David Prasse, Ph.D.
Loyola University Chicago dprasse@luc.edu
Joseph F. Kovaleski, D.Ed.
Cornwall-Lebanon School District jkovaleski@clsd.k12.pa.us
Richard E. Hall, Ph.D.
Eastern Lancaster County School District dick_hall@elanco.k12.pa.us

 IDEA 1997
 LD Summit – August 2001

President’s Commission on Special
Education

Robert Pasternack’s Statements on Reform
 Reauthorization of IDEA (underway)

1.
2.
3.
4.
Assess Lack of Instruction
Assess Response to Instruction During
Pre-referral Intervention.
Appraising the Extent of Academic
Deficiency.
Evaluating the Need for Specially
Designed Instruction.







Ryan is 8 years, 9 months and in third grade.
He has academic struggle in reading and received Reading
Recovery in first grade and now receives Title 1 services for reading.
Ryan was evaluated for Gifted Support in second grade and achieved a Full Scale IQ of 123 on the WISC-III.
Ryan’s rate of progress in math was above third grade level.
District standardized achievement test (Terra Nova) placed reading skills at the 9th percentile and math skills at the 75th percentile
CBA probes from third grade reading material indicated Ryan read at a median rate of 39 words correct per minute.





Third grade local norms indicate typical third grade students read at a median rate of 79 words correct per minute with this same material.
The Woodcock Diagnostic Reading Battery was administered by the reading specialist and Ryan achieved a Broad Reading Standard Score of 85.
Data from standard tests indicated a significant ability-achievement discrepancy based on the 38 standard score difference between his FS
IQ and his reading score.
CBA indicated a significant discrepancy between Ryan’s fluency rate and that of his third grade peers.







Ryan’s reading fluency rate was assessed using probes developed from the third grade reading curriculum material.
Over 5 probes Ryan’s fluency was at a median rate of 39 words correct per minute with 2 errors (95% accuracy).
Locally developed norms for third grade students indicated a fluency rate of
79 words correct per minute.
Data from Fuchs and Fuchs (1993) indicated a reading fluency acquisition rate of 1.5 words correct per week over the course of the school year.
Baseline data indicated a flat to slightly downward trend in Ryan’s fluency acquisition.
Assessment data from the Woodcock Diagnostic Battery and error analysis indicated weaknesses in rapid, automatic decoding and word attack skills.
Ryan had single and double vowel confusions, difficulty with double vowels
/oo/, /ea/ and double consonants /sh/, /gh/, etc. Occasionally he would add sounds to words. He had consistent difficulty with vowel final /e/ pattern words.

 IS RYAN IDENTIFIABLE AS A
STUDENT WITH A DISABILITY?
 DOES RYAN NEED SPECIAL
EDUCATION TO LEARN TO READ?

 Focus on high expectations
 Ensure access to the general education curriculum
 Strengthen role of parents to ensure meaningful participation
 Special education must become a service rather than a place

 Provide special education & related services and aids and supports in the regular classroom
 Provide incentives for whole-school approaches and pre-referral intervention
 Reduce the need to label as necessary to address learning needs.

 Focus on teaching and learning, while reducing paperwork and requirements that do not assist in improving educational results.

 A variety of assessment tools and strategies to gather relevant functional and developmental information, including information provided by the parent - to enable the child to be involved in and progress in the general curriculum or, for preschool children to participate in appropriate activities.

 Evaluations provided by the parent
 Classroom-based observations and assessments
 On the basis of that review, and input from the child’s parents,identify what additional data, if any , are needed to determine special education needs.

In making a determination of eligibility under paragraph (4)(A), a child shall not be determined to be a child with a disability if the determinant factor for such determination is lack of instruction in reading or math or limited English proficiency. [IDEA §614(b)(5)]

 Students may be identified as LD because they were not taught the “core skill of reading” effectively.
 Not taught = lack of instruction (LOI)
 LOI will decrease over-identification and focus schools’ efforts on instruction in the primary grades.

