Eligibility For Special Education Services Research Articles

Effects of Having an IEP on the Reading Achievement of Students With Learning Disabilities and Speech or Language Impairments

The extent to which reading achievement is causally impacted by eligibility for special education services due to a learning disability (LD) or speech or language impairment (SLI) is currently unclear. In this registered report, we analyzed national data from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study—Kindergarten Cohort of 2010–2011 (ECLS-K: 2011) using student-fixed effects with a lagged dependent variable estimated by maximum likelihood to assess (a) whether being assigned an Individualized Education Program (IEP) and so receiving special education services affects individually measured reading achievement for students with LD or SLI ( N = 2,400) and (b) heterogeneity in the effect of having an IEP for different demographic groups. We observed small, negative effects in early grades ( d = −0.09) but larger, positive effects in later grades ( ds = 0.29–0.67). These more negative early effects primarily occurred among students identified with SLI, male students, and students who faced socioeconomic barriers. Effects were more positive for students who are Black, Hispanic, or who exited special education.

Assessing students in foster care for autism spectrum disorders

AbstractThe intersection of children identified with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) and children within the foster care system who have experienced trauma can complicate timely assessment and eligibility for special education services, creating health disparities for this group of students. As students with ASD are over three times more likely to be involved in the foster care system than typically developing peers, school psychologists must be equipped to assess for ASD in this population. The complex clinical presentation of students with ASD within foster care contributes to delays in identification and access to special education services. In particular, schools may struggle to disentangle the symptoms of ASD from the consequences of trauma exposure that often accompanies foster care placement. This paper reviews the relation between students in foster care and those with ASD, outlines the similarities and differences in developmental profiles of these students, and provides recommendations for school practitioners associated with assessment practices, prevention strategies to reduce the risk of trauma subsequent foster care placement for students with ASD, as well as needed advocacy efforts and future research.

Scale Evaluation and Eligibility Determination of a Field-Test Version of the Assessment, Evaluation, and Programming System–Third Edition

Rasch and classification analyses on a field-test version of the third edition of the Assessment, Evaluation, and Programming System (AEPS-3), a curriculum-based assessment used to assess young children birth to age 6 years, were conducted. First, an evaluation of the psychometric properties of data from each developmental area of an AEPS-3 field-test version was conducted. Next, cutoff scores at 6-month age intervals were created and then the validity of the cutoff scores was evaluated. Results using Rasch modeling indicated acceptable model fit statistics with reasonable reliability estimates within each developmental area. Classification results showed cutoff scores accurately classified a high percentage of eligible children. Findings suggest that scores from a field-test version of the AEPS-3 are reliable within developmental areas. To the extent allowed by state criteria, early childhood interventionists could possibly use a new field-test version of the AEPS-3 to determine or corroborate eligibility for special education services.

A Comparison of In-Vivo and Videoconference Momentary Time Sampling Observations of On-Task Behavior

Systematic direct observation (SDO) is frequently used in schools to document student response to evidence-based interventions, determine eligibility for special education services, and provide objective data during high-stakes decisions. However, there are several limitations associated with this widely used data collection tool including a shortage of service providers available to implement it and the significant travel time required for itinerant personnel. Using videoconferencing (VC) software to aid in the implementation of SDO is an intuitive application of technology that stands to increase the feasibility and efficiency with which SDO can be utilized in research and practice. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the reliability and equivalence of the results generated from two modes of SDO, traditional in-vivo SDO and SDO conducted through VC software. The results suggest that VC SDO produces estimates of student on-task behavior that are practically equivalent (i.e., ±3%) to estimates generated through traditional SDO. Furthermore, two frequently used reliability indices indicate that VC SDO results are adequately reliable against traditional in-vivo SDO. Implications for school-based practice are discussed.

