IEP Case Study and Educational Evaluation: Thomas Griffin

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Thomas (Tom) Griffin is a twelve-year-old male student currently in sixth grade at Brooklet Middle School. He lives
with his biological mother and father, Joan and Jason Griffin, and his older sister, Kylie, who is 13 and in the eighth-
grade. Tom’s parents noticed that he began having difficulty with reading in elementary school.

REVIEW OF PRIOR RECORDS

Brooklet Middle School’s data team examined Tom’s data from fifth-grade and found that he was performing well
below benchmark on the fifth grade ILEARN in English/Language Arts (ELA). Indiana’s ILEARN assessment is an
online computer-adaptive assessment designed to measure a student’s proficiency based on the Indiana Academic
Standards. Overall student results in ILEARN are reported as four-digit scale scores that align with four proficiency
levels (Below Proficiency, Approaching Proficiency, At Proficiency, and Above Proficiency). On the fifth grade ILEARN
in ELA, Tom scored at the “Approaching Proficiency” level, with a score of 5480. The test is also broken down into 3
reporting categories (Key Ideas and Textual Support/Vocabulary, Structural Elements and Organization/Connection
of Ideas/Media Literacy, and Writing) in which students receive a category performance of Below, At/Near, or Above.
Tom scored “Below” in the Key Ideas and Textual Support Vocabulary and Writing categories, and At/Near on the
Structural Elements and Organization/Connection of Ideas/Media Literacy category. His Lexile score was 645, which
is approximately at the third-grade level.

5/13/19
Assessment ILEARN Results & Interpretation
Overall Score: 5480 (Approaching Proficiency)
Reporting Category: Key Ideas and Textual
Support/Vocabulary (Below Level)
Reporting Category: Structural Elements and
Indiana ILEARN in ELA
Organization/Connection of Ideas/Media Literacy (At/Near
Level)
Reporting Category: Writing (Below Level)
Lexile Level: 645 (~ 3rd grade)

Tom’s sixth-grade classroom teacher also noticed he was having difficulty decoding single- and multi-syllable words
in isolation and in context (passages). He also was having trouble spelling and reading text fluently in class. Tom’s
sixth-grade teacher began implementing some accommodations in the classroom, such as reading texts and tests
aloud to Tom and providing him a quiet place to work that was free of distractions. His teacher reported that these
accommodations seemed to be helping Tom in the classroom. Additionally, in Indiana, schools are now required to
screen new, older students who may not have previously been screened for dyslexia. Brooklet Middle School was
aware of this legislation and decided to administer some additional assessments to Tom to determine if he was at-
risk for dyslexia. Tom was screened for dyslexia in January of 2020. Results from these assessments are in Table 1.

