Special Education

wog-99w4

fewster.pdf

Home >Business & Finance homework help >Economics homework help >Special Education

WEST PERRY SD

Page 1 of 21 Version 8

EVALUATION REPORT (ER)

Student Name:

Debbie Fewster

School Age

Date of Report(mm/dd/yyyy): 3/3/2015 Date Report Provided to Parent/Guardian/Surrogate:

Student Birth Date: 10/05/2006 Age: 8 Grade: 2nd

Local Education Agency (LEA):

School Student is Attending:

Current Educational Program: Regular Education

County of Residence:

Name and Address of Parent/Guardian/Surrogate: Phone(Home): 867-5309

Phone(Work):

Phone(Cell):

Email(Home):

Email(Work):

Other Information: Permission to Evaluate - Consent issued: 12/12/2014 Permission to Evaluate - Consent returned: 1/7/2015

Complete Sections 1 through 6 for all students. If determining eligibility for Specific Learning Disability (SLD), the SLD component near the end of this document must be completed and used to complete Sections 5 and 6.

1. REASON(S) FOR REFERRAL:

2. SOURCES OF EVALUATION DATA - In interpreting evaluation data, the school must draw upon a variety of data sources, including those listed below, and carefully consider the information obtained. Document the information obtained from the sources below.

A. Evaluations and information provided by the parent of the student (or documentation of LEA's attempts to obtain parental input):

Debbie lives at home with her father. Unfortunately, her biological mother passed away a few years ago from illness. Mr. Fewster struggles with functional illiteracy and has had a history of learning difficulties of his own. When Debbie was referred for evaluation, her father, with assistance, completed a parent information survey pertaining to her academic performance, communication skills, social and behavioral functioning, and other concerns as noted below:

Debbie was referred for evaluation by the RtII Team at Busytown Elementary due to ongoing concerns about her acquisition of basic academic skills (reading and math). The purpose of the present evaluation is to estimate Debbie’s current levels of cognitive aptitude and broad academic achievement with respect to what is reasonably expected of a student her age. In addition, the evaluation is designed to determine if Debbie would meet the criteria to be identified as a disabled student who both qualifies for and demonstrates a need for special education support.

Pencil

Evaluation Report

Page 2 of 21 Version 8

With regard to Debbie’s instructional / academic strengths and concerns, Mr. Fewster noted that she speaks well and can communicate on an adult level many times. Concerns noted included that she will shut down often. She has difficulty comprehending written directions, following simple instructions, comprehending simple reading, writing, and math materials at her grade level.

With regard to her communication skills and needs, Mr. Fewster echoed the above regarding Debbie's ability to communicate well via speaking. He noted that, even though Debbie speaks well, she cannot write well and has difficulty listening to and following instructions. Her functional communication skills are perceived to be problematic at home.

Behaviorally and socially, Mr. Fewster notes that Debbie can be friendly, kind, giving, caring, and motherly. However, he adds that her behavior "can change at the drop of a hat." She can become "hyperactive, aggressive, abusive (self-destructive), and abusive toward others such as family, friends and neighbors who try to engage her." He noted that Debbie "does not respect authority figures." She is reported to "rebel" when she is told to perform a task, meaning that she will "break down crying and start harming herself. She becomes violent and strikes out at adults and/or others." Mr. Fewster also reported that Debbie follows him everywhere he goes and does not like being alone. He interjects herself into her father's conversations on a frequent basis and acts out when she cannot be in proximity to listen in on conversations. Apparently, Mr. Fewster has recently consulted with Debbie's pediatrician regarding his behavioral concerns. Pediatrician had apparently discussed possible referral or placement at Milton Hershey School with Mr. Fewster, deferring instead to educational evaluation for special education supports.

With regard to adaptive behaviors, Mr. Fewster noted that Debbie dresses herself and is learning to match clothes and colors. He noted that Debbie often sleeps in her school or play clothes and argues when told to change. She also bristles at attempts to help her with grooming and personal care.

B. Observations - Include teacher observations and observations by related services providers, when appropriate:

Debbie is currently enrolled as a second-grader at BusytownElementary School, where her teacher is Mrs. Megan Johnson.

Reading: Mrs. Johnson estimates Debbie to be perhaps the lowest student in her class with regard to her academic performance in reading. Her latest Rigby leveled reading assessment in February placed her at Level F (early- to mid-first grade), which marks minimal improvement since the start of the school year at which point her Rigby level was Level D. Mrs. Johnson rates Debbie to be below grade level for key reading competencies such as phonemic awareness for sounds, phonetic decoding skills, reading fluency rate, reading vocabulary level, and reading comprehension skills, adding the following:

Strengths: Debbie works best in a one-on-one setting. She struggles to focus; however, if she is able to understand the text, she can offer how the text relates to her life.

Needs: Debbie is currently struggling in all areas of reading. She is able to recognize 43% of her K and first grade "high frequency words" -- 60/130 in September and 109/130 more recently. She often confuses letter sounds and refers to wall cards when reading to figure out the letter sounds. Often, when Debbie is asked what happened in a story, she states “I don’t know”, or she does not respond at all. Her fluency is weak because she struggles to read simple CVC words, or she will omit words. Her struggles with phonics and decoding hinder her comprehension.

Page 3 of 21 Version 8

Evaluation Report

Modifications: Debbie is currently in a guided reading group specific to her level. She is working on short vowel sounds and patterns on how to quickly decode CVC words, and word family patterns. She is read aloud tests that assess her comprehension, and the tests are modified if necessary. She is also always with an adult during guided reading time to allow more one-on-one instruction. She receives services via Title 1. Books at her reading level are sent home for extra practice.

Math: Mrs. Johnson estimates Debbie to be perhaps the lowest student in her class with regard to her academic performance in math, rating her below grade level for key math competencies including numbers & operations and early algebraic concepts. She rated her as on-grade level for early geometric knowledge, such as shapes.

