CONSIDERATIONS IN

SPECIFIC LEARNING DISABILITY

EVALUATION
AND
ELIGIBILITY DETERMINATION

JUNE 2011

EFFECTIVE EVALUATION RESOURCE CENTER

BLUMBERG CENTER FOR INTERDISCIPLINARY STUDIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION

INDIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Effective
Evaluation
Resource
Center

SLD Evaluation and Identification Page 1

 This document was written by staff of the Effective Evaluation Resource Center (EERC), part of the Indiana
Resource Network, in collaboration with the Indiana Department of Education. The EERC Advisory Committee
provided review and feedback. This document and supporting resources are available at
http://www.indstate.edu/blumberg/evaluation/index.htm.

SLD Evaluation and Identification Page 2

 Contents
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................................4

SLD Regulation and Policy ............................................................................................................................................4

SLD Evaluation and Identification ..............................................................................................................................5

Comprehensive and Coordinated Early Intervening Services (CCEIS) .......................................................................8

Elements of SLD Determination .................................................................................................................................10

Educational Evaluation Report for Specific Learning Disability .................................................................................19

Frequently Asked Questions .......................................................................................................................................23

References ...................................................................................................................................................................37

Appendix A: Eligibility Chart .......................................................................................................................................39

Appendix B: Exclusionary Factor Sources of Evidence ..............................................................................................42

Appendix C: SLD Element Template ..........................................................................................................................55

SLD Evaluation and Identification Page 3

 Introduction

The overarching goal of this document is to assist schools in conducting appropriate and
comprehensive educational evaluations for students suspected of having a specific learning
disability (SLD). This document is intended to provide an overview of Article 7 SLD eligibility
determination requirements, clarify the evaluation components and criteria, and answer
frequently asked questions from the field.

Response to Intervention is a nationally recognized approach for providing school-wide, multi-

tiered systematic interventions that has been explicitly connected to SLD identification;
however, this document is not intended to provide general guidance as to the implementation
of such an approach. The Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) has selected to utilize the
terminology Response to Instruction (RtI) to emphasize the focus on all learners, on teaching
and learning, and on the critical role of the teacher in providing the most appropriate
instruction (Indiana Department of Education, 2010). For more information regarding RtI in
general, please refer to the IDOE RtI website at www.doe.in.gov/rti. When considering an
individual student’s eligibility and need for special education services, the student’s prior
participation and progress in instruction and intervention is a significant consideration.
Indiana’s Special Education Rules and Regulations (hereinafter referred to as Article 7) outlines
the components and requirements of Comprehensive and Coordinated Early Intervening
Services (CCEIS; 511 IAC 7-40-2) relevant to special education referral and evaluation. The
implications of CCEIS requirements on SLD evaluation and eligibility determination will be
addressed in this document.

SLD Regulation and Policy

Influenced by long-standing concern regarding the appropriateness and usefulness of the

severe discrepancy criterion for the identification of SLD and advocacy for the use of data
demonstrating a student’s progress in response to scientifically based intervention, Congress
advanced new requirements for SLD identification in the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Improvement Act (IDEA 2004) (Zirkel & Krohn, 2008). IDEA 2004 set forth criteria to which
states must adhere when adopting specific criteria for determining whether a student has a

SLD Evaluation and Identification Page 4

 specific learning disability *34 CFR §300.307(a)+. IDEA ’04 indicates that the criteria adopted by
a state:

1. must not require the use of a severe discrepancy between intellectual ability
and
achievement for determining whether a student has a SLD;
2. must permit the use of a process based on the student’s response to scientific,
research-based intervention; and
3. may permit the use of other alternative research-based procedures for
determining
whether a student has a SLD. [emphasis added 34 CFR §300.307(a)(1)-(3)]

Indiana outlines the basic criteria for determining whether a student has a SLD in Article 7 at
511 IAC 7-41-12. For all students with suspected disabilities, Indiana requires a comprehensive
educational evaluation in which the multidisciplinary team must use a variety of assessment
tools and strategies to gather relevant functional, developmental, and academic information
about the student (511 IAC 7-40-3(f)). Indiana permits the use of a student’s response to
scientific, research based intervention as well as a student’s pattern of strengths and
weaknesses in performance or achievement (or both) as part of the comprehensive evaluation
and evidence for a SLD. Article 7 includes the pattern of strengths and weaknesses approach as
an alternative research-based procedure; however, it is important to note that Article 7 further
prohibits the multidisciplinary team from using a severe discrepancy between academic
achievement and global cognitive functioning as evidence of a pattern relevant to identification
of a SLD [511 IAC 7-41-12(a)(2)].

According to the IDEA ’04 and Article 7, a specific learning disability is a disorder in one or more
of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or
written, that may manifest itself in the imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell,
or to do mathematical calculations, including conditions such as perceptual disabilities, brain
injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia [34 CFR §300.8(c)(10)
and 511 IAC 7-41-12].

SLD Evaluation and Identification

SLD Evaluation and Identification Page 5

 Prior to conducting an educational evaluation of a student suspected to have a disability,
schools must provide written notice and obtain parental consent. The preparation of the
written notice of evaluation provides an opportunity for the members of the multidisciplinary
team to discuss existing information and determine the necessary and desired evaluation
components for a given student. Evaluation requirements are specific to the category of
suspected disability, as indicated by the eligibility chart in Appendix A.

For SLD, Article 7 specifies that the evaluation include the following components (see 511 IAC 7-
41-12(b)): 1) an assessment of current academic achievement, 2) an observation of the student
in the general education setting, 3) educationally relevant medical information, 4) social and
developmental history, 5) assessment of progress including analysis of any interventions that
have been provided, and 6) any other assessments needed to address exclusionary factors,
determine eligibility, or inform development
of an IEP. Local staff determines what specific An educational evaluation must be
instruments and tools are used to fulfill the compliant with Article 7 requirements,
above evaluation components based on the and should be conducted in such a way
needs and characteristics of the student. that relevant and meaningful
Existing information and data can be used to information is collected and used to
fulfill evaluation requirements, as determined develop educational programming.
appropriate by the multidisciplinary team.
While it is essential that an educational evaluation is compliant with Article 7 requirements, it is
also crucial that the evaluation be conducted in such a way that relevant and meaningful
information is collected and used to develop educational programming (e.g., an individualized
education program (IEP) if eligible or intervention/instructional plan). The educational
evaluation should also help to explain why the student did not respond to prior instruction and
intervention.

The above evaluation information informs decisions regarding eligibility. When determining
whether a student is identified as an eligible student for special education under the category
of SLD, the multidisciplinary team must consider four elements that are specific to SLD. A fifth
element regarding adverse effects on educational performance is required as part of all
eligibility decisions. Four of the elements include determining that the student meets the two
inclusionary criteria of the SLD definition while ruling out the two categories of exclusionary
factors for the SLD category. The two inclusionary criteria require the multidisciplinary team to:

1. determine whether the student “. . .does not achieve adequately for the student’s
age or to meet state approved grade level standards in one or more areas. . .” (i.e.,
basic reading skills, reading fluency skills, reading comprehension, written

SLD Evaluation and Identification Page 6

 expression, listening comprehension, oral expression, mathematics calculations,
and mathematics problem solving) and
2. identify evidence of a specific learning disability through either an insufficient
progress approach or a pattern of strengths and weaknesses approach [511 IAC 7-
41-12(a)(1) and (2)].

The two exclusionary factors require the multidisciplinary team to:

1. rule out that the student’s lack of adequate academic achievement and/or
performance is not due to a lack of appropriate instruction as evidenced through
data and documentation and
2. determine that the student’s lack of adequate academic achievement and/or
performance is not evidenced through other disabilities, cultural factors,
environmental or economic disadvantage, or limited English proficiency [511 IAC 7-
41-12(a)(3)].

When identifying a student with a SLD, it is critical to define the specific nature of the learning
disability that manifests itself for that particular student. As previously stated, skill deficits can
be evidenced in one of eight areas (i.e., oral expression, listening comprehension, written
expression, basic reading, reading fluency, reading comprehension, mathematics calculations,
or mathematics problem solving). Determining the academic area of difficulty can assist in
understanding the student’s specific needs, identifying the appropriate services and supports,
and setting appropriate goals and corresponding progress monitoring practices. While it is
possible for a student to demonstrate academic deficits in more than one of the above areas,
the multidisciplinary team should conduct a comprehensive evaluation designed to identify the
specific nature of the learning disability. Such evaluation information will assist with making
accurate and appropriate eligibility decisions.

A fifth element to be considered is whether the student’s identified disability adversely affects
academic achievement and/or functional performance such that special education and related
services are needed. This requirement is explicit in Article 7’s definition of eligibility and applies
to all special education eligibility categories (511 IAC 7-32-34(1)). Additionally, adverse effects
is defined as “a consistent and significant negative impact on: (1) the student's: (A) academic
achievement; or (B) functional performance; or (2) both the student’s academic achievement
and functional performance (511 IAC 7-32-5). This is an essential final element of eligibility
determination because it ensures that the data supporting the preceding elements manifests in
significant and observable difficulties in academic or functional performance. Further, this
element emphasizes the student’s specific educational needs which impact decisions about

SLD Evaluation and Identification Page 7

 curriculum, instruction, environment thus informing the development of the student’s IEP
services and placement.

Comprehensive and Coordinated Early Intervening Services (CCEIS)

Additional requirements are necessary if a student is/has been receiving interventions as part
of CCEIS and RtI. CCEIS are provided to students who are not identified as being eligible for
special education services but have exhibited a
Written notice of intervention must need for additional academic and/or behavioral
be provided to a parent whose child supports within the general education
participates in a process that assesses environment (511 IAC 7-40-2). While parental
the student’s response to scientific, permission is not required for students to receive
research based intervention when the intervention, it is important to have parents
student requires such an intervention involved in the intervention process as much as
possible. However, written notice of interven-
that is not provided to all students in
tion must be provided to a parent whose child
the general education classroom.
participates in a process that assesses the
student’s response to scientific, research based
intervention when the student requires such an intervention that is not provided to all students
in the general education classroom (511 IAC 7-40-2(f)). The written notice must including the
following:

a) the intervention services, including type and amount of data to be collected to

measure the student’s progress;

b) the specific research-based strategies selected to increase the student’s rate of

learning to grade level;

c) the stipulation that during the provision of these interventions, the parent maintains
the right to request at any time an educational evaluation to determine special
education; and

d) the procedures for the school to initiate and conduct an educational evaluation if the
student fails to make adequate progress after an appropriate period of time (as
determined by the school and the parent).

SLD Evaluation and Identification Page 8

 Collaboration between the parent and the school is important during an RtI process. Sharing a
common understanding of the intervention process, the assessment data and timelines for
implementation, and potential outcomes of the intervention process will foster parent
involvement and minimize the potential
for misunderstandings. The timeline for Collaboration between the parent and the
intervention implementation and data school is important during an RtI process.
review as well as the criteria for deter- Documenting decisions and actions for a
mining whether adequate progress has student will keep the parents and the school
been made should be determined prior to informed and abreast of the student’s
intervention delivery. These two pieces progress or lack of progress.
of information are critical in any sub-
sequent decisions about the requirement (and need) for a referral for special education
evaluation. Documenting such decisions and actions for a student will keep the parents and the
school informed and abreast of the student’s progress or lack of progress.