1
Table 1. Results from Tom’s Screening/Benchmark Assessments

Assessment 01/23/20
Assessment Name Domain Screening Results Interpretation
CORE Phoneme Phonemic 8/15 words Intensive LOP*; missed the words thumb (/th/),
Segmentation Test Awareness segmented shriek (/sh/), chalk (/ch/ & /au/), spread (/r/, /ea/),
correctly stork (/or/), crowd (/ow/), and glair (/air/).
CORE Phonics Survey: Alphabet 26/26 correct 100% on uppercase letter names
Letter Names: Knowledge
Uppercase (A)
CORE Phonics Survey: Alphabet 26/26 correct 100% on lowercase letter names
Letter Names: Knowledge
Lowercase (B)
CORE Phonics Survey- Sound-Symbol 21/21 correct 100% accuracy
Consonant Sounds (C) Recognition
CORE Phonics Survey- Sound-Symbol 3/5 correct Missed long i and long e
Long Vowel Sounds (D) Recognition
CORE Phonics Survey- Sound-Symbol 5/5 correct 100% accuracy
Short Vowel Sounds (D) Recognition
CORE Phonics Survey- Decoding 13/15 correct Strategic LOP; Missed “set” and “pem”
Short Vowels in CVC
Words (E)
CORE Phonics Survey- Decoding 10/15 correct Strategic LOP; Missed “spell,” “plan,” “silk,”
Consonant Blends with “qued,” and “cang”
Short Vowels (F)
CORE Phonics Survey- Decoding 10/15 correct Strategic LOP; Read “when,” “wick,” and “ring”
Short Vowels, Digraphs, correctly
and -tch trigraph (G)
CORE Phonics Survey-R- Decoding 2/15 correct Intensive LOP; Read “bark” and “bird” correctly
Controlled Vowels (H)
CORE Phonics Survey- Decoding 3/15 correct Intensive LOP; Read “key,” “toe,” and “feet”
Long Vowel Spellings (I) correctly
CORE Phonics Survey- Decoding 3/15 correct Intensive LOP; Read “moon,” “toy,” and “zoy”
Variant Vowels (J) correctly
CORE Phonics Survey- Decoding 0/15 correct Intensive LOP; Read no words correctly.
Low Frequency Vowel
and Consonant
Spellings (K)
Arkansas Rapid Rapid Naming 6 errors in 59 Bottom 10th percentile; at-risk for dyslexia
Automatized Naming seconds
Screener Form A
Words Their Way Encoding 9/26 words correct; mastered initial and final consonants, short
Elementary Spelling (Spelling) 35/62 vowels, consonant blends; needs work on
Inventory features/patterns digraphs, long vowels, other vowels, and
correct inflected endings
DIBELS 8th ORF Words Reading 65 Words Correct Well Below Benchmark
Correct Fluency Per Minute
DIBELS 8th ORF Reading 89% Accuracy Well Below Benchmark
Accuracy Fluency
*LOP = level of performance; ORF = Oral Reading Fluency

2
SUMMARY OF SCREENING/BENCHMARK ASSESSMENT RESULTS

The CORE Phoneme Segmentation Test measures a student’s ability to segment words with three, four, and five
phonemes. On this assessment, Tom correctly segmented 8 out of 15 words, which places him at the “intensive”
level of performance. The intensive level indicates that a student needs targeted, direct instruction in phonological
and phonemic awareness skills.

The CORE Phonics Survey assess phonics and phonics-related skills related to beginning reading. The first section
focuses on alphabet skills and letter sounds and the second section focuses on reading and decoding skills. The
reading and decoding skills sections each included 10 real words and 5 pseudo (nonsense) words. Nonsense words
are included to test students’ ability to decode patterns that they would not have already memorized. Students’
scores are calculated by the raw number of items correct and then are assigned a level of performance: benchmark,
strategic, or intensive. Strategic and intensive levels indicate that students would benefit from targeted and
intensified instruction and practice in letter recognition, phonics, and decoding. On sections A-D, Tom scored at the
strategic level with 76 items correct out of 83 total items. On sections E-K, Tom correctly read 41 of the 105 real and
nonsense words. Tom scored at the strategic level for short vowels in CVC words, consonant blends with short
vowels, and short vowels with digraphs/trigraphs (sections E, F, and G). He scored at the intensive level for the
remaining sections (sections H through K) which focused on words with r-controlled vowels, long vowels, variant
vowels, and low frequency vowels and consonants.

The Arkansas Rapid Naming Screener assesses a student’s ability to accurately and quickly identify the names of
colors. Tom made 6 errors in 59 seconds and scored in the bottom 10 th percentile, placing him at risk for dyslexia on
this assessment. He scored in the bottom 10th percentile, placing him at risk for dyslexia on this assessment. Results
from this assessment suggest that Tom has difficulty rapidly retrieving information, which is a core cognitive
process associated with dyslexia.

Tom also had difficulty spelling words in isolation on the Words Their Way Primary Spelling Inventory. This inventory
assesses a student’s ability to spell 26 real words in isolation. The examiner says the word, a sentence with the
word, and then repeats the word. Students then write the word in isolation. Students receive 1 point for each whole
word read correctly (out of 26 possible words/points) and feature points for each pattern (e.g., initial consonants,
final consonants, short vowels, digraphs, blends, long vowels) spelled correctly (out of 62 possible feature points).
Tom correctly spelled 9 out of 26 words and spelled 35 out of 62 features or spelling patterns.

