1580 LOGAN ST., SUITE 760
DENVER, COLORADO 80203
303-866-3299
Fax: 303-866-2530
www.csi.state.co.us
C HA R T E R SC H O O L I N STI T UT E
CHARTER SCHOOL INSTITUTE
RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION
(RTI)
Specific Learning Disability (SLD) Guidebook:
Elements of SLD Determination
(*with adaptations from Colorado Department of Education & Iowa’s Dept of Education RTI mod
“The Colorado Rules for Administration of the Exceptional Children’s Act set –forth the requirement
for all administrative units (AUs) to submit a plan (effective August 15, 2008)…. that describes how the
revised SLD criteria will be implemented (effective August 15, 2009)”….
Introduction
The Response to Intervention (RTI) model is a multi-tiered (Tier I, II, II) intervention process that is
intended to be a general education, school-wide system. Special education and related services are not
seen as a separate entity in this model. Rather, special education instruction supports and interventions
are provided within the context of the overall RTI system. The problem solving process model is
designed to be applied across multiple settings and content areas.
As for the revised SLD criteria in special education, Colorado Department of Education (CDE) indicates
that the following 5 key areas are required for the implementation:
1. Identified Problem Solving Process;
2. Curriculum, Instruction, & Intervention;
3. Assessment/Progress Monitoring;
4. Family and Community Engagement
5. SLD Determination
Purpose
The purpose of the multi-tiered RTI problem solving model is to systematically identify appropriate and
effective research-based interventions that result in improved individual performance. Using quality
curriculum, instruction and research-based interventions, students are identified through assessment
and progress monitored with the goal to reach expected rates of improvements. RTI includes partnering
with family and the community to assist the students with reaching higher levels of academic and
behavioral success regardless of their cultural or economic or unique learning needs. The decisions for
determining an individual’s educational needs including SLD determination are based on multiple
sources of data (body of evidence), including those data gathered through the RTI process. As the RTI
process determines the education needs of an individual, the data collected will be applied, in part*, to
the requirement for a full, comprehensive and individual evaluation to determine special education
eligibility and “no single measure or assessment will be used as the sole criterion for determining
whether a child is a child with a disability and for determining an appropriate education program for the
child....” (300.304 ECEA Rules).
Thus, the RTI process has two purposes, one is to identify, develop, and implement general education
instructional interventions for those individuals in need, and two, assist the special education team in
identifying individuals who require special education services.
*Further data that may be needed to assist the special education team will be determined as the RTI data/information is
reviewed by the team.
The RTI process provides the framework through which the schools are able to initiate SLD eligibility
procedures. The guiding principles, components and standards outlined in this document are applied to
all individuals being considered for (SLD) special education and related services.
The RTI Problem Solving Model Process
Define the Problem
Develop Plan
Evaluate Response to intervention
Analyze the Problem
Define the Problem: Directly measure behavior/skill
The problem should be stated in objective, measureable terms using direct measure of academic and/or
behavior. The definition of the problem must focus on teachable skills that can be measured and can be
changed through the process of instruction.
Analyze the Problem: Validate Problem & Identify Variables that Contribute to Problem
The goal of problem analysis is to answer the question: “why is this problem occurring?” During
this step, the relevant information about the problem is gathered and considered, potential hypothesis
about the probable causes of the problem are described and information is gathered to either confirm or
disprove the hypothesis
Develop and Implement the Plan: Implement Plan, Progress Monitor, Modify as Necessary
The goal of Step 3 is to develop an instructional/intervention plan that matches the identified
need and has the most likelihood of success.
A good intervention plan:
1. explicitly defines skills to be taught;
2. focuses on measureable objectives;
3. defines who will complete various tasks when & how;
4. describes a plan for measuring and monitoring effectiveness of instructional efforts
including baselines and target goals;
5. reflects the resources available
Evaluate the Response to Intervention - Evaluate Response to Intervention
Progress monitoring is a methodology for measuring the effectiveness of an intervention. The
goal of progress monitoring is to answer the question, “Is the instruction/intervention working?” If an
intervention is not delivering the desired results, the intervention should be changed. By plotting skills
levels of a graph and monitor change, the performance can be visualized more easily.
Guiding Principles for SLD Eligibility Decision Making
The RTI Problem Solving Process collects and considers data (body of evidence) to assist in determining
special education eligibility within the context of the individual’s unique educational circumstances
related to the following Elements:
1. Expected Rate of Academic Progress: Students’ achievement is compared to the expected
rate of progress. Progress data provide objective evidence of changes in an individual’s progress that is
justifiably attributed to the effect of the intervention.
