RENEE BRADLEY
I'm glad to see so many people back this morning and if you are anything like I was last night I went home and my head was just like reeling from all the information from all the sessions. So, I'm glad everyone's back. This is a tape session this morning so, um, we're gonna ask you to please be careful of your, um, Q and As. Uh, save those 'til the very end. And I've already warned our panel up here that we're gonna be fairly strict on their, um, time limits as we go this morning. So welcome to the session on, uh, Is LD Real? Is There A Benefit? I'm Renee Bradley and I'm your moderator for this session this morning. During the session we'll hear a 28 minute presentation by the author of this issue paper, followed by eight minute presentations from the issue paper respondents. There will be a 30 minute period for question and answer at the end of the session. In order to provide ample time for the presentation please reserve your questions until the end. Our first speaker this morning is Dr. Douglas Fuchs who is a professor in the Department Of Special Education at Peabody College of Vanderbilt University, where he codirects the Kennedy Center's Institute On Learning Accommodations For Persons With Disabilities, and Peabody College's Reading Clinic. He and his wife Lynn Fuchs are coeditors of the National Center, codirectors of the National Center For Accelerating Student Learning, a US Department Of Education funded five year collaboration with Columbia University, the University Of Maryland, to develop more effective instructional methods and materials for children with severe learning disability. Dr. Fuchs has more than 175 publications in peer review journals.
DOUGLAS FUCHS
Hi everybody. Um, I, uh, I was talking yesterday with, um, a couple of people actually from Delaware, um, and, uh, we were talking among other things about, um, the beautiful beaches that can you hear me by the way? The beautiful beaches of Delaware, uh, where Lynn and I have gone to vacation some of you know for the past 19 years. And, um, after speaking with him I was reminded of a story, um, which I'll share with you. Uh, it concerns not, uh, the beaches of Delaware but a beach in, um, in Southern California Huntington Beach. These two, uh, retired, uh, special education teachers, uh, two special education teachers from New York City decided to retire together, to, uh, (COUGH) to the Huntington Beach area in California. And, um, everyday, every, early morning they would get into this routine of walking on the beautiful beach, uh, with their dogs. And, uh, one morning, uh, the guy with the, uh, German shepherd said, hey isn't that a new restaurant over there? And the other guy said yeah I think it is and, the first guy said well let's go check it out. And the second guy said well we've got our dogs with us. The first guy said well, that's okay, just follow my lead. And so they walk up to this new restaurant and the guy with the shepherd walks right through the door, and the maitre d' comes rushing over and says hey what are you doing, you can't come in here with a dog. You know better than that. And the, and the guy says, um, well hold on, hold on. You don't understand. Uh, I'm blind, and I need this dog to get around. The maitre d' backed off, decided to be politically correct, and showed the man to his seat.
DOUGLAS FUCHS
The second guy's watching this and walks through the door and the maitre d' comes rushing up and says the same thing what are you doing here, you know, the guy says you don't understand I'm blind I need this dog to see. The maitre d' looks at the dog, and back at the guy and says, um, a chihuahua? And the guy says a chihuahua? Is that what they gave me? (LAUGHTER) Now what does this have to do with today's session? Nothing. I actually had (WORD?) material, I had Bob Pasternack said yesterday brought, uh, from, from Frank Russian but since we're taping I decided to go with the, the milder stuff. Um, uh, what I'd like to do is share with you, uh, findings from a med analysis that, that we conducted some time ago at Vanderbilt University. But, I'd like to put it in context and share with you, um, uh, a rendition of, of the past 30 years. Uh, uh, of learning disabilities. And, um, my good friend Louisa Moats is going to take issue with it. And I think that's good. Uh, 'cause I think what we need is discussions about alternate perspectives and, uh, I believe that, uh, good discussion of alternate perspectives is, uh, is something that we need to move forward. And I think everyone agrees we do need to forward. Okay. So bear with me. Um, throughout the 1970s, most practitioners, parents and academics firmly believed that learning disabilities represented a discrete classification of exceptionality, uh, marked by two unique features. Unexpected learning failure, and specific learning failure. The child with unexpected learning failure was perceived by parents and teachers as generally competent. The learning difficulty was both surprising and puzzling.