DEFINITION OF LEARNING DISABILITIES
(excerpts from IDEA)

§300.541 Criteria for determining the existence of a specific learning disability. 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, if provided with learning experiences appropriate for the child's age and ability levels;

§ 300.543 A team may determine that a child has a specific learning disability if… (6) Whether there is a severe discrepancy between achievement and ability that is not correctable without special education and related services ;

 Criticized wait to fail model
 Criticized disconnect between current assessment practices and marker variables
 Criticized ability-achievement discrepancy approach
 Pointed to response to instruction as alternative evaluation procedure

PRESIDENTS COMMISION SPECIAL
EDUCATION: FINDINGS









Current system – process above results
Current system – wait to fail model
Dual system- general and special
Inadequate parent options and recourse
Culture of compliance
Identification methods lack validity
Better teacher preparation needed
Rigorous research and evidence-based practice
Focus on compliance and bureaucratic imperatives not academic achievement

 Focus on results – not on process.
 Embrace a model of prevention not failure
 Consider children with disabilities as general education children first.

 Change the way we assess for LD.
 Eliminate the necessity for IQ-achievement discrepancy.
 Shift to academically relevant assessments.
 Change focus from eligibility determination to successful interventions.

 Use response to instruction as a key measure.
 Apply scientifically based instruction before referring for evaluation.

The Commission believes that the approach to all high-incidence disabilities needs to shift from a failure model to a prevention model.

To prevent the wrong children from being served, the
Commission recommends that current regulations be modified so that the student’s response to scientifically based instruction is part of the criteria for SLD.

Statement by Robert Pasternack, Assistant Secretary for Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services On Learning Disabilities before the House of
Representatives Education and the Workforce Committee, Subcommittee on
Education Reform

 Half of the students receiving special education are LD.
 80% to 90% of students with LD have reading disabilities.
 Most students can learn to read with scientifically based instruction.
 A very few students fail to respond to even our best instructional approaches.

 Studies of responsiveness to intervention generally do not find relationships with IQ or IQ-discrepancy.
 May seem counterintuitive, but IQ tests do not measure cognitive skills like phonological awareness that are closely associated with LD in reading.






5% of children learn to read effortlessly
20-30% learn relatively easily once exposed to reading instruction
For 60% of children learning to read is a much more formidable task
For at least 20-30% of children, reading is one of the most difficult tasks that they will have to master.
For 5% of students even with explicit and systematic instruction, reading will continue to be a challenge.
 MacKenzie (2000), citing statistics from Lyon, Kamme’enue, Simmons, et al.

 False positives (high IQ; average achievement)
 False negatives (the slow learner myth)
 Need to wait until discrepant to deliver SDI

Doesn’t link with intervention

 Moving quickly through committee
 Many controversial issues
 Would include revision of procedure for LD identification process

…when determining whether a child has a specific learning disability as defined by this Act, the local educational agency shall not be required to take into consideration whether the child has a severe discrepancy between achievement and intellectual ability in oral expression, listening comprehension, written expression, basic reading skill, reading comprehension, mathematical calculation, or mathematical reasoning.

 "...the teacher's concern for getting through the curriculum ...may...be a prime source of curriculum casualties who end up in special education."
Rosenfield, S. (1987). Instructional consultation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, p. 27.

