Diagnosing the Learning Enabled: New Ways of Thinking About Assessment, Identification and...
-
Upload
ariana-harris -
Category
Documents
-
view
212 -
download
0
Transcript of Diagnosing the Learning Enabled: New Ways of Thinking About Assessment, Identification and...
Diagnosing the Learning Enabled: New Ways of Thinking About
Assessment, Identification and Intervention – And Why We’re
Thinkin’ That Way
Rhode Island Technical Assistance Project Summer Institute ‘03
W. David Tilly III, Ph.D.Heartland Area Education Agency 11
July 24 and 25, 2003
Correspondence about this presentation should be directed to David Tilly, Heartland AEA 11, 6500 Corporate Dr., Johnston, IA 50131. Email is [email protected], (515) 270-9030.
Where is Iowa?
IOWA
Who am I?
Like ME
I was born in Rhode Island I am a parent I’ve got tomatoes in my garden this year I have gone to a National Conference in the
past 5 years I have lived outside of the United States I am a special educator
Like ME
I have worked in education for: 20 years or more 15 years or more 10 years or more 5 years or more Less than 5 years
Take a Couple Minutes
Introduce yourself at your table Who are you? Where are you
from? What do you do in
your school?
Parking Lots
Big Picture Objectives
Updates on what’s going on Nationally and in RI in education
Some background on some of “Why” it’s going on Look at the big themes, processes, implementations
and outcomes Take some time to process this and to contemplate
possibilities. That is, I’m going to ask you to talk with eachother about the stuff I’m presenting
Whatchagonnadowhenyougohome?
Morning Advance Organizer
Discuss where educational assessment is going and for all students with a focus on helping students with learning challenges
To review some of the rationale behind reforming our assessment/identification systems in schools
To propose a more rational and helpful alternative system consistent with NCLB
To provide illustrations and data on the effects of successful implementation of that model
One More Objective for The Morning
To encourage you think
“Outside of the Box”
Current Realities: We Can View Them As Obstacles or Opportunities
Major Reform Federal Law
Changes Few Precedents
Leading to the Future
High Stakes Ready or not, Here
We Come
Big Picture Context (NCLB) We can’t ignore it We know enough to get
started We have enough
guidance too know some things about our near term future We know we have till
’13-’14 to get ALL students proficient in Reading and Math
Big Picture Context (NCLB) Activity 1
Question: What percentage of students in the buildings you work in are proficient in mathematics and reading?
Big Picture Context (NCLB) The accountability provisions in NCLB, with
subgroup analyses, can provide over a hundred opportunities a year to be designated a School in Need of Improvement (SINI)
Schools need to miss only one for SINI designation
Big Picture Context for Kids With Learning Problems
We know with the collateral changes in IDEA all means every, and no students can be exempted from the accountability system
The stakes are really high Both the House and Senate
Bills have some REALLY INTERESTING STUFF IN them!!!!
It Can No Longer Be Business As Usual
So Where Do We Start?
Richard Feynman has said:
“The best way to predict the future is to invent it”
It is Also True That...
If we don’t learn from the past, we’ll repeat it
One Perspective on History
Our education system has grown up through a process of “Disjointed Incrementalism” (Reynolds, 1988)
The currentEducationSystem’sProgrammaticEvolution
K-12 Education
Gifted
Title 1
SPED
Migrant
ELLAt Risk
Unintended Effects Conflicting programs Conflicting funding streams Redundacy Lack of coordination across
programs Nonsensical rules about
program availability for students
Extreme complexity in administration and implementation of the programs
Intensive Interventions 5%
Strategic Interventions 15%
Core Curriculum 80%
Adapted from: Sugai and Horner
We Have Got To Get More Systematic and Simplify – Especially in High Stakes Areas (RMS)
Students
School Curricula – Pick an area
We’
ll Com
e Bac
k to
Thi
s
This Sounds Good, But….
Our hands are tied Federal law prescribes
lots of how we’re organized
Especially in Special Education, there are lots of things we have to do
How can we get them done along with the new requirements?
