building the legacy: training curriculum on...

Building the Legacy: Training Curriculum on IDEA

Module 6

Written by: Patricia HozellaOffice of Special Education ProgramsU.S. Department of Education

With Special Thanks To...NRCLD, the National Research Center on Learning [email protected] • http://nrcld.org/

RRRRResponse to IIIIInterventionan

d

EEEEEarly IIIIIntervening SSSSServices

Visit NICHCY at: www.nichcy.org 6-2 Module 6

April 2007National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities

Copyright free. You’re welcome to share this module far and wide. Please dogive credit to its producer, the National Dissemination Center for Childrenwith Disabilities.

Suggested citation:

Hozella, P. (2007, April). Early intervening services and response tointervention (Module 6). Building the legacy: IDEA 2004 training curriculum.Washington, DC: National Dissemination Center for Children withDisabilities. Available online at: www.nichcy.org/training/contents.asp

NICHCY is here for you.

This training curriculum is designed and produced byNICHCY, the National Dissemination Center forChildren with Disabilities, at the request of our funder,the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) at theU.S. Department of Education.

We have a tremendous amount of information avail-able on our Web site, in our library, and in the com-bined expertise of our staff. Please feel free to contactNICHCY for the latest information and connections inresearch and disabilities. We’d also love for you to visitour Web site and help yourself to all that’s there.

1.800.695.0285 (V/TTY)www.nichcy.org

Thanks to the Author of This Module

NICHCY would like to express its appreciation for the hard work andexpertise of:

Patricia Hozella, Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Departmentof Education, who is the primary author of this module.

We’d also like to recognize the contributions and guidance of LouisDanielson, Director, Research to Practice Division, OSEP, and LarryWexler, also of OSEP, both of whom have helped shape the organizationand content of this module.

EIS and RTI 6-3 Visit NICHCY at: www.nichcy.org

Background and Discussion

Here we are in the module onearly intervening services andresponse to intervention (RTI).These may be familiar subjects toyou, but they are new to IDEA2004 and, frankly, new to a lotof folks, maybe even most. Sobefore delving into the details ofwhat IDEA requires about either,let us start at the beginning—with what these two IDEA-newapproaches are. After that, we’llsee why they’ve been added toIDEA 2004.

What Are Early InterveningServices?

Early Intervening Services—inthis module, EIS for short—arenot the same thing as earlyintervention. These are two verydifferent initiatives, although, tobe fair, both are about interven-ing early. Early intervention is forbabies and toddlers with dis-abilities; EIS are about catchingproblems early in school-agedchildren. EIS are aimed at gradesK-12, with an emphasis on K-3.EIS are about identifying chil-dren who are struggling tolearn—especially apparent in theearly grades and in tasks likereading and math—and quicklyintervening to provide support.Under IDEA 2004, school dis-tricts may use up to 15% of theirPart B funds to develop andprovide early intervening servicesto children who are not currentlyidentified as “children withdisabilities” but who needacademic or behavioral supportto succeed in a general educationenvironment. EIS are not servicesdesignated for children withdisabilities—in fact, if a child hasbeen determined eligible for

special education and relatedservices, that child would not beeligible for EIS.

The rationale behind usingIDEA funds to pay for EIS is thatthe earlier that school staff canidentify children’s learning prob-lems or difficulties, the quickerand less expensive will be thetask of helping those childrencatch up. The longer a child goeswithout assistance, the longer theremediation time and the moreintense those services will have tobe. From child, administrative,fiscal, and instructional perspec-tives, providing EIS makes verygood sense.

What is Response toIntervention—RTI?

RTI. RtI. You’ll see it bothways, and both are acceptable.For our purposes here, in thistraining module, we’re going togive it to you in ALL CAPS—RTI.Which still doesn’t answer thequestion. What is it?

RTI is an approach, new toIDEA 2004, for sorting outwhether a struggling child reallyis a “child with a disability” asdefined by IDEA or just needsmore intensive regular educationstrategies to succeed in school.(See why RTI and EIS are beingaddressed in this training cur-riculum in the same module?)

RTI usually consists of 3 stagesor levels of assistance. When achild is identified as struggling tolearn—usually throughsystemwide screening tests orthrough a teacher’s observationor testing—RTI may be used tosee how the child responds todeliberate research-based inter-ventions and other direct sup-ports. If the child fails to learn

How This Discussion Section is Organized

As with the other modules in this curriculum, this discussionsection is organized by overhead. A thumbnail picture of eachoverhead is presented, along with brief instructions as to howthe slide operates. This is followed by a discussion intended toprovide trainers with background information about what’s onthe slide. Any or all of this information might be appropriate toshare with an audience, but that decision is left up to trainers.

You’ll note the “New in IDEA” icon thatperiodically appears in these pages as aneasy tool for identifying new aspects of theregulations.1

New inIDEA!


adequately in the first level ofhelp, then he or she moves toLevel 2, and so on, where thehelp (or, in the lingo, the inter-vention) becomes more intensive.Progress is closely monitored, sothe school will know if the childis learning or improving. If thechild is not responding to theintervention, then he or she maybe referred for evaluation underIDEA to determine eligibility forspecial education and relatedservices.

This Module in Time andSpace

This module on Early Interven-ing Services and Response to Inter-vention falls within the umbrellatopic of IDEA and GeneralEducation. Within that broaderarea, there are six modules in all,as follows:

• NCLB and IDEA, on holdpending reauthorization ofNCLB, will provide an over-view of the No Child LeftBehind (NCLB) Act and howmany of IDEA 2004’s newprovisions have purposefullybeen aligned to NCLB.

• Statewide and DistrictwideAssessments, also on holdpending reauthorization ofNCLB, will take a closer lookat IDEA 2004’s provisions thatrequire children with disabili-ties to participate in large-scaleassessment programs.

• Disproportionality andOverrepresentation focuses onIDEA’s provisions addressingthe overidentification ofspecific racial and ethnicgroups for special education.

• Early Intervening Services andResponse to Intervention (thismodule) examines two newsets of provisions in IDEAintended to allow districts toidentify learning or behaviorproblems early and to permitmethods of identification ofchildren with specific learningdisabilities that focus onchildren’s responses to appro-priate instruction in regulareducation.

• Highly Qualified Teachersprovides an overview ofanother new area within IDEAthat comes to us from NCLBand that sets new standards ofquality for special educators.

• NIMAS, also new to IDEA2004, discusses standards thatwill greatly improve access tothe general education curricu-lum for children with printdisabilities.

References for This Module

All of these modules areintended for general audiences.The background materials (whatyou’re reading right now) andResources for Trainers includesubstantial additional informa-tion that trainers can use toadapt training sessions to spe-cific audience needs and theamount of time available fortraining.

You are currently reading thebackground section and discus-sion in the module on EarlyIntervening Services and Response toIntervention.

Cortiella, C. (2006). A parent’s guide to response-to-intervention. NewYork: National Center on Learning Disabilities. (Available online at:www.ncld.org/images/stories/downloads/parent_center/rti_final.pdf)

Klotz, M.B., & Canter, A. (2006). Response to intervention (RTI): Aprimer for parents. Washington, DC: National Association of SchoolPsychologists. (Available online at: http://bsnpta.org/geeklog/public_html//article.php?story=RTI_Primer)

National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. (2005, June).Responsiveness to intervention and learning disabilities. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.(Available online at: www.ncld.org/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=497)

National Research Center on Learning Disabilities (2006). Coreconcepts of RTI. Nashville, TN: Author. (Available online at:www.nrcld.org/research/rti/concepts.shtml)

Speece, D. (2006). How progress monitoring assists decision making in aresponse-to-instruction framework. Washington, DC: National Center onStudent Progress Monitoring. (Available online at:www.studentprogress.org/library/decisionmaking.pdf)


Looking for IDEA 2004?

The Statute:• www.nichcy.org/reauth/PL108-446.pdf• http://idea.ed.gov

Final Part B Regulations:• www.nichcy.org/reauth/IDEA2004regulations.pdf• http://idea.ed.gov

Finding Specific Sections of the Regulations: 34 CFR

As you read the explanations about the final regulations,you will find references to specific sections, such as §300.173.(The symbol §means “Section.”) These references can be usedto locate the precise sections in the federal regulations thataddress the issue being discussed. In most instances, we’vealso provided the verbatim text of the IDEA regulations so thatyou don’t have to go looking for them.

The final Part B regulations are codified in Title 34 of theCode of Federal Regulations. This is more commonly referred toas 34 CFR or 34 C.F.R. It’s not unusual to see references tospecific sections of IDEA’s regulations include this—such as 34CFR §300.173. We have omitted the 34 CFR in this trainingcurriculum for ease of reading.

Citing the Regulations in This Training Curriculum

You’ll be seeing a lot of citations in this module—and all theother modules, too!—that look like this: 71 Fed. Reg. at 46738

This means that whatever is being quoted may be found in theFederal Register published on August 14, 2006—Volume 71,Number 156, to be precise. The number at the end of thecitation (in our example, 46738) refers to the page number onwhich the quotation appears in that volume. Where can youfind Volume 71 of the Federal Register? NICHCY is pleased tooffer it online at:

www.nichcy.org/reauth/IDEA2004regulations.pdf


How to Operate the Slide:

• No clicks necessary.Slide self-presents.

Slide 1Introductory Slide and Opening Activity

Use Slide 1 (above) to orientyour audience to what thistraining will be about: Two newaspects that IDEA 2004 brings toaddressing the needs of chil-dren—and, surprisingly, notnecessarily those with disabili-ties! Just as the title of the slideindicates, the two topics underthe microscope will be:

• Early Intervening Services(EIS), and

• Response to Intervention(RTI).

Given the very newness ofthese topics within IDEA, thismodule begins with an activitydesigned to see what youraudience already knows aboutthese two topics and what theywant to know. The activity sheetfor participants is Handout B-7.The activity itself is described onthe next page.

CLICK to advance to next slide.

Themes inBuilding the Legacy

Theme AWelcome to IDEA

Theme BIDEA

and General Education

Theme CEvaluating Children

for Disability

Theme DIndividualized Education

Programs (IEPs)

Theme EProcedural Safeguards

Available online at:www.nichcy.org/training/

contents.asp

Theme B, Among OtherThemes

While this slide presents thetitle for the training session, itcan also be used to highlightthat this module on EIS and RTI

is just one of six in Building theLegacy’s Theme B, IDEA andGeneral Education. The titles ofthe other modules in Theme Bwere identified in the introduc-tion.


Total Time Activity Takes10 minutes.

Group SizeSmall groups of 4.

MaterialsHandout B-7Flip chart, or notetaker.

Instructions

1. Refer participants to HandoutB-7. Indicate that this is theactivity sheet they have tocomplete. They will have 5minutes.

2. Have the room count off 1 to 4(1, 2, 3, 4) and form intogroups of 4 that have eachnumber represented.

3. Tell the room that, in eachgroup, the “1” is the “focuser”who will read the instructionsand keep the group focused onthe task, and that the “4” is thenotetaker who will write downthe answers that the “2” andthe “3” generate. The “1” and“4”members can throw in theirideas, too.

4. Give the groups the allotted 5minutes. Then call them back to

large group focus.

5. Take 5 minutes to see what“questions-to-be-answered”groups listed on their activitysheets. Write key Qs on aflipchart or have someone takenotes. Don’t have a full report-out from the groups. Mix it up,jump around the groups, getinput in a free-form, call-out-your-answer fashion.

For example:Ask the group farthest from youto give one of their items. Askthe room, “Did anyone in yourgroup also have that?”

What else did you have?

Anyone else have another questionthey’d like to put on this list?

6. When you have a nice collec-tion of questions-to-be-an-swered—say, 4 or 5—stoptaking more, noting that “Thereare probably more we could put onthis list, but let’s see what we havehere.” Then read aloud from thelist, reiterating the questions,which will serve as the segueinto the module to have thesequestions answered.

Opening Activity

And just as this module existswithin a series, Theme B existswithin a curriculum of multiplethemes. Those themes representcritical components and organiz-ing elements within IDEA. Youmay wish to make participantsaware that there are other

themes around which importantIDEA-related issues can be (andare!) meaningfully grouped. Alist of themes in this trainingcurriculum is provided in thebox on the previous page. Ifparticipants want to learn moreon their own (or share informa-

tion with their family or col-leagues), they’re welcome to visitNICHCY’s Web site and down-load any and all modules theywish.


Agenda

Slide loads with header“This module looks at...”and then the EIS info, withall its bullets, appears.

Click 1:RTI info, with allbullets, appears.

Slide 2

Click 1

(continued on next page)

View 1


CLICK AGAIN to advance to next slide.

Click 2:Question appears:What do EIS and RTIhave to do with oneanother?

Slide 2: Background and Discussion2 Clicks

Slide 2 is an advance organizerfor the audience as to whatcontent they’re going to hear anddiscuss in this module.

The slide loads only the header“This module will look at...”.CLICK 1 will bring up the topic of“EIS: Early Intervening Services”and the bullets:

• What they are

• Why they’re in IDEA now

• What IDEA 2004 requires

How does the list of EISquestions generated in theactivity relate to these agendaitems about EIS? Given whatthese three bullets contain, are

the questions going to beanswered?

CLICK again and bring up thetopic of “Response to Interven-tion” and the bullets:

• What it is

• Why it’s in IDEA now

• What IDEA 2004 requires

Now, how does the list of RTIquestions generated in theactivity relate to these agendaitems about RTI? Given whatthese three bullets contain, arethe questions going to be an-swered?

CLICK again and bring up thefinal part of the agenda, which isanother question: What do EISand RTI have to do with oneanother?

Let’s find out!

Click 2


Slide 3Michael’s Story

Slide loads withthis view.


Click 1:Items 1 and 2 aboutMichael appear, settingthe stage.

Click 1

View 1



Click 3:Last item about Michaelappears. He’s scoredbelow the county cut-offline.

Click 2:Item 3 about Michaelappears, identifying hislack of readingprogress.

Slide 3 describes a situationthat many people will findfamiliar: a first grader who isunexpectedly having troublelearning to read.

Michael is a first grader who,like the rest of the class, is beingtaught to read using a standardreading curriculum adopted bythe district in which he lives.Most children succeed with thiscurriculum, but Michael is notprogressing as well as the rest ofthe class. Differences betweenhow quickly children pick up theskill of reading are also notuncommon, so Michael’s teacherkeeps an eye on the matter asthe marking period continues.

