Specific Learning Disabilities
Guidance for West Virginia
Schools and Districts
April 2012
Guidelines for Identifying Students with
Specific Learning Disabilities
 Guidelines to inform
practice and decisionmaking
 Background information
 Strategies and procedures
to provide consistency
across schools and districts
 Resources
You Will Know…
 The nature, roles and responsibilities of the various
teaming structures needed within the SPL framework
 Procedures for verifying each of the SLD criteria
 Level of Learning
 Rate of Learning
 Exclusionary Factors
 Validating Underachievement
 Patterns of Strengths and Weaknesses
 How to document the written requirements for SLD
determinations
You Will Understand…
 Eligibility Committee (EC) members need a
comprehensive understanding of the student, his/her
educational environment, educational history, and
response to multi-level instruction
 The EC decision-making process relies on high
quality:
o Collaboration
o Data analysis
o Documentation
o Assessment
Policy & Guidance
Policy 2419: Regulations for the Education of
Students with Exceptionalities July 2012
• Elements of multi-level instruction
• Problem-solving model
• SLD Standards/Criteria
Specific Learning Disabilities
Guidance for West Virginia Schools and Districts
• “Standard operating procedures”
• Decision-making considerations
• Resources
Authority
 Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA
2004), permitted the use of a process for identification of
students with specific learning disabilities (SLD) that is based
on the child’s response to scientific, research-based
intervention. (§300.307(a)(2))
 In 2007 the West Virginia Board of Education approved a
revision to Policy 2419: Regulations for the Education of Students
with Exceptionalities
 In 2012 the West Virginia Board of Education Approved a
revisions to Policy 2419: Regulations for the Education of
Students with Exceptionalities
Advance Organizer
Connecting
SPL & SLD
Problem-Solving and
Teaming
SLD Eligibility Standards
Multidisciplinary
Evaluation Components
Pattern(s) of Strengths
and Weaknesses
Connecting SPL, PSW
& SLD
Documentation Requirements
Connecting SPL and SLD
The Framework and the Identification Process
Operationalizing SPL
 In 2011, Support for Personalized Learning was adopted as a
framework for providing personalized learning to all students.
 SPL is characterized by a seamless system of high quality
instructional practices allowing all students to sustain significant
progress, whether they are considered at-risk, exceeding gradelevel expectations or at any point along the continuum.
 SPL benefits include earlier identification of academic difficulties
and a reduction in the number of students inappropriately referred
for special education services.
SPL Continuum of Support
Suggested SPL Guidelines
Variables
Targeted
Instruction
Intensive
Instruction
Time Per Session
15-30
minutes
30-60
minutes
Length of Session
Time will vary based on student needs
9 weeks minimum prior to moving to
Intensive.
Continues only until specific skill,
concept, behavior is in place (usually
short-term)
9 weeks minimum
Number of Sessions
3-5 per week
3-5 per week
Frequency of Progress
Monitoring
Every 2-3 weeks
Every 1-2 weeks
SPL Data-One Element of SLD Eligibility
 West Virginia’s SLD eligibility criteria no longer includes
the use of the IQ-achievement discrepancy
 SPL is one component of the identification of specific
learning disabilities.
 A specific learning disability determination is based on both
educational need and
 a student’s low response to high-quality general education
instruction.
 A body of evidence demonstrating academic skill deficiencies
and insufficient progress when provided TARGETED and
INTENSIVE instruction is required in documenting
eligibility as a student with a specific learning disability.
Parents as Partners in the SPL Process
The district must document that the student’s parents
were notified about the following:
The state’s policies regarding the amount and nature of student
performance data that would be collected and the general
education services that would be provided;
Strategies for increasing student’s rate of learning; and
The parents’ right to request an evaluation at any time throughout
the SPL process
“A Parent’s Guide to Support for Personalized Learning (SPL)” is
available at http://wvde.state.wv.us/spl/familycommunity.html
Critical Concepts
 It is critical that teachers, administrators and evaluators
understand
 that low achievement alone does not constitute a student with a
learning disability.
 only after a student is provided TARGETED and INTENSIVE
instruction over a sufficient period of time that the conclusion of a
SLD may be made.
 delivery of sufficient and appropriate multi-level
instruction includes the provision of supports at CORE,
TARGETED and INTENSIVE levels.
 instruction at these increasingly more intense levels ensures that each
student is provided an adequate opportunity to learn prior to a SLD
determination.
