How to Document Gifted Education Assessments and Twice-Exceptional Student Plans

Gifted education assessment documentation has a problem that special education documentation does not: there is no federal baseline. IDEA gives special education a structural foundation, mandatory timelines, procedural safeguards, and a federal complaint process. Gifted identification has none of that. What districts are required to document varies widely from state to state, and within states, from district to district.

That gap falls on the evaluator. A school psychologist in Colorado working under the state's Advanced Learning Plan statute operates in a far more regulated documentation environment than a gifted specialist in a state where identification criteria are left entirely to local policy. Neither is wrong to follow their jurisdiction's rules. Both are responsible for building records that do the four things gifted documentation actually needs to do: justify placement, inform service planning, travel with the student, and survive a challenge.

This guide is organized around those four functions. It covers cognitive and achievement assessment documentation, twice-exceptional (2e) student profiles, the intersection of gifted plans with IEPs and 504s, differentiation planning, acceleration decisions, social-emotional documentation, parent communication, and progress monitoring. Two fictional students appear throughout.

---

Why Gifted Documentation Is Genuinely Hard

The difficulty is not procedural. Gifted documentation is hard because it asks evaluators to do something that does not fit neatly into any standard educational framework: document a student's exceptional strengths while simultaneously documenting needs that may be suppressing those strengths from view.

A student with a Full Scale IQ (FSIQ) of 138 is straightforward. Document the scores, note the gifted identification criteria met, develop the Advanced Learning Plan (ALP) with measurable goals, done. But a student with a Verbal Comprehension Index of 132, a Processing Speed Index of 91, and a concurrent reading disability that drops her FSIQ to 112 presents a fundamentally different documentation task. She is gifted. She has a disability. Both are real. Neither cancels the other. And the documentation record has to hold both truths clearly enough that any reader, in any district she transfers to, can act on them.

That is the 2e documentation challenge. The rest of this guide is built around it.

---

Fictional Student Profiles

Two students appear as examples throughout this guide.

Sofia, age 10, was referred for gifted evaluation by her fourth-grade teacher after consistently producing writing samples and oral responses well above grade level. Her teacher also noted significant inconsistency: she finishes complex independent projects in a weekend but takes three times longer than peers on timed tasks. Formal evaluation is pending.

Eli, age 12, has an existing IEP for a specific learning disability in written expression. His sixth-grade language arts teacher submitted a gifted referral after watching Eli deliver an impromptu oral analysis of a novel that his teacher described as "what I'd expect from a high school AP class." His parents have been told for five years that his learning disability explains his struggles. They have not been told that his intellectual ability might also explain why he has compensated as effectively as he has.

---

Documenting the Gifted Identification Assessment

The Referral Record

Every evaluation file begins with a referral record. Document:

• Who referred the student, their role, and the date
• The specific behaviors or data that prompted the referral (not just "teacher referral" but the observations that triggered it)
• Any prior assessment data already in the file
• Whether a universal screening process flagged the student, and which screener
• Parent notification of the referral and their consent to evaluate

For Sofia: "Referral received 09/08/2025 from classroom teacher Ms. Patel based on documented above-grade-level written and oral performance. Teacher submitted three work samples and two written observations. Parent notification sent 09/10/2025; consent for gifted evaluation signed 09/15/2025. Assessment plan to include cognitive assessment, academic achievement testing, parent and teacher rating scales, and behavioral observations."

That level of specificity matters. If the identification decision is later challenged, the referral record establishes that the process was structured, not arbitrary.

Cognitive Assessment Documentation

Most gifted identification protocols require a cognitive ability assessment. Common instruments include the WISC-V (Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Fifth Edition), the CAS2 (Cognitive Assessment System, Second Edition), the NNAT3 (Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test, Third Edition), and the SAGES-3 (Screening Assessment for Gifted Elementary and Middle School Students, Third Edition).

The evaluation report must document more than a score list.

