Initial Evaluation and Eligibility Determination Topics Covered Include ...
Evaluation & Eligibility Workshop
Initial Evaluation and Eligibility Determination Part 1: Introduction Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses Method of Evaluation www.ksdetasn.org
Topics Covered Include • Selecting appropriate method • Use of GEI data • Use of the Evaluation & Eligibility Indicators Document • Controversies with use of each method
www.ksdetasn.org
This will not… • Cover how to conduct GEI • Timeline & due process procedures of evaluation & eligibility determinations • Promote one method of evaluation • Teach how to conduct assessments or which assessment instruments should be used. • Teach the implementation of MTSS
www.ksdetasn.org
PPT Updated 8/12/12
1
Evaluation & Eligibility Workshop
Eligibility Determination Is
Is Not
• Application of critical thinking skills to the evaluation process • Data‐based team decision making • Professional judgment
• The application of rules • The administration and interpretation of any specific assessments • A singular criteria
www.ksdetasn.org
Agenda: Part 1 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8)
Introduction General Education Interventions Determining when to use each method of evaluation Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses method of evaluation The Evaluation and Eligibility Determination Process Case Study Indicator Match Controversies with the Cognitive Correlates Method www.ksdetasn.org
Agenda: Part 2 (preview) 9) Response to Intervention method of evaluation 10) The Evaluation and Eligibility Determination Process 11) Case Study 12) Indicator Match 13) Compare/Contrast the Two Methods 14) Controversies with the RtI Method 15) Questions www.ksdetasn.org
PPT Updated 8/12/12
2
Evaluation & Eligibility Workshop
The Impact of GEI Practices on Evaluation Model
GENERAL EDUCATION INTERVENTIONS www.ksdetasn.org
The Evaluation and Eligibility Process For Young Children Begins by • For young children who are not yet in kindergarten the Evaluation and Eligibility Process may begin by: – Formal Developmental Screening Process – Referral through Part C – Parental Request – General Education Intervention
www.ksdetasn.org
The Evaluation and Eligibility Process Students in School Begins with GEI • General Education Interventions are the way that Kansas implements the federal Child Find requirement. • For children in kindergarten through age 21, Child Find is conducted through the use of General Education Interventions and should also insure the early identification and assessment of disabilities in children. www.ksdetasn.org
PPT Updated 8/12/12
3
Evaluation & Eligibility Workshop
General Education Interventions • Kansas describes two models of GEI – MTSS (protocol interventions + systemic problem‐solving) – Individual problem‐solving
• In both models the school must carry out interventions and document the child’s progress • The interventions and progress monitoring data will provide information about the child’s needs, including – the intensity of instruction needed – the support required for the child to be successful GEI
www.ksdetasn.org
GEI Using Individual‐Student Problem Solving • GEI/SIT/SAT/CARE teams meet to conduct individual problem‐solving. • Progress monitoring data is used to refine intervention. • GEI/SIT/SAT/CARE teams have charts and meeting notes or intervention logs that show the results from the steps above.
www.ksdetasn.org
GEI Using MTSS • Universal screening and the diagnostic process is used to determine student intervention. • Interventions is refined & intensified based on the progress monitoring data and the steps for adjusting instruction. • If student growth is insufficient, individual student problem‐solving is conducted by grade level collaborative teams. • Collaborative teams have charts and intervention logs that show the results from all the steps above. www.ksdetasn.org
PPT Updated 8/12/12
4
Evaluation & Eligibility Workshop
Determining When to Use Each Method of Evaluation
Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses
Response to Intervention
www.ksdetasn.org
Common Elements of Both Methods • Essential elements that must be present to use both methods: – high quality instruction in general education – evidence‐based interventions that are matched to child needs – progress monitoring during intervention process – evaluation data are reliable and valid (Lichtenstein, 2008) www.ksdetasn.org
When to Use: Response to Intervention 1) GEI is implemented using MTSS 2) School‐wide data collection system used for a) Universal screening b) Progress monitoring c) Diagnostic assessment
3) Collaborative teams are effectively functioning 4) Interventions are being provided in a systematic way using the Self‐Correcting Feedback Loop www.ksdetasn.org
PPT Updated 8/12/12
5
Evaluation & Eligibility Workshop
When to Use: Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses 1) GEI is implemented using individual student problem‐solving 2) No school‐wide universal screening of essential skills utilizing CBM 3) SIT/SAT/CARE teams development intervention plans
www.ksdetasn.org
Background Information
PATTERN OF STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES www.ksdetasn.org
Clarifications Regarding Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses • Is NOT the same as IQ‐Achievement discrepancy • Is NOT the use of cognitive scores compared to global achievement scores • Neither requires nor excludes the use of any specific assessment
www.ksdetasn.org
PPT Updated 8/12/12
6
Evaluation & Eligibility Workshop
Basic Premises: Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses • Additional assessment, intervention, and evaluation of the student’s strengths and weaknesses are based on the referral question for that individual student • When a learning disability is suspected, look at the patterns of cognitive strengths & weakness and how the pattern correlates with patterns of academic strengths & weaknesses www.ksdetasn.org
Using Cognitive Correlates When a Learning Disability is Suspected 1. Use the research base to identify links between academic and cognitive skills 2. Assess specific academic skills and identify strengths and weaknesses 3. Assess related abilities/cognitive skills and identify strengths and weaknesses 4. Determine whether cognitive skills unrelated to academic weaknesses are unimpaired (Flanagan, 2011) www.ksdetasn.org
Abilities/Cognitive Skills related to Basic Reading Skills • Phonological Awareness • Processing Speed/Perceptual Speed, including rapid naming (relates to need for automaticity in decoding) • Working Memory/short‐term memory of meaningful material (e.g., sentence repetition) • Paired‐associate learning (important for learning phoneme‐ grapheme relationships)/letter naming • Oral language skills: Vocabulary, Listening comprehension, Verbal reasoning (McGrew & Wendling,2010) (Elliott, Fiorello, Cledicianne, & Moldovan, 2010) (Flanagan, Fiorello, & Ortiz, 2010) (Joseph, McCachran, & Naglieri, 2003) www.ksdetasn.org
PPT Updated 8/12/12
7
Evaluation & Eligibility Workshop
Abilities/Cognitive Skills related to Reading Comprehension • • • • •
Working memory and short‐term memory Listening comprehension General language development and vocabulary Auditory processing Quick and automatic processing of letters and words, as well as word reading speed (McGrew & Wendling, 2010) (Elliott, Fiorello, Cledicianne, & Moldovan, 2010) (Flanagan, Fiorello, & Ortiz, 2010) www.ksdetasn.org
Abilities/Cognitive Skills related to Arithmetic and Math Computation • Working Memory • Processing Speed/Perceptual Speed (RAN, counting speed, numerical processing fluency, ability to engage in subitizing) • Phonological processing (because counting requires phonological codes for number words) • Language skills/comprehension/knowledge (development of number concepts) • Fluid Reasoning, Quantitative Reasoning, Deductive Reasoning (McGrew & Wendling, 2010) (Mabbott & Bisanz, 2008) (Murphy, Mazzocco, Hanich, & Early, 2007) www.ksdetasn.org
Abilities/Cognitive Skills related to Math Problem‐Solving • Working Memory • Phonological processing (at younger ages) • Language skills/comprehension/knowledge (relates to linguistic demands of complex problems) • Processing Speed/Perceptual Speed (including rapid processing of numbers and counting speed; apparently facilitates reasoning by freeing up resources in working memory) • Fluid Reasoning, Quantitative Reasoning, Deductive Reasoning (McGrew & Wendling, 2010) (Mabbott & Bisanz, 2008) (Murphy, Mazzocco, Hanich, & Early, 2007) www.ksdetasn.org
PPT Updated 8/12/12
8
Evaluation & Eligibility Workshop
Abilities/Cognitive Skills related to Written Language • • • •