Law and Policy Training for the Identification of SLD in Hispanic Children

Abstract Objective The purpose of this poster is to present the results of a survey about perceived and real knowledge of federal regulations and policies required to evaluate, and provide services for, Hispanic children with Special Learning Disability (SLD). This work illustrates the relevance of getting education and training in law, policy, and ethics, for neuropsychologists evaluating and treating Hispanic children from diverse cultural backgrounds. Method The participants were 38 psychologists providing services to Hispanic children in Puerto Rico. The data were collected via an online survey distributed through professional email lists. The survey explored the professional's perception of their knowledge of federal laws and regulations and their educational needs in law training regarding special education regulations. The answers were analyzed using descriptive statistics as measures of central tendency (e.g. frequencies and means). Outcomes Around 52% of the responders indicated employment by the Department of Education to determine children’s eligibility for special education services. Thirty-seven percent mentioned not having knowledge of Individuals with Disabilities Education Act’s (IDEA) requirements when conducting evaluations. Around 20% were unsure of the extension of the law pertaining to the regulation of the definition, scope, and evaluation processes for diagnosis and eligibility of special education services for children with SLD. Finally, 79% of the surveyed professionals agreed that they need to be trained in law and policy to improve their practice. Discussion Hispanic children with special education needs are victims of disproportionate and inadequate access to services, while being vulnerable to other related inequities. To achieve cultural and social justice in neuropsychological practices, it is important to discuss the need of underlying educational training in law, policy, and ethics- areas that strictly regulate and determine the access to available resources for these minorities.

Prevalence and Characteristics of Autism Spectrum Disorder Among Children Aged 8 Years — Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network, 11 Sites, United States, 2012

Problem/ConditionAutism spectrum disorder (ASD).Period Covered2012.Description of SystemThe Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring (ADDM) Network is an active surveillance system that provides estimates of the prevalence and characteristics of ASD among children aged 8 years whose parents or guardians reside in 11 ADDM Network sites in the United States (Arkansas, Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey, North Carolina, South Carolina, Utah, and Wisconsin). Surveillance to determine ASD case status is conducted in two phases. The first phase consists of screening and abstracting comprehensive evaluations performed by professional service providers in the community. Data sources identified for record review are categorized as either 1) education source type, including developmental evaluations to determine eligibility for special education services or 2) health care source type, including diagnostic and developmental evaluations. The second phase involves the review of all abstracted evaluations by trained clinicians to determine ASD surveillance case status. A child meets the surveillance case definition for ASD if one or more comprehensive evaluations of that child completed by a qualified professional describes behaviors that are consistent with the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision diagnostic criteria for any of the following conditions: autistic disorder, pervasive developmental disorder–not otherwise specified (including atypical autism), or Asperger disorder. This report provides ASD prevalence estimates for children aged 8 years living in catchment areas of the ADDM Network sites in 2012, overall and stratified by sex, race/ethnicity, and the type of source records (education and health records versus health records only). In addition, this report describes the proportion of children with ASD with a score consistent with intellectual disability on a standardized intellectual ability test, the age at which the earliest known comprehensive evaluation was performed, the proportion of children with a previous ASD diagnosis, the specific type of ASD diagnosis, and any special education eligibility classification.ResultsFor 2012, the combined estimated prevalence of ASD among the 11 ADDM Network sites was 14.5 per 1,000 (one in 69) children aged 8 years. Estimated prevalence was significantly higher among boys aged 8 years (23.4 per 1,000) than among girls aged 8 years (5.2 per 1,000). Estimated ASD prevalence was significantly higher among non-Hispanic white children aged 8 years (15.3 per 1,000) compared with non-Hispanic black children (13.1 per 1,000), and Hispanic (10.2 per 1,000) children aged 8 years. Estimated prevalence varied widely among the 11 ADDM Network sites, ranging from 8.2 per 1,000 children aged 8 years (in the area of the Maryland site where only health care records were reviewed) to 24.6 per 1,000 children aged 8 years (in New Jersey, where both education and health care records were reviewed). Estimated prevalence was higher in surveillance sites where education records and health records were reviewed compared with sites where health records only were reviewed (17.1 per 1,000 and 10.4 per 1,000 children aged 8 years, respectively; p<0.05). Among children identified with ASD by the ADDM Network, 82% had a previous ASD diagnosis or educational classification; this did not vary by sex or between non-Hispanic white and non-Hispanic black children. A lower percentage of Hispanic children (78%) had a previous ASD diagnosis or classification compared with non-Hispanic white children (82%) and with non-Hispanic black children (84%). The median age at earliest known comprehensive evaluation was 40 months, and 43% of children had received an earliest known comprehensive evaluation by age 36 months. The percentage of children with an earliest known comprehensive evaluation by age 36 months was similar for boys and girls, but was higher for non-Hispanic white children (45%) compared with non-Hispanic black children (40%) and Hispanic children (39%).InterpretationOverall estimated ASD prevalence was 14.5 per 1,000 children aged 8 years in the ADDM Network sites in 2012. The higher estimated prevalence among sites that reviewed both education and health records suggests the role of special education systems in providing comprehensive evaluations and services to children with developmental disabilities. Disparities by race/ethnicity in estimated ASD prevalence, particularly for Hispanic children, as well as disparities in the age of earliest comprehensive evaluation and presence of a previous ASD diagnosis or classification, suggest that access to treatment and services might be lacking or delayed for some children.Public Health ActionThe ADDM Network will continue to monitor the prevalence and characteristics of ASD among children aged 8 years living in selected sites across the United States. Recommendations from the ADDM Network include enhancing strategies to 1) lower the age of first evaluation of ASD by community providers in accordance with the Healthy People 2020 goal that children with ASD are evaluated by age 36 months and begin receiving community-based support and services by age 48 months; 2) reduce disparities by race/ethnicity in identified ASD prevalence, the age of first comprehensive evaluation, and presence of a previous ASD diagnosis or classification; and 3) assess the effect on ASD prevalence of the revised ASD diagnostic criteria published in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition.

