of Specific Learning Disabilities: Legal Requirements and Best Practices Amanda Sanford, Ph.D. Portland State University Kimberly Ingram, Ph.D. Oregon Department of Education Agenda: Legal Requirements New Models Recommendations for implementation 1 2 Legal Requirements Specific Learning Disabilities Requirement of Comprehensive Evaluation 3 Definition of Specific Learning Disability: Defined at 0.8(c)() as A disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written May manifest itself in the imperfect ability to: listen think speak read write spell 4 do mathematical calculations
Definition of Specific Learning Disability including conditions such as: perceptual disabilities brain injury minimal brain dysfunction dyslexia developmental aphasia and Does not include learning problems that are primarily the result of: visual, hearing, or motor disabilities mental retardation emotional disturbance of environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage What are hallmark characteristics of individuals with learning disabilities? (e.g. dyslexia) http://www.readingrockets.org/shows/watch#brain How could we measure it (to determine if the child has a learning disability)? How could this information be used to plan instruction (IEP planning process)? 6 Changes to SLD Eligibility Requirements 34 CFR 0.7-311 & OAR 81-01-2170 Added progress monitoring component (all) Added option of RTI (OAR - based on district model) Changed severe discrepancy to pattern of strengths and weaknesses Observation before or during SLD Evaluation Components Required for both RTI & PSW Academic assessment (academic achievement toward Oregon grade level standards) Review of cumulative records, IEPs, teacher collected work samples Observation in learning environment (by qualified professional) before or during Progress monitoring data instruction component assessment component 7 8
SLD Evaluation Components Both (if needed) Assessment of cognition, fine motor, perceptual motor, communication, socialemotional, memory (if student exhibits impairment in one or more of these areas) Medical statement OAR 81-01-21 (3) (3) Conduct of evaluation. In conducting the evaluation, the public agency must: (a) Use a variety of assessment tools and strategies to gather relevant functional, developmental, and academic information about the child, including information provided by the parent that may assist in determining: (A) Whether the child is a child with a disability under OAR 81-01-21 through OAR 81-01-2180; and (B) The content of the child s IEP, including information related to enabling the child to be involved in and progress in the general education curriculum (or for a preschool child, to participate in appropriate activities); 9 OAR 81-01-21 (3) (3) Conduct of evaluation. In conducting the evaluation, the public agency must: (b) Not use any single measure or assessment as the sole criterion for determining whether a child is a child with a disability and for determining an appropriate educational program for the child; and OAR 81-01-21 (4) Assessments and other evaluation materials used to assess a child under this part: (A) Are selected and administered so as not to be discriminatory on a racial or cultural basis; (C) Are used for the purposes for which the assessments or measures are valid and reliable; 11 12
OAR 81-01-21 (3) Checklist: Use a variety of assessment tools Not use any measure as sole criterion Are reliable and valid for the purpose used New models The old discrepancy model New models 13 14 1 1 11 WJ Read 0 8 70 1 Shinn, Good, & Parker 1998 The old model IQ-Achievement Discrepancy Lowest 6% in reading skills SOL -- Simply out of Luck. Not eligible for special education services. 0 WISC-III FSIQ 70 8 11 1 1 6% Simple Discrepancy Potentially eligible seldom referred (unless other Concerns) Problems with IQ-achievement discrepancy? (Fletcher, et al. 01) We are not providing special education services to those children MOST in need of individualized instruction The decisions are unreliable: A small difference in score on one measure could change who we say is eligible We are spending a lot of time on this process (and time is money!!!) This information does not help us make efficient decisions to support learning This decision often requires that a student waits to fail or waits until their discrepancy is large enough to receive services 16
Options to determining eligibility of learning disability And exhibits one of the following: Pattern of s and es (PSW) Response to Intervention (RTI) Patterns of s and es OAR 81-01-2170 subsection 3 (c) For a student evaluated using a model that is based on the student's strengths and weaknesses, in relation to one or more of the areas in subsection (3)(a), the student exhibits a pattern of strengths and weaknesses in classroom performance, academic achievement, or both, relative to age, Oregon grade-level standards, or intellectual development, that is determined by the group to be relevant to the identification of a specific learning disability. 17 18 One interpretation of Patterns of s and es Interpretations: this language may have come from research like Sally Shaywitz s: a circumscribed, encapsulated weakness is often surrounded by a sea of strengths: reasoning, problem solving, comprehension, concept formation, critical thinking, general knowledge, and vocabulary Shaywitz (03). Often = Always? Therefore, if you have a sea of cognitive strengths and one encapsulated weakness, you have a learning disability If you do not have a sea of cognitive strengths and one encapsulated weakness, you do not have a learning disability Problem with logic: State Governors are often born in the United States Therefore, if you are born in the United States, you are a State Governor Or: Therefore, if you are not born in the united states, you are not a State Governor Missing the term ONLY Many children with learning disabilities do not show this pattern often these individuals are the most needy (more likely to be from a different culture or racial background, more likely to be from economically disadvantaged circumstances 19