If a student receives interventions, as provided in the written notice, the school must initiate an
educational evaluation if the student fails to make adequate progress after an appropriate
period of time. However, unlike the general 50-instructional day timeline for educational
evaluations, the school must evaluate a student and convene a case conference committee
meeting within 20 instructional days from the date parental consent is received. The reduced
20-instructional day timeline for the evaluation following lack of adequate response to
interventions takes into consideration that much information and progress monitoring data will
have already been collected regarding the student’s achievement before an educational
evaluation is even started. Additionally student assessment data and observations conducted
during the intervention period, prior to referral for evaluation, may fulfill educational
evaluation requirements thus decreasing the amount of data that needs to be collected during
the evaluation process and timeline. Further, information collected during the intervention
period could have helped school teams to differentiate between skill-based and performance-
based difficulties thus addressing an often-cited concern regarding student engagement and
motivation.

Federal guidance regarding the

Districts must not deny referrals or delay initial
impact of RtI on special
evaluation procedures for students suspected of education evaluation pro-
having a disability because of RtI implementation cedures and timelines has been
(Letter to State Directors of Special Education, 2011). clearly provided. A letter from

SLD Evaluation and Identification Page 9

 the US Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) to state special
education officials explicitly states that districts must not deny referrals or delay initial
evaluation procedures for students suspected of having a disability because of RtI
implementation (Letter to State Directors of Special Education, 2011). Further, the letter notes
that it would be inconsistent with IDEA 34 CFR 300.301 through 300.111 for “an LEA to reject a
referral and delay provision of an initial evaluation on the basis that the child has not
participated in an RTI framework” (p. 3).

Elements of SLD Determination

The five elements of SLD determination are explained in more detail in the following section.

1. Academic Underachievement. The first inclusionary criterion pertains to academic

underachievement which is when the student does not achieve adequately for his/her age or to
meet state approved grade level standards in the areas of

i. Oral expression
ii. Listening comprehension
iii. Written expression
iv. Basic reading skills
v. Reading fluency skills
vi. Reading comprehension
vii. Mathematics calculation
viii. Mathematics problem solving.

Academic achievement is defined in Article 7 as meaning “a student’s performance in relation

to the continuum of the Indiana academic standards, including the foundations to the
standards. This may include performance on norm-referenced, criterion-referenced, and other
achievement measures” (511 IAC 7-32-2). It is important to note that schools will begin
teaching the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) in the 2011-2012 academic year, with full
implementation of the CCSS program by 2014-2015.

Determination of underachievement includes a focus on student achievement within the

context of age and/or grade-level standards. This involves a normative comparison, to either
age or grade standards, that is sometimes referred to as inter-individual. This is in contrast to
intra-individual, or within-individual, differences. Significant and normatively discrepant
academic skills and performance are an essential component of a SLD. A criterion for
“underachievement” is not defined in regulation. However, districts interested in providing a

SLD Evaluation and Identification Page 10

 framework for consistency and shared understanding may want to identify guidelines for this
criterion at the local level. A definition of “underachievement” would address considerations
such as a) specific scores, percentiles, and/or ranges agreed upon as indicative of
underachievement, b) how current assessment data must be, c) the alignment between the
assessment information and the specific area(s) of SLD pertinent to the student, and d) whether
agreement, or similar findings, “convergence”, across multiple assessments is necessary.

2. Evidence of SLD Indicator. The second inclusionary criterion is evidence of the

presence of a SLD. This can either be demonstrated through insufficient progress OR a pattern
of strengths and weakness (PSW). Article 7 permits the use of either of these approaches. The
use of one of these approaches occurs at the individual student level such that a
multidisciplinary team would not be collecting and interpreting data in regard to both
approaches for a given student. The review of existing data and preparation of the written
notice of evaluation provides an optimal opportunity for this decision to be made relevant to a
specific student so that the appropriate and necessary evaluation components can be included
in the written notice. Additionally, IDEA and Article 7 do not provide specific requirements for
the use of insufficient progress or pattern of strengths and weakness. Thus, determination of
such guidelines at the local level is critical to ensure consistency and shared understandings
among school staff and between schools, families, and community agencies/resources.

Insufficient Progress. This approach is available for use when students have participated
in an RtI process that included the delivery of scientific, research based interventions and
systematic collection of assessment data to document a student’s progress. Documentation of
the agreed upon timeline and criterion for determining adequate progress is required under
CCEIS and the written notice of intervention (511 IAC 7-20-2(f)). When adequate progress is
not made, the school is required to initiate an evaluation based on the suspicion of a disability.
The subsequent evaluation must be comprehensive in nature and consider all elements of the
SLD eligibility determination. Existing data can be used in the process of evaluation to fulfill
evaluation requirements and provide needed documentation for any criteria.

The intervention timeline, student progress data and criterion for adequate progress is typically
determined by a school team in advance of intervention implementation. During the
intervention period, the team collects and analyzes progress monitoring data for the purposes
of 1) evaluating the effectiveness of the interventions, 2) informing intervention changes, and 2)
determining adequate student progress. Teams use various assessments and guidelines for
interpreting assessment data (e.g., 4-point rule) during this intervention process. School teams
will also use this information to make decisions about insufficient progress in response to
intervention and whether a suspected disability is responsible for the lack of progress. When

SLD Evaluation and Identification Page 11

 insufficient progress is made and a disability is suspected, the school is to initiate a referral for
an educational evaluation. The student information collected previously is considered “existing
data” that may be utilized during the educational evaluation process.

Once a referral for an educational evaluation is made, the subsequent decisions are regarded as
“high-stakes” as they identify the presence of a disability and determine entitlement to special
education services. When such high-stakes decisions are made, it is critical that both
intervention implementation and assessment practices
are of the highest standard and rigor. Thus, when the When the multidisciplinary team
multidisciplinary team reviews existing information it is reviews existing information, it is
important that features of the provided interventions important that features of the
and collected progress monitoring data be considered. provided interventions and
This includes features such as (a) is there evidence that collected progress monitoring
the intervention(s) addressed the student’s specific data be considered.
areas of need; (b) is there evidence documenting that
the interventions were delivered consistently and as planned; (c) is there sufficient and
technically adequate progress monitoring data; and (d) does the progress monitoring data
indicate normative weaknesses.

The above considerations address best practices for the analysis of progress monitoring data
(Hixson, Christ, and Bradley-Johnson, 2008; Riley-Tillman and Burns, 2009; McMaster and
Wagner, 2007) as well as the importance of intervention integrity and fidelity (Noell and Gansle,
2006; Gansle and Noell, 2007).
When determining whether a student’s progress is There is no clear agreement in
adequate or sufficient, many have proposed using a the empirical literature about the
normative-based method that compares a given best way to determine whether a
student’s progress with that of other students either student’s progress is adequate or
in the class, school, corporation, state, or nation. sufficient. However, many have
proposed using a normative-
based method that compares a given student’s progress with that of other students either in
the class, school, corporation, state, or nation (Lichtenstein, 2008). Such comparisons involve
calculating a student’s rate of improvement (ROI) and comparing that to the ROI of students in
the comparison group. If state or local data is not available, many commercially available
progress monitoring measures (e.g., DIBELS, AIMSweb) provide expected rates of progress for
students in different grades against which an individual student’s slope can be compared.

Patterns of Strengths and Weakness (PSW). This approach is available for situations such as
those in which a) an RtI process has not been implemented at the student’s grade level or

SLD Evaluation and Identification Page 12

 particular academic area of difficulty, b) a student has not participated in an intervention
process, or c) when existing information and data does not align with the suspected area of SLD.
Article 7 511 IAC 7-41-12(a)(2) does not specify the requirements of this approach but does
prohibit the use of a severe discrepancy between global cognitive ability and academic
achievement to fulfill the requirement. The pattern can be demonstrated in “performance or
achievement, or both, relative to: (i) age; (ii) state approved grade level standards; or (iii)
intellectual development” (511 IAC 7-41-12(a)(2)). Additionally, this approach requires that the
identified pattern be determined “relevant to the identification of a specific learning disability”
by the multidisciplinary team or case conference committee.

The existing Article 7 language regarding the PSW approach leaves many decisions to be made
at the local level. A clear description of what types of assessments, score criteria, and relevant
patterns will be used to fulfill this requirement at the local level (e.g., corporation or
cooperative) will be essential for ensuring consistency and shared understanding among staff
and between school staff, families, and community agencies/resources. Article 7 does not
necessarily prohibit the administration of a cognitive, or intellectual, assessment as part of a
SLD evaluation; however, the use of such should be well-informed and justified for the purpose
of determining eligibility or planning the student’s educational program.

Since the PSW approach is permitted in Indiana as an “alternative research-based approach”, it

is important that whatever model is selected for use at the local level have an empirical basis.
Three models for identifying patterns of strengths and weakness relative to intellectual
development are

a) Consistency-Discrepancy Model (Naglieri, 1999),

b) Ability-Achievement Consistency Model (Flanagan, Ortiz, Alonzo, 2007), and
c) Concordance-Discordance Model (Hale & Fiorello, 2004).

The Ability-Achievement Consistency Model and the Concordance-Discordance Model have

recently been integrated into what is referred to as Hypothesis-Testing CHC Approach (HT-CHC;
Flanagan, Fiorello, & Ortiz, 2010). The HT-CHC model was developed specifically for use in
schools that are implementing a multi-tiered RTI process. These models all emphasize three
general principles related to SLD evaluation and identification including:

1. a reliance on measurement of specific cognitive abilities or processes instead of a

general, full-scale score or intellectual quotient (IQ),
2. average, or near average, levels of performance in most academic and cognitive
ability areas with normative, inter-individual, weakness in isolated academic and
cognitive ability areas, and

SLD Evaluation and Identification Page 13

 3. a match, or alignment, between cognitive and academic weaknesses that are
considered relevant to the specific nature of the suspected learning disability.

One model for identifying PSW relative to academic performance is that proposed by Fletcher,
Lyon, Fuchs, and Barnes (2007). This model emphasizes intra-individual strengths and
weaknesses in the academic achievement domains and the identification of “marker” variables
that are considered indicative of a specific learning disability.

In order to ensure reliable and valid SLD identification

In order to ensure reliable and practices at the local level, it is critical that a specific
valid SLD identification prac- model for PSW be selected and explicitly operationalized.
tices at the local level, it is In the past, there has been significant and ongoing
critical that a specific model concern about the lack of consistency in school-based
for PSW be selected and practices related to SLD identification. Many advances
explicitly operationalized. have been made in terms of empirical evidence and
federal and state regulations; however, many decisions
must be made at a local level to ensure that future practices are indeed an improvement upon
those of the past.

The selection of which approach (insufficient progress or

PSW) is most appropriate for a given student is influenced It is crucial that school leader-
by several factors related to the larger school-based ship assess its current RtI
implementation of response to intervention. Unlike some program and the appropriate-
states, Indiana left the decision about the use of ness of its program for use of
Insufficient Progress or PSW to the local level. Indiana SLD determination.
does not provide any specific state law requirements in
the implementation of RtI for school districts, but does provide a guidance document aimed to
assist schools in implementing RtI (IDOE, 2010). According to that document the purpose is to
provide a set of common principles of RtI along with explanations of its core characteristics;
however, it refrains from requir-ing any specific plan from a school district in order to
implement RtI or apply the insufficient progress approach as part of SLD identification.
Therefore, it is crucial that school leadership assess its current RtI program and the
appropriateness of its program for use of SLD determination.

