SLD ELIGIBILITY, RTI AND CHILD FIND UNDER THE … ELIGIBILITY, RTI AND CHILD FIND UNDER THE IDEA...
Transcript of SLD ELIGIBILITY, RTI AND CHILD FIND UNDER THE … ELIGIBILITY, RTI AND CHILD FIND UNDER THE IDEA...
EDUCATING ALL STUDENTS (IDEAS) 2012
June 4-7, 2012
St. Simons, Georgia
SLD ELIGIBILITY, RTI AND
CHILD FIND UNDER THE IDEA
Torin D. Togut, Esq.
University of Georgia
Athens, Georgia 30602
Specific Learning Disability
The term 'specific learning disability' means a
disorder in one or more of the basic psychological
processes involved in understanding or in using
language, spoken or written, which disorder may
manifest itself in the imperfect ability to listen, think,
speak, read, write, spell, or do mathematical
calculations. Such term includes such conditions as
perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain
dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia.
Such term does not include a learning problem that
is primarily the result of visual, hearing, or motor
disabilities, of mental retardation, of emotional
disturbance, or of environmental, cultural, or
economic disadvantage.“ 34 C.F.R.
300.8(c)(10).
Response to Intervention (RTI)
1. Universal screening: In RTI approaches, the
performance of all students is evaluated
systematically to identify those who are (a) making
adequate progress, (b) at some risk of failure if not
provided extra assistance, or (c) at high risk of
failure if not provided specialized supports.
2. Continuous progress monitoring: In RTI
approaches, student progress is assessed on a
regular and frequent basis in order to identify when
inadequate growth trends might indicate a need for
increasing the level of instructional support to the
student.
3. Continuum of Evidence-Based Interventions: RTI
approaches assume multiple levels of interventions that
vary in intensity or level of support derived. RTI is a
systematic decision-making process designed to allow for
early and effective responses to children’s learning and
behavioral difficulties, provide children with a level of
instructional intensity matched to their level of need and
then provide a data-based method for evaluating the
effectiveness instructional approaches from scientifically
validated research. Typically a core curriculum is provided
for all students, modification of this core is arranged for a
targeted group of students who do not show adequate
growth in response to the core curriculum, and an
individualized intensive curriculum is implemented for
students who do not show adequate growth in response to
the modified curriculum.
4. Data Based Decision-making and problem
solving: At the heart of the RTI approach is
instructional decision-making based on student
performance or growth on curricular outcomes and
modifications or adaptations that are implemented
when insufficient growth is noted.
5. Implementation Fidelity: RTI requires
specific procedures for regular documentation of
the level of implementation (e.g., were the
modifications of the teaching practices
implemented consistently and with a high degree of
accuracy) of each of the features of the model. L.
Fox et al., Response to Intervention and the
Pyramid Model (June 2009).
RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION
When RTI is properly implemented, it focuses on providing every student with quality instruction. This allows teachers to distinguish between those students who actually have a disability and those students who simply receive poor instruction in the past. See WILLIAM N. BENDER & CARA SHORES, RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION: A PRACTICAL GUIDE FOR EVERY TEACHER 1-4 (2007).
Most school districts use a RTI model that involves “tiers” of intervention which includes the least intrusive form of monitoring to more intensive methods. See Douglas Fuchs and Lynn S. Fuchs, Responsiveness-to-Intervention: A Blue Print for Practitioners, Policymakers, and Parents, Teaching Exceptional Children, 57-61 (Sept/Oct 2001).
Georgia RTI Model
Tier 1: Universal screening or benchmarking is conducted at school
level. Evidence-based curricula and strategies in place for all
students. Differentiation is documented by general education teachers
through the general education environment. At-risk students are identified in an area of instructional delay
(language, academics, behavior). Data are analyzed by classroom general education teachers for
decision making. Tier 2: Parent is notified that additional small group instruction may
be needed for the student. Parent is contacted concerning strategies to be attempted. Small group instruction is provided in addition to the core
curriculum. Progress monitoring is administered frequently to determine
whether a change in delivery or strategies is required. Data are analyzed by classroom general education teachers for
decision making.
Georgia RTI Model
Tier 3: Baseline and progress monitoring data from Tier 2 are
analyzed to create specific goal(s) for student improvement.
The SST may determine the need for additional information on a student including the use or administration of informal and formal measures to gather individual data in the area of concern.