Connecting SPL to SLD
Severe and
persistent low
achievement
Minimal or low
response to
TARGETED and
INTENSIVE
instruction
Consideration of
exclusionary
factors, including
lack of
appropriate
instruction
SLD
Determination
Advance Organizer
Connecting
SPL & SLD
Problem-Solving and
Teaming
SLD Eligibility Standards
Multidisciplinary
Evaluation Components
Pattern(s) of Strengths
and Weaknesses
Connecting SPL, PSW
& SLD
Documentation Requirements
Problem Solving and Teaming
Laying the Foundation for Decision-Making
Problem-Solving Process
1. Identify and
Define Needs
2. Analyze the
Problem
5. Evaluate and
Adjust the Plan
3. Develop a Plan
4. Implement and
Monitor the Plan
Progress Monitoring
 Progress monitoring provides dynamic assessment information to
help teachers make instructional decisions.
 Frequently collected data provides ongoing guidance to teachers
regarding the effectiveness of instruction and whether changes to
instruction are needed.
 While progress monitoring data are collected prior to and during
the referral and evaluation process (every two to three weeks in
TARGETED and every one to two weeks in INTENSIVE), it is
important that school personnel involved at various decisionmaking levels (i.e., IT, SAT, MDET, EC) understand the purpose
and utility of progress monitoring procedures.
Progress Monitoring
 Progress monitoring varies depending on the level of intensity.
 For students at the CORE level, progress monitoring is provided to
all students using on-going universal screening and assessments
aligned with instruction.
 Students who are receiving more intensive instruction in
TARGETED and INTENSIVE levels are provided more focused
progress monitoring.
 Tools that are flexible, efficient, accessible and informative are a
priority.
 Progress monitoring is the way in which a team can gather the data
used to make decisions during the problem-solving process.
Progress Monitoring
 Progress monitoring assessments function within SPL as a gauge of
student performance and bring forward the need for conversation
about instruction for groups of students or for individuals.
 Assessments in this category most typically target evidence of
progress relative to specific, high-priority skills and processes.
 Data in this category could come from Acuity testlets or probes,
DIBELS Next, West Virginia Writes, as well as other assessments.
 Progress monitoring assessment results can be used to adjust
scaffolding, instructional pacing and presentation, as well as
contribute to a collection of data used to make decisions about most
appropriate instruction and placement for individual students.

Progress monitoring data provides valuable information about students’
improvement as a result of a particular instructional method or program
and measures instructional change and student growth.
Progress Monitoring
Guidelines for Charting Student Progress
 Draw trend line of student progress (e.g., Tukey method) for 7-8 data points
 and compare to the student’s goal line
 Trend is not as steep as the goal line, make a teaching change
 Trend is steeper than the goal line, raise the goal
 May use “four-point rule” if at least three weeks of instruction has
 occurred and the last four scores collected all fall above or below the goal line
 Four most recent scores all fall below the goal line, make a teaching change
 Four most recent scores all fall above the goal line, raise the goal
(Stecker & Lembke, 2007)
Collaborative Structures
Instructional
Team
IT
Individualized
Education
Program
IEP
Team
Eligibility
Committee
SAT
Student
Assistance Team
Student
EC
Team
MDET
Multidisciplinary
Evaluation Team
Collaborative Structures
West Virginia Board of Education Policy 2510, Assuring Quality of
Education: Regulations for Education Programs, sets forth requirements
at each programmatic level to address the needs of struggling
students.
 In Grades K-4 schools must provide strategies for early detection
and intervention to correct student deficiencies in reading,
language arts and mathematics.
 At the middle school level, an intervention component ensures
mastery of the rigorous content standards and objectives at each
grade level.