Strengths: Debbie is able to add single-digit numbers if she is provided a number line or counters. She has been able to create the problem with manipulatives to solve.

Needs: Debbie struggles with abstract concepts, as she typically needs manipulatives to solve all problems. She also forgets her skills quickly and has difficulty retaining what she has learned.

Modifications: Debbie is given one-on-one instruction during math centers. She is sent home with manipulatives to complete her homework. She is also read aloud her tests and prompted when taking the assessments to meet her level of understanding. Debbie has been working with the learning support teacher on "touchpoints", fact families, and place value skills that she has not yet mastered.

Writing: Mrs. Johnson estimates Debbie to be perhaps the lowest student in her class with regard to academic performance for writing, rating her below grade level for key writing competencies including penmanship/spacing, mechanics, grammar & syntax, spelling in context, vocabulary usage, and organization of ideas.

Strengths: Debbie enjoys gathering information through educational videos to write informational text. Though, she does scribble and says she writes a story, she can state a little about what she wanted to write about.

Needs: Debbie struggles in all areas of writing. She has great difficulty organizing her thoughts and fails to use proper mechanics typical for second grade level. Debbie is consistently unable to write using complete sentences.

Modifications: Currently Debbie works on a handwriting packet. She has difficulty forming her letters. When writing prompts are given, she is typically given one-on-one assistance to form an idea. Debbie watches videos to gain facts in place of looking them up like her peers for informational writing. She is also given an iPad to talk into, to then write her story after she verbally tells it. She often throws her drafts away and does not want to participate in writing. She does a variation of Kid Writing where the teacher will underwrite her work, in order to help her understand how to correctly form letters and sentences.

Task completion/participation, social skills, and general behavior:

Mrs. Johnson indicates that Debbie's participation in class is minimal. She reports that Debbie will often get out of her seat and wander around the classroom. She has difficulty completing tasks without step- by-step guidance by her teacher. She has difficulty following written directions and quickly forgets oral directions. Multiple prompts are needed to keep Debbie focused to tasks at hand.

Page 4 of 21 Version 8

Evaluation Report

C. Recommendations by teachers:

D. The student's physical condition (include health, vision, hearing); social or cultural background; and adaptive behavior relevant to the student's suspected disability and potential need for special education:

E. Assessments - Include, when appropriate, current classroom based assessments; aptitude and achievement tests; local and/or state assessments; behavioral assessments; vocational technical education assessment results; interests, preferences, aptitudes (for secondary transition); etc.:

LOCAL AND/OR STATE ASSESSMENTS:

PSSA (Pennsylvania System of School Assessment) Results:

As a third-grader, Debbie has not yet taken the prescribed State-approved grade-level assessments (PSSA) for reading or math, which she will take for the first time during the latter part of this school year.

Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE) results: All students are administered the Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE) periodically throughout the course of the school year (September, January, May) as a means of establishing benchmark reading achievement. In addition to using standard scores and percentile rankings for composite areas, all subtest scores and composites for the GRADE are reported as Stanine Scores. For reference, a Stanine score converts the total number correct to a single-digit number between 1 and 9, which makes test performance easier to understand and shows how the student's performance compares with the average student performance. If the Stanine score is 1, 2, or 3, the test performance is considered below average or reflects a weak performance on the skills in the subtests. If the Stanine score is 4, 5, or 6, the test performance is considered average. If the Stanine score is 7, 8, or 9, the test performance is considered above average and reflects strong performance. Looking at Stanine scores helps readily identify reading strengths and/or needs.

Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE)

Subtest/Composite Stanine Score

%-ile Rank

Standard Score

Descriptor

Word Reading 1 Weakness

Word Meaning 2 Weakness

Vocabulary Composite 2 3rd 73 Weakness

Debbie's teachers are concerned that her academic progress has not been up to par, even with the provision of supplementary instruction, support in the classroom, guided reading sessions, and targeted intervention via Title I reading services. They report that she needs a more intensive level of focused instruction on basic academic skills than can be reasonably provided in the regular classroom setting.

The above section outlines several accommodations that have been utilized in the classroom to support Debbie, with minimal improvement through this point in the school year.

Mrs. Johnson describes Debbie as overly withdrawn with limited interactions, noting that she struggles to interact with her peers. She often demonstrates "parallel play" with her peers during inside recess, rather than interacting with them in games and activities. She has difficulty collaborating with peers during academic tasks due to lack of engagement. She infrequently participates in whole-group share reading and/or in-class discussions.

Mrs. Johnson behavioral concerns noted in the classroom include Debbie's difficulties with following classroom routines, her inability to focus in the classroom setting, and her tendency to become easily off-task. On the positive side, Debbie genuinely wants to do well, wants to please those around her, and always likes to help when she can.

Page 5 of 21 Version 8

Evaluation Report

Sentence Comprehension 2 Weakness

Passage Comprehension 3 Weakness

Comprehension Composite 2 7th 79 Weakness

TOTAL TEST 1 3rd 72 Weakness

Listening Comprehension 3 Weakness

On the most recent administration of the GRADE assessment (January, 2015), Debbie earned a Total Test stanine score of 1 (3rd percentile, standard score = 72). She was administered Level 2 of the GRADE. The Total Test raw score can be viewed as multiple types of scores for overall reading skill assessment. Debbie's weak Total Test performance suggests that assistance is needed to improve reading skills.

The Vocabulary Composite measures the ability to decode phonetically regular words, to recognize common sight words, and to understand word meaning without the benefit of context clues. Debbie's weak performance on the Vocabulary Composite, indicated by her stanine score of 2, may indicate a lack of knowledge of phonics rules and/or overdependence on the rules, as well as difficulties in recognizing words and knowing their meanings.

