COMAR 13A.05.01 Determination of an SLD -- Has it changed?

[Anonymous]

I am trying to prepare for an initial EMT meeting this week. DD is has working memory and processing speed challenges (among others) but is "gifted" in other intellectual areas. I had been looking at an online document produced by Maryland Dept of Ed (MSDE) that references the Maryland law for determining if a child has a specific learning disability (SLD). (www.msde.state.md.us/specialeducation/SLDGuide/SLDGuide-Sig.pdf) In that document, it says (on 11th page of document which is labeled page 6)
(1) The IEP team shall determine that a student has an SLD if:
(a) The student does not achieve commensurate with the student’s age and ability
levels in one or more of the areas listed in § C(1) (b) of this regulation, when provided with learning experiences appropriate for the student’s age and ability levels;
(b) The student has a severe discrepancy between achievement and intellectual ability in one or more of the following areas:
(i) oral expression, ... (list continues)

Yesterday it occurred to me I should make sure this is the current information (duh!) and it now seems I've been using old information. On the COMAR website (http://www.dsd.state.md.us/comar/getfile.aspx?file=13a.05.01.06.htm) under "Determination of an SLD" it says
(1) In determining whether a student has an SLD, consistent with 20 U.S.C. §1414(b)(6) and 34 CFR §300.307, a public agency:
(a) May use a process that determines whether a student responds to scientific research-based interventions as part of assessment procedures, as described in 20 U.S.C. §1414(b)(2) and (3) and in accordance with Regulation .05 of this chapter;
(b) May use alternative research-based procedures for determining whether a student has a specific learning disability; and
(c) May not be required to use a severe discrepancy between intellectual ability and achievement.
(2) The IEP team shall determine that a student has an SLD if:
(a) The student does not achieve adequately for the student's age or meet State-approved grade level standards when provided with learning experiences appropriate for the student's age and ability levels in one or more of the following areas:
(i) Oral expression; ... (list continues)

I had been under the assumption that it was relevant that my child was struggling to produce grade level written work when outside testing shows she could do much better with help/accommodations for working memory shortcomings (among other challenges). E.g. her WISC-IV results show 99th percentile for verbal comprehension and 21st percentile for working memory. Based on what I see on the COMAR site, I now believe the school will say there is no evidence of learning disability because she isn't below grade level. I don't think the school will take into account the fact that it is the outside of school private tutoring and other help that is keeping her from being below grade level.

Am I missing something here?

Thanks!

[Anonymous]

OP here - Just to clarify I'm trying to figure out if "severe discrepancy between achievement and intellectual ability" is still a valid option for determining a child has a specific learning disability in Maryland. It looks like some states *only* allow the "RTI - Response To Intervention" model for determining SLD, i.e. has the child made sufficient progress to meet grade level standards and some states allow for SLD to be determined via RTI *or* via achievement/ability discrepancy.

In other words, can a on-grade-level child qualify under Maryland law for specific learning disability based on achievement/ability discrepancy?

Thanks!!!

[Anonymous]

I don't know about MD but a goal can only be put on an IEP in FCPS if there is a 25% delay. The goal drives the services. Accommodations however can be provided though with the presence of the disability.

[Anonymous]

I believe the > 25% difference in FCPS applies to infants and toddlers. The child find and school settings seem to have different (lower) scales. At least, that's my experience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

In other words, can a on-grade-level child qualify under Maryland law for specific learning disability based on achievement/ability discrepancy?

Thanks!!!

Yes, if the ability is higher than the actual achievement. If the achievement is higher than the IQ suggests is expected, then even if the child is doing poorly, the child does not qualify. My oldest did not qualify for an IEP the first time around because he was functioning at a far higher level than his IQ suggested was possible. A few years and another IQ test later and he has an IEP. His scores were right on the fence but most of the team advocated for the IEP because it was obvious he needed it.

OTOH, my younger son has a high IQ and passes everything. He is in above grade level math and English. But, because he has difficulty accessing the curriculum without supports and services, he has had an IEP since he was little. Good luck OP. I hope your meeting goes well.

[Anonymous]

Short answer is yes -- severe discrepancy can still be used to declare an SLD as the "disorder" for an IEP in MD and MCPS. The difference in the updated language means that the state is not required to ID children with severe discrepancies as LD, but MAY still do so. If your child has a severe discrepancy, this together with the information you provide about struggling to meet grade level or having to work harder to meet grade level should be enough to declare SLD.