The interventions are continued if the student is making progress using the SST interventions; however, if progress toward the goal is minimal, SST members will revise or change the intervention.
The SST may make a referral to special education (Tier 4) if the intervention plan and its revisions are not successful in helping the student meet the goals identified by the SST.
Source: Georgia Department of Education Special Education Rules Implementation Manual, Chapter Five: Special Education Eligibility Requirements (April 18, 2011)
Child Find Under
IDEA and Section 504
Under the IDEA, the
State must have
policies and procedures
to ensure that all
children with
disabilities, and who
are in need of special
education and related
services are identified,
located and evaluated.
20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(3) ;
34 C.F.R. § 300.111.
Under Section 504, a
recipient that operates a
public elementary or
secondary education
program or activity shall
annually:
(a) Undertake to identify
and locate every qualified
handicapped person
residing in the recipient's
jurisdiction who is not
receiving a public
education. 34 C.F.R. §
104.32
CHILD FIND UNDER THE IDEA
Child Find obligation exists for children that suspected of being a child with a disability as defined 34 C.F.R. § 300.8 and in need of special education and related services even though the child is advancing grade to grade. 34 C.F.R. § 300.111(c)(1).
A school district has a continuing obligation to evaluate students for suspected disabilities after a prior determination has been made the students are ineligible for special education. 34 C.F.R. § 300.111(c)(2).
For a child that is suspected of being a child with a disability, school district is required to assess the child in all areas of the suspected disability. 34 C.F.R. § 300.304(c)(4).
CHILD FIND OBLIGATIONS
Child Find obligations are triggered when a school district
has reason to suspect that: (1) the student has a disability;
(2) there is a resulting need for special education services.
When the Child Find obligation is triggered, school districts
must evaluate the student within a “reasonable time.” What
is a “reasonable time” will vary depending upon the fact
specific circumstances and the student. The Office of Special
Education Programs (OSEP) has not defined a time limitation
to seek and secure parental consent for an evaluation but
several months may be inappropriate if the student is
suspected of having a disability. See Questions and
Answers on Response to Intervention (RT) and Early
Intervention Services (EIS), 47 IDELR 196 (OSEP 2007)
States and local educational agencies have an obligation to
ensure that evaluations of children suspected of having a
disability are not delayed or denied because of
implementation of an RTI strategy. Memorandum to State
Directors of Special Education, 56 IDELR 50 (OSEP) 2011.
CAN THE REQUIREMENTS OF
RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION AND
CHILD FIND ACTIVITIES C0-EXIST?
Child Find Obligation and RTI
The Georgia Department of Education Special
Education Rules Implementing Manual, Chapter 5,
at p. 50 of 218 states, in part, “there is no need to
classify children as having a disability if a
significant educational impact is not obvious. . .
In addition, it is critical that all factors (e.g.
curriculum, effective instruction, school
classroom, and home environment be examined
prior to assuming that an intrinsic disability is
responsible for poor performance” (emphasis in
original).
GEORGIA DOE IMPLMENTATION
MANUAL AND REGULATIONS
•The Georgia Department of Education Special Education Rules
Implementing Manual, at p. 27 of 218 states, in part, “Child Find
is a critical part of the special education process for all children
suspected of having disabilities. With the implementation of the
Pyramid [of Interventions] and the focus on progress monitoring
and response to interventions, only those students who are not
making progress, despite evidence-based instruction, will be
referred to special education to determine their eligibility.”
•Georgia Department of Education Regulations, Chapter 160-4-7-
.03-2 require that “[p]rior to referring for consideration for
eligibility for special education and related services, a student
must have received special scientific, research or evidence based
interventions selected to correct or reduce the academic, social or
behavioral problem(s) the student is having.” An exception may
be made in circumstances where an immediate evaluation or
placement is required due to a significant disability.
OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION PROGRAM (OSEP)
In a defining memorandum on the subject of RTI and child find, the OSEP stated that the use of RTI does not diminish a district’s obligation under the IDEA to obtain parental consent for an evaluation of a student in a timely manner. When there is a reason to suspect that a student has a disability and is need of special education and related services, the IDEA evaluation procedures are triggered regardless of whether the district is utilizing the RTI process with a student. OSEP emphasized that it would be inconsistent with the evaluation provisions at 34 C.F.R. 300.301 through 34 C.F.R. 300.11 for a local educational agency to reject a referral and delay the provision of an initial evaluation on the basis that a student has not participated in the RTI process. OSEP cautioned that the district is free to deny an evaluation in response to a referral if it does not suspect a disability; but it also must notify the parent of this decision and then cannot wait and see how the student responds to RTI. Memorandum to State Directors of Special Education, 2011 OSEP MEMORANDUM, supra, at 56 IDELR 50 (OSEP 2011); See Letter to Combs, 52 IDELR 46 (OSEP 2008)(for a child facing disciplinary procedures under 34 C.F.R. §300.530, an expedited evaluation should occur even if the RTI process is ongoing for the child).