The DIBELS 8th Oral Reading Fluency (ORF) subtest assesses a student’s ability to accurately and fluently read
connected text (i.e., paragraphs). Students are given an unfamiliar grade-level passage and then read it aloud for
one minute. For the screening/benchmark assessments, students read a different passage and the number of
words correct and number of errors are recorded. Students receive a score for the total number of words read
correctly in one minute (WCPM) and for the percentage of words read accurately (i.e., [# of words read correct
divided by total # of words read] * 100). On the DIBELS 8th ORF administration, Tom’s read 65 words correct per
minute (wcpm) and read the words with 89% accuracy, both of which were well-below the benchmark level.

REFERRAL TO DETERMINE ELIGIBILITY FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION

According to Brooklet Middle School’s criteria, Tom was identified as “at-risk” for dyslexia and the middle school
scheduled a meeting to discuss this with Tom’s parents. On February 5, 2020, Brooklet Middle School’s data team
met with Tom’s parents and his parents requested a full educational evaluation to determine eligibility for special
education services under the eligibility category of specific learning disability. Tom’s parents signed the parental
consent form for an educational evaluation and received a copy of the procedural safeguards on February 5, 2020.
Tom was evaluated by the school psychologist on February 13-14, 2020, and results from the educational evaluation
conducted by the school psychologist are in the following section.

3
EDUCATIONAL EVALUATION REPORT FROM THE SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGIST

Education Evaluation Report

Date of Report: 02/28/2020
Individualized Education Program

Student: Thomas Griffin STN: TG00

Date of Birth: 04/19/2007 Evaluation Type: Initial
Age: 12 years, 9 months Evaluation Start Date: 02/13/2020
Gender: M
Current Grade: 6th Grade
School: Brooklet Middle School
Examiner: Shantall Cooper, Educational Psychologist

Guardian Information:
Relation: Mother Relation: Father
Name: Joan Griffin Name: Jason Griffin
Mobile Phone: 812-555-5555 Mobile Phone: 812-555-5556
Address: 123 Oak St., Anytown, IN 55555 Address: 123 Oak St., Anytown, IN 55555
Primary Language: English Primary Language: English

REASON FOR REFERRAL

Tom’s parents requested an individualized comprehensive educational evaluation for a suspected learning disability
in reading (dyslexia). The purpose of this evaluation was to inform special education eligibility and programming
decisions. A discussion of the evaluation results and findings are presented below for each of the assessment
domains that were addressed.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Social/Developmental History

Family and Environmental Factors

Thomas (Tom) Griffin’s mother, Joan, completed the Social and Developmental History form. Mrs. Griffin reported
that Tom lives with her and Tom’s biological father, Jason, and a 13-year old sister in a house in Anytown, IN. Jason is
a construction worker and Joan works part-time at a local fast food restaurant. They both have high school
diplomas, but do not have any post-secondary education. Tom’s family speaks English as their primary language at
home. Mrs. Griffin reported that Tom’s Dad, Jason, also had difficulty with reading and spelling when he was a child.

Mrs. Griffin reported that Tom is creative and kind to others. He likes helping around the house and enjoys hanging
out with his friends. His favorite sport is soccer, and he loves going to soccer practice in the fall. Mrs. Griffin
reported that Tom has had difficulty with reading and spelling since he began kindergarten. He gets frustrated
when trying to read text and often refuses to do work that involves reading and spelling at home. This makes
homework time very challenging for the family. Mrs. Griffin did not report any environmental factors that could be
impacting Tom at this time.

