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-

PS: Introducing "A Guide to Special Education for Parents and Teachers," a comprehensive resource available in my Teachers Pay Teachers store. This guide provides valuable insights and practical strategies for navigating the special education process. Designed for both parents and educators, it covers essential topics such as the Individualized Education Program (IEP), legal rights, assessment procedures, and effective communication techniques. With clear explanations and actionable advice, this guide empowers stakeholders to collaborate effectively, ensuring that students with special needs receive the support and services they deserve. Ideal for those seeking to enhance their understanding and advocacy in the realm of special education.

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.

34 CFR § 300.324 Development, review, and revision of IEP:

• (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/ 

PS: Introducing "A Guide to Special Education for Parents and Teachers," a comprehensive resource available in my Teachers Pay Teachers store. This guide provides valuable insights and practical strategies for navigating the special education process. Designed for both parents and educators, it covers essential topics such as the Individualized Education Program (IEP), legal rights, assessment procedures, and effective communication techniques. With clear explanations and actionable advice, this guide empowers stakeholders to collaborate effectively, ensuring that students with special needs receive the support and services they deserve. Ideal for those seeking to enhance their understanding and advocacy in the realm of special education.

PSS: Parent Input Freebie

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.

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

An Individualized Education Program (IEP) is the key to addressing a student’s disability-related needs.
It describes annual goals and the supports and services a student must receive so they can access, engage, and make progress in general education. 

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?

I came across Orton-Gillingham during a field placement as an undergrad. The special education teacher was using Wilson with her small groups to help them build reading skills. Mind you--this was not something taught in my program but she opened my eyes to something I would keep in my teaching bag. 

The Orton-Gillingham approach is a multi-sensory way of teaching reading, spelling, and writing skills to students who struggle with language-based learning difficulties, including dyslexia. Lessons focus on mastery of the smallest units of language first, including phonemes and graphemes, and then build to whole word, phrase and sentence level instruction. 

Important to note: Orton-Gillingham refers to an instructional approach, not any particular program or curriculum.

A Quick History Lesson

The term “dyslexia” first appeared in texts in the early 1870s. The Orton-Gillingham approach has been in use for the past 80 years and is the oldest dyslexia-specific approach to remedial reading instruction. It was developed in the 1930s by neuro-psychiatrist Dr. Samuel Orton based on his work with children who struggled with language processing issues but were of normal intelligence.

Dr. Orton proposed a neurological basis for the problem and developed a series of activities that combined right and left brain functions, predicting it would positively impact the ability to read and spell.

Dr. Anna Gillingham focused her efforts on training teachers in the approach, creating materials and expanding the instruction to include essential features of the English language, such as prefixes, suffixes, and even spelling rules.

Encouraged by Dr. Orton, she compiled and published instructional materials as early as the 1930s which provided the foundation for student instruction and teacher training. This collaboration became known as the Orton-Gillingham Approach.

What is Orton Gillingham?

This is where there seems to be a communication gap between parents and schools. OG is not a program, course or curriculum. There is no official “Orton Gillingham certification” for teachers. Your child does not get pulled out of their classroom an hour a day and taken someplace else to learn OG.

So what is OG then? First, it’s usually called the Orton Gillingham Approach.

And that’s what it is–an approach or way of teaching.

Orton-Gillingham places an important emphasis on multi-sensory approaches to learning. But it is more than that.

Orton-Gillingham is a highly structured approach, that breaks down reading and spelling into letters and sounds, and then building on these skills over time. OG was the first approach to use multi-sensory teaching strategies to teach reading.

This means that educators use sight, sound, touch, and motor movement to help students connect and learn the concepts being taught.

This multi-sensory approach helps students understand the relationship between letters, sounds, and words.

For example, an OG teacher a student to learn a letter by:

• seeing it
• saying it out loud
• sounding it out
• singing it
• writing it with pen or pencil
• writing it with fingers in shaving cream or sand
• forming it with clay or play-doh
• making the letter with your body or blocks

What is dyslexia?

