1. TWO REVIEWS FOR SLPs: Revised Regs
Hopefully, at the beginning of the school year, you received some kind of inservice from your LEA on the overall revisions to the regs, but from now until lunch break we will review the regs as they specifically pertain to the provision of speech-language pathology. So some of this you may have already heard and I will cover it quickly, but I felt it was important to present information in all the key areas, even the things that did not change, for the benefit of anyone new to the schools.
Most of the revisions occur in the Eligibility section for SLI. As you might expect, the language of law is rather dry and boring, so we’ll just forge on through it as best we can. When it’s particularly cumbersome, I’ll do my best to translate. I’ll give you a chance to ask questions after each section, but feel free to stop me at any time.
After lunch, we will review the basic structure for RTI that ADE has chosen to promote, then our role within it. I encourage those of you who are already involved in some fashion to share your experiences so far or plans you may have for next year.
Shelly Wier, MS, CCC-SLP
Consultant for School-Based Speech-Language Pathology
Easter Seals Outreach Program

2. Revised Rules and Regs Definitions and Due Process Program Standards
Eligibility Criteria for Speech Language Impairment (5-21)
Relevant Program Guidelines
INTRODUCTION
We’ll quickly run through some pertinent definitions and the due process flowchart, though only minor changes were made.
Program standards (section in the Special Education and Related Services book) involve things like academic facilities, LRE, caseload, direct and indirect services, and co-teaching (a new section).
We’ll be covering the revisions to eligibility criteria for Speech Language Impairment (SLI) and touching on the required evaluation data in a few other relevant categories since there has been some confusion about this even before the 2008 revisions.
Relevant Program Guidelines from Part III include . . .
Section 1: Criteria for Dismissal from Speech or Language Therapy Services
Section 2: Use of Criteria for Dismissal from Speech or Language Therapy Services
Section 5: Guidelines for Determining a Central Auditory Processing Disorder
Section 11: Guidelines for Evaluation/Reevaluation.
For Sections 3 and 4, which deal with proposals for and use of SLP aides and assistants, I will defer to Sharon Ross at UCA, who coordinates the Aides and Assistants program for ADE. And since today’s content will focus on school-age 5-21, I will not cover Section 9, Transition from Early Childhood Special Education Program to Kindergarten. I don’t believe any significant changes were made to this section. You should, however, familiarize yourself with these sections if relevant to your responsibilities and contact either Sharon or the Early Childhood Coordinator in your area if you have questions.
Copies of all the ADE Rules and Regulations documents can be viewed, downloaded, and/or printed from this website, or purchased from ADE, though each district should have at least one copy available.

3. Definitions (2.00) Adverse Affect on Educational Performance
Assistive Technology Device
Assistive Technology Service
Consent
Data-Based Problem Solving and Functional Assessment*
Discrepancy Model for the Assessment of LD
Early Intervening Services*
ADVERSE AFFECT ON EDUCATIONAL PERFORMANCE (Handout in packet)
Adverse affect on educational performance means the effect on the child that an impairment [as identified according to these regulations] must have in order to establish eligibility for special education and related services under Part B of the IDEA. In the consideration of the effect of the child’s disability on his or her overall educational performance, criteria must include not only curriculum or developmental areas, but also affective, behavioral, and physical characteristics or professional judgment of a multidisciplinary team. Any Questions?
ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY DEVICE
Assistive technology device means any item, piece of equipment, or product system, whether acquired commercially off the shelf, modified, or customized, that is used to increase, maintain, or improve the functional capabilities of a child with a disability. The term does not include a medical device that is surgically implanted, or the replacement of such device. Any Questions?
ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY SERVICE
Assistive technology service means any service that directly assists a child with a disability in the selection, acquisition, or use of an assistive technology device. The term includes -
The evaluation of the needs of a child with a disability, including a functional evaluation of the child in the child’s customary environment;
Purchasing, leasing, or otherwise providing for the acquisition of assistive technology devices by children with disabilities;
Selecting, designing, fitting, customizing, adapting, applying, maintaining, repairing, or replacing assistive technology devices;
Coordinating and using other therapies, interventions, or services with assistive technology devices, such as those associated with existing education and rehabilitation plans and programs;
Training or technical assistance for a child with a disability or, if appropriate, that child’s family; and
Training or technical assistance for professionals (including individuals providing education or rehabilitation services), employers, or other individuals who provide services to, employ, or are otherwise substantially involved in the major life functions of that child. Questions?

4. Notes Continued CONSENT Consent means that -
The parent has been fully informed of all information relevant to the activity for which consent is sought, in his or her native language, or other mode of communication;
The parent understands and agrees in writing to the carrying out of the activity for which his or her consent is sought, and the consent describes that activity and lists the records (if any) that will be released and to whom; and
The parent understands that the granting of consent is voluntary on the part of the parent and may be revoked at any time.
If a parent revokes consent, that revocation is not retroactive (i.e., it does not negate an action that has occurred after the consent was given and before the consent was revoked). Questions?
DATA-BASED PROBLEM-SOLVING AND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT
I will share this definition with you this afternoon since it has been added to address RTI.
DISCREPANCY MODEL FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF LEARNING DISABILITIES (ARKANSAS DEFINITION) According to the psychometric standard established by the Arkansas Department of Education Special Education Unit, a severe discrepancy exists between a student's intellectual ability and achievement when the level of severity is equal to or greater than 1.75 or more standard deviations (S.D.) at the fifty percent (50%) or above level of probability as determined by regression analysis. The determination of a severe discrepancy does not necessarily mean that there is a specific learning disability as other factors may contribute to a student's lowered academic performance. Conversely, there may be rare cases where a child has a specific learning disability but does not clearly demonstrate this upon use of a regression analysis standard. Local education agencies in Arkansas are not required to use this model in determining specific learning disabilities. Questions?
EARLY INTERVENING SERVICES
[CHANGE SLIDE]

5. Definitions (2.00) Early Intervening Services Activities*
Indirect Services
Individualized Education Program Team
Limited English Proficient
Response To Intervention*
Scientifically Based Research*
EARLY INTERVENING SERVICES ACTIVITIES
I will share this definition with you this afternoon also.
INDIRECT SERVICES
Indirect services means those services provided by a qualified professional, commonly termed “consulting teacher,” whose primary role is to consult with general and/or special education teachers regarding the modification and/or adaptation of instruction for specific students with disabilities. The consulting teacher may provide limited direct instruction to students. Questions?
INDIVIDUALIZED EDUCATION PROGRAM TEAM
The term individualized education program team or IEP Team means a group of individuals, as described in these regulations, that is responsible for developing, reviewing, or revising an IEP for a child with a disability, including –
The parents of the child;
Not less than one regular education teacher of the child (if the child is, or may be, participating in the regular education environment);
Not less than one special education teacher of the child, or where appropriate, not less than one special education provider of the child;
A representative of the public agency who –
Is qualified to provide, or supervise the provision of, specially designed instruction to meet the unique needs of children with disabilities;
Is knowledgeable about the general education curriculum; and
Is knowledgeable about the availability of resources of the public agency;
An individual who can interpret the instructional implications of evaluation results, who may be a member of the team described in this section;
At the discretion of the parent or the agency, other individuals who have knowledge or special expertise regarding the child, including related services personnel as appropriate; and
Whenever appropriate, the child with a disability.
Questions?