Include:

• Instrument name, edition, and date of administration
• Full composite score and all index scores with standard scores, percentile ranks, and 95% confidence intervals
• Behavioral observations: attention during testing, response style, frustration tolerance, approach to novel problems
• Intrasubtest variability: significant scatter across subtests or indexes is a clinical finding, not an anomaly to explain away
• Interpretation narrative: what these scores tell you about this specific student's profile

For Sofia's cognitive assessment: "Administered WISC-V on 10/02/2025. Sofia obtained a Full Scale IQ of 131 (98th percentile; 95% CI: 126-135), within the Very Superior range. Fluid Reasoning Index: 141 (99.7th percentile). Processing Speed Index: 92 (30th percentile). The 49-point discrepancy between Fluid Reasoning and Processing Speed is statistically significant and atypical, occurring in fewer than 1% of the normative sample. This pattern is consistent with a profile where high-level reasoning ability coexists with processing speed vulnerabilities, warranting further investigation into possible 2e status. Working Memory Index: 118 (88th percentile). Verbal Comprehension Index: 135 (99th percentile). Sofia approached abstract problems with evident enthusiasm and sustained focus across the full two-hour administration; her frustration was observable but self-regulated when timed subtests were presented."

That last sentence matters. Behavioral observations during testing are documentation. They are not color commentary.

Achievement Testing Documentation

Academic achievement testing measures current performance in reading, writing, and mathematics. For gifted identification it serves two purposes: confirming academic strength (above-grade-level achievement supports identification) and identifying discrepancies between cognitive ability and academic output (a significant gap is the primary indicator of 2e status).

Common instruments include the WIAT-4 (Wechsler Individual Achievement Test, Fourth Edition), WJ IV ACH (Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement, Fourth Edition), and the KTEA-3 (Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement, Third Edition).

Document:

• Instrument name, form, and date
• Composite and subtest scores with standard scores, grade equivalents, and percentile ranks
• Any ceiling effects: a gifted student who scores at or above the test's measurement ceiling may not be fully measured; document this
• Performance patterns across domains
• Discrepancies between cognitive and achievement scores, with a statement about their statistical and practical significance

For Eli, the achievement-cognitive discrepancy is the entire diagnostic story. His WJ IV ACH Written Expression cluster standard score is 79 (8th percentile). His WISC-V Verbal Comprehension Index is 128. That 49-point discrepancy does not mean he is "average." It means the written expression disability is suppressing one output channel while his verbal conceptual ability remains well above grade level. The record needs to say that plainly.

Rating Scales and Multi-Informant Data

Many state gifted criteria require evidence beyond test scores. Gifted rating scales completed by teachers and parents provide behavioral and observational data that tests cannot capture.

Commonly used instruments:

• SIGS (Scales for Identifying Gifted Students): separate teacher and parent forms, multiple domain scores
• GATES (Gifted and Talented Evaluation Scales): teacher-completed, five domain subscales
• Gifted Rating Scales (GRS): includes a Motivation subscale useful for identifying 2e students whose performance does not match their ability
• CogAT (Cognitive Abilities Test): used in some districts as a group-administered screener before individual testing

For each rating scale, document: who completed it, their relationship to the student, the date, and all subscale scores with standard scores and percentile ranks. Narrative interpretation should address whether teacher and parent ratings are consistent. If they diverge significantly, explore why in the report rather than averaging the results.

---

Documenting the Twice-Exceptional (2e) Profile

2e students are identified as gifted and also have a co-occurring condition recognized under IDEA or Section 504. Common co-occurring conditions: specific learning disability (SLD) in reading, writing, or math; ADHD; autism spectrum disorder (ASD); anxiety disorders with educational impact; sensory or processing differences.

The documentation challenge is bidirectional masking.

A student's exceptional intellectual ability can compensate for underlying disabilities well enough that neither the disability nor the gifted profile is obvious from performance data alone. A student with ADHD and an FSIQ of 140 may have grades of B and C, which neither triggers a gifted referral nor a disability evaluation. Both needs go unmet.

The 2e evaluation report must address both profiles explicitly. There is no way to write a 2e evaluation report that meets its purpose without confronting the interaction between the two exceptionalities.

Documenting Gifted Ability When Composites Are Suppressed

When a disability suppresses the global composite score below a district's gifted identification threshold, the report must document why the composite does not fully represent the student's ability.

The standard approach: identify the index scores or subtest scores that demonstrate gifted-range performance even when the composite does not. Use those scores as the primary evidence for the gifted identification.