Dyslexia is the most commonly diagnosed reading disorder. Dyslexia is also found on a continuum of severity, ranging from mild characteristics of dyslexia to profound difficulty with reading and writing. In its most severe forms, it is a learning disability. In its mildest form, it may be a source of puzzlement, frustration or mild inconvenience. 

Dyslexia is a specific learning disability that is neurobiological in origin. It is characterized by difficulties with accurate and/or fluent word recognition and by poor spelling and decoding abilities.

As a result of this span of difficulty, the exact prevalence of dyslexia has yet to be definitively determined. It has been suggested that perhaps as many as 15% to 20% of the population as a whole have some of the symptoms of dyslexia (IDA, 2017).

Orton-Gillingham works because it enhances phonemic awareness in dyslexic individuals by examining common language patterns. Learners experiment with blending sounds, looking at letters and word parts in isolation and in various configurations, and studying language features, including diphthongs and silent letters.

The goal of Orton-Gillingham based instruction is to enable learners to decode words on their own and improve literacy skills in order to achieve their full potential at school.

Every state has its own special education legislation for the identification and special education support for students with a specific learning disability.

In Colorado, during the special education evaluation process, the team must document any characteristics of dyslexia. Be sure to look at your Department of Education--Special Education for what the team must do.

What the Orton-Gillingham Approach Can Teach Reading

The OG Approach can teach:

• Decoding: break words into their syllables and phonemes (the smallest unit of sound) to be able to read the word. Develops automaticity and fluency at the word level.
• Encoding: break down words orally into their syllables and phonemes to be able to spell the word.

However, an OG program requires supplemental programming to teach fluency and composition.

Can a Parent Teach Orton Gillingham?

Well, in the loosest form of OG, anyone can teach OG. All you need is a multi-sensory approach and you can say you’re OG. But just like too many behaviorists say they are using ABA (when they’re really not), OG is not for everyone either. This is where you have to be careful.

I’m not a BCBA, but I can reinforce ABA principles and activities at home with my son. I would say for most parents, you can reinforce tasks and lessons from school or at private tutoring. But unless you are a teacher or reading specialist, I would leave it to the experts.

Getting Orton Gillingham on your IEP

Want OG added to your IEP??? Ask the Team. 

Ok, here’s where the troubles are, right? You asked for OG on your IEP, because it helps kids with dyslexia learn to read.

They said no. Ask for the progress monitoring data. So, what about trialing a change and getting back together in 30 days with data? 

Have data??

Questions to ask:

• What is the data looking at? spelling (Encoding), reading (decoding)
• Is there improvement? How big?
• Ask the classroom teacher, what do they see? 
• Ask the team, who is trained in which program? (Programs Accredited by IDA)

Fact is, many reading programs designed for students with dyslexia are based on the Orton Gillingham Approach. But the OG approach alone may not be enough to get them there.

Learning OG has been a wonderful and overwhelming journey but I have had students who are very successful with this approach and others who need a different approach to help them learn to read. It always comes back to the data. 

Parents, always ask for it if the team doesn't bring it! Don't be afraid to push back on the team if they don't have it and ask questions about it and what it means for your child.

Chat soon,

PSSS.... Parents here's a freebie for your next IEP meeting. Need IEP Help CLICK HERE!!

What is MTSS?

A Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS) is a framework of team-driven data-based problem solving for improving the outcomes of every student through family, school, and community partnering and a layered continuum of evidence-based practices applied at the classroom, school, district, region, and state level. MTSS is a coherent continuum of evidence-based, system-wide practices to support a rapid response to academic and behavioral needs, with frequent data-based monitoring for instructional decision-making to empower each student to achieve high standards.MTSS models rely on data to assess student needs and help teachers understand which kinds of intervention they need within each tier.

What is Response to Intervention?

Response to Intervention, or RTI, is an educational approach designed to help all learners to succeed, through a combination of high-quality instruction, early identification of struggling students, and responsive, targeted evidence-based interventions to address specific learning needs. RTI uses ongoing progress monitoring and data collection to facilitate data-based decision-making. In addition, the implementation of RTI will assist in the correct identification of learning or other disorders.

In my building, MTSS is the umbrella and RTI falls under it. All students are active participants in MTSS but not all students will be active participants in RTI. 

How does RTI work?

