Source: http://www.rtinetwork.org/getstarted/sld-identification-toolkit/ld-identification-toolkit-cautions?tmpl=component&print=1?tmpl=component&print=1
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 16:41:08+00:00

Document:
Below are several cautions to be considered when using a Response to Intervention (RTI)–based specific learning disability (SLD) identification process. These were gleaned from policy guidance issued by the U.S. Department of Education and state education agencies, as well as pertinent comments from the literature since issuance of the 2006 federal regulations for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA).
When evaluating an intervention process to determine if it meets the requirements in 34 C.F.R. §300.307(a)(2), the evaluator should compare the components of the questioned intervention to the essential RTI components mentioned above. As a matter of practice, OSEP does not evaluate school districts’ RTI processes.
The IDEA regulation requires data-based documentation of repeated assessments of achievement at reasonable intervals (reflecting formal assessment of student progress during instruction) to determine that underachievement is not due to lack of appropriate instruction in reading or math.2 However, the regulation gives no further guidance regarding acceptable parameters for “repeated assessments” or “reasonable intervals.” In comments regarding the final 2006 regulation, the U.S. Department of Education explained that data, which documents progress, are to be “systematically collected and analyzed”3 and that the term “repeated” is not the same as “continuous.”4 Data, from activities such as regular classroom assessments, may be “minimally sufficient” to meet regulatory requirements, but they are not as research-based as, for example, progress-monitoring tools reviewed and given high ratings by the National Center on Intensive Intervention’s Technical Review Committee.5 When state requirements do not specify more than the IDEA regulatory minimal requirements, school districts have the opportunity to develop local standards that are more explicit and research-based to promote consistent and evidence-based practices.
Use of an RTI process does not replace the requirement for a comprehensive evaluation. Even with RTI, the evaluation must include a variety of data-gathering tools and strategies, which includes the results of RTI activities.7 The Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE), in its guidance to school districts, answered the question of what constitutes a “sufficiently comprehensive evaluation.”8 The agency noted that IDEA requires students to be assessed in all areas related to the suspected disability, including “if appropriate.” The eight specified areas, are also known as domains. The IEP team (and other qualified professionals, as appropriate) use this standard to identify the particular areas of review for the student. Therefore, the determination of “comprehensiveness” is based on each student’s individualized needs. ISBE provided the following guidance for this determination process.
In the past, the required “comprehensive evaluation” was interpreted by most to mean a common battery of assessments for all students suspected of having a particular disability. Now it is anticipated that the data gathered during the RtI process, related directly to the student’s performance in the learning context, should reduce the need for the “common battery” approach to assessments.
In conducting an evaluation, the team may not use any single measure or assessment as the sole criterion for making a disability determination and for determining an appropriate educational program. While a student’s response to scientific, research-based intervention is crucial to disability identification and educational planning, other types of information and assessment data must also be collected throughout the RtI process.
The requirement to collect additional information and assessment data can be addressed through what is commonly called the RIOT (Record review, Interviews, Observation, and Testing) process, which is typically an integral part of the early intervening period. Below are examples of data sources and evaluation tools in each of these four categories that might be included in a full and individual evaluation. The collection of this information and data may occur during the RtI process and/or after the special education evaluation period begins.
Record Review of student work samples, grades, office referrals, etc.
Testing including universal screening, curriculum-based measures (CBMs; depending on tier), classroom tests, districtwide and state tests, functional behavior assessments, etc.
The agency wrote that it does not believe there is a conflict between the Texas provision and OSEP’s November 2007 memorandum, which clarified that RtI cannot be used as a reason for delaying or denying the evaluation of a student who is suspected of having a disability. 10 Thus, for a student experiencing difficulty in general education, school district personnel may “consider” the use of RtI and deny an evaluation request as long as the personnel have no basis to suspect the student has a disability. In this circumstance, the district must provide the parent with prior written notice reflecting the evaluation request and the district’s basis for denying the request. Also, the student’s progress should be monitored and, as noted in the Texas provision, personnel should initiate an evaluation if the student continues to experience difficulty.
There are various timeframes applicable to evaluations for students based on the following circumstances: students transferring to a school district with an evaluation in progress; highly mobile children; and evaluations conducted during discipline procedures.
Generally, school districts must complete evaluations within the relevant federal/state time frame, which may be extended by mutual written agreement of the district and child’s parents for students suspected of having SLD (34 C.F.R. §300.309(c)). There are additional considerations when a student transfers with an evaluation in progress to another school district. In this case, the new district is required to promptly obtain parent consent to continue the evaluation, and, absent the following exception, consider the timeframe to be ongoing (applying the relevant timeframe). The exception applies to new school districts making sufficient progress to ensure prompt completion of the evaluation, and the parent/district agree to a new specific time (34 C.F.R. §300.301(d)(2) and (e)).14 In any event, the new district cannot delay obtaining parental consent and completing the evaluation because an RtI process is pending.15 The regulation neither specifies nor has OSEP provided guidance regarding the time frame applicable to transferred students when the prior district’s evaluation time frame expired prior to the student transfer or prompt request/receipt of parental consent. Also, OSEP has not provided guidance regarding the term “sufficient progress to ensure prompt completion of the evaluation.” If states lack regulatory provisions or guidance in these areas, districts may consult with their attorneys to establish reasonable local standards to facilitate consistent practices.
