Transcript Document

Alternate Methods for Identifying
Children with Learning Disabilities:
Some Synergies with Reading First in
Florida
Joseph K. Torgesen
Director, Florida Center for Reading Research
Association of Special Education Directors, Tampa, Sept, 2002
The Interesting times we live in….
Educational challenges …..
Public scrutiny…..
Research into practice….
Expectations for higher performance...
Please pass the antacid!!!
Outline of topics to be covered:
1. Presentation of findings from the Learning Disabilities
Roundtable
a. Rejection of discrepancy-based identification model
b. Most likely alternative identification model
2. How Florida’s Reading First initiative may support
new identification models for reading disabilities
3. If we have time--setting higher expectations for
achievement of children with reading disabilities:
lessons from recent research
“Finding Common Ground” -- A Brief History
1. October, 2000 -- planning meeting of OSEP and small
group of research/policy leaders
2. August, 2001 -- Learning Disabilities Summit involving
presentation and discussion of white papers
3. Roundtable participants from LD organizations of the
NJCLD meet to find “common ground” and make
recommendations. Research participants formulate set
of recommendations-- issue report -- Specific Learning
Disabilities: Finding Common Ground
Consensus statements reaffirming the concept of
learning disabilities
1. The concept of Specific Learning Disabilities is valid,
supported by strong converging evidence
2. Specific learning disabilities are neurologically-based
and intrinsic to the individual
3. Individuals with specific learning disabilities show intraindividual differences in skills and abilities
4. Specific learning disabilities persist across the life span,
though manifestations and intensity may vary as a function of
developmental state and environmental demands
5. Specific learning disabilities are evident across ethnic,
cultural, language, and economic groups
Consensus statements about Eligibility
1. Information from a comprehensive individual evaluation
using multiple methods and sources of information must
be used to determine eligibility for services
2. Decisions on eligility must be made through an
interdisciplinary team, using informed clinical judgements
directed by relevant data
3. A student identified as having SLD may need different
levels of services under IDEA at various times during the
school experience
4. The ability-achievement discrepancy formula should not be
used for determining eligibility
Why has the IQ-Achievement Discrepancy Criteria
been rejected so decisively?
“I would like to encourage this Commission to drive a
stake through the heart of this overreliance on the
discrepancy model for determining the kinds of
children that need services. It doesn’t make any
sense to me. I’ve wondered for 25 years why it is that
we continue to use it and over-rely on it as a way of
determining what children are eligible for services in
special education” Commissioner Wade Horn
Why has the IQ-Achievement Discrepancy Criteria
been rejected so decisively?
It was rejected on scientific grounds for two broad
reasons:
It is a psychometrically unsound practice
It is inconsistent with what we have learned about
reading disabilities over the past 20 years
Three potential stumbling blocks to becoming
a good reader (NRC Report, 1998)
1. Difficulty learning to read words accurately and fluently
2. Insufficient vocabulary, general knowledge, and reasoning
skills to support comprehension of written language
3. Absence or loss of initial motivation to read, or failure
to develop a mature appreciation of the rewards of
reading.
The difficulties children have in learning to
read directly reflect the two basic tasks that
are involved in becoming a good reader
1. “Breaking the Code”-- learning how the
words in our language are represented
in print, and acquiring skill fluent skills.
Motivation
2. Developing the knowledge and strategies
that are required to construct the
meaning of text.
Almost all children who experience
reading problems in elementary school
have difficulties acquiring accurate and
fluent word reading skills
Extreme difficulties mastering the use of
“phonics” skills as an aid to early, independent
reading
• difficulties learning letter-sound correspondences
• difficulties with the skills of blending and analyzing
the sounds in words (phonemic awareness).
Slow development of “sight vocabulary”
arising from:
•limited exposure to text
•lack of strategies to reliably identify words in text
Children who experience difficulties acquiring accurate and
fluent word reading skills show two kinds of difficulties with
word reading
When asked to read grade level text:
1. The child cannot recognize a sufficiently high
proportion of the words easily, at a single glance,
to support fluent reading. Too many of the words
fall outside the child’s “sight vocabulary.”
2. The child does not employ efficient strategies to
accurately and quickly identify unknown words.
Use of phonemic decoding strategies is particularly
impaired.