 High school students who do not demonstrate mastery of the
content standards and objectives shall be provided extra help and
extra time through intervention strategies.
Instructional Teams (IT)
 Instructional Teams (ITs) are generally comprised of same
grade- level teachers and providers of customized
instruction.
 Naturally fit into the structure of middle schools and are also
accommodated by departmental teams at the high school
level.
 May also include the principal, school psychologist, special
education teachers, speech/language pathologist and any
other qualified personnel who have knowledge of the student
and/or expertise in data analysis and instructional planning.
(IT) Focus
ITs focus on student progress by:
1. using screening/interim assessment and other performance
data to identify students who are not performing
satisfactorily;
2. grouping students according to specific skill needs;
3. selecting or developing TARGETED instruction; and
4. monitoring student progress and the effectiveness of
instruction.
Student Assistance Teams (SAT)
 Policy for Student Assistance Teams (SAT) is set forth in West
Virginia Board of Education Policies 2510 and 2419.
 SAT may act in lieu of the IT
 Members may be the same or similar to the IT
SAT Focus
 The primary function of the SAT is the review of individual
student needs that have persisted despite being addressed by
the IT.
 A teacher, parent, instructional team (IT), adult student,
district or any other interested person or agency may initiate
a referral to SAT.
 The SAT ensures that multi-level instruction has been
implemented and documented by the student’s teacher
and/or provider of customized instruction.
Importance of IT and SAT
 This documentation becomes part of the important existing
data that will be used by the Multidisciplinary Evaluation
Team (MDET) in determining what additional assessments
are needed to determine if the student is a student with a
Specific Learning Disability.
 Subsequently, the Eligibility Committee (EC) will use the
SPL data along with additional information gained from the
multidisciplinary evaluation to substantiate its eligibility
decision.
IT and SAT
Roles & Responsibilities
IT
 Teachers working together
to:
 Identify students for multi-
level instruction
 Group students
 Select and develop targeted
instruction
 Monitor student progress
and effectiveness of
instruction
SAT
 Review documentation
collected during
TARGETED and
INTENSIVE instruction.
 Make recommendations for
further, broader problemsolving activities
 Initiate multidisciplinary
evaluations for special
education
Other Collaborative Teams
 MDET – Multidisciplinary Evaluation Team
 Reviews SPL documentation and determines additional areas of
assessment needed to constitute a multidisciplinary evaluation.
 EC - Eligibility Committee
 Reviews SPL documentation and additional assessments
required by the multidisciplinary evaluation team in an effort to
confirm the presence of a Specific Learning Disability.
 IEP Team – Individualized Education Plan Team
 Reviews the recommendations of the EC and SPL
documentation to design a specialized education plan that will
allow the child to progress in the State-approved grade-level
curriculum.
MDET and EC Roles
& Responsibilities
MDET
 Review and discuss existing
data collected during
multi-level instruction
 Determine the need for
additional evaluations that
inform instruction and
eligibility decision-making
 Select appropriate
assessments to confirm or
reject a SLD hypothesis




EC
Review and discuss
student’s response to
multi-level instruction
Review and discuss results
of additional evaluations
Determine if multiple data
sources indicate a specific
learning disability
Document the presence of
a SLD
Advance Organizer
Connecting
SPL & SLD
Problem-Solving and
Teaming
SLD Eligibility Standards
Multidisciplinary
Evaluation Components
Pattern(s) of Strengths
and Weaknesses (PSW)
Connecting SPL, PSW
& SLD
Documentation Requirements
Multidisciplinary Evaluation
Components
Selecting Assessments to Inform Instruction
and Determine SLD
Components of an Evaluation
for SLD
 Data collected throughout the SPL process is used as one
component of the multidisciplinary evaluation
 The purpose of evaluations is to help the team identify not only
why a student is struggling, but also how teachers can design
appropriate and individualized specially designed instruction.
 In conducting an evaluation, schools are encouraged to select
assessment procedures to link eligibility determination to
instruction.