6. Notes Continued LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENT
Limited English proficient has the meaning given the term in the ESEA (1965). The term, when used with respect to an individual, means an individual-
Who is aged 3 through 21;
Who is enrolled or preparing to reenroll in an elementary school or secondary school;
Who was not born in the United States or whose native language is a language other than English;
Who is a Native American or Alaska Native, or a native resident of the outlying areas; and
Who comes from an environment where a language other than English has had a significant impact on the individual’s level of English language proficiency; or
Who is migratory, whose native language is a language other than English, and who comes from an environment where a language other than English is dominant; and
Whose difficulties in speaking, reading, writing, or understanding the English language may be sufficient to deny the individual –
The ability to meet the State’s proficient level of achievement on State assessments;
The ability to successfully achieve in classrooms where the language of instruction is English; or
The opportunity to participate fully in society. Questions?
RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION (RtI)
I will share this definition with you this afternoon also.
SCIENTIFICALLY BASED RESEARCH

7. Due Process Flow Chart
Shelly’s Communication Board: Click ADE logo
Special Education: Click “Policy” link at top right
Policy: Click “Rules and Regulations” link in list
2008 Rules and Regulations: Each section has its own link and the Flow Chart is 4th
In your packet, you should have a copy of the flow chart. Here’s how to navigate to it from my website.
[Flow Chart on next slide.]

8. The only change that I noticed [click] (though it may have been there all along) was the addition “Regular Program” as an option stemming from the Referral Conference. I think this was added to emphasize this as a choice by the team, which was always available but seldom utilized because people thought that once a referral was made, you had to proceed to evaluation. I would think that a “recommendation for review” (rather than “referral” which is confusing) by the general education problem solving team could also be an option, if this had not already occurred prior to the special education referral.
I would like you to pay particular attention to [click] the component that reads “Informal Data Gathering” that is located between “Referral” and “Referral Conference.” I’ll be referring to this when we discuss Required Evaluation Data a little later.
Other than that this is pretty cut and dried. This is what the law requires in order for parents to be afforded due process of the law in a timely manner. As you know there are forms to be completed that document every step in the process. The quality of the activities within each of these steps is entirely up to the district, and should be reflected in your documentation.
While participating in the Catastrophic Review process a few years ago, I reviewed beautifully completed and well-organized IEPs, where the corresponding programming in the classroom was terrible, and vice versa -- paperwork you could barely read with excellent programming implemented in the classroom. Obviously, the ADE wants both good documentation in the file and good implementation in the classroom, but the monitors will most likely only be looking at the file.
I’m not in any way suggesting that the files are more important than actual services to the kids, but want to make sure you get credit for all the good things you’re doing by documenting it accurately in the files.

9. Program Standards (17.00)
Academic Facilities: Space Requirements ( )
LRE: Continuum of Alternative Placements ( Chart #1-17)
Programming Considerations (Part I: J - SLI)
Maximum Teacher/Pupil Caseload ( Chart #2-17)
ACADEMIC FACILITIES: SPACE REQUIREMENTS
Academic facilities used for the provision of special education and related services, or their components of FAPE, to a child with a disability must meet the standards set forth in the Arkansas Division of Public School Academic Facilities and Transportation Custodial and Maintenance Manual (2006). (?????)
Exception. Facilities used to provide special education and related services constructed prior to the promulgation of [this manual] must meet standards previously set forth in the ADE Special Education rules promulgated in 2000.
LEAST RESTRICTIVE ENVIRONMENT: CONTINUUM OF ALTERNATIVE PLACEMENTS
The continuum must include the alternative placements listed in the definition of special education (which includes instruction in regular classes, special classes, special schools, home instruction, and instruction in hospitals and institutions).
Though not specifically discussed in this section, your SLP program should provide a “continuum of service delivery options.” This information is presented in the Programming Considerations section of the Eligibility Criteria and Program Guidelines for SLI, but I will offer it here since it is specific to LRE.
PROGRAMMING CONSIDERATIONS
Service delivery is a dynamic concept and changes as the needs of the students change; therefore, in designing a program to address the communication needs of students with disabilities, a variety of service delivery options should be considered. No one service delivery model listed should be used exclusively within a district's speech and language program.
Service delivery options include direct and indirect services. Direct services may consist of therapy integrated into the classroom, pull-out therapy in an individual or group setting, community based instruction, and/or a combination. Indirect services may include collaboration/consultation with parents, general and special education teachers and other service delivery providers.
Decisions as to how instruction should be provided (e.g., in the context of a direct speech-language therapy program, a special education classroom and/or a general education classroom), must be based on the individual needs of the child. Services must be provided in the least restrictive environment.

10. Notes Continued MAXIMUM TEACHER/PUPIL CASELOAD
For SLPs this maximum is 45, with no adjustments made for severity of disorder.
When a Speech/Language Pathologist has an approved Speech/Language Pathology Aide or Assistant, the maximum caseload is left to the discretion of the Speech/Language Pathologist.
However, use of an aide or assistant must go through Sharon Ross and I believe determining maximum caseload is part of the program approval process. Meaning it’s not entirely up to the supervising SLP, but a group decision by all parties involved.
Under no circumstances will a waiver be granted for an increase in maximum teacher/pupil caseloads for speech-language pathologists (SLPs) unless the speech-language pathologist has an approved SLP-assistant or SLP-aide.
Funding for a special education program can be affected if the maximum is exceeded.
Is anyone here utilizing an aide or assistant at this time or in the past?
Since I intend to skip this information, do you have any comments you’d like to share regarding your experiences in utilizing an aide or assistant?

