Скачать презентацию THE NUTS AND BOLTS OF THE NEW SPECIFIC Скачать презентацию THE NUTS AND BOLTS OF THE NEW SPECIFIC

645cbd235931af55ea60e6c5193d7deb.ppt

  • Количество слайдов: 36

THE NUTS AND BOLTS OF THE NEW SPECIFIC LEARNING DISABILITY (SLD) CRITERIA 1 Presented THE NUTS AND BOLTS OF THE NEW SPECIFIC LEARNING DISABILITY (SLD) CRITERIA 1 Presented by: Jacque Hyatt, Co-Director, Idaho SDE Special Education Division January 21, 2010

IDAHO LIVE! GENERAL INFORMATION 2 IDAHO LIVE! GENERAL INFORMATION 2

TRAINING OBJECTIVES ü ü To provide participants with specific information relating to the newly TRAINING OBJECTIVES ü ü To provide participants with specific information relating to the newly revised SLD criteria. To provide participants the history of SLD in Idaho. To explain why Idaho has changed their criteria. To discuss the eligibility and evaluation criteria and the procedures. 3

HISTORY OF LEARNING DISABILITIES Debates continue to be part of the learning disabilities history. HISTORY OF LEARNING DISABILITIES Debates continue to be part of the learning disabilities history. Most evident is the debate between the concepts of learning and it’s relationship to cognitive ability or intelligence. Due to this debate, some practitioners rely solely on IQ testing with a few other parts of the whole. With IDEA 2004, there were changes towards a system that moved from the concept of discrepenancy only to a shift to an RTI framework. 4

WHAT LD IS AND IS NOT “IS” Specific Learning Disability (SLD) means a disorder WHAT LD IS AND IS NOT “IS” Specific Learning Disability (SLD) means a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, that may manifest itself in the imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or to do mathematical calculations, including conditions such as perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia. “IS NOT” Specific Learning Disability does not include learning problems that are primarily the result of visual, hearing, or motor disabilities, of cognitive impairment, of emotional disturbance, or of environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage. (Flannagan, 2008) 5

WHY THE CHANGE? ü ü ü Aligns with the federal definition. Is consistent with WHY THE CHANGE? ü ü ü Aligns with the federal definition. Is consistent with evidence demonstrating that students can have impairments in very specific areas. Allows for evaluation and intervention planning to be more closely aligned to address the particular needs of the student. 6

WHY THE CHANGE? Heterogeneity of SLD—meaning different student profiles can be viewed across school, WHY THE CHANGE? Heterogeneity of SLD—meaning different student profiles can be viewed across school, district, state, and nation. Current research evidence is not sufficient to recommend hard cut scores. Rationale for the blended model in Idaho. 7

THREE MODELS USED TO DETERMINE ELIGIBILITY RTI only model Patterns of Strengths and Weaknesses THREE MODELS USED TO DETERMINE ELIGIBILITY RTI only model Patterns of Strengths and Weaknesses Blended model *** 8

WHY IDAHO HAS CHOSEN A BLENDED MODEL With both camps debating the IQ (discrepancy) WHY IDAHO HAS CHOSEN A BLENDED MODEL With both camps debating the IQ (discrepancy) method vs. the RTI method, both groups have moved to the middle of the debate. There is a need to use an integrated framework to be consistent with what the expectations for implementing the new SLD criteria in Idaho. 9

BLENDED MODEL Idaho has chosen to use the blended model to support using a BLENDED MODEL Idaho has chosen to use the blended model to support using a comprehensive approach to identification. The blended model represents the most comprehensive approach, addressing the shortcomings in RTI only (which is lack of explanatory info) and patterns (which is lack of ecological assessment and continuity of how the disability manifests in the natural/educational environment) 10

MYTHS VS. TRUTHS Myth Number One: More students will be identified as LD. Truth: MYTHS VS. TRUTHS Myth Number One: More students will be identified as LD. Truth: There is no evidence to suggest that students will over-identified. Myth Number Two: We are back to professional judgment. Truth: You still need to use valid and reliable data to determine eligibility. 11

MYTHS VS. TRUTHS MYTH: We have to buy all these expensive tests to give MYTHS VS. TRUTHS MYTH: We have to buy all these expensive tests to give to students. TRUTH: There assessments tools that are currently in place to support the process. MYTH: This too will pass. It won’t last. It’s just the SDE coming up with something new. TRUTH: Sorry, folks. This aligns to IDEA 2004 and it is not something that is going away. 12