In the absence of state regulation and policy, the decision regarding the use of the Insufficient
Progress or PSW approach can be made at the local level. Local policy could require one
specific approach as part of SLD identification or leave the decision about which one is most
appropriate for a given student to the multidisciplinary team. Requiring the use of Insufficient
Progress approach may be challenging because of the variability in RtI implementation that

SLD Evaluation and Identification Page 14

 often exists across grade level and academic area. RtI has typically been implemented first at
the elementary level to address student achievement in reading. Implementation at the
secondary level and in other academic
Requiring the use of Insufficient Progress areas (e.g., math, writing, oral expression,
approach may be challenging because of the and listening comprehension) may not
variability in RtI implementation that often be as well developed or consistently
exists across grade level and academic area. implemented. It is permissible for
districts to utilize the Insufficient
Progress approach as part of SLD determination at the elementary level and a PSW approach at
the secondary level. (OSEP, Letter Massanari 2007).

A district policy requiring the use of the Insufficient Progress approach may find
multidisciplinary teams without the amount, type, and quality of intervention and progress
monitoring data necessary to inform the decision about the presence of a SLD. Likewise, a
district policy requiring the use of the PSW approach as part of SLD identification may not
permit multidisciplinary teams to fully use valuable existing information. This can lead to a
overly resource-intensive evaluation process, including the loss the instructional time for the
student. Thus, the decision about which approach (Insufficient Progress or PSW) to use for this
one criteria of SLD identification may best be made by the multidisciplinary team on a case-by-
case basis. The decision should be made based on the availability of the necessary existing
information and the suspected area of SLD eligibility and prior to the provision of the written
notice (of evaluation) for consent.

Another frequent concern arises when deciding which option to utilize for SLD determination
when the request is for an educational evaluation of parentally-placed nonpublic school
students (including students that are home schooled). Utilizing the Insufficient Progress
approach for the SLD indicator criteria in the nonpublic school environment may depend on the
sophistication of a nonpublic school’s RtI program. The public school’s multidisciplinary team
can consider the option of using the PSW approach. Additionally, it is beneficial for public
schools, during the yearly consultation meetings with the nonpublic schools, to discuss their RtI
program with nonpublic schools. Nonpublic schools may appreciate the collaboration with the
public schools and any educational opportunities in RtI and the use of a comprehensive RtI
program for SLD determination.

3. Exclusionary Factors: Disabilities, English Proficiency, and Culture. The first set of
exclusionary factors that must be considered pertain to a student’s language proficiency and
cultural background as well as the possibility of disabilities other than SLD. Article 7 (511 IAC 7-

SLD Evaluation and Identification Page 15

 41-12(a)(3)) requires that the following be ruled out as the primary cause(s) of the student’s
learning difficulties and academic underachievement:

(A) A visual, hearing, or motor disability,

(B) A cognitive disability,
(C) An emotional disability,
(D) Cultural factors,
(E) Environmental or economic disadvantage, and
(F) Limited English proficiency.

The multidisciplinary team gathers evidence to assist in the determination of whether the
above factors are applicable for a particular student. The evidence could be part of existing
information or collected during the evaluation process. There is no legal requirement that an
in-depth evaluation of any of these areas occur if it is not judged appropriate or necessary by
the team. However, the educational evaluation must be comprehensive enough to address
these factors and determine the need for additional information. For example, the
multidisciplinary team might plan to address the emotional disability exclusionary factor
through a review of educational records, teacher interview, and a social/developmental history.
If this information indicates a need for a more in-depth consideration of this factor, it might be
necessary for additional assessments (e.g., rating scales) to be conducted. If not included on
the initial written notice (of evaluation), this additional assessment would need to be added to
the notice and parent consent obtained. See Appendix B for a non-exhaustive list of possible
data sources for these exclusionary factors.

Decisions regarding the presence of SLD for English Language Learners is especially complex
and requires the careful consideration of numerous factors (Rhodes, Ochoa, & Ortiz, 2005). For
example, the student’s level of proficiency in both English and native language(s) should be
considered and assessed as needed. This includes not only the student’s social and basic
communication skills but also their academic and cognitive language skills. In addition, the
student’s educational and developmental experiences and history should be considered.
Specifically, this includes the appropriateness of core instruction and any interventions
provided to address the student’s learning difficulties. Instruction and interventions should be
linguistically and culturally appropriate for the student and progress should be monitored by
comparing growth to linguistically-similar peers. Additionally, it is important that appropriate
assessment instruments be used during the evaluation process and that cultural and linguistic
influences on the obtained results are considered (Rhodes, Ochoa, & Ortiz, 2005).

SLD Evaluation and Identification Page 16

 4. Exclusionary Factors: Lack of Appropriate Instruction. The final exclusionary factor
that needs to be considered is that of appropriate instruction. Article 7 (511 IAC 7-41-12(a)(3))
requires that this exclusionary factor be ruled out as the primary cause of the student’s learning
difficulties and provides the following requirements regarding evidence of such:

(G) Lack of appropriate instruction in reading or math evidenced by the following:

(i) Data demonstrating that prior to, or part of, the referral process, the student
was provided appropriate instruction in general education settings, delivered by
qualified personnel.

(ii) Data based documentation of repeated assessments of achievement at

reasonable intervals, reflecting formal assessment of student progress during
instruction, which was provided to the student's parents.

Again, the multidisciplinary team must determine the degree to which this exclusionary factor
contributes to a student’s academic difficulties and underachievement. IDEA 2004 and Article 7
emphasize two components related to this exclusionary factor. The first component is that the
student was provided appropriate instruction by qualified personnel either prior to or during a
period of intervention delivery (e.g., tiers 2 and 3). As part of an educational report, data
documenting this component is collected and presented as part of the existing information and
educational history. Such documentation could include evidence of the school’s use of
scientifically-based curriculum and instruction in the essential components of reading and
mathematics and instructional delivery by personnel whose credentials demonstrate that they
meet the highly qualified requirements of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA).

Procedures and protocols for documenting the provision of appropriate instruction is best
developed at the local level such that there is consistency of practice at the district and building
level. The following are examples of ways in which such information can be documented:

a. Observation of teachers’ delivery of instruction through routine classroom visits

and more formal observations conducted on a regular basis during the
instructional period for the targeted content/subject area,
b. Checklists of integrity of instruction completed by teachers as self-check
measures,
c. Checklists of integrity of instruction completed among teachers as peer-check
measures, and
d. Checklists completed by content specialists or curriculum coaches working with
classroom teachers.

SLD Evaluation and Identification Page 17

 It is also important that the multidisciplinary team collects documentation of any supplemental
interventions supported by scientific research, based on the problem solving approach, and
aligned to the student’s needs. Such documentation could include evidence that the staff
implementing the supplemental interventions was adequately trained and demonstrated
proficiency with the interventions and that the planned interventions were delivered with a
high degree of integrity at the needed level of intensity (e.g., frequency, length of time, group
size). Self-report checklists, observations, and materials documenting the intervention
activities could all provide evidence of intervention integrity implementation.

The responsibility to ensure that low achievement is not a function of this curriculum mismatch
and/or lack of effective instruction rests with the local school district. This is important because
a student should not be identified as having a disability or being eligible for special education
services unless appropriate instruction and intervention has been provided and evidenced to be
insufficient to ensure the student’s academic progress and performance. Low academic
achievement is not indicative of a SLD if appropriate curriculum choice and delivery of effective
instruction cannot be demonstrated. If it is determined that there has not been a sufficient
provision of appropriate instruction, these features should be put in place for the student to
determine whether they will result in improved academic performance.

The second component of this exclusionary factor calls for documentation of repeated
assessments of student progress during instruction that is conducted at reasonable intervals
and is provided to the student’s parents. There has been no definition of repeated assessments
or reasonable intervals at the federal or state level, especially because RtI models vary in design
and implementation (Cernosia, 2010). Evidence for this requirement could include student
performance data collected during a systematic process that involves universal screening and
periodic benchmarking. Universal screening refers to data that are collected on all students
within a given grade, school, or district. Data is collected on academic skills that are critical at
the given grade level for determining risk status and need for intervention. Universal screening
data is generally collected at the beginning of the school. Subsequent assessments of student
performance, sometimes referred to as benchmarking, often occur two or three more times
during the school year to monitor progress, evaluate the effectiveness of instruction, and
identify students who may be in need of supplemental interventions. Collectively, this student
performance data could provide evidence necessary to address the exclusionary factor of lack
of appropriate instruction. Student performance data is necessary when determining that a
student’s academic difficulty and underachievement is due to a SLD and not instructional
history.

SLD Evaluation and Identification Page 18

 5. Adverse Effects. As a final consideration of eligibility, the multidisciplinary team is
also required to provide evidence to the case conference committee whether or not the
suspected disability “adversely affects educational performance”. As previously discussed, this
means a consistent and negative impact on the student’s academic and/or functional
performance. For a student with a SLD, impact on academic performance would be expected.
This final consideration is critical because it considers all of the data and evidence used to
address the preceding four elements but also considers any other pertinent information in an
effort to connect the student’s areas of difficulty and strength with their educational needs,
programming, and services.

Possible sources of evidence regarding the impact of the student’s disability on their academic
or functional performance includes the following items (the list is non-exhaustive):

● state testing,
● district testing (e.g. NWEA, M-Class, Acuity),
● formative assessment (e.g. DIBELS, Aimsweb, CBM, benchmarks & progress monitoring),
● grade retention,
● report card grades,
● discipline records (e.g, type, frequency, suspensions/expulsions),
● nurse/health room visits,
● truancy (e.g, school, class),
● level of curriculum (advanced, remedial, etc.),
● amount of teacher support required,
● amount of time and assistance needed to do homework,
● amount of time needed for in-class work,
● intervention history, and
● motivation history.

Educational Evaluation Report for Specific Learning Disability

Article 7 (511 IAC 7-40-5(a)) requires that the multidisciplinary team prepare an educational
evaluation report to be used by the case conference committee to determine eligibility and, if
found to be eligible, to provide information about the student’s special education and related
service needs. An educational evaluation report is required for any initial and reevaluations

SLD Evaluation and Identification Page 19

 conducted under the guidelines of Article 7. The educational evaluation report is to address the
necessary components of evaluation, per 511 IAC 7-41, for a given student’s suspected
disability. For SLD, those evaluation components are detailed in 511 IAC 4-41-12(b) and include
the following:

(1) An assessment of current academic achievement as defined at 511 IAC 7-32-2.

(2) An observation of the student in the student's learning environment, including the
general classroom setting, to document the student's academic performance and
behavior in the areas of difficulty. The multidisciplinary team may do either of the
following:
A. Use information from an observation in routine classroom instruction and
monitoring of the student's performance that was done before the student
was referred for an educational evaluation.
B. Have at least one (1) member of the multidisciplinary team, other than the
student's general education teacher, conduct an observation of the student's
academic performance in the general education classroom after: (i) the child
has been referred for an educational evaluation; and (ii) parental consent for
the educational evaluation has been obtained. In the case of a student of less
than school age or out of school, a team member must observe the student
in an environment appropriate for a student of that age.
(3) Available medical information that is educationally relevant.
(4) A social and developmental history that may include, but is not limited to, the
following:
(A) Communication skills.
(B) Social interaction skills.
(C) Responses to sensory experiences.
(D) Relevant family and environmental information.
(E) Patterns of emotional adjustment.
(F) Unusual or atypical behaviors.
(5) An assessment of progress in the general education curriculum that includes an
analysis of any interventions used to address the academic concerns leading to the
referral for the educational evaluation.
(6) Any other assessments and information, collected prior to referral or during the
educational evaluation, necessary to:
(A) address the exclusionary factors listed in subsection (a)(3);
(B) determine eligibility for special education and related services; and
(C) inform the student's CCC of the student's special education and related
services needs.

