student evaluation personnel - building rti · ©2018 uts/tea cc-by-nd-nc 4.0 international...

©2018 UTS/TEA CC-BY-ND-NC 4.0 International

buildingRTI.utexas.org

1

A Resource forSTUDENT EVALUATION PERSONNELin Schools Implementing Response to Intervention (RTI)

(Revised)



©2018 University of Texas System/Texas Education Agency CC-BY-ND-NC 4.0 InternationalThese materials are copyrighted © by and are the property of the University of Texas System and the Texas Education Agency. They may be reproduced under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivative 4.0 International (CC-BY-ND-NC-4.0) International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

To obtain a license to use the materials in a manner not specified above, contact [email protected].

Note: You can find this and other resources for implementing response to intervention at http://buildingRTI.utexas.org/

Preferred Citation:

Meadows Center for Preventing Educational Risk. (2018). A resource for student evaluation personnel in schools implementing Response to Intervention (RtI) (Revised). Austin, TX: Author.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/



Acknowledgements

This booklet, A Resource for Student Evaluation Personnel in Schools Implementing Response to Intervention (RTI) (Revised), updates the 2010 version developed by the Building Capacity for Response to Intervention Project team at the Meadows Center for Preventing Educational Risk, College of Education, The University of Texas at Austin. This revision addresses the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) as well as state legislation related to parent notice and RTI. The Texas Education Agency funds the project to promote the implementation of response to intervention (RTI) and multi-tiered systems of supports (MTSS) in Texas schools. To this end, we partner with Education Service Centers to provide professional development and technical assistance to schools.

2018 Project Team

Pamela Bell, Ph.D., Lead Author

Kathleen Walker, Project Coordinator

Jennifer Schnakenberg, Ph.D.

Naomi Tamez

Thea Woodruff, Ph.D.



Introduction 1

Key RTI Concepts and Legislation 3

Roles of Student Evaluation Personnel at the Campus Level 15

Using RTI Information in a Full Individual Student Evaluation (FIE) 21

IDEA 2004 Regulations Related to the RTI Approach for SLD Determination 27

References and Resources 29

References

Resources

Letters from the U.S. Department of Education and the Texas Education Agency

Tools 108

Checklist for Specific Notice to Parents of a Child Receiving Intervention

Checklist for Evaluation of Specific Learning Disability

Intervention Observation

Teacher/Interventionist Interview

Selecting an Intervention to Meet Students’ Needs

Campus-wide Assessment Activities Checklist

Intervention Progress Case Study Questions

Collaborative Instructional Log: Reading

Collaborative Instructional Log: Math

Core Content Area/Tier 1: Instructional Observation

Parent Interview

TABLE OF CONTENTS



1

This resource is for student evaluation personnel (educational diagnosticians, school psychologists,

speech-language pathologists, remedial reading teachers, and other specialists) who collect and

analyze student data and report it to committees making instructional decisions. As more Texas

schools opt to implement response to intervention (RTI) to prevent learning difficulties, student

evaluation personnel will play increasingly major roles in collecting and interpreting this information,

particularly regarding decisions about student eligibility for special education services (Fuchs & Fuchs,

2006).

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 2004 refers to RTI in the regulations related

to Specific Learning Disabilities (SLD). Briefly, RTI is an approach to preventing learning difficulties.

It involves identifying students who are struggling with learning, and then immediately providing

them with increasingly intense intervention to close their gaps in knowledge (Vaughn, et al., 2008).

Other terms associated with RTI include Multi-Tiered System of Support (MTSS), 3-Tier Model, and

Instructional Decision-making Model, or IDM. We prefer to use RTI, because it focuses on the student’s

response to the intervention provided, rather than on the systems of support. In Texas, RTI addresses

reading, mathematics, and behavior. The National Center on Response to Intervention (NCRTI, 2010)

defines it as follows:

“RTI integrates assessment and intervention within a multi-level prevention system to maximize student achievement and to reduce behavior problems. With RTI, schools use data to identify students at risk for poor learning outcomes, monitor student progress, provide evidence-based intervention, and adjust the intensity and nature of those interventions depending on students’ responsiveness.”

RTI is implemented at the campus level and each campus has unique circumstances, just as it has

unique students and staff members (National Association of State Directors of Special Education,

2005). Providing early intervention requires educators to assess students, match instruction to student

needs, and monitor student progress on an ongoing basis (Vaughn, Linan-Thompson, & Hickman,

2003). Rather than prescribe an evaluation process for a preconceived RTI model, this guide provides

information and tools to assist student evaluation personnel when evaluations include the use of RTI

student data. Resources for more information about RTI and its implementation are provided in the

References and Resources section.

Introduction



2

Successful RTI implementation promotes collaboration among educators who teach students who are

struggling with learning. In many schools, student evaluation personnel typically do not participate in

instructional decision-making until a student is referred for a special education evaluation. However,

in schools implementing RTI, student evaluation personnel often proactively collaborate with teachers

of at-risk students to prevent learning difficulties. In fact, in many Texas schools where RTI is being

implemented, student evaluation personnel note their roles are expanding. They now go beyond

determining whether significant learning gaps exist. They examine the nature and context of the

student’s instruction and its impact on learning. The information about the student’s response to

intervention helps Admission, Review, and Dismissal (ARD) Committees answer questions such as:

Are the student’s learning deficits due to a lack of adequate instruction or opportunity to learn? Was

the intervention adequately designed to close the gaps in learning? Can the student’s needs be met

through the general education program? Are the student’s learning gaps such that intensive special

education instruction is needed?

This guide for student evaluation personnel is organized in six sections:

1. Key RTI concepts and legislation2. Roles of student evaluation personnel at the campus level3. Using RTI information in an individual student evaluation4. IDEA 2004 regulations related to the RTI approach5. References and resources6. Tools

The first section includes supporting citations from the Elementary and Secondary Education Act

(ESEA) of 1965 as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) of 2015 in Public Law (P.L.)

114-95 and from the Individuals with Disabilities Education and Improvement Act of 2004 [IDEA

2004; Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)] related to RTI, including student evaluation and eligibility

determination for specific learning disabilities. Authority references from the Texas Education Code

(TEC) are also cited. The second section addresses opportunities for student evaluation personnel to

collaborate with school leaders and teachers. The third section refers to examples of data collection

tools. These tools address specific activities evaluation personnel use to collect data, review results of

intervention instruction over time, and make recommendations for specially designed instruction. The

fourth section contains the IDEA 2004 authority references specific to RTI. The fifth section includes

references and resources designed to promote problem-solving discussions and partnerships among

student evaluation personnel, teachers, and parents to meet the instructional needs of their at-risk

students. Copies of RTI-related letters from the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Special

Education Programs (OSEP) and the Texas Education Agency are also included. The last section, Tools,

provides blank copies of the example forms discussed in earlier sections.

In this booklet, “parent” refers to a child’s parents, guardian, or foster parent.



3

This section provides highlights of federal and state regulations and information related to student

instruction, assessment, and instructional decision-making in schools implementing RTI. Unless

otherwise noted, federal citations for IDEA 2004 are from both the summary of major changes and

the regulations in 34 CFR Part 300, Assistance to States for the Education of Children with Disabilities

and Preschool Grants for Children with Disabilities: Final Rule, August 14, 2006, Federal Register. Citations

for the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 as amended by the Every Student

Succeeds Act (ESSA) of 2015 are from Public Law (P.L.) 114-95.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

In schools implementing RTI, educators usually conduct an in-depth analysis of their reading and math

programs to determine how closely they align with research findings and state curriculum standards.

The analysis also provides information about the alignment of the programs’ scope and sequence

with grade-level assessment benchmarks, and helps educators identify additional evidence-based

strategies that need to be taught to strengthen the programs. Student evaluation personnel should be

familiar with this analysis and any corresponding instructional decisions that grade-level teams have

made, as these may have an impact on individual student evaluation findings and recommendations.

AUTHORITY REFERENCES

Both the ESEA/ESSA and IDEA 2004 emphasize provision of appropriate reading and math instruction.

Essential components of reading instruction are defined in section 9215(oo)(2)(D) of the ESEA/ESSA as

“…explicit and systematic instruction in

(A) Phonemic awareness;

(B) Phonics;

(C) Vocabulary development;

(D) Reading fluency, including oral reading skills; and

(E) Reading comprehension strategies.”

Key RTI Concepts and Legislation

Concept : APPROPRIATE INSTRUCTION IS BASED ON SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH



4

In addition, ESEA/ESSA and IDEA 2004 require the provision of evidence-based activities,

strategies, and interventions to improve student outcomes. Section 8101(21)(A) of the ESEA/

ESSA defines “evidence-based” as an intervention that

“(i) demonstrates a significantly significant effect on improving student outcomes or other relevant outcomes based on

(I) strong evidence from at least one well-designed and well-implemented experimental study;(II) moderate evidence from at least one well-designed and well-implemented

quasi-experimental study; or(III) promising evidence from at least one well-designed and well-implemented correlational

study with statistical controls for selection bias; or(ii) (I) demonstrates a rationale based on high-quality research findings or

positive evaluation that such activity, strategy, or intervention is likely to improve student outcomes or other relevant outcomes; and

(II) includes ongoing efforts to examine the effects of such activity, strategy, or intervention.”

Note: Each of these four levels corresponds to the type of research conducted on the intervention,

rather than the strength of the study results. To assist local education agencies and other stakeholders,

the U.S. Department of Education provided recommendations related to levels of evidence to inform

their educational decision-making (U.S. Department of Education, 2016).

Concept: DATA INFORMS INSTRUCTIONAL DECISION-MAKING


In schools implementing RTI, teachers use evidence-based universal screening assessments to

identify students who are at-risk and to assess student progress several times a year. These universal

screening and periodic benchmark assessments measure whether students are meeting performance

expectations for their grade level, i.e., “benchmark assessments.” Those who are not meeting are at-

risk and need intervention to close their gaps in learning. Screening and benchmark measures are for

all students and are not considered to be an evaluation for determining special education eligibility;

parental consent is not required. Indeed, IDEA 2004 specifically addresses the role of screening

and evaluation: “The screening of a student by a teacher or specialist to determine appropriate

instructional strategies for curriculum implementation shall not be considered to be an evaluation for

eligibility for special education and related services” (34 CFR §300.302). In other words, while screening

results may be considered as one source of data in a full, individual evaluation, screening data alone is

not sufficient to serve as a comprehensive evaluation.

Concept : DATA INFORMS INSTRUCTIONAL DECISION-MAKING



5

Analyzing data related to a student’s progress or response to intervention instruction is a critical step

in designing effective interventions to meet student needs. Student evaluation personnel need to

know how the screening and benchmark measures identify at-risk students, which skills are measured,

and how progress monitoring assessments indicate the student’s response to the intervention. When

conducting a full individual evaluation to determine the presence of a learning disability, student

evaluation personnel should be sure to meet with a student’s teachers to obtain progress monitoring

information and discuss how they used assessment data to inform their instructional planning.


“’Screening’…refers to a process that a teacher or specialist uses to determine appropriate

instructional strategies. Screening is typically a relatively simple and quick process that can be used

with groups of children” (Federal Register, 2006, p. 46639).

“We believe that one of the most important aspects of good teaching is the ability to determine

when a child is learning and then to tailor instruction to meet the child’s individual needs. Effective

teachers use data to make informed decisions about the effectiveness of a particular strategy or

program. A critical hallmark of appropriate instruction is that data documenting a child’s progress

are systematically collected and analyzed and that parents are kept informed of the child’s progress.

Assessments of a child’s progress are not bureaucratic, but an essential component of good

instruction” (Federal Register, 2006, p. 46657).

“Data-based documentation refers to an objective and systematic process of documenting a child’s

progress. This type of assessment is one feature of strong instruction in reading and in math and is

consistent with § 300.306 (b)(1)(i) and (ii) and section 614 (b)(5)(A) and (B) of the Act, that children

cannot be identified for special education if an achievement problem is due to lack of appropriate

instruction in reading or math” (Federal Register, 2006, p. 46657).

“The Department believes that good instruction depends on repeated assessments of a child’s

progress. This allows teachers to make informed decisions about the need to change their instruction

to meet the needs of the child, and also provides parents with information about their child’s progress

so that they can support instruction and learning at home. Parents should be informed if there are

concerns about their child’s progress and should be aware of the strategies being used to improve and

monitor their child’s progress” (Federal Register, 2006, p. 46658).



6


Coordinated, early intervening services (CEIS) are for “…children in kindergarten through grade

12 (with a particular emphasis on children in kindergarten through grade 3) who are not currently

identified as needing special education or related services, but who need additional academic or

behavioral support to succeed in a general education environment” [Federal Register, 2006, p. 46626;

34 CFR §300.226(B); TEA, 2015]. In other words, CEIS are for students in the general education program

who are not receiving special education services.

However, some Texas school districts confused “coordinated, early intervening services (CEIS)” with

early intervention services which are provided through the “early childhood intervention” (ECI)

program. In 2015, the Texas Education Agency (TEA) clarified these programs as follows: “[CEIS

refers to] services for children in kindergarten through Grade 12…who have not been identified as

needing special education and related services, but who need additional academic and behavioral

support to succeed in a general education environment…” (TEA, 2015). Early childhood intervention

(ECI) program services, on the other hand, are for families of children from birth to age 3 with

developmental delays, disabilities, or certain medical diagnoses that may impact development (Texas

Health and Human Services Commission, 2018). In Texas, ECI services are funded through the Texas

Health and Human Services Commission with state appropriations which are then directed to the ECI

service provider, not to LEAs (TEA, 2015). Children served through ECI may transition to school services

at age 3 if they meet IDEA 2004 eligibility requirements. In this booklet, when federal regulations are

quoted, “EIS” corresponds to the TEA’s CEIS (coordinated EIS) that are designed to prevent learning

difficulties and are provided to students in general education in grades K-12.

Schools implementing RTI may use a portion of their IDEA funds to provide CEIS. IDEA 2004

provides funding to support provision of CEIS for the prevention of learning difficulties; it includes

supplemental instructional materials for early intervening activities. Since the focus of CEIS is on

preventing learning difficulties, these programs often complement services provided through Title

I activities. When gathering data related to a student’s response to intervention instruction, it is

important to contact all the teachers providing intervention instruction, including those in tutoring

programs offered before and after school. Sometimes close examination of all the data reveals that

programs are not aligned, and this may cause confusion or interfere with learning.

Concept : COORDINATED EARLY INTERVENING SERVICES (CEIS) SUPPORT THE PREVENTION OF LEARNING DIFFICULTIES



7


Coordinated early intervening services are for “…children in kindergarten through grade 12 (with

a particular emphasis on children in kindergarten through grade 3) who have not been identified

as needing special education or related services, but who need additional support to succeed in

a general education environment” (Federal Register, 2006, p. 46626). In addition, IDEA 2004 funds

professional development to enable teachers and other personnel to deliver evidence-based

academic and behavioral interventions, including evidence-based literacy instruction. CEIS activities

may include providing educational and behavioral evaluations, services, and support (including

scientifically based literacy instruction), and may be coordinated with other funded activities (Federal

Register, 2006, pp. 46626-46628; Office of Special Education Programs, 2008; TEA, 2015).

“Early intervening services should make use of supplemental instructional materials, where

appropriate, to support student learning. Children targeted for early intervening services under IDEA

are the very students who are most likely to need additional reinforcement to the core curriculum

used in the regular classroom. These are in fact the additional instructional materials that have been

developed to supplement and therefore strengthen the efficacy of the comprehensive curriculum”

(Federal Register, 2006, p. 46628).

Providing CEIS to at-risk students does not require the same parental notice and consents as for special

education students: “…children receiving EIS do not have the same rights and protections as children

identified as eligible for special education and related services. EIS neither limits nor creates a right

to FAPE [free appropriate public education]. EIS will benefit both the regular and special education

programs by reducing academic and behavioral problems in the regular education program and the

number of inappropriate referrals for special education and related services” (Federal Register, 2006, pp.

46626-46628).



8


IDEA and Texas Education Agency requirements underscore the important role of parents in the

education of their child. Historically, parents have been instrumental in obtaining federal and state

legislation and funding to educate their children with disabilities.

In 2017 the Texas Legislature passed SB 1153 to require that local education agencies inform parents

when they offer an RTI framework and provide intervention to their child. SB 1153 expands the rights

of parents of students who are receiving intervention to include:

• Annual notice of their rights to their child’s educational records.• Annual and specific notice about interventions provided to their child.• Annual notice of the district’s Child Find duty to identify and evaluate all children who are

suspected of having a disability and in need of special education and related services.• Provision of a free, appropriate public education (FAPE).

Campuses that are implementing an RTI framework should have a procedure for notifying parents

that their child is at-risk and will be receiving intervention that is designed to close learning gaps (TEA,

2017; also see Checklist for Specific Notice to Parents of a Child Receiving Intervention, p. 109-110).


In general education, a school district or charter school that is implementing RTI must provide the

following to the parents:

• Annual notice that the LEA or charter school offers a multi-tiered system of support that includes RTI and other early intervention strategies; that they are entitled to their child’s school records of interventions provided; and that they can request a full individual evaluation (FIE) at any time they suspect a disability (TEA, 2017.)

• Notification that informed parental consent is required before the process of a full individual evaluation (FIE) for special education eligibility is initiated [34 CFR §300.300 (a)].

• Specific notice to parents of at-risk students that their child is receiving/will receive assistance for learning difficulties. The notice describes the intervention and when it will be provided, and when and how the child’s progress will be reported (TEA, 2017).

• Information about their child’s progress in the intervention. “A critical hallmark of appropriate instruction is that data documenting a child’s progress are systematically collected and

Concept : COMMUNICATION WITH PARENTS IS A KEY ELEMENT OF RTI/MTSS IMPLEMENTATION.



9

analyzed and that parents are kept informed of the child’s progress” (Federal Register 2006, p. 46657).

• Annual notice of the district’s or charter school’s Child Find duty to identify and evaluate all children who are suspected of having a disability and in need of special education and related services (34 CFR §300.101 & 300.111).


It is important to note that if a student is not making adequate progress, he or she must be

immediately referred for evaluation if a disability is suspected. Some educators mistakenly believe that

in schools where RTI is being implemented, a student first must be provided with intervention before

referral for a full individual evaluation (FIE) for special education. This error could delay identifying a

student’s disabilities, or cause denial of a free appropriate public education (FAPE).

Participation in RTI is not a prerequisite for conducting a comprehensive evaluation. If a disability is

suspected and the school is implementing interventions that may meet a student’s needs, then the

student may continue to receive the intervention(s) while undergoing the evaluation process. In other

words, the school cannot delay the comprehensive FIE process while waiting for the student to receive

intervention over a specified period or to complete all tiers of intervention. However, if a student is

receiving intervention, intervention progress or response data can provide valuable information for

the Admission, Review, and Dismissal (ARD) Committee as it determines the presence of a specific

learning disability and the develops an Individual Education Program (IEP).

In 2017 the Texas Legislature passed SB 1153 to require local education agencies to give annual notice

to parents of students who are receiving intervention through RTI, including notice of their rights to

access records of their child’s intervention and to request an evaluation at any time when they suspect

their child has a disability.

Parents (or teachers) can request an evaluation in any manner at any time. If parents ask how to make

a request, follow LEA procedures or suggest that they submit a written request to the appropriate staff

Concept : WHEN A DISABILITY IS SUSPECTED, IMPLEMENT ELIGIBILITY DETERMINATION PROCEDURES WITHOUT DELAY.