The nature of the underlying difficulty for most
children who have problems acquiring
accurate and fluent word reading problems
Weaknesses in the phonological area of
language ability
inherent, or intrinsic, disability
lack of certain types of language experience
Expressed primarily by delays in the development
of phonological awareness
Phonological Language Ability is not highly Correlated
with General Verbal Ability as measured by IQ tests
High
Low
High
Dyslexic
Low
Verbal Intelligence
“Dyslexia is one of several distinct learning
disabilities. It is a specific language-based
disorder of constitutional origin characterized
by difficulties in single word decoding ….
frequently associated with difficulties processing
the phonological features of language”
Phonological Language Ability is not highly Correlated
with General Verbal Ability as measured by IQ tests
High
Low
High
Dyslexic
Low
Verbal Intelligence
What is the fundamental conceptual error in using IQachievement discrepancies to identify young children with
reading disabilities?
1. Children with reading problems not discrepant
from their intelligence appear to have the same
type of problems with early reading as children
whose reading is discrepant from their IQ: they
both have difficulties resulting from weaknesses in
the phonological domain.
2. “Slow learners” have difficulties learning to read, not
because of low IQ, but because of weaknesses in
the phonological language domain.
3. Discrepant and non-discrepant children require the
same type of instruction in basic reading skills in
order to acquire critical beginning reading skills.
Very simply put, we have two broad classes of children
who experience difficulties learning to read in school:
Children who enter school with adequate general verbal
ability and knowledge, but specific weaknesses in the
phonological language domain
Children who enter school with weaknesses in the
phonological language domain, who also have
weaknesses in broader language domains such as
vocabulary and verbal knowledge
Both groups have the same phonological problem that
makes it difficult to learn to read, but only one group (the
discrepant one) is eligible for services as learning
disabled.
What is the identification/eligibility model currently being
proposed to replace IQ-achievement discrepancy?
Sometimes referred to as:
Problem solving model
Response to intervention model
Three-tiered model
Basic elements of the model:
1. All children receive high quality general instruction in
the regular classroom
2. Regular education teachers, special education teachers,
and other support personnel collaborate to provide
immediate intensive interventions for students lagging
behind
3. Students who do not respond sufficiently to second tier
interventions become eligible for even more intensive and
specialized services through IDEA.
“Students determined to be at risk for academic failure
are afforded scientifically-based general education
interventions for a fixed period of time. During the course
of this intervention, their progress is evaluated on a
frequent basis using a variety of curriculum-based
measures. Students who do not display meaningful
gains and who appear to be unresponsive to intervention
during this period, as measured by level of performance
and rate of learning, are candidates for referral for
special education evaluation”
Finding Common Ground (p. 16)
A School-Wide Change Project
Hartsfield Elementary School
School Characteristics:
70% Free and Reduced Lunch (going up each year)
65% minority (mostly African-American)
Elements of Curriculum Change:
Movement to a more balanced reading curriculum beginning
in 1994-1995 school year (incomplete implementation) for K-2
Improved implementation in 1995-1996
Implementation in Fall of 1996 of screening and more
intensive small group instruction for at-risk students
Hartsfield Elementary Progress over five years
Proportion falling
below the 25th
percentile in word
reading ability at
the end of first
grade
3
0
20
31.8
20.4
10.9
1
0
Average Percentile
for entire grade (n=105)
Screening at beginning of
first grade, with extra
instruction for those in
bottom 30-40%
1995 1996
48.9 55.2
1997
61.4
6.7
1998
73.5
3.7
1999
81.7
Proportion
falling below
the 25th
Percentile
3
0
20
31.8
20.4
10.9
1
0
6.7
3.7
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Average Percentile 48.9 55.2 61.4 73.5 81.7
Proportion
falling below
the 25th
Percentile
3
0
20
1
0
Average Percentile
Hartsfield
Elementary
Progress over
five years
14.5
9.0
5.4
2.4
1996 1997 1998 1999
58.2
67.1 74.1 81.5
Potential benefits of this approach
It focuses a spotlight on the educational opportunities
provided to each student--have they been adequately
individualized, sufficiently structured, and intensive enough
to support learning in all reasonably capable students.
It requires timely monitoring of student learning progress
It increases opportunities for collaboration and shared
responsibility between regular and special education
personnel
It is consistent with movement toward early identification and
focus on preventive, rather than remedial instruction. Does not
require “wait to fail” before intervention.
