1. Ventura County SELPA Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses (PSW) Model: Psych TOT Training #1
Jenny Jones, Director, VCOE
Sandi Killackey, Social-Emotional Services Specialist, SELPA

2. Agenda Overview of models for SLD identification
Overview of PSW Conceptualization
Procedural Manual
Role of the Psychologist
COMPARES
SLD Page/Triennial Assessments
Exclusionary Factors
Special Populations

3. TOT Agenda for the year Month Agenda October Overview Your Role
Procedural Manual Overview
Exclusionary Factors
Special Populations
SLD Page/Triennials
November
Planning as a Team
COMPARES
Assessing academics
January
Assessing ONCAP with XBA & DPSWM
Assessment Approaches
February
Task Analysis – Choosing assessment tools
March
Report Writing
Guiding goals and interventions
Here is an overview of the main training topics at each of the five TOT for psychologists. This will help you in your planning for the trainings back in your district.

4. Training in your district
How often?
How much time for each training?
Who will train with you?
Have psychs discuss in dyads and then share whole group about how they plan to do the training back in their districts.

5. For the Background/Rationale section of this PPT, Sandi and Jenny will be providing a voice over of this information. Trainers can listen to it before presenting the information themselves or just hit play during their training.

6. Federal & State Criteria
IDEA 2004
(1) Must not require the use of a severe discrepancy between intellectual ability and achievement for determining whether a child has a specific learning disability, as defined in § 300.8(c)(10)… (3) May permit the use of other alternative research-based procedures for determining whether a child has a learning disability, as defined in § 300.8(c)(10).
CA Ed Code (2014 update)
a pupil may be determined to have a specific learning disability if…The pupil exhibits a pattern of strengths and weaknesses in performance, achievement, or both, relative to age, State-approved grade-level standards, or intellectual development, that is determined by the group to be relevant to the identification of a specific learning disability, using appropriate assessments, consistent with 34 C.F.R. sections and
Both Federal and State criteria allow for the use of models other than the discrepancy model for SLD identification. Federal law refers to the use of “alternative research-based procedures” and CA Education Code, which was updated in 2014, specifically refers to the use of a pattern of strengths and weakness model (PSW). Therefore, the use of the PSW model is a legal model according to both federal and state criteria.
One of the reasons why our SELPA has spent time on a new model for SLD identification is because SLD is the largest group of students identified for special education amongst the 13 areas of eligibility. In Dec 2013, 6,186 students were identified as SLD within the Ventura County SELPA. Therefore, Ventura County SELPA wanted to move to a model that was research-based.

7. What is the discrepancy model?
Requires a comprehensive assessment determining:
Significant difference between ability (generally Full Scale IQ score) and academic achievement (standardized testing)
Processing weakness
There are three main models that are being used for SLD identification: discrepancy, RtI, and PSW. The next slides will review all three of the models, providing the pros/cons of each of the models.
CA has been using the discrepancy model for SLD identification for decades. This model requires a comprehensive assessment to determine if a significant difference between ability and achievement exists. This model also requires the presence of a processing weakness.
Within the discrepancy model, a link between the processing deficit and the academic weakness is not required. Therefore, the assessment team is not required to examined the WHY behind the student’s academic weakness. More information about this link within the PSW model is found in upcoming slides.

