Chapter 6: Evaluation

    3301-51-06

    6.1 Instruction and Intervention Supported by Scientifically Based Research - 3301-35-06

    6.2 Request and Referral for Initial Evaluation - 3301-51-06(A)(1)and (B)(1-4)

    6.3 Evaluation Team - 3301-51-01(B)(21); 3301-51-07(I)(1)(e-g)

    6.4 Planning and Conducting the Evaluation - 3301-51-06(F)(1)-(3); 3301-51-06(E)(2)and (3)

    6.5 Reevaluation - 3301-51-06(D)

    6.6 Eligibility Determination and Evaluation Report - 3301-51-06(G)

    6.7 Specific Learning Disabilities – 3301-51-06(H)

    6.8 Definitions of "a Child with a Disability" - 3301-51-01(B)(10)

    • Eligibility Requirements for Disability Categories
    • Criteria for Identifying Children with Autism - 3301-51-01(B)(10)(d)(i)
    • Criteria for Identifying Children with Cognitive Disability - 3301-51-01(B)(10)(d)(ii)(a-b)
    • Criteria for Identifying Children with Deaf-Blindness - 3301-51-01(B)(10)(d)(iii)
    • Criteria for Identifying Children with Deafness or Hearing Impairment - 3301-51-(d)(iv) and (vi); 3301-51-06(J)
    • Criteria for Identifying Children with Emotional Disturbance - 3301-51-01(B)(10)(d)(v)
    • Criteria for Identifying Children with Multiple Disabilities - 3301-51-01(B)(10)(d)(vii); 3301-51-06(I) - 3301-51-01(B)(10)(d)(viii)
    • Criteria for Identifying Children with Orthopedic Impairments - 3301-51-01(B)(10)(d)(viii)
    • Criteria for Identifying Children with Other Health Impairments - 3301-51-1(B)(10)(d)(ix)
    • Criteria for Identifying Children with Specific Learning Disabilities - 3301-51-01 (B)(10)(d)(x); 3301-51-06(H)
    • Criteria for Identifying Children with Speech or Language Impairments - 3301-51- 01(B)(10)(d)(xi)
    • Criteria for Identifying Children with Traumatic Brain Injury - 3301-51-01(B)(10)(d)(xii)
    • Criteria for Identifying Children with Visual Impairments - 3301-51-01(B)(10)(d)(xiii)
    • Criteria for Identifying Children with Developmental Delays - 3301-51-11(C)(6)
    • Other Health Handicapped - Major & Minor - from the EMIS Guidelines

    6.1 Instruction and Intervention Supported by Scientifically Based Research

    State Performance Plan (SPP):

    (See Overview in the Introduction for more information on the SPP.)

    Intent:

    To provide guidance to ensure that all children, including children suspected of having a disability and children identified with one or more disabilities, receive scientifically based, high quality instruction and intervention that are matched to their academic, social-emotional and behavioral needs and are delivered with a comprehensive, integrated system of supports.

    Timelines:

    Consent for evaluation

    Within 30 days of receiving a request for an initial evaluation of a child from either the child’s parents or a public agency, the school district of residence will either obtain parents' consent for an initial evaluation or provide the parents prior written notice stating that the school district does not suspect a disability and will not be conducting an evaluation. The child's parents should document the request for an evaluation in writing.

    Conducting the evaluation

    Within 60 days from receipt of parental consent to evaluate a child, the school district will conduct a comprehensive initial evaluation of the child to identify the child’s educational needs and to determine if the child is a child with a disability.

    If the school district is using a response to intervention (RtI) process, the district cannot use this process to reject a referral or delay the provision of a timely initial evaluation because a child has not participated in the RtI process (OSEP letter to State Directors of Special Education, January 21, 2011).
    If the school district has not implemented an RtI process and it receives a request for an evaluation from parents, the school district cannot begin the RtI process apart from the evaluation timeline. The district must complete the RtI process and the evaluation within the 90 day timeline from the date of the referral (30 days from date of referral and 60 days from parental consent) unless the district does not suspect a disability. If the district does not suspect a disability, it provides the parents with a prior written notice within 30 days of the request.
    Preschool Note
    School districts cannot require other agencies to use an RtI process when identifying preschoolers with disabilities.

    Exceptions to 60-day timeline: The 60-day timeline for conducting the evaluation does not apply to a school district if:

    • The parents of the child repeatedly fails or refuses to produce the child for the evaluation; or
    • The child enrolls in a new school district of residence after the 60-day period has begun and prior to a determination by the child's previous school district of residence regarding whether the child is a child with a disability. This exception applies only if the current school district of residence is making sufficient progress to ensure a prompt completion of the evaluation and the parents and the current school district agree to a specific time when the evaluation will be completed.

    When the existence of a specific learning disability is being determined, the 60-day timeline also can be extended with mutual written agreement between the parents and evaluation team, if additional data are needed that cannot be obtained within the 60-day timeline.

    Evaluation team report (ETR) and documentation of eligibility status

    Within 14 days from the date of eligibility determination or the determination of continued eligibility and prior to the next IEP meeting, the school district of residence must provide the parents a copy of the evaluation team report and the documentation of determination of eligibility or continued eligibility.

    Preschool Note
    Timelines reflect the maximum number of days. For children transitioning from Help Me Grow, timelines may be less than 120 days since an IEP must be implemented by the child's third birthday.

    REQUIREMENT

    3301-51-06
    (A) General
    (1) Each school district shall adopt and implement written policies and procedures, approved by the Ohio Department of Education, Office for Exceptional Children, to ensure that a referral process is employed to determine whether or not a child is a child with a disability. The school district of residence shall ensure that initial evaluations are conducted and that reevaluations are completed.

    (2) Consistent with rule 3301-35-06 of the Administrative Code, each school district shall provide interventions to resolve concerns for any preschool or school-age child who is performing below grade-level standards.

    (3) A school district may not use interventions to delay unnecessarily a child’s being evaluated to determine eligibility for special education services. If such interventions have not been implemented prior to referral for evaluation, appropriate interventions should be implemented during the same sixty-day time frame during which the school conducts a full and individual evaluation

    (4) Each school district shall use data from interventions to determine eligibility for special education services, appropriate instructional practices, and access to the general curriculum. In the case of a preschool-age child, data collected through interventions is part of the differentiated process.

    3301-51-06
    (G) Determination of eligibility
    (2) Special rule for eligibility determination
    A child must not be determined to be a child with a disability under this rule:

    (a) If the determinant factor for that determination is:
    (i) Lack of appropriate instruction in reading, including the essential components of reading instruction as defined in Section 1208(3) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended and specified in the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, January 2002, 20 U.S.C. 6301 (ESEA) (Phonemic awareness, Phonics, Vocabulary development, Reading fluency including oral reading skills and strategies, Reading comprehension);
    (ii) Lack of appropriate instruction in math; or
    (iii) Limited English proficiency; and
    (b) If the child does not otherwise meet the eligibility criteria under paragraph (B)(10) of rule 3301-51-01 of the Administrative Code.

    Scientifically based research

    As defined in both the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 and IDEA 2004, the term "scientifically based research" means research that involves the application of rigorous, systematic and objective procedures to obtain reliable and valid knowledge about education activities and programs. It includes research that:

    • Employs systematic, empirical methods that draw on observation or experiment;
    • Involves rigorous data analyses that are adequate to test the stated hypotheses and justify the general conclusions drawn;
    • Relies on measurements or observational methods that provide reliable and valid data across evaluators and observers, across multiple measurements and observations, and across studies by the same or different investigators;
    • Is evaluated using experimental or quasi-experimental designs in which individuals, entities, programs or activities are assigned to different conditions and with appropriate controls to evaluate the effects of the condition of interest, with a preference for random-assignment experiments or other designs, to the extent that those designs contain within-condition or across-condition controls;
    • Ensures that experimental studies are presented in sufficient detail and clarity to allow for replication or, at a minimum, offer the opportunity to build systematically on their findings; and
    • Has been accepted by a peer-reviewed journal or approved by a panel of independent experts through a comparably rigorous, objective and scientific review.

    GUIDANCE

    Comprehensive and integrated system of high quality instruction and intervention

    When identifying children who are not meeting grade-or age-level expectations, the important first step is to establish that the child has received high quality instruction within the core curriculum. The district's overall improvement process should examine the performance of all children to ensure that the vast majority of children are meeting standards and are receiving high quality instruction delivered by qualified teachers in regular education classes.

    Even given high quality instruction, there will be children who need additional targeted intervention to meet expectations. These interventions must be structured to meet the specific, identified needs and must be provided in addition to the instruction provided to all children. Progress must be monitored closely using data gathered from the intervention to determine whether or not the intervention is having the desired impact. If the child is not progressing as expected, the intervention can be modified, for example, by increasing the amount of time or frequency of the intervention or adjusting the group size of children participating in the intervention.

    In some cases, the child’s satisfactory progress-monitoring data and rate of progress as a result of receiving targeted assistance warrant discontinuation of this assistance; in others, targeted assistance must be continued to produce or maintain improvements in the child’s level of performance and rate of progress. However, there are a small number of children who will require highly individualized intensive interventions to be successful. Ordinarily, these individualized interventions are planned by a school intervention team and require consultation with personnel who have expertise in assessment and knowledge of research-based interventions. If the data indicate that the child is not demonstrating adequate progress when provided with high quality individualized intensive interventions, or when these interventions require more support than can be provided solely within the regular education environment, the child may be suspected of having a disability and be referred for an evaluation. At this point, the district should obtain parental consent for the evaluation, and all requirements pertaining to an initial evaluation, including the timelines, would apply. The data collected as part of the intervention process will become a significant component of the evaluation process.

    There are circumstances when interventions must be implemented concurrently with an evaluation during the 60-day timeline. These situations may occur, for example, when the child’s performance is significantly below that of peers and may require very intensive instruction to remediate; the child exhibits severe behavior problems that significantly disrupt the school environment; or the child has sensory, physical, neurological or developmental conditions that may clearly require intensive support.

    Twice exceptional children

    The term "twice exceptional" is used in the literature to define children who are both gifted and have a disability, such as a learning disability, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, emotional disturbance, Asperger’s Syndrome, sensory disability or physical disability. Many twice exceptional children may go unrecognized because they demonstrate adequate progress in the general curriculum, yet their gifts may mask their disabilities. It is also possible that the twice exceptional child’s areas of deficit can result in school personnel failing to recognize the child’s areas of significant strength and potential.

    When reviewing child progress and matching instruction and interventions to the specific needs of children, districts also should identify those children who display uneven development and growth in skills and abilities. Twice exceptional children will often excel in certain areas while experiencing significant challenges in others. Like all learners, there are no set profiles that can be used to characterize the twice exceptional child, since each child has unique needs. Instruction and interventions should address both the child’s strengths and challenges, and if the child does not make adequate progress when provided with high quality intensive interventions, the district may refer the child for a comprehensive evaluation.

    Assurance of appropriate instruction in special circumstances

    In certain situations it may be more difficult to determine if a child’s poor performance is due to a lack of appropriate instruction in reading or math or if it is the possible result of a disability. These situations could include:

    • Children who have a history of poor attendance or excessive truancy;
    • Children who have been in schools in academic watch, in a latge class size, or in a classroom where a teacher is not highly qualified;
    • Children, including migrant children, who have moved frequently and have attended numerous districts or buildings within a district;
    • Children who enroll in the school district and previously have been home-schooled or attended a private school;
    • Children who lacked exposure to developmentally-appropriate activities; and
    • Children who lacked needed support due to the impact of poverty.

    In the case of children who have moved frequently, attended private school or been home-schooled, the district should attempt to obtain information about the child’s educational history from the parents and other educational entities that the child has attended, to the extent possible. This information could include the type of curricula the child was exposed to and available measures of the child’s progress.

    The district should also obtain current data-based evidence to indicate the child’s present level of performance in mastering academic content standards appropriate for the child’s age or grade level and to determine the child’s progress when provided with high quality instruction and interventions. In addition to other relevant information about the child, the rate of progress can provide an indication of the intensity of instruction the child will require to improve performance. If the rate of the child’s progress is not adequate when provided with intensive individualized intervention, the district may suspect that the child has a disability and refer the child for a comprehensive evaluation.

    In the case of a child who has a history of poor attendance or excessive truancy, the district must determine if the primary reason for the child’s poor performance is the result of reduced opportunities for instruction and learning, a lack of appropriate instruction or the presence of a disability. The same process described previously would also apply in this situation, but the district would also need to develop an intervention plan to address the child’s attendance or truancy problem to eliminate reduced instructional time as the cause of the child’s poor performance.

    Components of effective interventions

    For preschool children, interventions may be provided in an early childhood setting where the child is being served. Districts should have well-established dialogues and partnerships with community providers. Preschool children served in community settings are district children. Districts should consider the impact of failing to work with community providers in relationship to children being ready for kindergarten and schools being ready for children.

    Effective interventions must include a number of key components to allow the district to establish that an intervention was or was not successful with a particular child or children. The key components include the following:

    • A clear statement in measurable terms, of the specific skill or behavior that will be targeted by the intervention;
    • Baseline information on the child’s present performance compared to that of same-age peers on the same skill or behavior, and an identified target goal that will be reached as a result of the intervention;
    • Involvement of the child’s parents in the problem-solving process used to design the intervention and the strategy that will be used to measure progress;
    • Identification of a scientific, research-based intervention that will be implemented to target the identified problem;
    • A description of the setting in which the intervention will occur and the individual(s) responsible for conducting the intervention;
    • Assurance that the selected intervention is culturally and linguistically appropriate for the particular child;
    • Identification of a method to measure the child’s response to the intervention and the frequency with which that progress measurement will occur;
    • Clear criteria, decision rules and timelines for determining an adequate or inadequate response to the intervention;
    • A plan to ensure that the intervention is implemented as designed; and
    • Adequate documentation of the intervention to assist in current and future decision making.

    Effective interventions are NOT:

    • Procedures to be rushed through in order to obtain a “real evaluation” for a child;
    • Descriptions of placements in programs without specific data-driven information on the interventions that will be provided as part of that placement;
    • Strategies that do not address the specific areas of concern;
    • General descriptions of modifications or accommodations; or
    • Vague methods to measure progress.

    Scientifically based research

    Both the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 and IDEA 2004 require districts to identify and use scientifically based research in designing and implementing educational programs, interventions and instructional strategies. Given the large number of instructional materials and practices that are promoted as being effective, it is important for educators to develop the ability to discern the difference between research evidence and opinion. An intervention is considered to be scientifically based when there is adequate empirical support for its efficacy, in the form of published, peer-reviewed studies of the intervention itself, or of major components of the intervention, using research methods with adequate internal and external validity.

    Although judgment and personal experience play a significant role in shaping effective instruction, these factors cannot override research that provides evidence of the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of certain instructional practices. The highest standard of evidence would be research findings that are published in peer-reviewed journals. In many areas, educational research that meets this standard is unavailable, so educators will need to rely on a consensus of studies that point to certain conclusions. In all cases, it is the response of the child to the particular intervention or strategy that should be used as the standard for determining effectiveness. Even though research might support a certain practice, there is no guarantee that the practice will be effective for all children.

     

    6.2 Request and Referral for Initial Evaluation

    State Performance Plan (SPP):

    (See Overview in the Introduction for more information on the SPP.)

    Intent:

    To ensure that when an initial evaluation has been requested either by the parents or a public agency to determine whether a child is a child with a disability, the school district (LEA) obtains the parents' informed written consent for the evaluation; the evaluation is conducted within the timeline stated in the requirements under IDEA; and state rule; and the parents are provided with a written, understandable explanation of their educational rights and the responsibilities of the school district (LEA).

