***Post written by Dan Mayer, Public Relations Chair & Southwest Representative for WSPA*** I’ve always wondered what a comprehensive evaluation means. I worry that this is another variation of “what test(s) do I give” thinking, rather than “what are the assessment questions?” Assessment is a process of collecting data to make a decision. If you do not know what decision you are trying to make, you’ll likely be confused. So I will ask what do you think a comprehensive evaluation means? Case name: Wentzville R-IV Sch. Dist., 113 LRP 12657 (SEA MO 03/10/13). Ruling: A hearing panel upheld a Missouri district’s determination that a third-grader was ineligible for IDEA services. Even if the student had Asperger syndrome, a language impairment, an SLD, or an emotional disturbance — a claim not supported by the district’s assessments — the evaluative data clearly showed that those impairments had no adverse effect on the student’s educational performance. What it means: Districts that conduct comprehensive evaluations  of students suspected of having disabilities will have a much easier time supporting their eligibility determinations. When a district satisfies all of the IDEA’s evaluation requirements, a court or IHO is far more likely to agreewith an eligibility determination based on the evaluative data. The district  here used a variety of assessment measures administered by qualified evaluators and considered information submitted by the parents. Because those evaluations showed the student’s academic, social, and behavioral functioning was typical for a child her age, the district did not err in finding her ineligible for special education. Summary: A Missouri district’s comprehensive assessment of a third-grader’s academic performance, language skills, and social and behavioral functioning proved to be a rock-solidfoundation for its conclusion that the student was ineligible for IDEA services. Determining that the student did not need special education because of Asperger syndrome, a language impairment, an SLD, or an emotional disturbance, a hearing panel found that the district’s evaluation and the eligibility determination were appropriate. The panel noted that the district used a variety of assessment tools, including standardized tests, behavior rating scales, classroom observations, and parent and teacher interviews. Not only were the assessment tools technically sound, the panel observed, but all testing was conducted by trained and knowledgeable personnel in accordance with test instructions. “In short, the evidence showed that the district’s comprehensive evaluations more than satisfied the IDEA’s evaluation requirements,” the panel wrote. According to the evaluation reports, the student functioned as a typical third-grader with regard to intellectual ability, language skills, social skills, and overall behavior. Furthermore, the panel pointed out that the student behaved appropriately in class, interacted appropriately with peers, had normal attendance, and earned above-average grades. Thus, even if the student had one of the disabilities for which she was evaluated, those impairments did not have an adverse impact on her educational performance. The panel granted judgment for the district on its due process complaint. Amy E. Slater, Esq., covers special education legal issues for LRP Publications. June 5, 2013 Copyright 2013© LRP Publications