SPED Assessment Survey ‘03
Activity #2: Complete Survey
Forces Underlying Our Assessment Systems For Kids
Ethical Reasons Legal Reasons Professional
Reasons Socio-Political
Realities
Ethical Reasons
Why Did You Become An Educator?
Legal Reasons: The Purpose of IDEA ‘97
To ensure that all children with disabilities have available to them FAPE...
To ensure that the rights of children with disabilities…
To Assist States $$… To ensure parents and
teachers have tools to improve results...
Legal Reasons: The Purpose of IDEA ‘97
To assess and ensure the effectiveness of efforts to educate children with disabilities
Professional Reasons: Professional Judgment
Determines how we carry out and meet our legal and inspirational purposes.AssumptionsPractices
In the Beginning
Assessment System for Students With Learning Problems Was Based On A Series of Assumptions
Activity #3: Name the Assumptions
Think about your experience.
What are one or more assumption about kids, teaching and/or learning problems inherent in how our special education system was defined.
If We Assume
Assumption 1: Available educational assessment procedures are sufficient for reliable and valid differential diagnosis.
If We Assume
Assumption 2: Thorough understanding of the intrapersonal (within person) cause of educational disabilities is the most critical factor in determining appropriate treatment.
Studentswith LD
LD Reading Methods
MR Reading Methods
If We Assume
Assumption 3: Persons within disability categories have similar educational needs that are different in educationally important ways from persons in other disability categories.
Studentswith MR
Studentswith EBD
EBD Reading Methods
If We Assume
Assumption 4: Matching treatments to disability type (or underlying characteristics) will result in maximally effective interventions.
Learning Disability X LD Methods = Effective Tx.
Auditory Learner X Auditory Instruction = Effective Tx.
Sequential Processor X Sequential Instr. = Effective Tx.
These Were The Assumptions
The year was 1975 Based on the best
information we had at the time
The best research of the time was considered
Logical and Rational System Structure If these assumptions are true,
then, from the standpoint of meeting our professional and legal purposes
The historical system is structured appropriately to meet our purposes
Nationally-normed, standardized tests are all we need to meet our purposes.
Effectiveness of service delivery could be determined by examining how many children we are helping.
The System Worked
Child find Children were placed in
special programs Services were delivered An ever increasing
number of professionals were involved
We got really efficient at the process!
Until… Activity #4
Turn To Activity Page Individually write down
some of the challenges (practical, professional, ethical, and/or political) to special education that you have experienced in Rhode Island throughout the past 10 years….
Until... Increases in SPED incidence (particularly in SLD and
recently in OHI) Increases in English Language Learners National Academy of Science Reports (1984, 1996,
2002) Inclusion Undocumented Effectiveness Fordham Foundation Report “Rethinking Special
Education for the New Millennium” National Movement Toward Better Educational Results
(e.g., Nation at Risk leading to Standards-Based Reform)
Until...
Increasing 504 Awareness Increased Poverty The Americans with Disabilities Act Judicial Findings Generally Supporting
Parents’ Wishes in Placement (e.g., more inclusive environments)
All Converging on IDEA ’97
IDEA ’97’s Contributions
Functional and Developmental Assessment in all assessment domains
Increased parental involvement
Inclusion of all kids in district and state assessments
FBA and Behavioral interventions
General Education Curriculum
I could go on….