 A complementary relationship between the SPL process and
psychoeducational testing exists in evaluating for a potential
learning disability.
SPL Documentation Constitutes
Existing Data…
Most information is gathered through the course of
the student’s instruction
A chronology of the student’s educational history
 Screening, Interim assessments, formative/classroom
assessments and progress monitoring data
 Results of diagnostic assessments to inform the
instructional process (e.g., Quick Phonics Screener,
Phonological Awareness Screening Inventory, Key Math3, Basic Reading Inventory)
 Documentation of the nature, frequency, and duration of
TARGETED and INTENSIVE instruction

Considerations for Selecting
Formal Assessments
 In conducting an evaluation, MDETs select assessment
procedures that will link eligibility determinations to
instruction.
 Assessments that focus on specific features of a student’s
academic difficulty are more useful than measures that
address global academic areas.
 For the student who exhibits weaknesses in areas such as
memory, attention, or processing speed, the evaluation
battery addresses those areas.
Cross Battery Assessment (XBA)
Approach for Determining SLD
 Cross battery assessment(XBA)
is a process of selecting subtests
that target specific cognitive
domains.
 XBA results and interpretations
inform and guide instructional
approaches and strategies for the
student.
 XBA can be used to determine if
a pattern(s) of Strengths and
Weaknesses exists between
cognitive abilities and
achievement
 XBA includes multiple measures
for arriving at a conclusion that
confirms or rejects the
hypothesis made by the SAT and
MDET.
 Lists included in the SLD
guidance document Appendix
are not exclusive. Professional
judgment and expertise should
guide the selection of tests.
 www.crossbattery.com
Observation Requirement
 The student suspected of
having a SLD must be
observed in the learning
environment, including the
general classroom setting, to
document the student’s
academic performance and
behavior in the areas of
difficulty.
Observation Requirement
 Use information from
observation done before
the student was referred
for an evaluation OR
 At least one member of the
evaluation team conducts
an observation after the
student has been referred
for evaluation and parent
consent is obtained
Observation and Parent Consent
Circumstance
Observations conducted as part
of routine classroom
instruction and monitoring of
the child’s performance before
the referral for evaluation
Observations conducted after
the child is suspected of having
a disability and is referred for
evaluation
Consent
Required
Consent Not
Required
Parent Requests for Evaluation
 The law is clear - a parent
may request an evaluation
at any time during the
SPL process
 If a parent requests an
evaluation, the district may
choose to:
1. Request permission
to evaluate, OR
2. Decline the request
to evaluate and issue
prior written
notice (PWN) in
accordance with the
regulations
Advance Organizer
Connecting
SPL & SLD
Problem-Solving and
Teaming
SLD Eligibility Standards
Multidisciplinary
Evaluation Components
Pattern(s) of Strengths
and Weaknesses (PSW)
Connecting SPL, PSW
& SLD
Documentation Requirements
SLD Eligibility Standards
Operationalizing the SLD Criteria
SLD Eligibility Standards
Policy 2419 frames the SLD eligibility as:
 level of learning (Standard 1);
 rate of learning (Standard 2); and
 exclusion factors (Standard 3), including the validation
of the provision of appropriate instruction.
 pattern of strengths and weaknesses
Standard 1 – Level of Learning
The first element in identifying a student with a learning disability
addresses the student’s mastery of grade-level content in one or
more of the following areas:
 oral expression;
 listening comprehension;
 written expression;
 basic reading skill;
 reading fluency skills (area added in 2004 revisions to IDEA);
 reading comprehension;
 mathematics calculation; or
 mathematics problem solving.
Standard 1 – Level of Learning
 Key consideration
 student demonstrates significant and persistent low academic
achievement even after obtaining evidence of research-based
CORE classroom instruction and TARGETED and INTENSIVE
instruction.
Standard 1 – Level of Learning
Possible Verification Sources for Level 1
 Screening and assessment results that include a minimum of 3 data points that
reflect at least 9 weeks of TARGETED instruction and at least 6 data points that reflect at
least 9 weeks of INTENSIVE instruction that are at or below the 8th percentile are
considered significant. Confidence intervals should be considered.
