RtI in IllinoisDisability Rights Consortium at Equip for Equality

Chicago, Illinois September 28, 2011

Rodney D. Estvan M.Ed. Education Policy Analyst

Access Living of Chicago&

Antoinette P. TaylorExceptional Needs Consultant

Illinois State Board of Education approved Professional Development Provider

www.atexcepetional.com

Presenters

§ 300.307 Specific learning disabilities.(a) General. A State must adopt,

consistent with § 300.309, criteria fordetermining whether a child has a

specific learning disability as defined in§ 300.8(c)(10). In addition, the criteria

adopted by the State—(1) Must not require the use of a

severe discrepancy between intellectualability and achievement for determiningwhether a child has a specific learningdisability, as defined in § 300.8(c)(10);(2) Must permit the use of a process

based on the child’s response toscientific, research-based intervention;

and(3) May permit the use of other

alternative research-based proceduresfor determining whether a child has aspecific learning disability, as defined

in § 300.8(c)(10).

In the 1970 version of IDEA the federal regulations required that students in order to be identified as having a severe learning disability had to show a severe discrepancy between measured achievement and intellectual ability. As Professor Weber and others have pointed out the regulations did not define what a severe discrepancy was and left it up to the states to decide.

As early as 1981, we can see debates among psychologists raging over what exactly a severe discrepancy was. There were four basic methods of quantifying severe academic discrepancy - 1/ N grade level deviation, expectancy formula, standard-score comparisons, and regression analysis.

Quantifying a Severe Discrepancy: A Critical Analysis

Thomas E. Cone and Lonny R. WilsonLearning Disability Quarterly

Vol. 4, No. 4, Severe Learning Disabilities (Autumn, 1981), pp. 359-371

By 1989 there were studies showing that if a school simply picked the lowest achieving students in a school that were referred for evaluation in a school year and declared them simply to have a learning disability that random process would have yielded about the same percentage of correct decisions, as would two different discrepancy methods.

Defining severe discrepancy in the diagnosis of learning disabilities: A comparison of methodsHarvey F. Clarizio, and S.E. Phillps Journal of School PsychologyVolume 27, Issue 4, Winter 1989, Pages 383-391

In 2003 several leading experts on Learning Disabilities came to the conclusion that it was necessary to eliminate IQ-achievement discrepancy as an LD marker, and to have a serious public discussion about alternative identification methods.The most popular of the alternatives was responsiveness-to-intervention (RTI), of which there were two basic versions: the “problem-solving” model and the “standard-protocol” approach. But these experts called for more research on RtI before implementation. Responsiveness-to-Intervention: Definitions, Evidence, and Implications for the Learning Disabilities ConstructDouglas Fuchs, Devery Mock, Paul L. Morgan, Caresa L. YoungLearning Disabilities Research & Practice Volume 18, Issue 3, pages 157–171, August 2003

23 IAC 226.130(b):

Provided that the requirements of this subsection (b) are met, each district shall, no later than the beginning of the 2010-11 school year, implement the use of a process that determines how the child responds to scientific, research-based interventions as part of the evaluation procedure described in 34 CFR 300.304. When a district implements the use of a process of this type, the district shall not use any child’s participation in the process as the basis for denying a parent’s request for an evaluation.

Illinois RtI

By January 1, 2008, ISBE was required to develop a plan for implementing RtI that is to be developed in consultation with stakeholder groups, including ISAC which ISBE did

The plan was supposed include estimated costs and resources needed to provide TA to districts, as well as a method for identifying those districts that require assistance for resources. These components were largely missing from the plan and in the last session of the IL General Assembly all funding for RtI training statewide was cut from the budget.

23 IAC 226.130(d):Districts may continue to use a “severe discrepancy” model when determining whether a specific learning disability exists, but beginning with the 2010-2011 school year, all school district were required to first use an RtI process.