11. Program Standards (cont’)
Indirect Services/Consulting (17.05)
Eligibility
Reviewing Progress
Standards for Indirect Instructional Services
Teacher Pupil Caseload
Consulting Teacher
Co-Teaching (17.06)
INDIRECT SERVICES -- I wanted to go into this in a little more detail because I think it’s an option on our continuum of service delivery that is under-utilized and misunderstood, but has the potential to be highly advantageous to both students and SLPs. If you’re not incorporating strategies that take your services outside the therapy room, then you will continue to carry the entire burden of student progress alone. Much of the practice, reinforcement, and practical application of newly acquired speech/language skills can be accomplished in collaboration with others, given instruction and consultation by us. I continue to believe that the bulk of our time and direct services should concentrate on providing those things that only we are trained to provide. However, there are specific activities to perform for indirect services, just as there are for direct services. It’s not just “monitoring.”
General: Children with disabilities who receive special education in the general education classroom are considered to be receiving indirect services if these services are provided by the general education classroom teacher in consultation with qualified special education personnel (consulting teacher).
Indirect services should consist of consultation with, and technical assistance to, the teacher which could be in the form of communication, observation, monitoring, and maintenance of a child’s skills (i.e., program/content, modifications, modeling of instruction).
Eligibility: The IEP Team has developed an IEP for the child and has determined the extent to which indirect services are to be provided for the child to achieve his goals and objectives in the regular classroom.
By selecting the indirect services delivery model the IEP Team has determined that there is no compelling instructional reason why the child’s instruction cannot be provided in the general education classroom with the assistance of a consulting teacher. (The general education classroom teacher should be an active participant in the IEP conference.)
The child is not receiving direct services in the same placement (service setting) in which indirect services are being provided. For example, a child may not receive both direct and indirect services for speech therapy or for special education, etc. However, the child may be receiving indirect services in lieu of resource services but continue to receive direct speech therapy or vice versa.
Children receiving indirect services will have their progress reviewed and documented a minimum of twice each semester. Program reviews should coincide with grading periods.
Indirect services can be provided on a part-time basis by any designated special education instructor, consistent with Caseload Guidelines, but must be provided during the instructional day and without interruption to the special education provided to direct services children assigned to that instructor.

12. Notes Continued Reviewing Progress
The consulting teacher will, at a minimum, review and document each child’s progress in indirect services twice each semester. Progress reports are to be filed in the child’s due process folder. Such program reviews should coincide with grading periods.
If the child does not pass content area course(s) or satisfactorily complete goals and objectives set out in the IEP for two (2) consecutive progress reviews, the consulting teacher will initiate a program review conference in accordance with established due process procedures. The committee will document its decision as to either the continuation of indirect services or placement in direct services, consistent with any revision of the child’s IEP.
For secondary children, should a progress review at any grading period indicate that a child is in danger of failing a content area course(s), a formal review conference should be scheduled immediately.
Standards for Indirect Instructional Services
Location: The child will receive regular classroom instruction with the majority of the direct instruction being provided by general education personnel. Implementation of indirect services will be within the regular education environment.
Total Amount of Time: The total amount of time that indirect services will be provided per week (a minimum of 30 minutes and a maximum of 90 minutes per week) must be reflected on each child’s IEP.
Grading Responsibilities: Regular education personnel are responsible for assigning the child’s grade(s).
This means that the skills targeted in goals and objectives and the criteria for completion can be reflected in typical classroom assignments. To me, this is how “carryover” or “generalization” of S/L skills should be measured.

13. Notes Continued Teacher/Pupil Caseload
Half-time Direct/Half-time Indirect Speech/Language Pathologist: The maximum teacher/pupil caseload for this split position is 45 children. The caseload composition is a maximum of 25 children on direct services and 20 children on indirect services. The following apply:
The maximum caseload of 25 children receiving direct speech therapy services is a maximum, not a minimum.
May not seek a waiver for a variance on the maximum caseload of 45 children.
An SLP Assistant or Aide is recommended, but is not required.
Consulting Teachers
General: Consulting teachers are special education personnel who have the primary role of consulting with general and special education teachers regarding the modification and/or adaptation of instruction for specific children with disabilities.
The consulting teacher may provide limited direct instruction to the child.
Responsibilities: The consulting teacher provides a minimum of 30 minutes per week and a maximum of 90 minutes per week of consultation/technical assistance (i.e., communication, observation, monitoring, and maintenance of skills) for each child served in indirect services.
On a regularly scheduled basis, the child’s program will be reviewed in conjunction with the general education teacher(s) serving the child.
Consultation with the regular teacher(s) regarding modifications in instructional methods or pacing which may be necessary for a child with a disability in the general education classroom may include, but is not be limited to:
Assisting the regular teacher(s) in modifying existing materials or in locating alternate materials for use by the child;
Assisting the children and teachers with special modifications, such as test construction and administration on an “as needed” basis;
Providing limited demonstration, diagnostic or team teaching to model alternative instructional approaches for integrating the child with a disability into the regular classroom; and

14. Notes Continued
Providing consultation in the development of behavioral intervention plans (BIP), use of learning strategies, etc.
Consulting teachers should participate, as appropriate, in meetings regarding the children they serve, such as the evaluation/programming conference to develop the child's IEP.
CO-TEACHING
Most of the regulatory language regarding Co-Teaching is similar to Indirect Services, so I’ll just quickly illustrate the differences.
Children with disabilities who receive special education in the general education classroom are considered to be receiving direct services if these services are provided by both the general education classroom teacher and qualified special education personnel.
Eligibility criteria: The IEP Team has developed an IEP for the child and has determined the extent to which co-teaching services are to be provided for the child to achieve his goals and objectives in the regular classroom.
By selecting the co-teaching services delivery model the IEP Team has determined that there is no compelling instructional reason why the child’s instruction cannot be provided jointly in the general education classroom.
The general education classroom teacher must be an active participant in the IEP conference.
The child is not receiving co-teaching services in the same placement (service setting) in which indirect or other direct services are provided. For example, a child may not receive both co-teaching and indirect services for speech therapy or for special education, etc. However, the child may be receiving co-teaching services in lieu of resource services but continue to receive direct speech therapy or vice versa.
The general education and special education teachers will review and document each child’s progress in co-teaching services. Progress reports are to be filed in the child’s due process folder.
If the child does not pass content area course(s) or satisfactorily complete goals set out in the IEP for two (2) consecutive progress reviews, the special education teacher will initiate a program review conference in accordance with established due process procedures. The committee will document its decision as to either the continuation of co-teaching services or placement in other direct services, consistent with any revision of the child’s IEP.

15. Notes Continued
For secondary children, should a progress review at any grading period indicate that a child is in danger of failing a content area course(s), a formal review conference must be scheduled immediately.
Grading responsibilities: General education personnel in consultation with the special education co-teacher(s) are responsible for assigning a child’s grade(s).
The total amount of time that co-teaching services will be provided per week is to be divided equally between the general education teacher and the special education teacher as documented on the child’s IEP.

16. Eligibility Criteria for SLI
Operational Definition (Part I, H.)
"Speech or Language Impairment" means a communication disorder such as deviant articulation, fluency, voice, and/or comprehension and/or expression of language, spoken or written, which impedes the child's acquisition of basic cognitive and/or affective skills, as reflected in the Arkansas Department of Education curriculum standards.
The only change to this definition is the reference to the curriculum standards (or Frameworks) instead of the Basic Education Skills manual.

