When It's NOT an SLD: Understanding Exclusionary and Determinant Factors

Before a learning difficulty can be identified as a Specific Learning Disability (SLD), evaluation teams must rule out other possible causes. Vision, hearing, instructional quality, and environmental factors all connect to learning—each must be considered to ensure the difficulty isn’t primarily the result of another condition or circumstance.

This is Part 4 of a 5-part series on Specific Learning Disability identification under IDEA and Texas law.

In Parts 1-3, we've covered what an SLD is, how it's identified, and what data schools must collect. Now we need to address an equally important question:

When does a learning problem NOT qualify as an SLD?

Understanding what disqualifies a child from SLD identification is crucial, not to discourage you, but to ensure accurate diagnosis and appropriate services. The law establishes specific "exclusionary factors" and "determinant factors" that evaluation teams must consider.

Exclusionary Factors: What SLD Is NOT

A learning problem is not classified as a Specific Learning Disability if it is primarily the result of one of these conditions:

1. Sensory or Motor Disabilities

• Visual disabilities: Blindness, low vision, or visual processing issues that fully explain the academic struggles

• Hearing disabilities: Deafness, hearing loss, or auditory processing disorders that are the primary cause

• Motor disabilities: Physical impairments affecting writing, speaking, or other academic tasks

  
  

2. Intellectual Disability

• Learning difficulties that align with overall cognitive functioning

• When academic performance matches intellectual ability level

• Previously called "mental retardation" in older legislation

  
  

3. Emotional Disability (or Emotional Disturbance)

• Mental health conditions that are the primary cause of academic underachievement

• Examples: severe anxiety, depression, or behavioral disorders that significantly interfere with learning

  
  

4. Environmental, Cultural, or Economic Disadvantage

• Environmental factors: Unstable housing, trauma, neglect

• Cultural factors: Differences in cultural background or experiences that affect test performance

• Economic disadvantage: Lack of access to resources, early learning opportunities, or educational materials

• 
  

5. Language Barriers

• Federal IDEA terminology: "Limited English proficiency"

• Texas terminology: "Being emergent bilingual"

• When language acquisition (rather than a learning disability) explains the academic struggles

The Critical Word: "Primarily"

Here's what many people miss: The evaluation team must determine that these factors are NOT the PRIMARY cause of the learning problem.

What This Means in Practice:

Coexistence is possible. A child can have:

• An SLD and a hearing impairment

• An SLD and emotional challenges

• An SLD and be an emergent bilingual learner

The key question: Is the learning difficulty explained primarily by the other condition, or does an SLD exist independent of it?

Example Scenarios:

Scenario 1: A child with hearing loss struggles with oral language and reading comprehension in ways fully explained by their reduced access to spoken language.

Result: The hearing impairment is the primary cause; this is not an SLD.

Scenario 2: A child with corrected hearing loss still shows significant, unexpected difficulty with phonological processing and decoding despite appropriate instruction and good oral language comprehension.

Result: An SLD (dyslexia) may be present alongside the hearing impairment.

The presence of an exclusionary factor does not automatically rule out an SLD, the evaluation team must carefully analyze whether the SLD findings are primarily resulting from these factors.

Determinant Factors: Lack of Appropriate Instruction

Beyond the exclusionary factors, there's another critical category: determinant factors. These address whether the child received adequate teaching in the first place. A student cannot be identified as having an SLD if the underachievement is due to:

Inappropriate or Inadequate Instruction

What the evaluation team must verify:

• Was the child provided appropriate instruction in reading and/or math?

  • Research-based, grade-level appropriate methods

  • Aligned with state standards

  • Delivered with fidelity

• Was this instruction delivered in regular education settings?

  • Not just remedial or special education

  • Within the general education classroom

• Was the instruction delivered by qualified personnel?

  • Teachers with proper credentials

  • Training in the instructional methods used

• Did this occur prior to or as part of the referral process?