    Timelines:

    Consent for evaluation

    Within 30 days of receiving a request for an initial evaluation of a child from either the child's parents or a public agency, the school district of residence will either obtain parents' consent for an initial evaluation or provide the parents prior written notice stating that the school district does not suspect a disability and will not be conducting an evaluation. The child's parents should document the request for an evaluation in writing.

    Conducting the evaluation

    Within 60 days from receipt of parental consent to evaluate a child, the school district will conduct a comprehensive initial evaluation of the child to identify the child's educational needs and to determine if the child is a child with a disability.

    If the school district is using a response to intervention (RtI) process, the district cannot use this process to reject a referral or delay the provision of a timely initial evaluation because a child has not participated in the RtI process (OSEP letter to State Directors of Special Education, January 21, 2011).
    If the school district has not implemented an RtI process and it receives a request for an evaluation from parents, the school district cannot begin the RtI process apart from the evaluation timeline. The district must complete the RtI process and the evaluation within the 90 day timeline from the date of the referral (30 days from date of referral and 60 days from parental consent) unless the district does not suspect a disability. If the district does not suspect a disability, it provides the parents with a prior written notice within 30 days of the request.
    Preschool Note
    School districts cannot require other agencies to use an RtI process when identifying preschoolers with disabilities.

    Exceptions to 60-day timeline: The 60-day timeline for conducting the evaluation does not apply to a school district if:

    • The parents of the child repeatedly fail or refuse to produce the child for the evaluation; or
    • The child enrolls in a new school district of residence after the 60-day period has begun and prior to a determination by the child's previous school district of residence regarding whether the child is a child with a disability. This exception applies only if the current school district of residence is making sufficient progress to ensure a prompt completion of the evaluation and the parents and the current school district agree to a specific time when the evaluation will be completed.

    When the existence of a specific learning disability is being determined, the 60-day timeline can also be extended with mutual written agreement between the parents and eligibility team if additional data are needed that cannot be obtained within the 60-day timeline.

    Evaluation team report (ETR) and documentation of eligibility status

    Within 14 days from the date of eligibility determination or the determination of continued eligibility and prior to the next IEP meeting, the school district of residence must provide the parents a copy of the evaluation team report and the documentation of determination of eligibility or continued eligibility.

    Preschool Note
    Timelines reflect the maximum number of days. For children transitioning from Help Me Grow, timelines may be less than 120 days since an IEP must be implemented by the child's third birthday.

    REQUIREMENT

    3301-51-01
    (B) Definitions
    The following terms are defined as they are used in rules 3301-51-01 to 3301-51-09 and 3301-51-11 of the Administrative Code:
    (51) "Referral" means the date the public school district or community school receives a parent's, school district’s, or other educational agency's request for an initial evaluation or reevaluation.

    3301-51-06
    (B) Initial evaluations
    (1) General
    Each school district of residence must conduct a full and individual initial evaluation before the initial provision of special education and related services under Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, as amended by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, December 2004 (IDEA), to a child with a disability residing in the school district.

    (2) Request for initial evaluation
    Consistent with the consent requirements in rule 3301-51-05 of the Administrative Code, either a parent of a child or a public agency may initiate a request for an initial evaluation to determine if the child is a child with a disability.

    (3) A school district of residence will, within thirty days of receipt of a request for an evaluation from either a parent of a child or a public agency, either obtain parental consent for an initial evaluation or provide to the parents prior written notice stating that the school district does not suspect a disability and will not be conducting an evaluation.

    (4) Procedures for initial evaluation
    The initial evaluation:

    (a) Must be conducted within sixty days of receiving parental consent for the evaluation; and
    (b) Must consist of procedures:
    (i) To determine if the child is a child with a disability as defined in paragraph(B)(10) of rule 3301-51-01 of the Administrative Code; and
    (ii) To determine the educational needs of the child.

    (5) Exception
    The time frame described in paragraph (B)(4)(a) of this rule does not apply to a school district if:

    (a) The parent of a child repeatedly fails or refuses to produce the child for the evaluation; or
    (b) A child enrolls in a new school district of residence after the relevant time frame in paragraph (B)(4)(a) of this rule has begun, and prior to a determination by the child’s previous school district of residence as to whether the child is a child with a disability as defined in paragraph (B)(10) of rule 3301-51-01 of the Administrative Code.

    (6) This exception in paragraph (B)(5)(b) of this rule applies only if the subsequent school district of residence is making sufficient progress to ensure a prompt completion of the evaluation, and the parent and subsequent school district agree to a specific time when the evaluation will be completed.

    3301-51-05
    (C) Parental consent
    (1) Parental consent for initial evaluation

    (a) The school district proposing to conduct an initial evaluation to determine if a child qualifies as a child with a disability under the definition of "child with a disability" in rule 3301-51-01 of the Administrative Code must, after providing notice consistent with the requirements of this rule, obtain informed consent, consistent with the definition of "consent" in rule 3301-51-01 of the Administrative code, from the parent of the child before conducting the evaluation.

    3301-51-01
    (B) Definitions
    The following terms are defined as they are used in rules 3301-51-01 to 3301-51-09 and 3301-51-11 of the Administrative Code:
    (12) "Consent" means that:

    (a) The parent has been fully informed of all information relevant to the activity for which consent is sought, in the parent’s native language, or other mode of communication;
    (b) The parent understands and agrees in writing to the carrying out of the activity for which the parent consent is sought, and the consent describes that activity and lists the records (if any) that will be released and to whom; and
    (i) The parent understands that the granting of consent is voluntary on the part of the parent and may be revoked at anytime.
    (ii) If a parent revokes consent, that revocation is not retroactive (i.e., it does not negate an action that has occurred after the consent was given and before the consent was revoked).

    GUIDANCE

    Request and referral for initial evaluation

    Either parents of a child or a public agency may initiate a request for an initial evaluation. If the school district, after reviewing all relevant information about the child, agrees that an evaluation is necessary to determine if the child is a child with a disability, the district should obtain parents' consent. The school district should promptly request parental consent to evaluate a child if the child has not made adequate progress when provided with high quality interventions or when these interventions require a level of intensity that can be provided only with special education and related services.

    All parental requests for evaluation for a suspected disability should be considered very seriously, and as a first step, it is typically helpful for district personnel to meet with the parents to gain a better understanding of their concerns for their child. In most cases, an explanation of the sequence of intervention activities (i.e., targeted interventions and individualized intensive interventions, coupled with progress monitoring) will reassure the parents that the child’s needs are recognized and are being addressed by the school. As explained in Evaluation - 6.1 Instruction and Intervention Supported by Scientifically-Based Research, - in some cases the district may agree to an evaluation prior to any interventions taking place. In that instance, the district should obtain the parents' consent OR parent consent and implement an intervention during the 60-day timeline. However, if a preponderance of data from multiple sources indicates that the child would not be eligible for special education, the district should send prior written notice to the parents indicating that the district will not be conducting an evaluation. Regardless of the decision by the district, every attempt should be made to assist the parents and address the needs of the child, even if these needs do not require special education services.

    For children transitioning from Help Me Grow, discussion should occur at the Preschool Transition Conference (PSTC) and there should be a review of information available to determine if the child is suspected of having a disability. If not, a Prior Written Notice to Parents PR-01 form should be provided and referral processes should be addressed.

    The ETR process chart identifies the steps that must be taken when the school district receives a request to evaluate a child for a suspected disability or when the school district suspects a disability and refers the child for an evaluation

    Definition of initial evaluation

    An initial evaluation is conducted when:

    • The district or parents first suspect a disability;
    • A child has been evaluated previously and found not eligible for special education services and is evaluated again at a later date;
    • A child transitions from Help Me Grow (HMG) to preschool special education;
    • A child moves into the district from out of state;
    • The parents have revoked consent and want the child once again to receive special education and related services; and
    • A child has exited special education and is evaluated again at a later date.
       

    An evaluation would be considered a reevaluation and should be completed as soon as possible, when a child's ETR or IEP have expired because the child has:

    • Moved frequently;
    • Been incarcerated;
    • Been truant;or
    • Been placed in a residential facility;

    The primary purpose of a reevaluation is to confirm that the child continues to be a child with a disability.

    Referral process

    Parents' request for evaluation
    As soon as possible and no later than 30 days from receiving a parental request for an initial evaluation of a child, the school district of residence must:

    • Explain the referral process to the parents;
    • Provide the parents with a copy of procedural safeguards, Whose IDEA Is This?;
    • Provide the parent Prior Written Notice to Parents PR-01 form indicating the district's intent to conduct an evaluation and obtain parents' consent for the evaluation on the Parent Consent for Evaluation PR-05 form; or
    • Provide the parents the Prior Written Notice to Parents PR-01 form stating that the school district does not suspect a disability and will not be conducting an evaluation.

    See Child Find - 3.2 Responsibilities in Locating Children with Disabilities for clarification on date of referral.

    School district referral for evaluation
    If the school district suspects that the child has a disability and proposes to conduct an initial evaluation, the district must:

    • Contact the parents and explain the referral process;
    • Provide the parents a copy of procedural safeguards, Whose IDEA Is This?;
    • Provide the parents the Prior Written Notice to Parents PR-01 form indicating the district's intent to conduct an evaluation and describing each evaluation procedure, assessment, record or report that the district used as a basis for initiating the evaluation;
    • Request permission to evaluate the child and provide the parents with the Parent Consent for Evaluation PR-05 form.

    When a school district and parents agree to evaluate a child, the district should provide the parents with the name, school address, phone number and e-mail address of a district contact person who is available to respond to any questions the parents may have about the proposed evaluation.

    Preschool Note: This may occur during the Preschool Transition Conference (PSTC) or at a later date agreed to by all parties.

    Parents' consent for initial evaluation
    The district must obtain informed consent from the parents for the initial evaluation on the Parent Consent for Evaluation PR-05 form before conducting the evaluation. The district should document attempts to obtain the parents' consent by maintaining detailed records that include the dates, times and results of their efforts. The documentation, which may include phone logs and copies of written correspondence including electronic communications, should be filed in the child's education record.

    Exception to 60-day timeline:

    The 60-day timeline for conducting the evaluation does not apply to a school district if:

    • The parents of the child repeatedly fails or refuses to produce the child for the evaluation; or
    • The child enrolls in a new school district of residence after the 60-day period has begun, but prior to a determination by the child’s previous school district of residence regarding whether the child is a child with a disability. This exception applies only if the current school district of residence is making sufficient progress to ensure a prompt completion of the evaluation and the parents and the current school district agree to a specific time when the evaluation will be completed.

    When determining the existence of a specific learning disability, the 60-day timeline also can be extended with mutual written agreement between the parents and eligibility team if it is determined that additional data are needed that cannot be obtained within the 60-day timeline.

    The school district of residence must conduct a full and individual initial evaluation before starting the initial provision of special education and related services to a child with a disability residing in the school district.

    Parental consent for initial evaluation

    The school district must obtain informed consent for the initial evaluation and should document attempts to obtain the parents’ consent by maintaining detailed records that include dates, times and results of their efforts. The documentation is filed in the child’s education record. Documentation may include telephone logs, copies of written correspondence including electronic communications, and/or completion of Documentation of Attempts to Obtain Parent Participation (optional form).

     

    6.3 Evaluation Team

    State Performance Plan (SPP):

    (See Overview in the Introduction for more information on the SPP.)

    Intent:

    To identify who is required to participate in the planning, conducting and reviewing of the information collected during the evaluation procedure in order to make an informed determination regarding (1) whether the child is eligible for special education services; and (2) the extent of the child's educational needs.

    Timelines:

    Consent for evaluation

    Within 30 days of receiving a request for an initial evaluation of a child from either the child's parents or a public agency, the school district of residence will either obtain parents' consent for an initial evaluation or provide the parents prior written notice stating that the school district does not suspect a disability and will not be conducting an evaluation. The child’s parents should document the request for an evaluation in writing.

    Conducting the evaluation

    Within 60 days from receipt of parental consent to evaluate a child, the school district will conduct a comprehensive initial evaluation of the child to identify the child’s educational needs and to determine if the child is a child with a disability.

    If the school district is using a response to intervention (RtI) process, the district cannot use this process to reject a referral or delay the provision of a timely initial evaluation because a child has not participated in the RtI process (OSEP letter to State Directors of Special Education, January 21, 2011). (OSEP letter to State Directors of Special Education, January 21, 2011).
    If the school district has not implemented an RtI process and it receives a request for an evaluation from parents, the school district cannot begin the RtI process apart from the evaluation timeline. The district must complete the RtI process and the evaluation within the 90 day timeline from the date of the referral (30 days from date of referral and 60 days from parental consent) unless the district does not suspect a disability. If the district does not suspect a disability, it provides the parents with a prior written notice within 30 days of the request.
    Preschool Note
    School districts cannot require other agencies to use an RtI process when identifying preschoolers with disabilities.

    Exceptions to 60-day timeline: The 60-day timeline for conducting the evaluation does not apply to a school district if:

    • The parents of the child repeatedly fail or refuse to produce the child for the evaluation; or
    • The child enrolls in a new school district of residence after the 60-day period has begun and prior to a determination by the child’s previous school district of residence regarding whether the child is a child with a disability. This exception applies only if the current school district of residence is making sufficient progress to ensure a prompt completion of the evaluation and the parents and the current school district agree to a specific time when the evaluation will be completed.

    When the existence of a specific learning disability is being determined, the 60-day timeline also can be extended with mutual written agreement between the parents and eligibility team if additional data are needed that cannot be obtained within the 60-day timeline.

    Evaluation team report (ETR) and documentation of eligibility status

    Within 14 days from the date of eligibility determination or the determination of continued eligibility and prior to the next IEP meeting, the school district of residence must provide the parents a copy of the evaluation team report and the documentation of determination of eligibility or continued eligibility.

    Preschool Note
    Timelines reflect the maximum number of days. For children transitioning from Help Me Grow, timelines may be less than 120 total days since an IEP must be implemented by the child's third birthday.

    REQUIREMENT

    3301-51-01
    (B) Definitions
    (21) "Evaluation team" means the IEP team and other qualified professionals.

    3301-51-07
    (I) IEP team
    (1) General
    The school district must ensure that the IEP team for each child with a disability includes:

    (a) The parents of the child;
    (b) Not less than one regular education teacher of the child (if the child is, or may be, participating in the regular education environment);
    (c) Not less than one special education teacher of the child or, where appropriate, not less then one special education provider of the child;
    (d) A representative of the school district who:
    (i) Is qualified to provide, or supervise the provision of, specially designed instruction to meet the unique needs of children with disabilities;
    (ii) Is knowledgeable about the general education curriculum; and
    (iii) Is knowledgeable about the availability of resources of the school district;
    (e) An individual who can interpret the instructional implications of evaluation results,who may be a member of the team describe in paragraphs (I)(1)(b) to (I)(1)(f) of this rule;
    (f) At the discretion of the parent or the school district, other individuals who have knowledge or special expertise regarding the child, including related services personnel as appropriate; and
    (g) Whenever appropriate, the child with a disability.

    3301-51-06
    (H) Additional procedures for identifying children with specific learning disabilities
    (2) Additional group members
    The determination of whether a child suspected of having a specific learning disability is a child with a disability, as defined in rule 3301-51-01 of the Administrative Code,must be made by the child’s parents and a team of qualified professionals which must include:

    (a) The child’s regular teacher; or
    (b) If the child does not have a regular teacher, a regular classroom teacher qualified to teach a child of the child's age; or
    (c) For a child of less than school-age, an individual qualified by the Ohio Department of Education to teach a child of the child's age; and
    (d) At least one person qualified to conduct individual diagnostic examinations of children, such as a school psychologist, speech-language pathologist, or remedial reading teacher.

    GUIDANCE

    When a school district suspects that a child may be a child with a disability, the district should designate members of the evaluation team which should include, at a minimum, the required members listed in the preceding Requirements section 3301-51-07.

