Why this resource still matters in 2026
As a Special Education Director, I’m often asked a simple question with a complicated answer: “How do we know when a student’s struggles reflect a Specific Learning Disability (SLD), and what do we do next?” The New Brunswick Department of Education’s Resource for the Identification and Teaching of Students with Specific Learning Disability (1999) remains a practical, teacher-centered roadmap because it connects three essentials that schools still wrestle with today: accurate identification, effective instruction, and fair evaluation.
Those three areas become even more urgent when districts face therapist staffing shortages, rising student needs, and increased pressure to show growth. At TinyEYE, we partner with schools to provide online therapy services that help teams sustain timely support and comply with service requirements—especially when in-person staffing is limited.
What “fair” really means for students with SLD
One of the most important reminders in the document is a quote often attributed to Richard Lavoie: fairness is not giving every student the same thing; fairness is giving each student what they need. This is not just a philosophical statement—it is a practical guide for how we design instruction and evaluation for students with SLD.
Students with SLD typically have average to above-average intelligence, yet show a meaningful discrepancy between potential and academic achievement. Their disability is “invisible,” which can lead adults to misinterpret difficulty as laziness, lack of motivation, or poor effort. The resource emphasizes that these students may need both:
Accommodations that bypass or reduce the impact of a processing weakness (for example, audio text for a student with visual-processing challenges).
Explicit intervention to build skills in areas of need (for example, structured phonological awareness instruction in early grades).
Understanding processing: why the output can be misleading
When we ask a student to “just write the spelling words,” we’re actually asking them to manage attention, filter sensory input, perceive and interpret auditory and visual information, access memory, organize the task, and produce motor output. A breakdown in any of these steps can produce weak work samples—even when the student understands the content.
This is why teams must look beyond the final product. The resource outlines how difficulties may appear in areas such as:
Attention
Auditory processing
Visual processing
Visual-spatial skills (with or without motor challenges)
Written expression
Language processing
Mathematics
Organization
Memory
In practice, many students show a “scatter” of strengths and weaknesses rather than a single, neat profile. That’s why a comprehensive assessment approach matters.
Assessment as an ongoing, collaborative process
The document frames assessment as the collection of data to understand performance and guide programming. This includes classroom-based evidence and formal measures. Importantly, it positions the classroom teacher as central to the process because teachers see patterns over time.
1) Observation: the first step that too often gets rushed
Observation is not casual noticing—it is purposeful data collection. Teachers are encouraged to watch for patterns such as:
Difficulty copying from the board, odd placement on the page, slow output
Difficulty following directions or understanding what was read
Inconsistent attention or high distractibility
Memory concerns (forgetting concepts from yesterday or over time)
Social misunderstandings (missing cues, misperceiving peer interactions)
The resource even provides structured forms (Observation Report Forms and Work Sample Report Forms) to help teams document what they see in a consistent way.
2) Work samples: looking for diagnostic clues
Work samples can reveal specific processing issues. For example:
Written language may show brief responses, omissions, weak mechanics, and difficulty sequencing ideas.
Spelling may show errors that “don’t resemble” the target word, especially when auditory processing is weak.
Math may show difficulty with facts, place value, operational signs, multi-step problems, or math vocabulary.
Visual-motor integration may show inconsistent letter size/formation and extreme difficulty copying.
3) Informal and formal tools: matching the tool to the question
The resource highlights several assessment approaches schools can use responsibly:
Informal Reading Inventories (IRIs) to identify independent, instructional, and frustration levels for decoding and comprehension.
Running records and miscue analysis to understand what cueing systems a student relies on (semantic, syntactic, pragmatic, graphophonemic).
Phonological and phonemic awareness tasks because early sound awareness is a strong predictor of later reading success.
Standardized achievement tests (administered by qualified staff) to compare performance to norms and analyze error patterns.
Standardized measures of intellectual functioning as part of confirming SLD, typically later in the process after instructional data has been gathered.
From a district leadership lens, this is also where staffing shortages become a real barrier. When school psychologists, SLPs, or specialized staff are stretched thin, timelines can slip and teams may lack the data needed for confident decisions. This is one reason many districts explore telepractice supports to maintain access and continuity.
Classroom strategies by deficit area: practical examples teams can implement
The strength of this resource is its direct link between “what we see” and “what we do.” A few high-impact examples include:
Attention deficit supports
Structured seating away from high-traffic areas
One direction at a time, with checks for understanding
Movement-based lessons and scheduled breaks
Reduced homework volume (not reduced rigor)
Evaluation adjustments: extra time, quiet setting, breaks, oral testing or scribe when needed
Auditory-processing supports
Written outlines and visual supports for oral lessons
Slower, clearer speech; emphasize key words and endings
Avoid “listen and write notes at the same time” expectations
Evaluation adjustments: written directions, smaller test sections, extra time, quiet space, spelling not counted when it is not the target skill
Visual and visual-spatial supports
Reduce visual clutter on worksheets and tests
Graph paper for math alignment
Highlight key information; provide copied notes
Use masks/rulers for tracking; consider overlays when appropriate
Evaluation adjustments: oral testing, scribe, extra time, models/examples
Written-expression supports
Word processing, speech-to-text when appropriate, and explicit organizational tools (webs, outlines, story maps)
Alternative demonstrations of learning (oral report, project, recorded response)
Evaluation adjustments: point-form answers, reduced writing load, take-home tests when appropriate, fill-in-the-blank or matching formats to reduce motor demands
Special Education Plans: compliance and clarity
The resource aligns Special Education Plans with the New Brunswick Education Act definition: a program based on continuous assessment and evaluation, with specific objectives and recommendations for services that meet the student’s needs.
In practice, strong plans share common features:
Clear description of strengths and processing needs
Measurable goals with short-term objectives
Documented accommodations for instruction and evaluation
Assigned responsibilities (who does what, when)
A monitoring and reporting plan
From a leadership standpoint, this is also where districts protect both students and staff: clarity reduces conflict, improves implementation fidelity, and supports legal compliance.
Parents as partners: reducing stress and improving outcomes
The document is direct: parents are key to referral, assessment, planning, and follow-through. Parents often notice early struggles at home—time spent on homework, avoidance, sadness, or school refusal. They also provide developmental history and family learning disability patterns that can inform the team’s understanding.
Equally important, the resource acknowledges the emotional weight of identification and the need for coping strategies. Students may need explicit instruction in self-advocacy, social skills, organization, and stress management. Building self-esteem through strengths and talents is not “extra”—it is protective and foundational.
Assistive technology and transition: planning for independence
Assistive technology is presented as a way to unlock access and allow students to demonstrate true ability. Examples include:
Word processing and spell check
Organizational software (visual mapping tools)
Electronic dictionaries
Voice activation software for students with strong oral language
Calculators and tactile supports for math and memory needs
Transition planning is also emphasized: supports and adaptations should be in place before a student enters a new setting. It is not a parent’s responsibility to “re-educate” each new teacher. Systems must carry plans, reports, and accommodation checklists forward so services remain consistent.
Where TinyEYE fits: expanding access when staffing is tight
Many districts are navigating shortages in specialized staff, including speech-language pathologists and occupational therapists. Online therapy services can be one part of a broader staffing and service-delivery plan—supporting continuity, reducing missed service minutes, and strengthening collaboration with school teams and families.
When teletherapy is implemented well, it can also support consultation, strategy alignment, and consistent documentation—key components of high-quality, compliant special education practice.
For more information, please follow this link.