At Thanksgiving time the entirefirst grade is given a screeningtest to check their progress, aspart of the district’s normalmonitoring protocols. At thispoint it becomes clear thatsomething is going to have to bedone about Michael’s lack ofprogress. He scores far below thecutoff line the county uses tomark adequate progress for firstgraders learning to read.

What to do now? What actionmight the district take to addressMichael’s difficulties in acquiringthis new but extremely impor-tant academic skill?

Having described this scenario,ask participants what actionstheir own school systems wouldtake in these circumstances.Collect a few answers, then moveon to the next slide whichintroduces early interveningservices as an option for a schoolsystem’s response.


Clicks 2-3


Slide 4 What are Early Intervening Services?

Slide loads, and automati-cally fills itself in. No clicksare necessary except toadvance the slide.


Slide 4 introduces Early Inter-vening Services—EIS—as anappropriate response to address-ing Michael’s early problems inlearning to read.

The research literature is veryclear that addressing children’sacademic and behavioralneeds as early aspossible can becritical in ensuringthose problemsdon’t deepen andsolidify. New within IDEA, EISprovide schools with anothervehicle by which to take earlyand strategic action when chil-dren appear at risk of academicfailure or behavioral challenges.

As the slide indicates, EISinvolve assistance given tochildren who have not yet beenidentified as eligible for specialeducation and related servicesunder IDEA but who need extra

help and support to progress inthe general education environ-ment. As the Department ob-serves in the Analysis of Com-ments and Changes to the finalPart B Regulations:1

The authority to use somePart B funds for earlyintervening services has thepotential to benefit specialeducation, as well as theeducation of otherchildren, by reducingacademic and behavioralproblems in the regulareducational environmentand reducing the number

of referrals to specialeducation that could havebeen avoided by relativelysimple regular educationinterventions.(71 Fed. Reg. at 46627)

In a school district that choseto use up to 15% of its Part Bdollars for early interveningservices, Michael, our fictitiouschild, would almost certainly beidentified as an at-risk learnerwho could benefit from EIS toaddress his struggles with read-ing.

1 Assistance to States for the Education of Children withDisabilities and Preschool Grants for Children with Disabili-ties, Final Rule, 71 Fed. Reg. 46540 (August 14, 2006) (to becodified at 34 C.F.R. pt.300). Available online at:

• www.nichcy.org/reauth/IDEA2004regulations.pdf• http://idea.ed.gov

New inIDEA!


Underpinnings of EIS

IDEA’s EIS provisions—to beexamined more closely in thenext slide—extend importantconcepts found within theNCLB, particularly in the ReadingFirst program. Reading Firstfocuses on putting provenmethods of early reading instruc-tion in classrooms, applyingscientifically based readingresearch—and the proven in-structional and assessment toolsconsistent with that research—toensure that all children learn toread well by the end of thirdgrade.

Similarly, EIS can help childrenacquire readiness for learningand the essential components ofspecific skills (e.g., phonologicalskills, fluency), so that they willthen be better prepared to applythose skills to important aca-demic content areas. ProvidingEIS across the academic spectrum(e.g., reading, math, science) canresult in fewer referrals forspecial education evaluation andbetter enable children to havesuccess in school. EIS can alsofocus on a child’s behavior sothat the personal and social skillsimportant to classroom success

—Space for Notes—

can be developed and rein-forced. Improving children’sacademic success frequentlyimproves their behavior and viceversa, so providing appropriateservices as early as possiblemakes good sense and soundeducational policy.


Clicks 1—3:Each click loadsanother item.

Slide 5IDEA’s Brand-New EIS Provisions

Slide loads with thisview, where the headerand the first item in thelist (15% cap) arevisible.


View 1

Clicks 1-3


Lead-In ofIDEA 2004’s EIS Regulation: 15% Cap

§300.226 Early intervening services.

(a) General. An LEA may not use morethan 15 percent of the amount the LEAreceives under Part B of the Act for anyfiscal year, less any amount reduced by theLEA pursuant to §300.205, if any, in combi-nation with other amounts (which mayinclude amounts other than educationfunds), to develop and implement coordi-nated, early intervening services, which mayinclude interagency financing structures...

§300.226(a)


Slide 5 indicates the regulatoryframework for EIS found at§300.226 (refer participants toHandout B-8). Four initialpoints will be introduced in thisslide. Each will be examinedmore closely and at greaterlength in their own individualslides (coming up), so don’tdelve in deeply to any particularone here, unless you intend tospeed through the more detailedones or use them to review whatyou say here on this slide.

• No more than 15% of Part Bfunds may be used to developand implement early interven-ing services.

• EIS emphasizes assistance tochildren in grades K-3.

• EIS may also be used withchildren in grades 4-12.

• EIS funds may be used forprofessional development ofteachers and other schoolstaff.

How Much Can a LocalEducational Agency (LEA)Spend?

An LEA is allowed to use notmore than 15% of their IDEAPart B funds to develop andimplement EIS, as the provisionat the right shows.

And what does the rest of thatintricate provision mean? Whatis “less any amount reduced bythe LEA pursuant to §300.205...”referring to?

Section 300.205 containsprovisions regarding local main-tenance of effort (MOE). Thesection specifies conditions

under which an LEA may reduceits local (or state and local)expenditures from one year tothe next. So the amount ofmoney an LEA may spend on EISis affected by the amount an LEAreduces its MOE and vice versa.The two aspects are intercon-nected, as we will see in slides abit later in this presentation.

To What Age Groups May theLEA Provide EIS?

As this slide shows (in items 2and 3), EIS are meant for chil-dren K-12, with an emphasis onthose in K-3. What’s significanthere is that preschool is specifi-cally excluded from the age andgrade range IDEA 2004 permits.As stated in the Analysis ofComments and Changes to thefinal Part B regulations:

Early intervening servicesmay not be used forpreschool children. Section300.226(a) tracks thestatutory language insection 613(f)(1) of theAct, whichstates that earlyinterveningservices are forchildren inkindergartenthrough grade

12, with a particularemphasis on children inkindergarten through grade3. (71 Fed. Reg. at 46627)

Use of Funds for ProfessionalDevelopment

As the slide also indicates,professional development forteachers and other school staffmay also be a part of implement-ing EIS. (Relevant provisions arepresented in the box on the nextpage.) This allowance should bevery helpful to ensuring that allof the staff involved in instruc-tion can receive the necessarystaff development.

Although it’s not necessary todelve into this right here—Slide7 takes a deeper look—the fundsare intended to build the school


The Lead-In Continues:More of IDEA 2004’s EIS Regulation

[As the lead-in from previous page began...]

§300.226 Early intervening services.

(a) General. An LEA may not use more than 15 percent of theamount the LEA receives under Part B...to develop and implementcoordinated, early intervening services...

[Age Range?The phrase continues...]

...for children in kindergarten through grade 12 (with a particularemphasis on children in kindergarten through grade three) ...

[Professional Development?And yet more provisions...]

(b) Activities. In implementing coordinated, early interveningservices under this section, an LEA may carry out activities thatinclude—

(1) Professional development (which may be provided byentities other than LEAs) for teachers and other school staff toenable such personnel to deliver scientifically based academic andbehavioral interventions, including scientifically based literacyinstruction, and, where appropriate, instruction on the use ofadaptive and instructional software; and

(2) Providing educational and behavioral evaluations, services,and supports, including scientifically based literacy instruction.

§300.226

staff’s capacity for deliveringscientifically-based academic andbehavioral interventions, includ-ing, among other skills:

• scientifically based literacyinstruction

• instruction on the use ofadaptive and instructionalsoftware (where appropriate).


Slide 6 For Which Children?

Slide loads withthis view, includingthe first part ofBullet 1.

Click 1:The 2nd part ofBullet 1 appears andpicture changes.


View 1

Click 1


...for children ...who are not currentlyidentified as needing special education orrelated services, but who need additionalacademic and behavioral support tosucceed in a general education environ-ment.

Yet More of the Lead-In:IDEA’s EIS Regulation(cont.)

§300.226(a)


Click 2


Click 2:Bullet 2 appearsand picturechanges.

Slide 6 narrows the focus tohow IDEA 2004 defines thepopulation of children withwhom early intervening servicesmay be used. Two populationsare identified:

• Children who are not currentlyreceiving special education andrelated services under IDEA,including children who werepreviously eligible for specialeducation but who are notidentified as needing it now

• Children who may needadditional support, academi-cally or behaviorally.

At the right, we’ve reproducedthe key parts of IDEA’s EISprovisions identifying the scope

of children that may be servedvia EIS. You’ll notice that chil-dren who were previouslyeligible for special education arenot specifically identified inIDEA’s provision. This group ofchildren is evident, however,when one considersthe use of the phrase“children ...who arenot currently identi-fied.” In the Analysisof Comments andChanges to the finalPart B regulations, theDepartment speaks tothis point, indicatingthat the word currentwas added to makethe distinction clear.


A child previouslyidentified as being a childwith a disability whocurrently does not needspecial education orrelated services would notbe prevented fromreceiving early interveningservices. For example, achild who received specialeducation services inkindergarten and had

services discontinued ingrade 1 (because thepublic agency and theparent agreed that thechild was no longer a childwith a disability), couldreceive early interveningservices in grade 2 if thechild was found to be inneed of additionalacademic and behavioral


supports to succeed in thegeneral educationenvironment. We believethat language should beadded to §300.226 toclarify that earlyintervening services are forchildren who are notcurrently identified asneeding special educationor related services.


Slide 7 Professional Development


Click 1:Pictures disappear,Bullet 1 appears.


Click 1

View 1


Click 2:Bullet 2 appears.



Slide 7 zooms in to take acloser look at the regulation’sprovisions regarding EIS andprofessional development. Asthe slide indicates, the purposebehind using EIS funds tosupport professional develop-ment is to improve staff capacityto deliver scientifically basedacademic and behavioral inter-ventions.

IDEA 2004 regulation’s verba-tim language indicating this isprovided in the box at the right(and on Handout B-8).

What Does “ScientificallyBased” Mean?

‘Scientifically based’ is a termof significance in NCLB that hasnow been integrated into IDEA

More of IDEA’s EIS Regulation:EIS Funds for Professional Development

(b) Activities. In implementing coordinated, early interven-ing services under this section, an LEA may carry out activitiesthat include—

(1) Professional development (which may be provided byentities other than LEAs) for teachers and other school staffto enable such personnel to deliver scientifically basedacademic and behavioral interventions, including scientifi-cally based literacy instruction, and, where appropriate,instruction on the use of adaptive and instructional soft-ware...

§300.226(b)(1)

Click 2


as part of the purposeful aligning of the two Acts.The term is defined in NCLB—referred to in IDEAas ESEA, the Elementary and Secondary EducationAct—and adopted in IDEA 2004’s regulation at§300.35, as follows:

Scientifically based research has the meaninggiven the term in section 9101(37) of theESEA.

So—what does it mean?

NCLB’s definition of scientifically based researchis straightforward. Appearing at section 9101(37) ofthe ESEA and provided on Handout B-8:

Scientifically based research—

(a) Means research that involves theapplication of rigorous, systematic, andobjective procedures to obtain reliable andvalid knowledge relevant to educationactivities and programs; and

(b) Includes research that—

1. Employs systematic, empirical methods thatdraw on observation or experiment;

2. Involves rigorous data analyses that areadequate to test the stated hypotheses andjustify the general conclusions drawn;

3. Relies on measurements or observationalmethods that provide reliable and valid dataacross evaluators and observers, across mul-tiple measurements and observations, andacross studies by the same or different inves-tigators;

4. Is evaluated using experimental or quasi-experimental designs in which individuals,entities, programs, or activities are assigned todifferent conditions and with appropriatecontrols to evaluate the effects of the condi-tion of interest, with a preference for ran-dom-assignment experiments, or otherdesigns to the extent that those designscontain within-condition or across-conditioncontrols;

5. Ensures that experimental studies are pre-sented in sufficient detail and clarity to allowfor replication or, at a minimum, offer theopportunity to build systematically on theirfindings; and

6. Has been accepted by a peer-reviewed jour-nal or approved by a panel of independentexperts through a comparably rigorous,objective, and scientific review.

Professional Development EmphasizingScientifically Based Interventions

In keeping with other provisions within IDEA2004’s regulation emphasizing the use of research-based interventions, its provisions for the allow-able use of EIS funds for professional developmentsimilarly stresses the importance of basing interven-tions on research. In the Analysis of Commentsand Changes to the final Part B regulations, theDepartment further emphasizes this, indicatingthat the “definition of scientifically based researchis important to the implementation of Part B” and:

We expect that the professional developmentactivities authorized under §300.226(b)(1)will be derived from scientifically basedresearch. The statute and regulations do notrefer to “recommended practices,” which is aterm of art that, generally, refers to practicesthat the field has adopted as “best practices,”and which may or may not be based onevidence from scientifically based research.(71 Fed. Reg. at 46627)


Slide 8 Other Uses of EIS Funds

Slide loads fully. Noclicks are neededexcept to advance tothe next slide.

More of IDEA’s EIS Regulation:Other Uses of EIS Funds

(b) Activities. In implementing coordinated, early inter-vening services under this section, an LEA may carry outactivities that include—

(1) ...

(2) Providing educational and behavioral evaluations,services, and supports, including scientifically basedliteracy instruction.

§300.226(b)(2)


Slide 8 finishesthe discussion ofallowable uses ofEIS funds underIDEA 2004’s regulation bylooking at the sweepingprovision presented in the boxbelow and on Handout B-8.

One would suppose that thephrase “educational and behav-ioral evaluations, services, andsupports” is broad enough toinclude more than what theregulations specifically men-tion—which is “scientificallybased literacy instruction.” TheAnalysis of Comments andChanges to the final Part Bregulations makes it apparentthat the term is purposefullybroad, and that use of EIS fundsmay include such applications asdiscussed below.

May LEAs Use EIS Funds toPurchase SupplementaryInstructional Materials?

Yes, the Department (2006)answers, drawing upon note 269in the Conference Report, whichit quotes (71 Fed. Reg. at 46628)as saying:

[E]arly intervening servicesshould make use ofsupplemental instructionalmaterials, whereappropriate, to supportchild learning. Childrentargeted for earlyintervening services underIDEA are the very childrenwho are most likely toneed additional

New inIDEA!


reinforcement to the corecurriculum used in theregular classroom. Theseare in fact the additionalinstructional materials thathave been developed tosupplement and thereforestrengthen the efficacy ofcomprehensive corecurriculum.

