Category: Assessments

You Asked! – Question 22

Posted on by

Download a PDF version of this You Asked question and answer HERE.

Q22: Why are younger students generally not found eligible for Specific Learning Disability when a “severe discrepancy” model is used for special education eligibility?

A: Under California law, the use of severe discrepancy may be considered but must not be required [5 CCR 3030(b)(10)(B), 34 CFR 300.307(a)(1)].  Many school districts are by default requiring a severe discrepancy by not looking to other allowable methods in determining a specific learning disability for special education eligibility purposes. [Please refer to You Asked #23 for additional information].

In California, a severe discrepancy is defined as a difference between intellectual ability (“IQ) and achievement of 1.5 standard deviations (or more)*. For our younger students with suspected dyslexia that would mean a “severe discrepancy” in areas such as basic reading (or spelling) on standardized achievement testing.

For younger students (Kindergarten through 2nd grade), it would be very difficult to have this large of a gap between IQ and standardized academic achievement test scores in reading or spelling.  The International Dyslexia Association (IDA) explains: “although there are many tests that may be used early (in Kindergarten and beginning of first grade) to assess beginning skills in reading and spelling, the standards for average achievement are generous. A child in late Kindergarten or early first grade may only need to read a few letters and two or three common words to score well enough to reach a score of “average”. Compared to other young learners, students with dyslexia may not seem to be “behind.” ” [Source:  The International Dyslexia Association, “Just the Facts: Testing and Evaluation“].

IDA states that “research demonstrates that additional direct instruction provided appropriately, beginning in Kindergarten through third grade, can help all but the most severely impaired students catch up to grade-level literacy skills and close the gap for most poor readers.  Assessment is the first step in identifying these students early to make sure they receive the effective instruction they need to succeed.” [Source:  The International Dyslexia Association, “Just the Facts: Dyslexia Assessment: What Is It and How Can It Help?]

So, it is unlikely that a younger student will demonstrate a “severe discrepancy” on standardized achievement testing for the reasons given above but we also know that early identification and appropriate intensive intervention greatly increases the positive outcomes for our dyslexic students so what should be done with respect to our younger students?

Even before formal assessment, careful early screening of younger students beginning in Kindergarten can help identify students at risk for dyslexia.  According to IDA, screening should occur in the following areas (before second grade), “it is more important to focus an evaluation on the precursors of reading development. Measures of language skills, phonological awareness, memory, and rapid naming are more suggestive of being at-risk for dyslexia among young children than are measures of word reading, decoding, and spelling. Therefore, measures of phonological awareness, memory, and rapid naming are typically included in Kindergarten and beginning first grade screening tests that can identify children who need targeted intervention to improve these critical skills so these children can meet grade-level benchmarks.” [Source:  The International Dyslexia Association, “Just the Facts: Testing and Evaluation“].

For purposes of assessment, California regulations appear to acknowledge the difficulty in identifying a severe discrepancy especially in younger children and provide IEP teams with flexibility in applying these rules under 5 CCR 3030(b)(10)(B)(3) which provides for the following:

“If the standardized tests do not reveal a severe discrepancy as defined in subdivisions 1. or 2. above, the IEP team may find that a severe discrepancy does exist, provided that the team documents in a written report that the severe discrepancy between ability and achievement exists as a result of a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes. The report shall include a statement of the area, the degree, and the basis and method used in determining the discrepancy. The report shall contain information considered by the team which shall include, but not be limited to:

(i)    Data obtained from standardized assessment instruments;

(ii)    Information provided by the parent;

(iii)    Information provided by the pupil’s present teacher;

(iv)    Evidence of the pupil’s performance in the regular and/or special education classroom obtained from observations, work samples, and group test scores;

(v)    Consideration of the pupil’s age, particularly for young children [emphasis added]; and

(vi)    Any additional relevant information.”

* –  Please be advised that in California, IQ testing of African-American students is prohibited [refer to Larry P. v. Riles, 495 F. Supp. 926 (N.D. Cal 1979), 793 F. 2d 969 (9th Cir. 1984), 37 F. 3d 485 (9th Cir. 1994).  Also, see article from CA Association of School Psychologists (CASP Today Spring 2013 – Larry P. Edition, pgs. 7, 17)].