This happened to us last year in MCPS. I will try to look at my paper work to give you more info. later.

PP is right about being able to receive an IEP even though no failing grades. There are several other DCUM threads with info and cites on this, so pls search. The law specifically says that a child does not have to be failing in grades to receive an IEP.

FWIW, the info you are looking at to prove "severe discrepancy" is IQ vs. achievement scores. Compare percentiles and compare standard scores. Significant differences in standard scores (and thus percentiles) are evidence of SLD -- look to see if your child has any discrepancies greater than about 1 1/2 standard deviations (1 deviation is about 15 points on the standard scale, so 1 1/2 is about 22.5. Note standard scores are not percentile scores, but they do correlate. Look up a bell curve chart to see what I mean.)

[Anonymous]

I am PP. Here is more info for you ---

Check here for a copy of the form that MCPS uses to evaluate presence of a specific learning disability. http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/forms/pdf/336-41c.pdf


Here is more about the "ACT" tool that MCPS uses to evaluate achievement/IQ discrepancies -- http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/specialed/OSSresources/act/Description%20of%20the%20Achievement%20Comparison%20Tool.pdf

Also, the school MUST take into account the tutoring your child has received as a factor in whether the child needs "special instruction" to reach grade level. (Such info about tutoring would be part of the parent provided evaluations and information that schools are mandated to review as part of the "existing evaluation data". See -- http://idea.ed.gov/explore/view/p/%2Croot%2Cregs%2C300%2CD%2C300%252E305%2Ca%2C)

But, in order for the team to consider it, you must document it. Have your tutor and other providers document what kind of assistance has been provided and what the impact has been. The team may try to exclude the evidence you produce about the tutoring by saying that the tutor (or other service provider) isn't qualified to opine about your child's needs or progress. For example, if a speech therapist is helping your child with reading or writing, MCPS officials may try to exclude it on the basis that speech therapists, by MCPS regulations, aren't deemed qualified to discuss academic achievement. You could try to get around this by providing examples of your child's subpar work done outside of school.

If you don't get what you want in the IEP meetings, consider contacting Marisa Stemple, the MCPS GT/LD instructional specialist. She can review your case, make an observation, and sit in on future IEP meetings.

If you are turned down you can always appeal or gather more evidence and re-file.

[Anonymous]

OP here - thank you everyone for your help. Today's school meeting (which was "just" the initial EMT) was not as awful as I thought it might be.

I especially appreciate the information provided by 14:40/10:22. The Achievement Comparison Tool is just the sort of thing I was looking for. Unfortunately I wasn't able to find any information on how to find the prevalence score or even what are the specific scores that are compared. We only had a subset of the Woodcock Johnson done but it isn't a big deal to go back and schedule more testing if there are other subtests MCPS is looking for. DD is in 2nd grade and the InView test results are not yet available. (The school administered the InView test to 2nd graders last December.) For the testing we had done, she scored 99th %ile on the WISC-IV verbal comprehension and 47th %ile on the W-J III and my understanding is that is a pretty big gap. (The W-J Oral Language cluster was higher at 79th %ile because she scored 97th %ile on the Story Recall subtest.) I don't see "standard scale" in our WISC-IV results but the GAI composite is 126 (verbal comprehension composite is 136) and the W-J scaled score for understanding directions is 99.

I guess the summary is that while I don't know what the prevalence score is or what they specifically are comparing, I think we meet the criteria of at least 22.5 ability/achievement discrepancy. I think I will ask the testing psychologist to help with figuring out how their testing fits in the MCPS ACT model.

I appreciate the tutoring advice too. DD does get extensive outside tutoring which we believe has made a significant contribution to her being on grade level. We aren't looking for the school to replace the tutoring but we would like the school to provide help at least getting her in class writing to something approaching what she can do in the quiet, supportive tutoring environment. (There are also other challenges and requests for help but the writing help is what is referenced in the scores I mention above.)

[Anonymous]

14:40/10:22 here. Glad your team seems to be moving along. I am a little concerned you mention the "EMT" team. Are you in the IEP process or not? Have you written a letter requesting an IEP? If so, you should be in the IEP process which has specific 30/60/90 day deadlines to complete the process. (Thirty days to hold the first IEP meeting to determine "reasonable suspicion" and 60 days to assess and have the final "determination" meeting, and no longer than 90 days total.)

