# data[].attributes.headline
STEP 1 Observation and Initial Assessment

# data[].attributes.subject
STEP 1 Observation and Initial Assessment

# data[].attributes.body
Regular Monitoring: Consistently observe students during class activities, noting participation, comprehension, and performance.

Anecdotal Records: Maintain detailed notes on student behaviors, academic struggles, and any patterns that emerge.

Formative Assessments: Use quizzes, assignments, and in-class activities to gauge understanding and identify any immediate areas of concern.

Appropriate classroom supports need to be place long enough before further assessments from the lens of special education.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Observing Students to Identify Struggling Learners

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As a teacher, it is important to carefully observe your students to identify any who may be struggling with the course material. Struggling…

# data[].attributes.headline
STEP 2 Screening for Language Needs vs. Learning Disabilities

# data[].attributes.subject
STEP 2 Screening for Language Needs vs. Learning Disabilities

# data[].attributes.body
Language Proficiency Assessment: Administer language proficiency tests to students for whom English is a second language.

Home Language Survey: Collect information from parents about the student’s primary language and exposure to English.

Cultural Considerations: Consider cultural and linguistic backgrounds when evaluating academic performance.

The focus of the assessment is to develop a profile of strengths, weaknesses, and areas of need to set a plan of intervention. The goal is to discover the degree of instruction that is required to promote learning.

# data[].attributes.body
Scaffolded Instruction: Use visual aids, graphic organizers, and simplified language to support comprehension.

Bilingual Support: Provide resources in the student’s primary language when possible and engage bilingual aides.

Peer Support: Pair students with proficient English-speaking peers for collaborative activities.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Colorín Colorado is a national multimedia project that offers a wealth of bilingual, research-based information, activities, and advice for educators and families of English language learners (ELLs). Colorín Colorado is an educational service of WETA, the flagship public broadcasting station in the nation's capital, and receives major funding from the American Federation of Teachers and National Education Association.

# data[].attributes.body
Specialized Assessments: Refer the student for formal evaluations by special education professionals.

Individualized Education Plan (IEP): If diagnosed, develop an IEP with specific accommodations and modifications.

Differentiated Instruction: Implement teaching strategies tailored to the student’s specific needs, such as multi-sensory learning approaches or additional time for tasks.

# data[].attributes.body
Response to Intervention (RTI) Model: Use a tiered approach to provide increasing levels of support:

Tier 1: High-quality classroom instruction and universal screening.

Tier 2: Small group interventions for students who need additional support.

Tier 3: Intensive, individualized interventions for students who continue to struggle.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Mathematics problem solving
§300.309(a)(1)
The first criterion for identification of SLD requires a determination that the student is failing to meet age- or grade-level state standards in one of eight areas (see definitions). A student needs to meet this criterion in only one of the eight areas. The school team should identify the area(s) of concern during its review of existing data. The area(s) of low achievement that have not been responsive to instruction/interventions of varying intensities should be what prompted referral for evaluation for the possible presence of SLD. Existing data from a variety of sources, to determine the gap between the student's current performance and age- or grade-level state standards, at a minimum should include the following:

Performance on state assessments. These are the state's general assessments aligned to state academic content standards for the student's enrolled grade.

Universal screening. Benchmark testing of all students, typically administered three times per year, focusing on foundational skills and aligned with state standards.

Formative and progress-monitoring assessments. Aligned with grade-level state standards, the assessments are used to monitor what students are expected to learn when provided with robust instruction within the general education setting. Classroom-based observation(s)

Norm-referenced assessments of academic achievement, correlated to state standards.One or more classroom-based observations by teachers (other than the student's teachers) and related services providers in the instructional environment(s) and during instruction in the area of concern.

Information provided by the student's parents that the student has a history of not meeting age- or grade-level state standards, as evidenced by data from prior evaluations, developmental history questionnaires, other information, and/or that there is a family history of LD, other family members with LD, and/or delayed acquisition of reading and/or math skills.

Data must be considered within the context of these two important elements:

State norms. Norm-referenced assessments provide an indicator of the average performance of a student in the same grade in comparison with other students across the country. Local norms are based on grade-level state standards, and a state's norms may vary in relation to the overall progress of students nationwide.