Small scale try-outs have found:
Increased accountability for student learning in general
and special education
Decreased numbers of students placed in high incidence
special education categories
Reduction in number of evaluations conducted that do not
result in special ed. classification or improved learning
outcomes
Improved problem solving efforts by regular education
personnel
Positive reactions from participants and stakeholders
Remaining concerns and issues:
There is insufficient data available regarding the effects of
this approach on student outcomes
Work needs to be done to identify all the essential
components needed to make the model work (training,
personnel, interventions, professional competence).
Work also needs to be done to address whether this
approach will result in more timely service delivery--we don’t
want another “wait to fail” model.
Clarification is needed to explain and demonstrate how
students qualify for and are provided services in each tier of
this approach
Remaining concerns and issues (cont):
How will the approach be implemented in later grades?
How will the approach differentiate between students across
different disability subtypes?
Points of vulnerability shared with the present system:
Depends upon personnel with professional competence to
make complex clinical judgements and not focus on single
criteria
Depends on consistent, high quality functioning of an interdisciplinary team.
Reducing the number of referrals for special education
depends directly on the quality of classroom instruction and
second tier, classroom based interventions
Responsibility for student outcomes must be fully shared
between regular and special education personnel
Will not eliminate problems, but should change the kinds
of questions we ask to a more productive direction
How the implementation of Florida’s Reading First program
may help to prepare for changes required by the new
model
Immediate Goals of Reading First in Florida:
Improve the quality of initial classroom instruction in reading for children
in high poverty, low performing schools through better curriculum and
professional development
Increase the amount and utility of early assessments so that children
lagging behind in reading growth can be identified earlier
Provide training to teachers and other support personnel in the provision of
immediate and intensive interventions targeted on the most critical
developmental reading skills
Florida’s formula for reading
improvement based on the scientific
research in reading and reading
development:
5 + 3 + ii + iii =
No Child Left Behind
5 + 3 + ii + iii = NCLB
Five Instructional Components:
Phonemic Awareness
Phonics
Fluency
Vocabulary
Comprehension strategies
Identifying words
accurately and
fluently
Constructing
meaning
once words
are identified
5 + 3 + ii + iii = NCLB
Three types of assessment to guide instruction:
Screening to identify children who may
need extra help
Diagnosis to determine their specific
instructional needs
Progress Monitoring to determine if children
are making adequate progress within current
instructional environment
5 + 3 + ii + iii = NCLB
Consistently high quality initial instruction in all
K-3 classrooms
The characteristics of a good program are that it
contains the five elements identified in the
legislation, and that these elements are integrated
into “a coherent instructional design.” A coherent
design includes explicit instructional strategies,
coordinated instructional sequences, ample
practice opportunities and aligned student
materials.”
5 + 3 + ii + iii = NCLB
Immediate Intensive Intervention
Because of the huge diversity in children’s
talent and preparation for learning to read,
some children will require much, much more
instruction and practice than others
Some of these immediate intensive
interventions may be done by the classroom
teacher, others will need to be done by other
teaching personnel
A range of methods can be used to provide
immediate, intensive interventions
Small group work with the classroom teacher
Small group work with a reading resource (Title 1) teacher
Small group work with a special education teacher
Small group work with an aide or paraprofessional
1:1 work with volunteers
1:1 work with classroom or cross age peers
Growth in Word Reading Ability
National Percentile
75th
70
50th
30
25th
October
January
May
Leadership at the State level for
Just Read, Florida!
(Reading First)
Reading Office at DOE
Mary Laura Openshaw
Florida Center for
Reading Research
Family Literacy and
Reading Excellence Center
FCRR
FLaRE
Florida Center for Reading Research
Mission
1. Continue to conduct basic research on reading that
will benefit students of all ages throughout the country
2. Provide technical assistance in support of
implementation for Reading First Schools
3. Conduct applied research and develop procedures to
benefit all students in Florida
4. Assist in the dissemination of research based
practices in reading – coordinate with FLaRE Center
to insure that professional development is consistent
with scientifically based research in reading
Florida Center for Reading Research
Some initial projects of FCRR
1. Provide State-wide training in use of objective
progress monitoring tests for all reading first schools
2. Development and implementation of a web-based
progress monitoring system for students, teachers,
and districts in grades K-3
3. Prepare series of “FCRR reports” about research base
of specific curriculum materials and technology in
reading
4. Develop new methods of computer based progress
monitoring in critical reading skills for children in
grades K-3
Potential synergies between Reading First programs and a
model of LD identification based on response to intervention:
Within the next several years, every K-3 teacher in Florida will
receive training in the principles of scientifically based
instruction in reading
Every Reading First school will be required to implement a
core reading curriculum consistent with what is currently
known about effective instruction in reading
Every Reading First school must use screening, diagnostic,
and progress monitoring, and objective outcome
assessments for children in grades K-3.
