Low Achievement, Flat Growth: Eligibility Under Pressure
Marcus is 8 years old and in third grade. Fall screening placed him at the 9th percentile in word reading. He then received 12 weeks of Tier 3 intervention - 30 minutes, four days a week, in a group of three - and gained 0.6 words correct per minute per week; the class median slope was 1.3. Winter benchmark: 12th percentile. Evaluation results: FSIQ 98 (verbal comprehension 104, processing speed 82); word reading 85, reading comprehension 78, math 96. Attendance is 92%, vision and hearing screen normal, no medical diagnosis, one school change in first grade. His teacher reports he 'doesn't try' and is frequently out of his seat. Intervention fidelity logs are missing for four of the twelve weeks. The team meets Thursday.
1. Apply a dual-discrepancy and exclusionary-factor analysis. What is your eligibility recommendation, and which evidence carries the most weight?
Read the worked answer
Dual discrepancy asks two questions: is the level low, and is the growth rate low despite adequate intervention? Both answers here are yes - 9th to 12th percentile is a persistently low level, and a slope of 0.6 against a class median of 1.3 is a flat trajectory, roughly half the expected rate. That combination is the strongest single piece of evidence, because it rules out the 'just needs more time' hypothesis better than any single test score.
The cognitive pattern (processing speed 82 with average verbal comprehension, and reading comprehension below word reading) is consistent with a specific learning disability in basic reading skills and reading comprehension, with processing speed as a related weakness. Math at 96 argues against a global deficit.
Exclusionary factors need to be addressed honestly rather than checked off. Attendance at 92% means roughly 15 absences - a contributing factor, but not enough to explain a 12th-percentile level. The missing fidelity logs for four weeks are the real vulnerability: without them, a hearing officer could find the intervention was not delivered as designed. My recommendation is eligible, conditioned on the team documenting fidelity for the remainder of the period and conducting a classroom observation to address the attention concern before the meeting closes. If fidelity cannot be established at all, the correct action is to extend intervention with verified implementation rather than to find eligibility on an unvalidated trial.
2. The parent wants Marcus fully in general education. What placement and services would you propose, and how do you explain the reasoning?
Read the worked answer
Least restrictive environment is not maximum time in general education; it is the setting in which the student can make appropriate progress with supplementary aids and services. Marcus has already failed to progress in a Tier 3 group, which is evidence that a fully push-in model without intensive intervention is unlikely to close the gap.
A defensible proposal: keep him in general education for science, social studies, math, and specials, and provide daily 30-minute pull-out intensive reading intervention in a small group, plus push-in support during the 45-minute reading block for transfer and scaffolding, plus accommodations (extended time, reduced copying, chunked directions). That is roughly 75 minutes of specialized support, delivered in two settings.
To the parent I would say plainly: he is included for most of his day, the pull-out exists because a small, intensive setting is what has the best chance of teaching him to decode, and we will review the mix at 12 weeks with data. I would also invite her to observe and to bring anyone she wants, and I would be explicit that the door is open to moving him toward more inclusive service as his data improve - which is a commitment, not a courtesy.
3. Design the progress-monitoring plan and exit criteria. What would make you change course?
Read the worked answer
Measure: weekly curriculum-based measurement in oral reading fluency plus a biweekly word-reading or nonsense-word probe, since the target is decoding and fluency rather than comprehension alone.
Baseline and goal: baseline median of the first three probes; set a goal slope of at least 1.2 words per minute per week, which is above his current 0.6 and near the class median, over 12 weeks.
Review points: four weeks for a trend check (at least six data points), twelve weeks for a full review.
Change course if: the trend line is flat after six to eight data points with verified fidelity - then change the intervention program or increase intensity, not the goal. Conversely, if his slope exceeds the aim line for six consecutive points, that is a reason to fade support, not to wait out the year.
Exit criteria: at or above the 25th percentile on the benchmark plus a slope at or above the class median for eight weeks, with performance maintained after support is reduced to consultation. Exit should be gradual - reduce pull-out to three days, then two, then consult - and should be written into the IEP as a review trigger so that fading is a planned process rather than an accidental one.
I would also add a brief attention/behavior data set (off-task intervals) so the team can tell whether the out-of-seat behavior is a consequence of frustration with text or a separate concern.