Cultural and linguistic sensitivity. If differences in culture or language are not considered when interpreting assessment data, the result may be an inappropriate disability designation. For students whose primary language is not English, an evaluation of their current English skills is recommended in order to show relative mastery of English. (See Special Rule for Eligibility Determination in the regulations and Considerations for English Language Learners)

Determining Extent of Student Underachievement

Additional data may be needed in order to verify the extent of the student's underachievement against age- or grade-level state standards. Such data will likely need to be obtained through more in-depth assessments as discussed below.

To comply with IDEA's requirements, assessment tools used for this purpose must be carefully selected and administered so as not to be discriminatory on a linguistic, racial, or cultural basis, and must be administered in a form and language that allows accurate data to be collected. §300.304(c)(1)

A useful tool to provide a closer look at student achievement may include classroom-based formative assessments that are very closely tied to the curriculum (aligned with grade-level and age-level state standards, or skill area where the instruction or intervention is focused. In many cases norm-referenced tests may also be used to gather additional data on the student's academic achievement (discussed further below). The goal is to determine the magnitude of difference between the student's current skills and what is expected for his or her age and grade (Deno, 2003).

To determine the extent of student underachievement, the use of multiple measures for assessing student achievement relative to national norms is recommended. These measures may include assessments that are used to drill down into a student's academic skill deficiencies, reading and math diagnostic tests, and/or norm-referenced tests. Formative measures that were used to monitor progress during interventions, which form the basis of determining Criterion 2 (Determining lack of progress to scientific, research-based instruction and intervention), also inform decision making in regard to the extent of student underachievement. Identification is more reliable when multiple sources of information are used.

Regardless of the assessment tools used, confidence intervals should be considered to take into account the measurement error of the tests and to permit the expression of a range of scores, not a set cut-point. Use of confidence intervals is one approach to the problem of rigid cut-points that plagues LD.

The federal regulations do not specifically indicate the extent to which a student must demonstrate inadequate performance/achievement. Teams may be guided by parameters set by their State Education Agency.

Role of Exclusionary Factors in Determining Extent of Student Underachievement

When reviewing the evidence used to document a student's underachievement, the team must determine whether the student's lack of achievement is not primarily the result of any of the exclusionary factors (Criterion 3). If a student belongs to an ethnic or cultural group, or is limited-English proficient (LEP), the team should review achievement data for that population to provide a context for the student's underperformance. If the performance of the student's subgroup is significantly lower than that of the total group, an exclusionary factor may apply or the student mayhave the impairment of SLD. It is inappropriate to automatically exclude a student from identification for the sole reason that students of a similar demographic group at the school have significantly lower achievement than that of the total group or because the student has LEP.

When reviewing the evidence used to document a student's underachievement, the team must determine whether the student's lack of achievement is not primarily the result of any of the exclusionary factors (Criterion 3). If a student belongs to an ethnic or cultural group, or is limited-English proficient (LEP), the team should review achievement data for that population to provide a context for the student's underperformance. If the performance of the student's subgroup is significantly lower than that of the total group, an exclusionary factor may apply or the student mayhave the impairment of SLD. It is inappropriate to automatically exclude a student from identification for the sole reason that students of a similar demographic group at the school have significantly lower achievement than that of the total group or because the student has LEP.

Role of Observation in Determining Extent of Student Underachievement

Observation of routine classroom instruction, required by Criterion 5, provides data about the student's academic performance and behavior in the classroom in the area(s) of concern identified in the referral. Consideration of information obtained through multiple observations of the student (as defined in Criterion 5) is critical and should address curriculum, instruction, and environmental factors as well as student work (e.g., amount, accuracy) completed during the observation period(s).

Role of Norm-Referenced Academic Tests

Norm-referenced tests have played a large role in SLD determination in the past, particularly within the ability-achievement discrepancy approach. Tests such as the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test (WIAT) and the Woodcock-Johnson Test of Achievement (WJ) have been used to assess overall academic achievement as well as performance on subskills.

