Transcript New SLD Rule Roles of IEP Team

Archdiocese Presentation
October 10, 2014
Presented by
Barb Hilliker,Consultant
CESA 1
[email protected]
Cell: 608-289-4724
1
Consider areas that you would like to
see addressed today as well as at least
one thing that you would like to leave
today to be able to implement.
2
1.) To understand the significant connections
between:
PLCs and Their 3 Critical Questions
Response to Intervention (RtI)
and
Specific Learning Disabilities New Rule
2.) To review the New SLD Rule and why
changes were needed.
3.) To review how the New SLD Rule pertains
to Private Schools.
3
We need to come to understand
how to meet the needs of our
students by instilling a
proactive, preventative approach
that encourages all student to
succeed to a level that is
commiserate with their
potential.
Capper, Frattura & Keyes, 2000
4
5


Fundamental purpose of school is to ensure
that all students learn at high levels.
Therefore educators need to work together to
clarify:
Dufour & Marzano (2011)
6
What do students need to
learn and be able to do?
How do we know
students are
learning it?
RtI
What will we do if
they already know
our material?
Benchmark
assessments,
screening, &
progress monitoring
What will we do if the
students have not
learned it?
Extension
intervention
options
Common core
curriculum &
essential
outcomes
Differentiation
& intervention
options
If we are to help all students learn, it will
require us to work collaboratively in a collective
effort to meet the needs of all students:
◦ Organize in meaningful interdependent
collaborative teams
◦ Stay focused on the right work
◦ Implement the resources, training, and support to
help the team succeed
Dufour & Marzano (2011)
8





Primary purpose is to impact and improve
student learning.
If students are to learn at higher levels,
processes must be in place to ensure the learning
and collaboration of the adults who serve them.
Educators must work collaboratively in recurring
cycles of collective inquiry to achieve better
results for the students they serve.
Educators become more skillful in teaching.
Great teaching and high levels of learning go
hand in hand.
Dufour & Marzano (2011)
9
Educators must be results oriented
in order to know if students are
learning and make necessary
adjustments if they are not.
Dufour & Marzano (2011)
10
11
Behavioral Systems
Academic Systems
Tier 3 - Intensive, Individual
Interventions

Individual students

Assessment-based
Circa

High intensity
5%

Of longer duration
Tier 2 - Targeted Group
Interventions

Some students (at-risk)

High efficiency

Rapid response
Tier 1 - Core Instructional
Interventions

All students

Preventive, proactive
Circa
5%
Circa
15%
Circa
15%
Circa
80%
Circa
80%
Students
Tier 3 - Intensive, Individual
Interventions

Individual students

Assessment-based

Intense, durable procedures
Tier 2 - Targeted Group
Interventions

Some students (at-risk)

High efficiency

Rapid response
Tier 1 - Core Instructional
Interventions

All settings, all students

Preventive, proactive
High Quality Instruction
Collaboration
Balanced Assessment
14
“Coming
together is a beginning.
Keeping together is a process.
Working together is success.”
Henry Ford
15
16
Specific learning disability means a disorder in one or more
of the basic psychological processes involved in
understanding or using language, spoken or written, that
may manifest itself in an imperfect ability to listen, think,
speak, read, write, spell or perform mathematical
calculations, including conditions such as perceptual
disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction,
dyslexia and developmental aphasia.
The term does not include learning problems that are
primarily the result of visual, hearing, motor disabilities,
cognitive disabilities, emotional disturbance, cultural
factors, environmental, or economic disadvantage.
PI 11.36(6)(a)
17







