2.3 Eligibility Determination and Communicating Assessment Results

Once a comprehensive, multi-factored evaluation is completed, the multidisciplinary team convenes to interpret assessment data, determine special education eligibility, and translate clinical findings into meaningful educational programming. Special educators play a central role in synthesizing complex psychometric data and communicating results clearly and compassionately to families.

---

1. The Two-Pronged Test for Special Education Eligibility

Under IDEA and 23 Illinois Administrative Code Part 226, establishing eligibility for special education and related services requires satisfying a strict two-pronged test. A student cannot receive special education services simply because a medical diagnosis or cognitive deficit exists.

       +-------------------------------------------------------------+
       |                  PRONG 1: Disability Criteria                |
       | Meets formal criteria for 1 or more IDEA Disability Categories |
       +-------------------------------------------------------------+
                                      |
                                      v
       +-------------------------------------------------------------+
       |             PRONG 2: Adverse Educational Impact              |
       |  Disability adversely affects academic or functional performance |
       |          AND requires Specially Designed Instruction (SDI)   |
       +-------------------------------------------------------------+
                                      |
                                      v
                      [ ELIGIBLE FOR IEP SERVICES ]

Prong 1: Presence of a Qualifying Disability Category

The student must meet the diagnostic criteria for at least one of the 13 disability categories established under IDEA:

1. Specific Learning Disability (SLD): Deficits in basic reading, comprehension, math calculation, or written expression.
2. Speech or Language Impairment (SLI): Communication disorders affecting articulation, fluency, voice, or language processing.
3. Other Health Impairment (OHI): Limited strength, vitality, or alertness due to chronic health conditions (e.g., ADHD, epilepsy, diabetes).
4. Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD): Developmental disability affecting verbal/nonverbal communication and social interaction.
5. Intellectual Disability (ID): Significantly subaverage intellectual functioning alongside deficits in adaptive behavior.
6. Emotional Disturbance (ED): Inability to build interpersonal relationships, inappropriate behaviors under normal circumstances, or pervasive depression.
7. Developmental Delay (DD): Applicable for children ages 3 through 9 in Illinois experiencing delays in physical, cognitive, communication, or emotional development.
8. Visual Impairment including Blindness
9. Hearing Impairment / Deafness
10. Deaf-Blindness
11. Orthopedic Impairment (OI)
12. Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI)
13. Multiple Disabilities (MD)

Prong 2: Adverse Impact and Need for Specially Designed Instruction

The identified disability must create a documented adverse impact on the student's educational performance (academic achievement, social-emotional functioning, or adaptive behavior). Furthermore, the student must demonstrate a documented need for Specially Designed Instruction (SDI)—the adaptation of content, methodology, or instructional delivery—that cannot be met through standard general education accommodations alone.

---

2. Models for Identifying Specific Learning Disabilities (SLD)

In Illinois, multidisciplinary teams evaluating students for Specific Learning Disability (SLD) can utilize approved identification frameworks:

Response to Intervention (RtI) / Multi-Tiered Support Model

This framework evaluates whether a student makes sufficient progress when provided with high-quality, research-based interventions:

• Requires documentation of inadequate Rate of Improvement (ROI) despite intensive Tier 3 instruction delivered with fidelity.
• Uses progress monitoring data (e.g., CBM trendlines) comparing student growth to normative benchmarks.
• Reduces over-identification by ensuring learning difficulties are not caused by inadequate core instruction.

Patterns of Strengths and Weaknesses (PSW)

PSW models analyze whether a student displays a statistically significant processing deficit paired with a specific academic achievement deficit, alongside intact cognitive capabilities in other domains:

• Identifies specific cognitive processing weaknesses (e.g., working memory, processing speed, phonological processing) that correlate directly with academic deficits (e.g., decoding, math calculation).
• Demonstrates an empirical link between cognitive architecture and academic failure.

Severe Discrepancy Model (Traditional Model)

Calculates a statistical discrepancy between intellectual potential (IQ score) and actual academic achievement (Standardized Achievement Score):

• Typically requires a discrepancy of 1.5 to 2.0 standard deviations (or 15 to 22 points) between IQ and achievement scores.
• Critique: Often called the "wait-to-fail" model, as young students may not demonstrate a large enough discrepancy until 3rd or 4th grade.

---

3. Mandatory Exclusionary Factors

Before finding a student eligible under any disability category, IDEA §300.306 explicitly mandates that the multidisciplinary team must rule out exclusionary factors.

A student must not be determined to be eligible if the determinant factor for the student's difficulty is:

1. Lack of appropriate instruction in reading, including the essential components of reading instruction (phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension).
2. Lack of appropriate instruction in math.
3. Limited English Proficiency (LEP) or cultural differences.
4. Environmental, economic, or cultural disadvantage (e.g., chronic homelessness, lack of school attendance).

Clinical Practice: The team must document evidence of prior effective instruction, attendance records, and language proficiency data to confirm that exclusionary factors are not the primary cause of academic underachievement.

---

4. Independent Educational Evaluations (IEEs)

If a parent disagrees with the evaluation results obtained by the school district, federal law provides explicit procedural safeguards regarding Independent Educational Evaluations (IEEs).

Parent Rights and District Responsibilities

• Right to Request: Parents have the legal right to request an IEE conducted by a qualified examiner not employed by the school district, at public expense.
• District Options (The "Without Unnecessary Delay" Rule): When a parent requests an IEE at public expense, the school district must, without unnecessary delay, choose one of two legal options:
  1. Grant the Request: Initiate an IEE at public expense, providing the parent with criteria regarding evaluator qualifications and geographic fee limits.
  2. File for Due Process: Request an impartial due process hearing to demonstrate that the district's evaluation was comprehensive and appropriate.
• Team Consideration: If the parent obtains an IEE (whether publicly funded or privately paid), the IEP team must consider the findings and recommendations of the independent evaluation in any decision made regarding FAPE. However, the team is not legally obligated to adopt all recommendations.

---

5. Synthesizing and Communicating Evaluation Data

The evaluation process concludes with the creation of a comprehensive evaluation report and the presentation of results to the family and team.

Guidelines for Writing Evaluation Reports

1. Jargon-Free Language: Translate technical statistical concepts (e.g., standard deviations, confidence intervals, regression to the mean) into accessible language that parents can readily understand.
2. Strengths-Based Orientation: Frame student performance by highlighting cognitive and functional strengths alongside identified areas of deficit.
3. Direct Pipeline to PLAAFP: Ensure evaluation findings directly inform the student's Present Levels of Academic Achievement and Functional Performance (PLAAFP) statement in the IEP. Evaluation data must directly justify every annual IEP goal, accommodation, and service minute proposed.

Effective Communication Strategies at IEP Meetings