  • The child had access to quality instruction before evaluation

  • Not just during the evaluation period

    
    

Lack of Progress Monitoring

What must have been provided to parents:

• Data-based documentation of repeated assessments at reasonable intervals

• Formal evaluation of student progress during instruction

• Examples include:

  • Intervention progress monitoring results and reports

  • In-class tests on grade-level curriculum

  • Other regularly administered assessments

If these weren't provided: The basis for SLD identification is undermined because you can't determine if the child failed to learn or simply wasn't taught effectively.

Common Situations Involving Determinant Factors

Before identifying a Specific Learning Disability, schools must ensure students have received appropriate, evidence-based instruction delivered by qualified teachers—and that progress has been carefully monitored over time.

Red Flag Scenarios:

• High teacher turnover

  • The child had 4 different teachers in one year

  • Inconsistent instruction makes it hard to determine true learning ability

• Excessive absences

  • The child missed 40+ days of school

  • Can't conclude there's a disability when instruction was inconsistent

• Ineffective reading programs

  • The school used non-evidence-based methods

  • Lack of appropriate instruction, not necessarily an SLD

• No progress monitoring

  • The school can't document what interventions were tried

  • No data showing response to instruction

Important Clarification:

If the evidence shows the student's low achievement is due to lack of adequate instruction, this doesn't mean the child doesn't struggle, it means the school hasn't yet provided what's needed to rule out instructional factors.

What should happen: The child should receive appropriate, evidence-based instruction with progress monitoring before (or during) a comprehensive SLD evaluation.

The Prohibited Method (A Process Issue)

While not technically a "dysqualifying factor," there's one evaluation approach that's explicitly prohibited:

• Schools cannot REQUIRE the use of a severe discrepancy between intellectual ability and achievement as the sole criterion for SLD identification. If a team relied only on this outdated method and ignored:

  • RTI or PSW data

  • Exclusionary factors

  • Appropriate instruction documentation

...this flawed methodology could lead to an invalid determination.

What the Evaluation Team Must Document

For every SLD evaluation, the team must include documentation addressing:

• Effects of exclusionary factors

  • Detailed analysis of whether visual, hearing, motor, intellectual, emotional, cultural, environmental, economic, or language factors are the primary cause

• Quality of instruction received

  • Evidence of appropriate instruction in reading and/or math

  • Delivered by qualified personnel in general education settings

• Progress monitoring history

  • Documentation that was shared with parents

  • Showing a formal assessment of progress over time

  
  

What This Means for You as a Parent

Understanding exclusionary and determinant factors empowers you to:

• Provide context about your child's history

  • Medical conditions, environmental factors, or educational gaps

  • Help the team understand the full picture

• Ask the right questions:

  • "How has the team determined this isn't primarily due to [other factor]?"

  • "What evidence shows my child received appropriate instruction?"

  • "What progress monitoring data was collected and shared with me?"

• Advocate for appropriate instruction first

  • If your child hasn't received evidence-based teaching, request it

  • Quality instruction should precede or accompany evaluation

• Understand that multiple needs can coexist

  • Your child might qualify for services under multiple categories

  • One condition doesn't automatically rule out another

  
  

The Bottom Line

Exclusionary and determinant factors exist to ensure:

1. Accurate diagnosis (the right label for the right reason)

2. Appropriate services (addressing the actual need)

3. Educational equity (ensuring all children receive quality instruction first)

These factors aren't barriers to services—they're safeguards ensuring your child gets the right support for their actual needs.

What's Next?

We've now covered the federal IDEA framework for SLD identification. But if you're in Texas, you need to know about significant additional requirements, especially when dyslexia is involved.

In Part 5 of this series (our final post), we'll explore the key differences between federal and Texas requirements, explain who can evaluate a child for SLD in Texas, demystify the Texas Dyslexia Handbook, and clarify common areas of confusion between state and federal laws.

Remember: The goal of these requirements isn't to keep children from getting help, it's to ensure accurate identification and appropriate services for every child's unique needs.

Subscribe and follow us on Facebook and YouTube, so you don't miss a post in this series.

Need more hands-on support? Schedule a free consultation here.