SLD Evaluation and Identification Page 20

 Fulfilling the above evaluation requirements will provide the necessary data and information to
address the four elements of eligibility criteria discussed previously. The decision about what
specific assessment instrument or procedure to use is made by the multidisciplinary team
based upon the specific questions, concerns, and history of the student being evaluated.

In addition to the general requirement for the educational evaluation report, Article 7 requires
additional information in the evaluation report when a student is suspected as having a SLD.
According to Article 7, 511 IAC 7-40-5(g), the educational evaluation report must include the
following:

(1) For a student who has participated in a process that assesses the student's response
to scientific, research based interventions:
(A) documentation of previous parent notification about:
(i) the:
(AA) amount and nature of the student performance data that would be
collected; and
(BB) general education services that would be provided;
(ii) strategies for increasing the student's rate of learning; and
(iii) the parent's right to request an educational evaluation to determine
eligibility for special education and related services; and
(B) the:
(i) instructional strategies used; and
(ii) student centered data collected.
(2) A synthesis of the required educational evaluation components in 511 IAC 7-41-12 in
relationship to the following:
(A) Whether the student:
(i) does not achieve adequately for the student's age or to meet state
grade level standards in one (1) or more of the areas identified in 511 IAC
7-41-12(a)(1) when provided with learning experiences and instruction
appropriate for the student's age or state grade level standards; and
(ii) meets either of the following criteria:
(AA) The student does not make sufficient progress to meet age or state
grade level standards in one (1) or more of the areas identified in 511 IAC
7-41-12(a)(1) when using a process based on the student's response to
scientific, research based intervention.
(BB) The student exhibits a pattern of strengths and weaknesses in
performance or achievement, or both, relative to age, state grade level

SLD Evaluation and Identification Page 21

 standards, or intellectual development, that is determined by the
multidisciplinary team to be relevant to the identification of a specific
learning disability. The multidisciplinary team is prohibited from using a
severe discrepancy between academic achievement and global cognitive
functioning to meet this requirement.
(B) The effects of any of the following factors on the student's achievement:
(i) Visual, hearing, or motor disability.
(ii) Cognitive disability.
(iii) Emotional disturbance.
(iv) Cultural factors.
(v) Environmental or economic disadvantage.
(vi) Limited English proficiency.
(C) Whether the multidisciplinary team believes the student has a specific
learning disability and the basis for having that opinion. The opinion of the
multidisciplinary team is utilized by the CCC to determine whether the student is
eligible for special education. Each member of the multidisciplinary team must
certify in writing whether the educational evaluation report reflects the
member's opinion. If the report does not reflect the member's opinion, the
member must submit a separate statement presenting the member's opinion.

The final requirement for a written certification is unique to SLD and includes both the team
members’ opinion regarding eligibility and the reasoning or justification for that opinion. The
certification is provided to the case conference committee by the multidisciplinary team and
should be prepared with the educational evaluation report. There is no state-approved or –
provided SLD written certification document. An example template that is organized by the five
elements of eligibility determination is in Appendix C. This template could be used to list the
local requirements/expectations for each of the five elements. Multidisciplinary teams could
then use the document to indicate which requirements were met for a given student thus
documenting the basis for their opinion regarding eligibility. A sample completed checklist is
also provided as an example; however, it is important to note that the content or
“requirements” need to be specified at the local level.

SLD Evaluation and Identification Page 22

 Frequently Asked Questions

The following questions were provided by Indiana school personnel in response to an online
statewide survey on SLD conducted in the fall 2010. Survey responses were submitted by 105
individuals with 39% school counselors, 26% school psychologists, 22% school social workers, 6%
special education teachers, and 4% special education administrators. Responses were received
from across Indiana with the following percentages by region: 13% northwest, 19% northeast,
38% central, 14% north central, 6% southeast, and 10% southwest. Submitted questions were
combined, slightly re-worded slightly, and organized to include the following list. Questions
pertaining to overall RtI implementation or areas of disability other than SLD were not included
in this document.

1. How do you set an appropriate goal for progress during instruction and intervention?

At tiers 1 and 2, the desired outcome, or goal, should be grade-level expectations and
performance. This can be defined as a set criterion on one (or more) student
assessments. Many assessments include normative-based criterions (sometimes called
benchmarks) for performance. For example, the end-of-year oral reading fluency goal
for 2nd grade students may be 90 words read correctly (WRC) per minute. This criterion
of 90 WRC has been set based on research and technical reports showing that students
who perform at this level at the end of 2nd grade have a high percentage of later
academic success in reading. While grade-level expectations are the ultimate goal, it is
important for school teams to consider the balance between high expectations and
realistic progress. If goals do not reflect high expectations, they may be set too low and
even if achieved may continue to allow below-grade level performance to be acceptable
and perceived as growth and progress. However, for students who are performing
significantly below grade level and are in need of individualized interventions at Tier 3,
additional considerations may be appropriate. Setting grade-level expectations and
goals may be unrealistic and make it difficult to monitor progress in a meaningful way if
assessment materials are too difficult thus making any amount/type of progress difficult
to document. Shapiro (2008) outlines suggestions for goal setting at the individual
student level when skills are significantly below grade placement. A complete overview
of this chapter is not possible in this document so the interested reader is encouraged
to access that resource directly. Goal setting for such an individual student might begin

SLD Evaluation and Identification Page 23

 with identifying the appropriate instructional level for the student. This can be done in
various ways; one suggested approach is to conduct a survey level assessment (SLA;
Shinn, 2008) which entails administering assessment tasks at successively lower grade
levels to identify the instructional level of the student. The student can then be
monitored at both his/her instructional level and grade level. While such a student may
still be evaluated against grade level standards on some assessments, monitoring their
progress within the instructional level will allow the student to demonstrate some
success and growth when provided with sufficient and appropriate intervention. When
setting a goal for such a student, it is important to consider the rate of growth needed in
order for him/her to catch up with peers and ultimately achieve at their enrolled grade
level. An accelerated rate of growth will be necessary and normative rate of
improvement (ROI) data to set reasonable and ambitious rates of growth can be helpful
in setting such goals.

2. When a student requires intervention that is not provided to all students in the
general education classroom, what parental notification and/or consent is needed and
what information should be provided to the parent?

Although parental consent is not required for the implementation of interventions as

part of early intervening services, Article 7 requires written parent notification when a
student requires an intervention that is not provided to all students in the general
education classroom (see 511 IAC 7-40-2(f). The written notification must include (a)
the amount and type of data that will be collected to document the student’s progress,
(b) the services and evidence-based strategies that will be used to increase the student’s
rate of learning to grade level, (c) the timeline for intervention implementation and
review of progress monitoring data, (d) the parental right to request a special education
evaluation, and (e) an explanation that the school will request a special education
evaluation if the student fails to make adequate progress after an appropriate period of
time as determined by the parent and the school. See question #3 for additional
information on parental involvement in the RtI process.

3. When preparing to provide a student with intervention(s) and provide parent written
notification, what information should be considered and what decisions should be
made by the school and parent(s)?

When planning interventions and preparing the written parent notification, it is

important that the information about the student’s prior instructional history, learning

SLD Evaluation and Identification Page 24

 performance, strengths, and specific needs be considered. This will assist in
determining the appropriate focus and intensity of the interventions. While parent
participation in the intervention process is not required, including parents as active
participants in the discussion and decision making is important and ensures shared
understanding and decreases the potential for misunderstandings.

When planning interventions, it is important that the school and parents work together
to make decisions that will assist in determining whether interventions have been
effective in meeting the student’s needs. This includes specifying the outcome (or goal),
timeline for intervention implementation, the necessary progress monitoring data, and
a criteria for determining whether adequate progress has been made. These are
important considerations because it provides a foundation for implementing
interventions and interpreting the progress monitoring data. In addition, determining
the decision rules that will be used to interpret the progress monitoring data is also
essential and requires the professional knowledge and judgment of school staff. Both of
these items should be part of the discussion that occurs during the problem solving
process. The decision to initiate a request for educational evaluation per Article 7 is
made when the student fails to make adequate (as defined by the school and parents)
progress toward an identified goal/outcome within an appropriate period of time; it
does not require that the goal be reached. A clear and shared understanding of the
criterion for a lack of adequate progress for a specified student will help school staff and
parent(s) work together during the intervention and problem solving process; thus
decreasing the potential for misunderstandings and disagreement. In the event that
progress monitoring data doesn’t indicate the desired progress over the specified time
period, then the school would be responsible for initiating a request for educational
evaluation.

4. If a parent requests an educational evaluation after receiving notification of

intervention, does the school have to complete interventions and progress monitoring
during the timeframe of the testing window? If not, what is the correct response
when parents ask why we cannot determine eligibility once the testing is completed?

When a parent requests an educational evaluation, the school has two options: (a) to
agree to conduct or (b) to refuse to conduct the evaluation. There are procedural
requirements and timelines that apply to each decision option. If the school agrees to
conduct the requested evaluation AND there is no data indicating a lack of response
within the specified timelines, then the evaluation would occur on the 50-day timeline.

SLD Evaluation and Identification Page 25

 Interventions should continue to be implemented and monitored as specified in the
intervention plan given that the school determined the need for such supports prior to
parental request. A request for evaluation should not generally lead to a
discontinuation of supplemental interventions. The case conference committee’s
decision regarding eligibility is based on a variety of information and data and the
absence of evidence of insufficient progress in response to interventions doesn’t
necessarily result in a denial of eligibility as schools may utilize evidence of a pattern of
strengths and weakness as part of the decision making process. The school does have
the option to refuse to conduct the evaluation, although a statement explaining why
and how this decision was reached must be provided to the parent as part of the written
notice of evaluation. Additionally, schools are cautioned against refusing to conduct an
evaluation solely on the basis of lack of progress monitoring data from an RtI process.

5. Can a student with an IEP receive intervention for an academic or behavioral concern
not addressed through the specified special education and related services, and if yes,
what is the process?

Yes, a student with a disability can participate in targeted and intensive interventions
to address his/her needs. A case conference committee (CCC) might identify new or
additional concerns regarding academic achievement or functional performance while
conducting the annual case review. Such concerns could be addressed in a revised IEP
or through the student’s involvement in intervention. Information gleaned during an
intervention, or RtI process, could be used to inform the CCC about the student’s needs
and develop an IEP to address those needs. No new or additional eligibility category
determination is needed in order to develop an appropriate IEP in this situation. If the
CCC decides that additional or different eligibility determination is necessary, the
reevaluation needs to occur on the 50-day timeline. Similarly, any evaluation that
results from the student’s lack of sufficient progress in the RtI process is a reevaluation
and would be subject to the 50-day timeline.