Comprehension/Knowledge Processing Speed Short‐term memory/working memory Long‐term retrieval (for early writing development only) (Floyd, McGrew, & Evans, 2008)
www.ksdetasn.org
Is IQ Testing Helpful for Measuring Cognitive Correlates? • Full Scale IQ explains 10‐20% of specific areas of achievement • Specific cognitive abilities explain 50‐70% of specific areas of achievement • The consideration of cognitive correlates does not refer to intra‐subtest analysis. (Harris, Guardino, Hanson, 2007)
www.ksdetasn.org
Evaluation and Eligibility Determinations using
PATTERN OF STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES www.ksdetasn.org
PPT Updated 8/12/12
9
Evaluation & Eligibility Workshop
Moving into an Initial Evaluation • Referral from Parents • Self‐Referral from Adult Student • At the point that school staff suspect the student may be a student with an exceptionality and needs special education and related services
www.ksdetasn.org
Documentation Needed Prior to Referral • That appropriate instruction was provided to the student, • What education interventions and strategies have been implemented, • The results of repeated assessments of achievement which reflect the formal assessment of the student’s progress during instruction, • That parents have been provided the results • The results indicate an evaluation is appropriate www.ksdetasn.org
At the Time of Referral 1. Data collected prior to the evaluation are provided to the evaluation team 2. The team determines what data in addition to the existing data will be collected during the evaluation 3. The team prepares the Prior Written Notice and Consent for Evaluation Form 4. The school obtains informed consent from the parent www.ksdetasn.org
PPT Updated 8/12/12
10
Evaluation & Eligibility Workshop
Outline of Initial Evaluation and Eligibility Determination Process 1. Determine additional data needed – What, if any, additional assessment is needed? – What, if any, additional intervention is needed?
2. Obtain informed parent consent, then collect needed data 3. Conduct two‐prong test of eligibility, using Eligibility Indicator Document – Consider Prong 1, including exclusionary criteria – Consider Prong 2
4. Determine eligibility, complete eligibility report www.ksdetasn.org
Determine Additional Data Needed • Conduct a review of the existing data on the child, including: – Evaluations and information provided by the parents of the child – Current classroom‐based, local, and state assessments and classroom‐based observations – Observations by teachers and related services providers – Intervention data collected during GEI www.ksdetasn.org
Determine Additional Data Needed • Identify what additional data, if any, are needed to determine: – The present levels of academic achievement and functional performance (related developmental needs) of the child – Whether the child a child with an exceptionality – Whether the child has a need for special education and related services
www.ksdetasn.org
PPT Updated 8/12/12
11
Evaluation & Eligibility Workshop
Considerations for the Determination of any Necessary Additional Data • What information is needed to assure a comprehensive evaluation? • Is any information needed to identify services and supports needed by the student?
www.ksdetasn.org
Collect Additional Data Needed • The need for additional data must be decided on an individual basis. • The evaluation teams identifies which measures to use and who will collect the data.
www.ksdetasn.org
Determine Eligibility • The Two‐Prong Test • Exceptionality + Need
Eligibility
www.ksdetasn.org
PPT Updated 8/12/12
12
Evaluation & Eligibility Workshop
Eligibility Determination Prong 1 Is the child a child with an exceptionality?
4 Decision
www.ksdetasn.org
Steps to Answering Prong 1 1. Do the evaluation data match one of the definitions of exceptionality in state/federal regulations? 2. Do any exclusionary criteria apply? 3. Are the data congruent with indicators for that exceptionality? www.ksdetasn.org
Match the Definition • The definitions for each of the exceptionality categories are listed in the Eligibility Indicators Document (October, 2011). • The team considers whether the student’s data match or do not match the definition of the exceptionality category under consideration. www.ksdetasn.org
PPT Updated 8/12/12
13
Evaluation & Eligibility Workshop
Exclusionary Factors • An evaluation team shall not determine a child to be a child with an exceptionality if the determinant factor is: – lack of appropriate instruction in reading, including the essential components of reading instruction (phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary development, reading fluency including oral reading skills, and reading comprehension strategies); or www.ksdetasn.org
Exclusionary Factors continued – lack of appropriate instruction in math; or – limited English proficiency; and – the child does not otherwise meet the eligibility criteria as a child with an exceptionality
www.ksdetasn.org
Answer Prong 1 1. Do the evaluation data match one of the definitions of exceptionality in state/federal regulations? 2. Do any exclusionary criteria apply? 3. Are the data congruent with indicators for that exceptionality? www.ksdetasn.org
PPT Updated 8/12/12
14
Evaluation & Eligibility Workshop
Eligibility Determination Prong 2 Does the child need special education and related services?
4 Decision
www.ksdetasn.org
Eligibility Determination • Determine Whether the Child Needs Special Education and Related Services as a Result of the Exceptionality. – What are the child’s needs related to the intensity of instruction and supports required for the child to be successful? – Does the child have specific needs which are so unique as to require specially designed instruction in order to access and progress in the general education curriculum? www.ksdetasn.org
Answer Prong 2 • What is needed for the student to participate in the general or an advanced curriculum or age appropriate activities? • Is there a need for specially designed instruction? • Is the child’s need for having adapted content, methodology, or delivery of instruction so great that it cannot be provided in regular education without the support of special education?
www.ksdetasn.org
PPT Updated 8/12/12
15
Evaluation & Eligibility Workshop
Case Study
PATTERN OF STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES www.ksdetasn.org
Case Study Directions • Use the following materials: – Lois Lane Case Study (Document C – Case Study PSW) – Evaluation & Eligibility Indicators Document
• As a table: – Review case study – Discuss and respond to questions on last page www.ksdetasn.org
Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses Case Study Questions 1. What components of reading skills are most impaired for Lois Lane? 2. What cognitive skills are correlated with basic reading skills? 3. Are any of the above listed cognitive skills found as weaknesses within Lois Lane’s evaluation results? 4. Within Lois Lane’s evaluation, are the cognitive skills that are not related to basic reading skills results found to be unimpaired? www.ksdetasn.org
PPT Updated 8/12/12
16
Evaluation & Eligibility Workshop
Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses Case Study Questions continued 5. Do the results of the evaluation exhibit a pattern of strengths and weaknesses characteristic of a student with a reading disability in the area of basic reading skills? 6. Do the results of the information collected match the indicators for a specific learning disability for Prong 1? Do any of the exclusionary criteria apply? 7. Do the results of the information collected match the indicators for a specific learning disability for Prong 2? www.ksdetasn.org
Indicator Match Activity
PATTERN OF STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES www.ksdetasn.org
Indicator Match Directions • Use the following materials: – Data sets #1 and #2 – Evaluation & Eligibility Indicators Document
• As a table: – Apply data sets to indicators within different exceptionality categories. – Respond to the questions for each data set. www.ksdetasn.org
PPT Updated 8/12/12
17
Evaluation & Eligibility Workshop
Skills Needed to apply Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses • Knowledge of theories of cognitive skills • Knowledge of causation and correlates research • Knowledge of assessments of specific skills (including cognitive, academic, behavioral, and other skills) • Knowledge of evidence‐based intervention strategies related to specific skill deficits www.ksdetasn.org
Reflect as a Team • What skills do we need to develop? – For example, do I know what skills are included in basic reading and the cognitive correlates? In math computation and the cognitive correlates? – Do I have access to assessments, tools, and processes to measure these cognitive and academic skills?