2. Academic Significance: is the student’s performance commensurate at expected levels i.e. the
difference between the individual’s levels of performance compared to peers’ level of performance or
other expected standards at a single point in time and/or individual ability.
3. Need: is the student “requiring” special education interventions based on need i.e. it is
concluded that the educational interventions required by the individual to be successful cannot be
sustained without special education services i.e. “can the student receive reasonable educational benefit
from general education alone”?
* Data that are relevant to the area of concern and are collected during the course of the RTI process will be considered in the
SLD eligibility decision. Data from multiple sources to create a body of evidence and a variety of assessment methods are
used. Based on the data collected and to assist in determining special education eligibility, the data must establish both the
existence of a SLD disability and the need for special education services.
*The special education SLD eligibility process requires the consideration of these three areas: progress data, academic
achievement discrepancy data, and need data to create a body of evidence–within the context of each individual’s unique
circumstances. Also, taken into consideration are racial, ethnic, social, cultural, linguistic, and educational variables.
In addition to determine SLD the following Criteria must be met:
1. The child does not make sufficient progress to meet age or state-approved grade-level standards
in one or more of the areas….when using a process based on the child’s response to scientific,
research-based intervention:
a.
Oral Expression, Listening Comprehension, Written Expression, Basic Reading, Reading Fluency, Reading
Comprehension, Math Computation, Math Problem Solving
2. The Child is observed in the child’s learning environment (including regular classroom) to
document the child’s academic performance and behavior in the areas of difficulty.
The major elements to address when making a SLD eligibility decision are: Rate of Progress,
Significance, and Need. Each element has corresponding “required” questions and “components” that
must be documented. The individual’s educational progress, significance, 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. The determination of an SLD eligibility decision for special education services will rely on
establishing both the presence of a SLD disability* and a need* for special education support.
* SLD disability: means a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using
language, spoken or written, that may manifest itself in the imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell or to do
mathematical calculations, including conditions such as perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction,
dyslexia, and developmental aphasia.** Need: The judgment that an individual requires special education and related
services in order to receive an appropriate education i.e. can the student receive reasonable educational benefit from general
education alone”?
Significant Academic Skill deficit
To identify Specific Learning Disability (SLD), a determination must be made by the IEP team that a student continues to have
a significant academic skill deficit despite the implementation of targeted and/or intensive intervention. The decision as to what
constitutes a “significant” deficit will require degree of professional judgment by the IEP team, and the IEP decision needs to
be based on valid and reliable data.
At least one measure needs to reflect a comparison to state/national benchmarks or norms in the interpretation of significance.
The following are examples to guide the IEP team in the SLD determination process and using any of the factors below as a
single measure alone is not enough to be the single determining factor for SLD:
1.
2.
3.
Criterion Reference Measures (CRMs).
a. A significant deficit: indicated by results that are at or below 50% of the grade level expectancy and grade
level criteria must be determined for CRMs. (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.)
Measures on an individually administered norm referenced test:
a. scores at or below the 12th percentile may be considered to represent a significant deficit.
Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM) results:
a. Significance may be noted when at least 6 data points that are at or below the 12th percentile (based on
national norms).
b. Intervention: at least 6 to 8 weeks of data points collected on interventions conducted.
Guiding Questions:
Educational Rate of Progress
1. How does this individual’s actual rate of skill acquisition compare to the expected rate of skill
acquisition?
2. What are the frequency, intensity, and duration of the behavior? This question is required for a
behavioral concern. (The question may not apply to some concerns.)
3. Have the intervention(s) been developed, implemented, and monitored with integrity?
4. Under what conditions did the individual experience the most growth?
Academic Significance
1. What are the multiple sources of data (body of evidence) that demonstrate the individual’s
performance is significantly discrepant from that of: 1. peers; 2.. expected standards?
2. How does the individual’s current level of performance compare to that of typical peers,
expected standards? (ie. See Gap Analysis below must be based on at least 6-8 weeks of
interventions)
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 the 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?
* Consider and document the interventions attempted and the individual’s response to those interventions;
* Consider and document the information collected through a review of records, interviews, observations, and
tests/assessments.
* Determine and document if other information is needed to clearly define the individual’s educational needs.
For an individual who is not determined to be eligible, the data are used to develop further educational
interventions. If eligible, data resulting from the full and individual evaluation, as well as data from the
RTI process will be used to inform the development of the IEP.