6. Does the written notice of early intervening services or intervention apply to eligibility
categories besides SLD?

Yes, the notification of intervention is provided at the onset of individualized

intervention and before any disability is suspected. Therefore, the notification does not
apply exclusively to the eligibility category of specific learning disability (SLD). In fact,
the notification is part of early intervening services (511 IAC 7-40-2(f)) which applies to

SLD Evaluation and Identification Page 26

 both academic and behavioral supports. A lack of response to intervention could be due
to a variety of factors, including a disability. Thus, it is essential to have comprehensive
information about a student as well as a school intervention team that is knowledgeable
and qualified to sort out the various factors and identify the possibility of a suspected
disability.

7. Are RtI and early intervening services optional?

Per Article 7, coordinated and comprehensive early intervening services (CCEIS) are
optional unless a school is required to provide early intervening services due to
disproportionality in special education. CCEIS are provided to students who need
academic and behavioral supports to be successful in the general education setting but
have not been identified as a student with a disability. Many schools are using a
systematic process of intervention and progress monitoring, referred to as response to
instruction/intervention (RtI) as part of early intervening services. Schools may use up
to 15% of IDEA Part B dollars to support early intervening services; however schools
with signification disproportionality are required to use these funds for this purpose.
The Indiana Department of Education’s Guidance Document on Response to Instruction
(RtI) provides more information about the RtI framework and the implications for all
students. Related to special education determination, the use of a solid RtI framework
and process is critical for ensuring that students have received appropriate instruction
and intervention based upon their learning needs and strengths. This is a central
consideration in the special education eligibility determination process to ensure correct
and accurate identification of students with disabilities.

8. When should the written notification of intervention be written and provided to

parents?

511 IAC 7-40-2(f) requires the school to provide written notice of intervention.
Question 2 outlines what information must be provided in this notification. The notice
of intervention is needed when a student’s need for individualized intervention(s) has
been demonstrated. The notification would be prepared by the school team developing
the student’s intervention plan. Although parental consent is not required, parental
involvement in the development of the intervention plan is encouraged, and parents
should be part of the decision-making process.

SLD Evaluation and Identification Page 27

 9. What constitutes an "appropriate time period" for intervention and who makes this
decision?

Decisions about the planned duration, number, and intensity of intervention(s) are
made together by the school and parent(s) based on an individual student’s background,
performance data, strengths, and needs. Thus, there is no prescribed length of time for
intervention implementation. It is important for teams to consider a variety of factors
when discussing time periods for intervention and progress review. One important
consideration is the intensity of the planned interventions. This includes features such
as the frequency, length of intervention session, skill level of the person providing the
intervention, and the focus of the intervention. The more focused, frequent, and
specialized the intervention, the more likely change will occur quickly. A second
consideration is related to the collection of progress monitoring data. Hixson, Christ,
and Bradley-Johnson (2008) recommend having at least 8-12 progress monitoring data
points before making a decision about progress or growth. Sufficient time to collect
such data needs to be allowed and accounted for as the plan for collecting progress
monitoring data is developed. A third consideration is related to the student’s current
performance level and areas of need. Hixson, Christ, and Bradley-Johnson note that
certain skills respond more quickly to intervention than others and that small amounts
of progress, especially when significant skill deficits exist, may be difficult to identify
with progress monitoring. This highlights the importance of accurately identifying and
progress monitoring within a student’s instructional level as part of goal setting and
evaluating intervention effectiveness.

After interventions have been implemented and progress is being evaluated, it is also
important for teams to consider whether the planned interventions were implemented
as intended. If, for whatever reasons, the interventions were not delivered as the team
thought necessary to achieve the stated progress goals, then additional time might be
considered before making a decision that the lack of progress is due to a suspected
disability. Lack of implementation with fidelity could be interpreted as lack of instruction.

10. What type of information can be collected during an intervention period without
parental consent?

511 IAC 7-40-3(b) states that parental consent is not required for: 1)
evaluations/assessments conducted with all students, 2) screenings to determine
appropriate instructional strategies for curriculum implementation, 3) reviews of
existing information, or 4) collection of progress monitoring data. These four exceptions

SLD Evaluation and Identification Page 28

 are quite specific regarding the activities and type of information that do not require
parental consent. Federal guidance highlights that parental consent is not required for
screening activities because they are not considered an evaluation for determining
special education eligibility, while also asserting that screening may not be used to delay
an evaluation (OSEP, Letter to Torres 2009).

11. When implementing early intervening services, how do you decide when it is
appropriate to refer a student for a special education evaluation?

The decision about when a request for special education evaluation should be made for
an individual student depends on his/her intervention plan and the degree of progress
that has been evidenced. When a student experiences difficulty for which intervention
is needed that is not provided to all students, written notification to inform the
parent(s)/guardians is required per Article 7 (511 IAC 7-40-2(f)). The specific
requirements of this notification are addressed in question #3 above. This written
notice should reflect the collaborative decision on the part of the school and parent(s)
regarding what intervention is needed and what progress/outcomes they intend for the
student to make in a specified time period. This provides the parameters for the
“adequate progress” and “appropriate period of time” elements of the Article 7
requirement for a school to initiate a request for educational evaluation in the event
that a student fails to make adequate progress after an appropriate period of time (511
IAC 7-40-2(f)(4)(A)). These parameters should be determined prior to the beginning of
individualized interventions and collection of corresponding progress monitoring data so
that the school and parents have a guideline by which to evaluate progress after the
specified time period.

When progress monitoring data is reviewed, there are a number of approaches for data
interpretation that can be considered (see the section on Insufficient Progress). While
all approaches involve comparing a student’s rate of progress with a projected rate of
progress, it is important that schools and intervention teams closely consider the
adequacy of the data and implementation fidelity of the intervention when making
decisions about a student’s progress. If the school (preferably, in collaboration with the
parent) determines that the desired progress has not been made within the specified
timeline, then a request for educational evaluation must be initiated and the evaluation
completed within 20 instructional days from the date of receipt of signed parental
consent.

SLD Evaluation and Identification Page 29

 12. If the parent does not respond to a school-initiated request for an educational
evaluation following a lack of response to provided interventions, does the student
stay in the intervention or continue in core instruction with no further intervention?

If a student fails to make adequate progress in the timeline specified by the school and
parent(s), then the school must initiate a request for initial evaluation per 511 IAC 7-40-
2(f). Article 7 requirements related to seeking and documenting attempts to obtain
parental consent are detailed in 511 IAC 7-40-4(j) and 7-40-4(m) and would need to be
followed. If parental consent is not obtained, the student could continue to receive
targeted interventions as no parental consent for such supplemental support is required.
This action would seem to be most supportive of the student’s academic growth and
achievement.

13. ISTART7 requires the public agency to identify the area(s) of suspected disability when
preparing the written notice for initial evaluation. What is the purpose and intent for
this?

ISTART7 (and IndianaIEP after June 2011) includes this information to assist with the
selection of the necessary evaluation components, which are specific to each disability
category. Preparing the written notice for initial evaluation involves deciding what
evaluation procedures will be used during the evaluation. This decision is based upon
the required evaluation components for the suspected area(s) of disability but also
takes into consideration what information already exists and therefore may not need to
be collected during the evaluation process. Conducting a review of existing information
and determining the needed evaluation procedures is an important process that allows
schools to more fully and accurately inform parents about what will be done during the
evaluation. This ensures that parents are truly able to provide informed consent
regarding the specific evaluation procedures that will be conducted.

14. What are the criteria for RtI (intervention and progress monitoring) when using it to
determine the presence of an SLD?

While Article 7 does not specify such requirements, school teams and parents(s) may
wish to consider the following information when determining the adequacy of such data:
(a) is there evidence that the intervention(s) addressed the student’s specific areas of
need; (b) is there evidence documenting that the interventions were delivered

SLD Evaluation and Identification Page 30

 consistently and as planned; (c) is there sufficient and technically adequate progress
monitoring data; and (d) does the progress monitoring data indicate normative
weaknesses.

15. When determining SLD and whether a student meets the criteria of academic
underachievement, should we compare a student’s performance to that of age level
peers or to grade level standards?

Article 7 states that one condition of determining SLD eligibility is that the student does
not achieve adequately for the student’s age or to meet state approved grade level
standards in one or more of the SLD areas (see 511 IAC 7-41-12(1)). Thus, it is up to the
multidisciplinary team to make the decision about which comparison is most
appropriate for a given student and what corresponding evidence/data is needed.
Grade level standards might be preferred due to the alignment with state learning
standards and the availability of state and district assessments providing such data.
However, it is important that the multidisciplinary team consider whether such
assessments provide specific information for each of the 8 SLD areas. Often times,
state and district assessments align more with global academic areas (e.g., Language
Arts, Reading) and not specific areas (e.g., basic reading skills, reading fluency, reading
comprehension, etc.).

When individualized, norm-referenced measures of academic achievement are used,

age-based norms are typically the preferred reference group. This is especially
important if academic measures are going to be compared with cognitive measures for
the purpose of identifying relevant patterns of strength and weakness. While academic
measures do include grade-based norms, cognitive measures do not; thus, a valid
comparison across measures would not be possible. Grade-based norms on academic
measures are sometimes considered important, especially in situations where the
student has been retained. In such situations, academic achievement scores based on
grade-based norms could be provided as additional, supplemental information.

16. Is it necessary for a district to choose between using a pattern of strengths and
weakness (PSW) or Insufficient Progress approach for SLD eligibility determination?
Can a district select the PSW approach in some cases and the Insufficient Progress
approach in others, depending on the individual case? Or must a district select one
approach for all cases?

SLD Evaluation and Identification Page 31

 The decision about which approach (PSW or Insufficient Progress) to use to meet the
Article 7 requirement in 511 IAC 7-41-12(a)(2) can be made at the individual student
level. It is important to note that this is just one element of SLD eligibility and that a
comprehensive evaluation is needed to also address the elements of academic
underachievement, exclusionary factors, and adverse effect and need for special
education services. Article 7 permits the use of either of these approaches. The use of
one of these approaches occurs at the individual student level such that a
multidisciplinary team would not be collecting and interpreting data in regard to both
approaches for a given student. The review of existing data and preparation of the
written notice (of evaluation) provides an optimal opportunity for this decision to be
made relevant to a specific student so that the appropriate and necessary evaluation
components can be included in the written notice. When making this decision, the
multidisciplinary team would consider factors such as the age of the student, the school-
wide RtI practices in the student’s area of need, availability and quality of intervention
and progress data, and the overall presenting concerns regarding student performance.
The section on Insufficient Progress in the document provides additional information
about this decision.

17. How can the pattern of strengths and weakness approach be used and documented?

The pattern of strengths and weakness (PSW) approach is available for situations in
which a student has not participated in an intervention process or when existing
intervention information does not align with the suspected area of SLD. The pattern can
be demonstrated in “performance or achievement, or both, relative to: (i) age; (ii) state
approved grade level standards; or (iii) intellectual development” (511 IAC 7-41-
12(a)(2)). In addition, the pattern must be determined relevant to the identification of a
SLD by the student’s multidisciplinary team or case conference committee. Article 7
does prohibit the use of a discrepancy between global cognitive performance and
academic achievement to fulfill the requirement for an identified pattern.

