PSY 620 Module 5 Federal Guidelines for Children's Assessment Example

From a Teacher's Question to a Fair Evaluation: Federal Guidelines for Assessing a Bilingual Third Grader

Student Name

Psychology and Addiction Studies Program, Aspen University

PSY 620: Psychological Interactions

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

From a Teacher's Question to a Fair Evaluation: Federal Guidelines for Assessing a Bilingual Third Grader

During the behavioral assessment described in the previous paper, Gloria, a third-grade teacher at Desert Willow Elementary in Tucson, noticed how slowly Mateo formed letters and how seldom his written work was complete. Her question was whether a learning disability might lie behind it. Mateo's family speaks Spanish at home; his mother, Ana, reads some English but prefers Spanish. Like the school and Leah, the psychologist consulting there, they are invented for this course. This paper sets out the federal guidelines that govern how the school should respond.

The Federal Framework

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act is the federal law governing special education. It requires schools to identify and evaluate children who may have disabilities, to obtain informed parental consent before an initial evaluation, to evaluate in all areas of suspected disability and to decide eligibility through a team that includes the parents. It also requires that evaluations be nondiscriminatory: tests must be given in the child's native language or other mode of communication most likely to yield accurate information, must not be racially or culturally biased and must not rely on any single measure. Children found eligible receive an individualized education program and services in the least restrictive environment appropriate to their needs.

Response to Intervention

Fuchs and Fuchs (2006) explained response to intervention, which the 2004 reauthorization of the law allowed as part of identifying specific learning disabilities. In a multi-tier model, all students receive sound core instruction, students who fall behind receive more intensive, research-based instruction in small groups and their progress is monitored closely. Students who do not respond adequately even to intensive instruction may be considered for special education evaluation. The approach was meant to address weaknesses of the older practice of identifying learning disabilities by a discrepancy between IQ and achievement, which often required children to fail for years before qualifying. Fuchs and Fuchs also noted unresolved questions, including how to define adequate response and how to ensure the instruction given is truly research-based.

Zirkel and Thomas (2010) surveyed state laws and guidelines on response to intervention and found wide variation. Some states required its use in identifying specific learning disabilities, at least for some grades, while most permitted districts to choose among approaches, and states differed in how much guidance they gave. For a school, this means the process depends on the state's rules as well as federal law.

Fairness and Disproportionality

Skiba et al. (2008) reviewed the history and current state of disproportionality in special education, the over- or underrepresentation of students from particular groups in special education categories. They described long-standing overrepresentation of Black students in categories such as intellectual disability and emotional disturbance and noted concerns about English learners, who may be over- or underidentified depending on context. They concluded that poverty explains only part of the pattern and that referral, evaluation and decision practices also contribute. The federal requirements for nondiscriminatory assessment and multiple measures are part of the response to these concerns.

For Mateo, the central fairness question is whether his difficulties with writing reflect a disability or the ordinary process of learning to write in a second language. Evaluating him only in English, or relying on a single test, could confuse the two.

Applying the Guidelines

The school's student support team reviewed Gloria's concern. Because Arizona's rules allow schools to use response to intervention data in identifying learning disabilities, the team first checked whether Mateo had received appropriate instruction. He had been in the school's small-group reading intervention for eight weeks with modest progress, and the classroom plan from Leah's consultation had reduced his calling out but not changed his writing output. The team decided an evaluation was warranted.

The school psychologist met with Ana in Spanish to explain the evaluation, what it would and would not involve and her rights, and provided the consent form in Spanish. Ana consented. The evaluation would assess Mateo's language skills in both Spanish and English, his reading and writing and his fine motor skills, which might bear on handwriting, using tools suitable for bilingual children, and would include the intervention data, classroom work samples and Leah's observations.

Parents' Rights Explained in Plain Terms

Federal law gives parents rights that matter only if they understand them. Ana was told, in Spanish, that she could refuse consent, that she would receive a copy of the evaluation report and could discuss it before any decision, that she could bring someone with her to meetings, that she could disagree with the team's decision and request an independent evaluation and that the school must give her written notice before changing Mateo's placement or services. The school psychologist checked her understanding by asking what she would do if she disagreed with the result, rather than by asking whether she had any questions.

What the Evaluation Might Show

The evaluation could lead to several outcomes. It might find a specific learning disability in written expression, making Mateo eligible for special education services. It might find that his difficulties reflect a fine motor problem, which could lead to occupational therapy or accommodations under other provisions. Or it might find no disability, in which case the classroom supports and reading intervention would continue and be adjusted. Each outcome would include recommendations, and none would end the collaboration between school and family that the case had begun.

The Consultant's Role

Leah is not the evaluator and does not decide eligibility. Her role is to contribute what she knows: the behavioral data, the function-based plan and what it showed. She can also support Gloria in continuing the classroom plan during the evaluation and help Ana understand the process if she wishes. And she can raise fairness questions in the team's discussion, such as whether writing difficulties appear in Spanish as well as English.

Conclusion

Federal special education law sets out safeguards for evaluating children: parental consent, assessment in the child's language, multiple measures and team decisions. Fuchs and Fuchs explain response to intervention, and Zirkel and Thomas show that states apply it differently. Skiba and colleagues show why fairness safeguards matter. For Mateo, the safeguards meant a consent meeting in Spanish, bilingual assessment and intervention data alongside testing, with the consultant contributing information rather than making decisions.

References

Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2006). Introduction to response to intervention: What, why, and how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1), 93-99. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.41.1.4

Skiba, R. J., Simmons, A. B., Ritter, S., Gibb, A. C., Rausch, M. K., Cuadrado, J., & Chung, C.-G. (2008). Achieving equity in special education: History, status, and current challenges. Exceptional Children, 74(3), 264-288. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290807400301

Zirkel, P. A., & Thomas, L. B. (2010). State laws and guidelines for implementing RTI. Teaching Exceptional Children, 43(1), 60-73. https://doi.org/10.1177/004005991004300107