Specific Learning Disability: What are the new requirements?
Suzy Harris, Attorney at Law & James Hanson, Oregon School Psychologists Association(Revised from June 2007 COSA presentation by David Guardino, James Hanson, and Suzy Harris)
South Coast ESD
August 22, 2007
Objectives
Review requirements for SLD eligibility, including changes in IDEA 2004 & OARs
Review progress monitoring requirement (all) Review two types of SLD evaluation –
Response to Intervention (RTI) Pattern of strengths and weaknesses (PSW)
Step by Step Implementation Process Things to consider
Changes to SLD Eligibility Requirements34 CFR 300.307 - 311 & OAR 581-015-2170
Added progress monitoring component (all) Added option of RTI (OAR - based on district
model) Changed “severe discrepancy” to “pattern of
strengths and weaknesses” Observation – before or during Exclusionary factors remain
SLD Evaluation Components – Both RTI & PSW
Academic assessment (academic achievement toward Oregon grade level standards)
Review of cumulative records, IEPs, teacher collected work samples
Observation in learning environment (by qualified professional) – before or during
Progress monitoring data (see slide 6) instruction component assessment component
SLD Evaluation Components – Both (if needed)
Developmental history Assessment of cognition, fine motor, perceptual
motor, communication, social-emotional, memory (if student exhibits impairment in one or more of these areas)
Medical statement Impact of disability on educational performance
Determining if a student has a specific learning disability
Like any other disability determination under IDEA, can’t be based on any single criterion – meaning a single test, assessment, observation, or report.
An evaluation of a student suspected of having SLD must include a variety of assessment tools and strategies.
Evaluation must include input from student’s parents and an observation of the student’s academic performance and behavior in the general education classroom.
Eligibility TeamOAR 581-015-2170(2)
Group of qualified professionals Parents Regular classroom teacher Person qualified to conduct individual
diagnostic evaluations using instruments that meet OAR requirements (school psychologist, speech pathologist, etc.)
Qualified evaluatorsOAR 581-015-2110(4)(a)(D)&(E)
Assessments and other evaluation materials must be: “administered by trained and knowledgeable personnel” and “administered in accordance with any instructions provided by the producer of the assessments.”
Evaluation Planning ProcessOAR 581-015-2115
Review of existing data by IEP team (and other qualified professionals)
Determine what additional data is needed (if any)
If yes – identify – give notice & get written parent consent
Explain process, anticipate timeline needs
Eligibility form and parent notification
Eligibility form: Combined RTI-PSW
Parent Notification: Sample to use & combine with district RTI
information (for RTI only) Timing of notice
What is progress monitoring?34 CFR 300.309(b)
Purpose is to rule out lack of appropriate instruction in reading and math as reason for underachievement. Instruction: Before (or as part of) referral process,
student had appropriate instruction in reg ed settings by qualified personnel.
Assessment: Student had repeated assessments of achievement at regular intervals & results provided to parents
Is the result of over 20 years of research
Demonstrates strong reliability and validity
Produces accurate, meaningful information about students’ academic levels and growth
Can be used with all children to determine if they are benefiting from general instruction
Can be used with failing children to enhance instructional programs
Is sensitive to student improvement
Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM)
How To Do CBM Identify skills in the year-long curriculum
Determine weight of skills in the curriculum
Create multiple alternate test forms each test samples the entire year’s curriculum each test contains the same types of problems
Give tests frequently (weekly/monthly)
Review results
Modify instruction as appropriate
Options (either – or both)
Response to Intervention Research-based
curriculum Assessment of
progress Tiered interventions Part of comprehensive
evaluation
Pattern of Strengths & Weaknesses Norm-referenced assessment based
Academic comparison Academic-cognitive
comparison
Part of comprehensive evaluation
RTI – Typical three (or four) tiered intervention
Tier one: Research-based curricula for all students with periodic universal screening toward state standards.
Tier two: Targeted, intensive small group interventions and more frequent progress monitoring for students identified as not making expected progress in universal screening.
Tier three: More intensive intervention (small group or individual) and may include referral and special education evaluation (or maybe considered 4th tier).