Eligibility for Special Education in Elementary School: The Role of Diverse Language Experiences.

We examined the association between language experience and elementary students' eligibility for special education in Massachusetts. A secondary descriptive data analysis was conducted on the anonymized demographic data obtained from the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. Third, 4th, and 5th grade students were categorized into native English speakers, English-proficient bilinguals, and emerging bilinguals. Eligibility for free or reduced lunch was also considered. Proportions of students eligible for autism, communication disorders, and specific learning disabilities (including those with dyslexia) were calculated. A strong association was observed between students' language background and whether they were eligible for free/reduced lunch. Children eligible for free/reduced lunch were more likely to be eligible for special education. Relative to native English speakers, English-proficient bilingual students were less likely to be considered eligible for special education. However, for emerging bilinguals, eligibility was lowest in 3rd grade and highest in 5th grade. This observation was most apparent in the category of specific learning disabilities. Students from diverse language and low-income backgrounds were disproportionately represented in special education. More substantial research-practice partnerships are warranted to understand how bilingual experience and socioeconomic status interact with eligibility for special education services in public school settings.

Conditions for Implementing the ICF-CY in Education: The Experience in Portugal

Reflecting international trends for implementing inclusive education, Portugal enacted a special education law (Law No. 3/2008) in 2008, defining substantial changes in educational practice. One of the most important changes consisted in determining that eligibility for special education services be based on the functioning profile of students documented with the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health, version for children and youth (ICF-CY, WHO, 2007). The study described in this manuscript belongs to a broader project and consisted of the administration of a survey to a nationally representative sample of 551 professionals, to examine factors they considered as most influential to the perceived ease in using the ICF-CY, as well as identifying the extent to which the professional groups and the enrolment on training relates to the opinion about the use of the ICF. For sample recruitment, 414 clusters of schools were randomly selected, stratified according to the distribution of schools in the different Regional Directorates of Education in Portugal. The survey consisted of demographic questions and 49 scaled items, assessed on a 4-point Likert scale in which respondents rated: (i) the perceived ease on the ICF-CY usage; (ii) their level of knowledge on conceptual and procedural aspects inherent to the Law implementation, as well as, on regard to performed roles defined; (iii) the extent to which their schools presented conditions for collaboration; (iv) the importance of contextual variables as valued conditions for using the ICF-CY. Results showed that the establishment of mechanisms for collaboration and interdisciplinarity were central conditions to meet the comprehensiveness and rigor defining an ICF-CY based assessment. Likewise, consideration of diverse backgrounds and needs of professional groups in terms of knowledge needs to be a central requirement for implementing an ICF-CY informed approach. An important implication for training programs is to have an expanded focus on demonstrations on how the ICF-CY can be used to support the implementation of socio-ecological and inclusive perspectives.

RTI for Students Presenting with Behavioral Difficulties:Culturally Responsive Guiding Questions

Response to Intervention (RTI) is a tiered intervention that assists school personnel in determining eligibility for special education services. Studies support the use of RTI as an early intervention for addressing significant learning disabilities (SLD) and social emotional behaviors, as well as for students who are culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) and not making progress through general interventions. However, recommendations for implementation are not explicitly provided, especially for culturally responsive implementation.  While proposed as a model for students with challenging behaviors, there is an absence of culturally responsive methods to support CLD students. This article will discuss the use of culturally responsive guiding questions in an RTI framework.