• What practices do we need to change? • What information do we need to share? www.ksdetasn.org
Controversies with the Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses • On‐going lack of support for aptitude by treatment interaction • Information regarding recommended abilities to be assessed is based on correlations between assessment components and performance of typical achievers vs. students identified as having SLD • Everybody has their favorite test (authored by themselves) • Question of whether measures of cognitive skills provide added value beyond measures of academic skills www.ksdetasn.org
PPT Updated 8/12/12
18
Evaluation & Eligibility Workshop
Questions? • Do you have any questions about the patterns method or the cognitive correlates approach to identifying students with a learning disability? • Any other questions?
www.ksdetasn.org
Evaluation and Eligibility Decision Making Part 2: The RtI Method of Evaluation in an MTSS Framework Summary www.ksdetasn.org
Agenda: Part 1 (Review) 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8)
Introduction General Education Interventions Determining when to use each method of evaluation Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses method of evaluation The Evaluation and Eligibility Determination Process Case Study Indicator Match Controversies with the Cognitive Correlates Method www.ksdetasn.org
PPT Updated 8/12/12
19
Evaluation & Eligibility Workshop
Agenda: Part 2 9) Response to Intervention method of evaluation 10) The Evaluation and Eligibility Determination Process 11) Case Study 12) Indicator Match 13) Compare/Contrast the Two Methods 14) Controversies with the RtI Method 15) Questions www.ksdetasn.org
Common Elements of Both Methods • Essential elements that must be present to use both methods: – high quality instruction in general education – evidence‐based interventions matched to child needs – progress monitoring during intervention process – evaluation data are reliable and valid
www.ksdetasn.org
Determining When to Use Each Method of Evaluation
Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses
Response to Intervention
www.ksdetasn.org
PPT Updated 8/12/12
20
Evaluation & Eligibility Workshop
When to Use: Response to Intervention 1) GEI is implemented using MTSS 2) School‐wide data collection system used for a) Universal screening b) Progress monitoring c) Diagnostic assessment
3) Collaborative teams are effectively functioning 4) Interventions are being provided in a systematic way using the Self‐Correcting Feedback Loop www.ksdetasn.org
When to Use: Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses 1) GEI is implemented using individual student problem‐solving 2) No school‐wide universal screening of essential skills utilizing CBM 3) SIT/SAT/CARE teams develop intervention plans on a student‐by‐student basis
www.ksdetasn.org
Response to Intervention within an MTSS Framework • MTSS provides a system‐wide framework for educational change with a focus on preventing learning and behavioral difficulties. • RtI provides a method for conducting an evaluation to determine eligibility under IDEA.
www.ksdetasn.org
PPT Updated 8/12/12
21
Evaluation & Eligibility Workshop
Clarifications Regarding MTSS • MTSS cannot delay or deny an initial evaluation • Movement in the tiers is not sequential • Tier 3 is not special education • Success or failure in any tier does not determine need for referral nor eligibility for special education • All tiers of instruction must be available for all students regardless of entitlement eligibility www.ksdetasn.org
Background Information
RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION
www.ksdetasn.org
Basic Premises: RtI within a MTSS Framework • Data comes from universal screening, diagnostic process, and progress monitoring. • Additional assessment, intervention, and evaluation are based upon the referral question. • MTSS is implemented with fidelity
www.ksdetasn.org
PPT Updated 8/12/12
22
Evaluation & Eligibility Workshop
Rationale for RtI Model • Protection against over‐ and under‐identification errors is obtained by – using universal screening with criteria for selecting at‐risk intervention groups, – delivering interventions strategies of sufficient power, and – judging effects of remedial efforts.
• Because instruction is manipulated to judge its effect on learning directly, false positive identification errors are less likely. • Ensuring adequate instruction as a prerequisite to individual evaluation positively impacts disproportionality problems. • Requiring direct measures of child performance in context enhances identification accuracy. (VanDerHeyden & Jimerson, 2005) www.ksdetasn.org
Steps of Applying Response to Intervention 1. Use universal screening data to apply standard protocol of intervention. 2. Use progress monitoring data to customize interventions. 3. Determine presence of dual discrepancy. (Fuchs & Fuchs,1998) (McMaster, Fuchs, Fuchs, & Compton, 2005) www.ksdetasn.org
Dual Discrepancy 1. Low level of performance (after appropriate interventions) when compared to peers and 2. Low rate of growth (after appropriate interventions) when compared to peers or The interventions needed to obtain adequate level of performance or adequate learning rate are too demanding to be implemented with integrity without special education and related services www.ksdetasn.org
PPT Updated 8/12/12
23
Evaluation & Eligibility Workshop
Reasons for Use of Dual Discrepancy • Students who differ from peers on dual discrepancy have more severe academic and behavioral problems than students who have IQ‐achievement discrepancies or low achievement • No gender or ethnic bias identified through use of dual discrepancy • Requirements based solely on low achievement lack sensitivity and coverage compared to dual discrepancy • Identification of students needing the most intensive interventions happened at an earlier age with dual discrepancy criteria than with traditional IQ‐achievement discrepancy (Burns & Riley‐Tillman, 2009) (Speece, Case, & Molloy, 2003) www.ksdetasn.org
Evaluation and Eligibility Determinations using
RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION
www.ksdetasn.org
Moving into an Initial Evaluation • Referral from Parents • Self‐Referral from Adult Student • At the point that school staff suspect the student may be a student with an exceptionality and need special education and related services
www.ksdetasn.org
PPT Updated 8/12/12
24
Evaluation & Eligibility Workshop
Documentation Needed Prior to Referral • That appropriate instruction was provided to the student, • What education interventions and strategies have been implemented, • The results of repeated assessments of achievement which reflect the formal assessment of the student’s progress during instruction, • That parents have been provided the results • The results indicate an evaluation is appropriate www.ksdetasn.org
At the Time of Referral 1. Data collected prior to the evaluation are provided to the evaluation team 2. The team determines what data in addition to the existing data will be collected during the evaluation 3. The team prepares the Prior Written Notice and Consent for Evaluation Form 4. The school obtains informed consent from the parent www.ksdetasn.org
Outline of Initial Evaluation and Eligibility Determination Process 1. Determine additional data needed – What, if any, additional assessment is needed? – What, if any, additional intervention is needed? 2. Obtain informed parent consent, then collect
needed data
3. Conduct two‐prong test of eligibility, using
Eligibility Indicator Document
– –
Consider Prong 1, including exclusionary criteria and presence of dual discrepancy Consider Prong 2
4. Determine eligibility, complete eligibility report www.ksdetasn.org
PPT Updated 8/12/12
25
Evaluation & Eligibility Workshop
Determine Additional Data Needed • Conduct a review of the existing data on the child, including‐ – Evaluations and information provided by the parents of the child – Current classroom‐based, local, and state assessments and classroom‐based observations – Observations by teachers and related services providers
www.ksdetasn.org
Determine Additional Data Needed • Identify what additional data, if any, are needed to determine: – The present levels of academic achievement and functional performance (related developmental needs) of the child – Whether the child a child with an exceptionality – Whether the child has a need for special education and related services
www.ksdetasn.org
Considerations for the Determination of any Necessary Additional Data • What information is needed to assure a comprehensive evaluation? • Is any information needed to identify services and supports needed by the student?