Sample Interpretation of Patterns of s and es Proposed new models: Achievement subtest below 90 The student s IQ must be in the average range with a standard score of 80 or above An academic weakness exists when there is a significant difference using the regression chart between the student s IQ and the standard score in a content area on a standardized achievement test An academic strength exists when the standard score in a content area of a standardized achievement test is at or above the student s IQ 21 1 1 11 WJ Read 0 8 Pattern of and is it better? Eligible under category of Mental Retardation Not eligible due to IQ below 80 6% Simple Discrepancy below 90 (lowest %) demonstrates academic need Lowest 6% in Potentially Eligible 70 reading skills SOL -- Simply out of Luck. Not eligible for special education despite substantial need. 22 70 8 0 11 1 1 WISC-III FSIQ Adapted from Shinn, Good, & Parker 1998 Benefits and challenges with this PSW model? Benefits Does not require much change from prior practice Matches our construction of learning disabilities that there is one encapsulated weakness in a sea of strengths Decisions are relatively clear cut Challenges Not providing special education services to those MOST in need The decisions are unreliable We are spending a lot of time on this process This information does not help us make efficient decisions to support learning This decision often requires that a student waits to fail or waits until their discrepancy is large enough to receive services OAR 81-01-21 (3) Checklist: Use a variety of assessment tools yes Not use any measure as sole criterion 1 measure used to exclude students (IQ test) Are reliable and valid for the purpose used Subtracting subtests decreases reliability 23 24
Another sample interpretation of Patterns of s and es Pattern demonstrated by At least three points of evidence indicating a strength or weakness in one SLD area Academic Achievement Grade level expectations (DIBELS, CBM, Reading Kit) Age expectations (WIAT, WJ III, OWLS, KTEA) Intellectual development (WISC IV, CAS, TOLD, etc.) Classroom Performance Grade level expectations (OSAT/CBM) Age expectations (Grades, anecdotal) Intellectual development (observation) At least one strength and one weakness in cognitive processing with supporting observations PSW Cut-offs & Measures Guidance with respect to Grade-level with respect to state Age-level with respect to Intellectual expectations expectations development Criterion-referenced Norm-referenced Norm-referenced standardized standardized assessments standarized academic assessments cognitive processing assessments CAS, K-ABC, Wechsler EasyCBM (K-4), DIBELS (K-8), WIAT, WJ, KTEA, OWLS *Use Index/Process scores* Academic Reading Kits (K-9) Achieve. = >th percentile (SS>90) or Norm-referenced language = > th percentile Weak. = <th percentile (SS<81) processing assessments = < th percentile CASL, CELF, Oral/Listen. from WIAT (*use age norms when scoring) *Use Expressive or Receptive scores* OSAT scores Grades = index score >th percentile = "meets" or "exceeds" = A/B or "meets/exceeds" Weak. = index score <16th percentile Classroom = "does not meet" Weak. = D/F or "does not meet" AND is significantly below student's Perform. mean score Curriculum based measurements Anecdotal information Classroom observations (e.g., from lang. arts and math adoptions) Str./Weak.= professional judgment Str/Wk=observational data Str. = average or above performance regarding "average," "atypical," etc. with respect to how cognitive processes Weak. = below average performance when compared to age-peers may be affecting student's performance in class 12/11/07 26 Example of one part of the requirement: Requirement: a student must demonstrate, At least one strength and one weakness in cognitive processing with supporting observations To document a strength and weakness in cognitive processing: Norm-referenced standardized assessment of cognitive or language processing: : index score above th percentile (SS>90) : index score below 16th percentile (SS<8) AND index score is significantly below the mean of the student s index scores * = Normative (compared to population) AND Relative (within student) One (of several) option to measure cognitive processing: CAS 27 Defining a cognitive strength or weakness A student must demonstrate at least one of each: : a score above the th %ile : At least one score must be below the 16 th %ile AND must be significantly below the students mean score 28 1 0
