Longstanding concern about how learning disabilities (LD) are defined and identified, coupled with recent efforts in Washington, DC to eliminate IQ-achievement discrepancy as an LD marker, have led to serious public discussion about alternative identification methods. The most popular of the alternatives is responsiveness-to-intervention (RTI), of which there are two basic versions: the “problem-solving” model and the “standard-protocol” approach. The authors describe both types, review empirical evidence bearing on their effectiveness and feasibility, and conclude that more needs to be understood before RTI may be viewed as a valid means of identifying students with LD.

Responsiveness-to-Intervention: Definitions, Evidence, and Implications for the Learning Disabilities Construct.

In this critique of current reading research and practice, the author contends that the extreme ambiguity of English spelling-sound correspondence has confined reading science to an insular, Anglocentric research agenda addressing theoretical and applied issues with limited relevance for a universal science of reading. The unique problems posed by this "outlier" orthography, the author argues, have focused disproportionate attention on oral reading accuracy at the expense of silent reading, meaning access, and fluency, and have significantly distorted theorizing with regard to many issues-including phonological awareness, early reading instruction, the architecture of stage models of reading development, the definition and remediation of reading disability, and the role of lexical-semantic and supralexical information in word recognition. The dominant theoretical paradigm in contemporary (word) reading research--the Coltheart/Baron dual-route model (see, e.g., J. Baron, 1977; M. Coltheart, 1978) and, in large measure, its connectionist rivals--arose largely in response to English spelling-sound obtuseness. The model accounts for a range of English-language findings, but it is ill-equipped to serve the interests of a universal science of reading chiefly because it overlooks a fundamental unfamiliar-to-familiar/novice-to-expert dualism applicable to all words and readers in all orthographies.

On the Anglocentricities of current reading research and practice: the perils of overreliance on an "outlier" orthography.

Using strict and lenient mathematics achievement cutoff scores to define a learning disability, respective groups of children who are math disabled (MLD, n = 15) and low achieving (LA, n = 44) were identified. These groups and a group of typically achieving (TA, n = 46) children were administered a battery of mathematical cognition, working memory, and speed of processing measures (M = 6 years). The children with MLD showed deficits across all math cognition tasks, many of which were partially or fully mediated by working memory or speed of processing. Compared with the TA group, the LA children were less fluent in processing numerical information and knew fewer addition facts. Implications for defining MLD and identifying underlying cognitive deficits are discussed.

https://faculty.missouri.edu/~gearyd/files/Geary%20et%20al.%20[2007%20Child%20Development].pdf

Cognitive mechanisms underlying achievement deficits in children with mathematical learning disability.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The comprehensiveness and scale of the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2) makes it a complex study that is made possible only by the contributions of a large team. The authors' sincere thanks go to: Department of Education for their leadership and guidance in helping make NLTS2 and the OSEP longitudinal studies program such a valuable asset to our field. • Kathryn Valdes, Hal Javitz, and the rest of SRI's programming and data management team, whose technical expertise and responsiveness to innumerable and sometimes frantic analysts' requests makes a huge analytic task manageable. and SRI's administrative team for their unfailing support in bringing the study's products to the public. • Our colleagues at RTI for their contributions as subcontractors in collecting the data reported here. • Margo Izzo and John Trach, who reviewed this report, and to our several colleagues in the research, policy, practitioner, parent, and advocacy communities who have contributed their time and ideas to NLTS2 along the way. But none of the contributions made by the NLTS2 team would be meaningful without the generosity of the out-of-school youth with disabilities whose stories we tell. Our hats are off to them, their parents and guardians, and the professionals who serve them for their time, openness, and insights.

/pdf/after-high-school-a-first-look-at-the-postschool-experiences-1yvp6oslgx.pdf

After High School: A First Look at the Postschool Experiences of Youth with Disabilities. A Report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2).

A New Era: Revitalizing Special Education for Children and Their Families.

Identification of Learning Disabilities: Research to Practice is the remarkable product of a learning disabilities summit conference convened by the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) in August 2001 and the activities following that summit. Both the conference and this book were seen as important preludes to congressional reauthorization of the historic Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) scheduled for 2002 and subsequent decision making surrounding implementation. The OSEP conference brought together people with different perspectives on LD (parents, researchers, practitioners, and policymakers) and resulted in this book, which examines the research on nine key issues concerning the identification of children with learning disabilities. Coverage includes alternative responses to treatment, classification approaches, processing deficit models, and approaches to decision making. Chapter Structure-- Each of the first nine chapters is organized around a lengthy, issue-oriented paper, which presents the most current research on that topic. These primary papers are then followed by four respondent papers that reflect a variety of viewpoints on the topic. Summarizing Chapter -- A small group of researchers (listed in the final chapter) dedicated an enormous amount of time to summarizing the research and developing key consensus statements regarding the identification of children with learning disabilities. Their work is sure to have a tremendous impact on future discussions in this area. Expertise-- The following well-known scholars have helped summarize the vast amount of research presented in this book as well as the consensus statements derived therefrom: Lynne Cook, Don Deshler, Doug Fuchs, Jack M. Fletcher, Frank Gresham, Dan Hallahan, Joseph Jenkins, Kenneth Kavale, Barbara Keogh, Margo Mastopieri, Cecil Mercer, Dan Reschley, Rune Simeonsson, Joe Torgesen, Sharon Vaughn, and Barbara Wise.

