6548 Orinoco Avenue Indianapolis, Indiana 46227 (317) 789-3795 Fax (317) 789-3995

Ann Schmidt, Director of Special Education

Educational Evaluation: Initial

Name: STUDENT Date of Birth: AGE

Parent/Guardian: PARENT Current Evaluation: DATE
Address: 1234 Street Chronological Age: AGE
City, STATE 12345 Home School: Elementary
Cell phone: (123)-123-1234 School Attending: Elementary
Language: Spanish Grade: 2nd

Multidisciplinary Team Member Position

Jill Irwin (JI) School Psychologist
Jessica Beretta (JB) General Education Teacher
Laurie Hall (LH) Special Education Teacher
Laura Moon (LM) EL Teacher
Haley Wilde (HW) School Psychologist Intern
Nancy Lara (NL) Interpreter

Evaluation Component Evaluation Procedure/Test Date(s) Completed by

Review of Existing Data File review 9/20/17 JI/HW
Assessment of Progress and File review
Ongoing JI/HW
Interventions
Social Developmental History Social-Developmental History Questionnaire 9/20/17 Parent
Available Medical
Social-Developmental History Questionnaire 9/20/17 Parent
Information
Observations Observation in Area of Difficulty 9/25/17 HW
-Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement 3 10/4/17
-Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals 4: 11/8/17
Academic Achievement HW, NL
Spanish Edition
-Wechsler Individual Achievement Test - III
-Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children IV 10/06/17
Cognitive Assessment -Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children II 10/26/17 HW/JI
-Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing-II 11/1/17
Native Language Proficiency Woodcock-Munoz Language Survey - III 10/26/17 NL/JI
Language Proficiency File Review 9/25/17 HW
Adaptive Behavior -Adaptive Behavior Assessment System 3 9/20/17 Parent
SLD Certification SLD Document, signed and attached
Student: NAME
DOB: DATE

Reason for Referral

The purpose of this evaluation is to provide information to the Case Conference Committee (CCC) about Student
with regard to the suspected disability of a Specific Learning Disability (SLD). This evaluation is at the request of Students
parents and the school to determine Students strengths and weaknesses, in order to develop an appropriate instructional
and intervention plan. Student has received intensive interventions through the Building Intervention Team (BIT) process
since kindergarten, including Rode to Code, Reading Recovery, Waterford, and small group/one on one assistance in the
classroom. Despite numerous years of intervention, Student continues to struggle. Students mother expressed concern
about Student having memory problems and a learning problem. This information will be considered by the CCC to
determine whether Student is eligible for special education and related services, and if eligible, the nature and extent of
the special needs.

Background Information
Social and Developmental History
Student is a 7 year, 8 month old Hispanic female enrolled in 2nd grade at Elementary School. Student was classified as an
English Language Learner upon enrollment at Elementary School in July of 2015, at the beginning of kindergarten. Mrs.
Parent, Students mother, completed the social and developmental history form. Student currently lives with her
mother, father, and older brother. Mrs. Parent reported she did not receive pre-natal care during Students pregnancy.
Student weighed 6.5 pounds at birth and no complications during pregnancy or delivery were reported. Mrs. Parent
reported Student first began to crawl at 8 months and walked independently at 12 months old. No developmental
concerns were reported. Mrs. Parent reported Student gets approximately 8 hours of sleep each night.

Home strengths for Student, as reported by Mrs. Parent, are being obedient, not throwing tantrums, and doing what she
is told.

Available Medical Information

School records indicated Student passed a hearing screening on 7/29/2016 and passed vision screenings in Fall of 2016,
and Spring of 2017. Mrs. Parent did not report any additional medical concerns or information.

Educational History
Language History
Student was born in the United States. Mrs. Parent reported Spanish as Students native language, and Spanish/English
as the languages spoken most often by Student and the languages spoken in the home. The school communicates with
Students parents in Spanish through the use of a translator.
Student was classified as a limited English proficiency student upon enrollment, has an Individual Learning Plan (ILP), and
has received English language learner services since starting at Elementary School in kindergarten. Records indicated
Students overall WIDA proficiency level was a 3.0 at the beginning of kindergarten, 1.0 at the beginning of first grade, and
a 2.8 at the beginning of second grade. Students ILP indicated she had a content based and sheltered English instructional
program for kindergarten and sheltered English program for first grade, including testing accommodations, and instruction
modifications. Students ILP indicated her current instructional program in second grade as being content based ESL/push
in and pull out ENL/EL. Students current ILP also includes testing accommodations, and instruction modifications.
Students EL teacher reported that Student is making growth in her English proficiency, and her WIDA scores are where a
student with her background is expected to be. However, EL teacher reported concern about Students reading skills.

