Session 3 Eugene 4j IIPM Model K-5 Implementation (SPED - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Session 3 Eugene 4j IIPM Model K-5 Implementation

(SPED Comprehensive Evaluation) Presented by Carissa Boyce, Kathy Luiten, Marlee Litten, Karen Apgar, Justin Potts, and Larry Sullivan

The 4 Areas of Change

• IIPM Pre/Referral Process
• Decision Process: Referral for SPED

Comprehensive Evaluation and Evaluation Planning

• The SPED Comprehensive Evaluation
• The IEP Process
• Eligibility Determination
• IEP Development
• Placement Determination and Least Restrictive

Environment

• Service Decisions

IIPM Pre/Referral Process

Decision Process: Referral for SPED Comprehensive Evaluation and Evaluation Planning

SPED Comprehensive Evaluation

IEP Process (Step 1: Eligibility)

IEP Process includes 4 parts: Eligibility, IEP Development, Placement, and Services

Case Study- Eugene Apple

• 3rd grade student
• Regular attendance/same school 3 yrs
• No behavioral concerns
• No medical or physical concerns
• No home concerns
• English is the student’s primary language

and home language

Tier I

• Core instruction in Houghton Mifflin (60 min. daily)
• Differentiated instruction-Leveled Reader (30 min.

daily)

• Fall Benchmark data

– Word Reading Fluency 20 cwpm (between 10th and 20th percentile) – Passage Reading Fluency 37 cwpm (below 10th percentile) – Teacher observations-

• Problems retaining new concepts
• Confuses words when repeating information back
• Daily work (practice sheets, weekly assessments) below 60%

accuracy

• Reads word by word

Decision Rules (Tier I-II)

• Does the student score below the 20th

percentile on assessments?

• Does the student’s daily work and other

performance support the assessment data?

• Is the student significantly below grade level?

(Need to go directly to Tier III?)

• Is the student’s learning impacted by cultural
• r language diversity or differences? (CLD)

Tier II with Progress Monitoring

• Receives differentiated instruction using

approaching level reader, 30 min. daily, small group (1:6)

• Progress monitoring in Word Reading and

Passage Reading Fluency (every 2 weeks)

• Parent Notice of Participation sent home
• Student Profile Form started
• *CLD considerations
• Review Data (Apply decision rules)

3rd gr. Word Reading 3rd gr. Passage Reading Eugene Apple Data Review

Decision Rules (Tier II-III)

• Has the student received differentiated

instruction for a minimum of 6 weeks?

• Have at least 3 data points been collected

during progress monitoring?

• Is the student’s achievement below the

projected aim line or producing a flat progress trend?

• Options- Discontinue or extend Tier II with

progress monitoring, add Tier III

Tier III

• Student receives targeted instruction for 30

minutes 3 times weekly

• Targeted skills are phonics and fluency (error

analysis, diagnostic assessment conducted)

• Materials used- Phonics for Reading 2
• Group size is 1:5
• Progress monitoring in Word Reading and

Passage Reading Fluency every 2 weeks

• *CLD considerations
• Review data, apply decision rules

3rd Word Rdg 3rd Passage Rdg Eugene Apple Data Review

Decision Rules -Tier III

• Twelve weeks of differentiated and targeted

instruction to meet identified needs (Tier II & III)

• Six progress monitoring data points
• Options-

– Discontinue Tier III, if effective – Extend Tier III, if additional data is needed – If the student is not making adequate progress and the team suspects the student has a disability the team will refer him/her for a Special Education Comprehensive Evaluation

Table Discussion

• How does the process we have shown

compare to the process in your school?

• What differences and similarities have

you observed?

• Does the data and process make

sense? Why?

• Based upon the data, what would your

team decide?

Following Six Weeks of Tier III

• Include the parents on the team, if they have not

already been included

• The team (including parents) reviews the data

collected over the past 12 weeks of Tier I, II, and III (6 data points) and possible exclusionary factors (attendance, second language, physical impairments, etc.)

• The team makes sure the parents understand the

data and information shared

• The team determines if the student is not making

adequate progress and if so, if a disability is

• suspected. If so, the team then refers the student

for a Special Education Comprehensive Evaluation.

Evaluation Planning

• The team develops a working hypothesis about academic skill(s)

deficits (Appendix C) and

• A working hypothesis about a weakness in a basic psychological

process (Appendix B) to guide the individualized evaluation plan development



The team builds an individualized Special Education Comprehensive Evaluation plan designed to assess the specific disability(ies) and area(s) of educational need



The plan includes Tier III Targeted Intervention (to extend through the evaluation period) with progress monitoring. The intervention may be adjusted in order to gather further information (increased time

• r intensity, change in focus, etc.)



