Based on Woodcock-Johnson assessment results and multiple data sources, which conclusion is most appropriate for the ARD committee?

• A. The student no longer meets eligibility criteria of SLD in mathematics calculation.
• B. The results indicate that the student has a different disability.
• C. No conclusions about eligibility other than current ones.
• D. The student continues to meet eligibility for reading SLD.

Answer: (A)

When evaluating eligibility, the ARD committee relies on current, integrated data from multiple sources. The Woodcock-Johnson provides an up-to-date measure of the student’s achievement in mathematics calculation, and other data sources—such as classroom performance, progress monitoring, teacher observations, and records of instruction—offer corroborating evidence about how the student is functioning in math.

If these sources show that the student is now performing at or near grade level in math calculation and the previous gap between ability and achievement is no longer present, the pattern that supported eligibility for a math SLD is no longer evident. In that case, the most appropriate conclusion is that the student no longer meets eligibility criteria for SLD in mathematics calculation. This decision follows from current data rather than past performance, and it should be accompanied by a plan for ongoing progress monitoring and any needed supports within general education or other services, while recognizing that the student may still have needs in other areas.

Choosing that the student has a different disability would require new, specific evidence of a distinct limitation outside of math, and continuing eligibility for reading SLD would require ongoing, demonstrable reading difficulties, which would need separate supporting data.