DOUGLAS FUCHS
Specific learning failure suggested neurological dysfunction and processing deficits which were presumed to cause severe problems in reading, writing or math. There were at least two reasons to view unexpected, oh you know what? Don't. Um, we didn't get a chance to rehearse. Um, okay. So there were at least two reasons to view unexpected and specific learning failure as a conceptual anchor and rallying cry for the field. First as far back as the nine, as the 1890s physicians (SOUNDS LIKE) W. Pringle Morgan and John Henchelwood (SP?) separately described a seemingly paradoxical inability of some children of average and superior intelligence to master academic concepts. A phenomenon, uh, described or documented more extensively by another physician Samual Orton (SP?) in the, uh, 1920s and '30s. I'm and, uh, Dan Hallahand (SP?) and, uh, Cecil Mercer's (SP?) paper is, uh, a wonderful, uh, description of the history of learning disabilities. I urge you to read it. Second in, in 1975, Rutter (SP?) and Uell (SP?) reported findings from an epidemiological study, that seemed to buttress the clinical observations of Morgan Henchelwood and Orton. Rutter and Uell measured the IQ and reading performance of all nine and 14 year olds on the Isle of White.
DOUGLAS FUCHS
The researchers regressed the children's IQ scores on their reading scores to produce a distribution of IQ predicted reading performance. Scores above the mean represented overachievement. That is, exceeding predictions. Scores below the mean indicated underachievement. That is, beneath prediction. Whereas such a distribution should resemble a Gaussian curve, with overachievement occurring as frequently as underachievement, Rutter and Uell reported a hump at the lower end of the distribution. Which according to the investigators indicated that extreme degrees of reading achievement occur at a greater rate than should be expected. When Rutter and Uell compared the underachievers to the children whose low reading performance was commensurate with their equally low IQ scores, that is low achievers, they found that the underachievers were different in terms of sex distribution and neurological disorder, and had a worse prognosis for reading and spelling, and a better prognosis for mathematics. All this led Rutter and Uell to suggest that the group of underachievers was distinctly different from the group of low achievers. Findings appeared to confirm, unexpected and specific learning failure as a valid marker of students with learning disabilities. (STAMMERS) To be sure there have been long standing concerns about the prevalence and nature of learning disabilities, beginning with Morgan and Henchelwood, and some of these concerns were very much alive and well (STAMMERS) in the 1970s. But they percolated more or less quietly. In the US Office Of Education, State Education agencies, and academe until the 1980s. Then two things happened, to cause a much greater number of educators and politicians to question the validity of the LD construct. First, there was a dramatic increase in special education enrollment and cost. Developments that did not escape the attentions of school boards, school superintendents, politicians, and other stakeholders in public education, some of whom began calling for an immediate downsizing of special education.
DOUGLAS FUCHS
Another event dramatizing and deepening LD concerns was the Regular Education Initiative, uh, a reform movement both bold and comprehensive in design. The REI's distinctiveness was it's aim of transforming general education into a more instructionally responsive system, capable of accommodating a large majority of children with disabilities, and thereby reducing the size and cost of special education. The adaptive learning environment's model reciprocal teaching, uh, cooperative learning, and other instructional programs designed for mainstream classrooms, were advanced as proving means, uh, to such an ambitious end. REI advocates believed that the remaking of general education would require massive professional development, and a redefinition of the role of special educators. Away from direct service, and toward collaborative consultation and co-teaching along side classroom teachers. REI backers viewed children with learning disabilities as most appropriate among all children with disabilities, uh, for placement in reformed classrooms. Among several reasons for this was that students with LD were understood by many to represent the mildest form of disability, and therefore they were seen as having the best chance of making it in the mainstream. When LD advocates expressed skepticism about regular education's willingness and ability to accommodate the unique learning needs of many students with disabilities, a central assumption of REI supporters, a vigorous debate ensued. This in turn further politicized the LD construct as well as a good portion of LD research which deliberately or otherwise, contributed to the growing perception that LD was an invalid category of exceptionality. At, at least three lines of research in the 1980s addressed the LD construct. The first documented considerable variation in LD definitions and operationalization across the states.
DOUGLAS FUCHS
A popular and provocative way of expressing the findings from this work was to say something like, a child qualifying as LD in one state very well may have been excluded from the category in a neighboring state, because of varying state regulations. Second, related work showed that many teachers purposely disregarded definitional rules and regulations to ensure special education for their students. Uh, um, uh, Don MacMillan and Gary Siperstein have a paper, uh, uh, a white paper, uh, that describes, uh, much of their work in this area and it's excellent. Um, Jay Gottlieb (SP?), another, uh, person who worked, uh, very well in this area. Jay Gottlieb and his associates, uh, in one study randomly selected 135 children with LD from six school districts in New York City. 90 percent of this group received some form of public assistance. The mean IQ of the group, 81. Such scores, as well as teacher interviews, indicated to Gottlieb and colleagues that quote, children classified as learning disabled exhibited a generalized failure in their academic work, rather than specific inefficiencies of cognitive processes, unquote. Only 15 percent of Gottlieb et al's, uh, uh, sample met conventional identification criteria. A third area of research in the 1980s reported considerable overlapping performance, on various aptitude and educational tests between, uh, low achievers, sorry, yeah, between low achievers with and without the LD label. Isobike (SP?) and colleagues and others concluded from this work that virtually no important educational difference existed between students with LD and garden variety poor achievers.