It operates on a 3-tiered framework of interventions at increasing levels of intensity. The process begins with high-quality core instruction in the general education classroom. Teachers use a variety of instructional methods to maximize student engagement and learning: modeling of skills, small group instruction, guided practice, independent practice, to name a few.

Through universal screening methods, struggling learners are identified and are given more intense instruction and interventions that are more targeted to individual needs. By giving frequent assessments and analyzing data, teachers make decisions about what levels of intervention will best support student achievement.

What are the Tiers?

Tier I: This is the guaranteed and viable curriculum that all students receive each day within their general education classrooms. It is High quality, research-based core instruction in the general education classroom. All students are given universal screening assessments to ensure that they are progressing and are learning essential skills. {Sidenote: A guaranteed and viable curriculum is one that guarantees equal opportunity for learning for all students. Similarly, it guarantees adequate time for teachers to teach content and for students to learn it. A guaranteed and viable curriculum is one that guarantees that the curriculum being taught is the curriculum being assessed. It is viable when adequate time is ensured to teach all determined essential content.}

Within Tier 1, all students receive high-quality, scientifically based instruction provided by qualified personnel to ensure that their difficulties are not due to inadequate instruction. All students are screened on a periodic basis to establish an academic and behavioral baseline and to identify struggling learners who need additional support. Students identified as being “at-risk” through universal screenings and/or results on state- or district-wide tests receive supplemental instruction during the school day in the regular classroom. The length of time for this step can vary, but it generally should not exceed 8 weeks. During that time, student progress is closely monitored using a validated screening system and documentation method.

Tier II: More intensive, targeted instruction, matched to student needs, is delivered to students who are not making adequate progress in Tier I; they often receive instruction in small groups. They receive progress monitoring weekly, and teachers regularly evaluate data to assess whether students are making progress or need different or more intense intervention.

Targeted Interventions are a part of Tier 2 for students not making adequate progress in the regular classroom in Tier 1 are provided with increasingly intensive instruction matched to their needs on the basis of levels of performance and rates of progress. Intensity varies across group size, frequency and duration of intervention, and level of training of the professionals providing instruction or intervention. These services and interventions are provided in small-group settings in addition to instruction in the general curriculum. In the early grades (kindergarten through 3rd grade), interventions are usually in the areas of reading and math. A longer period of time may be required for this tier, but it should generally not exceed a grading period. Tier II interventions serve approximately 15% of the student population. Students who continue to show too little progress at this level of intervention are then considered for more intensive interventions as part of Tier 3.

Tier III: The most intensive, individualized level of intervention. Students who have not responded to Tier II intervention receive daily, small group or one-on-one instruction. Students in this level often are already receiving special education services, or are referred for further evaluation for special education.

Here students receive individualized, intensive interventions that target the students’ skill deficits. Students who do not achieve the desired level of progress in response to these targeted interventions are then referred for a comprehensive evaluation and considered for eligibility for special education services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA 2004). The data collected during Tiers 1, 2, and 3 are included and used to make the eligibility decision. This is typically about 5% of your student population. 

So what does all of this mean???

What that means is this. A teacher or parent identifies a student’s needs, and they try some interventions. Sounds simple enough, right? 

So what’s the problem?

I have a family member who was struggling in reading. Mom talked to the teacher. The Teacher put the child in the RTI reading program. And she made progress and caught up with her peers. 

That is the main benefit of RTI. For the right kid, with the right intervention, that’s all they need. 

It can also look like a gifted student receiving enrichment in an area of strength like math. 

The downside to RTI, it can feel like the school or district is stalling to identify special education needs. Remember, students are general education students first. 

RTI is a general education progress. It's open to all students who fall below a benchmark. In Colorado, we look at iReady cut scores. Interventions need to be evidenced-based (which doesn’t always happen). This means teachers have to progress monitor students to ensure they are making progress within the selected intervention and if they are not bring them to the building RTI team. 

Every building works this process differently. In my building, we ask all teachers who have concerns about students to bring them to the RTI team. This ensures that teachers feel supported, the correct interventions are in place and should the student need to move forward with a special education evaluation the data the team needs is there. We also encourage parents to join the meetings. There is always a follow-up meeting scheduled 6 to 8 weeks out.