8. Concerns with the Discrepancy Model
Literature has long pointed to problems with this model including:
“Wait to Fail” model
Unclear which IQ score should be used
Over-identification of students
Not developmentally sensitive
Inconsistent application of approach
Not research-based
Use with African-American students
Literature has long pointed to problems with this model including:
“Wait to Fail” model. It can be very difficult to identify a student with a true SLD early because such a large discrepancy is needed between the student’s ability (IQ) and their achievement on standardized achievement scores. Therefore, teams are often forced to make the decision to wait until a student is low enough academically to achieve this discrepancy, even if there may be overwhelming evidence to support a significant processing issue. In the meantime, they may be missing out on critical learning time periods where specialized intervention and instruction could be given.
Unclear which IQ score should be used. When a student has a significant processing deficit or deficits, this may bring down the full scale IQ score. Often times the full scale IQ score is not the best representation of the student’s ability.
Over-identification of students. This is the case in Ventura County. While special education numbers should be around 10%, Ventura County’s numbers have been larger than this.
Not developmentally sensitive Different processing areas (e.g. phonological processing) mature early, while others mature later into the adolescent stage.
Inconsistent application of approach Research has found that different practitioners, schools and school districts apply the discrepancy model in different ways (e.g. some use a strict 1.5 standard deviation discrepancy (22.5 standard score point difference), while others make exceptions for using less (e.g., 18 or fewer).
Not research-based
Cannot be used consistently with African-American students- In California, it is illegal to use an IQ test with African American students for special education purposes.

9. What is the RtI² Only Model for SLD Identification?
Examination of student’s lack of response to instruction and interventions
Assessment to rule out other causes (Emotional Disturbance, for example)
While the use of RtI is encouraged as a pre-referral intervention, there are districts and states that are using RtI as an eligibility model for SLD identification. In this model, the assessment team examines the student’s progress monitoring data and lack of student response to instruction and interventions. The assessment also serves to rule out other possible reasons for the lack of intervention include Emotional Disturbance, Intellectual Disabilities.

10. Concerns with the RtI² only Model for SLD Identification
Low achievement alone is not a suitable indicator of SLD (Fiorello et al., 2006; 2008; 2009)
Not every student who fails to respond to quality instruction and intervention possesses neurologically-based processing deficits
Studies have not been successful in reliably identifying which students are considered non-responders (LDA, 2010)
Has the potential to increase the over-representation of minority students in special education (CASP, 2014)
There are concerns about using an RtI model for eligibility purposes. One main concern is that without a comprehensive assessment, assessment teams are not likely going to be able to answer the question, “why is this student struggling?”
Low achievement alone is not a suitable indicator of SLD There could be many different explanations to why a student is struggling academically.
Not every student who fails to respond to quality instruction and intervention possesses neurologically-based processing deficits
Studies have not been successful in reliably identifying which students are considered non-responders
Has the potential to increase the over-representation of minority students in special education

11. Benefits of RtI² as pre-referral intervention
PSW model works best with RtI² as pre-referral intervention
Fewer students require assessment as their academic needs are being identified and targeted (Hanson, Sharman, & Esparza-Brown, 2009)
While the Ventura County SELPA PSW Model does not mandate that individual schools utilize a Response to Instruction and Intervention model (RtI²) as a pre-referral requirement, there are certain basic elements that should be considered prior to developing an assessment plan for an SLD evaluation (see Pre-Referral guidelines section of the PSW Manual). It should be noted that the PSW model works best when it is used in conjunction with an instruction and intervention model that includes a Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS) along with effective screening and progress monitoring procedures. Some practitioners have reported that up to one-third fewer students are being identified as having an SLD when using a combined RTI/PSW model, as they are more accurately able to identify other disabilities (e.g. OHI, ED) or exclusionary factors (e.g. environmental, instructional, attendance, language considerations) as the primary cause for a student’s underachievement (Hanson, Sharman, & Esparza-Brown, 2009).

12. What is the Ventura County SELPA PSW Model?
Requires a comprehensive assessment to determine the WHY
Pattern of Strengths
Otherwise Normal Cognitive Ability Profile (ONCAP)
Pattern of Weaknesses
Academic Deficit(s)
Processing Weakness(es)
Link identified between the academic and processing weakness
The Ventura County SELPA PSW Model requires the assessment team to determine that the student has both a pattern of strengths and a pattern of weaknesses. Remember that a pattern requires more than one test score. No one test score will determine a student’s eligibility for special education.
The pattern of strengths will demonstrate that the student has an Otherwise Normal Cognitive Ability Profile (ONCAP). Scores within the average range will constitute “strength.” Each of the two adopted assessment approaches (Cross Battery and Dehn’s Processing Strengths and Weaknesses Model) has methods for determining ONCAP.
The pattern of weaknesses must be found in both an academic achievement area as well as a processing area.
Lastly, for the Ventura County SELPA PSW, a link must be identified between the found academic achievement deficit and the processing weakness.