Fluent
Reflective
Readers/
Writers
S
I
O
N
H
E
N
P
R
E
C
O
M
• Background
Knowledge
• Predictions
• Clarification/
questioning
• Monitoring
for Meaning
• Summarizing
• Making
Pers onal
Connections
• Automaticity with
the code
• Structure of the
language
• Alphabetic principle
• Phonological awareness
Early Literacy Experiences and
Oral Language Development
Reading
Is
Rocket
Science
Louisa Cook Moats

 Kindergarten screening for phonological awareness
 Kindergarten intervention program to address phonological awareness
 Regular (quarterly) assessments of all students on phonological/phonemic awareness and reading decoding
 Flexible intervention (remedial) programs to address needs of students who fall behind
 Reading program based on sufficient time allocated to direct instruction in phonemic awareness and efficient decoding of text

CONTINUUM OF EXPLICIT INSTRUCTION
IN “PHONICS” OR THE STRUCTURE OF LANGUAGE
IMPLICIT EXPLICIT
Language
Experience Whole Language
Basal with embedded phonics
Linguistic
Word Families based on
Orthographic
Families
Systematic
Phonics
Systematic
Phonics with
Direct
Instruction
Multisensory
Structured
Language
Whole
Words Smith &
Goodman’s
Work
Using literature and authentic text with mini lessons
Meaning-Based
Basals
• Merrill
Linguistics e.g., Invitations to Literacy
• Open
Court
• Reading
Mastery
• Corrective
Reading
• Project Read
• Wilson Language
System
• Preventing
Academic
Failure, etc.
Carmine
Engleman, et al
Orton Gillinghambased approaches
Joy MacKenzie 3/00

 1. Assessing Lack of Instruction
 2. Assessing Response to Instruction
 3. Determining Extent of Deficiency
 4. Evaluating the Need for Specially
Designed Instruction

Appraising the Student’s Instructional
History and Current Instructional
Environment

• Check of student’s history
 Check on history of instructional procedures
 Assessment of current classroom instructional environment

ASSESSING LACK OF INSTRUCTION
HISTORICAL FACTORS
 Attendance – traditional approach
 Moving – number of different schools
 Discontinuity of instruction
 Cultural/language mismatch

ASSESSING LACK OF INSTRUCTION

Can’t be done without assessing instructional environment
 Ultimately is tied to treatment integrity
 Techniques and approaches same as those necessary for all data-based decision making
 Data-based decision making in special education

ASSESSING LACK OF INSTRUCTION:
INSTRUCTIONAL ENVIRONMENT
 To what extent is instruction planned?
 How is instruction managed?
 How is instruction delivered?
 How is instruction monitored?

INSTRUCTIONAL ENVIRONMENT
COMPONENTS
• Instructional match
 Teacher expectations
 Classroom environment
 Instructional presentation
 Cognitive emphasis
 Motivational strategies

INSTRUCTIONAL ENVIRONMENT
COMPONENTS (cont.)
 Relevant practice
 Informed feedback
 Academic engaged time
 Adaptive instruction
 Progress evaluation
 Student understanding
(Ysseldyke & Christenson, 1994)

ASSESSING THE INSTRUCTIONAL
ENVIRONMENT – METHODS



 THE FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ACADEMIC
BEHAVIOR (FAAB)


BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATION OF STUDENTS IN
SCHOOLS (BOSS)
ECOBEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENT SYSTEM
(CISSAR)

WHAT CAN BE LEARNED
 Academic engagement
 Teacher directed instruction
 Active teaching/learning
 Opportunity to learn
 Demonstrate/prompt/practice
 Guided practice
 Rate of accurate student response

School-wide Screening and Intervention

 Primary grades
 Early assessment of marker variables (e.g.,
DIBELS)
 Identification of high risk students
 Targeted intervention to high risk students using research-based procedures (group)
 Ongoing monitoring of performance
(quarterly)

“… (a) teacher’s modification of instruction or classroom management to better accommodate a difficult-to-teach pupil without disabilities”
Fuchs, Fuchs and Bahr (1990) p. 128.

