Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 5

Achievement/Academic Functioning Written by T, Special Education Teacher

L is a bright, creative fifth grader at F Elementary. He has been referred to the special
education team due to his previous history. L attended Frisco Elementary in 3rd grade
and was on an IEP at the time. He began school at Frisco Elementary for the beginning
of fourth grade but was pulled out approximately 1 month into school and was home
schooled for the remainder of the year. During the time he was home schooled, he was
on an IEP and was receiving speech therapy services and occupational therapy
services along with academic instruction from a special education teacher. L has
returned as a part time student to Frisco Elementary. He is attending school during
select specials and every afternoon for unit of inquiry. He has been reevaluated so the
IEP team at Frisco Elementary can tailor Ls IEP to fit his particular strengths and
needs.
Testing Observations:
L spent extra time at school on three separate occasions to complete his assessments.
He accompanied the examiner and was willing and ready to try his best. Each session
was approximately 45 minutes. He began each session with confidence and remained
confident throughout the entire time. Towards the end of each session, he was ready to
quit, however he never become agitated or upset.
Assessment given: Woodcock-JohnsonIII Test of Achievement
The Woodcock-JohnsonIIITest of Achievement is an individually administered
assessment that provides a measure of Ls academic achievement and oral language
abilities. Relative strengths and weaknesses among his academic abilities are shown.
Ls proficiency is described categorically, ranging from limited to average, his test
performance can be generalized to similar, non-test, grade-level tasks.

Score

%ile

Oral Language

39

Oral Expression

46

Listening Comprehension

35

Broad Reading

35

Broad Math
Broad Written Language

20
30

Reading Comprehension

Math Calc Skills

22

Written Expression

13

When compared to others in his grade, Ls academic achievement is in the average


range in Oral language.
Broad Reading includes reading decoding, reading speed and the ability to comprehend
the text. Although Ls reading standard score is within the average range, his
performance varied on two different types of reading tasks. Ls performance is average
to advanced on tasks requiring reading decoding and the ability to identify words. His
performance is limited to average on tasks requiring efficient operation of reading
processes.
Broad Written Language includes production of written text, including spelling ability,
writing fluency and quality of written expression. Although his written
language standard score is within the average range, he performed differently on two
types of tasks measuring effective expression in written language. Ls performance is
average on tasks requiring the ability to spell orally presented words correctly. His
performance is limited on tasks requiring the ability to write rapidly with ease
(automaticity with writing tasks requiring minimal analytic attention or problem-solving.)
Broad Math includes mathematics reasoning and problem solving, number facility,
and automaticity. His mathematics standard score is within the low average range
(percentile rank range of 14 to 28; standard score range of 84 to 91) for his grade. Ls
overall mathematics ability is limited to average; he will probably find grade-level tasks
requiring problem solving, number facility, automaticity, and reasoning difficult.
Math Calculation Skills measures Ls computational skills and automaticity with basic
math facts. His mathematics calculation skills standard score is within the low average
range (percentile rank range of 14 to 33; standard score range of 84 to 94) for his
grade. Ls mathematics calculation skills are limited to average, he will probably find
grade-level tasks requiring computational skills and automaticity with basic math facts
difficult.
Written Expression measures Ls fluency of production and quality of expression in
writing. His written expression standard score is within the low average range
(percentile rank range of 7 to 21; standard score range of 78 to 88) for his grade. Ls
overall ability to express himself in writing is limited to average; writing fluency tasks
above the grade 4.8 level will be quite difficult for him.

Reading Comprehension measures Ls reading vocabulary and his ability to


comprehend while reading. His reading comprehension standard score is within the low
range (percentile rank range of 2 to 6; standard score range of 70 to 77) for his grade.
His reading comprehension is limited; reading comprehension tasks above the grade
3.4 level will be quite difficult for him.
Summary:
Ls oral skills are in the average range. His reading skills are in the average range and
his reading comprehension skills are in the low range. His writing skills are in the low
range and his math calculation skills are in the low average range.