4
Academic History

Tom moved to Indiana from Atlanta, Georgia in the middle of fifth grade and he attended Brooklet Elementary
School. Since kindergarten, he has had a consistent attendance record with the exception a few sick days this school
year. Tom is always respectful to his teachers and is eager to do well in school; however, since he moved to Indiana
in fifth-grade, Tom has been starting to shut down during independent work. He frequently puts his head down on
his desk and sometimes refuses to complete his work, especially when the work requires him to read or spell. His
reading and spelling difficulties have caused him to start having problems in reading, language arts, science, and
social studies and he is failing all four of these classes in sixth-grade. Tom is currently passing his mathematics class
with a B and math is a strength for him. He enjoys math class and excels at math calculations. He has some
difficulty with math word problems, which his teacher attributes to his difficulties in reading.

Medical and Mental Health Information

Mrs. Griffin reported that she had a normal pregnancy with Tom and his height and weight were average at birth.
Tom met all developmental milestones at an appropriate age (e.g., crawling, walking, talking). Tom has no
documented vision or hearing issues identified in his health records. During kindergarten, Tom was diagnosed with
ADHD and he is currently taking medication (Adderall) to help with his distractibility and impulsivity.

OBSERVATIONS

Observations in the Learning Environment

Gina Mariano, Tom’s sixth-grade English teacher, responded to a checklist on 2/10/2020 to provide information
based on recent direct observations of, and typical experience with Tom. Ms. Mariano described Tom as motivated
and intelligent, but also insecure. At school, his mood is typical of others of his age. He needs more one-to-one
attention and completes slightly less schoolwork than other students his age. Tom has difficulty persisting with and
sustaining his attention with difficult tasks; however, he always, or almost always, listens when spoken to directly.
His oral responses to questions are slow but careful. Tom usually follows instructions, but has difficulty finishing
work assigned in class, especially work that involves independent reading or writing. He gets frustrated easily when
working independently and has begun putting his head down on his desk during independent work.

Tom usually remains seated when expected. His activity level and style of motor activity are similar to other boys his
age. He can work quietly when required. He generally talks much less than other boys his age. Tom’s social
interaction skills are typical for boys his age. For example, he takes turns appropriately. Ms. Mariano is most
concerned about the amount of one-to-one attention he requires in the classroom and that he is getting frustrated
and starting to shut down during independent work. These behaviors interfere with his classroom performance
from time to time.

Ms. Mariano provided the following observations about Tom’s behavior in the classroom. He demonstrates slightly
serious anxiousness, withdrawal, and frustration in the classroom; however, these behaviors are not disruptive. Ms.
Mariano rated Tom’s levels of oral language ability and academic achievement based on observations of him in the
classroom. His levels of oral expression and listening comprehension were rated as average. Tom's levels of basic
reading skills (decoding, reading words by sight), reading comprehension, and reading fluency were rated as very
limited. His levels of math calculation skills and math reasoning were rated as advanced. His level of written
expression was rated as limited; however, his level of basic writing skills was rated as very limited. Tom is receiving
sixth-grade level instruction in mathematics, oral language, reading, and writing.

PRIOR INTERVENTIONS AND PROGRESS

See “Review of Prior Records” section of this case study. Typically, this information would be here in a regular
educational evaluation.

5
EVALUATION FINDINGS

Use the score ranges from the table below to interpret the data from the educational evaluation.

Standard Score Range Percentile Range Interpretation

>130 98% – 99.9% Significantly Above Average
121 – 130 92% – 97% Above Average (Superior)
111 – 120 76% - 91% High Average
90 – 110 25% – 75% Average
80 – 89 9% - 24% Low Average
70 – 79 3% – 8% Below Average (Low)
<70 0.1% – 2% Significantly Below Average (Very Low)

Test Session Observations

Tom’s conversational proficiency seemed typical for his age level. He was cooperative throughout the examinations,
but he appeared fidgety or restless at times. He also appeared tense or worried, and distracted during the
examinations. He sometimes responded too quickly to test questions, and other times he gave up easily after
attempting difficult tasks.