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA Step I: The student does not make sufficient progress in response to ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA Step I: The student does not make sufficient progress in response to effective, evidence based instruction and intervention for the child’s age or to meet stateapproved grade level standards in one or more of the following areas: a. Oral expression b. Listening comprehension c. Written expression d. Basic reading skills e. Reading comprehension f. Reading fluency g. Mathematics calculation or h. Mathematics problem solving 13

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA Step 2: And: The student demonstrates low achievement in the area(s) of ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA Step 2: And: The student demonstrates low achievement in the area(s) of suspected disability listed above as evidenced by a norm-referenced, standardized achievement assessment. For culturally and linguistically diverse students, the preponderance of evidence must indicate low achievement. 14

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA Step 3: And: The student demonstrates a pattern of strengths and weaknesses ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA Step 3: And: The student demonstrates a pattern of strengths and weaknesses in psychological processing skills that impact learning. 15

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA STEP 4: And: The student’s lack of achievement is not primarily the ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA STEP 4: And: The student’s lack of achievement is not primarily the result of: a. A visual, hearing, or motor impairment; b. Cognitive impairment c. Emotional disturbance d. Environmental, cultural or economic disadvantage e. Limited English Proficiency f. A lack of appropriate instruction in reading, including the essential components of reading; 16 g. A lack of appropriate instruction in math.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA Step 5 And: The disability adversely impacts the student’s educational performance and ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA Step 5 And: The disability adversely impacts the student’s educational performance and the student requires specially designed instruction. 17

DID YOU REVIEW ALL 5 STEPS PRIOR TO DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY? Step 1 Step 2 DID YOU REVIEW ALL 5 STEPS PRIOR TO DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY? Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 ALL steps must be met. 18

EVALUATION PROCEDURES Step 1: The evaluation for determining SLD eligibility and requirements for parent EVALUATION PROCEDURES Step 1: The evaluation for determining SLD eligibility and requirements for parent notification and involvement shall be conducted in accordance with the procedures detailed in Section 3, Chapter 4 of the Idaho Special Education Manual. http: //www. sde. idaho. gov/site/special_edu/manual_ page. htm 19

EVALUATION PROCEDURES Step 2: The evaluation must address the eligibility criteria as listed in EVALUATION PROCEDURES Step 2: The evaluation must address the eligibility criteria as listed in previous slides. To meet these criteria, the following information is required: 20

EVALUATION PROCEDURES Part A: Evidence of insufficient progress in response to effective, evidence-based instruction EVALUATION PROCEDURES Part A: Evidence of insufficient progress in response to effective, evidence-based instruction and intervention indicates the student’s performance level and rate of improvement are significantly below that of grade-level peers. 21

EVALUATION PROCEDURES Data used to support Part A: Data that helps establish that the EVALUATION PROCEDURES Data used to support Part A: Data that helps establish that the core curriculum is effective for most students. Information documenting that prior to, or as part of, the referral process, the student was provided appropriate instruction in general education settings. Data-based documentation of student progress during instruction and intervention using standardized, normreferenced progress monitoring measures in the area of disability. A record of an observation of the student’s academic performance and behavior in the child’s learning environment (including the general classroom setting) has been conducted by an evaluation team member other than the student’s general education teacher. 22

EVALUATION PROCEDURES Part B: Evidence of low achievement in one or more of the EVALUATION PROCEDURES Part B: Evidence of low achievement in one or more of the suspected area(s). These include: Oral expression Listening comprehension Written expression Basic reading skills Reading comprehension Reading fluency Mathematics calculation or Mathematics problem solving 23

EVALUATION PROCEDURES NOTE: This evidence must indicate performance that is significantly below the mean EVALUATION PROCEDURES NOTE: This evidence must indicate performance that is significantly below the mean on a cluster, composite, or 2 or more subtest scores of a normreferenced, standardized, achievement assessment in the specific academic area(s) of suspected disability. 24

EVALUATION PROCEDURES NOTE: There are cases when the use of norm-referenced assessment is not EVALUATION PROCEDURES NOTE: There are cases when the use of norm-referenced assessment is not appropriate, for example, students who are culturally and linguistically diverse. Refer to guidance documents regarding procedures on evaluating students who are culturally and linguistically diverse and the use of preponderance of evidence. 25

EVALUATION PROCEDURES Part C: Evidence of a pattern of strengths and weaknesses in psychological EVALUATION PROCEDURES Part C: Evidence of a pattern of strengths and weaknesses in psychological processing skills that impact learning. 26

EVALUATION PROCEDURES Note: An assessment of psychological processing skills is linked to the failure EVALUATION PROCEDURES Note: An assessment of psychological processing skills is linked to the failure to achieve adequately in the academic area(s) of suspected disability and must rely on standardized assessments. These assessments must be conducted by a professional who is qualified to administer and interpret the assessment results. The student’s performance on a psychological processing assessment demonstrates a pattern of strengths and weaknesses that help explain why and how the student’s learning difficulties occur. Such tests may include measures of memory, phonological skills, processing speed as well as other measures which 27 explicitly test psychological processing.

