OS SLD Guidance:A Presentation for Local District Special Educators

Oakland SchoolsOctober 2011

The OS SLD Document is designed to:1.provide background information2.review critical requirements of the IDEA Federal Regulations3.provide examples of how to operationalize the regulations consistent with the direction from the USDOE and MDE. The OS SLD document is not and has never intended to be specific procedures.

Background US children ranked poorly on the ability to read with

comprehension and apply mathematical thinking.

Numbers are even higher for minority students, students with lower socioeconomic status and students receiving special education.

About half of the students receiving special education services are eligible as LD and the majority of those students exhibit primary difficulties in learning to read.

BackgroundSince the inception of Learning Disabilities as an eligibility category in the 1970’s, the

difficultyof operationalizing the diagnosis of a specificlearning disability (SLD) has plagued specialeducation.

Background The USDOE operationalized the SLD construct, they

based it on the available research at the time (Rutter and Yule 1975); however, this study has not withstood further scientific research over the past three decades.

Despite the research, the IQ-Achievement discrepancy model has had a profound impact on the conceptualization of SLD. Researchers, practitioners, and the public continued to believe that discrepancy is a marker for specific types of SLD and distinct from other forms of underachievement.

Background The heavy emphasis on the discrepancy model has

detracted notably from focusing on prevention, early identification and intervention with students at risk.

There is also high variability in identification rates across the states, districts, and even school buildings within a district.

There has been overrepresentation of minority students in special education and poor outcomes for students who receive special education.

Many of the children who have been identified as SLD are considered curriculum casualties.

BackgroundThe special education system has becomeoverburdened, interventions are not typically“specialized” and it has become increasinglydifficult to distinguish between students withlow achievement due to a lack of adequateinstruction and those with a true SLD.

Timeline of Activities at the NATIONAL Level

1997

Individual with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)

1998

National Institute for Children’s Health and Development (NICHD) National Research Program

2000

Report of the National Reading Panel

2001

LD Summit sponsored by Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education

2002

Learning Disabilities Policy Roundtable

2002

A New Era: Revitalizing Special Education for Children and their Families

2001

Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) known as No Child Left Behind

2004

Learning Disabilities Roundtable

2004

Reauthorization of IDEA

2006

IDEA 2006 regulations released with comments

NCLB/ESEA Re-Authorized in 2001

Goal of 100% of students meeting proficiency benchmarks in mathematics and reading by 2014

Encouraged the use of scientifically-based research as the foundation for K-3 reading instruction

Requires screening and progress monitoring of students and professional development for all teachers

Renewed emphasis on accountability, student outcomes, data-based decision-making , and the use of research-based methods and interventions.

Timeline of Activities at the NATIONAL Level

1997

Individual with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)

1998

National Institute for Children’s Health and Development (NICHD) National Research Program

2000

Report of the National Reading Panel

2001

LD Summit sponsored by Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education

2002

Learning Disabilities Policy Roundtable

2002

A New Era: Revitalizing Special Education for Children and their Families

2001

Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) known as No Child Left Behind

2004

Learning Disabilities Roundtable

2004

Reauthorization of IDEA

2006

IDEA 2006 regulations released with comments

IDEA 2004 Major shift in SLD identification practices

Deliberate effort to connect principles of ESA with the requirements of IDEA

Congress gave states the option to address the major shortcomings of the discrepancy model, putting increased emphasis on appropriate research-based instruction

District could spend up to 15% of their IDEA Part B funds on preventative, early intervening services for at-risk, general education students.

IDEA 2004IDEA 2004 provides several options regarding the use of inclusionary procedures of SLD identification including:

1)Permitting or requiring response to scientific, research-based intervention

2)Permitting or prohibiting ability-achievement discrepancy

3)Omitting, permitting or requiring a third alternative model of other research-based procedures

A Significant Change in Practice

“The regulations reflect the USDOEs position on the

identification of children with SLD and our support for models

that focus on assessments that are related to instruction and

promote intervention for identified children. Consensus

reports indicate a need for major changes in the approach to

identifying children with SLD. Models that incorporate RtI

represent a shift in Special Education toward goals of better

achievement and improved behavioral outcomes for children

with SLD because the children who are identified under such

models are most likely to require Special Education.”

(Federal Regulations, pg.