OSEP MEMORANDUM
A parent can request an evaluation at any time. 34 C.F.R. § 300.301(b)(2006). OSEP stated that a state educational agency may choose to establish a specific timetable requiring a local educational agency to secure parental consent for a student if the student has not made progress. See Question and Answers on Response to Intervention (RTI) and Early Intervention Services (EIS), 47 IDELR 96 (OSEP 2007) OSEP implied that the district has discretion to determine whether a student’s progress is adequate as circumstances may vary from child to child. There is time table for an evaluation that is defined in the IDEA, but that several months to wait to evaluate may be inappropriate if the student is suspected of having a disability and might need special education and related services. See also, Letter to Anonymous, 49 IDELR 106 (OSEP)(If the RTI model is not required but is permitted by the district then a school within the district does not have to wait until RTI is fully implemented in all schools within the district before using RTI as part of the identification process for students with SLD). OSEP warned that it would be unwise to require a process based upon the child’s response to intervention before implementation of that process has been successfully implemented over time. Id.
US DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OFFICE FOR CIVIL
RIGHTS
In Polk County (FL) Pub. Schs., 56 IDELR 179 (OCR 2010)(OCR found Section 504 child find obligations may be triggered when there have been general education interventions such as RTI implemented for the student but there was evidence here that RTI was inappropriate to address the student’s immediate needs and the nature and severity of his areas of educational concern.).
In Harrison School Dist. Two, 57 IDELR 295 (OCR 2011)(OCR found that the district unduly delayed evaluating the student for nearly eighteen months after learning of the student’s diagnosis of ADHD to determine his eligibility for special education. OCR further found the RTI process does not justify delaying or denying an evaluation of a student that is believed to have a disability and may need special education or related services. OCR noted that RTI “may have been justified to identify promising instructional strategies, but it did not warrant delay in evaluation where there is a need.”).
OCR
In Stone County (MS) Sch. Dist, 52 IDELR 51
(OCR 2008)(OCR concluded the district was
not required to conduct an evaluation as the
district did not have a reasonable belief that
the child needed special education or related
services. The student’s grades improved after
implementation of RTI and he was capable of
performing adequately on tests. But OCR
found the district violated Section 504 for
failing to notify the parent of its decision not to
evaluate her child or provide notice of
procedural safeguards).
IDEA Eligibility Criteria
To qualify for special education and related services under one of the 13 eligibility categories of the IDEA of 2004 – except for speech and language – the child must have a disability that adversely affects the child’s educational performance, and who, by reason thereof, needs special education and related services. 34 C.F.R. § 300.8
Variation of State Eligibility Criteria
under IDEA Education is largely a state concern; therefore, states
differ in their implementation of the special education laws on factors such as operational definitions of disabilities, referral practices, testing guidelines, the composition of evaluation committees, the strength of special interest groups, the availability and cost of services, and the acceptability of particular classification categories.
Singer, J.D., Palfrey, J.S., Butler, J.A., and Walker,
D.K. Variation in special education classification across school districts: How does where you live affect what you are labeled? American Educational Research Journal (Summer 1989) 26,2:261–81.
DETERMINATION OF SLD
The child does not achieve adequately for the child’s
age or meet State-approved grade level standards in
one or more of the following areas, when provided with
learning experience and instruction appropriate for
the child’s age or State-approved grade-level
standards: (i) Oral expression; (ii) Listening
comprehension; (iii) Written Expression; (iv) Basic
reading skill; (v) Reading fluency skills; (vi) Reading
comprehension; (vii) Mathematical calculation; (viii)
Mathematical problem solving. 34 C.F.R. 300.309(a)(1).