SLD Evaluation Components – RTI OAR 581-015-2170(5)(e)
Documentation of: Type, intensity, duration of interventions in
accordance with district’s RTI model Rate of progress during interventions Comparison to expected rates Higher progress monitoring requirements:
allows comparison, appropriate to age and grade, appropriate to content, allows for interpretation of effectiveness of intervention.
Research findings
CBM with “goal raising rule” for students responding well: effect size .52 SD
CBM with “change the program rule” for students not responding well:
effect size .72 SD
Results in teachers planning more comprehensive reading programs
Fletcher, et.al. 2007
SLD Evaluation Components – Pattern of Strengths or Weaknesses
Must include assessment of student’s strengths & weaknesses: classroom performance & academic achievement relative to age, Oregon grade-level standards or
intellectual development
How to determine pattern of strengths & weaknesses?
Cognitive – academic approaches: Consistency between weakness in specific
cognitive process related to specific academic area based on norm-referenced tests (in context of “otherwise normal ability profile”.) Flanagan, Oritz & Alfonso, 2007 Naglieri, 1999 Fiorello & Hale, 2004
Academics only approach Continued use of discrepancy formula?
Main Idea of PSW
Many academic and cognitive abilities in the average range
Specific academic weaknesses Specific cognitive weaknesses Research-based links between the academic and
cognitive weaknesses Unrelated cognitive abilities are average or above Full Scale IQ is irrelevant, except for MR
Not Full Scale IQ Explosive growth of scientific knowledge about true
“processes” that enable acquisition of reading, math and writing E.g. Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) Theory of Cognitive Abilities:
The Cognitive “Table of the Elements” CHC theory applies to cognitive, academic, and
speech/language tests Structural changes to factors on all “IQ” tests in the
last five years Full Scale IQ explains only 10-20% of specific areas of
achievement Specific cognitive abilities explain 50-70% of specific areas of
achievement
Cognitive Skills related to Reading Abilities
Phonemic Awareness (Phonemic Awareness) Verbal Reasoning/Vocabulary (Vocabulary, Comprehension) Rapid Automatic Naming (Fluency) Working Memory (Decoding) Processing Speed (Fluency, Comprehension) Associative Memory (Decoding)
All inform content and delivery of instruction
Cognitive Skills related to Math Abilities
• Quantitative (magnitude comparison)• Long Term Memory Storage and Retrieval including RAN (fluent
number identification)• Working Memory, Processing Speed, & Oral Language (counting
strategies and number sense)• Processing Speed (calculations)• Fluid Intelligence (thinking about relationships among concepts,
deduction and induction, higher order algebra)• Some researchers cite Visual/Spatial Thinking (higher order
geometry); some don’t
Why use this approach?
When we test students with poor reading or math achievement, we expect to find that at least one of the cognitive abilities that underlies achievement is compromised. If there is no cognitive weakness, it’s probably not a neurological difference!
IQ/Achievement discrepancies with no impairments in related cognitive skills – may indicate false positives for SLD: instructional casualties, ADHD, emotional problems, second language issues, and/or environmental challenges.
Cognitive testing is a part of the problem solving process.
Patterns of Strengths & Weaknesses: Flanagan & Ortiz’s Aptitude-Achievement Consistency (2007)
After RTI and/or documentation of instruction and progress monitoring and rule out exclusionary factors
Documentation of underachievement-norm referenced achievement test (Standard Score <85, RPI <75/90)
Measure all cognitive abilities that research shows support the specific area of achievement at specific age of child
At least one of those abilities must be below 85 or 75/90 and have documented ecological correlates
Cognitive abilities that don’t relate are average or above: “otherwise normal ability profile”
Computer Program: “SLD Assistant” The Essentials of Cross Battery Assessment: Second Edition Wiley,
New York.
Consistency Discrepancy (Naglieri) and Concordance-Discordance (Fiorello & Hale)
Processing Strength to Academic Strength (no significant difference)
Processing Strength to Academic Weakness (significant difference)
Processing Weakness to Academic Weakness (no significant difference)
Processing Strength to Processing Weakness (significant difference)
Another approach: Academics only
Word recognition & spelling <90 (phonological poor, spatial & motor skills good)
Reading fluency <90, accuracy good (automaticity problem: RAN poor)
Reading comprehension <90, 7 points below word reading (vocabulary, working memory & attention poor, phonics good)
Math computations <90, all reading good (executive functioning, working memory & attention poor, phonics and vocabulary good)
Spelling <90 (residuals of poor phonics, fluency often impaired) Word recognition, fluency, comprehension, spelling & math <90
(language and working memory poor)
Fletcher et. al. (2007)Learning Disabilities: From Identification to Intervention
What about continued use of discrepancy formula?
