Connections to Identification Modules
What does this have to do with L.D. identification models? I believe there is a significant connection.
Students identified as L.D make up the majority of classified students in most states. Except for the extremely large districts, urban, suburban and rural poor districts identify the greatest percentage of children as needing special education. Very little "declassification" occurs for school-age students who are identified.
Poor urban and suburban districts rely most heavily on self-contained special classes. Since these are the districts in which a great many minority students live, especially in the large population states, there is a high probability that they will be isolated from their non-disabled peers and from full access to the general education curriculum. While the general student population in these districts typically performs very poorly on state and national assessments, the performance of their special education students is remarkably low.
It is simply unacceptable to continue to use an identification procedure that results in the highest classification rate and causes students to be referred to programs, particularly in poor districts, that lead to significantly low educational performance. It is imperative that a connection be made between identification efforts and intervention leading to discernible results
In July 2002, I chaired a committee established by the Board of the National Association of State Directors of Special Education, which was charged with the task of looking at potential changes in the identification of L.D. students being discussed in preparation for the reauthorization of IDEA. The committee used the draft position statement developed by the Professional Advisory Board of the National Center on Learning Disability on a Three Tiered Intervention strategy [RtI] as the basis for their work. After reviewing the draft position paper and research papers presented at the 2001 L.D. Summit, the committee recommended to the NASDSE Board that the three-tiered strategy of L.D. identification be supported. It further recommended that:
- there would need to be a different and substantially more rigorous professional development effort than currently exists.
- general education would need more systemic and effective child-specific interventions than currently exist
- there would need to be a carefully planned transition from the current approach to this new model.
The committee also identified the following issues that would have to be addressed during implementation of this new model:
- professional development would need significant new resources [though far less than calculated by Gerber]
- tiers one and two of the model would take a more sustained and intensive general education effort than most districts now provide.
- there would need to be a strong incentive for change within teacher training institutions
- there would need to be a four- to five-year phase-in to accommodate the massive training effort that would be needed.
- USDOE should fund a working group made up of all states, similar to the model used to explore assessment issues, to help states implement needed changes.
Those responsible for implementing IDEA at the state level are clearly in favor of change and willing to tackle the significant implementation issues associated with this new model. They have raised appropriate issues that will need to be recognized by the USDOE and other key change agents if the transition to a new identification model is to be successful.
In his paper, Reschly states: "the greatest threat to special education and L.D. is not RtI; rather it is undocumented outcomes and the persistence of practices unrelated to effective interventions." I would add that the greatest threat is the failure so far to address the enormous gap in performance for students with disabilities that we know to exist in many of the large and poorer districts in this country. The fact is that many children are being identified using procedures that have proved ineffective and that are not related to interventions that are beneficial to improved educational performance. This approach threatens their future opportunities, which should compel us to move past the research and on to action.
Previous Page | Next Page
(Author's Views) | (References)