10

member. Once a request is received, it should be documented and dated, and the school must provide

a written response within 15 school days. One of the following scenarios will result:

• The school begins the evaluation process. Within up to five additional days, the parent’s rights are explained, a copy of the Procedural Safeguards is provided, and the parent gives written consent for the evaluation. The student may continue to receive intervention, and his or her progress in or response to it is documented.

OR

• The school will not evaluate the student. The school provides a written explanation why a disability is not suspected. The student continues to receive intervention.


Under the Child Find provisions of IDEA 2004, school districts must identify and evaluate all students

who are suspected of having a disability and in need of special education and related services. “A free

appropriate public education (FAPE) must be available to all children residing in the state between the

ages of 3 and 21…” (34 CFR §300.101 & 300.111).

“School districts and charter schools are required to disseminate information to every enrolled

student’s family to inform them of their rights under IDEA, and to provide the contact information

to request an initial evaluation. A parent may make a request for their child to be referred for special

education testing/evaluation in any format to any school official (including a teacher) at any time”

(TEA, 2018d, pp. 15-16).

Three letters from the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative

Services (OSERS) address the topic that RTI cannot be used to delay or deny an evaluation for special

education eligibility. This position is first spelled out in a January 21, 2011 letter to State Directors of

Special Education (p. 70); and then specifically in response to a Texas inquiry (February 29, 2012,

p. 73); and in one to the State Directors of Special Education on a related topic, ensuring high-quality

instruction of highly-mobile children (July 19, 2013, p. 77).



11


To identify the presence of a learning disability, the ARD Committee must consider evidence from

several areas. The committee must determine that the learning difficulties are not due to cultural,

environmental, or language differences, and it must rule out other factors that could explain why

the student is not making expected grade-level progress. The ARD Committee also must review

evidence that the student received appropriate instruction as well as documentation of repeated

assessments of achievement, and confirm that these results were provided to the student’s parents

(see Parent Interview, p. 136-137).

In schools that opt to use RTI information as a component of the comprehensive evaluation, the ARD

Committee also reviews the provided interventions, and the progress monitoring assessments that

indicate how the student responded (See Checklist for Evaluation of Specific Learning Disability,

p. 111-112). While the full individual evaluation (FIE) for a suspected learning disability requires

observation of the instruction provided, IDEA 2004 does not specifically require observation of

the intervention instruction provided. However, it makes sense to include an observation of the

intervention instruction provided to the student, along with information about how the intervention

was designed to close the student’s gaps in learning, and that it was provided as it was designed

with fidelity (See Intervention Observation, p. 113); Teacher/Interventionist Interview, p. 114-117).

Since the committee determines the presence of a specific learning disability, data from the student’s

response to the intervention is invaluable.


IDEA 2004 addresses the provision of a free appropriate public education to individuals up to age 21

who have disabilities. It provides a “…special rule for eligibility determination: A child must not be

determined to have a disability due to:

• Lack of appropriate instruction in reading, including the essential components of reading instruction;

• Lack of appropriate instruction in math; or

• Limited English proficiency” [34 CFR §300.306 (b)(1)(i-iii)].

Concept : IDEA 2004 HAS SPECIAL RULES FOR IDENTIFYING STUDENTS AS HAVING SPECIFIC LEARNING DISABILITIES



12

IDEA 2004 defines “specific learning disability” as “…a disorder in one or more of the basic

psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, that may

manifest itself in the imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or to do mathematical

calculations, including conditions such as perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain

dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia” [34 CFR §300.8 (c)(10)].

IDEA 2004 requires that students are “…assessed in all areas related to the suspected disability” [34

CFR §300.304 (b)(4)]. IDEA 2004 lists the areas associated with specific learning disability as “…oral

expression, listening comprehension, written expression, basic reading skill, reading fluency skills,

reading comprehension, mathematics calculation, mathematics problem solving”

[34 CFR §300.9 (a)(1)(i-viii)].

IDEA 2004 states that the group of qualified professionals and the parent (known in Texas as the

Admission, Review, and Dismissal [ARD] Committee) may determine that a child has a specific learning

disability if:

“(1) The child does not achieve adequately for the child’s age or to meet State-approved grade-level standards in one or more of the following areas, when provided with learning experiences and instruction appropriate for the child’s age or state-approved grade-level standards….

(i) The child does not make sufficient progress to meet age or State-approved grade-level standards in one or more of the areas identified…when using a process based on the child’s response to scientific, research-based intervention; or [emphasis added]

(ii) 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, using appropriate assessments.

(3) The group determines that its findings…are not primarily the result of (i) a visual, hearing, or motor disability; (ii) intellectual disability; (iii) emotional disturbance; (iv) cultural factors; (v) environmental or economic disadvantage; or (vi) limited English proficiency” [34 CFR §300.309 (a)(1-3)].

IDEA 2004 also requires that in determining eligibility for specific learning disabilities, the group

must “…consider as part of the evaluation. . . (1) Data that demonstrate that prior to, or as part of, the

referral process, the child was provided appropriate instruction in regular education settings, delivered

by qualified personnel; and (2) Data-based documentation of repeated assessments of achievement at

reasonable intervals, reflecting formal assessment of student progress during instruction, which was

provided to the child’s parents” [34 CFR §300.309 (b)(1-2)].



13

“Section 300.309 (b)(1) requires that the eligibility group consider data on the child’s progress when

provided with appropriate instruction by qualified professionals as part of this evaluation. These data,

along with other relevant information, will assist the eligibility group in determining whether the

child’s low achievement is attributable to a lack of appropriate instruction. Based on their review of the

existing data, and input from the child’s parents, the eligibility group must decide, on a case-by- case

basis, depending on the needs of the child and the information available regarding the child, what

additional data, if any, are needed to determine whether the child is a child with a disability, and the

educational needs of the child” (Federal Register, 2006, p. 46658).

IDEA 2004 ensures that the LEA “…promptly requests parental consent to evaluate a child suspected

of having an SLD who has not made adequate progress when provided with appropriate instruction

which could include instruction in an RTI model, and whenever a child is referred for an evaluation….

We also have added a new §300.311 (a)(7)(ii) to require that the eligibility report includes evidence

that when a child has participated in an RTI process, the parents were informed of State policies

regarding child performance data that would be collected and the general education services that

would be provided; strategies to support the child’s rate of learning; and a parent’s right to request

an evaluation at any time. If the parents request an evaluation and provide consent, the timeframe

for evaluation begins and the information required in §300.309 (b) must be collected (if it does not

already exist) before the end of that period” (Federal Register, 2006, p. 46658).

“…early intervening services may not delay an appropriate evaluation of a child suspected of having

a disability…. We do not believe it is appropriate or necessary to specify how long a child can receive

early intervening services before an initial evaluation is conducted” (Federal Register, 2006, p. 46626).

“§300.309 (c) as revised clarifies that if a child has not made adequate progress after an appropriate

period of time, a referral for an evaluation must be made…. Models based on RTI typically evaluate the

child’s response to instruction prior to the onset of the 60-day [evaluation] period, and generally do

not require as long a time to complete an evaluation because of the amount of data already collected

on the child’s achievement, including observation data. RTI models provide the data the group must

consider on the child’s progress when provided with appropriate instruction by qualified professionals

as part of the evaluation…” (Federal Register, 2006, p. 46658).



14


To identify a student as having a specific learning disability, a group of qualified professionals and the

parent must meet and review all required and relevant information. In Texas, this group, including

the parent, is known as the Admission, Review, and Dismissal (ARD) Committee. The ARD Committee

reviews the full and individual evaluation (FIE), including information sufficient to determine whether

the student’s low achievement is due to a lack of appropriate instruction in reading or math, or to

the presence of a learning disability. In schools implementing RTI, information about the student’s

response to intervention instruction is included in the evaluation.


IDEA 2004 identifies RTI as an optional component of a comprehensive evaluation and requires

that states “(2) must permit the use of a process based on the child’s response to scientific, research-

based intervention; and (3) may permit the use of other alternative research-based procedures for

determining whether a child has a specific learning disability” [34 CFR §300.307 (2-3)].

In Texas, RTI is an optional approach schools may choose to use: “… a process based on the student’s

response to scientific, research-based intervention…” or [emphasis added] pattern of strengths

and weaknesses in performance, achievement, or both, relative to age, State-approved grade-level

standards, or intellectual development…” [34 CFR §300.309 (a)(2)(i-ii)].

In determining the existence of a specific learning disability, the ARD Committee documents “…if

the child has participated in a process that assesses the child’s response to scientific, research-based

intervention – the instructional strategies used and the student-centered data collected…”

[34 CFR §300.311 (a)(7)(i)].

“What is important is that the group making the eligibility decision has the information it needs to

rule out that the child’s underachievement is a result of a lack of appropriate instruction. That could

include evidence that the child was provided appropriate instruction either before, or as part of, the

referral process. Evidence of appropriate instruction delivered in an RTI model is not a substitute for a

complete assessment of all of the areas of suspected need” (Federal Register, 2006, p. 46656).

Concept : RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION (RTI) IS AN OPTIONAL COMPONENT OF A FULL AND INDIVIDUAL INITIAL EVALUATION.



15

Student evaluation personnel have invaluable expertise to contribute to campus teams implementing

RTI. These personnel enhance any campus RTI effort, especially its assessment component.

Collaboration in designing a campus RTI assessment plan allows all on the team to have input and

to streamline assessment activities before they are implemented. Determining the plan and its

implementation provides personnel with insight into the student assessment process and how

the data informs decisions on everyday instructional. Finally, periodic analysis of grade- level and

benchmark data ensures that instructional practices can be revised as campus goals for student

success are met.

STUDENT EVALUATION PERSONNEL ON CAMPUS RTI TEAMS

The membership and functions of campus teams involved in planning and implementing RTI are

unique to each campus. On some campuses, student evaluation personnel are directly involved in

designing RTI activity plans. On others, personnel are invited to assist at certain times, such as during

the administration or analysis of assessment instruments, when assessment-related professional

development is needed, or when an early intervening services team needs ideas for accelerating

the progress of an at-risk student. Of course, the extent to which student evaluation personnel can

participate on a campus RTI team depends on logistical factors such as the campus size, the number of

campuses served, and the distance between campuses. In cooperative arrangements, it also depends

on member districts’ policies. Campus RTI planning and implementation includes specific areas in

which student evaluation personnel can lend their expertise: campus-wide student assessment,

professional development, and instructional decision-making.

STUDENT EVALUATION PERSONNEL AND CAMPUS-WIDE STUDENT ASSESSMENT

Usually, campuses implementing RTI need assistance with assessment. Using assessment data is

critical to successful RTI implementation. It can help to determine the current levels of students’

performance in content areas, to identify at-risk students, and to design interventions that close at-

risk students’ learning gaps. Student evaluation personnel usually play major roles in the assessment

component of RTI.

Roles of Student Evaluation PersonnelAT THE CAMPUS LEVEL



16

Campus-wide assessment activities range from selecting a universal screening measure to identify

at-risk students at the beginning of RTI implementation, to conducting a student data review at year’s

end to evaluate the RTI effort. Campus teams usually need guidance in selecting strong evidence-

based universal screening and “benchmark” measures to identify students who are at-risk for

learning difficulties, usually given at the beginning, middle, and end of the year (BOY, MOY, and EOY).

Sometimes campuses are using too many assessment measures or ones that identify at-risk students,

ineffectively. Student evaluation personnel can help campus teams review assessment measures in

use and select evidence-based screening and progress monitoring measures.

Once the measures are selected, campuses may need assistance in developing a management

plan. This includes an annual schedule for professional development; administration of screening,

benchmark, and progress monitoring measures; a system to manage student assessment data; and

sessions to review student results after each benchmark assessment. The management plan also

should address how teachers communicate with parents of at-risk students who receive intervention.

In addition, teachers often need support in how to use assessment data to group students and inform

their instruction. The plan should address professional development regarding administering the

progress monitoring measures and using the results to inform intervention instruction. The plan

should also specify how often the measures are administered. Student progress should be measured

frequently, e.g., every two or three weeks. This helps make sure students are on course to close their

gaps in learning.

Campus-level teams usually need guidance in using assessment data to select an evidence-based

intervention. Student evaluation personnel can lead them through the steps to analyze student

data to identify areas of student needs, the evidence related to potential interventions, and select an

evidence-based intervention to meet their students’ needs (see Selecting an Intervention to Meet

Student Needs, p. 118-125).

Finally, student evaluation personnel can assist teachers in many ways. They can help them examine

student assessment data to determine how to meet the needs of their at-risk students (intervention

entry and exit criteria); how to maximize intervention resources for early intervening services and, over

time, how the campus RTI plan is working to reduce the number of at-risk students, including reducing

referrals to special education.



17

The Campus-wide RTI Assessment Activities Checklist (p. 126-127) is a tool that may be used to

review assessment-related activities, list contact information for team members, and record assistance

provided by student evaluation personnel.

STUDENT EVALUATION PERSONNEL AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Professional development is another key component in campus plans for RTI implementation.

Effective professional development is systematic, data-based, and purposeful. It is designed to

enhance teachers’ expertise to help them improve instruction and intervention to prevent learning

difficulties. Ideally, the professional development topics stem from needs identified from student

assessment data, as well as instructional observations.

Professional development related to campus implementation of RTI often include the following topics:

• Examining the content-area curriculum and programs.• Identifying intervention strategies and programs.• Determining how to identify at-risk students and meet their needs.• Providing intervention instruction (classroom teachers or specialists).• Increasing the intensity of intervention instruction.• Monitoring the effectiveness of the intervention in closing students’ learning gaps.

In addition, sessions are commonly held on related topics such as designing and implementing

learning centers or student workstations, implementing specific instructional strategies, and building

accountability into student products. Assessment-related professional development often overlaps

instructional professional development, especially on campuses using Curriculum Based Measures

(CBM) to monitor student progress. Student evaluation personnel who participate alongside their

general and special educator colleagues in such sessions gain insights that will help connect content

area and intervention instruction provided to students. This is especially useful when making

recommendations for specialized instruction for students with special needs.



18

Implementing core content curriculum/program

Teachers learn scope and sequence of curriculum and how to implement with fidelity

Understanding content-area requirements, instructional pacing, and implementation fidelity

Administering assessment measures, including universal screening and progress monitoring

Teachers learn what the measures assess as well as how to administer them

Understanding what the screening and progress monitoring assessments measure

Using assessment measures to inform instruction

Teachers and interventionists analyze and use assessment results to form smaller homogeneous groups and plan teacher-led instruction and interventions

Understanding how teachers group students for instruction and intervention; knowing how teachers use assessment results to plan intervention lessons

Using student data to select an evidence-based intervention

Grade-level teachers and interventionists identify students’ areas of need/gaps in knowledge and systematically review intervention programs to determine one that will meet students’ needs

Understanding how the intervention is designed to meet students’ needs, and what adequate progress in the intervention should look like

Establishing criteria for intervention entry and exit for at-risk students

Grade-level teachers review screening data and identify how to meet at-risk students’ needs

Understanding the identification of at-risk students by grade level, and the context for intervention decisions

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT OFTEN CONDUCTED ON RTI CAMPUSES

TOPIC OBJECTIVESTUDENT EVALUATION

PERSONNEL BENEFIT

Analysis of core content program for elements of scientific research basis; for example: Consumer’s Guide to Reading Programs, http://reading.uoregon.edu/cia/curricula/con_guide.php

Grade-level teams identify strong and weak areas of core content program; teachers know which areas need additional instructional support

Knowledge of weak areas in core content program that may be related to student performance data

http://reading.uoregon.edu/cia/curricula/con_guide.php

http://reading.uoregon.edu/cia/curricula/con_guide.php



19

TOPIC OBJECTIVESTUDENT EVALUATION

PERSONNEL BENEFIT

Intervention program implementation

Interventionists understand and practice lessons, and make connections with the at-risk students they instruct

Understanding the areas targeted by the intervention program, and how it works

Professional development on effective instructional practices and research-based strategies

Classroom teachers and interventionists implement practices and strategies and hold students accountable for learning and using them

Knowledge of practices and strategies taught to at- risk students will enhance instructional observation, and allow personnel to recognize students’ use

Campus leadership team review(s) of student data (BOY, MOY, and EOY)

Campus leadership team identifies at-risk students and/or monitors the progress of those who continue to struggle; team identifies grade-level needs for professional development and support

Context for overall grade-level performance and knowledge of campus plans for meeting identified needs

STUDENT EVALUATION PERSONNEL AND COORDINATED, EARLY INTERVENING

SERVICES (CEIS) TEAMS

Campuses that provide coordinated early intervening services (CEIS) to at-risk students may have

an instructional decision-making team that collaborates on instruction and intervention planning.

Sometimes teachers or grade-level teams request assistance from student evaluation personnel

when at-risk students do not make sufficient progress. Student evaluation personnel can use their

knowledge of the core curriculum and existing interventions when examining a student’s progress-

monitoring data with the team. They can then suggest additional intervention strategies. They

may facilitate a case study by helping the teacher or team examine previously taught intervention

strategies, determine how well these strategies met the student’s needs during a specific time period,

identify new issues or behaviors that need intervention attention, and design a new intervention

plan (See Intervention Progress Case Study Discussion Questions, p. 128-130). Often intervention

instruction revisions benefit all the students in a small group.



20

One tool that can help teachers document these decisions and communicate a student’s progress is

the Collaborative Instructional Log: Reading (p. 131-132). The Log provides an ongoing summary of a

student’s progress-monitoring data, including information about the student’s response to instruction

over specified time periods. This information facilitates a case study discussion that may result in

additional intervention strategies to try with the student; instructional coaching to support the

teacher or interventionist; or if a student is making inadequate progress, a referral for a comprehensive

evaluation to determine the presence of a suspected learning disability.

Briefly, the Collaborative Instructional Log is designed to document instructional intervention decisions

made about an individual student over specified periods. The top section of the form documents

the student’s baseline information: universal screening or benchmark assessment information,

intervention entry/exit criteria; the area(s) of risk; goals for closing instructional gaps; who provides

instruction and intervention; instructional modifications; and how intervention is provided (length

and frequency of each session).

Below the baseline information are rows for intervention periods, usually two or three weeks. Each

row documents the instructional decisions and student information for that period: short- term goals;

prioritized research-based strategies to teach; educator(s) responsible for teaching the intervention

strategies (often designated by an asterisk beside the name) and those responsible for reinforcing

them; notes about the student’s response; and results of the progress-monitoring measures

administered at the end of the period.

At the end of the set intervention period, the student’s progress-monitoring results are compared to

the set goals to determine whether the intervention is working to close the student’s learning gaps.

In light of this information, the next intervention period goals are set, and the cycle begins again.

Electronic versions of the Collaborative Instructional Logs in reading and mathematics for at-risk

students and for students with IEPs are available at buildingRTI.utexas.org.

If a student makes insufficient progress in intervention, the student evaluation professional may lead

the team in a case study. While the Collaborative Instructional Log helps to capture the “big ideas” of

the intervention that was provided, questions such as those listed in the Intervention Progress Case

Study Discussion Questions (p. 128-130) may help the grade-level team dig deeper to identify barriers

to progress or additional strategies to try.