17. Eligibility Criteria for SLI
Possible Referral Characteristics
Screening Information
Required Evaluation Data
Social History
Individual Achievement
Communicative Abilities
For Verbal Communicators
For Nonverbal Communicators
Oral-Peripheral Examination
Other
No change to the referral characteristics or screening information, required or recommended.
As you are probably already aware, there were several revisions to the Required Evaluation Data.
Social history is still there.
Individual intelligence was removed as a requirement and moved to optional data. It is still a valuable piece of information to obtain to rule out MR and to get an idea regarding prognosis, but since a comparison between IQ and language is no longer a state requirement, we recommended that it be removed. If your district is still using discrepancy analysis in determining eligibility for LD and SLI (which is their choice), then, obviously, an IQ will still need to be determined for comparison purposes.
We recommended the removal of the Individual achievement requirement as well, but the state put it back in the final draft; however, they did add that this measure could be either formal or informal, reducing the need for standardized testing of achievement every time. This component can be satisfied by the use of criterion-referenced assessment, curriculum-based assessment, checklists, observations, review of grades/work, etc.
In my opinion, your curriculum-based assessment, which is not a required component per se (more on that later), should focus on establishing the adverse affect of the suspected communication disorder, rather than overall achievement. However, it may satisfy the achievement component, which I believe typically comprises reading, writing, spelling, and math, but check with your psych examiner to be sure they agree.
Communicative Abilities: As I’m sure you’ve noticed by now, this area has changed quite a bit, so let’s break this down.

18. Communicative Abilities
“The SLP is to conduct a thorough and balanced speech, language, or communication assessment.
The foundation of a quality individualized assessment is to establish a complete student history. That information should guide the selection of subsequent assessment tools and activities, which should reflect multiple perspectives.
No single assessment measure can provide sufficient data to create an accurate and comprehensive communication profile.”
[Read 1st paragraph of slide]
I know that budget restrictions often prevent you from acquiring a diverse library of tools from which to choose, and that time constraints sometimes prevent you from evaluating in the way you might if you were in a clinical setting. So, many of you have probably developed a standard assessment battery, comprised of the same set of tests, administered to each student. The advantages of this are familiarity and expediency of test administration and comparison of all your students to the same set of norms, which should be comparable to the population you’re serving. The disadvantage is that the same set of tests is not always appropriate for every student, which becomes evident when your gut tells you there is a disorder, but the scores don’t reflect it. I wish I had counted the number of calls I’ve received over the years when this happens.
You should always be mindful first of the word “individualized” when evaluating students for special education services, which is why this next section is so important.
[Read 2nd paragraph of slide]
You should actually start between the Referral and the Referral Conference, with an observation of the student, interviews with relevant personnel, including the parents and the student, and a review of the student’s medical, developmental, and educational background (informal data gathering). You may even want to use a few structured probes of specific skills. If you jump straight into test administration, how are you to know if your standard battery will examine the areas that need to be assessed. Informal data gathering is your foundation and should help the referral team determine if you even need an evaluation, and if so, should then guide your selection of subsequent assessment tools.
A problem solving model (which we’ll review this afternoon) is currently being promoted by the state with regard to RTI. I think we should adopt a similar mindset to our referral and evaluation practices. The team should examine the referral and evaluation process by first asking With what skills, academically and socially, is this student struggling? How are they struggling? What does the struggle look like? Then hypothesize. Why do you think it’s happening?
Potential answers to this will certainly include a variety of possible speech/language deficits, but don’t forget to consider other possibilities: lack of consistent or appropriate instruction, environmental or experiential insufficiency, ESL issues, medical or neurodevelopmental factors, executive function deficits, etc. I don’t need to tell you that speech and language problems can often just be the observable manifestation of another underlying problem, and that is ultimately what the team needs to determine - Is the speech/language problem the primary disorder? Just because they have been referred for S/L doesn’t necessarily mean speech or language is the main problem. You know better than I do that SLI and LD tend to be the catch-all categories for special education in this state.

19. Minor tangent here: Do any of you watch the TV series “House”
Minor tangent here: Do any of you watch the TV series “House”? It’s one of my favorites. Now, I’m aware that this is fiction, but one of the things he’s said that I believe is often true has to do with “who you ask determining the answer you get.” For example, if you ask a neurologist what’s causing the problem, he’ll inevitably determine that something is wrong with the brain. If you ask an oncologist, he’ll say it’s cancer. If you ask an immunologist, she’ll say it’s allergies. If you ask a cardiologist, she’ll say it’s the heart. If you ask an endocrinologist, he’ll say it’s hormonal. If you ask an SLP, she’ll say it’s a communication disorder.
I’m not suggesting by this example that we get an abundance of inappropriate referrals, but I chose it to illustrate the need to be, not only individualized, but also differential, in our diagnostic process. More often than not, if the SLP gets a referral, there will be a speech or language deficit causing the student to struggle in some way. By doing thorough research on the front end of the assessment, we can more accurately choose tools that will help pinpoint the exact nature of that deficit in our testing Or rule it out when necessary.
I don’t plan to cover section 4 on Referral, but let me share a few pertinent items.
reads “Informal data collection conducted pursuant to [a referral] must be completed prior to any referral conference.” (Not “should be,” but “must be”)
4.02 “Along with the information provided in the Referral Form, any information which may assist in determining whether or not a child is a child with a disability should be submitted, including, but not limited to -
The results of hearing and vision screening;
Home or classroom behavior checklists;
Existing medical, social, or educational data;
Examples of the child’s academic work; and
Screening inventories.”
“The referral conference must be attended by at least three (3) persons, including the principal or a designee and one teacher directly involved in the education of the child. The conference may also be attended by the child, if appropriate, and by other individuals at the discretion of the parents or agency.”