On word identification tasks (i.e., reading words by sight), he required increased time and greater attention to
phoneme-grapheme (letter-sound) relationships to determine the correct response. On a passage comprehension
test, Tom appeared to read passages very slowly. On a word attack (phonics/decoding) test, Tom appeared to have
limited ability to apply phoneme-grapheme relationships. On a sentence reading fluency test, Tom appeared to
read sentences slowly for his age. Tom’s performance on Applied Problems tasks appeared to be typical for his age.
On math calculation tasks, he solved many problems quickly with no observed difficulties. He solved problems
quickly on a test of fluency with basic math facts. Spelling was extremely difficult for Tom. On a writing samples test,
Tom had difficulty spelling words correctly in sentences. He would get frustrated and erase words he had written.
On a test of sentence writing fluency, Tom appeared to have difficulty formulating or writing sentences quickly.

Cognitive

The first assessment was the WISC-V (IQ/Intelligence Assessment). Tom had the following Standard Scores:
 Verbal Comprehension: 108 (Average)
 Perceptual Reasoning: 94 (Average)
 Working Memory: 86 (Low Average)
 Processing Speed: 84 (Low Average)
 Overall IQ: 98 (Average)

Tom’s Verbal Comprehension score falls within the average range of functioning. The Verbal Comprehension score
is considered to be a measure of the student’s verbal knowledge, as well as the ability to solve problems that
require the use of language. Tom’s Perceptual Reasoning score falls within the average range of functioning. This
nonverbal score is less dependent on verbal ability or on previous experience. Tom’s Working Memory score was in
the low average range. Working Memory involves attention, concentration, and mental organization. Tom’s
processing speed was also in the low average range.

Academic

Woodcock Johnson-IV Tests of Achievement

Tom was given the Woodcock Johnson-IV Tests of Academic Achievement to assess his current academic
achievement. The Woodstock Johnson IV Achievement Battery is a comprehensive battery of individually

6
administered tests measuring the academic achievement areas of reading, oral language, written language,
mathematics and general knowledge. In this report scores are given for skill levels expected at the student’s age
along with a percentile rank. Test results are as follows:

Standard Percentile
Score Rank
BASIC READING SKILLS 83 13
Letter-Word Identification 86 18
Word Attack 81 11

READING COMPREHENSION 81 10
Passage Comprehension 82 11
Reading Recall 84 14

READING FLUENCY 80 9
Oral Reading 82 11
Sentence Reading Fluency 82 11

BASIC WRITING SKILLS 82 11

Spelling 77 7
Spelling of Sounds 82 12
Editing 84 15

WRITTEN EXPRESSION 84 14
Writing Samples 89 22
Sentence Writing Fluency 82 11

MATH CALCULATION SKILLS 116 86

Calculation 117 87
Math Fact Fluency 114 82

MATH PROBLEM SOLVING 108 71

Applied Problems 102 54
Number Matrices 113 81

On the WJ-IV achievement tests, Tom’s standard scores are within the high average range for three clusters
(Mathematics, Broad Mathematics, and Math Calculation Skills) and three tests (Calculation, Math Facts Fluency, and
Number Matrices). His scores are within the average range for one cluster (Math Problem Solving) and test (Applied
Problems). His scores are within the low average range for 10 clusters (Reading, Broad Reading, Basic Reading Skills,
Reading Comprehension, Reading Fluency, Reading Rate, Written Language, Broad Written Language, Basic Writing
Skills, Written Expression) and 11 tests (Letter-Word Identification, Passage Comprehension, Writing Samples, Word
Attack, Oral Reading, Sentence Reading Fluency, Sentence Writing Fluency, Reading Recall, Editing, Word Reading
Fluency, and Spelling of Sounds); and within the low range for one test (Spelling). An analysis of variations among
Tom’s achievement scores in broad curricular areas suggests that Calculation, Number Matrices, Math Problem
Solving, Math Facts Fluency, and Math Calculation Skills are relative strengths for him. He demonstrated relative
weaknesses in Letter-Word Identification, Word Attack, Spelling, and Reading Fluency.