Former Model
Concern Expressed

Former Model
Concern Expressed
Team Meets
Identifies Problem

Former Model
Concern Expressed
Team Meets
Identifies Problem
Teacher Implements

Former Model
Concern Expressed
Team Meets
Identifies Problem
Teacher Implements
Progress Evaluated

Current Model
Conduct
Thorough
Assessment
Former Model
Concern Expressed
Team Meets
Identifies Problem
Teacher Implements
Progress Evaluated

Current Model
Conduct
Thorough
Assessment
Trial Teaching
Establish
Strategies
Former Model
Concern Expressed
Team Meets
Identifies Problem
Teacher Implements
Progress Evaluated

Current Model
Conduct
Thorough
Assessment
Former Model
Concern Expressed
Team Meets
Identifies Problem
Trial Teaching
Establish
Strategies
Work Strategies
Into Class
Routines
Teacher Implements
Progress Evaluated

Current Model
Conduct
Thorough
Assessment
Former Model
Concern Expressed
Team Meets
Identifies Problem
Trial Teaching
Establish
Strategies
Work Strategies
Into Class
Routines
Assess
Continuously
Teacher Implements
Progress Evaluated

6.
7.
8.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
General screening
Identifying students for IST
Conducting the initial assessment
Identifying the problem and goal
Selecting the strategy and planning the intervention
Implementing the intervention
Evaluating the results of intervention
Interfacing IST with further evaluations for eligibility for special education and IEP

 Were research-based strategies used?
 Were the strategies implemented with high fidelity?
 What do the data show in terms of student response?

 Select a high probability strategy (and state it precisely)
 Establish the strategy in the classroom through
"hands-on consultation"
 Merge the strategy into the teacher's daily routine
 Assess continuously the student's response to the intervention
 Assess the level of implementation

5 Strategy is implemented exactly as stated.
4 Strategy is implemented as stated most of the time.
3 Strategy is implemented as stated some of the time.
2 Strategy is infrequently implemented as stated.
1 Strategy is not implemented as stated.
N.B. The statement of a strategy included the initial description as well as any edits that are made to the description in response to the student's ongoing needs.

.
wpm
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Assessment Sessions
Description: Lack of instruction is not evident.
This student has responded poorly to the intervention strategy. After an initial adaptation period of five days, the teacher implemented the strategy as designed for the duration of the intervention period. In spite of this assistance, the student's rate of learning throughout the period has been slow. This response-to-instruction pattern indicates that the student's lack of progress is more likely the result of learning difficulties than a lack of effective instruction. Specially designed instruction is likely needed for this student to acquire and retain new information.

wpm
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Assessment Sessions
Student responds well to effective instruction.
Description:
This student responded well to the intervention strategy. After an initial adaptation period of six days, the teacher implemented the strategy as designed for the duration of the intervention period. With this assistance, the student's rate of learning throughout the period was steady and in a positive direction. This response-to-instruction pattern indicates that the student's difficulties are more likely the result of a lack of effective instruction than a disability. This student does not display a high degree of need for special education because he can demonstrate acquisition and retention with adapted instruction in the regular classroom.

.
wpm
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29
Assessment Sessions
Description: Response to instruction cannot be determined.
This student has responded poorly during the intervention strategy. However, in spite of support, the intervention was not implemented as planned throughout the intervention period. Consequently, it cannot be determined whether the student's lack of progress are more likely the result of learning difficulties or a lack of effective instruction. Another period of support is needed to assist the teacher to implement the strategy as designed in order to make a conclusion about this issue.

Is the student discrepant from realistic expectations for his or her grade and age level?

 Development of local norms
 Determining discrepancy from local norms
 2.0 X criterion

Cornwall-Lebanon SD Elementary Oral Reading Fluency Norms
Grade Level: 1A 1B 1C 2A 2B 3A 3B 4A 4B 5A 5B
WPM: 17.81
41.51
69.18
75.92 112.74
78.6
107.3
106.9
125 129.27 146.24
Grade Level: 1A 1B 1C 2A 2B 3A 3B 4A 4B 5A 5B
EPM: 9.56
5.53
3.85
4.41
2.47
5.24
3.21
3.35
2.8
2.39
1.75


Divide norm group mean by student’s score
 Result expressed as a ratio of deficiency
 Example: 100 wpm / 50 wpm = 2.0X