46647)

Timeline of Activities at theSTATE Level

2007 Michigan Association of Administrators of Special Education (MAASE) published RTI: Enhancing the Learning for All Children.

2009 The MDE changed their definition of SLD to be consistent with the federal regulations, allowing the use of RtI or other alternative research-based procedures. The MARSE does not require the use of severe discrepancy between intellectual ability and achievement to determine SLD.

2009 Michigan Association of Administrators of Special Education (MAASE) SLD Subcommittee recommended an intra-academic PSW model for SLD identification if using the PSW option in Michigan.

2010 The MDE issued Michigan‘s Criteria for Determining the Existence of a SLD which included a requirement that school districts must declare the processes for determining the existence of a SLD by September 1, 2010

What sense do you make of this data?

What sense do you make of this data?

33.3% Oakland County Average

Our District Data Portrait 2010: Specific Learning Disability

LEA Actuals

LEA% State % ISD %

34.3 % 33.83 %

Oakland Schools Perspective on the SLD Construct

SLD is a valid construct manifested by difficulties in the acquisition of academic skills.

Not all academic problems are learning disabilities. SLD exists on a continuum of severity and any established cut-point

is essentially arbitrary. However, SLD clearly represents the lower end of the achievement distribution and is a matter of degree.

Identification of SLD does require the presence of low achievement.

A hallmark of SLD is that the low achievement is unexpected and uncommon. The manifestation of SLD is influenced by the complex interactions of variables within the instructional environment. Chief among these interactions is the concept of the instructional match.

Students with an SLD exhibit underlying cognitive differences in their performance. However, ―cognitive deficits do not reliably indicate a biological causation; SLD is an integration of biology and environmental factors” (Fletcher et al., 2009).

Keep the discrepancy model under PSW even though it is discouraged and can never be used exclusively to determine SLD.

Move to PSW with Cognitive Processing at the center. This may not be different from what many teams have been doing for years.

Does the option I am considering fit with the spirit of the USDOE?Will this option solve the achievement gap that exists in my district?How does this option accurately distinguish between underachievement and SLD?Will this emphasize prevention, early identification and treatment?

Choose a PSW model with academic achievement and instruction at the center. This would position your district for implementation of RtI in the future.

Use data from the district’s RtI process to document interventions and student progress for the purpose of determining the existence of SLD.

Vision of Special Education Service Delivery

Decision options

Does my decision impact the problem?

Purpose of the OS DocumentThe purpose of this document is both to assist districts in complying with all state rules and federal regulations regarding SLD, and to encourage districts to make a long-term plan for reshaping identification practices. It is not intended to mandate an approach, nor is it intended to establish a single methodology for SLD identification across the county.

The intended audience for this document includes special education directors and supervisors, and the MET representatives who have a role in developing district procedures for the identification of SLD. Decisions about practice implications cannot and should not be made at the ISD level.

Applying IDEA 2004 Eligibility CriteriaApplying IDEA 2004 Eligibility Criteria

Applying IDEA 2004 Eligibility CriteriaApplying IDEA 2004 Eligibility Criteria

Applying IDEA 2004 Eligibility CriteriaApplying IDEA 2004 Eligibility Criteria

Applying IDEA 2004 Eligibility CriteriaApplying IDEA 2004 Eligibility Criteria

Applying IDEA 2004 Eligibility CriteriaApplying IDEA 2004 Eligibility Criteria

Applying IDEA 2004 Eligibility CriteriaApplying IDEA 2004 Eligibility Criteria

OS SLD ProjectDocument Roll-out

PPT General Education - Nuts and Bolts SB-CEU Self-Study Course

Technical Assistance Sample Procedures Facilitated Study Group to Examine Procedures Stakeholders Meetings (2011-12; 3 meetings) targeting the FAQ

Document Electronic PSW Form Survey of practices in Oakland County over time (survey)

Training Assessment of Specific Learning Disabilities (01/6/12) On-line, Intensive 8 week course (01/10/11; 03/19/12)

Our next steps…

OS SLD Team Dr. Susan M. Koceski, School Psychologist 248.209.2536 Abby Cypher-Kitchen, Special Education Consultant 248.209.2577 Matt Korolden, Compliance Consultant 248.209.2552 Carly Staunton, System Design Consultant 248.209.2074 Karen Rockhold, Supervisor 248.209.2286

Additional Training and Product Support Bill Barley Pam Allen Deborah Norton