Learning Disabilities: The Rules May Be Changing!

1. Learning Disabilities: The Rules May Be Changing!

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. “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

11. “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

12. 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

13. 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)

14. 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)

15. 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

16. Two Approaches to RTI • Problem solving approach (favored by practitioners) • Standard treatment protocol approach (favored by researchers)

17. 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

18. 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)

19. 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?

20. 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

21. 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

22. 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

23. LD: State of the States • All states specify the following exclusion conditions, VI, HI, MI, MR, ED, environmentally disadvantaged, culturally disadvantaged, and economically disadvantaged

24. 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

25. 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

26. 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

27. 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

28. 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

29. 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

32. 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

33. 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

34. 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

35. 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

36. 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)

37. 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?

38. 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.

39. Doug Fuchs Synopsis