20. Communicative Abilities
“The SLP is to conduct a thorough and balanced speech, language, or communication assessment.
The foundation of a quality individualized assessment is to establish a complete student history. That information should guide the selection of subsequent assessment tools and activities, which should reflect multiple perspectives.
No single assessment measure can provide sufficient data to create an accurate and comprehensive communication profile.”
The last part of this middle section reads “which should reflect multiple perspectives.” If you’ve observed the student during struggles and during successes, in different settings, with different teachers (when appropriate), interviewed teachers, parents, and the student, and reviewed a variety of work, good and bad, then you’re data will reflect multiple perspectives.
[Read 3rd paragraph of slide]
I think we would all agree, even if it were allowed by regulation or ethics, that one measure, regardless how comprehensive, would not provide an accurate and comprehensive communication profile. You can take that statement at face value: You can’t administer only one test. But let me relate this to the previous section and sum it all up in the way I hope you will put this into action.
Based on the informal data you’ve gathered, the Referral team has decided that a comprehensive evaluation of speech and language skills is needed. You are obliged by the nature of the referral decision to include a comprehensive language measure in your testing battery. The most commonly used tests, based on conversations with you over the years, are the CELF-4, the TOLD, the CASL, and the OWLS. Are there others you are using? Whichever of these is your preference, it should be, in my opinion, the only tool you routinely administer to every student.
Based on your student history (observations, interviews, data reviews), you should have developed a hypothesis that narrows down the possible problems to the extent that it points to the appropriate second or third tool. And the results of the comprehensive test you’ll administer will likely support that hypothesis. In other words, you should go into the administration of tests with a good idea of the tools you’ll need, but should remain open to changing that plan if the initial results don’t support your hypothesis.
For example, if the informal data you’ve gathered is really suggesting a semantics problem, then administer your comprehensive language test with an “interpretive eye” toward how semantics difficulties are affecting overall language, as well as to catch any other language issues that you may not have been able to observe, but then administer one or two additional tests that focus specifically on semantics so that you can begin to precisely define the nature of that problem, and provide information for program planning.

21. Notes Continued
I know it’s difficult to separate semantics from morphology and syntax, but I chose it to support my next comments regarding “specialized evaluation.” (?????)
When the Referral team decides that a specialized evaluation is needed, I’m guessing that currently this usually means speech production is the main area of concern. However, specialized evaluation should not be synonymous with articulation (or speech only). Morphology, syntax, and semantics (form and content) are the areas of language that most screeners and the “comprehensive” tests I mentioned measure. If you believe phonology or pragmatics are the primary “suspects,” then refer the student for a specialized evaluation that focuses on that area.
So, just as you would screen language to concentrate your testing time on evaluating speech production, screen overall language and concentrate your testing time on phonological awareness or pragmatics. The student may be more likely to fail a language screener if PA or pragmatics is the problem (as opposed to artic), but your informal data gathering prior to the Referral Conference should help the team decide whether comprehensive or specialized is appropriate.
This has been a whole lot of information for just the introduction to these requirements, but as I go into the specifics next and present the Evaluation Data Analysis section later, I think it will serve as a good foundation for discussion and interpretation of that information.

22. For Verbal Communicators
Students using spoken language to communicate.
Two or more tests and/or procedures which will delineate the specific nature and extent of the disorder.
AND
Oral-peripheral speech mechanism examination, which includes a description of the status and function of orofacial structures.
The language in this portion of the Required Evaluation Data has not changed. However, I hope that my introduction has helped expand your interpretation of it.
If you’re doing a comprehensive language evaluation, then administer two or more tests – one that is comprehensive and at least one more that delineates the specific nature and extent of the disorder.
If you’re doing a specialized evaluation for speech production, phonological awareness, or pragmatics, then administer two or more tests and/or procedures that delineate the specific nature and extent of that specific area.
AND
. . . In either case, an oral-peripheral examination. If, after examination, feeding, and/or swallowing are a concern, then make an appropriate referral for further medical evaluation. Resulting information should be considered in the process of formulating diagnostic and/or programmatic impressions.

23. For Nonverbal Communicators
Students who are nonspeaking or exhibit severe difficulties using verbal communication to make themselves understood by others.
An assessment for augmentative/alterna-tive communication (AAC) performed by a multidisciplinary team with experience, training, and competence in AAC.
AND
Oral-peripheral speech mechanism exam.
OK. I think that this addition is a necessary component, but one that is being narrowly interpreted. We felt that something needed to be included in the regs that would address those students to whom you cannot administer the typical S/L tests. Believe it or not, the Outreach team often tell me about SLPs who don’t serve nonverbal students because “they can’t talk,” which just mystifies me! So I think it was in this frame of mind that we separated verbal from nonverbal communicators in this new section.
Having since discussed this requirement in more detail with the Outreach SLPs, I wanted to present additional considerations for you to include in interpreting and meeting this requirement
First, we need to define “augmentative/alternative communication.” Many people, including some SLPs, define AAC incompletely to mean a person’s use of some kind of expensive, electronic, voice output device. And in Medicaid’s view, an assessment for this type of AAC is all that they will reimburse. But Let’s look at how ASHA defines AAC.
[Reference handout]

24. What Is AAC?
Augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) includes all forms of communication (other than oral speech) that are used to express thoughts, needs, wants, and ideas.
We all use AAC when we make facial expressions or gestures, use symbols or pictures, or write.
[Read slide]

25. What Is AAC?
People with severe speech or language problems rely on AAC to supplement existing speech or replace speech that is not functional. Special augmentative aids, such as picture and symbol communication boards and electronic devices, are available to help people express themselves. This may increase social interaction, school performance, and feelings of self-worth.
[Read slide]

26. What Is AAC?
AAC users should not stop using speech if they are able to do so.
The AAC aids and devices are used to enhance their communication.
[Read slide]

27. What Are The Types of AAC Systems?
Unaided
Gestures
Body Language
Sign Language
Communication Boards
Aided
Electronic Devices
Voice Output Possible
Visual Display Capabilities
Computer Compatible
AAC systems generally fall into two categories: unaided and aided. The best AAC system for an individual may include both aided and unaided systems to accommodate a variety of situations.
Unaided communication systems do not provide voice output or electronic hardware. Someone must be present for unaided systems to work (they cannot be used on a phone or from room to room). Examples include the following:
gestures
body language
sign language
communication boards (Can display written words, letters, numbers, pictures, or special symbols.)
Aided communication systems are electronic devices that may or may not provide some type of voice output. Devices that provide voice output are called speech generating devices. These devices can display letters, words, and phrases, or a variety of symbols, to allow the user to construct messages. Messages can be spoken electronically and/or printed on a visual display or strip of paper. Many of them can connect to a computer for written communication. Some of them can be programmed to output different spoken languages.

