Over the last four years, there has been a shift in how teachers teach reading. Many call it the "Reading Wars." But back in the 90s, data started to reshape the ideas of teaching reading. Data has always been around. It never went away. Many times it is just forgotten or seen as out of touch with what is really going on in the classroom. 

If we are to truly understand the shift from "Balanced Literacy" or "Whole Language" to the "Science of Reading" we have to understand where it restarted. 

In the late 1990s, the National Reading Panel (NRP) was convened by the U.S. Congress to evaluate the effectiveness of different approaches to teaching children how to read. The goal was to provide a clear, evidence-based understanding of the best practices in reading instruction. The resulting report, published in 2000, has profoundly impacted reading education in the United States and beyond.

The Formation and Mission of the National Reading Panel

The National Reading Panel was established in 1997 as part of the federal Reading Excellence Act. The panel comprised 14 members, including leading scientists in reading research, representatives of colleges of education, reading teachers, educational administrators, and parents. Their mission was to assess the effectiveness of various approaches to reading instruction by reviewing existing research studies.

Methodology

The NRP's methodology was rigorous and systematic. The panel focused on studies that met high standards of scientific research, including randomized control trials and other well-designed experiments. The panel reviewed over 100,000 studies conducted since 1966 and 10,000 earlier studies. Their review process culminated in the identification of five critical areas of reading instruction: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and text comprehension.

Key Findings

Phonemic Awareness: Phonemic awareness is the ability to hear, identify, and manipulate individual sounds—phonemes—in spoken words. This skill is foundational for learning to read. The NRP found that teaching phonemic awareness significantly improves children’s reading skills, including word reading, reading comprehension, and spelling.

Phonics: Phonics instruction teaches the relationship between letters and sounds, enabling readers to decode words. The panel found that systematic and explicit phonics instruction is more effective than non-systematic or no phonics instruction. This approach is particularly beneficial for kindergarteners and first graders, as it helps them develop early reading skills that are crucial for later success.

Fluency: Reading fluency is the ability to read with speed, accuracy, and proper expression. The NRP highlighted the importance of guided oral reading practices in developing fluency. Students who read aloud with feedback and guidance from teachers, parents, or peers show significant improvements in reading fluency and overall reading achievement.

Vocabulary: A robust vocabulary is essential for reading comprehension. The NRP found that vocabulary should be taught both directly and indirectly. Direct vocabulary instruction involves teaching specific words, while indirect instruction involves exposing students to new words through reading and conversation. Both methods are necessary to help students understand and use new vocabulary in context.

Text Comprehension: Text comprehension is the ultimate goal of reading—it involves understanding and interpreting what is read. The NRP identified several strategies that improve comprehension, including:

• Monitoring comprehension: Teaching students to be aware of their understanding of the text.
• Using graphic organizers: Visual aids that help students organize and relate information from the text.
• Answering questions: Encouraging students to answer questions about the text to improve understanding.
• Generating questions: Teaching students to ask their own questions about the text.
• Summarizing: Helping students identify the main ideas and summarize the content.

Implications for Teaching

The findings of the National Reading Panel have significant implications for reading instruction. Here are some practical ways that educators can implement these findings in the classroom:

Balanced Literacy Programs: The NRP's findings support a balanced approach to literacy instruction, integrating various methods to address the five critical areas. Educators should provide systematic and explicit instruction in phonemic awareness and phonics, while also promoting fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension through diverse activities and reading materials.

Professional Development: Teachers need ongoing professional development to stay informed about the best practices in reading instruction. Training programs should focus on the five key areas identified by the NRP and provide teachers with practical strategies for implementing these in their classrooms.

Early Intervention:  Early identification and intervention for struggling readers are crucial. By addressing reading difficulties early, educators can prevent long-term reading problems. The NRP's findings underscore the importance of early instruction in phonemic awareness and phonics to build a strong foundation for future reading success.

Parental Involvement: Parents play a vital role in their children's reading development. Schools should encourage parents to engage in their children's reading activities and provide them with strategies to support reading at home. This can include reading aloud together, discussing books, and providing access to a variety of reading materials.

Use of Technology: Technology can be a valuable tool in reading instruction. Interactive software, e-books, and online resources can provide additional practice in phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. Educators should integrate technology in a way that complements traditional teaching methods.