Local special education staff are able to determine the specific requirements of the PSW
approach. Consistent practices and eligibility decisions will likely be dependent upon
clarity and shared understandings at the local level. Considerations related to what
types of assessments, score criteria, and relevant patterns will be used to fulfill this
requirement at the local level are essential. While Article 7 does not necessarily prohibit
the administration of a cognitive, or intellectual, assessment as part of a SLD evaluation;
it is important that the use of such be well-informed and justified for the purpose of

SLD Evaluation and Identification Page 32

 determining eligibility or planning the student’s educational program. The section on
PSW includes several examples of models that can be used to guide decisions about
patterns of performance in intellectual development and/or academic achievement.
Each model includes specific guidelines, or principles, regarding specific scores/ranges,
alignment between academic and cognitive weaknesses, and necessity of average, or
near-average, performance in areas not relevant to the academic difficulty. It is
important that all school staff (e.g., school psychologists, special education teachers and
administrators, and speech-language pathologists) be knowledgeable and skilled in the
use of whatever model is selected and that they explain it clearly and fully to school
administrators, teachers, and family members.

18. Is there a difference in the student data that is needed to address the repeated
assessment component of the lack of appropriate instruction exclusionary factor and
the lack of progress (insufficient progress) approach?

Yes, the necessary documentation for these two elements of SLD eligibility
determination is different. The differences pertain to the amount and type of student
assessment data. More student assessment data is needed to address the Insufficient
Progress criteria than to address the exclusionary criteria of lack of appropriate
instruction. This is necessary so that conclusions about a student’s rate of
improvement can be determined in relationship to expected or normative rates of
improvement data. A specific number of data points is not required by Article 7.
Question 9 above provides additional information about the amount of data that is
recommended for evaluating progress. The type of assessment data needed for these
two criteria is also different. While repeated assessment of broad academic areas (e.g.,
reading) may provide the needed evidence to address the lack of appropriate
instruction exclusionary criteria, more skill-specific assessment data would be
necessary to determine a student’s degree of progress in a specific academic area in
which a suspected SLD may be identified. If the multidisciplinary team has selected to
utilize the PSW approach for the SLD indicator criteria, the repeated assessment data
to address the exclusionary criteria is still necessary. When RtI implementation is still
in development for a given academic area or grade level, the data necessary for making
a decision about insufficient progress may not be available; thus making PSW the most
appropriate approach.

SLD Evaluation and Identification Page 33

 19. If a district is using Insufficient Progress as part of their SLD identification criteria, how
can this apply to non-public school students when they do not participate in the same
process with the district?

The appropriateness of using the Insufficient Progress approach for the SLD indicator
criteria for a nonpublic school student will depend on the sophistication and
implementation of the nonpublic school’s RtI program. If the needed information is
available and provided as part of existing information, then the public school’s
multidisciplinary team can select that approach. In the event that such information isn’t
available, the team could consider the option of using the PSW approach.

20. How should SLD evaluations and eligibility decisions be made when the non-public
schools are not implementing RtI?

Non-public schools are not required to implement RtI as a prerequisite to referring a

student for evaluation. Thus the public school cannot refuse to conduct or delay the
evaluation solely because the non-public school is not implementing, or declines to
implement, an RtI process. Further, if an RtI process is not used in a non-public school,
the MDT may need to rely on other information collected by the non-public school to
determine: a) whether the student responded to appropriate instruction and b) what
additional assessment information is needed (OSEP, Letter to Zirkel 2011). While this
information may not be the same as what is available within the public school, it is
important to note that RtI data is just one component of a full and individual evaluation,
and additional information will need to be collected, as necessary, to inform the CCC’s
decision about eligibility. Developing a good working relationship with the non-public
school, including collaborating and sharing professional development activities around
RtI, may promote the non-public school’s use of an RtI process. At a minimum, it may
assist the non-public school in collecting appropriate data and information that can be
used as part of the educational evaluation.

21. What is the role of different multidisciplinary team (MDT) members when RtI data is
used as part of SLD eligibility determination?

Article 7 defines the required multidisciplinary team members when the suspected
disability is SLD (511 IAC 7-32-65). The required members are a teacher licensed in the
area of the suspected disability, a school psychologist, and a general education teacher.
While the MDT will obtain information from a non-public school general education

SLD Evaluation and Identification Page 34

 teacher and/or the student’s parent, the responsibility for providing an appropriate
MDT and conducting an evaluation is that of the school corporation.

Article 7 does not speak to each member’s role or the process through which the
multidisciplinary team prepares the educational evaluation report or the written
certification for SLD. Locally, team members’ roles will be determined based upon the
availability and expertise of staff. Some districts have found it helpful to identify a
multidisciplinary team “leader” who assists with seeking each team members’ input and
team consensus regarding SLD eligibility. This is especially important given the
requirement for written certification of the team’s opinion.

22. How can schools best evaluate and differentiate the eligibility categories of Language
Impairment and Specific Learning Disability in Oral Expression and/or Listening
Comprehension?

Efforts to accurately determine eligibility under the categories of Language Impairment

(LI) and Specific Learning Disability (SLD) in Oral Expression and/or Listening
Comprehension require careful consideration by multidisciplinary teams (MDT) and case
conference committees (CCC). Given the absence of clarity and guidance in the
literature, practices at the local level should be thoughtful and collaborative. It is
important that the MDT be comprised of professionals with the necessary knowledge
and skills to collect and interpret the evaluation information. The MDT requirements in
Article 7 are minimum requirements; however membership can (and should) be
expanded to include any other licensed professionals essential for completing a
comprehensive and appropriate evaluation. For identification of a Specific Learning
Disability, Article 7 requires that the MDT include the school psychologist, the general
education teacher, and a teacher/specialist licensed in suspected disability. In the case
of a suspected Specific Learning Disability in Oral Expression and/or Listening
Comprehension, the speech language pathologist (SLP) is a key member of the MDT as
he/she is uniquely trained to identify language deficits across the age-span with the
potential to impact one’s ability to use language to learn and socialize effectively.

Considerations about possible SLD and LI are complex and multi-faceted.

Comprehensive evaluation practices should address the possibility of both eligibility
areas and the associated academic areas of reading, written expression, oral expression,
and listening comprehension as they all have the potential to impact academic
performance. Additional considerations include the age and language history and

SLD Evaluation and Identification Page 35

 proficiency of the student. In cases where young children are overtly struggling to
acquire their primary and first language, determination of a Language Impairment is
typically clear to an informed MDT and CCC. However in other cases, students may
demonstrate expressive and receptive language skills that appear sufficient for social
communication yet have specific language deficits that may be a primary source of a
student’s inability to use Oral Expression skills and Listening comprehension skills to
advance academically. Oftentimes, these specific deficits occur without co-existing
cognitive disabilities. Further, the natural second language acquisition process of
English Language Learners is sometimes misunderstood as language and/or learning
difficulties. Proficiency in the student’s first, or native, language needs to be assessed
and considered when concerns about learning difficulties exist. Again, having the right
members of the MDT involved in planning and conducting the evaluation is essential
and foundational to assisting the case conference committee in determining the most
appropriate eligibility determinations (SLD, LI, or both) and, if eligible, special education
services.

SLD Evaluation and Identification Page 36

 References

Flanagan, D. P., Fiorello, C. A., & Ortiz, S. O. (2010). Enhancing practice through application of
Cattell–Horn–Carroll theory and research: A “third method” approach to specific
learning disability identification. Psychology in the Schools, 47(7), 739 – 760.

Flanagan, D., Ortiz, S., & Alfonso, V. (2007). Essentials of cross-battery assessment (2nd ed.).
New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Fletcher, J., Lyon, R., Fuchs, L., & Barnes, M. (2007). Learning disabilities: From identification to
intervention. New York: The Guilford Press.

Gansle, K. A., & Noell, G. H. (2007). The fundamental role of intervention implementation in
assessing response to intervention. In S. R. Jimerson, M. K. Burns, & A. M.
VanDerHeyden (Eds.), The handbook of response to intervention: The science and
practice of assessment and intervention (pp. 244-251). New York: Springer Science Inc.

Hale, J. B., & Fiorello, C. A. (2004). School neuropsychology: A practitioner’s handbook. New
York: Guilford Press.

Hixson, M., Christ, T., & Bradley-Johnson, S. (2008). Best practices in the analysis of progress
monitoring and decision making. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school
psychology (5th ed.) (pp. 2133-2146). Silver Springs, MD: National Association of School
Psychologists.

Indiana Department of Education. (2010). Response to instruction (RtI): Foundations for

implementation. [Response to Instruction Guidance Document]. Retrieved from
www.doe.in.gov/rti.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. § 1401 et seq. (2004).

Lichtenstein, R. (2008). Best practices in identification of learning disabilities. In A. Thomas & J.

Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology (5th ed.) (pp. 295–317). Bethesda, MD:
National Association of School Psychologists

McMaster, K. L., & Wagner, D. (2007). Monitoring response to general education instruction. In
S. R. Jimerson, M. K. Burns, & A. M. VanDerHeyden (Eds.), Handbook of response to
intervention: The science and practice of assessment and intervention (pp. 223-233).
New York, NY US: Springer Science + Business Media.

Naglieri, J. A. (1999). Essentials of CAS assessment. New York: Wiley.

SLD Evaluation and Identification Page 37

 Noell, G. H., & Gansle, K. A. (2006). Assuring the form has substance: Treatment plan
implementation as the foundation of assessing response to intervention. Assessment for
Effective Intervention, 32, 32-39.

Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services. (2007). Questions and answers on
response to intervention (RTl) and early intervening services (EIS). 47 IDELR 1 196.

Office of Special Education Programs. (2007). [Letter to Cernosia]. 108 LRP 2652.

Office of Special Education Programs. (2007). [Letter to Massanari]. 108 LRP 2644. Retrieved
from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/letters/2007-
3/massanari092407eval3q2007.pdf.

Office of Special Education Programs. (2009). [Letter to Torres]. 53 IDELR 333.

Office of Special Education Programs. (2011). [Letter to state directors of special education].
Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/memosdcltrs/osep11-
07rtimemo.pdf.

Office of Special Education Programs. (2011). [Letter to Zirkel]. 111 LRP 2768.

Rhodes, R.L., Ochoa, S.H., & Ortiz, S.). (2005). Assessing culturally and linguistically diverse
students: A practical guide. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Riley-Tillman, T.C., & Burns, M. K. (2009). Evaluating educational interventions: Single-case

design for measuring response to intervention. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Shapiro, E. S. (2008). Best practices in setting progress monitoring goals for academic skill
improvement. In A. Thomas and J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology (5th
ed.) (pp. 141-158). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.

Shinn, M. R. (2008). Best practices in curriculum based measurement and its use in a problem
solving model. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology (5th
ed.) (pp. 243-262). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.

Special Education Rules, 511 IAC 7-32-2 et seq. (2010).

Zirkel, P. A., & Krohn, N. (2008). RTI after IDEA: A survey of state laws. Teaching Exceptional
Children, 40(3), 71-73.

