Illinois State Board of Education
Special Education Department
Special Education Eligibility and
Entitlement within a
Response to Intervention Framework:
Frequently Asked Questions
Dr. Carmen I. Ayala, State Superintendent
January 2022
This document is intended to provide non-regulatory guidance on the subject matter listed
above. For specific questions, please contact the Illinois State Board of Education
.
Illinois State Board of Education Updated January 2022
Table of Contents
Introduction
Page 4
A.
Response to Intervention versus Multi-Tiered System of Support
A-1.
What is RTI? What is MTSS? How are they the same/different?
Page 5
A-2.
What do Tier 1, Tier 2 and Tier 3 supports include within an RTI framework?
Page 6
A-3.
Can students receive support for academic and behavioral difficulties
concurrently?
Page 7
B.
Essential Components of RTI Data-Based Decision-Making
B-1.
What is a universal screening tool and what are scientific, research-based
screening tools?
Page 8
B-2.
How can the universal screening data be used to make decisions about
placement in tiered interventions?
Page 9
B-3.
How long must an intervention be implemented?
Page 9
B-4.
What information is available to learn more about a process to use data to
tailor the provision of interventions?
Page 10
B-5.
What are the best ways to establish and document the fidelity of
implementation integrity of instruction and/or intervention?
Page 11
B-6.
What are scientific, research-based progress monitoring tools for reading,
math, and writing?
Page 11
B-7.
How frequently should progress be monitored?
Page 12
B-8.
Is there a requirement regarding the number of data points that must be
collected prior to a referral for a special education evaluation?
Page 12
B-9.
What is significantly discrepant? What is inadequate progress?
Page 13
Special Education Eligibility and
Entitlement within a Response to
Intervention Framework:
Frequently Asked Questions
Illinois State Board of Education - 2 - Updated January 2022
B-10.
Should we compare a student’s performance to that of age-level peers or to
grade-level standards when determining discrepancy/gap and rate of
progress? What about a student who has been retained?
Page 14
B-11.
When implementing an RTI model, how is the criterion for “repeated
assessments of achievement at reasonable intervals” established for a student
who has recently moved into the district and is suspected of having a specific
learning disability (SLD)?
Page 15
B-12.
How can we ensure that assessments we use are appropriate for English
Learners (ELs)?
Page 15
C.
Scientific, Research-Based Curriculum, Instruction, and Evidence-Based
Interventions
C-1.
How do we determine that our core curriculum is scientifically research-
based?
Page 16
C-2.
What are some additional considerations that may be unique to ELs in terms of
their “opportunity to learn”?
Page 16
C-3.
In the context of integrity in the implementation of the curriculum, what does
the term “limited access to EL services” mean?
Page 17
C-4.
Is it permissible to use a “standard protocol” intervention approach rather
than a problem-solving approach at Tier 2?
Page 17
C-5.
What are resources for identifying scientific, research-based instruction and
evidence-based interventions? Do computer-based interventions qualify as
evidence-based interventions?
Page 18
C-6.
Is Tier 3 ONLY special education?
Page 21
D.
Special Education Evaluation
D-1.
When is a special education evaluation initiated in an RTI process?
Page 22
D-2.
How can the requirement for a full and individual evaluation be met in an RTI
model?
Page 23
D-3.
What constitutes a “sufficiently comprehensive evaluation”? Can existing
evaluation data be used to meet the requirements of a comprehensive
evaluation? When are additional data necessary beyond the use of existing
data when using RTI in determining eligibility?
Page 23
D-4.
Can a Review of existing data meeting and an eligibility meeting occur at the
same time?
Page 26
D-5.
Can parents request an evaluation while their child is involved in an RTI
process?
Page 26
D-6.
If a parent requests an “immediate” evaluation during or prior to the RTI
process, how does the school fulfill its obligation to complete the evaluation
within the 60 school-day timeline and still meet the requirement to use an RTI
process as part of the evaluation procedures for SLD? What if the parent
requests a “traditional” evaluation using the ability/achievement discrepancy
model?
Page 27
D-7.
When is informed parental consent sought for evaluation when RTI is used?
Page 28
D-8.
Who should make up the multi-disciplinary team when an RTI process is used
as part of the evaluation procedures to determine special education eligibility?
Page 28
D-9.
How will we determine the existence of an SLD in the areas of oral expression,
listening comprehension, and written expression where no formal RTI is being
Page 29
Illinois State Board of Education - 3 - Updated January 2022
done? What data collection, research-based curriculum and interventions,
benchmarking, etc., are supposed to be used for these areas?
D-10.
Does cognitive processing need to be assessed as part of an SLD eligibility
evaluation?
Page 29
D-11.
With regard to ruling out cultural factors as the primary reason a student is
experiencing difficulty, what constitutes culturally responsive instruction?
Page 30
D-12.
When ruling out limited English proficiency, what about ELs who may have had
limited access to language assistance instructional programs?
Page 30
D-13.
Given the requirement at 23 IAC 226.130 for use of an RTI process as part of
the evaluation procedures for SLD, can the results of independent evaluations
be used to determine eligibility for SLD?
Page 31
D-14.
How is RTI used when conducting evaluations of parentally placed private
school students or students who are home schooled? Can an LEA require a
private school to implement an RTI process before the LEA evaluates a
parentally placed private school child?
Page 33
D-15.
How are reevaluations conducted when using RTI?
Page 34
E.
Eligibility and Entitlement
E-1.
I have heard the terms “eligibility” and “entitlement” used. How are they
different?
Page 35
E-2.
Can we use RTI to determine eligibility for disability categories other than SLD?
Page 36
E-3.
Can more timely procedures be used to determine eligibility?
Page 36
E-4.
Is RTI just a way to avoid providing special education services?
Page 36
E-5.
What happens if the school team has made changes to the intervention(s)
based on student data but has not been able to identify an intervention that
results in a positive rate of improvement for a student? Does that mean the
student is eligible for special education services?
Page 36
E-6.
Why doesn’t the “Illinois Special Education Eligibility and Entitlement
Procedures and Criteria within a Response to Intervention Framework
Guidance” document delineate more specific/prescriptive eligibility criteria for
SLD, such as how discrepant a student must be in order to be found eligible for
special education services?
Page 37
E-7.
Can a student’s eligibility for SLD be determined by establishing a pattern of
strengths and weaknesses in performance, achievement, or both, as allowed
under 34 CFR 300.309(2)(ii)?
Page 38
E-8.
Can a student’s eligibility for SLD be determined by establishing a severe
discrepancy between intellectual ability and achievement since this option is
allowed under ISBE’s rules governing special education at 23 IAC 226.130(d)?
Page 38
E-9.
In an RTI system, what happens to students who are gifted and talented but
still have learning difficulties? Will they qualify for special education services
under SLD?
Page 38
F.
References
Page 39
Illinois State Board of Education - 4 - Updated January 2022
Introduction
This document is designed as a supplement and companion tool for the Illinois State Board of
Education (ISBE) “Illinois Special Education Eligibility and Entitlement Procedures and Criteria
within a Response to Intervention (RTI) Framework: A Guidance Document.” The guidance
document is intended to provide districts with a framework for collecting and using RTI data to
support special education eligibility decision-making; this Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
document provides additional detail and examples. It is important to note that the FAQ is
intended to provide technical assistance and should not be a substitute for appropriate
professional and/or legal advice on specific matters.
The questions contained in the FAQ were developed, in part, on questions and issues raised by
stakeholder groups and individuals during the review of the initial draft of the ISBE guidance
document and the review of factors and considerations for English Learners subsequently added
to the document. The responses to the questions draw on current research and effective
practices in implementing a three-tiered model of instruction, assessment, and intervention, as
well as the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) regulations and ISBE’s rules
governing special education, also referred to as Part 226, and transitional bilingual education.
The questions and answers are grouped by topic. When this document is accessed electronically
via the ISBE website, a bookmark feature will appear. It can be used to go directly to a particular
topic or the response to a particular question.
Illinois State Board of Education - 5 - Updated January 2022
A. Response to Intervention versus Multi-Tiered System of Support
A-1. What is RTI? What is MTSS? How are they the same/different?
Every Student Succeeds Act was passed in 2015. It allowed districts to use funding to support a
Multi-tiered System of Supports (MTSS). When this new legislation was passed, there was
confusion regarding which process to use. Response to Intervention (RTI) has been thought of
as a process specific to identifying students with disabilities due to its mention in IDEA, whereas
MTSS is often seen as a broader approach to meeting the academic, behavior, and social-
emotional needs of students. The federal Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services
defined RTI as a specific example of an MTSS in a Dear Colleague letter dated October 23, 2015.
Both processes are data-based and use a multi-tiered approach to meet the needs of students.
Below is a graphic produced by the CEEDAR Center at the University of Florida that provides an
illustration of how RTI fits under the MTSS model. As illustrated in the graphic, MTSS provides a
global approach to support all students, whereas RTI provides support to students with academic
difficulties that might result in the need for special education services under the specific learning
disability category. Although RTI is used to make special education eligibility decisions, it is not
solely a special education process.
Illinois State Board of Education - 6 - Updated January 2022
A-2. What do Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3 supports include within an RTI framework?
As illustrated in the graphic on the previous page, supports are provided in tiers.
• Tier 1 is defined as whole class instruction utilizing high quality, universally designed core
instruction that provides meaningful environmental supports. Core instruction should be
of high quality and culturally and linguistically responsive.
• Tier 2 is defined as small group supplemental instruction utilizing evidence-based
interventions to meet academic needs. Supplemental instruction should be of high
quality and culturally and linguistically responsive.
• Tier 3 is defined as intensive instruction that is individualized and data-based. Tier 3, while
focused on individual student needs, can be implemented in small groups or individually,
utilizing evidence-based interventions that are data-driven and are provided in high
dosages with high intensity to meet the academic needs of students.
Tier 1 instruction must be implemented using scientific, research-based curriculum and
strategies, such as a Universal Design for Learning approach. This instruction is the foundation
for all systems of support and where universal screening data is gathered from reliable and valid
assessment tools to identify students in need of support. Instruction at this level should meet the
academic needs of 80 percent of the students. Tier 2 and Tier 3 interventions should supplement
not supplant Tier 1 instruction. In addition to this, a student must have Tier 1 and Tier 2 supports
in place before implementing Tier 3 intensive interventions. Instructional practices at all levels
of support should include evidence-based practices that are implemented with fidelity and
include considerations for cultural and linguistic responsiveness, according to the Center on
Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (formerly known as National Center on Response to
Intervention).
Illinois State Board of Education - 7 - Updated January 2022
The above graphic from the National Center on Intensive Intervention (NCII) at American
Institutes for Research provides a visual representation of how to implement support to students
in an MTSS framework.
A-3. Can students receive support for academic and behavioral difficulties concurrently?
Yes. A student who is exhibiting academic and behavioral needs may receive support from
multiple systems of support. As previously stated, RTI is a multi-tiered system of support used
to identify students who have academic difficulties that could potentially lead them to special
education services to address a specific learning disability. This framework is an example of
MTSS. Within the MTSS framework, behavioral interventions may also be utilized through
programs, such as positive behavior interventions and supports, as illustrated in the MTSS
umbrella graphic found in question A-1 on page 5. Decisions about the levels of support should
be individualized and based on data that is collected. It can be difficult for teams to identify if the
student is exhibiting behavioral concerns due to academic weaknesses or vice versa. By looking
at the student’s data and providing support in both areas, the team can make educated decisions
about the supports the student requires to be successful.