    • The evaluation team means the IEP team and other qualified professionals.
    • Since there is no IEP team in place for an initial evaluation, all the required members for an IEP team may not be involved in planning the evaluation and reviewing existing information. However, in most instances many of the evaluation team members will also be the same members required for an IEP team.
    • In the case of a reevaluation, all required members of the IEP team and other qualified professionals who have been invited to be part of the evaluation team must be involved in the evaluation planning process and reviewing the existing information. (See Evaluation - 6.5 Reevaluation)

    Additional evaluation team members

    The membership of the evaluation team will vary based on the characteristics and needs of the child. At the discretion of the district and the parents, additional members could be invited to participate if they have knowledge or specialized expertise regarding the child. These individuals could include representatives from other agencies that are assisting the family and additional family members, friends or caregivers. If a child is suspected of having a learning disability, the team must include appropriate team members needed to make this determination.

    In the case of children and families from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds or for those families with disabilities, it is especially important for the district to convey the message that the parents are a valuable resource and that their culture, background and needs are respected. Consideration should be given to including additional members requested by the family and to the provision of any needed accommodations. In some cases, it may be important to have an individual present who is familiar with the family’s culture, such as another family member or a representative from the community. It is essential that district personnel avoid drawing conclusions or making assumptions about parental behaviors and attitudes that may differ from those held within the dominant culture and could lead to negative expectations for the child. When seeking consent for any activity, the district must fully inform the parents of all information relevant to that activity in the parents' native language or other mode of communication. As a result, the district must provide a translator when meeting with parents who speak a language other than English, provide information in Braille when needed and provide an interpreter for parents who are deaf to ensure full participation in the process. Resources that may be useful include community churches and ODE's Lau Resource Center.

    Engaging parents in the process

    The input provided by parents is crucial to understanding the child and his or her current performance. Since most parents feel some level of intimidation when meeting with a group of education professionals concerning their child’s performance, it is important for school personnel to make every effort to ensure that parents are active participants in the process by:

    • Involving parents in the intervention process prior to a referral for evaluation;
    • Meeting with parents to explain the evaluation process;
    • Providing for parents' input through a variety of methods such as individual phone calls, conference calls, video conferencing or home visits;
    • Making a conscious effort to minimize the use of educational jargon and acronyms when communicating with parents;
    • Providing a translator when meeting with parents who speak a language other than English; and
    • Providing an interpreter when meeting with parents who are deaf or hard of hearing.

     

    6.4 Planning and Conducting the Evaluation

    State Performance Plan (SPP):

    (See Overview in the Introduction for more information on the SPP.)

    Intent:

    To ensure, when determining whether a child has a disability, that the assessment tools and strategies used as part of the comprehensive evaluation are technically sound, nondiscriminatory and tailored to the needs of the individual child.

    Timelines:

    Consent for evaluation

    Within 30 days of receiving a request for an initial evaluation of a child from either the child's parents or a public agency, the school district of residence will either obtain parents' consent for an initial evaluation or provide the parents prior written notice stating that the school district does not suspect a disability and will not be conducting an evaluation. The child's parents should document the request for an evaluation in writing.

    Conducting the evaluation

    Within 60 days from receipt of parental consent to evaluate a child, the school district will conduct a comprehensive initial evaluation of the child to identify the child’s educational needs and to determine if the child is a child with a disability. For assistance in calculating the 60-day timeline, refer to Child Find Clarification Related to Calculating 60 Days, Ohio Department of Education, Office for Exceptional Children.

    If the school district is using a response to intervention (RtI) process, the district cannot use this process to reject a referral or delay the provision of a timely initial evaluation because a child has not participated in the RtI process (OSEP letter to State Directors of Special Education, January 21, 2011).
    If the school district has not implemented an RtI process and it receives a request for an evaluation from parents, the school district cannot begin the RtI process apart from the evaluation timeline. The district must complete the RtI process and the evaluation within the 90 day timeline from the date of the referral (30 days from date of referral and 60 days from parental consent) unless the district does not suspect a disability. If the district does not suspect a disability, it provides the parents with a prior written notice within 30 days of the request.
    Preschool Note
    School districts cannot require other agencies to use an RtI process when identifying preschoolers with disabilities.

    Exceptions to 60-day timeline: The 60-day timeline for conducting the evaluation does not apply to a school district if:

    • The parents of the child repeatedly fail or refuse to produce the child for the evaluation; or
    • The child enrolls in a new school district of residence after the 60-day period has begun and prior to a determination by the child’s previous school district of residence regarding whether the child is a child with a disability. This exception applies only if the current school district of residence is making sufficient progress to ensure a prompt completion of the evaluation and the parents and the current school district agree to a specific time when the evaluation will be completed.

    When the existence of a specific learning disability is being determined, the 60-day timeline also can be extended with mutual written agreement between the parents and eligibility team if additional data are needed that cannot be obtained within the 60-day timeline.

    Evaluation team report (ETR) and documentation of eligibility status

    Within 14 days from the date of eligibility determination or the determination of continued eligibility and prior to the next IEP meeting, the school district of residence must provide the parents a copy of the evaluation team report and the documentation of determination of eligibility or continued eligibility.

    Preschool Note
    Timelines reflect the maximum number of days. For children transitioning from Help Me Grow, timelines may be less than 120 days since an IEP must be implemented by the child's third birthday.

    REQUIREMENT

    3301-51-06
    (F) Additional requirements for evaluations and reevaluations
    (1) Review of existing evaluation data
    As part of the initial evaluation, if appropriate, and as part of any reevaluation, the evaluation team shall develop an evaluation plan that will provide for the following and be summarized in an evaluation team report:

    (a) Review existing evaluation data on the child, including:
    (i) Evaluations and information provided by the parents of the child;
    (ii) Current classroom-based, local, or state assessments and classroom-based observations;
    (iii) Observations by teachers and related services providers;
    (iv) Data about the child's progress in the general curriculum, or, for the preschool-age child, data pertaining to the child's growth and development;
    (v) Data from previous interventions, including:
    (a) Interventions required by rule 3301-51-06 of the Administrative Code; and
    (b) For the preschool child, data from early intervention, community, or preschool program providers; and
    (vi) Any relevant trend data beyond the past twelve months, including the review of current and previous IEPs; and
    (b) On the basis of that review and input from the child's parents, identify what additional data, if any, are needed to determine:
    (i) Whether the child is a child with a disability, as defined in rule 3301-51-01 of the Administrative Code, and the educational needs of the child;
    (ii) In the case of a reevaluation of a child, whether the child continues to have such a disability and the educational needs of the child;
    (iii) The present levels of academic achievement and related developmental needs of the child;
    (iv) Whether the child needs special education and related services; or
    (v) In the case of a reevaluation of a child, whether the child continues to need special education and related services; and
    (vi) Whether any additions or modifications to the special education and related services are needed to enable the child to meet the measurable annual goals set out in the IEP of the child and to participate, as appropriate, in the general education curriculum.

    (2) Conduct of review

    The group described in paragraph (F)(1) of this rule may conduct its review without a meeting.

    (C) Source of data

    The school district must administer such assessments and other evaluation measures as may be needed to produce the data identified under paragraph (G)(1) of this rule.

    3301-51-06
    (E) Evaluation procedures
    (1) Notice
    The school district of residence must provide prior written notice to the parents of a child with a disability, in accordance with rule 3301-51-05 of the Administrative Code, that describes any evaluation procedures the school district proposes to conduct.

    (2) Conduct of evaluation
    In conducting the evaluation, the school district must:

    (a) Use a variety of assessment tools and strategies to gather relevant functional, developmental, and academic information about the child, including information provided by the parent, that may assist in determining:
    (i) Whether the child is a child with a disability as defined in paragraph (B)(10) of rule 3301-51-01 of the Administrative Code; and
    (ii) The content of the child’s individualized education program (IEP), including information related to enabling the child to be involved in and progress in the general education curriculum (or for a preschool child to participate in appropriate activities);
    (b) Not use any single measure or assessment as the sole criterion for determining whether a child is a child with a disability and for determining an appropriate educational program for the child; and
    (c) Use technically sound instruments that may assess the relative contribution of cognitive and behavioral factors, in addition to physical or developmental factors.

    (3) Other evaluation procedures
    Each school district must ensure that:

    (a) Assessments and other evaluation materials used to assess a child under this rule:
    (i) Are selected and administered so as not to be discriminatory on a racial or cultural basis;
    (ii) Provided and administered in the child’s native language or other mode of communication and in the form most likely to yield accurate information about what the child knows and can do academically, developmentally, and functionally, unless it is clearly not feasible to so provide or administer;
    (iii) Are used for the purposes for which the assessments or measures are valid and reliable;
    (iv) Are administered by trained and knowledgeable personnel; and
    (v) Are administered in accordance with any instructions provided by the producer of the assessments.
    (b) Assessments and other evaluation materials include those tailored to assess specific areas of educational need and not merely those that are designed to provide a single general intelligence quotient.
    (c) Assessments are selected and administered so as best to ensure that if an assessment is administered to a child with impaired sensory, manual, or speaking skills, the assessment results accurately reflect the child’s aptitude or achievement level or whatever other factors the test purports to measure rather than reflecting the child's impaired sensory, manual, or speaking skills (unless those skills are the factors that the test purports to measure);
    (d) The child is assessed in all areas related to the suspected disability, including, if appropriate, health, vision, hearing, social and emotional status, general intelligence, academic performance, communicative status, and motor abilities;
    (e) Assessments of children with disabilities who transfer from one school district to another school district in the same school year are coordinated with the children’s prior and subsequent schools, as necessary and as expeditiously as possible, consistent with paragraphs (B)(5)(b) and (B)(6) of this rule, to ensure prompt completion of the full evaluations.
    (f) In evaluating each child with a disability under paragraphs (E) to (G) of this rule, the evaluation is sufficiently comprehensive to identify all of the child’s special education and related services needs, whether or not commonly linked to the disability category in which the child has been classified.
    (g) Assessment tools and strategies that provide relevant information that directly assists persons in determining the educational needs of the child are provided.
    (h) Medical consultation shall be encouraged for a preschool or school-age child on a continuing basis, especially when school authorities feel that there has been a change in the child's behavior or educational functioning or when new symptoms are detected; and
    (i) For preschool-age children, as appropriate, the evaluation shall include the following specialized assessments:
    (i) Physical examination completed by a licensed doctor of medicine or doctor of osteopathy in cases where the disability is primarily the result of a congenital or acquired physical disability;
    (ii) Vision examination conducted by an eye care specialist in cases where the disability is primarily the result of a visual impairment; and
    (iii) An audiological examination completed by a certified or licensed audiologist in cases where the disability is primarily the result of a hearing impairment.

    3301-56-06
    (B) Initial evaluations
    (5) Exception
    The time frame described in paragraph (B)(4) of this rule (sixty-day time frame between parental consent and evaluation) does not apply to a school district if:

    (b) A child enrolls in a new school district of residence after the relevant time frame in paragraph (B)(4) of this rule has begun, and prior to a determination by the child’s previous district of residence as to whether the child is a child with a disability as defined in paragraph (B)(10) of rule 3301-51-01 of the Administrative Code.

    (6) This exception in paragraph (B)(5) of this rule applies only if the subsequent school district of residence is making sufficient progress to ensure a prompt completion of the evaluation, and the parent and subsequent school district agree to a specific time when the evaluation will be completed.

    3301-51-06
    (H) Additional procedures for identifying children with specific learning disabilities
    (3) Determining the existence of a specific learning disability

    (c) The school district must promptly request parental consent to evaluate the child to determine if the child needs special education and related services, and must adhere to the time frames described in paragraphs (B) and (D) of this rule unless the time frames are extended by mutual agreement of the child's parents and a group of qualified professionals, as described in paragraph (G)(1)(a) of this rule:
    (i) If, prior to a referral, a child has not made adequate progress after an appropriate period of time when provided instruction as described in paragraphs (H)(3)(b)(i) and (H)(3)(b)(ii) of this rule; and
    (ii) Whenever a child is referred for an evaluation.

    3301-51-06
    (C) Screening for instructional purposes is not evaluation

    The screening of a child by a teacher or a specialist to determine appropriate instructional strategies for curriculum implementation shall not be considered to be an evaluation for eligibility for special education and related services.

    GUIDANCE

    Planning the evaluation

    When it is determined that a child should receive a full and individual evaluation,the evaluation team must develop an evaluation plan and review the existing information that has been gathered from multiple sources and define a clear purpose for any additional assessments that may be needed.

    • The evaluation team means the IEP team and other qualified professionals. (See Evaluation - 6.3 Evaluation Team.)
    • Since there is no IEP team in place for an initial evaluation, all the required members for an IEP team may not be involved in planning the evaluation and reviewing existing information. However, in most instances many of the evaluation team members will also be the same members required for an IEP team.
    • In the case of a reevaluation, all required members of the IEP team and other qualified professionals who have been invited to be part of the evaluation team must be involved in the evaluation planning process and reviewing the existing information. (See Evaluation - 6.5 Reevaluation.)

    The purpose of the evaluation process is to gather information about the child's performance to determine if the educational needs of the child can best be met with special education services and also to determine the appropriate instruction and interventions to meet the particular needs of the child.

    A comprehensive evaluation is a multidimensional assessment process tailored to the needs of the individual child and not a standard battery of tests administered to all children suspected of needing special education services. Assessments that measure general intelligence can be administered if deemed appropriate by the evaluation team but assessments are required only when determining if the child meets the criteria for cognitive disability. The assessment of general intelligence used to determine if a child is a child with a cognitive disability must be designed for individual administration and must be administered by a school psychologist or a qualified psychologist.

    For preschool, all areas of development must be evaluated using one method. (See Preschool - 10.1 Eligibility)

    Accepting an out-of-state evaluation team report (ETR)

    When a child moves into Ohio from another state, the school district must convene an IEP team and determine whether or not it will accept the child's out-of-state ETR.

    • The district may accept the out- of- state ETR if it has all of the required components of an Ohio ETR and the district agrees with the conclusions of the ETR. If the district does accept the out-of-state ETR, it is,in effect, adopting the out- of- state ETR as its own. The next ETR the district completes for the child will be a reevaluation, NOT an initial evaluation, and will be completed on the timeline of the out-of-state ETR.
    • If the out-of-state ETR has all of the required components of an Ohio ETR and the district agrees with the conclusions of the ETR except for the disability category which is not one used by Ohio (e.g., significant developmental delay), the district must conduct an evaluation, even if it only consist of a records review. This evaluation will be considered an initial evaluation.
    • If the district does not accept the out-of-state ETR, the district must complete an evaluation. This evaluation will be an initial evaluation. While the district is completing this evaluation, it must provide the child with the supports and services described in the child's out-of-state IEP or provide the child with comparable services. The district will NOT create a new IEP until it completes its initial ETR.

    Review of existing evaluation data

    In developing the plan for the evaluation, the evaluation team begins with a review of existing evaluation data including:

    • Evaluations and information provided by the parents of the child;
    • Data that document the child's response to research-based interventions and, for the preschool child, data from early intervention, community or preschool program providers;
    • Data that document how the child responded to standardized testing in all areas, including academic achievement, language skills, decoding abilities, fluency skills, behavior and functional skills;
    • Performance on current classroom-based, local or state-wide assessments;
    • Interviews with the child when appropriate;
    • Observations by teachers and other school personnel in the classroom and in other settings that are relevant to the child's difficulties;
    • Data about the child's progress in the general curriculum or, for the preschool-age child, data pertaining to the child's growth and development;
    • Any relevant trend data beyond the past 12 months;
    • Career assessments;
    • Vocational evaluations;
    • Situational assessments;
      • Situational assessments provide a systematic observation process for evaluating performance and behaviors in a controlled or semi-controlled environment.These assessments may include having a child perform job tasks in a real work environment.
    • Assessments provided by adult and community agencies; and
    • Self-determination scales and inventories.