28. For Nonverbal Communicators
Students who are nonspeaking or exhibit severe difficulties using verbal communication to make themselves understood by others.
An assessment for augmentative/alterna-tive communication (AAC) performed by a multidisciplinary team with experience, training, and competence in AAC.
AND
Oral-peripheral speech mechanism exam.
So, given this definition of AAC and these types of systems, “assessment for augmentative/ alternative communication” can include an exploration of not only aided, but also unaided communication systems. Yes, you still need experience, training, and competence to assess unaided communication systems, but I think most SLPs already have it. Based on the questions I receive, I think the only thing that may be lacking is confidence. In collaboration with the student’s teacher and/or an OT, you can meet this requirement in most instances without a referral to an outside source (which could be expensive or a challenge to the due process timeline). I’ve provided in your packet, a few items that should help you “bone up” on unaided AAC assessment.
Not all nonverbal students are “communicators” by conventional or symbolic means. That is, their abilities are very primitive – gross vocalizations, simple body movements, simple actions on objects or people, disruptive behaviors – with and without cognitive or communicative intent. These students are neither ready for some kind of electronic (or aided) AAC system, nor are they using (successfully) any kind of low-tech (or unaided) system for conventional (gestures, pointing) or symbolic (picture symbols, sign language) communication. In this case, an aug comm evaluation, in the Medicaid sense (multidisciplinary team, multiple device trials, etc.), is inappropriate. There is a continuum of student ability as well as a continuum of AAC options.
So, again, collaborate with an OT and the student’s teachers to conduct an assessment that evaluates “how” and “why” the student communicates. Document the student’s use of primitive, conventional, and possibly symbolic forms of nonverbal communication (how), as well as the intent (social and nonsocial functions) expressed (why). Then, based on results and other team data, initiate programming to establish and develop simple and intentional communicative forms and functions, beginning with use of low tech means (unaided AAC) and moving to the highest level appropriate. Document everything. Consult with an expert or refer to an outside agency as needed to complete an “aided” AAC evaluation if/when it’s appropriate.

29. Notes Continued
For nonverbal students who you find demonstrate a good range of symbolic forms that serve many functions, an “aided” AAC evaluation is appropriate. The regs for “Assistive Technology” can be found in Section 5.00 (FAPE) and I have copied just that part of Section 5 into a handout for you. “A multidisciplinary team with experience, training, and competence” is obviously not available in every school district, nor is the equipment needed for such an evaluation. The bigger districts, I think, do have the resources to establish such teams and this is probably their best option, since they are more likely have to have a higher incidence of nonverbal students. Bryan Ayres conducted a lengthy training a few years ago to help develop district AAC teams and provided equipment and resources to each educational cooperative for that purpose. This type of AAC evaluation can also be requested through CIRCUIT or from other agencies. These agencies may have their own set of preliminary data that they will want to obtain prior to seeing the student, which leads me to my last point . . .
Neither type of AAC evaluation (unaided or aided) assesses “language skills” per se, but tries to determine the most appropriate and efficient nonverbal means of communicative expression available to the student; however both require the gathering of preliminary data. You have to know about the student’s current level of communication and/or language (which is what we just talked about), their cognitive skills, their mobility, and range of motion, etc. This is the preliminary data that your multidisciplinary team needs to gather beforehand and, either use in your assessment for unaided options, or provide to whomever may do the aided AAC evaluation. In the latter case, the more of this you can obtain and provide, the easier and faster the process will be.

30. Other (4a)
Combining standardized (norm-referenced) with nonstandardized (descriptive) assessment using multiple methods will assure the collection of student-centered, contextualized, performance-based, and functional information about the child's communicative abilities and needs.
Standardized assessment may consist of any diagnostic tool that compares results to an appropriate normative sample.
Nonstandardized assessment may consist of criterion-referenced assessment, curriculum-based assessment, dynamic assessment*, language samples, and structured probes.
4a. We added this piece to ensure that standardized tests were not the only means of determining eligibility and the presence of disorder.
When the SLP deems additional medical or other professional information is necessary, appropriate referral should be made with resulting information considered in the process of formulating diagnostic and/or programmatic impressions.
Related functions which may contribute to or underlie a communication disorder must also be considered. For example, impaired articulation may be related to an auditory acuity and/or perceptual deficit, a motor-speech problem, overall maturational lag, or deviant oral structure. Such determinations cannot be made solely through administration of a standard test of articulatory ability.
Neither of these points changed.

31. Other (4d)
When evaluating speech and/or language for disability category other than SLI, refer to required evaluation components* for the disability category being considered (e.g., hearing impairment, mental retardation).
This is the other piece we added since there had been some confusion in the past about the required components for Communicative Abilities when SLI is NOT the suspected category of disability. I’ve provided an “at-a-glance” type handout (you know how I love those) that indicates the required components for each of our 12 categories of disability. This is what is required when determining eligibility for those categories. You may or may not be the person who provides this piece, since psych examiners are qualified to perform language screenings and could administer a test that assesses both receptive and expressive language.
Now, once eligibility for special education services is established, all services within special ed are available to the student. However, if the team thinks that speech/language services might need to be a component of the student’s IEP, then an evaluation for speech/language disorder should also be conducted, following these required components. You are not establishing eligibility for SPED at this point, but determining whether there is a concomitant speech or language disorder.

32. Optional Evaluation Data
Individual Intelligence
Portfolios
Anecdotal Records
Checklists and Developmental Scales
These are just suggestions. Any type of nonstandardized or informal data collection can be included.

33. Evaluation Data Analysis
Types of Communication Disorders
Language Disorders
Impaired comprehension and/or use of spoken, written, and/or other symbol systems. This disorder may involve the form of language (phonology, morphology, syntax), the content and meaning of language (semantics, prosody), and/or the function of language (pragmatics) in communication. Such disorders may involve one, all, or a combination of the following components of language.

34. Language Disorders Form of Language Content and Meaning of Language
Phonology
Morphology
Syntax
Content and Meaning of Language
Semantics
Prosody
Function of Language
Pragmatics
Perception and Processing of Language
Form of Language
Phonology - is the sound system of language and the rules that govern the sound combinations.
Morphology - Is the system that governs the structure of words and the construction of word forms.
Syntax - Is the system governing the order and combination of words to form sentences, and the relationships among the elements within a sentence.
Content and Meaning of Language
d. Semantics - is the system that governs the meanings of words in sentences.
e. Prosody - Is the feature of communication involving stress and intonation patterns that convey the meaning of spoken utterances, determined primarily by variations in pitch, loudness and duration. Status may be reported from informal observation.
Function of Language
f. Pragmatics - is the system that combines the above language components in functional and socially appropriate communication.
Perception and Processing of Language
g. Perception and processing - is the manner by which language is internally received and responded to and involves attention, sequencing, memory, analysis, synthesis and/or discrimination abilities.

35. Evaluation Data Analysis
Types of Communication Disorders
Speech Production Disorders
Impairment of the articulation of speech sounds, fluency and/or voice. Such disorders may involve one, all or a combination of the following components of the speech production system.

36. Speech Production Disorders
Articulation
Voice
Fluency
Articulation
An articulation disorder is the production and combination of speech sounds. An
articulation disorder may manifest as an individual sound deficiency (traditional articulation
disorder), incomplete or deviant use of the phonological system (phonological disorder), or
poor coordination of oral-motor mechanism for purposes of speech production
apraxia/dysarthria).
Voice
The feature of speech production that impacts tonal quality, pitch, loudness and
resonance of speech. Adequate status may be reported from informal observation.
Fluency
The feature of speech production that impacts the rate and rhythm of conversational
speech. Slight to severe physical behaviors may also accompany the disorder. Adequate
status may be reported from informal observation.