21

This section describes ways that student evaluation personnel can incorporate information related to

a student’s response to intervention into a comprehensive evaluation when the presence of a specific

learning disability (SLD) is suspected. In determining the presence of a specific learning disability,

IDEA 2004 allows schools to choose to use “… a process based on the student’s response to scientific,

research-based intervention…” [34 CFR §300.307 (a)(2)]. While there are other approaches to identify

specific learning disabilities, including the “discrepancy model” (comparing a student’s intellectual

capacity to academic achievement), this resource focuses on using RTI data.

Assessment of student learning, including universal screening and benchmark assessment of all

students, is fundamental to RTI. RTI requires the use of evidence-based assessment data to inform

instruction: to identify students who are at-risk, to make instructional intervention decisions,

and to frequently monitor their progress in the interventions. When at-risk students do not make

adequate progress to close their gaps in learning and a disability is suspected, they must be referred

immediately for a full, individual evaluation (FIE) to determine the presence of a disability.

This section will:

• Briefly address changes in roles or perspectives for student evaluation personnel to consider as they incorporate RTI information into the student evaluation process.

• Identify areas where RTI data can inform the FIE report.• Provide an overview of information required for the ARD Committee to make a disability

determination using the RTI process.• Provide tools for collecting and summarizing RTI-related data.

RTI AND CHANGES IN STUDENT EVALUATION ROLES OR PERSPECTIVES

Student evaluation personnel who use RTI data to identify students with specific learning

disabilities have noted their roles in the evaluation process have shifted. Rather than administering

specific assessment instruments to identify student deficits after students have developed significant

gaps in learning, they now may be more proactive, gathering evidence of interventions designed

to prevent significant gaps in learning and evaluating their effectiveness. They may or may not

directly assess students.

Using RTI InformationIN A FULL INDIVIDUAL EVALUATION (FIE)



22

This is a significant change from traditional student evaluation procedures. When a student has

participated in an intervention process, student evaluation personnel must learn more about

intervention actions taken at the first signs of learning difficulties, and the student’s response. They

may be less directly involved in student testing, and more directly involved with teachers’ instruction

and intervention. To learn more about the student’s response to the intervention process, student

evaluation personnel often collaborate with the student’s teachers to do the following:

• Collect information from the instruction and monitoring of the student’s classroom performance that was done prior to the referral for evaluation.

• Collect evidence of the student’s performance in the area(s) of the suspected learning disability.• Describe the instructional strategies used.• Gather student data related to the response to the intervention strategies.• Gather documentation that the child’s parents were notified about student performance data

that were collected, provision of services in general education, strategies for increasing the child’s learning, and the parent’s right to request an evaluation.

—34 CFR §300.310 and §300.311 (a)(3) & (7)

RTI AND THE FULL INDIVIDUAL EVALUATION (FIE) FOR SPECIFIC

LEARNING DISABILITIES (SLD)

Student evaluation personnel must synthesize a great deal of background information for the

full individual evaluation (FIE) report for a student with a suspected SLD. In addition to data that

rules out a visual, hearing, or motor disability as an underlying cause, the diagnostician or school

psychologist must also collect evidence that underachievement is not due to emotional disturbance,

cultural factors, environmental or economic disadvantage, or limited English proficiency [34 CFR

§300.309 (a)(3)(i-v)]. In addition, the FIE must include information for the ARD Committee to rule

out lack of appropriate instruction in reading or math as a cause for underachievement: “(1) Data

that demonstrate that prior to, or as part of, the referral process, the child was provided appropriate

instruction in regular education settings, delivered by qualified personnel; and (2) Data-based

documentation of repeated assessments of achievement at reasonable intervals, reflecting formal

assessment of student progress during instruction which was provided to the child’s parents”

[34 CFR §300.309(b)(1-2)]. This information must be collected regardless of the school’s approach for

determining the presence of an SLD (RTI, IQ/achievement discrepancy model, or alternative).

Once the background information is gathered, student evaluation personnel collect information

pertinent to the school’s approach for SLD evaluation. In determining the presence of a specific

learning disability, IDEA 2004 allows schools to choose to use “… a process based on the student’s



23

response to scientific, research-based intervention…” [34 CFR §300.307 (a)(2)]. IDEA 2004 identifies the

information the ARD Committee needs for this approach:

“…the relevant behavior noted during the observation of the child and the relationship of that behavior to the child’s academic functioning…Whether the child does not achieve adequately for the child’s age or to meet State-approved grade-level standards… and the child does not make sufficient progress to meet age or State-approved grade-level standards… [34 CFR 300.311 (a)(1-5)(i)-(ii)(A); emphasis added].

When a student has “…participated in a process that assesses the child’s response to intervention…”

the ARD Committee must document its considerations of “…the instructional strategies used and the

student-centered data collected; and the documentation that the child’s parents were notified about

the nature of the data to be collected and the general education services that would be provided,

strategies for increasing the child’s rate of learning, and the parents’ right to request an evaluation“

[34 CFR §300.311 (a)(7)(i-ii)].

When RTI information is used to identify an SLD, the amount and type of data varies depending on

how long the student has received early intervening services. The data may be very rich, stemming

from the student’s participation over time in campus-wide implementation of RTI. Or it may be

somewhat limited, for instance, from participation in a short-term intervention that only began

when the student was suspected of having a disability and referred for a comprehensive evaluation

(see Collaborative Instructional Log, p. 131-132). In either case, the data of the student’s response

to the intervention contributes valuable information for the ARD Committee to use in determining

the presence of the SLD. It should be noted that RTI data is never the sole data source; rather, when

considered with information from a variety of sources, it contributes to the overall determination of a

disability [34 CFR §300.306 (c)(i)].

All areas of suspected disability require observations of the student in the regular classroom (See Core

Content/Tier 1: Instructional Observation, p. 135). When a student has participated in intervention,

conducting an observation of the student in the intervention setting should also be considered.

Intervention observation data supplements the student progress data, providing information

about how the intervention strategies addressed the student’s needs and about opportunities

for the student to receive direct instruction and immediate corrective feedback (See Intervention

Observation, p. 113). Interviewing teachers can give added dimension to the FIE report (See Teacher/

Interventionist Interview, p. 114-117). Providing teachers with the questions prior to the interview

gives them an opportunity to organize or prepare any supplemental information and minimizes

interview time needed. Likewise, conducting interviews with parents may result in additional critical

information and gives them opportunities to ask questions (see Parent Interview, p. 136-137).



24

Both the Teacher/Interventionist Interview and the Parent Interview show how questions

can build on each other to elicit critical information about a student’s learning.

The Checklist for Evaluation of Specific Learning Disability (p. 111-112) summarizes information

collected for the comprehensive evaluation report. Specifying how the evaluation has widened

its focus to include instructional-centered data prepares teachers to anticipate questions they

may be asked during the student evaluation process. The checklist also allows them to document

interventions and communications with parents. The teachers and interventionists are key in

providing evidence related to the student’s suspected disability.

Using a student evaluation process that involves RTI tends to involve more collaboration and less

independent testing. When changing to an RTI approach to determine the presence of an SLD, student

evaluation personnel should also consider necessary changes to the type of student data collected

and procedures for obtaining it. These changes should be discussed with campus administrators and

teachers.

DOCUMENTATION FOR THE ARD COMMITTEE’S DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY

Procedures for using RTI data to inform an ARD Committee’s disability determination vary from LEA to

LEA. To determine that a student has a specific learning disability and needs specialized instruction,

ARD Committees may want to consider information about the intervention instruction provided to

answer these questions:

• How did the intervention instruction address the student’s needs?• What was the length and frequency of the intervention sessions?• What was the duration of the intervention?

IDEA 2004 regulations clearly identify the data the ARD Committee must consider when a disability

is suspected in a student who has received intervention. When the student has “…participated in a

process that assesses the child’s response to intervention…” the ARD Committee must document its

considerations of “…the instructional strategies used and the student-centered data collected; and

the documentation that the child’s parents were notified about the nature of the data to be collected

and the general education services that would be provided, strategies for increasing the child’s rate

of learning, and the parents’ right to request an evaluation“ [34 CFR §300.311(a)(7)(i-ii)]. In schools

using RTI, student evaluation personnel have the tasks of organizing existing data, describing how the

intervention program/strategies matched the student’s needs, analyzing progress monitoring data to

describe the student’s response to the intervention, conducting additional student assessments, and

observing the student. The FIE report data contributes essential information that the ARD Committee

can use to determine the presence of the SLD.



25

If the ARD Committee determines that a student has a specific learning disability, intervention

information can inform its development of the student’s Individual Education Program (IEP).

Finally, the information and tools provided in this resource guide are designed to support student

evaluation personnel who work in Texas schools that are implementing RTI. Letters from the U.S.

Department of Education on topics related to RTI implementation are included as a resource, and

blank copies of all forms are provided in the Tools section at the end. Please visit

http://buildingRTI.utexas.org for additional information.



26



27

IDEA 2004 identifies three methods for determining the presence of a specific learning disability:

1) Documentation of the student’s response to a scientific intervention, 2) a pattern of strengths and

weaknesses or IQ-performance discrepancy, and 3) other alternative research-based procedures. [34

CFR §300.307 (a)(1-3)].

IDEA 2004 refers to requirements regarding RTI in the determination of SLD in three sections under

“Additional Procedures for Identifying Children with Specific Learning Disability” (34 CFR §300.307,

§300.309, and §300.311). First, the State “must not require the use of a severe discrepancy between

intellectual ability and achievement for determining whether a child has a specific learning disability,

and must permit the use of a process based on the child’s response to scientific and research-based

intervention [34 CFR §300.307 (a)(1 & 2); emphasis added]. Texas schools choose the procedures they

use for SLD determination.

Next, IDEA 2004 identifies areas of learning disabilities as “oral expression, listening comprehension,

written expression, basic reading skill, reading fluency skills, reading comprehension, mathematics

calculation, and mathematic problem solving” [34 CFR §300.309 (a)(1)]. It goes on to state “the child

does not make sufficient progress to meet age or State-approved grade-level standards in one or

more of the areas…when using a process based on the child’s response to scientific, research-based

intervention” [34 CFR §300.309 (a)(2)].

Finally, the requirements for §300.311, “Specific Documentation for the Eligibility Determination,”

reiterate the above requirements. The ARD Committee must state the basis for making its

determination, including ”the relevant behavior, if any, noted during the observation of the child

and the relationship of that behavior to the child’s academic functioning. Whether the child does

not achieve adequately for the child’s age or to meet State-approved grade-level standards…

or [emphasis added] 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…” [34 CFR ¢300.311 (a)(1-5)]. The regulations further state that the ARD Committee

must document “if the child has participated in a process that assesses the child’s response to

IDEA 2004 RegulationsRELATED TO THE RTI APPROACH FOR

SLD DETERMINATION



28

scientific, research-based intervention—the instructional strategies used and the student-centered

data collected, and the documentation that the child’s parents were notified about…strategies

for increasing the child’s rate of learning and the parent’s right to request an evaluation” [34 CFR

§300.311(a)(1-7)].

It should be noted that every time the IDEA 2004 regulations refer to use of RTI data, the statements

are followed by “or.” For example, when using a process based on the child’s response to scientific,

research-based intervention or 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…” [34 CFR §300.309(a)(2)(i-ii); emphasis added]. By referring to and allowing

these two models (and the third, “alternative” method) for evaluating for specific learning disabilities,

IDEA 2004 acknowledged the debate swirling around these models at the time. Since IDEA 2004

was passed, evidence has not supported the efficacy of the IQ-achievement discrepancy model to

determine the presence of a learning disability. Its reliability and validity data indicate this approach

does not accurately identify students with learning disabilities (Fletcher & Miciak, 2017).



29

References and Resources



30

Assistance to States for the Education of Children with Disabilities and Preschool Grants for Children with Disabilities, Final Rule, 71 Fed. Reg. 46540-46845 (Aug. 14, 2006). Print.

Fletcher, J. M., & Miciak, J. (2017). The identification of specific learning disabilities: A summary of research on best practices (Final Report, Supplement to the Texas Center for Learning Disabilities). Houston, TX: Author.

Friedman, E. K. (2010). Secondary prevention in an RTI Model: A step toward academic recovery. The Reading Teacher, 64(3), 207-210.

Fuchs, D. ,& Fuchs, L. S. (2006). Introduction to response to intervention: What, why, and how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1), 93-99.

Gresham, F. (2002). Responsiveness to intervention: An alternative approach to the identification of learning disabilities. In R. Bradley, L. Danielson, & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Hale, J., Alfonso, V., Berninger, V., Bracken, B., Christo, C., Clark, E., ... Yalof, J. (2010). Critical issues in response-to-intervention, comprehensive evaluation, and specific learning disabilities identification and intervention: An expert white paper consensus. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 33, 223-235.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, 20 U.S.C §1400 (2004).

Lyon, G. R., Fletcher, J. M., Shaywitz, S. E., Shaywitz, B. A., Torgesen, J. K., Wood, F. B., ... Olson, R. (2001). Rethinking learning disabilities. In C. E. Finn, Jr., R. A. J. Rotherham, & C. R. Hokanson, Jr. (Eds.), Rethinking special education for a new century (pp. 259-287). Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation and Progressive Policy Institute.

Mellard, D. (2004). Understanding responsiveness to intervention in learning disabilities determination. Retrieved from http://www.nrcld.org/about/publications/papers/mellard.pdf

National Association of State Directors of Special Education. (2005). Response to intervention: Policy considerations and implementation. Alexandria, VA: Author.

National Center on Response to Intervention. (2010). Essential components of RTI – A closer look at response to intervention. Retrieved from https://rti4success.org/essential-components-rti

Office of Special Education Programs. (2008, July 28). Guidance: Coordinated Early Intervening Services (CEIS) under Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/ceistoc.html

References

http://www.nrcld.org/about/publications/papers/mellard.pdf

https://rti4success.org/essential-components-rti

https://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/ceistoc.html



31

Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Programs. (2008). Memorandum to chief state school officers: Coordinated early intervening services (CEIS) under Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/ceis-guidance.pdf

Stephens, T. L., Kinnison, L., Naquin, G., & Rueter, J. A. (2007). The changing roles for educational diagnosticians with a response-to-intervention framework in the identification of students with learning disabilities. The DiaLog, 36(2), 16-20.

Texas Education Agency. (2008). Special Education rules and regulations. Retrieved from www.tea.state.tx.us/special.ed/rules/sbs.html

Texas Education Agency. (2015). IDEA-B Coordinated Early Intervening Services (CEIS) Guidance Handbook Version 2.0 (05/2015). Retrieved on May 2, 2018 from https://tea.texas.gov/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=25769807066

Texas Education Agency. (2017). Request for application: Program guidelines 2017-2018 Special Education consolidated grant application authorized by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Application closing time August 25, 2017. Austin, TX: Author.

Texas Education Agency. (2018a). Disproportionate representation and significant disproportionality.Retrieved from https://tea.texas.gov/index2.aspx?id=2147497587

Texas Education Agency. (2018b). Requirements of Coordinated Early Intervening Services. Retrieved from https://tea.texas.gov/Academics/Special_Student_Populations/Special_Education/Programs_and_Services/Special_Education_Funding/Requirements_of_Coordinated_Early_Intervening_Services/

Texas Education Agency. (2018c). Response to Intervention. SB 1163: Frequently asked questions. Retrieved from https://tea.texas.gov/Academics/Special_Student_Populations/Special_Education/Programs_and_Services/Response_to_Intervention/

Texas Education Agency. (2018d). Special Education strategic plan, April, 23, 2018. Retrieved from https://tea.texas.gov/TexasSPED/

Texas Health and Human Services Commission (2018). Early Childhood Intervention (ECI) Services. Retrieved from https://hhs.texas.gov/services/disability/early-childhood-intervention-services

U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP). (2006). Leadership conference, August 28-30, 2006.

U.S. Department of Education. (2016). Non-regulatory guidance: Using evidence to strengthen education investments. 81 Federal Register 86076. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/guidanceuseseinvestment.pdf

https://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/ceis-guidance.pdf

www.tea.state.tx.us/special.ed/rules/sbs.html

www.tea.state.tx.us/special.ed/rules/sbs.html

https://tea.texas.gov/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=25769807066

https://tea.texas.gov/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=25769807066

https://tea.texas.gov/index2.aspx?id=2147497587

https://tea.texas.gov/Academics/Special_Student_Populations/Special_Education/Programs_and_Services/Special_Education_Funding/Requirements_of_Coordinated_Early_Intervening_Services/

https://tea.texas.gov/Academics/Special_Student_Populations/Special_Education/Programs_and_Services/Special_Education_Funding/Requirements_of_Coordinated_Early_Intervening_Services/

https://tea.texas.gov/Academics/Special_Student_Populations/Special_Education/Programs_and_Services/Response_to_Intervention/

https://tea.texas.gov/Academics/Special_Student_Populations/Special_Education/Programs_and_Services/Response_to_Intervention/

https://tea.texas.gov/TexasSPED/

https://tea.texas.gov/TexasSPED/

https://hhs.texas.gov/services/disability/early-childhood-intervention-services

https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/guidanceuseseinvestment.pdf

https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/guidanceuseseinvestment.pdf



32

Vaughn, S., Fletcher, J. M., Francis, D., Denton, C. A., Wanzek, J., Wexler, J., ... Romain, M. A. (2008). Response to intervention with older students with reading difficulties. Learning and Individual Differences, 18, 338-345.

Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., & Hickman, P. (2003). Response to instruction as a means of identifying students with reading/learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 69(4), 391-409.

Wixson, K. K. & Valencia, S. W. (2011). Assessment in RTI: What teachers and specialists need to know. Reading Teacher, 64(6), 466-469.

WEBSITES

Building Capacity for RTI implementation in Texas Schools. http://buildingRTI.utexas.org

Center on Instruction. www.centeroninstruction.org

ESC Region 20: Facilitated Individualized Education Program (FIEP) https://www.esc20.net/page/ci_se.FIEP Standards-based IEP Training. http://portal.esc20.net/portal/page/portal/esc20public/SpecialEducation/AGCHome/AGCStatewideLeadership

Florida Center for Reading Research. http://www.fcrr.org/

Meadows Center for Preventing Educational Risk at the University of Texas at Austin. http://www.meadowscenter.org

National Center on Response to Intervention. http://www.RTI4success.org

Texas Center for Learning Disabilities. https://www.texasldcenter.org/

Texas Education Agency. RTI information. http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index2.aspx?id=2147500224. Standards-based Individualized Education Program Guidance. https://tea.texas.gov/index2.aspx?id=2147494485

What Works Clearinghouse: Students with learning disabilities. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/ReferenceResources/sld_protocol_v2.2.pdf

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Fletcher, J. M., Lyon, G. R., Barnes, M., Stuebing, K. K., Francis, D. J., Olson, R. K., ... Shaywitz, B. E. (2002). Classification of learning disabilities: An evidence-based evaluation. In R. Bradley, L. Danielson, & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp. 185-250). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Resources

http://buildingRTI.utexas.org

www.centeroninstruction.org

http://portal.esc20.net/portal/page/portal/esc20public/SpecialEducation/AGCHome/AGCStatewideLeadership

http://portal.esc20.net/portal/page/portal/esc20public/SpecialEducation/AGCHome/AGCStatewideLeadership

http://www.fcrr.org/

http://www.meadowscenter.org

http://www.RTI4success.org

https://www.texasldcenter.org/

http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index2.aspx?id=2147500224



33

Fletcher, J. M., Stuebing, K. K., Barth, A. E., Denton, C. A., Cirino, P. T., Francis, D. J., & Vaughn, S. (2011). Cognitive correlates of inadequate response to reading intervention. School Psychology Review, 40(1), 3-22.