2
Student: NAME
DOB: DATE

ACCESS WIDA
Skill Area KG APT Screener 1st - WIDA 2nd - WIDA
Proficiency Level Proficiency Level Proficiency Level
Listening - 1.4 4.3
Speaking - 1.9 2.9
Reading - 1.0 2.3
Writing - 1.0 2.5
Oral Language - 1.6 3.4
Literacy - 1.0 2.4
Comprehension - 1.1 3.0
Overall 3.0 1.0 2.8
Key: 1=Entering, 2=Emerging, 3=Developing, 4=Expanding, 5=Bridging, 6=Reaching

Review of Existing Data /Assessment of Progress & Interventions

Student did not attend preschool or receive HeadStart services, but did attend daycare prior to kindergarten. Student was
enrolled in kindergarten at Elementary in July of 2015 and has attended Elementary School ever since. Student was
classified as a limited English proficiency student, has an Individual Learning Plan (ILP), and has received English language
learner services since enrollment. Records indicated Student has a history of academic difficulty, teacher concern, and
parent concern. Students mother reported Student has difficulty with reading, and is worried Student may have a memory
problem or a learning problem.

Student was first referred to the Building Intervention Team (BIT) process by her kindergarten teacher in April of 2016 due
to concerns about her reading, math, and writing skills. Teacher reported Student was unable to do most tasks on her own
and needed help in order to complete all tasks. Teacher reported Student listened well and was always willing to
participate, but was rarely able to answer questions correctly. At the time of the first BIT referral, Student was not able to
read, knew 23/54 letter names, 17/31 letter sounds, 4/45 popcorn words, and 7/21 numbers. Teacher reported that what
Student knows and does not know can change from day to day. Teacher reported Student was just starting to write her
name, however, was often not able to recognize the letter M, I, or A in other situations. Teacher reported Student played
well with others at recess and play centers in the classroom. Student received Road to Code throughout kindergarten,
during which Teacher reported little progress was made. Teacher reported Student received one-on-one or small group
assistance in kindergarten for reading, writing, and math. Teacher reported Student was paired with high level students
during learning centers when it was appropriate.

Student was referred to the BIT process again by her first grade teacher, Teacher, in February of 2017. Teacher reported
concerns regarding Students reading, math, and writing skills. Teacher reported that Student was showing growth over
time, but was concerned her growth was not significant enough, especially in the area of reading. At the time of the
referral, Students Fountas and Pinnell reading level was a C, while students were expected to read at a level F by
December of first grade. Teacher reported Student struggled daily with most academic tasks, had a hard time
understanding directions, and was often confused and overwhelmed by her work. Student was in a co-taught classroom,
often worked in small groups or received one-on-one assistance throughout the year, but was seldom able to complete
work independently. Additional interventions in 1st grade, included Reading Recovery. Student completed 20 full weeks
of one-on-one reading instruction with the Reading Recovery teacher from July of 2016 through January of 2017. Student
began Reading Recovery at a level 0 and was a level 3 at the end of the program. Student increased her writing vocabulary
from 4 to 25 words, word reading from 1/20 to 4/20 words read correctly, and letter identification from 28/54 to 46/54
by the end of the 20 weeks. While progress monitoring data was not collected consistently during first grade, AIMSweb
data demonstrated Student was expected to improve the number of words read correctly per minute by 2.79 words per
week, which fell short of the 25th percentile goal of 5.83 more words per week. Similarly, Student was expected to improve

3
Student: NAME
DOB: DATE

her nonsense word fluency number of sounds correct by .85 sounds per week, which also fell short of the 25th percentile
goal of 4.67 more sounds per week during first grade.

Student also received interventions for reading and math through Waterford 3 times per week throughout first grade. At
the time of the first grade referral, Student was still performing at a level 1 out of 3 for achievement strand skills. Records
indicated Principal recommended Student be assigned, rather than promoted to second grade, secondary to making little
growth despite multiple interventions and consistently performing below grade level in kindergarten and first grade.

Teacher reported Student was a sweet girl, a hard worker, and wanted to please her teachers. Student put forth a lot of
effort and focused on tasks she was presented with.

Student continues to receive interventions in second grade, including Waterford Reading and Waterford Math, small
group instruction and one-on-one assistance, and is in a co-taught classroom. Recent progress monitoring data measuring
Students growth in word reading and nonsense word fluency areas demonstrated she is improving at a rate of 2.47 words
correct per minute, but still making 10-15 errors per passage. Students rate of improvement for nonsense word fluency
is .66 sounds correct, and so far she has been on target with an average rate of improvement of .64 more sounds correct
per week. Student is currently reading 33-38 sounds correctly, which is not far behind the 39 sounds read correctly
expected at the 25th percentile for students during the Fall of 2nd grade. Student is currently reading 8-14 words correctly
per 2nd grade RCBM passage, compared to the 35 words expected at the 25th percentile for students during the Fall of 2nd
grade.