DOUGLAS FUCHS
In aggregate, the research on the variability of State definitions of LD, teachers' disregard for these definitions, and the overlapping performance between low achievers with and without the LD label, promoted a widely held view, that an LD designation was essentially arbitrary. And that low achievers with and without the label, were the same kinds of kids. In the 1990s an NICHD group became the most important voice expressing dissatisfaction with current LD definitions. The NICHD group refers primarily to the principle investigators of NIH funded learning disability centers and to the branch chief who, uh, who supervises and coordinates their work, Reed Lions (SP?). Uh, our descriptive for this group is admittedly imprecise because we include researchers without NIH funding who have conducted similar research, and we have no reason to believe everyone in the so-called NICHD group thinks alike on all issue. Nevertheless the group's work is sufficiently cohesive and important, uh, to regard it as an entity. The NICHD group is different from the REI advocates in many ways. The NICHD group for example focuses exclusively on reading disabilities. REI supporters focused on the broad range of learning disabilities.
DOUGLAS FUCHS
Perhaps the most important difference between the groups is that the NICHD group claims to recognize the legitimacy of the LD construct. (STAMMERS) Lion et al have written, quote, few would disagree that five percent or more of our school age population experience difficulties with language, and other skills that would be disruptive to academic achievement. The construct of LD is valid, unquote. What is invalid they say, are the definitions and operationalizations of the construct, which they insist must be reconceptualized. At the top of their list, is, uh, IQ/achievement discrepancy. Uh, the NICHD group's principal, I'm sorry many, many concerns exist about IQ/achievement discrepancy as a definition of learning disabilities. The NICHD group's principal focus in terms of IQ discrepancy, has been to explore the criteria and validity of what they call the two group hypothesis. That is the belief that qualitative differences exist between children whose poor reading is discrepant from their IQ and children whose poor reading is not discrepant from their IQ. The NICHD group has conducted at least four large scale studies, uh, on IQ discrepancy, and the validity of the two group hypothesis. Their studies are noteworthy for their researcher defined samples, their broad selection of concurrent child (WORD?) and the systematicity with which the studies tend to build on each other. Each of these studies failed to support the two group hypothesis. Moreover, the NICHD group states that professional preoccupation with IQ, obscures significant advances achieved over the last 15 years in the field of reading research, to identify domain specific factors that are more potent than all purpose measures like IQ, uh, in helping understanding reading failure.
DOUGLAS FUCHS
One important domain specific factor according to the NICHD group is phonological processing. According to Fletcher, Morris (SP?) et al, uh, Siegel (SP?), Stanovitch (SP?), Torgesen et al, Vellutino (SP?) et al, Wagner (SP?) et al, and others, phonological processing figures prominently among the information processing operations believed to underlie severe problems in word recognition. The NICHD group claims that phonological deficit should be recognized as a valid LD marker. Further, they estimate about 25 percent of the student population demonstrates phonological deficits. 25 percent, uh, an argue that all of these children should be understood as reading disabled. 25 percent of 50 million school going children, represents 12 and a half million students. Together with approximately three million, uh, special needs students who are not LD, this recommendation produces a population of students with disabilities of about 15 and a half million. Or, two and a half times the number currently served under IDEA. With 12 and a half million children identified as LD, one might expect strong political pressure to reconceptualize this large group in terms of non-disabled students, in need of more effective general education. The key to more effective, uh, instruction, says the NICHD group is early identification and prevention. Early identification and prevention they say should occur in general education. Lion et al write, given that the underlying causes of most reading difficulties are similar, for children regardless of whether they are currently served in special or compensatory education programs, we argue that the most valid and efficient way to deliver this early intervention in reading, is as part of regular education.
DOUGLAS FUCHS
Many of the NICHD groups views about policy recommendations for children with LD, and more generally for special education, are strikingly similar, to those advanced by REI adherents in the 1980s. Both groups A, are critical of special education effectiveness B, recommend that special education dollars be combined with Title one dollars, to support the professional development, to support the professional development necessary to strengthen general education's capacity to accommodate all low achievers. And C, uh, promote the notion that special educators' roles must change. REI adherents argued that special educators should become consultants and co-teachers, the NICHD group recommends that they become heavily involved in early identification and prevention. Most importantly both groups view low achieving children with and without the LD label as the same children. For the NICHD group, all low achievers are LD. For the REI group, all children with LD, are low achievers. Although the NICHD group claims to believe in the validity of the LD construct, it's critique of LD definitions and operationalizations, seems to suggest otherwise. The NICHD group's dismissal of the distinction between low achievers with and without the LD label encourages a reconceptualization of children with LD, a subfunction of this group, into a much larger non-disabled group. That is, the 12 and a half million poor readers who it's argued, require early identification and prevention in general education. Therefore statements of support for the LD construct not withstanding, the NICHD group, like the REI group before it, appears to be arguing against the continuation of the LD category. Um, Louisa who's work I, I, greatly admire, uh, will suggest to you that I've misunderstood the NICHD position.
