Confidential Independent Educational Evaluation Report

Name: Student W Sex: Male Date of Birth: August 2004 Age: 9 years, 8 months Date of Report: April 2014

Identifying Data and Reason for Referral Student W is a 9-year-old right-handed male who attends fourth grade at School. Following development of academic accommodations in accordance with Section 504 during his second and third grade school years, Student W participated in an evaluation for special education eligibility in the spring of 2013. Mrs. W expressed concern that her son had been behind in reading throughout first and second grades, and continued below grade level in reading in third grade. Mrs. W stated that she believes her son has dyslexia. Teachers noted that Student W had a limited sight-word vocabulary and decoding skills, and that he may need academic support in basic reading skills, reading comprehension, reading fluency, and written expression. He reversed letters and words when reading (saw/was). Student W demonstrated academic strength in math computation. His reading difficulties impacted his performance with math word problems.

District agreed to provide this Independent Educational Evaluation for Student W. Referral questions include: Does Student W have a Specific Learning Disability in reading? Does he have dyslexia? Why does he have difficulty with spelling? What teaching methods, curricula, or interventions are needed to help Student W learn to read better and reach grade level in reading and spelling? Are the interventions that he is receiving appropriate?

Background Information and Relevant History Health and Developmental History. Typical developmental history. Student W is healthy. He passed the school vision and hearing screenings.

Educational History. Student W has attended the same school since preschool. Attendance is regular.

Kindergarten. Student W’s kindergarten report card indicated he had difficulty with writing, reading high frequency words, and rhyming, as indicated by his end-of-year report card.

Grade 1. Student W received after school tutoring. His report card revealed strong achievement in math and science, but difficulty with phonics and understanding concepts of print.

Grade 2. An initial multidisciplinary evaluation for special education was completed 6/2012. Student W received reading intervention and accommodations under a Section 504 Plan delivered in the general education program. He continued to excel in math.

Grade 3. Student W received reading interventions (unspecified). He was evaluated again, and qualified for special education at the end of the school year. An IEP was developed. His reading continued to fall below grade level, despite his excellent effort. 2

Previous Assessments

California Standards Test (CST)

Grad Year CST English/Language Arts CST Math e 2 Spring 2012 Basic (324) Advanced (470) 3 Spring 2013 Below Basic (289) Advanced (441)

Special Education Assessment:

Student W was assessed 6/2012 and the results were used to develop a 504 Accommodation Plan. The plan stated, “Student W demonstrates characteristics of a learning disability with processing weaknesses in the area of processing speed and emotional control (anxiety).”

Woodcock Johnson Tests of Cognitive Abilities (WJ-III Cog.) CLUSTER/Test Standard Percentile Classification Score Rank GLOBAL INTELLECTUAL ABILITY 123 93 Advanced VERBAL ABILITY 121 92 Advanced THINKING ABILITY 131 98 Very Advanced COGNITIVE EFFICIENCY 97 42 Average PHOENEMIC AWARENESS 114 82 Advanced WORKING MEMORY 104 60 Average Verbal Comprehension 121 92 Advanced Visual-Auditory Learning 114 83 Advanced Spatial Relations 128 97 Very Advanced Sound Blending 114 83 Advanced Concept Formation 129 97 Very Advanced Visual Matching 95 36 Average Numbers Reversed 99 47 Average Incomplete Words 103 59 Average Auditory Working Memory 109 73 Average

Interpretations of the assessment results: “Student W’s thinking ability standard score is within the very superior range when compared to others his age. His thinking processes are advanced; he will probably find age-level tasks requiring the use of various thinking processes very easy. Student W’s verbal standard score is within the superior range for his age. His word knowledge and comprehension are advanced; it is likely that he will find age-level verbal communication, knowledge, and comprehension tasks very easy. Student W’s phonemic awareness standard score is within the high average range for his age. His awareness of phonemes is within normal limits to advanced; this suggests that he will find age-level tasks requiring the ability to apply phonemic information in immediate awareness easy. Student W’s working memory standard score is within the average range for his age. His working memory capacity is within normal limits; it is predicted that he will find age-level tasks requiring complex processing of information in immediate memory manageable. Student W’s cognitive efficiency standard score 3 Student W Reading Disorder is within the average range for his age His automatic cognitive processing is within normal limits; he will likely find age-level tasks manageable.”

Wechsler Individual Achievement Test – Third Edition (WIAT-III) Administered 2012 Subtest Standard Score Percentile Grade Rank Equivalent Listening Comprehension 97 42 2.1 Reading Comprehension 99 47 2.3 Math Problem Solving 140 99.6 5.7 Sentence Composition 97 42 4.2 Alphabet Writing Fluency 95 37 1.7 Word Reading 81 10 1.3 Pseudoword Decoding 87 19 1.5 Numerical Operations 121 92 4.0 Oral Expression 100 50 2.3 Spelling 87 19 1.5 Math Fluency Addition 101 53 2.4 Math Fluency Subtraction 91 27 1.9 Oral Reading Accuracy 79 8 Below 1.0 Oral Reading Rate 78 7 1.1

Wechsler Individual Achievement Test – Third Edition (WIAT-III) Administered 4/30/2013 Subtest Standard Score Percentile Grade Rank Equivalent Reading Comprehension 104 61 5.0 Word Reading 76 5 1.5 Pseudoword Decoding 82 12 1.6 Oral Reading Fluency 82 12 1.9 Spelling 81 10 1.6

Observations: Student W is well-organized student and gives great effort towards his schoolwork. In the reading intervention program that Student W participated in this past year (which is primarily phonics based) Student W has increased from a level 19 to a level 23. This is not a lot of progress compared to other students who were in the intervention program. However, Student W has greatly improved in his comprehension tests that are given at the school (Start Reading Test). He began the school year at the PP level, the second semester he was at a 1.1 independent reading level and this semester he tested at 2.0 independent reading level. In the time that Student W spends in the resource program for fluency he has increased his word reading fluency from a 1.9 to a 2.6 level on the Slosson Oral Reading Test. This correlates with the level that he has moved up in the read naturally program. He began reading at a 1.0 level and is currently working at the 2.5 level.

