The Interesting times we live in….

1. 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

2. The Interesting times we live in…. Educational challenges ….. Public scrutiny….. Research into practice…. Expectations for higher performance... Please pass the antacid!!!

3. 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

4. “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

5. 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 intra-individual 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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.

10. Motivation 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. 2. Developing the knowledge and strategies that are required to construct the meaning of text.

11. Almost all children who experience reading problems in elementary school have difficulties acquiring accurate and fluent word reading skills

12. 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).

13. Slow development of “sight vocabulary” arising from: • limited exposure to text • lack of strategies to reliably identify words in text

14. 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.

15. 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

16. Phonological Language Ability is not highly Correlated with General Verbal Ability as measured by IQ tests High Phonological Ability Low High Dyslexic Low Verbal Intelligence

17. “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”

18. Phonological Language Ability is not highly Correlated with General Verbal Ability as measured by IQ tests High Phonological Ability Low High Dyslexic Low Verbal Intelligence

20. What is the fundamental conceptual error in using IQ-achievement 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.

21. 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.

22. 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

23. 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.

24. “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)

25. 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

26. Screening at beginning of first grade, with extra instruction for those in bottom 30-40% 31.8 20.4 10.9 6.7 3.7 Hartsfield Elementary Progress over five years Proportion falling below the 25th percentile in word reading ability at the end of first grade 30 20 10 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Average Percentile 48.9 55.2 61.4 73.5 81.7 for entire grade (n=105)

27. 31.8 30 Proportion falling below the 25th Percentile 20.4 20 10.9 10 6.7 3.7 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Average Percentile 48.9 55.2 61.4 73.5 81.7 30 Hartsfield Elementary Progress over five years Proportion falling below the 25th Percentile 20 14.5 9.0 10 5.4 2.4 1996 1997 1998 1999 Average Percentile 58.2 67.1 74.1 81.5

28. 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.

29. 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

30. 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

31. 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?

32. 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 inter-disciplinary 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

33. 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

34. Florida’s formula for reading improvement based on the scientific research in reading and reading development: 5 + 3 + ii + iii = No Child Left Behind

35. Identifying words accurately and fluently Constructing meaning once words are identified 5 + 3 + ii + iii = NCLB Five Instructional Components: Phonemic Awareness Phonics Fluency Vocabulary Comprehension strategies

36. 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

37. 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.”

38. 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

39. 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

40. 70 30 Growth in Word Reading Ability 75th 50th 25th National Percentile October January May

41. Florida Center for Reading Research FCRR Family Literacy and Reading Excellence Center FLaRE Leadership at the State level for Just Read, Florida! (Reading First) Reading Office at DOE Mary Laura Openshaw

42. 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

43. 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

44. 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.

45. 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.

46. If we have time… some thoughts and data about instructional intensity for students with reading difficulties

47. 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.

48. 70 71.8

49. 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

50. 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