Educational evaluation report template, section by section

By the IEP Atlas editorial teamLast updated November 1, 2026

Short answer

A school psychologist report template has ten sections: identifying information, reason for referral, background, procedures and validity, observations, results by area, integrated summary, eligibility considerations, recommendations and signatures. Each section answers one question the team will ask. Fill it in from the referral questions outward, and write the summary so a parent can follow it without the score tables.

A good evaluation report lets the eligibility team make a decision, lets the IEP team write present levels, and lets a parent understand their child. Those are three different readers. The template below is built so each section serves at least one of them, and the summary serves all three.

The legal frame is short. The evaluation must use a variety of tools, assess all areas of suspected disability and draw on more than one source.^[1] The parent gets a copy of the report.^[2] For a specific learning disability, the regulations list what the written report must contain and require each team member to certify agreement or write a separate statement.^[3] Your state or district may add required sections, so check its format first.

Fill-in report template

Copy the headings and prompts. Replace each blank with your content.

1. Identifying information

Student: ________ Grade: ____ School: ________ Date of birth: ________ Age at testing: ____
Primary language: ________ Language of testing: ________
Evaluation type: initial / reevaluation. Consent received: ________ Report date: ________
Evaluators and roles: ________

2. Reason for referral

Who referred and when: ________
Referral questions (2 to 4, each one answerable): ________
Suspected disability area(s): ________

3. Background information

Developmental and health history (from parent interview and records): ________
Vision and hearing screening dates and results: ________
Educational history, attendance and moves: ________
Interventions tried, with dose, dates and progress data: ________
Language history (if an English learner): ________
Parent concerns and student strengths: ________

4. Assessment procedures and validity

List of every tool, with dates: ________
Conditions (setting, number of sessions, accommodations used): ________
Validity statement: were results a fair estimate of the student's skills? Why or why not? ________

5. Observations

Classroom observation (date, setting, method, results with numbers): ________
Behavior during testing: ________

6. Results by area

Cognitive: ________
Academic achievement: ________
Processing (phonological, memory, visual-motor) as relevant: ________
Social, emotional and behavioral: ________
Adaptive behavior (if relevant): ________
Results from other evaluators (speech-language, OT), summarized: ________

7. Integrated summary

One paragraph per referral question, answering it with converging evidence: ________

8. Eligibility considerations

Criteria for each category considered, and whether evidence meets them: ________
Exclusionary factors (lack of appropriate instruction in reading or math, limited English proficiency, others your state lists): ________
Educational need: does the student need specially designed instruction? ________

9. Recommendations

For the IEP team (if eligible): ________
For general education and home: ________

10. Signatures

Evaluator signatures, credentials and dates: ________
Team member agreement or separate statements (required for learning disability decisions): ________

Completed example: a third grade reading referral

The example is fictional and shortened. Real reports run longer in the results section.

1. Identifying information. Noah K., grade 3, Lincoln Elementary. Age at testing 8 years, 9 months. English is his only language. Initial evaluation. Consent received September 22, 2026; report dated November 10, 2026. Evaluators: school psychologist, special education teacher, speech-language pathologist.

2. Reason for referral. Referred by his teacher and parent on September 9 after two rounds of reading intervention. Questions: (1) Why is Noah's word reading so far behind his peers? (2) Does he have a disability that requires specially designed instruction? (3) What instruction would help? Suspected area: specific learning disability in basic reading.

3. Background. Normal birth and early milestones; parent recalls late rhyming skills. Vision and hearing screenings passed on August 30. Attendance 97% over two years. Small-group phonics, 30 minutes 4 days a week from February to May and again from August, with 16 weekly probes rising from 22 to 31 words correct per minute (about 0.6 per week; goal 1.5). Strengths: strong vocabulary, enjoys science, persistent.

4. Procedures and validity. Record review; parent and teacher interviews; classroom observation (October 6); cognitive assessment (October 8, 13); academic achievement test (October 15); phonological processing test (October 15); rating scales from parent and teacher; three oral reading fluency probes. Testing took place in a quiet room over four sessions. Noah was cooperative, and results are considered a valid estimate of his skills.

5. Observations. During a 30-minute reading block, Noah was on task in 34 of 40 ten-second intervals during teacher-led instruction and 19 of 40 during independent reading. He asked a peer for help with words 6 times. During testing he worked steadily and guessed at unfamiliar words from the first letter.