DOUGLAS FUCHS
If I have, I have come by this misunderstanding honestly. Uh, I've read, uh, many of their papers. Uh, a couple more than once, and, um, I, and I've read them without prejudice. Um, so if I have misunderstood the message, with all due respect the message perhaps should be sharpened. Um, so, uh, that's the, that's the context. Um, and, it's a context in sum or in short, that leaves us with a predominant view, that, um, that, children with the label are very difficult to distinguish from children without the label. Uh, the purpose of our med analysis, was to use school identified LD children not researcher identified but school identified, to determine whether low achievers with and without the school given label, are the same or different. Okay. Now you can put up. Uh, these are my coauthors. We worked for three years on this project. Um, and, um, I'm indebted to their work. Okay, next. Uh, meta-analysis, uh, as, as many of you know, is, a is a technique to try to summarize usually a large body of work. One of the key distinctions of meta-analysis is that, um, you can, transform findings across many, many studies into a common metric.
DOUGLAS FUCHS
A set size, uh, that permits you to aggregate these studies, aggregate the findings of these studies in a way that you can't do using other qualitative or quantitative methods. Um, we conducted an exhaustive and exhausting search of the literature, that, uh, included, uh, a hand search of 232, uh, volumes of Peer Review Journal. And, and Eric, searched, uh, a dissertation abstract search and ancestral research, uh, the details of which are, are in the White Paper. Um, and we found, uh, 86 studies which were then reduced to 79 in our data analysis, uh, process. Each of these studies included, um, or compared (STAMMERS), uh, low achievers with and without the LD label in the area of reading performance. Okay, yeah. Um, we found, uh, you, you can sort of ignore that 'cause it's gonna mislead you a little. Uh, we, we found a set of qualitative differences between the two groups, and quantitative differences. Uh, usually in meta-analysis you, you, you talk about the (STAMMERS), you talk about the, uh, the, uh, uh, well all right I'll do it (UNINTELLIGIBLE) Uh, the, the qualitative differences which I can't, I don't have time to get into but which are, I think very interesting. Uh, what were that, the (STAMMERS) the differences between the two groups, I'm sorry. I'm, let me, let me do it differently. Um, we found differences, um, in both degree and kind between the two groups. Okay? Next slide, or overhead. Um, the differences in degree were children without the LD low achievers without the LD label, were about six tenths of a standard deviation better, than children with the LD label. Um, what that shows you is that another way of saying that, is that children, um, with, uh, without the LD label, uh, that (STAMMERS) roughly 73 percent of children without the label performed better than, uh, the average score of children with the label. Uh, so it's a, reasonably strong difference between the two groups. Um, we found that this difference, this six tenths of a standard deviation difference grew when we considered, um, how the children performed on timed tests verses untimed tests.
DOUGLAS FUCHS
Uh, children with the label performed more than one standard deviation below the children without the label, when the tests were timed. Suggesting, that, um, fluency, or automaticity, problems, um, accentuate the difference between the two groups. Um, we also found and Don is going to talk a little bit about this in his remarks, that as children aged, (STAMMERS) children with the label in higher grades, uh, did, uh, performed worse, uh, than, uh, children with the label in younger grades. Again about a standard deviation, this grew to about a standard deviation difference between the two groups. Um, okay, next slide. Um, if you'd just cover up just, just the, um, the title, it'd be great. Um, thanks. When thinking about the, the six tenths of a standard deviation difference, um, uh, some people say well, you know, um, if, if we find the difference in degree, ignoring the, the differences, the, the possible differences we found in kind, the qualitative differences, focusing just on the quantitative differences, some people say, well, um, it's a it's a difference in you know, in, in degree but it doesn't qualify as a specific learning disability.
