Opinion ID: 6497375
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Severe-Discrepancy Approach to

Text: Identifying a Specific Learning Disability The first method for identifying a specific learning disability is the severe-discrepancy approach. Consistent with its name, that method examines whether there is a severe discrepancy “between the student’s current achievement and intellectual ability in one or more [areas of academic aptitude].” N.J. Admin. Code § 6A:14-3.5(c)(12)(i). If a school district uses the severe-discrepancy approach, New Jersey requires it to “adopt procedures that utilize a statistical formula and criteria for determining severe discrepancy.” Id. § 6A:14–3.5(c)(12)(iv). In line with that requirement, Summit has determined that a 22-point differential between a child’s 7 The IDEA further clarifies that the term ‘specific learning disability’ includes “perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia,” and it excludes “a learning problem that is primarily the result of visual, hearing, or motor disabilities, of intellectual disabilities, of emotional disturbance, or of environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage.” 20 U.S.C. § 1401(30)(B)–(C); see also N.J. Admin. Code § 6A:14-3.5(c)(12). 20 achievement and intellectual ability constitutes a severe discrepancy. When he was tested in July and August 2015, C.M.’s measured achievement in three areas was below 90, 8 but his full-scale IQ was 113. Because C.M.’s scores in those three areas were over 22 points below his I.Q. score, he would qualify as having a specific learning disability in those three areas under the severe-discrepancy approach. Critically, however, the IDEA contains a specific exception to the severe-discrepancy approach. Under that provision, a school district may use the severe-discrepancy method to find a specific learning disability, but it is not required to use that approach – or even consider the results of that approach for child-find purposes: [W]hen determining whether a child has a specific learning disability as defined in section 1401 of this title, a local educational agency shall not be required to take into consideration whether a child has a severe discrepancy between achievement and intellectual ability in oral expression, listening comprehension, written expression, basic reading skill, reading comprehension, mathematical calculation, or mathematical reasoning. 20 U.S.C. § 1414(b)(6)(A) (emphasis added). Thus, although New Jersey regulations permit the severediscrepancy method, a school district does not violate its childfind obligation by disregarding the results of the severediscrepancy approach. Yet if a school district relies on that 8 C.M. measured at 83 in listening comprehension, 89 in sentence composition, and 88 in pseudoword decoding. 21 approach, then a severe discrepancy establishes only that the child has a specific learning disability, and a separate inquiry is needed to ascertain whether the student needs special education and related services. Here, Summit did not violate its child-find obligation by not considering the results of the severe-discrepancy approach. Summit could have relied on that approach to conclude that C.M. had specific learning disabilities in three areas where his aptitude scores were below 90. But Summit was not required to do so. See 20 U.S.C. § 1414(b)(6)(A). Nor did it violate its child-find duty by giving no consideration to the results of the severe-discrepancy approach in assessing C.M. for a specific learning disability. See id.