Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Highly Capable Identification topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parent tells Lake Washington board district highly capable identification misaligns with WAC 392‑170‑035 for twice‑exceptional students
Summary
A parent told the board LWSD's identification process for highly capable students fails to capture twice‑exceptional children and urged use of psychological assessment rather than NNAT without accommodations.
During the Jan. 13 public‑comment period, a parent identified as Anaya urged the Lake Washington School District board to change its highly capable identification process to better serve twice‑exceptional students — children who are both highly capable and have learning differences such as ADHD.
Anaya told the board that the Washington Administrative Code definition (WAC 392‑170‑035) recognizes both general and specific abilities within the highly capable population and that standardized screening tests without accommodations can exclude students with uneven profiles. "It's hard to assess a nonstandard child who has both exceptional abilities and atypical challenges with a standardized test," she said, and recommended using comprehensive measures such as psychologist‑administered WISC testing for students with mixed profiles.
Nut graf: The commenter said the district’s current pathway relies on high scores across all areas and can miss students with pronounced strength in one domain (for example, a math‑strong child with weaker ELA skills), which the commenter said is inconsistent with state guidance.
Anaya gave her daughter's case as an example, saying the district administered the NNAT without accommodations despite known ADHD and that her child — "in the 99th percentile" academically in some areas — was not identified under current processes. She asked the board to align identification pathways with WAC 392‑170‑035 so that children with uneven profiles are considered for specialized assessment and services.
Ending: The board did not respond during the public‑comment time beyond the standard acknowledgement; district staff later told the meeting organizers someone would follow up with the commenter.