The Comprehension Composite measures the ability to understand a sentence as a whole unit and multiple sentences in a reading passage. Debbie's weak performance on the Comprehension composite, indicated by her stanine score of 2, may indicate a possible lack of word reading and vocabulary skills, or difficulty using comprehension strategies.

Listening Comprehension measures understanding of language without printed cues. Debbie's weak performance may indicate difficulties with oral language skills, which should be considered with any additional assessment.

DIBELS Reading Assessments results: The Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) are locally-administered literacy assessments, given periodically throughout the course of the school year to students in grades K-5. The DIBELS utilizes a series of timed probes to assess literacy development from very early, underlying literacy skills (phonemic awareness, phonetic decoding) to broader skills such as passage reading fluency and comprehension. All students are assessed using 'benchmark' probes at least three (3) times per year. Students who fall below the expected proficiency level for their grade -- in the "some risk" or "at risk" ranges -- are monitored more frequently as their needs and progress in intervention warrants.

At Debbie's grade level, the focus of the probes is on overall fluency of passage reading, which is assessed by one-minute probes where she reads aloud and is monitored for words read correctly per minute (wcpm), overall reading accuracy, and comprehension via her ability to retell what she has read. Additionally, because Debbie has been reading at a rate below the benchmark for proficient fluency, her progress has been monitored on a more frequent basis while receiving Title 1 reading support.

Fluency: To this point, Debbie's rate of reading fluency has consistently been well-below the suggested benchmarks for her grade level, (see table below):

Grade Period Rate Benchmark Difference Risk

1 Mid-year 12 23 -11 At Risk

1 End-year 13 47 -34 At Risk

2 Beg-year 11 52 -41 At Risk

2 Mid-year 22 72 -50 At Risk

Page 6 of 21 Version 8

Evaluation Report

2 End-year 87

Accuracy: Students should be reading with a high rate of accuracy in addition to appropriate rate of fluency, in order to promote adequate comprehension. Suggested benchmarks for proficiency typically range above 90-96%. Debbie's level of reading accuracy remains substantially below the suggested benchmark, ranging typically in the 50-60%’s, though her most recent level of accuracy as assessed on the DIBELS benchmarking in January was slightly improved at 73%.

APTITUDE AND ACHIEVEMENT TESTS:

Assessment of General Intellectual Aptitude

Debbie's intellectual functioning / cognitive aptitude was assessed by the District's school psychologist via the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children - Fifth Edition (WISC-V). The WISC-V is a battery of tests used to estimate the general verbal reasoning, nonverbal reasoning, executive functioning, and visual processing speed of children aged 6 to 16 years of age. The student's performance is compared to a normative sample of same-age peers.

• Individual subtest scores for this instrument are reported as scaled scores, which have an

average (mean) of 10 and standard deviation of 3. As a reference, subtest scaled scores ranging from 8-12 fall within the Average range for this instrument.

• Scores for the composite indices and Full Scale IQ are reported as standard scores, which have an average (mean) of 100 and standard deviation of 15. As a reference, index standard scores ranging from 90-110 fall within the Average range for this instrument.

• The Full Scale IQ (FSIQ) is derived from a combination of the Verbal Comprehension, Perceptual Reasoning, Working Memory, and Processing Speed index scores and is considered the most representative estimate of global intellectual functioning.

Page 7 of 21 Version 8

Evaluation Report

Subtests used to derive the FSIQ are bolded. Secondary subtests are in parentheses.

On this administration of the WISC-IV, Debbie's general cognitive abilities, as measured by the FSIQ, are estimated to be within the Very Low range of intellectual functioning. Her overall thinking and reasoning abilities exceed those of approximately 6% of children her age (FSIQ=77; 95% confidence interval = 72-84). However, due to significant and meaningful discrepancies between composite index scores, Debbie's FSIQ score is not necessarily the best indicator of her overall cognitive functioning. Rather, her performance should be examined in terms of the processing areas measured to get a better picture of her abilities.

Debbie's verbal reasoning abilities as measured by the Verbal Comprehension Index (VCI) are estimated to be within the Low Average range and above those of approximately 10% of her peers (VCI=81; 95% confidence interval = 75-90). The Verbal Comprehension Index is designed to measure verbal reasoning, verbal concept formation, and vocabulary development. Debbie's score indicates how well she performed on tasks that required her to listen to questions and provide spoken answers. These tasks evaluate her understanding of auditory language, thinking and reasoning with words, and expressing thoughts via spoken language.

Debbie's visual-spatial reasoning abilities as measured by the Visual Spatial Index (VSI) are estimated to be within the Average range and above those of approximately 34% of her peers (VSI=94; 95% confidence interval = 87-102). The Visual Spatial Index is designed to measure the student's ability to evaluate visual details and to understand visual spatial relationships to construct geometric designs from a model.

Page 8 of 21 Version 8

Evaluation Report

Debbie's visual problem-solving abilities as measured by the Fluid Reasoning Index (FRI) are estimated to be within the Low Average range and above those of approximately 16% of her peers (VSI=85; 95% confidence interval = 79-93). The Fluid Reasoning Index is designed to measure the student's ability to detect the underlying conceptual relationship among visual objects, and to use reasoning to identify and apply rules (inductive and quantitative reasoning). Debbie's score indicates her performance for tasks requiring her to evaluate and solve problems for visual matrix patterns and “figure weights”.

Debbie's working memory abilities as measured by the Working Memory Index (WMI) are estimated to be within the Very Low range and above those of approximately 4% of her peers (WMI=74; 95% confidence interval = 68-84). The Working Memory Index is designed to assess skills related to sustaining focus and attention and exerting mental control. Debbie's score indicates how well she performed on tasks requiring her to retain information in memory while simultaneously utilizing the learned information to complete a task. Because these skills are closely associated to learning and achievement, weaknesses in mental control – or “executive functioning” – may make the processing of complex information more time-consuming for Debbie, drain her mental energies more quickly than others her age, and result in more frequent errors on a variety of learning tasks.

