Is it Ok for to Screen Students Without Holding any

Type of Special Education Conference?

Yes, schools can now screen students when they are first exhibiting academic or behavior problems without having to complete all that special education paperwork.  IDEA 2004 states:

“The screening of a student by a teacher or specialist to determine appropriate instructional strategies for curriculum implementation shall not be considered an evaluation for eligibility for special education and related services”. [34 CFR 300.302]

Is a Reevaluation Required When a Student Graduates?

No. Even though a student with a disability who graduates from high school with a regular diploma is terminated from special education or has exceeded the age of eligibility (21 years of age), it is technically not considered a dismissal from special education with regard to the reevaluation process. According to IDEA 2004, 300.305 (e) (2), graduation with a regular diploma is not considered a dismissal.

The key factor in this requirement is “graduation with a regular diploma” or “termination due to exceeding age of eligibility. It could be presumed that a reevaluation would be required if the student was graduating without a regular diploma.

A new requirement, “Summary of Academic and Functional Performance” must be completed at the conference. IDEA 2004 states:

“A public agency must evaluate a child with a disability in accordance with 34 CFR 300.304-300.311 before determining that the child is no longer a child with a disability. [34 CFR 300.305(e)(1)]

The evaluation described in 34 CFR 300.305(e)(1) is not required before the termination of a child’s eligibility under Part 300 due to graduation from secondary school with a regular diploma, or due to exceeding the age eligibility for a free appropriate public education (FAPE) under State law. [34 CFR 300.305(e)(2)]

For a child whose eligibility terminates under circumstances described in 34 CFR 300.305(e)(2), a public agency must provide the child with a summary of the child’s academic achievement and functional performance, which shall include recommendations on how to assist the child in meeting the child’s postsecondary goals.”  [34 CFR 300.305(e)(3)]

                            Educational Evaluation

As part of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 2004, the Response to Intervention (RTI) process was implemented prior to students referral/ (reevaluation) for special education.  The results are as follows:

Pre-Referral Interventions (NEW REFERRALS)

Prior to, or as part of the referral process, the following strategies were implemented: (Select strategies)

• Early Intervention class
• JEDI
• After school tutoring
• Corrective Reading
• Guided Reading
• Shared Reading
• Literature Circles
• Basal Readers
• Read Aloud
• Fluency Practice
• Writer’s Workshop
• WordBuilding(Word Journeys)
• Reading Enrichment Lab
• Smart Step/Next Step Comprehension Strategies
• Math Enrichment Lab
• List others from your district

Pre-Referral Interventions (RE-EVALUATIONS)

Studenthas participated in scientific, research-based interventions that have addressed his deficit in reading, mathematics, and written expression. Student’s teachers are highly qualified personnel who have received instruction in the following instructional strategies: ELLA, ACSIP Boys and Girls Town, IRA Conferences, Literacy Decision Makers Teleconferences, Model Schools

Conference, Silver Grant Curriculum mapping, Literacy Lab, Effective Lit. Good to Great, Young Adult Author Series, Cognitively Guided Mathematics Instruction, and Developing Mathematical Ideas.  (List all areas specific to your district)  However, Student has not demonstrated progress sufficient to meet grade-level state approved standards.

A summary of weekly assessments of intervention skills are as follows:

OR

                 Qualls Early Learning Inventory

September 20____

                               DIBELS

Note:  LNF= Letter Name Fluency

          NWF= Nonsense Word Fluency

          PSF= Phoneme Segmentation Fluency

          WUF= Word Use Fluency

          ORF= Oral Reading Fluency

                                  DRA

Current Standardized Test Results

Any of the following assessments may be used in narrative or table format:

ITBS     SAT9     SRI     NAEP     DRA     Explore     JEDI      ACTAAP

OS    QELI    DSA   DIBELS

                            Iowa Tests of Basic Skills (ITBS)

                           March 20___

Determination of Response to Interventions or a Pattern of

Strengths and Weaknesses

After reviewing the data submitted with regard to research-based interventions, the student failed to make sufficient progress in achievement considered adequate for his/her age or enrolled grade level standards when provided with a series of scientific, research-based interventions.  Therefore a referral for special education services was initiated.