Criticisms and Controversies

While the National Reading Panel Report has been widely influential, it has also faced criticisms and controversies. Some educators and researchers argue that the panel's focus on certain methodologies, such as phonics, downplays other important aspects of reading instruction, such as whole language approaches and the role of motivation in reading. Additionally, some critics contend that the report's emphasis on quantitative research overlooks the insights that qualitative studies can provide.

Continuing Impact and Relevance

Despite these criticisms, the NRP Report remains a cornerstone of reading instruction policy and practice. Its influence is evident in the widespread adoption of balanced literacy programs and the emphasis on evidence-based teaching strategies. Furthermore, the report has spurred ongoing research into effective reading instruction, contributing to the evolving understanding of how children learn to read.

In recent years, the science of reading has continued to advance, building on the foundation laid by the NRP. New research has further explored the cognitive processes involved in reading, the impact of socio-economic factors on reading development, and the most effective ways to support diverse learners. Educators and policymakers continue to rely on the principles outlined in the NRP Report while adapting to new findings and changing educational contexts.

The National Reading Panel Report represents a pivotal moment in the field of reading education. Its comprehensive review of research provided a clear, evidence-based framework for effective reading instruction, emphasizing the importance of phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. While it has faced criticisms, its impact on educational policy and practice is undeniable. As the science of reading continues to evolve, the NRP Report remains a valuable resource for educators, guiding the way toward more effective and inclusive reading instruction.

This is the beginning of a new series on the Science of Reading. The Science of Reading impacts how everyone including special education teachers teach reading to students regardless of their disability. The difference is the accommodations and modifications we make to help students access the material. 

Chat Soon-

References

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching Children to Read: An Evidence-Based Assessment of the Scientific Research Literature on Reading and Its Implications for Reading Instruction. U.S. Government Printing Office.

Shanahan, T. (2003). The National Reading Panel Report: Practical Advice for Teachers. Learning Point Associates.

Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children. National Academy Press.

The NRP Report's enduring legacy underscores the importance of rigorous, evidence-based approaches to reading instruction, ensuring that all children have the opportunity to become proficient and enthusiastic readers.

This is the last piece of a four-part blog series on How to Complete a Comprehensive Special Education Evaluation. 

Part One Covered -- Why We Need a Comprehensive Evaluation 

Part Two Covered -- Planning a Comprehensive Evaluation

Part Three Cover -- Everything about Parent Input

The last couple of pieces mean making sure you have all the data you need and of course consent.

If you are assessing a Second Language Learner (multi-lingual), ensure those administering assessments are appropriate and you are following your state and district guidelines to make sure the evaluation is needed. This means you are suspecting a disability but it could be a difference and not a disability. Otherwise, you may find you have data you can’t use which may affect the reliability and validity of assessment results. 

IDEA contains specific provisions related to the assessment of students who speak a second language. These provisions ensure that evaluations are fair and non-discriminatory. Key sections include:

• 20 U.S.C. § 1414(b)(3) - Evaluation Procedures:
• This section mandates that assessments and other evaluation materials used to assess a child must be selected and administered so as not to be discriminatory on a racial or cultural basis. It also specifies that these materials should be provided and administered in the child's native language or other mode of communication unless it is clearly not feasible to do so.
• 34 C.F.R. § 300.304(c) - Evaluation Procedures:
• This regulation elaborates on the requirements for evaluations. It states that:
• Assessments and other evaluation materials must not be discriminatory on a racial or cultural basis (34 C.F.R. § 300.304(c)(1)(i)).
• They must be provided and administered in the child's native language or other mode of communication, and in the form most likely to yield accurate information on what the child knows and can do academically, developmentally, and functionally, unless it is clearly not feasible to provide or administer (34 C.F.R. § 300.304(c)(1)(ii)).
• The child must be assessed in all areas related to the suspected disability, including, if appropriate, health, vision, hearing, social and emotional status, general intelligence, academic performance, communicative status, and motor abilities (34 C.F.R. § 300.304(c)(4)).
• Assessments must be technically sound instruments that may assess the relative contribution of cognitive and behavioral factors, in addition to physical or developmental factors (34 C.F.R. § 300.304(c)(7)).
• 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(6)(B) - State Eligibility:
• This section requires states to ensure that children with disabilities are assessed using materials and procedures that are not racially or culturally discriminatory and that are provided and administered in the child's native language or other mode of communication unless it is clearly not feasible to do so.

These provisions collectively ensure that evaluations of students who speak a second language are conducted fairly and yield accurate, useful information about the student's abilities and needs. They emphasize the importance of using appropriate, culturally and linguistically responsive assessment methods. This is what IDEA states what WE HAVE to do but check your state regulations as they will be way more specific about what YOU HAVE to do.