Letter-Word Identification measured Tom’s ability to read isolated words aloud. Tom's performance on Letter-Word
Identification is comparable to that of the average individual at age 9-6 1. His Letter-Word Identification standard

1
9-6 indicates an age of 9 years old and 6 months
7
score is in the low average range (percentile rank of 18; standard score of 86). His ability to recognize or decode
words in isolation is very limited (RPI of 18/90); word identification skills above the 10-0 level will be quite difficult
for him.

Word Attack measured Tom’s skill in applying phonic and structural analysis skills to the pronunciation of unfamiliar
nonwords. Tom's performance on Word Attack is comparable to that of the average individual at age 9-4. His Word
Attack standard score is in the low average range (percentile rank of 11; standard score of 81). His ability to read
phonically regular nonwords is limited (RPI of 63/90); tasks requiring accurate pronunciation of unknown words
above the 9-8 level will be quite difficult for him.

Passage Comprehension measured Tom’s ability to understand written discourse. The items required Tom to read a
short passage and identify a missing key word that made sense in the context of the passage. Tom's performance
on Passage Comprehension is comparable to that of the average individual at age 9-4. His Passage Comprehension
standard score is in the low average range (percentile rank of 11; standard score of 82). His ability to understand
written discourse is limited (RPI of 39/90); tasks requiring comprehension when reading above the 9-10 level will be
quite difficult for him.

Reading Recall measured Tom’s ability to read a short story silently and then reconstruct the story from memory.
Tom’s performance on Reading Recall is comparable to that of the average individual at age 9-3. His Reading Recall
standard score is in the low average range (percentile rank of 14; standard score of 84). His ability to read a
passage, form a mental representation of the story, and reconstruct the story elements is limited (RPI of 63/90);
tasks requiring reading comprehension and retelling above the 9-9 level will be quite difficult for him.

Oral Reading is a measure of oral sentence reading fluency. Tom's oral reading skills are comparable to those of the
average individual at age 9-0. His Oral Reading standard score is in the low average range (percentile rank of 11;
standard score of 82). His ability to read connected text orally is limited (RPI of 40/90); tasks requiring reading
connected text aloud above the 9-7 level will be quite difficult for him.

Sentence Reading Fluency measured Tom’s ability to quickly read and comprehend sentences. In this timed test,
Tom was required to indicate whether each sentence was true or false. Tom's performance on Sentence Reading
Fluency is comparable to that of the average individual at age 9-3. His Sentence Reading Fluency standard score is in
the low average range (percentile rank of 11; standard score of 82). His ability to quickly read and comprehend
sentences is very limited (RPI of 4/90); tasks requiring sentence reading speed and comprehension above the 10-0
level will be quite difficult for him.

Spelling measured Tom’s ability to write orally-presented words correctly. Tom's performance on Spelling is
comparable to that of the average individual at age 9-1. His Spelling standard score is in the low range (percentile
rank of 7; standard score of 77). His spelling ability is very limited (RPI of 20/90); spelling tasks above the 9-7 level
will be quite difficult for him.

Spelling of Sounds is a measure of Tom’s spelling ability, particularly phonological and orthographical coding skills.
This test required him to spell letter combinations that are regularly used in English. Tom’s performance on Spelling
of Sounds is comparable to that of the average individual at age 9-2. His Spelling of Sounds standard score is in the
low average range (percentile rank of 12; standard score of 82). His ability to spell nonwords is limited (RPI of 59/90);
tasks requiring the ability to spell unknown words above the 9-8 level will be quite difficult for him.

Editing measured Tom’s skill in identifying and correcting errors in written passages, such as incorrect punctuation
or capitalization, inappropriate word usage, or misspellings. Tom's performance on Editing is comparable to that of
the average individual at age 9-5. His Editing standard score is in the low average range (percentile rank of 15;
standard score of 84). His skill in identifying and correcting errors in written passages is limited (RPI of 50/90);
editing tasks above the 10-2 level will be quite difficult for him.

8
Writing Samples provided a rating of Tom’s quality of written expression in sentence construction. Tom's
performance on Writing Samples is comparable to that of the average individual at age 9-5. His Writing Samples
standard score is in the low average range (percentile rank of 22; standard score of 89). His ability to write
meaningful sentences is limited (RPI of 55/90); tasks requiring putting his ideas into writing above the 10-2 level will
be quite difficult for him.