If you have not specifically asked for an IEP in writing, some schools will steer you to a non-IEP process where the EMT meets and decides to provide some additional supports in class. This is often called "intervention" and the response (or lack thereof) is called "response to intervention" and can be used as evidence if an IEP process subsequently develops.

BUT, by LAW, "response to intervention" cannot be used to delay or deny IEP evaluation. I have seen some schools use the "intervention" process to make parents think they are doing all they can, but in reality these interventions are nowhere near what a kid with SLD usually needs.

Have you read the MCPS publication "Problem Solving for Student Success"? It will explain how all these processes fit together (RTI, IEP, 504, etc.) see -- http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/specialed/resources/ProbSolv.pdf

If you aren't sure you have all the evidence you need for an IEP determination, there might be a reason to piddle around in the EMT process until you have your ammo together. Or, if you think some mild intervention might be enough, then the EMT process might serve you well. But, the end of the year is coming, and since the IEP process usually takes 90 days, plus another 30 to write the goals, if you really want to have an IEP (or 504) in place by the beginning of next year, the clock is ticking. It is typically more difficult to "prove" a child is entitled to an IEP over the summer when the school teachers are not present. They are key to documenting the "adverse impact" part of the IEP test.

Re the ACT scoring. I'm not sure exactly how it works either, but it can't be too far off what is already mentioned in the MSDE technical guide you cited. If you look on p. 47 there is a chart which correlates IQ with the educational discrepancy range. The basic theory, which is still valid even with the ACT tool, is that the IQ is the theoretical ability, but it's not reasonable to expect that a child perform at exactly that level, so a little bit below that is the "educational expectancy" range and then if a child is falling 1 1/2 standard deviations or more below that -- that is a significant discrepancy. Also, the appendices in the MSDE technical guide tell you which tests are considered "achievement" tests and can be compared to the IQ test in order to assess educational discrepancy. I don't think this is a comprehensive list, so you may have something that's not on there. But, basically any WISC score can be compared to any WJ-III for the ability vs. achievement discrepancy analysis. Plus the MCPS ACT tool paper tells you that MCPS also can use the Terra Nova, MSAs, MAP-Rs etc.

The difference between a WISC score at the 99th percentile and a 47th percentile on the WJ-III (although you don't say exactly which one) is definitely a "significant discrepancy". A 99th percentile IQ is anything from a 133 up and a 47th percentile WJ-III is at least 2 standard deviations. This random bell curve chart from the internet shows the standard correlations between standard deviation, standard scores (which is how the IQ is reported) and percentiles. See -- http://www.concordspedpac.org/Bell-curve-ss.htm So, "100" is always the 50th%ile, and every 15 points in either direction is one standard deviation. On the chart above, the standard score scale is given for a particular speech test (the CELF-R composite scale) but is the same for all standard scores, which are reported on that 100+or- scale. The sub scales are reported with 10 as the 50th percentile and 1 standard deviation is 3 points. (this is the CELF-R subtest scale listed on the graph but, again, the same scale is used for all these ability and achievement tests). The Wrightslaw website has some good pages about testing and testing results.

I mention all this statistics stuff because what school systems often do is try and focus on the "cluster" or "composite" score, which can often be decent overall even while there are abominable scores in the individual subscores. As an example, my child's alphabet writing fluency was in the 8th percentile, but his spelling and some other writing functions were better, pulling his overall composite just a bit over the 50th %ile, thus eliminating the "educational discrepancy". But this is actually not a professionally accurate way to view the scores and the school MUST consider variations in the sub-scores if they are significant differences between them. This is called a "pattern of strengths and weaknesses" that can be relevant to the SLD determination.

IME, the psychologist in the room is the only one who understands the scoring in detail; the rest of the team just looks to see if the overall score is "average" and if so they think there is no problem. They are also the only one in the room who has a independent professional obligation to represent your child's best interests. They also have a professional obligation to explain any testing results that they have done to you and to provide a written report (not just the test scores alone). In my child's IEP eligibility team meeting, I had to go line by line thru the testing with the psychologist pointing out each significant difference and the discrepancies both in composites and in subscores. By the end of the meeting, the psychologist was forced to agree that there was a problem.

good luck. please post back how your process proceeds.