The Department adds its ownopinion on the matter:

We believe the terms“services” and “supports”in §300.226(b)(2) arebroad enough to includethe use of supplementalinstructional materials.(71 Fed. Reg. at 46628)

It also adds the followingcaveat:

Of course, use of funds forthis purpose is subject toother requirements thatapply to any use of funds,such as the limitation onpurchase of equipment in

section 605 of the Act andapplicable requirements in34 CFR Parts 76 and 80.

May Related ServicesPersonnel Be Involved in EIS?

Yes, the Department indi-cates—as State and local officialsdetermine appropriate:

State and local officials arein the best position tomake decisions regardingthe provision of earlyintervening services,including the specificpersonnel to provide theservices and theinstructional materials andapproaches to be used.Nothing in the Act orregulations prevents Statesand LEAs from includingrelated services personnelin the development anddelivery of educational andbehavioral evaluations,services, and supports forteachers and other school

staff to enable them todeliver coordinated, earlyintervening services.(71 Fed. Reg. at 46627-8)

How About Literacy Instruc-tion for At-Risk Children withLimited English Proficiency?

This, too, the Departmentassents, would be an allowableuse of EIS funds, as follows:

There is nothing in the Actthat would preclude LEAsfrom using Part B funds forearly intervening services,including literacyinstruction, that target at-risk limited Englishproficient children whohave not been identified asneeding special educationor related services, but whoneed additional academicand behavioral support tosucceed in a generaleducation environment.(71 Fed. Reg. at 46627)



Slide 9More on EIS


Slide loads withBullet 1 in view.



View 1

Clicks 1-2


Click 3:Text at bottomappears regardingentitlement to FAPE.


Slide 9 makes a series ofinteresting points about themeaning of EIS within IDEA2004, which is essentially aspecial education law. While EISare meant to be provided tochildren who are not currentlyreceiving special education andrelated services under IDEA,doing so neither creates norlimits a child’s right to FAPE. Achild receiving early interveningservices may later be found to bea “child with a disability,” asIDEA 2004 defines that term,and may begin to receive specialeducation and related servicesinstead of EIS. But receiving EISdoes not automatically create aright to eligibility for specialeducation and the provision of

FAPE. In this sense, FAPE and EISare not connected at all. As thetext at the bottom of the slideindicates, regardless of the factthat EIS may be paid for withIDEA funds, FAPE is an entitle-ment only for children currentlyeligible for special educationunder IDEA. This is embodied inthe regulation at §300.226(c):

(c) Construction. Nothing inthis section shall beconstrued to either limit orcreate a right to FAPE underPart B of the Act or to delayappropriate evaluation of achild suspected of having adisability.

This latter point—that EIS maynot be used as a reason to delayan appropriate evaluation of achild suspected of having adisability—is critical. EIS havebeen introduced into IDEA 2004as a way to “benefit both theregular and special educationprograms by reducing academicand behavioral problems in theregular education program andthe number of inappropriatereferrals for special educationand related services” (71 Fed.Reg. at 46628). Having theoption of providing early inter-


Click 3


vening services to children whoare struggling does not changethe public agency’s affirmativeobligation to evaluate any childit suspects of having a disability.For this reason, the Departmentdid not specify a time limit onhow long a child could receiveEIS before an initial evaluationfor special education servicesmust be conducted.

We do not believe it isappropriate or necessaryto specify how long a childcan receive earlyintervening services beforean initial evaluation isconducted. If a childreceiving early interveningservices is suspected ofhaving a disability, the LEAmust conduct a full andindividual evaluation inaccordance with§§300.301, 300.304 and300.305 to determine ifthe child is a child with adisability and needsspecial education andrelated services. (71 Fed.Reg. at 46626)



Slide 10Reporting Requirements on EIS

Slide loads completelywith this view.

Slide 10addresses thereporting require-ments that public agencies willhave regarding early interveningservices. This, too, is new withIDEA 2004. Specifically, LEAsmust report:

• the number of children servedby EIS; and

• the number of children whosubsequently receive specialeducation and related servicesunder IDEA in the precedingtwo-year period.

Handout B-8 includes theseprovisions, which are also pre-sented in the box at the top ofthe next page.

The data on EIS that LEAsmust collect and report to theState educational agency (SEA)will be important to track theusefulness of EIS in reducingreferrals to special education. Asthe Department notes:

We believe that these dataare sufficient to provideLEAs and SEAs with theinformation needed todetermine the impact ofearly intervening serviceson children and todetermine if these servicesreduce the number ofreferrals for specialeducation and relatedservices. (71 Fed. Reg. at46628)

Meaning of “PrecedingTwo Year Period”

It’s helpful to realize that thephrase “during the precedingtwo year period” actually refersto “the two years after the childhas received early interveningservices” (71 Fed. Reg. at 46628,emphasis added). This may havebeen a bit confusing, given thatthe word “preceding” means“before.” But the Departmentclarifies that the “before” refersto before the child began receiv-ing special education and relatedservices as a “child with a disabil-ity”—as follows:

The Department intendsfor LEAs to report onchildren who beganreceiving special educationservices no more than two


New inIDEA!


More of IDEA’s EIS Regulation:Reporting Requirements

(d) Reporting. Each LEA that develops and maintains coordinated,early intervening services under this section must annually report tothe SEA on—

(1) The number of children served under this section who receivedearly intervening services; and

(2) The number of children served under this section who receivedearly intervening services and subsequently receive special educationand related services under Part B of the Act during the preceding twoyear period.

§300.226(d)

years after they receivedearly intervening services.For the preceding two yearperiod, the LEA wouldreport on the number ofchildren who received bothearly intervening servicesand special educationservices during those twoyears. (71 Fed. Reg. at46628)



Slide 11 EIS Relationship with Disproportionality


Click1:Bottom text appears:“If an LEA has such adisproportionality...”


View 1

Click 1


Slide 11: Background and Discussion1 Click1 Click1 Click1 Click1 Click

Slide 11 introduces the interac-tion between EIS anddisproportionality, which will bediscussed across the next threeslides.

What is Disproportionality?

In the context of this discus-sion, disproportionality refers tooverrepresentation or theunderrepresentation of childrenof specific racial or ethnicgroups:

• in special education;

• in particular educationalsettings; and

• subjected to various forms ofdiscipline.

Used more generally, the termcould refer to the over-represen-tation or underrepresentation ofany given population group inan area of interest or concern—individuals from specific racialand ethnic backgrounds, socio-economic status, national origin,English proficiency, or gender,for example.

In special education, our areaof concern, research has repeat-edly shown the relationshipbetween race and ethnicity andother variables to children’splacement in special educationclasses. The past 30 years havebeen marked by discussions ofthis phenomenon, research intowhat is causing it, and directaction against it, as can be seenin many of IDEA 97’s provisionsand those of IDEA 2004.

Congressional Concern

As the slide indicates, Congresshas expressed its concern aboutthis issue over the years andtaken action to investigate andameliorate it. IDEA ‘97, forexample, mandated new Statereporting requirements concern-ing enrollment by race andethnicity in special educationand the suspension and expul-sion of children with disabilities.Public Law 108-446—IDEA 2004signed by President Bush onDecember 3, 2004—opens witha list of findings that specificallyidentify disproportionality as anissue to be addressed. Thesefindings are presented in the boxon the next page. As you can see,they are extensive.

Addressing Disproportionality

As might be expected, giventhe findings of Congress, IDEA2004 includes numerous provi-sions intended to directly ad-dress disproportionate represen-tation by race and ethnicity inspecial education. This topic willbe dealt with separately andmuch more fully in the moduleDisproportionality andOverrepresentation, but it’s impor-tant to discuss it here as well,where it intersects with IDEA’sEIS provisions. Refer participantsto Handout B-4, which presents§300.646, Disproportionality.Indicate that States receivingfunds under IDEA must collectand examine data “to determineif significant disproportionalitybased on race and ethnicity isoccurring in the State and theLEAs” with respect to:

• identification of children aschildren with disabilities,including identification inparticular disability categories;

• the placement in particulareducational settings of thesechildren; and

• disciplinary actions (howmany, how long, what type),including suspensions andexpulsions.

If an LEA is identified as havingsignificant disproportionality inany of these areas, then specificaction must be taken. Thisincludes requiring the LEA to:

...reserve the maximumamount of funds...toprovide comprehensivecoordinated earlyintervening services toserve children in the LEA,particularly, but notexclusively, children inthose groups that weresignificantly overidentified...” [§300.646(b)(2)].

More will be said in the nexttwo slides about what’s involvedin using EIS funds to addressdisproportionality.


Excerpts from Findings in IDEA 2004

‘‘(10)(A) The Federal Government must be responsive to the growing needs ofan increasingly diverse society.

‘‘(B) America’s ethnic profile is rapidly changing. In 2000, 1 of every 3 personsin the United States was a member of a minority group or was limited Englishproficient.

‘‘(C) Minority children comprise an increasing percentage of public schoolchildren.

‘‘(D) With such changing demographics, recruitment efforts for special educa-tion personnel should focus on increasing the participation of minorities in theteaching profession in order to provide appropriate role models with sufficientknowledge to address the special education needs of these children.

‘‘(11)(A) The limited English proficient population is the fastest growing in ourNation, and the growth is occurring in many parts of our Nation.

‘‘(B) Studies have documented apparent discrepancies in the levels of referraland placement of limited English proficient children in special education.

‘‘(C) Such discrepancies pose a special challenge for special education in thereferral of, assessment of, and provision of services for, our Nation’s childrenfrom non-English language backgrounds.

‘‘(12)(A) Greater efforts are needed to prevent the intensification of problemsconnected with mislabeling and high dropout rates among minority childrenwith disabilities.

‘‘(B) More minority children continue to be served in special education thanwould be expected from the percentage of minority children in the general schoolpopulation.

‘‘(C) African-American children are identified as having mental retardation andemotional disturbance at rates greater than their White counterparts.

‘‘(D) In the 1998–1999 school year, African-American children represented just14.8 percent of the population aged 6 through 21, but comprised 20.2 percent ofall children with disabilities.

‘‘(E) Studies have found that schools with predominately White children andteachers have placed disproportionately high numbers of their minority childreninto special education.

Public Law 108-446 (IDEA 2004), Section 601(c), Findings.

Module 6 6-33 EIS and RTI

Slide 12Defining “Significant Disproportionality”

Slide loads withthis view, withfirst paragraphvisible.

Click 1:2nd paragraphappears.

Click 1

View 1

(discussion on next page)


S

S

EIS and RTI 6-34 Module 6

Slide 12: Background and Discussion1 Click

So what IS “significantdisproportionality” and how is itdefined? How does an SEAdetermine if an LEA in the Statehas a disproportionality andwhether or not it is significant?Slide 12 shines a light on howIDEA 2004 expects SEAs andLEAs to answer these questions.

As both paragraphs on theslide indicate, it is each State, notIDEA 2004, that defines whatconstitutes “significantdisproportionality” in the Stateand in its LEAs. Furthermore:

[T]he determination ofsignificant dispropor-tionality by race orethnicity is based on acollection and examinationof data and not on adistrict’s policies,procedures, orpractices.(71 Fed. Reg.at 46738)

Thus, the process begins withscrutinizing the data collected onthe numbers and types ofchildren in special education andthe other factors mentioned inIDEA (e.g., placement, disciplin-ary actions) to see if a significantdisproportionality exists. If it isidentified, then the SEA wouldreview the LEA’s policies andpractices to determine if thoseare consistent with what IDEArequires, as described here:

[I]n identifying significantdisproportionality, a Statemay determine statisticallysignificant levels. TheState’s review of itsconstituent LEAs’ policies,practices, and proceduresfor identifying and placing

children withdisabilitieswould occur inLEAs withsignificantdisproportionalityinidentification,placement, or

discipline, based on theexamination of the data.The purpose of this reviewis to determine if thepolicies, practices, andprocedures are consistentwith the Act. (71 Fed. Reg.at 46738)

More will be said on the nextslide about why the Departmentdid not establish a nationalstandard for findings of signifi-cant disproportionality andfactors that States may need toconsider when they establishtheir own standards and criteriafor making such a determina-tion.


Slide 13Defining “Significant Disproportionality”

Slide loads with thisview.

Clicks 1—3:Click by click, bulletby bullet appears.Three bullets ofinformation, threeclicks.

Clicks 1-3

View 1




Slide 13 further examinesdisproportionality as a State-defined matter, although it maywell have its roots in “inappro-priate regular education re-sponses to academic or behav-ioral issues,” as the first bulletstates.

Why Does DisproportionalityOccur?

Research into disproportionaterepresentation of children fromparticular racial and ethnicgroups in special education andin certain placements has identi-fied a wide variety of contribut-ing factors, including “language,poverty, assessment practices,systemic issues, and professionaldevelopment opportunities forteachers” (Elementary andMiddle Schools Technical Assis-tance Center, 2002). It’s interest-ing that, in connecting EIS anddisproportionality, the Depart-ment noted “the fact that signifi-cant disproportionality in specialeducation may be the result ofinappropriate regular educationresponses to academic or behav-ioral issues” (71 Fed. Reg. at46627).


State-Defined, Not NationallyDefined

As the last slide indicated andthis slide further examines, it isthe State’s role to define whatlevel of disproportionality willbe considered “statisticallysignificant” and, thus, a genuinecause for concern and action.The Department believes thatestablishing a national standardfor significant disproportionalitywould not be appropriate“because there are multiplefactors at the State level toconsider in making such deter-minations” (71 Fed. Reg. at46738).

For example, States needto consider the populationsize, the size of individualLEAs, and composition ofState population. Statesare in the best position toevaluate those factors.(71 Fed. Reg. at 46738)

These comments are reflectedon the slide.

Sources of AdditionalInformation

Obviously, disproportionalityis an issue of importance toCongress, to the Department, toStates and LEAs, and to stake-holders, especially those fromracial or ethnic groups who maybe inappropriately identified aschildren with disabilities orplaced inappropriately. There aremany sources of additionalinformation about this issue aswell as resources to assist Statesand LEAs in addressing it. Lookat those listed in the modulefocused on Disproportionality andOverrepresentation. We also pointyou toward the guidance devel-oped by the Department onmethods that States can use forcalculating disproportionality,available online at:

www.ideadata.org/docs/Disproportionality%20Technical%20Assistance%20Guide.pdf


Slide 14A Mini-Lesson on Maintenance of Effort (MOE)

Click 1:The top paragraphappears, and the word“or” in the middle.



