1 / 15

The Learning Disability Mess Gets Messier

The Learning Disability Mess Gets Messier. Ruth Colker Distinguished University Professor Moritz College of Law The Ohio State University. My Thesis for Identifying Learning Disability in Reading. Need Inclusionary rather than Exclusionary Approach.

aliya
Télécharger la présentation

The Learning Disability Mess Gets Messier

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Learning Disability Mess Gets Messier Ruth Colker Distinguished University Professor Moritz College of Law The Ohio State University

  2. My Thesis for Identifying Learning Disability in Reading • Need Inclusionary rather than Exclusionary Approach Various factors that could cause poor reading other than dyslexia Various Factors that cause dyslexia

  3. The Matthew Effect • “For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.”

  4. Who Should Get Extra Help? • No Child Left Behind • Achievement approach • Individuals with Disabilities Education Act • Disability approach

  5. Four Children in Second Grade • Child A: • 85 Reading Achievement Score • 100 Aptitude Score • Child B: • 85 Reading Achievement Score • 95 Aptitude Score • Without intervention, reading might decline to 80 by Fourth Grade • Child C: • 85 Reading Achievement Score • 90 Aptitude Score • Without intervention, might also decline to 80 by Fourth Grade • Child D: • 95 Reading Achievement Score • 110 Aptitude Score • Moves to School District that uses “RTI” approach – no longer qualifies for any intervention

  6. History of Identifying Learning Disabilities in Reading • 1887: Professor Berlin coined term “dyslexia” • 1895: Also called “word blindness” • Different from “alexia,” the utter inability to read • 1904: Dyslexic child responded well to intervention • 1965 Definition: Emphasized “educationally significant discrepancy between their estimated intellectual potential and actual level of performance” • 1975 Isle of Wight Study by Rutter and Yule: lent support to discrepancy definition • But others have not been able to replicate those results

  7. Isle of Wight Results

  8. What Rutter and Yule actually said • “It may be that the two groups of poor readers require different remedial approaches. This possibility requires study and such study might lead to more effective remedial procedures. Whether or not this happens, it seems clear on the basis of present evidence that all those concerned with children’s reading skills will have to pay closer attention to the differentiation between general reading backwardness and specific reading retardation.”

  9. Problems with Discrepancy Approach • Verbal scale on IQ test often measures skills developed through reading, so IQ and achievement are not independent measures • Large-scale studies have not been able to replicate Rutter and Yule and some researchers have actually attained opposite results (for children in category D) • Rutter responded in 1989, noting that “it remains uncertain whether the reading processes per se in [IQ-discrepant group] differ from those in [IQ-consistent group].” • Lack of consistency between states

  10. President Bush’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education (2002) • IQ testing is a waste of money • IQ testing is not useful in determining who should receive assistance as learning disabled • A move away from the discrepancy model should result in earlier, not later, intervention • A model that replaces the discrepancy model should be less rather than more subjective

  11. What is Response to Intervention? • (1) Students receive high-quality research-based instruction in their general education environment, • (2) Continuous monitoring of student performance in comparison with peers, • (3) All students are screened for academic and behavioral problems; and • (4) Multiple levels (tiers) of instruction that are progressively more intense, based on the student’s response to intervention

  12. Wrong Conclusions • Still need IQ testing to rule out cognitive impairment • Even need IQ (arguably) to design effective remediation • RTI intervention is not individualized and therefore not likely to help students with LD • Even more delays and few students ultimately identified • “Watch them fail” rather than “wait and fail” • RTI is actually more subjective with every school district having a different approach • Who are peers? • What is a science-based response?

  13. Shaywitz et al. Research: Should High IQ students receive intervention?

  14. Inclusionary Approach • Directly measure: • Components of the reading process, such as word recognition, fluency and comprehension • Components of word recognition difficulties, such as phonological awareness, rapid naming, phonological (working) memory and vocabulary • Crucial to reach children before second grade • Typical reading readiness tests from 1970s and 1980s had a predictive validity close to zero! • Do we have those tools?

  15. Conclusion • Fundamental normative questions raised by this research: • Who do we want to help with federal/state assistance? • Only children scoring below grade level? • Primarily children whose deficits are a result of a disability? • Should we get rid of the Learning Disability category and address all these problems with No Child Left Behind?

More Related