Woodcock-Johnson 3 Question

First, you are mixing individual subtests from the WJ-3 Cog and the Achievement portion. I’m not familar with that IQ assessment instrument used but can show you how to use the General IQ score to compare against achievement scores. If necessary, I can reference the IQ assessment and come up with information.

When trying to assess statistical significance, using a cluster of scores is better because its accuracy is higher. That accuracy is called a reliability coefficient. So, if the reliability of an individual subtest is only 80 and 95% on a cluster of them, your confidence band (+/- margin for error) will be much narrower with the cluster. When examining the scores, one must look at the *top* of the confidence band on the achievement and then compare the SS for the cognitive assessment. Example: If a *cluster* has a .95 reliability coefficient and the SS is 85, the range is SS 80.75 to 89.25. Now put your SD on that (lets use 1 SD or 15 points for discussion). The IQ would need to be 105 in order for it to be truly different from a statistical standpoint.

When one looks at individual subtests using the same formula, it goes: Subtest SS of 85. Reliability is only .80 for that subtest. The confidence band (range) is from SS 68 to SS 102. Now, putting a 1 SD on it makes it necessary to look at an IQ of 117.

This is why schools examine clusters of scores. They are more statistically accurate. Bottom line: If you cherry-pick numbers out of the assessment instruments, you won’t be able to prove your case and will likely be confused about what you are examining. So, if you wish, post all the scores and we’ll all have a chat about it. Also post your state’s requirements for LD services.

Anyone want to discuss why kids are denied specialized instruction based on achievement/IQ discrepancy? That’s the real issue here, isn’t it? Doesn’t this parent’s fight for services say that it is time to stop deciding who gets to receive an education based on the difference between two test scores. Since IQ isn’t a good predictor of future reading achievement anyway, why do we decide who gets special reading instruction based on using it as a comparison feature? Why do children have to fail for two-three-four years (or a life-time) because they can’t make a statistical difference?

In what state are you?

OK, here is the catch. Yes, this child appears to have a deficit in phonological processing. The eligibility requirements for LD generally include TWO pieces: 1) a processing deficit, which is present; and 2) the processing deficit must impact educational performance. This has not been shown by the data the parent posted. This would be shown by low reading scores.

We administer the WJ-III and the WIAT word identification and comprehension subtests. Generally if we can get 22 points discrepancy on any one of these 4, and we would use the 121 obtained on the DAS verbal in most instances, we have a “hit.”

There seems to be some difficulty these days with parents understanding the role of the school. It is the school’s roles to teach primarily academics. We are required to address related issues when they clearly negatively impact academic performance, i.e. social skills, etc. We are NOT required to address relative processing weaknesses found in children who have appropriate achievement scores, per their ability and grade level.

So, if the child being discussed can read words and comprehend with SS over 100 as measured by two different accepted standardized tests, then it is not clear that her processing deficits are SIGNIFICANTLY negatively impacting her learning. Since these scores were not posted, it is not clear to me whether or not this is the case.

Schools must educate, they are not therapy centers. I know this may not cause some to respond with glee, but the role of the school must be defined and it must have some parameters, otherwise the school’s role will blurr, become sidetracked and public education will become more costly than most taxpayers are willing to support.

Yes, this means that some children have some uneven development, relative strengths and weaknesses. The school is not obligated to fix every issue that may come along with every child. The school is expected to teach academics first and foremost.

If your child has a relative weakness in phonological processing that does not negatively impact reading achievement on testing, then you may want to try to handle this on your own outside. There are many here who can make really strong recommendations. By the way, spelling scores alone are not criteria for inclusion in special ed. programs.

