time.
Draft Copy – April 18, 2008
Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students
Additional areas of inquiry and specialized areas of expertise that may be needed to prevent and reduce disproportionality in special education in the HVED. During each phase of the RTI process — interventions, performance
monitoring, data analysis and decision-making — the team collects and analyzes information on ecological/contextual
variables in order to assess their impact on student performance. Research done by Klingner and Edwards (2006) shows
support for the idea that the RTI process helps to reduce disproportionate placement into special education.
Gathering Ecological/Contextual Information: Teams gather data from multiple sources, including interviews, reviews
of school and medical records and observations, to assess the impact of ecological variables on an individual’s
performance. Families have important information regarding these variables. Using culturally responsive approaches,
school teams engage families as partners in all stages of the RTI process.
Interpreter: When the family’s primary language is not English, a member of the school team who is proficient in the
family’s language or a trained interpreter should conduct interviews with the family.
Family Information: The family is asked to provide information about the individual’s developmental, health and
educational history; the family’s cultural background and language; the individual’s first and (if applicable) second
language development; and the individual’s current functioning at home and in the community.
English as a Second Language: For students whose primary language is not English, communication deficits only
constitute a disability if the communication problem is present in both English and the individual’s primary. During the
eligibility decision-making process for these students, the special education team must rule out language and
acculturation as the primary reason for performance deficits.
There are two levels of language proficiency: Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills (BICS) and Cognitive
Academic Language Proficiency (CALP). ELL (English Language Learner) programs often measure an individual’s
BICS level to determine eligibility for ELL, but use measures from the CALP to evaluate annual progress.
For students that have received ELL services this information should be available in the student’s school record.
However, an individual with limited English proficiency that has never been assessed for or received ELL services may
be referred to a building problem solving team. In those cases, an assessment of the individual’s English language
proficiency is needed in order to develop appropriate interventions, evaluate the individual’s response to interventions
and to make eligibility decisions.
Team Membership: An individual that understands the school’s expectations and is knowledgeable about the
individual’s cultural or linguistic background should participate or be consulted in the development, implementation,
and evaluation of general education interventions. This person could be a member of the school staff or someone
designated by the family that could identify issues related to the individual’s language or culture that may be impacting
performance.
School personnel knowledgeable about cultural and linguistic diversity, with the skills to differentiate between second
language acquisition and disabilities, should be consulted during the eligibility decision-making process for students
from diverse cultural or linguistic groups.
Draft Copy – April 18, 2008
Peer Comparisons: For individuals from diverse racial, ethnic or linguistic groups, the individual’s level of
performance should be compared to other individuals with similar cultural and linguistic backgrounds and comparable
exposure to the English language when feasible. Siblings, cousins, or other youngsters known to the individual’s family
may serve as a peer comparison. When similar peers are not available, professional judgment must be used to set
performance expectations.
Performance Monitoring: Any materials or techniques used to measure progress must be selected and administered so
as not to be discriminatory on a racial or cultural basis; and must be provided and administered in the language and form
most likely to yield accurate information on the individual’s performance.
Eligibility: Additional Ecological Considerations: An ecological assessment examines the relations between people and
systems and the conditions that surround them. The team uses the information gathered to examine the fit between the
culture of the individual and the expectations of the school.
Discrepancy and Need: For individuals from diverse racial, ethnic or linguistic groups the evaluation team asks if the
discrepancy is:
• Due to cultural or linguistic differences between the individual and the school?
• Because the individual does not speak/understand the language of instruction?
• Because the individual has not had similar opportunities to learn as peers (e.g., lack of formal schooling or appropriate
instruction)?
If the answer to any of the questions above is “yes,” more interventions in general education may be needed. In order to
determine this, the team should ask the following questions:
• Were interventions designed and implemented with integrity?
• Did the interventions adequately address cultural and linguistic variables that may be impacting the individual’s
performance?
If the response to these questions is “yes,” it may be presumed the impact of cultural or linguistic differences impacting
student learning has been adequately addressed. If the response to either of those questions is “no,” culturally responsive
interventions must be developed and implemented.
Systems-Level Assessment: The RTI process requires an on-going analysis of the general education system to identify
factors that facilitate or impede learning. The following questions provide examples of the types of issues that should be
considered in the assessment of each domain.
Instructional Domain
• Are varied instructional methods and formats used to make learning experiences relevant for students from diverse
backgrounds?
• Does the school respond to the environmental and economic conditions of individuals through its curriculum,
instruction and practices?
• Does the school staff consistently articulate high academic and social expectations for all students?
Curriculum Domain
• Are learning materials inclusive and do they reflect positive images of people with diverse backgrounds and diverse
abilities?
• Are culturally relevant materials used for targeted group instruction?
Draft Copy – April 18, 2008
Environmental Domain
• Does the school value the diversity of communication skills/language represented by individuals in the educational
environment?
• Is diversity celebrated within the classroom and in common areas by the visual display of various cultures on bulletin
boards, in posters, and pictures?
• Do the family, individual, and school agree about school expectations?
Learner Domain
• How do others from the same cultural or linguistic group view the individual’s performance?
• What are the individual’s skills in their primary language?
Glossary:
Acculturation: Process of learning aspects of culture other than one’s own, influenced primarily by schools.
Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills (BICS): The kind of communication found in the everyday world that is
supported by situational cues, gestures, and facial expressions. These skills take approximately two years to develop to a
level commensurate with that of native speakers of the language (Cummins, 1992).
Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP): This kind of communication is found in academic settings and is
strongly related to literacy and academic achievement. CALP emerges with formal schooling and takes approximately
four to seven years to develop (Cummins, 1992).
Culturally responsive: The ability of an individual to learn from and relate respectfully to people from other cultures;
including the ability to make adjustments in behavior based on knowledge of other cultures. This requires openness to
experiencing and thinking about things from other points of view. (Adopted from the National Center for Culturally
Responsive Educational Systems.)
Primary Language: this is the language an individual learns first. It is used frequently during the early stages of
language acquisition. It is also referred to as one’s home language or first language.
Trained Interpreter: Trained interpreters have formal education in interpreting and abide by a professional code of
ethics that includes confidentiality, impartiality, accuracy, and completeness. Good education interpreters should be
familiar with educational terminology and have experience in schools.
References
Klingner, J. K., Edwards, P. A. (2006). Cultural considerations with response to intervention models. Reading Research
Quarterly, 41(1), 108-117.