Identification of Learning Disabilities : Research To Practice

The purpose of this article is to add to the discussion regarding identification of students with emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD). In addition, the article discusses services that students with EBD receive and their outcomes. The article reviews data from several national longitudinal studies to present a comprehensive picture of issues pertinent to this group of students. Unfortunately, outcomes for these students continue to be dismal. The article concludes with a discussion of areas for further consideration and attention.

Building on the Data and Adding to the Discussion: The Experiences and Outcomes of Students with Emotional Disturbance

November 29, 2000, marked the 25th anniversary of the signing into law of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). This seminal law has improved the educational opportunities for students with disabilities in the United States. In this article we briefly review the IDEA's first 25 years and speculate on the direction the IDEA may take in the future. Our purpose in this article is to (a) present the litigative and legislative developments that led to the passage of IDEA, (b) examine the law itself and the litigation interpreting the IDEA, and (c) discuss the direction that IDEA may take over the next 25 years.

Reflections on the 25th Anniversary of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

The OSEP Uaming Disabilities initiative In 1997, during the process of reauthorizing the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act [IDEA), the National Joint Committee on Learnitig Disabilities [NJCLD) wrote a tetter to the U.S. Office of Special Education Programs [OSEP) expressing concern that neither early nor accurate identification of specific learning disabilities [SLD) was occurring [NJCLD, 1997). The activities that followed the response from OSEP to the NJCLD letter have becotne known as the Learning Disabilities, or LD, Initiative [Bradley & Danielson, 2004). The LD Initiative began as a comprehensive attempt to bring researchers, professional organizations, advocacy groups, educators, and other stakeholders to a consensus regarding the identification and implementation of improved procedures for SLD identification. The goal of the LD Initiative was to improve the process and ensure accurate and efficient identification of students with SLD. Reliance on the use of the discrepancy approach to determine eligibility for special education services had resulted in students with SLD not being identified until they had experienced multiple years of failure. Additionally, this approach provided teachers little information on which they could base instructional decisions. The purpose of this article is to provide: [a) a brief description of tbe conclusions of the LD Initiative and the impact these conclusions have had, [b) an overview of the new regulations regarding response to intervention [RTI) and the identification of children with SLD, and (c) information about current technical-assistance activities. Early in the work of the LD Initiative, RTi emerged as a concept worthy of investigation. One of the original consensus statements from the collaborative work on the LD Initiative stated:

/pdf/responsiveness-to-intervention-1997-to-2007-uzchfinggb.pdf

Responsiveness to Intervention: 1997 to 2007:

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 in conjunction with the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act amendments of 2004 (IDEA) have created incentives to improve how K-12 instruction is provided and to improve the achievement of all students, including those with disabilities. To reach these goals, however, a thorough research base is needed, practitioners and administrators must be provided with training in how to use this research effectively in practice, and systems must be put in place to support practitioners and administrators in implementing and sustaining the use of evidence-based practices in schools. An emerging framework that provides an infrastructure to support the use of evidence-based practices and provides a model for instructing and intervening on behalf of all students to help improve their achievement is response to intervention (RTI). Although the RTI framework holds this potential, many practical questions, such as the following, need to be answered for practitioners and administrators to proceed successfully in its full implementation: What are the evidence-based practices in various components of RTI? What outcomes can schools expect if they implement those practices within the RTI framework with fidelity? How can we prepare teachers to optimally implement a system of RTI? What do states, districts, and schools need to consider if they are to sustain the use of RTI over time? And finally, what are future research needs? The article in this issue by Kratochwill, Volpiansky, Clements, and Ball (2007), which both lays out the key components of a system of RTI as it should be implemented in an education setting and sets the framework for the series of articles in this special issue, states: "Successful implementation of RTI is multifaceted and involves knowledge of evidence-based interventions, multitiered intervention models, screening, assessment and progress monitoring, administering interventions with a high degree of integrity, support and coordinated efforts across all levels of staff and leadership within the school, and sustaining systems of prevention grounded in an RTI framework." For each of these components the authors describe the salient issues, current research, and next steps needed to ensure the use of valid and reliable evidence-based practices within a system responsive to students' education needs and supportive of practitioners' implementation. The results of research are not useful if practitioners are not sufficiently trained in their use. In addition, this training is unlikely to occur in a high-quality, supported way without changing the systems within which schools work and without building capacity to support practitioners in their implementation (Glover & DiPerna, 2007). Thus, we will reflect on professional development and building the capacity necessary for sustained implementation, and address current research needs for the RTI model. Professional Development Shinn (2007) distinguishes two RTI processes: "little rti" and "big RTI." As described by the author, the rti process serves all students and ensures that they are benefiting from the instruction they are receiving. The purpose of the RTI process, on the other hand, is to make a special education entitlement decision when a student has not responded to an rti process. When considering what support and coordinated efforts to provide, it may be helpful to split RTI into these two frameworks, if only to differentiate among the special types of training practitioners may need. Depending on their roles, many educators will need training in primary- and secondary-tier interventions, and in the assessments used for screening and progress monitoring, so that they are able to match interventions with student needs. Only some educators will need to be trained in the delivery of intensive, individualized interventions. Certainly special educators will need this training, along with training in (a) the identification of learning disabilities, and (b) using RTI as part of a comprehensive evaluation. …

Renee Bradley

Papers

Identification of Learning Disabilities : Research To Practice

Building on the Data and Adding to the Discussion: The Experiences and Outcomes of Students with Emotional Disturbance

Reflections on the 25th Anniversary of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

Responsiveness to Intervention: 1997 to 2007:

Professional Development, Capacity Building, and Research Needs: Critical Issues for Response to Intervention Implementation.