There is nothing to prevent the use of norm-referenced tests within an RTI-based SLD identification process. In fact, such tests are particularly useful to identify skill deficits that will be the focus of remediation during interventions.

However, the extent to which norm-referenced tests can measure a student's lack of achievement relative to state standards is highly questionable because few norm-referenced tests are aligned with state academic standards. Therefore, use of such tests to satisfy Criterion 1 is insufficient and multiple sources of data are needed for both Criteria 1 and 2.

It should be noted that if the area of underachievement to be established is oral expression or listening comprehension, use of norm-referenced testing or other acceptable methods may be necessary. However, these assessments are often completed under eligibility requirements for other special education categories, such as speech and language impairment.

Role of Cognitive Processing Assessment

In recent years, there has been a substantial increase in the design, development, and implementation of interventions to address processing difficulties. For example, RAVE-O, developed at Tufts University, is a reading intervention designed to support students with rapid naming and phonological processing difficulties. The strategic instruction model (SIM), developed at the University of Kansas, is designed to support students with a variety of processing deficits, such as short-term and working memory and executive functioning. PAL (Process Assessment of the Learner), developed at the University of Washington, integrates instructional activities in reading, writing, and math in a way that supports a variety of processing deficits. Finally, the Landmark School math instructional strategies have been designed to support the needs of students with language-based and memory deficits through a reliance on visual models and kinesthetic activity. As the research in this area continues to develop, stronger links between cognitive processing results and intervention recommendations will continue to enhance intervention options for students with SLD.

While progress has been made related to cognitive processing-based assessment and programming, the current IDEA regulations view the use of cognitive-processing assessment as neither sufficient nor necessary for eligibility. In publishing the final federal IDEA 2004 regulations in 2006, the U.S. Department of Education spoke directly and explicitly to the possible role of cognitive processing in SLD eligibility determination, stating that

"Although processing deficits have been linked to some specific learning disabilities (e.g., phonological processing and reading), direct links with other processes have not been established. Currently, available methods for measuring many processing difficulties are inadequate. Therefore, systematically measuring processing difficulties and their link to treatment is not yet feasible. Processing deficits should be eliminated from the criteria for classification. The Department does not believe that an assessment of psychological or cognitive processing should be required in determining whether a child has an SLD. There is no current evidence that such assessments are necessary or sufficient for identifying SLD. Further, in many cases, these assessments have not been used to make appropriate intervention decisions." (Federal Register, August 14, 2006, p. 46651)

In the IDEA regulations, SLD is defined 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." (§300.8[10])

This definition has remained consistent since the passage of P.L. 94-142 in 1975. The question then and now is how to define eligibility for students with SLD based on that definition. The basic principle is that SLD is unexpected underachievement. How has this concept been operationalized into regulation?

In 1976, the Bureau of Education for the Handicapped (BEH, the precursor to the Office of Special Education Programs [OSEP]) published draft regulations related to P.L. 94-142. These draft regulations contained the eligibility criteria for SLD and were declared final in 1977. They were not changed until the passage of P.L. 108-446 (IDEA 2004) and its inclusion of the RTI option as part of comprehensive evaluation for SLD eligibility.

How do the current regulations address the basic principle that SLD is unexpected under achievement? They do so by using exclusionary factors to consider reasons other than SLD that may be the primary causes of underachievement. The concept here is this: If the primary reason for the underachievement is not other disabilities, cultural and environmental issues, and/or LEP, then the student is exhibiting unexpected underachievement.

Therefore, cognitive processing assessment is not included in an RTI-based SLD identification process that is in compliance with the specific language of the federal regulations. Evaluation and IEP teams should determine on a case-by-case basis based on the referral and eligibility data the utility of cognitive processing assessments to determine eligibility if required under the state SLD procedures and/or to enrich the programming provided to students with SLD. School teams might assess cognitive processing to gain insight regarding risk characteristics to inform instructional planning for reading and math interventions. For more information, see Comprehensive Evaluation in Cautions When Using an RTI-Based SLD Identification Process.