Cerebral/Cortical Visual Impairment (CVI): The Responsibility of Practitioners in the Field of Visual Impairment in a Changing Landscape

Over the past 20 to 30 years, various groups have worked hard to understand CVI (cerebral/ cortical visual impairment). Their work has raised challenging questions, and some exciting discoveries have been made. Although our knowledge of CVI feels like it changing rapidly, study of the topic truly in its infancy. With this ever-changing landscape, practitioners who work with people who are visually impaired (that is, those who are blind or have low vision) strive to propel our field into the next phase of understanding and application. Achievement of such a goal will require collaborative thinking and a plan of action. What follows as a result of these new discoveries are challenges to professionals who work with individuals with visual impairments. Each challenge founded in a question of responsibility in light of the changing landscape born of our growing understanding of CVI: 1. Who are we responsible for serving? 2. How do we serve them? 3. How are we building professional knowledge and skills to accomplish that important task? Although change can be difficult, it also provides an opportunity for our profession to grow. In doing so, we have an opportunity to better serve the children, their families, and the educational team. DETERMINING WHO WE SERVE As educators of students with visual impairments, we serve children under IDEA, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Section 300.8 of the Act defines the eligible criteria for special education services. impairment described within that list: Visual impairment including means an impairment in vision that, even with correction, adversely affects a child's educational performance. The term includes both partial sight and blindness (IDEA, [section]300.8). As a field, we have agreed that CVI included under this eligibility criterion. In fact, in reference to eligibility for federal quota funds, American Printing House for the Blind (APH) has added a statement to its eligibility criteria, functions at the definition of blindness (FDB), which defined as visual performance reduced by brain injury or dysfunction when visual function meets the definition of as determined by an eye care specialist or neurologist (APH, n.d.). A working definition of CVI was provided in a commentary published in the Journal of Impairment & Blindness (JVIB) and authored by the CVI advisory group from APH (Roman et al., 2010). In that comment, cortical visual impairment is defined as impaired vision that due to bilateral dysfunction of the optic radiations or visual cortex or both. It can coexist with ocular and ocular motor disorders and can be the result of perinatal brain dysfunction or be caused by trauma (Roman et al., 2010, p. 69). Each definition of CVI through the years has become more specific regarding eligibility for special education services and brain-related visual impairment. Recent comments have urged the field of visual impairment to consider a broader definition in light of current understanding of the interconnectedness of the visual system throughout the cerebral cortex. The term cerebral visual impairment generally accepted to include cortical visual impairment in addition to brain-related dysfunction of the visual system beyond the occipital cortex; for example, to include dysfunction in the temporal, parietal, or frontal lobes of the brain. Although terminology important and warrants discussion, the practical application of that discussion the determination of exactly whom practitioners in our field should be serving. We must carefully consider whether a definitive definition of CVI would be beneficial, given that the medical field still wresting with its understanding of the visual brain. However, if IDEA calls us to serve those with adverse educational effects based on visual impairment (IDEA, [section]300. …

Prevalence and Characteristics of Autism Spectrum Disorder Among Children Aged 8 Years--Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network, 11 Sites, United States, 2012.