SLD emerged as a disability category
Associated with disorders in cognition and
learning
Delays in academic and school performance
Areas generally included reading, math, and
language
Occurred despite adequate instruction
Referred to as “unexpected underachievement”
Discrepancy between ability and achievement
WI DPI SLD Technical Guide (2012)
18
 Brain
Dysfunction (Left temporal lobe)
Structural-Size of various areas of the brain
Functional-Activity in the brain
 Environmental
Factors
Medical
Premature Birth
Struggles at time of birth
Toxins
Fetal Alcohol Syndrome
Lead Poisoning
 Genetic
Factors
Familiality
Heritability
Unknown Causes
19
 Underdeveloped
or unevenly developed
learning strategies
 Disorders of attention
 Poor spatial orientation
 Underdeveloped, inadequate-for-age time
concepts
 Difficulty in judging relationships
 Metacognition
 Inactive Learning (Motivation)
20
 Poor
general motor coordination
 Poor manual dexterity
 Inability (not unwillingness) to follow
directions
 Perceptual disorders
 Memory disorders
Short term
Long term
 Social
imperceptions
21
 Currently
in a state of transition
 With 2004 Reauthorization of IDEA, the way
students were found eligible changed
drastically
 The traditional approach had been based on
the Discrepancy Model-which was considered
a “wait to fail” model
 The preferred approach is the implementation
of the RtI
 Federal law has indicated that both can be
considered but states cannot require the
Discrepancy Model and must permit RtI.
22
Key Element
Student needed to exhibit a “severe
discrepancy between achievement and
intellectual ability”.
Problems
 Statistical formulas were flawed giving false
sense of precision
 IQ scores of truly learning disabled students
underestimated their abilities
 IQ scores are useless at the earliest
elementary grades
Led to “wait to fail”
23
Once a student gets more than 2
years behind, the probability that we
will catch him up is almost nonexistent. We must close the gap
immediately.
IT’S ALL ABOUT THE GAP.
24
25



Research findings questioned usefulness of
discrepancy analysis
Focus became collection and analysis of
direct evidence from instruction and intense
intervention
Without this analysis there was really no way
to determine a difference between whether a
student was struggling due to SLD or other
factors such as inadequate instruction
WI DPI SLD Technical Guide (2012)
26
US Department of Education Office
◦ Convened an SLD Summit
◦ Consensus that IQ/achievement discrepancy was neither
necessary nor sufficient for identification of SLD
◦ Recommendations
 Alternative Model that considered provisions
for:
 Low achievement
 Insufficient response to effective research
based interventions
 Exclusionary factors
WI DPI SLD Technical Guide (2012)
27
2004 IDEA and 2006 Regulations


States could no longer require the use of
significant discrepancy
States must permit the use of a process
based on the student’s response to scientific,
research-based interventions
WI DPI SLD Technical Guide (2012)
28
Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction




Formed a task force to discuss the relationship
between SLD and RtI
Conducted public hearings
Revised SLD Rule that took effect on December 1,
2010
Provided a three year transition for ending the
use of significant discrepancy
SUNSET DECEMBER 1, 2013
WI DPI SLD Technical Guide (2012)
29
•
•
•
•
Documentation of intensive intervention before
assessing Classroom Achievement.
Inadequate Classroom Achievement defined as
1.25 SD or more below the mean for same age
peers.
Additional Exclusionary Factor: Lack of
appropriate instruction in the area(s) under
consideration (not just reading and mathematics).
Information processing is no longer required.
30
5-6% (US) of school population (6-17) were
served under IDEA (2002)
 More boys than girls
 Has fluctuated but has been declining most
recently
 Has increased at times because
 School Teams have tried not to use other categories
such as ID
Teachers have not questioned their own teaching but
immediately went to it being a student’s problem
Higher rates of social and learning problems
31
32
◦ Began as a Special Education
conversation in Reauthorization of
IDEA because there was a need to…
◦ Eliminates the “wait to fail” model
and students who had become
casualties of their educational
system who eventually had the
tendency to become at risk or
students with disabilities.
33
School District in WI
Number of Special Education Referrals (Ages 6 – 21) by Academic Year
RtI is
“A change in behavior or performance as a
function of intervention.”
RtI is the practice of
1) Providing high quality instruction /
intervention matched to student needs.
2) Using learning rate over time and level of
performance to make important education
decisions.
(George Batsche, 2005)
35