 An individually administered norm-referenced achievement test score at or
below the 8th percentile is considered significant. Confidence levels for each test
administered should be considered.
 Student performance relative to State-approved grade-level standards is an
essential component of determining the existence of severe underachievement.
 CSOs are available in electronic format on the West Virginia Teach 21 website at
http://wveis.k12.wv.us/Teach21/public/ngcso/NGSCO.cfm
Standard 2 – Rate of Learning
 Academic progress or Rate of Learning is the student’s
attained rate of improvement compared to the typical rate of
improvement in a given content area.
 It is through regular assessment of an instruction and its
effect on the student’s achievement that student response is
determined.
 Progress monitoring data provide measurable evidence of
changes in the student’s achievement that are attributable to a
particular instructional approach.
Standard 2 – Rate of Learning
 Standard 2, Rate of Learning, is met when the student’s learning
rate or growth is substantially below grade-level peers and,
based on progress monitoring data, a reasonable rate of progress
cannot be projected even when the student is provided
supplemental instruction of reasonable intensity and duration.
 Standard 2, Rate of Learning, is met when the student’s attained
rate of improvement is substantially below grade-level peers’
typical rate of improvement and, based on progress monitoring
data and Gap Analysis, reasonable or targeted rate of improvement
cannot be projected even when the student is provided
supplemental instruction of reasonable intensity and duration.
Understanding Rate of
Improvement (Slope)
Key Terms:
 Typical Rate of Improvement-the rate of improvement
of a typical student at the same grade level throughout the
school year.
 Targeted Rate of Improvement-the rate of improvement
that a targeted student would need to make by the end of the
school year in comparison to a typical student.
 Attained Rate of Improvement-the actual rate of
improvement the student ends up achieving as a function of
their particular progress across the year.
Understanding Rate of
Improvement (Slope)
Calculations:
 Typical Rate of Improvement- is calculated by subtracting the
beginning of the year expected score from the end of year
expected score divided by the total weeks in a school year (36
weeks).
 Targeted Rate of Improvement- is calculated by subtracting
the targeted student’s beginning of the year score from the end of
the year expected score divided by the total weeks in a school year
(36 weeks).
 Attained Rate of Improvement- is calculated by subtracting
the beginning of the year score from the end of the year attained
score divided by the total weeks in a school year (36 weeks).
Understanding Rate of
Improvement (Slope)
Three ways to calculate Attained Rate of Improvement:
 Two-point rate of improvement- subtract the starting score from the
ending score and divide by the number of weeks that the progress monitoring
was collected. The IRIS Center provides a slope calculator for assistance in the
calculation of rate of improvement (slope). http://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu
(click on resources then assessment (includes progress monitoring), next
modules (8), then Perspectives and Resources-scroll to the bottom to find the
Slope Calculator). Directions for use of the calculator are also available.
 Modified two-point rate of improvement-subtract the median score of
the first three data points from the median score of the last three data points
and divide by the number of weeks that the progress monitoring was collected.
 Ordinary Least Squares (OLS)- see
http://sites.google.com/site/rateofimprovement/ created by Caitlin Flinn,
Andrew McCrae, and Mathew Ferchalk for an in-depth description of the OLS
calculation.
Understanding Gap Analysis
 Gap analysis is a mathematical way of calculating how “low”
and how “slow” a student’s progress is now being depicted.
 By dividing the expected level of performance by the attained
rate of performance, an empirical value is obtained.
 A Gap of more than 2.0 is often considered significant.
 Appendix D provides a gap analysis worksheet and models to
provide guidance.