For Eli: "Although Eli's FSIQ of 108 falls below the district's gifted identification threshold of 120, this composite should not be interpreted as a ceiling on his intellectual capacity. His Verbal Comprehension Index of 128 and Fluid Reasoning Index of 124 demonstrate gifted-level intellectual ability in his highest areas of functioning. The depressed composite reflects the impact of his documented specific learning disability in written expression and associated processing vulnerabilities, not the absence of exceptional ability. The team is applying state policy section [cite specific provision] allowing consideration of index scores in cases of significant intracomposite variability."

That final sentence is important. If your state allows this approach, cite the authority. If it does not, describe how the team's decision aligns with district policy.

Documenting the Co-Occurring Condition

If the student also qualifies under IDEA or Section 504, those eligibility processes follow their own documentation requirements. The gifted evaluation should not replicate that documentation, but it must cross-reference it.

Include in the gifted evaluation report:

• The date of the IDEA eligibility determination (or 504 plan) and the disability category
• A statement that the co-occurring condition was confirmed by a separate eligibility process
• The practical interaction: how the disability affects the student's access to and performance in gifted-level content

For Eli: "Eli's eligibility under IDEA as a student with a specific learning disability in written expression was determined on 05/14/2024. His current IEP is on file. His written expression disability significantly limits his ability to demonstrate his intellectual ability through written work. Assessment findings consistently show that Eli's performance in verbal and reasoning-based tasks far exceeds his performance on writing-dependent measures. Gifted programming and written expression supports must both be present in his educational plan; neither is optional."

The 2e Narrative: Documenting Both Profiles Simultaneously

The most important documentation task for a 2e student is the profile narrative: a section of the evaluation report that describes who this student is as a learner, including both what they can do exceptionally well and what they need help with, without allowing either profile to eclipse the other.

The narrative should:

• Lead with strengths, not deficits (this is not only humanizing; it reflects the actual clinical finding that the gifted profile is often the more unusual and less visible feature)
• Name the specific domains where the student is gifted
• Name the specific domains where the student needs support
• Explain how the two interact in the classroom
• Connect the profile description to concrete recommendations

For Eli: "Eli demonstrates exceptional verbal reasoning and conceptual depth, consistently engaging with abstract and complex ideas at a level characteristic of students several years older. His ability to analyze narrative structure, identify thematic patterns, and draw cross-textual connections is a genuine intellectual strength. Simultaneously, a specific learning disability in written expression significantly impairs his ability to translate his thinking into written form. The gap between what Eli understands and what Eli can produce in writing is not a motivational or effort problem. It is a real, documented processing difference. Educational planning that does not provide both advanced-level content in his areas of strength and targeted written expression supports will consistently under-serve him."

---

Differentiation Plans and the ALP

The Advanced Learning Plan (ALP) is the service-planning document for students identified for gifted services. It is the document that makes identification mean something in practice.

A functional ALP includes:

Strengths and interests inventory: documented from three sources: the student, the parent, and the teacher. Specificity is required. "Creative" is not a documented strength. "Demonstrates sustained interest in physics concepts; completed self-directed reading of two popular science books on quantum mechanics outside of class during the current school year" is a documented strength.

Measurable annual goals: each goal should be written so that a reasonable observer could determine at the end of the year whether it was met.

A weak goal: "Zoe will be challenged in mathematics."

A strong goal: "By May 2026, Sofia will complete an independent research project in a self-selected advanced topic, producing a written report or presentation that demonstrates analytical depth evaluated as exceeding grade-level expectations on a rubric co-developed with the gifted specialist and reviewed by her classroom teacher."

Service delivery description: name the specific program, the frequency (how many hours per week or month), the setting (pull-out, push-in, enrichment class, online course), and the responsible provider.

Differentiation plan within the general education setting: for most gifted students, the majority of their school day happens in a general education classroom. The ALP should include a description of classroom-level differentiation: curriculum compacting, tiered assignments, flexible grouping, project-based extensions. If teachers are expected to differentiate instruction, that expectation should be documented in the plan, not assumed.

Parent and student signatures: both should be documented as having had a meaningful opportunity to contribute to goal development. If a parent cannot participate or declines to sign, document that as well, and document what steps were taken to include them.

Review timeline: specify when the ALP will be reviewed and what data will be used.

For 2e students, the ALP must address both profiles. A 2e student's ALP goals should include both goals for their gifted programming and, if appropriate, goals that address the interplay between their gift and their disability. A student like Eli needs ALP goals for advanced verbal reasoning content and language arts enrichment, alongside IEP goals for written expression. Both sets of goals need to be present; neither can substitute for the other.

