SPECIFIC LEARNING DISABILTIES
EVALUATION AND
ELIGIBILITY
A child with a disability means…
A child evaluated in accordance with 707
KAR 1:1300, as meeting the criteria
listed in the definitions in this section
for autism, deaf-blindness,
developmental delay, emotionalbehavior disability, hearing impairment,
mental disability, multiple disabilities,
orthopedic impairment, other health
impairment, specific learning disability,
speech or language impairment,
traumatic brain injury, or visual
impairment which has an adverse effect
on the child’s educational performance
and who, as a result, needs special
education and related services.
707 KAR 1:280§1(11)
Definition
Specific Learning Disability
means a disorder that
adversely affects the ability
to acquire, comprehend or
apply reading, mathematical,
writing, reasoning, listening,
or speaking skills to the
extent that specially designed
instruction is required to
benefit from education.
707 KAR
1:002§1(59)
SPECIFIC LEARNING DISABILITY
May include dyslexia,
dyscalculia, dysgraphia,
developmental aphasia, and
perceptual/motor
disabilities.
EXCLUDES:
The term does not include
deficits that are the result of
other primary determinant or
disabling factors such as vision,
hearing, motor impairment,
mental disability, emotionalbehavioral disability,
environmental or economic
disadvantaged, cultural factors
or limited English proficiency or
lack of research-based
instruction in the deficit area.
PROCEDURES AND CRITERIA
FOR DETERMINING SPECIFIC
LEARNING DISABILITY
RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION
(RtI) MODEL
SEVERE DISCREPANCY
MODEL
Current Issues and Concerns
 The prevalence rate for SLD in KY is
2.2 percent.
 This is the lowest rate in the nation
 KDE priorities
 Ensure that the identification
process identifies all truly disabled
students
 Ensure that the identification
process appropriately determines
as ineligible students who have
academic weaknesses for reasons
other than a true disability
Changes with IDEIA 04
 Use of Response to Intervention allowed
for eligibility determination
 States are no longer allowed to require
districts to use a discrepancy model
 Analysis of Comments and Changes (p
46648)
 “an RtI process does not replace the
need for a comprehensive evaluation.
A public agency must use a variety of
data gathering tools and strategies
even if an RtI process is used.”
THE RtI Model to Determine Eligibility
The district must have:
 A research based model of
Response to Intervention in
place.
 Policies and procedures for
implementation of a tiered
model
 Evidence RtI was implemented
with fidelity.
The use of RtI for SLD Eligibility:
Benefits and Challenges
 Challenges:

RtI requires school-wide, systemic
changes incorporating the following:


High quality, research-based classroom
instruction delivered by highly qualified
personnel.
General education teachers assume an
active role in assessment of students in
the general education
curriculum.
The use of RtI for SLD Eligibility:
Challenges cont’d
School staff conducts universal
screening of academics and
behavior.


Strong administrative leadership

Time for planning and collaboration
Does not readily allow for
uniformity of diagnosis across
schools, districts, and states