Debbie's speed of visual processing abilities as measured by the Processing Speed Index (PSI) are estimated to be within the lower limits of the Average range and above those of approximately 30% of her peers (PSI=92; 95% confidence interval = 84-102). Processing speed is an indication of the rapidity with which Debbie can mentally process simple or routine information without making errors. Debbie's score indicates how well she performed on tasks requiring her to quickly scan symbols and make accurate judgments about them. These tasks measure her accuracy and speed of mental problem solving, attention, and eye-hand coordination - skills which may be important to her development in reading and the ability to think quickly in general. Because learning often involves a combination of routine information processing (such as reading) and complex information processing (such as reasoning), a relative weakness in the speed of processing may make the task of comprehending novel information more time-consuming and difficult.

Assessment of Individual Academic Achievement

Debbie was administered the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement - Third Edition (KTEA-3), which is an individually administered battery used to assess academic achievement. A student's performance on the KTEA-3 is compared to a normative sample of same-age peers in order to assess the student's proficiency and skills in the areas of oral language, reading, mathematics, and/or written language. Subtest and composite scores for this instrument are reported as standard scores, which have an average (mean) of 100 and standard deviation of 15. As a reference, standard scores ranging from 85-115 fall within the Average range for this instrument.

Page 9 of 21 Version 8

Evaluation Report

Reading: Debbie earned a standard score of 78 on the broad Reading composite of the KTEA-3, ranking in the Below Average range at the 7th percentile among peers her age for this instrument. The KTEA-3’s reading composite is comprised of scores for the Letter / Word Recognition and Reading Comprehension subtests. Because Debbie’s overall reading composite score was below average, supplemental subtests were administered and score analyses were conducted to further investigate possible underlying weaknesses in Debbie’s discrete reading skills.

Debbie earned a standard score of 78 for the Decoding composite of the KTEA-3, ranking in the Below Average range at the 7th percentile. The decoding composite is comprised of her performance on subtests tapping Letter / Word Recognition and Nonsense Word Decoding abilities, which are the basic building blocks underlying the reading process (word recognition and phonetics). Debbie scored 79 (8th percentile) for her letter/word recognition skills and 80 (9th percentile) for phonetic decoding, suggesting poorly established basic reading skills at the individual word and letter-sound level.

Page 10 of 21 Version 8

Evaluation Report

Debbie earned a standard score of 76 for the Sound-Symbol composite of the KTEA-3, ranking in the Below Average range at the 5th percentile for her age. The sound-symbol composite is comprised of her performance on the subtests tapping Phonological Processing and Nonsense Word Decoding. In addition to her below average score for phonetic decoding discussed above, Debbie also scored Below Average for phonological processing, with a standard score of 79 (8th percentile) -- suggestive of poorly developed knowledge and recognition of sound-symbol relationships for letters and letter sounds in various positions, thereby impacting her decoding abilities.

Debbie earned a standard score of 70 for the Orthographic Processing composite of the KTEA-3, ranking in the Below Average range at the 2nd percentile. The orthographic processing composite is comprised of her performance on subtests assessing Spelling, Letter Naming Facility, and Word Recognition Fluency – tasks which assess the student’s cognitive efficiency for encoding (spelling) and decoding abilities at the single letter to whole-world level. Debbie scored within the lowest decile for each of these requisite skills with scores of 79 for spelling (8th percentile), 73 for letter naming facility (4th percentile), and 69 for word recognition fluency (2nd percentile).

Debbie earned a standard score of 74 for the Reading Understanding composite of the KTEA-3, ranking within the Below Average ranges at the 4th percentile for her age. The reading understanding composite is comprised of her performance on subtests tapping important overarching reading skills related to Reading Comprehension at the sentence and passage level and Reading Vocabulary development. Whereas the above composites – Decoding, Reading Fluency, and Orthographic Fluency – assessed foundational underlying reading skills, the Reading Understanding composite assesses higher-order reading skills that may be more directly impacted by a student’s scope and usage of reading comprehension strategies, her ability to sustain attention during the reading process, and her depth of processing material as she reads at a passage level. However, because of Debbie's weak decoding and word reading skills, she experienced significant difficulty being able to read enough of the text to perform adequately for these tasks. She scored 78 (7th percentile) for reading comprehension and 74 (4th percentile) for reading vocabulary.

Math: Debbie earned a standard score of 78 on the broad Math composite of the KTEA-3, ranking in the Below Average range at the 7th percentile among peers her age for this instrument. The math composite of the KTEA-3 is comprised of her performance on subtests tapping Math Concepts & Applications as well as general ability for solving Math Computations.

Debbie's score of 75 for math concepts and applications ranks at the 5th percentile and suggests broad deficits in her conceptual knowledge for math concepts and the ability to apply that knowledge for problem-solving. She had difficulty with items involving time and money, part-to-whole (fractional) relationships, basic measurement, interpreting tables and graphs, and number concepts. She had difficulty with word problems, even those involving single-step solutions and basic operations.

Debbie's score of 84 for math computations ranks at the 14th percentile and suggests weak computational knowledge for basic math facts that should have been mastered by this point in her education, such as basic addition and subtraction with and/or without regrouping. She continues to over-rely on strategies such as “touchpoints” or drawing slashes to support her calculations, and this adherence leads to miscalculations and errors which she does not recognize as errant because she is not sufficiently automatic with basic math facts which she should know by rote recall by this point. Similarly, Debbie demonstrated a lack of understanding for the process of regrouping when adding, not knowing how to 'carry' numbers to the next column as she completed her sums.