Example of Rate of Improvement
If the line of the attained rate of improvement (slope) of a
student’s data points is less than or equal to the typical rate of
improvement (slope) for a student at the same grade level, this
may suggest that the student’s rate of learning or growth is
substantially deficient; or
Example of Rate of Improvement
If the student’s attained rate of improvement (slope) line is greater
than the typical rate of improvement (slope) for a student at the
same grade level, but a convergence would not occur within a
reasonable and foreseeable time period as a result of the student’s
low level of learning and slow progress would indicate the student’s
rate of learning or growth is substantially deficient; or
Example of Rate of Improvement
If the attained rate of improvement (slope) of the targeted
student is less than or equal to half the typical rate of
improvement (slope) of a student at the same grade level,
the aim line, it may be considered substantially below
grade level peers and the standard may be considered to
have been met.
Standard 3 – Exclusion Factors
The third standard by which the EC determines the presence of
a specific learning disability is the assurance that the student’s
underachievement is not primarily the result of any of the
following:
 A visual, hearing, or motor disability;
 Intellectual disability;
 Behavioral/emotional disorder;
 Cultural factors;
 Environmental or economic disadvantage; or
 Limited English proficiency.
Considerations for Validating Exclusion Factors
Factor or Condition
Screening Procedure
Further Comprehensive Assessment
Options
Vision
Check vision records
Optometric/ophthalmology exam
Hearing
Check hearing records
Audiological exam
Motor
Check school health
records
Medical exam
Mental impairment
Review school records
Cognitive assessment and adaptive
behavior tests
Emotional/
Behavior disorder
Behavior checklists
Behavior rating scales, other behavioral
assessments
Cultural factors
Assess cultural status
Family interview
Environmental or
economic disadvantage
School records
Social worker interview with family (e.g.,
abuse, poor nutrition, lack of sleep, foster
care placement, parent incarceration)
Limited English
proficiency
Home language screening
Primary language assessment
Validating Underachievement
(Ruling
Out Lack of Instruction)
 Only after a student has
been provided an
opportunity to learn
with the additional
targeted supports provided
within the multi-leveled
instruction framework
should referral and
eligibility for special
education eligibility under
the SLD category
Considerations for Validating
Underachievement
 Appropriate instruction in reading,
written expression and mathematics
 Student’s primary language
 Limited English proficiency
 Environmental and cultural factors
 Excessive absences and patterns of
attendance
 Interruptions in schooling
Advance Organizer
Connecting
SPL & SLD
Problem-Solving and
Teaming
SLD Eligibility Standards
Multidisciplinary
Evaluation Components
Pattern(s) of Strengths
and Weaknesses (PSW)
Connecting SPL, PSW
& SLD
Documentation Requirements
Pattern(s) of Strengths &
Weaknesses
Operationalizing the SLD Criteria
Operationalizing Pattern(s) of
Strengths and Weaknesses
 In 2004, the reauthorization of IDEA also permitted, but did not
require, the use of a third method approach to determine SLD
identification.
 In 2012 the West Virginia Board of Education Approved a revisions to
Policy 2419: Regulations for the Education of Students with Exceptionalities
to include the determination of a pattern(s) of strengths and weaknesses
in SLD eligibility.
 This approach involves consideration of a pattern of strengths and
weaknesses, or both, relative to intellectual development and
achievement. (not IQ-Achievement Discrepancy)
 When PSW is included as part of the comprehensive SLD evaluation the
cognitive process(es) that interfere with a student’s ability to perform
academically may be identified.
Utilizing PSW to Identify SLD
 Assessment results need to be able to advance an understanding of
how the student’s academic and cognitive domains interact to
increase the diagnostic utility of the multidisciplinary evaluation
and provide guidance for instructional strategies
 This method of evaluation, as it relates to eligibility
determination, is described within IDEA as “the use of other
alternative research-based procedures for determining whether a
child has a specific learning disability.”
 This method has been known as “the third approach” and may be
more commonly referred to as the Pattern(s) of Strengths and
Weaknesses approach (PSW).
What is a Pattern of Strengths
and Weaknesses?
