Writing County SLD Guidelines to
Use RTI for Eligibility
October 27, 2015
Libby Vince, M.A., NCSP
Nancy Theis, Ed.S.
Outcomes
Understand the need for change based on research “Special Education
can't change the
and data.
Have access to references and resources to assist
you in your own journey.
whole system by
itself. It's got to be
all hands on deck.”
Communicate and utilize Ingham ISDs document to Daphne Pereles Executive Director, Office
influence SLD eligibility decisions in your district.
of Learning Supports,
Colorado Department of
Education
Collaborative Effort Across Ingham ISD
We would like to thank and credit the hard, on-going work of the
members of the SLD Guidelines Committee:
Nancy Theis
Michelle Rigsby
Libby Vince
Eileen McKee
Brian Lloyd
Tanya Stokes
Erin Rappuhn
Sara Leggett
Kimberly Wyse
Marcia O’Brien
Michelle Urbanek
A special thank you to Dr. George Batsche for his guidance and support and to the Wisconsin Dept. of Public
Instruction for allowing us to adapt their Technical Guide for Determining the Eligibility of Students with Specific
Learning Disabilities.
From the 2014
MAASE keynote
presentation,
with Stevan
Kukic.
The Typical Phrase:
READY
AIM
FIRE
AIM
Say “no” to
education’s
common error in
paradigm shifting
AIM
AIM
PARADIGM
SHIFT
READY
FIRE
AIM
Peters; 2004, 1993, 1982
Ingham ISD
• 12 local districts, 2 public
school academies
• 90 buildings and 35 preschool
classrooms
• Over 800 staff/administrators
Our stepping stones to implementation…
ARRA Funds - County
wide MTSS
Implementation
MiBLSi Partnership
Data based decision
making & problem
solving training &
support
Support & training of
core reading & math
program
Development of
county wide data
system “Illuminate
Education”
School-based
leadership teams
MTSS Coaches in every
district
Training in MTSS core
components: Universal
Screening & Progress
Monitoring
Evidenced based
intervention training
PD opportunities with
Archer, Feldman,
Shinn, Batsche, Sugai,
& Paul Robb
Leadership academies
for administrators
Early Warning System
implementation
targeted to secondary
level
Early years project for
MTSS in pre-K settings
Family Engagement
Initiative
What we have learned
In 2010, shift from IQ-achievement discrepancy model to a pattern
of strengths and weaknesses (PSW) model:
1. Students have been found to be ineligible for consideration of a learning
disability because they do not have strengths.
2. The current PSW model is not supported by experts in the field.
IQ
Discrepancy
PSW
MTSS/ RTI
Why New Guidelines Now!
•MTSS implementation in all districts over the past 8 years
•MTSS conveys a new way of thinking about determining SLD
•Special education data supports the need for improvement
•MTSS provides rich data for determining a specific learning disability
•Not legal to use IQ/Achievement Discrepancy
•RTI most defensible…It is the right thing to do!
Big Idea…Solid MTSS Implementation is critical
to Special Education Evaluations
“A school that has robust procedures for
implementing MTSS will have collected
during the provision of these supports a
wide range of assessment data that not
only has informed instruction and
intervention, but can also be used as
important evidence for special education
eligibility decisions.”
◦ Kovaleski, VanDerHeyden & Shapiro, 2013
Change is Scary… Or Is It?
The use of RTI for SLD eligibility was detailed within the 2010 guideline.
The “alternative” model (academic patterns of strength and weaknesses) was seen
as a way for Ingham to use RTI practices for special education evaluations while
districts began implementing RTI/MTSS.
The required sources of data within our last guidelines are consistent with our new
guidelines.
Big Idea…Not a Big Change!