---

Intersections with IEPs and 504 Plans

When a 2e student has an IEP or 504 plan, the gifted record and the special education or accommodation record are legally separate documents governed by different frameworks. In practice, they must be coordinated.

Documenting the Connection Between Plans

The IEP or 504 plan focuses on the disability and its impact on educational performance. The ALP focuses on gifted development. Neither document should be written as if the other does not exist.

Include in the IEP or 504:

• A statement acknowledging the student's identified gifted status
• Accommodations that facilitate access to gifted-level content (not just accommodations for grade-level work)
• A note about who coordinates between the IEP team and the gifted specialist

Include in the ALP:

• A reference to the IEP or 504 and the disability category
• Goals and services that assume the student has access to their accommodations
• Contact information for the special education case manager

Documenting Accommodation Applicability for Gifted Contexts

A common documentation failure: a student has a 504 plan granting extended time, and the gifted enrichment teacher does not apply it because the pull-out enrichment program is considered "elective" or "not evaluated." Document explicitly whether accommodations apply in gifted programming contexts. If the answer is yes, state that. If there is a reason they do not apply in a specific context, document that rationale.

When Gifted Identification and Special Education Eligibility Happen Simultaneously

Some evaluations identify both gifted status and a disability in the same process. Document the sequence: which findings led to which conclusions, which criteria were applied for each determination, and how the two eligibility decisions were made separately before being integrated in the student's plan.

---

Social-Emotional Needs Documentation for Gifted Students

Social-emotional documentation is the most consistently underdeveloped section in gifted evaluation records. This is partly because it feels less quantifiable, and partly because gifted students' social-emotional needs are sometimes invisible: a student who appears well-adjusted, high-achieving, and popular may be experiencing significant asynchronous development, perfectionism, or existential intensity that does not surface in academic performance data.

What to Document

Asynchronous development: document explicitly when a student's intellectual development significantly outpaces their social, emotional, or physical development. A nine-year-old with the reasoning capacity of a fourteen-year-old is not simply "mature for her age." The mismatch between intellectual capability and social context is a real source of stress and should be named.

Perfectionism: distinguish between adaptive perfectionism (high standards that motivate quality work) and maladaptive perfectionism (standards so high that the student avoids starting tasks, refuses to submit imperfect work, or experiences anxiety about mistakes). The evaluation or ALP should name which pattern is present and whether it warrants targeted support.

Existential concerns: some gifted students, especially those with high verbal ability, engage early with questions about death, injustice, the meaning of life, or global problems at an intensity that can be isolating. This is a documented characteristic of some gifted profiles, not a clinical disorder. The evaluation report can note its presence and recommend teacher awareness without pathologizing it.

Social isolation and peer relations: document whether the student has adequate peer connections, whether their intellectual interests are shared by any same-age peers, and whether pull-out or enrichment programming provides peer connection with intellectual near-peers.

Underachievement and disengagement: gifted students who have been systematically under-challenged for years sometimes disengage from school entirely. Document any history of underachievement and connect it to the intellectual profile: a student who is bored is not a student who lacks motivation. Misattributing disengagement to motivation or character rather than to lack of challenge is a documentation error with real consequences.

For Sofia: "Sofia's teacher reports that Sofia can appear 'dreamy' or 'not engaged' during lessons she has already mastered, but sustains intense focus on independent projects that present genuine challenge. Her mother notes that Sofia frequently expresses frustration that 'school is too slow.' These observations are consistent with asynchronous development and grade-level content that does not match her intellectual ceiling. No clinical concern for anxiety or mood disorder is indicated at this time. Recommendation for peer connection with intellectual near-peers through pull-out programming."

---

Acceleration Documentation

When an evaluation results in a recommendation for academic acceleration, the documentation standard increases.

Subject-Area Acceleration

Document:

• The specific subject and proposed placement (e.g., fifth-grade math student placed in seventh-grade math)
• Assessment data supporting the recommendation (cognitive scores, achievement scores, a subject-specific content assessment if used)
• Teacher and parent input
• Any logistical factors addressed (scheduling, transportation, teacher communication)
• The monitoring plan: how often placement will be reviewed and what data will be used

Whole-Grade Acceleration

Whole-grade acceleration decisions are the highest-stakes acceleration decisions and require the most rigorous documentation. If your district uses the Iowa Acceleration Scale (IAS), document the tool used, who completed it, the date, the domain scores, and the overall recommendation. If the team used a different structured decision-making process, name it.