No Child Left Behind Sweeping changes to
ESEA Increased complexity
(1100 pages of it) Increased accountability Increased rewards and
sanctions Increased prescriptiveness
(esp. in Reading) Increased linkages with
Special Education
President’s Commission Report: A New Era Launch the “antiquated wait
to fail” model SPED kids are GenEd. Kids
first! Empower parents Emphasize results over
compliance Use better approaches to
identifying kids with disabilities
Prepare teachers better SPED research needs
enhanced rigor
And Pending IDEA Reauthorization
Some highlights from the House Bill Adds language saying a
child will not be determined to have a disability if the determinate factor is lack of scientifically based instructional practices and programs that contain the essential components of reading as defined in ESEA
Pending IDEA Reauthorization – From the House Bill‘‘(6) SPECIFIC LEARNING DISABILITIES.—‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding sec- 13tion 607 of this Act, or any other provision of 14law, when determining whether a child has a 15specific learning disability as defined under this 16Act, the local educational agency shall not be 17required to take into consideration whether the 18child has a severe discrepancy between achieve- 19ment and intellectual ability in oral expression, 20listening comprehension, written expression, 21basic reading skill, reading comprehension, 22mathematical calculation, or mathematical rea- 23soning. 24
Pending IDEA Reauthorization Adds a provision allowing
LEAs to use a process that determines if a child responds to scientific, research-based intervention when determining whether a child has a specific learning disability.
Gets rid of benchmarks or short term objectives
Adds “academic” to functional and developmental information that must be collected
Pending IDEA Reauthorization Adds “prereferal services”
which permits an LEA to use up to 15 percent of its Part B funds for students who have not been identified as needing special education and related services but who need additional academic and behavioral support to succeed in general education.
Massive Part D changes
Should we change the way we do business? - Is no longer a question.
We're All Looking for New Ways to do Things,
But what are the possibilities?
How can we make a good system better?
Should We Change the Way We Do Business?
We're all looking for new ways to do things, but how do we do this within the context of NCLB?Legal Standards (shifting)Professional Knowledge (evolving)
Federal Law and Regs are Prescriptive About Few Things in Assessment and Intervention §300.532.
Administered in child's native language
Validated for specific purpose for which they are used
Administered by trained personnel in conformance with the instructions provided by their producer
Federal Law and Regs are Prescriptive About Few Things in Assessment and Intervention §300.532.
No single procedure may be used for determining an appropriate education
The evaluation must be conducted by a multidisciplinary team
The child must be assessed in all areas related to the suspected disability
Federal Law and Regs are Prescriptive About Few Things in Assessment and Intervention §300.532.
A variety of assessment tools and strategies are used to gather relevant functional and developmental information about the child...
That may assist in determining the content of the child’s IEP, including information related to enabling the child to be involved in and progress in the general curriculum
IMPORTANT POINT
There is tremendous flexibility within IDEA
One of Iowa’s greatest learnings as a state was that “we did it to ourselves”
That is, most of the restrictions we perceived as barriers to changing what we were doing – they were self imposed by our state’s interpretation of the Federal Law and Regulations
Professionally, we now have many
years experience implementing our
assessment system
Our Professional Obligation
Review practice and assumptions related to accomplishing our assessment purposes
We need to celebrate many positive outcomes Nearly 1 million previously excluded - included Services are provided Rights of children and their families are protected
Professionally, after 27 years we know
Assumption 1: Available educational assessment procedures are sufficient for reliable and valid differential diagnosis.
Many assessment devices used for differential diagnosis are not reliable and valid enough for use with individuals (e.g., Salvia and Ysseldyke, 1991; Witt, 1986).
Professionally, after 27 years we know
Assumption 2: Thorough understanding of the intrapersonal (within person) cause of educational disabilities is the most critical factor in determining appropriate treatment
Educational disability results from a complex interaction between curriculum, instruction, the environment and learner characteristics (e.g., Howell, 1993)
The Environment
Learner Instruction
Curriculum
Professionally, after 27 years we know
Assumption 3: Persons within disability categories have similar educational needs that are different in educationally important ways from persons in other disability categories.
Educational needs vary widely within and across disability category (e.g., Jenkins, Pious, & Peterson, 1988; Marston, 1987).
Studentswith LD
LD Reading MethodsMR Reading
Methods
Studentswith MRStudents
with EBD
EBD Reading Methods
Professionally, after 27 years we know
Assumption 4: Matching treatments to disability type (or underlying child characteristics) will result in maximally effective interventions.