First of all thanks for asking to look into this for me. I really appreciate it. In my state 1 SD (15 SS) is a significant discrepancy for eligibility. Also His reading is above level. His spelling and listening skills are the concern, which both do have a negative impact on his academic achievement, unless we put in accomodations and modifications. Even though they are indeed at an avarage level they are still not at a level that is commensurate with his ability. It is my understanding that until he graduates the school needs to focus on closing this gap by providing a method or methods that will work to remediate the cause of his spelling and listening weakness, in his case I’m thinking auditory memory and discrimination. This can be done with deficit stimulation, strengthening his processing weaknesses so he can reach a level academically that is close to his ability. If I’m barking up the wrong tree please let me know. The school does say he is eligible for an IEP for spelling, but also says that he does not have a discrimination or memory weakness that needs to be addressed. Here are the scores:
PSYCHOLOGICAL

DAS:
SS 95% Confidence %ile
Verbal 121 109-130 92
Nonverbal 89 80-99 23
Spatial 114 105-122 82
Gen Cog Ability 109 102-115 73

Core Subtests T Score
Recall of Designs 62
Word Definitions 61
Pattern Construction 55
Matrices 44
Similarities 65
Seq & Quan Reasoning 44

Diagnostic Subtests T Score
Recall of Digits 53
Recall of Objects 46
Speed of Info Processing 53

Woodcock-Johnson III Cog
Subtest SS 95% Confidence %ile
Vis-Aud Learning 104 93-115 61
Sound Blending 105 96-114 63
Visual Matching 99 91-107 47
Numbers Reversed 103 93-112 57
Incomplete Words 131 113-149 98
Aud Working Mem 102 93-112 56
Retrival Fluency 121 112-131 92
Aud Attention 107 90-124 69
Decision Speed 123 112-133 93
Rapid Pic Naming 124 119-129 94
Pair Cancellation 99 95-103 47

Cluster SS 95% Confidence %ile
Cognitive Efficiency 101 93-108 52
Long Term Retrival 109 100-119 73
Aud Processing 107 97-117 68
Processing Speed 111 104-119 77
Phonemic Awarness 116 106-125 85
Working Memory 103 95-110 58
Broad Attention 103 96-110 58
Cognitive Fluency 130 124-136 98

WAIS III Scaled Score
Information 13
Arithmetic 11
Digit Span 10
Letter-Number Seq. 10

Index SS 95% Confidence %ile
Working Memory 102 95-109 55

EDUCATIONAL

Woodcock-Johnson III ACH

Cluster/Test RPI %ile SS (68% Band) Z
Oral Language 96/90 85 116 108-123 1.05
Listening Comp 95/90 68 107 102-113 0.48
Broad Writ Lang 96/90 79 112 108-117 0.85
Basic Writ Skills 65/90 24 89 87-92 -0.71
Written Exp 99/90 98 132 125-140 2.17
Phon/Graph Know 72/90 25 90 87-93 -0.68

Subtests RPI %ile SS (68% Band) Z
Story Recall 98/90 99 134 124-144 2.25
Under Directions 93/90 60 104 95-113 0.27
Spelling 69/90 26 90 87/94 -0.64
Writing Fluency 99/90 94 123 118-128 1.55
Writing Samples 98/90 99 134 117-150 2.24
Story Recall Delay — — — — -0.69
Word Attack 68/90 25 90 86-94 -0.67
Oral Comprehen 96/90 68 107 102-112 0.48
Editing 61/90 25 90 87-93 -0.67
Spelling of Sounds 75/90 20 87 83-92 -0.84
Sound Awareness 84/90 37 95 90-101 -0.33

Thats’s it!! Whatever you all can tell me would be great. Thanks a million. Cindy

I have seen children with learning disabilities score high in phonemic awareness from time to time. I get very frustrated with the discrepancy formulas. Oftentimes you can look at the child’s history, work samples, learning style and it hits you in the face that this child is learning disabled, but the child doesn’t necessarily show the standard discrepancy. It is heart breaking when you can’t service a child whom you know will fail without the specialized services. To make things worse, too many schools are using the literature based reading approaches that are devastating for these kids who scream for strucure.