www.ksdetasn.org
PPT Updated 8/12/12
26
Evaluation & Eligibility Workshop
Collect Additional Data Needed • The need for additional data must be decided on an individual basis. • The evaluation teams identifies which measures to use and who will collect the data.
www.ksdetasn.org
Determine Eligibility The Two‐Prong Test Exceptionality + Need
www.ksdetasn.org
Eligibility Determination Prong 1 Is the child a child with an exceptionality?
www.ksdetasn.org
PPT Updated 8/12/12
27
Evaluation & Eligibility Workshop
Steps to Answering Prong 1 1. Do the evaluation data match one of the definitions of exceptionality in state/federal regulations? 2. Do any exclusionary criteria apply? 3. Are the data congruent with indicators for that exceptionality? 4. Does the student exhibit a “dual discrepancy”? www.ksdetasn.org
Match the Definition • The definitions for each of the exceptionality categories are listed in the Eligibility Indicators Document (October, 2011). • The team considers whether the student’s data match or do not match the definition of the exceptionality category under consideration. www.ksdetasn.org
Exclusionary Factors • An evaluation team shall not determine a child to be a child with an exceptionality if the determinant factor is: • lack of appropriate instruction in reading, including the essential components of reading instruction (phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary development, reading fluency including oral reading skills, and reading comprehension strategies); or www.ksdetasn.org
PPT Updated 8/12/12
28
Evaluation & Eligibility Workshop
Exclusionary Factors continued • lack of appropriate instruction in math; or • limited English proficiency; and • the child does not otherwise meet the eligibility criteria as a child with an exceptionality
www.ksdetasn.org
Dual Discrepancy 1. Low level of performance (after appropriate interventions) when compared to peers –
Use universal screening data
2. Low rate of growth (after appropriate interventions) when compared to peers –
Use progress monitoring data
You must have data to show both low level of
performance and low rate of growth in order to meet the dual discrepancy criteria. www.ksdetasn.org
Answer Prong 1 1. Do the evaluation data match one of the definitions of exceptionality in state/federal regulations? YES 2. Do any exclusionary criteria apply? NO 3. Are the data congruent with indicators for that exceptionality? YES 4. Does the student demonstrate a ‘dual discrepancy’? YES (or the intensity of the successfully intervention is beyond regular education) www.ksdetasn.org
PPT Updated 8/12/12
29
Evaluation & Eligibility Workshop
Eligibility Determination Prong 2 Does the child need special education and related services?
4 Decision
www.ksdetasn.org
Eligibility Determination • Determine Whether the Child Needs Special Education and Related Services as a Result of the Exceptionality. – What are the child’s needs related to the intensity of instruction and supports required for the child to be successful? – Does the child have specific needs which are so unique as to require specially designed instruction in order to access and progress in the general education curriculum? www.ksdetasn.org
Answer Prong 2 • What is needed for the student to participate in the general or an advanced curriculum or age appropriate activities? Data • Is there a need for specially designed instruction? YES • Is the child’s need for having adapted content, methodology, or delivery of instruction so great that it cannot be provided in regular education without the support of special education? YES www.ksdetasn.org
PPT Updated 8/12/12
30
Evaluation & Eligibility Workshop
Case Study
RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION
www.ksdetasn.org
Case Study Directions • Use the following materials: – Luke Skywalker Case Study – Evaluation & Eligibility Indicators Document
• As a table: – Review case study – Discuss and respond to questions on last page
www.ksdetasn.org
Response to Intervention Case Study Questions 1. At the time of referral, do you think the team already had sufficient data to: – Describe Luke’s current performance and educational needs? – Determine the presence of an exceptionality, including exclusionary criteria? – Determine the need for specially designed instruction?
2. Do you think the team needed to collect additional data beyond what they decided to collect during the evaluation? www.ksdetasn.org
PPT Updated 8/12/12
31
Evaluation & Eligibility Workshop
Response to Intervention Case Study Questions continued 3. Do you think the evidence from general education interventions and the initial evaluation shows a dual discrepancy (discrepant from peers in both level and rate of growth)? 4. Do the results of the information collected match the indicators for a specific learning disability for Prong 1? Do any of the exclusionary criteria apply? 5. Do the results of the information collected match the indicators for a specific learning disability for Prong 2? www.ksdetasn.org
Indicator Match Activity
RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION
www.ksdetasn.org
Indicator Match Directions • Use the following materials: – Data sets for 2 different children (Data Set #3 and #4) – Evaluation & Eligibility Indicators Document
• As a table: – Apply data sets to indicators within different exceptionality categories. – Respond to the questions on the data worksheet for each data set. www.ksdetasn.org
PPT Updated 8/12/12
32
Evaluation & Eligibility Workshop
Skills Needed to apply Response to Intervention Understanding of the problem‐solving process Knowledge of curriculum and instruction Knowledge of empirically‐based interventions Knowledge of curriculum‐related assessment procedures • Knowledge of intervention monitoring • Knowledge of decision‐making procedures
• • • •
www.ksdetasn.org
Reflect as a Team • What skills do we need to develop? • What practices do we need to change? • What information do we need to share?
www.ksdetasn.org
Indicator Match Directions • Use the following materials: – Data sets for 2 different children (Data Set #5 and #6) – Evaluation & Eligibility Indicators Document
• As a table: – Determine the appropriate evaluation method – Apply data sets to indicators within different exceptionality categories. – Respond to the questions on the data worksheet for each data set. www.ksdetasn.org
PPT Updated 8/12/12
33
Evaluation & Eligibility Workshop
Controversies with the Response to Intervention Method • Variability in identifying non‐responders depending on: – Amount of difference from peers regarding level of performance – Amount of difference in rate of improvement and how rate of improvement is measured
• Does the RtI Method constitute a comprehensive evaluation? • Variability across locations of what constitutes Tier 2/3 interventions (especially regarding intensity) • Contextual situation‐dependent nature of who is identified www.ksdetasn.org
WORKSHOP SUMMARY
www.ksdetasn.org
Comparison Directions • Use the following materials: – Notes from workshop – Chart paper and markers
• As a table: – Use the paper and markers provided to develop a Venn diagram regarding additional similarities and differences in the methods – Post your diagram when you are finished www.ksdetasn.org
PPT Updated 8/12/12
34
Evaluation & Eligibility Workshop
Comparing the two Methods • What’s the same? – Regulatory requirements for evaluation
• What’s different? – RtI Method in an MTSS Framework uses a system focus for intervention and data collection – Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses Method uses a student by student approach www.ksdetasn.org
Planning for Next Steps • Read professional literature • Reflect on your own knowledge, skills, and practice • Determine how information from the professional literature and this training should be integrated into your personal practice
www.ksdetasn.org
Questions?
