Eugene, Oregon, School District Integrated Model for Specific

Transcription

1 Appendix K Eugene, Oregon, School District Integrated Model for Specific Learning Disabilty Identification This appendix was adapted from: "Instructional Intervention/Progress Monitoring (IIPM) Model Pre/Referral Process and Special Education Comprehensive Evaluation for Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CLD) Students: Guidelines and Resources for Eugene School District 4J." (January 8, 2009). Eugene School District 4J Educational Support Services Department: Eugene, Oregon. Introduction The Eugene School District s Integrated Model for Identifying Specific Learning Disabilities resulted from the intersection of several initiatives, beginning with the reauthorization of IDEA in Shortly thereafter, the district was invited to participate in the Oregon Response to Intervention (RTI) Project, a U.S Department of Education grant to the University of Oregon, beginning in In addition, the district was charged with restructuring its policies and procedures for identifying students with suspected specific learning disabilities (SLD) as part of an Office of Civil Rights complaint response. Finally, the district implemented a major initiative for language arts instruction in the school year, with the adoption of a new language arts curriculum (K 8) and a tiered instructional delivery model referred to as the Instructional Intervention/Progress Monitoring (IIPM) model (see Figure K.1). This initiative provided the guidelines and necessary supports to ensure that all students receive quality reading instruction and interventions, with progress monitoring of academic growth in the general education classroom. The district followed the same process for the implementation of the mathematics curriculum in the school year. A standards-based comprehensive core mathematics curriculum, scientific/research-based instructional interventions, and progress-monitoring assessments were incorporated into the district s IIPM model for math.

2 Prereferral The IIPM model provides increasingly intensive, targeted academic interventions while regularly monitoring student progress (see Figure K.1). We do not believe, however, that a student s failure to respond to well-designed instructional intervention confirms the existence of a learning disability. Concerns about implementation fidelity of RTI models, combined with increasingly convincing neuropsychological research, lead us to consider IIPM as our prereferral process. Therefore, if a student is failing to respond to the welldesigned instructional intervention during IIPM, and the team suspects an SLD, the student is referred for a Special Education Comprehensive Evaluation. The evaluation includes the data gathered through the IIPM process and cannot be completed without the IIPM data. Details of the IIPM process can be found in Part IV (The University of Oregon Eugene School District 4J RTI Model) of the 2011 book: Models for Implementing Response to Intervention: Tools, Outcomes and Implications (ed. E. Shapiro, N. Zigmond, T. Wallace, and D. Marston). Figure K.1. Example of a Tiered Instructional Delivery Model

3 Evaluation The Special Education Comprehensive Evaluation includes four stages: (a) planning the evaluation, (b) conducting the evaluation, (c) organizing the results to determine patterns of strengths and weaknesses (PSW), and (d) interpreting the results to determine eligibility. Keep in mind the federal definition of an SLD: The term specific learning disability means a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, which disorder may manifest itself in the imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or do mathematical calculations. (20 U.S.C [30]) Evaluation Planning Evaluation planning requires the team, including the parents, to review the existing evaluation data, student performance and observation data, information from parents, and, for the culturally or linguistically diverse student, cultural and linguistic background information that is collected from Tier III of the IIPM process. The team determines if any other evaluation procedures and assessment methods are required to ensure the evaluation plan is individualized to assess the specific area of suspected disability(s) and areas of educational need. The goal of evaluation planning is for the team to create a working hypothesis about the student's lack of progress. In an evaluation for suspected SLD, the hypothesis would include suspected areas of academic strengths and weaknesses, plus a consideration of basic psychological processing strengths and weaknesses. The Eugene Integrated Model requires that basic psychological processes be considered during an evaluation for SLD. As may be seen in Figure K.2, the team must consider and gather data on as many as nine basic processes: memory, processing, attention, visual, auditory, sensory-motor, mental control, problem solving, and language use; these are interrelated processes that influence each person s learning.