Behavior Assessment System for Children – Second Edition (BASC-2) CLUSTER/Subtest T-Score Percentile Classification Rank 4

Hyperactivity 58 81 Average Aggression 45 40 Average Conduct Problems 53 72 Average EXTERNALIZING PROBLEMS 52 67 Average Anxiety 56 92 At Risk Depression 53 73 Average Somatization 50 63 Average INTERNALIZING PROBLEMS 58 82 Average Attention Problems 60 80 At Risk Learning Problems 60 83 At Risk School Problems 61 87 At Risk Atypicality 53 74 Average Withdrawal 58 80 Average BEHAVIORAL SYMPTOMS INDEX 56 78 Average Adaptability 40 19 Average Social Skills 46 36 Average Leadership 50 51 Average Study Skills 46 35 Average Functional Communication 43 25 Average ADAPTIVE SKILLS 44 28 Average Anger Control 58 78 Average Bullying 54 72 Average Developmental Social Disorders 55 69 Average Emotional Self-Control 58 81 Average Executive Functioning 54 71 Average Negative Emotionality 52 85 Average Resiliency 43 27 Average

Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Functions (BRIEF) CLUSTER/Subtest T-Score Percentile Classification Rank Inhibit 50 63 Shift 48 60 Emotional Control 43 40 Initiate 57 70 Working Memory 59 80 Plan/Organize 50 56 Organization of Materials 44 50 Monitor 47 50 BEHAVIORAL REGULATION INDEX 47 55 METACOGNITIVE INDEX 52 60 GLOBAL EXECUTIVE COMPOSITE 50 57

Student W was found eligible for special education services with a disorder in the area of auditory processing that affected his basic reading. An initial IEP was completed 5/2013. The 5 Student W Reading Disorder IEP document described the Specialized Academic Instruction services he was to receive. The IEP team met again on 10/2013 and 11/2013 to make modifications to Student W’s educational program.

Method of Assessment

For this Independent Educational Evaluation, Student W was assessed over six sessions that ranged from 35 minutes to two hours in length. Assessment methods included one interview session with Mrs. W, a review of Student W’s educational and psychological records, analysis of work samples, observation in the special education class and in his 4th-5th-grade classroom, as well as direct assessment with Student W.

Reliability and Validity of Assessment Procedures and Findings.

The following assessment procedures were utilized in the current evaluation: Informal Procedures : School observations, analysis of work samples, and interviews with Mrs. W, two teachers and Student W

Cognitive Ability and Specific Processing Measures: Differential Ability Scales – Second Edition (DAS-II) NEPSY Developmental Neuropsychological Assessment – Second Edition (NEPSY-2)

Academic Assessment : Wechsler Individual Achievement Test – Third Edition (WIAT-III)

Executive Functioning and Social-Emotional Rating Scales: Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Functions (BRIEF). Completed by Mrs. Adams, 4th grade teacher Revised Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale – Second Edition (RCMAS-2)

Description of the Assessment Tools.

Behavior and Observations Student W is a 9-year and 8-month old right-handed fourth grade student. He is of average height for his age with a slim build. He was appropriately dressed and was clean and well groomed. He appeared healthy and was alert. Rapport was easily established and was maintained. Student W was cooperative and compliant with all aspects of this assessment. He gave his best effort, and persevered throughout all the assessment tasks presented across all sessions, with one exception, as described below. During the first session, he was very attentive, calm, and focused. Beginning with the second session and continuing, he moved around much more in his seat, with frequent changes of position (stretching, slouching, kneeling, rocking back and forth, taking off his shoes). He leaned over onto the table to write, but he was able to maintain his focus on the task presented.

Throughout most sessions, he continued to try even when the items became very difficult. The one exception to his usual effortful behavior was during the presentation of number and word 6 memory tests that were given on the afternoon of the last session. On that day, he complained often that the items were “too hard” and he became notably frustrated. His frustration negatively impacted his attention, memory, and effort. He may have been tired of testing at that point. With the exception noted, Student W sustained effort and concentration throughout each 90-minute to two-hour session.

Student W had a slight frontal lisp with /s/ that did not interfere with his ability to communicate and be understood. He answered all questions, but did not initiate conversation. His oral communication and understanding of instructions were age appropriate. Student W is right- handed. His pencil grip was inconsistent; at times he used a modified tripod (typical) pencil grip with the pencil resting on his middle finger. At other times he placed his thumb over his index finger. His gross motor coordination was age appropriate and mature, by observation. Student W’s affect was calm and serious, and his mood was euthymic – neither overly happy nor sad. He was described by his teachers as mature, kind, thoughtful, respectful, and well mannered.

Classroom Observations:

Assessment Results and Interpretation Student W’s Cognitive, Specific Processing, and Academic Strengths. Nonverbal, Fluid Reasoning. Student W’s cognitive strengths were identified in nonverbal, fluid reasoning and problem solving. He earned scores in the superior range (DAS-II Nonverbal Cluster Standard Score 123; Percentile Rank 94). He was able to solve many math and visual- spatial problems in his head. He evaluated his performance when he had completed an item, and often noted and self-corrected errors that he had made. He solved novel problems moderately quickly for his age. Student W’s ability to use visual nonverbal thinking was stronger than his understanding and reasoning using words. He would likely be successful with tasks that involve combining ideas, analyzing problems to come up with a novel solution, and testing and evaluating problem-solving strategies.

Student W’s previous cognitive results measured his thinking skills, or nonverbal reasoning, in the very superior range (WJ-III Thinking Ability Percentile Rank 98). This observed difference might be explained by differences in the test materials and structure, as well as date of publication.