Stump the Chumps
www.ksdetasn.org
PPT Updated 8/12/12
35
Initial Evaluation and Eligibility Determination Part 1: Introduction Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses Method of Evaluation www.ksdetasn.org
Topics Covered Include • Selecting appropriate method • Use of GEI data • Use of the Evaluation & Eligibility Indicators Document • Controversies with use of each method
www.ksdetasn.org
This will not… • Cover how to conduct GEI • Timeline & due process procedures of evaluation & eligibility determinations • Promote one method of evaluation • Teach how to conduct assessments or which assessment instruments should be used. • Teach the implementation of MTSS
www.ksdetasn.org
PPT Updated 8/12/12
1
Evaluation & Eligibility Workshop
Eligibility Determination Is
Is Not
• Application of critical thinking skills to the evaluation process • Data‐based team decision making • Professional judgment
• The application of rules • The administration and interpretation of any specific assessments • A singular criteria
www.ksdetasn.org
Agenda: Part 1 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8)
Introduction General Education Interventions Determining when to use each method of evaluation Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses method of evaluation The Evaluation and Eligibility Determination Process Case Study Indicator Match Controversies with the Cognitive Correlates Method www.ksdetasn.org
Agenda: Part 2 (preview) 9) Response to Intervention method of evaluation 10) The Evaluation and Eligibility Determination Process 11) Case Study 12) Indicator Match 13) Compare/Contrast the Two Methods 14) Controversies with the RtI Method 15) Questions www.ksdetasn.org
PPT Updated 8/12/12
2
Evaluation & Eligibility Workshop
The Impact of GEI Practices on Evaluation Model
GENERAL EDUCATION INTERVENTIONS www.ksdetasn.org
The Evaluation and Eligibility Process For Young Children Begins by • For young children who are not yet in kindergarten the Evaluation and Eligibility Process may begin by: – Formal Developmental Screening Process – Referral through Part C – Parental Request – General Education Intervention
www.ksdetasn.org
The Evaluation and Eligibility Process Students in School Begins with GEI • General Education Interventions are the way that Kansas implements the federal Child Find requirement. • For children in kindergarten through age 21, Child Find is conducted through the use of General Education Interventions and should also insure the early identification and assessment of disabilities in children. www.ksdetasn.org
PPT Updated 8/12/12
3
Evaluation & Eligibility Workshop
General Education Interventions • Kansas describes two models of GEI – MTSS (protocol interventions + systemic problem‐solving) – Individual problem‐solving
• In both models the school must carry out interventions and document the child’s progress • The interventions and progress monitoring data will provide information about the child’s needs, including – the intensity of instruction needed – the support required for the child to be successful GEI
www.ksdetasn.org
GEI Using Individual‐Student Problem Solving • GEI/SIT/SAT/CARE teams meet to conduct individual problem‐solving. • Progress monitoring data is used to refine intervention. • GEI/SIT/SAT/CARE teams have charts and meeting notes or intervention logs that show the results from the steps above.
www.ksdetasn.org
GEI Using MTSS • Universal screening and the diagnostic process is used to determine student intervention. • Interventions is refined & intensified based on the progress monitoring data and the steps for adjusting instruction. • If student growth is insufficient, individual student problem‐solving is conducted by grade level collaborative teams. • Collaborative teams have charts and intervention logs that show the results from all the steps above. www.ksdetasn.org
PPT Updated 8/12/12
4
Evaluation & Eligibility Workshop
Determining When to Use Each Method of Evaluation
Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses
Response to Intervention
www.ksdetasn.org
Common Elements of Both Methods • Essential elements that must be present to use both methods: – high quality instruction in general education – evidence‐based interventions that are matched to child needs – progress monitoring during intervention process – evaluation data are reliable and valid (Lichtenstein, 2008) www.ksdetasn.org
When to Use: Response to Intervention 1) GEI is implemented using MTSS 2) School‐wide data collection system used for a) Universal screening b) Progress monitoring c) Diagnostic assessment
3) Collaborative teams are effectively functioning 4) Interventions are being provided in a systematic way using the Self‐Correcting Feedback Loop www.ksdetasn.org
PPT Updated 8/12/12
5
Evaluation & Eligibility Workshop
When to Use: Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses 1) GEI is implemented using individual student problem‐solving 2) No school‐wide universal screening of essential skills utilizing CBM 3) SIT/SAT/CARE teams development intervention plans
www.ksdetasn.org
Background Information
PATTERN OF STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES www.ksdetasn.org
Clarifications Regarding Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses • Is NOT the same as IQ‐Achievement discrepancy • Is NOT the use of cognitive scores compared to global achievement scores • Neither requires nor excludes the use of any specific assessment
www.ksdetasn.org
PPT Updated 8/12/12
6
Evaluation & Eligibility Workshop
Basic Premises: Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses • Additional assessment, intervention, and evaluation of the student’s strengths and weaknesses are based on the referral question for that individual student • When a learning disability is suspected, look at the patterns of cognitive strengths & weakness and how the pattern correlates with patterns of academic strengths & weaknesses www.ksdetasn.org
Using Cognitive Correlates When a Learning Disability is Suspected 1. Use the research base to identify links between academic and cognitive skills 2. Assess specific academic skills and identify strengths and weaknesses 3. Assess related abilities/cognitive skills and identify strengths and weaknesses 4. Determine whether cognitive skills unrelated to academic weaknesses are unimpaired (Flanagan, 2011) www.ksdetasn.org
Abilities/Cognitive Skills related to Basic Reading Skills • Phonological Awareness • Processing Speed/Perceptual Speed, including rapid naming (relates to need for automaticity in decoding) • Working Memory/short‐term memory of meaningful material (e.g., sentence repetition) • Paired‐associate learning (important for learning phoneme‐ grapheme relationships)/letter naming • Oral language skills: Vocabulary, Listening comprehension, Verbal reasoning (McGrew & Wendling,2010) (Elliott, Fiorello, Cledicianne, & Moldovan, 2010) (Flanagan, Fiorello, & Ortiz, 2010) (Joseph, McCachran, & Naglieri, 2003) www.ksdetasn.org
PPT Updated 8/12/12
7
Evaluation & Eligibility Workshop
Abilities/Cognitive Skills related to Reading Comprehension • • • • •
Working memory and short‐term memory Listening comprehension General language development and vocabulary Auditory processing Quick and automatic processing of letters and words, as well as word reading speed (McGrew & Wendling, 2010) (Elliott, Fiorello, Cledicianne, & Moldovan, 2010) (Flanagan, Fiorello, & Ortiz, 2010) www.ksdetasn.org
Abilities/Cognitive Skills related to Arithmetic and Math Computation • Working Memory • Processing Speed/Perceptual Speed (RAN, counting speed, numerical processing fluency, ability to engage in subitizing) • Phonological processing (because counting requires phonological codes for number words) • Language skills/comprehension/knowledge (development of number concepts) • Fluid Reasoning, Quantitative Reasoning, Deductive Reasoning (McGrew & Wendling, 2010) (Mabbott & Bisanz, 2008) (Murphy, Mazzocco, Hanich, & Early, 2007) www.ksdetasn.org
Abilities/Cognitive Skills related to Math Problem‐Solving • Working Memory • Phonological processing (at younger ages) • Language skills/comprehension/knowledge (relates to linguistic demands of complex problems) • Processing Speed/Perceptual Speed (including rapid processing of numbers and counting speed; apparently facilitates reasoning by freeing up resources in working memory) • Fluid Reasoning, Quantitative Reasoning, Deductive Reasoning (McGrew & Wendling, 2010) (Mabbott & Bisanz, 2008) (Murphy, Mazzocco, Hanich, & Early, 2007) www.ksdetasn.org
PPT Updated 8/12/12
8
Evaluation & Eligibility Workshop
Abilities/Cognitive Skills related to Written Language • • • •
Comprehension/Knowledge Processing Speed Short‐term memory/working memory Long‐term retrieval (for early writing development only) (Floyd, McGrew, & Evans, 2008)