DOUGLAS FUCHS
It doesn't, it doesn't have that connotation of specific learning disability and so, the effect is to try to I think, and I've got no particular person or group in, in mind but I mean I, the reaction sometimes is, well you know it, it, it's not it's not all that important. Um, it's not as important as finding a qualitative difference. But the quantitative difference I would argue is important just the way quantitative differences are important when we think of obesity, and hypertension. And deafness and blindness, all of these disorders and disabilities, are defined by degree. Uh, and, at some point a difference in degree seems to become a difference, a difference in kind. Um, next slide. Uh, and, and, actually (UNINTELLIGIBLE), um, Michael Bernoff Hammill (SP?) wrote a, uh, an article which I'm sure a number of you read some time ago, uh, teachers and perfect tests and their thesis was that every teacher good or bad, has limits on the tolerability, on their on their tolerability on their, on their capacity to accommodate differences in behavior and academic performance. That a child's, uh, um, uh, uh, a child's difference from, from the average, variance from the, from the average gets to a point where, the kid crosses a red line. And the child is no longer seen as a legitimate member of the class but beyond the pale. I think what they're describing in part in that paper is how a difference in degree transforms, morphs at some point into a difference in kind. So, I would argue that the quantitative differences that we found in the meta-analysis, uh, suggest that on average, um, these kids with the label, um, are, different, that is, weaker students than children without the label. That teachers are, uh, in a sense doing the right thing. They are identifying the kids whom they believe rightly or wrongly, uh, are beyond their capacity. And are seeking additional help for them.
DOUGLAS FUCHS
Okay next. Um, if we if we think that, uh, and, and now, this is heuristic. Okay? Now the rest of this is the (STAMMERS) the last two or three minutes I've got, uh, I'm gonna put forth a different way to think about, uh, LD definition. Uh, it's not, it's not close to my heart. Um, uh, but I, I want to throw it out in the spirit of, uh, we, we, we need to move forward. We need to be, creative, imaginative, um, committed to finding better ways of assessment and identification methods. And we need to be empirical about it. And so here is one, one way to, one different way to think. If, if, difference in degree is important, if, uh, then, then, how about defining LD in terms of low achievement. Lots of problems with IQ, lots of problems with IQ achievement discrepancy, why not simply use, uh, achievement as the as the LD marker? And that is indeed what several people have suggested. Uh, Lorie Siegel (SP?) and Keith Sanovitch (SP?) and, uh, Peter Sinon Shin (SP?) and others. Okay. If we were to do that, then, um, the, the, the approach would look something like this.
DOUGLAS FUCHS
We, we pick a standard score of 90 or something, and all children below that score are LD. Okay next. And cover up the bottom one please. Thanks. Um, I would argue, uh, again, heuristically, that, uh, we need more than, an, an achievement cutoff. We need to continue to use an IQ score, not to produce an, an IQ achievement discrepancy, with all of the attendant psychometric and conceptual problems, but we need a, an IQ score to separate out children with mental retardation from children with learning disabilities. If we don't do so, then what okay. Then, um, we, we introduce the potential of conceptual confusion, and, um, combining children with mental retardation, IQs 40 to 50, with children whose IQs are in the in the in the in the more average range, introduces for teachers a heterogeneity that they're going to find extremely difficult to cope with. So, um, I am going to, uh, stop there. Um, I believe that the, that the, the value of the meta-analysis, uh, is that it says to the field, that, um, uh, contrary to what we heard in the 1980s, teachers, um, identification of children with learning disabilities or the way that they designate the LD label, is not arbitrary. It's rational, uh, it's predictable. Um, and it also says I think to the, the criticisms that we heard in the 1990s, that the two groups indeed are distinguishable and that which distinguishes them, is important. That's it, thanks.
RENEE BRADLEY
Our first respondent is Doctor Donald Deshler who is professor of special education in the Department Of Special Ed, and the Director of Center For Research And Learning at the University of Kansas. Dr. Deshler in conjunction with other staff at the Center has developed and validated the strategic instruction model, and learning strategies curriculum, as mechanisms for improving the learning effectiveness of (WORD?) students, including those with learning disabilities, and the instructional effectiveness of teachers. Dr. Deshler has received numerous awards for outstanding service to the field of learning disabilities. Our next respondent is Dr. Louisa Moats. She has just completed a four year as project director at the District Of Columbia site of the NICHD early interventions project, a study headed by Dr. Barbara Foreman. She continues as clinical assistant professor of pediatrics at the University Of Texas Houston Health Science Center. Dr. Moats has authored many articles and books on the topic of professional development of teachers, of leading spelling disability and spelling instruction and the relationship between language and literacy. Our next respondent is Dr. Alba Ortiz, who is a professor in the Department Of Special Education and Director of the Office Of Bilingual Education at the University Of Texas at Austin. She is nationally recognized as an expert on the education of linguistically and culturally diverse learners with disabilities and is past president of CEC. Our final respondent is Ann Kornblet. She is the parent of three children with learning disabilities, she is past national president of the Learning Disabilities Association, and has served in a leadership role for children and adults with learning disabilities on the local, state and national level for the past 20 years.