View 1

Click 1


Click 2:Text at bottomappears.



Slide 14 takes up the compli-cated topic of “Maintenance ofEffort”—otherwise known asMOE. How is this topic relevantto EIS? The next 7 slides willanswer that question.

Guessing the Meaning of theSlide

When this slide on MOEappears, it will be important toset the stage for the upcomingdiscussion, since it may seem tocome out of left field for theaudience. We’d suggest firstengaging the group in a guessinggame about what the slideactually means. There are veryfew words on the slide, althoughits title (Mini-Lesson on Mainte-

nance of Effort) is a substantialclue.

The slide is meant to representthe two frames of referencewithin which an LEA may calcu-late the level of effort it mustmaintain from year to year: (a)the amount of local fundsexpended for the education ofchildren with disabilities, or (b)the amount of State-local fundscombined that it spends. Whileultimately this is intended to setup a discussion of local mainte-nance of effort, leaping theredirectly may leave many partici-pants in the ravine, wonderingwhat you’re talking about. Sotake a few minutes to see whatthey think the slide’s emergingpictures mean.

So What Is Local MOE?

Maintenance of effort, notsurprisingly, is exactly what itsounds like. Generally speaking,an LEA may not reduce expendi-tures from local (or State andlocal) funds spent for the educa-tion of children with disabilitiesbelow the level it spent the yearbefore. The general MOE provi-sion appears at §300.203(a) and(b), which is provided in the boxon the next page. It also appearson Handout B-9.

Click 2


How the Slide Loads

The slide opens with the twopossible pots of money shown:the local funds spent for theeducation of children withdisabilities or the State-local fundscombined. You also see Year 1and Year 2, meant to indicate theyear-to-year nature of MOE. Askparticipants what they thinkMOE is and how this slide mightdepict what is required withrespect to MOE.

Click 1: When you click, textwill appear in the open spacebetween the two sets of pictures,as follows:

MOE may be calculatedbased on local funds spentfrom one year to thenext…

OR

Click 2: When you click the2nd time, now this other optionfor calculating MOE will appear:

…the combination ofState-local funds spentfrom one year to the next.

The concept of MOE really isrelevant to the discussion of EIS,as we will see soon enough. Askyour participants what theyimagine the relevance will be,because unless they are alreadyaware of IDEA 2004’s provisionsinterconnecting local MOE andEIS, their answers are likely to bequite imaginative. This is also ameans of engaging attention in arather dry subject.

§300.203 Maintenance of effort.

(a) General. Except as provided in §§300.204 and 300.205,funds provided to an LEA under Part B of the Act must not beused to reduce the level of expenditures for the education ofchildren with disabilities made by the LEA from local fundsbelow the level of those expenditures for the preceding fiscalyear.

(b) Standard. (1) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(2) ofthis section, the SEA must determine that an LEA complies withparagraph (a) of this section for purposes of establishing theLEA’s eligibility for an award for a fiscal year if the LEA budgets,for the education of children with disabilities, at least the sametotal or per capita amount from either of the following sourcesas the LEA spent for that purpose from the same source for themost recent prior year for which information is available:

(i) Local funds only.

(ii) The combination of State and local funds.

(2) An LEA that relies on paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this sectionfor any fiscal year must ensure that the amount of local funds itbudgets for the education of children with disabilities in thatyear is at least the same, either in total or per capita, as theamount it spent for that purpose in the most recent fiscal yearfor which information is available and the standard in para-graph (b)(1)(i) of this section was used to establish its compli-ance with this section.

(3) The SEA may not consider any expenditures made fromfunds provided by the Federal Government for which the SEAis required to account to the Federal Government or for whichthe LEA is required to account to the Federal Governmentdirectly or through the SEA in determining an LEA’s compliancewith the requirement in paragraph (a) of this section.



Slide 15Summarizing MOE


Click 1:Bullet 1 appears, andthe word “or”rotates, indicatingthere’s more to come.

View 1

Click 1





Slide 15 allows you to summa-rize the information presented inthe last side, namely that:

LEAs must budget (on aper capita or total basis)EITHER:

• at least as much in localfunds as they spent inlocal funds in the mostrecent prior year for whichdata is available; OR

• at least as much in localand State funds combinedas they spent in local andState funds combined inthe most recent prior yearfor which data is available.

This is called local maintenanceof effort, a concept to be carriedforward into the next slides,where the connection betweenMOE and EIS is explained.Notice that no Federal funds arementioned or enter into thediscussion of local MOE. If yourefer to §300.203(b)(3) (in thebox where the last slide wasdiscussed and on Handout B-9),you’ll see that IDEA is explicitabout Federal funds not beingused in any calculation of MOE.

(3) The SEA may notconsider any expendituresmade from funds providedby the Federal Governmentfor which the SEA isrequired to account to theFederal Government or for

which the LEA is requiredto account to the FederalGovernment directly orthrough the SEA indetermining an LEA’scompliance with therequirement in paragraph(a) of this section.

Click 2


Slide 16MOE and EIS


Slide loads withBullet 1 in view.


View 1

Click 1


The IDEA Regulation at §300.205:Where EIS and MOE Intersect

§300.205 Adjustment to local fiscal efforts in certain fiscalyears.

(a) Amounts in excess. Notwithstanding §300.202(a)(2) and (b)and §300.203(a), and except as provided in paragraph (d) of thissection and §300.230(e)(2), for any fiscal year for which theallocation received by an LEA under §300.705 exceeds theamount the LEA received for the previous fiscal year, the LEAmay reduce the level of expenditures otherwise required by§300.203(a) by not more than 50 percent of the amount of thatexcess.

(b) Use of amounts to carry out activities under ESEA. If an LEAexercises the authority under paragraph (a) of this section, theLEA must use an amount of local funds equal to the reductionin expenditures under paragraph (a) of this section to carry outactivities that could be supported with funds under the ESEAregardless of whether the LEA is using funds under the ESEA forthose activities.

(c) State prohibition. Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of thissection, if an SEA determines that an LEA is unable to establishand maintain programs of FAPE that meet the requirements ofsection 613(a) of the Act and this part or the SEA has takenaction against the LEA under section 616 of the Act and subpartF of these regulations, the SEA must prohibit the LEA fromreducing the level of expenditures under paragraph (a) of thissection for that fiscal year.

(d) Special rule. The amount of funds expended by an LEA forearly intervening services under §300.226 shall count toward themaximum amount of expenditures that the LEA may reduceunder paragraph (a) of this section.

Slide 16 introduces thenew provision in theIDEA 2004 that permitsLEAs to reduce their localMOE up to a specified limit, onthe condition that those fundsgo to activities authorized underESEA.

And the limit of how much anLEA may reduce its MOE? Up to50% of how much the LEA’s PartB funding increased this year.

Yes, that requires somethought. Up to 50% of thisyear’s increase in Part B fundsover last’s year’s funds...Turn itaround...this year’s funding.How much more is it than lastyear’s? Well, 50% of that figure isthe limit by which an LEA mayreduce its local MOE—in otherwords, local (or State and local)spending on special educationand related services—in the setof circumstances IDEA specifiesand that we’re going to discusson this slide.

IDEA 2004’s exact regulationgoverning this allowable reduc-tion in local MOE appears in thebox at the right.

Let’s also look again at thegeneral MOE provision, men-tioned on Slide 14 and appear-ing at §300.203(a) as follows:

(a) General. Except asprovided in §§300.204 and300.205, funds providedto an LEA under Part B ofthe Act must not be usedto reduce the level ofexpenditures for theeducation of children withdisabilities made by theLEA from local fundsbelow the level of those


New inIDEA!


expenditures for thepreceding fiscal year.

The “except asprovided in...§300.205” leadsdirectly to theprovisions in the box—§300.205. These provisions arenew in IDEA 2004’s regulation.As you can see:

• The first paragraph—(a)—specifies the 50% MOE reduc-tion we’ve been talking aboutand that’s captured on theslide.

• The second paragraph—(b)—is the regulation’s verbatimiteration of the 2nd point on

the slide: “This amount goesto activities authorized underESEA.”

• The third paragraph—(c)—clearly prohibits an LEA fromreducing its level of expendi-tures when the State hasfound that LEA unable toestablish and maintain pro-grams of FAPE or has takenaction against the LEA [undersection 616 of the Act andsubpart F of the regulations].

• The fourth paragraph—(d),the special rule—brings EISinto the equation, and we


have the actual, verbatimconnection between these twoissues at last.

“Special rule.” The amount offunds expended by an LEA forearly intervening services under§300.226 “shall count towardthe maximum amount of expen-ditures that the LEA may reduceunder paragraph (a) of thissection” [§300.205(d)].

How does this work? The nextslides provide several examplesyou can use to both illustratethis interconnection and elabo-rate upon it.

New inIDEA!


Click 1:The answer appears“Increase: $1 million.”

Fine time to askaudience, “How muchmay the LEA reduce itsMOE, given thatincrease? What’s thepercentage IDEApermits?”

Slide loads with thisview listing prioryear’s allocation andthe current year’s.This is a fine time toask audience, “Howmuch of an increase infunding did this LEAreceive?”

Slide 17Example Part 1

Click 2:Answer appears:$50,000.(That’s 50% of theincrease.)

Slide’s not done yet!More slide operationon the next page!


View 1

Click 2

Click 1


Click 3:“Calculating FundsAvailable for EIS” boxappears, connectingEIS into discussion.Ask audience, “Whatpercentage of the LEA’scurrent funds can it usefor early interveningservices?”


Click 4:The answer appears:“15% of $2 million(Currentallocation)”—which is $300,000.


Click 4

Click 3



Slide 17 is complicated, isn’t it?It’s designed so that at each stepof the way the audience mustanswer your question andgenerate the next figure or fact.You’ve provided all necessaryinformation for them to do so. Aback-and-forth between you andparticipants can then serve bothas a review of what you’ve toldthem so far and to hold theirfocus.

This first slide sets up theconversation, taking all thefunds and combining them withIDEA’s provisions, so that thework slate of numbers is avail-able to calculate (on the nextslides) how many funds an LEAcan put toward early interveningservices if the LEA decides toreduce maintenance of effort aspecific amount. The variousnumbers calculated on this slidewill be used again and againacross the next four examples.What will change will be theamount the LEA decides toreduce its MOE. This will give aclear illustration of how reducingMOE affects the funds availablefor EIS.

At this point, tell participantsthat they now have all the

numbers they need to see howMOE and EIS are interconnected.In the next slides they will applythese numbers. So theyshouldn’t be worried if they arebaffled right now. They may havejust walked through calculatingall these numbers with you, butthey haven’t yet gone to the nextstep—using the numbers.

Important Training Consideration

Does your audience need to take this information

back to their professional activities and apply it, per-

haps making decisions regarding MOE and EIS? If so,

then strongly consider having them actually practice

these calculations with additional examples. Appendix

D of the Part B regulations provides examples you can

use. These are included on Handout B-6, OSEP’s Topic

Brief. You may share these with the audience and have

them work with a partner to run through the calcula-

tions necessary to determine if, given a specific set aside

for EIS, the LEA may reduce its MOE.


:

View 1

Slide 18Example (continued)

Click 2

Click 1



Slide loads with thisview, carrying forwardthe critical numbersfrom the last slide.

Click 1:Decision A appears: thatthe LEA might use noneof the funds to reduceMOE.

The question appears:How does this affect howmany $$ the LEA can puttoward EIS?

Click 2:The math is performed,and the answer appearsat the bottom: The LEAmay put the maximumallowable toward EIS.

:

many



Slide 18 connects the dotsbetween how the funds an LEAdecides to commit towardreducing its MOE will affect theamount it then may put towarddeveloping or implementing EIS.Believe it or not, that’s where allthese numbers have been going!

This slide operates easily—only2 clicks are necessary to unfurl itscomponents—but read this nextpart carefully so you knowwhat’s going to happen on eachCLICK and how IDEA 2004pertains to the calculations andconclusions that appear.

Making EIS-MOE Calculations

Slide Loads: The slide openswith a minimum amount ofinformation carried over fromthe previous slide, specifically:

• Max Available for MOE:$500,000

• Max Available for EIS:$300,000

Tell participants that this slide,and the next several slides, willillustrate how the amount offunds an LEA uses toward MOEreduction will directly affect howmany funds it may use towardestablishing EIS services—up tothe available amounts in eithercategory, of course. Each of thenext slides will show the LEAdeciding to use a differentamount toward MOE, and thecorresponding effect that willhave on the amount it may usefor EIS.

Click 1: In this first example,the LEA decides to put none ofthe available MOE reductionfunds toward reducing its MOE.This appears with the click, asdoes the question box at thebottom of the screen: How doesthis affect how many $$ the LEAcan put toward EIS? This is thequestion the audience mustanswer. Explicitly draw partici-pant attention to it.

Click 2: This click launches thecalculation of the math andbrings up the answer to thequestion: The LEA may put themaximum allowable toward EIS,$300,000.

Regrouping and Reconsider-ing

Is the audience completelyconfused? It’s quite possible.This slide has been set up toshow how the different partscombine to make the calcula-tions necessary and answer thebasic questions about whetheror not the LEA may reduce itslevel of effort. What’s importantfor participants to grasp is thatthese are interconnected and

moving parts. Putting fundstoward MOE will impact uponthe amount available to be spenton EIS.

This is why the Departmentprovides the following cautionto LEAs:

LEAs that seek to reducetheir local maintenance ofeffort in accordance with§300.205(d) and use someof their Part B funds forearly intervening servicesunder §300.226 must doso with caution becausethe local maintenance ofeffort reduction provisionand the authority to usePart B funds for earlyintervening services areinterconnected. Thedecisions that an LEAmakes about the amountof funds that it uses forone purpose affect theamount that it may use forthe other. (71 Fed. Reg. at46817)

To be explicit, when an LEAdecides to take advantage ofIDEA’s regulation at §300.205(d)and to reduce its local expendi-tures for special education by anamount that is not larger than50% of the increase in Part Bfunds from one year to the next,the amount of IDEA funds thatLEA may put toward early inter-vening services will be directlyaffected. The same is true inreverse: Deciding to put IDEAfunds toward EIS will directlyaffect the amount by which theLEA may reduce local expendi-tures for special education. This


latter will not be examined inthese slides, although you maycertainly do so as an activity withparticipants who are going to bemaking these sorts of decisionswhen they leave this trainingsession. It is extremely importantto illustrate to participants whowill have that responsibility thatwhat they do in one area willimpact what they can do in theother. The Department’s caution(quoted above) needs to beconsidered carefully by both thetechnical personnel who decide

how funds will be allocated andby the accounting personnelwho keep track of how funds areused. Given the newness ofthese MOE-EIS provisions,administrators of these two areasneed to fully understand theimplications of decisions theymight make, fiscally and pro-grammatically, and communicatewith one another about thedecisions they are making, inorder to apply these provisionslegally.