Kindergarten data:
CogAt Cognitive Abilities Test:
o Verbal: Standard Score of 72 (4th percentile)
o Quantitative: Standard Score of 77 (8th percentile)

1st grade data:

Literacy:
o August:
OS Dictation: 9 sight words and Below Basic
Kindergarten sight words: 3 and Below Basic
F & P: 0 and Below Basic
o September:
Unit 1 Cumulative: 62% and Basic
Book Club level: 1 and Below Basic
o December:
Word Fluency: 9 words per minute and Below Basic
F & P: 9 and Below Basic
o March:
Word Fluency: 12 and Below Basic
F & P: 5 and Below Basic
o May:
Word Fluency: 11 and Below Basic
F & P: 5 and Below Basic
Math:
o Not Available

2nd grade data:

Literacy:
4
Student: NAME
DOB: DATE

o August:
SRI: 0 and Below Basic (300-399 expected at beginning of 2nd grade)
F & P: 3 and Below Basic (17-18 expected at beginning of 2nd grade)
o September:
SRI: N/A
F & P: 6 and Below Basic
Evaluate: 29% and Basic
Math:
o August:
Every Day Math: 36% and Below Basic
Every Day Math Computation: 12 and Below Basic
Every Day Math Open Response: 0 and Below Basic
Evaluate: 25% and Below Basic
o September:
Every Day Math: 41% and Below Basic
Evaluate: 25% and Below Basic

Current Evaluation Results

Observations
Classroom Observations: Student was observed in her second grade general education classroom during the afternoon.
While many of the students were sitting on the floor and working on a math worksheet with the teacher, Student and
several other students were seated at their desks with their laptop computers. Student appeared to be using the
Waterford program on her laptop. She had headphones on and worked quietly. Student appeared to be focused on the
task and engaged in the activity.

Student was also observed in a small group setting in the EL classroom during the afternoon. Student attended a small
group session with the EL teacher, with several other students. Teacher first led the students through an ABC chart to
practice the alphabet and letter sounds. Student enthusiastically recited the letters and their sounds aloud with her
peers. She mumbled several of the phrases. The group then worked on th words. Student participated throughout the
session by raising her hand to offer examples, taking her turn in an activity, and following Teachers instructions. The
group used dry erase boards to write th words and Student was able to write the correctly without help, but needed
some prompting and assistance for words that and this from Teacher. When the group read a short story about the
letters Q and U, Student appeared to try to read a few of the words independently, but overall, struggled to read the
short story without help from Teacher. She frequently sat and waited for help from Teacher when she did not know how
to read one of the sentences, however, did often attempt to sound out the words on her own. Overall, Student had
difficulty completing the reading and writing activities without assistance from the teacher. At the end of the small
group session, Student asked Teacher, Whats your name again? and Where do I put these? in regards to the
materials they were putting away.

Testing Observations: Student was picked up from her classroom for testing on multiple occasions over the course of
several weeks. Upon meeting the examiner she was cooperative, polite, and appeared excited. Student was friendly,
conversational, and made appropriate eye contact with the examiner. Student was consistently cooperative and worked
hard across sessions and with multiple examiners. Student smiled frequently throughout the testing sessions and shared
information about how she likes math, was excited to play with her friends over fall break, and how she enjoys coming
to school. Student appeared to be attentive and put forth good effort on the presented tasks throughout the testing
sessions, however, did shift in her seat and look around the room occasionally. She responded well to praise for working

5
Student: NAME
DOB: DATE

hard and often said, I am trying my best, to the examiner. Overall, Students performance was considered a valid
representation of her skills and abilities.

Assessment of Language Factors

This evaluation is designed to help the Case Conference Committee determine whether or not Student has a disability that
would also be identified in her native language/culture. Since there are no standardized tests with norm samples that
adequately represent the dimensions of acculturation and language, traditional assessment practices do not provide a fair
comparison for students with different cultural and linguistic backgrounds. The goal of this evaluation is to reduce bias as
much as possible. Translating tests into a students native language is not a valid approach because it compromises
standardization and does not take into account the cultural bias of the items or the differences in language hierarchy.
Nonverbal methods of evaluation still have limitations, as the tests are not culture free and they are subject to the same
problems with norm samples.