SLD ELIGIBILITY
The child does not make sufficient progress to meet age or State-
approved grade-level standards in one or more of the areas
identified in § 300.309(a)(1) when using a process based on the
child’s response to scientific, research-based intervention, or the
child exhibits a pattern of strengths and weaknesses in
performance, achievement, or both, relative to age, State-approved
grade-level standards, or intellectual development, that is
determined by the group to be relevant to the identification of a
specific learning disability, using appropriate assessment,
consistent with 300.304 and 300.305; and the group determines
that its findings under 300.309(a)(1), and (2) are not primarily the
result of – (i) A visual, hearing, or motor disability; (ii) Mental
retardation; (iii) Emotional disturbance; (iv) Cultural factors; (v)
Environmental or economic disadvantage; or (vi) Limited English
proficiency. 34 C.F.R. § 300.309(b)(3) and (3).
DETERMINING SLD ELIGIBILITY
To ensure that underachievement in a child suspected of
having a specific learning disability is not due to lack of
appropriate instruction in reading and math, the group
must consider, as part of the evaluation described in §§
300.304 through 300.306 –
(1) Data that demonstrates that prior to, or as part of, the
referral process, the child was provided appropriate
instruction in a regular education settings, delivered by
qualified personnel and (2) Data-based documentation of
repeated assessments of achievement at reasonable
intervals, reflecting formal assessment of student progress
during instruction, which was provided to the child’s
parents. 34 C.F.R. § 300.309(b)(1), and (2).
DETERMINING SLD ELIGIBILITY
For a child suspected of having a SLD, the
documentation of the determination of
eligibility must contain a statement of:
. . . If the child has participated in a process
that assesses the child’s response to scientific,
research-based intervention –
34 C.F.R.
300.311(a)(7).
SCIENTIFICALLY-BASED RESEARCH
The term scientifically-based research has same meaning as given the term in the No Child Left Behind Act. 34 C.F.R.
300.35. See 20 U.S.C.
6368(6): . . . applies rigorous, systematic, and objective procedures – it includes research that employs systematic, empirical methods that draw on observation or experiment; rigorous data analyses to test stated hypothesis and justify the general conclusions drawn; relies on measurement or observational methods that provide valid data across evaluations and observers; and it has been accepted by peer-review journal or approved panel of independent experts through a comparably rigorous, objective and scientific review
Changes to SLD Identification
Requirements under the IDEA 2004
The IDEA 2004 eliminated the requirement for a student to
show a "severe discrepancy" between intellectual ability
and academic achievement in order to be identified as
having an SLD. Before IDEA 2004, such a discrepancy had
to be found in one or more of the following areas:
oral expression
listening comprehension
written expression
basic reading skill
reading comprehension
mathematics calculation
mathematics reasoning
The severe discrepancy requirement which has been
part of federal special education regulations since
1977, is no longer required. 34 C.F.R.
300.307(a)(1).
Severe Discrepancy
For quite some time, the severe discrepancy test has been
discredited, in part, because students has to fail for long
periods of time before they showed sufficiently large deficits in
academic achievement to satisfy the "severe discrepancy"
requirement and begin receiving special education services.
There was also growing evidence that such a requirement was
particularly problematic for students living in poverty, students
of culturally different backgrounds, or those whose native
language was not English. William N. Bender & Cara Shores,
Response to Intervention: A Practical Guide For Every Teacher,
1-4 (2007); Angela A. Ciolfi & James E. Ryan, Race and
Response to Intervention in Special Education, 54 HOW. L.J. 303,
304 (2011).
SEVERE DISCREPANCY TEST
In general, there are four approaches to severe
discrepancy calculation (Cone & Wilson, 1981;
Berninger & Abbott, 1994). They are (1) deviation from
grade level, (2) expectancy formula, (3) standard score
comparison, and (4) regression analysis. See
Frakenberger & Fronzaglio (1991) that surveyed states
regarding their approaches to severe discrepancy
calculation. The most common approach was standard
score comparison followed closely by regression
analysis. Deviation from grade level and expectancy
formula were adopted by only a few states.
SEVERE DISCREPANCY TEST FLAWS
The standard score comparison approach assumes that IQ and
achievement tests are perfectly correlated. For example, a student
with an IQ of 100 will have an achievement score of 100, a
student with an IQ of 85 will have an achievement score of 85, a
student with an IQ of 115 will have an achievement This
approach would be appropriate if the assumption of perfect
correlation were rue, but it is not. IQ and achievement test
scores are not perfectly correlated. Because they are not,
students with IQs above 100 tend to have achievement scores
below their IQ scores while students with IQs below 100 tend to
have achievement scores above their IQs. This is a statistical
phenomenon referred to as regression toward the mean. See
Richard D. Baer, Ph.D., Issues in Severe Discrepancy
Measurement: A Technical Assistance Paper for Special
Educators Center for Persons with Disabilities, Utah State
University
STATE CRITERIA FOR SLD
•State must allow the use of a process designed to determine if
a student responds to scientific, research-based intervention
(such as RTI) or other alternative research-based procedures
must align with the criteria established by IDEA 2004 federal
regulations.