The parents are given Notice of Procedural Safeguards and the team

• btains informed written consent from parents to proceed with the

Sped Comprehensive Evaluation as developed by the team

Evaluation Plan SPED Comprehensive Evaluation

 Review IIPM Data  Review existing evaluation data (if any)  Information provided by parent  Classroom-based, local, or state assessments  Observations by teachers or

• ther providers

 Exclusionary factors (attendance, medical, language, etc.)  Continue Tier III or modify intervention(s)  Weekly progress monitoring  Barriers to learning (functional, developmental, academic)  Related concerns or referral questions (attention, fine motor, behavior, etc.)  Working hypothesis about academic/basic psychological processes strengths and weaknesses  Assessment instruments or procedures  Parent concerns about the evaluation plan

Items to Determine Items to Review

Evaluation Planning

• Define Working Hypothesis (why target

evaluation, not just give universal battery?)

• Eugene Apple Example:

– Working Hypothesis (what we think is happening):

• Deficits in Basic Reading Skill
• Deficit in related basic psychological process, strengths in
• ther unrelated processes
• Impacting the student’s rate of learning and/or level of skill

attainment.

• A pattern of strengths and weaknesses that suggests a

specific learning disability

• Exclusionary factors are not the primary reason

Working Hypothesis

• What is the “specific” area being considered?
• Hint: Look at the “Specific” Learning Disability (SLD) eligibility document too!
• A student may be low in multiple areas, but what is the area of “disability”?

VS.      

Working Hypothesis

• Review the SLD

“grid” (Appendix B) and review the working hypothesis statements.

Eugene’s Working Hypothesis

• Review hypothesized (observed) indicators
• Review links to basic psychological processes

       

Basic Reading Skills (BRS)

Basic Psychological Processes

Snack Break

Eugene’s Working Hypothesis

• Find strengths and identify potential exclusionary factors
• Structure evaluation to consider both strengths and weaknesses
• Find ways of gathering data on exclusionary factors

Math; good oral language skills Once learned, remembers concepts Understands age appropriate concepts Good oral language skills Uses visual supports well Good attendance; parent support for learning; motivated Primary and home language is:

SPED Comprehensive Evaluation Procedure and Assessment Elements

• Driven by the hypothesis
• For SLD, must measure the academic

weaknesses

     

SPED Comprehensive Evaluation Procedure and Assessment Elements

• Driven by the hypothesis
• For SLD, must consider basic psychological

processes involved in learning that skill

 

Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses (PSW)

• PSW methodology is used to review,
• rganize, and make decisions using data
• Is designed to address the SLD eligibility

component:

“…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…” OAR 581-015-2170(3)( c)

Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses (PSW)

The child:

This is data for Achievement relative to Grade

Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses (PSW)

The child:

This is data for Achievement relative to Age

Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses (PSW)

The child:

This is data for Performance compared to Grade & Age

Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses (PSW)

The child:

This is data for Achievement & Performance relative to Basic Psychological Processes

Data Review and Interpretation from Evaluation

Tier III Continued

Tier III Continued

Review and Interpretation of the Comprehensive Evaluation Data

Evidence of weaknesses Evidence of strengths

Eugene Apple

Review and Interpretation of the Comprehensive Evaluation Data

Review and Interpretation of the Comprehensive Evaluation Data

We’ve considered the strengths and weaknesses in the basic psychological processes, and considered other exclusionary factors (CLD factors included)

Cut-off Scores and Decision Rules

• Cut-off scores are not “set in stone”, but

differences found should:

– Not occur by chance (statistical significance) – Be unusual in the population (normative weakness)

• Decision rules are based on:

– 3 points of evidence for performance/achievement strength – 3 points of evidence for performance/achievement weaknesses – Weakness in related psychological process(es) – Strength in unrelated psychological process(es)

• Confirm or refute the working hypothesis

Do you understand the process so far?

Eligibility/IEP Meeting

 Upon completion of the Special

Education Comprehensive Evaluation an Eligibility/IEP Meeting is scheduled

 The meeting includes; parents, a

general education teacher, a special education teacher, a person interpreting the data, and a district representative

 May include related service providers

if appropriate

The Eligibility/IEP Process

 There are 4 parts to the process;

 Eligibility determination,  IEP development,  Placement and least restrictive environment,

and

 Service determination

Eligibility Determination

 The team reviews the data collected during the

SPED Comprehensive Evaluation, including data from Tiers I, II, III and the adjusted Tier III during evaluation

 The team must insure that parents understand

the data and information being shared

 The team applies the Pattern of Strengths and

Weaknesses (PSW) Methodology

 The team determines eligibility using the

decision rules from the PSW

Eligibility/IEP Process cont.

 Develop the IEP  Placement determination and least

restrictive environment (LRE)

 Service decisions

Building a plane

Courtesy EDS

while flying it