Illinois State Board of Education - 8 - Updated January 2022
B. Essential Components of RTI Data-Based Decision-Making
B-1. What is a universal screening tool and what are scientific, research-based screening
tools?
Each district is responsible for selecting universal screening/benchmarking and progress
monitoring tools, so specific tools will not be identified here. Rather, the response focuses on
the purposes of universal screening and progress monitoring, as well as resources available for
evaluating tools to determine if they are scientific and research-based.
Universal screening generally refers to the systematic assessment of all students within a given
class, grade, school building, or school district on critical academic and/or social-emotional
indicators. Universal screening provides data that help school teams determine if the core
curriculum is meeting the needs of the majority of students in a school district and whether
enhancements are needed in the core curriculum, instruction, and/or educational environments.
Universal screening also guides decisions about which students may require additional
assessment and/or supplemental or intensive intervention and instruction beyond what is
provided through core programming. The process of using a screening tool multiple times across
the school year to assess the effectiveness of the core curriculum and identify students at risk for
failure is referred to as benchmarking.
“The National Center on Intensive Intervention at American Institutes for Research has
established a standard review process to evaluate the scientific rigor of academic and behavior
assessment tools and interventions that can be used as part of a data-based individualization
program for educating students with disabilities who require intensive intervention due to
persistent learning and behavior problems.
Reviews are conducted by Technical Review Committees (TRCs) made up of national content
and methodological experts using rigorous evidence standards. TRCs, in conjunction with NCII
staff and advisers, are responsible for the development of review materials, including
establishing technical standards and rating rubrics.”
-National Center on Intensive Intervention Tool Charts Review Process
“The academic screening tools chart is composed of evidence-based screening tools that can be
used to identify students at risk for poor academic outcomes, including students who require
intensive intervention. The chart displays ratings on technical rigor in the areas of classification
accuracy, reliability, and validity, and it provides information on the representativeness of the
sample, whether a bias analysis was conducted, and key usability features.”
-National Center on Intensive Intervention Tool Charts User Guide
B-2. How can the universal screening data be used to make decisions about placement in
tiered interventions?
Illinois State Board of Education - 9 - Updated January 2022
Universal screening data is just one piece of evidence to be utilized to identify placement into
tiered interventions. Universal screening data is gathered to ensure that not only is the core
curriculum meeting the needs for 80 percent or more of the students receiving instruction, but
the data also serve to identify students at risk for academic difficulties. This data is analyzed in
conjunction with classroom-based, school-based, and district-level assessment data to identify if
a student needs intervention for academic deficits above what is being provided at Tier 1. If 80
percent of the student’s academic needs are being met by the Tier 1 supports, those who fall
under the cut score could be at risk for academic failure and could potentially benefit from
placement in Tier 2 or Tier 3 supports for intervention. Decisions regarding placement into
interventions should be made through a team-based approach and should take into
consideration multiple data sources.
B-3. How long must an intervention be implemented?
In general, decisions about the duration, type, and number of intervention sessions must be
based on an individual student’s performance data; therefore, there is no prescribed length of
time for intervention implementation. The decision regarding how long an intervention needs to
be in place should be driven by data and made by the problem-solving team. Accordingly, it is
important that the team create an intervention plan to consider each individual student’s needs
and use a data-based individualized approach (e.g., utilizing assessment data, evidence-based
interventions, and progress monitoring data) to determine the length of time to implement
interventions and plan revisions to interventions when progress is not being adequately made
based on the student’s individualized goal. A student who is not making adequate progress in
the intervention being provided does not necessarily suggest that the student needs special
education services. The data could simply suggest that the intervention is not correct to fit the
student’s academic needs and that an adjustment needs to be made to better fit such needs.
The following links provide tools to assist team members in making decisions about adjusting
interventions.
• Intensive Intervention Meeting Facilitator’s Guide
• Intensive Intervention Meeting Participant Guide
• Clarifying Questions to Create a Hypothesis to Guide Intervention Changes: Question
Bank
B-4. What information is available to learn more about a process to use data to tailor the
provision of interventions?
“Data-Based Individualization (DBI) is a research-based process for individualizing and
intensifying interventions” for “students with severe and persistent learning and behavioral
needs,” according to NCII. The process integrates evidence-based intervention, assessment, and
strategies using five interactive steps:
1. Validated Intervention Program: The Foundation
The DBI process builds on an evidence-based and standardized intervention delivered
with fidelity.
Illinois State Board of Education - 10 - Updated January 2022
a. Does the intervention target the student’s academic and behavioral needs?
b. Is the intervention based on the best available evidence?
c. Does the intervention align with core instruction?
d. Has the intervention been shown to work with most students?
e. Are procedures in place to ensure the intervention is delivered as planned?
2. Progress Monitor: Did the intervention work?
At this step, staff regularly collect and analyze progress monitoring data to determine if the
student is responding to the validated intervention.
a. Does the tool meet technical standards for progress monitoring and match the
desired academic or behavioral outcome?
b. Were data collected regularly and with a consistent approach?
c. Were progress data graphed?
d. Was the goal set using a validated approach?
e. Was the intervention effective for most students?
3. Diagnostic Data: Why didn’t the intervention work?
At this step, staff use diagnostic data to develop a hypothesis about why the student is
struggling.
a. Do multiple data sources confirm slow progress?
b. Have both academic and behavioral explanations been considered?
c. What do these data suggest about what needs to change?
4. Intervention Adaptation: What change Is needed?
The hypothesis, along with educator expertise, is used to develop an individual student
plan for modifying or adapting the intervention to better meet the student’s individual
needs.
a. Does the adaptation address the hypothesis?
b. Does the plan address both academic and behavioral concerns when needed?
c. Are procedures in place for implementing and monitoring the adapted
intervention?
d. Are only a few adaptations made at one time?
5. Progress Monitor: Did the change work?
Continue to collect, graph, and analyze progress monitoring data to determine if the
student is responding to the adapted intervention.
a. Are data collected according to the plan?
b. Does the graph indicate when adaptations were made?”
B-5. What are the best ways to establish and document the fidelity of implementation
integrity of instruction and/or intervention?
There are several different ways to ensure implementation integrity of an evidence-based
intervention, including, but not limited to, professional development, the use of evidence-based
intervention strategies/programs, guided practice and feedback, and treatment integrity checks.
Effective RTI systems require that schools establish and maintain consistently high levels of
fidelity in the implementation of instruction, interventions, and progress monitoring. This means
Illinois State Board of Education - 11 - Updated January 2022
that instruction is delivered, and individual intervention plans are created and carried out
consistently and as intended.
The following are examples of instruction and intervention integrity tools:
• Intensive Intervention Implementation Review Log
• Culturally and Linguistically Responsive Response to Intervention within Multi-tiered
System of Supports: Fidelity of Implementation Rubric
• Implementing Structured Data Meetings: A year-round Tool for Optimizing Instructional
Planning for English Learners
• RTI Fidelity of Implementation Rubric
• Student Intervention Plan
• Student-Level Data-Based Individualization Implementation Checklist (Data Meeting Plan
Fidelity Checklist)
B-6. What are scientific, research-based progress monitoring tools for reading, math, and
writing?
Progress monitoring is a type of formative assessment. It generally refers to the frequent
assessment of student performance over time. Progress monitoring allows teams to determine
how students are progressing toward established goals in a timely manner. Progress monitoring
data can also be utilized to identify the effectiveness of instruction as well as identify when an
instructional change needs to be made to improve students’ academic progress. The collection
of ongoing and frequent data on student performance is essential in helping determine a
student’s Response to Intervention. It is critical that schools and districts utilize scientific,
research-based progress monitoring tools when making instructional decisions. There are two
types of progress monitoring that can be used. Mastery measurement is used when teachers are
assessing mastery of a specific skill. General outcome measurement, more commonly called
curriculum-based measurement, is the assessment of the acquisition of skills across an entire
school year. Within this type of measurement, there are measures of curricular sampling as well
as performance indicators. Curricular sampling measures include items taught throughout the
year. Performance indicators are predictive of an area of performance in reading and/or math
(e.g., word reading fluency, oral reading fluency, math fact fluency).
According to the NCII’s Tool Chart Submission and Review Process, “The National Center on
Intensive Intervention has established a standard process to evaluate the scientific rigor of tools
and interventions that can be used as part of a data-based individualization program for
educating students with disabilities who require intensive intervention due to persistent learning
and behavior problems. The review process consists of five steps: (1) Identification of Tools and
Interventions for Review; (2) First- and Second-Level Review; (3) Interim Communication with
Vendors; (4) Third-Level Review; (5) Finalization and Publication of Result.
The academic progress monitoring tools chart consists of evidence-based progress monitoring
tools that can be used to assess students’ academic performance, to quantify a student rate of
Illinois State Board of Education - 12 - Updated January 2022
improvement or responsiveness to instruction, and to evaluate the effectiveness of instruction.
The chart displays ratings on technical rigor of performance level standards (reliability and
validity) and growth standards (sensitivity, alternate forms, and decision rules), and it provides
information about whether a bias analysis was conducted and key usability features.”
Schools and districts are encouraged to visit the NCII website when selecting or reviewing
screening and progress monitoring tools. According to NCII, “It is important to note that the
presence of a particular tool on their site does not constitute endorsement and should not be
viewed as a recommendation.” The NCII simply reports how different tools performed against
the criteria established. If a school is using a tool that has not been reviewed by this site, the
district would need to determine whether the tool meets the criteria above for being scientific.
In addition, there are a number of websites that provide detailed instructions and calculation
aides for determining slope of progress, such as the RTI Action Network and Vanderbilt
University’s IRIS Center.
B-7. How frequently should progress be monitored?
The frequency of progress monitoring is determined by the level of intensity of interventions. It
is recommended that , students receiving supplemental (strategic) interventions (Tier 2) be
progress monitored at least twice per month. It is recommended that students receiving
intensive interventions (Tier 3) be progress monitored at least weekly.
B-8. Is there a requirement regarding the number of data points that must be collected prior
to a referral for a special education evaluation?
Although there are no specific guidelines to the number of data points needed for special
education eligibility, there is research to support how to identify if changes to an intervention
plan is necessary. According to Bailey, T. R., Colpo, A. & Foley, A.:
“The Four-Point Method offers teachers an easy method for analyzing whether students
are making progress toward their goal (IRIS Center, 2020). For the most accurate estimate
of progress, teachers need as least six data points that are graphed against the goal line,
or the line between the baseline and goal. The decision rules for the Four-Point Method
are straightforward. If the last four data points are on or above the goal line, the teacher
should continue the current program. If the last four data points are below the goal line,
the student is identified as not on track to meet their goal and the teacher should engage
in the problem-solving process to adapt or modify the intervention. For a more sensitive
approach to analysis, teachers may use trend line analysis (NCII, 2012). A trend line, which
requires at least eight data points to calculate, is a line on a graph that represents a line
of best fit through a student’s data points. Many published data systems calculate the
trend line, although teachers can draw it by hand. The trend line is compared against the
goal line to help inform responsiveness to intervention. When teachers frequently analyze
Illinois State Board of Education - 13 - Updated January 2022
progress monitoring data for students receiving an intervention, they can determine
whether students are making adequate progress to achieve their goal. It is essential to
ensure that interventions have been delivered with fidelity as prescribed by the students’
intervention plan before an adjustment to the plan needs to be made.”