Part of every reading first plan must include methods for
providing immediate and intensive interventions for children
lagging behind in critical reading skills.
Synergies (cont):
Regular classroom teachers will receive training in
differentiated instruction
Reading First grants will provide support for professional
development in reading instruction to special education
teachers in grades K-12
Principals will receive training and support in the management
and supervision skills required for an effective school-wide
reading program
The web based system being developed for state-wide use
will receive data from progress monitoring and outcome
assessments and deliver timely and informative reports
about progress in critical areas to teachers, principals, and
district personnel four or more times a year.
If we have time… some thoughts and
data about instructional intensity for
students with reading difficulties
What do we know about the
effectiveness of most “special
education” for children with
reading disabilities?
We know that it tends to stabilize
the relative deficit in reading skill
rather than remediate it.
120
100
80
60
40
70
71.8
20
G
ra
de
6
G
ra
de
5
G
ra
de
4
0
G
ra
de
3
Standard Score in
Reading
Change in Reading Skill for Children with
Reading Disabilities who Experience
Growth in Reading of .04 Standard
Deviations a Year
Grade Level
Average
Readers
Disabled
Readers
Characteristics of interventions in many “special
education” settings that limit its effectiveness
1. Insufficient intensity -- teachers carrying too large a case
load to allow sufficient instructional time.
2. Weak instruction in phonemic awareness and phonemic
decoding skills--often consisting of “phonics worksheets” -not enough direct instruction and application of appropriate
reading strategies in text
3. Little or no direct instruction in comprehension strategies
A study of intensive, highly skilled intervention with 60
children who had severe reading disabilities
Children were between 8 and 10 years of age
Had been receiving special education services for an average of 16 months
Nominated as worst readers: at least 1.5 S.D’s below grade level
Average Word Attack=67, Word Identification=69, Verbal IQ=93
Randomly assigned to two instructional conditions that both taught
“phonics” explicitly, but used different procedures with different emphasis
Children in both conditions received 67.5 hours of one-on-one instruction,
2 hours a day for 8 weeks
Children were followed for two years after the intervention was completed
Both Interventions incorporated principles of instruction that
have generally been found to be successful for children with
reading disabilities
Ample opportunities for guided practice of new skills
Both taught using one-to-one tutoring methods-intensive
Systematic cueing of appropriate strategies in context
Taught phonemic decoding strategies explicitly
“more intensive, more relentless, more precisely
delivered, more highly structured and direct, and
more carefully monitored for procedural fidelity
and effects” (Kavale, 1996)
Growth in Total Reading Skill Before, During, and
Following Intensive Intervention
Standard Score
95
90
85
LIPS
80
EP
75
P-Pretest
Pre Post
1 year
2 year
Interval in Months Between Measurements
A Clinical Sample of 48 Students aged 8-16
Middle and upper-middle class students
Mean Age 11 years
79% White, 67% Male
Received 45-80 hours (mean=60) hours of instruction
Intervention provided in groups of 2-4
Remedial Method: Spell Read P.A.T.
Mean beginning Word Identification Score = 92
Children with word level skills around the 30th percentile
Outcomes from 60 Hours of Small Group Intervention with
upper middle class students--Spell Read
114
113
110
108
99
100
90
93
30%
90
86
80
70
71
Word
Attack
Text Reading
Accuracy
Reading
Comp.
Text
Reading
Rate
A School-based, treatment control study of 40 students
60% Free and reduced lunch
Mean Age 12 years (range 11-14)
45% White, 45% Black, 10% other
53% in special education
Received 94-108 hours (mean=100) hours of instruction
Intervention provided in groups of 4-5
Remedial Methods: Spell Read P.A.T., Soar to Success
Mean Word Identification Score = 83
Children begin with word level skills around 10th percentile
Outcomes from 100 Hours of Small Group Intervention--Spell
Read
110
111
100
96
96
30%
90
88
79
80
77
70
77
65
Word
Attack
Text Reading
Accuracy
Reading
Comp.
Text
Reading
Rate
“We can, whenever and wherever we
choose, successfully teach all children
to read. We already have reams of
research, hundreds of successful
programs, and thousands of effective
schools to show us the way. Whether
or not we do it must finally depend on
how we feel about the fact that we
haven’t so far.” (McEwan, 1998)