DONALD DESHLER
Thank you very much. It's indeed an honor to be able to be a part of this summit and to have been able to review the work of Doug and Lynn Fuchs and their colleagues. As many of you know Doug and Lynn have been leading scholars in our field for nearly two decades and this paper typifies the high quality of their work and their thoughtful insights on the condition of learning disabilities. Because of limited time, I will focus on only two of the several significant and enlightening points raised or suggested or implied in their paper. The issues that I raise are not criticisms, but rather they are points or issues that their findings and other papers at this conference (STAMMERS), uh, somewhat address that clearly suggest that our field must, uh, consider in future research and in the formulation of public policy. First issue that I'd like to touch upon is the merit and or limitations of focusing on the reading domain alone. Fuchs et al provide a compelling rationale for focusing their meta-analysis on a very narrow or rather narrow subset of reading behaviors.
DONALD DESHLER
Clearly, conducting a meta-analysis on all seven domains specified in the LD definition, um, would be unreasonable because of the magnitude of the task and the limited data that exist on certain domains, in certain domain areas. However, the authors follow what I believe has been an unintentional but potentially dangerous practice that has become increasingly common among researchers and commentators on learning disabilities during the past decade. That is to make their research manageable and understandable they study a relatively narrow subset of skill behaviors. For example, uh, phonological awareness or another dimension of reading. But then overgeneralize their conclusions to include the entirety of the learning disabilities construct. The existence of a very unique differences between, LD and low achieving students in other domain areas is at least theoretically very likely. Until careful work is done across each of the domain areas, it is important to exercise caution to ensure that research findings are not inappropriately over generalized. The likelihood of policy makers or practitioners making hasty, or incorrect decisions based on limited data sets, that have been over generalized is great. And the limitations are not clearly and forcefully delineated. The second point that I would like to address is, um, the role of a developmental perspective and understanding the LD construct. Fuchs et al are to be commended for acknowledging some of the developmental effects on the condition of learning disabilities. Again, Doug didn't, in his limited time, have opportunity to comment on many of the in kind differences that their, that their research addressed. But their data has underscored the importance of differing performing patterns at different age levels. That is, students with LD became more discrepant from low achieving peers as grade levels increased.
DONALD DESHLER
Early in the history of the LD field, most funding initiatives were directed at younger students. This is back shortly after the passage of 94142. With the assumption or hope that if treatment was provided at a young age, many of the manifestations of the LD would be (STAMMERS) minimized or avoided altogether in later years. However, research has shown that adolescents and adults with LD have, have enduring and unique characteristics that are manifested in different ways as development and (WORD?) demands change. In light of the increased problems experienced by older students in their studies, Fuchs et al adds their voice to others, especially those of the NIH team who have so effectively made the case for early, (STAMMERS) early identification and intervention. While these goals are important and laudable, there is a potential danger in over-emphasizing early treatment at the expense of interventions at later ages. That is, the call for these early intervention efforts may be misinterpreted as implying that by doing the early intervention, most of the problems presented by LD students will be ameliorated. While this is certainly a desired outcome, it is much more likely that the problems will persist and continue to be manifested in older ages as well. Thus there are two reasons for not putting all of the (SOUNDS LIKE) field's eggs, so to speak, in the early identification and intervention basket. First, even though an impressive array of (SOUNDS LIKE) reading interventions have been developed for younger students, it is unlikely that these methods will be successfully implemented to scale nationally, given our school's poor record, track record, of implementing educational innovation. I'm talking about across the board not just in special education, that in the implementation of any type of validated practice to scale nationally.
DONALD DESHLER
In spite of the effectiveness of existing set of interventions, the problems of bringing any innovation to broad scale implementation with (SOUNDS LIKE) fidelity is remote. Because of the enormous challenge of effecting large scale implementation, there will be many students who will not receive the intervention and will move on to later grade with significant unaddressed deficits. Second, if children with LD do receive quality intervention during their early years, in all likelihood their disability will endure into adolescence and adulthood. The need for equally effective intervention strategies for these older students or individuals is, um, is as great as if not greater than the need for intervention for younger students because of all the emotional overlays that generally emerge as individuals mature and continue to encounter significant failure. Hence, it is critical that the LD field has a research and intervention agenda that is (STAMMERS) designed to address multiple aspects of the condition of LD across multiple age ranges. As compelling as the case for early (STAMMERS) intervention can be, if that case is made at the expense of addressing the equally problematic and unique set of problems presented by older age individuals, the long term effects of such a policy will be devastating for thousands of individuals with LD.