    Other sources of diagnostic information that can provide relevant information about a child's skills and abilities include:

    • Data from universal screening assessments;
    • Data from curriculum-based assessments that were administered to determine the effectiveness of previous interventions;
    • Work samples;
    • Interviews;
    • Behavior checklists; and
    • Review of the child's educational history including attendance patterns and previous intervention history.

    Identifying additional evaluation data needed
    On the basis of the review and input from the child's parents, the evaluation team must identify the additional data needed to provide information about the child's specific educational needs and then determine the assessment strategies that can provide the information needed. The additional data should be used to determine:

    • Whether the child is a child with a disability and the educational needs of the child;
    • The child's present levels of academic achievement and related developmental needs of the child (for preschool, the child's ability to participate in developmentally appropriate activities); and
    • Whether the child needs special education and related services.

    For preschool, additional data to be used includes child's ability to participate in developmentally appropriate activities. The evaluation plan determined by the team should be documented in the Prior Written Notice to Parents PR-01 form.

    Selecting assessment strategies and tools

    When selecting assessment strategies, the district should consider the type of data that can be obtained from different types of assessment tools and methods and determine if this data will be relevant to the defined purpose for the assessment. Since screening assessments are administered to all children to determine appropriate instructional strategies, they are not considered a formal evaluation and parents' permission is not required to administer them to children, unless the district requires parents' permission for all children who participate in screening. Written parents' consent is always required when assessments are administered to an individual child as part of formal evaluation to determine eligibility for special education and related services. Some general examples of assessment tools and methods include:

    Screening assessments

    Many districts administer brief assessments to all children at specific times during the school year to ensure that children are achieving key benchmarks. These assessments are generally brief and easy to administer and serve the purpose of determining the progress of all children and identifying children who may be at risk for academic failure. Often the data are used as part of the district and building problem-solving process to determine the effectiveness of the core curriculum and also to identify where additional resources may be needed.

    Formative assessment - mastery measurement

    Mastery measurement, in the form of short-cycle assessment or curriculum-embedded assessment, is incorporated into classroom practice and provides instructional information that teachers can use to assess child understanding of grade-level content standards while instruction is occurring. This is considered to be "formative assessment." This type of assessment allows the teacher to adjust instruction at a point when adjustments can enhance child learning and also informs the child about his or her progress in mastering specific sub-skills, short-term goals and grade-level content standards. These assessments are administered more frequently than screening assessments, but they are generally administered to all children.

    Formative assessment - curriculum-based measurement/progress monitoring

    Curriculum-based measurement (CBM) refers to a specific method for evaluating a child’s performance and rate of growth toward long-term goals; it measures general outcomes in a particular academic area rather than specific sub-skills. While CBM can be used for screening purposes, it also is used to determine a child’s progress when the child is receiving specific targeted and intensive interventions; this is also considered a formative assessment method. These instruments provide direct measures of performance in skill areas that are the focus of intervention and are sensitive to small increments of growth in these skills. As a result, they can quickly provide information that can lead directly to rapid changes in instruction as needed. The frequency of progress monitoring depends on the severity of the child’s problem and the intensity of the intervention. Research suggests monitoring the progress of children receiving targeted interventions at least biweekly and the progress of children receiving intensive interventions on a weekly or semi-weekly basis, if not more frequently.

    Diagnostic assessments

    Diagnostic assessments are usually administered when additional in-depth information about particular skills and abilities is needed to plan more effective instruction and intervention for a child who has not responded adequately to targeted and/or more individualized, intensive intervention. These assessments are often administered when sufficient information cannot be gained through the direct measures of skills provided by curriculum-based methods. Many diagnostic assessments are norm-referenced assessments, so the limitations related to their use, especially their use with children who are culturally and linguistically diverse, must be taken into consideration.

    Norm-referenced assessments

    Norm-referenced assessments are developed by creating test items and then administering these items to a group of children that will be used as a comparison group. When administered to a child, the child’s performance can then be compared to the performance of the larger group and will indicate the child's standing relative to this larger group (norming sample). This type of assessment does not provide a direct measure of specific skills that have been targeted for intervention and cannot be administered frequently to measure a child’s progress, which is the purpose of curriculum-based measurement. When administering norm-referenced assessments to children from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, the district needs to review the test administration manual to ensure that children with a similar background have been included in the comparison group. Otherwise the results may not reflect the child’s true abilities. Although some of these assessments provide age- and grade-equivalent scores, the meaning of these scores can be easily misinterpreted by both parents and staff. Certain norm-referenced tests, such as the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals (CELF), Gray's Reading Oral Test (GORT) and the Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP), do provide a direct measure of skills that have been targeted for intervention.

    Summative assessments

    Summative assessments provide a measurement of child mastery of grade-level content standards at a point after instruction has occurred. Unlike formative assessment, summative assessment does not provide information that can assist teachers in making instructional adjustments during the actual learning process, but it does provide a tool to measure the overall effectiveness of instructional practices and programs. Examples of summative assessments include standardized state-level assessments and interim district and classroom assessments such as end-of-unit or semester exams.

    (For Preschool - Teaching and learning is addressed in section 2 of the Early Learning Program Guidelines. Also see Preschool - 10.1 Eligibility)

    The information from all of these assessment methods can be useful as part of a comprehensive evaluation or reevaluation of a child, depending on the particular areas of concern for the child and the types of information that the evaluation team needs to gather.

    Conducting the evaluation

    Within 60 days from receipt of parental consent to evaluate a child, the school district must conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the child to identify the educational needs of the child and to determine if the child is a child with a disability. For assistance in calculating the 60-day timeline, refer to Child Find Clarification Related to Calculating 60 Days, Ohio Department of Education, Office for Exceptional Children.

    The school district is required to develop an evaluation plan that includes input from the parents. The Operating Standards do not require the school district to convene a meeting to develop this plan. It is recommended that the school district provide the parents with a copy of a written evaluation plan and the evaluation plan should include all the evaluations that the parents and the school have agreed to when planning. A written plan is not required, but is recommended.

    Exceptions to 60-day timeline
    The 60-day timeline for conducting the evaluation does not apply to a school district if:

    • The parent of the child repeatedly fails or refuses to produce the child for the evaluation; or
    • The child enrolls in a new school district of residence after the 60-day period has begun but before a determination by the child's previous school district of residence as to whether the child is a child with a disability. This exception applies only if the current school district of residence is making sufficient progress to ensure a prompt completion of the evaluation and the parent and the current school district agree to a specific time when the evaluation will be completed.

    When determining the existence of a specific learning disability, the 60-day timeline also can be extended with mutual written agreement between the parents and eligibility team, if it is determined that additional needed data cannot be obtained within the 60-day timeline. The decision to extend the timeline must be made on a case-by-case basis depending on the needs of the child. This agreement must be in writing and must indicate the target date for the end of the extended timeline.

     

    6.5 Reevaluation

    State Performance Plan (SPP):

    (See Overview in the Introduction for more information on the SPP.)

    Intent:

    To provide guidance in determining whether a reevaluation is required and, if required, who must participate and what existing or additional data are needed to determine if a child continues to be a child with a disability and to determine appropriate educational services including whether or not the child has progressed as a result of special education services.

    Timelines:

    Reevaluation

    A reevaluation may occur not more than once a year, unless the parents and the school district agree otherwise; and
     

    A reevaluation must occur at least once every three years, unless the parents and the school district agree that a reevaluation is unnecessary.

    If additional assessments are to be conducted as part of a reevaluation, the assessments and reevaluation must be completed by the three year anniversary date of the child’s previous evaluation. The last day the previous evaluation is effective is three years minus one day.

    REQUIREMENT

    3301-51-06
    (D) Reevaluations
    (1) General
    A school district of residence must ensure that a reevaluation of each child with a disability is conducted in accordance with paragraphs (E) to (J) of this rule:

    (a) If the school district determines that the child’s educational or related services needs, including improved academic achievement and functional performance, warrant a reevaluation; or
    (b) If the child’s parent or teacher requests a reevaluation; or
    (c) When a child transitions from pre-school to school-aged services; or
    (d) In order to make a change in disability category.

    (2) Limitation
    A reevaluation conducted under paragraph (D)(1) of this rule:

    (a) May occur not more than once a year, unless the parent and school district agree otherwise; and
    (b) Must occur at least once every three years, unless the parent and the school district agree that a reevaluation is unnecessary.

    3301-51-06
    (F) Additional requirements for evaluations and reevaluations
    (5) Evaluations before change in eligibility

    (a) Except as provided in paragraph (F)(5)(b) of this rule, a school district must evaluate a child with a disability in accordance with paragraphs (E) to (J) of this rule before determining that the child is no longer a child with a disability.
    (b) The evaluation described in paragraph (F)(5)(a) of this rule is not required before the termination of a child’s eligibility under this rule due to graduation from secondary school with a regular diploma or due to exceeding the age eligibility for a free appropriate public education (FAPE) under state law.
    (c) For a child whose eligibility terminates under circumstances described in paragraph (F)(5)(b) of this rule, a school district must provide the child with a summary of the child’s academic achievement and functional performance, which shall include recommendations on how to assist the child in meeting the child’s postsecondary goals.

    GUIDANCE

    Reevaluation

    Conducting a reevaluation provides the parents and the district with the opportunity to review the child’s progress on academic and functional goals in response to special education services and to determine whether the child continues to be eligible for special education. Each school district must ensure that a reevaluation of each child with a disability is conducted when:

    • The IEP team determines that the child's educational or related services needs, including improved academic achievement and functional performance, warrant a reevaluation;
    • The child's parents, the school or the child's teacher request a reevaluation;
    • The child transitions from preschool to school-age services;
    • Prior to determining that a child is no longer a child with a disability; and
    • When exiting a child from special education.

    In some cases, a reevaluation is necessary when the child’s initial evaluation was conducted at a very young age and the team is concerned that the initial results may not reflect the child’s current abilities or skills. A reevaluation might also be recommended when the child has demonstrated a significant improvement or decline in academic performance or behavior or has failed to make reasonable progress.

    The reevaluation may not occur more than once annually unless the parents and school district agree otherwise.

    The reevaluation must occur at least once every three years unless the parents and the school distirct agree that a reevaluation is unnecessary.

    If additional assessments are to be conducted as part of a reevaluation, the assessments and reevaluation must be completed by the three year anniversary date of the child’s previous evaluation. For example: If an evaluation team report (ETR) was completed on April 1, 2009, the ETR must be completed by March 31, 2010. The last day the previous ETR is effective is March 31, 2010 (three years minus one day). The 60-day timeline for initial evaluations does not apply.

    Reevaluation not required when:

    • Parents revoke consent

    If parents revoke consent for special education services, the school district is not required to conduct a reevaluation to remove the child from special education.

    • Parents and district agree that a reevaluation is unnecessary

    There are some circumstances when the district and the parents will agree that a reevaluation of a child is unnecessary. This agreement could be appropriate if the child’s continued eligibility for special education is not in question and the child is making expected progress as a result of special education services. It is not permissible for a district to automatically determine that reevaluations are unnecessary for children identified with particular disabilities. This decision should be based on the individual needs of the specific child. Before making a final decision, the parent and district should fully discuss the advantages and disadvantages of not conducting a reevaluation and the effect that the decision could have on the child’s educational progress. It is important to note that this is an agreement between the parents and the district and not a waiver.

    If the parents and the district agree that a reevaluation is unnecessary, this decision should be documented in writing. The district may, but is not required to, provide the Prior Written Notice PR-01 form.

    • Change in placement due to graduation or child exceeds age eligibility

    A reevaluation is not required when a child's change in placement is due to graduation or the child exceeds the age eligibility for special education services. In Ohio, that age is 22. The district is required to provide the child with a Summary of Performance that includes a summary of the child's academic achievement and functional performance, as well as recommendations on how to assist the child in meeting the child's postsecondary goals. Additional assessment is not required to complete the Summary of Performance and an IEP meeting does not need to be conducted to complete the summary, although IEP team members need to be involved in developing the summary. If the district involves these members by choosing to have an IEP meeting, required procedures must be followed in conducting the meeting, including prior written notice and invitations that include the child.

    The summary is completed during the child's last year of high school. The specific timing during that last year is individually based on the child's postsecondary goal(s), so it may be different for all children. Ideally, the Summary of Performance should be completed near the end of the child's education program. The Summary of Performance is a document that the district is required to provide the child when the child exits high school. It is not a document that requires agreement from the parents and child. Additionally, the school must provide the Prior Written Notice PR-01 form when a child with disabilities exits high school.

    For additional information, see Understanding the Summary of Performance, Revised 5/21/2010, Ohio Department of Education.

    • Adding a related service to an IEP

    The school district does not need to conduct a full evaluation when it is determined that only a related service needs to be added to a child's IEP. Only an evaluation in the area of need (e.g., physical therapy) is required. Prior written notice and parental consent are required if the district is conducting individual assessments to determine if a related service is needed. The ETR and the IEP may be amended using the amendment process. Neither the ETR nor the IEP needs to be rewritten. This assessment for a related service does not change the date that the current ETR must be reviewed and revised. The assessment for the related service is reviewed and revised on the same date as the current ETR.

    • Removing a related service from an IEP

    The school district does not need to conduct a full evaluation when it is determined that a related service is no longer required. The district must have data and documentation that show that the child has met all goals that required the support of the related service that will be removed. The district also must show that there are no additional future goals, based on current information, that require the support of the related service that is being removed. Once this has been determined, the district convenes the IEP team, including the parents, and the team reviews all the data and documentation that shows that the related service is no longer required to provide the child FAPE. If the parents agree to the removal of the related service and all other parts of the IEP, the district creates the new IEP or amends the existing IEP without the related service, and makes sure that the parents receive a copy of this IEP within 30 calendar days of the IEP meeting.

    If the parents do not agree to the removal of the related service from the current IEP, or disagree with any other part of the IEP that is created or amended to remove the related service, the district owes the parents a prior written notice. As long as the new IEP excluding the related service does not also include a change of placement the parents have not agreed to, the district may implement the new IEP without the related service, even if the parents disagree to the removal of the related service. The parents may enter a form of conflict resolution including administrative review, mediation and requesting a due process hearing to address the disagreement about the removal of the related service.
     

    REQUIREMENT

    3301-51-06
    (D) Reevaluations
    (1) General
    A school district of residence must ensure that a reevaluation of each child with a disability is conducted in accordance with paragraphs (E) to (J) of this rule:

    (a) If the school district determines that the child’s educational or related services needs, including improved academic achievement and functional performance, warrant a reevaluation; or
    (b) If the child’s parent or teacher requests a reevaluation; or
    (c) When a child transitions from pre-school to school-aged services; or
    (d) In order to make a change in disability category

    3301-51-01
    (B) Definitions
    (21) "Evaluation team" means the IEP team and other qualified professionals.

    3301-51-07
    (I) IEP team
    (1) General
    The school district must ensure that the IEP team for each child with a disability includes:

    (a) The parents of the child;
    (b) Not less than one regular education teacher of the child (if the child is, or may be, participating in the regular education environment);
    (c) Not less than one special education teacher of the child or, where appropriate, not less then one special education provider of the child;
    (d) A representative of the school district who:
    (i) Is qualified to provide, or supervise the provision of, specially designed instruction to meet the unique needs of children with disabilities;
    (ii) Is knowledgeable about the general education curriculum; and
    (iii) Is knowledgeable about the availability of resources of the school district;
    (e) An individual who can interpret the instructional implications of evaluation results, who may be a member of the team described in paragraphs (I)(1)(b) to (I)(1)(f) of this rule;
    (f) At the discretion of the parent or the school district, other individuals who have knowledge or special expertise regarding the child, including related services personnel as appropriate; and
    (g) Whenever appropriate, the child with a disability.