In order to conduct a valid assessment in a nondiscriminatory way, the CHC Culture-Language Interpretive Matrix (Ortiz)
has been used for this evaluation. This tool allowed the examiner to view Students performance on intellectual tests
administered in English in a standardized way in relation to the influence of cultural and linguistic loadings across the
subtests. This matrix helps to determine the existence of any patterns that may help identify a disability. To analyze
Students results within the matrix (see attached), three guiding questions are utilized. These are included in the table
below.

Guiding Questions Answers

Is the highest cell average in the uppermost left-hand corner
No
(low language/low cultural loading classification)?
Is the lowest cell average in the lower most right-hand corner
No
(high linguistic demand/high cultural loading classification)?
Do the remaining cell averages fall between the highest and
lowest scores and follow a relative decline in value from the No
upper-left cells to the lower-right cells?

6
Student: NAME
DOB: DATE

Subtests of the Woodcock-Munoz Language Survey, Third Edition (WMLS-III: Spanish Form) were administered to assess
Students academic language proficiency in Spanish. These tasks were designed to measure Students listening,
speaking, and oral language skills in Spanish. Students performance on the Spanish form of the tests is compared to the
performance of Spanish-speaking individuals of the same age. Language Proficiency Levels, categorized from least to
most proficient, are initial development, early development, continuing development, emerging proficiency, proficient,
and advanced proficient. These categories can be described as cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP) levels,
ranging least proficient to most proficient, which are negligible, very limited, limited, limited to fluent, fluent, fluent to
advanced, advanced, and very advanced.

Students performance on the listening portion was in the early development/very limited range. On a task requiring her
to demonstrate comprehension of word knowledge by completing orally presented analogies, she performed in the
continuing development/limited range. Ritas performance on a task requiring her to demonstrate understanding of
orally presented language by providing missing words in short passages was in the early development level.
On the speaking portion of the assessment, Student performed in the early development/very limited range.

Students overall performance on the speaking proficiency portion of the assessment was in the initial
development/negligible range. On a vocabulary task requiring her to orally identify pictured objects that range from
easy to difficult and a task requiring her to communicate using expressive language, she performed in the initial
development/negligible range.

Students performance on tasks that measure her basic and functional listening and speaking skills was in the early
development/very limited range and her foundational listening and speaking skills were in the continuing
development/limited range. Based on Students performance, her Spanish listening skills are generally better developed
than her Spanish speaking skills, however, her Spanish cognitive academic language proficiency is considered to be in
7
Student: NAME
DOB: DATE

the limited to negligible range.

Academic Achievement
Students current levels of academic achievement were assessed using the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement,
Third Edition (KTEA-3) and a portion of the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test, Third Edition (WIAT-III), from which a
series of tasks were presented to assess Students current abilities related to reading, math, written and oral language as
compared to other students of the same grade level and age.

Reading: Phonological Processing evaluated Students ability to hear and manipulate the sounds that make up words.
Phonological processing plays a significant role in the development of skills in reading and spelling. The areas of phonemic
awareness that were tested were rhyming, blending, sound matching, segmentation and deleting sounds. Students
phonological processing skills were in the mild range of impairment/delay and an area of academic weakness compared
to her same age peers. Student was able to blend, segment, and delete some sounds within words correctly, but struggled
with rhyming and matching sounds. On another phonological awareness task (CTOPP-2), Students overall performance
was in the below average range. Her performance on phoneme isolation and word blending tasks were in the low average
range, while her ability to remove phonological segments from words was in the below average range.

The nonsense word decoding subtest is designed to assess a students ability to decode, or sound out, nonsense words.
It requires knowledge of letter sounds and the ability to put sounds together correctly. The nonsense words become more
difficult as the test progresses. Student read several letter sounds within a word correctly, but overall was not able to
sound out any of the nonsense words presented correctly. Students performance on this task was in the mild range of
impairment/delay.

Letter and word recognition assesses skills important in building reading skills such as recognizing letters and their sounds
and reading progressively more difficult words. Student performed in the mild range of impairment/delay. Student was
able to read letters and correctly identify letters by their names and sounds without error. She was able to quickly identify
two sight words presented (it and was), but had difficulty reading the others presented. Student did attempt to sound out
the sight words that she did not know, but was not able to do so correctly.

Students basic reading skills, as assessed on the KTEA-III, were consistent with classroom assessments, progress
monitoring data, and teacher reports, of below grade level performance since kindergarten.

Reading comprehension is the primary goal of reading instruction. To assess Students reading comprehension skills, she
was required to match symbols or pictures to a word, describe a word based on a picture, and read brief sentences.
Students performance was in the mild range of impairment/delay compared to her same age peers. She was able to
match several small words to their matching picture, but had difficulty when visuals were not used. Student struggled to
read and understand two word phrases. Students performance suggests that her difficulty with basic reading skills is
interfering with her comprehension skills when there is no visual support.

