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/ 

Oral language involves the ability to comprehend and produce spoken language. It includes phonology (the sounds of language), vocabulary (words and their meanings), syntax (sentence structure), semantics (meaning), and pragmatics (social language use). In essence, oral language is the bedrock upon which literacy is built. Without a firm grasp of oral language, students can struggle with decoding words, understanding texts, and expressing themselves in writing.

Scarborough's Rope

Oral Language and Scarborough’s Rope

References

The Framework

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires that special education evaluations be sufficiently comprehensive to make eligibility decisions and identify the student’s educational needs, whether or not commonly linked to the disability category in which the student has been classified (34 CFR 300.304). Comprehensive evaluations are conducted in a culturally and linguistically responsive manner; non-discriminatory for students of all cultural, racial, ethnic, socioeconomic, and other backgrounds. When conducting special education evaluations, IEP teams must follow all procedural and substantive evaluation requirements specified in IDEA. 

The BIG Ideas

• Special education evaluations must be sufficiently comprehensive for IEP teams to determine special education eligibility or continuing eligibility and to identify the educational needs of the student, whether or not commonly linked to the student’s identified disability category(ies).
• A comprehensive evaluation is a process, not an event. IEP team participants work together to explore, problem-solve, and make decisions about eligibility for special education services. If found eligible, the IEP team uses information gathered during the evaluation to collectively develop the content of the student’s IEP.
• A comprehensive special education evaluation actively engages the family throughout the evaluation process.
• Comprehensive evaluations are first and foremost “needs focused” on identifying academic and functional skill areas affected by the student’s disability, rather than “label focused” on identifying a disability category label which may or may not, accurately infer student need.
• Developmentally and educationally relevant questions about instruction, curriculum, environment, as well as the student, guide the evaluation. Such questions are especially helpful during the review of existing data to determine what if any, additional information is needed. 
• Asking clarifying questions throughout the evaluation helps the team explore educational concerns as well as student strengths and needs such as barriers to and conditions that support student learning, and important skills the student needs to develop or improve.
• Culturally responsive problem-solving and data-based decision-making using current, valid, and reliable (i.e. accurate) assessment data and information is critical to conducting a comprehensive evaluation.
• Assessment tools and strategies used to collect additional information must be linguistically and culturally sensitive and must provide accurate and useful data about the student’s academic, developmental, and functional skills.
• Data and other information used during the evaluation process is collected through multiple means including review, interview, observation, and testing; as well as across domains of learning including instruction, curriculum, environment, and learner.
• Individuals who collect and interpret assessment data and other information during an evaluation must be appropriately skilled in test administration and other data collection methods. This includes understanding how systemic, racial, and other types of bias may influence data collection and interpretation, and how individual student characteristics may influence results.
• Assessment data and other information gathered over time and across environments help the team understand and make evaluation decisions about the nature and effects of a student’s disability on their education.
• Comprehensive evaluations must provide information relevant to making decisions about how to educate the student. A comprehensive evaluation provides the foundation for developing an IEP that promotes student access, engagement, and progress in age or grade-level general education curriculum, instruction, and other activities, and environments.

The Balcony View

Comprehensive evaluations must provide information relevant to making decisions about how to educate the student so they can access, engage, and make meaningful progress toward meeting age and grade level standards. Assessment and collection of additional information play a central role during the evaluation and subsequently in IEP development and reviewing student progress. 

A comprehensive evaluation takes into account Career Readiness, a growing awareness of the relationship between evaluation and IEP development, and the need for information about how special education evaluations and reevaluations can be made more useful for IEP development.

The 2017 US Supreme Court Endrew F. case also brought renewed attention to the importance of knowing whether a student's IEP is sufficient to enable a student with a disability to make progress “appropriate in light of their circumstances.” Finally, updated guidance, including results of statewide procedural compliance self-assessment, IDEA complaints addressing whether evaluations are sufficiently comprehensive, and continuing disproportionate disability identification, placement, and discipline in student groups who traditionally are not equitably served.

