Www.ksdetasn.org Initial Evaluation and Eligibility Determination Workshop Part 1: Introduction and...

w w w . k s d e t a s n . o r g

Initial Evaluation and Eligibility Determination Workshop

Part 1: Introduction and GEIs

Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses Method of Evaluation

Part 2:Response to Intervention Method of Evaluation

Summary


Topics Covered Include

• Use of General Education Interventions (GEI) data

• Selecting appropriate method of evaluation• Controversies with use of each method• Use of the Evaluation & Eligibility Indicators

document


This will not…

• Cover how to conduct GEI• Describe due process requirements for

evaluation & eligibility determination• Promote one method of evaluation• Teach how to conduct assessments or which

assessment instruments should be used. • Teach the implementation of MTSS


Eligibility Determination

Is• Application of critical

thinking skills to the evaluation process

• Data-based team decision making

• Professional judgment

Is Not• The application of rules• The administration and

interpretation of any specific assessments

• A singular criteria


Agenda: Part 11) Introduction 2) General Education Interventions3) Determining when to use each method of evaluation4) Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses method of

evaluation5) The Evaluation and Eligibility Determination Process6) Case Study7) Indicator Match8) Controversies with the Cognitive Correlates Method


Agenda: Part 2

9) Response to Intervention method of evaluation

10) The Evaluation and Eligibility Determination Process

11) Case Study12) Indicator Match13) Compare/Contrast the Two Methods14) Controversies with the RtI Method15) Questions


GENERAL EDUCATION INTERVENTIONS

The Impact of GEI Practices on Evaluation Model


The Evaluation and Eligibility ProcessFor 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


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.


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


GEI UsingIndividual-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.


GEI UsingMTSS

• 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.


Determining When to Use Each Method of Evaluation

Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses

Response to Intervention


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)


When to Use:Response to Intervention

1) GEI is implemented using MTSS2) School-wide data collection system used for

a) Universal screeningb) Progress monitoringc) Diagnostic assessment

3) Collaborative teams are effectively functioning4) Interventions are being provided in a systematic

way using the Self-Correcting Feedback Loop


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


PATTERN OF STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES

Background Information


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


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


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)


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)


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)


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)


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)


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)


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)



Evaluation and Eligibility Determinations using


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


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


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


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


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



• 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


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?


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.


Determine Eligibility

• The Two-Prong Test

• Exceptionality + Need

Eligibility



Prong 1

Is the child a child with an exceptionality?

4Decision


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?


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.


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


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


Answer Prong 1


2. Do any exclusionary criteria apply?

3. Are the data congruent with indicators for that exceptionality?



Prong 2

Does the child need special education and related services?

4Decision



• 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?


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?



Case Study


Case Study Directions

• Use the following materials:– Lois Lane Case Study (Case Study PSW)– Evaluation & Eligibility Indicators Document

• As a table:– Review case study– Discuss and respond to questions on last page


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?


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?



Indicator Match Activity


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.


Skills Needed to applyPattern 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


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?


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 previously 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


Evaluation and Eligibility Decision Making Workshop

Part 2: The RtI Method of Evaluation in an MTSS

FrameworkSummary


Agenda: Part 1 (Review)1) Introduction 2) General Education Interventions3) Determining when to use each method of evaluation4) Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses method of

evaluation5) The Evaluation and Eligibility Determination Process6) Case Study7) Indicator Match8) Controversies with the Cognitive Correlates Method


Agenda: Part 2

9) Response to Intervention method of evaluation

10) The Evaluation and Eligibility Determination Process

11) Case Study12) Indicator Match13) Compare/Contrast the Two Methods14) Controversies with the RtI Method15) Questions


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


Determining When to Use Each Method of Evaluation

Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses

Response to Intervention


When to Use:Response to Intervention

1) GEI is implemented using MTSS2) School-wide data collection system used for

a) Universal screeningb) Progress monitoringc) Diagnostic assessment

3) Collaborative teams are effectively functioning4) Interventions are being provided in a systematic

way using the Self-Correcting Feedback Loop


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


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.


Clarifications Regarding Kansas 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


RESPONSE TO INTERVENTIONBackground Information


Basic Premises:RtI within an 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


Rationale for the 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)


Steps of ApplyingResponse 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)


Dual Discrepancy

1. Low level of performance (after appropriate interventions) when compared to peers

and2. Low rate of growth (after appropriate

interventions) when compared to peersor

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


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)


RESPONSE TO INTERVENTIONEvaluation and Eligibility Determinations using


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


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


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


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



• 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



• 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


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?


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.


Determine Eligibility

The Two-Prong Test

Exceptionality + Need



Prong 1

Is the child a child with an exceptionality?


Steps to Answering Prong 1


2. Do any exclusionary criteria apply?3. Are the data congruent with indicators for

that exceptionality?4. Does the student exhibit a “dual

discrepancy”?


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.


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


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


Dual Discrepancy1. 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.


Answer Prong 11. Do the evaluation data match one of the

definitions of exceptionality in state/federal regulations? YES

2. Do any exclusionary criteria apply? NO3. 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)



Prong 2

Does the child need special education and related services?

4Decision



• 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?


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


RESPONSE TO INTERVENTIONCase Study


Case Study Directions

• Use the following materials:– RTI Case Study about Luke Skywalker– Evaluation & Eligibility Indicators Document

• As a table:– Review case study– Discuss and respond to questions on last page


Response to InterventionCase 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?


Response to InterventionCase 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?


RESPONSE TO INTERVENTIONIndicator Match Activity



• 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.


Skills Needed to applyResponse 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


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?



• 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.


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– Do a gallery walk when all the diagrams are

posted


Comparing the two Methods:Examples

• 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 for General Education Interventions.

– Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses Method uses a student by student approach for General Education Interventions.


Controversies with theResponse 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


Planning for Next Steps

• Read the professional literature, especially the reading list (Resource A) provided in the resources.

• 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

Date post:	04-Jan-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	raymond-mason
View:	214 times
Download:	0 times

Www.ksdetasn.org Initial Evaluation and Eligibility Determination Workshop Part 1: Introduction and...

Documents