Mathematical Reasoning. His mathematical reasoning was a particular area of strength (DAS-II Sequential and Quantitative Reasoning Percentile Rank of 97), and was in the superior range when compared with his peers. He achieved above average academic scores in mathematics Problem Solving (WIAT-III Standard Score of 117) and Numerical Operations (WIAT-III Standard Score of 112). Student W enjoys math and was quick and accurate in solving math problems and computation. He had memorized addition, subtraction, and multiplication facts at an automatic level.

Numeric Processing Speed. Like his math reasoning ability, Student W’s capacity to evaluate and work with numbers and decision-making speed with digits was well above average (DAS-II Processing Speed Standard Score 113; Speed of Information Processing Percentile Rank 95). His 7 Student W Reading Disorder facility with number concepts is a significant strength when compared with his verbal processing speed, which was in the average range (discussed below).

Attention and Concentration. Student W also displayed mature attentional processes. Despite moving around in his seat, he was not distracted and was able to focus and concentrate throughout all assessment sessions and in the general education classroom.

The NEPSY-II Developmental Neuropsychological Assessment was administered to evaluate Student W’s capacity to focus and sustain attention/concentration, plan and execute complex mental processes, and inhibit motor and vocal movements when required. He demonstrated age- appropriate to above expected ability to focus and sustain concentration. These results suggest that his attentional processes are well developed and he should be able to attend to instruction adequately in the classroom. Student W attained age-appropriate to high scores in the following attention domains: Focus/Execute: Student W’s ability to focus attention on visual and auditory items in the one-to-one assessment session was typical to high for his age. He was able to execute simple verbal and pointing responses quickly and efficiently. Sustain: He appropriately sustained attention to both auditory and visual vigilance tasks in the individual setting, and earned scores that were at to above the expected level. He listened intently to two auditory attention tasks with sustained attention for three minutes, and was able to selectively attend to and select correctly identify auditory cues. Shift: The ability to shift cognitive set refers to the capacity to move freely from one situation or activity to another as circumstances demand. On this individual assessment, Student W demonstrated age-appropriate ability to selectively attend to test items and to inhibit responding to auditory distractors. He demonstrated strong ability to shift cognitive set across all measures, which included the ability to categorize objects according to different properties and the ability to follow changes in rules for responding. He demonstrated ability to learn a new task and then do the task again but shift to a different set of rules, as well as demonstrate the more cognitively demanding ability of switching back and forth between two sets of rules, depending upon the visual condition that was present. Shifting attention or set is a higher order cognitive task that requires focus, sustained attention, and mental flexibility. Student W performed with average to above average facility in these areas. His cognitive attentional system is mature. Inhibition as an Executive Function. Inhibition is the ability to resist (inhibit) or to not act upon an impulse or learned response. It involves the ability to stop one’s behavior at the appropriate time. Student W was able to inhibit a learned response and accurately employ a new, competing strategy to solve a problem. He was able to sustain attention well, monitor and evaluate his response pattern, inhibit incorrect responding, and execute the appropriate response. He demonstrated both self-awareness and the ability to monitor and self-regulate his behavior.

Memory for Designs. Recall of designs was assessed using two different methods. In one instance, Student W was asked to look at and remember one geometric design during a brief exposure, and then draw it immediately from memory. He was very successful at recalling and reproducing these geometric shapes, provided the stimuli were presented one at a time. (NEPSY- II Design Copying Percentile Rank 99.6). 8

General Cognitive Functioning and Specific Processes Within the Normal Range General Conceptual Ability. Student W’s global reasoning was measured in this assessment as average (DAS-II General Conceptual Ability Standard Score 106). His global intelligence score was higher on the previous cognitive test (WJ-III) that was administered one year ago. The score difference may be accounted for by differences in the test materials and structure, as well as date of publication.

Verbal Abilities. Student W’s broad verbal reasoning was measured in the average range (DAS-II Verbal Cluster Standard Score 93). Verbal reasoning was measured by vocabulary knowledge and abstract verbal reasoning that assessed the conceptual similarity of three items. His verbal ability score predicts that Student W should be able to understand instruction in the classroom with little or no difficulty. At times, he seemed to have some difficulty expressing his ideas; he seemed to know the meaning of a word and could give an appropriate example, but at times could not accurately define the meaning. It is important to note that verbal reasoning and word knowledge increase with experience, education, and broad reading. Since Student W has experienced difficulty over the past few years with reading at grade level, he would be expected to decline in his vocabulary and word knowledge relative to his peers unless he is able to increase his reading word recognition and comprehension.

Spatial Reasoning. Student W’s visual-spatial reasoning was also in the average range (DAS-II Spatial Cluster Standard Score 99). He was able to manipulate blocks to form a three- dimensional design from a two-dimensional picture, and monitored his solution by evaluating visual details. Student W tried different strategies when the first approach didn’t work, and he persevered in solving the items even when they became quite difficult. Student W would be successful with mechanical and construction tasks, as he was able to accurately see how parts fit together to make the whole. His thinking was flexible, and he was able to generate multiple possible solutions as well as devise a strategy for problem solving.

Oral Language and Comprehension. Student W’s auditory processing and listening comprehension for stories, instruction, and general information was in the high average range (WIAT-III Listening Comprehension Standard Score 112). His oral expression, which is his ability to use language to express his ideas and knowledge, was average. (WIAT-III Oral Expression Standard Score 91).