Speech and Language Report


Written by M.H., Speech Language Pathologist
L was assessed in three sessions. He was engaged and co-operative throughout.
Because he was home schooled last year, his IEP lapsed. In the past, he participated
in speech and language therapy services in the schools from preK through grade 3 with
the exception of one year he spent in Sweden. Past testing indicated significant delays
in receptive, expressive, and social language as well as speech sound production. The
Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals 5 (CELF 5) assesses a child's
understanding and expression of English through a variety of listening, direction
following, sentence formulation, memory, word definition and relationship, and speaking
tasks. Individual subtest scores are combined to create index scores for receptive
language, expressive language, language content, and language memory. Scaled
Scores of 7 - 13 and Standard Scores of 85 - 115 are considered to be in the low to high
average range. L scored as follows:
Subtests:
Word Classes

SS 7

Following Directions

SS 11

Formulated Sentences

SS 8

Recalling Sentences

SS 8

Understanding Spoken Paragraphs

SS 9

Word Definitions

SS 7

Sentence Assembly

SS 7

Semantic Relationships

SS 7

Index Scores:
Core Language

SS 85

16% compared to children his age

Receptive Language

SS 89

23 %

Expressive Language

SS 85

16%

Language Content

SS 85

16%

Language Memory

SS 93

32%

L had a strength in Following Directions. He considered the task a challenge that he


enjoyed and he attended well. He benefited from time to process the information. The
task included following directions of increasing length and complexity. He also had a
strength in answering factual, inferential, and predictive questions about paragraphs of
9 - 11 sentences presented orally without picture. Language Memory was L's strongest
index score. This index was made up of Following Directions, Formulated Sentences,
and Recalling Sentences. All of the rest of L's scores were at the lowest end of the
average range. In general, he required time to process information. This was most
noticeable on the Sentence Formulation tasks where complex connecting words such
as "instead, until, otherwise, unless" were targeted. L was forthcoming with information
about how he likes to learn. When asked to define the word "alone," he said, "by
yourself, in your personal space or bubble and you can have peace and quiet." He
added that his sister sings a lot and he wants her to move so "I can be by myself without
any songs." L's sensitivity to noise interferes with his attentional abilities. The test
results were likely a snapshot of his best language performance. The environment was
quiet, he was in a 1:1 setting with a familiar adult, and he had been prepared in advance
for the testing sessions.
L's speech sound production was impacted by the expander in his mouth. He had been
working on r and l in the past. With the expander in his mouth, his intelligibility has
decreased. Teachers estimated that they understand 50% of what he says. His
articulation was indistinct. Intelligibility decreased as sentences became longer. Oral
presentations and oral participation in small and large group instruction are impacted by
his decreased intelligibility and his need for processing time.

Occupational Therapy Report


Written by A.H., Occupational Therapist
L was evaluated by occupational therapy for possible motor concerns. He was
evaluated using the Beery-Buktenica Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration
and subtests for visual perception and motor coordination. These evaluations assess
the skills needed for handwriting. L is right hand dominant with a dynamic tripod
grasp. L was very cooperative through out the test and was observed to be very
precise with the tasks given to him. He talked to himself through out the evaluation
about what he was doing and was very confident about the tasks given to him. L scored
average on all three evaluations for his developmental age. L also performed informal
writing, where he had to copy a sentence and write the lowercase alphabet from
memory. He did very well on this with excellent mechanics (letter size, spacing, and
use of lines).
I also had Ls main classroom teacher fill out the sensory processing measure (SPM) to
help identify any further difficulties he may be having in the classroom that may be
interfering with his participation in school activities in his day. The Sensory Processing
Measure (SPM) is a norm-referenced assessment of sensory integration/sensory
processing that gathers information about a child's behavior, coordination, and
participation at school.
The results of this profile indicate L having some problems in the following areas;
social participation, balance and motion, and planning and ideas. Some specific areas
of difficulty for L are that he does not perform consistently in daily tasks, quality of work
varies widely and he fails to complete tasks with multiple steps.