4 Figure K.2. Processes That Should Be Considered in a Comprehensive Evaluation It should be noted that the district makes distinctions between three concepts: Intellectual Development The term intellectual development is used in the following manner in IDEA: The child exhibits a pattern of strengths and weaknesses in performance, achievement, or both, relative to age, State-approved grade-level standards, or intellectual development, that is determined by the group to be relevant to the identification of a specific learning disability. In the Integrated Model, intellectual development is defined to include broad measures of cognitive ability, such as Full Scale IQ, General Intellectual Ability, or Broad Cognitive Ability. A broad measure of intellectual development is not always necessary for the Individualized Education Plan (IEP) team to obtain. However, if as part of the evaluation planning process the team determines

5 some measure of intellectual development is relevant to the working hypothesis, obtaining it may be included in the planning and evaluation process. Cognitive Processes The term cognitive processes is not referenced in the language of the regulations. However, the term has been used interchangeably with mental processes and information processing. Cognitive processes refers to specific, and sometimes narrow, factors as measured by an individual assessment instrument (e.g. WJ III Working Memory). Basic Psychological Processes The concept of basic psychological processes is referenced in the definition of SLD (see above). It is also referenced in the eligibility statement that is determined to be relevant to the identification of a specific learning disability. Basic psychological processes refer to the nine global processes referenced in the previous section. Because the definition of SLD includes a disorder in one or more of these basic psychological processes, the IEP team must consider data associated with these processes as part of the comprehensive evaluation and when determining eligibility for specific learning disabilities. Basic Psychological Processes: Definitions Visual The visual process is defined by cognitive mechanisms that are involved in the retention, processing, and organization of visual information so as to demonstrate accurate perception. For PSW, these should not be confused with measures of the sensory mechanism of sight but rather as indicators of the more complex underlying cognitive activities. Measures of the visual process may include factors such as spatial awareness, visual perceptual skills, perceptual organization, visual mental manipulation, and perceptual discrimination. Auditory The auditory process is not intended to be a measure of acuity of the sensory mechanism. Rather, it is intended to be the underlying cognitive

6 mechanism involved in using auditory information for the purpose of learning. Measures of the auditory process may include phonemic awareness (including rhyming, segmentation, sound-symbol association, etc.), auditory perception, sound discrimination, and auditory mental manipulation. Attention The attention process involves the individual s ability to attend to, or to selectively attenuate, perceptual stimuli in a systematic and effective manner. This process includes measures of selective attention, sustained attention, response inhibition, attention shifting, and focus. Memory The memory process is a complex and multifaceted domain related to many areas of learning. Specific kinds of memory are utilized depending on task demands. The memory process involves the ability to store and retrieve information in a useful manner. Measures of this process include short-term memory, working memory, associative memory, and long-term retrieval. Processing Processing can be globally defined as the ability to make efficient and rapid decisions or quickly perceive distinctions in stimuli. Processing involves input and output mechanisms, frequently demonstrated under timed conditions. Measures of processing include processing speed, automaticity, and rapid decision making. Processing may also include aspects of rapid automatic naming facility, though this is an overlapping domain with memory. Mental Control The mental control process may be thought of as an individual s ability to manage and prioritize perceptions to facilitate decision making and problem solving. Mental control allows the individual to recognize the nature of a problem, plan a course of action, and sequence multiple actions to solve a problem. Mental control abilities may be identified through measures of executive functioning, planning, organization, and self-regulation.