SLD Evaluation and Identification Page 38

 Appendix A: Eligibility Chart

SLD Evaluation and Identification Page 39

 Eligibility Chart: This chart Illustrates the assessment components that are minimally required to be synthesized in an educational evaluation for
each suspected disability as articulated in Rule 26. If more than one disability is suspected then multiple columns would be considered.
511 IAC 7-41 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7
AUT BLV COG DHH DB *DD ED
(1) Development: Assessment of development areas (b)(1)
(2) Cognition: Assessment of cognitive ability and (e)(1)(A)
functioning (norm referenced or criterion referenced)
(3) Academic Achievement Assessment of current academic (c)(1)(A) (b)(1)(A) (e)(1)(B) (b)(1)(A) (d)(1)(A) (b)(1)(A)
achievement as defined in 511 IAC 7-32-2
Assessment of progress and interventions
Observation to document academic progress and behaviors in
areas of difficulty
(4) Functional Performance or Adaptive Behavior
Assessment of functional skills or adaptive behavior across (c)(1)(B) (b)(1)(B) (e)(1)(c) (b)(1)(B) (d)(1)(B)
various environments from multiple sources
Assessment of emotional and behavioral functioning (b)(1)(B)
Functional Behavioral Assessment (FBA) (b)(3)
Systematic observation across various environments (c)(3) (b)(4) (d)(2) (b)(5)
(5) Communication Skills
Assessment of communication…in mode of student (b)(1)(C) (d)(1)(C)
Assessment of the student’s receptive, expressive, pragmatic (c)(1)(C)
and social communication
Assessment of articulation, fluency, and voice
Observation of student’s speech by an SLP
Assessment of functional literacy (b)(3)(B) (d)(1)(E)
(6) Motor and Sensory Abilities
Vision and hearing screening (b)(4)
Assessment of function vision (b)(3)(A) (d)(1)(D)
Assessment of motor skills and sensory responses (c)(1)(D)
Assessment of motor skills including travel skills (b)(5) (d)(4)
Written report form an optometrist or ophthalmologist (b)(6) (d)(5)
Written report from an educational or clinical audiologists, (b)(3) (d)(6)
otologist, or otolaryngologist
Statement from a physician if an organic cause suspected
(7) Available Educationally Relevant Medical Information (b)(3) (b)(4)
Available mental health information (b)(4)
(8) Social and Developmental history (c)(2) (b)(2) (e)(2) (b)(2) (d)(3) (b)(2) (b)(2)
(9) Any other assessment or information necessary to (c)(4) (b)(7) (e)(3) (b)(4) (d)(7) (b)(6) (b)(5)
determine eligibility and inform the CCC

SLD Evaluation and Identification Page 40

 Eligibility Chart: This chart Illustrates the assessment components that are minimally required to be synthesized in an educational evaluation for
each suspected disability as articulated in Rule 26. If more than one disability is suspected then multiple columns would be considered.
511 IAC 7-41 -8 -9 -10 -11 -12 -13
LSI (MU) OHI OI SLD TBI
(1) Development: Assessment of development areas
(2) Cognition: Assessment of cognitive ability and (b)(1)(A) (c)(1)(A)
functioning (norm referenced or criterion referenced)
(3) Academic Achievement Assessment of current academic LI(e)(1)(B) (b)(1)(B) (b)(1)(A) (b)(1)(A) (b)(1) (c)(1)(B)
achievement as defined in 511 IAC 7-32-2 SI(f)(1)(B)
Assessment of progress and interventions LI(e)(1)(A) (b)(5)
Observation to document academic progress and behaviors in LI(e)(3) (b)(2)
areas of difficulty
(4) Functional Performance or Adaptive Behavior
Assessment of functional skills or adaptive behavior across (b)(1)(C) (b)(1)(B) (b)(1)(B) (c)(1)(C)
various environments from multiple sources
Assessment of emotional and behavioral functioning
Functional Behavioral Assessment (FBA)
Systematic observation across various environments (b)(3) (b)(3)
(5) Communication Skills
Assessment of communication…in mode of student
Assessment of the student’s receptive, expressive, pragmatic
and social communication
Assessment of articulation, fluency, and voice SI(f)(1)(A)
Observation of student’s speech by an SLP SI(f)(3)
Assessment of functional literacy
(6) Motor and Sensory Abilities
Vision and hearing screening
Assessment of function vision
Assessment of motor skills and sensory responses
Assessment of motor skills including travel skills
Written report form an optometrist or ophthalmologist
Written report from an educational or clinical audiologists,
otologist, or otolaryngologist
Statement from a physician if an organic cause suspected SI(f)(4)
(7) Available Educationally Relevant Medical Information LI(e)(4), SI(f)(5) (b)(4) (b)(4) (b)(3) (b)(3) (c)(3)
Available mental health information
(8) Social and Developmental history LI(e)(2), SI(f)(2) (b)(2) (b)(2) (b)(2) (b)(4) (c)(2)
(9) Any other assessment or information necessary to LI(e)(5), SI(f)(6) (b)(5) (b)(5) (b)(4) (b)(6) (c)(4)
determine eligibility and inform the CCC

SLD Evaluation and Identification Page 41

 Appendix B: Exclusionary Factor Sources of Evidence

SLD Evaluation and Identification Page 42

 Exclusionary factor Possible Actions Possible Sources
as primary:
Can be done before and/or Can be done only after
after receipt of signed receipt of signed
parental consent parental consent
A visual disability A test or evaluation Vision screening results
administered to all students
A screening conducted to Conduct vision screening (for implementation of instructional
determine appropriate strategies)
instructional strategies for
curriculum implementation
A review of existing data Check student file:
4. history of vision screening results
5. other information about vision, glasses, etc.
6. previous notes or concerns related to vision by
teacher or parent
7. grades/progress in relevant subjects
Document any current vision concerns of staff
Collect relevant work samples
The collection of progress Document any relevant assessment results
monitoring data if student is
participating in RtI
Request additional Document any current hearing concerns of parents and
information from parent student
Request any relevant existing medical records (need release)
Request social-developmental history information
Educational Evaluation Specified tests/measures related to possible Blind/Low Vision
conducted by needs, including examination by medical specialist
multidisciplinary team

SLD Evaluation and Identification Page 43

 A hearing disability A test or evaluation Hearing screening results
administered to all students
A screening conducted to Conduct hearing screening (for implementation of
determine appropriate instructional strategies)
instructional strategies for
curriculum implementation
A review of existing data Check student file:
8. history of hearing screening results
9. other information about hearing
10. previous notes or concerns related to hearing by
teacher or parent
11. grades/progress in relevant subject areas
Document any current hearing concerns of staff
Collect relevant work samples
The collection of progress Document any relevant assessment results
monitoring data if student is
participating in RtI
Request additional Document any current hearing concerns of parents and
information from parent student
Request any relevant existing medical records (need release)
Request social-developmental history information
Educational Evaluation Specified tests/measures related to possible Deaf/Hard or
conducted by Hearing needs, including examination by medical specialist
multidisciplinary team

A motor disability A test or evaluation Individual results from any health screenings administered to
administered to all students all students, such as scoliosis screening
A screening conducted to Conduct fine/gross motor screening (for implementation of
determine appropriate instructional strategies)
instructional strategies for
curriculum implementation

SLD Evaluation and Identification Page 44

 A review of existing data Check student file:
12. history of screening results
13. other information about fine/gross motor skills
14. previous notes or concerns related to motor skills by
teacher or parent
15. grades/progress in relevant subject areas
Document any current motor concerns of staff
Collect relevant work samples
The collection of progress Document any relevant assessment results
monitoring data if student is
participating in RtI
Request additional Document any current motor concerns of parents and student
information from parent Request any relevant existing medical records (need release)
Request social-developmental history information
Educational Evaluation Specified tests/measures related to possible Orthopedic
conducted by Impairment needs
multidisciplinary team

A cognitive A test or evaluation Individual results from any cognitive assessments

disability administered to all students administered to all students, such as group assessments like
Otis-Lennon
A screening conducted to Not applicable - cognitive screenings do not provide
determine appropriate instructional strategies
instructional strategies for
curriculum implementation
A review of existing data Check student file:
16. history of cognitive assessments
17. other information related to cognitive skills
18. previous notes or concerns related to cognitive ability
by teacher or parent
19. grades/progress in relevant subjects
20. retention

SLD Evaluation and Identification Page 45

 21. courses (remedial, advanced placement, summer
school)
22. previous school/outside evaluation reports
Document any current cognitive concerns of staff
Collect relevant work samples
The collection of progress Document any relevant assessment results
monitoring data if student is
participating in RtI
Request additional Document any current cognitive concerns of parents and
information from parent student
Request any relevant existing medical records (need release)
Request social-developmental history information (Art. 7
defines cognitive disability as being manifested during
developmental period)
Educational Evaluation Specified tests/measures related to possible Cognitive
conducted by Disability needs, including adaptive functioning
multidisciplinary team

An emotional A test or evaluation Individual results from any emotional assessments

disability administered to all students administered to all students
A screening conducted to Conduct emotional screening (for implementation of
determine appropriate instructional strategies)
instructional strategies for
curriculum implementation
A review of existing data Check student file:
3. medication/mental health information
4. other information related to emotional skills
23. previous notes or concerns related to emotional skills
by teacher or parent
24. significant change in grades
25. significant absences
26. discipline records

SLD Evaluation and Identification Page 46

 27. previous school/outside evaluation reports, including
FBA/BIP
28. juvenile court involvement
Document any current emotional concerns of staff
Collect relevant work samples (essays, journal entries,
drawings)
The collection of progress Document any relevant assessment results (social skill
monitoring data if student is instruction, motivational information, skill deficit vs.
participating in RtI performance deficit)
Request additional Document any current emotional concerns of parents and
information from parent student
Request any relevant existing medical/mental health records
(need release)
Request social-developmental history information
Educational Evaluation Specified tests/measures related to possible Emotional
conducted by Disability needs
multidisciplinary team

Cultural factors A test or evaluation Individual results from any cultural factor assessments
administered to all students administered to all students
A screening conducted to Conduct cultural factor screening (for implementation of
determine appropriate instructional strategies)
instructional strategies for
curriculum implementation
A review of existing data Check student file:
5. Home language survey
6. School history & attendance, including kindergarten &
preschool
7. English language instruction (ESL/ELL/ENL)
8. Race/ethnicity
9. Refugee or migrant status
10. Homeless

SLD Evaluation and Identification Page 47

 11. Family culture, including child of deaf adults (CODA)
12. Family expectations
13. Parent conference notes
14. other information related to cultural factors
Document any current cultural factor concerns of staff
Collect relevant work samples (language work for child of deaf
adults)
The collection of progress Document any relevant assessment results
monitoring data if student is
participating in RtI
Request additional Document any current cultural factor concerns of parents and
information from parent student
Request any relevant existing medical records (need release)
Request social-developmental history information
Educational Evaluation Observation, screening and other tests/measures related to
conducted by possible disability needs
multidisciplinary team

Environmental or A test or evaluation Individual results from any assessments administered to all
Economic administered to all students students
Disadvantage
A screening conducted to Not applicable
determine appropriate
instructional strategies for
curriculum implementation
A review of existing data Check student file:
Home: Environmental/economic
15. Free or reduced lunch
16. Homeless
17. Refugee or migrant status
18. Foster care
19. Grandparent as guardian, etc.