Evaluation Using Severe Discrepancy
Model
 SLD manual published in 1993 with
extensive training
 Changes have occurred in the world of
assessment:
 WISC IV—only the Full Scale Score or
General Ability Index are considered
robust enough to be a reliable measure
of cognition
Use of Severe Discrepancy in
Eligibility Determination for Specific
Learning Disability.
The Discrepancy Model
With regard to a traditional
discrepancy model, learning
disabilities (LD) are determined
primarily through the administration
of cognitive (intellectual) and
academic (achievement) testing. LD
identification and special education
services can be provided when a
severe discrepancy between IQ and
achievement, in conjunction with
underlying processing issues have
been found. Each state derives its
own formula for establishing when a
discrepancy can be considered
severe.
Needed Areas of Evaluation
 8 areas of achievement in which a child may be
determined to have a specific learning disability:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Oral expression
Listening comprehension
Written expression
Basic reading skills
Reading fluency skills
Reading comprehension
Mathematics calculation
Mathematics problem solving
Other
x RTI
Next Step in the Process
 If the ARC has chosen to use the Response to
Intervention Model, then all universal
screenings, interventions and progress
monitoring data should be gathered in the
area of concern.
 If the ARC has chosen to use the Severe
Discrepancy Model, then an achievement test
in the area of concern, which would yield
standardized scores must be administered.
Also…
 Prior to, or as a part of the referral process,
the child was provided appropriate
instruction in regular education settings,
including that the instruction was delivered
by qualified personnel; and 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 parent.
707 KAR 1:130§2(6)(a)(b)
Next Step in the Evaluation Process
Areas of
concern
documented
here
Other Evaluation Personnel Needed
Occupational
Therapist
Physical
Therapist
Orientation
and Mobility
Specialist
Audiologist
Visual
Specialist
In addition….
Next Step…
 Conduct, as appropriate, individual diagnostic
assessments in the areas of speech and
language.
Then…..
Should be
completed for all
children in the 8th
grade or age 14.
Determining the Need for Assistive
Technology Evaluation
After reviewing the student
folder, teacher and parent
input, the ARC will decide if an
evaluation of Assistive
Technology or modifications to
evaluation procedures are
required.
x
To exclude that educational deficits are not a
result of cultural factors, environmental or
economic disadvantage, or limited English
proficiency, the ARC will request behavior
observations in the areas of concern, parental
input, social developmental data and any other
existing data necessary to rule out these factors.
Remember…
 At least one (1) team member other
than the child’s regular education
teacher shall observe the child in the
learning environment, including the
regular classroom setting, to
document academic performance and
behavior in the area of difficulty. If
the child is less than school age or is
out of school, the observation shall
take place in an environment
appropriate for the child.
707 KAR 1:130§2(5)
Who can provide evaluation components?
Qualified
Personnel
Can provide
educational
assessment?
Can provide
cognitive
assessment?
Can provide
communication
assessment?
Can provide
medical
assessment?
Psychiatrist
No
Yes
No
Yes
School
Psychologist
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Pediatrician
or family
physician
No
No
No
Yes
Neurologist
No
Usually, no
No
Yes
Teacher
No
No
No
No
Speech/
Language
Pathologist
Yes
No
Yes
No
Also, make sure to…
Obtain Consent for Evaluation
Document Actions on page 2, III. A (Suspected
disability, and description of action, and reason
for decision on conference summary)
Review Conference Documents
Obtain Signatures of ARC Members
Give written notice of action and other meeting
documentation to parents.
Notice of Invitation
The determination of whether a child
suspected of having a specific
learning disability must be made by
the child’s parents, and a team of
qualified professionals which must
include:





The child’s regular education teacher
For a child less than school age-an individual
qualified to teach a child of his age.
A special education teacher
LEA Representative
At least one person qualified to conduct,
interpret and apply critical analysis to
diagnostic evaluations such as a school
psychologist, speech/language pathologist
or remedial reading teacher.
The Next Step…ELIGIBILITY
THE OVERVIEW
 The ARC reviews evaluation
information.
 The ARC determines if the required
components of the evaluation are
available and complete in the necessary
areas.
 The ARC concludes if multiple
nondiscriminatory methods were used.
 The ARC compares evaluation data with
eligibility criteria.
 Determination is made
Evaluation Procedures Used
Each evaluation procedure,
test, record, or report used to
make a determination if the
child has a specific learning
disability must be documented
on page 1 of the conference
summary notice and a
description attached to the
conference summary/action
notice.
IF AFTER REVIEW OF
DOCUMENTATION, MARK “YES
“ ON #1.
Next Step…designating
areas of concern.
The ARC will, based on earlier data,
determine the areas of academic
concern for the student.
x
x
The Chosen Method: RTI
The ARC…
 Must use district policies and procedures to
determine eligibility.
 Evaluates all data and assessments according
to district policies and procedures.
 Determines if model has been implemented
with fidelity..
Step 3: RTI
If the chosen method was RTI, and the
child had failed to achieve a sufficient rate
of learning, then mark Yes and put an X in
the first box.
The Chosen Method: Severe Discrepancy.
 If the ARC previously determined that
the severe discrepancy model will be
used for determination of eligibility,
then:


Must have state approved evaluator
at meeting to explain data and
provide analysis.
Depending upon needed evaluation,
analysis may be provided by a School
Psychologist, Educational Specialist,
Remedial Reading Teacher, or other
designee depending upon area(s) of
concern.
Severe Discrepancy
• Calculate the aptitude or ability test
standard score
• Calculate the student’s achievement
test standard scores
• Using the LD tables on KDE’s web
page, identify the appropriate table of
criterion discrepancy values for the
particular aptitude-achievement
discrepancy
• Determine if a severe discrepancy
exists
LD REFERENCE TABLES
 Is the combination of measures used to
evaluate ability and evaluate achievement
included in the LD reference tables.
LD REFERENCE TABLES
Note regarding Regression True Score
Method
• When the SLD manual was released in 1993, there
was no room for professional judgment when the
aptitude-achievement discrepancy was not met
• At this time, KDE is granting districts the option of
using professional judgment If other data supports
this decision. Other data could include
– RtI data
– Evidence of significant “soft signs” of a learning
disability
– The ARC should be able to clearly articulate the
reasons for this decision and those reasons
should be documented on the conference
summary
Non Standard Score Method
• Provide a written rationale of why the
formal evaluation procedures used with
most students were invalid
• List the formal and informal assessment
procedures used to evidence the ability
and/or achievement score
• Provides scores and their interpretation
from the alternative procedures
• Form an aptitude-achievement discrepancy
• Describe the expected performance of a
typical age mate on each procedure
• Evaluate the severity of the discrepancy.
Common Reasons for Utilizing a
Nonstandard Score Method
• Tests not tabled
– Common with Written Expression, Listening
Comprehension, Oral Expression
• Standardized achievement tests are generally
not valid measures of achievement for young
children (primary age for example)
– There is insufficient floor in many of the
achievement tests for young children
– Tests designed for younger children are
generally not tabled
Further information on the use of
both the Regression Estimated
True Score method and the Non
Standard Score method can be
found in the manual on Kentucky
Procedures and Criteria for
Determining Specific Learning
Disabilities
SEVERE DISCREPANCY
If the ARC chose to use the
severe discrepancy method for
evaluation and eligibility and the
student exhibits a pattern of
strengths and weaknesses in
performance, achievement, or
both relative to ability level or
intellectual development.
Step 3: Severe Discrepancy
If a severe discrepancy exists,
mark yes and put an X in the
bottom box.
Step 4: EXCLUSIONS
Before the ARC can make a
determination of eligibility, they
must have data to address…
•Were exclusions considered?
•Were screenings and evaluations
planned for?
SCREENING
 The ARC should have used screening
information, teacher and of parental
input, informal observations and
other data to plan if formal
evaluations were needed in vision,
hearing and motor abilities. If
evaluations were requested, results
should be reviewed to assure
problems with vision, hearing, or
motor abilities are not the reason for
deficits in achievement.
MENTAL DISABILITY
 If the district chose to use RtI as part of
the evaluation process, they may have
discovered the student had both low
achievement and also poor progress when
provided with learning experiences and
instruction appropriate for the student’s
age and grade level standards. However,
they now must rule out that low
achievement and poor progress is not a
result of a mental disability.
MENTAL DISABILITY EXCLUSION
Administer a test measuring ability
or IQ.
John McCook, states that you can
administer the subtest of
vocabulary, arithmetic, and matrix
reasoning on the WISC-IV and if
they fall below the 85%, you should
administer the total battery, if
above 85% you can rule out
mental disability.
EMOTIONAL BEHAVIORAL DISABILITY
Social/developmental
history
Behavior Observations
Adaptive Behavior
Teacher Input
Parental Information
Psychological Assessment
OTHER FACTORS
Cultural Factors
Environmental Factors
Economic Disadvantage
Limited English
Proficiency
 Mark yes to number 4 if you can exclude all
these factors as being the cause the child is
not achieving commensurate with same age
peers and grade level standards or making
sufficient progress toward that achievement.
Step 5: LACK OF INSTRUCTION
THE ARC MUST ASSURE THAT
UNDERACHIEVEMENT IN A
CHILD SUSPECTED OF HAVING A
LEARNING DISABILITY IS NOT
DUE TO LACK OF ACHIEVEMENT
IN READING AND MATH.
Questions the ARC must answer….
Was the child provided with
appropriate instruction prior
to or as part of the referral
process?
Was instruction provided in
a regular education setting
by qualified personnel?
AND, 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
If the ARC can confirm that lack
of instruction is not the
determinant factor, mark yes on
number 5.
Step 6: Limited English Proficiency
If the ARC, determined LEP was not
a factor, mark yes.
Step 7: Determination of Adverse Affect
Definition:
the progress of the child is
impeded by the disability to
the extent that the
educational performance is
significantly and
consistently below the level
of similar age peers.
34 CFR 300.8
707 KAR 1:280 Section 1 (2)
Eligibility Determination:
Adverse Affect
• Review all student assessment results
• Compare student performance to
peers
• The ARC determines “Adverse Affect”
when:
If the ARC has confirmed an
adverse affect, check yes on
box number 7 on the
eligibility form.
Next Step…Behavior
 Note any behavior of the child which was
observed during the evaluation process, if it is
relevant to the area of concern.
 Describe how the behavior was or was not
impacting the academic functioning of the
child, in the area of concern.
Step 9: Medical Findings
Any relevant medical findings which
impact academic functioning should be
listed here. This includes behavioral
observations as well as teacher and
parental input.
Step 10: Instructional Strategies
Strategies and Student Centered data
from the referral should be attached.
Attach records of strategies
implemented and progress
monitoring in the area of
concern.
Step 12: Communication with Parents
 If the results of the instructional strategies
were shared with the parents, check yes on
#12.
ANALYZE THE RESULTS
The ARC will now compare
and analyze the evaluation
data to ascertain if the
student has a specific
learning disability
THE FINAL STEP: ELIGIBILITY