Page 11 of 21 Version 8

Evaluation Report

descriptionn ot checkedEn d of imagedescri ption

descriptionc hecked Endimageof description

descriptionn ot checkedEn d of imagedescri ption

descriptionc hecked Endimageof description

Debbie earned a score of 71 (3rd percentile) for math fluency, which assesses automaticity when solving a mixture of basic single-digit operations. Due to being slowed by using touchpoints and finger counting, Debbie was able to answer only 6 questions in one minute, making one error.

Written Language: Debbie earned a standard score of 67 on the Written Language composite of the KTEA-3, ranking in the Low range at the 1st percentile for her age. The KTEA-3’s writing composite is comprised of scores for the Written Expression and Spelling subtests.

Debbie scored 79 for the spelling subtest, ranking at the 8th percentile for her age. Generally, most of Debbie's misspellings mirrored the poor sound-symbol development she demonstrates in her reading. Only a few of the words she misspelled were, in fact, close approximations of the correct spellings, correctly sequenced based on the order of sounds as they are encountered in the words – e.g., buk for book, opin for open, wut for what, etc. In addition to building her sound-symbol knowledge, Debbie needs to master some of the idiosyncratic spelling patterns that are often encountered in the English language and that often do not strictly follow rules one might expect if using basic decoding as a strategy for spelling.

Debbie scored 59 for the written expression subtest, ranking within the lowest percentile for her age (0.3rd percentile). She demonstrated limited writing skills, confined to ending punctuation and other basic mechanical rules (capitalizing first words, etc.). She had extreme difficulty constructing whole sentences that were expressive of complete thoughts, even under guided conditions.

Academic Skills Battery: Debbie earned a standard score of 73 for the Academic Skills Battery composite of the KTEA-3, ranking in the Below Average range at the 4th percentile for her age. The academic skills composite is comprised of her performance across the range of reading, math, and writing tasks assessed by the instrument. It is best seen as a general indicator of her total academic achievement.

As Debbie scored uniformly within the lowest decile (<10th percentile) for her age across nearly all of the academic tasks assessed by the KTEA-3, she demonstrates broad deficits in her academic achievement in all areas at this point -- basic reading and reading comprehension skills, mathematical conceptual and operational knowledge, and written expression ability.

3. IF AN ASSESSMENT IS NOT CONDUCTED UNDER STANDARD CONDITIONS, DESCRIBE THE EXTENT TO WHICH IT VARIED FROM STANDARD CONDITIONS (including if the assessment was given in the student's native language or other mode of communication):

4. DETERMINING FACTORS - A student must not be found to be eligible for special education and related services if the determining factor for the student's disability is any of those listed below. Respond Yes or No to, and provide evidence for, each determining factor below.

Yes .

No Lack of appropriate instruction in reading, including the essential components of reading instructions. Provide evidence:

Yes .

No Lack of appropriate instruction in math. Provide evidence:

At the elementary school level, highly qualified teachers provide Debbie's reading instruction aligned with the Continuum of Literacy Learning and PA Core standards for expected achievement at her grade level.

All assessments were administered under standard conditions in accordance with the established protocols for the instruments used.

Page 12 of 21 Version 8

Evaluation Report

descriptionn ot checkedEn d of imagedescri ption

descriptionc hecked Endimageof description .

Yes .

No Lack English proficiency. Provide evidence:

NOTE: IF DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY FOR SPECIFIC DISABILITY, COMPLETE THE DETERMINATION OF SPECIFIC LEARNING DISABILITY COMPONENT AT THE END OF THIS DOCUMENT BEFORE COMPLETE SECTIONS 5 and 6.

Complete Sections 5 and 6 for all students.

5. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS/INTERPRETATION OF EVALUATION RESULTS - Considering all available evaluation data, record the team's analyses of the student's functioning levels.

A. PRESENT LEVELS OF ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT - Describe the student's present levels, strengths, and the resulting academic needs, when appropriate. Include communicative status, motor abilities, and transition needs as appropriate. For students with limited English proficiency (LEP), include current level(s) of English language proficiency in reading, writing, speaking and understanding/listening:

Prior sections of the evaluation report provide more elaborate detail – both in narrative as well as tabled formats -- regarding observations from Debbie's parents (Sec. 2.A.), observations from her classroom teacher(s) and others who work with her (Sec. 2.B.), a review of any pertinent health information (Sec. 2.D.), and a review of data gathered from classroom grades, local and/or State assessments, and standardized assessments of her cognitive ability and academic achievement (Sec. 2.E.). Please reference these enumerated sections of the report for more comprehensive summary of Debbie's present levels of achievement and performance.

Significant and meaningful differences among intellectual domains assessed by the WISC-V make traditional ability / achievement discrepancy analysis difficult. As a result, Debbie's academic underachievement and needs have been evaluated from an evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses she presents.

Debbie's overall cognitive aptitude falls within the very low range; however, she presents with significantly stronger abilities with regard to predominantly visual-spatial processing and perception when compared to abilities which are predominantly language-based reasoning or reliant on sustained attention to auditory information. This is a particularly problematic profile of cognitive abilities from a "traditional" academic standpoint, due to the significant language and auditory demands placed on student in a typical classroom environment.

As a result, Debbie experiences broadly based academic deficits which are seen in all the major achievement domains -- reading, writing, and mathematics. Assessment of her broad achievement reveals uniformly below average scores within the lowest decile (<10th percentile) for her age. She earned a broad reading composite ranking at the 7th percentile, with deficient discrete reading skills for phonological processing, sound-symbol associations, decoding abilities, word recognition, and reading comprehension / understanding. Her broad mathematics achievement was assessed to be at the 7th percentile as well, with deficient conceptual, operational, and applied problem solving abilities. Her broad written language achievement was assessed to be at the 1st percentile for her age, with deficient skills for writing structure, mechanics, spelling, and expression.

