Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Internet Search
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Parent Support Forums
Special Ed 101
Specific Learning Disability from USDOE
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Sheila" data-source="post: 149816" data-attributes="member: 23"><p>Part 3</p><p></p><p></p><p> The January 14, 1992 letter to Dr. Ulissi also states:</p><p> <em>. . .Neither Part B nor the Part B regulations provide for any exclusions based on intelligence level in determining eligibility for Part B services. </em>The regulations, at 34 CFR &#167; 300.541(b), do provide that: </p><p> <em>[t]he team may not identify a child as having a specific learning disability if the severe discrepancy between ability and achievement is primarily the result of--- </em></p><p><em>(1) A visual, hearing, or motor [disability]; (2) Mental retardation; (3) Emotional disturbance; or (4) Environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage.</em> </p><p> No mention is made in the regulations of any exclusions solely on the basis of intelligence. All children, except those specifically excluded in the regulations, regardless of I.Q., are eligible to be considered as having a specific learning disability, if they meet the eligibility requirements contained in the Part B regulations. </p><p> In your letter, you stated that you are concerned that some students are being disqualified for services under Part B because they are passing from grade to grade, without taking into consideration any severe discrepancy between the child's ability and the child's performance. Ms. Lillie indicated in her conversation with a member of my staff that, in some instances, a child's final grade in mathematics or reading, or a score on an achievement test, alone, is used to determine whether a child is eligible for services under Part B. </p><p> In order for a child to be eligible for services under Part B under the specific learning disability category, there must be a severe discrepancy between the child's achievement and intellectual ability in one or more of the following areas: oral expression, listening comprehension, written expression, basic reading skill, reading comprehension, mathematics calculation, or mathematics reasoning. 34 CFR &#167; 300.541(a)(2)(i)-(vii). None of the areas listed at &#167; 300.541(a)(2)(i)-(vii) can be categorically excluded from the areas that the multidisciplinary team examines to determine whether a child has a specific learning disability. </p><p> A child may be considered to have a specific learning disability if the multidisciplinary evaluation team finds that the child "does not achieve commensurate with his or her age and ability levels" in one or more of the areas, and the child has a severe discrepancy between achievement and intellectual ability in these areas that is not the result of other known handicapping conditions or environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage. See 34 CFR &#167; 300.541(a)(1)-(2) and (b). Of course, as is the case for all other children who are identified as having a disability, a child is not eligible for services under Part B unless, because of their disability, they need special education and related services. See 34 CFR &#167; 300.7(a). </p><p> You also asked if the evaluation team should consider any tutoring that the child receives outside of the school day, or any modifications or compensatory strategies that are used with the child, and that the child needs in order to succeed academically, when determining whether the child is eligible for services under Part B. Although this specific issue is not addressed in the Part B regulations, a team may find that a child has a specific learning disability if the team determines that <em>"[t]he child does not achieve commensurate with his or her age and ability levels in one or more of the areas listed in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, when provided with learning experiences appropriate for the child's age and ability levels. . .." 34 CFR &#167; 300.541(a)(1). </em>Generally, it would be appropriate for the evaluation team to consider information about outside or extra learning support provided to the child in developing the written report required at 34 CFR &#167; 300.543, as such information may indicate that the child's current educational achievement reflects the service augmentation, not what the child's achievement would be without such help. Such information may also have bearing on the evaluation team's conclusion, required by <em>34 CFR &#167; 300.543(b)(6),</em> on whether the child has <em>"a severe discrepancy between achievement and ability that is not correctable without special education and related services."