2010
2015
Progress Monitoring data that meets goal line
Progress Monitoring data that meets goal line
Universal Screening
Universal Screening
MEAP/ACT/SAT
MEAP/SAT
Norm Reference Tests (WIAT, KTEA, etc)
Norm Reference Tests (WIAT, KTEA, etc)
Curriculum Assessments
Curriculum Assessments
Grades
Grades
Teacher Reports
Teacher Reports
Observations (formal and informal)
Observations (formal and informal)
Scores equivalent to below 10th %ile
Scores equivalent to below 10th %ile
Documentation of at least 2 interventions targeted to
area of need
Documentation of at least 2 interventions targeted to
area of need
Data ruling out/confirming Exclusionary Factors
Data ruling out/confirming Exclusionary Factors
Who’s got the data?
What data do you currently collect?
What additional data should you collect?
Introducing!
Here It Is!
Chapter 1 – Overview of Ingham ISD’s SLD Eligibility Guidelines
Chapter 2 – The Special Education Evaluation Process
Chapter 3 – Criteria for Determining SLD Eligibility During Initial Evaluation
Chapter 4 – Special Topics
Chapter 5 – Determining the Need for Special Education and Next Steps
Chapter 6 – Reevaluation Criteria
Appendices and References
We thank the Wisconsin Department of
Public Instruction for permission to utilize
the contents of their document as a source
for this document: http://sped.dpi.wi.gov/
Great Resource…
RTI Action Network Tool Kit
This Toolkit provides…
◦ Vision: Focus on clear vision of best practice related to an RTI-based SLD
Identification process
◦ Systems& Structures: Focus on school systems to develop structures to
facilitates instructional decision making
◦ National Perspective: All states make mention of RTI in their SLD regulations
Another great reference
tool for this work!
Chapter 1 – Overview of Ingham ISD’s Specific
Learning Disabilities Eligibility Guidelines
The graphic emphasizes:
• Exclusionary factors are the lens
through which the other criteria
(inadequate achievement and
insufficient progress) are
considered.
• Each of the components is
weighted equally.
• The “need for special education”
is central to making an eligibility
determination.
Chapter 1 – Overview
Setting the Stage for Changes to the SLD Guidelines
Definition of Specific Learning Disability
Eight Achievement Areas of Specific Learning Disability
Outline of the SLD Criteria
SLD Evaluation Activities and Data Sources
Applying the Guidelines: Ideas for MET/IEP Team Discussion
Chapter 2 – The Special Education
Evaluation Process
Problem-Solving Model
Review of Existing Evaluation Data (REED)
Observations and Other Relevant Data
Chapter 2 - The Special Education
Evaluation Process
Problem Solving Model – Facilitators Guide Links
The purpose of the Facilitator’s Guide is to provide educators
the tools to run an effective problem solving meeting at the
district, building, and student levels. It includes meeting
worksheets and related resources for the 4-Step and 8-Step
Problem Solving Processes.
Questions to Answer Before Evaluation
Is the student…
1. Receiving Appropriate instruction in the general education setting?
2. Receiving Evidence-based interventions that are targeted to his or
her area(s) of need, in addition to core instruction?
3. Demonstrating insufficient progress and inadequate achievement?
Has appropriate data been collected to…
4. Assess the student’s response to the instruction/interventions?
5. Rule out exclusionary factors?
Data Supporting Inadequate
Achievement (Academic Gap)
Data Needed
at REEDs
Data Supporting Insufficient Progress
Data Verifying Lack of Exclusionary
Factors
Grade-based data
Documentation of Tier 2 and tier 3
interventions currently received
(name, frequency, duration, progress
monitoring, fidelity)
Attendance
State-based assessment data
Current progress monitoring data
Medical information (if
necessary/available)
Teacher observation/input
History of tier 2 and tier 3
interventions previously received
(name, frequency, duration, fidelity)
Retention history (if applicable)
SAT/ACT (secondary)
Previous progress monitoring data
Previous programs / schools attended
CBM benchmark scores
Rate of improvement (ROI) with
interventions implemented
Primary language with consideration
of BICS/CALP
Classroom-based assessments
compared to class
averages/expectation
Typical rate of peer group
improvement
Vision and hearing assessment
results
Accommodations consistently
provided in the general education
setting and effectiveness
Gap analysis data
Relevant environmental, economic,
or cultural factors
Standardized academic assessment
scores/results
Requirements for Observations
At least one systematic observation is recommended for all initial SLD
evaluations.
