A Misuse of IQ Scores: Using the Dual Discrepancy/Consistency Model for Identifying Specific Learning Disabilities.

Prevention Model Takes Off in Schools: A New Approach for Learning Disabilities

In the United States, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) lists fourteen disabilities for which a student is eligible for special education services: autism, deaf-blindness, deafness, developmental delay, emotional disturbance, hearing impairment, intellectual disability, orthopedic impairment, other health impairment, specific learning disability, speech or language impairment, traumatic brain injury, visual impairment, and multiple disabilities. Services include individualized education programs consisting of assessments, interventions, and other related services. Technologies help level the learning playing field, as they can facilitate the person’s functional academic and social capabilities across settings. Particularly as technological options have increased, there is a greater possibility of matching the technology with the learning need. Thus, the intersection of assistive technology, portable devices, disabilities, K–16 communities, and special education results in the needed topic of portable technologies for formal special education. In addition, the geographic scope is largely the United States, with some Canadian overlap. The term “portable technology” generally denotes a stand-alone device that may be carried easily in one hand, such as a cell phone, small audio or video player, signal device, or laptop computer. Sometimes the terms “mobile” or “handheld” are used instead of “portable.” In educational circles, the term “mobile learning” (or “m-learning”) refers to learning activities in which the learner actively incorporates these portable or mobile devices. Therefore, for the purposes of this bibliography, computer peripherals, wheelchairs, and other appliances (such as cochlear implants) are excluded. The bibliography emphasizes fundamental texts, systematic literature reviews, and scholarly research mainly since 2016. For very similar studies, the most rigorous one was selected for inclusion; furthermore, pilot students’ single-subject cases were avoided. It should be noted that various usage studies constitute the majority of citations. Rigorous assessment concerning the impact of portable technologies on student success is uneven, and, in particular, postsecondary assessment of special education services using portable technologies is limited. Legislative history, often best archived on websites, provides legal context. Although many valuable organizations discuss portable technologies for special education, generally only research-centric ones are included in this bibliography; other resources in the bibliography, such as Grey House Publishing’s Complete Resource Guide for People with Disabilities (cited under Overviews) do list relevant organizations.

Special Education Eligibility: When Is a Speech-Language Impairment Also a Disability?

In the early 1900s, a surge in immigration and the enforcement of compulsory school attendance laws led to exponential growth in the public schools in the United States, especially in urban areas (Chapman, 1988). To meet the needs of an increasingly large and diverse student body, school systems maximised efficiency by differentiating the school curriculum and by grouping students according to educational aptitude. By 1910, school psychologists were involved in the process of identifying children and youth at-risk for educational failure (Fagan and Sachs-Wise, 2007). Starting in the 1920s, group intelligence tests began to be used in many urban school systems to track students by instructional level (e.g. vocational or college-bound tracks; Kranzler, Benson, and Floyd, 2016). From then until the mid-1970s, the practice of testing and grouping students became a permanent fixture in American education. During that period, however, only a small percentage of children and youth with disabilities were educated in public schools. This changed dramatically in 1975 with the passage of the Education for All Children Act (P.L. 94–142). Now known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 2004), this federal law mandates that the public school system has a responsibility to provide a free and appropriate education to all children and youth between the ages of 3 to 21 years. Eligibility for special education and related services is based on the presence of a disability that adversely affects academic performance and demonstration of a need for special education and related services. The following disability categories are used in IDEA: Specific learning disability (SLD), other health impairment (e.g. attention deficit hyperactive disorder [ADHD]), autism spectrum disorder (ASD), emotional disturbance, speech or language impairment, visual impairment (including blindness), hearing impairment (including deafness), orthopedic impairment, intellectual disability (ID), traumatic brain injury, and multiple disabilities. According to the National Center for Education Statistics (2018), in the 2014–2015 academic, year 6.6 million children and youth (13 per cent of all students) received special education and related services in the public schools.