</em> </p><p> In item (3) of your letter, you asked about which groups appropriately make eligibility and placement decisions. Before a child can receive services under Part B, the responsible public agency must evaluate the child in accordance with the requirements of 34 CFR &#167;&#167; 300.531-300.532, and in the case of children suspected of having a learning disability, the requirements of 34 CFR &#167;&#167; 300.540-300.543. Under Section 300.532, the evaluation must be made by a multidisciplinary team or group of persons, including at least one teacher or other specialist with knowledge in the area of suspected disability. See 34 CFR &#167; 300.532(e). For children suspected of having learning disabilities the additional team member specified at &#167; 300.540 must also be included in the multidisciplinary team. The evaluation must assess the child "in all areas related to the suspected disability, including, if appropriate, health, vision, hearing, social and emotional status, general intelligence, academic performance, communicative status, and motor abilities." See 34 CFR 300.532(f)). After the evaluation is completed, the determination is made about whether or not the child is eligible for services under Part B. </p><p> Under Part B, placement decisions must be made "by a group of persons, including persons knowledgeable about the child, the meaning of the evaluation data, and the placement options." See 34 CFR &#167; 300.533(a)(3). The term "placement" as used in this provision encompasses eligibility (e.g., placement into special education), placement in a continuum option, and location in which services will be delivered. While the regulation requires that each of these decisions be made in accordance with 34 CFR &#167; 300.533, it does not require that all of those decisions be made at the same time, or even by the same group of persons. </p><p> If the child is eligible for services under Part B, the school district must conduct a meeting to develop an individualized education program (IEP) for the child, within thirty days of the date of the eligibility determination. See 34 CFR &#167; 300.343(c). Although the Part B regulations clearly contemplate that IEP meetings are held after eligibility decisions are made, they do not necessarily preclude the development of IEPs in anticipation of eligibility determinations. </p><p> One of the determinations made by the participants at the IEP meeting is the specially-designed instruction or special education services, as well as any necessary related services, to be included in the IEP. Since the IEP forms the basis for decisions about where the child will receive services (34 CFR 300.552(a)(2)), the decision about where the IEP will be implemented generally would be made after the IEP meeting has taken place. </p><p> As indicated below, we are referring your inquiry about how eligibility determinations are being made in North Carolina to the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction (NCDPI). </p><p> In item (4) of your letter, you alleged that North Carolina is not complying with the requirements at 34 CFR &#167; 300.541 because its policies do not require separate testing of basic reading and reading comprehension, and mathematics calculating and mathematics comprehension. You stated that in North Carolina, "students are only evaluated in broad reading and broad mathematics" and that North Carolina's guidelines<em> "only require students with suspected disabilities to be evaluated in five areas, instead of the seven designated at [34 CFR &#167; 300.541]."</em> As stated earlier in this letter, none of the areas listed at 34 CFR &#167; 300.541(a)(2)(i)-(vii) can be categorically excluded from the areas that a multidisciplinary team examines to determine whether a child has a specific learning disability. A child may be considered to have a learning disability if the multidisciplinary team finds that the child<em> "does not achieve commensurate with his or her age and ability levels"</em> in one or more of the areas listed at 34 CFR &#167; 300.542(a)(2)(i)-(vii), and each of the seven areas listed at 34 CFR &#167; 300.541(a)(2)(i)-(vii) must be taken into consideration when evaluating a child with, or a child suspected of having, a specific learning disability. </p><p> In item (4), you also asked about tests that can be used to evaluate the areas listed at 34 CFR &#167; 300.541(a)(i)-(vii). The Part B regulations set out requirements for evaluating children with disabilities at 34 CFR &#167;&#167; 300.530-300.534, with additional criteria for evaluating children with specific learning disabilities at 34 CFR &#167;&#167; 300.540-300.543. Neither the Act nor the Part B regulations prescribe specific tests which must be used to meet the Federal requirements. The regulation at 34 CFR &#167; 300.532 requires State and local educational agencies to ensure that tests and other evaluation materials: </p><p> "(1) Are provided and administered in the child's native language or other mode of communication, unless clearly not feasible to do so; </p><p> (2) Have been validated for the specific purpose for which they are used; and </p><p> (3) Are administered by trained personnel in conformance with the instructions provided by their producer." </p><p> No single test or procedure may be used as the sole criterion for determining the appropriate educational program for a child.</p><p> As discussed earlier with Ms. Lillie, North Carolina's implementation of issues raised in items (3) and (4) in your letter will be handled as a complaint involving Part B. You will note from the enclosed letter that we have forwarded your complaint to NCDPI, and have requested that agency to take action to resolve the complaint, in accordance with the "State Complaint Procedures" in Part B at 34 CFR &#167;&#167; 300.660-300.662 of the Part B regulations. </p><p> These regulations require that, within 60 calendar days of receiving the complaint, NCDPI must provide you with a written decision that addresses each allegation in the complaint, and contains (1) findings of fact and conclusions, and (2) the reasons for the final decision. We have asked NCDPI to provide us with a copy of its written decision.