7 Problem Solving/Judgment Like memory, the problem-solving process is a complex activity that involves multiple processes. The problem-solving process is defined by an individual s skill at analysis and synthesis of multiple elements to resolve problems. The capability to engage in interpersonal interaction and social learning is involved. Measures of problem solving and judgment include social awareness, reasoning skills, decision making, fluid reasoning, and emotional control. Language Use The language use process involves the individual s skill at using verbal information to define concepts and solve problems. Language use includes both the understanding and the production of meaningful speech and communication. Language use may include measures of receptive language, expressive language, listening comprehension, vocabulary development, and general knowledge. Sensory-Motor (Action/Output) The sensory-motor process involves integration of perceptual and cognitive skills to organize physical output. The Sensory-Motor process can include all types of motor output, including speech and gross-motor and fine-motor skills. For the use as a basic psychological process involved in learning, sensory-motor primarily involves fine-motor output. The sensory-motor process may include measures of visual-motor integration, motor speed, and overall fine-/gross-motor skills. Making the Connection Based on extensive review of currently available research, the district has determined the following research-based connections between different areas of academic performance and basic psychological processes (see Figure K.3). When hypothesizing a weakness in a specific academic area, a weakness in a related basic psychological process should be considered as well. Similarly, academic strengths would suggest related basic psychological processing strengths.

8 Figure K.3. Processes and Their Relation to Academic Skills This figure provides the team with a starting point when considering academic skill weaknesses and associated basic psychological processes. It is important to note that research suggests there is an overlap between basic psychological processes and across academic skill areas. Working Hypothesis The district has created hypothesis-building tools for teams to use when planning evaluations. These tools are included on the CD. Patterns of Strengths and Weaknesses Methodology The district developed the PSW assessment methodology to provide a framework to organize, review, and evaluate assessment data in terms of the student s patterns of strengths and weaknesses in performance, achievement, and intellectual development/basic psychological processes, as related to the specific

9 areas of disability(s) and the educational needs of the student. Following the completion of the comprehensive evaluation, the team must review all assessments, evaluations and data gathered during the IIPM prereferral process and during the evaluation process. The goal of the PSW methodology is to organize data gathered across IIPM prereferral and evaluation procedures and to conduct a thorough review of the data and identify if there are any patterns of strengths and weaknesses in a student s performance, achievement, or intellectual development/basic psychological processes. The team can use the PSW methodology as an approach to address any relevant exclusionary factors and measure outcomes from the working hypothesis as developed during evaluation planning. The team uses PSW data/measures guidance and decision rules to help determine the pattern of strengths and weaknesses relevant in determining SLD. PSW Data/Measures Guidance Data/measures guidance applies to the IIPM prereferral process (criterion referenced assessments) and the eligibility determination (criterion-referenced assessments, curriculum-based or grade-level assessments, norm-referenced assessments, anecdotal information, and consideration of basic psychological processes). It is termed guidance because these are guidelines, not cut-off scores. Relying on hard-and-fast cut-offs harkens back to the discrepancy model, which applies a one-size-fits-all approach to individual students.the guidelines are presented here: Data/measures guidance used in assessment are for determining statistical (not occurring by chance) and normative (unusual in the population) occurrences of the obtained scores. Data/measures guidance for determining weaknesses and strengths may be specific for the instrument used. For standardized measures with a 100 mean/15 standard deviation, the district has determined a weakness as the 10th percentile (SS = 80) or below and a strength as the 25th percentile (SS=90) or above. Statistically significant differences along with unusual prevalence rates could be used when a weakness in a basic process is somewhat high

10 (e.g., near SS=90) and the strength is well above (e.g., near SS=120+). Similarly, it could be used when strengths are near average (e.g., near SS=90) and weaknesses are substantially below (e.g., SS<70). Elements of a Pattern The next points of evidence are considered when determining a pattern of strengths and a pattern of weaknesses. Criterion-Referenced Assessments These are progress monitoring tools used as part of the response-toinstruction (Instructional Intervention/Progress Monitoring). The Eugene School District uses easycbm as its progress monitoring tool. Other tools could include AimsWeb, DIBELS, and so on. For criterion-referenced data, we consider a trend line at or above the 30th percentile to be a strength and a trend line that stays at or below the 20th percentile as a weakness. Data between the 20th and 30th percentiles are considered inconclusive, which prompts the team to look at additional sources of data. Norm-Referenced, Standardized Assessments These include individually administered, nationally normed tests of academic achievement, such as the Woodcock-Johnston Tests of Achievement-3, Kaufman Tests of Educational Achievement-2, Oral and Written Language Test, and the like. For these assessments, strengths are considered to be at or above the 25th percentile while weaknesses are considered to be at or below the 10th percentile. Again, the range in between is considered inconclusive. Curriculum-Based (or Grade-Level) Assessments These assessments include chapter or unit tests, teacher-designed assessments based on the curriculum being taught, writing prompts, information reading inventories, and so on. Thy could also include statewide assessment tests, which are usually geared toward academic performance based on state-approved grade-level standards. Performance that meets the state benchmarks, or