An observation should be conducted in each content area suspected
for disability.
Observation may occur before or after REED is signed.
Observations should provide data for:
◦ achievement level and progress
◦ Related Needs
◦ Barriers that may interfere with the learning
Chapter 3 - Criteria for Determining SLD
Eligibility During Initial Evaluation
The Role of Intervention and SLD Eligibility
Defining Comprehensive Evaluation
The Three SLD Eligibility Criteria
◦ Exclusionary Factors
◦ Inadequate Achievement
◦ Insufficient Progress
Intervention and SLD Eligibility
•Focused on discrete skills aligned to needs
•Provision of supplemental minutes to core instruction
•Culturally responsive
•Provided in individual or small groups
•Administered with fidelity
•Evidenced by a high success rate with peers with
similar skill deficits!
EBI Resources
http://www.intensiveintervention.org/chart/instructionalintervention-tools
http://www.wirticenter.com/intervention2/#filters
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Publications_Reviews.aspx?f=All%20Pu
blication%20and%20Product%20Types,1;#pubsearch
Intervention Fidelity and SLD
Source
Documentation
Student work samples are
Work samples or
collected and stored by date,
permanent products with start and end time of the
intervention session recorded
Advantages
Easy to collect, natural part of
intervention process, reliable
Disadvantages
Limited information on
intervention process
Intervention log
Documents basic information for
each intervention session
Easy to document
including names, dates, and start
and end times
Limited information
(attendance, frequency, duration
of sessions)
Direct observation
Intervention broken down into
observable components
identified on an observation
checklist; observer counts the
occurrence of each component
to determine the percentage
correctly implemented
Requires staff time to do
observations; the observation
checklist may not differentiate
the most important components
of the intervention
Provides objective, first-hand
information
Exclusionary Factors
Defining Exclusionary Factors
Environmental or economic disadvantage,
or cultural factors
◦ Demographic subgroup comparisons
should be considered
Lack of appropriate instruction in reading,
math or any other areas of SLD being
considered
Limited English proficiency
Other impairments
Inadequate Achievement
Inadequate Achievement
Data for Inadequate Achievement
Norm-referenced diagnostic assessment standard scores of 8O or
below, or percentiles below the 10th percentile
State assessment scores that indicate scores below state proficiency
levels
Classroom grades of D or E
Curriculum assessments that are below the 10th percentile when
compared to same-grade peers
Universal screening and/or progress monitoring that is below the
10th percentile
Insufficient Progress
• Insufficient response to increasingly intensive evidence-based interventions
• Documentation of at least 2 EBIs designed to remediate each area of concern
When Is Progress Insufficient?
Rate of progress is the same or less than same-grade peers,
OR
Rate of progress is greater than same-grade peers but will not
result in closing the achievement gap in a reasonable period of
time,
OR
Rate of progress is greater than same-grade peers, but the
intensity of resources necessary to obtain this rate of progress
cannot be maintained in general education
Rate of Improvement (ROI)
• The rate of growth necessary to meet gradelevel expectations
• Analysis is based on research based norms or
criterion‐referenced benchmarks and
• Compare the student’s actual growth against
rate of growth expected or required.
1. Professional judgment is data driven.
2. Professional judgment is a competent application of the
expertise, experience, and training of those making the
judgment.
3. Professional judgment is student centered and not made based
on the needs of the educators and/or parents.
(Kukic, personal communication, April 12, 2014)
Digging Deeper into Chapter 3 –
Criteria for Determining SLD Eligibility During Initial Evaluation
Based on what you’ve heard so far today,
what resonates with you?
Don’t Judge Too Quickly
TEAM WORK PREVAILS
Chapter 4 - Special Topics
Speech and Language Concerns
Evaluation of Young Children
Private School, Home-school and Immersion School Students
Transfer Students (Both in-state and out-of-state)
English Language Learners and Limited English Proficiency
Chapter 5 – Determining Need and Next Steps
• What are the student’s needs that cannot be met through general
education?