13. PSW Premise Based on several core research-based principles:
Specific Learning Disabilities are characterized by neurologically-based deficits in cognitive processing (NASP, 2007). This conclusion is supported by a meta-analysis that found significant processing differences between students with SLD and students without SLD (Johnson, Humphrey, Mellard, Woods, & Swanson, 2010).
Research has demonstrated the existence of specific cognitive processes (Flanagan, Ortiz & Alfonso, 2013; Hale & Fiorello, 2004). Researchers are also in agreement that sound tools and measures exist to assess these cognitive processing areas (LDA, 2010).
Research has also found links between various cognitive processes and specific areas of academic achievement .
Specific Learning Disabilities are characterized by neurologically-based deficits in cognitive processing. This is a within learner trait. Research supports that students with SLD process information differently than neuro-typical students.
Research has demonstrated the existence of specific cognitive processes. E.g. auditory processing, visual processing, working memory, etc.
Researchers are also in agreement that sound tools and measures exist to assess these cognitive processing areas
Research has also found links between various cognitive processes and specific areas of academic achievement. See Comprehensive Organizational Matrix of Processing and Achievement Relations, Examining Significance (COMPARES) which can be found in the PSW Procedural Manual.

14. Benefits of PSW Model Addressing the “Wait to Fail” model
Requires an assessment that provides answer to why the student is not responding
Assessment linked to targeted interventions
When used in combination with RTI can decrease referrals and better assist assessment teams at ruling out other disabilities (ED, OHI) and/or exclusionary factors (language, instructional, environmental)
Addressing the “Wait to Fail” model No longer requires use of discrepancy between IQ and achievement, which allows for earlier identification of students with true neurological processing deficits impacting their learning.
Requires an assessment that provides answer to why the student is not responding. Versus an RTI assessment model, which simply confirms that a student is not responding.
Assessment linked to targeted interventions. Once we understand why a student is not responding, we are more likely to be able to use targeted interventions and teach compensatory strategies that address the student’s individual needs.
When used in combination with RTI can decrease referrals and better assist assessment teams at ruling out other disabilities (ED, OHI) and/or exclusionary factors (language, instructional, environmental). There is also a financial benefit to using a combined RTI pre-referral approach with PSW assessment model. Forty-five percent of special education costs are funded from general education dollars. The argument been made that the dollars in early intervention during critical periods are a better investment than special education.

15. Discrepancy/PSW Theoretical Basis Research-based Assessment Approaches
Full Scale IQ Score
Processing Deficit
Academic Achievement Weakness
Within the PSW Procedural Manual (pg. 17), a comparison document exists to compare the discrepancy model that has been used in the state of CA and the Ventura County SELPA PSW model. This document examines the differences between these two models in five key areas:
Theoretical Basis: The discrepancy model does not have a theoretical basis while much research has gone into the theory behind the Ventura County SELPA adopted PSW model.
Research-basses Assessment Approaches: While the discrepancy model does not require the use of any of the many research-based assessment approaches, the directors in Ventura County specifically adopted two assessment approaches, both of which are research-based – The Cross Battery Approach and Dehn’s Processing Strengths and Weaknesses approach.
Full Scale IQ score: The discrepancy model utilizes a full scale IQ score to determine whether a significant discrepancy exists between a student’s cognitive ability and academic achievement scores. Concerns are noted with the use of this score, as many students with learning disabilities have processing deficits that negatively impact their full scale IQ score. While the Ventura County SELPA PSW model does not get rid of this score, there is less emphasis on this one score and more emphasis on determining an Otherwise Normal Cognitive Ability Profile (ONCAP).
Processing Deficit: CA Education Code requires that a significant discrepancy exists between a student’s cognitive ability and academic achievement. CA Education Code also requires that a processing weakness be present. However, CA Education code does not require a link between the processing weakness and academic deficit. The Ventura County SELPA PSW Model does require that a link exists between the found academic achievement deficit and the processing weakness.
Academic achievement weakness: In the CA Discrepancy model, much emphasis is placed on the standardized academic achievement testing. In the Ventura County SELPA PSW Model, ecological validity of these scores must be found. Therefore, the standardized scores must be consistent with other academic assessment data as well as observational data.