[Anonymous]

+1 Following. We've been watching DC closely all year (1st Grade) as an odd pattern of achievement has been showing itself. Testing shows GAI on the WiSC at 143 (134 otherwise) but working memory below expectations - significant percentile discrepancy. Executive functioning deficits and ADHD inattentive likely diagnosis. We are waiting for a final report to start this process in school, and much of our case is likely to rest on the severe discrepancies. This discussion has been very enlightening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:+1 Following. We've been watching DC closely all year (1st Grade) as an odd pattern of achievement has been showing itself. Testing shows GAI on the WiSC at 143 (134 otherwise) but working memory below expectations - significant percentile discrepancy. Executive functioning deficits and ADHD inattentive likely diagnosis. We are waiting for a final report to start this process in school, and much of our case is likely to rest on the severe discrepancies. This discussion has been very enlightening.

Why do you say "much of our case is likely to rest on severe discrepancies"?

Under IDEA in order to qualify for an IEP you have to prove 1) disorder 2) adverse impact and 3) need for special instruction. "Severe discrepancies" are essentially used to qualify for a "specific learning disability" label, which is one of the accepted "disorders" for an IEP. If you are likely to get an ADHD/Inattentive diagnosis w/ executive functioning deficits that would also qualify you for an IEP (even without any significant discrepancies or any SLD label) under another "disorder" label -- "other health impairment" (OHI).

Of course, IMO, I think it's important to get the label "right" even though many will tell you that the label doesn't determine which services and goals are set (and that is true by law, but not, IME, in practice necessarily). For example, my child has both ADHD/Inattentive and an SLD. I think that the SLD is his primary problem and that he needs explicit, specialized instruction in language-based tasks. But, if only the ADD/Inattentive label were there, the school would focus mostly on his attention and just give him help with a planner, breaking tasks down, organization, etc. and not the help he really needs with spelling, grammar, editing, etc.

[Anonymous]

Thanks, PP, I may be misunderstanding the process a bit if in your experience he ADD inattentive diagnosis is sufficient for the school to focus in on the Exec functioning (working memory / processing speed/ planning) deficits without another SLD related specifically to those weaknesses.

I really appreciate the voice of experience!

[Anonymous]

Thanks, PP, I may be misunderstanding the process a bit if in your experience he ADD inattentive diagnosis is sufficient for the school to focus in on the Exec functioning (working memory / processing speed/ planning) deficits without another SLD related specifically to those weaknesses.

I really appreciate the voice of experience!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thanks, PP, I may be misunderstanding the process a bit if in your experience he ADD inattentive diagnosis is sufficient for the school to focus in on the Exec functioning (working memory / processing speed/ planning) deficits without another SLD related specifically to those weaknesses.

I really appreciate the voice of experience!

Hi PP, the phrase "significant discrepancies" is short-hand for 2 different kinds of "significant discrepancies," and I think we are each focused on a different type.

One type of "significant discrepancy" is a significant discrepancy among the 4 different score categories (verbal, perceptual, working memory, and processing) of an IQ test like the WISC, WPPSI, etc. This is what you appear to be talking about when you mention significant differences between the GAI (which is composed solely of the verbal and perceptual reasoning subtests) and the working memory or processing subtests. Significant discrepancies of this type are thought to be red flags for SLDs, ADHD, exec. dysfunction, slow processing, etc. The problem is that using the IQ score for data alone really doesn't provide specific enough information to make a differential diagnosis among these. But, it might be enough to get a student a 504 plan on the basis of a significant discrepancy between GAI and memory and/or processing. This would include extra time, prompts, graphic organizers, and other types of organizational support.

Another type of "significant discrepancy" is a significant discrepancy between IQ score and achievement scores. This is what I discussed in @9:51 and above. This type of discrepancy is one very important piece of data used to make the SLD diagnosis. It can also be used to evaluate how other disorders (like ADHD or executive dysfunction or slow processing) are impacting academic achievement, which would be important to consider as part of the IEP or 504 evaluation.

Yet another type of "significant discrepancy" can be among the sub scale scores in either the IQ or achievement tests (these are usually scored on a scale which equates "10" with the 50th percentile; I think 3 points is enough to qualify as a significant discrepancy). These also are indicative of problems, and can sometimes be correlated with specific weaknesses/strengths, especially when viewed together with other testing for IQ and achievement.

[Anonymous]

Thanks, PP. I understand the difference you're talking about. My DC also took a number of achievement tests, but when the results were drastically different from expected performance the psych tended to blame attention all errors rather than a separate LD, based on her testing experience with DC. (Crawling under the table, trying to take the booklet out of the tester's hand, etc.)