Auditory Comprehension, Receptive Language, and Phonological Processing. The language domain of the NEPSY-II evaluated Student W’s ability to use phonological processing, to rapidly name items within a classification, and to comprehend and execute orally presented instructions. These are basic neuropsychological processes that underlie successful reading and general academic achievement. Student W scored in the expected range for his age in comprehending and following instructions of increasing complexity. He listened well and thought and planned his action before responding. He also scored in the expected range on tests of phonological processing (DAS-II Phonological Processing Percentile Rank 31; NEPSY-II Phonological Processing Percentile Rank 25). Phonological processing is a measure of the ability to hear and segment (divide) words at the level of letter sounds (phonemes) and also to segment words into syllables. The ability to hear and produce letter sounds and to hear and produce words as both wholes and parts are key aspects of reading. Student W’s success with phonological processing 9 Student W Reading Disorder may be a result of the Lindamood Bell “Seeing Stars” phonics intervention that he has received. Student W was also able to hear and correctly repeat “nonsense words.” Repetition of nonsense words reflects his ability to hear and reproduce phonetic sound patterns, but using “words” without meaning, thus testing pure phonetic awareness. He scored in the expected range on tests of speeded naming completion time (DAS-II Rapid Naming Percentile Rank 42; NEPSY-II Speeded Naming Total Completion Time Percentile Rank 25). Speeded naming represents the ability to rapidly access and produce familiar words or identify numbers and letters in patterns. The ability to rapidly access and produce words, numbers, or ideas is an important ability that underlies reading fluency. The speeded nature of the tasks relies upon processing speed, quick lexical access, working memory, long-term verbal memory, and sustained attention.

Narrative Memory. Student W was moderately successful at listening to a two-paragraph story and recalling many of the details of the story (NEPSY-II Narrative Memory Percentile Rank 25). He was able to remember half of the story details on the free recall trial, and correctly recalled all but two additional elements on the cued recall trial. His ability to remember meaningful information, as presented here, contrasts sharply with his memory for discrete elements such as word lists or number sequences, discussed below. Narrative memory ability is important in the classroom, as it predicts that Student W should be able to understand and remember much of the instruction that is presented verbally in the classroom.

Memory for Faces. Student W was able to recall faces of children that he saw only once, and remembered the faces he saw both immediately and after a brief 25-minute delay. (NEPSY-II Memory for Faces Percentile Rank 37). Visual facial recognition is an important social skill with which Student W was successful.

Math Fluency. Student W has learned basic addition, subtraction and multiplication facts to an automatic level, such that he is able to quickly and efficiently provide the sum, difference, or product when given a page of facts to compute (WIAT-III Math Fluency, Standard Score rage 97- 110).

Reading Comprehension. Despite Student W’s reported and observed difficulty with basic reading and decoding, he was able to read fourth grade level passages on this test with moderate accuracy, and he could find the answers in the text for 70 percent of the comprehension questions (WIAT-III Reading Comprehension Standard Score 95). He used context clues in the text to discover or guess at the stated meaning of the passage. He had more difficulty using information in the text to infer the implied meaning of the passage, as well as predicting what might happen next. These passages were brief, one to two paragraphs, and did not require sustained reading and comprehension that would be needed to read grade-level social studies or science texts. His comprehension for more complex material would be expected to be lower.

Executive Functioning as Rated by Student W’s Teacher. Mrs. A completed a rating scale that described Student W’s typical behaviors in the learning setting (BRIEF Teacher Rating Form). Student W had no difficulty in school with attention, inhibiting inappropriate behavior, emotional control, initiating work, planning and organizing schoolwork and materials, or self- monitoring his work completion. 10

Student W’s Cognitive and Academic Weaknesses Memory and Retrieval. The NEPSY-II memory subtests were used to assess Student W’s capacity for immediate verbal, pictorial, facial, design, and spatial memory. Both immediate and delayed (20-25 minute) retention and retrieval of previously learned material were measured. Memory is a complex process with many factors. Learning refers to the acquisition of new information that is encoded into memory. Encoding is the process of getting information first into short-tem and then into long-term memory stores. Encoding is facilitated by efficient organization as well as by associations made with existing knowledge. After encoding, memory traces must be consolidated to stay in long-term memory. Retrieval is the process of extracting information from long-term memory storage. Free recall refers to the retrieval of information without any external hints or cues being provided. Cued recall is retrieval that is assisted by an external clue or question that is related to the information to be retrieved. Memory span refers to the amount of verbal information a student can retain after one exposure. Rote memory is the verbatim recall of simple material, and does not involve comprehension of the material. Material-specific memory refers to the ability to recall modality-specific material (i.e. visual vs. auditory, faces vs. designs, or words vs. numbers). Working Memory is the ability to use attentional focus to keep information in mind while engaging in other mental activities. It also includes the ability to filter out information that is irrelevant to the task at hand, and to switch back and forth from one task to another. Working memory is dependent on three core systems: 1) A central executive system that provides top-down control of information that is active (i.e., one is consciously aware of it), and two representational systems, 2) a language-based phonological loop and a 3) visuospatial sketchpad. Wyatt’s memory processes are described below.

Sequential vs. Simultaneous Cognitive Processing. Sequential processing involves working with elements one at a time in a specific serial order. Simultaneous processing requires the ability to view and comprehend a visual array of data or pictures, a gestalt, or a complex concept as one integrated whole, as well as the ability to appreciate the relationship of parts to the whole. Student W’s performance was variable with both sequential and simultaneous domains. When a visual array was displayed that required him to understand the whole and its component parts (simultaneous processing), and the stimulus remained visible continuously so that he was not required to use his memory, he was very successful at solving the problem. However, when a visual problem or array was presented and then removed, so that he had to remember the items, his performance was mildly impaired.

Sequential Memory Span – Short-Term Memory. When Student W was presented with a verbal list of words or a series of numbers (sequential processing) that he had to learn and recall, his learning was inconsistent and below expected levels. His short-term memory span for numbers, words and pictures was below average to moderately impaired (DAS-II Recall of Digits Forward Percentile Rank 3; NEPSY-II List Memory Learning and Delayed Percentile Rank 9). Unique to the memory tasks, Student W became frustrated and anxious, as he was aware that he was not able to remember the numbers, words, or pictures presented. He did not have an auditory or visual strategy to learn and remember the sequences. Even when the same material was presented over three trials, he complained, “Too hard!” and leaned back in the chair with a frown. This difficulty has implications for teaching and learning. He demonstrated greater success recalling meaningful information (stories, concepts, information presented in sentences) than lists of information in isolation. If he were required to memorize lists of information for a 11 Student W Reading Disorder test (state capitols, for example), he may need help to devise a mnemonic strategy or to learn to pair pictures and words together in order to facilitate learning and recall of this type of information.