16. How Ventura County SELPA Got Here
2004
IDEA 2004 and Federal Regulations added options to identification process for SLD
2009
State SELPA provided two draft documents: RtI and PSW
Committee reviewed both documents
Spring 2010
Presented pros/cons to Directors and decision was made to pursue PSW Pilot
Pilot of PSW model in 8 schools countywide
August 2013
SPED Directors agreed to support a rollout of PSW countywide for Fall 2014
Stakeholder presentations; PSW Committee Meetings; Consensus Building
With careful consideration and research, a variety of stakeholders and educational professionals across California examined alternative SLD assessment models. The result was a decision by the Ventura County SELPA to participate in the California State SELPA Patterns of Strengths and Weaknesses (PSW) Pilot Project in various school sites throughout the SELPA beginning in Based on the success of the pilot, the body of Directors of Special Education for the Ventura County SELPA approved a SELPA-wide roll out of the PSW model to begin in the school year.

17. How will you train Background/Rationale?
Have participants discuss in dyads and then share out some ideas of how they will train the information on the Background/Rationale.

18. PSW Premise: SLD Conceptualization
An SLD exists in students with an Otherwise Normal Cognitive Ability Profile (ONCAP) who possess unexpected underachievement in one or more of the eight achievement areas outlined in California Ed. Code which is explained by one or more of the domain-specific processing weakness outlined in California Ed. Code (CCR Title 5 Section 3030 (j))
Whether the district is adopting the PSW model or staying with the discrepancy model, it is important for assessment teams to have a good understanding of what a learning disability is and is not.
In order to better understand the definition of SLD, it is important to consider the difference between an individual who possesses a specific processing deficit that relates to a specific academic weakness and a student who possesses a global learning deficit that manifests itself in weaknesses across all or most processing and academic areas (Hanson, Sharman, & Esparza-Brown, 2009). Global processing deficits or general learning difficulties (characterized by low or below average cognitive skills with minimal or no cognitive processing areas in the average range) are typically accompanied by general academic underachievement; however, they are fundamentally different from the true conceptualization of a specific learning disability. Students who are eligible for special education under the category of SLD typically require individualized services, not simply more intensive services (LDA, 2010). They must also possess the cognitive skills required to learn compensatory strategies and apply them independently (Flanagan, Ortiz, & Alfonso, 2013).
Excerpts from definitions of SLD:
Flanagan et al. Definition:
The specific learning disability is a discrete condition differentiated from generalized learning failure by generally average or better ability to think and reason and a learning skill profile exhibiting significant variability, indicating processing areas of strength and weakness
Dehn Definition The occurrence of significant intra-individual weaknesses in a child who displays otherwise normal learning aptitudes is viewed as an indication of a SLD.
For example, a student has average abilities in visual processing and oral language skills, but struggles with phonological processing, which is causing difficulties in basic reading skills.

19. What a Specific Learning Disability (SLD) is VS. What SLD is not
Explained by a neurologically-based processing deficit or deficits.
Explained primarily by low or below average cognitive abilities, another disability category or an exclusionary factor.
Characterized as a “within learner” trait.
Explained by external factors such as instructional or environmental variables.
May co-exist with other disability conditions (sensory, language, behavioral).
Primarily explained by another disability and/or condition (ED, ID, etc.).
One activity to do in your district is to review with the Psychs What a SLD is and What it is Not. This slide has some of the main points about the differences, however, within the manual there is a one page document that discusses this more thoroughly (Page 19 of manual).
Which of these differences may cause discussions or questions within your psych group?