Illinois Special Education Eligibility and Entitlement Procedures and Criteria within a Response to Intervention (RtI) Framework

The purpose of this guidance document is to provide Illinois districts and schools with a framework for using RtI to determine a student’s eligibility for and entitlement to special education services. While the 2010-2011 requirement for the use of RtI is specific to the identification of SLD, the purpose of this document is also to lay the foundation for the optional use of RtI as part of the evaluation procedures to determine special education eligibility for all students suspected of having a disability other than SLD.

RTI Theory

Research-Based

Scientifically-based Research “… means research that involves the application of rigorous, systematic, and objective procedures to obtain reliable and valid knowledge relevant to education activities and programs.”

(No Child Left Behind Act of 2001)

Where should RtI take place?

Primary including Kindergarten Middle School High School

ANDWhole school involvement is needed in order

to implement RtI successfully.

RtI TiersAcademic Systems Behavioral Systems

Tier 3 (1-5%)

Tier 2 (5-10%)

Tier 1 (80-90%)

RtI Tiers

RtI Tier 1 (80 - 90%)School Core/Center

This is Universal. It is what every student who comes in the building gets regardless

of ability, disability or advanced ability.The majority of your students should be

successful here.

RtI Tier 1Academic Systems Behavioral Systems

Continuum of School-Wide Instructional and

Positive Behavioral Support

For ALL students, it is:Preventive and Proactive

Adapted from Reaching All Students: RtI & SWPBS (Eber & Sugai. 2009).

RtI (What it isn’t) RtI is not a Special Education Initiative

RtI is not a vehicle to move children into Special Education

RtI is not a replacement for referral/evaluation/assessment

RtI is not the responsibility of Clinicians and Case Managers

RtI is not something we do to students RtI is not a way to keep children from receiving

services under IDEA or Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act

RtI is not a program, curriculum, strategy or intervention

Council for Exceptional Children

October 2008

Shall not delay the referral of a child who is suspected of having a disability for a

comprehensive evaluation.

Council for Exceptional Children

Shall include provisions for referral for a comprehensive evaluation in any tier, which

includes measures of cognitive ability to determine if a child has a disability and is eligible for special education and related

services and due process protections

Council for Exceptional Children

Data from responsiveness to instruction in tiers one and two shall not be a substitute

for a comprehensive evaluation.

Council for Exceptional Children

RtI data does not provide sufficient data to rule out or identify a disability!!!!!

Council for Exceptional Children

Shall include provisions for referral for a comprehensive evaluation in any tier, which

includes measures of cognitive ability to determine if a child has a disability and is eligible for special education and related

services and due process protections

Must permit the use of a process based on the student’s response to scientific, research-based intervention

Must document how the student responds to scientific, research-based interventions

Must document that the student does not achieve adequately or make sufficient progress in state-approved grade-level standards

FederalAlignment with No Child Left Behind

Positive Behavior Interventions and

Supports - PBIS

Illinois PIBS Network

Early Results from two school districts and the

state as a whole

SPRINGFIELD SD 186

Naperville (CUSD 203)

Change in disabling conditions statewide

The Human Genome Project, the international effort to map the entire human genetic code, will lead to the identification of genetic variants that may vastly expand our understanding of disabilities.

Research suggests that most genes associated with common learning disabilities--language impairment, reading disability, and mathematics disability--are generalists in 3 ways. First, genes that affect common learning disabilities are largely the same genes responsible for normal variation in learning abilities. Second, genes that affect any aspect of a learning disability affect other aspects of the disability. Third, genes that affect one learning disability are also likely to affect other learning disabilities.

Neither RtI nor severe discrepancy will survive the revolution of molecular

diagnostics

Generalist Genes and Learning Disabilities. Plomin, Robert; Kovas, Yulia Psychological Bulletin, Vol 131(4), Jul 2005,

592-617. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.131.4.592

Genetics advances and learning disability

WALTER J. MUIRBritish Journal of Psychiatry 2000, 176:12-18.

Genetics and LD

Resources

www.rti4success.org

http://www.isbe.net/RtI_plan/default.htm

http://www.isbe.net/spec-ed/html/rti_speced.htm

www.pbis.org/default.aspx