Simultaneous Memory Span. Student W’s ability to recall and name objects from an array was impaired in immediate learning trials, but improved in the delayed recall trial (DAS-II Recall of Objects-Immediate Percentile Rank 5; Recall of Objects-Delayed Percentile Rank 12). This suggests that Student W needs time to process new information, and when he is given time to think and for the information to begin to consolidate in memory, his recall is improved. This finding has implications for instruction: he may not give the correct answer immediately when learning verbal or picture information (such as maps), but over time his understanding and recall likely will improve. Academic test results indicate that Student W has been successful at retaining information over time that he previously learned, indicating that his long-term memory functions are within normal limits. One research study found that a group of children with severe reading disorder displayed difficulty with simultaneous processing (see Appendix A). Reading is a complex task that requires the student to analyze and remember sound-symbol relationships and to associate meaning with the symbols simultaneously.

Working Memory. Student W’s working memory ability was measured in the low average range (DAS-II Working Memory Standard Score 87). Throughout this examination, his experiences with memory tasks were the only times that significant frustration was noted. His anxiety at not being able to remember negatively impacted both his learning and his recall to a significant degree, and impeded his ability to attend and concentrate on new items that were presented.

Memory for Designs. Student W was highly successful at remembering and reproducing geometric designs that were shown one at a time (NEPSY-II Design Copying). In contrast, when more than one design was presented in an array, and he had to recall both the correct design and its placement in the array, his visual memory system appeared to be overwhelmed and his performance declined to well below average (NEPSY-II Memory for Designs Percentile Rank 5). As was noted with simultaneous processing, discussed above, Student W did not have a strategy and could not correctly recall multiple bits of information presented at the same time. Again, the implications for teaching and learning suggest that he will be most successful when information is presented in smaller, more manageable “chunks,” rather than all at once. Review of learned material will be important. His visual system may become taxed with large amounts of new information, unless he is given a strategy and clues as to how to scan, organize, and recall this information.

Memory for Names. In contrast to his ability to remember faces, Student W had much more difficulty learning and recalling the names of children when the name was paired with the child’s picture (NEPSY-II Memory for Names Percentile Rank 5). As he grows to become an adult, he may need to develop a strategy, such as verbal rehearsal, to help him remember the names of new acquaintances in a business or social situation.

Fine Motor Functioning. Student W’s printing was observed to be slow and laborious, but carefully executed. Yet, his letter formation was sometimes irregular in relative size. He did not use cursive writing at all during this assessment. The physical act of writing was difficult for him 12 and it required a good deal of sustained concentration and effort. While he was preoccupied with the mechanics of writing, he was not able to devote sufficient concentration to the content or spelling when writing. His pencil grip was inconsistent. He displayed significant fine motor hand and finger dexterity coordination difficulty in tests such as tapping each finger to his thumb in an even pattern or rhythm, or reproducing a repeated pattern with both hands. (NEPSY-II Fingertip Tapping Percentile Rank below 1; Imitating Hand Positions Percentile Rank 5). Since Student W will enter fifth grade next year, and writing demands will increase, recommendations will be made at the end of this report to address writing difficulties resulting from fine motor issues.

Word Reading. Student W’s ability to read words using sight recognition and/or phonetic decoding remains below average, and was significantly low in relationship to his processing strengths and general cognitive ability. (WIAT-III Word Reading Standard Score 78). His word recognition was inconsistent; at times he would read “the” and “and” correctly, but later would mispronounce these basic sight words. Despite the intervention he has received this year to improve his phonetic decoding, his preferred strategy for reading a new word is to guess at the word based upon initial letter(s) and configuration (shape and size). He did not strategically or successfully apply phonetic decoding skills to read unfamiliar or nonsense words (WIAT-III Pseudoword Decoding Standard Score 74). Student W’s basic reading skills were at a 1.4 to 2.0 grade level as measured on the WIAT-III. He will have significant difficulty reading and comprehending grade level material next year.

Oral Reading Fluency. In contrast to his math fluency, Student W’s oral reading fluency remained low (WIAT-III Oral Reading Fluency Standard Score 79). He read in a slow, often monotone voice, with little inflection. Research has documented that slow reading impedes comprehension. As Student W struggled with word recognition, he did not have sufficient residual concentration and memory capacity to attend to the content and meaning of the reading passage, despite his sustained focus and effort.

Spelling. Student W’s spelling ability was measured in the low average range (WIAT-III Spelling Standard Score 87). He has learned and memorized many basic words, which he spelled correctly. He used a phonetic approach to spelling, meaning that if he did not know how to spell a word, he tried to sound it out and then wrote that letter combination. However, he did not demonstrate adequate knowledge of word families (words that have the same spelling pattern) nor of the multiple irregular spellings that are common in the English language. Student W will need to develop strong proofreading and editing skills to be able to identify spelling and other errors in his writing.

Essay Composition. Student W attempted to write an essay on a sport he liked, but he produced only three sentences. His writing lacked a good topic sentence, supporting details, transition words, and a conclusion. He made errors of spelling and mechanics, at times omitting a capital letter at the start of a sentence and also omitted ending punctuation. His writing score was below average (WIAT-III Essay Composition Standard Score 79).

Anxiety. Student W completed a self-rating of situations that sometimes produce anxiety in children (RCMAS-2). He indicated that he does not worry about very many things in school, but he did endorse some social and physical anxiety at times. He gave positive (“Yes”) responses to 13 Student W Reading Disorder the following items: I often feel sick in my stomach. I am nervous. I feel someone will tell me I do things the wrong way. I get nervous when things do not go the right way for me. Others seem to do things easier than I can. I am afraid to give a talk to my class. I get teased at school. My feelings get hurt easily. I worry about making mistakes in front of people. I am tired a lot. It is hard for me to get to sleep at night. I worry about being called on in class. It is hard for me to keep my mind on my schoolwork. Teachers and parents may keep this information in mind when working with Student W. He appeared to be very sensitive to his performance and how others perceive him.

Summary of Findings

Student W is a right-handed 9-year-old fourth grade boy who was referred for an Independent Educational Evaluation due to slow progress in reading, spelling, and writing despite accommodations in the general education program and one year of special education intervention. His parents commented that they noticed he had reading difficulties as early as first grade; their concern was amplified because of a family history of severe reading disorders/dyslexia. Referral questions to be answered by this evaluation were: Does Student W have a Specific Learning Disability in reading or dyslexia? Why does he have difficulty with spelling? What teaching methods, curricula, or interventions are needed to help Student W learn to read better and reach grade level in reading and spelling? Is the intervention that he is receiving appropriate?

Student W is a kind, respectful, responsible, and popular student who gives his best effort in school and who follows rules and instructions. He is well liked by teachers and peers, and is a leader on the playground. He demonstrated significant cognitive and academic strengths in the areas of nonverbal, fluid reasoning, mathematical knowledge and problem solving, math calculations, numeric processing speed, and attention and concentration. With these abilities, Student W would be successful in fields such as engineering, mathematics, construction, and mechanics, as well as others.

However, Student W continues to exhibit significant difficulties with basic reading/word reading and writing. His achievement in reading and his ability to write essays and compositions are below grade level, despite special education services provided this school year. He appeared to have made progress with improving his phonemic awareness and phonological processing, but he still lacks the ability to apply phonetic decoding skills consistently when reading. His basic sight-reading vocabulary is below grade level, with inconsistent word recognition. Poor reading decoding skills impact his reading comprehension and fluency, and negatively affect his ability to access the core curriculum at grade level. 14

Student W currently demonstrated adequate phonetic decoding skills in isolation and in this assessment, however as noted above, he was inconsistent in applying phonics rules when reading new, unfamiliar, and even some basic sight words. In addition, the English language has many irregularities and exceptions to the stated rules, which, quite simply, need to be memorized to an automatic level for fluid reading. Student W did not appear to have a strong basic sight word vocabulary. Further, the cognitive mechanisms of visual and word memory, sequential and simultaneous processing, and working memory were identified as areas of weakness that impact the acquisition of both auditory reading decoding skills and visual sight word recognition.

Student W also has experienced persistent difficulty with spelling. Successful spellers generally store the image of words in visual memory, and supplement their spelling with application of phonetic rules. Student W could be described as a purely phonetic speller, but he makes frequent errors of adding, omitting, or substituting letters individually and in combination. His spelling is inconsistent; he may correctly spell a given word one day, but misspell it several days later.

Student W’s writing and fine motor skills involving pencil use were difficult for him. Writing as a skill develops following strong reading ability; poor readers rarely become good writers. Student W could verbally generate many ideas for writing, but he had difficulty organizing and putting his ideas on paper due to graphomotor, spelling, and mechanical challenges. He also manifested difficulty coming up with details and examples to support his thesis or topic when writing. As a student with slow fine motor pencil coordination, the physical writing process appeared frustrating for him, and required much of his concentration and effort. Without accommodations, which are addressed below under Recommendations, he is unlikely to become a strong writer.

Does Student W have a Specific Learning Disability or dyslexia? A Specific Learning Disability is defined in federal and California regulations as “a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes - visual, auditory, sensory-motor, attention, conceptualization, association, and expression. These difficulties may be found to exist because of a child’s lack of response to intervention and/or the presence of a severe discrepancy between intellectual ability and academic achievement. The learning disability is not due to visual, hearing, motor disabilities, mental retardation, emotional disturbance, environmental, cultural and/or economic disadvantages.” More recent changes to federal and state regulations include a district’s ability to use a model of Processing Strengths and Weaknesses (PSW) to identify a Specific Learning Disability: “A learning disability is suspected if one or more weakness in the areas of academic achievement (basic reading, reading comprehension, reading fluency, math calculations, math reasoning, and written expression) exists with a related cognitive weakness. The cognitive weakness(es) must exist within an otherwise normal profile (a standard score of ≥85 in three or more cognitive domains)” per California, Ventura County and Oregon Offices of Education.

Student W demonstrates a consistent pattern of low achievement over two or more years in basic reading, reading fluency, and written expression, with standard achievement scores below 80. This pattern exists in contrast to his reliably strong mathematics achievement and well above average nonverbal, fluid reasoning abilities, as documented in this and the previous psychoeducational evaluations. 15 Student W Reading Disorder

Does Student W have dyslexia? Federal special education law encodes the terms basic reading, reading comprehension, and reading fluency, but does not use the term “dyslexia.” An expert on dyslexia, Sally Shaywitz, M.D., of the Yale University School of Medicine, has researched severe reading disorders and dyslexia for decades. Together with her husband, Dr. Bennett Shaywitz, she originated and championed the "Sea of Strengths" model of dyslexia which emphasizes a sea of strengths of higher critical thinking and creativity surrounding the encapsulated weakness found in children and adults who are dyslexic. Perhaps the terms “dyslexia” and “Specific Learning Disability”/severe reading disorder may be used interchangeably to describe Student W.

Why does Student W have difficulty with spelling? Student W’s spelling challenges were described above. In all language-based writing, as contrasted with mathematics calculation, Student W displays difficulty with multiple skills that are necessary for consistent achievement in spelling and written expression: fine motor or graphomotor coordination and speed in forming letters, and he also lacks a visual or phonetic system that learns and retrieves the correct spelling of words. When a student struggles with slow letter formation and inconsistent word recognition, spelling achievement remains a challenge.

The questions on curricula, teaching methods, and appropriateness of the interventions are addressed under Recommendations.

