Note: The intent of the report is that all areas of assessment that are required for the student’s disability needs to be addressed. For example, LD identification requires assessment of intellectual ability, academic performance and classroom observation (often interpreted as classroom performance). All of these areas need to be discussed in the evaluation, (in a later section) whether from the standpoint of the reliability of past data and the impressions that continue to represent the student’s functioning, the areas that may need further assessment, or the need for a complete evaluation. Part of the idea of identifying the required assessments is to assure that parents are aware.

Note: Not only the program, services and hours, but also a description of the program and goals. This would also include accommodations and modifications. How successful they have been, and how the student utilizes the program and services, will be discussed in depth later.

Note: This can be broken down into subsections, if information is easier to present that way. With high school students, include grades and teacher comments and observations. Also include aspects of the student’s reading or written expression ability, for example, and how it presents in the class. With more severely impaired students, break these academic areas down into various skill areas, i.e., language skills, fine motor, gross motor, social, self help, etc., as well as academic skills, as appropriate. This is a place to draw in other specialists’ input, as well as parents, and will help form the basis for eliminating unnecessary testing, while focusing assessment on areas where further assessment is needed.

Note: Review can be as brief or extensive as needed to describe what is known about the student’s functioning. Total history is less the goal than a well justified rationale for decision making.

Note: This question is obviously redundant with the one before and reflects some indecisiveness, which is resolved at time of writing. The two also reflect different ways of thinking about the student and the role of the disability in his/her overall functioning. One or the other may be more applicable to the student being assessed. No need to respond to or include both.

Note: The questions reflect direct input from NASP Best Practices books. Somehow in the process of re-evaluation, whether the questions are specifically detailed as here, or incorporated into the decision making process, these are the broad areas of consideration in the re-evaluation process. It may often be useful to the team to frame the questions in this way.

Note: This is where you show that you are not just making it up, or making a capricious decision. What are the sources of information that were considered in making the decision?

Note: When this form is used for pre-evaluation consideration, you would note what additional evaluation activities the team is deciding to pursue. When the report comes back or is used for the evaluation report to reflect the inclusion of this information in the determination process, this is where the evaluation findings are reported. This is particularly relevant if the additional information is not in the form of a complete evaluation. For instance, if a written language assessment is performed, it would report it here. If it was determined that a complete psychological evaluation, with social-emotional assessment, were needed, it would create a wholly separate report. The difference is the first is a piece of this alternative evaluation process, while the second is a substantive evaluation in its own right.

Note: At this point, the report becomes the Team Evaluation Report, which is typically completed as a stand-alone form at every other evaluation team meeting. Including it as part of this report helps reinforce the collaborative nature of the team process and the contribution of multiple sources of information to decision making. As a pre-evaluation report, it would note the decision of the team to do further assessment or gather further information. If no further information is needed, it would note the decision of the team to continue identifying the student or not, including a decision to discharge. If further information is to be gathered, the report comes back to the next meeting with that information included, and a new Team Decision page for the decision of the team to be noted.

Note: Use this space to note discussion and/or decisions relative to the decision or later considerations. For instance, if a decision is made to discharge, it might be a place to note that the information can be re-considered at a future time. Or, it might note that the team will reconvene to monitor progress next fall, and if the student is still successful, discharge will be considered. If the student may require a WAIS-III for college attendance, now or in the future, note that here and initiate the evaluation at the appropriate time. The team may discharge the student as not requiring special education, at this time, but commit to the WAIS-III evaluation for college, as needed. The rationale, here, is that if the full evaluation were done, either to continue or discharge, the current evaluation would be available for college.

Note: Extra lines should appear as part of decision page. Make the Decision page a stand-alone page, so it can be easily copied and clipped to copies of the report.