Learning Disabilities: The Rules May Be Changing!

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

Our Mission

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

Five-Year Focus

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 IQ-Achievement 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 10-20% 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: Teacher-parent Level 2: Teacher-teacher (Building

Assistance Teams) Level 3: Heartland staff-teachers Level 4: 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 StatesNational 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 non-categorical eligibility

•Yes •Yes With Waiver

•Idaho •X

•Iowa •X

•Kentucky •X

•Minnesota X•Missouri •X

•New Jersey •X

•South Dakota •X

•Virginia •X

•Wisconsin •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 criteria-

Columbia 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 consequential-based

Constituent-centered activities Opportunities for sustained interactions

(exploring values, beliefs, contextual issues)

Audience Perspectives1. 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 sufficientWe 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