37. Evaluation Data Analysis
In analyzing communicative abilities, the SLP should be aware of factors which represent communication differences rather than disorders. Communication differences refer to maturational, regional, social or cultural/ethnic speech and/or language variations that are not considered communication disorders.
If “Types of Communication Disorders” is A., then this should have been B., but we failed to number it this way. This paragraph falls directly under the definition of fluency. Nothing new in the content, however.

38. Evaluation Data Analysis
After carefully analyzing the evaluation data pertaining to the student's communicative abilities, the speech-language pathologist will complete a written evaluation report which includes impressions indicating the presence or absence of a clinical disorder.
C., if you will.
No new information here – impressions indicating the presence or absence of a clinical disorder (without consideration of the adverse affect) is the only required component, if you read this literally.

39. Evaluation Data Analysis
Through committee interaction this evaluation information will be integrated with all other data (e.g., teacher observations, including those of educational performance, and other formal and informal assessment data) gathered throughout the screening/ evaluation processes. This will be done so that the committee may determine if a disabling condition exists which impedes the student's acquisition of expected academic, behavioral, social, vocational, and functional performance goals.
D., if you will.
No new information here – The team, using this clinical diagnosis and all the other information gathered, determines if there is an adverse affect of educational performance

40. Evaluation Data Analysis
The committee must judge what the consequences of the impairment are for the student in relation to expected learnings within the curriculum, as established at each grade and/or chronological age level of skill development. The relationship of the communication disorder to expected learnings should be recorded on the Evaluation/ Programming Conference Decision form. Once the adverse affect on educational performance is established, a determination must be made of the corresponding need for special education services.
E., if you will.
No new information here – The team documents their results and subsequent decision.

41. Evaluation Data Analysis
When a student whose eligibility is based on a disability category other than "Speech or Language Impairment" exhibits a concomitant communication disorder, (as determined through formal evaluation), then circumstances exist for the provision of speech and/or language services.
F., if you will.
Another reminder that a formal S/L evaluation still has to be conducted when eligibility is established under a different category of disability.
Programming Considerations is the last section and we covered that as part of our review of LRE.

42. Criteria for Dismissal (Part III, Section 1)
Speech and language therapy services may be terminated when one or more of the following criteria have been met and it is the decision of the IEP Team that:
The speech/language problem is no longer a disability as demonstrated by norm-referenced and/or criterion-referenced assessment results, and/or clinical procedures.
The child's IEP goals have been attained and no adverse affect on educational performance is present.
Questions?

43. Criteria for Dismissal (Part III, Section 1)
The acquisition of expected academic, behavioral, social, vocational, and/or functional performance goals is no longer affected by the child's communication (an adverse affect on educational performance no longer exists).
The child has attained a level of performance commensurate with expectations given his/her clinical condition such as, but not limited to, limited cognitive functioning, structural anomalies, neurological disabilities and/or hearing impairment.
Questions?

44. Criteria for Dismissal (Part III, Section 1)
The child has maintained the same level of performance as measured by standardized tests and/or procedures over a period of time, indicating to the IEP Team that the child cannot reasonably benefit from continued treatment at the present time. Throughout the period of speech/language therapy service, the speech-language pathologist must demonstrate documented use of a variety of intervention strategies attempted to stimulate progress.
Questions?

45. Use of Criteria for Dismissal (Part III, Section 2)
The Criteria for Dismissal from Speech or
Language Therapy Services address those
circumstances which result in the termination
of speech/language services, either
permanently or for some specified time period,
provided to a student by the speech-language
pathologist.
Many speech-language pathologists subscribe to the Code of Ethics of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. Two “Rules of Ethics” that should be taken into account when contemplating the initiation or continuation of interventions include:
1. Individuals shall evaluate the effectiveness of services rendered and of products dispensed and shall provide services or dispense products only when benefit can reasonably be expected.
2. Individuals shall not guarantee the results of any treatment or procedure, directly or by implication; however, they may make a reasonable statement of prognosis.

46. Use of Criteria for Dismissal (Part III, Section 2)
It is important for the speech-language
pathologist to use sound professional
judgment and competency in recommending
that services are no longer warranted.
In some instances, intervention can be redirected through a resource room, a self-contained classroom, community-based instruction or the regular classroom to enhance overall communicative effectiveness and maintenance of acquired skills.
The IEP Team may also make provisions to monitor progress of a student dismissed from speech/language therapy services.

47. Use of Criteria for Dismissal (Part III, Section 2)
Prior to recommending dismissal from
speech/language services, the IEP Team
should review the Factors to Consider in
Dismissal.
Justification for dismissal from speech or language services should be determined using the Criteria for Dismissal from Speech or Language Therapy Services and documented in narrative form on the conference decision form used for dismissal purposes.
When dismissal is based on more than one criterion, all applicable criteria should be noted on the decision form.
Even if speech/language therapy services are discontinued, a student can be rereferred at a later date until he/she has successfully completed an educational program or he/she reaches age twenty-one (21).
If a student is re-referred, the referral committee should compare the reason(s) for referral with information on the previous termination of speech/language therapy services provided to the student. The referral committee must then determine on an individual student basis the appropriate course of action to be taken.
This may result in reevaluation of the student, a reinstatement of speech/language therapy services or a decision that no further consideration for speech/language therapy services is necessary.

48. 12 Factors to Consider in Dismissal
Duration of Services
Intensity of Services
Mode of Service
Review of Evaluation Data
Focus of Service
Setting
1. DURATION OF SERVICES
a) What has been the duration of speech therapy service?
b) What has been the duration of therapy for current goal(s)/objective(s)?
2. INTENSITY OF SERVICE
a) How frequently does the student receive such therapy?
b) Have alternative intensity levels of treatment been utilized?
3. MODE OF SERVICE
a) Have alternative modes of service (individual therapy, group therapy, integrated therapy, etc.) been utilized to stimulate progress?
b) Have various modes of service been used for a sufficient time period?
4. REVIEW OF EVALUATION DATA
a) Does review of the evaluation data reflect an accurate diagnosis?
b) Were appropriate goals/objective established?
5. FOCUS OF SERVICE
a) Have treatment methods been appropriate for the diagnosed disorder?
b) What has been the student's level of response to the treatment method(s)?
c) Within the scope of the treatment program, has the student been able to progress to the next level of the program or a branch of that program?
d) Has treatment been at an appropriate level for the child?
6. SETTING
a) Have a variety of therapy settings been utilized (individual, group, integrated)?
b) What is the student missing in the regular classroom during speech therapy?
c) Have alternative therapy times (different time of day, etc.) been tried?
d) Is SLP working with regular and/or special education teachers to assure curricular and/or instructional modifications are implemented if they are needed?