20. Making a Distinction
General Learning Difficulty (Slow Learner) Vs. Specific Learning Disability
Another tool you can use in your training is the ID vs. GLD vs. SLD document (Page 18 of Manual). The directions on this document state:
This information is intended to guide assessment teams and should be considered along with the team’s knowledge of the student as well as assessment data. Decisions about assessment and eligibility should not be based solely on this document.
Many educators ask about what to do with students who fall more under the category of GLD. This may be a time to bring in another person from your district, such as your program specialist or director to engage in the discussion.

21. How will you train: What is a SLD?
Have participants discuss in dyads and then share out some ideas of how they will train the information on the What is a SLD section.

22. Table of Contents
Walk participants through the table of contents. For the training in your district, you may want to have a copy of this for everyone, or bring up the PSW Procedural Manual on the SELPA website.

23. 4 Assessment Approaches
Cross-Battery Assessment (XBA) (Flanagan, Alfonso & Ortiz)
PASS Model (Naglieri)
Concordance-Discordance Model (C-DM) (Hale)
Dehn’s Processing Strengths & Weaknesses Model (DPSWM) (Dehn)
History: Many PSW models adhere to cut-off scores, with scores at or above the 25th percentile (90 standard score) being considered a strength and scores at or below the 10th (80 standard score) and (85 standard score) being considered a weakness.
In the development stage of the Ventura County SELPA PSW model, a sub-committee was assigned to the task of investigating whether the use of these cut-off scores were research based. The sub-committee determined that the use of these cut-off scores alone was not research based, and not scientific enough to determine whether a student had an SLD.
Four assessment approaches (see above) were researched in depth to determine if they could be used to support an eligibility decision making process within the framework of the Ventura County SELPA PSW model.

24. Questions we reviewed
 How does this model relate to the CA processing areas?
 How does the model define “Average functioning?” 
 Is a FSIQ required?
Does the model require a normative vs. personal weakness?
How many subtests are needed to determine a processing strength and weakness?
Would a gifted student with a processing deficit qualify under this model?
How does this model address attention and/or executive functioning?
Does this model consider orthographic processing/ awareness?
How would you assess an African-American student using this model?
Does the assessment method have software to support the method?
Each model was researched and the committee answered the above questions for each of the four assessment methods.
The subcommittee reported their research findings to the PSW Committee, and the Committee decided to rule two of the four models out based on reasons such as lack of software or “user-friendliness.”

25. 2 Assessment Approaches
Cross Battery Assessment (XBA)
Dehn’s Processing Strengths and Weaknesses Model (DPSWM)
Strong theoretical backgrounds
Differences in some of the classifications/definitions of processing areas
Case studies:
Same processing deficits identified
Same “results” from the software systems
Two assessment approaches have been adopted to support decision making within the Ventura County PSW Model framework. Instead of using absolute cut-off scores, Ventura County SELPA is adopting models that assist teams in making research-based decisions. Both models support the SLD Conceptualization in the Ventura County SELPA PSW model.
Both models are theoretically sound and based on research. Both have software to support them. There are some differences between the models. For example, psychological processing names may differ such as phonological vs. auditory processing.
The PSW committee ran the numbers with sample students (wide range of students such as EL) and the same processing deficits and result were provided (“likely” or “unlikely” to have an SLD).
Both models are explained in our manual (see pages for more specific detail regarding each model).
It should be noted that there may be times when assessment results indicate that SLD eligibility is clear (e.g. strong evidence of strengths and weaknesses) and software may not need to be utilized.