For more YOU ASKED questions and answers click HERE.

You Asked! – Question 21

Posted on by

Download a PDF version of this You Asked question and answer HERE.

Q21:  We suspect dyslexia but the school wants to delay assessing and they say my student won’t be eligible for special education as he is not two years behind.  Is this correct?

A:  This is an unfortunate “urban legend” that has been repeated so many times that many school personnel believe it to be true.  There is nothing in federal or California education law that states that a student must be two or more years behind in school to be found eligible for special education.  If this were the case, it would be impossible for a student in kindergarten or first grade to ever be found eligible as they haven’t been in school for two years and it would be very difficult for even a second grader to be found eligible.

So where did this incorrect information originate? 

As far as we can tell, it seems to be a result of confusion regarding use of the “severe discrepancy” model in identifying students as having a “Specific Learning Disability” for special education eligibility.

Under California law, there are three possible methods of determining whether a specific learning disability exists. One method allows for the use of a severe discrepancy model [5 CCR 3030(b)(10)(B)].  A severe discrepancy is defined as a difference between academic achievement and intellectual ability (“IQ”) of 1.5 standard deviations or more (adjusted by 1 standard error of measurement).

Let’s look at an example using a standard bell curve.  Assume this student has an average IQ of 100 (standard score).  In order to have a severe discrepancy, the student would have to receive a standard score in basic reading skills of 78 (or less) in order to have a standard deviation of 1.5 (or more).  [This would also apply to oral expression, written expression, reading comprehension, mathematical calculation or mathematical reasoning scores].

In its most simplistic form, you can take your student’s IQ* standard score and subtract 22.5 points. The difference (IQ-22.5) is the standard score that would result in a 1.5 standard deviation score (adjusted by one standard error of measurement, not to exceed 4 points). You can then compare this number to the standard scores your student received on standardized academic achievement testing in order to determine whether there is a severe discrepancy or not. Any scores at or below this number would indicate the presence of a severe discrepancy.

In our example, a student would have to perform very poorly to have this much of a gap between achievement and IQ so perhaps this has been incorrectly interpreted to mean a “two-year gap”.

However, there are a few critical things to note:

  1. In California, the use of severe discrepancy may be considered but must not be required. [5 CCR 3030(b)(10)(B)], 34 CFR 300.307(a)(1)].
  2. There are two other methods for determining a Specific Learning Disability – student doesn’t make sufficient progress when using Response to Intervention (“RTI”) [5 CCR 3030(b)(10)(C)(1) and 5 CCR 3030(b)(10)(C)(2)(i) or the student exhibits a “pattern of strengths & weaknesses” [5 CCR 3030(b)(10)(C)(2)(ii)].
  3. In addition, even if standardized tests don’t reveal a severe discrepancy the IEP team may still find that one exists [refer to 5 CCR 3030(b)(10)(B)(2) or 5 CCR 3030(b)(10)(B)(3).

So, the next time you hear the “must be two years behind” statement, request in writing that the school district show you where this is reflected in the education code. [Spoiler Alert:  It won’t be found.]

It can be helpful to ask the IEP team to provide documentation of the eligibility criteria they used in determining whether a Specific Learning Disability (SLD) exists and to walk you through their analysis.  There are often  “Specific Learning Disability Team Determination of Eligibility” forms that need to be completed and you should request a copy for your records. [IEP meetings discussing special education eligibility can be very complicated and may feel overwhelming to some parents. It is a good idea to audio record your student’s IEP meetings so you can listen again to any sections that were confusing.  You just need to provide 24-hour advance notice in writing that you will be doing so.]

In addition, please refer to You Asked! question 23 as to why the use of severe discrepancy should be abandoned.

* –  Please be advised that in California, IQ testing of African-American students is prohibited [refer to Larry P. v. Riles, 495 F. Supp. 926 (N.D. Cal 1979), 793 F. 2d 969 (9th Cir. 1984), 37 F. 3d 485 (9th Cir. 1994).  Also, see article from CA Association of School Psychologists (CASP Today Spring 2013 – Larry P. Edition, pgs. 7, 17)].

For more YOU ASKED questions and answers click HERE.