Debbie is proficient in English as her native language.

Similarly, highly qualified teachers provide Debbie's math instruction in accordance with the District's instructional scope and sequence, based on PA Core standards for expected achievement at her grade level.

Page 13 of 21 Version 8

Evaluation Report

descriptionn ot checkedEn d of imagedescri ption

descriptionc hecked Endimageof description

B. PRESENT LEVELS OF FUNCTIONAL PERFORMANCE - Describe the student's present levels, strengths, and the resulting functional and developmental needs, when appropriate:

C. BEHAVIORAL INFORMATION - Include social and emotional status and behavioral strengths and needs, when appropriate:

6. CONCLUSIONS - Determination of Eligibility and Educational Needs Complete A or B or C.

A. .

The student does not have a disability and therefore is NOT ELIGIBLE for special education.

B. .

C. .

The student has a disability but does not need specially designed instruction, and therefore is NOT ELIGIBLE for special education.

The student has a disability AND is in need of specially designed instruction, and therefore IS ELIGIBLE for special education.

1. Disability Category

Primary disability category: Specific Learning Disability

Secondary disability category(s), if any:

2. Recommendations for consideration by the IEP team to enable the student to participate as appropriate in the general education curriculum (including special considerations the IEP team must consider before developing the IEP, measurable annual goals, specially designed instruction, and supplementary aids and services):

Debbie presents with significantly deficient academic achievement, and therefore a need for specially designed instruction in reading, mathematics, and written expression. Debbie needs basic, foundational skill instruction in each academic area. She struggles with phonological processing, phonetic decoding, and word recognition in reading, which significantly impacts her comprehension abilities. She demonstrates poorly established number sense and limited automaticity with basic math operations, hampering her applied problem solving skills. Her writing abilities are limited, and she struggles with organizing and expressing her thoughts and ideas in complete, written sentence form.

Debbie demonstrates limited social interactions with her peers which are self-initiated. She is generally appropriately behaved in terms of compliance, though behavior concerns are noted by her classroom teacher for off-task behavior, difficulty following written and oral directions, and difficulty sustaining attention and focus in the classroom setting. Otherwise, school personnel have not observed the range of oppositional and defiant behaviors from Debbie that her father reports experiencing in the home.

Debbie demonstrates developmentally appropriate skills with regard to motor skills and adaptive functioning, though she needs frequent one-to-one guidance for instructions, functional academic skills, and redirection for off-task behavior.

Page 14 of 21 Version 8

Evaluation Report

description. not description. not checkedEnd of checkedEnd of imagedescription imagedescription . .

description. not description. not checkedEnd of checkedEnd of imagedescription imagedescription

. .

description. not description. not checkedEnd of checkedEnd of imagedescription imagedescription . .

Evaluation Team Participation Agreement and Disagreement required ONLY when evaluating students for

specific learning disability.

Evaluation Team Participants* Title Agree Disagree**

James Fewster

Father

Megan Johsnon

Regular Education Teacher

Carol Wellington

Itinerant Learning Support Teacher

Kerry Smith

School Psychologist

Kathleen Jamison

Principal

* A certified school psychologist is required for evaluation of the following disability categories: Autism, Emotional Disturbance, Intellectual Disability, Multiple Disabilities, Other Health Impairments, Specific Learning Disability or Traumatic Brain Injury. A certified school psychologist is not required for Deaf-blindness, Deaf and Hard of Hearing, Speech/Language Impairment, Visual Impairment, and Orthopedic Impairment.

** For specific learning disability only, if a team member disagrees with the team's conclusion related to the identification of the student as having a specific learning disability, the member must submit a separate statement presenting the member's dissent to the LEA. This information must be attached to the Evaluation Report. Please submit this statement to:

Sarah Bourdon (717) 477-1200

LEA Representative Name Phone Number

Email Address

A copy of the Procedural Safeguards Notice is available upon request from your child's school. This document explains your rights, and includes state and local advocacy organizations that are available to help you understand your rights and how the special education process works.

For help in understanding this form, an annotated Evaluation Report is available on the PaTTAN website at www.pattan.net Type "Annotated Forms" in the Search feature on the website. If you do not have access to the Internet, you can request the annotated form by calling PaTTAN at 800-441-3215.

http://www.iepwriter.com/pa/app/reports/corda/School_Age/www.pattan.net

Page 15 of 21 Version 8

Evaluation Report

descriptionn ot checkedEn d of imagedescri ption

descriptionc hecked Endimageof description

DETERMINATION OF SPECIFIC LEARNING DISABILITY

NOTE: This component must be completed when determining eligibility for Specific Learning Disability. The information must be attached to and/or incorporated into Sections 5 and 6 of the completed Evaluation Report.

Provide documentation for items 1-10.

1. The student does not achieve adequately for the student's age or does not meet State-approved grade-level standards in one or more of the following areas when provided with learning experiences and scientifically based instruction appropriate for the student's age or Stateapproved grade level standards and level of English language proficiency: oral expression, listening comprehension, written expression, basic reading skill, reading fluency skills, reading comprehension, mathematics calculation, and mathematics problem-solving.

2. Check below to identify the process(es) used to determine eligibility. . Response to Scientific Research-Based Intervention (RtI). Document the criteria below.

The student does not make sufficient progress to meet age or State-approved grade-level standards in one or more of these areas: oral expression, listening comprehension, written expression, basic reading skill, reading fluency skills, reading comprehension, mathematics calculation, and mathematics problem-solving:

. Severe Discrepancy between Intellectual Ability and Achievement. Document the criteria below.