IDEA specifically addresses RTI and evaluations.

The 2004 reauthorization of IDEA makes mention of RTI as a method of part of the process of identifying SLD:

• In diagnosing learning disabilities, schools are no longer required to use the discrepancy model. The act states that “a local educational agency shall not be required to take into consideration whether a child has a severe discrepancy between achievement and intellectual ability[…]”
• Response to intervention is specifically mentioned in the regulations in conjunction with the identification of a specific learning disability. IDEA 2004 states, “a local educational agency may use a process that determines if the child responds to scientific, research-based intervention as a part of the evaluation procedures.”
• Early Intervening Services (EIS) are prominently mentioned in IDEA for the first time. These services are directed at interventions for students prior to referral in an attempt to avoid inappropriate classification, which proponents claim an RTI model does. IDEA now authorizes the use of up to 15% of IDEA allocated funds for EIS.

So this is the part where I expect to get pushback. But RTI has been overused and abused. Used to delay Special Education Evaluations and Services. Often.

So much so that the OSEP has put out multiple guidance letters about this.

If your child is in RTI and is doing well, great! I mean it! I am always happy to see a child’s needs being met. However, just have it on your radar that RTI is sometimes used to delay evaluations or IEPs. The old “Let’s try RTI and ‘wait and see.‘ ” Go with your gut. If you believe your child needs an IEP, request IEP evaluations.

Bonus tip: Your child can be going through the IEP evaluation process and receive RTI interventions at the same time!

Parents, how do you know if their children are making progress?

An essential element of RTI is ongoing communication between teachers and parents. As parents, you are kept involved and informed of the process every step of the way, beginning with notification that your child has been identified as struggling in one or more areas and will receive more intensive intervention. If your child receives more targeted instruction in Tier II or Tier III, he or she will be progress monitored frequently. Teachers will share progress monitoring data with you regularly through meetings, phone calls, or emails, as well as progress reports sent home showing assessment data. 

When in doubt, ask the teacher for the data. 

This is one way the process can look. The big piece for RTI to work is having the process monitoring data so decisions can be made timely. 

Each fall, there is always some new demand I have to make sure is part of my instruction. Moving three years ago to a new district is was innovation and tieing everything to the real world. It really wasn’t about moving students but what they would face in the real world. Well, after a year, I found you can have both.

Many innovations include elements of more established strategies for which do move students--like Master Learning.

So what is it??

The concept is simple: Students master concepts and skills before going onto other learning. How do you know they mastered it? You give them tests. If they do not reach mastery, then they go back and study and take the test again until they pass it. Benjamin Bloom, of Bloom's Taxonomy fame, came up with mastery learning in 1971.

I had noticed that because of the limited time I had with my groups, I always had a couple who need way more time than the everyone else. I also discovered that some of the basic skills had not been taught as I had been told. (You know how some IEPs are written.) I realize that part of the difficulty is that I am required to move these guys, no matter how big the gap.

What it looks like in my room?

Most mastery learning models stress the importance of giving quick and targeted pre-assessment to all students before beginning instruction to determine whether they have the prerequisite knowledge and skills for success in the upcoming learning sequence.  I do monthly progress monitoring and I give them the grade level assessment but also the grade under. I’m looking for the skills they don’t have. I’m also looking for data to support they have mastered the previously taught skill. I don’t have time to get both pre and post assessments. (EasyCBM.com has reading and math K-6. It’s free, has norms, and students can take it online.)

For students whose pre-assessment results suggest deficiencies, mastery learning teachers take time to directly teach them the needed concepts and skills. In other words, I break the skills down and teach just that subskill. When they have that one I move on to the next. In math, skill accuracy is king. With my reading groups, if my group of 10s is working on picture clues--I’ll use two or three-word books to focus on picture clues or reading what is written. When that skill is mastered go back to 10s and move to the next skill they need to work on. (When working on skills go back to an easier level. This is important when working on comprehension skills, so they are using all their energy on decoding the text.)