Education rights and the special needs child

Response to Intervention (RtI) consists of multi-tiered instructional delivery systems in which educators provide research-based interventions to students that increase in intensity depending on students' instructional response. RtI is currently being implemented in schools across the United States. RtI's shift away from standardized testing offers new opportunities to consider the ways in which African American students are serviced within the general education setting, the assessment methods deemed appropriate when considering African American students for special education under the Specific Learning Disability category, and how multi-tiered intervention can address the overrepresentation of African American students in special education. This article provides an overview of a three-tiered RtI model, explores the promises and challenges of using RtI with African American students, and delineates a research and direct service delivery agenda to facilitate the development of RtI models that consider the educational needs of African American students.Keywords: African American studies, early childhood/elementary, learning and academic achievement, special education and disabilityMethods used to assess African American students, particularly in relation to special education, have generated controversy among educators, parents, and policymakers for decades (Graves & Mitchell, 201 1; Valencia & Suzuki, 2001). Such controversy stems, in part, from perceptions that standardized measures of intelligence, which are often used to help determine students' eligibility for special education services, are biased toward African Americans, and the use of these measures contributes to the disproportionate representation (i.e., over or underrepresentation of specific groups in disability categories) of African Americans in special education (Keams, Ford, & Linney, 2005; Larry P. v. Riles, 1979; Pitre, 2009; Powers, Hagans-Murillo, & Restori, 2004). The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEIA, 2004) along with No Child Left Behind's (NCLB, 2001) emphasis on accountability through mandated monitoring of academic outcomes for the most vulnerable student populations, including students with disabilities, has brought Response to Intervention (Rtl) to the forefront of policy and practice (Meyers, Meyers, Graybill, Proctor, & Huddleston, 2012). Rtl models consist of multi-tiered instructional delivery systems in which educators provide, and assess frequently the impact of, research-based interventions to students that increase in intensity depending on students' instructional response. IDEIA 2004 encourages states and local educational agencies to use processes, similar to Rtl, that provide instructionally relevant assessment data to identify a specific learning disability (SLD). Therefore, Rtl can serve as an alternative to the traditional assessment method (i.e., administration of standardized intelligence and achievement tests) used to identify students for special education under the category of SLD (Hartlep & Ellis, 2012; IDEIA, 2004). Although Rtl is now one option for assessing African American students for SLD, in order to implement Rtl in a culturally responsive manner, educators, parents, policymakers, and researchers must carefully and seriously consider both the benefits and challenges of Rtl for African American students.In this article, the authors explore the promises and perils of using a three-tiered Rtl model with African American students. The discussion is framed around SLD assessment and classification decision-making because IDEIA 2004 endorses Rtl for SLD identification only, and almost half of African American students identified for special education are serviced under the SLD category (U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Office of Special Education Programs, 2011). To provide context as well as a rationale for Rtl, a brief discussion is presented regarding intelligence testing in relation to African American students and the special education identification and placement process. …

ABSTRACT: Music therapy has been shown to be beneficial in treating and remediating learning deficits in students with various disabilities currently served through special education services. As public schools face more financial constraints, it is evident that the development and/or maintenance of therapy positions may be increasingly jeopardized. In this study, 81 surveys regarding Illinois special education program administrators' perceptions of therapy efficacy and practice were completed. Responses pertaining to demographics, knowledge, and perceptions of therapy were analyzed. Results indicated that graduate level studies and experience with therapy programs were the two variables that had a significant effect on administrators' perceptions. Implications and recommendations for educational programming and professional preparation are discussed. Music therapy has been shown to be beneficial in treating and remediating learning deficits in students with various disabilities currently served through special education services. Special education is federally guided by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 1997 (P.L. No. 105-17). This law requires that all children receive a free appropriate public education (FARE) through specially designed instruction at no additional cost to the family. Turnbull, Turnbull, Shank, and Smith (2004) reported that 11.4% of the public school population, or almost 5.75 million students, received special education during the 1999-2000 school year. On July 1, 2002, the President's Commission on Excellence in Special Education (PCESE) reported that the number of students receiving services had reached 6 million, and one half of those had a specific learning disability (Koch, 2004). As reported in the 2003 annual report for the state of Illinois, the percentage of students receiving special education in that state is above the national average and continues to climb, having been over 14% in 2001, 2002, and 2003 (Koch, 2004). Considering these data and the fact that the first author is a member of the Illinois Music Therapy Association (IAMT), this study focused on perceptions of special education administrators in Illinois. The IDEA outlines requirements for special education eligibility, including thorough evaluation of the child's health and sensory status, social and emotional status, general intelligence, academic performance, communicative status, and motor abilities. Information from these evaluations is then to design an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) that provides for the FAPE that each student needs. The IDEA states that related services must be provided, as necessary, to complete the IEP. While therapy is not specifically listed and defined in the IDEA as a related service, it is included in Attachment 1 to IDEA '97 as an example of other related services that may be included in order for a student to receive FAPE (Mattson, 2001). Attachment 1 also lists artistic and cultural programs, art therapy, and dance therapy as related services. The National Information Center for Children and Youth with Disabilities (NICHCY) website displays the American Music Therapy Association's (AMTA) definition of therapy and discusses therapy as a related service when it is used to strengthen nonmusical areas such as academic skills, physical coordination, communication, sensory-motor development, expression of emotions, and stress (AMTA, 2004). Music therapy involves the application of techniques to address non-musical behaviors including those related to physical, emotional, cognitive, and social concerns. The AMTA (1999) asserted that music therapy improves the quality of life for persons who are well and meets the needs of children and adults with disabilities or illnesses. Specific therapy interventions promote wellness, stress management, reduction and alleviation of pain, expression of feelings, memory enhancement, improved communication, and physical rehabilitation. …

Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorders

PurposeThe COVID-19 pandemic created novel challenges for school systems and students, particularly students with disabilities. In the shift to remote/distance learning, this report explores the degree to which children with disabilities did not receive the special education and related services defined in their individualized education program (IEP).MethodsPatients attending an outpatient tertiary care center for neurodevelopmental disabilities in Maryland were surveyed on the impact of the pandemic on educational services provision.ResultsNearly half (46%) of respondents qualified for special education and related services through an IEP before the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. Among those with IEPs, 48% attested to reduced frequency and/or duration of special education and/or related services during the pandemic. The reduction was greatest in occupational therapy services (47%), followed physical therapy services (46%), and special education services (34%).ConclusionThis survey of children with disabilities observes a substantial reduction in IEP services reported in their completed surveys. To address the observed reduction in IEP services, we sought additional education for clinicians on the rights of students with disabilities in anticipation of students’ re-entry to the classroom. A special education law attorney provided an instructional session on compensatory education and recovery services to prepare clinicians to properly inform parents about their rights and advocate for patients with unmet IEP services during the pandemic.

This article describes how actuarial methods can supplant discrepancy models and augment problem solving and Response to Intervention (RTI) efforts by guiding the process of identifying specific learning disabilities (SLD). Actuarial methods use routinized selection and execution of formulas derived from empirically established relationships to make predictions that fall within a plausible range of possible future outcomes. In the case of SLD identification, the extent to which predictions are reasonable can be evaluated by their ability to categorize large segments of the population into subgroups that vary considerably along a spectrum of risk for academic failure. Although empirical comparisons of actuarial methods to clinical judgment reveal that actuarial methods consistently outperform clinical judgment, multidisciplinary teams charged with identifying SLD currently rely on clinical judgment. Actuarial methods provide educators with an empirically verifiable indicator of student need for special education and related services that could be used to estimate the relative effects of exclusionary criteria. This indicator would provide a defensible endpoint in the process of identifying SLD as well as a means of informing and improving the SLD identification process. © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

We investigated the prevalence of receipt of special education services among children with congenital heart defects (CHDs) compared with children without birth defects. Children born from 1982 to 2004 in metropolitan Atlanta with CHDs (n = 3744) were identified from a population-based birth defect surveillance program; children without birth defects (n = 860 715) were identified from birth certificates. Cohorts were linked to special education files for the 1992-2012 school years to identify special education services. Children with noncardiac defects or genetic syndromes were excluded; children with CHDs were classified by presence or absence of critical CHDs (ie, CHDs requiring intervention by age one year). We evaluated the prevalence of receipt of special education services and prevalence rate ratios using children without birth defects as a reference. Compared with children without birth defects, children with CHDs were 50% more likely to receive special education services overall (adjusted prevalence rate ratio [aPRR] = 1.5; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.4-1.7). Specifically, they had higher prevalence of several special education categories including: intellectual disability (aPRR = 3.8; 95% CI: 2.8-5.1), sensory impairment (aPRR = 3.0; 95% CI: 1.8-5.0), other health impairment (aPRR = 2.8; 95% CI: 2.2-3.5), significant developmental delay (aPRR = 1.9; 95% CI: 1.3-2.8), and specific learning disability (aPRR = 1.4; 95% CI: 1.1-1.7). For most special education services, the excess prevalence did not vary by presence of critical CHDs. Children with CHDs received special education services more often than children without birth defects. These findings highlight the need for special education services and the importance of developmental screening for all children with CHDs.