 Group testing
 Individual testing

 Deviations in materials
 Deviations in planning
 Deviations in personnel







Ryan is 8 years, 9 months and in third grade.
He has academic struggle in reading and received Reading
Recovery in first grade and now receives Title 1 services for reading.
Ryan was evaluated for Gifted Support in second grade and achieved a Full Scale IQ of 123 on the WISC-III.
Ryan’s rate of progress in math was above third grade level.
District standardized achievement test (Terra Nova) placed reading skills at the 9th percentile and math skills at the 75th percentile
CBA probes from third grade reading material indicated Ryan read at a median rate of 39 words correct per minute.





Third grade local norms indicate typical third grade students read at a median rate of 79 words correct per minute with this same material.
The Woodcock Diagnostic Reading Battery was administered by the reading specialist and Ryan achieved a Broad Reading Standard Score of 85.
Data from standard tests indicated a significant ability-achievement discrepancy based on the 38 standard score difference between his FS
IQ and his reading score.
CBA indicated a significant discrepancy between Ryan’s fluency rate and that of his third grade peers.







Ryan’s reading fluency rate was assessed using probes developed from the third grade reading curriculum material.
Over 5 probes Ryan’s fluency was at a median rate of 39 words correct per minute with 2 errors (95% accuracy).
Locally developed norms for third grade students indicated a fluency rate of
79 words correct per minute.
Data from Fuchs and Fuchs (1993) indicated a reading fluency acquisition rate of 1.5 words correct per week over the course of the school year.
Baseline data indicated a flat to slightly downward trend in Ryan’s fluency acquisition.
Assessment data from the Woodcock Diagnostic Battery and error analysis indicated weaknesses in rapid, automatic decoding and word attack skills.
Ryan had single and double vowel confusions, difficulty with double vowels
/oo/, /ea/ and double consonants /sh/, /gh/, etc. Occasionally he would add sounds to words. He had consistent difficulty with vowel final /e/ pattern words.

 IS RYAN IDENTIFIABLE AS A
STUDENT WITH A DISABILITY?
 DOES RYAN NEED SPECIAL
EDUCATION TO LEARN TO READ?

 WHAT ASPECTS OF THE
INSTRUCTIONAL ENVIRONMENT
WOULD YOU ASSESS TO DETERMINE
IF RYAN IS FAILING BECAUSE OF A
LACK OF INSTRUCTION?

Classroom Environment Assessment:Ryan
Observations and interview data indicate the following:
•
Reading instruction consisted of the “Guided Reading Model” with a literature-based or whole language approach as it’s foundation.
• Ryan was taught with a heterogeneous group of student with widely varying levels of reading development.
•
•
•
•
• There were 23 students in the class.
The Title 1 tutor (a paraprofessional) was available to provide assistance to struggling students on an as-needed basis.
The teaching of letter sounds was assumed to have been instructed in first grade during Reading Recovery intervention.
Current instruction in letter sounds consisted of teaching letter sound correspondence within words in text “to avoid decontextualized language”.
Letter sounds, blending and other phonetic decoding skills were instructed in an implicit manner

 WHAT WOULD YOUR INTERVENTION
PLAN BE FOR RYAN?

Read Instruction was changed for a small group of students in this classroom by using a reading curriculum series “Horizons”
(McGraw-Hill) with the following components:
 Homogeneous grouping of students with similar reading levels.
 Explicit and unambiguous instruction in letter-sound correspondences.
 Explicit instruction in and opportunities to look carefully at spellings, sounding out and blending words.
 Frequent opportunities to discriminate new letter-sound correspondences from previously learned correspondences.
 Reading material with controlled vocabulary so that there were opportunities to read decodable stories.
 Prompt and direct error correction and modeling of newly introduced lettersound correspondences.
 Frequent review of learned skills.
 Instruction in sight word recognition of difficult to decode words

Baseline
Ryan's Response to Intervention
Intervention Phase
50
40
30
20
70
60
90
80
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Biweekly Probes
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Ryan
Peer Norm
Goal Rate

 DOES RYAN STILL QUALIFY FOR
SPECIAL EDUCATION?

