Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Welcome to the Oklahoma State Department of Education (SDE) Special Education Services Division Community of Practice!

The division values the input of all stakeholders in the development of policies, procedures, and materials related to special education.  This community of practice will serve to extend communication and facilitate collaboration with stakeholders in the special education community.

Recently Updated

Navigate space

sde sde Delete
special special Delete
education education Delete
Enter labels to add to this page:
Please wait 
Looking for a label? Just start typing.
  1. May 07, 2013

    In the Oklahoma draft of Specific Learning Disability Eligibility under B. Requirements for Learning Disability it states that there are two ways to determine eligibility for student with a Learning Disability: either Response to Intervention or the traditional discrepancy model.  However, the federal law under 300.307 Specific Learning Disabilities identifies three ways: (a) (1) must not require the use of a severe discrepancy between intellectual ability and achievement for determining whether a child has a specific learning disability, (2) Must permit the use of a process based on the child’s response to scientific, research-based intervention; and (3) May permit the use of other alternative research-based procedures for determining whether a child has a specific learning disability, as defined in 300.8(c)(10).  The sample of procedures from Georgia (one of the samples we considered in our committee meeting) under Strategies and Best Practices for Implementing the SLD Rule last paragraph says “Determining SLD identification requires professional judgment based on ‘multiple sources of evidence to conclude that the child exhibits a pattern of strengths and weaknesses in performance, achievement or both, relative to age, state approved grade level standards and intellectual development. The eligibility team must interpret synthesized data gathered from RTI to determine whether the student has made satisfactory progress, from a cognitive profile to determine whether the data are characteristic of an SLD.”  Adding the Georgia language would address the federal law’s third way to identify Specific Learning Disability.  The Georgia procedures also address the difficulty school personnel have had distinguishing between the student who is a slow learning and a student with a learning disability.  Under Strategies and Best Practices for Implementing the SLD Rule paragraph 3 identifies the SLD student as one who “demonstrates unexpected low achievement relative to aptitude or ability.  These students display distinct patterns of strengths and weaknesses, and evidence must show that the students’ processing deficits impact their areas of educational deficit.  Notable, unexplainable profound inconsistencies make SLD’s stand out.  In contrast, a slower learner exhibits no contradictions in the results of achievement related to aptitude or ability.  They do not provide the marked difference that indicates processing dysfunctions.  Relative cognitive weaknesses (splitter scores) may be exhibited…” 

Add Comment