Aptitude-by-treatment interactions (ATIs) have not been proven (e.g., Arter & Jenkins, 1979; Cronbach, 1975; Good, et al., 1993; Teeter, 1987, 1989; Ysseldyke & Mirkin, 1982).
The Reality
The effectiveness of any educational strategy for an individual can only be determined through its implementation.
In Short: We Need A Different Assessment System
We need a system: For identifying problems
more specifically and earlier That allows for a broader
range of explanations of why problems are occurring
Emphasizes assessment for Problem ID, Problem Analysis, Treatment Planning
and; Evaluating whether the interventions are effective
In Short: We NeedA School-
Wide Problem-Solving System
Quote
In the main, the bureaucratic structure of the workplace is more influential in determining what professionals do than are personal abilities, professional training, or previous experience. Therefore, change efforts should focus on the structure of the workplace, not on the teachers
Frymier, J. (1987, September). Bureaucracy and the neutering of teachers. Phi Delta Kappan, p. 10.
So How Do We Get There?
We need to create a new box, outside of our historical paradigm?
Let’s Examine the Parameters
Reexamine the assessment survey.
1. The primary purpose of special education assessment is eligibility determination for services. False
IDEA ‘97 discusses assessments for the many purposes including: to determine whether a child is a child with a disability to determine educational needs of such a child to measure a child’s progress toward annual goals to communicate with a child’s parents about
their children’s progress toward the annual goalsthe extent to which that progress is sufficient to enable
the child to achieve the annual goals by the end of the year
2. Individually administered IQ tests are not required by federal law for any special education disability category. True
IDEA ‘97 does not refer to IQ tests anywhere (nor any type of test)
There are places where the federal statute and regulations use terms such as "Cognitive Factors"614(b)(2)(C) and "Intellectual Functioning" 34 CFR 300.7(b)(6)
There are ways to make inferences about these constructs without using IQ tests.
3. It is a requirement of Federal law that disability labels be used to individually identify students
with disabilities. False
3 administrations made this position clear
At least 2 states are "noncategorical"
Iowa offers the option to AEAs - the Feds have OK'd this
3. It is a requirement of Federal law that disability labels be used to individually identify students
with disabilities. False
612(a)(3)(B) Nothing in this Act requires that children be classified by their disability so long as each child who has a disability listed in section 602 and who by reason of that disability, needs special education and related services is regarded as a child with a disability under this part.
4. Federal regulations do not require that standardized tests be used to identify students with disabilities. True
Federal language reads "Tests and other evaluation materials" 34 CFR 300§532a
According to Judy Heumann, "Evaluations under Part B can be accomplished by testing or by means other than testing..."
Federal regulations provide flexibility in the data sources that can be used to inform professional decisionmaking
5. It is a due process violation for support staff to collect any student-specific assessment data prior to receiving parental permission. True and False
Two issues: How professionals are funded (Incidental
Benefit rules) - No longer True!! Whether it is the policy and procedures of the
agency to make these types of services available to all general education children
Purpose of the evaluation is the key to determining the acceptability of an individual evaluation
6. All children with any of the 13 disabilities identified in IDEA ‘97 are entitled to special education. False
IDEA Entitlement = Disability + Need
This was one component of the landmark Rowley (1982) case decided by the US Supreme Court
Children with disabilities who do not need services to receive a FAPE are not entitled to receive unneeded services.
7. Data collected for 504 evaluations, Title I evaluations or “at risk” evaluations can and should be used if available, when conducting full and individual special education evaluations.
True
All information available on student performance should be considered.
The consent for evaluation is giving consent to consider entitlement for special education
Rationale to IDEA ‘97 Regs “... the amendments permit initial evaluations to be based on existing evaluation data and reports...”
8. IDEA requires that a teacher with disability-specific certification teaches children with the
corresponding disability. False
Federal regulations require that special education specified in a child's IEP is provided by qualified personnel. Teacher certification is a state licensure issue.