DONALD DESHLER
In conclusion, the Fuchs have made significant contributions to our understanding of an important reading dynamic among students labeled as LD. Their argument of, um, and data of differences in kind and degree is compelling and will provide very helpful direction for future research. However, in order to fully answer the question posed by their title, Is LD Real, similar research is needed in domains other than reading and across the age continuum because LD is a very complex (STAMMERS) multi-dimensional construct. Thank you. (APPLAUSE)
LOUISA MOATS
I'm one of the group and, um, I have a lot to say in response to Doug's presentation. I'm going to say a few things about the, um, meta-analysis and Doug's characterization of the NICHD research and then branch out and say a few other things that I think need to be said. And I like Doug very much, however, there are some misconceptions we need to correct and I'm sure in the discussion more of these points will come up. But for one thing, the research network that I have been privileged to be a part of is studying ever aspect of development learning disabilities, not just reading. I would prefer we were talking about spelling and writing and language myself, um, however, um, um, there's just, um, a time limitation here and we've made much more progress in one area than some others, but we are ready to propose other characterizations, other classifications for, um, the broad range of learning disorders. Okay, second, um, um, I and others are not proposing that, um, the LD category be, um, displaced or, um, or, or replaced or removed, um, um, in favor of some other broader treatment of reading disorders that represents a throwback to the REI. This is not the way we conceptualize our proposals. The leading critics of IQ discrepancy formulas such as Linda Segal (SP?), Keith Stanovich, Reed Lion, Jack Fletcher, Frank Vellutino and others have not called for elimination of the LD category and with the exception of Segal, do not endorse a simple low achievement definition. Instead, they are asking the field to confront and change in ineffective discriminatory and scientifically indefensible policies and practices that have emanated from current conceptions of LD, reasons that are not contradicted by the results of the Fuchs analysis. Um, there are two other recent (WORD?) analyses conducted, um, one conducted by Hoskin (SP?) and Swanson, another by Steubing (SP?), Fletcher, LeDoux (SP?), Lion, Chalitz (SP?) and Chalitz (SP?), that were designed to address related but similar, but dissimilar questions about the relationship between kids who, um, meet the discrepancy criteria and poor readers who do not. The question that they addressed are, um, is this. Are discrepancy based definitions of reading disabilities and low achieving readers valid for classification purposes? Are poor readers without IQ achievement discrepancies and poor readers with IQ discrepancies different from one another with regard to the core cognitive deficits that predict and explain poor reading? And are long term outcomes different for these groups? Um, to be brief, uh, these (SOUNDS LIKE) meta-analyses were done differently. They were done with (WORD?) cutoff scores as Doug mentioned. Um, um, and, and in essence, the other meta-analyses found negligible differences between LD in low achieving groups for behavior, for achievement and a small difference in cognitive ability, um, which you would expect because the LD kids are classified on the basis of discrepancy or higher IQ.
LOUISA MOATS
Um, in essence, these other meta-analyses have concluded there is little evidence to support the validity or relevance of the two group classification of poor readers for either identification or treatment, echoing many consensus based (WORD?) (SOUNDS LIKE) to these issues. We're not attacking the legitimacy of the LD category, um, instead, we're asking for changes in a number of areas that will take the pressure of LD services in the LD category to serve every poor reader who is out there. Um, what we'd like to see change would be this. Number one, use of valid practices in the regular classroom. We need instruction that emphasizes critical components at critical times beginning in pre-K and K and that reduces the incidence of reading failure that requires special services. Secondly, we need to use, um, assessment and classification practices that are valid. The relevant variables for classification of reading disorder are phonological awareness, phonological memory, rapid naming, vocabulary, speed and accuracy of real and non-word reading and oral passage reading fluency. We agree that fluency is a major issue that differentiates subtypes of poor readers. Spelling, writing and oral language comprehension must be added to this list. Children have to be screened early and screened several times and so forth. This has been talked about ad nauseam. It is however, um, the exception and not the norm that these practices are in place. Third, we need incentives for early intervention. Education funding should be structured so that children can be served without delays and the hurdles through special education eligibility. Too many children have failed unnecessarily before services are ever provided. For example, the formality of an IMP might be delayed until fourth grade if intensive instruction is being carried out with good results. If a student is not receiving appropriate instruction that results in satisfactory improvement, parents and guardians should be asking and, um, uh, should be asking for and receive, now this is radical, a reasonable stipend for clinic-based, Internet-based or university-based services of their choice. At present, parents who can afford such services take them. Lower SES parents cannot exercise choice so easily. This inequity needs to change.