Carol
http://www.kidsrunning.com

On the Riverside Publishing web-site is a whole section titled Calculating Ability/Achievement Discrepancies between the WISCIII and the WJIII tests of achievement; it gives tables and the formulas for the calculations. Clearly the publishers assume most schools give the WISCIII; if yours didn’t, maybe a WISC III is the next step. Riverside also has the tables for expected achievement on the WJIII given WISCIII FSIQ with correction for regression to the mean.

I probably should say that this student did have a reading disability and received Wilson for 4 years and had all self contained classes. His reading went up and up and up while his spelling went down and down and down as indicated in classroom preformance and the quality of his written work. The schools answer was to continue with Wilson. They wouldn’t even consider any other option. So we requested in 2001 that the school eliminate the service and we would provide private services to focus on the spelling and processing weaknesses. The student went into collaborative classes so they could monitor his progress to detrmine if what was being provided outside was appropriate. They were supposed to give pre and post teating to help determine this. They failed to give the pre testing. In 2000 his SS in Dictation (primarily due to spelling errors) on the WJ-R was 72. At the end of 2002 his SS in Spelling was 90 after 10 months of private services. His auditory discrimination and memory also improved from 2000. Since they did not do the pre and post testing we could not prove when the progress actually happened. We want to continue with the private services, at our own expense. The school is saying that he has to remain in collaborative classes, (even though he didn’t access the collaborative teacher’s help as she reported and she recommended mainstream), so they can have her monitor the progress of his one and only spelling goal, AND go back to resource for direct spelling instruction. We want him in all mainstream and to go to a consultative model for 30 minutes/week to allow the consultative person to monitor his progress. The school is also miffed that in the parent concerns we noted that we feel they failed to provide FAPE because they didn’t do the pre and post testing and that we reject the direct resource instruction because they couldn’t demonstrate if it was any different from what we rejected in 2001. We signed the IEP that we agreed to the goal and objectives, and accomodations, however we rejected to the placement as being too restrictive. They say we cannot accept and reject, that once you reject you reject everything. Frankly I’m sick and tired of this. All I want is to provide him with what he needs privately AND document that I am providing it AND document that this is where his spelling and listening comprehension is being addressed appropriately. Is that asking for too much? Cindy

CC wrote:
>
> I probably should say that this student did have a reading
> disability and received Wilson for 4 years and had all self
> contained classes. His reading went up and up and up while
> his spelling went down and down and down as indicated in
> classroom preformance and the quality of his written work.
> The schools answer was to continue with Wilson. They
> wouldn’t even consider any other option.

What option did you wish? Lindamood Bell?

The school is saying that he
> has to remain in collaborative classes, (even though he
> didn’t access the collaborative teacher’s help as she
> reported and she recommended mainstream), so they can have
> her monitor the progress of his one and only spelling goal,
> AND go back to resource for direct spelling instruction. We
> want him in all mainstream and to go to a consultative model
> for 30 minutes/week to allow the consultative person to
> monitor his progress.

You would probably win in court. These folks would fold in a moment because they have no reason to keep him out.

What about transition services? He must be over 16.5 years to have a WAIS III.

The school is also miffed that in the
> parent concerns we noted that we feel they failed to provide
> FAPE because they didn’t do the pre and post testing and that
> we reject the direct resource instruction because they
> couldn’t demonstrate if it was any different from what we
> rejected in 2001.

I don’t see many folks win on the FAPE side. The standard is *any* progress, no matter how small. That’s way easy for schools to prove.

We signed the IEP that we agreed to the
> goal and objectives, and accomodations, however we rejected
> to the placement as being too restrictive.

You can accept and reject. The goals are agreed and then placement is decided based on individual need. You could agree to the goal and not to the placement to implement the goal. The teacher could monitor the classroom work without the student in the room.

They say we
> cannot accept and reject, that once you reject you reject
> everything.

