There has been considerable discussion over the past ten years over the appropriate
role of testing for psychological processing disorders in the identification of specific
learning disabilities. In response to two letters (one from this writer) to OSEP
complaining about Maine’s requirements (1) the application of a cognitive cutoff score
and (2) the identification of a psychological processing disorder be used to rule out a
learning disability.
Their response to this author may be seen in its glorious brevity at:
http://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/memosdcltrs/11-017710r-nc-mcbride-meldcriteria.pdf but the more substantive letter, which they had attached to my
response, went to a Mr. Hugo, who apparently resides in Maine.
http://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/memosdcltrs/11-022271r-me-hugo-ldcriteria-11-5-13.pdf
The major problem they found in Maine’s criteria was the same problem that is found in
school systems’ who use discrepancy only or RTI only methodologies without
considering the whole child and his or her needs after a comprehensive evaluation.
The federal regulations are quite specific in saying that schools must use a variety of
assessments and strategies in identifying a child as disabled that they may not use a
single assessment or tool in determining that a child has a disability. (Section 300.304
(b).)
As required in
§ 300.304(b), consistent with section
614(b)(2) of the Act, an evaluation must
include a variety of assessment tools
and strategies and cannot rely on any
single procedure as the sole criterion for
determining eligibility for special
education and related services
OSERS and OSEP have been consistent over the years in saying that no single
procedure may be used, either.
Consistent with
§ 300.304(b) and section 614(b)(2) of the
Act, the evaluation of a child suspected
of having a disability, including an SLD,
must include a variety of assessment
tools and strategies and cannot rely on
any single procedure as the sole
criterion for determining eligibility for
special education and related services.
This requirement applies to all children
suspected of having a disability,
includi those suspected of having an
SLD. 2006 FR 46646
And again on page 46648 of the 2006 Federal Register they wrote:
As required in
§ 300.304(b), consistent with section
614(b)(2) of the Act, an evaluation must
include a variety of assessment tools
and strategies and cannot rely on any
single procedure as the sole criterion for
determining eligibility for special
education and related services
The key concern I had raised about Maine’s criteria was over the use of a cognitive
score cutoff. A similar (albeit simpler) formula in Wisconsin back in the 1990’s had
brought the full wrath of OSEP down on the state. Mr. Hugo, however, was apparently
concerned about both the cutoff and the processing component. The key paragraph in
the Hugo letter reads:
"Therefore, OSEP construes the LDR [Maine's Multidisciplinary Team Report] as using
a single assessment – here, a test of psychological processing or of cognitive
functioning as the sole criterion for determining whether a child has an SLD. If this is
an accurate interpretation of the LDR, it would be inconsistent with §300.304(b) for
Maine to use such a form because it could result in children with SLD not being
properly identified"
This may appear to be a provincial issue restricted only to Maine. However, forms
drive the process. Schools in other parts of the country (e.g., in New Hampshire) that
use forms similar to the LDR used in Maine may be disqualifying otherwise eligible and
need students because of seemingly inflexible rules that are not rules at all.
The federal regulations have never prohibited the use of psychological processing
assessments in the identification of student needs or as part of process to develop
appropriate instructional strategies for a student who had already been identified. The
decision as to whether that testing is needed in order to identify a child’s individual
instructional needs, whether commonly related to the disability or not, as part of a
comprehensive evaluation is however now in most states a matter to be decided by IEP
teams on a case by case basis.
Guy