Problem/ConditionAutism spectrum disorder (ASD).Period Covered2012.Description of SystemThe Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring (ADDM) Network is an active surveillance system that provides estimates of the prevalence and characteristics of ASD among children aged 8 years whose parents or guardians reside in 11 ADDM Network sites in the United States (Arkansas, Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey, North Carolina, South Carolina, Utah, and Wisconsin). Surveillance to determine ASD case status is conducted in two phases. The first phase consists of screening and abstracting comprehensive evaluations performed by professional service providers in the community. Data sources identified for record review are categorized as either 1) education source type, including developmental evaluations to determine eligibility for special education services or 2) health care source type, including diagnostic and developmental evaluations. The second phase involves the review of all abstracted evaluations by trained clinicians to determine ASD surveillance case status. A child meets the surveillance case definition for ASD if one or more comprehensive evaluations of that child completed by a qualified professional describes behaviors that are consistent with the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision diagnostic criteria for any of the following conditions: autistic disorder, pervasive developmental disorder–not otherwise specified (including atypical autism), or Asperger disorder. This report provides ASD prevalence estimates for children aged 8 years living in catchment areas of the ADDM Network sites in 2012, overall and stratified by sex, race/ethnicity, and the type of source records (education and health records versus health records only). In addition, this report describes the proportion of children with ASD with a score consistent with intellectual disability on a standardized intellectual ability test, the age at which the earliest known comprehensive evaluation was performed, the proportion of children with a previous ASD diagnosis, the specific type of ASD diagnosis, and any special education eligibility classification.ResultsFor 2012, the combined estimated prevalence of ASD among the 11 ADDM Network sites was 14.6 per 1,000 (one in 68) children aged 8 years. Estimated prevalence was significantly higher among boys aged 8 years (23.6 per 1,000) than among girls aged 8 years (5.3 per 1,000). Estimated ASD prevalence was significantly higher among non-Hispanic white children aged 8 years (15.5 per 1,000) compared with non-Hispanic black children (13.2 per 1,000), and Hispanic (10.1 per 1,000) children aged 8 years. Estimated prevalence varied widely among the 11 ADDM Network sites, ranging from 8.2 per 1,000 children aged 8 years (in the area of the Maryland site where only health care records were reviewed) to 24.6 per 1,000 children aged 8 years (in New Jersey, where both education and health care records were reviewed). Estimated prevalence was higher in surveillance sites where education records and health records were reviewed compared with sites where health records only were reviewed (17.1 per 1,000 and 10.7 per 1,000 children aged 8 years, respectively; p<0.05). Among children identified with ASD by the ADDM Network, 82% had a previous ASD diagnosis or educational classification; this did not vary by sex or between non-Hispanic white and non-Hispanic black children. A lower percentage of Hispanic children (78%) had a previous ASD diagnosis or classification compared with non-Hispanic white children (82%) and with non-Hispanic black children (84%). The median age at earliest known comprehensive evaluation was 40 months, and 43% of children had received an earliest known comprehensive evaluation by age 36 months. The percentage of children with an earliest known comprehensive evaluation by age 36 months was similar for boys and girls, but was higher for non-Hispanic white children (45%) compared with non-Hispanic black children (40%) and Hispanic children (39%).InterpretationOverall estimated ASD prevalence was 14.6 per 1,000 children aged 8 years in the ADDM Network sites in 2012. The higher estimated prevalence among sites that reviewed both education and health records suggests the role of special education systems in providing comprehensive evaluations and services to children with developmental disabilities. Disparities by race/ethnicity in estimated ASD prevalence, particularly for Hispanic children, as well as disparities in the age of earliest comprehensive evaluation and presence of a previous ASD diagnosis or classification, suggest that access to treatment and services might be lacking or delayed for some children.Public Health ActionThe ADDM Network will continue to monitor the prevalence and characteristics of ASD among children aged 8 years living in selected sites across the United States. Recommendations from the ADDM Network include enhancing strategies to 1) lower the age of first evaluation of ASD by community providers in accordance with the Healthy People 2020 goal that children with ASD are evaluated by age 36 months and begin receiving community-based support and services by age 48 months; 2) reduce disparities by race/ethnicity in identified ASD prevalence, the age of first comprehensive evaluation, and presence of a previous ASD diagnosis or classification; and 3) assess the effect on ASD prevalence of the revised ASD diagnostic criteria published in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition.

Comparing Apples and Oranges

The assessment of young children in early childhood special education is a central area of educational practice. The results of child assessments often have significant implications for young children, their families, and the programs that serve them, including eligibility for special education services, instructional planning, and documentation of child outcomes. The array of early childhood assessment types and purposes can be challenging to disentangle at the practitioner and policy level. At this time, different types of assessment tools (e.g., norm-referenced and criterion-referenced) are being used to document the development and learning of children and little attention has been paid to the parallel information produced from different assessment types. The purpose of this study is to compare the assessment results from two types of developmental instruments commonly used ( Assessment, Evaluation, and Programming System Second Edition [AEPS 2nd ed.] and Battelle Developmental Inventory II [BDI-2]) to determine their congruence in determining a child’s developmental status (e.g., “on track” or delayed). Results indicate substantive difference between the two measures highlighting the potential for mismeasurement and misinterpretation of child assessment data. Implications for policy and practice are discussed.

Assessing African American Students for Specific Learning Disabilities: The Promises and Perils of Response to Intervention

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. …

Doing Psychology, Doing Inequality: Rethinking the Role of Psychology in Creating and Maintaining Social Inequality*

The relationship between psychological disciplines and inequality has been a subject of great scholarly interest in the last several decades. Most works on the subject analyze macro features of psychological disciplines (mainly their evaluative tools, theoretical assumptions, and disciplinary power) and criticize them as biased against minorities. This paper re-examines the relationship between psychology and inequality from a micro, face-to-face standpoint. Drawing on close observations of 33 placement committees in which professionals from various psychological fields (psychology, social work, school counseling, etc.) discuss children’s eligibility for special education services, it portrays the actual doing of psychology as an inconsistent and malleable endeavor. In contrast to the macro-oriented research on the relationship between psychology and inequality, it shows that in actual face-to-face interactions, professionals use different types of folk concerns that often exchange formal evaluative criteria, theoretical assumptions or professional authority in final placement decisions. By revealing the different folk considerations professionals use to sort and analyze working- versus middle-class parents, this project adds an essential layer to scholarly understanding of the relationship between psychological practice and inequality.