EVALUATION PROCEDURES PART D: The following criteria must be considered when evaluating the student’s EVALUATION PROCEDURES PART D: The following criteria must be considered when evaluating the student’s low achievement. The team must determine that the student’s learning difficulty is not primarily the result of: ü A visual, hearing, or motor impairment ü Cognitive impairment ü Emotional disturbance ü Environmental or economic disadvantage ü Cultural factors ü Limited English Proficiency 28

TYPES OF ASSESSMENTS § Screening and Benchmark Universal measures that give a quick read TYPES OF ASSESSMENTS § Screening and Benchmark Universal measures that give a quick read on whether students have mastered critical skills. § Diagnostic/Prescriptive Individually administered to gain more in-depth information and guide appropriate instruction or intervention plans. § Progress Monitoring Determines whether adequate progress is made based on individual goals regarding critical skills. § Outcome Provides an evaluation of the effectiveness of instruction and indicate student year-end achievement when compared to grade-level performance standards 29

UPCOMING WEBINARS This series of three webinars will lead participants through completing the eligibility UPCOMING WEBINARS This series of three webinars will lead participants through completing the eligibility forms. WEBINAR I: How to complete Section A of the eligibility forms Dr. Evelyn Johnson and Theresa Fritch January 28, 2010 2: 00 PST 3: 00 MST WEBINAR II: How to complete Sections B & C of the eligibility forms Dr. Evelyn Johnson and Theresa Fritch February 11, 2010 2: 00 PST 3: 00 MST WEBINAR III: How to complete Sections D & E of the eligibility forms Dr. Evelyn Johnson and Theresa Fritch February 25, 2010 2: 00 PST 3: 00 MST 30

PROPOSED TIMELINE January 2010 thru March 2010, webinar on specifics of SLD and how PROPOSED TIMELINE January 2010 thru March 2010, webinar on specifics of SLD and how to complete forms. May 15, 2010 submission of a sample file via the compliance tracker. Responses to schools and districts with file problems will be over the summer. August 1, 2010 districts/schools begin using the new eligibility criteria for all special education students. 31

ADDITIONAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT The SDE will be providing additional training in phases through the ADDITIONAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT The SDE will be providing additional training in phases through the next three years. Topics currently being researched for development are: Classroom management Differentiated instruction Providing appropriate interventions at Tier 2 and 3 Progress monitoring process and tools Managing classroom data Peer teaching/co-teaching model Writing Effective PLOPS/Goals 32

SLD WEBSITE The Idaho Clearinghouse is developing a webpage dedicated to SLD information and SLD WEBSITE The Idaho Clearinghouse is developing a webpage dedicated to SLD information and events. Please check the website in upcoming months for updates. http: //itcnew. idahotc. com/dnn/ 33

ONLINE RESOURCES IDEA Partnership’s RTI Collection: www. ideapartnership. org National Association of School Psychologists: ONLINE RESOURCES IDEA Partnership’s RTI Collection: www. ideapartnership. org National Association of School Psychologists: www. nasponline. org National Association of State Directors of Special Education: www. nasdse. org National Center for Learning Disabilities: www. ncld. org National Center on Culturally Responsive Systems: www. nccrest. org National Center on Student Progress Monitoring: www. studentprogress. org National Center on Response to Intervention: www. rti 4 success. org National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities: www. ldonline. org/njcld National Research Center on Learning Disabilities: www. nrcld. org Office of Special Education Programs, IDEA 2004 Building the Legacy: http: //idea. ed. gov/ RTI Action Network: www. rtinetwork. org 34

QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION 35 QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION 35

CONTACT INFORMATION Jacque Hyatt, Co Director, SDE Division of Special Education, jshyatt@sde. idaho. gov CONTACT INFORMATION Jacque Hyatt, Co Director, SDE Division of Special Education, [email protected] idaho. gov 36