Lou Danielsons Luncheon Address

1
Lou Danielsons Luncheon Address
Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium December
4-5, 2003 Kansas City, Missouri The National
Research Center on Learning Disabilities, a
collaborative project of staff at Vanderbilt
University and the University of Kansas,
sponsored this two-day symposium focusing on
responsiveness-to-intervention (RTI) issues. The
symposium was made possible by the support of the
U.S. Department of Education Office of Special
Education Programs. Renee Bradley, Project
Officer. Opinions expressed herein are those of
the authors and do not necessarily represent the
position of the U.S. Department of Education.
2
Todays Topics

• History of OSEP investment in Learning
  Disabilities
• LD Initiative
• NRCLD work with the RRCs
• OSEP activities
• Pending legislative Changes

3
1970s

• LD became a legitimate category
• Money was available for training programs
• Child Service Demonstration Centers were funded
  to showcase how children should be identified
  and served
• CSDC brought attention to LD, provided needed
  resources to parents , provided some information
  on how to identify and serve

4
1980s

• 5 LD Research Institutes
• Columbia University Dale Bryant focus on
  information processing difficulties
• University of Illinois, Chicago Tanis Bryan
  focus on social competence and attributions about
  success and failure
• University of Kansas Donald Deshler focus on
  educational interventions for adolescents

5

• University of Minnesota Jim Ysseldyke focus
  on identification and CBM
• University of Virginia Dan Hallahan focus on
  metacognitive problems, ADHD

6
OSEP LD Initiative

• Workgroup
• Commissioned papers
• LD Summit
• Researcher Roundtable
• Finding Common Ground Roundtable
• Funding the National Research Center on Learning
  Disabilities (NRCLD)
• Work with RRCs

7
Commissioned Papers

• Learning Disabilities Historical
  Perspectives Hallahan Mercer
• Classification of Learning Disabilities An
  Evidence-Based Approach
• Fletcher et. al.
• Empirical and Theoretical Support for Direct
  Diagnosis of Learning Disabilities by Assessment
  of Intrinsic Processing Weaknesses
• Torgesen
• Learning Disabilities as Operationally Defined by
  Schools Siperstein
  McMillan
• Early Identification and Intervention for Young
  Children with Reading/Learning Disabilities Jenki
  ns O'Connor

8
Commissioned Papers

• Is Learning Disabilities Just a Fancy Term for
  Low Achievement A Meta-analysis of Reading
  Differences Between Low Achievers with and
  without the Label Fuchs et. al.
• Responsiveness to Intervention An Alternative
  Approach to the Identification of Learning
  Disabilities Gresham
• Discrepancy Models in the Identification of
  LD Kavale
• Judgments in Identifying and Teaching Children
  with Language-Based Reading Difficulties Wise
  Snyder

9
Researcher Roundtable

• Concept of Learning Disabilities
• Strong converging evidence supports the validity
  of the concept of specific learning disabilities
  (SLD). This evidence is particularly impressive
  because it converges across different indicators
  and methodologies. The central concept of SLD
  involves disorders of learning and cognition that
  are intrinsic to the individual. SLD are
  specific in the sense that these disorders each
  significantly affect a relatively narrow range of
  academic and performance outcomes. SLD may occur
  in combination with other disabling conditions,
  but they are not due primarily to other
  conditions, such as mental retardation,
  behavioral disturbance, lack of opportunities to
  learn, or primary sensory deficits.

10
Researcher Roundtable (continued)

• IQ/Achievement Discrepancy
• Majority IQ/Achievement Discrepancy is neither
  necessary nor sufficient for identifying
  individuals with SLD. IQ tests do not need to be
  given in most evaluations of children with SLD.
• There should be some evidence that an individual
  with SLD is performing outside the ranges
  associated with mental retardation, either by
  performance on achievement tests or performance
  on a screening measure of intellectual aptitude
  or adaptive behavior
• Minority Aptitude/achievement discrepancy is an
  appropriate marker of SLD, but is not sufficient
  to document the presence or absence of
  underachievement, which is a critical aspect of
  the concept of SLD.

11
Researcher Roundtable (continued)

• Response to Intervention
• There should be alternate ways to identify
  individuals with SLD in addition to achievement
  testing, history, and observations of the child.
  Response to quality intervention is the most
  promising method of alternate identification and
  can both promote effective practices in schools
  and help to close the gap between identification
  and treatment. Any effort to scale up response
  to intervention should be based on problem
  solving models that use progress monitoring to
  gauge the intensity of intervention in relation
  to the students response to intervention.
  Problem solving models have been shown to be
  effective in public school settings and in
  research.

12
National Research Center on Learning Disabilities

• Research
• Technical Assistance
• RRC Work

13
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

14
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

15
What is Meant by an RtI Model?

• RtI refers to an individual, comprehensive
  student-centered assessment model. RtI is
  sometimes referred to as a problem-solving model.
  RtI models focus on applying a problem solving
  framework to identify and address the students
  difficulties using effective, efficient
  instruction and leading to improved achievement.

16
Work with RRCs

• Identify schools using RtI
• Document the districts RtI model and associated
  student outcomes, including their academic
  progress.
• Compare outcomes for referred students in RtI
  schools with outcomes for students in otherwise
  similar schools that use psychometric discrepancy
  models.
• Determine how RtI corrects or improves on
  disability determination and outcomes related to
  equity, consistency, accuracy, timeliness, and
  fidelity.
• Provide models for future large scale
  implementation

17
Some examples of questions we still need answers
to

• Are students with SLD accessing needed services
  more quickly than traditional models?
• Does the model improve the accuracy with which
  students with SLD are identified?
• What are the components in special education
  eligibility?
• Who implements the components?

18

• What was the basis for deciding that a student
  had a disability?
• What are the time requirements on staff to
  implement the LD identification model for a
  student?
• What is the fidelity of implementation of an LD
  identification model in a school?

19
Looking AheadOther OSEP Investments

• NRCLD
• Centers for Implementing K-3 Behavior and Reading
  Intervention
• Research Institute on Progress Monitoring
• Technical Assistance and Dissemination Center on
  Progress Monitoring.

20
Current Language

• SPECIFIC LEARNING DISABILITY- (from Section
  602(26))
• (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.

21
Senate Bill 1248

• (A) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding section 607, when
  determining whether a child has a specific
  learning disability as defined in section
  602(29), a local educational agency shall not be
  required to take into consideration whether a
  child has a severe discrepancy between
  achievement and intellectual ability in oral
  expression, listening comprehension, written
  expression, basic reading skill, reading
  comprehension, mathematical calculation, or
  mathematical reasoning.
• (B) ADDITIONAL AUTHORITY.-In determining whether
  a child has a specific learning disability, a
  local educational agency may use a process that
  determines if the child responds to scientific,
  research-based intervention.

22
Resources

• www.NRCLD.org
• www.air.org/ldsummit/
• www.ld.org/advocacy/CommonGround.doc
• www.erlbaum.com
• IDENTIFICATION OF LEARNING DISABILITIES Research
  to PracticeAuthor Renee Bradley (ed.), Louis
  Danielson (ed.), and Daniel P. Hallahan
  (ed.)ISBN 0-8058-4448-1 Year
  2002Price 49.95

23

• final thoughts