High quality instruction
Collaboration
Balanced assessment
Data-based decision-making
Systematic vs. systemic
Cultural Responsiveness
37
Multi-Level System of
Support (MLSS)



Multiple tiers
Multiple layers
Multiple options
Deliver high quality instruction, formally
collaborate and use multiple assessments
AT EACH AND EVERY LEVEL
Increased Intensity of Support
Intensive
• Delivered to no more than three students 4-5 times a week
• In addition to the universal instruction
• Instruction and strategies are determined for individual
students through an intensive intervention plan
Selected
• Small groups
• In addition to the universal instruction
Universal
• All students
• Includes differentiation
39
40
Excellent core instruction delivered with differentiation
Students screened in reading, writing, math, and behavior (3-4 times a year)
Screening & essential outcome summary results analyzed to determine student needs
Teams diagnose intervention needs
Intervention options occur for 6+ weeks
Teams continuously monitor student progress
Intensive intervention plan initiated for individual students still struggling

Scientific research-based or

number of instructional
evidence-based

minutes beyond what is
Used with individual or
provided to all students
small groups

Focused on single or small
number of discrete skills
closely aligned to individual
learning needs (area of
concern)

Culturally responsive
Provides substantial

Implemented with adequate
fidelity
◦ Applied in a manner
highly consistent with
design
◦ At least 80% of
recommended weeks,
sessions, minutes
PI 11.02
42


A scientifically based practice to assess student
response to intervention that uses valid and
reliable tools (probes)
Probes:
◦
◦
◦
◦
Brief, direct measures of specific academic skills
Multiple equal or nearly equal forms
Sensitive to small changes in student performance
Provides valid, reliable measures of performance
during intervention
PI 11.02 (9)
43
Information Sources
Data Sources
Observations
44
45
46
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Oral Expression
Listening Comprehension
Written Expression
Basic Reading Skill
Reading Fluency
Reading Comprehension
Mathematics Calculation
Mathematics Problem Solving
47
SLD Criteria
E
Insufficient
Progress
Inadequate
Classroom
Achievement
x
F
c
a
l
a
c
u
r
t
s
y
o
i
r
o
s
IMPAIRMENT?
NEED FOR
SPECIAL
EDUCATION?
n
48
IEP team should clearly identify each area
of potential SLD that will be evaluated.
Inadequate classroom
achievement
Observations
Testing
Insufficient Progress
Interventions
Observations
Exclusionary
factors
Data
collection
and analysis
49
50





Review information provided by the student’s
parents
FILE REVIEW AND INTERVIEWS
Review previous interventions and their
effects
Review previous classroom performance
Review observations by others who have
previously worked with the student
51