Mathematics: Math concepts and applications measures how well a student can solve applied math problems of various
kinds. Items were presented orally along with an accompanying picture/visual of the problem. Students performance was
in the mild range of impairment/delay. Student was able to count objects, identify missing numbers in a pattern, and
answer questions using terms such as tallest and smallest correctly. She had difficulty with number concepts,
tables/graphs, and some addition.

Math computation evaluates written calculation skills in math, starting with one-digit addition and progressing to more
difficult calculation problems. Student was administered two computation tasks (KTEA-III Math Computation, WIAT-III
Numerical Operations) and performed in the average range. Her skills were consistent across both computation tasks and

8
Student: NAME
DOB: DATE

was an area of personal strength for Student. She was able to complete basic one digit addition and subtraction problems
and some two-digit problems.

Writing: The written expression subtest contains a mixture of constrained and open-ended tasks in a story book format
in which Student followed a set of characters through interesting situations and does varied tasks including writing letters,
dialogue, captions, and editing text. Students performance was in the mild range of impairment/delay. Student was not
able to write her name correctly when instructed to, but was able to write other individual letters and copy letters that
were presented. When asked to insert missing punctuation marks, Student appeared to have difficulty understanding how
to do so. Student was able to write some words correctly, but struggled to produce grammatically correct sentences that
made sense.

The spelling subtest measures a students ability to write down words presented in isolation correctly. Student performed
in the borderline range of impairment/delay on this task. She was able to correctly spell several two and three letter
words. Student appeared to have some understanding of the phonetic sounds that make up words, but frequently spelled
them incorrectly. For example, Student spelled the word open as opin and the word was as wus.

Listening comprehension tasks measure ones receptive language skills, or ability to understand spoken language. These
tasks require students to listen to a sentence or short passage, then answer questions about what they heard. Students
overall listening comprehension skills were in the mild range of impairment. Student had some difficulty answering literal
questions, and even more difficulty making inferences about the information she had heard. She often provided an answer
that was relevant to the context of the phrase or passage in some way, but incorrect in regards to what the question
asked.

Cognitive Assessment
The Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children, Second Edition (KABC-II) and portions of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale
for Children, Fifth Edition (WISC-V) were used to assess Students cognitive or intellectual functioning. Subtests from the
Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement, Third Edition (KTEA-III), the Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing,
Second Edition (CTOPP-2), and Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals, Fourth Edition, Spanish Edition (CELF-4,
Spanish Edition) were also used. Students overall performance was in the borderline range of delay, however, her
personal strengths and weaknesses are better represented by the composites discussed below.

Fluid Reasoning reflects ones nonverbal problem-solving and thinking skills. Tasks involve solving problems using
figures, and completing sequences of patterns and picture stories. On a task requiring Student to complete a story
sequence using pictures, she performed in the average range, however, she performed in the low average to below
average range on two other tasks requiring her to complete the missing piece of a pattern by selecting from several
options (KABC-II Pattern reasoning, WISC-V Matrix Reasoning). Students performance on a task requiring her to choose
from two or three rows of pictures to form a common trait was in the mild range of impairment/delay. Students
performance was overall inconsistent between tasks. Her reasoning abilities were stronger on tasks involving sequential
reasoning, rather than just inductive reasoning.

Crystallized Ability, also referred to as verbal knowledge, refers to a childs ability to communicate and reason with
knowledge acquired through previous learning at home and at school. Tasks involve a variety of questions that assess
knowledge of words and facts. Students performance was in the borderline range of impairment/delay. Student
performed better on a verbal knowledge task that utilized pictures, than on a task that utilized only verbal prompts.

Students working memory, or ability to hold information in immediate awareness, manipulate the information, and
then use it within a few seconds, was in the borderline range of impairment/delay. These tasks required Student to
correctly recall various verbal and visual stimuli, as well as copy physical gestures that were presented to her. Student
also completed similar working memory tasks from the WISC-V. On a task requiring her to recall verbal stimuli (WISC-V
9
Student: NAME
DOB: DATE

Digit Span) she performed in the mild range of impairment/delay. On a task requiring her to recall visual stimuli (WISC-V
Picture Span) she performed in the average range. Student performed better on tasks utilizing visual stimuli, rather than
just verbal.