    3301-51-06
    (F) Additional requirements for evaluations and reevaluations
    (1) Review of existing evaluation data
    As part of an initial evaluation, if appropriate, and as part of any reevaluation, the evaluation team shall develop an evaluation plan that will provide for the following and be summarized in an evaluation team report:

    (a) Review existing evaluation data on the child, including:
    (i) Evaluations and information provided by the parents of the child;
    (ii) Current classroom-based, local, or state assessments and classroom-based observations;
    (iii) Observations by teachers and related services providers;
    (iv) Data about the child's progress in the general curriculum, or, for the preschool-age child, data pertaining to the child's growth and development;
    (v) Data from previous interventions, including:
    (a) Interventions required by rule 3301-35-06 of the Administrative Code; and
    (b) For the preschool child, data from early intervention, community or preschool program providers; and
    (vi) Any relevant trend data beyond the past twelve months, including the review of current and previous IEPs; and
    (b) On the basis of that review and input from the child’s parents, identify what additional data, if any, are needed to determine:
    (i) Whether the child is a child with a disability, as defined in rule 3301-51-01 of the Administrative Code, and the educational needs of the child;
    (ii) In the case of a reevaluation of a child, whether the child continues to have such a disability and the educational needs of the child;
    (iii) The present levels of academic achievement and related developmental needs of the child;
    (iv) Whether the child needs special education and related services; or
    (v) In the case of a reevaluation of a child, whether the child continues to need special education and related services; and
    (vi) Whether any additions or modifications to the special education and related services are needed to enable the child to meet the measurable annual goals set out in the IEP of the child and to participate, as appropriate, in the general education curriculum.

    3301-51-06
    (F) Additional requirements for evaluations and reevaluations
    (4)Requirements if additional data are not needed

    (a) If, the evaluation team or the IEP team, as appropriate, determine that no additional data are needed to determine whether the child continues to be a child with a disability and to determine the child’s educational needs, the school district must notify the child’s parents of:
    (i) That determination and the reasons for the determination; and
    (ii) The right of the parents to request an assessment to determine whether the child continues to be a child with a disability and to determine the child’s educational needs.
    (b) The school district is not required to conduct the assessment described in paragraph (F)(4)(ii) of this rule unless requested to do so by the child’s parents.

    3301-51-06
    (D) Reevaluations
    (2) Limitation
    A reevaluation conducted under paragraph (D)(1) of this rule:

    (a) May occur not more than once a year, unless the parent and school district agree otherwise; and
    (b) Must occur at least once every three years, unless the parent and the school district agree that a reevaluation is unnecessary.

    3301-51-06
    (G) Determination of eligibility
    (1) General
    Upon completion of the administration of assessments and other evaluation measures:

    (b) The school district provides a copy of the evaluation report and the documentation of determination of eligibility at no cost to the parent.
    (i) The written evaluation team report shall include:
    (a) A summary of the information obtained during the evaluation process; and
    (b) The names, titles and signatures of each team member, including the parent, and an indication of whether or not they are in agreement with the eligibility determination. Any team member who is not in agreement with the team's determination of disability shall submit a statement of disagreement.
    (ii) The school district must provide a copy of the evaluation team report and the documentation of determination of eligibility or continued eligibility to the parents prior to the next IEP meeting and in no case later than fourteen days from the date of eligibility determination.

    GUIDANCE

    Planning and conducting the reevaluation

    A reevaluation can be conducted by reviewing existing data; however, if the child is not making expected progress, the district may choose to administer additional assessments to analyze areas of concern. The results of these assessments may suggest a need to modify the goals of the child's IEP or the special education services and supports that the child is currently receiving. The team also should reassess any modifications or accommodations that should be provided in order to permit the child to participate successfully to the greatest extent possible within the general education curriculum.

    Reevaluation team

    The team that conducts the reevaluation should include:

    • The parents of the child;
    • At least one regular education teacher of the child (if the child is, or may be, participating in the regular education environment); or
    • For a child less than school age, an individual qualified by the Ohio Department of Education to teach a child of the child's age;
    • At least one special education teacher of the child or, whern appropriate, at least one special education provider of the child;
    • A representative of the school district who:
      • Is qualified to provide, or supervise the provision of, specially designed instruction to meet the unique needs of children with disabilities;
      • Is knowledgeable about the general education curriculum; and
      • Is knowledgeable about the availability of resources of the school district;
    • A person qualified to interpret the instructional implications of evaluation results who may be a related service provider such as a school psychologist, speech/language pathologist or remedial reading teacher; and
    • At the discretion of the parents or school district, other individuals, such as related service providers, who have knowledge or special expertise regarding the child.

    Reevaluation conducted by reviewing existing evaluation data

    In developing the plan for the reevaluation, the evaluation team should begin with a review of existing evaluation data. A review of existing evaluation data does not require parental consent.

    The evaluation team will review the following data on the child including:

    • Evaluations and information provided by the parents of the child;
    • Data that document the child's progress as a result of special education services, and for the preschool child, data from community or preschool program providers;
    • The child's performance on current classroom-based, local or statewide assessments;
    • Observations by teachers and other school personnel in the classroom and in other settings that are relevant to the child's difficulties;
    • Interviews with the child when appropriate;
    • Data about the child's progress in the general curriculum or for the preschool-age child, data pertaining to the child's growth and development;
    • Data from previous interventions and for the preschool child, data from early intervention, community or preschool program providers; and
    • Any relevant trend data beyond the past 12 months and review of current and previous IEPs.

    After reviewing the existing evaluation data on the child, if the evaluation team determines that no additional data are needed to determine that the child continues to be a child with a disability, and to determine the child's educational needs, the evaluation team must notify the child's parents of:

    • The determination and the reasons for the determination; and
    • The parents' right to request an assessment to determine whether the child continues to be a child with a disability, and to determine the child's educational needs.

    The Prior Written Notice to Parents PR-01 form may be used for this notification if it includes the required information listed directly above.

    While an evaluation team may conduct its evaluation review without a meeting, the team must meet with the parents if the review indicates that FAPE is not being provided to the child, and the IEP team must be reconvened immediately to rectify the situation.

    The school district is not required to conduct an assessment for reevaluation unless requested to do so by the child's parents.

    If the parents disagree with the reevaluation after it is completed, or the reevaluation results in a change in the child's disability category, the evaluation team again provides the Prior Written Notice to Parents PR-01 form.

    Reevaluation requiring additional evaluation data

    If the evaluation team determines that a review of existing data including assessments is not sufficient for conducting the evaluation, the team should identify the additional data that are needed to determine:

    • The present levels of academic achievement and related developmental needs of the child;
    • Whether assessments should be completed before beginning or terminating certain types of related services, such as speech language services;
    • Whether the child continues to be a child with a disability and continues to require special education and related services to meet the child's educational needs; and
    • Whether any additions or modifications to the special education and related services are needed to enable the child to meet the measurable annual goals set out in the child's IEP and to participate, as appropriate, in the general education curriculum.

    The school district must provide the Prior Written Notice to Parents PR-01 form and obtain informed parental consent (Parent Consent for Evaluation PR-05 form) before conducting any tests or assessments as part of a reevaluation of a child with disabilities, unless the district has provided notice and the parent has failed to respond to reasonable attempts to obtain consent. Tests and assessments conducted as part of a reevaluation must be completed by the three year anniversary date of the child's previous evaluation. The 60-day timeline for initial evaluations does not apply.

    If the parents disagree with the reevaluation after it is completed, or the reevaluation results in a change in the child's disability category, the evaluation team again provides the Prior Written Notice to Parents PR-01 form.

    Evaluation report for reevaluations

    The district is required to develop a written report for reevaluations, including those conducted with the use of existing assessment data. The evaluation team report should contain, at a minimum:

    • A summary of the information obtained during the reevaluation process;
    • The determination of the child's continued eligibility for special education services and the basis for that determination; and
    • The names, titles and signatures of each team member, including the parents, and an indication of whether they are in agreement with the eligibility determination.

    Any team member who is not in agreement shall submit a statement of disagreement. The school district must provide a copy of the evaluation team report and the documentation of the determination of continued eligibility to the parents before the next IEP meeting and in no case later than fourteen days from the date of the eligibility determination.

    Reevaluation required for preschool to kindergarten

    Existing data regarding the child's knowledge and skills outlined in the Early Learning Content Standards (found on the education.ohio.gov Web site) and kindergarten content standards provide the team with an understanding of what a child should know and be able to do when exiting early learning community centers (ELCCs) and what the child will learn in the kindergarten environment. Not only should academics be considered, but the child's summary of performance should be reviewed in the areas of (1) acquisition and use of knowledge and skills, (2) social-emotional competencies and (3) adaptive or self-help skills.

     

    6.6 Eligibility Determination and Evaluation Report

    State Performance Plan (SPP):

    (See Overview in the Introduction for more information on the SPP.)

    Intent:

    To provide guidance on the written requirements of the evaluation report as well as the timeline in which the parents are provided both a copy of the evaluation report and documentation of the determination of either eligibility or continued eligibility for special education services.

    Note

    The ETR PR-06 form is available by clicking this link: ETR PR-06 form

    Timelines:

    Consent for evaluation

    Within 30 days of receiving a request for an initial evaluation of a child from either the child’s parents or a public agency, the school district of residence will either obtain parents' consent for an initial evaluation or provide the parents prior written notice stating that the school district does not suspect a disability and will not be conducting an evaluation. The child’s parents should document the request for an evaluation in writing.

    Conducting the evaluation

    Within 60 days from receipt of parental consent to evaluate a child, the school district will conduct a comprehensive initial evaluation of the child to identify the child’s educational needs and to determine if the child is a child with a disability.

    If the school district is using a response to intervention (RtI) process, the district cannot use this process to reject a referral or delay the provision of a timely initial evaluation because a child has not participated in the RtI process (OSEP letter to State Directors of Special Education, January 21, 2011).
    If the school district has not implemented an RtI process and it receives a request for an evaluation from parents, the school district cannot begin the RtI process apart from the evaluation timeline. The district must complete the RtI process and the evaluation within the 90 day timeline from the date of the referral (30 days from date of referral and 60 days from parental consent) unless the district does not suspect a disability. If the district does not suspect a disability, it provides the parents with a prior written notice within 30 days of the request.
    Preschool Note
    School districts cannot require other agencies to use an RtI process when identifying preschoolers with disabilities.

    Exceptions to 60-day timeline: The 60-day timeline for conducting the evaluation does not apply to a school district if:

    • The parents of the child repeatedly fail or refuse to produce the child for the evaluation; or
    • The child enrolls in a new school district of residence after the 60-day period has begun and prior to a determination by the child’s previous school district of residence regarding whether the child is a child with a disability. This exception applies only if the current school district of residence is making sufficient progress to ensure a prompt completion of the evaluation and the parents and the current school district agree to a specific time when the evaluation will be completed.

    When the existence of a specific learning disability is being determined, the 60-day timeline also can be extended with mutual written agreement between the parents and eligibility team if additional data are needed that cannot be obtained within the 60-day timeline.

    Evaluation team report (ETR) and documentation of eligibility status

    Within 14 days from the date of eligibility determination or the determination of continued eligibility and prior to the next IEP meeting, the school district of residence must provide the parents a copy of the evaluation team report that should include findings from the sufficiently comprehensive evaluation and the documentation of determination of eligibility or continued eligibility.

    Preschool Note
    Timelines reflect the maximum number of days. For children transitioning from Help Me Grow, timelines may be less than 120 days since an IEP must be implemented by the child's third birthday.

    REQUIREMENT

    3301-51-06
    (G) Determination of eligibility
    (1) General
    Upon completion of the administration of assessments and other evaluation measures:

    (a) A group of qualified professionals and the parent of the child determines whether the child is a child with a disability, as defined in rule 3301-51-01 of the Administrative Code, in accordance with paragraph (G)(2) of this rule and the educational needs of the child.
    (b) The school district provides a copy of the evaluation report and the documentation of determination of eligibility at no cost to the parent.
    (i) The written evaluation team report shall include:
    (a) A summary of the information obtained during the evaluation process; and
    (b) The names, titles and signatures of each team member, including the parent, and an indication of whether or not they are in agreement with the eligibility determination. Any team member who is not in agreement with the team’s determination of disability shall submit a statement of disagreement.
    (ii) The school district must provide a copy of the evaluation team report and the documentation of determination of eligibility or continued eligibility to the parents prior to the next IEP meeting and in no case later than fourteen days from the date of eligibility determination.

    3301-51-06
    (G) Determination of eligibility
    (2) special rule for eligibility determination
    A child must not be determined to be a child with a disability under this rule:

    (a) If the determinant factor for that determination is:
    (i) Lack of appropriate instruction in reading, including the essential components of reading instruction as defined in Section 1208(3) of the Elementary and Secondary Act of 1965, as amended and specified in the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002, January 2002, 20 U.S.C. 6301 (ESEA);
    (ii) Lack of appropriate instruction in math; or
    (iii) Limited English proficiency; and
    (b) If the child does not otherwise meet the eligibility criteria under paragraph (B)(10) of the Administrative Code.

    (3) Procedures for determining eligibility and education need

    (a) In interpreting evaluation data for the purpose of determining if a child is a child with a disability as defined in paragraph (B)(10) of rule 3301-51-01 of the Administrative code, and the education needs of the child, each school district must:
    (i) Draw upon information from a variety of sources, including aptitude and achievement tests, state and districtwide assessments, parent input, and teacher recommendations, as well as information about the child’s physical condition, social or cultural background, and adaptive behavior; And
    (ii) Ensure that information obtained from all of these sources is documented and carefully considered.
    (b) If a determination is made that a child has a disability and needs special education and related services, an IEP must be developed for the child in accordance with rule 3301-51-07 of the Administrative Code.

    3301-51-06
    (H) Additional procedures for identifying children with specific learning disabilities
    (3) Determining the existence of a specific learning disability

    (a) The group described in paragraph (G) of this rule may determine that a child has a specific learning disability, as defined in paragraph (B)10)(d)(x) of rule 3301-51-01 of the Administrative Code, if:
    (i) The child does not achieve adequately for the child’s age or to meet state-approved grade-level standards in one or more of the following areas, when provided with learning experiences and instruction appropriate for the child’s age or state-approved grade-level standards:
    (a) Oral expression;
    (b) Listening comprehension;
    (c) Written expression;
    (d) Basic reading skill;
    (e) Reading fluency skills;
    (f) Reading comprehension;
    (g) Mathematics calculation; or
    (h) Mathematics problem-solving.
    (ii) The child does not make sufficient progress to meet age or state-approved grade-level standards in one or more of the areas identified in paragraph (H)(3)(i) of this rule when using a process based on the child’s response to scientific, research-based intervention; or
    (iii) The child exhibits a pattern of strengths and weaknesses in performance, achievement, or both, relative to age, state-approved grade-level standards, or intellectual development, that is determined by the group to be relevant to the identification of a specific learning disability, using appropriate assessments, consistent with paragraphs (E) and (F) of this rule.