Gersten, R., Jordan, N. C., & Flojo, J. R. (2005). Early identification and interventions for students with mathematics difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(4), 293-304.

Jenkins, J. R. & O’Connor, R. (2002). Early identification and intervention for young children with reading/learning disabilities. In R. Bradley, L. Danielson, & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.). Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

National High School Center, National Center on Response to Intervention, and Center on Instruction. (2010). Tiered interventions in high schools: Using preliminary “lessons learned” to guide ongoing discussion. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.

Torgesen, J. K. (2006). Intensive reading interventions for struggling readers in early elementary school: A principal’s guide. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction.



34

Letters from the U. S. Department of Education and

the Texas Education Agency



35



36



37



39



40



41



42



43



44



45



46



47



48



49



50 t



51



52



53



54



55



56



57



58



59



60



61



62



63



64



65



66



67



68



69



70



71



72



73



74



75



76



77



78



79



80



81



82

FEDERAL RESOURCES

**This document includes links to Web sites and information created and maintained by public and

private organizations other than the U.S. Department of Education. This information is provided for

the reader’s convenience. The U.S. Department of Education does not guarantee the accuracy of the

information contained at these Web sites, and does not endorse any views expressed, or products or

services offered.

U S. Department of Education

U. S. Department of Education. (2004). Education for Homeless Children and Youth Program: Title VJJ-B

of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act Non Regulatory Guidance. Retrieved from

http://www2.ed.gov/programs/homeless/guidance.pdf

U.S. Department of Education. (2012). Dear Colleague Letter from the Education Secretary-Military

Connected Families -April 24, 2012. Retrieved from

http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/secletter/120424.html

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education. (2012). Serving

Preschool Children Under Title L Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965- Non-

Regulatory Guidance. Retrieved from

http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/preschoolguidance2012.pdf

U.S. Department of Education. (2011). Questions and Answers On Individualized Education Programs

(IEP’s), Evaluations, and Reevaluations. Retrieved from https://www.iu1.org/files/services/lea/

sessions/2015-11/Q%20&%20A%20on%20IEPs,%20ERs,%20RRs.pdf

U.S. Department of Education. (2008). Questions and Answers on Special Education and Homelessness.

Retrieved from https://sites.ed.gov/idea/files/QA_on_Special_Education_and_Homelessness_512.pdf

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Office of Migrant

Education, http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oese/ome/aboutus.html

Resources



http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/secletter/120424.html

http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/preschoolguidance2012.pdf

https://www.iu1.org/files/services/lea/sessions/2015-11/Q%20&%20A%20on%20IEPs,%20ERs,%20RRs.pdf

https://www.iu1.org/files/services/lea/sessions/2015-11/Q%20&%20A%20on%20IEPs,%20ERs,%20RRs.pdf

https://sites.ed.gov/idea/files/QA_on_Special_Education_and_Homelessness_512.pdf

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oese/ome/aboutus.html



83

ResourcesU.S. Department of Education. (2011). OSEP 11-07 Response to Intervention (RTI) Memo - January 21,

2011. Retrieved from

https://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/memosdcltrs/osep11-07rtimemo.pdf

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of

Head Start, https://www.acf.hhs.gov/ohs

Other Helpful Resources

Homeless Children and Youth

National Center for Homeless Education at the SERVE Center, http://center.serve.org/nche/

Military Connected Families with Children with Disabilities

Military Child Education Coalition, www.militarychild.org/

Specialized Training for Military Families (STOMP), www.stompproject.blogspot.com

Children in Foster Care with Disabilities

National Resource Center for Permanency and Family Connections, www.fosteringconnections.org

Instructional Support

National Center on Response to Intervention, http://www.RTI4success.org

Parent Support

Parent Center Listing, www.parentcenternetwork.org/parentcenterlisting.html

https://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/memosdcltrs/osep11-07rtimemo.pdf

https://www.acf.hhs.gov/ohs

http://center.serve.org/nche/

www.militarychild.org/

www.stompproject.blogspot.com

www.fosteringconnections.org

http://www.RTI4success.org

www.parentcenternetwork.org/parentcenterlisting.html



84

400 MARYLAND AVE., S.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20202-2600 www.ed.gov

The Department of Education’s mission is to promote student achievement and preparedness for global competiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES

THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY

October 23, 2015

Dear Colleague:

Ensuring a high-quality education for children with specific learning disabilities is a critical responsibility for all of us. I write today to focus particularly on the unique educational needs of children with dyslexia, dyscalculia, and dysgraphia, which are conditions that could qualify a child as a child with a specific learning disability under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services (OSERS) has received communications from stakeholders, including parents, advocacy groups, and national disability organizations, who believe that State and local educational agencies (SEAs and LEAs) are reluctant to reference or use dyslexia, dyscalculia, and dysgraphia in evaluations, eligibility determinations, or in developing the individualized education program (IEP) under the IDEA. The purpose of this letter is to clarify that there is nothing in the IDEA that would prohibit the use of the terms dyslexia, dyscalculia, and dysgraphia in IDEA evaluation, eligibility determinations, or IEP documents.

Under the IDEA and its implementing regulations “specific learning disability” is defined, in part, as “a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, that may manifest itself in the imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or to do mathematical calculations, including conditions such as perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia.” See 20 U.S.C. §1401(30) and 34 CFR §300.8(c)(10) (emphasis added). While our implementing regulations contain a list of conditions under the definition “specific learning disability,” which includes dyslexia, the list is not exhaustive. However, regardless of whether a child has dyslexia or any other condition explicitly included in this definition of “specific learning disability,” or has a condition such as dyscalculia or dysgraphia not listed expressly in the definition, the LEA must conduct an evaluation in accordance with 34 CFR §§300.304-300.311 to determine whether that child meets the criteria for specific learning disability or any of the other disabilities listed in 34 CFR §300.8, which implements IDEA’s definition of “child with a disability.”

For those students who may need additional academic and behavioral supports to succeed in a general education environment, schools may choose to implement a multi-tiered system of supports (MTSS), such as response to intervention (RTI) or positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS). MTSS is a schoolwide approach that addresses the needs of all students, including struggling learners and students with disabilities, and integrates assessment and intervention within a multi-level instructional and behavioral system to maximize student achievement and reduce problem behaviors.

MTSS, which includes scientific, research-based interventions, also may be used to identify children suspected of having a specific learning disability. With a multi-tiered instructional



85

Page 2 – Dear Colleague: Dyslexia Guidance

framework, schools identify students at risk for poor learning outcomes, including those who may have dyslexia, dyscalculia, or dysgraphia; monitor their progress; provide evidence-based interventions; and adjust the intensity and nature of those interventions depending on a student’s responsiveness. Children who do not, or minimally, respond to interventions must be referred for an evaluation to determine if they are eligible for special education and related services (34 CFR §300.309(c)(1)); and those children who simply need intense short-term interventions may continue to receive those interventions. OSERS reminds SEAs and LEAs about previous guidance regarding the use of MTSS, including RTI, and timely evaluations,1 specifically that a parent may request an initial evaluation at any time to determine if a child is a child with a disability under IDEA (34 CFR §300.301(b)), and the use of MTSS, such as RTI, may not be used to delay or deny a full and individual evaluation under 34 CFR §§300.304-300.311 of a child suspected of having a disability.

In determining whether a child has a disability under the IDEA, including a specific learning disability, and is eligible to receive special education and related services because of that disability, the LEA must conduct a comprehensive evaluation under §300.304, which requires the use of a variety of assessment tools and strategies to gather relevant functional, developmental, and academic information about the child. This information, which includes information provided by the parent, may assist in determining: 1) whether the child is a child with a disability; and 2) the content of the child’s IEP to enable the child to be involved in, and make progress in, the general education curriculum. 34 CFR §300.304(b)(1). Therefore, information about the child’s learning difficulties, including the presenting difficulties related to reading, mathematics, or writing, is important in determining the nature and extent of the child’s disability and educational needs. In addition, other criteria are applicable in determining whether a child has a specific learning disability. For example, the team determining eligibility considers whether the child is not achieving adequately for the child’s age or to meet State-approved grade-level standards when provided with learning experiences and instruction appropriate for the child’s age or the relevant State standards in areas related to reading, mathematics, and written expression. The team also must determine that the child’s underachievement is not due to lack of appropriate instruction in reading or mathematics. 34 CFR §300.309(a)(1) and (b). Section 300.311 contains requirements for specific documentation of the child’s eligibility determination as a child with a specific learning disability, and includes documentation of the information described above. Therefore, there could be situations where the child’s parents and the team of qualified professionals responsible for determining whether the child has a specific learning disability would find it helpful to include information about the specific condition (e.g., dyslexia, dyscalculia, or dysgraphia) in documenting how that condition relates to the child’s eligibility determination. 34 CFR §§300.306(a)(1), (c)(1) and 300.308.

1 See OSEP Memo 11-07 (January 21, 2011) available at: www.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/memosdcltrs/osep11-07rtimemo.pdf Under 34 CFR §300.307(a)(2)-(3), as part of their criteria for determining whether a child has a specific learning disability, States must permit the use of a process based on the child’s response to scientific, research-based intervention, and may permit the use of other alternative research-based procedures in making this determination.



86


Stakeholders also requested that SEAs and LEAs have policies in place that allow for the use of the terms dyslexia, dyscalculia, and dysgraphia on a child’s IEP, if a child’s comprehensive evaluation supports use of these terms. There is nothing in the IDEA or our implementing regulations that prohibits the inclusion of the condition that is the basis for the child’s disability determination in the child’s IEP. In addition, the IEP must address the child’s needs resulting from the child’s disability to enable the child to advance appropriately towards attaining his or her annual IEP goals and to enable the child to be involved in, and make progress in, the general education curriculum. 34 CFR §§300.320(a)(1), (2), and (4). Therefore, if a child’s dyslexia, dyscalculia, or dysgraphia is the condition that forms the basis for the determination that a child has a specific learning disability, OSERS believes that there could be situations where an IEP Team could determine that personnel responsible for IEP implementation would need to know about the condition underlying the child’s disability (e.g., that a child has a weakness in decoding skills as a result of the child’s dyslexia). Under 34 CFR §300.323(d), a child’s IEP must be accessible to the regular education teacher and any other school personnel responsible for its implementation, and these personnel must be informed of their specific responsibilities related to implementing the IEP and the specific accommodations, modifications, and supports that must be provided for the child in accordance with the IEP. Therefore, OSERS reiterates that there is nothing in the IDEA or our implementing regulations that would prohibit IEP Teams from referencing or using dyslexia, dyscalculia, or dysgraphia in a child’s IEP.

Stakeholders requested that OSERS provide SEAs and LEAs with a comprehensive guide to commonly used accommodations2 in the classroom for students with specific learning disabilities, including dyslexia, dyscalculia, and dysgraphia. The IDEA does not dictate the services or accommodations to be provided to individual children based solely on the disability category in which the child has been classified, or the specific condition underlying the child’s disability classification. The Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) funds a large network of technical assistance centers that develop materials and resources to support States, school districts, schools, and teachers to improve the provision of services to children with disabilities, including materials on the use of accommodations. The U.S. Department of Education does not mandate the use of, or endorse the content of, these products, services, materials, and/or resources; however, States and LEAs may wish to seek assistance from entities such as the National Center on Intensive Intervention at: http://www.intensiveintervention.org, the Center for Parent Information and Resources available at: http://www.parentcenterhub.org, and the National Center on Accessible Educational Materials available at: http://aem.cast.org/. For a complete list of OSEP-funded technical assistance centers please see: http://ccrs.osepideasthatwork.org/.

In implementing the IDEA requirements discussed above, OSERS encourages SEAs and LEAs to consider situations where it would be appropriate to use the terms dyslexia, dyscalculia, or dysgraphia to describe and address the child’s unique, identified needs through evaluation, eligibility, and IEP documents. OSERS further encourages States to review their policies, 2 Although the IDEA uses the term “accommodations” primarily in the assessment context, OSERS understands the request to refer to the various components of a free appropriate public education, including special education, related services, supplementary aids and services, and program modifications or supports for school personnel, as well as accommodations for students taking assessments.



87


procedures, and practices to ensure that they do not prohibit the use of the terms dyslexia, dyscalculia, and dysgraphia in evaluations, eligibility, and IEP documents. Finally, in ensuring the provision of free appropriate public education, OSERS encourages SEAs to remind their LEAs of the importance of addressing the unique educational needs of children with specific learning disabilities resulting from dyslexia, dyscalculia, and dysgraphia during IEP Team meetings and other meetings with parents under IDEA.

I hope this clarification is helpful to both parents and practitioners in ensuring a high-quality education for children with specific learning disabilities, including children with dyslexia, dyscalculia, and dysgraphia. If you have additional questions or comments, please email them to [email protected].

Sincerely,

/s/

Michael K. Yudin



88



89



90



91

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES

August 22, 2016

Perry Zirkel, Ph.D., JDUniversity Professor of Education and LawLehigh UniversityMountaintop Campus111 Research DriveBethlehem, Pennsylvania 18015-4794

Dear Dr. Zirkel:

This letter responds to your electronic mail (email) correspondence to Melody Musgrove, former Director, Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), U.S. Department of Education (Department), and subsequently forwarded to me for response. In your emails, you asked several questions about the implementation of certain provisions of Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). We regret the delay in responding. Our answers to the specific questions raised in your correspondence are provided below.

Question: Is an expedited due process hearing mandatory when a due process complaint is submitted pursuant to 34 CFR §300.532(a), or may a parent or local educational agency (LEA) request that a hearing pursuant to 34 CFR §300.532(a) not be subject to the expedited due process timeline? May the parties waive, via mutual agreement, the “opportunity” for an expedited hearing in a case that fits within the subject matter of 34 CFR §300.532(c)?

Answer: OSEP stated in Letter to Snyder (December 13, 2015), that there is no provision in the IDEA Part B regulations that would give a hearing officer conducting an expedited due process hearing the authority to extend the timeline for issuing this determination at the request of a party to the expedited due process hearing. Under 34 CFR §300.532(c)(4), a State may establish different procedural rules for expedited due process hearings than it has established for other due process hearings, but except for the timelines in 34 CFR §300.532(c)(3), those rules must be consistent with 34 CFR §§300.510-300.514. See Question E-7 of the Questions and Answers on IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Procedures (Q&A).1 I have enclosed a copy of Letter to Snyder for your convenience. A copy of this letter is also posted on the Department’s web site: http://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/memosdcltrs/15-012744-ca-snyder-exdueprocess-clearance.pdf. Finally, there is no provision in the IDEA Part B regulations that permits the parties to a due process complaint that involves the disciplinary issues in 34 CFR §300.532(c) to waive the timelines in 34 CFR §300.532(c)(4).

1 Questions and Answers on IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Procedures can be found at: http://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/memosdcltrs/acccombinedosersdisputeresolutionqafinalmemo-7-23-13.pdf.

400 MARYLAND AVE., S.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20202-2600www.ed.gov

The Department of Education’s mission is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.



92

We note that your correspondence also included a question concerning Illinois’ State regulation pertaining to expedited due process hearing requests. Without further information, OSEP is unable to determine whether the regulation is consistent with the IDEA. As a result of the concern you raised, OSEP will follow-up with the Illinois State Board of Education to address this matter.

Question: Based on the growing body of research and experience related to Response to Intervention (RTI), does OSEP extend legal recognition to fidelity (sometimes alternatively referred to as integrity), as an additional distinguishing and necessary core characteristic that a few States have expressly included in their RTI laws?

Answer: The regulations implementing the 2004 Amendments to the IDEA include a provision mandating that States allow, as part of their criteria for determining whether a child has aspecific learning disability (SLD), the use of a process based on the child’s response to scientific, research-based intervention. See 34 CFR §300.307(a)(2). In its January 21, 2011 Memo 11-07, AResponse to Intervention (RTI) Process Cannot Be Used to Delay-Deny an Evaluation for Eligibility under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), OSEP stated that a multi-tiered instructional framework, often referred to as RTI, is a schoolwide approach that addresses the needs of all students, including struggling learners and students with disabilities, and integrates assessment and intervention within a multi-level instructional and behavioral system to maximize student achievement and reduce problem behaviors. With a multi-tiered instructional framework, schools identify students at-risk for poor learning outcomes, monitor student progress, provide evidence-based interventions, and adjust the intensity and nature of those interventions depending on a student's responsiveness. OSEP noted that while the Department does not subscribe to a particular RTI framework, there are core characteristics that underpin all RTI models: (1) students receive high quality research-based instruction in their general education setting; (2) continuous monitoring of student performance is performed; (3) all students are screened for academic and behavioral problems; and (4) multiple levels (tiers) of instruction that are progressively more intense, based on the student's response to intervention are provided. A copy of OSEP Memo 11-07 may be viewed at:http://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/memosdcltrs/osep11-07rtimemo.pdf.

To assist State educational agencies (SEAs) and local school districts with planning and implementing RTI, OSEP provided funding to establish the National Center on Response to Intervention (Center). The Center has completed its funding cycle but continues to make its resources available to the public.2 The Center’s technical assistance documents address four essential components (i.e., core characteristics) of RTI. The Center notes that fidelity of implementation plays an integral role within the entire RTI framework at the school and classroom levels. The Center also provides a full description of the role monitoring fidelity plays in RTI in a recorded webinar.3

Neither the IDEA nor its implementing regulations identify "core characteristics" of an RTI process or address fidelity of implementation. While OSEP has provided guidance and the

2 These resources are available at: http://www.rti4success.org/resources.3 The webinar may be viewed at: http://www.rti4success.org/video/monitoring.



93

Center provides technical assistance that is designed to support SEAs and school districts in their implementation efforts, these actions should not be viewed as requiring the use of a particular RTI approach with specific core components or characteristics, to meet the requirement in 34 CFR §300.307(a)(2).

Question: Does the IDEA regulation in 34 CFR §300.600(e), which requires SEAs to assure correction of noncompliance with free appropriate public education requirements and other specified IDEA obligations within one year, apply to corrective action orders of the complaint resolution process and to the remedies in due process hearing decisions?

Answer: As part of its general supervisory responsibilities, the State must ensure that when it identifies noncompliance with the IDEA requirements by LEAs, the noncompliance is corrected as soon as possible, and in no case later than one year after the State’s identification of the noncompliance. See 34 CFR §300.600(e). With respect to implementation of State complaint decisions, OSEP has advised that the SEA must inform the public agency that is involved in the complaint of any findings of noncompliance and the required corrective action, and ensure that the corrective action is completed as soon as possible, and within the timeframe specified in the SEA’s written decision, and in no case later than one year of the State’s identification of the noncompliance. See Q&A, Question B-31.

The one-year timeline for the correction of noncompliance in 34 CFR §300.600(e) is not intended to limit an SEA’s authority or flexibility to determine the appropriate remedy or corrective action necessary to resolve a complaint in which the SEA has found that the public agency has failed to provide appropriate services to a child or group of children with disabilities. We recognize that in some circumstances providing the remedy ordered in the SEA’s complaint decision could take more than one year to complete (e.g., the SEA orders an action, such as compensatory services, the provision of which, will extend beyond one year; the corrective action timeline is extended because the parent or adult student fails to take action that is essential to implementation of the SEA’s decision; the parties mutually agree to extend the timeline for implementation).

