Too Soon to Say: Eligibility While the Intervention Was Interrupted
Malik, a third grader, was referred for special education evaluation in January. Screening data show he moved from the 25th to the 12th percentile in reading between the fall and winter benchmarks. He received Tier 2 intervention - 20 minutes, three days a week - for ten weeks, but the intervention log shows the group met only 60% of scheduled sessions because the paraeducator who runs it was frequently reassigned. Malik's attendance is 88%. Vision and hearing screenings are normal; he is a monolingual English speaker. His teacher reports he 'can't sit still' and often puts his head down during reading. At the eligibility meeting, the school psychologist tells the team that the district requires a severe discrepancy between IQ and achievement for any specific learning disability identification, and that Malik's scores 'aren't discrepant enough.'
1. Before the team decides whether Malik has a specific learning disability, what must it establish about the instruction he has received, and why does that matter in this case?
Read the worked answer
The team must rule out that the difficulty is the result of lack of appropriate instruction in reading or math. That requires documenting two things: that Malik received instruction in the general curriculum delivered by qualified personnel, and that repeated, data-based progress assessments were collected along the way.
Neither element holds up here:
- Fidelity/dosage: the intervention ran at 60% of scheduled sessions. An intervention that was not delivered as designed cannot fairly be called appropriate, and its failure cannot be attributed to the child.
- Attendance: at 88%, Malik missed a meaningful share of the very instruction he is being measured against.
The defensible decision is neither 'he has SLD' nor 'he does not.' It is to restore the intervention to full fidelity, address the attendance barrier, keep running data for a defined window (roughly 6–8 weeks with weekly probes), and reconvene. Identifying a disability on top of an interrupted intervention risks labeling a child for what is partly an instructional gap - and a label is very hard to undo.
2. How should the team respond to the school psychologist's statement about the district's discrepancy requirement?
Read the worked answer
The statement describes a criterion the district cannot impose on its own. Under IDEA, a state's identification criteria must not require a severe discrepancy between intellectual ability and achievement, must permit a process based on responsiveness to scientific, research-based intervention, and may permit an alternative research-based procedure. A local practice that adds a mandatory IQ-achievement formula exceeds what the state criteria are allowed to contain, and the team must use the state's written criteria.
Practically, the team should:
- Request the state's written eligibility criteria and work from those.
- If the state permits RTI, treat Malik's intervention and progress data as primary evidence, alongside a comprehensive evaluation across relevant domains - not achievement testing alone.
- Treat cognitive testing as one data source if the team finds it informative, never as a gatekeeper.
- Document the disagreement in the meeting notes. If the district will not move, that is a child-find/compliance question to escalate to the special education director, and possibly a dispute the parent can raise formally.
3. What should the team do with the teacher's report that Malik 'can't sit still' and puts his head down?
Read the worked answer
Treat it as a referral question, not a finding. Two competing explanations are on the table, and they call for different responses:
- Escape/avoidance of hard reading. Head-down behavior that appears specifically during reading suggests task difficulty, not global inattention. Check whether the off-task behavior tracks the difficulty of the material and whether it disappears during preferred or easier activities.
- A broader attention concern. This would show up across settings and tasks, including preferred ones.
To decide, the team should collect: a structured classroom observation in at least two contrasting settings, ABC data (antecedent–behavior–consequence) over several days, brief teacher rating scales completed independently by two teachers, and work samples showing the reading level the behavior coincides with.
If attention concerns persist across all settings, the team may consider other health impairment as a category and should gather parent and, with consent, medical information - but school staff do not diagnose ADHD, and one teacher's remark cannot drive eligibility. If the data point to escape, the response belongs in instruction and classroom management first, and the evaluation should test that hypothesis rather than assume a within-child deficit.