Performance / Report Card
Strength: “Sometimes” meets and above for K-8 or B and above for 9-12; Weakness: “Does not meet: for K-8 or D or F for 9-12 / State Assessments
Strength: “Meets or Exceeds”
Weakness: “Does not meet”
“Conditionally meets”: more data needed / Observations, work samples, CBM etc. should be used to confirm or disconfirm hypotheses from cognitive testing, but not in place of testing
Achievement / Standard score in one of the six achievement areas (reading comprehension, basic reading skills, reading fluency, math calculations, math reasoning, written expression) that is <90 for K-3 students or <85 for 4-12 grade students / Teams use a state standards rubric to report all achievement results from norm-referenced, CBM and other measures; performance on skills in rubric demonstrates special instructional need in order to make adequate progress. / At least one cognitive weakness (<90 K-3 or <85 4-12) among critical abilities* for reading or math. At least one critical or non-critical cognitive ability that is >90 K-3 or >85 4-11, and that is at least 8 points higher than the lowest weakness
Notes:
*Critical cognitive abilities for reading include phonological awareness, verbal reasoning, rapid automatic naming, working memory (sequential), processing speed and associative memory (expressive attention). Critical skills for math include fluid reasoning, verbal reasoning, rapid automatic naming, working memory, processing speed and associative memory. Two subtests must be given to measure each academic or cognitive factor. If the team already has information on phonological awareness and vocabulary from CBM measures and can thereby document resultant strengths and weaknesses, cognitive testing in these areas is not necessary. In this case, testing concentrates on memory, speed, and fluid intelligence only, and should take approximately 15-25 minutes.
Additional notes: SS difference between K-3 and 4-12 is an adaptation of Fletcher’s model and aligns most closely with the RPI of 75/90 on the WJ III. This has the practical result of identifying more appropriate kids at earlier ages and fewer kids at later ages. The difference of 8 points between strength and weakness is an amalgamation of Flanagan’s concept (“an otherwise normal ability profile”) and Fletcher’s recommendations on Table 4.3. The cutoffs were reduced from Naglieri’s and Fiorello and Hale’s “significant difference” between strengths and weaknesses, which are technically preferable but might be too complex in process for some school personnel until further training has been conducted.