• No results found

OTHER COMMENTS & OBSERVATIONS:

8. Situational Trauma

Has the student’s academic performance fallen dramatically within the last 6-

12 mths? □ Yes □ No

Is there knowledge of any situations within the student’s family that would contribute to a drop in academic performance (e.g., death of family member, divorce of parent, etc)

□ Yes □ No

Please explain how any indicated factors have been ruled out as the determinant factors for this student’s lack of progress within general education instruction and/or tiered intervention:

196 5.3 Data Based Decision Making

When determining eligibility for special education, the team will consider data collected with tiered interventions. Data will have been used to determine movement within and out of tiered interventions. Students will have had researched-based, peer-reviewed interventions within the specific area of deficit. They will have been progress monitored over time and a rate of improvement will have been determined. Students that are making sufficient progress will remain at the level of support required to be successful. After tiered interventions have been exhausted and the student has demonstrated insufficient progress, then the student’s eligibility for special education service may be determined. The team may initiate the referral process using the following criteria:

A student does not appear to making sufficient progress after tiered interventions have been implemented with fidelity and data based decisions have been made using 8-10 data points (every other week) or 10-15 data points (weekly) at each tier.

 ROI and a gap analysis must be completed for students being referred for special education to determine if needs are beyond general education Tier III interventions.

The Tennessee SLD criterion identifies two decision rules to inform the IEP team analysis of progress monitoring data from intensive, scientific research-based or evidence-based intervention. A student’s rate of progress during intensive intervention is insufficient if either of the following apply:

 The rate of progress is less than that of his/her same-age peers, or

 The rate of progress is greater than his/her same-age peers but will not result in reaching the average range of achievement in a reasonable period of time.

This component follows an earlier scenario through the special education referral process. In this scenario, the student has made progress at a rate less than that of her same age peers and is therefore found eligible as a student with a Specific Learning Disability.

197 Within the initial evaluation timeline, Mrs. Jones, the school psychologist completes a standardized measure of achievement in the area of reading fluency. Sarah’s scores on the individual achievement assessment are considered below average. Mrs. Jones, the school psychologist reviews the

documentation provided through the referral process. Fidelity checks and progress monitoring had been completed and intervention logs indicated Sarah was present for Tier I instruction and Tiered

interventions 88 percent of the time. This information allows Mrs. Jones to rule out lack of instruction. In addition, Mrs. Jones is able to determine that Sarah did in fact receive the research based

interventions in her identified area of deficit with fidelity and her lack of progress is not due to inappropriate interventions. Since Sarah has continued to receive intervention through the initial evaluation process, Mrs. Jones reviews the most recent progress monitoring data and performs an updated gap analysis. The progress monitoring data indicates that the research based interventions in fluency were not successful and Sarah demonstrates the characteristics of a student with a specific learning disability in the area of reading fluency.

The IEP team meets, including Sarah’s parents, to discuss results and determine eligibility. Mrs. Jones reviews the information provided through the assessment documentation form, indicating that Sarah meets the disability criteria as a student with a Specific Learning Disability in the area of Reading Fluency. The team agrees that Sarah needs more intensive intervention, therefore requiring special education intervention. The team signs the eligibility report in agreement. The team discusses Sarah’s needs and develops measurable annual goals tied to Sarah’s reading deficit. It is also determined that Sarah’s progress will continue to be monitored while she receives a more intensive intervention from Special Education. This information will be used to guide data based decision making to determine whether changes need to be made to Sarah’s plan. Updates on progress monitoring will be sent every 4.5 weeks to parents as they had been in Tier II and Tier III. Accommodations for differentiation in Tier I and on assessments were determined at the IEP meeting. Sarah’s daily schedule indicates that she will always participate in Tier I and her direct fluency intervention will occur in addition to the core (Tier I). Direct special education intervention will occur at the same time as her non-disabled peers (during Tier II & Tier III time). It was determined that the intervention will include 60 minutes of direct instruction on a specific reading program in addition to her Tier I instruction.

198 5.7 Dismissal from Special Education

Students may move from special education interventions to general education interventions if there is sufficient evidence to suggest that the student no longer needs special education services. Movement from special education to general education will be supported by multiple sources of data including ROI, gap analysis, evidence of meeting IEP goals, and student need. The goal is for all students to be served at their level of need within the least restrictive environment. The team will use the Re-evaluation Summary Report process to gather all sources of information and make an eligibility determination.

The progress of students receiving special education services should continually be monitored to determine the need for changes to intervention. In addition, a student’s progress towards IEP goals is routinely reviewed by the student’s case manager and IEP team. Anytime it is determined that a student’s IEP is not reflective of their current performance, the IEP team meets to address those differences.

If, upon review, it is determined that a student receiving special education services may not require the most intensive level of intervention, the IEP team may choose to initiate the re-evaluation process. Below, a scenario is presented in which a student has made significant progress and no longer demonstrates a need for special education services.

Timmy was identified as a student with a Specific Learning Disability in the area of Reading Fluency in the spring of his 1st grade year. After 2 years, Timmy has made significant progress and may no longer require special education intervention. The team gathers all data and meets with the parents to discuss Timmy’s significant progress. They review existing data through the Re-evaluation Summary report. This data includes previous assessments, current progress monitoring, current classroom based and state assessments, as well as observations provided by Timmy’s parents and teachers. Timmy is now reading on grade level and is no longer in need of intensive intervention. The team agrees that some additional assessment would be helpful, however, in determining Timmy’s continued need for special education services. Parents sign consent for a comprehensive evaluation in order to determine continued eligibility.

199 The school psychologist completes an individual achievement assessment. Results are consistent with existing data and indicate average performance on measures of reading fluency. Mrs. Jones, the school psychologist, conducts a gap analysis of Timmy’s data that indicates that there is not a significant gap between the current benchmark expectation and Timmy’s current performance. An IEP meeting is scheduled to review the results of the evaluation. At the meeting, the team, including Timmy’s parents, are very pleased with his progress and determine that he no longer needs special education

intervention. The team agrees, however, that Timmy may need some support in order to continue to be successful and show progress. The team agrees to begin supporting Timmy with Tier III interventions and to monitor his progress at this level of support before determining general education interventions are no longer needed.

200 Appendix A:

Related documents