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Sheila, post: 149816, member: 23"] Part 3 The January 14, 1992 letter to Dr. Ulissi also states: [I]. . .Neither Part B nor the Part B regulations provide for any exclusions based on intelligence level in determining eligibility for Part B services. [/I]The regulations, at 34 CFR § 300.541(b), do provide that: [I][t]he team may not identify a child as having a specific learning disability if the severe discrepancy between ability and achievement is primarily the result of--- (1) A visual, hearing, or motor [disability]; (2) Mental retardation; (3) Emotional disturbance; or (4) Environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage.[/I] No mention is made in the regulations of any exclusions solely on the basis of intelligence. All children, except those specifically excluded in the regulations, regardless of I.Q., are eligible to be considered as having a specific learning disability, if they meet the eligibility requirements contained in the Part B regulations. In your letter, you stated that you are concerned that some students are being disqualified for services under Part B because they are passing from grade to grade, without taking into consideration any severe discrepancy between the child's ability and the child's performance. Ms. Lillie indicated in her conversation with a member of my staff that, in some instances, a child's final grade in mathematics or reading, or a score on an achievement test, alone, is used to determine whether a child is eligible for services under Part B. In order for a child to be eligible for services under Part B under the specific learning disability category, there must be a severe discrepancy between the child's achievement and intellectual ability in one or more of the following areas: oral expression, listening comprehension, written expression, basic reading skill, reading comprehension, mathematics calculation, or mathematics reasoning. 34 CFR § 300.541(a)(2)(i)-(vii). None of the areas listed at § 300.541(a)(2)(i)-(vii) can be categorically excluded from the areas that the multidisciplinary team examines to determine whether a child has a specific learning disability. A child may be considered to have a specific learning disability if the multidisciplinary evaluation team finds that the child "does not achieve commensurate with his or her age and ability levels" in one or more of the areas, and the child has a severe discrepancy between achievement and intellectual ability in these areas that is not the result of other known handicapping conditions or environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage. See 34 CFR § 300.541(a)(1)-(2) and (b). Of course, as is the case for all other children who are identified as having a disability, a child is not eligible for services under Part B unless, because of their disability, they need special education and related services. See 34 CFR § 300.7(a). You also asked if the evaluation team should consider any tutoring that the child receives outside of the school day, or any modifications or compensatory strategies that are used with the child, and that the child needs in order to succeed academically, when determining whether the child is eligible for services under Part B. Although this specific issue is not addressed in the Part B regulations, a team may find that a child has a specific learning disability if the team determines that [I]"[t]he child does not achieve commensurate with his or her age and ability levels in one or more of the areas listed in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, when provided with learning experiences appropriate for the child's age and ability levels. . .." 34 CFR § 300.541(a)(1). [/I]Generally, it would be appropriate for the evaluation team to consider information about outside or extra learning support provided to the child in developing the written report required at 34 CFR § 300.543, as such information may indicate that the child's current educational achievement reflects the service augmentation, not what the child's achievement would be without such help. Such information may also have bearing on the evaluation team's conclusion, required by [I]34 CFR § 300.543(b)(6),[/I] on whether the child has [I]"a severe discrepancy between achievement and ability that is not correctable without special education and related services."