The next slide takes a secondlook at the same scenario, thistime with the LEA deciding toput a different amount towardMOE: $100,000. Before youmove on to that slide, you mighthave your audience team upwith a partner and make theirown calculations for this newamount. What’s their answer? Ifthe LEA does that, how muchcan it then spend on EIS, up tothe allowable maximum of$300,000?


Click 2



Slide loads with thesame view as the lastslide, carryingforward the samecritical numbers.

Click 1:Decision B appears:that the LEA mightuse $100,000 of thefunds to reduceMOE.

The questionappears: How doesthis affect how many$$ the LEA can puttoward EIS?

Click 2:The math is performed,and the answer appearsat the bottom: The LEAmay put $200,000toward EIS.

Slide 19Example 2: Let’s try another one!

View 1

Click 1

many

:

:



Slide 19 operates and presentsitself exactly in the same way thatSlide 18 did (and as Slides 20and 21 will). It also repeats thecalculations made on the lastslide, this time from the pointwhere the LEA decides to use$100,000 for MOE (not “none”as on Slide 18). As can be seen,when the math is calculated, thisresults in $200,000 that the LEAmay put toward EIS. Whatsummary might the audienceoffer to capture the interconnec-tion between MOE and EIS?


Indicate that another exampleis coming up, and this time theLEA is going to commit $200,000to reducing MOE. Again, canpairs of participants calculatehow this decision will affect theamount of funds the LEA mayspend on EIS, up to the maxi-mum allowed? Give them amoment to confer, and move onto the next slide where this newcalculation will play out.


Click 2




Click 1:Decision C appears:that the LEA might use$200,000 of the fundsto reduce MOE.

The question appears:How does this affect howmany $$ the LEA can puttoward EIS?

Click 2:The math is performed,and the answer appearsat the bottom: The LEAmay put $100,000toward EIS.


View 1

Click 1

many

:

:




Did the audience come upwith the correct answer for theexample at hand? Are theygrasping how MOE decisions willaffect EIS funds that may beused? Give them one moreexample, this time ending upwith no funds being available touse for EIS. Can they guess whatthe LEA must put toward MOEto lead to that result?


Click 2




Click 1:Decision D appears:that the LEA mightuse $300,000 of thefunds to reduce MOE.

The question appears:How does this affecthow many $$ the LEAcan put toward EIS?

Click 2:The math is performed,and the answer appearsat the bottom: The LEAmay put no moneytoward EIS.


Click 1

View 1

many

:

:




As you can see, if the LEAdecides to use $300,000 (of themaximum available, $500,000)to reduce its MOE, then it haseffectively eliminated the abilityto put any money toward estab-lishing or implementing EIS.Considering what EIS is in-tended to accomplish, and whatit may offer to children in needof additional academic or behav-ioral support, that is a decisionthat should be made carefully. Itis also a decision that may lead

to unexpected consequencesfurther down the line if the LEAis found to have significantdisproportionality, as the up-coming slides will introduce. TheIDEA and its regulations are veryspecific about how a finding thatan LEA has significantdisproportionality affects theinterplay between EIS and MOE.


Slide 22When There’s Significant Disproportionality

Slide loadswith this view.

Click 1:Top text appears:“LEA must use full15% of Part B fundsfor EIS.”


View 1

Click 1


§300.646(b)(2)


Click 2:The bottomparagraphappears.

Slide 22 puts the final note onthis discussion of EIS withinIDEA 2004. It adds the limitationthat the regulations include as toreduction of MOE and the EISset aside when an LEA is foundto have significant dispropor-tionality under IDEA. IDEA2004’s relevant regulatory provi-sions are presented in the box atthe right. As they indicate, andthe slide echoes, an LEA deter-mined to have significantdisproportionality must reservethe maximum amount of fundspermissible—15% of its Part Bfunds— to “provide interveningservices to serve children in theLEA, particularly, but not exclu-sively, children in those groupsthat were significantlyoveridentified.” This will meanthat an LEA identified by the SEAas having significant dispropor-tionality will not be able to take

Reduction of MOE, EIS Funding, and SignificantDisproportionality: Relevant Regulatory Provisions

(b) Review and revision of policies, practices, and procedures. In thecase of a determination of significant disproportionality withrespect to the identification of children as children with disabili-ties, or the placement in particular educational settings of thesechildren, in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section, theState or the Secretary of the Interior must—

(1) ...

(2) Require any LEA identified under paragraph (a) of thissection to reserve the maximum amount of funds under section613(f) of the Act to provide intervening services to serve childrenin the LEA, particularly, but not exclusively, children in thosegroups that were significantly overidentified under paragraph (a)of this section ...


Click 2


Excerpted Remarks from the Senate Committee onHealth, Education, Labor, and Pensions

fromSenate Report No. 108-185 (to accompany S.1248)

November 3, 2003

Early intervening services (section 613(f))

The committee is greatly concerned that too many children are

being identified as needing special education and related ser-

vices, and has sought approaches to help prevent children from

being inappropriately identified for services under IDEA. Re-

search shows that with appropriate, early regular education

interventions, many children can learn to perform effectively in

the regular education environment without the need for special

education services. These procedures also have the promise of

reducing the amount or intensity of services needed for children

who ultimately do get appropriately referred for special educa-

tion. For example, both the President’s Commission on Excel-

lence in Special Education and the National Research Council’s

report on minority children in special education cited with

approval to the results of large scale clinical trials indicating that

early intervention on reading skills in conjunction with positive

behavior programs resulted in improved academic achievement

and reduction in behavioral difficulties in high-risk, predomi-

nantly minority children. Research supported by OSEP on

addressing behavioral and emotional problems in schools also

indicates that universal screening can greatly assist in early

identification of children at risk for these problems and that

more significant behavioral problems and emotional disabilities

can be significantly reduced through classroom-based ap-

proaches involving positive behavioral interventions and class-

room management techniques. Other evidence shows that when

schools make available services, such as mental health services,

not normally available in schools, to at-risk children the number

of special education referrals can be reduced.

Therefore, the committee believes that it makes sense to give

school districts flexibility to use up to 15 percent of their IDEA

continued on the next page

advantage of any MOE reductionbecause it will be required to usethe full 15% for EIS.

In Conclusion

This has been a detailed lookat the regulations’ new provi-sions regarding EIS. Theseintroduce an intriguing mixbetween NCLB and IDEA,general and special education,and the perhaps unnecessarilyshort path between them formany children. The premiseunderlying EIS and IDEA’sfunding of them is the need toaddress as early as possible thestruggles that children may have.The provisions acknowledge thatearly academic or behaviorproblems may not be a manifes-tation of disability but, rather,inadequate supports, instruc-tion, or both. When additionalsupports are provided in thistimely fashion, at the beginningof the learning cycle and beforechildren fall too far behind,many children will be able toflourish within general educa-tion.

Not all children will, however.IDEA provides for their circum-stances, too, and the reality thatsome children will not respondadequately to EIS. These childrenwill be referred for evaluationunder IDEA to determine if theyare children with disabilities inneed of special education andrelated services.

As conceptualized by Congress(see remarks on the right) anddetailed in these regulations, theimpact of EIS will be an interest-ing issue to monitor in thecoming years.


Reference

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. (2003, November 3).

Senate Report No. 108-185 (to accompany S.1248). Washington, DC: Government

Printing Office.

funds to develop and implement coordinated,

early intervening educational services for chil-

dren who are not receiving special education

services but who require additional academic

and behavioral support to succeed in a regular

education environment, and who may be likely

referrals to special education programs and

services at a later time. These activities have the

promise of benefiting both the regular educa-

tion environment and the special education

program by reducing academic and behavioral

problems in the regular education environment

and the number of referrals for special educa-

tion and the intensity of special education

services required for some children.

Section 613(f) of the act would be revised to

authorize such use of IDEA funds, in combina-

tion with other non-special education funds, to

develop and implement coordinated, early

intervening educational support services that

include activities such as professional develop-

ment for teachers and other school staff so that

they can deliver scientifically-based academic

and behavioral interventions; providing educa-

tional and behavioral evaluations, services and

supports, including scientifically-based literacy

instruction; and developing and implementing

interagency financing strategies for the provi-

sion of those evaluations, services and sup-

ports. An example of innovative early interven-

ing services may include programs that develop

children’s cognitive and perceptual abilities.

It has come to the committee’s attention that

many children struggle in school as a result of

trauma and the effects of traumatic events. The

committee encourages local educational agen-

cies to respond to the needs of these children

through early intervening programs established

in this section.

The committee does not intend for early

intervening to prevent or delay a child from

receiving an evaluation to determine the pres-

ence of a disability and the need for special

education and related services. The committee

encourages local educational agencies to de-

velop a systematic process by which they deter-

mine whether or not a child receiving early

intervention services should be subsequently

referred for an evaluation. (pp. 22-23)

Excerpted Remarksfrom the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

(continued from previous page)


Slide 23Introductory Slide to RTI

No clicks necessary.Slide self-presents.

Slide 23 provides the segueinto the next section of thismodule and the indepth explo-ration of Response to Interven-tion, RTI.

Before launching into theslides, however, we provide thefollowing background discussionof RTI both within IDEA and inpractice. Additional informationis given in the background textof upcoming slides as well. Thisdiscussion is provided as afoundation for information youmay impart to the audience asyou progress through the slides.At this point, in this openingslide, you wouldn’t need toshare all this! Wait until theappropriate slide comes up.

The Roots of RTI

Response to intervention—hereafter referred to as RTI—is anew component within IDEA

2004 and the final Part B regula-tions and represents a processthat schools may use to helpchildren who are struggling. Oneof its underlying premises is thepossibility that a child's strugglesmay be due to inadequacies ininstruction or in the curriculumeither in use at the moment or inthe child's past.

Optimal learning outcomesoccur when the curriculum andinstruction within the classroomare closely compatible withchildren's skills and abilities.When there is a poor fit, childoutcomes and learning suffer.Quality classroom instructionusually is a good fit for meetingthe needs of most children. Butfor other children, success is noteasy. The hypothesis is that, withRTI, these struggling children canbe identified early and providedappropriate instruction, thusincreasing the likelihood that

they can be successful andmaintain their class placement.

Describing RTI

The National Joint Commit-tee on Learning Disabilities(2005) sums up the core con-cepts of RTI in the followingway:

Core concepts of an RTIapproach are thesystematic (1) applicationof scientific, research-basedinterventions in generaleducation; (2)measurement of a child'sresponse to theseinterventions; and (3) useof the RTI data to informinstruction.

How these concepts play outin reality can readily be observedin almost any RTI implementa-tion. Typically, struggling chil-dren are identified through a



poor performance on aclasswide, schoolwide, ordistrictwide screening processintended to indicate whichchildren are at risk of academicor behavioral problems. A childmay also be identified throughother means, such as teacherobservation. The school maythen ensure that an RTI processis faithfully implemented andprovides the child with research-based interventions while thechild is still in the general educa-tion environment.

RTI typically has differentlevels of intensity. At the firstlevel, interventions focus moreon helping struggling children ina group. A certain amount oftime is alloted to see if the childresponds to the intervention—hence, the name RTI. Progress ismonitored closely. If the childdoes, indeed, respond to theresearch-based intervention,then this indicates that perhapshis or her difficulties haveresulted from less appropriate orinsufficiently targeted instruc-tion.

If, however, the child doesnot respond to the first level ofgroup-oriented interventions, heor she typically moves to thenext RTI level, which is moretargeted and intensive. Again,child progress is closely moni-tored. The time allotted to see ifthe child responds to interven-tions in this more intensive levelmay be longer than in the firstlevel—a marking period, forinstance, rather than six weeks—but the overall process is muchthe same. If the child showsadequate progress, then theintervention has been successfuland a “match” has been foundto what type of instructionworks with that child. It is quite

possible that, if the problem iscaught early enough and ad-dressed via appropriate instruc-tion, the child learns the skillsnecessary to continue in generaleducation without furtherintervention.

On the other hand, if thechild does not respond ad-equately to the intervention,then a third level becomes anoption for continued and yetmore intensive intervention. Thisthird level is typically moreindividualized as well.

Important Note: It is worth-while saying that, regardless ofRTI as an option for strugglingchildren or its potential use indiagnosing learning disabilities,at any point in its multileveledprocess a child may be referredfor evaluation under IDEA todetermine if he or she is a “childwith a disability” as IDEA 2004’sregulation defines that term at§300.8. Becoming involved inRTI does not mean that a childhas to complete a level, or alllevels, of an RTI approach beforehe or she may be evaluated foreligibility for special educationand related services. The IDEA2004’s regulation is very clearabout this. Similar to EIS,RTI may not beused as a meansof delaying orrefusing toconduct such anevaluation if theLEA suspectsthat the childhas a disabilityor if theparents requestthat the schoolsystem evaluatethe child.

RTI in General EducationClassrooms

The National Research Centeron Learning Disabilities,NRCLD, has been focusingclosely on RTI as an approachsince its funding began in 2003.Its work will be very useful tostakeholders wanting to knowmore about RTI, how RTI fitsinto the bigger picture of thegeneral education classroom,and what it means for childrengenerally and for those withlearning disabilities in particular.We’ve included in the box on thenext page the “Core Concepts ofRTI” according to NRCLD. Thesecore concepts illustrate theimportance of high-quality,research-based instruction ingeneral education.

What About RTI for Childrenwith Disabilities in SpecialEducation?

The use of an RTI processwith children who are strugglingin school naturally raises ques-tions regarding its use withchildren with disabilities who arereceiving special education andrelated services. When asked ifchildren with disabilities wouldbe eligible to receive servicesusing RTI strategies, the Depart-ment responded:

Response to intervention(RTI) strategies are toolsthat enable educators totarget instructionalinterventions to children’sareas of specific need assoon as those needsbecome apparent. There isnothing in IDEA thatprohibits children withdisabilities who arereceiving special educationand related services underIDEA from receivinginstruction using RTI


strategies unless the use ofsuch strategies isinconsistent with their...IEPs....(U.S. Department ofEducation, 2007, p. 2).