Actual cognitive area of
weakness is significantly
lower than expected
based on overall
cognitive ability
Cognitive Strengths
Average or better overall ability
Supported by strengths in
academic skills
Academic deficit(s) is
unexpected because overall
cognitive ability is at least
average (and other factors
were ruled out, such as
inadequate instruction)
Cognitive deficit(s) is
specific, not general or
pervasive, because
overall cognitive ability is
at least average
Cognitive
Weakness/Deficit
Cognitive Ability or
Processing Disorder
Actual academic area of
weakness is significantly
lower than expected based
on overall cognitive ability
Academic
Weakness/Failure
Performance approximately
1SD below the mean or lower Academic Skills/Knowledge
(cognitive and academic areas
Deficits
of weakness are related
empirically and relationship is
ecologically valid)
Sotelo, Flanagan, and Alfonso (2011). Overview of SLD Identification. In D.P. Flanagan & V.C. Alfonso, Essentials of
Specific Learning Disability Identification. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley; Flanagan, Fiorello, and Ortiz (2010); Hale, Flanagan, and
Naglieri (2008)
Critical Concepts
 The PSW approach includes assessment of a wide range of
broad and narrow cognitive processes that identify processing
strengths and weaknesses.
 Interpretation of the assessment occurs at the cluster rather
than subtest level.
 Confidence intervals are used for all clusters, thereby
reducing measurement error effects.
 Evaluation results improve understanding of meaningful
connections between cognitive and academic domains and
provide practical information to teachers and parents.
Manifestations of Cognitive Ability Weaknesses and Empirically-based
Recommendations and Intervention (Flanagan, Alfonso, & Mascolo, 2011, 2012)
CHC Broad
Cognitive Abilities/
Neuropsychological
Functions
Brief Definition
General
Manifestations of
Cognitive/
Neuropsychological
Weakness
Specific Manifestations of the
Cognitive/
Neuropsychological Weakness
Short-Term
Memory (Gsm)
Ability to hold
information in
immediate awareness
and use or transform
it within a few
seconds
Difficulties With:
-Following multi-step
Reading Difficulties:
-Reading Comprehension (i.e.,
oral and written
instructions
-Remembering
information long enough
to apply it
-Remember the sequence
of information
-Rote memorization
-Maintaining one’ place in
a math problem or train of
thought while writing
understanding what is read)
-Decoding multisyllabic words
-Orally retelling or paraphrasing what
one has read
Math Difficulties:
-Rote memorization of facts
-Remembering mathematical
procedures
-Multi-step problems and regrouping
-Extracting information to be used in
word problems
Writing Difficulties:
-Spelling multisyllabic words
-Redundancy in writing (word and
conceptual levels)
-Identifying main idea of a story
-Note-taking
Recommendations/
Interventions
-Use meaningful stimuli to
assist with encoding and allow
for experiential learning (i.e.,
learning while doing)
-Provide opportunities for
repeated practice and review
-Provide supports (e.g., lecture
notes, guided notes, study
guides, written directions) to
supplemental oral instruction
-Break down instructional steps
for student
-Provide visual support (e.g.,
times table) to support
acquisition of basic math facts
-Outline math procedures for
student and provide procedural
guides or flashcards for the
student to use when
approaching problems
-Highlight important
information within word
problems
-Have student write all steps
and show all work for math
computations.
-Teach chunking strategies
Pattern of Strengths and
Weaknesses (continued)
 PSW is important because it may establish links between
specific cognitive processes and academic areas of concern.
 These links have the potential to subsequently inform
supplemental instruction and/or specially designed
instruction.
 The identification of processing deficits can lead to more
effective instructional and compensatory strategies for
students who have not responded adequately to TARGETED
and INTENSIVE instruction within the SPL approach.
 Appendix F, G, & H provides examples and descriptions of
common assessments used to determine if a PSW exists.
Advance Organizer
Connecting
SPL & SLD
Problem-Solving and
Teaming
SLD Eligibility Standards
Multidisciplinary
Evaluation Components
Pattern(s) of Strengths
and Weaknesses (PSW)
Connecting SPL, PSW
& SLD
Documentation Requirements
Connecting SPL, PSW & SLD
Operationalizing the SLD Criteria
A Hybrid Approach
 An integrated approach to SLD determination, a combination of
SPL/RTI and the Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses (PSW)
model, may be advantageous because it hypothesizes a link
between the observed low academic performance/ inadequate
growth and the responsible cognitive processing weaknesses. In an
integrated or hybrid approach to SLD determination it is
important to first document the provision of relevant scientifically
based core curricula and high quality instruction. The description
of the learner’s response to this learning environment is then
paired with assessment and used to help determine why the
student was not responsive to this instruction.
