Richard D. Baer Effective Instructional Materials & Systems Utah LD Test Selection Committee
-
Upload
mara-leach -
Category
Documents
-
view
13 -
download
0
description
Transcript of Richard D. Baer Effective Instructional Materials & Systems Utah LD Test Selection Committee
Comparing and Contrasting Response to Intervention, Severe Discrepancy, and Patterns
of Strengths and Weaknesses: Best Practices and Legal Aspects Update
Richard D. BaerEffective Instructional Materials &
SystemsUtah LD Test Selection Committee
Learning Disabilities Association48th International Conference
Jacksonville FloridaFebruary 26, 2011
LD Defined Term coined by Sam Kirk in 1963 Focus on children with normal
intelligence who were having difficulty learning to read.
Discrepancy between reading achievement predicted from intelligence and actual reading achievement
Definition
LD Defined Biologically based – Minimal Brain
Dysfunction Rare Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic
Abilities (ITPA) Inputs – vision, hearing, Processes Outputs – verbal, written
LD Defined
Maze tracing Balance beam walking
Didn’t work
LD Defined Public Law 92:142, The Education of All Handicapped Children Act
(1975) (A) In general The term ‘specific learning disability’ means a disorder in
one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, which disorder may manifest itself in imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or do mathematical calculations.
(B) Disorders included Such term includes such conditions as perceptual
disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia.
(C) Disorders not included Such term does not include a learning problem that is
primarily the result of visual, hearing, or motor disabilities, of mental retardation, of emotional disturbance, or of environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage.
LD Defined
Implementing Rules for PL 94:142
Sec.300.541 Criteria for determining the existence of a specific learning disability
(a) A team may determine that a child has a specific learning disability if--
(1) The child does not achieve commensurate with his or her age and ability levels in one or more of the areas listed in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, when provided with learning experiences appropriate for the child’s age and ability levels [Close to RTI]; and
LD Defined
(2) The team finds that a child has a severe discrepancy between achievement and intellectual ability in
one or more of the following areas-- (i) Oral expression; (ii) Listening comprehension; (iii) Written expression; (iv) Basic reading skill; (v) Reading comprehension; (vi) Mathematics calculation; or (vii) Mathematics reasoning. Reading Fluency
LD Defined (b) The team may not identify a child as
having a specific learning disability if the severe discrepancy between ability and achievement is primarily the result of--
(1) A visual, hearing, or motor impairment; (2) Mental retardation; (3) Emotional disturbance; or (4) Environmental, cultural or economic
disadvantage. (CFR 34, Part 300, Subpart E)
Severe Discrepancy Measurement
No national formula States were left to decide Four approaches
Deviation from grade level Expectancy formulas Standard score comparison Regression models - correct
Special Education Programs Work Group on Measurement Issues in Learning
Disabilities
Cecil Reynolds – 1984
Special Education Programs Work Group on Measurement Issues in Learning
Disabilities
When the rules and regulations for PL 94-142 were being developed, many experts testified in the Office of Education hearings, wrote numerous papers, and were convened for discussion and debate. When the results of these hearings, papers, and debates were examined, the reason for the discrepancy emphasis of the PL 94-142 definition becomes clear. The only consensus of this “thing” called learning disability, was that it resulted in a major discrepancy between what you expect academically of learning disabled children and the level at which they were actually achieving. (Reynolds, 1984-85, p. 452, bold added for emphasis)
IDEA Reauthorization 2004
School districts can choose: Severe discrepancy Response to [scientific, research-
based] intervention Pattern of strengths & weaknesses Other Some combination
RTI Elements
Tiered Instruction High quality regular classroom
instruction Small group, different curriculum, etc. More intensive instruction,
assessment & special education
RTI Upside
Elevates pre-referral intervention Students succeed academically Students avoid special education
stigma Special education resources saved
for students with disabilities
RTI Difficulties Tiers > students with low achievement Traditionally LD = unexpected Low
achievement Under RTI LD = unexpected & expected
low achievement = severe discrepant students & slow learners
More students in special education Change of definition Are children LD if they do respond or if
they don’t?
RTI Difficulties
Expected/unexpected low achievement distinction doesn’t matter – Both groups learn the same.
RTI Difficulties
National Reading Panel (2000) Both groups benefit from phonemic
awareness and phonics training. We don’t know if there are differences
in reading fluency and comprehension.
Research is needed.
RTI Difficulties
Joe Torgesen & Colleagues (1997) Group of students:
Word reading skills improved by phonological awareness & phonics instruction
Does not improve orthographic reading and reading comprehension
2-5% of population traditionally defined as LD who do not respond to phonological awareness and phonics instruction.
RTI Difficulties Other LD achievement areas
Oral Expression Listening Comprehension Written Expression Mathematics Calculation Mathematics Reasoning
Premature to conclude no difference in learning by expected & unexpected low achievers
RTI Difficulties
Do we have scientific, research-based interventions?
Practical considerations: Regular education initiative Training Treatment fidelity Levels, criteria, procedures
RTI Difficulties It makes no more sense to conclude,
solely on the basis of low achievement, that students are LD than it would to conclude they are mentally retarded or deaf or autistic, etc. Low academic achievement is a given in special education qualification. Additional criteria are needed to determine disability category.
Severe Discrepancy Criticisms
SD is a wait to fail model Some young children do show SD Administrators can adjust cutoff
criteria Achievement measures can be
improved Finding a student does not qualify for
Sp. Ed. does not preclude helping
Severe Discrepancy Criticisms
Not clear all students benefit from early intervention. Some may need compensatory education.
Wait to fail is emotionally loaded. No more appropriate than labeling
RTI “rush to fail” or “watch them fail”.
Severe Discrepancy Criticisms
SD models are not reliable & valid. They are.
SD models do not inform instruction They are not suppose to An audiological examination does not
tell us how to teach children who are Deaf
Everything & Nothing LD is
Severe discrepancy –many formulas RTI – many things Pattern of strengths & weaknesses – what
pattern Other Combination
If LD is defined in many ways it becomes many things and therefore not one thing.
Conclusion
RTI is great for improving pre-referral intervention.
It doesn’t tell you if a child has a learning disability.
Conclusion
Pattern of strengths & weaknesses Didn’t work for Kirk No generally agreed upon pattern Team decision is chaos Research needed Premature as an assessment model
Conclusion Done correctly SD, in combination
with exclusionary criteria (instruction, other disability, environmental, cultural, & economic disadvantage), is a psychometrically sound method for identifying LD that preserves historical definition and provides for consistency from state to state and district to district.
Estimator
Software to assist with severe discrepancy calculation.
https://estimator.srlonline.org/ [email protected] 435 757-7372
Estimator Home Page
Due Process/Litigation
Zirkel, P. A. (2010). The legal meaning of specific learning disability of special education. Teaching Exceptional Children, May/June 2010, p 63-67.
1980 – 2006: 90 hearing/review officer and court decisions around LD qualification: Schools won 80% claiming student did not
qualify Most frequent decision factor was SD (n=68) Second most frequent factor was need for
special education (n=31)
Due Process/Litigation
2006-10: 18 hearing/review officer and court decisions around LD qualification Schools won 17 cases claiming
student did not qualify Relatively strict reliance on SD RTI conspicuously absent RTI may emerge in the future