Understanding How Schools Identify Specific Learning Disabilities: What Parents Need to Know About PSW, RTI, and the Discrepancy Model

The Law Changed in 2004 — But Not Everyone Caught Up

If your child has been diagnosed with dyslexia, dysgraphia, or another learning disability, you may be wondering: will the school see it the same way? The answer is complicated — and it depends a lot on where you live and what method your school district uses to determine eligibility for special education.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), updated in 2004, significantly changed how schools identify students with Specific Learning Disabilities (SLD) in three important ways.

First, schools must not require a severe discrepancy between intellectual ability and academic achievement as the basis for identifying SLD. This effectively retired the old discrepancy model as a mandatory standard, though — as we'll see — it didn't disappear entirely.

Second, schools must collect data showing that the student has had access to high-quality instruction and has failed to respond to intervention. This is the Response To Intervention (RTI) requirement, and it applies universally — every SLD determination must include this data.

Third, schools may use alternative research-based procedures to further inform the eligibility determination. This is the opening that Patterns of Strengths and Weaknesses (PSW) fits into — it is not a separate required pathway, but rather a permissible additional method that districts can layer on top of the required RTI data.

So to be clear: RTI is not optional, and PSW is not an equal alternative to it. RTI data is the floor. PSW is an approach a school may choose to build on top of that foundation.

This post focuses especially on PSW — what it is, why it matters, and what it means for your child.

Why the Old Discrepancy Model Was a Problem

The traditional discrepancy model had real costs for real kids. Here's why it fell out of favor:

It required students to fail first. To show a significant gap between ability and achievement, academic scores had to drop low enough to register as a meaningful discrepancy. Families and educators often described this as a "wait to fail" approach — children weren't identified until they were already significantly behind.

It excluded students with below-average IQs. The model required a roughly average IQ (typically 85 or above) as a baseline. Students who weren't bright enough to show a dramatic discrepancy — but also weren't delayed enough to qualify for Intellectual Disability services — fell through the cracks entirely. These are children who have real learning disabilities but exist in a gap between two eligibility categories.

It wasn't particularly accurate. A discrepancy between IQ and achievement scores doesn't tell us much about why a student is struggling or what kind of support they need.

Enter RTI — And Its Limitations

After 2004, many districts moved toward RTI as their primary method for identifying SLD. The logic made sense: schools were already required to provide high-quality, tiered academic interventions, so why not use a student's response to those interventions as evidence of a disability?

RTI (and its broader cousin, MTSS — Multi-Tiered Systems of Support) works like this: students receive increasingly intensive, evidence-based instruction. If a student fails to make adequate progress despite high-quality intervention at multiple tiers, that lack of response becomes part of the eligibility determination.

One important legal note: schools cannot use the need for more intervention data as a reason to delay an evaluation when a disability is suspected. If there's reason to believe a child has a disability — and a diagnosis like dyslexia is absolutely reason to believe — the district must start the evaluation process within the required timeline. Best practice is to begin testing and collect intervention data simultaneously. When the team reconvenes to make an eligibility decision, they'll have a rich picture from both formal testing and real-world intervention response.

It's also worth noting: children who make solid progress in intervention and can access grade-level instruction in the classroom generally won't qualify for special education. IDEA requires evidence that a child needs supports that general education — including even intensive, individualized Tier 3 interventions — cannot provide.

What Is PSW — The "Third Way"?

Patterns of Strengths and Weaknesses is an approach the federal law explicitly permits. PSW uses cognitive and academic testing to identify a specific profile: some cognitive abilities are average or above, while others are below average, and those weaknesses align with below-average academic skills in a theoretically meaningful way.

Think of it this way: a student with dyslexia might show average visual-spatial reasoning and average working memory, but below-average phonological processing — and that pattern shows up alongside below-average reading scores. The pattern makes sense given what we know about how reading works in the brain.

Different PSW models exist — Concordance-Discordance, XBA (Cross-Battery Assessment), and others — and different states use different models. This means a child who qualifies under one state's PSW framework might not qualify if the family moves. Eligibility can vary not just by state, but sometimes by district or even by the individual school psychologist conducting the evaluation.