If general education instruction does not reflect high-quality teaching and learning, it can be difficult to determine whether a student’s low achievement is internal to the individual or a consequence of the poor instruction. “As an unfortunate result, students with SLD may be difficult to identify reliably unless general education instruction improves. In grade levels and content areas where evidence-based interventions are limited, it also may be difficult to verify intervention quality.”26 This issue is similarly problematic for English language learners (ELLs), for whom it may be difficult to differentiate SLD from characteristics of second language acquisition.27 Because of these difficulties, there may be several consequences.
Overidentification. Students may be overidentified as having SLD, especially students who are African American or ELLs, because they are disproportionately referred for special education evaluation due to their underachievement and a lack of appropriate, sufficiently analyzed instruction (as required by 34 C.F.R. §300.306).
Assess curriculum:Assess the degree to which the curriculum is scientifically based and implemented with integrity, and matches student needs.
Remediate deficiencies: Document plans to remediate curriculum deficiencies found through these processes in district and school improvement plans.
Intensify instruction: Consider intensifying instruction for all students with low achievement so that general educators at Tier 1 utilize approaches that would otherwise be considered to be Tier 2/supplemental instruction in a high-achieving district/school.
District norms: Establish universal screening systems to provide tiered early intervening services, monitor integrity and progress of interventions, and set local data-based decision making rules to compare individual students against age-level peers within the district/school in addition to grade level standards.
1 OSEP Letter to Dale (November 14, 2012) http://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/memosdcltrs/12-008431r-me-dale-rti-11-14-12.doc and OSEP Letter to Zirkel (September 10, 2013). Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/memosdcltrs/13-003039-pa-zirkel-rti9-11-13.doc.
2 34 C.F.R. §300.309 (b)(2).
4 OSEP Letter to Zirkel (April 8, 2008). Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/letters/2008-2/zirkel040808rti2q2008.pdf.
6 OSEP Letter to Anonymous (July 27, 2007). Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/letters/2007-3/massanari092407eval3q2007.doc.
7 OSEP Letter to Prifitera (March 1, 2007). Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/letters/2007-1/prifitera030107eval1q2007.doc.
8 Frequently Asked Questions About Special Education Eligibility and Entitlement Within a Response to Intervention (RtI) Framework, Question 22 (Updated August 2012), at p. 18. Retrieved from http://www.isbe.net/spec-ed/pdfs/faq_sped_entitlement_rti.pdf.
9 OSEP Letter to Ferrara (February 29, 2012). Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/letters/2012-1/ferrara022912rti1q2012.pdf.
10 OSEP Memorandum to State Directors of Special Education (January 21, 2011). Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/memosdcltrs/osep11-07rtimemo.pdf.
11 OSEP Letter to Brekken (June 2, 2010). Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/letters/2010-2/brekken060210rti2q2010.doc.
12 OSEP Letter to Zirkel (January 6, 2011). Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/letters/2011-1/zirkel010611rti1q2011.doc; and Q and A: Questions and Answers on Serving Children With Disabilities Placed by Their Parents at Private Schools (April 2011). Retrieved from http://idea.ed.gov/explore/view/p/,root,dynamic,QaCorner,1.
Frequently Asked Questions About Special Education Eligibility and Entitlement Within a Response to Intervention (RtI) Framework (Updated August 2012). Retrieved from http://www.isbe.net/spec-ed/pdfs/faq_sped_entitlement_rti.pdf.
14 One other exception applies to students with a parent that repeatedly fails or refuses to produce the student for the evaluation (34 C.F.R. §300.301(d)(1)).
15 OSEP Letter to State Director of Special Education (July 19, 2013). Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/memosdcltrs/12-0392dclhighlymobile.pdf.
19 The U.S. Department of Education has not specified a precise timeline for an expedited evaluation because the need for collecting additional information may vary; however, the evaluation "should be conducted in a shorter period of time than a typical evaluation conducted pursuant to section 614 of the Act." 71 Fed. Reg. 46540, 46728 (Aug. 14, 2006).
20 Letter to Combs (August 15, 2008). Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/letters/2008-3/combs081508rtieval3q2008.pdf.
24 OSEP Letter to Zirkel (December 11, 2008). Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/letters/2008-4/zirkel121108iee4q2008.pdf.
25 MacGregor, R. (2007). The essential practices of high quality teaching and learning. Retrieved from http://www.effectiveness.org/files/EssentialPracticesofHighQualityTeaching%20and%20Learning.pdf.
26 R. Zumeta, P. A. Zirkel, & L. Danielson (2014). Identifying specific learning disabilities legislation, regulation, and court decisions. Topics in Language Disorders, 34(1), 8–24, at p. 20. Retrieved from http://journals.lww.com/topicsinlanguagedisorders/Abstract/2014/01000/Identifying_Specific_Learning_Disabilities_.3.aspx.
29 Frequently Asked Questions About Special Education Eligibility and Entitlement Within a Response to Intervention (RtI) Framework, Question 16 (Updated August 2012). Retrieved from http://www.isbe.net/spec-ed/pdfs/faq_sped_entitlement_rti.pdf.

References: §300
 §300
 §300
 §300
 §300
 §300