 An assessment of reading instruction identified several problems with the instruction provided to Ryan and others in the class with weak reading skills.
 Reading groups were heterogeneous and difficult to teach.
 The teacher provided instruction based on the erroneous assumption that most students had lettersound correspondence mastery.
 Letter-sound correspondence instruction was implicit and unsystematic and involved teaching these skills within words and text.
 Text did not have controlled vocabulary


 There was little if any logic to the sequence of lettersound instruction
 There was no real direct instruction in sounding out and blending words
 Student error correction and teacher modeling was inconsistent.

Review activities were highly inconsistent
 When these instruction problems were addressed Ryan responded with an accelerated fluency rate.









Chronological Age: 11 years, 4 Months and in Grade: 5
A history of challenging classroom behavior since 3rd grade
Ethan is frequently off-task and disrupts instruction by making high frequency irrelevant and inappropriate verbal comments during instruction.
He frequently requests to use the restroom and stays in the restroom for 20 to 30 minutes.
He gets out of his seat without permission and wonders the classroom.
At home he refuses to do certain chores such as clean his room.
He can be argumentative and disrespectful with his mother, father and teacher.
He rarely completes assigned class work or homework.


Ethan’s average work completion: 33.75%; class average: 70.63

Ethan’s time-on-task rate Average: 42%; class average: 85%

Ethan’s average rate of calling out: 8/hr.; Class average: 6/hr.
 Average Restroom use per day: 14; Class average per student: 2

Ethan’s average out of seat without permission: 22; Class average 8

Ethan’s frequency of disrespectful comments to teacher: 32: Class average 2

 HOW WOULD YOU ASSESS THE
CLASSROOM ENVIRONMENT FOR
ETHAN?


Teacher verbal reinforcement ratio 8 negative/neutral comments to 1 praise
 Rules posted but vaguely stated
 The probability of Ethan getting attention for inappropriate comments was approximately 80%

The probability of Ethan getting attention for “correct” behavior was approximately 40%.

Motivational system: Tokens dispensed for “doing a good job”
 Verbal praise statements were not specific, did not describe behavior.
 Consequences for inappropriate behavior consisted of 1) a verbal warning, 2) in class timeout, 3) sent to principals office and phone call home.
 Contacts with home were infrequent and centered around misbehavior

 Functional Behavioral Assessment indicated Ethan ’ s challenging classroom behavior served the function of escaping, avoiding and/or postponing nonpreferred academic tasks, particularly those requiring writing.
 Ethan ’ s behavior was effected by modeling of similar behavior by his older brother.
 Ethan engaged in disruptive behavior to gain teacher and peer attention.
 FBA indicated that parent support and consequences were critical factors at those times when Ethan did complete work.

 WHAT WOULD BE YOUR
INTERVENTION BASED ON THESE
DATA?

 Goal: When Ethan is given academic assignments during the school day he will appropriately complete (e.g., complete the task with 70% accuracy or better) at least 50% of these assignments for 3 consecutive days by February 28, 01.






Modify task demands for written assignments.
When possible offer choices between tasks
Offer extra support for new learning activities and preparation for difficult tasks
Provide and schedule of task demands for the day that he can check off as he completes them, (e.g., a schedule board)
Incorporate information about animals into instruction (an areas of interest)
 Alternate preferred and nonpreferred tasks in his schedule






Behavior specific praise with teacher training to increase the verbal reinforcement ratio to 3-to-1 reinforcement for on-task behavior to correction/reprimand or neutral statements.
A token reinforcement for each assignment completed to an acceptable level (70% accuracy).
Token exchange for eliminate of an assignments. Specific time for token exchange.
A Daily and Weekly report sent home giving an evaluation of the school day based on goals achieved, (e.g., Super Day – completes 60
% or more of his work, Acceptable Day – Completes at least 50% of his school work, Unacceptable Day – completes less than 50% of his school work).
Ethan received a daily home reward for a Super Day and a Weekly reward for a Super Week (4 out of 5 Super Days)

Assignment Completion rate
Intervention Baseline Return to Intervention
Baseline
100
90
80
70
40
30
20
10
60
50
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19
Days
21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37
Class Average
Ethan

 Does Ethan qualify for special education?