To help students out, I rely on learning targets. I post them and they always reference the bog outcome. We talk about what it looks like and in some cases what it sounds like. I find this helps everyone get real clear about what their job is.This has saved me more than a couple times when an administrator pops in.

As a teacher, I’m not going to tell you this makes planning an easier for me and I find I have to be very clear about the steps needed to do a task. Backwards planning has become key when I’m planning. Backwards planning also helps make sure I’m hitting IEP goals.

Mastery Learning helps me balance focusing on students’ strengths and interests. Together, IEPs and mastery learning helps students to work on weaknesses and a customized path that engages their interests and helps them “own” their learning.

Mastery Learning can also give students the chance to build self-advocacy skills. I encourage students when they don’t understand a step or are lost “where are you confused?” If they everything, I try to get them to be more specific. This helps them focus on their own learning but also helps guide my own instruction to fill in that hole before moving on. We all think primary students are too young to self-advocate but how many times are will serious thinking about adding it to an IEP.? (stepping stones now)

The Hard Part?

The extra planning and comes with analyzing data. Some days I feel I’m drowning in data. But I have found if I’m truly teaching to IEP goals, then I’m progress monitoring IEP goals too. I don’t teach random stuff that has nothing to do with IEP goals. I only teach the IEP goals. The 30 minutes that student is out of his classroom, he is working on his IEP goals. Backwards planning and data dialogues help to ensure I’m hitting that target.

The key is to make sure that mastery learning is targeting the small skills needed to meet a larger target. By doing this, I can innovate how they demonstrate mastery--sometimes this is with technology and sometimes it's with STEM tasks.

At the end of the day is student growth. My goal is to work myself out of a job.

Until Next Time,

If you walked into my office and looked at my desk you would fall over. My desk by day 5 of the school year--OMG! I know I'm not alone. With all the paperwork, files, reports, and student data well--it's a wonder that any of us are organized. #amIright?


After 14 years of trying everything from one binder for all my students, (mind you that 1 large binder with 40 students) to buckets to file folders. Nothing worked to keep each students data, work, progress monitoring, teacher conference notes. So last summer, I decided to try student data binders and make my students responsible for everything. My students LOVED them. FYI: It was these binders moved my students more than a year. #SWEET #studentmotivation



Well… the answer to this is different for everyone, so I will just share why I keep one… and it’s a super simple reason: It keeps me organized. In this data obsessed age (ahh me), there is so much to keep track of. Compiling it all into a portable binder makes my life easier. No more running around to three or four different files to find current information on my seconds! I can just grab and go at a moments notice! (Who can remember all those student meetings, anyway?!) I love having my data in one place to show teachers and parents. #perfect
My idea Teacher and Student Data binders hold all things IEP in 1 place. All the IEP goal data and progress monitoring together, organized that IEP writing is a grab and write. Grade Level meeting grab and go!

Data binders are an essential component of a strong classroom learning community. Every student has their own binder.

Data binders can take many forms, but the goal is the same: to drive student performance, improvement, and self-awareness. Students can document their learning and growth over time which increases their growth by years end. #morethanayearsgrowth

Students tracking goals and their data building more intrinsically motivated students who track and met their goals.

• Binder labels
• Sounds/Letters both upper & lower case
• Number Identification 0-30
• Fry Sight Words
• Oral Counting
• Letter writing
• Basic Shapes
• Phonics Survey
• I Can Early Math Statements
• Graphs for all assessments included
• Marzano’s Student Self-Assessment Rubric & Poster Set (Robots)
• 2 different Phonics Surveys 
• Weekly Self-Assessment
• Reading level/Running Record Trackers
• 2017-2018 Calendar

• IEP snapshots (for easy access for goal setting sessions)
• Student/Teacher Created Rubrics
• Anchor Charts
• Goal Setting and Conference Sessions
• SMART Goals

You can add what you need and make it your own.  I use my Student Data Binders to push students to challenge themselves and grow.

My Teachers Binder has ALL the formative assessments I use to track IEP growth or progress monitor. I add assessments as IEP goals change.  I don't have time to look for it. Grab and go. The best when you're being pulled in 100 different directions.   #Iknow

This system has been extremely intrinsically motivating for all my students.

Until Next Time,