Components
• Progress Monitoring
1. Area of Concern is operationally defined in meaningful and measurable terms
2. An objective, relevant, ongoing measure of the individual’s progress is selected.
3. Baseline performance is established before implementing an intervention.
4. An individual’s goal is established.
-The trajectory of improvement stated in the goal represents an enhanced slope of
performance that can be realistically expected in the established period of time.
5. Individual’s performance data are collected frequently, and repeatedly, using the measure of
performance to determine the individual’s response to the intervention(s).
6. A decision plan is in place to determine the effectiveness of the intervention and consider
changing the intervention if the individual’s response is not consistent.
7. Data are used to make decisions on a regular and frequent basis.
• Scientifically Research-based Intervention
1. A scientifically research-based intervention is selected that matches the individual’s need.
2. A scientifically research-based intervention is implemented with integrity for a sufficient
period of time to allow for performance improvement.
• Data analysis and conclusion
1. A comparison of expected performance and actual performance is made using the individual’s
performance measure.
2. Comparison of the individual’s performance rate or slope of improvement during intervention
is contrasted with the expected rate or slope of improvement: (a) a comparison of the slope of
improvement with the historical slope of improvement; or (b) a comparison of a normative rate
reference based on the response of peers.
3. Conclusions are drawn from the individual’s response to intervention in concert with other
data sources (body of evidence). Other data may include record review, interview, observation,
or additional test/assessment results.
4. Consider and document what is needed to enable learning for the individual in the areas of
curriculum, instruction, and changes to environmental demands (accommodations
and modifications).
5. Consider and document the individual’s learning characteristics, ecological variables, and any
other relevant information, which helps inform what will enable learning;
6. Organize data into a summary statement of the individual’s needs and document in the IEP.
• Use of Existing Data
*Consider what is known about the individual in relationship to the instruction, curriculum, and
environment; Include the following:
Review of records, Interview, Observations, Test/assessments, Statement of Individual’s Instructional Needs, Instruction,
Curriculum, Environment, and Learner
Procedural Guidelines of RTI
It is a goal of the RTI process to identify specific, effective interventions for an individual. However,
occasionally successful interventions are not identified. Under these circumstances, an
individual might be identified as eligible when 1) a disability is identified and 2) a need for special
education services that are reasonably calculated to provide educational benefit to the
individual can be identified.
In some cases it may not be appropriate to implement a general education intervention prior to
determining eligibility* and providing special education and related services. Examples include, but are
not limited to:
a) an individual whose status has changed significantly due to a health or medical condition, injury, etc.
b) an individual who has an obvious and immediate need for a service that is only available through special
education.
*Within the RTI model, each individual who has a disability, and who by reason of the disability needs special education and
related services, is regarded as an eligible individual.
Eligibility decisions are made by a team of individuals comprised of the individualized education
program (IEP) team and other qualified professionals, as appropriate. The general requirements
for team memberships are: parents of the individual; general education teacher; at least one special
education teacher or if appropriate, at least one special education provider of the eligible
individual; a representative of the LEA, i.e. a principal, who is qualified to provide or supervise the
provision of specially designed instruction, and who is knowledgeable about general education. In
addition, the IEP team making an eligibility decision should include a person with knowledge or
expertise of the individual and knowledge or expertise to interpret the instructional implications of the
evaluation results and intervention outcomes.
Culturally/Linguistically Diverse Students (CLD) (adopted from San Juan BOCES- Colorado)
The RtI and Child Study processes must take into account the language and cultural background of the
student and family and the impact of the language and cultural differences on the student's learning.
Specifically, the following must be ensured:
1. That notices are provided in the parents' preferred language of communication. All IEP and related forms
should be provided in the preferred language of communication, or documentation should be made that
the information was interpreted for the parents (by whom and when).
2. Certified staff who have a background in second language acquisition (such as ESL or BE endorsed)
participate in all meetings for limited-English proficient (LEP) students (including RtI, Child Study,
referral, evaluation, Eligibility Determination, Annuals and Triennials.)
3. Evaluations for LEP students with disabilities are administered by qualified staff (this may include
bilingual staff, the use of non-verbal instruments, or assistance by a translator trained in special education
assessments and proficient in English and the other language.)
4. Disability-related diagnostic and evaluation reports for LEP should include the following:
a. Analysis of the effect of linguistic and cultural factors on educational history and learning;
b. Whether diagnostic instruments (if used) or procedures were altered for the student;
c. Documentation of the use of translation or interpretation in the administration of diagnostic
instruments (if used) or procedures, and the effect on the validity and reliability of the results;
d. Evaluation of the validity and reliability of test results, considering the effect of differences in criteria
related to language proficiency;
e. Cross-validation of formal diagnostic measures that may have been used with other data available
about the student.