Explosive growth of scientific knowledge about true “processes” that enable reading, math and writing
Changes in last five years to all “IQ” tests Global achievement scores (FSIQ) account
for only 35-50% of total achievement variance (and only 10-20% for specific skills).
Specific cognitive abilities explain 50-70% of specific areas of achievement
Implementation:Step-by-Step process
Step 1: Determination of underachievement
Step 2: Determination of Response to Interventions or
Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses (or both)
Step 3: Rule out lack of appropriate instruction as
determining factor Step 4:
Rule out other factors as primary basis
Step 1: Determination of Underachievement Does the student fail to achieve adequately for his age
in one or more of the following eight areas: Basic reading skill Reading fluency skills Reading comprehension Mathematics calculation Mathematics problem solving Written expression Oral expression Listening comprehension
Consider student’s performance related to Oregon’s
state’s academic content standards in these areas.
Step 2: Determination of Response to Interventions or a Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses (or Both)
RTI:
Does the student fail to make sufficient progress in achievement considered adequate for his age (or enrolled grade-level standards) when provided with a series of scientific, research-based interventions?
PSW:
Do the results of the student’s assessments and evaluations show a pattern of strengths and weaknesses in academic performance, achievement (or both), or intellectual development?
Step 3: Determination of Appropriate Instruction
Consider progress monitoring data to rule out lack of appropriate instruction as basis for underachievement.
Appropriate instruction in reading must include explicit and systematic instruction in essential components of reading including: phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary development, reading fluency, including oral reading skills, and reading comprehension strategies.
Step 3: Continued
If the group charged with determining whether a student has an SLD decides that this documentation is not adequate, a decision may be made to delay making a final determination and continue to collect additional information about the student.
In order to extend the time by which the evaluation will be completed, parents must consent to the time extension.
Step 4: Rule out other factors as primary basis for underachievement
Students whose lack of achievement can be attributed primarily to one of the following factors should not be determined to have an SLD.
visual, hearing, or motor disability mental retardation emotional disturbance cultural factors environmental or economic disadvantage limited English proficiency
Such students may be served in other disability categories of IDEA or through programs for at-risk or disadvantaged students, such as Title I of the No Child Left Behind Act.
Resources Oregon School Psychologists Association (OSPA):
www.ospaonline.com National Center on Student Progress Monitoring:
www.studentprogress.org/ National Research Center on Learning Disabilities:
www.nrcld.org/index.shtml Center on Instruction:
www.centeroninstruction.org/ ODE website & RTI initiative:
www.ode.state.or.us/search/page/?id=315 NASP Resources:
www.nasponline.org/resources/index.aspx
OSPA Conference on CBM Resources-October 12, Seaside
District-Generated Alternate Forms DIBELS Progress Monitoring Aimsweb Easy CBM Early numeracy CBM
OSPA SLD Toolkit-www.ospaonline.com
Observation Matrix Form Covers Big Ideas of reading and Concepts of
Print Cross Referenced with Torgeson principles of
effective instruction Class activity, student response, functional fit
Possible methods and resources for performance on state standards
Examination of student’s score on state tests State Standards Matrix for reading, math and writing, K-3
available on www.ospaonline.com website Meant to be emailed among evaluation team members including
general education teacher so they can put all of their results into an integrated team report
Replaces narrative of academic results Links assessment to instruction Useful across the state when children change residence.
English Language Learners
Response to Intervention Patterns of Strengths and Weaknesses Cultural and Language Acquisition Additional examination of specific patterns
Developing a process for SLD identification: Things to consider
If using RTI, what curriculum, what tools to use for measuring progress and what decision points to use for triggering movement from one tier to another.
If PSW, what variables of comparison to use that have research base?
Discussion
What is your district using? What works? What are the challenges? How can you improve your system if not
ready to fully implement a RTI model? Where can you find support?