The student exhibits a pattern of strengths and weaknesses in performance, achievement or both relative to age, standards or intellectual development:

3. The instructional strategies used and the student-centered data collected:

Instructional Strategies Used:

Debbie has not yet taken her first PSSA Reading and Math assessments, which are the State- approved assessments aligned with the standards for expected grade-level achievement. However, Debbie's performance on locally administered benchmark assessments -- such as the GRADE reading assessments, Rigby leveled reading assessments, DIBELS, etc. -- indicates that she is not achieving adequately at this point, especially with regard to basic reading and math skills.

Page 16 of 21 Version 8

Evaluation Report

READING-

Mrs. Johsnon, Debbie's 2nd grade teacher, reported that Debbie is currently at a Fountas & Pinnell Level E, which correlates to the beginning of first grade. Debbie participates in Mrs. Johnson’s below level guided reading group daily for 20 minutes. The group is composed of three other students. The primary focus of the instruction is on solving words, monitoring, and correcting through the use of meaning, structure, and visual cues. Mrs. Johnson instructs the group through the use of Rigby readers.

In addition to daily guided reading instruction in the classroom, Debbie also meets with the reading specialist, Mrs. Queenly, for 30 minutes daily. The group is composed of two other students. The primary focus of the instruction is on sight vocabulary, word solving strategies, and fluency. Mrs. Queenly instructs the group through the use of a Fountas & Pinnell Leveled Literacy Intervention kit.

The following materials/supports are used to scaffold Debbie in reading: - Independent-level books sent home for practice - Tests read aloud and given one-on-one when possible - Modified tests (as needed) - Always with an adult (teacher, reading specialist, aide) during guided reading

MATH - For math, Mrs. Johnson reported that Debbie is below level in relation to her peers and grade level expectations. Her focus of instruction for Debbie revolves around the following: - Place value (tens and ones) - Fact families - Basic addition and 2-digit addition - Basic subtraction and 2-digit subtraction

The following materials/supports are used to scaffold Debbie in math: -HSP Math series -Touch Point math -One-on-one instruction during math centers -Manipulatives sent home to help with math homework -Prompts to remain on task -Close proximity to teacher -Number line or counters to solve problems -Math instruction from the learning support teacher (starting the 3rd marking period)

Student-Centered Data Collected (2014-2015): The chart below shows Debbie’s performance on two benchmark reading assessments administered in January 2015:

Evaluation Report

The DIBELS (Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills) assessment reflects that Debbie scored well below benchmark. According to the Total Test Score, the GRADE (Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation) assessment reflects that Debbie performs at a Stanine 1. Stanines 1, 2, and 3 indicate that a student is below level. Debbie scored below level in every category.

The following chart summarizes Debbie’s DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency results from progress monitoring (September 2014-February 2015):

The data points reflect Debbie's correct words per minute when reading a one-minute passage. Debbie most recently read 26 words correctly on 2/17/15. Her data points are not on an aimline to reach the 2nd grade benchmark goal in May 2015. (The 2nd grade benchmark goal for January 2015 was to be able to read 72 correct words per minute with 96% accuracy). Debbie struggles with oral reading fluency at the 2nd grade level.

Version 8 Page 17 of 21

Evaluation Report

Page 18 of 21 Version 8

The following table indicates how Debbie performed on the Core Phonics Survey: Date administered: 9/17/14 2/20/15

Alphabet Skills and Letter Sounds Letter Recognition – uppercase 26/26 n/a Letter Recognition – lowercase 26/26 n/a

Letter names – uppercase 26/26 n/a Letter names – lowercase 26/26 n/a

Consonant sounds 20/23 21/23 Long vowel sounds 0/5 4/5 Short vowel sounds 5/5 3/5

Reading and Decoding Skills Short vowels in CVC words 15/15 10/15

Short vowels and consonant blends 5/15 8/15 Short vowels, digraphs, and –tch n/a n/a

trigraph R-controlled vowels n/a n/a Long vowel spellings n/a n/a

Variant vowels n/a n/a Low frequency vowel and n/a n/a

consonant spellings

The 9/17/14 administration of the Core Phonics Survey indicated that Debbie was intensive in the areas of long vowel sounds and reading words with short vowels/consonant blends. She was strategic in the area of consonant sounds, because she could not correctly identify the sounds for soft c, soft g, and q. The assessment was discontinued after reading words with short vowels and consonant blends, because Debbie was becoming frustrated and had a difficult time maintaining attention to the task.

The 2/20/15 administration of the survey indicated that Debbie was strategic in the areas of long vowel sounds, short vowel sounds, and reading consonant-vowel-consonant words with short vowels. She was intensive in the area of reading words with short vowels and consonant blends. Again, the survey was discontinued after this task due to Debbie's inability to maintain attention. She began reading words without looking at the whole word.

Below are the classroom-based reading assessment results provided by Mrs. Johnson:

Skill Assessed: Score (out of possible amount):

Predictions 8/12

Comprehension (story plot) 3/12

Comprehension (story plot) 7/12

Plot 4/13

Author's purpose 6/13

Setting 6/15

Vocabulary 1/8 4/8

Evaluation Report

Page 19 of 21 Version 8

3/8

Mrs. Johnson reported that all of Debbie's tests were adapted. They were read aloud and administered one-on-one with an aide when possible. For the vocabulary component of the tests, Debbie was able to reference her definitions if she chose to do so.

Below are the classroom-based math assessment results provided by Mrs. Johnson:

Chapter(s) Skill Assessed: Score (out of possible amount):

1 Basic addition 14/18

2 Basic subtraction 14/16

3 Place value 12/15

4 Place value 6/14

5 2-digit addition 3/14

8 2-digit addition 8/12

22 2-digit addition 12/12

20 Place value 8/12

21 Place value 3/12

Mrs. Johnson reported that Debbie requires a high level of support in order to meet with success on grade-level assessments. A number line, manipulatives, and Touch Point Math all assist Debbie when solving addition and subtraction problems. Beginning in the 3rd marking period, Debbie began receiving instruction in a small group setting with the learning support teacher, because she has not mastered two-digit addition/subtraction. The remainder of the class has proceeded on to 3-digit addition/subtraction.