9. Federal regulations require the same assessment procedures to be used with all children suspected of having the same disability. False
The language term used in the statute is “full and individual evaluation”
It is a presumption that there may be overlap between the data sources collected for different children. However, no two children’s needs will be the same.
10. Placing children in classrooms based on their specific disability is permissible by federal law. False, False, False
“The unavoidable consequence of such a labeling practice is to identify and plan to meet each child's educational needs on the basis of what that child has in common with other children similarly identified rather than on the basis of that child's individualized needs. Thus it is the view of this office that any labeling practice that categorizes children according to their disability in order to facilitate the individual determination of any child's appropriate educational needs or services will be presumed to violate the protections accorded under Federal and State Law.”
Thomas Bellamy, former OSEP Director
So Where Does That Leave Us?
The Solutions(Research and Common Sense Into Action)
We can't work any harder!
So... We gotta work
smarter And... It will require the
whole system working together
The Solutions(Research and Common Sense Into Action)
Instructional design advances Especially in Reading!!
Behavior change technological advances FBA and it’s associated
systems-interventions Assessment systems linked
to intervention One integrated problem-
solving structure that eliminates bureaucratic silos
OSEP: Specific Learning Disabilities: Finding Common Ground – July ‘02
A multi-tiered, collaborative problem-solving approach, which incorporates early intervention, trial teaching, progress monitoring, and a inter-disciplinary evaluation, was named as a promising alternative the current IQ-Achievement discrepancy model for identifying students with Learning Disabilities.
To Move Toward Problem Solving
Best to attend to a series of “Big Ideas” or Principles
Principle #1: The Key to All is Every
Assessing and ensuring the effectiveness of, efforts to educate ALL Children
P.L. 105-17, Sec 601 (C)(10)(d)(4)
Principle #2: Shift in Emphasis For Assessment
Old Focus
New Focus
Diagnosing the “Disability” or “Diagnosing for Accountability”
Diagnosing the “Learning Enabled”
Shift From Problem Identification/Admiration to Problem Analysis
Our old system labeled and placed, or labeled and rewarded/sanctioned
Our new system needs to analyze problems: For the purpose of
understanding changeable factors related to learning problems
For the purpose of identifying possibly effective teaching strategies
Monitoring when teaching strategies are effective and helping us change them when they’re not
Illustration for Students with Disabilities (e.g., Melissa)
WISC-III Woodcock Johnson – R Stanford Diagnostic
Reading Test Motor Screen Bender Teacher Interview Speech Screening Health History Social History Educational History
Intervention Summary Review
Vision-Hearing Screening Parent and Teacher
Interviews CBM Normative
Comparisons Curriculum-Based
Evaluation Survey-Level Curriculum-Based
Evaluation Specific-Level Procedures
Our Old System Our New System
Principle #3
Support seamless school wide resource-allocation systems that:
Match resources deployed with nature and intensity of student need
Emphasize prevention and early intervention efforts
Level IVIEP
Consideration
• ImplementPlan
• Evaluate
• Define the Problem
• Develop a Plan
Am
ou
nt
of
Reso
urc
es
Need
ed t
o S
olv
e P
rob
lem
INTENSITY OF PROBLEM
Level IIConsultation withOther Resources
Level IIIConsultation WithExtended Problem
Solving Team
ConsultationLevel I
BetweenTeachers-Parents
Heartland AEA’s Problem Solving Approach
Look
Fam
iliar?
Iowa’s Experience: How it all started
Began in 1986-1987 Discussions with
stakeholders Parents Teachers Administrators Area Education Agency
Personnel Policy Makers
Over 4000 persons contributed
A Series of Questions Were Asked
What is working with the current system?
What components of the system are in need of reconsideration?
What barriers get in the way of trying these changes?
Important - There was no presumption that what we were doing was not being done well.