Formal data
◦
◦
◦
◦

Standardized achievement tests
Individually administered norm referenced tests
Data from intensive interventions
Classroom assessment data linked to standards
Informal assessment data
◦ Student’s performance during classroom instruction
◦ Student work products
◦ Other
52
53
Applying Exclusionary Factors
The IEP team may not
identify a student with
SLD if inadequate
classroom achievement
or insufficient progress
is primarily due to an
exclusionary factor.
E
x
c
l
u
s
i
o
n
a
r
y
F
a
c
t
o
r
s
54
•
Environmental or economic disadvantage, or
cultural factors
•
Lack of appropriate instruction in reading, math
or any other areas of SLD being considered
•
Limited English proficiency
•
Other impairments
PI11.36(6)(d)1.
55
Is there evidence that the student
received appropriate instruction in
the area of concern?
Core instruction
provided regularly?
Core instruction
delivered according
to design and
methodology by
qualified personnel?
Differentiated
instruction in the
core curriculum was
provided?
56
Mobility
Family
change
Attendance
Recent
trauma
57
• Native language and culture
• Proficiency in first and second
language
• Consistency of cultural expectations
with school expectations
58
SLD can co-exist with some of the other
impairments
Cannot co-exist with cognitive disability.
Primacy considerations.
59
60
E
Insufficient
Progress
Inadequate
Classroom
Achievement
x
F
c
a
l
a
c
u
r
t
s
y
o
i
r
o
s
IMPAIRMENT?
NEED FOR
SPECIAL
EDUCATION?
n
61
•
•
•
•
1.25 SD cut score on reliable/valid test.
Must be administered after intensive
intervention.
Same cut score standard applies
regardless of intellectual ability.
Applies to each area of potential concern.
PI 11.36(6)(6)1.
62
63
E
Insufficient
Progress
Inadequate
Classroom
Achievement
x
F
c
a
l
a
c
u
r
t
s
y
o
i
r
o
s
IMPAIRMENT?
NEED FOR
SPECIAL
EDUCATION?
n
64
•
•
•
•
Insufficient response to intensive, scientific
research-based or evidence-based interventions.
Progress monitoring data from at least 2 intensive
interventions in EACH area of potential SLD
required.
Baseline data and at least weekly progress
monitoring is required.
Rate of progress Is compared to same-age peers.
65
Establish baseline: For each intervention, baseline is set using the
median score of 3 probes.
Begin Intervention.
Collect weekly or more frequent progress monitoring (PM) data.
Use baseline and subsequent PM data to analyze progress using least
squares regression.
Intensive interventions may be implemented before referral or as part
of an evaluation for SLD.
66
◦ Progress is the same or less than same-age peers
OR
◦ Progress is greater than same-age peers but will
not result in reaching the average range of
achievement in a reasonable period of time
OR
◦ Progress is greater than same-age peers but the
intensity of resources necessary to obtain this rate
of progress cannot be maintained in general
education
67
68
69
70
71
72

A method of measuring classroom behaviors
related to a student’s learning from direct
observation in a natural setting

Planned in advanced

Data is collected and results are analyzed

Shared with IEP team
73




Required for all initial and re-evaluations
Systematic observation during routine
classroom instruction in the area of concern
is always required
Must be conducted by member of IEP team
Observer should not be the person providing
instruction
74
75








Standard IEP Team
Parents/guardians of child
At least one general education
teacher if the child is participating
in a general education
environment
At least one special education
teacher
A representative of the LEA
An individual who can interpret
instructional implications of
evaluation results
At the discretion of the parent or
LEA individuals who have
knowledge or special expertise
about the child, including related
services personnel
Whenever appropriate the child
One representative from the
resident district if appropriate





Additional Roles in Initial SLD
Evaluation
A licensed person who can analyze
data on individual rate of progress
using valid and reliable data
A licensed person who has
implemented intensive
interventions with the student
(Optional for Private School Evals)
A licensed person qualified to
conduct individual diagnostic
evaluations
The student’s licensed GE teacher
or someone licensed to teach the a
student of the same age.
Note: If the classroom observation
was completed prior to the
referral, the observer must be
appointed to the IEP team.
76
77
“Intensive, scientific research-based or
evidence-based interventions be implemented
with adequate fidelity. This means intensive
interventions are provided in a manner highly
consistent with their design and for at least 80
percent of the recommended number of
weeks, sessions, and minutes per session (PI
11.02(1)).”
Wisconsin’s Specific Learning Disabilities Rule: Technical Guide for Determining
the Eligibility of Students with Specific Learning Disabilities, pp. 38-39
Frequency,
dosage,
duration
Modified from O’Donnell, 2008
Exposure
Adherence
Sticking t
the plan;
Using “acti
ingredient
Fidelity
Quality of
Delivery
Use of “best
practices”
Engagement
Active
participation
79
SLD eligibility determination is a ‘high stakes’
decision requiring solid data from high quality
interventions implemented with adequate
fidelity.”
Wisconsin’s Specific Learning Disabilities Rule: Technical Guide for
Determining the Eligibility of Students with Specific Learning Disabilities, p. 39
Use Variety of Methods