A comprehensive evaluation responds to stakeholders’ requests for more information and reinforces that every public school student graduates ready for further education, the workplace, and the community.

It seeks to ensure a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) for every student protected under IDEA. It guides IEP teams in planning and conducting special education evaluations that explicitly address state and federal requirements to conduct comprehensive evaluations that help IEP teams to determine eligibility, and thoroughly and clearly identify student needs. 

Planning and Conducting a Comprehensive Special Education Evaluation

A well-developed IEP is a vehicle to ensure that a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) is provided to students protected under IDEA. A comprehensive special education evaluation provides the foundation for effective IEP development. 

A comprehensive special education evaluation is conducted by a student’s IEP team appointed by the district. The IEP team must include the parent as a required participant and essential partner in decision-making. Special Education evaluation is a collaborative IEP team responsibility. During the evaluation process, the team collectively gathers relevant information and uses it to make accurate and individualized decisions about a student’s eligibility or continuing eligibility, effects of disability, areas of strength, and academic and functional needs.

Data and other information used to make evaluation decisions come from a variety of sources and environments, often extending beyond the IEP team. Guided by educationally relevant questions, both existing and new information is compiled or collected, analyzed, integrated, and summarized by the IEP team to provide a comprehensive picture of the student’s educational strengths and needs.

A comprehensive special education evaluation is grounded in a culturally responsive problem-solving model in which potential systemic, racial, and other bias is addressed, and hypotheses about the nature and extent of the student’s disability are generated and explored.

Conducting a comprehensive special education evaluation requires planning. Each team has its own methods for planning and conducting comprehensive special education evaluations with guidance from the state and district.

Why RIOT/ICEL Matrix?

Chat Soon-

With everything I have to deal with as a special education teacher, why in the world would I ever focus on a student's vocabulary. The answer is quite simple. It impacts EVERYTHING!!!

What does this have to do with planning? Planning for students to make IEP goals is ALL based on data. Read on to see how I start planning for my OG groups by answering the larger questions about what in the world is up with my student's vocabulary scores? Is there anything I can do to increase their vocabulary?

I spend the bulk of my teaching time (like everyone else) on phonemic awareness and phonics with a side of fluency and comprehension.

Yes, vocabulary is built into each listen but is it enough???

I would hazard a guess for this group of students, this project is focusing on, it's not even close to helping them close gaps. 

Five facts that prove why this is important

• Improved Communication Skills:  A strong vocabulary enables students to express themselves clearly and effectively, helping them articulate their thoughts, ideas, and emotions with confidence. It allows them to engage in meaningful conversations, express their needs and opinions, and actively participate in classroom discussions.
• Reading and Comprehension: As students encounter new words in texts, a rich vocabulary enables them to decipher the meaning of unfamiliar words and understand the overall context. The more words students are familiar with, the better equipped they are to comprehend and enjoy a wide range of written material, expanding their horizons and fostering a love for reading.
• Academic Success: Many subjects, such as language arts, social studies, and science, require students to understand and use specific vocabulary terms. By expanding their vocabulary, elementary students can better understand textbook content, and comprehend instructions. A broad vocabulary also contributes to better writing skills, allowing students to express their ideas fluently and effectively in assignments and essays.
• Critical Thinking and Problem Solving: A diverse vocabulary enhances critical thinking and problem-solving abilities.  Vocabulary development fosters cognitive flexibility, enabling students to analyze problems, make connections, and draw conclusions based on the information available to them.
• Increased Confidence and Self-esteem: Building a strong vocabulary instills confidence and boosts self-esteem in elementary students. When children possess a rich vocabulary, they feel more assured in their ability to express themselves and engage in social interactions. They become more comfortable speaking in front of others, advocating for themselves, and participating actively in group activities. This confidence extends beyond the classroom and positively impacts their overall personality development and social interactions.