Cognitive Processing Deficits and Students with Specific Learning Disabilities: A Selective Meta-Analysis of the Literature

Many practitioners and state education agency staff would likely agree that the accuracy and consistency of specific learning disability (SLD) eligibility decisions is in need of improvement. One component of the SLD definition particularly controversial in the identification procedures is the evaluation of cognitive processes, primarily due to a lack of information about the role they might play in informing an SLD diagnosis and eligibility for special education services. A meta-analysis of 32 studies was conducted to examine the cognitive processing differences between students with SLD and typically achieving peers. The analysis found moderately large to large effect sizes in cognitive processing differences between groups of students with SLD and typically achieving students. These differences are of sufficient magnitude to justify including measures of cognitive processing ability in the evaluation and identification of SLD.

Structural Validity of the WISC-III for a National Sample of Native American Students

Test bias research with Native American participants is uncommon, although individual tests of intelligence are often used with Native American students to determine eligibility for special education services. Only two studies with minimally adequate sample sizes have addressed the structural validity of major tests of intelligence in Native American populations. It is unfortunate that both used an obsolete test and included students from only two tribes. This study used confirmatory factor analyses to examine the structure of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children—Third Edition (WISC-III) among 344 Native American students representing 12 Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Nations attending BIA schools in 11 states. Results indicated that Wechsler's four-factor oblique model exhibited the best overall statistical fit. Thus, the underlying factor structure of the WISC-III with a national sample of Native Americans was similar to that found in the normative sample. Implications for school psychologists are presented and recommendations for further research are provided.

Assessment for Eligibility Under IDEIA and the 2006 Regulations

In this article, the authors briefly examine the legal requirements for assessing students' eligibility for special education services. They then analyze the major changes regarding assessment for eligibility determination in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA) passed in 2004 and the regulations implementing the law, published in August 2006. (See the appendix for a description of the changes in IDEIA regarding eligibility determination; these changes are significant and will alter the ways in which school-based teams conduct the eligibility determination process.) Finally, they analyze school districts' obligations under IDEIA and provide suggestions for ensuring that the eligibility process is both educationally appropriate and legally correct. Because individual states will need to align their special education rules and regulations to those of IDEIA, readers will need to monitor developments in their respective states to determine how the new provisions will affect local school districts.

Responsiveness to Intervention: 1997 to 2007

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:

