"Once identified, always identified" [TAG]

One of the greats aspects of being a first-year teacher is that I'm expected to be wrong, at least that's what I expect of myself. So if you're expecting me to know all the answers: I don't. Let's get on the same page. I'm here to embrace my mistakes and learn from them. That' why I can take stances on issues today, and make a post about them in a few months and say, "What was old me thinking?"

Up first: "Once identified, always identified."

Here is a book excerpt I found. The section starts on the bottom of page 129.

The thing that worries me is how much pressure taking "Once Identified, Always Identified" literally puts on our identification process. How are we defining "identified"? Are we saying anyone that we have identified as having a need upon which the ELP teacher intervenes is "identified"? Basically, what if I "misidentify" someone? What's the point of teaching under the mantra "Once Identified, Always Identified" if we can then say, "Well...not in this case, but in all other cases! (until we find another misidentification)."

The reason I get nervous about identification is that I have a student right now who was misidentified and now I have to work him out of the program. That's why "identification" as it's commonly defined makes me feel weird. The thing about "once identified, always identified" that makes me nervous is that it leaves us as identifiers with no room for error. That's why I've yet to embrace that mantra. How early does that come into play? If I identify a kindergartner as "in need of services", I have to live with that decision forever? That's what makes me nervous. It's why I'd rather just look where there are needs and serve them. It should be my job to then make it so they get appropriate services and (if my identifiation pans out) they'll always need services. But what if I were wrong? I suppose I could just pull someone in without identifying him or her but doesn't that defeat the purpose of the label (and is it legal?)

If I were to keep that mindset with this student, he would just stay in my enrichment classes and continue to fall behind as he is missing out on vital instruction in the regular ed classroom that he needs.

What do you think? Am I missing something fundamental about this debate?