Likewise, with due process hearing decisions, OSEP has advised that hearing decisions must be implemented within the timeframe prescribed by the hearing officer, or if there is no timeframe prescribed by the hearing officer, within a reasonable timeframe set by the State as required by 34 CFR §§300.511-300.514. The SEA, pursuant to its general supervisory responsibility under 34 CFR §§300.149 and 300.600, must ensure that the public agency involved in the due process hearing implements the hearing officer’s decision in a timely manner, unless either party appeals the decision. See Q&A, Question C-26.

In OSEP’s Letter to Voigt (June 2, 2014), we stated:

While the IDEA does not specifically address State-established timelines for implementation of final administrative decisions, we would expect that all final due process decisions are implemented within a reasonable period of time and without undue delay so that a child with a disability receives the services determined necessary to provide that child with the free appropriate public education to which he or she is entitled, but has been denied, under the IDEA.



94

These determinations are highly factual in nature; therefore, we believe that what constitutes a “reasonable period of time” depends in part on the circumstances surrounding the decision.

A copy of this letter is enclosed for your convenience and may be viewed at: http://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/memosdcltrs/acc-11-020700r-pa-voigt-dueprocesshearingdecisions.pdf.

If circumstances surrounding implementation of the State complaint decision or hearing decision require more than one year to carry out, the SEA must, consistent with its general supervisory authority, continue to follow-up to ensure implementation of the decision, even after the one-year timeline ends.

Based on section 607(e) of the IDEA, we are informing you that our response is provided as informal guidance and is not legally binding, but represents an interpretation by the Department of the IDEA in the context of the specific facts presented.

If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Lisa Pagano at 202-245-7413or by email at [email protected].

Sincerely,

/s/

Ruth E. RyderActing DirectorOffice of Special Education Programs

Enclosures



95

February 26, 2018 TO THE ADMINISTRATOR ADDRESSED: SUBJECT: Responsibilities and Timelines Regarding Parent Requests for Special Education Evaluations under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the Texas Education Code (TEC), and the Texas Administrative Code (TAC). In late 2016, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) initiated visits to Texas to learn about referral, child find, and evaluation practices within the state’s special education system. On January 11, 2018, OSEP released a final monitoring report detailing its findings.1 The purpose of this letter is to:

1. Provide a brief overview of OSEP’s findings 2. Articulate and confirm obligations mandated under IDEA 3. Provide information related to TEA’s next steps

We encourage all local educational agencies (LEAs) to review OSEP’s findings and consider the potential implications for their communities. OSEP’s Findings Federal officials examined special education enrollment data, held five listening sessions with diverse stakeholders, and conducted twelve on-site district visits. As a result, OSEP identified three areas of noncompliance under IDEA.2

1. “TEA failed to ensure that all children with disabilities residing in the State who are in need of special education and related services were identified, located, and evaluated, regardless of the severity of their disability, as required by IDEA section 612(a)(3) and its implementing regulation at 34 C.F.R. §300.111.

2. TEA failed to ensure that [a free appropriate public education (FAPE)] was made available to all children with disabilities residing in the State in Texas’s mandated age ranges (ages 3 through 21), as required by IDEA section 612(a)(1) and its implementing regulation at 34 C.F.R. §300.101.

3. TEA failed to fulfill its general supervisory and monitoring responsibilities as required by IDEA sections 612(a)(11) and 616(a)(1)(C), and their implementing regulations at 34 C.F.R. §§300.149 and 300.600, along with 20 U.S.C. 1232d(b)(3)(A), to ensure that ISDs throughout the State properly implemented the IDEA child find and FAPE requirements.”

1 U.S. Department of Education (USED), Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), Texas Part B Monitoring Visit Letter (Jan. 11, 2018), https://www2.ed.gov/fund/data/report/idea/partbdmsrpts/dms-tx-b-2017-enclosure.pdf 2 See, Texas Part B Monitoring Visit Letter, supra, page 13.



96

Summary of LEA Responsibilities LEAs are responsible for identifying, locating, and evaluating all students who are potentially eligible for special education and related services.3 An LEA’s child find duty to seek parental consent to evaluate a child when it suspects or has reason to suspect that the child has a disability and needs special education services is an affirmative one; a parent is not required to request that the LEA identify and evaluate the child. However, a parent may request an initial evaluation at any time if the parent believes that his or her child is a child with a disability in need of special education and related services.4 If a parent submits a written request for an initial evaluation to an LEA’s director of special education services or to an LEA administrative employee, the LEA must, by the 15th school day following the date of receipt of the request, provide the parent either: 1) prior written notice of its proposal to conduct an evaluation, a copy of the Notice of Procedural Safeguards, and the opportunity to give written consent for the evaluation; or 2) prior written notice of its refusal to evaluate, including an explanation of why the LEA refuses to conduct an initial evaluation and the information that was used as the basis for the decision, as well as a copy of the Notice of Procedural Safeguards.5 If the LEA proposes to conduct an initial evaluation, the LEA must obtain written, parental consent and should promptly complete the initial evaluation report. The LEA must complete the initial evaluation report no later than the 45th school day following the date parental consent is received except in specific situations as outlined in TEC §29.004 and 19 TAC §89.1011(c) and (e). If, however, the LEA denies the request for an initial evaluation, the parent can challenge this decision by requesting a due process hearing6 or filing a state complaint7 to resolve the dispute regarding the child’s need for an evaluation, as explained in the Notice of Procedural Safeguards, which the LEA is required to provide to parents.8 A third party may also file a special education complaint9 to address the LEA’s refusal to evaluate the child for special education eligibility. A parent and an LEA may also agree to engage in no-cost mediation to attempt to resolve their dispute.10 As a reminder, it would be inconsistent with IDEA’s evaluation requirements for an LEA to reject a referral and delay provision of an initial evaluation on the basis that a child has not participated in a Response to Intervention (RtI) framework.11

3 34 CFR §300.111 4 34 CFR §300.301(b) 5 34 CFR §300.503, TEC §29.004, and 19 TAC §89.1011(b) 6 34 CRF §300.153 7 34 CFR §§300.151-153 8 34 CFR §§300.503 and 504, TEC §29.004(c), and 19 TAC §89.1011(b) 9 34 CFR §§300.151-153 10 34 CFR §300.506 11 34 CFR §§300.301 through 300.111



97

Child Find Obligations under IDEA Child Find Background12 Central to IDEA and its implementing regulations is the requirement that all states have policies and procedures in place to ensure that all children with disabilities within the state who are in need of special education and related services are identified, located, and evaluated.13 This duty, referred to as “child find,” includes children with disabilities who are:14

Homeless; Wards of the state; Attending private schools; Highly-mobile; and/or Suspected of being a child with a disability and in need of special education, even if they

are advancing from grade to grade. IDEA defines children with disabilities as those children who:

Have been properly evaluated and determined as having an intellectual disability, a hearing impairment, a speech or language impairment, a visual impairment, a serious emotional disturbance, an orthopedic impairment, autism, traumatic brain injury, an other health impairment, a specific learning disability, deaf-blindness, or multiple disabilities; and

Require special education and related services as a result of the disability.15 A child who has one of the above-mentioned disabilities is not a child with a disability under IDEA if:

the child does not require special education and related services due to the disability, or the child requires a related service only.16

An LEA’s failure to meet IDEA’s child find requirements is a serious matter that could result in denying FAPE to a child who is eligible for special education services. Furthermore, the failure to identify a child may entitle the child to compensatory education or tuition reimbursement. Dyslexia and/or Related Disorders Though the child find mandate applies to students with dyslexia and/or related disorders, OSEP found systemic IDEA violations related to this population. Dyslexia is a lifelong disability that manifests differently in individuals. The disability is generally characterized by an insufficient ability to read, spell, and link letters to sounds. Many students who struggle with dyslexia also grapple with co-occurring disorders, such as dysgraphia, dyscalculia, and ADHD. In its report, OSEP found that students with dyslexia are often evaluated and accommodated under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act regardless of students’ potential need for specialized instruction under IDEA.17 LEAs are reminded that, if a student is suspected to have dyslexia 12 TEA provided similar guidance in a Nov. 17, 2016, letter to administrators. See https://tea.texas.gov/About_TEA/News_and_Multimedia/Correspondence/TAA_Letters/Reminder_about_Important_District_Responsibilities_under_the_Individuals_with_Disabilities_Education_Act/. 13 34 CFR §300.111(a)(i). 14 34 CFR §300.111(a)(i) and (c). 15 34 CFR. §300.8. 16 34 CFR §§300.8(a)(2) and 300.306(b)(2). 17 See Texas Part B Monitoring Visit Letter, supra,, pages 10-12.



98

and/or a related disorder and a need for special education services, they must refer the student for an initial evaluation in accordance with 34 C.F.R. §§300.300-300.311. LEAs may not deny an initial evaluation or special education services to a student with dyslexia and/or related disorders because he or she does not present a second, potentially disabling condition. This spring, under the direction of the State Board of Education, TEA will partner with stakeholders to update the Dyslexia Handbook to clarify IDEA requirements as they relate to screening, evaluating, and serving students with dyslexia and/or related disorders. Response to Intervention Strategies18 As stated in the Parent’s Guide to the Admission, Review, and Dismissal Process, a child does not need to advance through each tier of an RtI system before a referral for special education is made.19 Furthermore, OSEP has advised that it would be inconsistent with the evaluation provisions of IDEA for an LEA to reject a referral and delay an initial evaluation on the basis that a student has not participated in an RtI framework.20 Once it is apparent that general education interventions are not sufficient to address a student’s difficulty in the general classroom, LEA personnel must initiate a referral.21

LEAs are reminded that parents may also request a referral at any time regardless of whether the child is receiving interventions through the RtI framework.22 OSEP has advised that, unless an LEA believes there is no reason to suspect that a child has a disability and is in need of special education services, an evaluation must be conducted within the applicable timeline.23 If, however, an LEA does not suspect that the child is a child with a disability and denies the request for an initial evaluation, the LEA must provide written notice to the child’s parents explaining why the LEA declines to conduct an initial evaluation and the information that was used as the basis for that decision.24 The parent may then challenge this decision by requesting a due process hearing under 34 CFR §300.507 or filing a complaint under 34 CFR §300.153 to resolve the dispute regarding the child’s need for an evaluation.

LEAs are also reminded that the 85th Texas Legislature passed Senate Bill (SB) 1153 to improve outcomes for struggling learners receiving services through intervention strategies, including the RtI process. Accordingly, during each school year when a child begins receiving assistance through the RtI process, LEAs must provide the child’s parents with written notice containing the following information.25

1. A reasonable description of the assistance that may be provided to the child, including any intervention strategies that may be used;

18 TEA provided similar guidance in a Nov. 17, 2016, letter to administrators. See https://tea.texas.gov/About_TEA/News_and_Multimedia/Correspondence/TAA_Letters/Reminder_about_Important_District_Responsibilities_under_the_Individuals_with_Disabilities_Education_Act/. 19 Texas Education Agency, Parent’s Guide to the Admission, Review, and Dismissal Process (April 2016): 2, https://framework.esc18.net/Documents/ARD_Guide_ENG.pdf. 20 M. Musgrove to State Directors of Special Education, OSEP Memorandum No. 11-07 (Jan. 21, 2011), https://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/memosdcltrs/osep11-07rtimemo.pdf. 21 19 TAC §89.1011(a) 22 34 CFR §300.301(b). 23 See footnote 13. 24 34 CFR §300.503(a) and (b). 25 TEC §26.0081(d).



99

2. Information collected regarding any interventions in the base tier of a multi-tiered system of supports that has previously been used with the child;

3. An estimate of the duration for which the assistance, including through the use of intervention strategies, will be provided;

4. The estimated time frames within which a report on the child’s progress with the assistance, including any intervention strategies used, will be provided to the parent; and

5. Information about the parent’s right to request, among other things, a special education evaluation at any time.

The notice must be written in English or, to the extent practicable, the parent's native language. TEA developed a model notice that LEAs may use to fulfill the law’s requirements. The notice, an updated Student Handbook Statement for providing assistance to students who have learning difficulties or who need or may need special education, and a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) document on SB 1153, can be found on TEA’s website at https://tea.texas.gov/Academics/Special_Student_Populations/Special_Education/Programs_and_Services/Response_to_Intervention/. Minimum Records Retention Periods LEAs are subject to mandatory minimum retention periods for various records. For example, LEAs are required to retain special education records for at least five years per Local Schedule SD (revised 2d ed.) under 13 Tex. Admin. Code Chapter 7, Subchapter D. LEAs are reminded that these are minimum state requirements. While the corrective action plan is developed, it is prudent for LEAs to consider whether the records of certain students should continue to be retained. Preserving records beyond the minimum retention period for students who potentially needed services and either have not yet received them or received them on a delayed basis will likely assist in fulfilling the corrective action plan upon final adoption. TEA Next Steps TEA will finalize a corrective action plan in April 2018. As outlined in its letter to TEA, OSEP must receive the following in the plan.26

1. “Documentation that the State’s system of general supervision requires that each ISD identifies, locates, and evaluates all children suspected of having a disability who need special education and related services, in accordance with section 612(a)(3) of the IDEA and its implementing regulation at 34 C.F.R. §300.111, and makes FAPE available to all eligible children with disabilities in accordance with section 612(a)(1) of the IDEA and its implementing regulation at 34 C.F.R. §300.101.

2. A plan and timeline by which TEA will ensure that each [LEA] will a. Identify, locate, and evaluate children enrolled in the [LEA] who should have

been referred for an initial evaluation under the IDEA; and b. Require individualized education program (IEP) Teams to consider, on an

individual basis, whether additional services are needed for children previously suspected of having a disability who should have been referred for an initial evaluation and were later found eligible for special education and related services under the IDEA, taking into consideration supports and services previously provided to the child.

26 See Texas Part B Monitoring Visit Letter, supra, page 14.



100

3. A plan and timeline by which TEA will provide guidance to [LEAs] in the State, including all general and special education teachers, necessary to ensure that [LEAs]

a. Ensure that supports provided to struggling learners in the general education environment through RtI, Section 504, and the State’s dyslexia program are not used to delay or deny a child’s right to an initial evaluation for special education and related services under the IDEA;

b. Are provided information to share with the parents of children suspected of having a disability that describes the differences between RtI, the State dyslexia program, Section 504, and the IDEA, including how and when school staff and parents of children suspected of having a disability may request interventions and/or services under these programs; and

c. Disseminate such information to staff and the parents of children suspected of having a disability enrolled in the [LEA’s] schools, consistent with 34 C.F.R. §300.503(c).

4. A plan and timeline by which TEA will monitor [LEAs’] implementation of the IDEA requirements described above when struggling learners suspected of having a disability and needing special education and related services under the IDEA are receiving services and supports through RtI, Section 504, and the State’s dyslexia program.”

The corrective action plan submitted to OSEP will describe actions TEA will take to meet the requirements listed above. Ongoing Feedback Opportunities There have been and continue to be ongoing opportunities for all stakeholders to provide feedback on the corrective action plan and on the larger strategic vision for special education. These include:

On January 18, 2018, TEA submitted a draft corrective action plan to Governor Abbott.27 Over 100 stakeholder meetings were scheduled throughout the month of February in

each of the twenty established regions in the state at both Education Service Centers (ESCs) and at LEAs.

Stakeholders had the opportunity to provide feedback on the initial draft in an online survey through February 20, 2018.

Stakeholders have the opportunity to provide ongoing feedback through the official email address: [email protected].

On or about March 5, 2018, TEA will release its proposed corrective action plan as part of the SPED Strategic Plan.

Stakeholders may provide feedback on the proposed plan during an additional comments period, which will run through March 31, 2018. Feedback during this period should be submitted to TEA in writing using the email address noted above.

In April, TEA will submit its final corrective action plan to OSEP and will also publish a Special Education Strategic Plan.

For information about how TEA is engaging parents, educators, administrators, school boards, and other stakeholders in the plan’s development, see page 13 of TEA’s initial draft corrective action plan and/or visit the website at www.tea.texas.gov/TexasSPED/.

27 Texas Education Agency, TEA Proposed Initial Draft Plan: U.S. Department of Education Corrective Action Plan Request (Jan. 18, 2018): https://tea.texas.gov/texassped/.



101

Questions regarding this information should be directed to TEA’s Department of Special Populations, Division of Special Education: Phone: 512-463-9414 Email: [email protected] Thank you for your attention to this critical work and for our shared commitment to serving and supporting students in the state of Texas. Sincerely, Penny Schwinn Chief Deputy Commissioner, Academics



102

400 MARYLAND AVE., S.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20202-2600www.ed.gov

The Department of Education’s mission is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES

May 10, 2018

Perry A. Zirkel, Ph.D., J.D.University Professor of Education and LawLehigh UniversityDepartment of Education and Human Services111 Research DriveBethlehem, Pennsylvania 18015-4793

Dear Dr. Zirkel:

This letter is in response to your electronic mail (email) addressed to Melody Musgrove, former Director, Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), U.S. Department of Education (Department), requesting clarification regarding the regulation in 34 CFR §300.309(b)(2). You have asked that OSEP clarify the requirements for evaluating a child suspected of having a specific learning disability (SLD) to determine whether the child is eligible to receive special education and related services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Specifically, you asked, “[i]f, in a [S]tate that does not mandate [response to intervention] RTI as the approach for SLD identification, a district uses the severe discrepancy approach withoutcollecting any RTI data, does the district meet this consideration requirement [in 34 CFR §300.309(b)(2)] by relying [on] a variety of other sources of evaluative information or, instead, must the district collect continuous progress monitoring data for consideration by the [individualized education program] IEP [T]eam?” We apologize for the delay in providing this response.

We note that section 607(d) of IDEA prohibits the Secretary from issuing policy letters or other statements that establish a rule that is required for compliance with, and eligibility under, IDEA without following the rulemaking requirements of section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act. Therefore, based on the requirements of IDEA section 607(e), this response is provided as informal guidance and is not legally binding. This response represents an interpretation by the Department of the requirements of IDEA in the context of the specific facts presented, and does not establish a policy or rule that would apply in all circumstances.

As you are aware, States have discretion to allow their local educational agencies (LEAs) to use multiple methods for determining SLD eligibility, so long as the methods are consistent with IDEA Part B. Section 300.307(b) makes clear that LEAs must use the State criteria adopted pursuant to 34 CFR §300.307(a) in making SLD eligibility determinations. Under 34 CFR §300.307(a), States must adopt SLD eligibility criteria that are consistent with 34 CFR §300.309and that meet the minimum requirements prescribed in §300.307(a)(1), (2), and (3). Therefore, as long as the SLD eligibility criteria adopted by a State meet these minimum requirements, the



103

State has the discretion to provide flexibility for its LEAs to use more than one method for determining SLD eligibility.1

If a school district uses a severe discrepancy model for determining whether a child has an SLD, it is not required to implement an RTI process to meet the requirements of 34 CFR §300.309(b)(2). Rather, a school district can meet this requirement through the IDEA evaluation process or through formal assessments based on the regular instructional program. Specifically,34 CFR §300.309(b)(2) requires that the group making the SLD eligibility determination consider, as part of the evaluation described in 34 CFR §§300.304 through 300.306, data-based documentation of repeated assessments of achievement at reasonable intervals, reflecting formal assessment of student progress during instruction, which was provided to the child’s parents. This consideration is necessary to ensure that underachievement in a child suspected of having an SLD is not due to a lack of instruction in reading or math.

If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Lisa Pagano at 202-245-7413or by email at [email protected].