Examples:
◦ Work Samples collected by date with start an end
time and progress for the day
◦ Intervention Logs that demonstrate information for
each session with dates, start/end times/ results of
session
◦ Direct observation with observation checklist or
other format in which observer counts occurrence
of performance on skills being observed
81
82







You Need Someone Who :
Reviews information and data sources for
past learning experiences and patterns of
successes and challenges and other possible
Exclusionary Factors
Provides Interventions
Individually Administers Achievement Tests
Analyze Data
Completes Observations
Teaches students of the same age
Knows the student well
83
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Referral/Notice
Review Existing Data
Consent (if needed)
Assessment (if needed)
Eligibility Determination
Determination of Need for SE
IEP Development & Placement (if
eligible)
84



Should not be the “one way express highway
to special education”
Make use of the valuable resource available
when you have a diverse team collaborating
to improve student performance
Share goal of striving to make every student
more successful in the GE classroom
Murawski and Spencer (2011)
85
86
E
Insufficient
Progress
Inadequate
Classroom
Achievement
x
F
c
a
l
a
c
u
r
t
s
y
o
i
r
o
s
IMPAIRMENT?
NEED FOR
SPECIAL
EDUCATION?
n
87
Impairment
Student
with
Disability
Need for
Special
Education
88
“Stop asking me if we are almost there, we are
nomadic for crying out loud.”
89
90
Public schools lack the authority to
require private schools to provide intense
interventions or produce progress
monitoring data from them,
therefore…
91
The IEP team may continue to use the
significant discrepancy to determine
insufficient progress,
but
 If there is progress monitoring data
available then it can be used to address
criteria

92

In either case…
◦ The IEP team considers inadequate
classroom achievement in the same manner
as in the public school except testing does
not require the completion of interventions
that meet the intense standards for SRBIs
◦ There still should be some evidence that
some intervention beyond core instruction
was provided
93
The IEP Team should attempt to obtain
information from parents and teachers
about curricula used and the student’s
progress with various teaching strategies
and their effects on achievement and
progress when considering if the student
received appropriate general education
instruction
94
Exclusions still apply
 At least one classroom observation by a
member of the IEP team during routine
instruction is required
 A variety of assessment tools and
strategies to gather relevant functional,
developmental and academic
information about the student including
information from the parent.

95


LEAs must accept all special education referrals
submitted in accordance with Stats,115.777. Districts
may not refuse to accept written referral because a
student has not received a particular type or amount
of instruction or has not received intensive
intervention prior to the referral.
The IEP team must determine eligibility 60 days of
receiving consent for evaluation or of the notice that
no additional data is needed. In the case of suspected
SLD the timeline may be extended by written
agreement of the IEP Team and the parents to allow
for collection of needed data.
96
Let’s Take the Time for
Discussion Questions and/or
Observations.
What did you want to be sure
that we addressed today?
97
“Take one step at a time, then
another. Figure things out with your
students. Don’t be afraid to stumble
from time to time. Most importantly
enjoy the journey.” (p. 135)
Tomlinson (2010)
Extensive guidance for this presentation comes
from:
“Wisconsin’s Specific Learning Disabilities (SLD)
Rule: A Technical Guide for Determining the
Eligibility of Students with Specific Learning
Disabilities.”
Developed under the guidance of Scott A. Brown
and the Wisconsin Department of Public
Instruction, 2012.
http://sped.dpi.wi.gov/files/sped/pdf/sldguide.pdf
99

http://sped.dpi.wi.gov/sped_ld)
10
0
DPI SLD Page:
http://sped.dpi.wi.gov/sped_ld
 Wisconsin Framework for RtI:
http://rti.dpi.wi.gov/
 Wisconsin RTI Center:
http://www.wisconsinrticenter.org/

◦ Selecting Interventions:
http://www.wisconsinrticenter.org/educators/rti-inaction/interventions.html
◦ SLD & RtI:
http://www.wisconsinrticenter.org/educators/swdrti.html
101