How Oregon and Washington Approach SLD

In Oregon, districts have flexibility. They may use RTI/MTSS data to determine SLD eligibility, and they may also layer PSW testing on top of that. Both approaches are recognized.

In Washington, the story is messier. The state's special education regulations haven't been updated in a long time, and for years, individual districts — and even individual school psychologists — chose their own approach. Some stuck with severe discrepancy, some used RTI, some combined RTI with PSW, and some used PSW models of their own choosing with no statewide guidance.

That is now changing. Washington has committed to moving away from the severe discrepancy model entirely. By the 2028–29 school year, Washington school districts will no longer use severe discrepancy to determine SLD eligibility. Instead, the state is moving toward an approach grounded in instructional and intervention data, RTI — a shift intended to identify students earlier, reduce inequities, and better serve students of color and multilingual learners. School districts will be allowed to do additional testing to suss out cognitive and academic strengths and weaknesses, but PSW will not be a part of the criteria for SLD eligibility.

The Controversy Around PSW

Within the field, PSW is not without its critics. Researcher Ryan McGill and others have raised important concerns:

• Subtest scores are less reliable than composite scores. When we pull apart cognitive batteries to look at individual subtests or narrow ability clusters, we're working with scores that have more measurement error. Building eligibility decisions on those scores is statistically shaky.

• PSW can still exclude students with lower IQs. Some state PSW models require an overall IQ at or above 85 or 90. In practice, this reinstates a version of the old discrepancy model — just dressed up in different language.

• Test bias is a serious equity concern. Cognitive and achievement tests can reflect cultural and linguistic backgrounds in ways that disadvantage multilingual learners, students from lower-income families, and students of color. Using PSW with these populations risks misidentifying — or failing to identify — students based on test performance that reflects their life experience more than their neurological profile.

These aren't reasons to dismiss PSW entirely, but they are reasons to use it carefully and critically.

Clinical Diagnoses vs. School Eligibility: Not the Same Thing

One more important distinction: a clinical diagnosis of a learning disability — from a private psychologist, neuropsychologist, or other licensed clinician — is not the same as a school eligibility determination, and vice versa.

When clinicians evaluate for reading, writing, or math disorders outside of school, they follow the *Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders* (DSM-5). The DSM defines Specific Learning Disorder based on academic skills that are substantially below what's expected given a person's age, schooling, and intelligence — assessed with individually administered, standardized tests. A diagnosis requires that the difficulties have persisted despite targeted intervention (that’s RTI!) and that they aren't better explained by other factors. In practice, this framework most closely resembles the traditional discrepancy model: it looks for a meaningful gap between cognitive ability and academic performance. The clinical diagnosis can be powerful and validating for families, and it can inform school planning, but it does not automatically confer eligibility for special education services. Schools make their own eligibility determinations using their state's criteria and methodology.

What Parents Can Do

Knowledge is power in this process. Here's where to start:

• Ask upfront what method the district uses. At the very beginning of the evaluation process, ask the school psychologist: What methodology does this district use to identify SLD? Request that they share the district's handbook or written guidance on SLD evaluations. The answer will shape everything that follows.

• Know that a diagnosis is a reason to evaluate — not to wait. If your child has been diagnosed with dyslexia, dysgraphia, or a similar learning disability by a clinician outside of school, that diagnosis is grounds to suspect a disability and request an evaluation. The school cannot tell you they need to run more rounds of intervention before they evaluate. The evaluation and the intervention data collection can — and should — happen at the same time.

• Understand what "progress" means in this context. If your child is making strong gains in intervention and accessing grade-level work, they likely won't qualify for special education — even if they have a diagnosis. Special education is reserved for students whose needs cannot be met within the general education system, including its intervention tiers.

A Final Word

I've been a school psychologist for a long time. I know what teams are required to do, how long evaluations should take, and when pushing harder for an evaluation is the right call. The system is complicated, and the rules vary in ways that aren't always fair or consistent — but understanding how it works puts you in a much stronger position to advocate for your child.