The Department does note anexception, however—a childwith a disability who is currentlyreceiving special education andrelated services “may not receive

Core Concepts of RTI

• Children receive high quality instruction in their generaleducation setting

• General education instruction is research-based

• General education instructors and staff assume an active rolein children's assessment in that curriculum

• School staff conduct universal screening of academics andbehavior

• Continuous progress monitoring of child performance occurs

• Continuous progress monitoring pinpoints children's specificdifficulties

• School staff implement specific, research-based interventionsto address the child's difficulties

• School staff use progress-monitoring data to determine inter-ventions’ effectiveness and to make any modifications asneeded

• Systematic assessment is completed of the fidelity or integritywith which instruction and interventions are implemented

Excerpted from National Research Center on Learning Disabilities(2006). Core concepts of RtI. Nashville, TN: Author. (Availableonline at: www.nrcld.org/research/rti/concepts.shtml)

RTI services that are funded withIDEA funds used for EIS pursu-ant to 34 CFR §300.226” (Id.).

Why this restriction? If theaudience considers the intentand scope of EIS, they should beable to guess the answer. As theDepartment explains, thisrestriction exists:

...because EIS is...”forstudents in kindergartenthrough grade 12 (with aparticular emphasis onstudents in kindergartenthrough grade three) whoare not currently identifiedas needing special

education or relatedservices, but who needadditional academic andbehavioral support tosucceed in a generaleducation environment.”(Id.)

The Intersection of RTIand LD

The role of RTI is to addressthe needs of children who arenot succeeding within thegeneral instructional approachby identifying and implementingother research-based interven-tions that will work with thosechildren. The probability existsthat some of those children willhave learning disabilities and willnot respond in the same way tothese interventions as childrenwithout LD. This is where theintersection of RTI and LDoccurs and why RTI is seen as apromising component in identi-fying LD.

How Does RTI Relate to LDDeterminations?

The information gleanedfrom a child’s performance whileimplementing a specific interven-tion can now be consideredimportant in distinguishingchildren with LD. IDEA’s regula-tions now specifically allow anLEA to include a child’s responseto scientific, research-basedintervention as part of determin-ing whether or not that child hasa specific learning disability(SLD). Not responding ormaking sufficient progress withinthat intervention is an indicationthat learning disabilities may lieat the root of the child's aca-demic difficulties.


Excerpted Remarksfrom the Analysis of Comments and Changes

to the Final Part B Regulations

The Act requires that LEAs be permitted to use a process thatdetermines if a child responds to research-based interventions.Further, there is an evidence base to support the use of RTI mod-els to identify children with SLD on a wide scale, including youngchildren and children from minority backgrounds. These includeseveral large-scale implementations in Iowa (the Heartland model;Tilly, 2002); the Minneapolis public schools (Marston, 2003);applications of the Screening to Enhance Equitable Placement(STEEP) model in Mississippi, Louisiana, and Arizona(VanDerHeyden, Witt, & Gilbertson, in press); and other ex-amples (NASDE, 2005). 1 While it is true that much of the researchon RTI models has been conducted in the area of reading, 80 to90 percent of children with SLD experience reading problems. Theimplementation of RTI in practice, however, has included otherdomains. RTI is only one component of the process to identifychildren in need of special education and related services. Deter-mining why a child has not responded to research-based interven-tions requires a comprehensive evaluation.

(71 Fed. Reg. 46647)

1 Tilly III, W. D. (2002). School psychology as a problem solving enterprise. InA. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best Practices in School Psychology IV. WashingtonD.C.: National Association of School Psychologists; VanDerHeyden, A.M, Witt,J.C, & Gilbertson, D. (in press). Effect of a problem solving intervention on theaccurate identification of children. Journal of School Psychology; Marston, D.,Muyskens, P., Lau, M., & Canter, A. (2003). Problem-solving model for decisionmaking with high incidence disabilities: The Minneapolis experience. LearningDisabilities Research and Practice, 18, 187–200; Gresham, F., VanDerHeyden,A.M, & Witt, J.C. (in press). Response to intervention in the identification oflearning disabilities: Empirical support and future challenges. School PsychologyReview; National Association of State Directors of Special Education (2005).Response to intervention: policy considerations and implementations. Alexan-dria VA: Author.

The Department provides aninteresting background discus-sion on RTI in its Analysis ofComments and Changes to thefinal Part B regulations; theseserve to further illuminate theconnection between RTI and LDdetermination. We’ve excerptedrelevant remarks in the box onthe right. (Note: The acronymSLD is used for specific learningdisabilities.)

The RTI language, while newto the statute and its implement-ing regulations, has been con-ceptually connected to thedetermination of LD in the past.IDEA ‘97 specifically included aprovision (maintained in IDEA2004) that, in evaluating childrento determine eligibility forspecial education, the child mustnot be determined to be a “childwith a disability” if the determin-ing factor is a lack of appropriateinstruction in reading or math[§300.306(b)]. The responsive-ness-to-intervention concept inIDEA 2004 is an elaboration orgreater specification on this basicconcept.

LD Determinations in thePast

To date, the “severe discrep-ancy” model has been theprevailing tool for determiningLD. This is because many chil-dren with LD manifest a “severediscrepancy” between intellectualability and academic achieve-ment. This approach has beenfaulted in several areas, includingthe lack of agreement on howsevere a discrepancy has to be inorder for an LD to be deter-mined. Another genuine concernhas been the amount of timeneeded to establish the “discrep-ancy “ between achievement andability. A child might literally fail

year after year before a disabilitydetermination would be made.

Still another criticism of LDidentification practices has beenthat children were diagnosedwith LD without assessing thebenefits of general educationinterventions that have proveneffective for youngsters present-ing similar behaviors of concern

(e.g., limited reading acquisi-tion). One could not be confi-dent that the achievement andbehavior problems that a childpresented were inherent to thechild or to shortcomings in theinstructional settings. This lack isat the very heart of what RTI isexpected to address.


Other Contributions of RTI

The RTI component focuseson developing a profile of achild's in-class performance overa designated time interval ratherthan just cognitive and achieve-ment measures that representone point in time performanceand are less tied to in-classperformance. So RTI is consid-ered as yielding more ecologicallyor socially accurate information.Additionally, information abouta child’s response should behelpful in designating the fea-tures of instruction, curriculum,goals, and placement consider-ations that are beneficial regard-less of the child's disabilitydetermination. When RTI isincorporated into the LD deter-mination process, instructionalstaff will likely emerge with aclearer framework for evaluatingthe child’s performance andsetting targets for successfuloutcomes.

What RTI is, and how itintersects in IDEA with LDdetermination, will be the mainfocus of the upcoming slides.

Using the Introductory Slide

Having brought the slide upand clearly indicated where thetraining is going now, you maywish to take a moment to revisitHandout B-7 and the questionsabout RTI that participantsgenerated and recorded there.Reiterate them, or ask partici-pants to recall what they can, asthe springboard to diving intothis topic.

References

National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. (2005,June). Responsiveness to intervention and learning disabilities. Austin,TX: Pro-Ed. (Available online at: www.ncld.org/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=497)

National Research Center on Learning Disabilities (2006).Core concepts of RTI. Nashville, TN: Author. (Available online at:www.nrcld.org/research/rti/concepts.shtml)




Slide 24What is RTI?

Click 1:Picture changes,summary textappears.

View 1

Click 1


Slide 24 provides an intro-ductory summary of RTI inanswer to the question at thetop of the slide, “What is RTI?”

As the slide shows, and asdescribed in the background textof the last slide, RTI typicallyinvolves 3 levels of assistancethat increase in intensity.

1. Classwide interventions

2. Targeted, small-groupinterventions

3. Intensive interventions

There may be more levelsthan three in a local implementa-tion of RTI, or levels withinlevels, but the central elementswill be the same:

• Research-based interventionsare delivered for a specifiedperiod of time.

• Child progress is continuouslymonitored.

• Children move on to the nextlevel and a more targetedintervention if, at the end ofthe current intervention, theyhave not made adequateprogress.

Upcoming slides will providemore detail about what eachlevel in an RTI approach mightinvolve, so there’s no need to gointo that here.

The final regulations do notprovide a definition of RTI. Infact, the regulations don’t reallyeven mention it directly or call itby name. The closest the law orregulations come to using theterm RTI is to permit the use of“a process based on the child’sresponse to scientific, research-based intervention” in making adetermination as to whether a

child has a learning disability ornot [§300.307(a)(2)].

As part of this slide’s intro-duction to RTI and a swiftsummary of its features, you maywish to share with the audiencesome of the background materialon RTI provided under Slide 23,including the core concepts asdescribed by the National JointCommittee on Learning Disabili-ties or those concepts identifiedby NRCLD as excerpted in thebox. It may be useful as well toplant the seed regarding RTI’semergence as a tool in diagnos-ing learning disabilities. The nextslide in this module will take upthat topic directly.

Click 2:The 3 typical levelsof interventionappear.


Click 2



Slide 25Specific Learning Disabilities


Click 1:“More about theCriteria” appears.

Click 2:Both bulletsload slowlyand automatically.


View 1

Click 1

Click 2




Slide 25 folds in the issue ofspecific learning disabilities tothis training on RTI by looking atspecific aspects of the regulatoryLD provisions. These are drawnfrom §300.307, which appearsunder the broad heading of“Additional Procedures forIdentifying Children with Spe-cific Learning Disabilities.”

The introductory paragraphrepresents a longstanding re-quirement of IDEA’s regula-tions—that States must adoptcriteria for determining if a childhas a specific learning disability.It is within this context that thediscussion should begin, thenmove on to introduce the newprovisions for LD determinationthat the IDEA 2004 regulationsbring.

What, precisely, are thesenew provisions for LD determi-nation? As the slide indicates,the IDEA regulation now stipu-lates that the criteria adopted bythe State for determiningwhether a child has LD:

• must permit the use of aprocess based on the child’sresponse to scientific, research-based intervention; and

• may permit the use of otheralternative research-basedprocedures for determiningwhether a child has a specificlearning disability.

You can see the preciselanguage of the regulations inthe box on the right—specifi-cally, items (2) and (3)—and onHandout B-10.

§300.307 Specific learning disabilities.

(a) General. A State must adopt, consistent with §300.309,criteria for determining whether a child has a specific learningdisability as defined in §300.8(c)(10). In addition, the criteriaadopted by the State—

(1) Must not require the use of a severe discrepancy betweenintellectual ability and achievement for determining whether achild has a specific learning disability, as defined in§300.8(c)(10);

(2) Must permit the use of a process based on the child’sresponse to scientific, research-based intervention; and

(3) May permit the use of other alternative research-basedprocedures for determining whether a child has a specific learn-ing disability, as defined in §300.8(c)(10).

(b) Consistency with State criteria. A public agency must usethe State criteria adopted pursuant to paragraph (a) of thissection in determining whether a child has a specific learningdisability.

Although not identified onthe slide, you’ll also see that theIDEA regulation now statesoutright that thecriteria adopted bythe State “must notrequire the use ofsevere discrepancybetween intellectualability and achievement”(emphasis added), which is alsoa significant change in the law. Inthe prior regulations [at§300.541(a)(2) (1999)], a teamcould determine that a child hada specific learning disability if,among other things, the teamfound that the child had a“severe discrepancy betweenachievement and intellectualability” in one or more listedareas (e.g., oral expression, basicreading skill). While a team maystill do so under the revised

regulations if the State’s criteriaincludes that option, no longermay the State require the use ofthe severe discrepancy formula.

So IDEA 2004 opens thedoor to a new element in mak-ing determinations of specificlearning disabilities. While itdoes not specifically mentionRTI, it does require that Statespermit the use of a processbased on a child’s “response toscientific, research-based inter-vention.” Similarly, the State maypermit—note the word “may”instead of “must”—the use ofother alternative research-based

New inIDEA!



to the Final Regulations

New §300.307(a)(3)...recognizes that there are alternativemodels to identify children with SLD that are based on soundscientific research and gives States flexibility to use these mod-els. For example, a State could choose to identify childrenbased on absolute low achievement and consideration ofexclusionary factors as one criterion for eligibility. Other alter-natives might combine features of different models for identifi-cation. We believe the evaluation procedures in section614(b)(2) and (b)(3) of the Act give the Department theflexibility to allow States to use alternative, research basedprocedures for determining whether a child has an SLD and iseligible for special education and related services.

(71 Fed. Reg. 46648)

Excerpted Remarksfrom the Department’s Questions and Answers on

Response to Intervention and Early Intervening Services1

Question F-4: When an RTI model is implemented, can anincremental process be used to train individual schools so thatover time the entire LEA is implementing the model or must allthe schools in the entire LEA be trained simultaneously?

Answer: If the State or LEA requires the use of a process basedon the child’s response to scientific, research-based interven-tion, in identifying children with SLD, then all children sus-pected of having a SLD, in all schools in the LEA, would berequired to be involved in the process. However, researchindicates that implementation of any process, across anysystem, is most effective when accomplished systematically inan incremental manner over time. If the LEA chose to “scaleup” the implementation of the RTI model gradually over time,as would be reasonable, the LEA could not use RTI for pur-poses of identifying children with SLD until RTI was fullyimplemented in the LEA. Therefore, it is unwise for a State torequire the use of a process based on the child’s response toscientific, research-based intervention before it has successfullyscaled up implementation. (pp. 13-14)

1 U.S. Department of Education. (2007, January). Questions and answers onresponse to intervention (RTI) and early intervening services (EIS). Washing-ton, DC: Author. Available online at: http://idea.ed.gov/explore/view/p/%2Croot%2Cdynamic%2CQaCorner%2C8%2C

procedures in making an LDdetermination. This wordinggives States latitude in theresponse-to-intervention oralternative research-based proce-dures they might develop andimplement, as the Departmentpoints out in its Analysis ofComments and Changes to thefinal regulations. Relevant re-marks of the Department areexcerpted at the right, includinga Department response (2007) inits Questions and Answers onResponse to Intervention and EarlyIntervening Services that hasimplications for SEAs and LEAsthat require the use of an RTIprocess in identifying childrenwith SLD. While providing RTIwith legitimacy as a tool forStates to use in determining LD,the law clearly does not endorseor require any specific approachto, or model of, RTI.