Recommendations

Results of this assessment, current work samples, and all previous evaluations should be considered together by the Individualized Educational Program (IEP) team to determine whether Wyatt continues to meet eligibility as a student with a Specific Learning Disability, and if so, whether he also requires special education and related services to benefit from his educational program.

In the opinion of this examiner, Student W continues to meet eligibility for special education as a student with a Specific Learning Disability in the areas of basic reading, reading fluency, and written expression. He manifests a disorder in the basic psychological processes that underlie reading, including working memory, short-term visual and auditory memory for words and numbers in isolation (without meaning or context), ability to form and retain sound-symbol relationships, and fine motor speed and dexterity required for writing. His academic difficulties should be addressed with Specialized Academic Instruction as well as specific accommodations in the general education class. Specific recommendations are offered.

Rule out a visual acuity disorder. Although Student W passed the school vision screening, a professional evaluation by an Optometrist is recommended to ensure that he has no visual or acuity difficulty that would affect his reading.

Intensive interventions and accommodations to improve basic reading and word recognition skills: 16

. Phonetic decoding: Student W should continue to receive training in phonics using an evidence-based program such as Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) (University of Oregon), AIMSWEB (Pearson), Lindamood-Bell or other intervention that has been shown to be effective with students like Student W. Because he is reading 2-3 years below grade level, he will require intensive daily training over the next several months, including summer, with progress monitoring, in order to improve his phonetic skills. Summer appears to be an ideal time to provide intensive reading remediation. The brain’s ability to hear subtle differences in phonemes and orally produce those sounds develops within a critical period that generally closes at about age 8. After the critical period, intervention generally has a smaller effect. . Sight word recognition: Given that Student W does not yet have a strong sight word vocabulary, daily exposure to and repetition of the most common sight words for grades 1-5 should be a focus of instruction to build his automatic recognition of these high- frequency words.

Interventions and accommodations to improve reading fluency: . Fluency: Student W’s reading fluency can be built by having an adult or skilled reader read grade-level material to him, as well as through choral reading (reading aloud together). The skilled reader should read at a normal pace and with good inflexion and expression to improve comprehension and maintain interest. Reading aloud to the whole class, and a parent reading anything of interest to Student W in the evening are ways to increase his interest in reading and also to improve general knowledge and comprehension.

Interventions and accommodations to improve reading comprehension: . Accommodations to access to the core curriculum and improve reading comprehension: Since Student W’s reading skills at this time are not at a 4th-5th grade level, core textbooks on CD or downloaded from the Internet are recommended for him to listen to on a portable device such as a tablet (e.g. iPad), smart phone, or laptop computer. Student W could listen to social studies, science, and literature texts while commuting to and from school, as well as at home in the evening as homework. Since his auditory comprehension is good, he will be able to increase his knowledge on a variety of subjects and keep up with his peers.

Interventions and accommodations to improve writing and composition, and to address graphomotor/fine motor writing difficulties:

. Teachers will continue to teach, review, and reinforce the writing process from brainstorming ideas to creating a graphic organizer to planning the essay/composition and then proofreading, editing, and revising/rewriting. . Since Student W experiences significant difficulty with the physical actions of writing, speech to text software is recommended for all essays and compositions. Learning to use this software efficiently and effectively takes time; it is strongly recommended that Student W receive instruction and practice in using the software on a laptop computer this summer so that he will be able to generate written work when he begins 5th grade. 17 Student W Reading Disorder Accommodations to address spelling: . Like reading, spelling could be taught using word families, so that Student W learns to spell a range of words by learning one rule. Spelling can be emphasized using the sight word reading list.

Interventions to improve memory and accommodations to assist in retrieval: . Student W needs ample time to process and review information he is learning. Teachers should refrain from immediately asking him a question following instruction, and instead allow time for him to think and for the information to be transferred to long-term memory stores. . Student W became overwhelmed when too much visual information was presented at one time. He may be more successful when information is presented in smaller, manageable “chunks.” . Frequent review of information and new skills will be helpful. . When possible, pair visual and verbal information together, rather than present instruction by lecture alone . Teach memory strategies and mnemonics. “Mnemonic” is a memory tool. Mnemonics are techniques for remembering information that is otherwise difficult to recall. An example is, “30 days hath September, April, June, and November,” a rhyme for remembering the number of days in each calendar month. Another example of a mnemonic for spelling “geography” is “George Eats Old Gray Rags And Paints Houses Yellow.” The idea behind using mnemonics is to encode difficult-to-remember information in a way that is much easier to recall. Wyatt and other students may benefit from learning to encode information as pictures or images – the more unusual the better – and this may be a good strategy for learning factual information.

Licensed Educational Psychologist, Nationally Certified School Psychologist 18

ASSESSMENT DATA

Cognitive Processes:

Differential Ability Scales – Second Edition (DAS-II)

Descriptive Classification Labels for Composite, Cluster, and Subtest Scores: Subtest T-Scores Composite and Descriptive Category Percentile (M=50; SD=10) Cluster Scores (M=100; SD=15) 70 and above 130 and above Very High 98-99 63-69 120-129 High 91-97 57-62 110-119 Above Average 75-90 43-56 90-109 Average 25-74 37-42 80-89 Below Average 9-24 30-36 70-79 Low 2-8 29 and below 69 and below Very Low <2

Core Subtests Verbal Nonverbal Spatial General Percentile (T-Scores) Reasoning Conceptual Rank Ability Recall of Designs 46 46 34 Word Definitions 44 44 27 Pattern Construction 53 53 62 Matrices 60 60 84 Verbal Similarities 49 49 46 Sequential & 69 69 97 Quantitative Reasoning Mean T-Score 54

Cluster/Composite Scores Verbal Nonverbal Spatial General Conceptual (Standard Scores) Reasoning Ability Standard Score 93 123 99 106 Percentile 32 94 47 66 95% Confidence Interval 85-102 114-129 93-105 100-111 19 Student W Reading Disorder Specific Processing Abilities were measured with the DAS-II Processing Subtests:

Diagnostic Subtests T-Score Percentile Working Processing Memory Speed Recall of Objects – Immediate 34 5 Recall of Objects – Delayed 38 12 Recall of Digits Forward 31 3 Recognition of Pictures 42 21 Recall of Sequential Order 46 34 46 Speed of Information Processing 66 95 66 Recall of Digits Backward 39 14 39 Phonological Processing 45 31 Rapid Naming 48 42 48

Diagnostic Cluster Scores Working Processing Memory Speed Standard Score 87 113 Percentile 19 81 95% Confidence Interval 81-94 108-120

Specific Cognitive Processes:

NEPSY-II Developmental Neuropsychological Assessment

Domain and Subtests Scale Classification Score* Attention and Executive Functions Animal Sorting Correct Sorts 11 At expected level Animal Sorting Combined 6 Borderline Auditory Attention Total Correct 13 Above expected level Auditory Attention Combined 13 Above expected level Auditory Response Set Total Correct 8 At expected level Auditory Response Set Combined 7 Borderline Clocks 15 Above expected level Design Fluency 10 At expected level Inhibition Naming Total Completion Time 13 Above expected level Inhibition Naming Combined 12 At expected level Inhibition Total Completion Time 16 Above expected level Inhibition Combined 16 Above expected level Inhibition Switching Total Completion Time 14 Above expected level Inhibition Switching Combined 9 At expected level Inhibition Total Errors 11 At expected level 20

Domain and Subtests Scale Classification Score* Language Comprehension of Instructions 11 At expected level Phonological Processing 8 At expected level Repetition of Nonsense Words 12 At expected level Speeded Naming Total Completion Time 8 At expected level Speeded Naming Combined 5 Below expected level Word Generation Semantic 10 At expected level Word Generation Initial Letter 6 Borderline Visuospatial Processing Arrows 11 At expected level Design Copying 18 Above expected level Geometric Puzzles 8 At expected level Memory and Learning List Memory and List Memory Delayed 7 Borderline Memory for Designs 5 Below expected level Memory for Designs Delayed 7 Borderline Memory for Faces 10 At expected level Memory for Faces Delayed 9 At expected level Memory for Names 5 Below expected level Memory for Names Delayed 6 Borderline Memory for Names Total 5 Below expected level Narrative Memory Free and Cued Recall 9 At expected level Picture Puzzles 8 At expected level Word Interference Repetition 9 At expected level Word Interference Recall 12 At expected level Sensorimotor Fingertip Tapping Dominant Combined 1 Well below expected level Fingertip Tapping Non-Dominant Combined 2 Well below expected level Fingertip Tapping Repetitions Combined 1 Well below expected level Fingertip Tapping Sequences Combined 3 Well below expected level Imitating Hand Positions Total 5 Below expected level Visuomotor Precision Total Completion Time 9 At expected level Visuomotor Precision Combined 8 At expected level

* Scale Scores have a mean of 10. Scores ranging from 8 - 12 are in the “expected” range. 21 Student W Reading Disorder Standardized Achievement:

Wechsler Individual Achievement Test-Third Edition (WIAT-III)

Subtest Standard Percentile 95% Confidence Classification Score* Rank** Interval Listening 112 79 100-124 High Average Comprehension Reading 95 37 82-108 Average Comprehension Math Problem Solving 117 87 106-128 High Average Sentence Composition 97 42 87-107 Average Word Reading 78 7 74-82 Below Average Essay Composition 79 8 69-89 Below Average Pseudoword Decoding 74 4 70-78 Below Average Numerical Operations 112 79 103-121 High Average Oral Expression 91 27 80-102 Average Spelling 87 19 80-94 Low Average Oral Reading Fluency 79 8 71-87 Below Average Math Fluency- 97 42 84-110 Average Addition Math Fluency- 101 53 91-111 Average Subtraction Math Fluency- 110 75 101-119 Average Multiplication

* For Standard scores, Mean = 100, SD = 15. (Average range = 90-109) ** The percentile rank indicates the percentage of students in this subject’s age group who scored at or below this level 22

Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF) Teacher Rating Form

Scale T-Score† Percentile Inhibit 46 60 Shift 44 50 Emotional Control 45 55 Behavioral Regulation Index 44 45 Initiate 48 58 Working Memory 52 74 Plan/Organize 45 51 Organization of Materials 44 55 Monitor 43 38 Metacognitive Index 46 54 Global Executive Composite 45 47 Negativity Scale Acceptable Inconsistency Scale Acceptable

T-Scores† have a mean of 50 and standard deviation of 10. Scores between 40 and 59 are considered “average” or typical.

Revised Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale – Second Edition (RCMAS-2)

Scale T-Score† Percentile Classification Physical Anxiety 64 92 Elevated Worry 52 58 Normal Social Anxiety 62 88 Elevated Total 61 86 Elevated

T-Scores† have a mean of 50 and standard deviation of 10. Scores between 40 and 59 are considered “average” or typical. 23 Student W Reading Disorder Appendix A. Resources.

Lassus-Sangosse, D., N’guyen-Morel, M., & Valdois, S. (2008). Sequential or simultaneous visual processing deficit in developmental dyslexia? Science Direct – Vision Research (48, pp. 979-988). Available: www.elsevier.com/locate/visres Abstract: The ability of dyslexic children with or without phonological problems to process simultaneous and sequential visual information was assessed using two tasks requiring the oral report of simultaneously or sequentially displayed letter-strings. The two groups were found to exhibit a simultaneous visual processing deficit but preserved serial processing skills. However, the impairment in simultaneous processing was larger in the dyslexic group with no phonological disorder. Although sequential and simultaneous processing skills both related to reading performance, simultaneous processing alone significantly contributed to reading speed and accuracy. These findings suggest that a simultaneous processing disorder might contribute to developmental dyslexia.

Shaywitz, S. (2005). Overcoming Dyslexia: A new and complete science-based program for reading problems at any level. Random House, Inc.