Students working memory was also assessed using several tasks from the Spanish edition of the Clinical Evaluation of
Language Fundamentals, Fourth edition (CELF-4, Spanish Edition). The working memory index of the CELF-4 Spanish is
designed to measure attention, concentration, and recall of symbol sequences. Tasks require students to track letters
and numbers, then remember and re-sequence the stimuli simultaneously. Students performance was in the borderline
range of impairment/delay in this domain. The number of items, or stimuli, that Student was able to hold in her
immediate awareness and use correctly, such as numbers, letters, or words, was consistent across the various tasks and
assessments. She was able to hold 3 items and recall them correctly across these tasks. Overall, Students working
memory abilities were an area of personal weakness.

Long Term Retrieval refers to an individuals ability to take and store a variety of information (i.e. ideas, names,
concepts) in ones mind and then retrieve it quickly and easily at a later time. This ability does not represent what is
stored in long-term memory. Rather it represents the process of storing and retrieving information. These tasks required
Student to learn associations between words, pictures, and symbols, and recall them over time throughout the subtest.
Students performance was in the average range. She performed slightly better on a task using symbols to represent
words, than on a task using pictures to recall names, however, her performance was consistent across the two tasks.

Visual Processing refers to the ability to perceive and think with visual patterns. This domain involved a variety of tasks,
such as spatial scanning, counting blocks, assembling manipulatives to match pictures, and naming objects using
partially complete pictures. Student performed better on a spatial scanning task than on the other visual processing
activities, and appeared to have difficulty understanding aspects of the block counting task. Students performance in
this domain was in the below average range.

Processing Speed is the ability to quickly and accurately process visual information and perform automatic cognitive
tasks efficiently. Student was presented with tasks that required her to utilize visual scanning, visual discrimination,
short-term visual memory, and concentration. Students performance was in the average range and an area of personal
strength compared to her other abilities.

Students auditory processing skills were assessed through a measure on the KTEA-III as well as the CTOPP-2. Her scores
on the KTEA-III phonological processing subtest (mentioned earlier in this report) were in the mild range of
impairment/delay. She had difficulty with rhyming and matching sounds within words. Her performance on the
phonological awareness tasks of the CTOPP-2 was in the overall below average range. Students word blending and
phoneme isolation skills were stronger than her phonological segmenting skills on this measure.

Adaptive Behavior or Functional Skills

Adaptive behaviors are learned. They involve the ability to adapt to and manage one's surroundings to effectively function
and meet social or community expectations. Good adaptive behavior promotes independence at home, at school, and in
the community. Undesirable, or maladaptive, behavior can interfere with a child's achievement of independence because
the child requires more supervision and assistance in order to learn how to behave appropriately. In order to gather
additional information regarding independent home behaviors, Students parents, completed the Adaptive Behavior
Assessment System, Third Edition (ABAS-3) parent form, Spanish version.

Students overall functioning at home was in the average range and consistent across domains of conceptual, social, and
practical independent functioning skills. Personal strengths were noted in the practical domain, including self-direction

10
Student: NAME
DOB: DATE

and community use. Based on Students parents ratings, there were no areas of concern or areas of normative weakness
regarding Students adaptive behavior and independent skills. While Students rating in the area of functional academics
was in the low average range, it was an area of personal weakness compared other areas of adaptive functioning. Scores
are included in the attached tables.

Summary
When evaluating a student for a specific learning disability, both cognitive and academic measurements are important.
Strengths in cognitive areas often relate to strengths in corresponding academic areas, while weaknesses in cognitive
areas may contribute to challenges in related academic areas. A normative weakness occurs when a persons abilities or
skills fall below the average range as compared to that persons peers. A normative weakness in an academic area with a
deficiency in one or more cognitive skills which contribute to the acquisition of that academic skill would support the
presence of a Specific Learning Disability. Student is a level 2.8 English Proficient student, which must be taken into
consideration to determine whether her academic difficulties are due to cultural or linguistic differences, or to a disability.
Students test performance was analyzed using the C-LIM (Ortiz) to determine whether the degree or linguistic demand
and/or cultural loading involved in the tasks was significantly impacting the results. Although Students level of
acculturation and limited English proficiency may be contributing factors, based on the information gathered, they are not
the dominant influence on her current test performance and therefore, the results can be considered valid.

Student was referred for this evaluation due to concerns about her academic performance in the area of reading. Despite
several years of EL services and intensive interventions, such as Reading Recovery and small group assistance/instruction,
Student continues to struggle in the classroom and with reading. Students evaluation results indicate she displays below
average skills in all areas of reading development, including phonological processing, sight word identification, decoding,
and comprehension. An evaluation of Students cognitive abilities demonstrates a deficit in working memory/short term
memory that is consistent in both English and Spanish languages. Working memory abilities are crucial to all aspects of
learning and academic areas. On the contrary, Students performance demonstrates cognitive personal strengths in the
areas of processing speed and long term retrieval, both of which are reflected in her math computation skills. Students
scattered cognitive strengths and weaknesses may be impacting her academic performance and hindering her from
making appropriate progress in all areas of reading development.