Other factors to consider include the following:
The student’s baseline performance level.
The student’s prior history of effective/ineffective interventions.
The stability of the student in the current school and instructional environment (e.g.,
length of time the student has been enrolled, regular school attendance).
The intensity of the interventions. (i.e., Tier 2, Tier 3, duration, and length of time).
Students who are determined to be eligible for special education services will continue to receive
the recommended amount and intensity of supports articulated through a well-defined process
that measures the growth towards achievement of the identified goals.
It is important to note that in the case of students who have or are suspected of having a specific
learning disability (SLD), ISBE’s rules governing special education prohibit a district from using a
student’s participation in a process that determines how a student responds to scientific,
evidence-based interventions as a basis for denying a parent’s request for an evaluation. [See 23
IAC 226.130(b).] Accordingly, the team must consider a parent’s request and follow the required
procedures for determining whether a special education evaluation is necessary. (See Question
D-3.)
B-9. What is a significant deficit? What is insufficient progress?
It is the responsibility of each school district to establish and consistently apply specific criteria
and data-based decision-making rules regarding what constitutes a significant deficit or
insufficient progress in terms of students’ skill performance. To do this, it is recommended that
district personnel analyze district-, school-, and student-level data and consider any additional
pertinent information (e.g., characteristics of the school environment).
As discussed in the ISBE “Illinois Special Education Eligibility and Entitlement Procedures and
Criteria within a Response to Intervention Framework Guidance” document, within the context
of RTI, there are three key factors involved when determining significant discrepancy and
inadequate progress:
1. The student has one or more significant academic skill deficits compared to age-level
peers or grade-level benchmarks.
2. The student is making insufficient progress in response to research/evidence-based
interventions or is making adequate progress but that progress is only possible when the
student has been provided and continues to need curriculum, instruction, and
Illinois State Board of Education - 14 - Updated January 2022
environmental interventions that are significantly different from any provided general
education peers and of an intensity or type that exceed general education resources.
3. The learning difficulties are not primarily the result of lack of appropriate instruction in
reading and math or limited English proficiency, and additionally for SLD, are not primarily
the result of a visual, hearing, or motor disability; an intellectual disability; an emotional
disability; cultural factors; or economic disadvantage.
By applying the established district criteria and decision-making rules, a school team may
describe a student’s academic performance as a significant academic deficit when he or she does
not achieve adequately according to age or to meet a state-approved grade-level standard and
fails to make sufficient progress when using a process based on the response to scientific,
evidence-based interventions. Inadequate progress is tied directly to this second component and
is present when evidence-based, intensive interventions fail to result in the student
demonstrating improved academic performance as measured via frequent progress monitoring,
resulting in a learning trajectory that will lead to the student meeting the peer and/or grade-level
standard. This should be aligned with the student’s academic goal that was set based on baseline
data gathered. The goal set should be individualized and can be based on benchmark standards,
rate of improvement (ROI) standards, and/or by using the student’s previous ROI. It is most
appropriate to use benchmark goals to monitor progress of a student in Tier 2 interventions.
Whenever interventions are not successful, whether that occurs before or after special education
eligibility, teams are expected to use the RTI/problem-solving process to refine, modify, and/or
change intervention programs until a successful intervention is found. In the case of a student
who is already eligible for special education, it is important to keep in mind that changes in
interventions being delivered in accordance with the student’s Individualized Education Program
(IEP) must be made in accordance with procedural safeguard requirements. (See Question E-5
for further details.)
B-10. Should we compare a student’s performance to that of age-level peers or to grade-
level standards when determining discrepancy/gap and rate of progress? What about a
student who has been retained?
Ultimately, it is each district’s decision whether to compare a student’s performance to age-level
peers or to grade-level standards to determine significant deficits and rate of progress within an
RTI framework. Grade-level standards are typically connected to state learning standards, so it
is more common for districts to use those standards. A possible exception to using grade-level
standards involves implementation of an RTI framework in early childhood settings. Due to the
significant variability in academic and behavioral development at early ages, early childhood
research and best practice would support the use of age-based norms, including benchmarking
scores.
In terms of grade retention, it is first recommended that districts and schools review the research
on the effectiveness of grade retention in addressing the needs of students whose skills are below
the age-appropriate grade-level benchmark(s). Research completed in various studies shows
mixed results when analyzing data of students who were retained. Some studies conducted show
a positive impact, while others show a negative impact that has led to future dropout rates being
Illinois State Board of Education - 15 - Updated January 2022
higher when compared to students who were not retained. Therefore, schools and districts are
strongly encouraged to utilize more effective alternatives to grade retention (e.g., scientific
research-based instructional and intervention strategies) to address the skill needs of students.
In those instances when a student has been retained, school teams should consider the fact that
he/she has not been exposed to the same instruction as his/her age-level peers and will take the
state assessment for the grade level in which he/she is currently enrolled. Therefore, it is
recommended that grade-level standards be used to determine the student’s discrepancy/gap
and rate of progress.
B-11. When implementing an RTI model, how is the criterion for “repeated assessments of
achievement at reasonable intervals” established for a student who has recently moved into
the district and is suspected of having a specific learning disability?
When a student moves into a district, it is recommended that universal screening (as defined in
the ISBE “Special Education Eligibility and Entitlement Procedures and Criteria within a Response
to Intervention Framework Guidance” document and discussed in the response to Question B-1)
be conducted to assist in determining the student’s current level of performance and educational
needs. These data should be shared with the student’s parents. If universal screening is
administered to all students in the district (including students who move into the district) and
these data are utilized for provision of tiered early intervening services with results reported to
all parents on a regular basis, the criterion for “repeated assessments at regular intervals” is
established.
If a team determines that, based on the universal screening data, the performance level of a
student who has recently moved into the district demonstrates significant skill deficits as defined
by locally established criteria (see Question B-9 on page 14) in comparison with age-level peers
or grade-level standards, and the team suspects that student may be a student with a disability,
the team should initiate an evaluation. The evaluation process would be no different for this
student than for any other student, except that the early intervening period (i.e., where
supplemental instruction and interventions with regular progress monitoring occurs) might be
concurrent with the evaluation. As part of the evaluation, the new district should make efforts
to obtain information regarding instructional history and assessment results from the student’s
previous district. This process is applicable whether an IEP team is implementing an RTI process
to meet the Part 226 requirement for using such a process as part of the evaluation procedures
for determining SLD eligibility or has chosen to utilize an RTI process for other suspected
disabilities.
B-12. How can we ensure that assessments we use are appropriate for English Learners
(ELs)?
Any assessment procedure for ELs should a) reflect authentic language and literacy use; b)
provide scaffolds for oral or written language input through visuals, diagrams, manipulatives, or
other supports; and c) be situated in meaningful contexts. Further, English assessments should
be aligned to the student’s English language proficiency level as determined by ACCESS for ELLs®
Illinois State Board of Education - 16 - Updated January 2022
or at a minimum, allow for differentiation according to language proficiency levels. It is essential
that the assessment tool clearly distinguishes between measurement of language proficiency and
measurement of content area skill and concept attainment. Generally, the language of
assessment should correlate with the language of instruction, and in the case of two-language
learners/emerging bilingual students, assessment would incorporate each of the students’
languages to the extent possible. Additionally, the norm group should be checked to be sure that
it consisted of ELs similar to the ELs being assessed. If the assessment does not meet these
standards of appropriateness and is used nonetheless, the resulting scores should be presented
in the context of their reduced and compromised validity and reliability.
C. Scientific, Research-Based Curriculum, Instruction, and Evidence-based
Interventions
C-1. How do we determine that our core curriculum is scientifically research-based?
In order to determine whether its core curriculum is scientifically research-based, a district may
embark on a process of inquiry to assess the degree to which the curriculum is aligned with
national and state standards and effective instruction (pedagogy) research. To assist districts in
this process, a district could utilize the Curriculum Evaluation Tool (CET) created by ISBE’s
Learning Standards and Instruction Department. This tool is not specific to one core curricular
area, but it can be utilized during curriculum adoptions as well as curriculum audits to ensure
fidelity of implementation.
C-2. What are some additional considerations that may be unique to ELs in terms of their
opportunity to learn?
“All students should receive comprehensive, evidence-based language and literacy instruction as part of
the core curriculum. In cases where high numbers of ELs are identified as not meeting grade-level
expectations or as needing supplemental instruction, evaluation of the core curriculum is an initial step
educators need to take to ensure that all students receive adequate opportunities to learn.”
-- Project ELITE², Project ELLIPSES, and Project LEE (2018)
Educators must also have knowledge of language acquisition in order to accurately identify
students with potential learning disabilities. Thus, those providing instruction should be bilingual
teachers with their bilingual approval or endorsement or, in the instance of low-incidence
languages within Transitional Programs of Instruction (TPI), highly qualified teachers holding
English as a Second Language (ESL) approval or endorsement. In the instance of there being very
few such students or where parents have refused language instruction support services, it is
important for districts to provide the necessary support for classroom teachers to acquire the
relevant knowledge and skills specific to teaching ELs and essential to providing effective
instruction and support to these students. Districts should use data that has been gathered to
create a thorough plan for meeting the instructional needs of EL students at each tier.
Illinois State Board of Education - 17 - Updated January 2022
C-3. In the context of integrity in the implementation of the curriculum, what does the
phrase “limited access to EL services” mean?
Limited access to EL services could include, but is not limited to, situations such as the following:
a) when parents have refused language assistance instructional program services for their
children or have withdrawn their children from such services before the students have attained
a score of English proficient in their annual language proficiency assessments; b) when ELs who,
through a decision by the school’s or district’s administration, were not provided either a
Transitional Bilingual Education (TBE) program or TPI, as defined in 23 IAC 228; c) when the
instructional program design for serving ELs has changed numerous times over the course of an
EL’s educational career; d) when an EL experiences the cumulative effects of being taught by
personnel without appropriate bilingual/ESL credentials; e) when an EL’s early childhood
program did not assess for English proficiency to identify language support needs; or f) when an
EL began in an English-only Head Start or prekindergarten program before entering a bilingual
kindergarten.
C-4. Is it permissible to use a “standard protocol” intervention approach rather than a
problem-solving approach at Tier 2?
The standard protocol and problem-solving approaches for intervention are not mutually
exclusive. A standard protocol intervention represents a specific intervention that is consistently
used to address one or more particular skill deficits within an RTI model. The standard protocol
intervention should be evidence-based, including evidence that it has a high probability of
success in remediating the targeted academic or behavioral deficits for a majority of students.
Staff receives training on the standard protocol intervention to increase the fidelity of
implementation.
The problem-solving process is an integral part of the three-tiered instruction and intervention
model and is used at all tiers, although it may look somewhat different at each tier. For example,
at Tier 1, problem-solving can be used at a systems level to use data (e.g., from universal
screening) to determine:
1) If there is a problem with the core curriculum and/or instruction.
2) Why the curriculum and/or instruction is not effective.
3) How the curriculum and/or instruction can be improved.
4) Whether the changes are working.