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

You have accessThe ASHA LeaderSchool Matters1 Mar 2005Prevention Model Takes Off in Schools: A New Approach for Learning Disabilities Susan Boswell Susan Boswell Google Scholar More articles by this author https://doi.org/10.1044/leader.SCM1.10042005.1 SectionsAbout ToolsAdd to favorites ShareFacebookTwitterLinked In Changes in IDEA ’04 have prompted local education agencies (LEAs) across the nation to consider new models that may reduce the number of students who need special education services or provide an alternate method of identifying students as having a specific learning disability. While the definition of specific learning disability remains the same since IDEA was first enacted in 1975, the reauthorized law provides a welcome move away from using IQ-achievement discrepancy formulas as the sole criterion for determining whether a child has a specific learning disability. This formula-which has come under criticism from ASHA for over a decade-required schools to consider whether there is severe discrepancy between the child’s achievement and intellectual ability in oral expression, listening comprehension, written expression, basic reading skill, reading comprehension, mathematical calculation, or mathematical reasoning. Prevention To determine whether a child has a specific learning disability, IDEA ’04 states that schools may now use a process to determine if the child responds to scientific, research-based intervention. Although not specifically mentioned in the law, this process is known as responsiveness-to-intervention (RTI). “Too many kids are labeled as having a learning disability who just need better instruction,” said Barbara Ehren, research associate at the University of Kansas Center for Research on Learning. According to the President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education, up to 40% of children are in special education because they weren’t taught to read. Responsiveness-to-intervention moves away from requiring students to “wait to fail” and instead focuses on preventing academic failure and identifying those children in need of special education. The model is designed to ensure that children who are at risk for failing in the early grades receive scientific, research-based intervention as soon as possible. To promote prevention services, IDEA ’04 allows LEAs to use up to 15% of their Part B funds for early intervening services. These pre-referral services include educational and behavioral services and supports within the general education program as well as professional development in the use of research-based programs. Early intervening services are designed to help students in kindergarten through 12th grade, with an emphasis on students through third grade. Although no new IDEA funding has been allocated for early intervening services, LEAs can supplement these activities with funds received through the Elementary and Secondary Education Act/No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). Eligibility for special education services would focus on children who-even after receiving early intervening services-are not able to be successful. These concentrated, short-term programs would help LEAs differentiate between children who with a difference in learning styles and those children who, despite high-quality instruction by well-trained individuals, have unexpected underachievement due to a disability. This is also an effective model to identify language differences versus language disorders among students who are English language learners. Momentum Builds “In the field, we’ve been disillusioned and we’re questioning our diagnostic techniques, our tests. We need something new and better. Responsiveness-to-intervention is tantalizing-it’s one of the most exciting areas of service delivery that I’ve seen in the past 30 years,” said Judy Montgomery, professor of special education and literacy at Chapman University in Orange, CA. RTI is an approach that is quickly taking hold in districts-if not already in place, Montgomery said. She believes that all LEAs are aware of RTI due to the IDEA reauthorization; 5% are currently putting a program into place; and another 25% are thinking about putting an RTI program in place, based on contact with special education directors in the state of California. Through her research, Montgomery developed a reading program that could be used in an RTI context. In reviewing the literature in speech-language pathology and special education since 1995, “the research seemed to show that we needed fewer tests, more intervention, and fewer hours out of the classroom,” Montgomery said. “I began to think that we could develop a program that took all the best strategies and deliver intensive services every day-delivering services two or three times a week is not enough to change learning styles,” Montgomery said. Her two-hour program of daily instruction in phonemic awareness, vocabulary, and text comprehension that proved successful in the clinic. In an effort to move the program from the clinic to the classroom, Montgomery turned to her colleague of 20 years, Barbara Moore-Brown. As Director of Special and Alternative Education in the El Rancho Unified School District in Pico Rivera, CA, Moore-Brown had embarked on analyzing the district’s special education identification procedures and intervention practices. “In our district, 98% of students are Hispanic and we were concerned about using instructional and identification practices that were not appropriate for second language learners,” she said. Moore-Brown implemented Montgomery’s RTI program which proved successful for English language learners who were still struggling despite completing other intervention programs. The fourth and fifth grade students, who were typically reading at a second grade level, spent an hour a day in the enhanced reading program with an SLP or resource specialist. After 45 hours of instruction over nine weeks, the students gained more than a year’s growth in reading and were reading at a third grade level. After the first year of the program, only four of 63 students were eventually referred for special education. The California School Boards Association recognized the program, which is now in its third year, with the 2004 Golden Bell award. The movement toward RTI is propelled by a confluence of trends in both general and special education. In addition to changes in IDEA, there are accountability requirements in NCLB and considerations of evidence-based practice. “We have newer considerations of how we view language and language disabilities as well as our professional roles and responsibilities in literacy,” Moore-Brown added. Role of SLPs Because RTI is just beginning to be implemented, there are a myriad of models. However, many approaches focus on prevention, rather than identification. Models may use tiers of successively more intense interventions prior to identification, with variation in the length of service provided and the age group targeted. All programs would benefit from a collaborative approach, and SLPs need to participate, Ehren emphasized. “SLPs need to provide consultation and technical assistance to teachers. They need to be involved in monitoring student progress and delivering some of the interventions, especially as they relate to the language underpinnings of literacy,” Ehren said. Through their professional preparation, SLPs bring a clinical diagnostic orientation to the team and are able to determine the language causation