The multidisciplinary team finds evidence to suggest that Student does meet criteria as a student with a Specific Learning
Disability. More information regarding this recommendation is summarized in the eligibility table below. The Case
Conference Committee will consider all relevant information to determine if Student is eligible for special education and
related services, and if eligible, the nature and extent of the special needs.

SLD Certification: Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses

Article 7 outlines five elements of Specific Learning Disability eligibility determination. Data obtained from various & multiple sources was considered during
the evaluation and interpreted using locally determined guidelines that are derived from the research-based model of SLD by Flanagan et. al. (2013)

Evidence to
Specific Learning Disability (SLD) Inclusionary Criteria:
support?
Inadequate Achievement, defined as achievement levels generally more than one standard deviation
below the mean, in one or more areas (reading, written expression, math, oral expression and/or
listening comprehension), when provided with learning experiences and instruction appropriate for
YES age or grade.
Students performance in all areas of reading, including decoding, sight word identification,
and comprehension, are below average despite adequate English proficiency progress, EL
services, and several years of intensive interventions.
11
Student: NAME
DOB: DATE

Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses, defined as performance in one or more cognitive domain(s)
measuring below normal limits (cognitive weakness), while other cognitive domains measure within
normal limits or above (cognitive strength). The identified area(s) of cognitive weakness must align
with the identified areas of inadequate achievement (academic weakness).
YES Based on the results from the cognitive assessment tasks, Student demonstrates personal
cognitive strengths in the areas of processing speed and long term retrieval. Academic
strength was noted in the area of basic math computation. Students performance
demonstrates consistent personal weaknesses in the area of working memory, which was
present in tasks presented in both the English language and Spanish language.
Adverse effects on the students educational progress, defined as having a consistent and significant
negative impact on academic achievement, functional performance, or both.
Student has consistently performed below grade level in the classroom since starting
kindergarten. She has failed to meet academic expectations, despite ILP accommodations
and intense interventions over the last two years. Based on the cognitive assessment results,
YES Student demonstrates cognitive weaknesses in working memory, even when adjusting for
language and culture. This deficit is present in her performance on tasks presented in both
languages. Cognitive deficits in the area of short-term/working memory are impacting her
academic performance in all areas of reading, including basic reading skill development and
comprehension.

Exclusionary Factors:
Evidence to
(SLD does not include learning problems that are primarily the result of any of the exclusionary
rule out?
factors listed below)
Lack of appropriate instruction in reading or math ruled out as primary cause of the inadequate
achievement. This is evidenced by data demonstrating that the student was provided appropriate
instruction in general education settings, delivered by qualified personnel AND by data based
documentation of repeated assessments of achievement at reasonable intervals, reflecting formal
assessment of student progress during instruction, which was provided to the students parents.
YES
Student was born in the United States and has attended Elementary School since the
beginning of kindergarten. She has been receiving an Indiana state curriculum and proper
English Language Learner support since the beginning of kindergarten. Student has
received additional interventions throughout her educational career.

Other exclusionary factors: Other disabilities (i.e. Visual, hearing, motor, emotional, or cognitive
disabilities), cultural factors, environmental or economic disadvantage are ruled out as primary cause
of the inadequate achievement/performance.
YES
Although level of acculturation and limited English proficiency may be contributing factors,
they are not the dominant influence on test performance and therefore, test results can be
considered valid.

Recommendations:
Student demonstrated limited proficiency in both English and Spanish. Explicit (clearly defined) and meaningful
oral language development activities will provide an important foundation for Students academic development.
Instruction support and/or scaffold instruction may be necessary for Student to understand academic content
that is delivered in English.
Even superficial instruction in new words increases the probability that students will understand the words when they
encounter them. One of the BEST ways to learn a new word is to associate a mental image or symbolic representation
with it.

12
Student: NAME
DOB: DATE

SIX Interactions needed with a word to understand it

Step 1 Teacher identifies the new word and elicits background knowledge.
Step 2 Teacher explains the meaning of the new word (not a dictionary explanation) and asks for examples from the
students.
Step 3 Students generate their own explanations of the new word.
Step 4 Students create a visual representation of the new word. (It is important that the students create their own for
it to be meaningful and linked in their own minds)
Step 5 Students engage in experiences that deepen their understanding of the new word.

Working Memory involves the ability to hold information in mental awareness and use it within a few seconds.

