BAN  USE  OF  DISCREPANCY  MODEL!

      DISALLOW ELIGIBILITY CRITERION

                 by Sol B. Heckelman

NJASP has proposed legislation which would bar applying the discrepancy between cognitive and achievement scores (AAD) as the sole criterion for declaring a student to have a Severe Learning Disability, therefore Eligible for classification in Special Education.

Both federal and NJ state requirements allow, as school psychologists are aware, the use of discrepancy and an alternative evidence-based assessment as criteria.  Note that discrepancy by itself is not allowed.  In practice, however, where districts require a pre-determined numerical gap as a criterion, this would seem to make other information amassed (e.g., educational and other history, assessment information, learning styles, observation) irrelevant or of minor importance.

It is a one-size-fits-all system, in total opposition to an Individualized Educational Program.

How is it acceptable to require that this one criterion must be met in order for a child to be deemed eligible for classification for special education services?

Of course, the setting of a rigid district-wide score for every student who is assessed, is arbitrary. Even with pseudo-scientific claims that the required score is based on a standard-deviation measure, the rationale is illusory.  Why a specific slice of a standard deviation?  Which test instruments are to be used? We all know that different instruments have varying standard deviations.  The literature does not provide support for the validity of this type of measure.

Instead, NJASP has proposed legislation (A4670) which would, essentially, do two things. It would more closely align with federal guidelines and it would ban the use of discrepancy as the sole criterion for determining a student’s Eligibility for Special Education.  This bill does not single out any one specific technique; it emphasizes evidence-based criteria along with the type of information noted above.

Here’s a link to NJASP’s proposed A4670 in the NJ Assembly along with the Supplemental Statement which provides rationale.

3.25.21.NJASP Commentary on proposed bill.pdf

4670.Revision.NJASP SLD bill.4.28.21.pdf

We look forward to receiving comments as an essential part of an ongoing dialogue.  Responses will be printed verbatim.  Writer’s name/school/district will be printed at your option.