11 passing scores on classroom assessments, would be considered strengths; does not meet or not passing scores would be considered weaknesses. Anecdotal Evidence Anecdotal evidence consists of information from adults who work with or know the child well about how a child handles his/her academic work in the skill areas of concern. Teacher observations about how a student approaches a reading task, and information from the parent/guardian about how the student struggles through each paragraph of a reading assignment, are valuable information that helps confirm or refute the working hypothesis. For this type of information, both strengths and weaknesses are determined by the team s professional judgment. Basic Psychological Processes Basic psychological processes are assessed via measures of memory, processing, attention, visual, auditory, sensory-motor, mental control, problem solving, and/or language use, based on the hypothesized strengths and weaknesses of the student. Usually these processes are measured using standardized, normreferenced assessments of cognitive functioning, such as the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children-2, Wechsler Intelligence Scales for Children-4, Woodcock- Johnson Tests of Cognitive Ability-3, and others. However, the focus is not on the full-scale or overall measure of intellectual functioning. Of more interest, with respect to basic psychological processes, are the index or area scores. Index or area scores are most closely connected with the areas of processing and typically consist of multiple subtests to increase reliability of the measure. For example, when looking at memory, we might look at the KABC-2 Sequential or the WJ-III Short-term Memory composite as a measure of the student s short-term memory. For language use, we might look at the WISC-IV Verbal Comprehension index or the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals-4 (CELF-4) Expressive Language composite. Basic psychological processing strengths would be index/area/composite scores at or above the 25th percentile while weaknesses would be at or below the 10th percentile. Important note: We highly recommend giving a complete assessment tool, then supplementing across batteries when necessary. Choosing your tool well can allow you to measure both strengths and weaknesses for the student, based on your working hypothesis. If the chosen tool lacks a particular measure, certain indices or composites could be given from an additional battery. Naturally, using subtests

12 in isolation is not recommended. When crossing batteries, follow the recommendations and guidelines in this book. Determining the Pattern The SLD eligibility statement criterion that [t]he child exhibits a pattern of strengths and weaknesses in performance, achievement, or both, relative to is met when the team identifies: Three points of evidence of specific performance or achievement strengths Three points of evidence of specific performance or achievement weakness Points of evidence correspond to the four measures of academics listed earlier: 1. Criterion-referenced data (response to instructional iinterventions) 2. Norm-referenced, standardized academic assessment data 3. Curricular data 4. Anecdotal data In addition, the district s PSW methodology requires the team to review and/or identify both: A weakness in one or more of the basic psychological processes related to the specific academic weakness and A measured/observed strength in one or more of the unrelated or minimally related processes PSW Methodology Assumptions The team may identify a pattern of strengths and weaknesses when the majority of evaluation data (including standardized assessments and professional observations) supports the minimum eligibility requirements and when exclusionary factors can be rejected by the data. Hypotheses developed during evaluation planning must be confirmed by the assessment, refuted by the assessment, or found to be inconclusive.

13 Acceptance or rejection of the hypothesis by the team following evaluation, however, is only one factor to be considered when determining eligibility. If the evaluation data do not support the identification of a pattern of strengths and weaknesses in basic psychological processes, the team must consider and document if there were any areas not evaluated or considered in the course of assessment. If there were other assessment concerns (such as inadequate assessment instruments, poor testing conditions, and/or other factors), the team must either address the concerns with documentation or conduct additional assessment. For a case study using this model, see Karen Apgar s case in Appendix J.