Within Tier 2, a team can use a problem-solving process by analyzing universal screening data to
identify a group of students with common educational needs and then match their needs to one
or more standard, evidence-based interventions (i.e., standard protocol interventions) that can
be provided to small groups of students with progress monitoring to assess effectiveness. A
similar process may also be used at Tier 3, but some students may require more individualized
interventions that are identified through the individual problem-solving process based on
universal screening and/or progress monitoring data. The same criteria identified above for
Illinois State Board of Education - 18 - Updated January 2022
standard protocol interventions (evidence-based and a high probability of success for
remediating the targeted skill) apply to individualized interventions.
In summary, problem-solving is used across the tiers but in slightly different ways, with more
standardized interventions integrated at Tiers 2 and 3. The National Center for Intensive
Intervention has created standards-relevant instruction examples to illustrate how core instruction
can be differentiated across the tiers.
C-5. What are resources for identifying scientific, research-based instruction and evidence-
based interventions? Do computer-based interventions qualify as evidence-based
interventions?
Scientifically research-based was replaced by “evidence-based interventions” under the Every
Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). The American Rescue Plan (ARP) Act defines the term “evidence-
based” as having the meaning in Section 8101(21(A) of ESSA (PL 114-95).
WHAT IS AN “EVIDENCE-BASED” INTERVENTION?
(from section 8101(21)(A) of the ESEA)
“…the term ‘evidence-based,’ when used with respect to a State, local educational agency, or school
activity, means an activity, strategy, or intervention that –
(i) demonstrates a statistically significant effect on improving student outcomes or other
relevant outcomes based on –
(I) strong evidence from at least one well-designed and well-implemented experimental
study
(II) moderate evidence from at least one well-designed and well-implemented quasi-
experimental study; or
(III) promising evidence from at least one well-designed and well-implemented
correlational study with statistical controls for selection bias; or
(ii)
(I) demonstrates a rationale based on high-quality research findings or positive
evaluation that such activity, strategy, or intervention is likely to improve student
outcomes or other relevant outcomes; and
(II) includes ongoing efforts to examine the effects of such activity, strategy, or
intervention.”
The table on the next page provides further guidance regarding evidence-based interventions.
Illinois State Board of Education - 19 - Updated January 2022
Source: Non-regulatory Guidance: Using Evidence to Strengthen Education Investments (U.S. Department
of Education) When addressing the implementation of computer-based interventions for Tier 2
and Tier 3, it is essential to ensure that those interventions are evidence-based and show a
pattern of success for the population being targeted.
Intervention Resources
Websites that offer scientific, research-based instruction and evidence-based intervention
information in multiple subject areas are listed below.
• What Works Clearinghouse – U.S. Department of Education
o Beginning Reading
o Adolescent Literacy
o English Language Learners
o Early Childhood Education
o Elementary School Math
Illinois State Board of Education - 20 - Updated January 2022
o Middle School Math
o Dropout Prevention
o Character Education
o Behavior
o Writing
o Oral Expression
• IRIS Center
o Reading, Literacy, Language Arts
o Math
o Differentiated Instruction
o Content Instruction
o Behavior
o Diversity
o Early Intervention/Early Childhood
• American Institutes for Research
o Literacy
o Math
o Science of Learning and Development
o Special Education
o English Learners
o MTSS/RTI
o Mental Health
o Social Emotional Learning
o Disability and Rehabilitation
o Early Childhood Education
• CEEDAR Center
o Culturally Responsive Teaching
o Classroom and Behavior Management
o English Language Learners
o Mathematics
o Writing
o Reading
o Literacy
o MTSS/RTI
o Sensory
• National Center on Intensive Intervention
o Reading
o Math
o English Learners
o Behavior
Illinois State Board of Education - 21 - Updated January 2022
Websites with scientific, research-based instruction and evidence-based intervention
information by specific area are listed below.
• Reading and Writing
o Vaughn Gross Center for Reading and Language Arts
o Literacy for Leaders
o National Center on Improving Literacy
• Math
o The Meadows Center: Mathematics and Science Institute for Students with Special
Needs
• Oral Expression and Listening Comprehension
o American Speech-Language-Hearing Association - Compendium of EBP
Guidelines and Reviews and Evidence-Based Systematic Reviews
• ELs
o WIDA
o English Learner Tool Kit
o National Association for Bilingual Education
o Project LEE
o Project ELITE
o MTSS for Els
C-6. Is Tier 3 ONLY special education?
No. The Illinois State RTI Plan discusses a three-tiered model of increasingly intense instruction
and interventions that is intended to meet the needs of all students and does not define Tier 3
as being only special education. Tier 3 is discussed instead as being the most intense level of
instruction and intervention provided to students. It may include special education services if
appropriate to a student’s needs. In an RTI context, a student who does not respond to evidence-
based intensive interventions may be found eligible for special education services when it has
been demonstrated that the intensity or type of intervention required to produce acceptable
rates of student improvement exceeds the resources in general education. The graphic below
illustrates the different levels of services provided at each tier.
Illinois State Board of Education - 22 - Updated January 2022
Source: REL Midwest
D. Special Education Evaluation
D-1. When is a special education evaluation initiated in an RTI process?
The point at which a special education evaluation is initiated depends on the student’s individual
intervention plan and progress status based on the student’s participation and success in the RTI
process. Per federal regulations and 23 IAC 226, a referral for special education can be initiated
at any time for a student who is suspected of having a disability. If an IEP team is considering
special education eligibility, it is important that questions are formulated and the review of
comprehensive student progress monitoring data and progress through the RTI process are an
integral part of the referral process. When a student is participating in an RTI process, data
showing that the student has a significant skill deficit and is making insufficient progress, even
when provided with intense, evidence-based interventions, could lead the team to suspect that
the student has a disability and make a referral for evaluation. Another possible consideration
in determining the need for a referral for evaluation is the student’s need to receive ongoing and
specialized supports and services in order to participate and make progress in the general
education curriculum. These procedures are applicable whether an IEP team is implementing an
RTI process to meet the Part 226 requirement for using such a process as part of the evaluation
procedures for determining SLD eligibility or has chosen to utilize an RTI process for other
suspected disabilities.
It is important to note that in the case of students who have or are suspected of having a specific
learning disability, ISBE’s rules governing special education prohibit the district from using a
student’s participation in a process that determines how he or she responds to scientific,
research-based interventions as a basis for denying a parent’s request for an evaluation. [See 23
IAC 226.130(b).] Accordingly, the team must consider a parent’s request and follow the required
procedures for determining whether a special education evaluation is necessary. (See Question
D-3.)
Illinois State Board of Education - 23 - Updated January 2022
D-2. How can the requirement for a full and individual evaluation be met in an RTI model?
Federal regulations require a “full and individual evaluation” to be completed before the initial
provision of special education and related services; this requirement does not change in an RTI
process. Further, in accordance with 34 CFR 300.304(b), in conducting the evaluation, school
districts must use a variety of assessment tools and strategies that may assist in determining
whether the student is a student with a disability. The student must also be “assessed in all areas
related to the suspected disability, including, if appropriate [emphasis added], health, vision,
hearing, social and emotional status, general intelligence, academic performance,
communicative status, and motor abilities.” [See 34 CFR 300.304(c)(4).] In addition, the
evaluation must be sufficiently comprehensive to identify all of the student’s special education
needs. [See 34 CFR 300.304(c)(6).] Depending on their nature and scope, it is possible that data
generated during the RTI process could fulfill the requirements of a “full and individual
evaluation.”
D-3. What constitutes a “sufficiently comprehensive evaluation”? Can existing evaluation
data be used to meet the requirements of a comprehensive evaluation? When are additional
data necessary beyond the use of existing data when using RTI in determining eligibility?
The use in federal regulations of such terms as “if appropriate” establishes the authority of the
school team, of which the student’s parent is a member, to determine the areas, also called
domains, in which the student should be assessed. Therefore, what constitutes a
“comprehensive evaluation” is determined on an individual basis in accordance with a student’s
needs. In the past, the required “comprehensive evaluation” was interpreted by most to mean
a common battery of assessments for all students suspected of having a particular disability. Now
it is anticipated that the data gathered during the RTI process, which is related directly to the
student’s performance in the learning context, should reduce the need for the “common battery”
approach to assessments.
In accordance with the federal regulations,
“(b) Conduct of evaluation. In conducting the evaluation, the public agency must —
(1) Use a variety of assessment tools and strategies to gather relevant functional,
developmental, and academic information about the child, including information
provided by the parent, that may assist in determining —
(i) Whether the child is a child with a disability under § 300.8; and
(ii) The content of the child’s IEP, including information related to enabling the
child to be involved in and progress in the general education curriculum (or for a
preschool child, to participate in appropriate activities);
Illinois State Board of Education - 24 - Updated January 2022
(2) Not use any single measure or assessment as the sole criterion for determining
whether a child is a child with a disability and for determining an appropriate
educational program for the child; and
(3) Use technically sound instruments that may assess the relative contribution of
cognitive and behavioral factors, in addition to physical or developmental factors.
(c) Other evaluation procedures. Each public agency must ensure that —
(1) Assessments and other evaluation materials used to assess a child under this part —
(i) Are selected and administered so as not to be discriminatory on a racial or
cultural basis;
(ii) Are provided and administered in the child’s native language or other mode
of communication and in the form most likely to yield accurate information on
what the child knows and can do academically, developmentally, and
functionally, unless it is clearly not feasible to so provide or administer;
(iii) Are used for the purposes for which the assessments or measures are valid
and reliable;
(iv) Are administered by trained and knowledgeable personnel; and
(v) Are administered in accordance with any instructions provided by the
producer of the assessments.
(2) Assessments and other evaluation materials include those tailored to assess specific
areas of educational need and not merely those that are designed to provide a single
general intelligence quotient.
(3) Assessments are selected and administered so as best to ensure that if an
assessment is administered to a child with impaired sensory, manual, or speaking skills,
the assessment results accurately reflect the child’s aptitude or achievement level or
whatever other factors the test purports to measure, rather than reflecting the child’s
impaired sensory, manual, or speaking skills (unless those skills are the factors that the
test purports to measure).
(4) The child is assessed in all areas related to the suspected disability, including, if
appropriate, health, vision, hearing, social and emotional status, general intelligence,
academic performance, communicative status, and motor abilities;
(5) Assessments of children with disabilities who transfer from one public agency to
another public agency in the same school year are coordinated with those children’s
prior and subsequent schools, as necessary and as expeditiously as possible, consistent
with §300.301(d)(2) and (e), to ensure prompt completion of full evaluations.
Illinois State Board of Education - 25 - Updated January 2022
(6) In evaluating each child with a disability under §§300.304 through 300.306, the
evaluation is sufficiently comprehensive to identify all of the child’s special education
and related services needs, whether or not commonly linked to the disability category in
which the child has been classified.
(7) Assessment tools and strategies that provide relevant information that directly
assists persons in determining the educational needs of the child are provided.”
Screening data collected as components of Tier 1 activities and Tier 2 and 3 assessment data (e.g.,
classroom observations, the results of a curriculum-based evaluation) and progress monitoring
data documenting student response to intervention are part of the comprehensive evaluation
and may be sufficient for determining entitlement for special education services as stated in the
regulations at 34 CFR 300.305(a).