www.ksdetasn.org
Is IQ Testing Helpful for Measuring Cognitive Correlates? • Full Scale IQ explains 10‐20% of specific areas of achievement • Specific cognitive abilities explain 50‐70% of specific areas of achievement • The consideration of cognitive correlates does not refer to intra‐subtest analysis. (Harris, Guardino, Hanson, 2007)
www.ksdetasn.org
Evaluation and Eligibility Determinations using
PATTERN OF STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES www.ksdetasn.org
PPT Updated 8/12/12
9
Evaluation & Eligibility Workshop
Moving into an Initial Evaluation • Referral from Parents • Self‐Referral from Adult Student • At the point that school staff suspect the student may be a student with an exceptionality and needs special education and related services
www.ksdetasn.org
Documentation Needed Prior to Referral • That appropriate instruction was provided to the student, • What education interventions and strategies have been implemented, • The results of repeated assessments of achievement which reflect the formal assessment of the student’s progress during instruction, • That parents have been provided the results • The results indicate an evaluation is appropriate www.ksdetasn.org
At the Time of Referral 1. Data collected prior to the evaluation are provided to the evaluation team 2. The team determines what data in addition to the existing data will be collected during the evaluation 3. The team prepares the Prior Written Notice and Consent for Evaluation Form 4. The school obtains informed consent from the parent www.ksdetasn.org
PPT Updated 8/12/12
10
Evaluation & Eligibility Workshop
Outline of Initial Evaluation and Eligibility Determination Process 1. Determine additional data needed – What, if any, additional assessment is needed? – What, if any, additional intervention is needed?
2. Obtain informed parent consent, then collect needed data 3. Conduct two‐prong test of eligibility, using Eligibility Indicator Document – Consider Prong 1, including exclusionary criteria – Consider Prong 2
4. Determine eligibility, complete eligibility report www.ksdetasn.org
Determine Additional Data Needed • Conduct a review of the existing data on the child, including: – Evaluations and information provided by the parents of the child – Current classroom‐based, local, and state assessments and classroom‐based observations – Observations by teachers and related services providers – Intervention data collected during GEI www.ksdetasn.org
Determine Additional Data Needed • Identify what additional data, if any, are needed to determine: – The present levels of academic achievement and functional performance (related developmental needs) of the child – Whether the child a child with an exceptionality – Whether the child has a need for special education and related services
www.ksdetasn.org
PPT Updated 8/12/12
11
Evaluation & Eligibility Workshop
Considerations for the Determination of any Necessary Additional Data • What information is needed to assure a comprehensive evaluation? • Is any information needed to identify services and supports needed by the student?
www.ksdetasn.org
Collect Additional Data Needed • The need for additional data must be decided on an individual basis. • The evaluation teams identifies which measures to use and who will collect the data.
www.ksdetasn.org
Determine Eligibility • The Two‐Prong Test • Exceptionality + Need
Eligibility
www.ksdetasn.org
PPT Updated 8/12/12
12
Evaluation & Eligibility Workshop
Eligibility Determination Prong 1 Is the child a child with an exceptionality?
4 Decision
www.ksdetasn.org
Steps to Answering Prong 1 1. Do the evaluation data match one of the definitions of exceptionality in state/federal regulations? 2. Do any exclusionary criteria apply? 3. Are the data congruent with indicators for that exceptionality? www.ksdetasn.org
Match the Definition • The definitions for each of the exceptionality categories are listed in the Eligibility Indicators Document (October, 2011). • The team considers whether the student’s data match or do not match the definition of the exceptionality category under consideration. www.ksdetasn.org
PPT Updated 8/12/12
13
Evaluation & Eligibility Workshop
Exclusionary Factors • An evaluation team shall not determine a child to be a child with an exceptionality if the determinant factor is: – lack of appropriate instruction in reading, including the essential components of reading instruction (phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary development, reading fluency including oral reading skills, and reading comprehension strategies); or www.ksdetasn.org
Exclusionary Factors continued – lack of appropriate instruction in math; or – limited English proficiency; and – the child does not otherwise meet the eligibility criteria as a child with an exceptionality
www.ksdetasn.org
Answer Prong 1 1. Do the evaluation data match one of the definitions of exceptionality in state/federal regulations? 2. Do any exclusionary criteria apply? 3. Are the data congruent with indicators for that exceptionality? www.ksdetasn.org
PPT Updated 8/12/12
14
Evaluation & Eligibility Workshop
Eligibility Determination Prong 2 Does the child need special education and related services?
4 Decision
www.ksdetasn.org
Eligibility Determination • Determine Whether the Child Needs Special Education and Related Services as a Result of the Exceptionality. – What are the child’s needs related to the intensity of instruction and supports required for the child to be successful? – Does the child have specific needs which are so unique as to require specially designed instruction in order to access and progress in the general education curriculum? www.ksdetasn.org
Answer Prong 2 • What is needed for the student to participate in the general or an advanced curriculum or age appropriate activities? • Is there a need for specially designed instruction? • Is the child’s need for having adapted content, methodology, or delivery of instruction so great that it cannot be provided in regular education without the support of special education?
www.ksdetasn.org
PPT Updated 8/12/12
15
Evaluation & Eligibility Workshop
Case Study
PATTERN OF STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES www.ksdetasn.org
Case Study Directions • Use the following materials: – Lois Lane Case Study (Document C – Case Study PSW) – Evaluation & Eligibility Indicators Document
• As a table: – Review case study – Discuss and respond to questions on last page www.ksdetasn.org
Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses Case Study Questions 1. What components of reading skills are most impaired for Lois Lane? 2. What cognitive skills are correlated with basic reading skills? 3. Are any of the above listed cognitive skills found as weaknesses within Lois Lane’s evaluation results? 4. Within Lois Lane’s evaluation, are the cognitive skills that are not related to basic reading skills results found to be unimpaired? www.ksdetasn.org
PPT Updated 8/12/12
16
Evaluation & Eligibility Workshop
Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses Case Study Questions continued 5. Do the results of the evaluation exhibit a pattern of strengths and weaknesses characteristic of a student with a reading disability in the area of basic reading skills? 6. Do the results of the information collected match the indicators for a specific learning disability for Prong 1? Do any of the exclusionary criteria apply? 7. Do the results of the information collected match the indicators for a specific learning disability for Prong 2? www.ksdetasn.org
Indicator Match Activity
PATTERN OF STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES www.ksdetasn.org
Indicator Match Directions • Use the following materials: – Data sets #1 and #2 – Evaluation & Eligibility Indicators Document
• As a table: – Apply data sets to indicators within different exceptionality categories. – Respond to the questions for each data set. www.ksdetasn.org
PPT Updated 8/12/12
17
Evaluation & Eligibility Workshop
Skills Needed to apply Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses • Knowledge of theories of cognitive skills • Knowledge of causation and correlates research • Knowledge of assessments of specific skills (including cognitive, academic, behavioral, and other skills) • Knowledge of evidence‐based intervention strategies related to specific skill deficits www.ksdetasn.org
Reflect as a Team • What skills do we need to develop? – For example, do I know what skills are included in basic reading and the cognitive correlates? In math computation and the cognitive correlates? – Do I have access to assessments, tools, and processes to measure these cognitive and academic skills?