Validating Provision of "Appropriate Instruction"

The team must also satisfy the requirement expressed in Criterion 1 regarding a determination that the student's lack of academic achievement has occurred within the delivery of "appropriate instruction." This is an important element as it serves as a stopgap for identifying students as having an SLD who might actually be underperforming due to a lack of or inadequate instruction. In fact, it reiterates a requirement in IDEA's broader requirements for eligibility that states the following special rule for eligibility determination:

§ 300.306 (b)(1)(i-iii) A child must not be determined to be a child with a disability under this part-

(1) If the determinant factor for that determination is-

(i) Lack of appropriate instruction in reading, including the essential components of reading instruction (as defined in section 1208(3) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act [ESEA]);

(ii) Lack of appropriate instruction in math; or

(iii) Limited English proficiency

Evidence of classwide, gradewide, or schoolwide low achievement in the academic area of concern could lead the team to a determination that instruction (e.g., quantity, quality, relevance, alignment with standards) may have a strong relationship to the student's lack of achievement. Only when the team can determine that the referred student's academic problems persist while most students in the same demographic (e.g., English language learners, race/ethnicity), class, school, or district are performing satisfactorily can lack of appropriate instruction be ruled out. For example, when approximately 80% of students in the referred student's class or grade, or other subgroup, are meeting the age- or grade-level state standards, then the referred student's lack of achievement can be recognized as unique and not a result of the lack of instruction.

If the RTI-based process being implemented by a school adheres to all essential components of RTI, this issue is ruled out early on since successful implementation of an RTI framework requires a research-based core curriculum that is shown to be effective for the majority of students and is implemented with fidelity (as intended by the program authors).

Professional Judgment

Ultimately, it is the team's professional judgment that will determine if there is sufficient reliable and valid data to establish a lack of academic achievement in relation to age- and grade-level state standards. Determining that a sufficient body of evidence exists to make an eligibility determinationbased onmultiple sources of datarests with the school team (subject to any specific requirements provided in a state's SLD identification criteria).

Local performance standards and/or norms are not the standard against which the student should be judged for this criterion. Remember, the regulations specifically state that the benchmark for consideration in determining the extent of adequacy of instruction is age- or grade-level state standards.

Be sure to have data for all areas of suspected disability, as required by IDEA: "The child is assessed in all areas related to the suspected disability, including, if appropriate, health, vision, hearing, social and emotional status, general intelligence, academic performance, communicative status, and motor abilities" (§300.304(c)(4)). (See "All Areas of Suspected Disability," Mark Weber, Loyola Law Review, 2013, and Comprehensive Evaluationin Cautions When Using an RTI-Based SLD Identification Process.)

See Cautions When Using an RTI-Based SLD Identification Process for a synthesis of policy letters/OSEP guidance.

The eight areas listed in Criterion 1 are not specifically defined in federal IDEA regulations. The following provide generally accepted definitions of the eight areas of achievement:

Written expression involves processes related to the transcription of ideas and thoughts into a written product, such as handwriting and spelling. It also involves generative processes such as thecommunication of ideas, thoughts, and feelings. Required skills include using oral language, thought, grammar, text fluency, sentence construction, and planning to produce a written product.

Mathematics problem solving is the ability to apply mathematical concepts and understandings to real-world situations, often through word problems. It is the functional combination of computation knowledge and application knowledge, and involves the use of mathematical computation skills and fluency, language, reasoning, reading, and visual-spatial skills in solving problems. Essentially, it is applying mathematical knowledge at the conceptual level.

Source: Adapted from Wisconsin's Specific Learning Disabilities (SLD) Rule

Read the next article in this series >>

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Implementing RTI requires an effective change management process. Explore frameworks for successful plan implementation.

# data[].attributes.body
Parent-Teacher Meetings: Regularly communicate with parents about their child’s progress and involve them in intervention strategies.

Professional Collaboration: Work with special education teachers, speech-language pathologists, and other specialists to address the student’s needs.

Student Involvement: Encourage the student to participate in setting goals and tracking their own progress.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Page 10: Communicating with Students, School Personnel, and Parents

To implement RTI, teachers and school leaders must effectively communicate with students, with each other, and with parents. This is especially true when universal screening identifies potentially struggling readers in Tier 1 and when Tier 2 or Tier 3 intervention is being considered.