The more you know, the better. I'm here to help you navigate it. Contact me HERE.

Supporting Neurodivergent Parents: Advocacy That Honors the Whole Family

When people think about educational advocacy, they often picture support focused solely on the child. In my work as a special education advocate, I know that effective advocacy means supporting the whole family, including parents who are themselves neurodivergent.

Learning disabilities such as dyslexia, ADHD, and other neurodevelopmental differences have a genetic component. That means when you work with children with disabilities, you are very often also working with parents who have learning differences of their own. This is not a deficit. It is simply a reality that schools and systems rarely acknowledge, and one that profoundly shapes how families experience the special education process.

My role is to bridge that gap. Here’s my approach:

Making the Invisible Visible: Clear, Explicit Information

School systems are full of unspoken rules, assumed knowledge, and processes that are rarely explained clearly. Acronyms fly. Timelines are implied. Decisions are framed as “just how it works.”

For neurodivergent parents, this can be overwhelming and alienating.

One of the core ways I support parents is by providing clear, explicit explanations of school processes, especially where schools tend to leave things unsaid or unexplained. I break down:

• What the process actually is

• What decisions are being made and by whom

• What options exist, even if they were not offered out loud

• What the next steps are, in concrete terms

This clarity boosts parent understanding, reduces anxiety, and allows parents to more fully and confidently advocate for their child’s needs. When parents understand the system, they are better able to participate as equal members of the team.

Preparing in Advance: Reducing Cognitive Load in Meetings

School meetings are cognitively demanding for any parent. For parents with attention, language processing, or executive functioning differences, they can be especially hard.

In a single meeting, parents are often expected to process auditory information about their child, which is emotionally loaded, understand educational jargon and fast-moving discussion, track both spoken and unspoken implications of what is being said, hold multiple follow-up steps in mind, and contribute their own expertise about their child, all in real time and with multiple school staff present.

That is a lot of multitasking.

This is why I spend significant time consulting one-on-one with parents before meetings. Together, we:

• Identify concerns across all areas

• Prioritize what matters most right now

• Anticipate what the team may say or ask

• Clarify what outcomes the parent wants from the meeting

By the time we walk into the meeting, the parent is not starting from a place of cognitive overload. They are prepared, grounded, and supported.

Acting as another “Frontal Lobe” During Meetings

During meetings, I often think of my role as serving as an external frontal lobe, the part of the brain that manages planning and decision-making.

I have the agenda that the parent and I developed in front of me the entire time. I track what has been discussed, what still needs to be addressed, and whether commitments are being made clearly and concretely.

This allows the parent to focus on what only they can bring to the table: deep knowledge of their child. They do not have to simultaneously manage the structure of the meeting, remember every item, or redirect the team. That is my job.

Follow-Through and Accountability: Keeping Things Moving

Many parents tell me a similar story. “A school process started, and then it just kind of stopped.”

Sometimes that is because schools did not follow through. Other times, it is because the sheer amount of coordination required became too much. Managing communication between a doctor’s office, school administrators, general education teachers, therapists, and outside providers is a lot of demand on executive functions. Parents can find their capacity overloaded by busy lives and chronic stress.

As an advocate, I maintain a specific to-do list for each family case. It is my responsibility to:

• Track agreed-upon next steps

• Follow up when timelines slip

• Re-engage the team when something stalls

• Keep momentum moving toward a just-right plan for the child

This accountability reduces the burden on parents and ensures that important processes do not fall off the radar.

Advocacy That Respects Neurodiversity

Supporting neurodivergent parents is not about fixing how they show up. It is about designing support that works with their brains, not against them.

When parents are supported with clarity, preparation, structure, and follow-through, they are empowered rather than overwhelmed. And when parents are empowered, children benefit.

That is what meaningful educational advocacy looks like.

If this resonates with you, I invite you to reach out, ask questions, or learn more about what advocacy support can look like for your family. You do not have to navigate this alone. Contact me HERE.