(a) “Review of existing evaluation data. As part of an initial (if appropriate) and as part of
any reevaluation under this part, the IEP Team and other qualified professionals, as
appropriate, must –
(1) Review existing evaluation data on the child, including –
(i) Evaluations and information provided by the parents of the child;
(ii) Current classroom-based, local, or State assessments, and classroom-based
observations; and
(iii) Observation by teachers and related services providers; and
(2) On the basis of that review, and input from the child’s parents, identify what
additional data, if any [emphasis added], are needed to determine –
(i) (A) Whether the child is a child with a disability, as defined in §300.8, and the
educational needs of the child; or
(B) In the case of a reevaluation of a child, whether the child continues to have
such a disability, and the educational needs of the child;
(ii) The present levels of academic achievement and related developmental needs of
the child;
(iii) (A) Whether the child needs special education and related services; or
(B) In the case of a reevaluation of a child, whether the child continues to need
special education and related services…
(iv) Whether any additions or modifications to the special education and related
services are needed to enable the child to meet the measurable annual goals set
out in the IEP of the child and to participate, as appropriate, in the general
education curriculum...”
The term “if any” allows the team the discretion to determine if further data are required. In a
system where RTI is being implemented, existing data collected during the RTI process will be
used as an important source of evaluation information when determining special education
eligibility. The school team, which includes a student’s parents, will decide whether these data
are sufficient to determine eligibility or if additional evaluation data are needed. The team
members may decide that the collection of additional data is necessary when they do not feel
that they have enough data to meet the eligibility requirements (e.g., there is insufficient
Illinois State Board of Education - 26 - Updated January 2022
evidence regarding the comparison between the target student and his/her age-level peers or
grade-level standard, a pattern of student performance over time has not been established, there
is insufficient evidence/documentation for the implementation integrity of the evidence-based
interventions, they have not been able to identify the instructional characteristics that produce
a positive impact on the student’s performance, or one or more of the exclusionary criteria have
not been ruled out).
D-4. Can a review of existing data meeting and an eligibility meeting occur at the same time?
Neither ISBE’s rules governing special education nor the federal IDEA regulations specifically
prohibit such meetings from being held concurrently provided that all requirements associated
with the review of existing evaluation data and the eligibility determination meeting are met,
including the notice requirements at 34 CFR 300.322 and 300.501(b)(2) and the requirements
associated with membership of the eligibility and IEP teams.
The regulations at 34 CFR 300.305(b) allow the review of existing evaluation data to occur
without a formal meeting, provided parents have an opportunity to participate in the process.
However, a meeting of “a group of qualified professionals and the parent of the child” must be
held to determine whether the student is or continues to be a student with a disability and the
educational needs of the student. [See 34 CFR 300.306(a).].
If, as a result of the review of existing evaluation data, the IEP team determines that no additional
evaluation data are needed, the requirements at 34 CFR 300.305(d) must be met. This means
that the district must notify the student’s parent of the determination and the reasons for it and
of the parent’s right to request further assessment.
If the parent agrees with the determination that no additional evaluation data are needed and is
willing to proceed immediately to the eligibility determination, then it is possible to subsequently
conduct the eligibility meeting. It is important to ensure that the parent fully understands the
data being used to determine the student’s eligibility. Accordingly, the documentation of the
evaluation results should fully detail the existing data being used, including data graphs and/or
charts, to make the eligibility determination. The documentation must also verify that the
requirements for a full and individual evaluation, in accordance with 34 CFR 300.301, have been
fulfilled.
D-5. Can parents request an evaluation while their child is involved in an RTI process?
Yes. The right for parents to request a special education evaluation at any time has not changed,
nor have the requirements associated with the district’s response to such a request as outlined
in 23 IAC 226.110. Therefore, parents can request a special education evaluation at any time
prior to, during, or following their child’s involvement in an RTI process. Within 14 school days
after receiving a request for an evaluation, the district shall determine whether an evaluation is
warranted. If the district does not agree that a special education evaluation is warranted, a
written notice must be provided to the parents that informs them of this decision and explains
Illinois State Board of Education - 27 - Updated January 2022
the reasons why it has been determined an evaluation is not warranted in accordance with 34
CFR 300.503(b). The parent can challenge the district’s decision by requesting mediation and/or
a due process hearing to resolve the dispute over the student’s need for an evaluation. If an
evaluation is to be conducted the following steps must take place:
• The district shall convene a team of individuals (including the parent) having the
knowledge and skills necessary to administer and interpret evaluation data. The
composition of the team will vary depending upon the nature of the child's
characteristics, abilities, and other relevant factors.
• The team shall identify the assessments necessary to complete the evaluation in
accordance with 34 CFR 300.305 and shall prepare a written notification for the parents
as required under 34 CFR 300.304(a). For each domain, the notification shall either
describe the needed assessments or explain why none are needed.
• The district shall ensure that the notification of the team's conclusions is transmitted to
the parents within the 14-school day timeline applicable under 23 IAC 226.110(c)(3),
along with the district's request for the parents' consent to conduct the needed
assessments.
Once written parental consent is obtained, the 60-school day timeline begins for completing the
evaluation, determining eligibility, and if the student is eligible, developing an IEP. If there are
fewer than 60 school days left in the school year, the eligibility determination shall be completed
prior to the first day of the following school year. When determining SLD eligibility, this timeline
may be extended by “mutual written agreement of the student’s parents and a group of qualified
professionals.” [See 34 CFR 300.309(c).] Also, given the Part 226 requirement for the use of a
process that determines how a student responds to scientific, research-based interventions as
part of the evaluation procedures for SLD, if the student has not been involved in an RTI process
and SLD is the suspected area of disability, appropriate evidence-based interventions must be
initiated in the area(s) of difficulty and the student’s progress regularly monitored during the
evaluation period.
D-6. If a parent requests an “immediate” evaluation during or prior to the RTI process, how
does the school fulfill its obligation to complete the evaluation within the 60-school day
timeline and still meet the requirement to use an RTI process as part of the evaluation
procedures for SLD? What if the parent requests a “traditional” evaluation using the
ability/achievement discrepancy model?
If a parent requests an immediate evaluation, the same procedures discussed in the response to
D-5 apply. If a decision is made to conduct an evaluation, the school team should explain the RTI
process and the services the student will receive during the evaluation period. Schools may not
use the RTI process as a reason not to conduct an evaluation of a student suspected of having an
SLD [23 IAC 226.130(b)] or to try to convince parents not to request an evaluation; however, it is
expected that parents will be informed of the requirement that an RTI process must be part of
the evaluation procedures for SLD. If parents request a “traditional assessment” using an
ability/achievement discrepancy model, the team must determine if such an assessment is
necessary and appropriate in order to evaluate the student and determine eligibility. In Illinois,
Illinois State Board of Education - 28 - Updated January 2022
assessment of an ability/achievement discrepancy is neither required nor sufficient for
determining the existence of an SLD.
D-7. When is informed parental consent sought for evaluation when RTI is used?
Informed parental consent for a special education evaluation must be obtained any time a special
education evaluation is to be conducted. If the school team suspects that a student may have a
disability requiring special education and related services, then a request for special education
evaluation must be initiated and written parental consent to conduct the evaluation must be
obtained prior to completing the evaluation.
Informed parental consent is not required for activities such as universal screening, intervention
delivery, and progress monitoring that are implemented during the RTI process as part of the
general education program. Specifically, federal regulations clearly state that screening of a
student to “determine appropriate instructional strategies for curriculum implementation” is not
considered an evaluation for special education eligibility and, therefore, informed parental
consent is not required. It is important, though, that parents be fully informed of these activities
and receive regular reports of student progress. For example, one of the requirements for SLD
eligibility determination is that “data-based documentation of repeated assessments of
achievement at reasonable intervals, reflecting formal assessment of student progress during
instruction” [34 CFR 300.309(b)(2)] must be completed and the results provided to the student’s
parents. Thus, regular communication and sharing of data with parents is critical.
D-8. Who should make up the multi-disciplinary team when an RTI process is used as part of
the evaluation procedures to determine special education eligibility?
The requirements for membership of the multidisciplinary team formed for the purpose of
determining eligibility using an RTI process are the same as those set forth at 34 CFR 300.306. If
the suspected disability is SLD, then the additional requirements for team membership at 34 CFR
300.308 also apply. The team should be composed of the students’ parents/guardians, general
education teacher, special education teacher, LEA representative, a member who can interpret
the instructional implications of evaluation results, intervention teacher, and/or related service
personnel.
It is suggested that the multidisciplinary team members be chosen from the RTI problem-solving
team as these individuals would be knowledgeable about the student’s intervention and progress
monitoring data. Other individuals can be added to the team if needed to provide specific
expertise or to fulfill particular roles. This team would develop an evaluation plan and complete
the necessary evaluation components, the results of which will be used by the group to
determine if the student has a disability requiring special education and related services.
If the student in question is not currently receiving interventions through an RTI process and the
public agency agrees to initiate a special education evaluation, the student should be referred to
the RTI problem-solving team so evidence-based interventions can be initiated as part of the
evaluation procedures (see D-6 regarding a parent request for immediate evaluation) and
Illinois State Board of Education - 29 - Updated January 2022
eligibility group members identified. This information is applicable whether an IEP team is
implementing an RTI process to meet the Part 226 requirement for using such a process as part
of the evaluation procedures for determining SLD eligibility or has chosen to utilize an RTI process
for other suspected disabilities.
D-9. How will we determine the existence of an SLD in the areas of oral expression, listening
comprehension, and written expression where no formal RTI is being done? What data
collection, research-based curriculum and interventions, benchmarking, etc. are supposed to
be used for these areas?
In order to identify a student as having an SLD in the areas of oral expression, listening
comprehension, and/or written comprehension, a district should collect benchmarking data (to
determine what is typical educational achievement and progress) in these three areas and
develop a three-tiered system of increasingly intensive interventions targeting these three areas.
Resources are found in C-5 to help find information on data collection; scientific, research-based
practices; and evidence-based interventions.
Neither ISBE’s rules nor federal IDEA regulations governing special education evaluation
requirements, including the additional procedures for SLD identification, specify that a particular
type of assessment (e.g., an intelligence/IQ test) must be conducted. However, in the past,
districts have often used intelligence tests to establish that a student has a severe discrepancy
between achievement and intellectual ability in order to determine the existence of an SLD as
previously required when IDEA was reauthorized in 1997.
The implementing regulations of IDEA 2004 [see 34 CFR 300.309(a)] eliminated the
IQ/achievement discrepancy criterion for SLD, so districts that previously conducted intelligence
testing to fulfill this criterion no longer need to do so. Intelligence tests also are not necessary
for intervention planning, as screening, progress monitoring, and diagnostic/prescriptive
assessments collected as part of the RTI process can provide the information needed.
D-10. Does cognitive processing need to be assessed as part of an SLD eligibility evaluation?