It is not the purpose of thismodule to delve into the detailsof identifying specific learningdisabilities. That will occur in aseparate module called—sur-prise!— Identifying Children withSpecific Learning Disabilities,which is part of the EvaluatingChildren for Disability topicarea. You may wish to explicitlylimit the amount of discussion(or expectation of discussion)regarding identification of LD,pointing out the later moduleon the subject. What is salienthere is that IDEA 2004 nowincludes a child’s response toRTI-like approaches as a poten-tial source of valuable informa-tion when determining if a childhas a specific learning disability.The next slide sums this up, sothat the focus can move back toRTI and what it is.


Slide 26RTI and IDEA

Slide loads with thisview, summarizing.

Click 1:Bottom part of slideappears, with thefirst element indetermining LDvisible on the farleft.


View 1

Click 1


Click 2:2nd element inmaking an LDdeterminationappears in the centerbox, with relevantprovision circled.

Click 3:3rd element inmaking an LDdeterminationappears in the farright box.

Click 3

Click 2





The top part of Slide 26,which loads automatically,summarizes the significant newprovision of IDEA that permits achild’s response to interventionto be considered as part ofdetermining whether or not heor she has a specific learningdisability. How does this actuallywork in practice? The bottompart of the slide shows howIDEA’s criteria for determining anSLD is organized.

Section 300.309(a) statesthat “The group described in§300.306 may determine that achild has a specific learningdisability, as defined in§300.8(c)(10), if—“ and thencome three items, not surpris-ingly numbered as (1), (2), and(3). As the table below shows,

(a) The group described in §300.306 may determine that a child hasa specific learning disability, as defined in §300.8(c)(10), if—

the item at (a)(2), however, hastwo parts, with an OR between[to be read as: (i) or (ii)], whichmeans that either one of thesetwo conditions is sufficient tofind that the child has met thecriteria at (a)(2). The part of(a)(2) that relates to RTI is thefirst one: (i)—or, to give its fulladdress, §300.309(a)(2)(i). Itreads:

(2)(i) The child does notmake sufficient progress tomeet age or State-approvedgrade-level standards inone or more of the areasidentified in paragraph(a)(1) of this section whenusing a process based onthe child’s response toscientific, research-basedintervention; or

(a)(1) (a)(2)(i) (a)(3)(a)(2)(ii)

(1) The child does not achieveadequately for the child’s age orto meet State-approved grade-level standards in one or moreof the following areas, whenprovided with learning experi-ences and instruction appropri-ate for the child’s age or State-approved grade-level standards:

(i) Oral expression.(ii) Listening comprehension.(iii) Written expression.(iv) Basic reading skill.(v) Reading fluency skills.(vi) Reading comprehension.(vii) Mathematics calculation.(viii) Mathematics problem solving.

And this is how RTI weavesitself into the decision-makingprocess for determining SLD.Let’s take a look at IDEA’s provi-sions, match them to the organi-zation of the slide, and how thisworks will be clear.

As the chart shows, to makea determination of SLD, thegroup must find that the state-ment in the first column [(a)(1)]is true about the child, thestatement in the last column[(a)(3)] is also true about thechild, and that one of the twostatements in the middle column[(i) or (ii)] is also true about the

(2)(i) The childdoes not make sufficientprogress to meet age orState approved grade-level standards in one ormore of the areasidentified in paragraph(a)(1) of this sectionwhen using a processbased on the child’sresponse to scientific,research-based interven-tion...

(ii) The childexhibits a pattern ofstrengths and weaknessesin performance, achieve-ment, or both, relative toage, State-approved gradelevel standards, orintellectual development,that is determined by thegroup to be relevant tothe identification of aspecific learning disabil-ity, using appropriateassessments, consistentwith §§300.304 and300.305...

(3) The group determinesthat its findings underparagraphs (a)(1) and (2)of this section are notprimarily the result of—

(i) A visual, hearing, ormotor disability;

(ii) Mental retardation;(iii) Emotional

disturbance;(iv) Cultural factors;(v) Environmental or

economic disadvantage;or

(vi) Limited Englishproficiency.

Yes YesYes to One of These

OR


child. The slide shows this asthree check marks, correspond-ing to the three columns.

Thus, whether or not thechild makes sufficient progressunder an RTI approach is onlyone element of determiningwhether or not that child has anSLD. The child’s response to aresearch-based intervention canonly form part of the picture thegroup must examine in makingits determination. Given that,how a child responds to RTI cannever be the sole basis for adetermination of SLD.

The process by which a childis evaluated for and/or deter-mined to have a specific learningdisability is addressed in detail inthe separate module Identificationof Children with Specific LearningDisabilities. This slide is notintended to delve into SLDdetermination but, rather, toshow how IDEA’s provisionsintersect with RTI and the deter-mination of LD, adding a newelement to that process.




Slide 27Level 1: Screening and Interventions

Slide loadswith thisview.

Click 1:The picture disappearson Click 1, and Bullet1 appears.

Clicks 2, 3, and 4:Bullets 2, 3, and 4appear one by one.

View 1

Clicks 1-4


Click 5:The box at thebottom appears,“Is child progresssufficient?” and thepossible answersand actions.



Slide 27 returns to themechanics of RTI as a process foraddressing the needs of strug-gling children and zooms in totake a closer look at the firstlevel: Screening and Interven-tions.

Screening

Screening begins the processand is intended to identifychildren who are at risk ofacademic or behavioral difficul-ties and failure. Screening is notgenerally limited to RTI ap-proaches; we are all familiar withthe routine screenings thatschools conduct for a variety ofreasons, including the onementioned here. What’s impor-tant in RTI, however, is thediligence with which the school

system includes progress moni-toring as a component of in-struction and decision making.Speece (2006), writing for theNational Center on ChildProgress Monitoring (an OSEP-funded project), summarizes therole of progress monitoringwithin RTI as follows:

Progress monitoring is amethod of keeping track ofchildren’s academicdevelopment. Progressmonitoring requiresfrequent data collection(i.e., weekly) withtechnically adequatemeasures, interpretation ofthe data at regularintervals, and changes toinstruction based on theinterpretation of childprogress....The approach

requires a different way ofthinking about children’slearning but is a powerfulmethod of judgingresponsiveness.(p. 3)

The National Center onChild Progress Monitoringmakes available a great deal ofuseful information aboutprogress monitoring and RTI onits Web site, at:www.studentprogress.org

Level 1 Intervention

As the slide indicates, at-riskchildren who have been identi-fied through the screening

Click 5


process receive research-basedinstruction, sometimes in smallgroups, sometimes as part of aclasswide intervention. Modelsof RTI vary, as has been repeat-edly said, so the delivery ofresearch-based instruction mightbe part of a whole-class ap-proach or some other arrange-ment. The point here is that theschool addresses the evidence it’scollected that specific childrenare having difficulties—and doessomething about it, usingmethods and techniques foundthrough research to be effectivein helping children learn.

This description is necessarilygeneral, because the range ofskills in which children may behaving difficulties is large. In theearly grades, RTI approachestend to focus on reading andmath and the early building ofthese critical school skills.

Progress Monitoring

RTI is very dependent uponcontinual monitoring ofprogress, which serves multiplepurposes but is especially criticalfor (a) identifying where thereare skill deficits or where difficul-ties are occurring; and (b) track-ing how children are respondingto the instructional interven-tions.

Length of Time for Level 1

As the National Center onLearning Disabilities states in itsParent’s Guide to Response-to-Intervention: “The length of timefor this step can vary, but itgenerally should not exceedeight weeks” (Cortiella, 2006, p.3). That is sufficient time toprovide whatever research-basedinterventions the school systemhas chosen as appropriate forchildren’s needs and to monitortheir responsiveness to theinstruction.

References

Cortiella, C. (2006). A parent’s guide to response-to-intervention. NewYork: National Center on Learning Disabilities. (Available online at:www.ncld.org/images/stories/downloads/parent_center/rti_final.pdf)

Speece, D. (2006). How progress monitoring assists decision making in aresponse-to-instruction framework. Washington, DC: National Center onChild Progress Monitoring. (Available online at:www.studentprogress.org/library/decisionmaking.pdf)

At the end of the allottedtime, a decision must be made asto what to do next. As thebottom of the slide indicates,the decision revolves around theadequacy of student progress. Ifthe child has made sufficientprogress, then he or she willlikely return to more generalinstruction. However, lackingsufficient progress, the childwould move to the second levelof interventions (covered in thenext slide), which are moreintensive and targeted.


Slide 28Level 2: Targeted Interventions


Click 1:The picture disap-pears on Click 1, andBullet 1 appears.

With Clicks 2, 3, and4, Bullets 2, 3, and 4appear one by one.


View 1

Clicks 1-4


Click 5:The box at thebottom appears,“Is child progressadequate?” and thepossible answersand actions.



Slide 28 takes a look at Level 2, where more targeted interventionsare provided to children who have not made adequate progress inLevel 1 intervention. The design of this slide is the same as the previ-ous one; the notable differences are in the description of Level 2. Thelength of time in this secondary level of intervention is generally a bitlonger than in Level 1, and the level of intensity of the interventionsis greater. They may also be more closely targeted to the areas in whichthe child is having difficulty.

Click 5



Slide 29Level 3: Intensive Interventions


Click 1:The picturedisappears, andBullet 1 appears.

Click 2:With Click 2,Bullet 2 appears.

View 1

Clicks 1-2


Click 3:The box at the bottomappears and the likelyactions.



Slide 29 finishes this look atthe different levels of instructionin many RTI approaches. Again,the slide operates as the last twoslides did, although there arefewer bullets in the top section(only two). This also typicallymarks a turning point in thedecision-making process. If thechild has not responded to theintensive and more individual-ized research-based instructionin this level, then he or she islikely to be referred for a full andindividual evaluation underIDEA. The data gathered on thechild's response to interventionsin Levels 1, 2, and 3 become partof the information availableduring the evaluation processand afterwards, when a determi-nation must be made as to

disability and the child’s possibleeligibility for special educationand related services. Consideringthe amount of data typicallycollected in an RTI approach,thanks to its reliance uponprogress monitoring all along theway, the information that willnow be available should be veryhelpful to the team of individu-als involved in evaluating thechild and determining his or hereligibility for special educationservices.

Click 3


Slide 30Parent Participation (Slide 1 of 2)

Slide loads withthis view. Thequestions“When? How?”refer to the issueof parent partici-pation.

Another questionappears, referring to§300.311(a)(7)(ii).



View 1

Click 1



Slide 30 addresses a topicthat has probably come up inthis training session—parentinvolvement. What is theparent’s role in RTI, what doesthe law require regarding theirnotification and consent, andhow does RTI affect parents’right to request their child beevaluated under IDEA?

The next slide deals with theparents’ right to request anevaluation of their child underIDEA at any time, as well as whatthe law requires if the child hasnot made adequate progressafter spending an appropriateamount of time in an RTI ap-proach. Here, let’s look at parentnotification and involvementwhen the child is actually in-volved in the RTI approach.

Informing ParentsAlong the Way

There areseveral issuesassociated withparent involve-ment in RTI andthe question ofwhen they should be madeaware that the public agency hasinvolved their child in an RTIapproach to see how well he orshe responds. Among these isthat parents should expect to beinformed when their child is notmaking expected academic orbehavioral progress, the veryreasons that a public agencymight involve a child in an RTIapproach. The use of RTI ac-knowledges that whateveracademic or behavioral difficul-ties the child has had to thispoint may be attributable toinappropriate instruction or a

mismatch between instructionand the child's needs and skills.The sticky issue is that RTI istypically used before a child isevaluated under IDEA, beforethe public agency is even pro-posing to evaluate the child, somany of IDEA’s provisions forparent notification have not yetcome into play.

What’s clear from practice inthe field—and, indeed, from thelongtime underpinnings ofIDEA—is that informing parentsalong the way is important,valuable, and good policy. Inpractice, parents are generallyinformed when the child isunsuccessful in Level 1 andmoves on to Level 2 (Cortiella,2006; National Joint Committeeon Learning Disabilities, 2005).The National Association ofSchool Psychologists (NASP)provides parents with the com-ments we’ve excerpted in the boxon the next page.

As you might expect, manypeople and organizations ex-pressed concern about parentinvolvement in RTI during thepublic comment period follow-ing publication of IDEA’s regula-tions in draft (proposed) form.As a result of their suggestionsand recommendations, theDepartment added anotherprovision to the Part B regula-tions that has relevance to thisdiscussion.

We will also add a new§300.311(a)(7)(ii) toensure that the parents ofa child suspected of havingan SLD who hasparticipated in a processthat evaluates the child’s

response to scientific,research-basedintervention, are notifiedabout the State’s policiesregarding collection ofchild performance dataand the general educationservices that will beprovided; strategies toincrease their child’s rate oflearning; and their right torequest an evaluation atany time. (71 Fed. Reg. at46658)

Thus, as a part of the newprovisions regarding RTI, theIDEA regulations include specificprovisions designed to ensurethat parents are informed andaware of both what is going on(e.g., the general educationservices that will be provided,the strategies to be used toincrease their child’s rate oflearning) and what other op-tions they have (e.g., the right torequest an evaluation of theirchild under IDEA at any time).

The Regulation at§300.311(a)(7)(ii)

The provisions at §300.311are entitled: Specific documen-tation for the eligibility deter-mination. Refer participants topage 3 of Handout C-7, wherethese provisions appear (thehandouts for Theme C, Evalua-tion, are provided in thattheme’s section). The provisionsrequire that “if the child hasparticipated in a process thatassesses the child’s response toscientific, research-based inter-vention,” the documentation of


How Can Parents Be Involved in the RTI Process?

The hallmarks of effective home-school collaboration includeopen communication and involvement of parents in all stagesof the learning process. Being informed about your school’s RTIprocess is the first step to becoming an active partner. Both theNational Center for Learning Disabilities and the National JointCommittee on Learning Disabilities advise parents to ask thefollowing questions:

• Does our school use an RTI process? (Be aware that yourchild’s school may call their procedures a “problem solvingprocess,” or may have a unique title for their procedures, e.g.,Instructional Support Team, and not use the specific RTIterminology.)

• Are there written materials for parents explaining the RTIprocess? How can parents be involved in the various phasesof the RTI process?

• What interventions are being used, and are these scientificallybased as supported by research?

• What length of time is recommended for an interventionbefore determining if the child is making adequate progress?

• How do school personnel check to be sure that the interven-tions were carried out as planned?