 Functional behavioral assessment indicated that much of Ethan ’ s challenging behavior served the function of escape, avoid and/or postponement of nonpreferred academic tasks, particularly those requiring writing.
 Ethan ’ s behavior was effected by modeling of similar behavior by his older brother.
 Ethan will engage in disruptive behavior to gain teacher and peer attention.
 FBA indicated that parent support and consequences were critical factors at those times when Ethan did complete work.







Juan moved from Colombia,to the U.S. in May of 1999.
He was enrolled in school in September 1999. Due to his age (7 years) and English As A Second Language (ESL) status, he was placed in first grade.
Anecdotal report indicated Juan had prior schooling in
Columbia of unknown quality.
He began first grade with poor English proficiency.
ESL instruction intensively focused on learning the letters of the alphabet, beginning counting and basic English vocabulary.
By May of 2000, he spoke in unprompted sentences in English and was generally using one to three words in a sentence when speaking.





Juan’s end of year first grade report card noted that due to his lack of English proficiency, he was not graded for
Reading, Writing or content subjects.
In Math, he was graded as “needing improvement” in most areas. He understood how to compute basic addition and subtraction.
Juan was at the beginning stage of writing words and learning how to make letters and space between words.
He was referred to the pre-referral team due to insufficient academic progress.
He needed 1:1 assistance in all academic areas. Goals were developed for reading, writing and math.
Juan did not meet any of his reading and writing goals but achieved his math goal.







Juan could consistently identify an average of 6 (5.5) from the basic sight word being instructed
Comparison peers could identify an average of 6 (6.2) of these sight words
3 comparison students were identified who have been in the
U.S. for about the same amount of time.
Intellectual screening using nonverbal measures indicates
Juan’s ability is in the Average range.
Similar screening of Comparison peers indicated average ability.
Both Juan and comparisons had similar levels of math proficiency

 WHAT ASPECTS OF THE
INSTRUCTIONAL ENVIRONMENT
WOULD YOU ASSESS TO DETERMINE
IF JUAN IS FAILING BECAUSE OF A
LACK OF INSTRUCTION?

Classroom Environment Assessment: Juan

Juan’s second grade classroom consisted of 21 students.
 2 other students received ESL services.
 Reading instruction included whole group instruction that was “literature based” and small group and individual oneon-one instruction to develop sight vocabulary recognition using flash card, multisensory techniques and word games.
 ESL instruction intensively focused on learning the letters of the alphabet, beginning counting and basic English vocabulary.

Assessment Information: Juan
 Both Juan and comparisons were assessed at the end of each week.
 A baseline was established for Juan and comparison peers
 Students were asked to identify words from the list of 30 basic sight words that were being instructed.
 Number of words identified correctly were recorded and graphed.

 WHAT WOULD YOUR INTERVENTION
PLAN BE FOR JUAN?

Intervention Components: Juan
 Students received instruction on letter sounds in small group and one-toone instructional arrangement.
 Drill sandwich intervention was used by using flashcards with a 20 to 80 ratio of know to unknown words.
 Student engaged time for reading instruction was increased by 20%
 Letter sound instruction was provided via computer-based-instruction for
12 minute per day.
 Various word games were used to develop automatic word recognition of targeted sight words.

Juan and Peer comparisons
20
15
10
5
30
25
Jaun
Peer
Linear (Jaun)
Linear (Peer)
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Days
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

 DOES JUAN QUALIFY FOR SPECIAL
EDUCATION?