Sincerely,

/s/

Ruth E. RyderActing DirectorOffice of Special Education Programs

1 The Department states in the Analysis of Comments and Changes accompanying the final 2006 Part B regulations: “There is nothing in the Act that would require a State to use one model of identification to identify a child with an SLD. We do not believe the regulations should include such a requirement, because section 614(b)(6) of the Act indicates that some flexibility in the selection of models of identification by LEAs can be appropriate, if permitted by the State.” See 71 Fed. Reg. 46540, 46649 (August 14, 2006). Further, “State eligibility criteria [for SLD] must meet the requirements in §§300.307 through 300.111 and LEAs must use these State-adopted criteria. We believe that, although these provisions allow States some flexibility in how children with SLD are identified, the requirements in these provisions will ensure that SLD criteria do not vary substantially across States.” 71 Fed. Reg.46653. Also see OSEP’s August 15, 2007 Letter to Zirkel, available athttps://sites.ed.gov/idea/files/idea/policy/speced/guid/idea/letters/2007-3/zirkel081507eval3q2007.pdf.



104

June 5, 2018

TO THE ADMINISTRATOR ADDRESSED:

SUBJECT: Provision of Services for Students with Dyslexia and Related Disorders

The intent of the following is to provide local education agencies (LEAs) with guidance and clarification regarding the provision of services to students identified with dyslexia. This letter will:

1. Identify possible supports and interventions for a student identified with, or suspected of having, dyslexia; and

2. Reiterate and clarify that the LEA’s Child Find mandate under the IDEA applies to students with, or suspected of having, dyslexia.

Context On January 11, 2018, the U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) released a final monitoring report in which it found that the Texas Education Agency (TEA) failed to comply with certain requirements in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).1 OSEP specifically noted that some children in Texas who were suspected of having a disability and needing special education and related services under the IDEA were not referred for an evaluation under the IDEA. These students were instead evaluated and provided services under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504). Similarly, OSEP identified that some students receiving services under Section 504 who were suspected of needing special education services were either not referred for evaluation, or not referred in a timely manner. These scenarios appeared to be particularly common when the suspected or identified disability was dyslexia.2 Dyslexia Supports and Interventions In determining appropriate provision of services, the school team, including parents, should consider the impact a student’s reading difficulties have on access to and participation in the general curriculum and the types of interventions and supports necessary to appropriately serve the student. Data-based discussions surrounding how the student’s reading difficulty affects learning, the significance of the gap between current and expected performance, additional concerns that may further exacerbate challenges learning to read, and anticipated rates of improvement will assist the team in making appropriate recommendations. This data and discussion should drive decisions regarding evaluations, needs, and provision of services. Any time it is suspected that a student requires special education or related services to provide appropriate reading supports and interventions, a referral for a full and individual evaluation

1 U.S Department of Education (USED, Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), Texas Part B Monitoring Visit Letter (Jan.1,2018), https://www2.ed.gov/fund/data/report/idea/partbdmsrpts/dms-tx-b-2017-enclosure.pdf 2 See Texas Part B Monitoring Visit Letter, supra, pages 8-12



105

should be initiated. This evaluation will not only determine eligibility for services under the IDEA but will produce data and recommendations to inform interventions and service delivery. All students who are identified with dyslexia and who require special education services because of dyslexia should be served under the IDEA as students with a specific learning disability.3 A student with dyslexia does not need to present with a second potentially disabling condition to be considered for eligibility under the IDEA.4 OSEP has clarified that there is nothing in IDEA that would prohibit the use of the term dyslexia in IDEA evaluations, eligibility determinations, or IEP documents.5 It is important to note that students with dyslexia provided services under the IDEA must receive access to instructional programs that comply with the SBOE rules and procedures concerning dyslexia as determined by the ARD committee. These students could receive any dyslexia interventions and supports that are available within the general education setting as part of a continuum of services.6 Some students who are identified with dyslexia may receive appropriate intervention supports and services under a Section 504 plan through a district dyslexia program. This is permissible when it is not suspected that the student requires special education services, or when the student with dyslexia is determined to be not eligible for special education through an evaluation under the IDEA. Some students with dyslexia reach a point where direct intervention and explicit skill instruction is no longer warranted, but accommodations to provide curriculum access may be warranted. This is one example when provision of services under Section 504 may be more applicable than services under the IDEA. Teams should carefully consider all of the relevant student data to gauge the level of impact each student’s specific presentation of dyslexia will have on his or her ability to access and make progress in the general curriculum. If it is suspected or known that special education services are needed, the student should not be directed to, or first served through, Section 504. Other students who are struggling with reading or showing early risk factors associated with dyslexia may receive interventions through a tiered intervention model such as Response to Intervention (RtI). Tiered intervention programs play an important role in providing quick access to research-based interventions for struggling students. These systems often serve as an ongoing support for students whose reading difficulties are not the result of a disability under the IDEA or Section 504. RtI might also be an important component of the individualized evaluation used by LEAs for determining whether a student has a specific learning disability (SLD) under the IDEA.7 However, LEAs must ensure that students in RtI are carefully monitored and that a timely referral for evaluation under the IDEA is made when, after an appropriate amount of time, the student is not making adequate progress.8 This referral can occur at any point in the RtI process, and RtI is not required prior to any referrals for special education services.9 RtI and initiation of initial evaluation can also occur simultaneously. For additional information and

3 34 CRF §300.8(c)(10) 4 TEA provided similar guidance in a February 2018, letter to administrators. See https://tea.texas.gov/About_TEA/News_and_Multimedia/Correspondence/TAA_Letters/Responsibilities_and_Timelines_Regarding_Parent_Requests_for_Special_Education_Evaluations_under_the_Individuals_with_Disabilities_Education_Act_(IDEA),_TEC,_and_TAC/ 5 OSERS, Dear Colleague Letter (Oct. 23, 2015), https://sites.ed.gov/idea/files/idea/policy/speced/guid/idea/memosdcltrs/guidance-on-dyslexia-10-2015.pdf 6 The Dyslexia Handbook: Procedures Concerning Dyslexia and Related Disorders, Revised (2014). 7 34 CFR §300.307 8 34 CFR §300.309(c)(1) 9 M. Musgrove to State Directors of Special Education, OSEP Memorandum No. 11-07 (Jan. 21, 2011), https://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/memosdcltrs/osep11-07rtimemo.pdf



106

resources regarding RtI, readers are directed to the Building Capacity for Response to Intervention Project, a TEA funded project, at the Meadows Center for Preventing Educational Risk.10 In conclusion, it is critical that LEAs are mindful that dyslexia is considered a learning disability under the IDEA and is included within our Child Find mandate. Every LEA has an obligation to refer any student who is suspected of having a disability and needing special education services for an evaluation under the IDEA. Additional Information Additional information on effective services for students identified with Dyslexia can be found at the following links: OSERS Blog: https://sites.ed.gov/osers/category/events/dyslexia/ National Center on Improving Literacy https://improvingliteracy.org/ Contact Information Texas Education Agency Department of Special Populations Division of Special Education [email protected] 512-463-9414

10 See Building Capacity for Response to Intervention Implementation Project website



107



108

Tools



109

March 2018

© 2018 UT System/Texas Education Agency

2018 Creative Commons License CC BY-ND-NC 4.0 International

SB 1153 Parent’s Rights to Information Regarding the Provision of Assistance for Learning Difficulties to the Parent’s Child

Highlights “Access to Student Records. ‘Intervention strategy’ means a strategy in a multi-tiered system of supports that is above the level of intervention generally used in that system with all children. The term includes response to intervention and other early intervening strategies.” “A parent is entitled to access all written records of a school district concerning the parent’s child, including… (10) reports of behavioral patterns; and (11) records relating to assistance provided for learning difficulties, including information collected regarding any intervention strategies used with the child. “The agency shall produce and provide to school districts a written explanation of the options and requirements for providing assistance to students who have learning difficulties or who need or may need special education. The explanation must state that a parent is entitled at any time to request an evaluation of the parent’s child for special education services under Section 29.004 or for aids, accommodations, or services under Section 504, Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. Section 794). Each school year each district shall provide the written explanation to a parent of each district student by including the explanation in the student handbook or by another means.”

Annual Notice Checklist

Does your district’s annual notice to parents of a child receiving intervention contain these elements?

___ School offers a multi-tiered system of support or intervention strategy for students that is above that used in the general education classroom for all students

––– The multi-tiered system includes response to intervention and other early intervening strategies (may describe or use local name for the program)

___ Parents are entitled to the records related to the assistance provided for learning difficulties, including any information related to intervention strategies used with their child

___ Parents are entitled at any time to request an evaluation of their child for special education services

___ Annual notice may be included in the student handbook, or distributed by other means: _____________________________________



110

March 2018

© 2018 UT System/Texas Education Agency

2018 Creative Commons License CC BY-ND-NC 4.0 International

Checklist for Specific Notice to Parents of a Child Receiving Intervention

When do you provide parents with notice about intervention being provided to their child?

___ Provided to parents when their child will begin receiving intervention OR ___ Provided to parents at a child’s Section 504 meeting

Does the notice contain these elements?

___ Parents’ child is receiving/will begin receiving assistance for learning difficulties

___ Is written in English or, to the extent practicable, the parent's native language; ___ Includes a reasonable description of the assistance that may be provided to

the child, including any intervention strategies that may be used; ___ Information collected regarding any intervention in the base tier of a multi-

tiered system of supports that has previously been used with the child; ___ An estimate of the duration for which the assistance, including through the

use of intervention strategies, will be provided; ___ The estimated time frames within which a report on the child's progress with

the assistance, including any intervention strategies used, will be provided to the parent

___ A copy of the Annual Notice (see previous page), including: ___ Statement that a parent is entitled at any time to request an evaluation of

the parent's child for special education services Additional considerations that are not included in legislation: ___ Content is easy to read and free of educational jargon and acronyms ___ Includes an explanation of the child’s baseline performance and gaps in

learning ___ The description of the intervention is easy to understand ___ States goals for child to exit intervention



111

Checklist FOR EVALUATION OF SPECIFIC LEARNING DISABILITY*

Evaluation Staff Member: Referred Student: Date of Referral:

Student has received appropriate instruction: Core/Tier 1 Data Source/ Notes

Scheduled time for core content area instruction _____ to ______ Frequency: ___ days a week

Provided in the student’s native language

Instruction is scientifically based in research (SBR)SBR Program: ______________________

The instruction is explicit and systematic Supplemental instruction is evidence-based.

Data-based documentation of repeated assessments of achievement at reasonable intervals • Data has been systematically collected and analyzed

• Ongoing use of student assessment data readily apparent in the way students are grouped for instruction

Parents have been kept informed

Student has received intervention to address gaps in learning

Scheduled time for student’s intervention: _______to______Frequency: ____ times weekly

Date student entered intervention _________Number of rounds/cycles of intervention student has received _____

* Follows the requirements of IDEA 2004



112

Intervention provided in the student’s native language

Intervention matches the language of instruction

Intervention program based in scientific reading research Program (if applicable): ___________________

Interventionist is knowledgeable about the intervention. Name of interventionist: ________________

Intervention targets student’s gaps in learning

Student receives intervention in small group of students with similar needsNumber of students in group: _______

Progress monitoring information provides data about the student’s response to the intervention over time

Indicate intervals/frequency of progress monitoring: ______

Interventionist uses assessment data to inform instructional decision-making

Parents are informed of student progress

Underachievement is not due to:

Limited English proficiency Lack of educational opportunity

Vision problems __ Normal vision (Date of Screening___________) __ Vision corrected with glasses __ Student always wears glasses during instruction __ Suspected/observed vision difficultiesHearing problems __ Normal hearing (Date of Screening__________) __ Chronic ear infections __ Diagnosed hearing impairment __ Uses hearing aids during instructionMotor abilityIntellectual disabilityEmotional disturbanceCultural factorsEnvironmental/economic disadvantage



113

Inte

rven

tion

Obs

erva

tion

Obs

erve

r

Inte

rven

tioni

st

Refe

rred

Stu

dent

# of

stu

dent

s

Dat

e

Lang

uage

of

inst

ruct

ion:

Star

t tim

e of

obse

rvat

ion

Fini

sh ti

me

ofob

serv

atio

n

Cont

ent a

rea(

s):

Rea

ding

Mat

hG

roup

ing

obse

rved

: (Ch

eck

all t

hat a

pply

)

__ P

hone

mic

Aw

aren

ess

__ P

honi

cs__

Flu

ency

__ C

ompr

ehen

sion

__ V

ocab

ular

y__

Writ

ing

__ C

ompu

tatio

n__

Wor

d-pr

oble

m s

olvi

ng__

Sm

all G

roup

__ #

in g

roup

__ P

artn

er

__ O

ne-t

o-O

ne

Inte

rven

tion

prog

ram

Inte

rven

tion

obje

ctiv

es/ L

esso

n A

ctiv

ities

/ Str

ateg

ies

Stud

ent e

ngag

emen

t/ M

axim

izat

ion

of in

stru

ctio

nal t

ime/

Pac

ing

Diff

eren

tiatio

n th

at ta

rget

ed n

eeds

of r

efer

red

stud

ent

Opp

ortu

nitie

s fo

r ref

erre

d st

uden

t to

resp

ond

Opp

ortu

nitie

s fo

r ref

erre

d st

uden

t to

prac

tice

to a

utom

atic

ity

Feat

ures

of e

ffect

ive

inte

rven

tion

Com

men

ts

__ E

xplic

it in

stru

ctio

n

__ M

odel

ing

__ G

uide

d pr

actic

e

__ Im

med

iate

cor

rect

ive

feed

back

__ P

ract

ice

to a

utom

atic

ity

__ S

caffo

ldin

g fo

r und

erst

andi

ng

__ M

ater

ial m

atch

es s

tude

nt n

eeds

Obs

erva

tion

of re

ferr

ed s

tude

nt’s

part

icip

atio

n



114

Teacher/Interventionist Interview

Student ________________________________ Classroom Teacher _______________________________

Interviewer ____________________________________ Date _____________________________________

Tell me about the student’s opportunities to learn. What do you know of the student’s educational background? Language background?

Do you know of other possible factors that may be interfering with learning?

_____ Missed instruction (Excessive absences: _____ Excessive tardies: _____)

_____ Physical needs (describe any noted)

___ medication ___ nutrition ____ sleep ___ chronic condition ___ other

Describe______________________________________________________________________

_____ Other factors___________________________________________________________________

What do you think the learning problem is? Be as specific as possible.

Approximately when did you first notice it? What made you notice it?

What instructional changes did you make to increase the student’s learning success? What strategies did you try?



115

Tell me about the student’s intervention instruction. (Note: Information may already be listed on Collaborative Instructional Log)

Who provides it? ______________________________ (if person other than interviewee)

When did the student begin intervention? ____________________

Any previous intervention that you know of? _________________________

How frequent are the sessions? ______ times a week

How long is each intervention session? ______ minutes

How many students are in the intervention group? _____ students

How do you reinforce the intervention strategies in content-area instruction?

What strategies does the student use in content-area instruction?

How have you informed the student’s parents about the services being provided and the strategies to

support their child’s rate of learning?

How were the parents informed of the right to request a comprehensive evaluation at any time?

TEACHER/INTERVENTIONIST INTERVIEW(CONTINUED)



116


Student ________________________________ Classroom Teacher _______________________________

Interviewer ____________________________________ Date _____________________________________

(Note name and date if this portion of the interview continues with a different individual)

Briefly describe the intervention, i.e., how it works to close the student’s gaps in learning.

How do you monitor the student’s progress in the intervention?

How frequently is the student’s intervention progress monitored? _________________

(___ Student data attached)

How have you used the student’s progress monitoring data to make decisions about the intervention

instruction? (Give example)

When the student’s intervention progress was inadequate, how did you adjust the instruction?



117

What steps have been taken to increase the intensity of the intervention?

___ Increased length of sessions (Date of change ____________; from _____ min. to ______ min.)

___ Increased frequency of sessions (Date of change_____________; from ___ to ___ days a week)

___ Decreased group size and/or teacher student ratio (Date of change _____________;

from ___ to ____ students; from ___ to ___ ratio)

___ Changed intervention (Date of change ____________ )

What additional information about the student’s response to intervention do you think is important?

How have you informed the student’s parents about the services being provided and the strategies to

support their child’s rate of learning?

How were the parents informed of their right to request a comprehensive evaluation at any time?




118

© 20

13 U

nive

rsit

y of

Tex

as S

yste

m/T

exas

Edu

cati

on A

genc

y CC

-BY-

ND-N

C 4.

0 In

tern

atio

nal

Sele

ctin

g an

Int

erve

ntio

n to

Mee

t St

uden

ts’ N

eeds

: A “

How

-to”

Res

ourc

e fo

r Ed

ucat

ors

Thi

s re

sour

ce is

for

educ

ator

s se

ekin

g in

terv

enti

on p

rogr

ams

prov

en t

o cl

ose

the

know

ledg

e ga

ps o

f stu

dent

s st

rugg

ling

wit

h le

arni

ng. T

he r

esou

rce

draw

s up

on t

he p

rinc

iple

s of

the

res

pons

e to

inte

rven

tion

(RT

I) a

ppro

ach

to p

reve

ntin

g le

arni

ng d

ifficu

ltie

s. I

n th

e m

any

scho

ols

that

impl

emen

t RT

I,

educ

ator

s pr

ovid

e al

l stu

dent

s w

ith

effe

ctiv

e in

stru

ctio

n, id

enti

fy s

tude

nts

who

str

uggl

e w

ith

lear

ning

, and

pro

vide

the

se s

tude

nts

wit

h in

crea

sing

ly

inte

nse

inte

rven

tion

to

clos

e ga

ps in

kno

wle

dge.

Stu

dent

pro

gres

s, o

r re

spon

se t

o th

e in

terv

enti

on, i

s as

sess

ed fr

eque

ntly

. Fre

quen

t pr

ogre

ss m

onit

or-

ing

allo

ws

educ

ator

s to

mak

e in

form

ed d

ecis

ions

abo

ut t

he e

ffect

iven

ess

of t

he in

terv

enti

on a

nd t

o ta

ilor

the

inte

rven

tion

to

mee

t st

uden

t ne

eds.

The

go

al o

f RT

I is

to

be p

roac

tive

whe

n st

uden

ts b

egin

to

stru

ggle

, int

erve

ning

pro

mpt

ly t

o pr

even

t le

arni

ng d

ifficu

ltie

s.

Prov

idin

g hi

gh-q

ualit

y, e

xplic

it in

stru

ctio

n in

the

cor

e co

nten

t ar

eas

is a

key

fact

or in

pre

vent

ing

lear

ning

diffi

cult

ies.

How

ever

, whe

n st

uden

ts fa

ll be

hind

the

ir g

rade

-lev

el p

eers

, edu

cato

rs n

eed

to k

now

how

to

sele

ct a

n in

terv

enti

on p

rogr

am t

hat

will

mee

t th

e ne

eds

of t

heir

stu

dent

s.

Cho

osin

g re

sear

ch-

or e

vide

nce-

base

d in

terv

enti

ons

is c

riti

cal;

they

are

an

inve

stm

ent

of t

ime

and

mon

ey t

hat

mus

t w

ork

quic

kly

to c

lose

stu

dent

s’

gaps

in le

arni

ng. A

n ef

fect

ive

inte

rven

tion

is s

yste

mat

ic, i

s ev

iden

ce b

ased

, and

acc

eler

ates

lear

ning

to

clos

e ga

ps a

nd b

ring

stu

dent

s w

ithi

n gr

ade-

leve

l per

form

ance

.