Science of Reading and Vocabulary

The Science of Reading model recognizes the intricate connection between students' vocabulary and reading development. Vocabulary is a fundamental component of reading comprehension, as understanding the meaning of words is crucial for understanding written text. 

In the Science of Reading model, vocabulary instruction is seen as an essential part of teaching reading skills. By explicitly teaching students the meanings of words, word relationships, and word-learning strategies, educators can equip them with the tools necessary to decode unfamiliar words and make connections between words and their meanings. 

A strong vocabulary enhances students' ability to comprehend and analyze texts, make inferences, and engage in critical thinking. Furthermore, vocabulary instruction in the Science of Reading model goes beyond isolated word memorization; it focuses on teaching words in context, promoting a deeper understanding of how words are used and their nuances. 

Science of Reading, Vocabulary, and Special Education

I have witnessed firsthand how the Science of Reading model of reading and a weak vocabulary can significantly impact students. For students with learning disabilities or language delays, the lack of a solid vocabulary foundation poses immense challenges in their reading journey. 

Without a strong vocabulary, students struggle to comprehend texts, decode unfamiliar words, and make meaningful connections between words and their meanings. This weak vocabulary hinders their ability to access grade-level content, understand instructions, and participate fully in classroom activities. 

It also affects students' overall confidence and self-esteem, as they may feel frustrated and left behind compared to their peers. As a special education teacher, I recognize the critical importance of addressing vocabulary deficits through explicit instruction, targeted interventions, and multisensory approaches. 

By incorporating evidence-based strategies from the Science of Reading model, such as word-learning techniques and vocabulary-building exercises, we can help these students develop a robust vocabulary, overcome reading challenges, and unlock their full potential for academic success.

Which Cliff did I jump off First? 

But before I jump head-first into setting this idea up … a reality check about why is iReady even a part of my thinking as a Special Education teacher.

How my building and I use iReady: 

1. It’s dictated by my state and building to use it. Classroom teachers do use the benchmark scores for their yearly professional evaluations as part of their ratings. Most offend beginning of the year to mid-year. 
2. Teachers do (yet frowned upon & 🙄) use either the Benchmark, Category, or Growth Monitoring score for Read Plans. 
3. Read Plan cut-scores come from iReady Scaled Scores (students who need to be placed on a Read Plan K-3)
4. Our building RTI/MTSS team, lets teachers use the same Read Plan goals for RTI/MTSS goals to help with the workload. 
5. iReady as a whole is only as good as the student taking it meaning it reflects how a student feels about testing.
6. iReady aligns with state standards.
7. Specialists and administration look at most of the data from a balcony view, so the whole grade or a whole population of students.
8. iReady will pull out program strengths and needs. But it takes time with both a program and using iReady to ensure you have a solid picture to make decisions about.
9. Building Interventists use iReady Benchmark to create groups to pull for both reading and math.

A few cons to using iReady Benchmark scores, category, or Growth Monitoring Scores to make decisions. 

1. iReady Reading will pull out a program’s and grade levels strengths and needs–aka the good, the bad, and the ugly. (ask the question be prepared for the answer even if you don’t like it) & in my case falls way outside of my purview but it has come up in student-specific conversations. (which is toad-ally fun)
2. To the best of my knowledge, the Benchmark Data (whole and category-scaled scores) are the only thing that you can do something with on a macro scale. An example: "By iReady mid-years, and given small group phonics instruction, Joey will be able to increase his iReady phonics score from 350 to 400 scaled points."
3. As I mentioned in the previous paragraph, if a student’s not feeling it how accurate is it??? Hence the need for a body of evidence when you start talking about needing additional interventions, need to make a course change, or looking at special education testing. 
4. Using the data from Growth Monitorings is a no-go. The Growth Monitor is designed to be a “dipstick” of how things are going. It’s short and to the point. It doesn’t test across all five domains every time you give it. This means you have a high probability of getting false data. Couple that with making intervention decisions off of and well … off the cliff we go.  It also takes at least 4 data points to get a student-specific trend line.