*False* FALSE! Why not make a child complaint on this point. Its a procedural item and they fit nicely in that framework. No legal expenses.

Frankly I’m sick and tired of this. All I want
> is to provide him with what he needs privately AND document
> that I am providing it

This part is okay by any school

AND document that this is where his
> spelling and listening comprehension is being addressed
> appropriately.

This is the part that they’ll never let you get away with if they can help it. They’ll smell a set up—or what the Rock is cookin’—on this point.

I thought you were trying to get services. It doesn’t look to me like we can squeeze enough discrepancy out of any of the clusters that point toward the categories of LD . (Unless your state is different than mine, there are seven categories of LD under which one can qualify: Basic reading, reading comprehension, math calculation, math comprehension, oral expression, listening comprehension, written expression.) Spelling isn’t one of them. His Broad Written Language (which includes the editing problem) is 112 and that’s the cluster that’s generally used for eligibility determinations. I don’t see the Basic Reading skills cluster score, though. Math obviously isn’t a question, either. That Phoneme/Grapheme Knowledge cluster may be where they are getting the Basic Reading skills.

Lots of times schools don’t dismiss kids when their scores no longer meet criteria because it’s a hassle to fight with parents. That obviously isn’t the motive here.

Looks like your child is a great thinker! The WJ-III is so complex (and new) that I need to look over the scores again with a reference book. I’ll post if anything else comes to mind.

Re: the discrepancy 15 - 23 pts. - is that between performance and FS IQ or the highest of the 2?

Make sure you’re using the regressed IQ score if you’re using a formula to compare the achievement/IQ discrepancy; otherwise too many very bright kids get identified and not enough lower IQ kids get services. The upshot is that having an IQ of say 125 doesn’t mean that their average achievement is at the same level; it is lower. There are tables to look up regressed IQs.

Several years back, the LD community was trying to get schools to use the highest of the two IQ domains (VIQ/PIQ) if there were more than 15 point spread between the two. (I thought it saved time over giving a C-Toni or whatever else to test the student’s strength area.) Schools balked (naturally, it wasn’t their idea…).

I was recently, however, bouyed in a high-level IEP meeting where the student was being changed from LD to ED as his primary category. The Ph.D. psychologist brought up the 30 PT (!!!) spread between VIQ/PIQ—higher on VIQ side on the WAIS-III that the student was administered. While most of the sped participants looked vacant at what this 30 point spread seemed to mean, I was relieved that someone with some initials after their name was saying things that I thought were important.

The bottom line is that this standard is not applied consistently across school districts, let alone cross states or the nation. Some still insist on penalizing kids for the processing problem that brings ‘em here to begin with

I’m going to try to answer all of your questions.

1. Method - We asked for NILD educational therapy as an option to consider and were told that there were no other options, therefore we stated that we would provide it privately - 2001

2. Coll vs Main - Thanks for confirming this for me.

3. Transition - We have a transition person in place to help with the college applications, etc.

4. FAPE - In my state there has to be meaningful progress, not small or trivial. Also keep in mind that his Dictation score actually regressed over the years when he was receiving Wilson. Since they wanted to do pre and post testing to monitor his progress to see if the private services were appropriate and failed to do the pre testing don’t you think they harmed his chance at FAPE for that year?

5. Accept & Reject - That’s exactly what I was thinking.

6. Complaint - This is an option, however we’d like to avoid it since we have younger students in the school district all with IEP’s… you know, suttle retaliation…

7. What we want - We have stated in writing that we do not want to seek reimbursement or formal placement outside of the school, just document where the progress is happening and who provided it. If we can’t say that this is where the progress is happening can’t we say that we pulled him out of direct services in 2001 because he was regressing in spelling?