26. Training on Assessment Approaches
VCASP: October 24th and November 14th
January TOT for Psychs – FOCUS
What are your directors saying about the use of both approaches?
To further assist psychologists in understanding these approaches, VCASP is hosting 2 full-day trainings presented by the authors: Vincent Alfonso (XBA) and Milt Dehn (DPSWM). We will also spend some time focusing on using these approaches within the Ventura County SELPA PSW Model framework in our January ToT.
Overviews of both of these approaches can be found on pages of the manual. Also, each approach also has a book that explains the use of the approach in depth which can be found on :
Essentials of Cross-Battery Assessment, 3rd Edition by Dawn P. Flanagan, Samuel O. Ortiz, Vincent C. Alfonso
Essentials of Processing Assessment, 2nd Edition by Milton J. Dehn
Some districts may choose to adopt one of these approaches, while others my leave this to the discretion of individual practitioners or assessment teams. Please refer to your special education directors in the coming future for further guidance in this area.

27. Role of Psych in Ventura County SELPA PSW Model
Collaboration
Pre-referral
Assessment Planning
Assessment Debriefing
The role of the Psych does not change just because the model for SLD identification has changed. However, the committee is strongly encouraging teams to work more collaboratively together as an assessment team, if appropriate. Psychs have a breadth of knowledge about students who struggle in school and have many opportunities to collaborate with the school staff on learning and behavior strategies for students. This can occur at any stage – from pre-referral through post-assessment. The Psych should also be involved before assessment begins and after assessment is complete to discuss with the assessment team any findings prior to the IEP meeting. A review of the Planning as a Team section of the manual as well as the Planning document will be one of the foci at the next TOT training. Additionally, this was one of the foci of the SAI TOT meeting last week; it is also one of the main topics for the SLP training in February.

28. Overview
The overview document is found within the PSW Procedural Manual (page 19). It is a one-page document with some background information and steps to assist school teams. The right hand column of the table provides information about specific sections in the PSW Procedural Manual where additional information can be found.
Have participants review this handout and highlight where they believe Psychs should be included.

29. COMPARES
The Comprehensive Organizational Matrix of Processing-Achievement Relations, Evaluating Significance (COMPARES) is a tool that assessment teams can use in many points within the assessment process. Teams can use this tool when planning for their assessment as well as reference after the assessment has been completed.
The COMPARES is a multi-page document in the PSW Procedural Manual. First, there are definitions of the processing areas aligned with CA Education Code. Then, there is a comprehensive narrative of the COMPARES. Afterwards, there is a key explaining the different symbols in the COMPARES (page 94 of the manual). Again, one of the foci of the November TOT with the psychologists will be the COMPARES.

30. COMPARES
Next, the Overview of the COMPARES is a one page document quickly summarizing the strength of the relationship between the processing area and the academic area, along with a page reference where more complete information can be found (Page 95 of the manual). Assessment teams should always consider the page number with more expansive information before making decisions regarding eligibility.
While the COMPARES provides detailed information summarizing a wide range of research articles, the document is not comprehensive of all of the research that exists. In addition, new research is being completed all the time. However, the document does provide assessment teams with a great road map of the research that does exist at this time.
Please note that their may be occasions when a link between a processing and achievement area may only have a key rating symbol of 1 or 2, but in the individual student you are assessing’s case, there may be some rational for inferring that a link does in fact exist and make sense. This is a case where professional judgment will be needed.

31. COMPARES
Starting on page 96 of the manual you can find more specific information about developmental information as well as other crossover areas for the COMPARES.
In the future, on the Ventura County SELPA website, there will be a more expansive version of the COMPARES as well as an annotated bibliography of the information within this document.

32. Training on COMPARES
This will be the focus of the November Psych TOT. We suggest providing an overview similar to the one we just did, but not to go into too much depth in your overview training back in the district at this time.

33. Triennial/Reevaluation Assessments
After much discussion last year, the consensus was to follow the flow chart in regards to triennial evaluations. A larger version of this flow chart can be found in the PSW manual (page 146).
While the law does not explicitly state that assessment teams are required to consider whether the student’s processing deficits and academic weaknesses are linked based on research when using the Discrepancy Model, it should be noted that this consideration is a best practice. While
not mandatory, it would behoove assessment teams to reference the (COMPARES), even when considering eligibility under the Discrepancy Model.