What are my timelines?

Assign someone to set timelines when the individual assessment reports are due to ensure parents have a copy the week before the meeting to determine eligibility and to evaluation timelines will be met. 

Why? Well outside of everything else you have to do, those timelines are important. If a student is already behind, why would you want to make it worse by messing up your dates? Plus, from an advocacy standpoint, it will get you in trouble if they are missed. 

IDEA’s specific provisions that outline the timelines for conducting assessments and evaluations of students who may have disabilities. These timelines are designed to ensure that evaluations are conducted in a timely manner so that appropriate services can be provided without unnecessary delays. The relevant sections of IDEA include:

• 20 U.S.C. § 1414(a)(1)(C) - Initial Evaluations:
• This section states that the initial evaluation must be conducted within 60 days of receiving parental consent for the evaluation, or within the timeframe established by the state if the state has established its own timeline.
• 34 C.F.R. § 300.301(c) - Initial Evaluations:
• This regulation further specifies the timeline for initial evaluations. It mandates that the initial evaluation must be conducted within 60 days of receiving parental consent for the evaluation
  unless the state has established a different timeframe. The evaluation must be sufficiently comprehensive to identify all of the child's special education and related services needs.
• 20 U.S.C. § 1414(a)(2)(B) - Reevaluations:
• Reevaluations must be conducted if the public agency determines that the educational or related services needs of the child, including improved academic achievement and functional performance, warrant a reevaluation, or if the child's parents or teacher requests a reevaluation. However, a reevaluation may not occur more than once a year unless the parent and the public agency agree otherwise, and must occur at least once every three years unless the parent and the public agency agree that a reevaluation is unnecessary.
• 34 C.F.R. § 300.303 - Reevaluations:
• This regulation provides further detail on reevaluation timelines, specifying that reevaluations must occur at least once every three years unless the parent and public agency agree that a reevaluation is unnecessary. Reevaluations may also occur more frequently if conditions warrant or if requested by the child's parent or teacher, but not more than once a year unless agreed upon by the parent and the public agency.

These provisions ensure that evaluations and reevaluations are conducted within specific timeframes to facilitate timely identification and provision of appropriate services for students with disabilities.

Once all the assessments are completed, send a draft home. No, it's not in IDEA but if parents are equal partners at the table sending home the report is treating them as such. And, no, it’s not predetermination. It’s making sure everyone has the same information. 

I also know that teams, builds, and district departments all have their own viewpoints and directions where this notion is concerned. 

Predetermination will get you and your team in trouble. Big trouble and it’s a very slippery slope. 

Predetermination in the context of IDEA refers to situations where decisions about a student's eligibility for special education services or the specifics of their Individualized Education Program (IEP) are made by the school district without appropriate input from the parents or before the IEP meeting occurs. Predetermination violates the collaborative intent of IDEA and can lead to a denial of a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE).

While the term "predetermination" itself is not explicitly mentioned in IDEA, the regulations and case law provide guidance on what constitutes predetermination and why it is prohibited. Courts have consistently ruled that predetermination occurs when school personnel make unilateral decisions about a child's educational program without meaningful parental involvement. Some key cases include:

• Deal v. Hamilton County Board of Education (6th Cir. 2004): The court held that the school district violated IDEA by predetermining the child's placement and failing to consider the parents' input during the IEP process.
• W.G. v. Board of Trustees of Target Range School District (9th Cir. 1992): The court found that the school district violated IDEA by predetermining the child’s placement and not allowing the parents to meaningfully participate in the IEP process.

These provisions and cases collectively underscore the importance of parental involvement and prohibit predetermination by ensuring that all decisions about a child's special education program are made collaboratively, with meaningful input from the parents.

IEP Team Evaluation Meeting and Eligibility Determination

Before the meeting, identify the team meeting who will be the meeting facilitator. The facilitator should prepare for and coordinate the IEP team evaluation meeting to ensure all IEP team participants, including the parent, collectively participate in reviewing, analyzing, and interpreting assessment information and make required evaluation decisions: special education eligibility or continuing eligibility and identifying the educational needs of the student.

The IEP team reviews the developmentally and educationally relevant questions (from the evaluation plan) in relation to findings from existing and new assessments and other information gathered in prior steps.