8. Spelling - Spelling is a criteria that can be used for getting services as LD under written expression in my state. (Basic Writing Skills cluster - 89, Spelling - 90, Editing - 90; Phoneme/Grapheme cluster 90, Spelling of Sounds 87, Word Attack - 90; and Sound Awareness - 95). This district has used subtest scores to demonstrate a students needs for interventions, not just cluster scores. Therefore he is eligible as LD under IDEA. We also think that he is eligible under oral comprehension (Understanding Directions - 104 - Listening Comprehension misses it by 1 SS) What do you think?

9. Reading - He was not evaluated for reading, at this point since it is no longer an issue. Math was never an issue.

10. Phoneme/Grapheme - This was administered to determine if there was a auditory discriminition weakness that is causing his poor spelling.

11. W-J II Cog - Ditto, I have Sattler’s 2001 edition that goes into some detail.

Thanks so much for taking an interest.

Spelling scores are not eligibility for special ed. services. Meaning, if the child can read and write, but not spell, then he does not get special ed. for spelling. Modifications and accomodations can be provided and should be, I believe.

So, I guess I have to ask who, the ESE teacher? Who will know? Sometimes it seems I know more than they do. Also, while I’m asking, how do they figure a processing deficit? Same gap range between speed and IQ? And thirdly (while I’m getting free consult :-), does it just have to be in 1 area, or do there have to be multiple areas?

All I’ve known previously is that she more than made the cut - for lack of a better word. Only 19 pts. between VIQ and PIQ, though.

I’m in Jacksonville, Florida.

Like I said, there are different standards within states.

You might want to consult your state plan…or call/write to your parent advocacy agency. They should have folks. If not, they’ll find you someone who can discuss it.

I’m sorry, but I just don’t know.

Cindy wrote:
>
> 1. Method - We asked for NILD educational therapy as an
> option to consider and were told that there were no other
> options, therefore we stated that we would provide it
> privately - 2001

I don’t know what is NILD. Since I always like learning about something new, why not fill me in…In answer to your question, schools generally have the right to choose curriculum. That right is vested with the Board of Education.

> 3. Transition - We have a transition person in place to help
> with the college applications, etc.

Sounds like you have this one covered.
>
> 4. FAPE - In my state there has to be meaningful progress,
> not small or trivial. Also keep in mind that his Dictation
> score actually regressed over the years when he was receiving
> Wilson. Since they wanted to do pre and post testing to
> monitor his progress to see if the private services were
> appropriate and failed to do the pre testing don’t you think
> they harmed his chance at FAPE for that year?

I still don’t think you’ll win on it…if you do it will cost you many, many thousands.

> 5. Accept & Reject - That’s exactly what I was thinking.
>
> 6. Complaint - This is an option, however we’d like to avoid
> it since we have younger students in the school district all
> with IEP’s… you know, suttle retaliation…

This is actually a pretty low-key tactic. Much lower than a 504 suit or due process. That’s when things get really ugly. You, though, must best decide on what’s right for your family.

> 7. What we want - We have stated in writing that we do not
> want to seek reimbursement or formal placement outside of the
> school, just document where the progress is happening and who
> provided it. If we can’t say that this is where the progress
> is happening can’t we say that we pulled him out of direct
> services in 2001 because he was regressing in spelling?

Schools will never (if they are clever—and most are) admit to failing to educate a child…I don’t care what you’ve signed. There are other things that can happen later and they’re too saavy to sign-on that cruise.

> 8. Spelling - Spelling is a criteria that can be used for
> getting services as LD under written expression in my state.
> (Basic Writing Skills cluster - 89, Spelling - 90, Editing -
> 90; Phoneme/Grapheme cluster 90, Spelling of Sounds 87, Word
> Attack - 90; and Sound Awareness - 95). This district has
> used subtest scores to demonstrate a students needs for
> interventions, not just cluster scores. Therefore he is
> eligible as LD under IDEA. We also think that he is eligible
> under oral comprehension (Understanding Directions - 104 -
> Listening Comprehension misses it by 1 SS) What do you think?

