Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Twice Exceptional 504 Clarification

Glad it went so much better for you this time.

The statement about the observation is because any good evaluation in a school setting ought to include an observation of the student in their natural setting. In this case, the utility of the observation is to confirm that the speed and performance issues are not the result of a lack of effort or attention on his part. The 90%/96% means the observer also confirmed that the level of on-task behavior was consistent with the classroom and that of (presumably) non-disabled peers. The comparison ratings are usually more important in the case of a student who has low on-task behavior, but when you see that the whole classroom is a hot mess, you can conclude that it's more the teacher than the student.

polarbear, that is a nice concise statement of the difference between accommodations and modifications/interventions. I wish more teachers understood it.

NikiHarp, the AP probably referenced RTI because, if you are in an RTI-requiring state, s/he's had it drilled in that you have to try RTI for at least 8 weeks on everything before beginning the 504/IEP process. But, of course, if one thinks about it logically (and I'm constantly being chaffed at work about this crazy need I have to do so), we would never use the RTI process on a sensory impaired (visual/hearing) student before taking them through the 504/IEP process, because their disabilities are clearly documented, and not open to remediation. So, obviously, the RTI-first mantra is not universally-applicable, and you will have to draw a clear analogy regarding the nature of the disability.

I cannot thank you all enough. This information is very helpful and I feel entirely overwhelmed.

I just want DS to get the help he needs and it breaks my heart to think that I have to go to these lengths with the school to get that help. School is supposed to be HIS place. He's smart and loves learning. He should thrive at school, but he doesn't and it almost feels like grief to watch it all unfold.

Exhale. Thanks for listening.

aeh, looks like I am in an RTI-requiring state. Looks like my state has to follow the RTI model "completely with the option of adding severe discrepancy." Does this mean that they can bypass RTI if there is a severe discrepancy between achievement and ability?

(source: http://www.rtinetwork.org/learn/ld/the-legal-dimension-of-rti-part-ii-state-laws-and-guidelines)

Without knowing your exact state regs, I would say that what that means is that students who are achieving at grade level, but exhibit a severe discrepancy between aptitude and achievement, can also be qualified as special needs. Otherwise, under a pure RTI eligibility model, a student who has no normative weaknesses (at or above grade level in all assessed areas) can't be qualified regardless of their ability, because they are not dually-discrepant (significantly below grade level, and nonresponsive to tier 2 (or 3, in a 4 tier system) interventions). The severe discrepancy clause is intended to allow eligibility for students of high ability, who are underperforming, but still meeting grade-level standards.

It's not necessarily a short-cut to eligibility, depending on how your state has chosen to clarify policy. If there is a performance measure that is below grade level, you may still have to work your way through the eight weeks of RTI, to see if there is a general ed intervention that will bring the trend line on track to reach grade level. If there are no performance measures below grade level, then you might be able to move more quickly to the severe discrepancy stage of things. That might be aided by any data that shows asynchronous academic development, as above-grade-level achievement in one area will support the hypothesis that there is high overall aptitude.

Time on task had nothing to do with his problems though....which was why I was confused about her focus of her observation....but ultimately it turned out okay and it was just a hoop they had to do.

I just talked to someone from the Dept. of Special Education yesterday and we talked about Rti and the "discrepancy model". She said that she doesn't know which my school uses, it could be one or the other. I am completely mystified by that.

In some states, districts can make their own decision about which model they use for determining SLD, or they can use both. The discrepancy model postulates that students with SLDs will present with a profile of average to above average cognitive ability, but achievement in one or more areas that is significantly (statistically) below that predicted by their cognitive ability. This is a generally discredited model, as it lacks a good evidentiary base, but persists in practice because it has face validity and is easy to implement. It also has value for 2e kids, who otherwise have a hard time qualifying under RTI.

RTI (or RTII, or MTSS) requires frequent progress monitoring of academic skills. It has some ideological value, especially for low-performing kids, as it is focused on identifying children who are performing below grade-level, and remediating them, without worrying about the diagnostic category. If a student is below normative expectations, and does not respond to increasingly intense general education interventions, then they are determined to have a learning disability that requires specialized instruction. Unfortunately, if you are a 2e kid, you might have all your skills at or above grade level, but still be significantly underperforming, and so won't qualify easily under RTI.

It sounds like in my state they can either use RTI or the discrepancy model but the way the woman was talking it's either an RTI school or a discrepancy school. It seems odd and I'm wondering why the school wouldn't just decide on a case-by-case basis. I really think DD would probably qualify for an IEP for writing if using the discrepancy model, but probably not RTI.