I cannot change how my building uses iReady for intervention progress monitoring. I can only change the progress monitoring tool when the students are brought for me to review or a teacher comes to me with a question about what tool to use.

Teachers and Parents: If you use or see iReady Progress Monitoring for Read Plans or for RTI/MTSS goals, ask yourself, “Is this progress monitoring tool going to give me the information I need to make instructional decisions?” “Is it specific enough to tell me if the student has mastered the skill or not?”

Do Not use it if you don’t have to create goals and as a progress monitoring tool. 

What do I do with iReady Data as a Special Education teacher?

I use iReady as a special education teacher as part of their body of evidence. It is part of their whole data story. It is part of the WHOLE STUDENT and is never used as the end-all-be-all of a student. 

Why????

Depending on which data set you are looking at within iReady you can only gleam specific information or thoughts around a student or Core instruction.

In my building, the hope is that if the student is in any interventions, you can see it translate back to moving Benchmark scores aka the Student's Annual or Stretch growth. (this also requires additional data not just these data points)

This means iReady should not replace intervention-specific data collection–the mirco data you are collecting on if the intervention is working. iReady will give you notions of carryover. 

iReady is the macro the big picture. In my building, iReady is a pretty good predictor of how 3rd-6th grade students will perform on the State Assessment in April. (Yes, this means Spring Benchmark is given after students take the State Assessment. And, yes, I can only speak for my state and building. And our state-reported data has held this idea to be true the last four years–even though COVID–both good and bad.)

Back to how I use this information as part of my data collection for students who see me for reading or math. 

1. The Fall benchmark is where I look at where my students scored the lowest and the highest. This gives me a gauge as to how students are coming back to school after having 10 weeks off. These scores tend to align with IEP goals and end-of-year progress monitoring data. Such as the Phonics "can dos" matching the CORE phonics survey data. 
2. Benchmark to Benchmark data look at the percentages it can tell you if students dropped. I use the percentage data more than the Scaled Scores. (If you can always print out the benchmark data.) 
3. I look at the Can Dos to gain insight into skill breakdowns. These can give ideas as to the next steps and may or may not align with IEP goals. The insights here help me more with math than reading. 
4. I pull the Diagnostic results for all the grades aka the ultimate balcony view. This is a must for my LD reports and any intervention questions I get. I pull grade-level Scaled Score averages after each Benchmark. I have to report how the student compares to their grade level peers. 
5. From an RTI/MTSS perspective, the Diagnostic Report, allows you to break down the data to understand if you have a strong core in reading or math and set building or grade-level goals to move students across bands.  
6. My state and building/district mandate classroom teachers give the Reading growth monitor each month for Read Plan students. It takes at least four data points to get anything useful from the information.  (See #7 for more)
7. I can assign the Math Growth Monitor. I have in the past given this as part of the monthly progress monitoring data I collect. Like with Reading it takes time to get anything one could call useful and most certainly nothing I would ever set goals using. If, and I do mine if, the student took the assessment seriously I can see if both Core and intervention as working or if they were messing around on a Diagnostic. (like that never happens)
8. I can ONLY usefully use the Benchmark numbers to make instructional decisions. This means I can compare Fall to Winter; Winter to Spring; and Fall to Spring.  The data from Winter in my building historically, is not reliable as most students drop. (Some a little. Some a lot. That’s a whole different rant for a different time. lol.) 

I did promise the good, the bad, and the ugly. This is how we use iReady. Is it the only way, probability not. Are there other reports, things to glime, or things not to do, most likely but this is what I'm going with.

Stay tuned for how I plan to attack this for the coming school year and learn some nuggets that you can take back and use in the fall to build student vocabulary that are research-backed and align with the Science of Reading.