Use

thi

s re

sour

ce t

o in

vent

ory

inte

rven

tion

pro

gram

s al

read

y in

use

or

acce

ssib

le o

n ca

mpu

s an

d to

con

duct

an

obje

ctiv

e re

sear

ch r

evie

w t

o de

ter-

min

e w

heth

er t

he p

rogr

ams

are

scie

ntifi

cally

bas

ed a

nd d

esig

ned

to m

eet

stud

ents

’ ide

ntifi

ed n

eeds

. Gra

de-l

evel

tea

ms

or p

artn

ers

may

be

able

to

acco

mpl

ish

thes

e ta

sks

effic

ient

ly a

nd s

hare

the

ir fi

ndin

gs w

ith

a la

rger

gro

up.

Man

y in

terv

enti

on p

rogr

ams

clai

m a

res

earc

h ba

sis,

but

clo

ser

exam

inat

ion

may

rev

eal p

robl

ems

rela

ted

to s

cien

tific

obj

ecti

vity

. Loo

k fo

r ev

iden

ce

that

the

inte

rven

tion

wor

ks fo

r st

uden

ts w

ith

need

s si

mila

r to

tho

se o

f you

r st

uden

ts. “

Red

flag

” an

inte

rven

tion

if it

has

any

of t

he fo

llow

ing

char

ac-

teri

stic

s:•

Onl

y a

very

sm

all n

umbe

r of

stu

dies

exa

min

e it

s ef

ficac

y.

• T

he p

ublis

her

or v

endo

r sp

onso

red

the

“res

earc

h st

udy.

” •

The

num

ber

of s

tude

nts

in t

he s

tudy

is t

oo s

mal

l to

gene

raliz

e th

e re

sult

s to

the

gen

eral

pop

ulat

ion.

• T

he c

hara

cter

isti

cs o

f the

stu

dent

s ar

e di

ffere

nt fr

om t

hose

of y

our

stud

ents

.

Use

the

pro

cedu

re o

n th

e fo

llow

ing

page

s to

iden

tify

an

inte

rven

tion

for

your

stu

dent

s. T

ools

for

each

ste

p ar

e pr

ovid

ed t

o he

lp o

rgan

ize

the

info

rma-

tion

you

col

lect

. You

r go

al is

to

iden

tify

one

or

mor

e pr

oven

inte

rven

tion

s to

use

to

clos

e yo

ur s

tude

nts’

gap

s in

lear

ning

.



119

© 20

13 U

nive

rsit

y of

Tex

as S

yste

m/T

exas

Edu

cati

on A

genc

y CC

-BY-

ND-N

C 4.

0 In

tern

atio

nal

Iden

tify

Int

erve

ntio

n N

eeds

Rel

ated

too

ls:

• In

terv

enti

on N

eeds

Wor

kshe

et: C

lass

Sum

mar

y•

Inte

rven

tion

Nee

ds W

orks

heet

: Gra

de-L

evel

Sum

mar

y

1.

Ass

ess

all

stu

den

ts w

ith

a u

niv

ersa

l sc

reen

ing

or b

ench

mar

k in

stru

men

t. (

Tip:

Be

sure

to

asse

ss s

tude

nts

rece

ivin

g sp

ecia

l edu

-ca

tion

ser

vice

s.)

2.

Iden

tify

stu

den

ts w

ho

are

at r

isk.

3.

Usi

ng

the

Cla

ss S

um

mar

y sh

eet,

id

enti

fy a

nd

gat

her

rel

ated

d

ata.

(Ti

p: L

ist

stud

ents

and

the

ir d

ata

by g

rade

leve

l to

iden

tify

gr

ade-

leve

l pro

fess

iona

l dev

elop

men

t ne

eds.

)

4.

An

alyz

e st

ud

ents

’ dat

a to

id

enti

fy a

reas

wh

ere

inte

rven

tion

is

nee

ded

.

• In

wha

t ar

eas

are

the

lear

ning

gap

s? F

or e

xam

ple,

in r

eadi

ng,

stud

ents

may

be

behi

nd t

heir

pee

rs in

pho

nem

ic a

war

enes

s,

phon

ics

or w

ord

stud

y, v

ocab

ular

y, fl

uenc

y, o

r co

mpr

ehen

sion

; in

mat

hem

atic

s, t

hey

may

lag

behi

nd in

flue

ncy

or n

umbe

r se

nse.

• H

ow b

ig a

re t

he g

aps

in s

tude

nt le

arni

ng?

For

exam

ple,

use

st

uden

t da

ta t

o as

sign

leve

ls o

f nee

d si

mila

r to

the

follo

win

g:

–U

p to

1-y

ear

gap

in g

rade

-lev

el b

ench

mar

ks (

% o

f stu

dent

s)

–U

p to

2-y

ear

gap

in g

rade

-lev

el b

ench

mar

ks (

% o

f stu

dent

s)

–G

aps

grea

ter

than

2 y

ears

(%

of s

tude

nts)

• W

hat

are

the

char

acte

rist

ics

of t

he a

t-ri

sk s

tude

nts?

–A

re t

hey

prim

arily

Eng

lish

lang

uage

lear

ners

?

–D

o th

ey s

trug

gle

wit

h le

arni

ng in

mor

e th

an o

ne c

onte

nt

area

?

–D

o an

y al

read

y re

ceiv

e in

terv

enti

on, i

nclu

ding

dys

lexi

a or

sp

ecia

l edu

cati

on s

ervi

ces?

• D

o ex

tern

al c

halle

nges

to

lear

ning

, suc

h as

the

follo

win

g, n

eed

to b

e ad

dres

sed?

–E

xces

sive

tar

dies

or

abse

nces

–C

hron

ic il

lnes

s or

med

icat

ion

fact

ors

–Sc

hool

tra

nsfe

r or

enr

ollm

ent

(not

e if

mor

e th

an o

ne a

yea

r)

–O

ther

, suc

h as

hom

e is

sues

, inc

ludi

ng b

eing

in t

he fo

ster

ca

re s

yste

m

5.

Usi

ng

the

Gra

de-

Lev

el S

um

mar

y sh

eet,

id

enti

fy g

rad

e-le

vel

nee

ds

for

inte

rven

tion

.

• Id

enti

fy a

reas

of l

earn

ing

gaps

.

• Id

enti

fy “

gap

size

” an

d st

uden

t to

tals

for

each

of t

he fo

llow

ing:

–St

uden

ts a

ssig

ned

to e

ach

leve

l, or

“ti

er,”

of n

eed

–E

nglis

h la

ngua

ge le

arne

rs

–St

uden

ts a

lrea

dy r

ecei

ving

inte

rven

tion

, inc

ludi

ng t

hrou

gh

dysl

exia

or

504

serv

ices

and

spe

cial

edu

cati

on

6.

Iden

tify

are

as f

or t

arge

ted

pro

fess

ion

al d

evel

opm

ent

sup

por

t.

• D

o ga

ps in

kno

wle

dge

and

skill

s lin

k to

spe

cific

gra

de le

vels

?

• C

ould

the

lear

ning

gap

s be

rel

ated

to

staf

f exp

erti

se?

–D

o te

ache

rs p

rovi

de e

xplic

it in

stru

ctio

n in

the

con

tent

are

a?

–D

o te

ache

rs e

mpl

oy e

vide

nce-

base

d st

rate

gies

rel

ated

to

the

area

s of

lear

ning

gap

s?

–D

o te

ache

rs n

eed

info

rmat

ion

abou

t ev

iden

ce-b

ased

str

ate-

gies

to

addr

ess

the

lear

ning

gap

s?

–A

re t

he le

arni

ng g

aps

rela

ted

to c

urri

culu

m o

r pr

ogra

m

impl

emen

tati

on?

7.

Sum

mar

ize

the

fin

din

gs t

o id

enti

fy s

pec

ific

area

s to

tar

get.

8.

Dev

elop

a “

sou

nd

bit

e” (

shor

t st

atem

ent)

th

at d

escr

ibes

stu

-d

ent

nee

ds

and

wh

at t

he

idea

l in

terv

enti

on(s

) w

ould

ad

dre

ss.

Thi

s st

atem

ent

will

hel

p to

focu

s th

e in

terv

enti

on p

rogr

am r

evie

w.

Sele

ctin

g an

Int

erve

ntio

n •

2



120

© 20

13 U

nive

rsit

y of

Tex

as S

yste

m/T

exas

Edu

cati

on A

genc

y CC

-BY-

ND-N

C 4.

0 In

tern

atio

nal

Iden

tify

Evi

denc

e-Ba

sed

Inte

rven

tion

s Th

at M

atch

Stu

dent

s’ N

eeds

Rel

ated

too

ls:

• In

terv

enti

on P

rogr

am I

nven

tory

Che

cklis

t•

Inte

rven

tion

Pro

gram

Res

earc

h R

evie

w

1.

Usi

ng t

he I

nven

tory

Che

cklis

t, c

ondu

ct a

n in

vent

ory

of a

vaila

ble

inte

rven

tion

s to

det

erm

ine

whe

ther

the

y in

clud

e fe

atur

es o

f evi

denc

e-ba

sed

inst

ruct

ion,

pre

sent

impl

emen

tati

on c

halle

nges

, and

mat

ch id

enti

fied

stud

ent

need

s.

2.

Usi

ng t

he R

esea

rch

Rev

iew

she

et, c

ondu

ct a

res

earc

h re

view

of e

xist

ing

inve

ntor

y to

det

erm

ine

whe

ther

the

pro

gram

s ar

e sc

ient

ifica

lly d

esig

ned

to

mat

ch id

enti

fied

stud

ent

need

s fo

r sp

ecifi

c gr

ade

leve

ls a

nd s

tude

nt c

hara

cter

isti

cs.

3.

Surv

ey o

ther

pos

sibl

e in

terv

enti

ons

and

desc

ribe

the

ir p

oten

tial

for

mee

ting

the

iden

tifie

d ne

eds

for

inte

rven

tion

.

Sele

ct I

nter

vent

ions

to

Acce

lera

te A

t-Ri

sk S

tude

nts’

Lea

rnin

gM

eet

wit

h yo

ur c

ampu

s te

am t

o na

rrow

the

cho

ices

. Whi

ch in

terv

enti

ons

have

pro

mis

e fo

r yo

ur s

tude

nts?

Sel

ect

the

inte

rven

tion

(s)

that

is t

he b

est

mat

ch fo

r yo

ur s

tude

nts’

nee

ds.

Refe

renc

es

Scam

mac

ca, N

., Va

ughn

, S.,

Rob

erts

, G.,

Wan

zek,

J.,

& T

orge

sen,

J. K

. (20

07).

Ext

ensi

ve r

eadi

ng in

terv

entio

ns in

gra

des

K–3

: Fro

m r

esea

rch

to p

ract

ice.

Por

tsm

outh

, N

H: R

MC

Res

earc

h, C

ente

r on

Ins

truc

tion

.

Torg

esen

, J. K

. (20

05).

Rem

edia

l int

erve

ntio

ns fo

r st

uden

ts w

ith d

ysle

xia:

Nat

iona

l goa

ls a

nd c

urre

nt a

ccom

plis

hmen

ts. T

alla

hass

ee, F

L: F

lori

da C

ente

r fo

r R

eadi

ng R

e-se

arch

.

Torg

esen

, J.,

Hou

ston

, D.,

& R

issm

an, L

. (20

07).

Im

prov

ing

liter

acy

inst

ruct

ion

in m

iddl

e an

d hi

gh s

choo

ls: A

gui

de fo

r pr

inci

pals

. Por

tsm

outh

, NH

: RM

C R

esea

rch,

Cen

-te

r on

Ins

truc

tion

.

Sele

ctin

g an

Int

erve

ntio

n •

3



121

© 20

13 U

nive

rsit

y of

Tex

as S

yste

m/T

exas

Edu

cati

on A

genc

y CC

-BY-

ND-N

C 4.

0 In

tern

atio

nal

Inte

rven

tion

Nee

ds W

orks

heet

: Cla

ss S

umm

ary

Teac

her:

___

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

__

G

rade

leve

l: __

___

C

ampu

s: _

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

_

Con

tent

are

a(s)

/ski

ll(s)

ass

esse

d: _

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

___

Ass

essm

ent:

___

____

____

____

_

Dat

e: _

____

__

Stud

ent

Area

(s)

of le

arni

ng g

aps

Gap

size

ELL

Othe

r ar

ea(s

) of

ris

kN

umbe

r of

ta

rdie

sN

umbe

r of

ab

senc

esOt

her

fact

ors

KEY

EL

L =

Eng

lish

lang

uage

lear

ner.

Gap

siz

e: 1

= <

1 g

rade

leve

l beh

ind;

2 =

1 t

o 2

grad

e le

vels

beh

ind;

3 =

> 2

gra

de le

vels

beh

ind.

Oth

er f

acto

rs: R

I =

rece

ivin

g in

terv

enti

on; D

= d

ysle

xia/

504

serv

ices

; SE

= s

peci

al e

duca

tion

; HM

= h

ighl

y m

obile

; M =

med

ical

(no

te).

Clas

s Su

mm

ary

• 1

of 1



122

© 20

13 U

nive

rsit

y of

Tex

as S

yste

m/T

exas

Edu

cati

on A

genc

y CC

-BY-

ND-N

C 4.

0 In

tern

atio

nal

Inte

rven

tion

Nee

ds W

orks

heet

: Gra

de-L

evel

Sum

mar

yD

ate:

___

____

____

____

C

ampu

s: _

____

____

____

____

____

___

Scre

enin

g/be

nchm

ark

asse

ssm

ent:

___

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

_

KEY:

EL

L =

Eng

lish

lang

uage

lear

ner;

RI

= re

ceiv

ing

inte

rven

tion

; D =

dys

lexi

a/50

4 se

rvic

es; S

E =

spe

cial

edu

cati

on.

Gap

siz

e: 1

= <

1 g

rade

leve

l beh

ind;

2 =

1 t

o 2

grad

e le

vels

beh

ind;

3 =

> 2

gra

de le

vels

beh

ind.

Grad

e-Le

vel S

umm

ary

• 1

of 1

Gra

de:

Are

a of

lear

ning

gap

:

Gap

size

All

stud

ents

Num

ber

ELL

Num

ber

RIN

umbe

r D/

504

Num

ber

SE

1 2 3

Tota

ls

Gra

de:

Are

a of

lear

ning

gap

:

Gap

size

All

stud

ents

Num

ber

ELL

Num

ber

RIN

umbe

r D/

504

Num

ber

SE

1 2 3

Tota

ls

Gra

de:

Are

a of

lear

ning

gap

:

Gap

size

All

stud

ents

Num

ber

ELL

Num

ber

RIN

umbe

r D/

504

Num

ber

SE

1 2 3

Tota

ls

Gra

de:

Are

a of

lear

ning

gap

:

Gap

size

All

stud

ents

Num

ber

ELL

Num

ber

RIN

umbe

r D/

504

Num

ber

SE

1 2 3

Tota

ls



123

© 20

13 U

nive

rsit

y of

Tex

as S

yste

m/T

exas

Edu

cati

on A

genc

y CC

-BY-

ND-N

C 4.

0 In

tern

atio

nal

Inte

rven

tion

Pro

gram

Inv

ento

ry C

heck

list

Rev

iew

er(s

): _

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

Pr

ogra

m: _

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

_

Con

tent

are

a(s)

/ski

ll(s)

tar

gete

d: _

____

____

____

____

__

Des

igne

d fo

r gr

ade(

s): _

____

A

utho

r(s)

: ___

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

__

Publ

ishe

r: _

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

In

terv

enti

on le

vel:

___

(II:

Sup

plem

enta

l/str

ateg

ic o

r II

I: I

nten

sive

)

Inst

ruct

iona

l del

iver

yEv

iden

ce a

nd e

xam

ples

Com

men

ts

__ D

irec

t, e

xplic

it in

stru

ctio

n

__ S

yste

mat

ic, s

eque

nced

inst

ruct

ion

__ M

odel

ing

__ S

caffo

ldin

g su

ppor

t an

d ex

ampl

es

__ A

dequ

ate

mat

eria

ls a

nd t

asks

for

prac

tice

to

auto

mat

icit

y

__ M

ulti

ple

oppo

rtun

itie

s fo

r st

uden

t re

spon

ses

__ I

mm

edia

te c

orre

ctiv

e an

d re

info

rcin

g fe

edba

ck t

o st

uden

ts

__ G

uide

d pr

acti

ce

__ S

tude

nt e

ngag

emen

t

__ I

ndep

ende

nt p

ract

ice

and

gene

raliz

atio

n

Grou

ping

Tim

e, f

requ

ency

, and

dur

atio

nRe

com

men

ded

inte

rven

tion

ist

Prog

ress

mon

itor

ing

__ S

ame-

abili

ty s

tude

nts

__ C

ompu

ter-

base

d gr

oups

__ R

ecom

men

ded

grou

p si

zes

prov

ided

__ M

inut

es p

er s

essi

on s

peci

fied

(__

min

utes

)

__ D

ays

per

wee

k sp

ecifi

ed (

__ d

ays)

__ T

otal

wee

ks s

peci

fied

(__

wee

ks)

__ T

each

er

__ S

peci

alis

t

__ P

arap

rofe

ssio

nal

__ P

eer

tuto

r

__ A

sses

smen

ts p

rovi

ded

(a

sses

s ev

ery

___

days

)

__ S

tude

nt p

rogr

ess

char

ts p

rovi

ded

__ C

ompu

ter

gene

rate

d

Inve

ntor

y Ch

eckl

ist

• 1

of 2



124

© 20

13 U

nive

rsit

y of

Tex

as S

yste

m/T

exas

Edu

cati

on A

genc

y CC

-BY-

ND-N

C 4.

0 In

tern

atio

nal

Inst

ruct

iona

l mat

eria

lsPr

ogra

mCo

st

__ G

raph

ic o

rgan

izer

s an

d vi

sual

sup

port

__ M

ater

ials

mat

ch s

tude

nt in

stru

ctio

nal l

evel

s

__ M

ater

ials

var

y to

mat

ch s

tude

nt r

espo

nse

need

s

__ M

ater

ials

for

inde

pend

ent

prac

tice

__ C

onsu

mab

le m

ater

ials

(d

escr

ibe:

___

____

____

____

____

____

____

_)

__ A

ssis

tive

tec

hnol

ogy

avai

labl

e

__ P

rogr

essi

on o

f ski

lls

__ D

istr

ibut

ed p

ract

ice

__ S

kills

rev

iew

ed

__ V

arie

ty o

f tex

t an

d m

ater

ials

__ T

each

er s

uppo

rt

(des

crib

e: _

____

____

____

____

____

__)

__ S

tart

-up

mat

eria

ls a

nd li

cens

ing

in

form

atio

n pr

ovid

ed

($__

__ p

er s

tude

nt)

($__

__ p

er t

each

er)

__ A

mou

nt o

f tra

inin

g ne

eded

spe

cifie

d (_

___

hour

s/da

ys)

($__

__ t

otal

cos

t)

__ E

xpen

ses

for

subs

eque

nt y

ears

spe

cifie

d ($

____

per

stu

dent

)

Conc

lusi

ons

How

is t

his

prog

ram

diff

eren

t fr

om in

terv

enti

ons

prev

ious

ly p

rovi

ded

to o

ur s

tude

nts?

