Actually, I think the test does show he has very good mathematical concepts, as he scored at the 90th %ile on that subtest, right on target with his fluid reasoning, and was probably limited somewhat on the calculation subtest by lack of exposure to advanced mathematics procedures.
In any case, I would definitely suggest more in-depth assessment of writing, with an instrument like the TOWL-4. If given the entire test, spelling and mechanics will be assessed (in context), as well as both contrived (sentence-length) and spontaneous (open-ended, supposed to be multi-paragraph, requires more executive functions) written expression. You have teacher reports that he is not meeting grade-level expectations, a diagnosis of ADHD, and concern that extended writing was not assessed in the evaluation previously conducted. And, you know you can ask for an independent evaluation, at district expense, if you disagree with the findings of the initial eligibility team meeting. As long as it's been under two years since the original eval, you can still request an IEE. If you go this route, do please provide the second examiner with a list of the instruments already administered, and the original eval report, so as not to invalidate the second round of testing with inadvertent duplications. And also bring up the concerns you have with the original testing, including points we've discussed here.
I can understand the comments about not evaluating spelling with regard to two out of the three written language subtests, but doing so on the Spelling subtest itself is very puzzling. Can't explain why the examiner would do that. Although I have certainly seen my share of puzzling test administration behavior--and that's only what people actually admit to in their written reports!