I didn’t see it, but I’m looking at it from a different perspective (and it sounds markedly different from your comments).

> 9. Reading - He was not evaluated for reading, at this point
> since it is no longer an issue. Math was never an issue.
>
> 10. Phoneme/Grapheme - This was administered to determine if
> there was a auditory discriminition weakness that is causing
> his poor spelling.
>
> 11. W-J II Cog - Ditto, I have Sattler’s 2001 edition that
> goes into some detail.

Why are you reading Sattler? Do you have a psych background? Testing background?

It sounds like the one thing that you really want—for school to admit they failed your child—is probably not going to happen without a very large fight. You’ll have to prove it. I don’t see it as an easy chore, but someone in your state might be more optimistic.

NILD is deficit stimualtion in a 1:1 setting that is designed to close the gap between achievement and propensity for learning. Go to nild.net to learn more if you want. I am a therapist trained by NILD, I also went through the therapy when I ws 13. I realize that they have the right to choose curriculum, but when it isn’t working and the student is regressing we need to look at other options. They told me there were none. I suggested this and they said no. I could have persued it at this point but chose not to, mainly because I can afford it, but also because I wanted them to see what would happen and felt confident they would with the pre and post testing…

I’m reading Sattler so I can understand what they are trying to tell me. For instance the school at one point told me that WJ3 didn’t have two forms so we couldn’t do pre and post testing. Well… that’s not accurate, and I knew this from Sattler. I do have some training as a therapist to evaluate test scores. It also helps me to have a desk reference handy.

Please explain to me what you are seeing with the test scores and how they are different from mine. To me when you compare the ones I’m concerned with to the 121 verbal from the DAS there is significant discrepancy in the Basic Writting Skills, Phoneme/Grapheme and the Sound Awareness. The Understanding Directions is 17 SS lower than the 121 Verbal. The Oral Comprehension is 14 SS lower so is not a statistically significant discrepancy, but wouldn’t you say it’s weak when you look at the overall profile of achievement? Besides a spelling weakness, he has a history of missing the jest of what’s going on in a lecture, comprehension, yet can take copious and accurate notes which is reflected in the Story Recall.

You are right that I want the school to acknowledge where the progress is happening. This has already been documented in my parental concerns. This included that I felt they failed to provide FAPE because of the pre and post test fiasco, that I am choosing to continue to provide this service privately, that it is inappropriate to insist on having him in collaborative and resource when he can make progress in mainstream and consultative and I reject it. Also keep in mind that parent concerns are just that concerns that are documented. Can’t we say what we want?

Cindy

Since I don’t know your state or school district…or the criteria they use, I cannot say what I think about discrepancies. I think that the WJ-III is so complex that I need to really study the scores and clusters to give you answers. (That means I need to print again—I’ve examined several sets today alone.) I’m not familiar with the DAS at all which doesn’t help me analyze this. Never used it. Intend to ask about it, though.

Once again, examine the clusters or 15 points isn’t statistically significant. The confidence band is wider than that on most subtests. You may say, “they do it;” however, I’m telling you it won’t hold up in court or procedings. A statistician will bounce it in a moment.

When I was trying to get my son’s school to acknowledge that his gains were due to *my* paid efforts and not from their paltry ones, I ran into the same issues. Now, working as a teacher, I say: Try to find closure and move on. They won’t admit what you want them to. As long as they are teaching simultaneously to your intervention, you cannot prove that their intervention wasn’t the one that made a difference.

I wasn’t willing to prove that by standing by and letting my son fail to make reading progress.

You have every right to say what you think under parental concerns. You have every right to be a valued team member in your child’s educational planning.

I totally agree with your placement thoughts. Now, what do you intend to do about that part? Have you spoken with your state’s parent advocacy agency?

You always have the right to pull him from services. They’ll have to take you to due process in order to keep him there. (They won’t with so few goals and all this other stuff going on.) You could then write a 504 plan for accoms/mods in the regular classroom. He’s entitled.