Sentence Writing Fluency measured Tom’s fluency for quickly formulating and writing simple sentences. Tom's
performance on Sentence Writing Fluency is comparable to that of the average individual at age 9-4. His Sentence
Writing Fluency standard score is in the low average range (percentile rank of 11; standard score of 82). His
sentence construction fluency is limited (RPI of 55/90); speeded writing tasks above the 10-2 level will be quite
difficult for him.

Calculation measured Tom’s ability to perform mathematical computations. Tom's performance on Calculation is
comparable to that of the average individual at age 14-2. His Calculation standard score is in the high average range
(percentile rank of 87; standard score of 117). His computational skill is advanced (RPI of 99/90); math calculation
tasks below the 13-0 level will be quite easy for him.

Math Facts Fluency measured Tom’s ability to quickly solve simple addition, subtraction, and multiplication
problems. Tom's performance on Math Facts Fluency is comparable to that of the average individual at age 14-3. His
Math Facts Fluency standard score is in the high average range (percentile rank of 82; standard score of 114). His
ability to quickly solve basic math facts is advanced (RPI of 99/90); speeded math facts tasks below the 13-3 level will
be quite easy for him.

Applied Problems is a test of mathematics achievement that required Tom to analyze and solve practical problems
in mathematics. Tom's performance on Applied Problems is comparable to that of the average individual at age 13-
4. His Applied Problems standard score is in the average range (percentile rank of 54; standard score of 102). His
ability to solve applied mathematics problems is average (RPI of 92/90).

Number Matrices is a test of mathematics problem solving. This test required Tom to supply the missing number
that simultaneously completed two or more sequences of numbers. Tom's performance on Number Matrices is
comparable to that of the average individual at age 14-2. His Number Matrices standard score is in the high average
range (percentile rank of 81; standard score of 113). His ability to analyze complex relationships among numbers is
advanced (RPI of 98/90); number matrix and pattern recognition tasks below the 13-8 level will be quite easy for
him.

Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing

Composite Sum Percentil

Composite Standard Score e Interpretation
Phonological Awareness 77 6 Below Average
Rapid Naming 78 7 Below Average
Phonological Memory 83 13 Below Average
(The average range for scaled score is 8 to 12 and the average range for percentile score is 25 to 75.)

The Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing measures the ability to manipulate sounds. Difficulties in
Phonological Awareness and Rapid Naming often indicate problems with reading. Low scores in Phonological
Memory may indicate problems with working memory. A student who has low scores in this area may have
difficulty learning and retaining new vocabulary. Tom’s scores on the CTOPP fall in the below average range for
Phonological Awareness, Phonological Memory, and Rapid Naming.

9
INITIAL ELIGIBILITY DETERMINATION MEETING WITH MULTIDISCIPLINARY TEAM

A notice was sent home to inform Mr. and Mrs. Griffin of an eligibility determination IEP/CCC meeting to be held on
February 28, 2020. Tom’s parents signed the notice and the multi-disciplinary team (M-team) met on February 28,
2020, to determine if Tom was eligible for special education under the category of specific learning disability (SLD).
The M-team determined that Tom was eligible for special education under the category of SLD in reading, and that
he had the characteristics of dyslexia. They determined he was not eligible for services under OHI at this time, as his
medication seemed to help improve his impulsivity and distractibility. Furthermore, the main areas of concern were
related to Tom’s reading difficulties, and not impulsivity and distractibility from ADHD. The M-Team also confirmed
that Tom’s underachievement is not the result of other factors, such as vision, hearing, motor impairment, mental
impairment, EBD, environmental, cultural or economic variables, limited English proficiency and/or lack of
scientifically-based instruction in reading. Because Tom’s SLD in reading adversely affects his academic achievement
in the general education classroom, the M-team agreed that he requires special education services and that an IEP
will be developed within the next 30 days.

10