•State must align with the criteria established by IDEA 2004
federal regulations.
•A local educational agency must use the State criteria adopted
under
300.307(a) in determining whether a child has a
specific learning disability as defined under
300.8 (c) (10).34
C.F.R.
300.307(b).
•In Georgia, the State Department of Education requires
evidence that a child satisfies criteria under the RTI model be
classified as SLD. Georgia Department of Education Special
Education Rules and Regulations, Chapter 160-4-.7-05-.20
Documentation For Eligibility
For a child suspected of having a SLD, the documentation of the determination of eligibility, and contain a
statement of:
Whether child has a SLD Basis for making determination Relevant behavior, if any, noted in observation of the child Educationally relevant medical findings, if any Whether child does not achieve adequately for child’s age or meet State-approved grade-level standards and child exhibits a pattern of strengths and weaknesses in performance,
achievement, or both, relative to age, State-approved grade-level standards or intellectual development Determination of factors listed in
300.309(a)(3) Documentation of RTI Documentation to parents about State’s policies regarding
student performance data that would be collected and general education services that would be provided; strategies for increasing child’s
rate of learning; and parent’s right to request an evaluation. Documentation of group’s concurrence or dissent with the determination of child’s SDL. 34 C.F.R.
300.311
SLD Eligibility Step 1:
Determination of Achievement
Does the student fail to achieve adequately for his age in one or
more of the following eight areas:
Oral expression
Listening comprehension
Written expression
Basic reading skill
Reading fluency skills
Reading comprehension
Mathematics calculation
Mathematics problem solving
This determination will be based on the student's mastery of
grade-level content appropriate for the student's age, including
performance against the state's academic content standards in
reading and math. For a student who has been retained in a
grade or is otherwise not in the grade typical for his age,
achievement against the state's grade-level academic standards
for the student's enrolled grade might be used to determine
underachievement.
Step 2: Determination of Responsiveness of
Interventions or a Pattern of Strength and Weaknesses
Does the student fail to make sufficient progress in
achievement considered adequate for his age (or enrolled
grade-level standards) when provided with a series of
scientific, research-based interventions?
Documentation of a student's progress during a process of
increasingly intensive interventions, such as those that
occur in the RTI approach, can provide useful information
for determining whether a student has an SLD and needs
special education. Note that:
This documentation of progress is generally done using
curriculum-based measurements (CBM).
An intervention process generally takes place prior to
referring a student for a complete evaluation.
Determining why a student has not responded to research-
based interventions requires a comprehensive evaluation.
Step 2
As an alternative - or in addition - to an RTI approach, the following question may be asked: Do the results of the student's assessments and evaluations show a pattern of strengths and weaknesses in her academic performance, achievement (or both), or in intellectual development? Patterns of strengths and weaknesses commonly refer to the examination of profiles across or within tests that have typically been used to determine SLD, such as standardized achievement tests and aptitude (IQ) tests. Sometimes referred to as intra-individual differences or variability, these patterns of strengths and weaknesses are particularly relevant to the identification of SLD. Recognition of a discrepancy between ability and achievement, previously required for SLD identification, could also be considered as part of this step.
Step 3: Determination of
Appropriate Instruction
Prior to a child's being suspected of having an SLD, the
school or district must provide documentation that proves
that the student has been provided appropriate instruction
by qualified personnel. Students whose lack of achievement
can be attributed to a lack of appropriate instruction in
reading or math should not be determined to have an SLD.
Such students should be provided with appropriate
instruction in general education as well as scientific,
research-based interventions. Appropriate instruction in
reading must include the essential components of reading
instruction* defined in the No Child Left Behind Act.
