Noncompliant Example:

"It's time for a reevaluation."

Compliant Examples:

"The district is proposing to conduct an initial evaluation for STUDENT. Specific data to be reviewed and assessments to be conducted are documented in the table below."

"The district is proposing to conduct a reevaluation for STUDENT. Specific data to be reviewed and assessments to be conducted are documented in the table below."

DNQ Initial Example: “The district is confirming STUDENT is not eligible for specialized instruction or special education services.”

DNQ Reevaluation Example: “The district is proposing discontinuation of special education services.”

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. 

Is this an initial evaluation or a re-evaluation?

What was the date of the last comprehensive evaluation?

Do NOT use acronyms, unless you identify them first.

Do NOT use “and/or” OR “as needed”, unless you are specific as to what would generate the additional test use.

Noncompliant Example:

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

Compliant Example:

"A reevaluation is needed to determine if STUDENT 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 STUDENT’s present levels of performance and educational needs in order to appropriately plan a program."

DNQ Initial Example: “This is an initial evaluation to determine if STUDENT is a student with a disability and needs special education services. STUDENT did not meet Minnesota criteria for eligibility in DISABILITY CATEGORY(S) therefore STUDENT will not receive special education services.”

DNQ Reevaluation Example: “This is a reevaluation needed to determine if STUDENT continues to be a student with a disability and continues to need special education services. STUDENT no longer demonstrates a continuing need for special education services therefore special education services will be discontinued.”

Did the team use information from parents to make these decisions? If so, what information? Did the team use information from teachers to make these decisions?  If so, what information?

Did the team use information from a current or previous IEP or ER? If so, what was the date on those documents?

Did the team use district or state testing data to make these decisions? If so, what tests?

Did the team use information from current progress on IEP goals?

For an evaluation, this question is NOT referring to the list of tests and procedures to be conducted but rather:  What information the team used to make the decision on the proposed action? 

Review of pre-referral interventions

Review group achievement test results

Noncompliant Examples:

"Woodcock Johnson Test of Achievement, WISC, Observations."

"See attached list of tests and procedures."

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."

"The team considered the results of STUDENT’s most recent evaluation report dated April 14, 2015, progress reports, parent input, and teacher input to determine areas of need and appropriate services."

DNQ Initial Example: “This proposal was based upon input form the most recent evaluation, parents, special education and classroom teachers, and STUDENT’s pre-referral interventions data.”

DNQ Reevaluation Example: “This proposal was based upon input form the most recent evaluation, parents, special education and classroom teachers, and progress on STUDENT’s previous Individualized Education Program goals.”

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.  Why did the team choose the proposed ideas instead of others? Did the team consider not evaluating this student? Did the team consider other evaluation tools? Did the team consider testing in other areas such as behavior, motor, speech, etc.?

Noncompliant Examples:

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

"The team considered all relevant options."

"No other options considered."

Compliant Examples:

"The team considered proposing an additional reading assessment, such as the Test of Early Reading Ability, but in reviewing the STUDENT'S scores on the most recent NWEAs and the progress on STUDENTS 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 STUDENTS behavior has made the need for evaluation urgent."

DNQ Initial Example: “The team considered proposing an additional reading assessment, but in reviewing the STUDENT’s scores on the most recent NWEAs and the STUDENT pre-referral intervention data, the team decided that there is enough existing data to determine he/she does not have educational needs in reading.”

DNQ Reevaluation Example: “The most recent evaluation indicated, STUDENT is no longer eligible for special education services. No other options were available for the team to consider.”

Are there any cultural or language factors that should be considered?

Are there any behavior, visual or hearing impairments, or the need for assistive technology factors that  

should be considered?

Are there any family circumstances that should be considered?

Are there any behavior factors that should be considered?

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."

"STUDENT has a diagnosis of Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and will need testing sessions broken into smaller segments to obtain optimal results."

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

DNQ Example: “The team did not identify any other relevant factors.”

Remember to use the name of the student in all sections of the PWN.

You must indicate that the evaluation is being completed for two reasons: to determine eligibility and to determine special education needs. 

Begin by selecting assessment tools based on the student’s primary disability. If a secondary disability is suspected or identified, add any additional assessments listed in the Disability Specific Evaluation Planning Guiding Documents listed below. This is a great place to start, but the team also needs to consider students individually and make sure you are evaluating in all areas of educational need and suspected need, even if the areas are not commonly associated with the student’s disability or suspected disability. 

What does available data in the areas of academic skills (e.g., GOMs, MCA, MAP, grades, work samples, progress monitoring data), behavior (e.g., discipline and attendance records, progress monitoring data), and functional skills (e.g., progress monitoring data) tell us about the student’s performance and areas of need/suspected need? Parents, teachers, paraprofessionals, and other staff may have great insights into a student’s needs that can inform the evaluation plan. 

What do we need to understand better, and what tools are going to give us the information we need? For example:

• If the student has behavior/mental health concerns, consider including a Functional Behavior Assessment and/or social emotional rating scales (e.g., BASC-3).

• If attendance has been an issue and we want to rule out health issues as a contributing factor, a health assessment by the nurse may be warranted. 

• If the student is often off-task in classes, momentary time sampling observations may help us determine to what extent this is interfering with the student’s learning. 

• If the student is demonstrating difficulty with functional/adaptive skills, completion of an adaptive rating scale may be warranted.

Please don’t hesitate to reach out to your School Psychologist with questions. The earlier in the process of developing the plan, the better! Share all evaluation plans in SpEd Forms with your School Psychologist prior to sending the plan home. Please provide at least a week for review and consultation. 

Because of licensure requirements and the unique nature of cases in certain categories, the following staff must be involved in evaluation planning for the following categories. Refer to the SWWC Staff Directory for contact information:

• Birth-5 years old/ECSE: Early Childhood Coordinator

• DHH: Deaf/Hard of Hearing Teacher

• SLP: Speech Language Pathologist

• PI, TBI: Specialist of Physical and Health Disabilities

• ASD: Autism Specialist (not always required, work with your School Psychologist to determine if this is appropriate)

• BVI: Teacher of the Visually Impaired

Evaluation Review-Specific:

• Test Descriptions Handout for Parents: This handout explains the basics of norm-referenced assessments (i.e., IQ tests, achievement tests, behavior rating scales). It is typically sent to parents with the Notice of Team Meeting, which gives parents an opportunity to read through the handout prior to the meeting.

• MN Eligibility Criteria Checklists: These checklists are commonly used as handouts during evaluation review meetings when initial eligibility is being discussed. When a student is re-evaluated, they do not need to meet initial eligibility criteria and can continue to be eligible for services if there is evidence for a continuing need. As such, these handouts are not typically used during re-evaluation meetings.