Why

will

thi

s pr

ogra

m m

eet/

not

mee

t ou

r st

uden

ts’ n

eeds

?

Wha

t ar

e so

me

pote

ntia

l im

plem

enta

tion

cha

lleng

es?

Com

men

ts o

r ad

diti

onal

info

rmat

ion

need

ed:

Inve

ntor

y Ch

eckl

ist

• 2

of 2



125

© 20

13 U

nive

rsit

y of

Tex

as S

yste

m/T

exas

Edu

cati

on A

genc

y CC

-BY-

ND-N

C 4.

0 In

tern

atio

nal

Inte

rven

tion

Pro

gram

Res

earc

h Re

view

Rev

iew

er(s

): _

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

D

ate:

___

____

____

_

Inte

rven

tion

pro

gram

tit

le a

nd fo

cus:

___

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

N

umbe

r of

sup

port

ing

stud

ies

foun

d: _

___

Ref

eren

ce in

form

atio

n fo

r re

view

: ___

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

Revi

ew s

ourc

eOt

her

revi

ewer

s of

inte

rven

tion

Stud

ents

__ P

eer-

revi

ewed

jour

nal

__ P

ublis

her

spon

sore

d

__ W

ebsi

te

__ O

ther

: ___

____

____

____

____

____

_

__ W

hat

Wor

ks C

lear

ingh

ouse

(w

ww

.wha

twor

ks.e

d.go

v)

__ F

lori

da C

ente

r fo

r R

eadi

ng R

esea

rch

(w

ww

.fcrr

.org

)

__ B

luep

rint

s (C

asey

Fou

ndat

ion)

(w

ww

.blu

epri

ntsp

rogr

ams.

com

)

__ O

ther

: ___

____

____

____

____

____

_

Num

ber

of a

ll st

uden

ts in

stu

dy: _

____

_

Num

ber

of s

tude

nts

in e

xper

imen

tal g

roup

: ___

___

Num

ber

of s

tude

nts

in c

ontr

ol: _

____

_

Age

(s)

or g

rade

(s):

___

___

Eng

lish

lang

uage

lear

ners

: ___

___

Stud

ents

in s

peci

al e

duca

tion

: ___

___

How

sel

ecte

d fo

r in

terv

enti

on: _

____

____

____

____

Asse

ssm

ent

Inte

rven

tion

del

iver

ySu

mm

ary

of r

esea

rch

findi

ngs

Ass

essm

ent

nam

e(s)

:

Freq

uenc

y of

pro

gres

s m

onit

orin

g:

Gro

up s

ize:

___

___

Inte

rven

tion

ist:

___

____

____

____

_

Freq

uenc

y of

ses

sion

s: _

____

____

__

Tim

e pe

r se

ssio

n: _

____

____

____

__

Dur

atio

n of

inte

rven

tion

: ___

_ w

eeks

How

find

ings

rel

ate

to o

ur s

tude

nts’

nee

ds

Rese

arch

Rev

iew

• 1

of

1



126

CA

MPU

S-W

IDE R

TI A

SSES

SMEN

T A

CTI

VIT

IES

CHEC

KLIS

T

Nam

e of

Sch

ool _

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

Sch

ool Y

ear_

____

____

____

___

RtI L

eade

rshi

p Te

am _

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

___

Sele

ctin

g sc

ient

ifica

lly b

ased

ass

essm

ent m

easu

res

• Uni

vers

al s

cree

ning

mea

sure

s __

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

• Ben

chm

ark

mea

sure

s __

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

___

• Pro

gres

s m

onito

ring

mea

sure

s (a

t-ris

k st

uden

ts) _

____

____

____

____

__

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

Dev

elop

ing

an a

nnua

l ass

essm

ent s

ched

ule

• Dat

es fo

r dev

elop

men

t/ re

view

of a

sses

smen

t pla

n

Dev

elop

; ___

____

____

Rev

iew

: ___

____

___

• Dat

es fo

r pro

fess

iona

l dev

elop

men

t for

ass

essm

ents

Sc

reen

ing/

ben

chm

ark_

____

__

Pr

ogre

ss m

onito

ring

____

____

• Dat

es fo

r adm

inis

trat

ion

of b

ench

mar

k m

easu

res

BO

Y: _

____

___

MO

Y: _

____

___

EO

Y: _

____

__

• Dat

es fo

r gra

de-le

vel t

eam

ana

lysis

of s

tude

nt d

ata

BO

Y: _

____

___

MO

Y: _

____

___

EO

Y: _

____

___

• Dat

es fo

r cam

pus-

leve

l ana

lysis

of s

tude

nt d

ata

BOY:

___

____

_ M

OY:

___

____

_ E

OY:

___

____

_

ASS

ESSM

ENT

AC

TIVI

TYTE

AM

MEM

BER

S A

ND

CO

NTA

CT

INFO

RM

ATIO

NST

UD

ENT

EVA

LUAT

ION

PER

SON

NEL

ASS

ISTA

NC

E PR

OVI

DED



127

Des

igni

ng a

dat

a m

anag

emen

t sys

tem

• Ind

ivid

ual s

tude

nt d

ata

(tea

cher

’s da

ta)

• Dat

a m

anag

emen

t acr

oss

leve

ls (t

each

er ->

gra

de ->

cam

pus)

• Pro

gres

s m

onito

ring

data

for s

tude

nts

in e

arly

inte

rven

ing

serv

ices

(by

grad

e le

vel)

• Dat

a m

anag

emen

t & p

erio

dic

revi

ew d

urin

g ac

adem

ic y

ear (

BOY,

MO

Y,

EOY;

com

pare

to g

oals

)

Prov

idin

g pr

ofes

sion

al d

evel

opm

ent o

n us

ing

asse

ssm

ent d

ata

to

info

rm in

stru

ctio

n

• Int

erpr

etat

ion

of in

divi

dual

stu

dent

resu

lts

• Gro

upin

g st

uden

ts fo

r ins

truc

tion

and

inte

rven

tion

• Est

ablis

hing

gra

de-le

vel e

ntry

and

exi

t crit

eria

for i

nter

vent

ion

leve

ls

• Pla

nnin

g in

stru

ctio

n an

d in

terv

entio

n

• Set

ting

goal

s fo

r ind

ivid

ual s

tude

nts

• Mon

itorin

g st

uden

t pro

gres

s

Revi

ewin

g Rt

I im

plem

enta

tion

• Set

ting

grad

e-le

vel a

nd c

ampu

s go

als

• Rev

iew

ing

prog

ress

at M

OY

and

EOY

• Usi

ng d

ata

to id

entif

y pr

ofes

sion

al d

evel

opm

ent n

eeds

ASS

ESSM

ENT

AC

TIVI

TYTE

AM

MEM

BER

S A

ND

CO

NTA

CT

INFO

RM

ATIO

NST

UD

ENT

EVA

LUAT

ION

PER

SON

NEL

ASS

ISTA

NC

E PR

OVI

DED

CA

MPU

S-W

IDE R

TI A

SSES

SMEN

T A

CTI

VIT

IES

CHEC

KLIS

T

(CO

NTI

NU

ED)



128

INTERVENTION PROGRESS CASE STUDY DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

1. How did research-based intervention target the student’s needs?

In what areas does the student have gaps in learning?

How is the intervention instruction designed to target these needs?

Is the intervention instruction explicit and systematic, with modeling and ample opportunities to practice and receive immediate corrective feedback? Describe.

Describe the practice opportunities provided during a typical intervention lesson.

How many opportunities for corrective feedback were provided during a typical lesson?

Did it take more intervention instruction than you expected for the student to master a strategy?

Explain what you did.

Does the student generalize the strategies and use them in other content areas? Give examples.

What aspects of the intervention contributed to the student’s learning? (What worked?)



129

2. Would increasing the intensity of the intervention instruction accelerate student learning?

What size is the student’s intervention group? ____ If we try the student in a smaller group, what size should it be? ______

How frequent are the intervention sessions? ___ x week If we try adding more sessions, how many should there be? ___ x week

Is the pacing of the intervention instruction fast enough?

How long are the intervention sessions? _____ minutes If we need to increase the length of each session, how long should they be? ____ minutes

3. Are there other factors that may be interfering with learning?

Have there been excessive absences or tardies? ____ absences ____ tardies

Remarks:

Are there physical needs, including nutritional or sleep-related ones, that may be interfering with learning?

Could changing the time of day for intervention be a solution?_______ Change to: ____________________

Are there social or behavioral issues that may have an impact on learning? Describe.

Are there personality factors? Describe. Should we try another teacher for intervention?

INTERVENTION PROGRESS CASE STUDY DISCUSSION QUESTIONS(continued)



130

INTERVENTION PROGRESS CASE STUDY DISCUSSION QUESTIONS(continued)

4. What are the next steps with the student?

How can all teachers collaborate to reinforce the intervention instruction?

Do teachers or interventionists need additional support? Identify support needed, and when, and how it will be provided.

What changes in intervention instruction will be tried?

How will these changes in intervention be monitored?

Identify date for follow-up discussion if student responds inadequately. Date: ___________________

NOTE: Immediately refer student for special education evaluation if a disability is suspected.



131

Base

line/

Curr

ent R

eadi

ngA

nnua

l Rea

ding

Goa

lsCo

mpr

ehen

sive

Rea

ding

In

stru

ctio

nIn

terv

enti

on S

umm

ary

Inst

rum

ent

Dat

e

Phon

emic

Aw

aren

ess

PHon

ics

FLue

ncy

VOca

bula

ry

COm

preh

ensi

on

Inte

rven

tion

Exit

Crite

ria:

Prog

ram

Teac

her

Am

ount

of T

ime

Tim

e of

Day

Dai

ly

O

ther

Diff

eren

tiate

d In

stru

ctio

n:

Inte

rven

tion

Teac

her:

Gro

up:

COLL

AB

OR

ATIV

E IN

STRU

CTI

ON

AL

LOG

: REA

DIN

G

Stud

ent

G

rade

H

omer

oom

Teac

her

Inte

rven

tion

Per

iod

Prio

rity

Inte

rven

tion

Str

ateg

ies

Teac

her(

s)Re

spon

sibl

eN

otes

on

St

uden

t Res

pons

ePr

ogre

ss M

onit

orin

g

Dat

es

Sche

dule

Prog

ress

Goa

ls

PA

V

O

PH

C

O

FL

(Sco

re/B

ench

mar

k/St

atus

)

PA

/

/

PH

/

/

FL

/

/

VO

/

/

CO

/

/

Inte

rven

tion

Per

iod

Prio

rity

Inte

rven

tion

Str

ateg

ies

Teac

her(

s)Re

spon

sibl

eN

otes

on

St

uden

t Res

pons

ePr

ogre

ss M

onit

orin

g

Dat

es

Sche

dule

Prog

ress

Goa

ls

PA

V

O

PH

C

O

FL

(Sco

re/B

ench

mar

k/St

atus

)

PA

/

/

PH

/

/

FL

/

/

VO

/

/

CO

/

/



132

Stud

ent

G

rade

H

omer

oom

Teac

her

Inte

rven

tion

Per

iod

Prio

rity

Inte

rven

tion

Str

ateg

ies

Teac

her(

s)Re

spon

sibl

eN

otes

on

St

uden

t Res

pons

ePr

ogre

ss M

onit

orin

g

Dat

es

Sche

dule

Prog

ress

Goa

ls

PA

V

O

PH

C

O

FL

(Sco

re/B

ench

mar

k/St

atus

)

PA

/

/

PH

/

/

FL

/

/

VO

/

/

CO

/

/

Inte

rven

tion

Per

iod

Prio

rity

Inte

rven

tion

Str

ateg

ies

Teac

her(

s)Re

spon

sibl

eN

otes

on

St

uden

t Res

pons

ePr

ogre

ss M

onit

orin

g

Dat

es

Sche

dule

Prog

ress

Goa

ls

PA

V

O

PH

C

O

FL

(Sco

re/B

ench

mar

k/St

atus

)

PA

/

/

PH

/

/

FL

/

/

VO

/

/

CO

/

/

Inte

rven

tion

Per

iod

Prio

rity

Inte

rven

tion

Str

ateg

ies

Teac

her(

s)Re

spon

sibl

eN

otes

on

St

uden

t Res

pons

ePr

ogre

ss M

onit

orin

g

Dat

es

Sche

dule

Prog

ress

Goa

ls

PA

V

O

PH

C

O

FL

(Sco

re/B

ench

mar

k/St

atus

)

PA

/

/

PH

/

/

FL

/

/

VO

/

/

CO

/

/

COLL

AB

OR

ATIV

E IN

STRU

CTI

ON

AL

LOG

: REA

DIN

G (c

onti

nued

)



133

Base

line/

Scre

enin

g M

athe

mat

ics

Ass

essm

ent

Ann

ual M

athe

mat

ics

Goa

lsCo

mpr

ehen

sive

M

athe

mat

ics

Inst

ruct

ion

Inte

rven

tion

Sum

mar

y

Inst

rum

ent

Dat

e

Mat

h Co

mpu

tatio

n (M

C)

Mat

h Pr

oble

m S

olvi

ng (M

PS)

Inte

rven

tion

Exit

Crite

ria:

Prog

ram

Teac

her

Am

ount

of T

ime

Tim

e of

Day

Dai

ly

O

ther

Diff

eren

tiate

d In

stru

ctio

n:

Inte

rven

tion

Teac

her:

Gro

up:

Stud

ent

G

rade

H

omer

oom

Teac

her

Inte

rven

tion

Per

iod

Prio

rity

Inte

rven

tion

Str

ateg

ies

Teac

her(

s)Re

spon

sibl

eN

otes

on

St

uden

t Res

pons

ePr

ogre

ss M

onit

orin

g

Dat

es

Sche

dule

Prog

ress

Goa

ls

MC

MPS

(Sco

re/B

ench

mar

k/St

atus

)

MC

/

/

MPS

/

/

Inte

rven

tion

Per

iod

Prio

rity

Inte

rven

tion

Str

ateg

ies

Teac

her(

s)Re

spon

sibl

eN

otes

on

St

uden

t Res

pons

ePr

ogre

ss M

onit

orin

g

Dat

es

Sche

dule

Prog

ress

Goa

ls

MC

MPS

(Sco

re/B

ench

mar

k/St

atus

)

MC

/

/

MPS

/

/

COLL

AB

OR

ATIV

E IN

STRU

CTI

ON

AL

LOG

: MAT

HEM

ATIC

S



134

Stud

ent

G

rade

H

omer

oom

Teac

her

Inte

rven

tion

Per

iod

Prio

rity

Inte

rven

tion

Str

ateg

ies

Teac

her(

s)Re

spon

sibl

eN

otes

on

St

uden

t Res

pons

ePr

ogre

ss M

onit

orin

g

Dat

es

Sche

dule

Prog

ress

Goa

ls

MC

MPS

(Sco

re/B

ench

mar

k/St

atus

)

MC

/

/

MPS

/

/

Inte

rven

tion

Per

iod

Prio

rity

Inte

rven

tion

Str

ateg

ies

Teac

her(

s)Re

spon

sibl

eN

otes

on

St

uden

t Res

pons

ePr

ogre

ss M

onit

orin

g

Dat

es

Sche

dule

Prog

ress

Goa

ls

MC

MPS

(Sco

re/B

ench

mar

k/St

atus

)

MC

/

/

MPS

/

/

Inte

rven

tion

Per

iod

Prio

rity

Inte

rven

tion

Str

ateg

ies

Teac

her(

s)Re

spon

sibl

eN

otes

on

St

uden

t Res

pons

ePr

ogre

ss M

onit

orin

g

Dat

es

Sche

dule

Prog

ress

Goa

ls

MC

MPS

(Sco

re/B

ench

mar

k/St

atus

)

MC

/

/

MPS

/

/

COLL

AB

OR

ATIV

E IN

STRU

CTI

ON

AL

LOG

: MAT

HEM

ATIC

S (c

onti

nued

)



135

Core

Con

tent

Are

a/ T

ier 1

: Ins

truc

tion

al O

bser

vati

on

Obs

erve

r

Teac

her

Refe

rred

Stu

dent

# of

stu

dent

sLa

ngua

ge o

f in

stru

ctio

n

Star

t tim

e of

obse

rvat

ion

Fini

sh ti

me

ofob

serv

atio

n

Cont

ent a

rea(

s):

Rea

ding

Mat

hG

roup

ing

obse

rved

: Che

ck a

ll th

at a

pply

; CIR

CLE

grou

ping

for r

efer

red

stud

ent

__ P

hone

mic

Aw

aren

ess

__ P

honi

cs__

Flu

ency

__ C

ompr

ehen

sion

__ V

ocab

ular

y__

Writ

ing

__ C

ompu

tatio

n__

Wor

dpro

blem

sol

ving

__ W

hole

Gro

up__

Sm

all G

roup

__ #

in g

roup

s

__ P

artn

er__

One

-to-

One

__ C

o-te

achi

ng

Core

Con

tent

:

Inst

ruct

iona

l obj

ectiv

es/ L

esso

n A

ctiv

ities

/ Str

ateg

ies

Stud

ent e

ngag

emen

t/ M

axim

izat

ion

of in

stru

ctio

nal t

ime/

Pac

ing

Diff

eren

tiatio

n in

stru

ctio

n (m

ater

ials

, act

iviti

es, s

tude

nt p

rodu

cts)

Clas

sroo

m m

anag

emen

t/ In

terr

uptio

ns/ B

ehav

ior r

edire

ctio

ns

Corr

ectiv

e Fe

edba

ck/ A

ccou

ntab

ility

for s

tude

nt w

ork

Feat

ures

of e

ffect

ive

Inst

ruct

ion

Com

men

ts

__ E

xplic

it in

stru

ctio

n

__ M

odel

ing

__ G

uide

d pr

actic

e

__ Im

med

iate

cor

rect

ive

feed

back

__ P

ract

ice

to a

utom

atic

ity

__ S

caffo

ldin

g fo

r und

erst

andi

ng

__ M

ater

ial m

atch

es s

tude

nt n

eeds

Obs

erva

tion

of re

ferr

ed s

tude

nt’s

part

icip

atio

n

Gra

de



136

Parent __________________________________________ Child_________________________________

Interviewer ______________________________________ Date __________________________________

As you know, your child is experiencing learning difficulties. No one knows your child like you do. I’d like to get information from you that may help us understand more about how your child learns.

When did you first learn your child’s teachers were concerned about your child’s learning?

Do you think your child is having learning difficulties? What makes you think so?

What do you think your child’s learning difficulties could be?

How long has your child been at (school name)? ____________________

Does your child eat breakfast at home or at school? If at home, what does he/she eat before school?

When does your child usually go to bed? ____ p.m. Wake up in the morning? _____ a.m.

Leave for school? _____ How does he/she get to school? _________________________

Parent Interview



137

Does your child have needs the teachers might need to know about?

____ Medication ______________________ (Frequency ___________)

____ Allergies __________________________________________________

____ Frequent illnesses _________________________________________________

____ Sleep problems__________________________________________

____ Worries___________________________________________________

____ Other______________________________________________________

Did you or other family members have learning difficulties in school? If so, tell me about them.

Do you have any ideas that might help the teachers meet your child’s needs?

Do you have any questions for me?

Thank you for your time! You’ll be contacted when it’s time to set up a meeting to plan the next steps in

meeting your child’s needs.

PARENT INTERVIEW(CONTINUED)



138