SLD Evaluation and Identification Page 48

 20. Lack of home resources
21. Lack of access to community resources
22. Student has job/exceptional home responsibilities
23. Parent education/support issue
24. Stress/violence
25. Family size/space
26. Lack of immunizations
27. Lack of primary care physician
28. School assistance for glasses, doctor visits, clothing,
food, etc.
School: Environmental/economic
29. Multiple school history
30. Sporadic school attendance
31. Lack of staff training
32. Lack of appropriate instruction
Document any current environmental/economic concerns of
staff
Collect relevant work samples (journal entries, drawings)
The collection of progress Document any relevant assessment results
monitoring data if student is
participating in RtI
Request additional Document any current environmental/economic concerns of
information from parent parents and student
Request any relevant existing medical records (need release)
Request social-developmental history information
Educational Evaluation Observation, screening and other tests/measures related to
conducted by possible disability needs
multidisciplinary team

Limited English A test or evaluation Individual results from any English assessments administered
Proficiency administered to all students to all students
A screening conducted to Conduct language/academic screening (for implementation of
determine appropriate instructional strategies)

SLD Evaluation and Identification Page 49

 instructional strategies for
curriculum implementation
A review of existing data Check student file:
29. Home Language Survey
30. LAS Links data/progress
31. History of English language instruction (ESL/ELL/ENL)
Document any current language/academic concerns of staff
Collect relevant work samples
The collection of progress Document any relevant assessment results
monitoring data if student is
participating in RtI
Request additional Document any current concerns of parents and student
information from parent Request social-developmental history information
Request language history information:
3. Which languages
4. When learned
5. Receptive/expressive
6. Which environments
7. How much schooling in which languages
8. Languages used by family members
9. Languages used in community
Educational Evaluation Tests/measures related to nondiscriminatory assessment:
conducted by II. Bilingual evaluation/evaluator
multidisciplinary team III. Nonverbal assessment
IV. Consideration of language/cultural loading in test
performance

Lack of appropriate A test or evaluation Not applicable

instruction in administered to all students
reading or math
evidenced by the
following:

SLD Evaluation and Identification Page 50

 Data demonstrating
that prior to, or part
of, the referral
process, the
student was
provided
appropriate
instruction in
general education
settings, delivered
by qualified
personnel.
A screening conducted to Not applicable
determine appropriate
instructional strategies for
curriculum implementation
A review of existing data Check student file:
4. Schools attended
5. Attendance history
6. Instructional history
7. Opportunities to learn
Review & document student’s school experiences:
Curriculum:
2. Evidence-based core curriculum
3. Evidence-based interventions
4. Assessment tool for student-instructional match
5. Existence of formal system to analyze effectiveness of
core + interventions
Instruction:
● 5 reading components
● Appropriate math
● Student-Instructional match
● HQ teachers/subs

SLD Evaluation and Identification Page 51

 ● Teacher absences
● Time allocated
● Academic learning time
● # response opportunities
● Explicit/implicit
● Modeling
● Guided practice
● Feedback
● Reinforcement
● Student success rate on academically relevant tasks is
appropriate (90-100% for independent work)
● Examples & non-examples
● Motivation strategies
The collection of progress Document any relevant assessment results
monitoring data if student is
participating in RtI
Request additional Document any current concerns of parents and student
information from parent Request social-developmental history information
Educational Evaluation Observation, screening and other tests/measures related to
conducted by possible disability needs
multidisciplinary team Might include:
● targeted intervention with progress monitoring
(dynamic assessment) to determine student’s ability
to learn when provided appropriate instruction
● Systematic observation of instruction; walk-through
checklist; Tier 1/2 data charts/graphs

Lack of appropriate A test or evaluation Individual results from any repeated assessments
instruction in administered to all students administered to all students, such as NWEA, Benchmarks, M-
reading or math Class, Acuity, DIBELS, Aimsweb, etc.
evidenced by the
following:

SLD Evaluation and Identification Page 52

 Data based
documentation of
repeated
assessments of
achievement at
reasonable
intervals, reflecting
formal assessment
of student progress
during instruction,
which was provided
to the student’s
parents.
A screening conducted to Conduct screening (for implementation of instructional
determine appropriate strategies)
instructional strategies for
curriculum implementation
A review of existing data Check student file:
C. History of repeated assessment data
D. Graphs of above data
E. Documented interventions (with instructional match)
F. Documented intervention changes
G. Fidelity checks
H. Documentation of parent notification
I. Attendance record
J. Schools attended
Collect work samples
The collection of progress Document any relevant assessment results
monitoring data if student is
participating in RtI
Request additional Document any current concerns of parents and student
information from parent Request social-developmental history information
Educational Evaluation Observation, screening and other tests/measures related to

SLD Evaluation and Identification Page 53

 conducted by possible disability needs
multidisciplinary team Might include:
● targeted intervention with progress monitoring
(dynamic assessment) to determine student’s ability
to learn when provided appropriate instruction
● Systematic observation of instruction; Tier 1/2 data
charts/graphs

SLD Evaluation and Identification Page 54

 Appendix C: SLD Element Template

SLD Evaluation and Identification Page 55

 Specific Learning Disability (SLD) Certification

The Multidisciplinary Team members are required by Indiana’s Article 7 (511 IAC 7-40-5(g)(2)(C)) to sign this document
to certify their individual opinions for the Case Conference Committee, as to whether or not they believe this student
has a Specific Learning Disability, and the basis for having that opinion. A team member who does not agree with the
findings of the Educational Evaluation must attach a separate opinion statement.
1. Evidence of Underachievement Relative to Age or Grade No Yes

Evidence Data Sources

A. A.
B. B.
C. C.
D. D.

2. Evidence of Insufficient Progress OR Pattern of Strengths/Weakness No Yes

Evidence Data Sources

Insufficient Progress Insufficient Progress

A. A.
B. B.
C. C.
D. D.

Patterns of Strength/Weakness Patterns of Strength/Weakness

A. A.
B. B.
C. C.
D. D.

3. Evidence that Exclusionary Factors: Disabilities, English Proficiency, and Culture are NOT Primary
Factor for Underachievement. No Yes
Evidence Data Sources
A. A.
B. B.
C. C.
D. D.

4. Evidence that Exclusionary Factor: Lack of Appropriate Instruction is NOT Primary Factor for
Underachievement. No Yes

Effective Evaluation Resource Center, Blumberg Center, Indiana State University. From W.D. Tiley & S. Brown (2010). RTI and
Special Ed Identification: How it Works. LRP Publications. Modified with author permission.

SLD Evaluation and Identification Page 56

 Evidence Data Sources

A. A.
B. B.
C. C.
D. D.

1. Evidence of adverse impact on academic performance and student’s need for specially designed
instruction. No Yes

Evidence Data Sources

A. A.
B. B.
C. C.
D. D.

Educational Evaluation findings:

___ Yes, there is sufficient evidence of all criteria to support determination of SLD in the specific area(s)of:

Oral expression
Listening comprehension
Written expression
Basic reading skills
Reading fluency skills
Reading comprehension
Mathematics calculation
Mathematics problem solving.

___ No, there is not sufficient evidence of all criteria to support determination of SLD

Multidisciplinary Team Members:

Name/Title/Signature:

.
.
.
.
.
.

Effective Evaluation Resource Center, Blumberg Center, Indiana State University. From W.D. Tiley & S. Brown (2010). RTI and
Special Ed Identification: How it Works. LRP Publications. Modified with author permission.

SLD Evaluation and Identification Page 57

 Example of Evidence, Data Sources, and Criteria/Explanation for SLD Determination.
Content determined at local corporation/cooperative level – examples FOR ILLUSTRATIVE
PURPOSES ONLY.

1. Evidence of Underachievement Relative to Age or Grade No Yes

Evidence Criteria/Explanation Data Sources

A. Student’s performance below A. Most recent assessment, not more ISTEP+
grade level on ISTEP+. than 1 year old, below ## percentile Districtwide assessment data
th
B. Student’s performance below (e.g., 12 ). Schoolwide assessment data
grade level on districtwide assessments B. Below ## percentile, specified Classroom performance data
(note if not applicable). discrepancy ratio, % delay, absolute Group intervention data
C. Student’s performance below difference. Norm-referenced and criterion-
expected level on other norm- C. Below ## percentile, specified referenced assessments
referenced assessments (note if not standard score, absolute difference.
applicable/not given). D. Below ## percentile, specified score.
D. Student’s performance below
expected level on criterion-referenced
assessments (note if not applicable/not
given).
E. Data from at least 2 assessment
sources converge and indicate
underachievement in one of the areas
of SLD.
F. Other, please specify

2. SLD Indicator: Insufficient Progress or Patterns of Strength/Weakness No Yes

Evidence Criteria Data Sources

Insufficient Progress
A. Notification of Intervention and Cumulative Record
intervention plan. Social/developmental history
A. Supplemental intervention
B. Evidence of alignment between Schoolwide assessment data
provided prior to or during evaluation.
student need and provided intervention. Classroom performance data
B. Supplemental intervention
C. Evidence of intervention Intervention documentation
matched to student need(s).
implementation integrity. Progress monitoring data and graph
C. Supplemental intervention
D. Minimum number of data points. Teacher/Parent/Student Interview
provided as designed.
E. Criteria for determining lack of Observation
D. Sufficient and appropriate
progress specified in advance that
progress monitoring data collected.
involves comparison of actual and
E. Lack of progress demonstrated
expected rates of progress.
during the intervention period.
F. Other, please specify

Norm-referenced achievement data

Patterns of Strength/Weakness A. Specified standard scores or ranges. Norm-referenced cognitive
B. Specified standard scores or ranges - assessment
A. Normative weaknesses in degree of relationship with area of Schoolwide assessment data

SLD Evaluation and Identification Page 58

 academic areas of difficulty. concern. Classroom performance data
B. Normative weaknesses in C. Specified standard scores or ranges.
corresponding areas of cognitive
abilities.
C. Average, near average, abilities in
remaining academic/cognitive areas.
D. Pattern of S and W relevant to
SLD.
E. Other, please specify

3. Evidence that Exclusionary Factors: Disabilities, English Proficiency, and Culture are
NOT Primary Factor for Underachievement. No Yes
Evidence Criteria Data Sources
A. Primary cause not limited English A.Language proficiency data and criteria Cumulative Record
Proficiency scores. Attendance Records
B. Primary cause not socio- B. # days in attendance/absent, # Social Developmental History
economic, ethnic, racial, or familial. school changes, # of factors identified Parent/Student Interview
C. Primary cause not disability that have impacted student success. Observation
related to emotional, cognitive, or C. Criteria associated with ruling out
sensory domain. additional disabilities.
D. Other, please specify

4. Evidence that Exclusionary Factor: Lack of Appropriate Instruction is NOT Primary Factor
for Underachievement. No Yes
Evidence Criteria Data Sources
A. Appropriate instruction provided. A. Identification of school curriculum. Schoolwide assessment data
B. Consistent attendance during B.Specified criteria on schoolwide or Classroom performance data
instruction. classroom performance data. Intervention Documentation
C. Instruction provided by qualified B. Specified minimum number of days Progress Monitoring data
personnel. absent. Teacher/Parent/Student Interview
D. Other, please specify.

5. Evidence of adverse impact on academic achievement and/or functional performance

and student’s need for specially designed instruction. No Yes

Evidence Criteria Data Sources

A. Curriculum needs identified. A.# of current grades D/F, # missing School records
B. Need for specially-designed assignments, present level of Schoolwide assessment data
instruction identified. performance in academic areas. Classroom performance data
C. Other, please specify. B. # and type of disciplinary actions. Progress Monitoring data
Teacher/Parent Student Interview
Observation
Report cards, progress reports
Intervention progress notes

SLD Evaluation and Identification Page 59