Consider all information and make evaluation decisions:

• For students who are culturally or linguistically diverse, how are the assessment results indicative of a disability versus a difference?
• Do any exclusionary factors apply?
• Does the student meet or continue to meet disability category criteria (refer to disability category forms)?
• What are the effects of disability (e.g., how does the student’s disability affect access, engagement, and progress in age or grade-level general education curriculum, instruction, environments, or activities; under what conditions are these effects intensified or lessened)?
• What are the student’s disability-related needs, whether or not commonly linked to the student’s identified category(ies) of disability (e.g., areas in which the student needs to develop or improve skills that address effects of the student’s disability so the student can access, engage and make progress in general education)?
• Does the student need or continue to need specially designed instruction to address disability-related needs? Or can the student’s educational needs be addressed without specially designed instruction?

If the student is eligible for special education, ensure there is enough information to include in the evaluation report to support writing an IEP based on the eligibility decision and information about the student’s educational needs that can be used to develop or review and revise the student’s IEP. Evaluation information should help the team develop an IEP that supports access, engagement and progress to meet age and grade-level general education standards and expectations.

If the student is not, or is no longer, eligible for special education, ensure there is enough information to support the IEP team eligibility decision and to make recommendations about student needs that can be addressed with general education supports to help the student access, engage, and make progress in age or grade-level general education. The team may consider if the student is eligible for protection under section 504 because of a “physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more major life activities.” Remember Special Education and Section 504 are two different things and can’t be completed at a Special Education meeting. Following your building Section 504 procedures. 

Wrapping it all up

Document the IEP team evaluation decisions about eligibility and educational need on the evaluation report, including all required forms. Communicate and clarify next steps and any questions with the IEP team, including the parent (e.g., timelines for IEP development, plans to address student needs if student is not or no longer eligible for special education under IDEA).

If the student is eligible or continues to be eligible for special education: rewrite the student’s Individualized Education Program (IEP) based on the new data.

If the student is found not, or no longer eligible for special education, make general education recommendations as appropriate, such as supports other than special education services, within the LEA’s RTI/MTSS.

This by all means is not everything you need to know or even remember about making sure you are completing comprehensive special education evaluations–it was meant to provide a guide to help you remember what needs to be done and any sticky places that you need to be aware of. 

Those sticky places–those are things I look for as an advocate myself. You have a chance to take IEP compliance training either from your State or from an advocate like Catherine Whitcher, I would recommend it. I was surprised about what I didn’t know as a special education teacher or changes that didn’t get communicated such as Case Law or shifts in how you complete ML assessments.

If you have questions about anything from this series please reach out to me.

Chat soon-

What is RIOT/ICEL and what does it have to do with my vocabulary project??

How it all works?

Welcome back to learning about what is needed to complete a Comprehensive Special Education evaluation. In part 2, I talked about the importance of planning comprehensive special education evaluations is emphasized. The process involves a collaborative approach among educators, specialists, and parents to ensure each child’s unique needs are accurately identified and met. It covers the key steps and considerations, including reviewing existing data, conducting new assessments, and integrating parental input. The post also highlights the necessity of adhering to legal requirements and timelines, particularly those specified by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Effective planning and execution of these evaluations are crucial for developing appropriate Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) that support student success.  Read it here.

Not going to lie here-getting parent input is hard. And sometimes really hard. But you need it. Like legally need it. You must have the parent's voice throughout the whole process not just the IEP but also the evaluation. Colorado's Dispute and Complaint Office has shared that if that it's the first thing they look for when looking at an IEP or evaluation. 

Notice of start of evaluation or reevaluation and appointment of IEP team

Determine who the IEP team participants are with collective expertise about areas of student strength and need, age and grade level standards and expectations, disability category criteria, and state and federal evaluation process requirements. In an Initial IEP use the RTI/MTSS data. If a three-year reevaluation, use the current IEP to drive what needs to be done. 

Remember, parents are part of the team. Ask them! 

Make sure if additional specialists are needed on the team to provide expertise about concerns representing particular areas of need such as specific medical, health concerns, or behavior. 

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) emphasizes the importance of parental input in the special education process. Several sections of the law highlight the critical role that parents play in developing and implementing their child's Individualized Education Program (IEP).