Document:

• All data reviewed by the team
• Stakeholder input: student, parent, classroom teacher, receiving teacher, gifted specialist, school psychologist
• The team's deliberative process: what was discussed, what concerns were raised, how they were addressed
• The final recommendation with explicit rationale
• Parent acceptance or refusal of the recommendation, documented in writing
• The monitoring plan for the accelerated placement

If a family declines a recommended acceleration, document that conversation. Note what information was provided, what concerns the family expressed, and that the district's recommendation remains on record.

Early Entrance and Post-Secondary Options

For early kindergarten entrance or early college entrance, document the state-level criteria, the specific instruments used, the results, and the team's determination. These decisions often require district superintendent or board approval; if so, document that step as well.

---

Parent Communication Records

Parent communication is a legal element of the gifted identification record in most states, even in states where gifted education requirements are otherwise minimal.

The record should include:

Notice of referral: written notification that the student was referred for evaluation, what the evaluation will involve, and what the parent's rights are in the process.

Consent documentation: signed consent for evaluation, including the specific instruments to be used. Retain the original signed document.

Results communication: a written summary of evaluation results in language accessible to parents. This does not mean oversimplifying the clinical findings; it means explaining what each score measures, what the results tell you about the student's profile, and what you are recommending as a result. If the student is both gifted and has a co-occurring condition, the summary must address both findings clearly.

ALP participation record: document that parents were invited to contribute to the ALP goal development process, not just to sign the final document. If a parent participated in a meeting, note the date, who attended, and the substance of their input.

Disagreement documentation: if a parent contests an identification decision, disagrees with an ALP goal, or declines a recommended service or placement, document the meeting, the parent's stated concern, and the district's response. This documentation is essential if the matter escalates.

Annual communication: gifted program placements should include at least annual written communication about the student's progress toward ALP goals, upcoming review dates, and any proposed changes to the service plan.

---

Progress Monitoring for Advanced Learners

Progress monitoring documentation for gifted students is the most consistently underdeveloped area in gifted records. The contrast with IEP practice is stark: IEP goals typically require data collection on a defined schedule, with specific metrics and decision rules. ALP goals often receive one annual review and nothing in between.

That is not adequate. Develop a progress monitoring plan that includes:

• Frequency: at minimum, quarterly progress checks aligned to grading periods
• Metric: a specific, measurable indicator. Not "student is engaged with advanced content" but "student completed three of four planned independent research projects with scores of 85% or above on the advanced rubric"
• Data collection method: work samples, performance assessments, teacher observation forms, advanced subject-area tests, or portfolio review
• Decision rule: what outcome triggers a plan adjustment

For 2e students, progress monitoring records from gifted services and from the IEP should be reviewed together at least at each annual review. A student who is meeting IEP goals in reading but whose ALP progress shows minimal engagement with advanced content has a problem that only becomes visible when both records are examined together.

For Eli: "Quarterly ALP progress reviews scheduled for November 2025, February 2026, April 2026, and June 2026. Metric: Eli will produce at least one substantive oral presentation or technology-mediated response demonstrating advanced literary analysis per quarter, with the expectation that the submission reflects his intellectual capacity without being constrained by written expression demands. Progress review will include the gifted specialist, the language arts teacher, the special education case manager, and Eli's parent."

Note that Eli's progress metric is designed around his accommodations. Expecting him to demonstrate gifted-level progress through written work when his written expression disability is the documented barrier would produce misleading data.

---

Common Documentation Mistakes

Relying on global composite scores alone. For 2e students, composite scores routinely underestimate intellectual ability. Any evaluation report that declines to identify gifted status based solely on a suppressed FSIQ without examining index scores is an incomplete evaluation.

Separating the gifted and disability profiles. An evaluation that identifies both profiles but does not address how they interact produces two incomplete records rather than one comprehensive one. The interaction between giftedness and co-occurring conditions is the most clinically significant finding in a 2e evaluation.

Writing vague ALP goals. Goals that cannot be evaluated serve no one. If the goal cannot be assessed as met or unmet at the end of the year, rewrite it.