[/I] In item (3) of your letter, you asked about which groups appropriately make eligibility and placement decisions. Before a child can receive services under Part B, the responsible public agency must evaluate the child in accordance with the requirements of 34 CFR §§ 300.531-300.532, and in the case of children suspected of having a learning disability, the requirements of 34 CFR §§ 300.540-300.543. Under Section 300.532, the evaluation must be made by a multidisciplinary team or group of persons, including at least one teacher or other specialist with knowledge in the area of suspected disability. See 34 CFR § 300.532(e). For children suspected of having learning disabilities the additional team member specified at § 300.540 must also be included in the multidisciplinary team. The evaluation must assess the child "in all areas related to the suspected disability, including, if appropriate, health, vision, hearing, social and emotional status, general intelligence, academic performance, communicative status, and motor abilities." See 34 CFR 300.532(f)). After the evaluation is completed, the determination is made about whether or not the child is eligible for services under Part B. Under Part B, placement decisions must be made "by a group of persons, including persons knowledgeable about the child, the meaning of the evaluation data, and the placement options." See 34 CFR § 300.533(a)(3). The term "placement" as used in this provision encompasses eligibility (e.g., placement into special education), placement in a continuum option, and location in which services will be delivered. While the regulation requires that each of these decisions be made in accordance with 34 CFR § 300.533, it does not require that all of those decisions be made at the same time, or even by the same group of persons. If the child is eligible for services under Part B, the school district must conduct a meeting to develop an individualized education program (IEP) for the child, within thirty days of the date of the eligibility determination. See 34 CFR § 300.343(c). Although the Part B regulations clearly contemplate that IEP meetings are held after eligibility decisions are made, they do not necessarily preclude the development of IEPs in anticipation of eligibility determinations. One of the determinations made by the participants at the IEP meeting is the specially-designed instruction or special education services, as well as any necessary related services, to be included in the IEP. Since the IEP forms the basis for decisions about where the child will receive services (34 CFR 300.552(a)(2)), the decision about where the IEP will be implemented generally would be made after the IEP meeting has taken place. As indicated below, we are referring your inquiry about how eligibility determinations are being made in North Carolina to the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction (NCDPI). In item (4) of your letter, you alleged that North Carolina is not complying with the requirements at 34 CFR § 300.541 because its policies do not require separate testing of basic reading and reading comprehension, and mathematics calculating and mathematics comprehension. You stated that in North Carolina, "students are only evaluated in broad reading and broad mathematics" and that North Carolina's guidelines[I] "only require students with suspected disabilities to be evaluated in five areas, instead of the seven designated at [34 CFR § 300.541]."[/I] As stated earlier in this letter, none of the areas listed at 34 CFR § 300.541(a)(2)(i)-(vii) can be categorically excluded from the areas that a multidisciplinary team examines to determine whether a child has a specific learning disability. A child may be considered to have a learning disability if the multidisciplinary team finds that the child[I] "does not achieve commensurate with his or her age and ability levels"[/I] in one or more of the areas listed at 34 CFR § 300.542(a)(2)(i)-(vii), and each of the seven areas listed at 34 CFR § 300.541(a)(2)(i)-(vii) must be taken into consideration when evaluating a child with, or a child suspected of having, a specific learning disability. In item (4), you also asked about tests that can be used to evaluate the areas listed at 34 CFR § 300.541(a)(i)-(vii). The Part B regulations set out requirements for evaluating children with disabilities at 34 CFR §§ 300.530-300.534, with additional criteria for evaluating children with specific learning disabilities at 34 CFR §§ 300.540-300.543. Neither the Act nor the Part B regulations prescribe specific tests which must be used to meet the Federal requirements. The regulation at 34 CFR § 300.532 requires State and local educational agencies to ensure that tests and other evaluation materials: "(1) Are provided and administered in the child's native language or other mode of communication, unless clearly not feasible to do so; (2) Have been validated for the specific purpose for which they are used; and (3) Are administered by trained personnel in conformance with the instructions provided by their producer." No single test or procedure may be used as the sole criterion for determining the appropriate educational program for a child. As discussed earlier with Ms. Lillie, North Carolina's implementation of issues raised in items (3) and (4) in your letter will be handled as a complaint involving Part B. You will note from the enclosed letter that we have forwarded your complaint to NCDPI, and have requested that agency to take action to resolve the complaint, in accordance with the "State Complaint Procedures" in Part B at 34 CFR §§ 300.660-300.662 of the Part B regulations. These regulations require that, within 60 calendar days of receiving the complaint, NCDPI must provide you with a written decision that addresses each allegation in the complaint, and contains (1) findings of fact and conclusions, and (2) the reasons for the final decision. We have asked NCDPI to provide us with a copy of its written decision. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Parent Support Forums
Special Ed 101
Specific Learning Disability from USDOE
Top