• What techniques are being used to monitor progress and theeffectiveness of the interventions? Does the school provideparents with regular progress monitoring reports?

• At what point in the RTI process are parents informed of theirdue process rights under IDEA 2004, including the right torequest an evaluation for special education eligibility?

• When is informed parental consent obtained and when dothe special education evaluation timelines officially com-mence under the district’s RTI plan?

Klotz, M.B., & Canter, A. (2006). Response to intervention (RTI): Aprimer for parents. Washington, DC: National Association ofSchool Psychologists. (Available online at: http://bsnpta.org/geeklog/public_html//article.php?story=RTI_Primer)

the determination of eligibilitymust contain a statement of thedocumentation—and here comes(a)(7)(ii)—that the parents werenotified about:

(A) The State’s policiesregarding the amount andnature of childperformance data thatwould be collected and thegeneral education servicesthat would be provided;

(B) Strategies for increasingthe child’s rate of learning;and

(C) The parents’ right torequest an evaluation.[§300.311(a)(7)(ii)]

So this answers severalquestions, including what theparents must be told about theRTI process (at a minimum) andwhen they must be told. TheDepartment (2007) also shedslight on this issue in its Questionsand Answers on Response to Inter-vention and Early InterveningServices. We’ve excerpted theDepartment’s relevant commentson the next page.

Practice in the field indicatesthat a child's lack of progress inRTI’s Level 1 (where research-based instruction is delivered inthe regular classroom) typicallyresults in a movement to Level 2interventions for that child.These latter interventions typi-cally are more intensive, with theinstructional intervention deliv-ered to small groups of children,not the entire class. It is at thispoint that parents are generallyinformed, perhaps meeting withschool staff to discuss theirchild’s lack of progress and—asstated above—hear what theschool has in mind. This wouldinclude:


• What type of performancedata will be collected, andhow much;

• What general educationservices are planned; and

• What strategies the school willuse to increase the child’s rateof learning.

Parents would also beinformed that they have the rightto request that their child beevaluated under IDEA—a fulland individual evaluation. This isthe subject of the next slide. Ifthey do request such an evalua-tion, the public agency mustpromptly ask for their writtenconsent and conduct the evalua-tion in keeping with IDEA’stimeframe requirements.

Excerpted Remarksfrom the Department’s Questions and Answers on

Response to Intervention and Early Intervening Services1

Question C-5: When implementing an evaluation process basedon a child’s response to scientific, research-based intervention,the regulations require that a “public agency must promptlyrequest parental consent to evaluate a child (34 CFR§300.309(c))” if the “child has not made adequate progress afteran appropriate period of time (34 CFR §300.309(c)(1)).” Pleasedefine “promptly” and “adequate” in this context.

Answer: The Federal regulations under 34 CFR §300.309(c)require that if a child has not made adequate progress after anappropriate period of time, a referral for an evaluation must bemade. However, the regulations do not specify a timeline forusing RTI or define “adequate progress.” As required in 34 CFR§300.301(c), an initial evaluation must be conducted within 60days of receiving consent for an evaluation (or if the Stateestablishes a timeframe within which the evaluation must becompleted, within that timeframe). Models based on RTI typi-cally evaluate a child’s response to instruction prior to the onsetof the 60-day period, and generally do not require as long a timeto complete an evaluation because of the amount of data al-ready collected on the child’s achievement, including observa-tion data. A State may choose to establish a specific timeline thatwould require an LEA to seek parental consent for an evaluationif a student has not made progress that the district deemedadequate.

We do not believe it is necessary to define the phrase“promptly” because the meaning will vary depending on thespecific circumstances in each case. There may be legitimatereasons for varying timeframes for seeking parental consent toconduct an evaluation. However, the child find requirements in34 CFR §300.111 and section 612(a)(3)(A) of the Act require thatall children with disabilities in the State who are in need ofspecial education and related services be identified, located, andevaluated. Therefore, it generally would not be acceptable for anLEA to wait several months to conduct an evaluation or to seekparental consent for an initial evaluation if the public agencysuspects the child to be a child with a disability. If it is deter-mined through the monitoring efforts of the Department or aState that there is a pattern or practice within a particular State orLEA of not conducting evaluations and making eligibility deter-minations in a timely manner, this could raise questions as towhether the State or LEA is in compliance with the Act.

1 U.S. Department of Education. (2007, January). Questions and answers onresponse to intervention (RTI) and early intervening services (EIS). Washing-ton, DC: Author. (Available online at: http://idea.ed.gov/explore/view/p/%2Croot%2Cdynamic%2CQaCorner%2C8%2C

References for this section areprovided on the next page.


References

Cortiella, C. (2006). A parent’s guide to response-to-intervention. New York:National Center on Learning Disabilities. (Available online at: www.ncld.org/images/stories/downloads/parent_center/rti_final.pdf)

Klotz, M.B., & Canter, A. (2006). Response to intervention (RTI): A primer forparents. Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.(Available online at: http://bsnpta.org/geeklog/public_html//article.php?story=RTI_Primer)

National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. (2005, June). Respon-siveness to intervention and learning disabilities. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed. (Availableonline at: www.ncld.org/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=497)

U.S. Department of Education. (2007, January). Questions and answers onresponse to intervention (RTI) and early intervening services (EIS). Washington, DC:Author. (Available online at: http://idea.ed.gov/explore/view/p/%2Croot%2Cdynamic%2CQaCorner%2C8%2C


Slide 31Parent Participation (Slide 2 of 2)



Click 1:The middle part ofthe slide loads,tracking the “if-then”and ending at Bullet 1of what the publicagency must do.

View 1

Click 1


Click 2:Bullet 2 loads.



As the slide summarizes:Parents may request that their childbe evaluated under IDEA at anytime.

Using an RTI approach to seehow a child responds to re-search-based interventionsbefore evaluating that childunder IDEA is one option schoolsystems may choose. As has beenexplained, RTI acknowledges thepossibility that a child's difficul-ties may result from inappropri-ate or insufficient instruction todate. However, RTI may not beused to delay or deny a child’sevaluation. And parents mayalways request one.

The second part of the slideis derived directly from pertinentregulatory provisions that we’vecited verbatim in the box on the

next page. These touch again onthe possibility that under-achievement in a child suspectedof having LD may be “due tolack of appropriate instruction inreading or math” [§300.309(b)].This possibility must be consid-ered as part of determining theexistence of such a disability.This is more than a judgmentcall, however. The considerationmust be data-driven, as (b)(1)and (b)(2) make clear.

What is crucial to point outabout these provisions is thatthey apply regardless of whetherthe LEA is using an RTI approachto identification or some otherprocess that is permitted underState criteria. And, as you can seein §300.309(b)(2), IDEA requiresthat parents be informed aboutthe child's progress during

instruction, as measured byrepeated assessments at reason-able intervals.

In the event that the childhas not made adequate progress,as the slide states and as de-scribed in §300.309(c)(1)—andhere comes the slide’s conclu-sion—then the public agencymust:

• promptly request parentconsent to evaluate the child;and

Click 2


• adhere to the timelines estab-lished within IDEA (unlessextended through the mutualwritten agreement IDEAdescribes).

What are the Regulations’Timelines for Evaluation?

The timelines for evaluationunder IDEA are covered in detailin the Initial Evaluation andReevaluation module. Asdescribed there:

The initial evaluation—

(1)(i) Must be conductedwithin 60 days of receivingparental consent for theevaluation; or

(ii) If the State establishesa timeframe within whichthe evaluation must beconducted, within thattimeframe...[§300.301(c)(1)]

Under prior law, publicagencies were required to con-duct initial evaluations within a“reasonable period oftime” after receivingparental consent,so the specificationof a 60-daytimeframe in IDEA2004 represents a significantchange that should be identifiedas such to your audience. Donote, however, any timeframeestablished by the State for thisinitial evaluation takes prece-dence over IDEA’s new 60-dayperiod, regardless of whetherthat timeframe is longer orshorter than IDEA’s.

Putting this informationtogether with the slide and theregulations’ provisions in thebox above, then, the publicagency must adhere to estab-

IDEA 2004’s Regulations at §300.309(b) and (c):Two Elements in Determining the Existence

of a Specific Learning Disability

(b) To ensure that underachievement in a child sus-pected of having a specific learning disability is not due tolack of appropriate instruction in reading or math, the groupmust consider, as part of the evaluation described in§§300.304 through 300.306—

(1) Data that demonstrate that prior to, or as a part of,the referral process, the child was provided appropriateinstruction in regular education settings, delivered by quali-fied personnel; and

(2) Data-based documentation of repeated assessmentsof achievement at reasonable intervals, reflecting formalassessment of child progress during instruction, which wasprovided to the child’s parents.

(c) The public agency must promptly request parentalconsent to evaluate the child to determine if the child needsspecial education and related services, and must adhere tothe timeframes described in §§300.301 and 300.303, unlessextended by mutual written agreement of the child’s parentsand a group of qualified professionals, as described in§300.306(a)(1)—

(1) If, prior to a referral, a child has not made adequateprogress after an appropriate period of time when providedinstruction, as described in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) ofthis section; and

(2) Whenever a child is referred for an evaluation.

§300.309(b) and (c)

lished timeframes in seeing thatthe child’s evaluation is con-ducted. That is, unless thosetimelines are “extended bymutual written agreement of thechild’s parents and a group ofqualified professionals, asdescribed in §300.306(a)(1)”[§300.309(c)].

New inIDEA!


Slide 32RTI in Practice

Slide loads topbullet and thebottom disclaimer.

Click 1:The 2nd bullet loadsfully, including thesub-bullets.


Click 1

View 1


Click 2:Bullet 3 loads.



Slide 32 begins the wind-down of training by looking atRTI in practice. Emphasized onthis slide are the followingpoints:

• There are many RTI models inuse. The U.S. Department ofEducation does not mandate,recommend, or endorse any onespecific model.

• In RTI, progress monitoring iscritical to:

— Pinpoint child's area(s) ofdifficulty

— Keep close track of child'sprogress.

• Staff use formal guidelines todecide which children are not

making adequate progress orresponding to the interven-tion.

The first two points shouldhave been made clear during thetraining proper, so mentioningthem now can serve as a re-minder. The third, however, hasonly been alluded to and is thefield’s answer and recommenda-tion to those interested indeveloping or implementing RTI.Intrinsic to RTI is the question,“Has the child made sufficientprogress?”

Answering that question“yes” versus “no” leads in twodistinct directions—one, back toregular instruction, and theother, on to a more intensivelevel of intervention or to com-

prehensive evaluation underIDEA 2004. So—what isadequate progress, significantprogress? How much progress isenough? Are there guidelines formaking these decisions? Formalguidelines? Written down.Understood by practitioners.Implemented. Monitored tomake sure they are consistentlyapplied. Documented.

Obviously, a great deal couldbe said about the benefits ofimplementing RTI with formalguidelines that spell out whereperformance cutoffs will be forchildren—and more.

Click 2


Slide 33IDEA and RTI

Slide loads with thisview, Bullets 1 and 2showing.

Click 1, 2, and 3:Each click brings upa different bullet.



Clicks 1-3

View 1


Slide 33...Almost done...Thetop half of the slide loads withthese two bulleted items:

• IDEA 2004’s regulations donot define RTI.

• Regulations are written toaccommodate different mod-els of RTI.

Both of these items mayalready be apparent to somewho are reading between thelines of what IDEA 2004 doesstate about RTI, but it is worth-while to explicitly draw audienceattention to these two points.

The bottom half of the slideputs RTI within the broadercontext of IDEA-required evalua-tion. One disadvantage offocusing narrowly upon a givenprovision of IDEA is that the bigpicture and other requirementsof law fall out of focus. Here, tobring that bigger picture backinto view, are three points toemphasize:

• RTI does not replace a com-prehensive evaluation.

• Evaluation teams must use avariety of tools and strategies,even if RTI is used.

• Results of RTI may be one partof information reviewed.

RTI is not intended toreplace comprehensive evalua-tion in IDEA, as the Departmentdiscusses in the Analysis ofComments and Changes to thefinal Part B regulations (seeexcerpted remarks in the box onthe right). It’s meant to intervenein a research-based and hope-fully effective way to address

difficulties children are having,either academically or behavior-ally. It rests on the possibilitythat prior instruction, notdisability, might be at the root ofthe problem. It’s meant for allchildren, even as it may also beused as part of making LDdeterminations. IDEA 2004requires that evaluation teamsgather a wide range of informa-tion about a child suspected ofhaving a disability, any disability.This evaluation must involve avariety of tools and strategies, asexplored in Introduction to Evalua-tion. The part that RTI results canplay in diagnosing a specificlearning disability has beensummarized in this training, so


that participants see the connec-tions between this approach andthe identification of LD. Thedetails of IDEA 2004’s regula-tions for identifying LD will bethoroughly examined in theirown right, in the module onIdentification of Children withSpecific Learning Disabilities. Makeit clear to your audience thatthere is more involved than thesummary presented here.


to the Final Regulations

An RTI process does not replace the need for a compre-hensive evaluation. A public agency must use a variety of datagathering tools and strategies even if an RTI process is used.The results of an RTI process may be one component of theinformation reviewed as part of the evaluation proceduresrequired under §§300.304 and 300.305. As required in§300.304(b)...an evaluation must include a variety of assess-ment tools and strategies and cannot rely on any singleprocedure as the sole criterion for determining eligibility forspecial education and related services.

It is up to each State to develop criteria to determine whethera child has a disability, including whether a particular childhas an SLD. In developing their criteria, States may wish toconsider how the criteria will be implemented with a child forwhom systematic data on the child’s response to appropriateinstruction is not available. ...However, under §300.306(b), apublic agency may not identify any public or private schoolchild as a child with a disability if the determinant factor islack of appropriate instruction in reading or math.)

(71 Fed. Reg. 46648)


Slide 34Round-Up!

Use this slide for a review andrecap of your own devising, oropen the floor up for a questionand answer period. Dependingon how much time you haveavailable for this training session,you can have participants workin small groups on an EIS or RTIobjective; make a quick list ofwhat information they’vegleaned from this session; oronce again revising the opening

activity and run through theinitial list of “I-need-to-know”questions they generated, mak-ing the participants answer themthemselves, correcting misinfor-mation as necessary. Emphasizethe local or personal applicationof the information presentedhere.

Slide loads fully. Noclicks are necessaryexcept to END the slideshow.

CLICK to END the slide show.

building the legacy: training curriculum on...

Documents