Suggested Primary Handicapping Condition (New Referrals)

Based on a comparison of achievement standard scores and WISC-JV IQ, along with insufficient progress in response to scientific, research-based interventions, Student does not achieve adequately in the areas of reading fluency, basic reading skills, reading comprehension, mathematic calculation, mathematic problem solving, written expression, listening comprehension and oral expression to meet age or state approved grade-level standards. Therefore, special educational services appear appropriate in addressing Student’s deficit skills. The primary handicapping condition of Specific Learning Disability in (select areas) reading fluency, basic reading skills, reading comprehension, mathematic calculation, mathematics problem solving, written expression, listening comprehension and oral expression is recommended for consideration.

Suggested Primary Handicapping Condition (RE-EVALUATION)

Based on this evaluation and previous evaluation results, along with insufficient progress in response to scientific, research-based interventions Student still displays characteristics of student with a specific learning disability in basic reading skills, reading comprehension, mathematical calculation, mathematical problem solving, written expression, and listening comprehension.  Continued special educational services still appear to be appropriate to help strengthen Student’s  deficit skills.

Office of Special Education  Programs Letter in regards to:

The Use of Response to Intervention in Identifying Students with a

                                       Specific Learning Disabilitye to Intervention in Identifying Students with Specific Learning Disability

September 24, 2007

Dr. Carol Massanari

Mountain Plains Regional Resource Center

Utah State University

1780 North Research Parkway, Suite 112

Logan, UT 84341

Dear Dr. Massanari:

This letter is in response to your August 6, 2007, electronic mail (email) inquiry on behalf of the Wyoming Department of Education, in which you request clarification of an issue addressed in the technical assistance document "Questions and Answers on Response to Intervention (RTI) and Early Intervening Services (EIS)," released in January 2007 by the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) to clarify the final Part 13 regulations implementing the 2004 reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

You ask whether or not there might be a way to "field test" procedures for using data from RTI as part of the identification of specific learning disabilities (SLD). You pose a second part to your question regarding the differences between elementary schools and secondary schools. You ask, "Would it be possible that the LD determination at the elementary level would be based on data using the RTI process while the middle and high school levels would continue to use a discrepancy process?"

In its letter to X, dated July 27, 2007, and attached, OSEP states that if the use of a process based on the child's response to scientific, research-based interventions, in identifying children with SLD is required [by the local educational agency (LEA)], then all children suspected of having an SLD, in all schools in the LEA, would he required to be involved in the process. However, [as stated in the Cernosia letter] research indicates that implementation of any process, across any system, is most effective when accomplished systematically, in an incremental manner, over time. If an LEA chose to "scale up" the implementation of the RTI model gradually, over time, as would be reasonable, the LEA could not require the use of RTI for purposes of identifying children with SLD until RTI was fully implemented in the LEA. Therefore, it is unwise to require the use of a process based on the child's response to scientific, research-based intervention before implementation of that process has been successfully scaled up

On the other hand, if the use of a process based on the child's response to scientific, research-based intervention, is not required but is permitted by the LEA, a school would not have to wait until RTI is fully implemented in all schools in the LEA before using RTI as part of the identification of SLD. That is, if the LEA is allowing, but not requiring the use of RTI, and a particular school, using the criteria adopted by the State for determining whether the child has an SLD is identified under 34 CFR §300.8(c)(10), is implementing an RTI process, consistent with

 Page 2 – Carol Massanari

the LEA's guidelines, it would not have to wait until RTI is implemented in all schools in the LEA before it could use information from an RTI process as part of the identification of children with SLD.

Regarding the second part of your question, the differences between elementary school children and secondary school children, the final Part B regulations do not make such a distinction regarding the identification of children with SLD. However, under 34 CFR §300.307(a)(1)-(3), a State must adopt, consistent with 34 CFR §300.309, criteria for determining whether a child has an SLD as defined in 34 CFR §300.8(e)(10). The criteria adopted by the State: (1) must not require the use of a severe discrepancy between intellectual ability and achievement for determining whether a child has an SLD; (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 an SLD. A public agency, including an LEA, must use the State criteria in determining whether a child has an SLD. Nothing in the final Part B regulations would prohibit an LEA, if consistent with the State criteria, from using multiple methods of identifying a child with an SLD, as part of a full and individual evaluation, or reevaluation, across schools or across levels (e.g., elementary school, middle school or high school).

