Intellectual Disability (ID)

Professional Development

Advanced professional development on Intellectual Disability

3-hour Workshop/Training in person, Zoom, or hybrid

Advanced professional development regarding IDEA’s Intellectual Disability eligibility with the latest information from current OAH cases to SCOTUS 2026. IDEA’s Intellectual Disability (ID), other than the name change, remains the same since 2004. The prevalence rates for ID from 12 per 1000 children (Boat & Wu, 2015) in 2004 to 16.5 per 1000, according to the most current data available (Zablotsky et al., 2025) have shifted little. What has changed since 2004 is how AAIDD (Schalock et al., 2021) and the DSM-5TR (American Psychiatric Association [APA], 2022) define the disability. This is important as they inform the way the Federal government determines eligibility through such agencies as the Social Security Administration (SSA, 2026), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS, 2024), Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC, 2013) & Department of Justice (DOJ) and such Legislation as the Americans with Disability Act (ADA National Network, 2023), with the notable exception of IDEA. When state regulations or individual school psychologists try to add their own interpretations for the broad terms used in IDEA, such as “significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning”, “existing concurrently with deficits in adaptive behavior”, “that adversely affects a child’s educational performance”, well-intentioned though they may be, these definitions can be more restrictive than current AAIDD and DSM-5TR criteria, and therefore more restrictive than other government agencies. If this is the case, do states and individual school psychologists risk violating the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution? Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution states, “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.” (U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2). Correct identification of ID can be a matter of life and death, as in the 2024 US 11th Circuit Court of Appeals case of Hamm v. Smith. This workshop will focus on: the use of various intelligence tests and the benefits and drawbacks of some; assessment tools and evaluation measures focusing on memory and learning; dynamic assessment, developmental rating scales, and other types of assessment tools; social perception and adaptive behavior measures and what is needed for eligibility; as well as how to effectively and sensitively communicate this often statistically dense and potentially emotionally laden information and still be legally defensible in meetings and reports, and, for California, all issues regarding ID assessment for African American/Black students regarding Larry P.

Feedback addressing “What Aspects of this training were most beneficial” from CASPCON25 “W-05 Intellectual Disability Evaluation Best Practices…Somethings You May Not Be Aware Of,” where this workshop was attended by 94 people, included:

“Fantastic material with relevant information. He was great at explaining everything and referenced law. Great workshop and great presenter.” – A.B.
“Great discussion of more detailed criteria for assessing ID.” - A.M.
“Everything was beneficial and provided a lot of clarity for me in this disability category.” - R.W.
“Dr. Hiramoto provides multiple points of data to support his recommendations. The visuals on his slides were significantly helpful as it combined multiple data points for cross-referencing. Dr. Hiramoto’s presentation slides have enough information for later reference. Although it is typically recommended that presenters not have too much information on their slides, as a professional that values professional development and it being useful for me in the future, I appreciate handouts that have enough information for me to reference later. Additionally, Dr. Hiramoto verbally provided even more information than was on the slides -- keeping his voice actively relevant despite the information that was visually available during the entire session. He provided relatable tips including public speaking, physical demeanor of the examiners, how to present information to parents/families, and how to be creative about getting additional assessment information. He provided several lists of assessments one should use and not use, including relatable law (Ca Ed Code, Federal, etc.).” - C. F.