• What accommodations, if any, can be made in the general education
program?
• What additional specialized instruction, if any, does the student need
that is not currently provided through the general education
curriculum?
Chapter 6 - Reevaluation Criteria
THE GOOD NEWS!!
The reevaluation process does not require the same
criteria as for an initial evaluation.
• WHY? Because we can’t take Special Education away
when it’s working! There is more focus on whether
the student continues to need specialized instruction
to make adequate progress.
• For a reevaluation, we more simply consider the
overarching need for continued services.
Appendices
• Appendix A - IDEA and MARSE
• Appendix B - Initial SLD Eligibility Recommendation Protocol
• Appendix C - Reevaluation SLD Eligibility Recommendation
Protocol
• Appendix D - Explanation of RIOT and ICEL Matrix
• Appendix E - Elementary School Student Vignette: Tier 1, 2, & 3
• Appendix F - Secondary Level Considerations
• References
But wait…there’s more….
Wiki Link
•Guidelines
•QUICK GUIDE
•Fillable forms
•PowerPoint
•Strategic Plan
SLD Guidelines
Quick Guide
•Quick reference to the 70+ page
guidelines
•Provides detailed questions for:
• Problem solving & REED meetings
• Analyzing the SLD impairment criteria
• Determining the need for specially
designed instruction
•Gives examples of data sources
•Overall, good communication tool for
stakeholders
Initial & Re-Eval
Recommendation
Protocols
•Guiding document adapted from the
state of Florida
•Suggested way to organize and guide
your data collection, and systems and
processes leading up to the eligibility
determination.
•This form is not required by Ingham
ISD. It is just a helpful tool.
Top 7 Reasons…
#7 It’s legally defensible!
#6 Using RTI for the evaluation process focuses on how to
make a student more successful rather than on validating that
the student is sufficiently unsuccessful to warrant additional
resources!
#5 Evaluation for eligibility is a continuation of the problem
solving process. NOT the goal of it!
#4 Responsiveness to instruction and intervention is ONE
component of a comprehensive evaluation!
Top 7 Reasons…
#3 Eligibility decisions are considered when additional resources are
needed to sustain or improve the intervention(s) being provided in
order to assure FAPE!
#2 Eliminates poor instructional quality as a possible explanation for
learning difficulty!
#1 A student’s response to robust intervention is the best evidence for
the existence of SLD!
Rollout Plan Supports
An advisory group
developing a
strategic plan
School
psychologist
listserv
Continual
communication
Global plan for all
Customized plan
for each district
Multiple
avenues/venues to
increase skills of
ALL staff.
Consultation and
coaching
Community and
stakeholder
training and
support
Secondary MTSS
implementation
support meetings
Book study
PLC learning
opportunities
Tuesday Tips
Our Next Steps…
Planning Guide
With your district group/ or job alike group, begin
working on the planning tool.
What next steps …for the next week, month and
year?
Who needs this information and when?
Consider what supports for the guidelines might be
helpful?
What supports from Ingham ISD might be needed?
Making It Happen…
What data/processes are in place for SLD eligibility?
What data and/ or processes are needed?
How do we get the data we need? Who can get it?
How does this influence the roles of: School Psychologist, Speech
Therapist, Social Worker, General Education Teacher, RTI Staff,
Interventionist, Principal
How do we message to parents?
Go Forth!
Nancy Theis, Ed. S, School Psychologist/MTSS Implementer
ntheis@inghamisd.org
(517) 230-9068
Libby Vince, Ed. S., School Psychologist/MTSS Implementer
lvince@inghamisd.org
(810) 986-5532
Brian Lloyd, Ed. S., School Psychologist/MTSS Implementer
blloyd@inghamisd.org
(517)525-7726
Marcia O’Brien, Ed. S., Student Support Services Supervisor
mobrien@inghamisd.org
(517)927-7506
SCECH Code: H200