6. Results. Verbal reasoning and visual-spatial reasoning were average (standard scores 106 and 102). Working memory was low average (88). Word reading (74) and pseudoword decoding (71) were well below average; reading comprehension was 84, limited by word reading. Phonological processing was below average (77). Math calculation was average (99). Parent and teacher ratings showed no clinically significant attention or emotional concerns. Language testing by the SLP found average receptive and expressive language.

7. Integrated summary. (1) Noah's word reading is well below his peers and below what his average reasoning would predict. Weak phonological processing, slow growth despite well-delivered intervention, and his error pattern all point the same way. (2) The data meet the team's criteria for a specific learning disability in basic reading skills, and his limited response to intervention shows a need for specially designed instruction. (3) He needs explicit, systematic decoding instruction at greater intensity than general education provides.

8. Eligibility considerations. Specific learning disability in basic reading considered. Exclusionary factors reviewed: he has had consistent, appropriate reading instruction with documented progress monitoring; vision, hearing, language and attendance are not primary factors. Educational need is present.

9. Recommendations. See the companion page on psychoeducational report recommendations for how to write these. In brief: daily structured decoding instruction, weekly progress monitoring with words correct per minute, text-to-speech for content-area reading.

10. Signatures. Signed by each evaluator with credentials. Team members recorded agreement on the learning disability determination.

What reviewers and parents look for in each section

Section	What a reviewer checks	What a parent looks for
Identifying information	Consent date, so the timeline can be verified	That the name, age and language are right
Reason for referral	Questions the report actually answers	Their own concern, in recognizable words
Background	Intervention dose and data; vision and hearing; language history	That the interview was heard accurately
Procedures and validity	Multiple tools, all suspected areas covered, a validity statement^[1]	A plain list of what their child did
Observations	Numbers, setting and method, not impressions	A picture of their child they recognize
Results	Scores with confidence bands, explained by area	What each area means in class
Integrated summary	Each referral question answered with converging evidence	The answer to "what is going on?"
Eligibility considerations	Criteria and exclusionary factors addressed^[2]	Whether their child qualifies and why
Recommendations	Each one tied to a finding	Something they can picture happening
Signatures	Certification for learning disability decisions^[3]	Who to call with questions

Writing tips that save the eligibility meeting

Write referral questions you can answer. "Assess for SLD" is not a question. "Why is word reading so far behind?" is.
Report numbers in observations. "Off task frequently" tells the team nothing. "On task in 19 of 40 intervals" does. The interobserver agreement calculation page helps when two observers compare results.
Put score tables in an appendix if your district allows it. Keep the body readable. The standard score and percentile chart has a conversion table you can adapt for a parent handout.
State the validity of results. A report on a student tested in a second language, or on a day the student was ill, should say so.
Answer the exclusionary factors explicitly. A sentence each is enough, but each needs evidence.

Planning the report around the deadline

Enter the date consent was received in the IEP due date calculator with your state's timeline. Work backward: aim to finish testing about two weeks before the deadline and share the report with the parent before the meeting. Some states set a number of days before the meeting by which the parent must receive it. For how the clock runs, see the 60-day evaluation timeline.

Speech-language evaluators have their own format in the speech evaluation report template. The full process from referral to eligibility is in the IEP evaluation process.

Frequently asked questions

How long should a school psychologist report be?

Long enough to answer every referral question with evidence, and no longer. Many initial reports run 8 to 15 pages including score tables. A readable 2-page summary at the front helps parents and the IEP team.

Should test scores go in the body of the report or an appendix?

Either can work. Many psychologists put key scores in the results narrative and the full score tables in an appendix. Follow your district's format, and make sure every score in the summary appears somewhere in the report.

Does every report need a validity statement?

It is good practice. The statement tells the team whether the results fairly estimate the student's skills, and why. It matters most when language, health, attention or testing conditions may have affected performance.

Use it in IEP Atlas

Sources

34 CFR §300.304: Evaluation procedures, U.S. Department of Education (IDEA website)
34 CFR §300.306: Determination of eligibility, U.S. Department of Education (IDEA website)
34 CFR §300.311: Specific documentation for the eligibility determination, U.S. Department of Education (IDEA website)
What Is a School Psychologist?, National Association of School Psychologists

Written and checked by the IEP Atlas editorial team under our editorial policy. This guide describes general practice and federal rules. It is not legal advice; your state may add requirements, and the IEP team makes the decisions for each student.