SLD Identification (Excerpts from Michigan Department of Education, OSE EIS: Michigan Criteria

K. Kosobud 1 LDA of Michigan Conference 2010

SLD Identification (excerpts from Michigan Department of Education, OSE_EIS: Michigan Criteria for Determining the Existence of a Specific Learning Disability, May 2010)

Two (2) Kinds of Processes for SLD Identification:

Response to Scientific, Research-Based Intervention Process:

1. The student does not achieve adequately for the student’s age or to meet State-approved grade-level standards in one or more of the areas identified at 34 CFR §300.309(a)(1)(i) when provided with learning experiences and instruction appropriate for the student’s age or State-approved grade-level standards; and

2. The student does not make sufficient progress to meet age or State-approved grade-level standards in one or more of the areas identified at 34 CFR §300.309(a)(1)(i) when using a process based on the student’s response to scientific, research-based intervention.

Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses Process:

2. 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, that is determined by the MET to be relevant to the identification of a SLD, using appropriate assessments, consistent with the IDEA Evaluation Procedures and Additional Requirements for Evaluations and Reevaluations.

Explaining “The Box” in the Michigan Criteria

Suggested Parameters for Establishing an Academic Skill Deficit

This says "Suggested", since this is a local district decision.

These are not intended to be absolute cut‐points and the convergence of

multiple sources of data needs to be considered by the evaluation team. The

decision as to what constitutes an academic skill deficit is a complex decision

and will require a degree of professional judgment. The decision must be

based on valid and reliable data.

MDE says that these cut points are not firm, and that several pieces of information are considered in the SLD determination process.

· At least one measure needs to reflect a comparison to Michigan (or national) benchmarks or norms in order to provide some consistency across schools and districts in the interpretation of an academic skill deficit.

At least one assessment needs to be normed against the same age or grade level as the child's grade placement, OR the test aligns with the Michigan grade level content expectations for the child's grade placement.

· Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM) results that include at least 6 data points that are at or below the 9th percentile may be considered significant.

Focus on Results explains Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM) at: http://www.cenmi.org/Documents/FocusonResults/FocusonResultsDetails/tabid/79/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/46/MiBLSi-Outlines-A-Multilevel-System-of-Support-for-Michigan-Students.aspx . DIBELS is a Curriculum Based Measure which comes with tables that represent the age or grade norms for performance on the assessment. Six data points means that the teacher took at least six samples of a student's performance at short intervals (one or two weeks) to measure progress on a skill.

· Criterion Reference Measures (CRMs) compare a student’s performance to the goals of the curriculum. These may be provided within program materials or set by teachers. An academic skill deficit could be indicated by results that are at or below 50% of the grade level expectancy. Thus, grade level criteria must be determined for CRMs. (For example, if the expectation is that a student answer grade level comprehension questions with 80% accuracy, and a student’s accuracy through repeated trials is at 40% or less, then a deficit might be indicated.)

A CRM is a performance statement. It tells what a student is expected to do at a certain grade or age, and at what rate. The MEAP is based on grade level expectations, and is normed by graphing the frequency of correct responses for other students at that grade level on test items. These frequencies are compared to those of students being tested (this is an over-simplification, but this is basically what the testing people do). The example suggests that if a student is performing at half the rate that most students are achieving then this is a substantial lag in performance. Most students can be reasonably expected to meet or exceed the grade level expectation.

· When a measure is utilized that provides a percentile rank, such as an individually administered norm referenced test, a score at or below the 9th percentile may represent an academic deficit.

The 9th percentile rank means that out of 100 students, 91 can reasonably be expected to outperform students ranked at or below this level. The percentage of students aged 6 to 21 has hovered between 4.2 and 4.4 percent of the total student population from 1995 to 2004 (28th Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the IDEA, 2006). If you look at a normal distribution curve, the 9th percentile falls between the 13.59th percentile and the 2.14th percentile (1-1/2 and 2 standard deviations below the norm).

Graphic Source: http://www.aceintelligence.com/

That has been standard for SLD identification in most Michigan districts for more than the last decade. The biggest difference is what is done before starting the SLD determination process: making sure that the student has gotten good instruction, and keeping track of response to increasingly intensified interventions based on the student's performance and selected from practices that are "evidence based" (likely to be of benefit, based on experimental research).

We should be looking for a drop in the proportion of students expected to be identified with SLD, as a result of early and quick intervention through RTI when learning problems develop. The expectation that the percentage of students identified SLD should drop was heavily influenced by two documents A New Era: The Report of the President's Commission on Excellence in Special Education, and Rethinking Special Education for a New Century.

Both documents were critical of the category of SLD, calling special education for students with SLD "a private education program at public expense", blaming poor teaching for the large numbers of children who had failed to learn to read, and calling for evidence-based programs of instruction to solve these problems.

The biggest change, of course, is that there is a great deal of emphasis on academic achievement, and making sure that academic content is taught by teachers who are "highly qualified" to teach the content to all students. These are driven by No Child Left Behind (NCLB), and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in alignment with NCLB.