Transcript LD: State of the States

Learning Disabilities: The
Rules May Be Changing!
Our Mission

The National Research Center on Learning
Disabilities

conducts research on the identification of learning
disabilities

formulates implementation recommendations

disseminates findings

provides technical assistance to national, state,
and local constituencies
Five-Year Focus




Review and identify gaps of current knowledge in LD
Research alternative identification approaches of
children with LD
Analyze the variation in identification of children with
LD at the SEA and LEA levels; determine contributing
factors
Design, implement, and evaluate a dissemination and
technical assistance approach linking research to
practice
Signature Characteristics of LD


Unexpected Learning Failure -- I.E.
student is generally competent, but
profound incompetence in a given area
Specific Learning Failure: Suspected
neurological dysfunction
Long Clinical History for These
Two Characteristics



Orton (1920s and 1930s)
Morgan and Hinschelwood (late 1800s)
Rutter and Yule (1975) on concept of
reading retardation


Unexpected hump in lower portion of distribution
6 times as many males
Growth of the LD Construct


1975 high water mark for LD -- Good deal of
certainty surrounding construct
1977 -- IQ discrepancy in regulations (reasonable
strategy given clinical/empirical evidence)



States bought into discrepancy but all
operationalized it differently -- led to great
disparity in prevalence of LD
3 fold increase in LD 1977 to 2000
NYC -- 22% of total school budget to SPED.
Led to questions of how LD being identified
Concerns about IQAchievement Discrepancy


IQ test not valid measure of intelligence
(unfair to students of color; unhelpful to teachers)
Students must fail before they can be
identified (most are identified after age 9; modal
age is 11)


Data collected during the identification
process (e.g., IQ tests) are costly and
don’t inform instruction
Labels like LD, BD, MR are stigmatizing
and do not have instructional validity
A Shift in the 1980s -- 1990s

Researchers began looking at LA with & w/o
discrepancy -- were they different? (NICHD studies
with younger children on cognitive tasks related to reading found
students more common than different)


Both groups, however, had difficulty with
phonological awareness (can’t hear sounds in
words)
Hence, let’s not separate children out for
purpose of services. There are lots of young
children who need help than IQ-Achievement
suggests
A Paradigm Shift


Modify what we mean by LD so more
students get services and find additional
funding streams to serve them (i.e.,
merge SPED and Title $s, etc.)
Shift from LD model to LA model
“Non-responders”


Many children fail to learn in classrooms
Many children learn in classrooms that use
“best practices.” Research shows between 1020% of students unresponsive to:



Phonological awareness training in Pre-K and K;
Beginning decoding instruction in K and 1st grade;
Cooperative learning in grades 2-6
“Non-responders” (cont.)


Many children who fail to learn in
classrooms are referred for testing &
possible placement in special education
Most frequently used marker of LD
identification is IQ-achievement
discrepancy
An Alternative -- Responsiveness
to Intervention (RTI)

Many (all?) children in a class, school, or
district are tested by one-point-in-time test
administration or by repeated measurement
in given period in general education
classroom (judged on rate of progress on performance
level)

“At-risk” students are identified for
intervention on the basis of their performance
level or growth rate or both
An Alternative -- Responsiveness
to Intervention (RTI) [cont.]


Intervention is implemented & students are
tested following, or throughout, the
intervention period (i.e., progress is
monitored)
Those who don’t respond are identified as
requiring:


Multi-disciplinary team evaluation for possible
disability certification & SPED; or
More intensive intervention(s)
Advantages to RTI Approach


Provides assistance to needy children in
timely fashion. It is NOT a wait-to-fail
model.
Helps ensure that student’s poor
academic performance is not due to
poor instruction (i.e., a scientifically-validated
intervention will be used)
Advantages to RTI Approach


(cont.)
Assessment data are collected to inform
the teacher & improve instruction.
Assessments & interventions are closely
linked
In some RTI models (e.g., IA, MN, SC)
non-responders are not given labels,
which are presumed to stigmatize &
that represent disability categories that
have little instructional validity
Two Approaches to RTI


Problem solving approach (favored
by practitioners)
Standard treatment protocol
approach (favored by researchers)
4-Stage Problem Solving
Model




Problem identification
Problem analysis and intervention
design
Implementation of the intervention
Evaluation of intervention effectiveness

If it doesn’t work, cycle back to step #2
1-Level Problem Solving
Model: (Prereferral intervention)



Behavioral consultation (e.g., Mainstream
Assistance Teams)
Collaborative consultation (e.g., Teacher
Assistance Teams)
Collaborative Problem Solving (PA
Instructional Support Teams)
(These are popular ways to deal with over
identification problem. Add extra resources
to increase the quality of instruction)
Multiple-level Problem Solving

Heartland, IA




Level 1:
Level 2:
Teams)
Level 3:
Level 4:
Teacher-parent
Teacher-teacher (Building Assistance
Heartland staff-teachers
Special education eligibility
Bottom Line: (1) Does it work? (2) Is it feasible?
Standard Treatment Protocol
RTI



Used only by researchers. Hasn’t been
embedded into natural settings
Advantage: All students get the same
intervention, rigorous, validated, can
easily monitor fidelity of implementation
Disadvantage: Don’t tailor to unique
needs of students
LD: State of the States
National Center for Research
on Learning Disabilities
• Vanderbilt University and the University of Kansas
• Supported by the Office of Special Education Programs
LD: State of the States