Possible Implications Possible Recommendations

Following directions Keep oral directions short and simple
Remembering information long Ensure directions are understood; have student or
enough to process it for paraphrase directions.
understanding Provide compensatory aids (e.g., write directions,
Recalling sequences procedures,/and assignments on board or paper,
Memorizing factual information (e.g., provide lecture notes or arrange for peer-shared
math facts notes, provide study guide to be filled out during
Listening to and comprehending pauses in presentation.
lengthy discourse Provide overlearning, review and repetition
Taking notes Teach memory strategies (e.g., chunking, verbal
rehearsal, visual imagery)

CURRENT TEST RESULTS

Classification of Performance Result

Descriptive* Normative Standard Score T-Score Scaled Score Percentile
Very Superior Normative Strength >131 71 to 80 17 to 19 98 to 99+
Superior 16% of Population 121 to 130 64 to 70 15 to 16 92 to 97
(>+1 standard
Above Average deviation) 116 to 120 61 to 63 14 85 to 91
High Average Normal Limits 111 to 115 57 to 60 13 76 to 84
Average 68% of Population 90 to 110 43 to 56 8 to 12 25 to 75
Low Average (+/- 1 standard deviation) 85 to 89 40 to 43 7 16 to 24
Below Average 80 to 84 37 to 39 6 9 to 15
Borderline Normative Weakness 70 to 79 30 to 36 4 to 5 3 to 8
Mildly impaired/delayed 16% of Population (>- 55 to 69 20 to 29 1 to 3 0.1 to 2
Moderately impaired/delayed 1 standard deviation) 40 to 54 10 to 19 1 <0.1
Severely impaired/delayed <39 <10 1 <0.1
*Labels for descriptive ranges vary by tests/publishers and may not coincide with the descriptive categories listed in this table.

13
Student: NAME
DOB: DATE

Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement, Third Edition (KTEA-III):

Subtest/COMPOSITE Standard Score
(85-115 is Normal Limits)
Phonological Processing 65
Nonsense Word Decoding 67
Letter & Word Recognition 68
Reading Comprehension 69
READING COMPOSITE
Math Concepts & Apps 69
Math Computation 93
MATH COMPOSITE
Written Expression 65
Spelling 74
Listening Comprehension 67

Wechsler Individual Achievement Test, Third Edition (WIAT-III)

Subtest/COMPOSITE Standard Score

(85-115 is Normal Limits)
Numerical Operations 91

Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing, Second Edition (CTOPP-2)

Subtest/COMPOSITE Standard Score

(85-115 is Normal Limits)
Elision 80
Blending Words 85
Phoneme Isolation 85
Phonological Awareness 80
Composite

14
Student: NAME
DOB: DATE

Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children Second Edition (KABC-II)

Subtest/COMPOSITE Standard Score

Scaled Score
Number Recall 5
Word Order 6
Hand Movements 5
SHORT TERM MEMORY 74
Verbal Knowledge 6
Riddles 4
VERBAL COMPREHENSION 72
Rover 9
Triangles 6
Gestalt Closure 6
Block Counting 5
VISUAL SPATIAL 84
Story Completion 12
Pattern Reasoning 7
FLUID REASONING 96
Atlantis 8
Rebus 9
LONG TERM RETRIEVAL 92
Full Scale Intelligence Quotient 79
Nonverbal Index 79

Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals, Fourth Edition, Spanish Edition (CELF-4 Spanish)

Subtest/COMPOSITE Scaled Score/Standard Score

(85-115 is Normal Limits)
Repeticion de numeros 7
Secuencias familiares 3
Working Memory Index 70

Wechsler Intelligence Scales for Children Fifth Edition (WISC-V)

Subtest/COMPOSITE Standard Score

Matrix Reasoning 6
Picture Concepts 4

15
Student: NAME
DOB: DATE

Digit Span 3
Picture Span 7
WORKING MEMORY 72
Coding 11
Symbol Search 12
PROCESSING SPEED 108

Woodcock-Munoz Language Survey, Third Edition

Language Proficiency Level CALP Level
Spanish Test Cluster
Listening in Spanish Early Development 2
Speaking in Spanish Initial Development 1
Oral Language in Spanish Continuing Development 3
1=Negligible, 2=Very Limited, 3=Limited, 4=Fluent, 4.5=Fluent to Advanced, 5=Advanced, 6=Very Advanced

Adaptive Behavior Assessment System-III

Adaptive Skill Area Standard Score
Scaled Score
Conceptual 106
Communication 11
Functional Academics 8
Self-Direction 14
Social 101
Leisure 10
Social 11
Practical 112
Community Use 13
Home Living 12
Health & Safety 12
Self-Care 12
General Adaptive 108
Composite
Informant: Parents

16