    (H) Additional documentation required for SLD eligibility determination
    (3) Determining the existence of a specific learning disability

    (d) An evaluation may utilize a process based on the child’s response to scientific, research-based intervention to determine whether a child has a specific learning disability. This process:
    (i) Begins when sufficient data have been gathered and analyzed under conditions of targeted and intensive individualized intervention conditions, when there is evidence of an inadequate response to intervention on the part of the child, and the group determines that the child’s needs are unlikely to be met without certain specialized instruction in addition to the regular classroom instruction;
    (ii) Employs interventions that are scientifically-based and provided at appropriate levels of intensity, frequency, duration, and integrity, relative to the child’s identified needs;
    (iii) Is based on results of scientifically-based, technically adequate assessment procedures that assess ongoing progress while the child is receiving scientifically-based instruction, and that have been reported to the child’s parents;
    (iv) Includes the analysis of data described in paragraphs (H)(3)(b)(i) and (H)(3)(b)(ii) of this rule to determine whether a discrepancy is present between actual and expected performance, in both the child’s rate of progress in developing skills, and in the child’s level of performance on measures assessing one or more of the academic areas listed in paragraph (H)(3)(a)(i) of this rule;
    (v) May not be used to delay unnecessarily a child’s being evaluated to determine eligibility for special education services.

    3301-51-06
    (H) Additional procedures for identifying children with specific learning disabilities
    (3) Determining the existence of a specific learning disability

    (e) A school district may use alternative, research-based procedures for determining whether a child exhibits a pattern of strengths and weaknesses in performance, achievement, or both, relative to age, state-approved grade-level standards, or intellectual development, that is determined by the group to be relevant to the identification of a specific learning disability, if prior approval of the procedures has been granted by the Ohio Department of Education.
    (f) The school district must develop written procedures for the implementation of any method used to determine the existence of a specific learning disability that, at a minimum, incorporate guidelines developed by the Ohio Department of Education as specified in this rule.

    GUIDANCE

    Evaluation team report

    General evaluation report requirements

    The district is required to develop a written evaluation team report (ETR) for all evaluations, including those conducted with the use of existing assessment data. The report should include findings from the sufficiently comprehensive evaluation. The report should summarize the information collected as part of the assessment process to address the specific questions and areas of concern that resulted in the referral and to determine whether the child is a child with a disability. The information should allow the team to identify specially designed instruction and related services as well as concrete and understandable strategies and interventions to support the educational needs of the child.

    In the case of reevaluation, the ETR provides information to determine whether the child continues to need special education and related services and, if so, whether any additions or modifications to the special education and related services are needed to enable the child to meet measurable annual goals set out in the child's IEP and for the child to participate, as appropriate, in the general education curriculum.

    The Operating Standards do not require a separate meeting to be convened to develop and review the evaluation team report. The ETR can be reviewed with the parents at the IEP meeting. However, the parents do have the right to request that two meetings be scheduled - one to review the ETR and one to develop or review the IEP. Holding a separate meeting to review the ETR provides the parents with an opportunity to consider the information in the ETR prior to the development of the IEP. Additional information is available in Procedural Safeguards - 5.7 Opportunity to Review Records

    Contents of the evaluation team report (ETR)

    In order to be useful to both parents and school personnel, the report should be clear, concise and reader-friendly. Some guidelines follow:

    • Referral question and linking evaluation procedures should be clearly identified;
    • Results of previous interventions, observations and referral question background information should provide a logical and understandable connection to the recommendations;
    • Strategies and needed supports should be identified that will allow the child to benefit from instruction within regular education classes to the greatest extent possible;
    • Any conditions or limitations that may have influenced the validity of assessment results, including observations of the child during the assessment, should be identified;
    • Limitations of assessments for those children who are culturally and linguistically diverse should be addressed; and
    • For preschool, the report should address the child's ability to participate in developmentally appropriate activities.

    If the team (which contains additional members required for determining if the child is a child with a specific learning disability) determines that the child has a specific learning disability, the additional required documentation for this disability must also be included in the evaluation report. See Evaluation - 6.7 Specific Learning Disabilities for additional documentation requirements. The ETR report and the documentation of eligibility can be considered a prior written notice if all elements required in a prior written notice are present in the ETR and documentation of eligibility.

    REQUIREMENT

    3301-51-06
    (G) Determination of eligibility
    (1) General
    Upon completion of the administration of assessments and other evaluation measures:

    (a) A group of qualified professionals and the parent of the child determines whether the child is a child with a disability, as defined in rule 3301-51-01 of the Administrative Code, in accordance with paragraph (G)(2) of this rule and the educational needs of the child; and
    (b)The school district provides a copy of the evaluation report and the documentation of determination of eligibility at no cost to the parent.

    (3) Procedures for determining eligibility and educational need

    (a) In interpreting evaluation data for the purpose of determining if a child is a child with a disability as defined in paragraph (B)(10) of rule 3301-51-01 of the Administrative Code, and the educational needs of the child, the school district must:
    (i) Draw upon information from a variety of sources, including aptitude and achievement tests, state and districtwide assessments, parent input, and teacher recommendations, as well as information about the child’s physical condition, social or cultural background, and adaptive behavior and
    (ii) Ensure that information obtained from all of these sources is documented and carefully considered.

    3301-51-06
    (G) Determination of eligibility
    (2) Special rule for eligibility determination
    A child must not be determined to be a child with a disability under this rule:

    (a) If the determinant factor for that determination is:
    (i) Lack of appropriate instruction in reading, including the essential components of reading instruction as defined in Section 1208(3) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended and specified in the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, January 2002, 20 U.S.C. 6301 (ESEA) (Phonemic awareness, Phonics, Vocabulary development, Reading fluency including oral reading skills and strategies, Reading comprehension);
    (ii) Lack of appropriate instruction in math; or
    (iii) Limited English proficiency; and
    (b) If the child does not otherwise meet the eligibility criteria under paragraph (B)(10) of rule 3301-51-01 of the Administrative Code.

    3301-51-06
    (H) Additional procedures for identifying children with specific learning disabilities
    (2) Additional group members
    The determination of whether a child suspected of having a specific learning disability is a child with a disability, as defined in rule 3301-51-01 of the Administrative Code, must be made by the child’s parents and a team of qualified professionals which must include:

    (a) The child’s regular teacher; or
    (b) If the child does not have a regular teacher, a regular classroom teacher qualified to teach a child of the child’s age; or
    (c) For a child of less than school-age, an individual qualified by the Ohio Department of Education to teach a child of the child’s age; and
    (d) At least one person qualified to conduct individual diagnostic examinations of children, such as a school psychologist, speech-language pathologist, or remedial reading teacher.

     

    GUIDANCE

    Eligibility determination

    At the evaluation meeting, a group of qualified professionals, including the parents, reviews the information included in the evaluation report to determine if the child is eligible for special education and related services. Districts should ensure that parents have been provided with sufficient information before the evaluation meeting to allow them to participate as full partners in the discussion. Before the meeting, parents may request additional information related to their child to assist in the eligibility determination process.

    This group of qualified professionals may or may not be the same individuals who were involved in the review of existing evaluation data. That group was comprised of the IEP Team and other qualified professionals, as appropriate so there may be overlap in the membership of these two groups. The parents are entitled to be involved in both groups and in the decisions each group makes.

    Additional team members required for determining if the child is child with a specific learning disability (as indicated previously in 3301-51-06(H)) should be included in this group if the child is suspected of having a learning disability. The same considerations outlined in Evaluation - 6.2 Evaluation Team should be followed in this situation. These considerations include the inclusion of additional members requested by the family and the provision of any needed accommodations for parents from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds or for parents with disability conditions.

    (See Preschool - 10.1 Eligibility and 10.4 Transition from Part C Early Intervention)

    Disability must have adverse impact on the child’s educational performance and/or, for preschool, the ability to participate in developmentally appropriate activities

    Based on the review of the findings included in the evaluation report, the team may determine that the needs of the child will require individualized, intensive interventions that can be provided with special education services. To receive services, the child must meet the eligibility criteria for the particular disability under consideration. It is important to note that though a child may meet the criteria for a particular disability, the team must also determine that the presence of the disability adversely affects the child’s educational performance before the child can be found eligible for special education services.

    Child must meet eligibility criteria in the standards

    Notably, practitioners outside of the school district may diagnose a child with a particular disability based on other criteria that do not align with the eligibility criteria in the standards. To receive special education services, the child must meet the eligibility criteria for each disability as defined in the Operating Standards, and the team must determine that the presence of this disability adversely affects the child's educational performance. The eligibility criteria for each disability can be found in 3301-51-01 (B)(10)- definition of "child with a disability" and in Evaluation - 6.8 Definitions of "a child with a disability." For Preschool, see Preschool - 10.1 Eligibility.

    A school district cannot identify any child as eligible for special education services if the determining factor for the child's poor performance is due to:

    • A lack of appropriate instruction in reading;
    • A lack of appropriate instruction in math; or
    • Limited English proficiency.

    If the child is found eligible for special education services, the information included in the evaluation report, including the data gathered during previous interventions, can then be incorporated into the individualized education program to set specific, measurable goals for the child.

    The eligibility criteria for each disability condition can be found in Evaluation - 6.7 Specific Learning Disabilities and Evaluation and 6.8 Definitions of "A Child with A Disability"

     

    6.7 Specific Learning Disabilities

    State Performance Plan (SPP):

    (See Overview in the Introduction for more information on the SPP.)

    Intent:

    To provide guidance on identifying children with specific learning disabilities (SLD), including the additional procedures required for eligibility determination, the assessment procedures that can be used for determination and the additional documentation required when a child is suspected to have an SLD.

    Timelines:

    Consent for evaluation

    Within 30 days of receiving a request for an initial evaluation of a child from either the child’s parents or a public agency, the school district of residence will either obtain parents' consent for an initial evaluation or provide the parents prior written notice stating that the school district does not suspect a disability and will not be conducting an evaluation. It is recommended that the child’s parents put the request for an evaluation in writing to document the request.

    Conducting the evaluation

    Within 60 days from receipt of parental consent to evaluate a child, the school district will conduct a comprehensive initial evaluation of the child to identify the child’s educational needs and to determine if the child is a child with a disability.

    If the school district is using a response to intervention (RtI) process, the district cannot use this process to reject a referral or delay the provision of a timely initial evaluation because a child has not participated in the RtI process (OSEP letter to State Directors of Special Education, January 21, 2011).
    If the school district has not implemented an RtI process and it receives a request for an evaluation from parents, the school district cannot begin the RtI process apart from the evaluation timeline. The district must complete the RtI process and the evaluation within the 90 day timeline from the date of the referral (30 days from date of referral and 60 days from parental consent) unless the district does not suspect a disability. If the district does not suspect a disability, it provides the parents with a prior written notice within 30 days of the request.
    Preschool Note
    School districts cannot require other agencies to use an RtI process when identifying preschoolers with disabilities.

    Exceptions to 60-day timeline: The 60-day timeline for conducting the evaluation does not apply to a school district if:

    • The parents of the child repeatedly fails or refuses to produce the child for the evaluation; or
    • The child enrolls in a new school district of residence after the 60-day period has begun and prior to a determination by the child’s previous school district of residence regarding whether the child is a child with a disability. This exception applies only if the current school district of residence is making sufficient progress to ensure a prompt completion of the evaluation and the parents and the current school district agree to a specific time when the evaluation will be completed.

    When the existence of a specific learning disability is being determined, the 60-day timeline also can be extended with mutual written agreement between the parents and eligibility team if additional data are needed that cannot be obtained within the 60-day timeline.

    Evaluation team report (ETR) and documentation of eligibility status

    Within 14 days from the date of eligibility determination or the determination of continued eligibility and prior to the next IEP meeting, the school district of residence must provide the parents a copy of the evaluation team report and the documentation of determination of eligibility or continued eligibility.

    Preschool Note
    Timelines reflect the maximum number of days. For children transitioning from Help Me Grow, timelines may be less than 120 days since an IEP must be implemented by the child's third birthday.

    REQUIREMENT

    3301-51-01
    (B) Definitions
    The following terms are defined as they are used in rules 3301-51-01 to 3301-51-09 and 3301-51-11 of the Administrative Code:

    (10) "Child with a disability" means a child evaluated in accordance with rule 3301-51-06 of the Administrative code as having a cognitive disability (mental retardation) a hearing impairment (including deafness), a speech or language impairment, a visual impairment (including blindness), a serious emotional disturbance (referred to in this rule as "emotional disturbance"), an orthopedic impairment, autism, traumatic brain injury, an other health impairment, a specific learning disability, deaf-blindness, or multiple disabilities, and who, by reason thereof, needs special education and related services.

    (d)Definitions of disability terms. The terms used in this definition of a "child with a disability" are defined as follows:

    (x) Specific learning disability

    (a) General. "Specific learning disability" means a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, that may manifest itself in the imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or to do mathematical calculations, including conditions such as perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia.
    (b) Disorders not included. Specific learning disability does not including learning problems that are primarily the result of visual, hearing, or motor disabilities, of mental retardation, of emotional disturbance, or of environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage.

    3301-51-06
    (H) Additional procedures for determining eligibility and educational need
    (1) Specific learning disabilities
    (a) General
    The Ohio Department of Education adopts in this rule, criteria for determining whether a child has a specific learning disability as defined in paragraph (B)(10)(d)(x) of rule 3301-51-01 of the Administrative Code. The criteria adopted by the state in this rule:

    (i) Do not require the use of a severe discrepancy between intellectual ability and achievement for determining whether a child has a specific learning disability, as defined in paragraph (B)(10)(d)(x) of rule 3301-51-01 of the Administrative Code.
    (ii) Permit the use of a process based on the child’s response to scientific, research-based intervention; And
    (iii) Permit the use of other alternative research-based procedures for determining whether a child has a specific learning disability as defined in paragraph (B)(10(d)(x) of rule 3301-51-01 of the Administrative Code.

    (b) Consistency with state criteria
    A school district must use the state criteria adopted in this rule pursuant to paragraph (H)(1) of this rule in determining whether a child has a specific learning disability.

    3301-51-06
    (H) Additional procedures for identifying children with specific learning disabilities
    (2) Additional group members
    The determination of whether a child suspected of having a specific learning disability is a child with a disability, as defined in rule 3301-51-01 of the Administrative Code,must be made by the child’s parents and a team of qualified professionals which must include:

    (a) The child’s regular teacher; or
    (b) If the child does not have a regular teacher, a regular classroom teacher qualified to teach a child of the child's age; or
    (c) For a child of less than school-age, an individual qualified by the Ohio Department of Education to teach a child of the child's age; and
    (d) At least one person qualified to conduct individual diagnostic examinations of children, such as a school psychologist, speech-language pathologist, or remedial reading teacher.