Communicating with Students

Teachers need to communicate at a developmentally appropriate level with students about instruction, interventions, and assessments (i.e., universal screening, progress monitoring) that will be carried out throughout the RTI process. Following are some ideas for communicating with students:

Use language that communicates the flexibility and the inclusiveness of the RTI process, rather than talking to the students about placing them in an intervention (e.g., Tier 2).

Allow students to graph their own progress monitoring data, and meet with students individually on a regular basis to discuss their progress.

Meet with students individually to discuss the instruction that they are receiving.

Melissa Brock describes her school's process for communicating with students about their performance by using progress monitoring data (time: 0:35).

Transcript: Melissa Brock

In terms of progress monitoring and communicating that with the students, if a student has shown a whole lot progress then we'll sit down with them and reflect on their scores and ask them why they think they've made this progress-what are the things that they've been doing that helped them to make this progress? The reverse would be if a student was not making progress, we would sit down with them and reflect on why they are not making this progress. What do we need to do to help them to get them where they need to be? Do they need extra practice? Are they participating fully in the lesson?

Communicating with School Personnel

Communication among school personnel is crucial to the successful implementation of the RTI approach. This communication can occur in a variety of ways, including regularly scheduled grade-level team meetings to discuss students' educational needs and regularly scheduled meetings between the general education teacher and the school personnel providing supplemental intervention. For example, at Rosa Parks, Mr. Brewster meets briefly once a week with Ms. Washington and separately with Ms. Jacobs, the professionals providing Tier 2 and Tier 3 intervention, to discuss his students' instructional needs and progress. Regardless of the school's preferred method of communication concerning students' educational needs and progress, teachers must collaborate with the Tier 2 and Tier 3 intervention providers to:

Align the intervention with the core curriculum used in Tier 1

Review a student's progress by examining progress monitoring data

Make decisions about a student's instructional needs

Make tier placement decisions based on the progress monitoring data

Keep in Mind

The general education teacher should share responsibility for the instructional planning and the decision-making process for all of his or her students. Although someone else may provide Tier 2 and Tier 3 intervention, the general education teacher still maintains primary responsibility for his or her students' instruction.

Communicating with Parents

The Rosa Parks staff understands the importance of communicating with parents and of gaining their support in the education of their children. As the teachers at Rosa Parks implement the RTI approach, parents also need to understand the process and its impact on the instructional decisions made about their children. More specifically, they need to be informed about:

Core instruction

Interventions

Universal screening and progress monitoring

Ideally, the school should establish communication with the parents at the beginning of the school year to explain the RTI process and to inform them of the universal screening. Once the screenings have been completed, the teacher should inform all parents of their child's performance on the universal screening. If a student is identified as potentially struggling in reading, the teacher should indicate to the parents that their child's progress will be monitored.

This understanding and involvement is especially important when a student is identified as having some additional need that will be met through an intervention (e.g., Tier 2). When meeting with parents, a teacher should focus on specific student needs and interpret student's universal screening and progress monitoring data for them. Because these data are integral to current and future instruction, they:

Provide a point of reference for the discussion between the teacher and parents

Present a more objective picture of the student's performance

For example, Mr. Brewster has kept Laney's parents informed about her progress since her universal screening. As soon as he determines that Laney may benefit from the additional support provided in Tier 2, he notifies her parents about the proposed instructional change and requests a conference.

During this meeting, he will describe Laney's instructional needs and discuss the instruction, interventions, and assessments she will receive. Click on the movie below to see how Mr. Brewster conducts the parent meeting (time: 2:42).
View Transcript
Transcript: Mr. Brewster Conducts the Parent Meeting

Narrator: Mr. Brewster is meeting with Laney's parents to discuss additional reading support, or Tier 2 intervention, for Laney. Since the universal screening, he has been updating them about her progress on a regular basis. Listen as Mr. Brewster reviews the universal screening process and uses Laney's progress monitoring data and graph to describe Laney's reading performance to her parents.

