Implications of Changes
What if? What if LD policies and practices were changed significantly to reflect scientific evidence on effective interventions for children and youth, AND the LD definition and classification criteria were formulated so that effective interventions were made more likely. What if?
1. What if well established principles of screening and instruction were implemented in preventive interventions, beginning in kindergarten?
Today there is little emphasis on early screening and prevention and much of the general education curriculum and instruction in basic skills areas do not reflect the results of scientific studies (Jenkins & O'Connor, 2002).
2. What if well established principles of instruction were implemented in special education instructional and behavioral change programs?
These principles are well established (e.g., Carnine, Silbert, & Kame'enui, 1997; Foorman, 1995; Fuchs & Fuchs, 1986; Kavale & Forness, 1999; Kame'enui & Carnine, 1998; Vaughn, Gersten, & Chard, 2000; Vaughn & Linan-Thompson, 2003). Many effective practices that make substantial differences in achievement outcomes for children and youth with disabilities are not used in preventive (Torgeson et al., 1999) or in most special education instructional programs (Vaughn & Linan-Thompson, 2003; Zigmond, 1997).
3. What if LD identification focused in instructionally relevant characteristics rather then hypothetical constructs with remote relationships to intervention?
In nearly all states LD identification focuses primarily on two factors: (a) Severe discrepancy between achievement and intellectual ability using norm-referenced tests of achievement and ability, and (b) Exclusion factors denoting other disability conditions and economic disadvantage, (Reschly, Hosp, & Schmied, 2003). Depending on the state, other factors may be required in LD identification such as (a) identification of a processing disorder and (b) average intellectual ability. The assessment to determine eligibility is dominated by standardized tests that provide general information about level of performance, but little guidance for the design, implementation, and evaluation of instruction. It is as if school staffing teams are required by LD policies and practices to face one direction for identification and another for instructional intervention design. If the LD identification methods were reliable and valid, such bifurcation of effort might be tolerable, although inefficient. In fact, the variables critical to traditional LD identification have little relationship to instruction.
Instructionally relevant LD identification procedures have been developed and implemented successfully in several states and local districts (e.g., Barbour, 2002; Grimes, 2002; Marston, 2002). Several clearly documented effects have been established including, improved screening and early intervention, enhanced quality of prereferral interventions (Reschly & Starkweather, 1997), closer links between identification and IEP development, and improved special education programs. The programs cited above establish explicit links between LD identification and LD treatment.
4. What if the assessment used in LD identification was directly relevant to designing interventions, formative evaluation (goals, progress monitoring, and instructional changes), and evaluation of program effectiveness?
The information generated now in LD identification has little application to establishing instructional goals, formative evaluation, or evaluation of programs. Confidence that the same children and youth identified now as LD will continue to be identified with RTI is increased by studying current eligibility determination processes. Teacher referral is the most important step in current eligibility determination. Findings indicate that 90% of students referred by teachers are evaluated for special education and 70% are found eligible (Ysseldyke, Vanderwood, & Shriner, 1997). Results from many studies suggest that the use of direct measures in natural settings using peer comparisons identify the "right" kids and that the information from this approach to LD identification is directly relevant to improving instructional outcomes (Reschly & Starkweather, 1997).
5. What if response to intervention (RTI) is used as a major component of LD identification?
Although more research is needed, RTI has the advantage of determining degree of need and the complexity of the learning problem through the child's actual responses to high quality interventions. The results of the intervention may prevent LD identification or, if insufficient gains are made, these same results are useful in LD identification and designing more intensive interventions in special education. Perhaps most important, the direct assessments of skills used in identification are useful in designing, monitoring, changing, and evaluating interventions.
6. What if the focus in initial placement staffings that include parents and teachers was on graphs reflecting instructional interventions and peer comparisons using direct measures rather than psychometric profiles from standardized tests?
We think there would be a stronger emphasis by all participants on what can be done to improve academic skills, behavior, or emotional regulation rather than a search for alleged causes and correlates. Moreover, it is much more likely that exiting special education and exit criteria will be discussed by the participants.
7. What if annual review teams and parents focused on gains related to explicitly defined skills and competencies rather than irrelevant severe discrepancies, ephemeral processes, and standardized achievement tests whose score scales are not designed to measure change?
Annual reviews might then focus on improving the effectiveness of special education programs rather than continued eligibility. Changes might be made in programs that are ineffective and more children would meet goals and exit special education.
8. What if we could reliably document the positive benefits of special education programs, showing greater gains than in general education, improved rates of passing consequential tests, exit from special education for more students, and improved school completion?
We believe that better student outcomes will be produced by adoption of problem solving approaches and LD identification methods related to effective instruction. Indeed, at least one state (NY) has achieved better outcomes through establishing goals, monitoring progress, and evaluating outcomes (Gloeckler testimony, President's Commission on Excellence in Special Education, February 25, 2002, Hearing in Houston, TX). The general approach to effecting change at the individual and systems levels is the same. The essential steps are identifying differences between current conditions and goals, assessing current status, establishing challenging goals, implementing scientifically based interventions, monitoring progress, changing interventions when goals are not met, and evaluating outcomes.
Previous Page | Next Page
(Alternatives) | (Consequences)