5. Parental rights and procedural safeguards are provided in the parents' preferred language of
communication, or that the information was interpreted for the parents (by whom and when).
6. LEP students with disabilities will participate in both ALP instruction and special education or related aids
and services, unless it is inappropriate to provide dual services due to the documented nature of the
student's disability.
When a student is determined to have Limited English Proficiency, the RtI process should focus on the
English language acquisition issues first. Generally, a student must have sufficient English to benefit from
instruction in the classroom before that student can be considered for special education eligibility in SLD
(with the understanding that certain cases will warrant special consideration and evaluation). In all cases of
eligibility determination for students with LEP, data must be provided that demonstrates the appropriateness
and effectiveness of the intervention(s) implemented.
Prior to a full and individual evaluation, informed parental consent must be obtained. In the RTI process,
this occurs when the team, including the parents, and as appropriate, other qualified professionals
considers the possible need for services such as special education.
The data and information supporting the eligibility decision are written and shared with the parent. The
evaluation documentation provides evidence that the individual is in need of special
education and related services.
In addition to initial eligibility, this process will be used when: Conducting a reevaluation, exiting from
all special education services.
Considerations/Exclusionary Factors:
1. Learning problems (SLD) in area(s) indicated are NOT primarily due to ….
a. visual disability, hearing disability, motor disability, significant limited intellectual capacity,
significant identifiable emotional disability.
b. An individual is not eligible for special education and related services if the learning difficulties
are primarily a result of one of the following exclusionary factors
-lack of appropriate instruction in reading, including in the essential components of reading
instructions
-lack of instruction in mathematics;
-limited English proficiency;
-cultural factors; environmental or economic disadvantage
2. Examples of Assessments Considerations of Exclusionary Factors
-Vision, hearing/Motor Disability: Annual vision/hearing screenings or OT/PT Screenings
- Significant Limited Intellectual Capacity: reviewed by qualified professional -individual IQ
screening, CogAt, adaptive behavior assessment
-Emotional Disability: data from checklists, observations
-Cultural Factors: local, disaggregated norms for AYP
-Environmental or Economic Disadvantage (AYP or low SES or interview)
-Limited English Proficiency: (AYP data for LEP, family questionnaire)
Progress Monitoring/Assessment Tools (Examples)
Academic
Intelligence
-DIBELS
-CogAt
-Curriculum Based Measures (CBM)
-Otis Lennon
-NWEA/MAPS
-SAGES
-Stanford
-ACT
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ’s)
Response to Intervention & SLD Eligibility
Who is Responsible for Implementing RTI? In Colorado, RTI is a multi-tiered problem solving approach that
addresses needs of ALL students. According to CDE, “Big” RTI is primarily a regular education process and “Little” RTI is
the Specific Learning Disability identification process which is primarily dependent upon data collection efforts from “Big”
RTI which the special education team uses to assist in SLD determination.
What Are Exceptions to the RTI Process & SLD Determination? At any point in the RTI process an
individual may move to eligibility, provided there are clear data that support the presence of a disability, and clear evidence
that supports the individual is in need of ongoing special education services. In these cases, the IEP team gathers, reviews,
and documents the data and other information that clearly defines the disability and need for special education and related
services.
What if the parents are requesting a full and individual evaluation before general education
interventions are implemented? Explain the RTI process in a way that the parents understand that the individual
will be receiving interventions to help the area of concern. In addition, during this process, data will be collected to determine
the educational progress, the discrepancy, and the instructional need for the individual. With this information the team will
partner with the parents to determine the need for ongoing special education and related services. A written consent is
required when the parents request a full and individual evaluation.
What if components or required SLD/RTI information are missing or not well done and the
individual is being referred for a special education evaluation? The components need to be supported by
evidence and the required questions need to be answered; any missing parts will be completed with the integrity of best
professional judgment by IEP team members prior to any consideration of eligibility.
Do students coming in from out of state or other Colorado School districts have to go through the
RTI process? Generally speaking, in Colorado (in-state transfers) students who are already found eligible for special
education services in one school should continue to be eligible unless the team has clear information that states otherwise and
that the student can reasonably benefit from general education alone. Students transferring from out of state where the special
education guidelines are different may not be found eligible and after careful review by the IEP team, the student may be sent
to the RTI team for further review.