Parental Input in the IEP Process

IDEA say --

34 CFR § 300.322 Parent participation:

• (a) Public agency responsibility—general. Each public agency must take steps to ensure that one or both of the parents of a child with a disability are present at each IEP Team meeting or are afforded the opportunity to participate, including—
• (1) Notifying parents of the meeting early enough to ensure that they will have an opportunity to attend; and
• (2) Scheduling the meeting at a mutually agreed on time and place.
• (b) Information provided to parents.
• (1) The notice required under paragraph (a)(1) of this section must—
• (i) Indicate the purpose, time, and location of the meeting and who will be in attendance; and
• (ii) Inform the parents of the provisions in § 300.321(a)(6) and (c) (relating to the participation of other individuals on the IEP Team who have knowledge or special expertise about the child), and § 300.321(f) (relating to the participation of the Part C service coordinator or other representatives of the Part C system at the initial IEP Team meeting for a child previously served under Part C of the Act).
• (2) For a child with a disability beginning not later than the first IEP to be in effect when the child turns 16, or younger if determined appropriate by the IEP Team, the notice also must—
• (i) Indicate—
• (A) That a purpose of the meeting will be the consideration of the postsecondary goals and transition services for the child, in accordance with § 300.320(b); and
• (B) That the agency will invite the student; and
• (ii) Identify any other agency that will be invited to send a representative.

• (a) Development of IEP—
• (1) General. In developing each child’s IEP, the IEP Team must consider—
• (i)The strengths of the child;
• (ii) The concerns of the parents for enhancing the education of their child;
• (iii) The results of the initial or most recent evaluation of the child; and
• (iv) The academic, developmental, and functional needs of the child.
• (b) Review and revision of IEPs—
• (1) General. Each public agency must ensure that, subject to paragraphs (b)(2) and 
• (b)(3) of this section, the IEP Team—
• (i) Reviews the child’s IEP periodically, but not less than annually, to determine whether the annual goals for the child are being achieved; and
• (ii) Revises the IEP, as appropriate, to address—
• (A) Any lack of expected progress toward the annual goals described in § 300.320(a)(2), and in the general education curriculum, if appropriate;
• (B) The results of any reevaluation conducted under § 300.303;
• (C) Information about the child provided to, or by, the parents, as described in § 300.305(a)(2);
• (D) The child’s anticipated needs; or
• (E) Other matters.

But Amanda J. v. Clark County School District 267 F.3rd 877 also states “Parents not only represent the best interests of their child in the IEP development process, they also provide information about the child critical to developing a comprehensive IEP and which only they are in a position to know.” 

These sections of IDEA emphasize that parents must be included in the IEP team meetings, their input must be considered in the development of the IEP, and they have the right to be informed and participate actively in the decision-making process regarding their child's education. If a complaint is filed this will be the first thing the state will look for. 

Plan the Evaluation - Review of Existing Data and determine if additional assessment is needed

Create student-specific developmentally and educationally relevant questions using either the student’s RTI/MTSS data or the current IEP and its data.  Make sure you are looking across all domains to assess the whole child: academic, cognitive learning, communication, independence and self-determination, social and emotional, physical, and health. 

Ask any needed clarifying questions around suspected areas of need as well as related concerns of those who interact with the student in and out of school by asking developmentally and educationally relevant questions.

Identify existing functional, developmental, and academic information about student access, engagement, and progress in general education curriculum, instruction, and other school activities, and environments. Review and refine educationally relevant questions as needed to ensure nothing will be missed. Within the RTI/MTSS system these questions, concerns, and data should be already documented.

Consider potential disability categories that should be considered so sufficient information will be available to apply initial or reevaluation disability category criteria. Make sure the IEP team includes individuals with expertise in the category(ies) of disability that may be considered. Ask hard questions like, “Do we have cognitive concerns?, Do we suspect Autism?, Do we suspect Dyslexia?”

Decide what, if any, additional data or other assessment information is needed to explore all areas of suspected academic and functional skill concern, areas of student strengths and assets, and to apply anticipated disability category criteria. A comprehensive evaluation includes a mix of formal and informal testing to answer the team's questions.

Use a problem-solving framework (e.g., RIOT/ICEL) to guide the review of existing data and maintain focus on the whole student. Consider information about instruction, curriculum, learning environments, and the student. I have shared this before, this is the form my building uses for all RTI/MTSS student concerns. 

Notice and Consent - Need to Conduct Additional Assessment

Before moving forward, ensure data and information that will be used to make evaluation decisions comes from multiple sources and is collected using a variety of assessment tools and methods such as record reviews, observations, interviews, curriculum-based evaluation, and norm-referenced standardized tests; and includes information gathered in the student’s natural learning environments. (formal and informal assessment data points)

Document review of existing data and decision about additional assessment or other information needed.