Qualifies: has a strength and weakness Does not qualify: has no documented strength, and low score ( weakness ) is not below mean CAS scores = 9 (37 th %ile) = 78 (7 th %ile) = 96 ( th %ile) =4 (61 st %ile) CAS score = 93. (31 st %ile) score is <16th percentile AND significantly 1 below the mean score (using tables in CAS manual) Evidence of a cognitive processing weakness in the area of attention 0 29 CAS scores = 86 (18 th %ile) = 78 (7 th %ile) = 83 (13 th %ile) =87 (19 st %ile) CAS score = 83. (14 th %ile) score is <16th percentile BUT is not significantly 1 below the mean score (using tables in CAS manual) No evidence of a cognitive processing weakness in the area of attention 0? No Does not qualify: has a documented strength, but low score ( weakness ) is not below mean CAS scores = 9 (37 th %ile) = 84 (14 th %ile) = 83 (13 th %ile) =87 (19 st %ile) CAS score = 8 (16 th %ile) score is <16th percentile BUT is not significantly below the mean score (using 1 tables in CAS manual) No evidence of a cognitive processing weakness in the area of attention 0 is below 16 th %ile, but not significantly below the mean 31 Has a strength (score above th %ile) Does not qualify: has a documented strength, but low score ( weakness ) is not below 16 th %ile (even if it is below the mean) CAS scores = 9 (37 th %ile) = 86 (18 th %ile) = 96 ( th %ile) =4 (61 st %ile) CAS score = 9. (31 st %ile) score is NOT <16th percentile but IS significantly below the mean score (using 1 tables in CAS manual) No evidence of a cognitive processing weakness in the area of attention 0 No 32
Which student needs the most help? 1 0 1 0 33 Qualifies Does Not Qualify 1 0 1 0 Does Not Qualify imultaneous Does Not Qualify Benefits and challenges with this PSW model? Benefits Using converging points of evidence Relies more heavily on progress monitoring data More relevant to academic planning May lend additional information on cognitive processing that could improve the effectiveness of an intervention 34 Challenges Not providing special education services to those MOST in need The decisions are unreliable We are spending a lot of time on this process This information does not help us make efficient decisions to support learning This decision often requires that students to wait to fail or waits until their discrepancy is large enough to receive services Uses one measure as sole exclusionary criteria OAR 81-01-21 (3) Checklist: Use a variety of assessment tools yes Not use any measure as sole criterion 1 measure used to exclude students (IQ test) Are reliable and valid for the purpose used Subtracting subtests decreases reliability There is not evidence to suggest that a specific of general strength is required to diagnose an individual with learning disabilities. Recommendations Avoiding pitfalls Recommended practices 36
37 Avoiding pitfalls Subtracting subtests; using regression formulas: Reduces reliability of tests They were not designed for that purpose Require a high performance on one ability/measure/cluster of measures in order to provide students services due to a disability in another area Denies students most in need of services No evidence to suggest this is a relevant to the determination of a learning disability falls in promising practice There is evidence, however, to suggest that low performance on cognitive assessments can inform Recommendations: to ensure compliance Make sure that your assessments 1. Include progress monitoring as a part of comprehensive evaluation (new requirement) (see The National Center on Progress Monitoring: www.studentprogress.org and Research Institute on Progress Monitoring: www.progressmonitoring.net) 2. Ensure appropriate instruction is provided (new requirement) 3. determine whether or not a child has need for special education services interventions for Ingram some & Sanford students (08) (e.g. Fuchs & 38 Recommendations To determine eligibility: 1. Identify: what are the necessary hallmark characteristics of children with learning disabilities? 2. How can we reliably and validly measure those characteristics? 3. What additional assessments could we use to validate and increase the reliability of our decisions? 4. How do we use this information to plan instruction? Using the pattern of a students strengths and weaknesses 39 (or areas Ingram of & Sanford academic (08) need) are necessary and relevant to planning a student s IEP Indicators of learning disabilities Performing below expectations (compared to age, grade, or state standards) Has processing deficits (e.g. dyslexia: students have deficits in phonological processing, fluency, and RAN) These could be documented using a variety of assessments Look for converging patterns of performance (e.g. low performance on in-class reading assessments, formal curriculum-based measurement, and phonological processing on a cognitive assessment) Looking at many assessments that indicate the same thing increases reliability Subtracting measures or requiring one area to be high while another area is low reduces reliability (and there is not evidence to suggest that it meaningfully differentiates between individuals with or without learning disabilities)
Examples of comprehensive evaluations Fletcher, J.M., Lyon, G.R., Barnes, M., Stuebing, K.K., Francis, D.J., Olson, R.K., Shaywitz, S.E., & Shaywitz, B.A. (01, August). Classification of learning disabilities: An evidence-based evaluation. Paper presented at the Office of Special Education Programs and U.S. Department of Education Learning Disabilities Summit, Washington, DC. 41 42