Mr. Brewster: Thank ya'll for coming in. I want to discuss Laney's progress in reading. At the beginning of the school year, I gave each student a brief reading test. Laney's score indicated that she was struggling with reading. As you know, I've been giving Laney extra support in reading, and I monitored her progress for the past eight weeks.

Narrator: Mr. Brewster shows Laney's parents a graph of her scores. She read about six words correctly in one minute on the first test and is now reading nine words correctly in one minute. Mr. Brewster points out that by this time of year, second-grade students are usually reading more than 20 words correctly in one minute.

Mr. Brewster: So, based on these results, I think Laney would benefit from even more reading support. This support will be provided by Ms. Washington, the reading specialist.

Mom: Well, could you tell us what kind of extra help you've given her?

Mr. Brewster: Yeah, I've tried a number of things. I divided the class into small groups; this allows me to give Laney more individualized help. In addition, so that the students have more time to practice, I scheduled a time when each student works with a partner to improve reading skills. While Laney has made some progress with these types of instruction, she still has a long way to go to reach the grade-level goal.

Dad: Since it's only November, should we wait a little longer?

Mr. Brewster: Well, I'm worried if we wait any longer, Laney will fall further behind her classmates. This is an opportunity for Laney to spend more time working on her reading skills and, possibly, to get them back on grade level. The students really enjoy working with Ms. Washington, and last year she had a lot of success with the students who were struggling with reading.

Dad: Well, it sounds like it's worth trying, but how long will it take before you know if it's working?

Mr. Brewster: The support will last for 10 weeks, and we'll monitor Laney's progress once each week. That means that we'll continue to keep track of her performance on her graph, and we'll be able to see if she makes adequate progress in reading with this additional support.

Mom: Okay, that sounds good. Let's give it a try.

Narrator: During the remainder of the meeting, Mr. Brewster explains in detail how the Tier 2 intervention will be implemented. He informs the parents that Laney will miss part of science and part of social studies, and he explains how he will make adjustments to compensate for the time she misses. Mr. Brewster assures them that he will continue to update them about Laney's progress on a regular basis.

Keep in Mind

Due process procedures, as defined by special education law, need to be considered when determining the appropriate time to notify parents of changes to their child's instruction.

Listen as Doug and Lynn Fuchs discuss when to inform parents about the RTI process (time: 0:30).

Doug Fuchs, PhD and Lynn Fuchs, PhD
Nicholas Hobbs Co-Chairs of Special Education and Human Development
Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN

/wp-content/uploads/module_media/rti04_alltogether_media/audio/rti04_10audio_fuchs.mp3
View Transcript
Transcript: Doug and Lynn Fuchs, PhD

Doug Fuchs: We recommend that parents be involved at the point when kids are identified as at-risk so that they know that their children's progress is going to be monitored-they're not yet identified, they're not suspect of having a disability, but that they be notified from the get-go.

Lynn Fuchs: Like Doug said, you'd want to tell them when they're being monitored each week to make sure that their progress is good. If they're going to enter Tier 2 tutoring, I think parents need to be informed about that.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
IRIS | Page 10: Communicating with Students, School Personnel, and Parents

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
To implement RTI, teachers and school leaders must effectively communicate with students, with each other, and with parents. This is especially true when universal screening identifies potentially struggling readers in Tier 1 and when Tier 2 or Tier 3 intervention is being considered.

# data[].attributes.headline
STEP 6 Continuous Monitoring and Adjustment

# data[].attributes.subject
STEP 6 Continuous Monitoring and Adjustment

# data[].attributes.body
Progress Monitoring: Regularly assess the student’s progress through formative and summative assessments.

Adjust Interventions: Modify instructional strategies and interventions based on ongoing assessment data.

Feedback Loop: Maintain open lines of communication with all stakeholders to ensure the interventions remain effective and relevant.

If after quality instruction, intervention, appropriate assessments and background data have been taken into account and there is still no progress, further intervention by special education personnel may be in order to address a learning challenge.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How to guide and monitor student learning - Classcraft Blog

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Monitoring student learning has a significant impact on their success and is noted as one of the key differences between effective and ineffective teaching.