Communicate with the family and others to clearly explain who will administer assessments and collect other information, the types of assessments that will be implemented, and the tools used to collect other information, and clarify any questions that family members or others may have.

Chat Soon-

References:

Statute and regulations. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. (2024b, January 26). https://sites.ed.gov/idea/statuteregulations/ https://sites.ed.gov/idea/statuteregulations/ 

PSS: Parent Input Freebie

I work on a HUGE special education team. This year it is 15 members. Getting everyone on the same page for a student evaluation is hard. It's hard on a good day but out of everything, I deal with as a special education teacher, case manager, and one who completes 98% of all academic testing for students starting their special education journey. This post will walk you through what IDEA tells us what we have to do.

What does IDEA say?

IEP teams follow these steps when conducting comprehensive special education evaluations. The Evaluation Process Chart outlines required IDEA timeline procedures and describes recommended actions for each step. These procedures fall within the needed timeline for evaluation. 

According to IDEA, evaluations must be conducted within 60 calendar days of receiving parental consent for the evaluation. This timeline can vary if the state has established its own timeframe, but the federal requirement is 60 days.
The relevant section of IDEA is found in 34 CFR § 300.301(c), which states:

(a) General. A public agency must ensure that a reevaluation of each child with a disability is conducted

• (1) If the public agency determines that the educational or related services needs, including improved academic achievement and functional performance, of the child warrant a reevaluation; or
• (2) If the child’s parent or teacher requests a reevaluation.

(b) Limitation. A reevaluation conducted under paragraph (a) of this section—

• (1) May occur not more than once a year, unless the parent and the public agency agree otherwise; and
• (2) Must occur at least once every 3 years, unless the parent and the public agency agree that a reevaluation is unnecessary.

Start the Evaluation: Initial or Reevaluation

Initial Evaluation: A special education referral starts the initial special education evaluation process. The referral describes why the person making the referral believes the student is a “child with a disability” who needs special education.

Reevaluation: A reevaluation is started when the LEA (Local Educational Agency–most of the time will be the school your child attends) decides a student’s disability-related needs, including improved academic achievement and functional performance, warrant a reevaluation; or if the student’s parent or teacher requests a reevaluation.

The relevant sections from IDEA are 34 CFR § 300.303 and 34 CFR § 300.305.

Definition and Timing of Reevaluations from 34 CFR § 300.303 Reevaluations:

• (a) General. A public agency must ensure that a reevaluation of each child with a disability is conducted—
• (1) If the public agency determines that the educational or related services needs, including improved academic achievement and functional performance, of the child warrant a reevaluation; or
• (2) If the child’s parent or teacher requests a reevaluation.
• (b) Limitation. A reevaluation conducted under paragraph (a) of this section—
• (1) May occur not more than once a year, unless the parent and the public agency agree otherwise; and
• (2) Must occur at least once every 3 years, unless the parent and the public agency agree that a reevaluation is unnecessary.

Evaluation Procedures

34 CFR § 300.305 Additional requirements for evaluations and reevaluations:

• (a) Review of existing evaluation data. As part of an initial evaluation (if appropriate) and as part of any reevaluation under this part, the IEP Team and other qualified professionals, as appropriate, must—
• (1) Review existing evaluation data on the child, including—
• (i) Evaluations and information provided by the parents of the child;
• (ii) Current classroom-based, local, or State assessments, and classroom-based observations; and
• (iii) Observations by teachers and related service providers; and
• (2) On the basis of that review, and input from the child’s parents, identify what additional data, if any, are needed to determine—
• (i) Whether the child is a child with a disability, as defined in §300.8, and the educational needs of the child; or, in case of a reevaluation of a child, whether the child continues to have such a disability, and the educational needs of the child;
• (ii) The present levels of academic achievement and related developmental needs of the child;
• (iii) Whether the child needs special education and related services; or, in the case of a reevaluation of a child, whether the child continues to need special education and related services; and
• (iv) Whether any additions or modifications to the special education and related services are needed to enable the child to meet the measurable annual goals set out in the IEP of the child and to participate, as appropriate, in the general education curriculum.

Chat Soon-

References:

About idea. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. (2024, March 27). https://sites.ed.gov/idea/about-idea/

Statute and regulations. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. (2024b, January 26). https://sites.ed.gov/idea/statuteregulations/ https://sites.ed.gov/idea/statuteregulations/