4. The educationally relevant medical findings, if any:

5. The effects of the student's environment, culture, or economic background:

6. Data demonstrating that prior to referral or as part of the referral process for a specific learning disability, the student's regular education instruction was delivered by qualified personnel, including the English as a Second Language (ESL) program, if applicable:

7. Data based documentation of repeated assessments of achievement at reasonable intervals, reflecting progress during instruction, which was provided to the parents:

At her grade level (second grade) and in addition to traditional assessments that are part of the general curriculum and instruction in the classroom, repeated assessments for academic achievement include:

• DIBELS probes for early literacy skill development, with benchmark assessments three times

per year and more frequent progress monitoring probes (typically bi-weekly) as warranted for students falling below prescribed benchmarks;

• Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE), administered at least three times per year;

Debbie's core curricular instruction is delivered by certified highly qualified teachers using the District's prescribed curriculum, scope, and sequence of instruction. Instructed skills are aligned with Pennsylvania's core academic content standards for each grade level, which are assessed at the end of each school year (beginning in grade 3) via the PSSA reading and math assessments. PSSA science and writing assessments are also administered at prescribed grade levels.

There are no know factors in regard to Debbie's environment, culture, or economic background that would contribute to a substantial negative impact upon her achievement.

A review of Debbie's health history does not reveal any significant medical findings or ongoing health concerns relevant to her academic or behavioral performance in the school setting.

Evaluation Report

Page 20 of 21 Version 8

8. An observation in the student's learning environment (including the regular classroom setting) to document the student's academic performance and behavior in the areas of difficulty. Note the relationship of that behavior to the student's academic functioning:

Mrs. Kyle, literacy coach, observed Debbie in a small group math setting on 3/3/15. Debbie was being instructed on place value (tens, ones) by Mrs. Long, learning support teacher. The group was composed of Debbie and one other student sitting in front of the SmartBoard completing an activity in which you had to name how many tens and how many ones it took to make a certain number. Mrs. Long had a routine in place where Debbie would take a turn and the other student would agree or disagree with her answer. Then, the students would switch roles.

When the other student was using a picture to record four tens and 6 ones, Mrs. Kyle observed Debbie's behaviors. In that short time, she swung her feet back and forth while seated. She looked around in every direction without watching her peer solve the problem. Mrs. Long noticed and prompted with, "Do you agree, Debbie?" Debbie looked at the Smartboard. After Mrs. Long provided wait time, Debbie agreed with the other student's answer.

When it was Debbie's turn, Mrs. Long presented a picture of three tens and 22 ones. "3 tens" was already recorded. Debbie miscounted the ones and recorded "21" on the Smartboard. She was prompted to count again and still thought there were 21 ones. Mrs. Long had Debbie count aloud and she ended up with the correct amount of ones.

As the other student took a second turn and recorded "4 tens and 45 ones" to make the number 45, Mrs. Long asked if Debbie agreed. Debbie responded by saying, "Nooooo.....," followed by rolling her head entirely around over and over. Debbie, then, waited for her final turn while Mrs. Long helped the other student fix the amount of ones he recorded.

On Debbie's final turn, she was asked to record how many tens and how many ones were needed to make the number 26 in two different ways. The first way was using all ones, but the words underneath read " tens, 26 ones." Rather than recognizing that the answer was "0 tens," Debbie began counting the individual ones. Mrs. Long asked Debbie to read the words below the picture. Then, she was able to produce the correct answer. She correctly recorded the second way of showing 26 by filling in the number for 2 tens and 6 ones.

Mrs. Kyle posed one final question to Debbie as Mrs. Long was wrapping up the lesson. She asked Debbie to start with the tens and count on to show 26. Debbie correctly counted "ten, twenty" when pointing to the tens rods, but she continued counting by tens ("thirty, forty") as she touched the ones.

This observation confirmed that Debbie needs small group instruction for both remaining on task and grasping the content. Mrs. Long provides daily small group math instruction to Debbie to address foundational deficits. For example, Debbie still struggles with place value and double-digit numbers, so Mrs. Johnson is not expecting Debbie to complete grade-level math work which includes adding and subtracting 3-digit numbers (with regrouping). Debbie clearly benefits from small group instruction, prompts, close proximity, hands-on problem solving, and repetition of concepts.

9. Other data, if needed, as determined by the evaluation team:

None at this time.

• Rigby leveled reading assessments, administered periodically throughout the course of the year in order to determine instructional reading level appropriate to classroom instruction.

Data from local assessments and classroom based assessments reflecting progress during instruction is provided to parents during parent/teacher conferences and on quarterly progress reports.

Evaluation Report

Page 21 of 21 Version 8

10. Include a statement for each item below to support the conclusions of the evaluation team that the findings are not primarily a result of

Visual, hearing, motor disability:

Intellectual Disability:

Emotional disturbance:

Cultural factors:

Environmental or economic disadvantage:

Limited English proficiency:

Upon completion of the SLD Component, attach and/or incorporate this information into Section 5 and 6 of the completed Evaluation Report.

Debbie is proficient in English as her native language.

Debbie does not demonstrate impairment based primarily upon economic or environmental deprivation.

It is not believed that Debbie's academic difficulties are primarily the result of cultural factors.

Debbie does not display inappropriate behaviors or social/emotional difficulties in the school setting that are typical of individuals diagnosed with emotional disturbance.

Assessment of Debbie's cognitive aptitude, undertaken as part of the present evaluation, rules out intellectual disability.

A review of physical history in Debbie's school health records indicates no evidence of a visual, hearing, or motor disability.

EVALUATION REPORT (ER)
DETERMINATION OF SPECIFIC LEARNING DISABILITY