These essential components include explicit and systematic
instruction in: phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary
development, reading fluency, including oral reading skills,
and reading comprehension strategies. *Source: Elementary
and Secondary Education Act of 1965
1208(3)
Step 3
The school or district should provide data-based
documentation of frequent assessments of the
student's progress, to measure effectiveness of that
instruction. Documentation should be provided to the
student's parents in a timely manner. A student's
progress should be documented by using an objective
and systemic process administered at reasonable
intervals. Information such as teacher reports and
teacher-made tests, while helpful, are not adequate for
this determination. Data should be used to determine
the effectiveness of a particular instructional strategy
or program and should be provided to parents in order
to keep them informed of their child's progress, so that
they can support instruction and learning at home.
Step 4: Determination of
Influence of Other Factors
Students whose lack of achievement (as determined in
Step 1) can be attributed primarily to one of the
following factors should not be determined to have an
SLD.
visual, hearing, or motor disability
mental retardation
emotional disturbance
cultural factors
environmental or economic disadvantage
limited English proficiency
Such students can be served in other disability
categories of IDEA or through programs for at-risk or
disadvantaged students, such as Title I of the No Child
Left Behind Act.
Eligibility for SLD - Georgia Rules and Regulations for
Exceptional Children Chapter 160-4-7-.05 Appendix (i)
One or more serious academic deficiencies and child does not
achieve adequately according to age to meet State-approved
grade-level standards.
Deficiencies must be directly related to a pervasive processing
deficit and child’s response to RTI.
Nature of deficit(s) is such that classroom performance is not
correctable without specialized techniques that are
fundamentally different from those provided by general
education teachers, remediation, tutorial approaches or other
compensatory programs.
Documentation by child’s response to instruction as
demonstrated by a review of the progress monitoring available
in a general education and Student Support team intervention
plans as supported by work samples and classroom
observations.
Child’s need for academic support alone is not sufficient for
eligibility.
Required Data Collection
Group must summarize the multiple sources of evidence
to conclude child exhibits a pattern of strengths and
weaknesses in performance, achievement, or both
relative to age, State-approved grade level standards and
intellectual development
SLD determined through professional judgment using
multiple supporting evidences that must include: at least
two assessments within 12 months such as results of
CRCT or other state-required assessment, norm-
referenced achievement tests or benchmarks indicating
performance does not meet State-approved grade level
standards
REQUIRED DATA COLLECTION
Teacher information related to classroom instruction
and monitoring of child’s performance. Report must
document child’s academic performance and behavior
in areas of difficulty. Results from supplementary
instruction that uses scientific, research or evidence
based interventions to correct or reduce the problem(s)
student is having or area of concern and such
instruction has been implemented for a minimum
period of 12 weeks to show instructional strategies’
effect or lack of effect that child is not making
sufficient progress to meet age or State-approved
grade-level standards within a reasonable time frame
Interventions used and data based progress
monitoring results are presented to parents at regular
intervals throughout interventions
EDUCATIONAL DEFICITS
There must be deficits in basic psychological processing include
problems in attending, discrimination/perception, organization,
short term memory, long-term memory,
conceptualization/reasoning, executive functioning, processing
speed, and phonological deficits.
There must be evidence that processing deficit has impaired
child’s mastery of academic tasks required in regular curriculum.
Documentation must show processing deficits are relevant to
child’s academic underachievement as determined by
assessments provided to child in native language. Even if a child
is performing below age or State-approved grade level standards,
results of progress monitoring must indicate child is not making
expected progress toward established benchmarks. This is
indicated by comparing child’s rate of progress toward attainment
of grade level standards.
OTHER DOCUMENTATION
Educationally relevant medical findings that would
impact achievement.
Consent from parent for a comprehensive evaluation
for special education determination must occur.
Observation by required group member;
documentation that the determination is not
primarily due to any exclusionary factors; work
samples indicating below level performance and/or
achievement in relation to age and grade-level
standards;.
Comprehensive assessment of intellectual
development within 12 months designed to assess
specific measures of processing skills that may
contribute to area of academic weakness.
PROGRESS MONITORING Progress monitoring includes data-based documentation of
repeated assessments of achievement at reasonable intervals,
reflecting child’s progress during instruction. Children
exhibiting a positive response research validated instruction by
general education cannot be considered as having a SLD even if
child shows deficits on achievement tests in specific areas.
Children whose achievement in classroom academic indicates
performance that is commensurate with pervasive weaknesses
that are not indicative of a pattern of strengths and weaknesses
may not be considered as having a SLD.
One group members must conduct an observation of child’s
academic performance in the regular classroom after child has
been referred for an evaluation and parent consent for a special
education evaluation is obtained. Observation must include
information from the routine classroom instruction and
monitoring of the child’s performance.