34. SLD IEP page
Within SIRAS is the new SLD Eligibility Summary page for use with the PSW model. This document is now a two-page document. It is pages in the manual and can also be found on the SELPA website.
Refer to the directions for this page in regards to completing this document (pages of the manual, within SIRAS, and on SELPA website).
Go through SLD page instructions

35. SLD IEP page
This is the second page of the SLD Eligibility Summary for use with the PSW model.

36. How will you train the new SLD Page?
Have participants discuss in dyads and then share out some ideas of how they will train the information on the new SLD page section.

37. Exclusionary Factors
When getting feedback in the development stage of the Ventura County PSW Model, some expressed concern that they would like more guidance on considering and ruling out exclusionary factors.
On page 139 of the manual, you will find the Exclusionary Factors Worksheet, designed to help provide guidance in this area and assist assessment teams in feeling more confident in making the statement that a particular exclusionary factor is or is not the primary cause of the student’s inability to progress in the general education curriculum.
Question: Do you believe teams within your home district feel confident in making exclusionary statements? Would this document be helpful to practitioners and/or teams in your home district? If so, are there pieces of this document to focus on in training?
Adapted from the Marquette Alger Regional Education Service Agency in Michigan

38. Special Populations: English Learners
The following resources are available for school teams when making these decisions:
Ventura County SELPA:
Meeting the Needs of English Learners with Disabilities Resource Book
Guidelines for Assessment for Special Education of English Language Learners
The Cultural-Language and Interpretive Matrix (C-LIM) is a useful tool for assessment teams when using the Cross Battery Assessment method
Your school district’s policies/procedures
See page 141 of the Manual. There are many resources available to assist in the guidance of assessment of EL students. Your district may have additional policies or procedures regarding this.

39. Special Populations: African American Students
The Ventura County PSW Model does not require the use of a Full Scale I.Q. score but rather asks assessment teams to determine (ONCAP)
References to assist with test making decisions
California Association of School Psychologists website at casponline.org.
Special education directors
See page 142 of manual
The Ventura County PSW Model can be used with African American students and does not require the use of an IQ test, but rather asks assessment teams to determine whether the student has an Otherwise Normal Cognitive Ability Profile (ONCAP), which can be inferred from various measures which assess separate processing areas.
The CASP website can be a valuable resource. Also, check with your director about any updates related to assessment tools with African-American students.

40. Special Populations: Private/Home School and Independent study
Prior to assessment:
Work with school officials and parents
Provide information about VC SELPA PSW Model
Gather academic data on current academic performance and interventions tried
During assessment:
Standardized achievement measures
Progress monitoring data (if available)
Grade level assessments (e.g. report cards, assessment grades, work samples)
Observation
See page 143 of manual.
Prior to assessment: It would behoove assessment team members to provide the student’s school officials with general information regarding the PSW Model to assist the student’s teachers in providing relevant information to support the decision to move forward with an assessment (e.g. Overview Document). Teams would also gather data on the student’s academic performance in relation to his peers and/or classmates, when available. It would also be beneficial to collect information on whether the student has received any interventions related to the area(s) of concern. If no interventions have been used, assessment professionals may assist the student’s educators in determining ways to address the areas of concern, prior to considering the student for special education eligibility.
*It should be noted, however, that a district may not deny a request for assessment, simply due to a student’s lack of exposure to interventions
During assessment: Assess the student’s performance using standardized academic achievement tests. At times, there may be progress monitoring data; however, this may not always be available. Teachers and/or parents would most likely be able to provide grade level assessments which may include report cards, assessment grades and/or work samples. Additionally, it is required by law that a psychologist
and/or another relevant assessment professional complete a structured observation of the student in an academic setting to confirm areas of strengths and/or weaknesses.
Be aware of your district’s procedures as they relate to private school students.

41. Discussion forum.
As you are preparing for your training, let us know if you have additional questions or need additional resources.

42. Thank you! Jenny Jones jjones@vcoe.org
Sandi Killackey