No. As stated previously, none of the federal regulations addressing special education evaluation
requirements, including the additional procedures for SLD identification, specify that a particular
type of assessment (e.g., assessment of psychological or cognitive processing) must be
conducted. Further, although the federal definition of SLD uses the terminology “a disorder in
one or more of the basic psychological processes,” the U.S. Department of Education’s response
in the “Analysis of Comments and Changes” section of the federal regulations states the
following:
“The Department does not believe that an assessment of psychological or cognitive
processing should be required in determining whether a child has an SLD. There is no current
evidence that such assessments are necessary or sufficient for identifying SLD. Further, in
many cases, these assessments have not been used to make appropriate intervention
decisions … In many cases, though, assessments of cognitive processes simply add to the
Illinois State Board of Education - 30 - Updated January 2022
testing burden and do not contribute to interventions. As summarized in the research
consensus from the Office of Special Education Programs Learning Disability Summit (Bradley,
Danielson, and Hallahan, 2002), ‘Although processing deficits have been linked to some
specific learning disabilities (e.g., phonological processing and reading), direct links with other
processes have not been established. Currently, available methods for measuring many
processing difficulties are inadequate. Therefore, systematically measuring processing
difficulties and their link to treatment is not yet feasible ... Processing deficits should be
eliminated from the criteria for classification ...’ (p.797).” (Federal Register, Vol. 71, No. 156,
p.46651)
D-11. With regard to ruling out cultural factors as the primary reason a student is experiencing
difficulty, what constitutes culturally responsive instruction?
Culturally responsive teaching and learning standards are defined in the Illinois Administrative
Code. Culturally responsive teachers understand the role of culture in how individuals think,
learn, and communicate, according to Effective Practices for English Learners: Brief 5.
Source: Del Valle Independent School District
D-12. When ruling out limited English proficiency, what about ELs who may have had limited
access to language assistance instructional programs?
If an EL has had limited access to a language assistance instructional program such as TBE or TPI
(see C-3 for examples of limited access), it is essential that the school team keep in mind that ELs
may not have developed the expected academic proficiency in English and in their home
Illinois State Board of Education - 31 - Updated January 2022
language due primarily to inconsistencies in the language assistance instructional program being
offered or in the student’s participation in such a program. Such inconsistencies could result in
the student having language fragmentation rather than a language disability. In these situations,
the team would recommend evidence-based interventions to support these students in both
languages as they work to determine if the student is an EL who may also need special education
services or a student who needs more intensive support as an EL.
With regard to the design of the language assistance instructional program itself, it is also
important to remember that this includes meaningful content, appropriate EL methodology,
deliberate plans for language of instruction/language allocation, model of instruction, sufficient
frequency and duration of daily instructional services, and whether gaps in content instruction
occurred within a typical instructional day. These factors can all greatly influence ELs’
performance.
D-13. Given the requirement at 23 IAC 226.130 for use of an RTI process as part of the
evaluation procedures for SLD, can the results of independent evaluations be used to
determine eligibility for SLD?
As provided in 34 CFR 300.502 (b), a parent has the right to request an independent educational
evaluation (IEE) at public expense if the parent disagrees with an evaluation obtained by the
school district. However, the parent would not have a right to obtain an IEE at public expense if
the district has not yet completed its evaluation. The U.S. Department of Education addressed
this issue specifically in the context of RTI in the “Analysis of Comments and Changes” section of
the federal regulations, as follows:
“The parent, however, would not have the right to obtain an IEE at public expense before the
public agency completes its evaluation simply because the parent disagrees with the public
agency’s decision to use data from a child’s response to intervention as part of its evaluation
to determine if the child is a child with a disability and the educational needs of the child.”
-- Federal Register, Vol. 71, No. 156, p. 46689
As provided in 34 CFR 300.502(b)(2) and beyond, “If a parent requests an independent
educational evaluation at public expense, the public agency must, without unnecessary delay,
either —
(i) File a due process complaint to request a hearing to show that its evaluation is
appropriate; or
(ii) Ensure that an independent educational evaluation is provided at public
expense, unless the agency demonstrates in a hearing pursuant to §§300.507
through 300.513 that the evaluation obtained by the parent did not meet agency
criteria.
(3) If the public agency files a due process complaint notice to request a hearing and the
final decision is that the agency’s evaluation is appropriate, the parent still has the right
to an independent educational evaluation, but not at public expense.
Illinois State Board of Education - 32 - Updated January 2022
(4) If a parent requests an independent educational evaluation, the public agency may
ask for the parent’s reason why he or she objects to the public evaluation. However, the
public agency may not require the parent to provide an explanation and may not
unreasonably delay either providing the independent educational evaluation at public
expense or filing a due process complaint to request a due process hearing to defend
the public evaluation.
(5) A parent is entitled to only one independent educational evaluation at public
expense each time the public agency conducts an evaluation with which the parent
disagrees.
(c) Parent-initiated evaluations. If the parent obtains an independent educational evaluation at
public expense or shares with the public agency an evaluation obtained at private expense, the
results of the evaluation—
(1) Must be considered by the public agency, if it meets agency criteria, in any decision
made with respect to the provision of FAPE to the child; and
(2) May be presented by any party as evidence at a hearing on a due process complaint
under subpart E of this part regarding that child.
(d) Requests for evaluations by hearing officers. If a hearing officer requests an independent
educational evaluation as part of a hearing on a due process complaint, the cost of the
evaluation must be at public expense.
(e) Agency criteria.
(1) If an independent educational evaluation is at public expense, the criteria under
which the evaluation is obtained, including the location of the evaluation and the
qualifications of the examiner, must be the same as the criteria that the public agency
uses when it initiates an evaluation, to the extent those criteria are consistent with the
parent’s right to an independent educational evaluation.
(2) Except for the criteria described in paragraph (e)(1) of this section, a public agency
may not impose conditions or timelines related to obtaining an independent
educational evaluation at public expense.”
In addition to the guidelines set forth in 34 CFR 300.502, additional rights and requirements
also apply under 23 IAC 226.180, which are outlined as follows:
“a) If the parents disagree with the district's evaluation and wish to obtain an
independent educational evaluation at public expense, their request to that
effect shall be submitted in writing to the local school district superintendent.
b) When an independent evaluation is obtained at public expense, the party chosen
to perform the evaluation shall be either:
Illinois State Board of Education - 33 - Updated January 2022
1) an individual whose name is included on the registry of independent
educational evaluators developed by the State Board of Education
pursuant to Section 226.830 with regard to the relevant types of
evaluation; or
2) another individual possessing the credentials required by Section
226.840.
c) If the parent wishes an evaluator to have specific credentials in addition to those
required by Section 226.840, the parent and the school district shall agree on the
qualifications of the examiner and the specific evaluations to be completed prior
to the initiation of an independent educational evaluation at public expense. If
agreement cannot be reached, the school district shall initiate a due process
hearing subject to the time constraints set forth in this Section, as applicable.
d) Within 10 days after receiving a report of an independent evaluation conducted
at either public or private expense, the district shall provide written notice
stating the date upon which the IEP Team will meet to consider the
results.” (Also see Section 226.530.)
D-14. How is RTI used when conducting evaluations of parentally placed private school
students or students who are home-schooled? Can an LEA require a private school to
implement an RTI process before the LEA evaluates a parentally placed private school child?
When evaluating students who are parentally placed in a private school or who are home-
schooled, the same processes of reviewing existing assessment data and determining what, if
any, additional data need to be collected for educational decision-making are used. (See Question
D-3.) Many private schools regularly collect assessment data that a school district may review
and include in their determination of a student’s response to instruction and intervention (e.g.,
state and local program evaluation assessments, universal screeners, curriculum-embedded
assessments). Some private schools provide supplemental and intensive interventions within
their setting and monitor progress toward a goal. Any of these data may be useful in determining
whether appropriate instruction was provided, determining discrepancy/gap from age-level
peers or grade-level standard, and/or for assessing response to ongoing instruction. Students
who are home-schooled may also have similar assessment data available for use in an RTI model.
Districts may want to provide private school and home-school educators with educational
opportunities in RTI and in the use of RTI in special education eligibility and entitlement decisions
(e.g., workshops, brochures). Private schools and home-school settings are not required to
provide early intervening services or special education, but knowledge of RTI might assist both
the district and the student’s private school or home school in communicating and working with
one another.
When existing data are not available, the district is responsible for collecting necessary data in
order to determine a student’s response to instruction and intervention as part of the evaluation.
Illinois State Board of Education - 34 - Updated January 2022
Universal screening measures utilized in the district might be administered and the resulting
scores compared to same age/grade students in the district, and/or the team may choose to
provide limited consultation or interventions and progress monitoring.
Regarding an LEA requiring a private school to implement an RTI process before the LEA evaluates
a parentally placed private school child, the answer is no. IDEA and its implementing regulations
at 34 CFR 300.301 through 300.311 establish requirements for an LEA when conducting an initial
evaluation to determine if a child qualifies as a child with a disability under Part B. These
requirements do not apply to private schools. Specific learning disability is a statutory term and
is also defined in 34 CFR 300.8(c)(10). [See also 20 U.S.C. 1401(30).] Examples include conditions
such as perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and
developmental aphasia. [See 34 CFR 300.8(c)(10).] IDEA requires states to adopt criteria for
determining whether a child has a specific learning disability, and these criteria must permit,
among other things, the use of a process based on the child’s response to scientific, research-
based intervention. [See 34 CFR 300.307(a)(2).] Thus, although IDEA permits an LEA to use RTI in
evaluating a child suspected of having a specific learning disability, it does not require the LEA to
use RTI. Even if a state’s criteria permit an LEA to use RTI in evaluating a child suspected of having
a specific learning disability, IDEA does not require an LEA to use RTI for a parentally placed child
attending a private school located in its jurisdiction. Further, it would be inconsistent with the
IDEA evaluation provisions in 34 CFR 300.301 through 300.311 for an LEA to delay the initial
evaluation because a private school has not implemented an RTI process with a child suspected
of having a learning disability and has not reported the results of that process to the LEA.
D-15. How are reevaluations conducted when using RTI?
Illinois requires the use of a process that determines how a student responds to scientific,
research-based interventions as part of the evaluation procedures to determine the existence of
an SLD, and such a process must also be used as part of a reevaluation for SLD. The requirements
specific to reevaluations with regard to when and how often they must be conducted, as
delineated at 34 CFR 300.303, remain applicable, as do the requirements for evaluations in
general [34 CFR 300.302, 300.304, 300.305, and 300.306] and the additional requirements for
SLD identification.
When a student is found eligible for special education and related services through an evaluation
process that includes RTI, the same core practices of RTI continue in the delivery of the services
identified on the student’s IEP. This includes interventions matched to student needs and
frequent progress monitoring to determine the student’s response to intervention, as well as
adjusting the interventions based on the progress monitoring data. The data collected as part of
that intervention process should be used to determine needs and eligibility on an ongoing basis,
including during the reevaluation process.
Regardless of whether or not the initial evaluation included the use of an RTI process, it is
presumed that the initial eligibility process was valid and that the disability remains unless data
exist that indicate otherwise. Such data could include evidence showing a change in the student’s
ability to benefit from the general education curriculum without special education and related
Illinois State Board of Education - 35 - Updated January 2022
services. The U.S. Department of Education commented on this issue in the context of
reevaluations and state SLD eligibility criteria that have been revised to include an RTI process:
“States should consider the effect of exiting a child from special education who has received
special education and related services for many years and how the removal of such supports
will affect the child’s educational progress… Obviously, the group should consider whether
the child’s instruction and overall special education program have been appropriate as part
of this process. If the special education instruction has been appropriate and the child has
not been able to exit special education, this would be strong evidence that the child’s
eligibility needs to be maintained.”