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 U.S. Department of Education of the IDEA in the context of the specific facts presented.

We hope you find this information responsive to your request. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have further questions or if I can be of any further assistance.

Sincerely,    /s/

Patricia  L. Guard

Acting Director

Office of Special Education Programs

cc: Peg Brown-Clark
John Copenhaver

Enclosure

OSEP  LETTER CONTINUED

Dated July 27, 2007

This letter is in response to your letter of April 27, 2007, in which you request clarification of an issue addressed in the technical assistance document "Questions and Answers on Response to Intervention (RTI) and Early Intervening Services (EIS),” released in January 2007 by the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) to clarify the final Part B regulations implementing the reauthorized Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 2004.

You ask whether, in the event a local educational agency (LEA) (in a State that leaves the use of an RTI model for purposes of eligibility for specific learning disabilities (SLD) to each LEA) decides it will use an RTI model, as opposed to a severe discrepancy model, to determine whether a child is eligible for special education as a child with a SLD, must every school in the LEA (K-12) use the RTI model for SLD eligibility determinations before any school in the LEA is permitted to do so?  You also ask if every school in an LEA must implement RTI for eligibility purposes, are there provisions in the IDEA that would allow a State and/or an LEA to pilot, or otherwise allow the use of an RTI model for eligibility determinations, only in selected schools in the State or LEA?

If the use of a process based on the child's response to scientific, research-based interventions, in identifying children with SLD is required, then all children suspected of having a SLD, in all schools in the LEA, would be required to be involved in the process.  However, research indicates that implementation of any process, across any system, is most effective when accomplished systematically, in an incremental manner, over time.  If an LEA chose to “scale up” the implementation of the RTI model gradually, over time, as would be reasonable, the LEA could not require the use of RTI for purposes of identifying children with SLD until RTI was fully implemented in the LEA.  Therefore, it is unwise to require the use of a process based on the child's response to scientific, research-based intervention before implementation of that process has been successfully scaled up.

On the other hand, if the use of a process based on the child's response to scientific, research-based intervention, is not required but is permitted by the LEA, a school would not have to wait until RTI is fully implemented in all schools in the LEA before using RTI as a part of the identification of SLD.  That is, if the LEA is allowing, but not requiring the use of RTI, and a particular school, using the criteria adopted by the State for determining whether the child has an SLD as identified in section 300.8(c)(10), is implementing an RTI process, consistent with the LEA’s guidelines, it would not have to wait until RTI is implemented in all schools in the LEA before it could use information from an RTI process as part of the identification of children with SLD.

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 U.S. Department of Education of the IDEA in the context of the specific facts presented.

We hope you find this information responsive to your request.  Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have further questions or if I can be of any further assistance.

Sincerely,

Patricia J. Guard, Acting Director, Office of Special Education  Programs

What Information Should be Included in an Adverse Affect Statement

for  Specific Learning Disability?

Adverse affects statements should be somewhat unique to each student while still relating to the characteristics of the disability Therefore, be sure to include specific deficit areas and how the disability affects the student’s performance in the general curriculum.

The student's measured cognitive ability falls in the average range of intellectual functioning, while individual achievement scores are not commensurate. The student is not making sufficient progress to meet age or State-approved grade level standards in LIST DEFICIT AREAS when using a process based on response to scientific, research based interventions. These identified deficits affect the student’s ability to learn (list benchmark areas).

OR

The student's measured cognitive ability falls in the average range of intellectual functioning,

while individual achievement scores are not commensurate. The student exhibits a pattern of strengths and weaknesses in performance, achievement, or both relative to age, State-approved grade-level standards, or intellectual development.  These identified deficits affect the student’s ability to learn  (list benchmark areas).