Parent Request, Weak RTI Data, and the Duty to Evaluate
Jasmine is a 7-year-old first grader. Her teacher referred her in October for reading difficulty and frequent off-task behavior. Two weeks later, her mother emailed the principal: “I want Jasmine tested for special education.” The school has six weeks of Tier 2 reading intervention data. The interventionist says the data are “promising,” but the principal wants to wait another eight weeks before deciding. Records show 88% attendance, normal vision and hearing screenings, and no medical diagnosis. Tier 2 is scheduled for 20 minutes, three times weekly; fidelity checklists average 60%, partly because substitute teachers cover the group. Progress monitoring has three data points, with a flat trend. Jasmine recognizes 22 of 50 sight words and blends CVC words with 55% accuracy. The school's practice is not to evaluate until RTI is “complete.” Her mother has not been given procedural safeguards or a written response.
1. What are the district's obligations after the mother's written request?
Read the worked answer
The mother's email is a written request for an initial evaluation, not merely a question. The district must review existing data and determine whether Jasmine is suspected of having a disability. It cannot require RTI to be 'complete' before evaluating; RTI is a general education support, not a legal prerequisite.
Because the district may refuse, it must issue prior written notice that explains the refusal, the data relied on, and the parents' procedural safeguards. If the district proceeds, it must obtain informed consent and complete the evaluation within the state's 60-day timeline unless both parties agree to an extension. The team should consider all disability categories, not just SLD, and should not ignore the attention concern.
The existing data do not support 'promising': fidelity is 60%, there are only three progress points, and the trend is flat. That does not prove the intervention failed, but it also does not justify delay. The district should convene the team promptly, document the request, and either start evaluation or give a legally sufficient refusal.
2. What data gaps matter most, and how should the team address them?
Read the worked answer
The biggest data gaps are intervention fidelity, frequency of progress monitoring, and the adequacy of the intervention itself. A 60% fidelity rate means the team cannot confidently say Tier 2 was delivered as designed; substitutes covering the group is a plausible reason. Three data points are too few to establish a trend, and 20 minutes three times weekly may be insufficient intensity for a student with this profile.
The team should not wait passively for eight more weeks. It can begin the evaluation while collecting better general education data: weekly progress monitoring with at least six to eight points, direct observation of reading and attention, a review of core instruction and intervention materials, teacher and parent interviews, and a comparison with peers. The evaluation should include measures of phonological awareness, word reading, fluency, and comprehension, plus attention/executive functioning information if concerns persist.
Starting the evaluation does not commit the team to eligibility. It preserves the timeline while allowing better data to inform the decision. The team should also verify that Jasmine's vision and hearing results are current and rule out attendance and instructional gaps.
3. If the team decides not to evaluate, what must it do?
Read the worked answer
If the team decides not to evaluate, it must give the parents prior written notice. The notice should state the action proposed or refused, explain why, describe the data and procedures used, and include a copy of procedural safeguards. A verbal assurance or a generic letter is not enough.
The parents can then use mediation or due process, and the district should be prepared to show that it reviewed existing data and considered the suspicion of disability. The team should document the low fidelity, the limited progress data, and any plan to strengthen Tier 2. If the team later decides to evaluate, it must obtain consent and meet the timeline. The district should not leave the mother without a written response; silence plus continued intervention is likely to look like a refusal without notice.