of difficulties for students who are resistant to certain levels of intervention. Moore-Brown found that an unexpected benefit to having SLPs involved in RTI programs is that they are trained to understand and deal with student behaviors that were posing a challenge for general educators. “Students who had not been successful in school had developed behaviors of avoidance,” Moore-Brown said. “The SLPs in our program know how to work through these behaviors, which went away as the students developed skills in reading.” “With the change in the law, it will be contingent upon speech-language pathologists to implement something this powerful,” said Jennifer Shubin, an SLP in the El Rancho RTI program. “Our schools are now going to be engaged in a change process to understand that we aren’t just looking at students who qualify for special education. We’re also looking at prevention. Seminars and Meetings RTI Seminar Set for May 4 ASHA will host a telephone seminar on “Responsiveness-to-Intervention: An Alternative to Special Education” on May 4 from 3-5 p.m. Eastern time. The last day to register for the live broadcast is noon on April 27. Presenters Judy Montgomery, professor of special education and literacy at Chapman University in Orange, CA, and Barbara Moore-Brown, director of Special and Alternative Education in the El Rancho Unified School District, Pico Rivera, CA, will explain how SLPs can work as part of an RTI team, with special focus on a language/literacy team. Results of a two-year study in a large, culturally diverse urban school district will be shared. Capacity Building Forum “Building Capacity to Deliver Multi-Tiered Reading Intervention in Public Schools and the Role of Response to Intervention” was the topic of a forum sponsored by the International Dyslexia Association, the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, and the U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. Co-sponsors included ASHA and the Council for Exceptional Children/Division of Learning Disabilities, the National Center for Learning Disabilities, and the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities. A total of 33 organizations participated in the forum which included brainstorming teams that focused on issues related to the social marketing of educational change and organizational roles in RTI capacity building. Visit www.interdys.org/html/forumsummary.htm for an executive summary of the meeting. What is Responsiveness-to-Intervention? A responsiveness-to-intervention process is a problem-solving framework that may be used to detect academic and behavioral difficulties and guide the use of research-based interventions to provide intensive instruction. The student’s response to general education and intensive specialized instruction are measured periodically and compared to age, grade, or classmate performance. This data on the responsiveness to intervention may be used to inform instruction, and as part of a comprehensive evaluation for identification of learning disabilities and determination of eligibility for special education and related services. Although there is no universally accepted model, many RTI approaches use a variation or modification of a three-tier model: Tier 1-High quality instructional and behavioral supports are provided for all students in general education. Ongoing curriculum-based assessment is used to guide instruction. Tier 2-Students whose performance or rate of progress falls behind their peers receive specialized instruction or remediation in the general education classroom. Tier 3-Comprehensive evaluation is conducted by a multidisciplinary team to determine eligibility for special education and related services. The goal of this approach is to provide differentiated instruction and remedial opportunities in general education, with special education provided for those students who required more specialized services beyond what is provided in the classroom. ASHA Initiatives ASHA has engaged in two major initiatives related to responsiveness-to-intervention for students with specific learning disabilities: National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities (NJCLD). ASHA is one of 11 national member organizations involved in developing a document on RTI that includes information on the structure and components of an RTI program; implementation issues; and current research. This document is being reviewed by the NJCLD member organizations and will be available in 2005. LD Roundtable. ASHA is one of 14 national organizations that participate in the LD Roundtable which has reviewed the sections of IDEA ’04 that relate to determining if a child has a specific learning disability. The LD Roundtable also has developed language for proposed regulations for determining if a child has a specific learning disability including the criteria for determining the existence of a specific learning disability if a scientific, research-based intervention process is used. This proposed language will be submitted to the U.S. Department of Education for use as they develop the regulations related to IDEA ’04. Author Notes Susan Boswell, an assistant managing editor of The ASHA Leader, can be reached at [email protected]. Advertising Disclaimer | Advertise With Us Advertising Disclaimer | Advertise With Us Additional Resources FiguresSourcesRelatedDetailsCited byPerspectives on Language Learning and Education12:2 (6-9)1 Jul 2005Clinical Issues: Determining Directions for Speech-Language Intervention in Native CommunitiesElla Inglebret and Joanne HarrisonPerspectives on Communication Disorders and Sciences in Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CLD) Populations12:2 (6-9)1 Jul 2005Determining Directions for Speech-Language Intervention in Native CommunitiesElla Inglebret and Joanne Harrison Volume 10Issue 4March 2005 Get Permissions Add to your Mendeley library History Published in print: Mar 1, 2005 Metrics Current downloads: 874 Topicsasha-topicsleader_do_tagasha-article-typesleader-topicsCopyright & Permissions© 2005 American Speech-Language-Hearing AssociationLoading ...

Diagnosing written language disabilities using the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Educational Achievement-Revised and the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test.

The writing portions of the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Educational Achievement-Revised and the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test are often administered when establishing eligibility for special education services due to learning disabilities. The scores on these measures are typically regarded as equivalent although little is known about how scores on the two measures differ for the same students. Differences of only a few points, however, may affect eligibility for special education services. These tests were administered to 25 sixth grade students previously diagnosed with learning disabilities in written expression only. Students' Wechsler scores were consistently higher on the overall writing composite, while there was no difference in the mean scores on the language mechanics subtests. The WIAT Written Expression subtest mean, however, was significantly higher than the Woodcock-Johnson Writing Samples subtest mean. Use of the Wechsler test would be less likely to identify children for special education services in written expression when point discrepancy criteria are utilized for eligibility. Clinicians should be cognizant of the effect of the specific test chosen on eligibility outcome.