Omitting social-emotional documentation. A gifted evaluation report that addresses cognitive and academic performance but says nothing about a student's social-emotional development, peer relations, or asynchronous development is describing only part of the student.

Failing to document parent communication. Gifted identification disputes most often hinge on whether parents were meaningfully informed and involved. If the record contains a signed ALP but no documentation of the process by which parents contributed to it, the record is incomplete.

Applying outdated state criteria. Gifted identification statutes and district policies change. Confirm that your documentation template and criteria reference reflect the current policy. Colorado's ALP regulations and Texas's GT program requirements, for example, have been updated in recent years.

Treating acceleration as a one-time decision. Acceleration placements require monitoring. A student who was accelerated in third grade and is now struggling in fifth grade has generated a documentation problem if there is no monitoring record between the placement decision and the current difficulty.

---

A Note on Documentation Workflow

Gifted evaluation reports and 2e profiles involve synthesizing data from multiple assessment instruments, multiple raters, and multiple informants into a coherent narrative. Documentation tools that support structured report sections from the evaluator's own notes can reduce the formatting time without compromising the professional judgment that gifted evaluation requires. NotuDocs allows practitioners to build evaluation report templates with field-by-field structure for each section, reducing the blank-page friction for reports that follow a consistent format. Score interpretation and diagnostic conclusions are always the evaluator's responsibility, regardless of what tools are used.

---

Gifted Education Documentation Checklist

Assessment and Referral

• Referral source, role, date, and specific rationale documented
• Parent notification of referral with date
• Signed consent for evaluation with scope of assessment on file
• Assessment plan specifying each instrument and domain

Cognitive Assessment

• Instrument, edition, and administration date documented
• All composite and index scores with standard scores, percentile ranks, and 95% confidence intervals
• Behavioral observations during testing documented in narrative
• Intrasubtest variability noted and interpreted if significant
• Narrative interpretation connecting scores to this specific student's profile

Achievement Testing

• Instrument, form, and date documented
• All relevant composite and subtest scores with standard scores and grade equivalents
• Ceiling effects noted if present
• Cognitive-achievement discrepancies addressed with statistical and practical significance

Rating Scales and Behavioral Data

• Each rater identified by name, role, and relationship to student
• All subscale scores with standard scores and percentile ranks
• Narrative interpretation noting consistency or discrepancy across raters

2e Documentation (where applicable)

• Gifted-level index or subtest scores documented even when composite is suppressed
• Co-occurring IDEA or 504 eligibility cross-referenced with date and category
• Interaction between giftedness and co-occurring condition described in profile narrative
• Profile narrative leads with strengths before support needs
• ALP and IEP/504 reference each other explicitly

Advanced Learning Plan

• Strengths and interests documented from student, parent, and teacher (specific, not vague)
• Measurable annual goals with observable criteria
• Service delivery: specific program, frequency, setting, and provider named
• Differentiation plan for general education classroom included
• Parent and student signatures or documented refusal
• Review date and progress monitoring methodology specified

Acceleration Documentation

• Specific subject and proposed placement level documented
• Supporting assessment data cited
• Stakeholder input documented (student, parent, current teacher, receiving teacher)
• Iowa Acceleration Scale or equivalent completed and filed for whole-grade acceleration
• Parent acceptance or refusal in writing
• Monitoring plan with timeline and metric

Social-Emotional Documentation

• Asynchronous development noted if present
• Perfectionism pattern characterized (adaptive vs. maladaptive) if applicable
• Peer relations and social context addressed
• Any existential concerns or disengagement patterns noted and contextualized
• Clinical referral recommended if social-emotional concerns meet threshold

Progress Monitoring

• Data collection frequency specified in ALP (minimum quarterly)
• Metric clearly defined with a measurable indicator
• Data collection method identified
• Decision rule for plan adjustment stated
• For 2e students: cross-reference with IEP progress monitoring at annual review

Parent Communication

• Written notice of referral on file
• Written evaluation results summary in accessible language
• Documented participation in ALP goal development (not just signature)
• Written notice of placement decisions, program changes, or identification determinations
• Any disagreements documented with district response

---

Related reading: How to Document ELL Assessments and Progress Reports | How to Document Autism Spectrum Evaluations and Support Plans | How to Document School-Based Counseling and Mental Health Services