• What practices do we need to change? • What information do we need to share? www.ksdetasn.org
Controversies with the Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses • On‐going lack of support for aptitude by treatment interaction • Information regarding recommended abilities to be assessed is based on correlations between assessment components and performance of typical achievers vs. students identified as having SLD • Everybody has their favorite test (authored by themselves) • Question of whether measures of cognitive skills provide added value beyond measures of academic skills www.ksdetasn.org
PPT Updated 8/12/12
18
Evaluation & Eligibility Workshop
Questions? • Do you have any questions about the patterns method or the cognitive correlates approach to identifying students with a learning disability? • Any other questions?
www.ksdetasn.org
Evaluation and Eligibility Decision Making Part 2: The RtI Method of Evaluation in an MTSS Framework Summary www.ksdetasn.org
Agenda: Part 1 (Review) 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8)
Introduction General Education Interventions Determining when to use each method of evaluation Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses method of evaluation The Evaluation and Eligibility Determination Process Case Study Indicator Match Controversies with the Cognitive Correlates Method www.ksdetasn.org
PPT Updated 8/12/12
19
Evaluation & Eligibility Workshop
Agenda: Part 2 9) Response to Intervention method of evaluation 10) The Evaluation and Eligibility Determination Process 11) Case Study 12) Indicator Match 13) Compare/Contrast the Two Methods 14) Controversies with the RtI Method 15) Questions www.ksdetasn.org
Common Elements of Both Methods • Essential elements that must be present to use both methods: – high quality instruction in general education – evidence‐based interventions matched to child needs – progress monitoring during intervention process – evaluation data are reliable and valid
www.ksdetasn.org
Determining When to Use Each Method of Evaluation
Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses
Response to Intervention
www.ksdetasn.org
PPT Updated 8/12/12
20
Evaluation & Eligibility Workshop
When to Use: Response to Intervention 1) GEI is implemented using MTSS 2) School‐wide data collection system used for a) Universal screening b) Progress monitoring c) Diagnostic assessment
3) Collaborative teams are effectively functioning 4) Interventions are being provided in a systematic way using the Self‐Correcting Feedback Loop www.ksdetasn.org
When to Use: Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses 1) GEI is implemented using individual student problem‐solving 2) No school‐wide universal screening of essential skills utilizing CBM 3) SIT/SAT/CARE teams develop intervention plans on a student‐by‐student basis
www.ksdetasn.org
Response to Intervention within an MTSS Framework • MTSS provides a system‐wide framework for educational change with a focus on preventing learning and behavioral difficulties. • RtI provides a method for conducting an evaluation to determine eligibility under IDEA.
www.ksdetasn.org
PPT Updated 8/12/12
21
Evaluation & Eligibility Workshop
Clarifications Regarding MTSS • MTSS cannot delay or deny an initial evaluation • Movement in the tiers is not sequential • Tier 3 is not special education • Success or failure in any tier does not determine need for referral nor eligibility for special education • All tiers of instruction must be available for all students regardless of entitlement eligibility www.ksdetasn.org
Background Information
RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION
www.ksdetasn.org
Basic Premises: RtI within a MTSS Framework • Data comes from universal screening, diagnostic process, and progress monitoring. • Additional assessment, intervention, and evaluation are based upon the referral question. • MTSS is implemented with fidelity
www.ksdetasn.org
PPT Updated 8/12/12
22
Evaluation & Eligibility Workshop
Rationale for RtI Model • Protection against over‐ and under‐identification errors is obtained by – using universal screening with criteria for selecting at‐risk intervention groups, – delivering interventions strategies of sufficient power, and – judging effects of remedial efforts.
• Because instruction is manipulated to judge its effect on learning directly, false positive identification errors are less likely. • Ensuring adequate instruction as a prerequisite to individual evaluation positively impacts disproportionality problems. • Requiring direct measures of child performance in context enhances identification accuracy. (VanDerHeyden & Jimerson, 2005) www.ksdetasn.org
Steps of Applying Response to Intervention 1. Use universal screening data to apply standard protocol of intervention. 2. Use progress monitoring data to customize interventions. 3. Determine presence of dual discrepancy. (Fuchs & Fuchs,1998) (McMaster, Fuchs, Fuchs, & Compton, 2005) www.ksdetasn.org
Dual Discrepancy 1. Low level of performance (after appropriate interventions) when compared to peers and 2. Low rate of growth (after appropriate interventions) when compared to peers or The interventions needed to obtain adequate level of performance or adequate learning rate are too demanding to be implemented with integrity without special education and related services www.ksdetasn.org
PPT Updated 8/12/12
23
Evaluation & Eligibility Workshop
Reasons for Use of Dual Discrepancy • Students who differ from peers on dual discrepancy have more severe academic and behavioral problems than students who have IQ‐achievement discrepancies or low achievement • No gender or ethnic bias identified through use of dual discrepancy • Requirements based solely on low achievement lack sensitivity and coverage compared to dual discrepancy • Identification of students needing the most intensive interventions happened at an earlier age with dual discrepancy criteria than with traditional IQ‐achievement discrepancy (Burns & Riley‐Tillman, 2009) (Speece, Case, & Molloy, 2003) www.ksdetasn.org
Evaluation and Eligibility Determinations using
RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION
www.ksdetasn.org
Moving into an Initial Evaluation • Referral from Parents • Self‐Referral from Adult Student • At the point that school staff suspect the student may be a student with an exceptionality and need special education and related services
www.ksdetasn.org
PPT Updated 8/12/12
24
Evaluation & Eligibility Workshop
Documentation Needed Prior to Referral • That appropriate instruction was provided to the student, • What education interventions and strategies have been implemented, • The results of repeated assessments of achievement which reflect the formal assessment of the student’s progress during instruction, • That parents have been provided the results • The results indicate an evaluation is appropriate www.ksdetasn.org
At the Time of Referral 1. Data collected prior to the evaluation are provided to the evaluation team 2. The team determines what data in addition to the existing data will be collected during the evaluation 3. The team prepares the Prior Written Notice and Consent for Evaluation Form 4. The school obtains informed consent from the parent www.ksdetasn.org
Outline of Initial Evaluation and Eligibility Determination Process 1. Determine additional data needed – What, if any, additional assessment is needed? – What, if any, additional intervention is needed? 2. Obtain informed parent consent, then collect
needed data
3. Conduct two‐prong test of eligibility, using
Eligibility Indicator Document
– –
Consider Prong 1, including exclusionary criteria and presence of dual discrepancy Consider Prong 2
4. Determine eligibility, complete eligibility report www.ksdetasn.org
PPT Updated 8/12/12
25
Evaluation & Eligibility Workshop
Determine Additional Data Needed • Conduct a review of the existing data on the child, including‐ – Evaluations and information provided by the parents of the child – Current classroom‐based, local, and state assessments and classroom‐based observations – Observations by teachers and related services providers
www.ksdetasn.org
Determine Additional Data Needed • Identify what additional data, if any, are needed to determine: – The present levels of academic achievement and functional performance (related developmental needs) of the child – Whether the child a child with an exceptionality – Whether the child has a need for special education and related services
www.ksdetasn.org
Considerations for the Determination of any Necessary Additional Data • What information is needed to assure a comprehensive evaluation? • Is any information needed to identify services and supports needed by the student?