What is adequate response time for students in the RTI process? The time element for a child to respond to
an intervention is an individual decision for each student. The problem solving team determines the baseline data point at
which the student is beginning and data points are collected throughout the course of the interventions. An adequate response
time is gauged by how much the skill gap “closes” during the course of the interventions.
Can individual IQ and achievement tests still be conducted for SLD determination? Yes, for SLD
determination the IEP team and/or related service providers must determine tests as being educationally relevant in
determining appropriate instructional interventions. Before individually administered IQ tests are given, written parental
consent must be obtained.
How do SLD triennial evaluations work under the RTI process? The assessment process is very similar to
the initial RTI process. The individual must continue to exhibit the need for specialized (special education) instruction and
the instructional support including supplemental aids/services are needed to assist the individual in making adequate
progress. The IEP team should use the “existing data” to the maximum extent possible to determine whether the student
continues to require an “intensive” level of special education support. Based on professional judgment of the IEP team
members, individually administered tests can be used to supplement the existing data.
Is Tier III only special education? No, Tier III is noted as the most intensive level of intervention that is provided to
students in general education and may or may not be receiving services from a special education service provider. A student
who does not respond to these interventions May be considered for special education eligibility.
Specific Learning Disability (SLD):
WORKSHEET 1
Educational Rate of Progress –Achievement:
1. How does this individual’s actual rate of skill acquisition compare to the expected rate of skill acquisition?
2. What are the frequency, intensity, and duration of the behavior? If a concern.
3. Have the intervention(s) been developed, implemented, and monitored with integrity?
4. Under what conditions did the individual experience the most growth?
Underachievment:
1.
What are the multiple sources of data (body of evidence) that demonstrate the individual’s performance is
significantly discrepant (Underachievement) from that of: 1. peers; 2. expected grade level standards?
2. How does the individual’s current level of performance compare to that of typical peers, expected standards?
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 variables contribute to the interventions, accommodations/modifications not enhancing student growth?
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?
Specific Learning Disability (SLD):WORKSHEET 2
To determine SLD the following Criteria must be met:
The Child does not achieve adequately for the child’s age or to meet state-approved 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 state approved grade-level standards. AND The child does
not make sufficient progress to meet age or state-approved grade-level standards in one or more of the
areas….when using a process based on the child’s response to scientific, research-based intervention:
(check those that apply & explain):
Identified Area
As evidenced by: Data/Rationale
___Oral Expression _______________________________________________________
___Listening Comprehension _______________________________________________
___Written Expression _____________________________________________________
___Basic Reading ________________________________________________________
___Reading Fluency ______________________________________________________
___Reading Comprehension ________________________________________________
___Math Computation _____________________________________________________
___Math Problem Solving __________________________________________________
Assessments or Screenings Administered
____ DIBELS ____ CSAP ____ NWEA ____CBM
____Other_____________________
Is student? Culturally/Linguistically Diverse (CLD)
____ Yes: include relevant information_____________________________________________
____ No
The Child is observed in the child’s learning environment:
Including the regular classroom setting: document the child’s academic performance and behavior in the areas of difficulty.
Date Observed:__________________________ Name/Title of Observer _________________________________
Summary of Observations:
Comprehensive Checklist for Specific Learning Disability
____ Problem Solving process Completed
____ Permission for Special Education Assessment Obtained (Complete within 60 Days)
____ Special Education Parents Rights Given
____Comprehensive Special Education Evaluation Conducted
Include following areas when applicable:
____Cognitive Functioning and/or Adaptive Behavior
a. Screenings: i.e. CogAT
b. Comprehensive Battery i.e. WISC-IV
i. Memory
ii. Executive functioning
iii. Attention
iv. Visual-spatial skills
c. Adaptive: ie.Vineland
i. Behavior
ii. Social/emotional functioning
____ Content Areas (WJ-III ie 12%pecentile or less)
___Oral Expression
___Listening Comprehension
___Written Expression
___Basic Reading
___Reading Fluency
___Reading Comprehension
___Math Computation
___Math Problem Solving
____ Communication-Speech/Language
d. Phonemic Awareness/phonological processes
e. Verbal/expressive-receptive skills
____ Nurse
f.
g.
Health
Vision/hearing
h.
i.
Motor
Physical
____ OT/PT
____ Include RTI information and determine:
_____ a. Educational Rate of Progress (achievement basedeon data points ie. 6 or less)
_____ b. Significance
_____ c. Need
_____ Culturally/Linguistic Student?
_____ Yes
_____ No
_____ Notice of IEP Meeting Sent (10 days Notice)
_____ IEP Meeting Conducted