In this response to Spaulding et al.'s examination of state education agency (SEA) guidance on severity ratings, these authors contend that Spaulding et al. provided an incomplete view of current practices in public schools. These authors state that, ultimately, school speech-language pathologists (SLPs) must follow all state regulations and local policies and procedures, and also should be aware of nonbinding guidance available to assist members of the individualized education program (IEP) team in making a determination of need for services regardless of any severity rating. These authors agree that: (1) the work of Spaulding et al. (2012) provides important information on standardized test use and an overview of differences in state severity rating models; (2) the information regarding the appropriate use of standardized tests of language skills is a critical first step toward the body of work required for development of assessment tools and techniques that are functional; and (3) that due to limited guidance offered by both ASHA and the research literature, school-based clinicians may turn to their state education department to identify recommended procedures. However, they suggest that further discussion is needed at the national, state, and local level to address issues such as standardization samples that do not include students with language impairments. In addition, the difference between a test designed to determine presence of impairment versus degree of severity should be examined, and research in the speech-language pathology field should continue to examine existing evaluation tools and focus on the development of new assessment methods that can be used by school-based SLPs. Finally, these authors state that functional, scalable, and evidence-based assessment and treatment practices in the literature are needed so that those working in SEAs and LEAs can develop evidence-based guidance and state policies that advance the practice of SLPs in the school setting.