www.ksdetasn.org
PPT Updated 8/12/12
26
Evaluation & Eligibility Workshop
Collect Additional Data Needed • The need for additional data must be decided on an individual basis. • The evaluation teams identifies which measures to use and who will collect the data.
www.ksdetasn.org
Determine Eligibility The Two‐Prong Test Exceptionality + Need
www.ksdetasn.org
Eligibility Determination Prong 1 Is the child a child with an exceptionality?
www.ksdetasn.org
PPT Updated 8/12/12
27
Evaluation & Eligibility Workshop
Steps to Answering Prong 1 1. Do the evaluation data match one of the definitions of exceptionality in state/federal regulations? 2. Do any exclusionary criteria apply? 3. Are the data congruent with indicators for that exceptionality? 4. Does the student exhibit a “dual discrepancy”? www.ksdetasn.org
Match the Definition • The definitions for each of the exceptionality categories are listed in the Eligibility Indicators Document (October, 2011). • The team considers whether the student’s data match or do not match the definition of the exceptionality category under consideration. www.ksdetasn.org
Exclusionary Factors • An evaluation team shall not determine a child to be a child with an exceptionality if the determinant factor is: • lack of appropriate instruction in reading, including the essential components of reading instruction (phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary development, reading fluency including oral reading skills, and reading comprehension strategies); or www.ksdetasn.org
PPT Updated 8/12/12
28
Evaluation & Eligibility Workshop
Exclusionary Factors continued • lack of appropriate instruction in math; or • limited English proficiency; and • the child does not otherwise meet the eligibility criteria as a child with an exceptionality
www.ksdetasn.org
Dual Discrepancy 1. Low level of performance (after appropriate interventions) when compared to peers –
Use universal screening data
2. Low rate of growth (after appropriate interventions) when compared to peers –
Use progress monitoring data
You must have data to show both low level of
performance and low rate of growth in order to meet the dual discrepancy criteria. www.ksdetasn.org
Answer Prong 1 1. Do the evaluation data match one of the definitions of exceptionality in state/federal regulations? YES 2. Do any exclusionary criteria apply? NO 3. Are the data congruent with indicators for that exceptionality? YES 4. Does the student demonstrate a ‘dual discrepancy’? YES (or the intensity of the successfully intervention is beyond regular education) www.ksdetasn.org
PPT Updated 8/12/12
29
Evaluation & Eligibility Workshop
Eligibility Determination Prong 2 Does the child need special education and related services?
4 Decision
www.ksdetasn.org
Eligibility Determination • Determine Whether the Child Needs Special Education and Related Services as a Result of the Exceptionality. – What are the child’s needs related to the intensity of instruction and supports required for the child to be successful? – Does the child have specific needs which are so unique as to require specially designed instruction in order to access and progress in the general education curriculum? www.ksdetasn.org
Answer Prong 2 • What is needed for the student to participate in the general or an advanced curriculum or age appropriate activities? Data • Is there a need for specially designed instruction? YES • Is the child’s need for having adapted content, methodology, or delivery of instruction so great that it cannot be provided in regular education without the support of special education? YES www.ksdetasn.org
PPT Updated 8/12/12
30
Evaluation & Eligibility Workshop
Case Study
RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION
www.ksdetasn.org
Case Study Directions • Use the following materials: – Luke Skywalker Case Study – Evaluation & Eligibility Indicators Document
• As a table: – Review case study – Discuss and respond to questions on last page
www.ksdetasn.org
Response to Intervention Case Study Questions 1. At the time of referral, do you think the team already had sufficient data to: – Describe Luke’s current performance and educational needs? – Determine the presence of an exceptionality, including exclusionary criteria? – Determine the need for specially designed instruction?
2. Do you think the team needed to collect additional data beyond what they decided to collect during the evaluation? www.ksdetasn.org
PPT Updated 8/12/12
31
Evaluation & Eligibility Workshop
Response to Intervention Case Study Questions continued 3. Do you think the evidence from general education interventions and the initial evaluation shows a dual discrepancy (discrepant from peers in both level and rate of growth)? 4. Do the results of the information collected match the indicators for a specific learning disability for Prong 1? Do any of the exclusionary criteria apply? 5. Do the results of the information collected match the indicators for a specific learning disability for Prong 2? www.ksdetasn.org
Indicator Match Activity
RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION
www.ksdetasn.org
Indicator Match Directions • Use the following materials: – Data sets for 2 different children (Data Set #3 and #4) – Evaluation & Eligibility Indicators Document
• As a table: – Apply data sets to indicators within different exceptionality categories. – Respond to the questions on the data worksheet for each data set. www.ksdetasn.org
PPT Updated 8/12/12
32
Evaluation & Eligibility Workshop
Skills Needed to apply Response to Intervention Understanding of the problem‐solving process Knowledge of curriculum and instruction Knowledge of empirically‐based interventions Knowledge of curriculum‐related assessment procedures • Knowledge of intervention monitoring • Knowledge of decision‐making procedures
• • • •
www.ksdetasn.org
Reflect as a Team • What skills do we need to develop? • What practices do we need to change? • What information do we need to share?
www.ksdetasn.org
Indicator Match Directions • Use the following materials: – Data sets for 2 different children (Data Set #5 and #6) – Evaluation & Eligibility Indicators Document
• As a table: – Determine the appropriate evaluation method – Apply data sets to indicators within different exceptionality categories. – Respond to the questions on the data worksheet for each data set. www.ksdetasn.org
PPT Updated 8/12/12
33
Evaluation & Eligibility Workshop
Controversies with the Response to Intervention Method • Variability in identifying non‐responders depending on: – Amount of difference from peers regarding level of performance – Amount of difference in rate of improvement and how rate of improvement is measured
• Does the RtI Method constitute a comprehensive evaluation? • Variability across locations of what constitutes Tier 2/3 interventions (especially regarding intensity) • Contextual situation‐dependent nature of who is identified www.ksdetasn.org
WORKSHOP SUMMARY
www.ksdetasn.org
Comparison Directions • Use the following materials: – Notes from workshop – Chart paper and markers
• As a table: – Use the paper and markers provided to develop a Venn diagram regarding additional similarities and differences in the methods – Post your diagram when you are finished www.ksdetasn.org
PPT Updated 8/12/12
34
Evaluation & Eligibility Workshop
Comparing the two Methods • What’s the same? – Regulatory requirements for evaluation
• What’s different? – RtI Method in an MTSS Framework uses a system focus for intervention and data collection – Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses Method uses a student by student approach www.ksdetasn.org
Planning for Next Steps • Read professional literature • Reflect on your own knowledge, skills, and practice • Determine how information from the professional literature and this training should be integrated into your personal practice
www.ksdetasn.org
Questions?
Stump the Chumps
www.ksdetasn.org
PPT Updated 8/12/12
35
