Prior Written Notice

Noncompliant Example:

"Three-year reevaluation, see attached evaluation plan."

Compliant Examples:

"This is a reevaluation to determine continued eligibility, present levels, and current needs for Claudia’s Specific Learning Disability. Due to emerging concerns with communication, the area of language will also be evaluated to determine if Claudia’s language needs warrant additional special education and related services."

"Pre-referral interventions were unsuccessful. Jessica’s teachers continue to have concerns regarding her academic progress so the district is proposing an evaluation to determine eligibility for special education services."

Noncompliant Example:

"Reevaluations are required once every three years."

Compliant Examples:

"A reevaluation is needed to determine if George continues to be a student with a disability and continues to need special education services. The reevaluation will provide the IEP team with updated information about George's present levels of performance and educational needs in order to appropriately plan a program."

"An initial evaluation is needed to determine if Brittany is a student with a disability and needs special education services. The evaluation will provide the school with information about Brittany's present levels of performance and educational needs in order to appropriately plan a program."

This is asking what information the team used to formulate the proposed action. This is not referring to the lists of tests and procedures to be conducted. The basis for the proposed evaluation could include: parent and teacher input, classroom performance, aptitude and achievement tests, results of pre-referral interventions, progress on previous IEP goals and objectives, etc.

Noncompliant Example:

"We are proposing to conduct the assessments listed in the attached plan."

Compliant Examples:

"The team used data from pre-referral interventions and input from Jessica’s parents and classroom teacher to determine the areas to be assessed."

Other options considered could include: delaying the evaluation (for initial evaluations), conducting additional pre-referral interventions, conducting different assessment procedures, or just reviewing existing data rather than collecting new data.

Unless you plan to complete assessments in all areas of the evaluation report (a rare occurrence), be sure to address areas where data will not be collected using the following drop down prompt: "The team considered gathering data in the area of [intellectual, academic, health, social/emotional/behavior, adaptive, communication, motor, and sensory], but existing data indicates no concerns in these areas at this time." When completing the evaluation report, remember to remove report sections where data will not be collected.

Noncompliant Example:

"The team considered all relevant options."

"No other options considered."

Compliant Examples:

"The team considered gathering data in the areas of intellectual, health, adaptive, communication, motor, and sensory functioning, but existing data indicates no concerns in these areas at this time."

"The team considered proposing an additional reading assessment, such as the Test of Early Reading Ability, but in reviewing his scores on the most recent NWEAs and the progress on his reading goal, the team decided that there is enough existing data to determine his educational needs in reading."

"The team considered delaying the evaluation until another pre-referral intervention (allowing time out of seat, accompanied by classroom paraprofessional) was implemented, but decided against that option because the student’s behavior has made the need for evaluation urgent."

Noncompliant Example:

If this section is left blank, it is not in compliance. It must be addressed.

Compliant Examples:

"No other concerns were identified by the team."

"Trevor has attended several different schools and has been exposed to several different curriculums, which has resulted in a pattern of inconsistent education."

No. From MDE Q&A: “Neither federal nor state law expressly requires requests for a special education evaluation to be in writing." In the case of an initial evaluation for special education services, federal regulations provide, “ . . . 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.” (34 C.F.R. § 300.301(b)). In the case of a reevaluation, the federal regulations go on to say a public agency must ensure a revaluation “if the child’s parent or teacher requests a reevaluation.” (34 C.F.R. § 300.303(a)(2)). For both initial and reevaluations, the regulations do not require a parent to provide a written request to the school district for a special education evaluation. Accordingly, a district must respond to a parental verbal request to have his or her child evaluated for special education eligibility. Once a school district receives a verbal or written request from a parent for a special education evaluation, the district must either accept or reject the request by providing the parent with a PWN following the procedures outlined in title 34, section 300.503, of the Code of Federal Regulations. Authority: 34 C.F.R. § 300.301(b); 34 C.F.R. § 300.303(a)(2); 34 C.F.R. § 300.503.”

Important factors to note:

• The evaluation request has to be from a parent → not from a step-mother, mom’s boyfriend, etc. unless that person has educational rights.

• The school must respond with either a PWN or with an Evaluation Plan PWN

Document the conversation in the SpEd Forms Communications Log. Describe whether or not a meeting will be scheduled. If parent wishes to proceed and meeting is held:

• Procedural safeguards should be given when request is made.

• Print a team meeting notice form.

• Write an evaluation plan PWN if the school proceeds with the initial evaluation. If the parent and school agree not to move forward with the evaluation, document this in a PWN.

Even if the initial phone conversation is quick and informal, a meeting is not held, and the parent and school agree not to move forward with the evaluation, this should still be documented in a PWN.

The IDEA 60 calendar day evaluation period only applies to initial evaluations, not re-evaluations. However, according to guidance from OESP and our lead monitor at MDE, in this case, the state law trumps the federal law. We abide by the Minnesota law which permits a 30 school day evaluation period. Therefore, evaluations can carry over the summer. However, best practice would encourage that teams avoid carrying the evaluation over the summer to ensure the validity of the overall assessment data. If the team does decide to carry an evaluation over the summer, it would be best to document this in a PWN and notify your building sped supervisor.

The school needs to make all efforts to complete evaluation activities within the established timeline. For reevaluations, the team should have enough other data to determine continuing need (progress toward goals, teacher interviews, etc). If the student was a 15-day drop and re-enrolls, the school needs to re-propose evaluation if the timeline has expired and clearly explain the situation in the evaluation PWN.