-- Federal Register, Vol. 71, No. 156, p. 46648
Planning for reevaluations is the same as the planning that occurs for initial evaluations. The IEP
team, which includes the student’s parents, reviews existing data to determine what, if any,
additional data are needed. The reevaluation focuses on assessment of progress, including how
the student has responded to the interventions (i.e., the degree to which the special education
services are addressing the student’s needs), answering any assessment or diagnostic questions,
and planning subsequent instruction and interventions. Ultimately, the reevaluation determines:
Whether the student continues to have a disability and needs special education and
related services.
The educational needs of the student.
The present levels of academic achievement and related developmental needs of the
student.
Whether any additions or modifications to the special education and related services are
needed to enable the student to meet the annual IEP goals and to participate in the
general education curriculum.
E. Eligibility and Entitlement
E-1. I have heard the terms “eligibility” and “entitlement” used. How are they different?
Eligibility generally refers to a student’s qualification for special education services as a result of
falling within and having his/her educational performance adversely affected by one of the 13
federal disability categories described in IDEA (34 CFR 300.8), as determined through the special
education evaluation process. Eligibility determination is addressed in the federal regulations at
34 CFR 300.306 with additional requirements for SLD addressed at 34 CFR 300.311 and in ISBE’s
rules governing special education at 23 IAC 226.130(b). Entitlement is a term generally used in
conjunction with a student’s right to procedural safeguards and the provision of special
education services based upon the determination that the student qualified for special education
services under IDEA.
Illinois State Board of Education - 36 - Updated January 2022
E-2. Can we use RTI to determine eligibility for disability categories other than SLD?
The RTI process is applicable for all disabilities, and districts have the option to use it as a data-
driven process that establishes needs/goals and eligibility in disability categories other than SLD,
provided all aspects of any evaluation requirements and eligibility criteria for the suspected
disability are addressed. The essential evaluation questions are the same across disability
categories:
a) What is the discrepancy of the student’s performance with the peer group and/or
standard?
b) What is the student’s educational progress as measured by ROI?
c) What are the instructional needs of the student?
In an RTI framework, the focus of a special education evaluation is on determining the effective
educational goals and strategies necessary to address the student’s educational needs.
E-3. Can more timely procedures be used to determine eligibility?
It is misleading to represent RTI as a lengthy means-to-an-end procedure to determine eligibility.
The RTI process provides intervention strategies for the student much earlier than in the
traditional system, and the eligibility process is designed to refine the student’s intervention plan,
not to wait until the student has a special education label to intervene.
E-4. Is RTI just a way to avoid providing special education services?
RTI combines the legal mandates of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 2001 and
IDEA with the primary intent to ensure that students receive high quality, effective instruction
and intervention strategies as early and as effectively as possible. Since RTI is a process applicable
for all students, there are some students whose educational needs will require special education
services. It is not, therefore, a way of avoiding the provision of special education services. If
anything, it should result in a timelier provision of services to address students’ needs.
E-5. What happens if the school team has made changes to the interventions based on
student data but has not been able to identify an intervention that results in a positive rate of
improvement for a student? Does that mean the student is eligible for special education
services?
The focus of the entire three-tiered problem-solving system is to identify successful interventions
that result in acceptable rates of learning. A student may receive intensive interventions that
yield an acceptable rate of learning, but the types and amount of resources necessary to maintain
this rate are beyond what can be supported by general education alone. Another student may
receive appropriate, intensive interventions that do not produce acceptable rates of progress
within the expected time period. In both cases, the team should examine the student’s
educational progress by reviewing progress monitoring data and evidence that the scientific or
evidence-based interventions were directly linked to the student’s area of deficit, delivered with
integrity, and implemented for a sufficient amount of time to allow changes to occur in the
student’s skill level. The team can then use the results of this review to make a decision about
Illinois State Board of Education - 37 - Updated January 2022
the need to conduct a special education evaluation in accordance with all relevant laws, statutes,
regulations, and rules. If an evaluation is conducted, the educational progress data will also be
an important source of evaluation information in determining if the student has a disability that
requires special education and related services.
It is important to note that special education does not automatically equate to “successful
interventions” simply by virtue of being special education. It is expected, therefore, that when a
student does not make expected progress or is not able to maintain progress when receiving
intensive interventions provided with general education resources alone, eligibility
determination for special education services will occur within the context of the problem-solving
framework where all educational professionals are responsible for the student’s education.
When interventions that improve performance have not been identified at the point where initial
special education eligibility is determined, the team continues to work to establish effective
interventions delivered using special education resources.
If a student is found eligible for and receives special education services, it is important that the
team continue to monitor the student’s progress and utilize student data to determine the
effectiveness of and make any needed adjustments to the interventions. Adjustments that are
made to interventions being delivered in accordance with the student’s IEP must be made in
accordance with procedural safeguard requirements. For example, if the amount of
interventions specified on the IEP will be modified, an IEP meeting must be convened to revise
the IEP.
E-6. Why doesn’t the “Illinois Special Education Eligibility and Entitlement Procedures and
Criteria within a Response to Intervention Framework Guidance” document delineate more
specific/prescriptive eligibility criteria for SLD, such as how discrepant a student must be to be
found eligible for special education services?
At no time have the federal law, implementing federal regulations, or ISBE’s rules governing
special education enumerated prescriptive eligibility criteria for SLD (i.e., how deficient a student
must be to qualify for special education). It is the responsibility of the district to develop criteria
within the established eligibility framework that include the following three components:
1. The student has one or more significant academic skill deficits compared to age-level
peers or grade-level benchmarks.
2. The student is making insufficient progress in response to research/evidence-based
interventions or is making adequate progress, but that progress is only possible when the
student has been provided and continues to need curriculum, instruction, and
environmental interventions that are significantly different from general education peers
and of an intensity or type that exceed general education resources.
3. The learning difficulties are not primarily the result of lack of appropriate instruction in
reading or math; a visual, hearing, or motor disability; an intellectual disability; an
emotional disability; cultural factors; economic disadvantage; or limited English
proficiency.
Illinois State Board of Education - 38 - Updated January 2022
E-7. Can a student’s eligibility for SLD be determined by establishing a pattern of strengths
and weaknesses in performance, achievement, or both, as allowed under 34 CFR 300.309(2)(ii)?
Because 34 CFR 300.309(a)(2)(ii) permits (but does not require) the eligibility team to consider
whether a student exhibits a pattern of strengths and weaknesses in performance, achievement,
or both to determine SLD eligibility, teams in Illinois have the option of examining data for this
purpose if they consider such information relevant to an identification of SLD. Establishing a
pattern of strengths and weaknesses, however, is neither required nor necessary to determine
SLD eligibility in Illinois; therefore, if a student is not found eligible based on data gathered from
implementing evidence-based interventions, then it is not possible to subsequently find the
student eligible based on a pattern of strengths and weaknesses.
E-8. Can a student’s eligibility for SLD be determined by establishing a severe discrepancy
between intellectual ability and achievement since this option is allowed under ISBE’s rules
governing special education at 23 IAC 226.130(d)?
ISBE’s rules governing special education allow districts, in addition to using an identification
process that determines how a student responds to scientific, research-based intervention, to
also use a severe discrepancy between intellectual ability and achievement as part of the
evaluation procedures. Teams, therefore, have the option of conducting an assessment to
establish such a discrepancy if they consider that information relevant to an identification of SLD;
however, the words “in addition to” that appear in the rule at 23 IAC 226.130(d) clearly indicate
that ability/achievement discrepancy alone is neither required nor sufficient to determine
eligibility. If a student, therefore, is not found eligible based on the students’ response to
evidence-based interventions, then the student may not be found eligible based solely on an
ability/achievement discrepancy.
Only students exhibiting skill deficits in the eight areas listed in 34 CFR 300.309 (i.e., oral
expression, listening comprehension, written expression, basic reading skills, reading fluency
skills, reading comprehension, mathematics calculation, or mathematics problem-solving) may
be considered for eligibility under the category of SLD. These eight areas represent the only
academic areas inclusive of SLD. The eligibility requirements include student performance data
that focus on achievement, not processing deficits; therefore, a student must exhibit skill deficits
in one or more of the eight areas to be considered for initial or continued eligibility under the
SLD category.
E-9. In an RTI system, what happens to students who are gifted and talented but still have
learning difficulties? Will they qualify for special education services under SLD?
If students who are considered to be gifted and talented (defined in Illinois as those who “(i)
exhibit high performance capabilities in intellectual, creative, and artistic areas; (ii) possess an
exceptional leadership potential; (iii) excel in specific academic fields; and (iv) have the potential
to be influential in business, government, health care, the arts, and other critical sectors of our
economic and cultural environment” (105 ILCS 5/14A-10) are experiencing learning difficulties,
Illinois State Board of Education - 39 - Updated January 2022
then they would be provided interventions within the RTI three-tiered system of increasingly
intensive interventions. If a student who is gifted and talented exhibits a significant discrepancy
from age-level peers or grade-level standards in terms of academic achievement in one of the
eight areas listed in 34 CFR 300.309 (see Question E-8), has a level of educational progress as
measured by rate of improvement in response to evidence-based interventions that is
significantly lower than age-level peers or grade-level standards, and exhibits instructional needs
beyond what can be met with general education resources alone, then the student would be
eligible for special education services as a student with an SLD. Providing interventions or
services within an RTI framework requires that all students experiencing a specific academic or
behavioral skill deficit be provided with interventions to address the targeted areas of deficit.
References
Bailey, T. R., Colpo, A. & Foley, A. (2020). Assessment Practices Within a Multitiered System of
Supports (Document No. IC-18). Retrieved from University of Florida, Collaboration for
Effective Educator, Development, Accountability, and Reform Center website:
http://ceedar.education.ufl.edu/tools/innovationconfigurations/
Berninger, V.W. & Wagner, R. (2008). Best practices for school psychology assessment and
intervention in Reading and Writing. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds). Best Practices in School
Psychology V, 1205-1220. Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
Bray, M.A., Kehle, T.J., Caterino, L.C. & Grigerick, S.E. (2008). Best practices in assessment and
remediation of Communication Disorders. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds). Best Practices in
School Psychology V, 1221-1232. Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
Christ, T. J. & Silberglitt, B. (2007). Estimates of the standard error of measurement for
curriculum-based measures of oral reading fluency. School Psychology Review, 36(1), 130–
146
Center for Applied Linguistics. (2006). Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of
the national literacy panel on language-minority children and youth. D. August & T. Shanahan
(Eds.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Executive summary retrieved March 1,
2012, from http://www.cal.org/projects/archive/nlpreports/executive_summary.pdf.
Center on Multi-Tiered System of Supports at the American Institutes of Research. (n.d). Multi-
Level Prevention System. Retrieved from https://mtss4success.org/essential-
components/multi-level-prevention-system.
Every Student Succeeds Act, 20 U.S.C. § 6301 (2015). https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-
congress/senate-bill/1177
Illinois State Board of Education - 40 - Updated January 2022
Foorman, B., Beyler, N., Borradaile, K., Coyne, M., Denton, C. A., Dimino, J., Furgeson, J., Hayes,
L., Henke, J., Justice, L., Keating, B., Lewis, W., Sattar, S., Streke, A., Wagner, R., & Wissel, S.