I agree with Carol, I think looking at the whole child to include work samples is helpful in determining areas of weakness. Not all children fit a certian profile. Some kids profiles are all over the board and don’t fit neatly into one specific “label”. My oldest son for example is one who does not fit a typical stereotype of a category. On IQ testing he did not have a significant spread, VIQ 92/PIQ 100, his discrepency between ability/achievement was not considered significant (SS of 78-100 with a full scale IQ of 95), his subtests on the WISC were not considered a spread (low of 6 on digit span/high of 13 on symbol search), he met all developmental milestones on time, and was never considered a behavior issue. He did not have chronic ear infections, spoke on time and was read to starting at an early age. Yet in school he stuggled the 3 R’s came very hard to this child. For the longest time his needs were not met because he did not fit a profile. They looked at ADHD and he was dx’d add-inattentive type-but the teachers always insisted he cannot be this he is HYPOactive, he is well behaved, he has good social skills, he can and does listen in a quiet structed classroom. When dyslexia was suggested the school said well it can’t be that because dyslexics can not write so it can be read (my son prints very neatly and if you can convince him to do cursive his reversals are decreased). The biggest kicker though is despite his difficulties in reading and writing he enjoys doing both and this convinces people he can not have a disability. They ignore the fact that his spelling is still horrible, his word attack skills almost non-existant (according to his reading tutor he “plods” along), he has difficulty doing 2 tasks at the same time (ie watching a video and answering questions on a ditto) clearily things that can interfere with success in school. Yet he has been a member of the band, young authors, and art club. The teachers get such different ideas of him based on what they know of him. His science teacher for example considers him to be a hard worker always paying attention and putting forth extra effort by coming before or after school for help when needed. His literature teacher sees a struggling student who has difficulty with the reading and writing tasks confounded by his inability to pay attention. His math teacher who has him right before lit sees him as a good student who is always on task and a role model student. Is this child 2 different kids? I don’t think so. I think the classes that challange his weaker areas most Lit/Social studies are so tiring to him that he gives the appearance of not paying attention. When asked about what is going on he can relay part of what was discussed or read. Math and science are more hands on and give him the chance to do well. This why I think the whole child should be looked at and assumptions not made based on a label.

My school district really does a neat model in K-3: They test all students at beginning and end of year those years. If student is behind, they get extra services, regardless of income level or discrepancy formulas. We have all K-3 teachers trained in a classroom-type hybrid of Lindamood-Bell and at least one clinically-trained LmB person in each elementary building. In schools that really do it, our test scores are terrific and sped referrals are way down because kids are learning to read in the regular classroom. In other buildings (that just talk the talk), scores are much, much lower and sped referrals remain high.

We’ve learned a lot from this 4-year process! I’ve become a fan of curriculum-based assessment over the wait & fail model.

Now, I’m pushing for O-G training for all 4-12 grade teachers and one of those clinicians in each building. I’m hoping to be a part of a 3-year project that might demonstrate results using this type of instructional base.

So, I agree with your whole-child concept. I try to work the discrepancy formula to the best of my ability, but really just wish I could teach all children.

Susan I think that is wonderful your school district does that. So many times you hear the child must fail before receiveing services. I think this actully makes it harder to reach the child because they are already use to failure. If you tell a child they are “dumb or slow” that is what you are going to get. Keep on advocating maybe it will catch on.

Please email again. I was able to respond to the Virginia lady but not to another whose return email was unavailable to me.

///

.

As it is obvious from your postings that you are a psy., you know prefectly well that placement in sped is, whether right or wrong, based on scores. I must admit, these are interesting test results and we would try very hard to “adjust” information to give placement - but we still have the structure in place that we must follow. If we didn’t we could just switch the numbers of regular education teachers with sped.

love it!!! I constantly am repeating “we are just a school, we are just a school!”

it’s not my data and I’m way down on the importance scale.