What Samuel A. Kirk Really Said About Mental Retardation and Learning Disabilities: A Response to Danforth, Slocum, and Dunkle

BACKGROUND: Population-based information on special education service needs among children with congenital heart defects (CHDs) is limited. We investigated the prevalence of receipt of special education services among children with CHDs. METHODS: Children born from 1982-2004 in metropolitan Atlanta with CHDs (n=3,744) were identified from a population-based birth defect surveillance program, and contemporaneous children born without major birth defects (n=860,715) were identified from birth certificates. Cohorts were linked to special education files for 1992-2012 school years to identify receipt of special education services. Children with CHDs and non-cardiac defects or genetic syndromes were excluded; children with isolated CHDs were classified by presence or absence of critical CHDs (i.e., defects needing intervention in the first year of life). We evaluated prevalence of special education services and calculated prevalence ratios (PRs) using children without birth defects as reference. RESULTS: Children with CHDs were 50% more likely than those without birth defects to use special education services (PR 1.5; 95% Confidence interval 1.4-1.7). Similar to children without birth defects, the most common eligibility among children with CHDs was speech/language impairment. Compared to children without birth defects, the prevalence of several special education eligibilities were significantly higher among children with all CHDs: any intellectual disability (PR 3.8), sensory impairment (PR 3.0), other health impairment (PR 2.8), significant developmental delay (PR 1.9), orthopedic impairment (PR 1.9), and specific learning disability (PR 1.4). For most special education eligibilities, there was no significant variation in the elevated prevalence ratios by presence or absence of critical CHDs. CONCLUSIONS: Children with many types of CHDs received special education services more often than children without birth defects. These findings highlight important resource needs for children with CHDs. Furthermore, they suggest that recommendations to perform developmental screening only on children with select CHDs may miss or delay identification of children with other CHDs, who may also need special education services.

Approximately 10% of young persons between the ages of 6 and 17 years receive special education and related services.1 An additional 750 000 neonates each year may have or be at risk for having developmental disabilities.2 Therefore, pediatricians have many patients who have disabling conditions or are at risk for them. Federal legislation requires each child identified as having a disability to have a written plan of service: an Individual Education Plan (IEP) for children aged 3 through 21 years or an Individual Family Service Plan (IFSP) for children aged birth through 2 years. The pediatrician is in a unique position to be involved in planning and providing care for both groups of children. BACKGROUND The Individual Education Plan In 1975 Congress passed Public Law 94-142, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, as an educational bill of rights to guarantee handicapped children a free and appropriate education. The law required that identification, diagnosis, education, and related services be provided for children 5 to 18 years of age. In 1977, the age range was extended to include children aged 3 to 21 years, with services for children aged 3 to 5 years remaining optional. Not only were these services to be provided, but states also were encouraged to seek out children who had not been served previously. Conditions eligible under Public Law 94-142 include mental retardation, hearing deficiencies, speech and language impairments, specific learning disabilities, visual handicaps, emotional disturbances, orthopedic impairments, and a variety of other medical conditions categorized as "other health impaired."

Little is known about differences in the allocation of special education services to students with autism compared with students with other primary learning differences (e.g., intellectual disability [ID], specific learning disability [SLD]) and the comparative impact of sociodemographic factors on special education service receipt. The present study aimed to compare allocation of services (i.e., quantity and types) between students eligible for special education services under autism, SLD and ID, and to identify differences in sociodemographic predictors (e.g., race, neighborhood income) of service allocation. Data were culled from special education administrative records from a large urban, primarily Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish-serving school district from academic years 2011-2012 to 2016-2017. Participants included N=76,428 students (Nautism =18,151, NSLD =54,001, NID =4,276) ages 2-18. Results showed that autistic students received, on average, more services than students with SLD. Services received by students served under autism and SLD eligibility were more congruent with areas of need (e.g., language, occupational therapy) relative to students served under ID. Student-level socioeconomic status (free and reduced lunch) was more positively predictive of the number of special education services received than the neighborhood income of the school the student attended. Finally, the most significant racial disparities in service allocation were observed among students served under autism eligibility. The present study demonstrates the critical role of economic resources in the quantity and types of services received, and the desirability of a public education for well-resourced families who are possibly best situated to navigate special education services. LAY SUMMARY: An eligibility of autism in special education confers a significant advantage in the number of services a student receives. Disparity in the quantity of special education services exists among autistic students across many sociodemographic factors. Most notably, greater allocation of services to non-Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish, White American, European American, or Middle Eastern American students and students who do not receive free and reduced lunch.