(2016). Foundational skills to support reading for understanding in kindergarten through 3rd
grade (NCEE 2016-4008). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and
Regional Assistance (NCEE), Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
Retrieved from the NCEE website: http://whatworks.ed.gov
Gay, G. (2000). Culturally Responsive Teaching: Theory, Research, and Practice. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Hintz, J.M., Volpe, R.J., & Shapiro, E.S. (2007). Best practices in the systematic direct observation
of student behavior. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best Practices in School Psychology V,
319-335. Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
Hughes, C., Ph.D. & Dexter, D., M.Ed. (n.d.). Selecting a Scientifically Based Core Curriculum for
Tier 1.
Retrieved September 15, 2009, from
http://www.rtinetwork.org/Learn/Research/ar/SelectingCoreCurriculum-Tier1.
Illinois Administrative Code. 23 IAC 226.100-Child Find Responsibility.
https://www.ilga.gov/commission/jcar/admincode/023/023002260B01000R.html
Illinois Administrative Code. 23 IAC 226.110-Evaluation Procedures.
https://www.ilga.gov/commission/jcar/admincode/023/023002260B01100R.html
Illinois Administrative Code. 23 IAC 226.120-Reevaluations.
https://www.ilga.gov/commission/jcar/admincode/023/023002260B01200R.html
Illinois Administrative Code. 23 IAC 226.130 - Additional Procedures for Students Suspected of
or Having a Specific Learning Disability.
https://www.ilga.gov/commission/jcar/admincode/023/023002260B01300R.html
Illinois Administrative Code. 23 IAC 226.180-Independent Educational Evaluation.
https://www.ilga.gov/commission/jcar/admincode/023/023002260B01800R.html
Illinois Administrative Code. 23 IAC 226.530-Parents’ Participation.
https://www.ilga.gov/commission/jcar/admincode/023/023002260F05300R.html
Illinois Administrative Code. 23 IAC 226.830-List of Independent Evaluators.
https://www.ilga.gov/commission/jcar/admincode/023/023002260I08300R.html
Illinois Administrative Code. 23 IAC 226.840-Qualifications of Evaluators.
https://www.ilga.gov/commission/jcar/admincode/023/023002260I08400R.html
Illinois State Board of Education - 41 - Updated January 2022
Illinois Administrative Code. 23 IAC 24.50-The Illinois Culturally Responsive Teaching and Learning
Standards.
https://www.ilga.gov/commission/jcar/admincode/023/023000240000500R.html
Illinois Administrative Code. 23 IAC 228.30-Establishment of Programs.
https://www.ilga.gov/commission/jcar/admincode/023/023002280000300R.html
Illinois Administrative Code. 23 IAC 228.40 Students’ Participation Records.
https://www.ilga.gov/commission/jcar/admincode/023/023002280000400R.html
Illinois State Board of Education. (2009). The Illinois State Response to Intervention (RTI) plan.
Springfield, IL.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. 34 CFR 300.8-Child with a Disability.
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-34/subtitle-B/chapter-III/part-300/subpart-A
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. 34 CFR 300.300-Parental Consent.
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-34/subtitle-B/chapter-III/part-300/subpart-D
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. 34 CFR 300.301 – Initial Evaluations.
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-34/subtitle-B/chapter-III/part-300/subpart-D
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. 34 CFR 300.302-Screening for Instructional purposes
is not evaluation. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-34/subtitle-B/chapter-III/part-
300/subpart-D
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. 34 CFR 300.303-Reevaluations.
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-34/subtitle-B/chapter-III/part-300/subpart-D
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. 34 CFR 300.304-Evaluations Procedures.
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-34/subtitle-B/chapter-III/part-300/subpart-D
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. 34 CFR 300.305-Additional Requirements for
Evaluations and Reevaluations. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-34/subtitle-B/chapter-
III/part-300/subpart-D
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. 34 CFR 300.306-Determindation of Eligibility.
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-34/subtitle-B/chapter-III/part-300/subpart-D
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. 34 CFR 300.307-Specific Learning Disabilities.
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-34/subtitle-B/chapter-III/part-300/subpart-D
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. 34 CFR 300.308-Additional Group Members.
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-34/subtitle-B/chapter-III/part-300/subpart-D
Illinois State Board of Education - 42 - Updated January 2022
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. 34 CFR 300.309-Determining the Existence of a
Specific Learning Disability. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-34/subtitle-B/chapter-
III/part-300/subpart-D
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. 34 CFR 300.310-Observation.
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-34/subtitle-B/chapter-III/part-300/subpart-D
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. 34 CFR 300.311-Specific Documentation for the
Eligibility Determination. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-34/subtitle-B/chapter-
III/part-300/subpart-D
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. 34 CFR 300.322-Parent Participation.
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-34/subtitle-B/chapter-III/part-300/subpart-D
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. 34 CFR 300.502- Independent Education Evaluation.
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-34/subtitle-B/chapter-III/part-300/subpart-E
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. 34 CFR 300.507-Filing a Due Process Complaint.
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-34/subtitle-B/chapter-III/part-300/subpart-E
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. 34 CFR 300.513-Hearing Decisions.
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-34/subtitle-B/chapter-III/part-300/subpart-E
IRIS Center. (2020). How can school personnel use data to make instructional decisions?
Analyzing progress monitoring data. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University. Retrieved from
https://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/module/dbi2/cresource/q2/p04/
Jimerson, S., Woehr, S., & Kaufman, A. (2007). Grade retention and promotion: Information for
parents. Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists. Retrieved February 18,
2010, from http://www.nasponline.org/resources/handouts/retentionhandout.pdf.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995b). Multicultural teacher education: Research, practice, and policy. In
J.A. Banks & C.A.M. Banks (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Multicultural Education (pp. 747-
759). New York: Macmillan.
Malecki, M. (2008). Best practices in written language assessment and intervention. In A. Thomas
& J. Grimes (Eds). Best Practices in School Psychology V, 477-488. Bethesda, MD: National
Association of School Psychologists.
National Center on Intensive Intervention & Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and
Supports. (2021). Intensive intervention: Myths and Facts. Office of Special Education
Programs, U.S. Department of Education, Retrieved July 2021, from
https://intensiveintervention.org/resource/intensive-intervention-myths-and-facts
Illinois State Board of Education - 43 - Updated January 2022
National Center on Intensive Intervention (2019). Academic progress monitoring tools chart.
Retrieved from https://charts.intensiveintervention.org/aprogressmonitoring
National Center on Intensive Intervention (2019). Academic Progress Monitoring Tools Chart
Rating Rubric. Retrieved from
https://intensiveintervention.org/sites/default/files/NCII_AcadProgMonitoring_RatingRubri
c_Aug2019.pdf
National Center on Intensive Intervention. (2019, July). Academic screening tools chart. Retrieved
from https://charts.intensiveintervention.org/ascreening
National Center on Intensive Intervention. (2018). Breaking down the DBI process: Questions &
considerations. Washington, DC: Author, Office of Special Education Programs, U.S.
Department of Education. Retrieved from
https://intensiveintervention.org/sites/default/files/NCII-placemat-508.pdf
National Center on Intensive Intervention (n.d). Clarifying Questions to Create a Hypothesis to
Guide Intervention Changes: Question Bank. Retrieved from
https://intensiveintervention.org/sites/default/files/Clarifying_Questions_Hypothesis_508.
pdf.
National Center on Intensive Intervention. (n.d) Classification Accuracy. Retrieved from
https://intensiveintervention.org/sites/default/files/Classification_Accuracy_508.pdf
National Center on Intensive Intervention. (n.d.) Standards-Relevant Instruction and Multi-Tiered
Systems of Support (MTSS) or Response to Intervention (RTI). Retrieved from
https://intensiveintervention.org/special-topics/mtss/standards-relevant-instruction.
National Center on Intensive Intervention (2016). Tools Chart Submission and Review Process.
Retrieved from
https://intensiveintervention.org/sites/default/files/Tools_Chart_Submission_Review_Proc
ess.pdf.
National Center on Intensive Intervention (n.d). Understanding Screening: What Do the Screening
Standards Mean?. Retrieved from https://intensiveintervention.org/resource/screening-
standards-overviews
Nakamura, J., Nunn, S., Chow, K. (2019). Implementing a Response to Intervention Framework
to Support Reading Success. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of
Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance,
Regional Educational Laboratory Southeast. Retrieved from
https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/regions/appalachia/blogs/blog13_implementing-response-
to-intervention.asp.
Illinois State Board of Education - 44 - Updated January 2022
Pennsylvania Department of Education. (2008). Guidelines for identifying students with specific
learning disabilities. Harrisburg, PA.
Project ELITE, Project ESTRE2 LLA, & Project REME. (2015). Effective practices for English learners:
Brief 5, Professional development to support a multitiered instructional framework.
Washington, DC: U.S. Office of Special Education Programs.
Project ELITE², Project ELLIPSES, & Project LEE. (2018). Meeting the needs of English learners with
and without disabilities: Brief 1, Multitiered instructional systems for ELs. U.S. Office of
Special Education Programs. https://www.mtss4els.org/files/resource-files/Series2-
Brief1_Final.pdf
Project ELLIPSES, Project LEE, & Project ELITE². (2020). Meeting the needs of English learners with
and without disabilities: Brief 2, Evidence-based Tier 2 intervention practices for English
learners. U.S. Office of Special Education Programs.
https://www.mtss4els.org/files/resource-files/Series2-Brief2_Final.pdf
Project ELLIPSES, Project ELITE², & Project LEE. (2021). Meeting the needs of English learners with
and without disabilities: Brief 3, English learners with significant learning difficulties or
disabilities: Recommendations for practice. U.S. Office of Special Education Programs.
https://www.mtss4els.org/files/resource-files/Series2-Brief3_Final.pdf
Robinson, L.K. & Howell, K.W. (2008). Best practices in curriculum-based evaluation and written
expression. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds). Best Practices in School Psychology V, 439-452.
Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
Ruffini, S., Lindsay, J., McInerney, M., Waite, W., & Miskell, R. (2016). Response to Intervention
in Milwaukee Public Schools: Measuring fidelity of implementation (REL 2016–192).
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National
Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory
Midwest
State of Illinois. (2008). 105 ILCS 5/14A Gifted and Talented Children. Illinois Compiled Statutes.
Retrieved August 24, 2009, from http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs2.asp?ChapterID=17
Stecker, P. M., Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2008). Progress monitoring as essential practice within
response to intervention. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 27(4), 10–17.
U.S. Department of Education. (2006). Federal register: 34 CFR parts 300 and 301, Assistance to
states for the education of children with disabilities and preschool grants for children with
disabilities; Final rule. Vol. 71, No. 156.
U.S. Department of Education. (2015). OSEP Dear Colleague Letter on IDEA/IEP Terms.
Washington, DC.
Illinois State Board of Education - 45 - Updated January 2022
https://sites.ed.gov/idea/files/idea/policy/speced/guid/idea/memosdcltrs/guidance-on-
dyslexia-10-2015.pdf
U.S Department of Education (2016). Non-Regulatory Guidance: Using Evidence to Strengthen
Education Investments. Washington, DC. Retrieved on July 20, 2021.
https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/guidanceuseseinvestment.pdf
U.S. Department of Education (2020). Questions and Answers on Serving Children with
Disabilities Placed by Their Parents in Private Schools. Washington, DC. Retrieved on July 22,
2021.
https://sites.ed.gov/idea/files/qa-parentally-placed-private-schools-12-2020.pdf
