RTI Evaluation

1
RTI Evaluation Eligibility

• Ryan Blasquez
• Erin Lolich
• Tigard-Tualatin SD
• March 11, 2008

2
Important Idea

• RTI is one
• component of a COMPREHENSIVE evaluation.

3
Individualized Approach

• Robbies evaluation rather than LD evaluation
• Consider eligibility requirements for all
  suspected disabilities

4
General evaluation requirements

• No single measure determines eligibility
• Non-biased, technically sound
• Comprehensive enough to identify all of a
  students special education and related service
  needs
• Review of existing information (parents,
  teachers, statewide assessment, etc.)

5
General evaluation requirements

• Students may not be eligible if the determinant
  factor is lack of appropriate instruction in
  reading, including Big 5
• Or lack of instruction in math
• Or limited English proficiency

6
All SLD evaluations require

• Districts need to define repeated and
  reasonable intervals.
• Formal assessment could be DIBELS or other CBMs

• data that demonstrate that prior to or as part of
  the referral process the child was provided
  appropriate instruction in regular education
  settings, delivered by qualified personnel
• Data based documentation of repeated assessments
  of achievement at reasonable intervals,
  reflecting formal assessment of student progress
  during instruction, which was provided to the
  childs parents.
• Observation in the childs learning environment
  (including the regular classroom setting)

7
SLD regulations of note

• The team must establish that the child does not
  achieve adequately for age or to meet
  State-approved grade level standards in academic
  skills, and
• The student has been provided with learning
  experiences and instruction appropriate for the
  childs age or State-approved grade level
  standards

• The contrast is with age and standards, not
  ability
• To meet implies looking at rate of progress
• This determination of low achievement is the
  foundation for eligibility

8
SLD regulations of note (when RTI is used)

• Documentation must include the kind of
  instructional strategies that were used and the
  student centered data that was gathered
• That parents were notified
• about the States policies about RTI that include
  the kind and amount of data that must be gathered
  and what general education services must be
  provided, and
• the kind of instructional strategies that were
  used to increase the childs progress and
• that the parent has the right to an evaluation

9
Daisy participates in the general curriculum
EBIS Team reviews screening data and places
Daisy in group intervention
Daisy isnt doing well
Daisy may recycle
Daisy improves
Daisy doesnt improve
How RTI Works from a Student Perspective
EBIS Team develops individually
designed intervention
Resumes general program
Daisy may recycle
Daisy improves
Daisy doesnt improve
Improvement is good and other factors are
suspected as cause
Intervention is intense and LD is suspected
Special Education referral is initiated
10
Referral Evaluation Planning

• The team reviews
• Individual Problem Solving Worksheet completed
  through cumulative file review
• Developmental History completed
  through parent interview
• Student Intervention Profile
• Progress Monitoring Data

11
Evaluation Planning Gathering Additional Data

• Observation (required)
• Achievement data
• WIAT-II
• Phonics Inventory
• Scored Writing Samples
• CBMs
• Assessments in other areas of concern
• Communication
• Fine motor
• Social/emotional
• Perceptual motor/perception
• Memory
• Physical/medical (including medical statement)
• Cognition

12
Parent Participation

• Before referral
• Progress monitoring Intervention data
• RTI pamphlet
• Invitation to participate in EBIS meetings
• Interview Developmental History
• During referral
• Procedural Safeguards
• During evaluation planning
• Review of Safeguards
• Consent for Evaluation

13
Eligibility Decision Making

• Key Question
• How does the weight of the intervention compare
  to the weight of progress?

14
Dual Discrepancy

• Low skills (The easier part)
• Slow progress despite intensive intervention
  (The trickier part)

15
Low, but not Slow
16
Low Skills Slow Progress Dual Discrepancy
17
Other Considerations

• Context is key
• Typical growth
• Cohort growth
• Fidelity of program
• Intervention attendance

18
Susie

• 2nd Grader
• Fall ORF 22
• Winter ORF 55
• Gain 2.37 words/week
• Typical gain 1.5 words/week

• 90 min. MacMillan
• SMART volunteer
• Read Naturally 30 min. 4 times per week
• Changed to Phonics for Reading and Read Naturally
  30 min. per day

19
Elliot

• 25th percentile on OAKS Math Composite in 3rd
  grade
• Remains at 25th percentile in 4th and 5th
• Low average

• Core program
• 5 min./day computer-assisted practice
• 30 min./day Connecting Math Concepts

20
Barbara

• 1st Grader
• Gain 6-10 in 8 weeks
• Other students gain 22 wpm in the same period of
  time

• MacMillan 90 min./day
• Triumphs 45 min./day

21
Jim

• 5th grader
• Reads 77 words per minute (target is 150 wpm)
• Scores below average benchmark on the State-wide
  assessment

• Core reading program
• 30 minutes of additional reading program 5x a
  week
• Jim was adopted from Russia 2 years ago
• ELL teacher interviews family and finds out he
  didnt attend school before he came the U.S.

22
The team must rule out as primary factors

• Lack of appropriate instruction
• Existence of another disability
• Limited English proficiency
• Environmental or Economic Disadvantage

23
LD Eligibility Reports

• Checklist
• Background information
• Low skills
• Resistance to instruction
• Observation
• Opportunity to learn the skills
• Other disabilities
• Cultural factors or economic disadvantage
• Limited English proficiency
• Conclusion

24
LD Eligibility

• Daisys Sample Report
• TTSD LD Eligibility Form

25
PSW RTI

• Is a hybrid of Patterns of Strengths and
  Weaknesses and RTI allowable?
• Does it makes sense?
• Do cognitive and/or processing assessment results
  provide meaningful information the team does not
  already have?
• Is the information instructionally relevant?
• Is the PSW approach a wise use of resources?
• Does the approach systematically rule out
  exclusionary factors?
• Does the PSW approach enhance outcomes for all
  students?

26
Contact Information

• www.ttsd.k12.or.us
• Ryan 503-431-4649
• rblasquez_at_ttsd.k12.or.us
• Erin 503-431-4136
• elolich_at_ttsd.k12.or.us