    3301-51-06
    (H) Additional documentation required for SLD eligibility determination
    (3) Determining the existence of a specific learning disability

    (a) The group described in paragraph (G) of this rule may determine that a child has a specific learning disability, as defined in paragraph (B)10)(d)(x) of rule 3301-51-01 of the Administrative Code, if:
    (i) The child does not achieve adequately for the child’s age or to meet state-approved grade-level standards in one or more of the following areas, when provided with learning experiences and instruction appropriate for the child’s age or state-approved grade-level standards:
    (a) Oral expression;
    (b) Listening comprehension;
    (c) Written expression;
    (d) Basic reading skill;
    (e) Reading fluency skills;
    (f) Reading comprehension;
    (g) Mathematics calculation; or
    (h) Mathematics problem-solving.
    (ii) The child does not make sufficient progress to meet age or state-approved grade-level standards in one or more of the areas identified in paragraph (H)(3)(i) of this rule when using a process based on the child’s response to scientific, research-based intervention; or
    (iii) The child exhibits a pattern of strengths and weaknesses in performance, achievement, or both, relative to age, state-approved grade-level standards, or intellectual development, that is determined by the group to be relevant to the identification of a specific learning disability, using appropriate assessments, consistent with paragraphs (E) and (F) of this rule; and
    (iv) The group determines that its findings under paragraphs (H)(3)(a)(i) to (H)(3)(a)(iii) of this rule are not primarily the results of:
    (a) A visual, hearing, or motor disability;
    (b) Mental retardation;
    (c) Emotional disturbance;
    (d) Cultural factors;
    (e) Environmental or economic disadvantage; or
    (f) Limited English proficiency.
    (b) To ensure that underachievement in a child suspected of having a specific learning disability is not due to lack of appropriate instruction in reading or math, the group must consider, as part of the evaluation described in paragraphs (E) to (G) of this rule:
    (i) Data that demonstrate that prior to, or as a part of the referral process, the child was provided appropriate instruction in regular education settings, delivered by qualified personnel; and
    (ii) Data-based documentation of repeated assessments of achievement at reasonable intervals, reflecting formal assessment of student progress during instruction, which was provided to the child’s parents.
    (c) The school district must promptly request parental consent to evaluate the child to determine if the child needs special education and related services, and must adhere to the time frames described in paragraphs (B) and (D) of this rule unless the time frames are extended by mutual written agreement of the child’s parents and a group of qualified professionals, as described in paragraph (G)(1)(a) of this rule:
    (i) If, prior to a referral, a child has not made adequate progress after an appropriate period of time when provided instruction as described in paragraphs (H)(3)(b)(i) and (H)(3)(b)(ii) of this rule; and
    (ii) Whenever a child is referred for an evaluation.
    (d) An evaluation may utilize a process based on the child’s response to scientific, research-based intervention to determine whether a child has a specific learning disability. This process:
    (i) Begins when sufficient data have been gathered and analyzed under conditions of targeted and intensive individualized intervention conditions, when there is evidence of an inadequate response to intervention on the part of the child, and the group determines that the child’s needs are unlikely to be met without certain specialized instruction in addition to the regular classroom instruction;
    (ii) Employs interventions that are scientifically-based and provided at appropriate levels of intensity, frequency, duration, and integrity, relative to the child’s identified needs;
    (iii) Is based on results of scientifically-based, technically adequate assessment procedures that assess ongoing progress while the child is receiving scientifically-based instruction, and that have been reported to the child’s parents;
    (iv) Includes the analysis of data described in paragraphs (H)(3)(b)(i) and (H)(3)(b)(ii) of this rule to determine whether a discrepancy is present between actual and expected performance, in both the child’s rate of progress in developing skills, and in the child’s level of performance on measures assessing one or more of the academic areas listed in paragraph (H)(3)(a)(i) of this rule;
    (v) May not be used to delay unnecessarily a child’s being evaluated to determine eligibility for special education services.
    (e) A school district may use alternative, research-based procedures for determining whether a child exhibits a pattern of strengths and weaknesses in performance, achievement, or both, relative to age, state-approved grade-level standards, or intellectual development, that is determined by the group to be relevant to the identification of a specific learning disability, if prior approval of the procedures has been granted by the Ohio Department of Education.
    (f) The school district must develop written procedures for the implementation of any method used to determine the existence of a specific learning disability that, at a minimum, incorporate guidelines developed the Ohio Department of Education as specified in this rule.

    (4) Observation

    (a) The school district must ensure that the child is observed in the child’s learning environment, including the regular classroom setting, to document the child’s academic performance and behavior in the areas of difficulty.
    (b) The group described in paragraph (G) of this rule, in determining whether a child has a specific learning disability, must decide to:
    (i) Use information from an observation in routine classroom instruction and monitoring of the child’s performance that was done before the child was referred for an evaluation; or
    (ii) Have at least one member of the group described in paragraph (G) of this rule conduct an observation of the child’s academic performance in the regular classroom after the child has been referred for an evaluation and parental consent, consistent with rule 3301-51-05 of the Administrative Code, is obtained.
    (c) In the case of a child of less than school-age or out of school, a group member must observe the child in an environment appropriate for a child of that age.

    GUIDANCE

    Eligibility determination - specific learning disabilities

    Additional procedures required for specific learning disability (SLD) determination

    To determine if a child has a specific learning disability that requires special education, the district must follow procedures in addition to those required to identify a child as "a child with a disability." These additional procedures include:

    • The inclusion of additional team members, including at least one person who is qualified to conduct individual diagnostic examinations;
    • Specific observation requirements. These allow the district to use information from observations conducted during routine classroom instruction before referral for evaluation, or to conduct observations after referral for evaluation has occurred and parental consent has been obtained. The purpose of the observation is to identify any behavior related to the child’s academic functioning;
    • A determination by the group based on evidence that its findings are not primarily the result of these identified exclusionary factors:
      • A visual, hearing or motor disability;
      • Mental retardation;
      • Emotional disturbance;
      • Cultural factors;
      • Environmental or economic disadvantage; or
      • Limited English proficiency;
    • The consideration of information and data providing evidence that the determining factor for the child’s underachievement is not a lack of appropriate instruction in reading and math. To satisfy this requirement, the group MUST consider data that demonstrate that the child has been provided appropriate instruction in the regular education environment, delivered by qualified personnel. The group also must consider data-based documentation reflecting formal assessment of child progress during instruction. Note that this requirement pertains to the identification of any child as SLD, regardless of the process used to make this determination. This requirement does NOT pertain only to districts who utilize a "process based on the child’s response to scientific, research-based intervention" to determine if the child has a specific learning disability.
    • For preschool, appropriate procedures would relate to language, spoken language or the child's ability to listen, think, and speak. This should be closely reviewed to ascertain whether a speech/language disability exists or a specific learning disability is appropriate.

    When determining the existence of a specific learning disability, the parents and the eligibility team can mutually agree to extend the 60-day timeline if the team determines that additional data are needed and these data cannot be obtained within the 60-day timeline. The decision to extend the timeline must be made on a case-by-case basis, depending on the needs of the child. This agreement must be in writing and must indicate the target date for the end of the extended timeline.

    Eligibility determination - specific learning disabilities

    Assessment procedures for identifying children with specific learning disabilities (SLD)

    Before the reauthorization of IDEA 2004, districts were required to demonstrate that a child had a severe discrepancy between achievement and ability in one or more specific areas in order to identify a child as a child with a specific learning disability (SLD). Many years of research have challenged the validity of this discrepancy model in determining eligibility for SLD. The use of the discrepancy model forced districts to wait until a child had failed for a considerable period of time before the child could be identified for assistance leading to that model being referred to as a "wait to fail" model. In addition, the use of this identification method of did not provide relevant information to assist in the design of effective instruction and interventions. As a result, the requirements of IDEA 2004 indicate that states cannot require the use of a severe discrepancy between intellectual ability and achievement for determining eligibility for SLD.

    Regardless of the evaluation process used to determine eligibility for SLD, the district must establish that a child has been provided with appropriate learning experiences and instruction before identifying the child as SLD.

    SLD - Use of a process based on the child's response to scientific, research-based intervention (Response to Intervention - RtI)

    NOTE: If the school district is using a response to intervention (RtI) process to determine whether a child has a specific learning disability, the district cannot use this process to delay the provision of a timely initial evaluation (OSEP letter to State Directors of Special Education, January 21, 2011).

    The new requirements of IDEA allow districts to use a "process based on the child's response to scientific, research-based intervention" as part of the eligibility determination for SLD. This process is commonly referred to as "response to intervention" or "RtI;" however, the actual phrase "response to intervention" does not appear in federal law. RtI is most accurately described as a process that brings together general, special, and gifted education to provide a unified system of education that meets the needs of ALL children. RtI provides a conceptual framework for the implementation of scientifically-based practices for both academics and behavior at all levels of the system. This helps districts make sound instructional decisions.

    Note that RtI is NOT a special education initiative, a program or a new pre-referral process. The primary purpose of RtI is not the determination of a child's eligibility for special education services; however, the information and data collected as part of the RtI process can become a significant component of a comprehensive evaluation when this process is used to determine eligibility for SLD. Before using assessment data from an RtI process for SLD eligibility determination, districts should self assess their current level of RtI implementation to ensure that the requisite systems are in place to use this process with confidence. Two tools that can assist in this process, Response to Intervention Blueprints for Implementation: District Level and Response to Intervention Blueprints for Implementation: School Building Level are available for free download at www.nasdse.org.

    Ohio added additional language to the standards to assist districts in identifying the conditions that should be in place if the district chooses to use RtI as part of a comprehensive evaluation to determine eligibility for SLD. These requirements include the following:

    • Sufficient data must be gathered and analyzed under conditions of targeted and intensive individualized intervention that provide evidence that the child's needs are unlikely to be met without certain specialized instruction, in addition to the regular classroom instruction;
    • The interventions implemented during this process must be scientifically-based and provided at appropriate levels of intensity, frequency, duration and integrity, relative to the child's identified needs;
    • Scientifically-based, technically adequate assessment procedures must be used to assess ongoing progress while the child is receiving scientifically-based instruction; and
    • Data-based documentation of child progress must be analyzed to determine whether there is a discrepancy between actual and expected performance, in both the child's rate of progress in developing skills and in the child's level of performance on measures assessing one or more of the following areas:
      • Oral expression;
      • Listening comprehension;
      • Written expression;
      • Basic reading skills;
      • Reading fluency skills;
      • Reading comprehension;
      • Mathematics calculation; or
      • Mathematics problem-solving.

    Response to intervention is defined as the practice of:

    • Providing high-quality instruction/intervention matched to child needs; and
    • Using learning rates over time and level of performance to make important educational decisions.

    The essential components of an effective RtI model include:

    • Multiple tiers of intervention service delivery;
    • Use of a problem-solving method; and
    • An integrated data collection/assessment system to inform decisions at each tier of service delivery (NASDSE, 2005)

    RtI - Discrepancy between a child’s expected and actual performance

    • Ohio’s Operating Standards include additional language that expands on what constitutes a "process based on the child’s response to scientific, research-based intervention" or response to intervention. Although this language uses the term "discrepancy," it does not refer to a discrepancy between ability and achievement. Instead it refers to the presence of a discrepancy between a child’s expected and actual performance. This discrepancy is determined by analyzing data gathered during instruction and interventions that are targeted to the child’s areas of deficit. The focus is on the child’s rate of progress in developing skills and performance level in relation to peers and/or benchmark standards in one or more of the academic areas listed for SLD eligibility.

    RtI - Scientifically based, technically adequate assessment procedures

    • The data necessary to assess a child’s progress when provided with research-based interventions is gathered through the use of scientifically based, technically adequate assessment procedures. These assessment procedures, which include curriculum-based measurement (CBM), must have the following characteristics in order to provide the necessary data for decision making within the RtI process:
      • Allow for direct measures of specific skills (derived from the content standards) that are being targeted for intervention;
      • Allow for frequent administration, so that progress can be systematically monitored;
      • Be sensitive to small increments of growth in skills; and
      • Provide data that can be easily summarized and displayed in an educator-friendly manner, in order to facilitate the ability to make instructional decisions rapidly.

    RtI - Scientifically based intervention

    • A scientifically based intervention is a specific strategy or procedure that targets factors, usually of an environmental nature, that are functionally related to a learning or behavior problem. Factors that may be targeted by an intervention include:
      • Instructional practices and materials;
      • Opportunities to perform desired behaviors or skills;
      • Instructional tasks;
      • Prompts;
      • Child skills, attitudes and motivation;
      • Error correction procedures;
      • Contingencies for successful performance; and
      • Performance feedback.
    • An intervention is considered to be scientifically based when there is adequate empirical support for its effectiveness, in the form of published, peer-reviewed studies of the intervention itself or of major components of the intervention using research methods with adequate internal and external validity. Intervention intensity, frequency and duration refer to the quality and "degree" of the intervention, while effectiveness depends on the delivery of a degree of intervention that matches the child’s needs and is provided on a frequent basis for an adequate period of time. Intervention integrity refers to the fidelity with which the intervention is delivered as designed, as documented by an appropriate record-keeping procedure.

    SLD - Assessment process to identify a child's strengths and weaknesses

    • Districts can use information and data gathered from an evaluation process that identifies a child’s pattern of strengths and weaknesses in performance, achievement or both, relative to age; state-approved, grade-level standards or intellectual development.
    • The evaluation process used to identify a pattern of strengths and weaknesses must employ valid, reliable techniques. Valid techniques are those that reliably measure constructs or factors that research has shown to be functionally related to children’s learning and behavior problems, to the extent that the interventions targeting such constructs or factors result in improvements in children’s learning and behavior.

    SLD - Alternative research-based assessment procedures

    • A school district may use any alternative, research-based assessment procedures for determining whether a child has a specific learning disability (SLD). To use any alternative assessment for determining SLD eligibility, the district must contact the Ohio Department of Education/Office for Exceptional Children (ODE/OEC) to initiate the approval process. Any proposed alternative assessment must meet the evaluation requirements for assessment tools and strategies identified in Evaluation - 6.4 Planning and Conducting the Evaluation. This option will be used very infrequently since almost all current assessment practices will be included in the procedures described above.

     

    REQUIREMENT

    3301-51-06
    (H) Additional procedures for identifying children with specific learning disabilities
    (5) Specific documentation for the eligibility determination

    (a) For a child suspected of having a specific learning disability, the documentation of the determination of eligibility, as required in paragraph (G)(1)(b) of this rule, must contain a statement of:

    (i) Whether the child has a specific learning disability;
    (ii) The basis for making the determination, including an assurance that the determination has been made in accordance with paragraph (G)(3)(a) of this rule;
    (iii) The relevant behavior, if any, noted during the observation of the child and the relationship of that behavior to the child's academic functioning;
    (iv) The educationally relevant medical findings, if any;
    (v) Whether:
    (a) The child does not achieve adequately for the child's age or to meet state-approved grade-level standards consistent with paragraph (H)(3)(a)(i)of this rule; or
    (b) The child does not make sufficient progress to meet age or state-approved grade-level standards consistent with paragraph (H)(3)(a)(ii) of this rule; and
    (c) The child exhibits a pattern of strengths and weaknesses in performance, achievement, or both, relative to age, state-approved grade-level standards or intellectual development consistent with paragraph (H)(3)(a)(iii) of this rule;
    (vi) The determination of the group concerning the effects of a visual, hearing, or motor disability; mental retardation; emotional disturbance; cultural factors; environmental or economic disadvantage; or limited English proficiency on the child's achievement level; and
    (vii) If the child has participated in a process that assesses the child's response to scientific, research-based intervention:
    (a) The instructional strategies used and the student-centered data collected; and
    (b) The documentation that the child's parents were notified about:
    (i) The state's policies regarding the amount and nature of student performance data that would be collected and the general education services that would be provided;
    (ii) Strategies for increasing the child's rate of learning; and
    (iii) the parents' right to request an evaluation.

    (b) Each group member must certify in writing whether the report reflects the member's conclusion. If it does not reflect the member's conclusion, the group member must submit a separate statement presenting the member's conclusions.

    GUIDANCE

     

    Additional documentation required for specific learning disability determination

    In addition to the information required for all evaluation team reports (ETRs) (see Evaluation 6.6 - Evaluation Team Report and Eligibility Determination), specific documentation must be included in the ETR when a child is suspected to have a specific learning disability. This additional documentation of the eligibility determination should include:

    • Whether the child is determined to have a specific learning disability;
    • The basis for making that determination, including an assurance the determination has been made by drawing on information from a variety of sources that have been documented and carefully considered;
    • Any relevant behavior identified during observation of the child and the relationship of that behavior to the child's academic functioning;
    • A description of any educationally relevant medical findings;
    • Identification of any of eight specific area(s) in which the team has determined that the child is not achieving adequately for the child's age or meeting state-approved grade-level standards when provided with appropriate learning experiences and instruction. These areas are:
      • Oral expression;
      • Listening comprehension;
      • Written expression;
      • Basic reading skills;
      • Reading fluency skills;
      • Reading comprehension;
      • Mathematics calculation; and
      • Mathematics problem solving.
    • Results from the assessment process used to make this determination which could include:
      • An assessment process based on the child's response to scientific, research-based intervention (response to intervention); or
      • An assessment process to determine if the child exhibits a pattern of strengths and weaknesses in performance, achievement, or both.
    • The team's determination concerning the effects of the following exclusionary factors on the child's performance:
      • A visual, hearing or motor disability;
      • Mental retardation;
      • Emotional disturbance;
      • Cultural factors;
      • Environmental or economic disadvantage; or
      • Limited English proficiency.
    • If the child has participated in a process that assesses the child's response to scientific, research-based intervention (response to intervention):
      • A description of the instructional strategies used by the district and the child-centered data collected; and
      • Documentation that the child's parents were notified about:
        • The state's policies regarding the amount and nature of child performance data that would be collected and the general education services that would be provided;
        • Strategies that were used for increasing the child's learning rate; and
        • The parents' right to request an evaluation.