Elevating Parent Voice: Supporting an Elementary Student with Nonverbal Learning Disability

Some learning disabilities are widely recognized. Others, like Nonverbal Learning Disability (NVLD), are far less understood. Even so, they can have a significant impact on a child’s school experience. This is the story of how thoughtful collaboration and intentional planning, guided by a special education advocate, helped an elementary school student with NVLD finally receive the support she needed to thrive.

Understanding the Child Beyond the Label

When I first began working with this family, their child was a bright, curious elementary student with clear strengths in the classroom. However, those strengths were not fully reflected in her IEP. Like many students with NVLD, she struggled with areas such as math, visual-spatial processing, and applying concepts in the classroom, even when she understood the material verbally.

As a special education advocate, one of my first goals was to help the school team see the whole child. That meant supporting her mom, Amy, in clearly communicating not just concerns, but also her daughter’s strengths, interests, and learning profile. We worked together to ensure that parent input wasn’t an afterthought, it became a meaningful part of the IEP itself.

Bridging the Gap Between the IEP and the Classroom

During our first school year working together, I attended an IEP team meeting in my role as parent advocate after it became clear that services written into the IEP were not being fully implemented in the classroom. Amy had been requesting additional math support for months, but those requests were repeatedly deprioritized and, effectively, unheard.

During the meeting, we carefully reviewed the IEP line by line. That’s when the team realized something important: in-class math support was clearly spelled out in the IEP, but it wasn’t actually happening.

To the team’s credit, they responded openly and collaboratively. Once the gap was identified, services were adjusted to match what the IEP required and what the student needed. With consistent in-class math support in place, the child’s confidence and performance improved noticeably.

Adding Clinical Insight to Educational Planning

Another key step was helping the team incorporate clinical recommendations into the IEP in a practical, school-based way. This child had been evaluated by a well-regarded neuropsychologist in the community. Too often, outside evaluations sit on the sidelines instead of shaping instruction. We walked through the clinical recommendations line by line and considered what needed to be implemented at school, and how. By translating those recommendations into actionable supports and goals, we ensured they meaningfully informed her educational program.

Planning Ahead: Transitions Matter

In the following school year, our focus shifted to prevention rather than reaction. I worked with Amy to communicate proactively with the new general education teacher before the school year began. I use a transition playbook designed to:

• Introduce the child and family to new team members

• Share strengths, interests, and successful strategies

• Flag potential challenges early

• Set the tone for collaboration from day one

A cornerstone of this approach is holding October check-in meetings with the IEP team, early enough to make adjustments before small issues become big problems.

An October Check-In That Made a Difference

At the October check-in meeting, the team came prepared with a draft IEP revision, which included proposed reading goals. Instead of simply accepting or rejecting those goals, we workshopped them together in real time.

We focused on making sure the goals:

• Included clear baseline data

• Were measurable and meaningful

• Reflected ambitious, but appropriate, expectations for her reading growth

By the end of the meeting, everyone felt aligned. The revised goals were stronger, clearer, and better matched to this child’s needs.

Centering Parent Voice

Throughout this process, my guiding principle remained the same: elevate parent voice. When parents feel confident, informed, and supported, they can participate as true partners in the IEP process. This family left each meeting feeling heard, respected, and optimistic about their child’s path forward.

As her mom shared afterward:

“Just getting a minute to sit down and thank you for your expert help at [my child]’s IEP meeting yesterday. I thought it went really well, it was great to see the collaboration re: goal setting. I wanted to let you know how much I value your opinion and your shoulder support. I feel so confident being able to defer to you. I enjoyed watching the way you critically think about the goals and help shape them with the team.”

Moving Forward

This student is now receiving more consistent, well-aligned support, and just as importantly, Amy feels empowered and confident navigating the process. That combination makes all the difference.

For families of children with lesser-known learning disabilities like NVLD, advocacy isn’t about being adversarial. It’s about clarity, collaboration, and making sure the plan on paper becomes support in practice.

Need support navigating your child’s IEP? Partnering with a special education advocate means you don’t have to do this alone. Reach out here.