Iowa’s Experience Systematically piloted in late
’80s and early ’90s Changed state rules in ’95 Requires General Education
Intervention Defines systematic problem
solving Promotes assessments
tailored to individuals’ needs Assessment for identifying
problems, analyzing them, planning interventions, monitoring progress and evaluating effectiveness
What Happened: SPED Count
Special Education Enrollment in Iowa Public Schools as a Percentage of Total Certified Enrollment
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Year Ending
Pe
rce
nt
Source: Iowa Department of Education Annual Condition of Education Report 2001
What Happened: Due Process Hearings in Iowa
SPED Hearings Held
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1989-1990
1990-1991
1991-1992
1992-1993
1993-1994
1994-1995
1995-1996
1996-1997
1997-1998
1998-1999
1999-2000
2000-2001
2001-2002
Year
Nu
mb
er
of
He
ari
ng
s
Hearings Held
Source: Iowa Department of Education, Bureau of Children, Family and Community Services
Evaluation type, frequency, and percentage of total assessments in Heartland AEA 111997-2002
•Assessment Type•Initial Evaluations •Re-Evaluations
•Functional Academic Assessment •8,513 (51%) •5,201 (47%)
•Communication •2,985 (18%) •851 (8%)
•Behavioral Assessment •2,037 (12%) •1,817 (16%)
•Health •808 (5%) •481 (4%)
•Social Functioning •688 (4%) •589 (5%)
•Hearing •542 (3%) •234 (2%)
•School Readiness •404 (2%) •215 (2%)
•Motor Functioning •333 (2%) •454 (4%)
•Vision •175 (<1%) •140 (1%)
•Educational History •111 (<1%) •149 (1%)
•Vocational •99 (<1%) •908 (8%)
•Intellect •15 (<1%) •7 (0%)
•Grand Total •16,710 •11,046
•Number of Students Assessed •8,189 •5,027
Outcomes of BAT for Students- approx 10% of students ’99-’01 School years (n=532). Taken from Ikeda, M. J. and Gustafson, J. K. (2002). Heartland AEA 11's Problem Solving Process: Impact on Issues Related to Special Education. Heartland Area Education Agency, Johnston, IA
What Happened: Assessments
What Happened: Consumer Satisfaction
Question 1: The problem solving process supports teachers in improving the performance of students whose academic skills and behaviors are of concern. This includes the Building Assistance Team or other intervention supports.
•Gen Ed •Teachers
•n=390•Principal
•n=31
•Sp Ed •Teachers
•n=89
•Agree •87.3% •96.8% •92.13%
Question 2: Problem solving process leading to educational interventions is equally applicable for helping students in general and special education.
•Gen Ed •Teachers
•n=390•Principal
•n=31
•Sp Ed •Teachers
•n=89
•Agree •81.0% •96.7% •92.14%
Source: Heartland AEA 11 Consumer Satisfaction Survey 2000-2001
What Happened: Results for Kids
Pending Level III
Intervention (n=43)
SpecialEducation
Continuing Intervention in
General Education(n=219)
General Education
Problem Solved (n=107)
Staffed into Special
Education (n=116)
Outcomes of BAT for Students- approx 10% of students ’99-’01 School years (n=532). Taken from Ikeda, M. J. and Gustafson, J. K. (2002). Heartland AEA 11's Problem Solving Process: Impact on Issues Related to Special Education. Heartland Area Education Agency, Johnston, IA
Summary: Priorities for Assessment Revisions
Results not process Assess skills, not aptitudes Refocus on early identification and prevention
efforts. Provide a continuum of resources to meet students needs
Punch Line We have an exciting
opportunity before us We have many of the tools
we need to move ahead A broad base of
experimentation is occurring across the country
We can set direction for where we go next
The critical difference between places where change takes hold and flourishes and where it founders, is LEADERSHIP
Joel Barker, 1992
A leader is a person you will follow to a place that you wouldn't go by yourself.
The greatest danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it.
Michelangelo
Activity Last
Individually, identify one idea that “made you think – HMMM”
Individually identify one thing you want to know more about.
Individually identify one question that you have.
Share these out at your table