Reply to Released from IEP and now child getting D

Forum Index » Kids With Special Needs and Disabilities

Reply to "Released from IEP and now child getting D"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I never knew they can deny a study for low IQ.  If anything, these are the students who would need a lot more help, no?[/quote]

Yes it’s so hard. The students are performing within their cognitive abilities. This is a hard group it situation to be in. The student can get general education support or support from MTSS.

Specific learning disability requires a processing deficit and below grade level academic achievement.[/quote]

Processing deficit is not part of the SLD definition.[/quote]

Yes it is. If this child were in Fairfax County, they wouldn’t get past the Basis for Committee Decision because they couldn’t account for any processing issues. You’d go down the list of language processes that impact learning, and you wouldn’t be able to say yes to any of them  None of the test results show that there is a processing disorder. If you were provide specialized instruction to this student, you wouldn’t know how to tailor it because all the testing results are showing that the child is able to process information appropriately. You would have to check NO on the third question which would mean the student is not eligible under the Specific Learning Disability category.

https://www.fcps.edu/sites/default/files/media/forms/se10i.pdf

Here’s the definition:
DEFINITION: Specific learning disability means a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, that may manifest itself in an imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or do mathematical calculations.[/quote]

That has nothing to do with processing as measured on an IQ test. Same word, different meaning.[/quote]

Yes it does! The student was administered an assessment of their processing abilities. It’s right here. Please tell me where OP’s kid shows a below average in any of the processing areas:
Index/Subtest Index/Scaled Score Percentile Rank 95% Confidence Interval Qualitative Description
[b]Verbal Comprehension 100 [/b]50 92-108 Average
Similarities 11 63
Vocabulary 9 37
[b]Visual Spatial 92 [/b]30 85-100 Average
Block Design 7 16
Visual Puzzles 10 50
[b]Fluid Reasoning 88 [/b]21 82-96 Low Average
Matrix Reasoning 11 63
Figure Weights 5 5
[b]Working Memory 91 [/b]27 84-99 Average
Digit Span 9 37
Picture Span 8 25
[b]Processing Speed 86 [/b]18 79-97 Low Average
Coding 11 63
Symbol Search 4 2
Full Scale IQ 93 32 88-99 Average[/quote]

OP, many people in this thread are giving you incorrect information by saying that there is nothing in these scores above that indicate a processing deficit.  They are wrong.

Generally, there are a variety of ways of comparing scores to ID processing deficits - 
1) IQ/achievement significant discrepancy (whether or not below grade level) 
2) Significant discrepancies between any 1 of the 4 IQ components, e.g. Verbal Comprehension of 120 but Processing Speed of 90 would be a significant discrepancy
3) pattern of strengths and weaknesses - often "composites" or "averages" hide significant discrepancies in the subscores - this is the pattern that your DC very clearly demonstrates!

Look, for example at Verbal Comprehension @100 (perfect median score - exactly average). Subscores - similarities (11) and vocabulary (9) are close together, just on either side of the median of 10.

But look more closely at the scatter in scale scores - where the median is 10, and a standard deviation is +/- 3 and a "significant discrepancy" is a difference of 4.5 points.

In Fluid Reasoning (88),Matrix Reasoning (11) and Figure Weights (5) are 6 points apart!  And in Processing Speed (86) 
Coding (11) and Symbol Search (4) are 7 points apart.  These significant discrepancies mean that the broader score in Processing speed and Fluid Reasoning inaccurately appear "average" because the underlying subscores show above average strengths (11 is above the median 50th percentile) which are averaged out by other significantly discrepant scores.

I do not believe it's professionally appropriate for a psychologist or a school IEP team member to represent this FSIQ as accurately representative of your DC's intellectual capacity. I don't have time to write more but there are definitely other problems I see with this assessment in the WJ scores. I will try to come back to this with more citations & info later this week.

I would definitely ask for an IEE. Maybe others can chime in about how that works in your school district in VA.

[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics