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.