    State's policies - student performance data collected and services provided when implementing a response to intervention process

    Response to intervention is a process of matching high quality instruction and intervention to student need and using student performance data to make instruction decisions. As a result, the amount and nature of student performance data collected and the specific services and interventions provided as part of general education services will vary based on the particular needs of the child, including the specific skills being addressed, the age and grade level of the student and the gap between the child's expected and actual performance.

    Given all of these variables, decisions about the intensity, frequency and duration of scientific, research-based interventions, as well as the type and frequency of student performance data collected, are appropriately determined at the local level by building and district leadership teams and, in the cases of students requiring individualized, intensive intervention, by specialized problem-solving teams.

     

    6.8 Definition of "a Child with a Disability"

    State Performance Plan (SPP):

    (See Overview in the Introduction for more information on the SPP.)

    Intent:

    To provide guidance regarding the eligibility requirements for special education and related services for the 13 disability categories that are part of the core definition of a child with a disability under IDEA.

    Timelines:

    Consent for evaluation

    Within 30 days of receiving a request for an initial evaluation of a child from either the child's parents or a public agency, the school district of residence will either obtain parents' consent for an initial evaluation or provide the parents prior written notice stating that the school district does not suspect a disability and will not be conducting an evaluation. The child’s parents should document the request for an evaluation in writing.

    Conducting the evaluation

    Within 60 days from receipt of parental consent to evaluate a child, the school district will conduct a comprehensive initial evaluation of the child to identify the child’s educational needs and to determine if the child is a child with a disability.

    If the school district is using a response to intervention (RtI) process, the district cannot use this process to reject a referral or delay the provision of a timely initial evaluation because a child has not participated in the RtI process (OSEP letter to State Directors of Special Education, January 21, 2011).
    If the school district has not implemented an RtI process and it receives a request for an evaluation from parents, the school district cannot begin the RtI process apart from the evaluation timeline. The district must complete the RtI process and the evaluation within the 90 day timeline from the date of the referral (30 days from date of referral and 60 days from parental consent) unless the district does not suspect a disability. If the district does not suspect a disability, it provides the parents with a prior written notice within 30 days of the request.
    Preschool Note
    School districts cannot require other agencies to use an RtI process when identifying preschoolers with disabilities.

    Exceptions to 60-day timeline: The 60-day timeline for conducting the evaluation does not apply to a school district if:

    • The parents of the child repeatedly fails or refuses to produce the child for the evaluation; or
    • The child enrolls in a new school district of residence after the 60-day period has begun and prior to a determination by the child's previous school district of residence regarding whether the child is a child with a disability. This exception applies only if the current school district of residence is making sufficient progress to ensure a prompt completion of the evaluation and the parents and the current school district agree to a specific time when the evaluation will be completed.

    When the existence of a specific learning disability is being determined, the 60-day timeline also can be extended with mutual written agreement between the parents and eligibility team if additional data are needed that cannot be obtained within the 60-day timeline.

    Evaluation team report (ETR) and documentation of eligibility status

    Within 14 days from the date of eligibility determination or the determination of continued eligibility and prior to the next IEP meeting, the school district of residence must provide the parents a copy of the evaluation team report and the documentation of determination of eligibility or continued eligibility.

    REQUIREMENT

    3301-51-01
    (B) Definitions
    (10)(d) Definitions of disability terms. The terms used in this definition of a "child with a disability" are defined as follows:

    (i) "Autism" means a developmental disability significantly affecting verbal and nonverbal communication and social interaction, generally evident before age three, that adversely affects a child’s educational performance. Other characteristics often associated with "autism" are engagement in repetitive activities and stereotyped movements, resistance to environmental change or change in daily routines, and unusual responses to sensory experiences.
    (a) Autism does not apply if a child's educational performance is adversely affected primarily because the child has an emotional disturbance, as defined in paragraph (B)(10)(d)(v) of this rule.
    (b) A child who manifests the characteristics of autism after age three could be identified as having autism if the criteria in paragraph (B)(10)(d)(i) of this rule are satisfied.
    (ii) "Cognitive disability" (mental retardation) means significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning, existing concurrently with deficits in adaptive behavior and manifested during the developmental period, that adversely affects a child's educational performance. This definition replaces the definition of mental retardation in 34 C.F.R. 300.8(c)(6) (October 13, 2006) and shall be used instead whenever the federal regulations at 34 C.F.R. Part 300 (October 23, 2006), state statutes at Chapter 3323, of the Revised Code, or the state rules in Chapter 3301-51 of the Administrative Code refer to mental retardation or cognitive disability.
    (a) "Significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning" refers to an intelligence quotient of seventy or below as determined through a measure of cognitive functioning administered by a school psychologist or a qualified psychologist using a test designed for individual administration. Based on a standard error of measurement and clinical judgment, a child may be determined to have significant subaverage general intellectual functioning with an intelligence quotient not to exceed seventy-five.
    (b) "Deficits in adaptive behavior" means deficits in two or more applicable skill areas occurring within the context of the child's environments and typical of the child's chronological age peers.
    (c) A child who was identified by an Ohio school district as having a developmental handicap prior to July 1, 2002 shall be considered a child with a disability if the child continues to meet the definition of "developmentally handicapped" in paragraph "N." of former rule 3301-51-01 of the Administrative Code and the eligibility requirements of paragraph "F.1" of former rule 3301-51-04 of the Administrative Code that are both contained in the "Rules for the Education of Handicapped Children," which were effective July 1,1982 and were rescinded July 1, 2002. A child who meets these provisions shall be eligible to receive special education and related services in accordance with the "Operating Standards for Ohio’s Schools Serving Children with Disabilities" effective July 1, 2008.
    (iii) "Deaf-blindness" means concomitant hearing and visual impairments, the combination of which causes such severe communication and other developmental and educational needs that they cannot be accommodated in special education programs solely for children with deafness or children with blindness.
    (iv) "Deafness" means a hearing impairment that is so severe that the child is impaired in processing linguistic information through hearing, with or without amplification that adversely affects a child's educational performance.
    (vi) "Hearing impairment" means an impairment in hearing, whether permanent or fluctuating, that adversely affects a child’s educational performance but that is not included under the definition of deafness in this rule.

    3301-51-06
    (J) Additional procedures for identifying children with deafness or hearing impairment
    A group of qualified professionals and the parents of the child may determine the child has deafness or a hearing impairment if the child exhibits:

    (1) An average pure tone hearing loss of fifty decibels or greater, according to the “American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) Guidelines for the Audiologic Assessment of Children From Birth to Five Years of Age” (2004) for children from birth to five years of age or according to the "American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) Guidelines for Manual Pure- Tone Threshold Audiometry" (2005) for children six through twenty-one years of age, for the frequencies five hundred, one thousand, and two thousand hertz in the better ear; [The guidelines referenced in paragraph (J)(1) of this rule are available at www.asha.org.]
    (2) An average pure tone hearing loss of twenty-five decibels or greater (ASHA) for the frequencies five hundred, one thousand, and two thousand hertz in the better ear, which has an adverse effect upon the child's educational performance related to documented evidence of:
    (a) A more severe hearing loss during the developmental years than is currently measured;
    (b) A history of chronic medical problems that have resulted in fluctuating hearing, presently or in the past; or
    (c) A delay in diagnosis, provision of amplification, or initiation of special programming.
    (3) A hearing loss in excess of twenty-five decibels (ASHA) for the frequencies one thousand hertz through eight thousand hertz in the better ear, resulting in such poor auditory discrimination that it has an adverse effect upon the child’s educational performance.

    3301-51-01
    (B) Definitions
    (10)(d) Definitions of disability terms. The terms used in this definition of a "child with a disability" are defined as follows:(continued)
    (v) "Emotional disturbance" means a condition exhibiting one or more of the following characteristics over a long period of time and to a marked degree that adversely affects a child's educational performance:

    (a) An inability to learn that cannot be explained by intellectual, sensory, or health factors.
    (b) An inability to build or maintain satisfactory interpersonal relationships with peers and teachers.
    (c) Inappropriate types of behavior or feelings under normal circumstances.
    (d) A general pervasive mood of unhappiness or depression;
    (e) A tendency to develop physical symptoms or fears associated with personal or school problems.
    (f) Emotional disturbance includes schizophrenia. The term does not apply to children who are socially maladjusted unless it is determined that they have an emotional disturbance under paragraph (B)(10)(d)(v) of this rule.

    (vii) "Multiple disabilities" means concomitant impairments (such as mental retardation-blindness or mental retardation-orthopedic impairment), the combination of which causes such severe educational needs that they cannot be accommodated in special education programs solely for one of the impairments. "Multiple disabilities" does not include deaf-blindness.

    (viii) "Orthopedic impairment" means a severe orthopedic impairment that adversely affects a child’s educational performance. The term includes impairments caused by a congenital anomaly, impairments caused by disease (e.g., poliomyelitis, bone tuberculosis), and impairments from other causes (e.g., cerebral palsy, amputations, and fractures or burns that cause contractures).

    3301-51-06
    (I) Additional procedures for identifying children with multiple disabilities
    A group of qualified professionals and the parents of the child may determine the child has multiple disabilities if the child exhibits:

    (1) A combination of two or more areas of disability as defined in rule 3301-51-01 of the Administrative Code, except for a combination that includes a specific learning disability; and
    (2) A severe or profound deficit in communication or adaptive behavior documented through the use of individually administered standardized instruments which have been validated for the specific purpose of measuring communication or adaptive behavior.

    3301-51-01
    (B) Definitions
    (10)(d) Definitions of disability terms. The terms used in this definition of a "child with a disability" are defined as follows:
    (ix) "Other health impairment" means having limited strength, vitality, or alertness, including a heightened alertness to environmental stimuli, that result in limited alertness with respect to the educational environment. These chronic or acute health problems must adversely affect a child’s educational performance, that:

    (a) Is due to chronic or acute health problems such as asthma, attention deficit disorder or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, diabetes, epilepsy, a heart condition, hemophilia, lead poisoning, leukemia, nephritis, rheumatic fever, sickle cell anemia, and tourette syndrome; and
    (b) Adversely affects a child’s educational performance.

    (x) Specific learning disability

    (a) General. "Specific learning disability" means a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, that may manifest itself in the imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or to do mathematical calculation, including conditions such as perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia.
    (b) Disorders not included. Specific learning disability does not include learning problems that are primarily the result of visual, hearing, or motor disabilities, of mental retardation, of emotional disturbance, or of environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage.

    (xi) "Speech or language impairment" means a communication disorder such as stuttering, impaired articulation, a language impairment, or a voice impairment, that adversely affects a child’s educational performance.

    (xii) "Traumatic brain injury" means an acquired injury to the brain caused by an external physical force or by other medical conditions, including but not limited to stroke, anoxia, infectious disease, aneurysm, brain tumors and neurological insults resulting from medical or surgical treatments. The injury results in total or partial functional disability or psychosocial impairment or both, that adversely affects a child’s educational performance. The term applies to open or closed head injuries, as well as to other medical conditions that result in acquired brain injuries. The injuries result in impairments in one or more areas such as cognition; language; memory; attention; reasoning; abstract thinking; judgment; problem-solving; sensory, perceptual, and motor abilities; psychosocial behavior; physical functions; information processing; and speech. The term does not apply to brain injuries that are congenital or degenerative or to brain injuries induced by birth trauma. This definition replaces the definition of traumatic brain injury in 34 C.F.R. 300.8(c)(12) (October 13, 2006) and shall be used instead whenever the federal regulations at 34 C.F.R. Part 300 (October 13, 2006), state statutes at Chapter 3323, of the Revised Code, or the state rules in Chapter 3301-51 of the Administrative Code refer to traumatic brain injury.

    (xiii) "Visual impairment" including blindness means an impairment in vision that, even with correction, adversely affects a child's educational performance. The term includes both partial sight and blindness. Visual impairment for any child means:

    (a) A visual impairment, not primarily perceptual in nature, resulting in a measured visual acuity of 20/70 or poorer in the better eye with correction; or
    (b) A physical eye condition that affects visual functioning to the extent that special education placement, materials and/or services are required in an educational setting.

    3301-51-11
    (C) Eligibility
    (6)A school district may choose to use the term "developmental delay" under the following conditions for children ages three through five who are experiencing developmental delays and who, by reason thereof, need special education and related services:

    (a) The applicability of the term shall be based upon the individual needs of the child as determined by the evaluation team or the IEP team and other qualified professionals;
    (b) In addition to the assessments required in paragraph (C)(1) of this rule, results of appropriate diagnostic instruments and procedures may also be used to help make the determination that a child has a "developmental delay." A developmental delay may be substantiated by a delay of two standard deviations below the mean in one or more of the areas of development or 1.5 standard deviations below the mean in two or more of the areas of development listed in paragraphs (C)(6)(b)(i) to (C)(6)(b)(v) of this rule. The results shall not be used as the sole factor in making the determination that a child has a developmental delay.
    "Developmental delay" means a child of three to five years who is experiencing a delay as determined by an evaluation team, IEP team, and other qualified professionals in one or more of the following areas of development:
    (i) Physical development;
    (ii) Cognitive development;
    (iii) Communication development;
    (iv) Social or emotional development; or
    (v) Adaptive development.
    (c) The term "developmental delay" may be used only after considering the applicability of the categories provided in paragraphs (C)(5)(a) to (C)(5)(m) of rule 3301-51-11; and
    (d) The term "developmental delay" may be used in place of the following disability categories:
    (i) Cognitive disability;
    (ii) Emotional disturbance;
    (iii) Speech or language impairment.

    (A child with a developmental delay that requires special education and related services may be determined in accordance with this rule to be a child with a disability.)


    Ohio’s Education Management Information System (EMIS) Guidelines, July 2001
    Glossary
    Keyword Definitions

    Other health handicapped-major: A child may be identified as "other health handicapped-major" if the child's condition meets the definition of "other health impaired" listed elsewhere in the glossary and if either of the following apply:
    1. The child is identified as having a medical condition that is among those listed by the superintendent of public instruction as conditions where a substantial majority of cases fall within the definition of "medically fragile child." The current list is as follows:

    When a child has a tracheostomy;
    When a child has a central IV line;
    When a child is on a ventilator;
    When a child requires tube feedings;
    When a child requires percussion and drainage;
    When a child requires suctioning; or
    When a child is oxygen dependent.

    2. The child is determined by the superintendent of public instruction to be a medically fragile child after being petitioned by the district superintendent. If during the first week of October a student does NOT have one of the above conditions, but still has a specific serious medical circumstance (a) requiring physician services weekly, (b) requiring nursing services daily, and (c) is at risk of institutionalization, a school district superintendent may petition the superintendent of public instruction for inclusion of such student in the "other health impaired – major" category for funding purposes.

    Other health handicapped-minor: A child may be identified as "other health handicapped-minor" if the child's condition meets the definition of "other health impaired" listed elsewhere in the glossary but the child's condition does not meet other health handicapped-major criteria.

     

Last Modified: 11/25/2013 1:36:17 PM