A Hybrid Approach (continued)
 It is hoped that an integrated approach may ensure that when
greater intensity of instruction is not successful eligible
students will receive individualized instruction based on their
unique patterns of both academic and cognitive processing
strengths and weaknesses. Appendix A comprehensively
defines the eight areas of SLD and provides resources for
each area.
 Appendix J illustrates the decision-making process teams
would proceed through when integrating SPL and PSW.
Advance Organizer
Connecting
SPL & SLD
Problem-Solving and
Teaming
SLD Eligibility Standards
Multidisciplinary
Evaluation Components
Pattern(s) of Strengths
and Weaknesses (PSW)
Connecting SPL, PSW
& SLD
Documentation Requirements
Documentation Requirements
Documentation
 Documentation requirements include but are not limited to:
 a chronology of the student’s educational history;
 progress monitoring data;
 specific documentation of the nature and intensity of general
classroom instruction;
 comprehensive documentation of the nature, frequency and
duration of multi-leveled instruction results;
 additional achievement/performance data; and
 formal evaluation reports.
SLD Team Report
 Includes all areas in which a SLD may be manifested (e.g.,




reading, mathematics, written expression)
Includes IDEA requirements
Is completed when a student is suspected of having a SLD
Accompanies the Eligibility Committee Report
An electronic version of the SLD Team Report is available on the
Office of Special Programs website at
http://wvde.state.wv.us/specialeducationcompliance/resources.
html.
Reevaluation & Private Schools
Reevaluations
 Review existing evaluation data
 Current IEP and progress toward meeting
annual goals
 Evaluations and information provided by
parent/student
 Current classroom-based, local or state
assessments and classroom-based observations
 Observations by teachers and related service
providers
 Conduct additional evaluations if needed
SPL and Private Schools
 SPL is a component of the evaluation process for SLD
 Same evaluation components and procedures apply
 Option to collect documentation as part of the referral
process
 May consider determining eligibility by using the Pattern(s)
of Strengths and Weaknesses approach.
SPL and Private Schools
 Data that demonstrate that prior to or as part of the
referral process, the student was provided appropriate
instruction in general education settings; 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 student’s parents (i.e., benchmark, interim
and progress monitoring data).
SPL and Private Schools
 The evaluation team, which includes the parent, private
school representatives and district personnel, develop a data
collection plan as part of the multidisciplinary evaluation.
 Every effort should be made to inform the parent and private
school personnel of the need to address the student’s
academic difficulties through the provision of intervention
and use of frequent progress monitoring.
SLD Document Resources
 Frequently Asked Questions
 Glossary of Terms
 Online Resources
 References
 Appendix
The Appendix
 8 Areas of SLD
 Diagnostic Assessments
 SLD Glossary
 Gap Analysis Worksheet
 Goal Setting in Reading Worksheet
 Examples of Cross-Battery for Reading Performance
 Research-Based Assessment Domains for Reading Achievement
 Research-Based Assessment Domains for Mathematical Achievement
 Cognitive Processes and Interventions/Strategies
 Process for Confirming/Substantiating a Specific Learning Disability Using an Integrated
SPL and PSW Approach
 SLD Academic Skill Deficit Worksheet
 Documenting Eligibility Requirements for SLD
 SLD Team Report
A “3-2-1 Reflection”
 What are 3 big ideas/insights you have gained today?
 What are 2 questions that your team will use to focus and
responsively refocus your support to your district?
 What is 1 action your team has agreed to take in the very
near future?
Contact Information
Pat Homberg, Executive Director
Susan Beck, Coordinator
Allen Sexton, Coordinator
Office of Special Programs
wvosp@access.k12.wv.us