49. 12 Factors to Consider in Dismissal
Individualization
Pattern of Service Delivery
Capacity of Student for Change
Analysis of Dynamics of the Situation
Second Opinion
Continuity
7. INDIVIDUALIZATION
a) Has the SLP truly individualized instruction for the student?
8. PATTERN OF SERVICE DELIVERY
a) How has therapy been provided in the past?
b) What has been the focus of therapy in the past?
c) Have there been gaps in service? (Has child moved frequently? Frequent absences?)
9. CAPACITY OF STUDENT FOR CHANGE (LONGITUDINAL VIEW)
a) Has student been more responsive to therapy at times? Has there been a pattern of regression and/or progression? When has he/she been most responsive?
b) How do other service providers regard the child's progress to date? His/her responsiveness to therapy?
c) Does therapy and/or the IEP provide motivational incentives?
d) Has the SLP maximized therapy when progress is being achieved?
10. ANALYSIS OF DYNAMICS OF THE SITUATION
a) Is the SLP basing recommendation for dismissal on child's personality traits, etc.?
b) Is the SLP dismissing child due to dislike of child, parent, situation with teacher, etc.?
c) Have other situational dynamics influenced recommendation for dismissal?
11. SECOND OPINION
a) Has the SLP sought the assistance of another qualified provider to furnish a second opinion?
12. CONTINUITY
a) Are other service providers consistently reinforcing what the SLP is doing in therapy or is the SLP working in isolation?

50. Guidelines for Determining CAPD (Part III, Section 5)
Training to Come!
This section did not change and I’m not going to cover it as I have other areas. You should have a copy of these Guidelines in your packet.
Do you have any questions about CAPD and how to address it within your program? If you need to review your copy first, we can come back to this at the end.
I will share that “Auditory and Language Processing” will be my next training topic, late Fall-early Spring. I will be attending a 10-hour seminar in Indianapolis in May in order to bring back information that will further clarify these difficult disorders and offer options for assessment and treatment. It’s a topic for which I receive many calls for assistance.
Gail Richard and Jeanne Ferre, who presented a brief session on this at the Schools Conference last summer, are the speakers. I have the handouts with my notes from that session if you’d like to get a preview of content.
They have also published a new screening tool that follows their theory on processing called the Differential Screening Test for Processing, available from LinguiSystems.
Phonological Processing to Decoding
EAR
BRAIN
Acoustic
Linguistic
Auditory Processing
(Audiologist)
CAPD
(Both)
Language Processing
(SLP)

51. Guidelines for Evaluation/Reevaluation (Part III, Section 5)
Reevaluations are to be conducted if
conditions warrant a reevaluation or if the
child's parent(s) or teacher requests an
evaluation, but at least once every 3 years.
Additionally, the local educational agency shall
evaluate a child with a disability before
determining that the child is no
longer a child with a disability.
As part of an initial evaluation (if appropriate) and as part of any reevaluation, the IEP Team and other qualified professionals, as appropriate, shall:
review existing evaluation data on the child, including evaluations and information provided by the parents of the child, current classroom-based assessments and observations, and teacher and related services providers observation(s); and
B. on the basis of that review, and input from the child's parents, identify what additional data, if any, are needed to determine -
1. whether the child has a particular category of disability, or, in the case of a reevaluation of a child, whether the child continues to have such a disability;
2. the present levels of performance and educational needs of the child;
3. whether the child needs special education and related services, or in the case of a reevaluation of a child, whether the child continues to need special education and related services; and
4. whether any additions or modifications to the special education and related services are needed to enable the child to meet the measurable annual goals set out in the individualized education program of the child and to participate, as appropriate, in the general curriculum.
All decisions reached by the IEP Team must be documented on an appropriate conference decision form. Each area that is to be assessed must be clearly specified, and the person(s) responsible must be designated. It is the responsibility of the LEA to ensure that all parental notice requirements are observed. Informed parental consent also must be obtained for reevaluations, except that such informed consent need not be obtained if the LEA can demonstrate that it has taken reasonable steps to obtain consent and the child's parents have failed to respond.
NOTE: According to the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, a reasonable effort on behalf of a school district would include some combination of the following: documented phone calls, letters, certified letters with return receipts, and visits to the parents' last known address. The certified letter is a good tool for this process, but it alone is not sufficient. Experience in the field indicates that many people will not sign for certified mail fearing summons or collection agencies. The return of a certified letter should be followed by a visit to the last known address of the parent. Contact should also be made with neighbors, relatives, and other agencies in an effort to locate the parent. If these attempts are unsuccessful, all efforts should be carefully documented.

52. Guidelines for Evaluation/Reevaluation (Part III, Section 5)
Comprehensive Evaluation: Establish or re-establish eligibility in the required manner.
Partial Evaluation: No test administration; Collect information that directly assists in determining the educational needs of the child, as well as how to teach and assist in the most appropriate way.
No Additional Data Needed: Notify parents and conduct assessment if requested.
In conducting reevaluations, the IEP Team will choose from the following procedures:
If the IEP Team's decision is to conduct a comprehensive evaluation, all procedural safeguards concerning testing must be observed. In addition, the LEA must use a variety of assessment tools and strategies to gather relevant functional and developmental information, including information provided by the parent, that may assist in determining whether the child is a child with a disability and the content of the child's individualized education program, including information related to enabling the child to be involved in and progress in the general curriculum or, for preschool children, to participate in appropriate activities. Further, the LEA shall use technically sound instruments that may assess the relative contribution of cognitive and behavioral factors, in addition to physical or developmental factors.
The IDEA Amendments of 1997 suggest that a child should not be subjected to unnecessary tests and assessments if a child's disability has not changed over the three-year period. The LEA must administer such tests and other evaluation materials as are needed to produce the data identified by the IEP Team. However, if there is no need to collect additional information about a child's continuing eligibility for special education, any necessary evaluation activities should focus on collecting information that directly assists persons in determining the educational needs of the child, as well as how to teach and assist the child in the way he or she is most capable of learning.
NOTE: If the IEP Team's decision is to conduct an evaluation, either comprehensive or partial, the same due process timelines must be followed as for an initial evaluation. Also, the results of any evaluation activities must be contained in the body of a written report. A copy of the evaluation report and documentation of determination of eligibility will be given to the parent.
C. If the IEP Team and other qualified professionals, as appropriate, determine that no additional data are needed to determine whether the child continues to be a child with a disability, the local educational agency –
shall notify the child's parents of –
a. that determination and the reasons for it; and
b. the right of such parents to request an assessment to determine whether the child continues to be a child with a disability; and
2. shall not be required to conduct such an assessment unless requested to by the child's parents.

53. Any Questions or Comments?
Time for Lunch
That’s it for our review of the Rules and Regulations.
Any Questions or Comments?
We will begin our review of
Response to Intervention
in 1 hour and 15 minutes.