50 states responded to LD Survey
General Trends



82% use federal LD definition or slight
revision
90% include processing factors in dn., but
only 26% specify the processes
IQ level and LD eligibility is not specified
by 78% of states
LD: State of the States

All states specify the following exclusion
conditions, VI, HI, MI, MR, ED,
environmentally disadvantaged,
culturally disadvantaged, and
economically disadvantaged
LD: State of the States

94% of states require as severe
discrepancy between achievement and
intellectual ability, BUT


No consistent method
32% of states provide no guidance on how
to determine the discrepancy or the size of
the discrepancy required
LD: State of the States

Discrepancy determination methods




24% use standard score difference, stated in
terms of SD or point spread
24% use regression method
42% do not specify method or criteria OR leave it
to the “professional judgment” of the team
20% miscellaneous, or uninterpretable



Percentage criterion (NY)
Unspecified statistical formula
Differences between achievement areas
LD: State of the States

Salient trends




Too many students classified as LD
Students often classified as LD even
though they do not have a real disability
Opposed to retaining the IQ-ach discrep
Support identification of LD using dual
discrepancy criteria
LD: State of the States

Salient trends (cont.)




Support for RTT as identification method
Disagree that IQ-ach discrep. identifies readers
most likely to make gains
Agree that IQ-ach discrep. often causes harm by
delaying ident. and tmt.
Early tmt more effective than later tmt
LD: State of the States

Salient trends (cont.)



Agree that progress monitoring should be required
in regs/rules
Disagree with retaining IQ-ach. discrep. because it
is unique to LD
Agree that too many minority students are
identified as LD
LD: State of the States

Rule replacement-Waiver




14 states permit sp. ed. rule replacement or
waiver----Low estimate ???
Very few reported waivers now, and nearly all
reported very few districts involved
Example: MO: has permissive rules regarding
alternative criteria, but no districts so far
Example: MN: Waiver to Minneapolis, palpable
hostility by SDE and Bureau of Sp Ed
•States with Rule
Replacement or Rule
Waiver
•Percentage of Districts
involved
•Alaska
•999- no report
•California
•.5%
•Colorado
•2%
•Idaho
•1%
•Illinois
•2%
•Maine
•10%
•Michigan
•999
•Minnesota
•1%
•Missouri
•0
•New Jersey
•999
•South Dakota
•999
•Tennessee
•89- 58% waivers, 31%
permits
•Washington
•0
•Wisconsin
•.2%
•States
allowing noncategorical
eligibility
•Yes
•Idaho
•Yes With Waiver
•X
•Iowa
•X
•Kentucky
•X
•Minnesota
X
•Missouri
•X
•New Jersey
•X
•South Dakota
•Virginia
•Wisconsin
•X
•X
•X
LD: State of the States

Regional units vs. Districts






SERRCs in OH; AEAs in IA, BOCES in NY
Usually provide specialized services, but do not
establish special ed. progams
Influence over districts varies significantly
Implementation by districts often at the discretion
of the districes
In IA and OH, work with both SERRCs and AEAs
Similar patterns in other states
LD: State of the States

States with current alternative identification
policies/projects





IA-state rules permit non-categorical identification
and problem solving identification methods
IL-several projects underway, Chicago, Northern
Suburban Sp Ed District, probable other sites
MN-one site, Minneapolis, controversial, also Pine
Co, SCRED,
FL-State Dept, U. of South Florida – Note the
Torgeson group at FSU
SC-Horry Co., other places likely to initiate projects
LD: State of the States

States with good potential or a districts with
expertise






KS-state director; one regional unit, probably more
ID-Hear about activity there, no contacts
CA-Delano district, probably others
MO-has rules that permit alternative criteriaColumbia district has potential
PA-Instructional consultation model in place, but
not in identification
MD-Instructional consultation as prereferral, but
not in identification
LD: State of the States

States with good potential or a districts with
expertise




OH-Several SERRCs-regional units- are interested,
influence on districts
OR-U. of Oregon group, cooperating school
districts
TX-Sharon Vaughn et al., UT; Houston group
NC-expressed interest, but strong cross currents
Designing a Model for
Utilization




The Utilization Model is as important as the
LD identification model
Validation is evidential- and consequentialbased
Constituent-centered activities
Opportunities for sustained interactions
(exploring values, beliefs, contextual issues)
Audience Perspectives
1. What is the LD identification problem from your perspective?
2. What distinguishes a student with a disability from other students who have
difficulty?
3. Based on your experience, what is/are the distinguishing characteristics of
students with a specific learning disability?
4. What is your role in the schools?
5. How long have you worked in that role?
6. How long have you worked in the schools all together?
7. Whose role has the most important voice in determining whether a student is
classified as having a specific learning disability?
8. When you hear discussions about the value of identifying students or of not
identifying students with a specific learning disability, what values or benefits
do you hear expressed?
9. When you think of a specific learning disabilities identification model, what
attributes do you think are particularly important for that model?
Premise: Changes in technology
and policy are not sufficient
We have to understand and address
 How key stakeholders see their role
 the technology used with LD
 the school realities that support current
practices.
Doug Fuchs Synopsis