Case Implications: Juan
Juan’s response to intervention was significantly discrepant from the acquisition rate of 3 comparison peers who were match according to the approximate time in the U.S., intellectual ability level and pre-intervention sight word reading level.

Juan’s rate of progress in the Math curriculum was consistent with typical peers when he received accommodations for below grade level reading.
 Because of Juan’s low reading achievement and limited English proficiency and the fact that quality of his previous instruction prior coming to the U.S. was unclear. A more true measure of his learning abilities may be his resistance to intervention.


A resistance to intervention model was used during pre-referral intervention as a method of ruling out lack of instruction as a contributing factor in Juan’s academic struggles.
Juan’s resistance to intervention was used as the basis for referral to MDT evaluation to consider his need for specially designed instruction.


Aaron is 8 years, 1 months and in second grade.
 He experienced difficultly acquiring basic reading skills in first grade.
 He was tutored privately for10 weeks over the summer by his first grade teacher.
 He was referred to the pre-referral intervention team in September of 2nd grade.
 CBA probes from the second grade reading material indicated Aaron read at a median rate of 25 words correct per minute.
 Second grade fall local norms indicate typical second grade students read at a median rate of 49 words correct per minute with this same material.

CBA indicated a large discrepancy between Aaron’s fluency rate and that of his second grade peers.

 WHAT ASPECTS OF THE
INSTRUCTIONAL ENVIRONMENT
WOULD YOU ASSESS TO DETERMINE
IF AARON IS FAILING BECAUSE OF A
LACK OF INSTRUCTION?

 Woodcock-Johnson III Test of Cognitive ability 106 Average
 Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement in Reading
Domain
Broad Reading
Phoneme-Grapheme
Knowledge
Word Recognition
Reading Fluency
SS Classification
83 Low Average
Basic Reading Skills 92 Average
Reading Comprehension 85 Low Average
89 Low Average
Passage Comprehension 88 Low Average
Word Attack
Reading Vocabulary
Spelling Sounds
90 Average
78 Deficient
96
77
Average
87 Low Average
Deficient





Assessment for Intervention Design: Aaron
Parent interview, teacher interview and student interview using the FAAB
Multiple classroom observations using the Eco-Behavior Observation Matrix
Phonics survey
Trial teaching
 Inconsistent home-school communication
 Often compares himself to higher functioning siblings



Parent assistance for reading results in conflicts
Breaks in instruction, e.g., vacation result in lost skills
Gets teacher attention through avoidance or immature dependent behavior








Excessively slow in responding
Fails to give close attention to details
Avoids difficult tasks
Limited instructional match
Frequent amount of “down time” during instruction
Frequent vowel confusions
Reinforced by successful experiences
Student identified things that help him; being able to use a visual aid, talking to himself when he daydreams, preview of words.


Restructured class schedule to reduce “down time” and increase opportunities to respond in reading instruction in small group.
 Review of vowel decoding rule
 Explicit instruction in and opportunities to look carefully at spellings, sounding out and blending words.
 Repeated Readings to directly target reading fluency.
 Goal setting, charting and public display of graphs.
 .Tangible reinforcement for achieving goals
 .Brief family consultation regarding home reading activities, conflict management and sibling issues.
 Instruction in sight word recognition of difficult to decode words
 Visual display of phonic rules
 Teacher verbal reinforcement and attention for task effort while ignoring immature or dependent behaviors
 Brief structured activities provided for vacation periods.

Aaron's Reading Fluency Data
80
70
Baseline
Phase 1
Repeated Readings
Drill sandwich
Behavior Plan
Phase 2
Goal setting
Reinforcement
Parent activities
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
17-Sep 10/15/02 31-Oct 11/8/02 11/15/02 25-Nov 1/14/03
Probe Dates
2/18/03 3/3/03 3/10/03 3/17/03 3/24/03 4/4/03