LOUISA MOATS
And fourth, my swan song, the preparation of reading teachers with skills and structured language teaching needs to be a priority. Right now, um, special education teachers don't even have to know how to treat the more severe reading disorders that they are confronted with on 85 percent of their caseload. Reading teachers who specialize in explicit structured teaching of language must be recruited and prepared and supported by public education. If they are not, parents will continue to press for the right to such services provided by private practitioners at public expense. At present, licensing standards and professional regulation for academic language therapists that include course work, supervision, documented effectiveness and continuing education requirements have been developed almost exclusively in the private sector by professional associations and institutes such as (SOUNDS LIKE) SLEC, which is the (STAMMERS) Structured Language Education Council. And these groups should be given more say in the licensing of public reading and special education teachers whose professional preparation has yet to reflect our growing knowledge of the causes, correlates, consequences and treatments of language based learning disabilities. Thank you. (APPLAUSE)
ALBA ORTIZ
Good morning. I think the work that Doug and his colleagues, um, have done represents scholarship of a quality that is rarely seen, um, in the Academy. And so I too would like to, um, commend them for that work. The clarity with which they, um, present the issues, discuss the, the design analysis, um, in their findings, make this a document that's gonna be easily accessible and understandable to both researchers and, um, practitioners. And so I think the report provides an excellent vehicle to consider the, um, question of how you distinguish low achievement and learning disabilities and a way to, um, consider the different points of view particularly in terms of how you define and identify the population. I think that we all agree with Doug that LD is not just a fancy term for low achievement.
ALBA ORTIZ
We were asked to raise issues that were not addressed in, in this paper and other papers presented at this conference. And so I'd like to focus my remarks on the population that I work with and the applicability of this work that culturally and (SOUNDS LIKE) linguistically diverse learners. And particularly the English language learners which is the currently preferred training for students that we typically have referred to as (UNINTELLIGIBLE) position as students who acquire English as their second, um, language. In doing so I want to upfront that this is not an issue that was treated in Doug's paper and that's because of the status of the field, um, in terms of research and (UNINTELLIGIBLE) And that's precisely why I raise the issue. When experts like, um, Doug and others make recommendations to the field, people take them with great seriousness and so sometimes there is a danger of overgeneralizing the findings. And so I'd like to just very quickly touch base on some of the key, um, points that were made in this paper. One of them is the importance of, um, comparability of samples in that the (UNINTELLIGIBLE) (SOUNDS LIKE) sizes differ depending on how (STAMMERS) comparable the, um, low achieving and learning disabled, um, groups were.
ALBA ORTIZ
This is an important recommendation, um, given the, that demographic information helps the consumers of research, um, judge the applicability of the work to particular populations. It's also, I think, particularly critical given the remarks that, um, Secretary Paige and Assistant Secretary Pasternak made yesterday about the changing demography and the over-identification of, um, culturally and (WORD?) diverse learners in this group. And LD for English language learners is the favorite placement category along with speech and language, um, (SOUNDS LIKE) services. And yet there is very little research on how English language learners learn to read in their native language or in English as the second language. And the research on students with learning disabilities is virtually (STAMMERS) non-existent. Um, because so many of you are researchers, then I guess my plea would be that you include these students in your studies. Um, one of, another important recommendation or finding is that the performance of students with learning disabilities is lowering initially and becomes more discrepant over time. And this pair of findings I think reinforces the importance of, um, identification or early identification and prevention. In reality, general education's failure to intervene in a timely and appropriate manner as Dr. Moats suggests, not the presence of the disability, may be the real source of student difficulties. Thus committing resources to prevention and early intervention makes sense. The thing that is problematic I think is that it's very difficult to, um, point to concrete examples of, um, intervention and prevention programs that are effective for all, um, learners. And it's difficult to access information easily that describes how such efforts are designed and launched, and I think more importantly, sustained over time and the resources that are required to, um, implement these efforts. The field, I think, is in desperate need of this kind of, of information.
ALBA ORTIZ
Time tests measure reading competence more accurately. Um, time tests may measure overall reading competence, particularly because of findings associated with areas such as, um, rapid naming. This recommendation poses two issues for, um, English language learners. One is that there is a lack of appropriate instruments to assess reading performance, not to mention of course the issues related to IQ. And so it would be difficult to implement, um, this recommendation given the lack of assessments of reading in languages other than English or in English as a second language, um, literacy. And using time tests with students who are limited in their English efficiency, um, is not appropriate. So I think we need to, um, put pressure on publishing companies and state Departments Of Education to make appropriate instruments, um, available. And as Doug suggested, it's important to conduct research on what interventions help students transition more effectively from automatic word, um, reading, um, from accurate to automatic word reading. Objective measures are more accurate than teacher judgement. And so this is the double whammy for English learners. We not only have a lack of appropriate instruments, but as Doug found, uh, in general, uh, there are variables that influence, other than the performance measures, that influence, uh, teacher and multi-disciplinary team judgements.
ALBA ORTIZ
The work that we have done clearly show that teachers are clearly unable to distinguish students who are experiencing difficulty because of their limited English proficiency from students who truly do have, um, speech and language or learning, um, disabilities. So there's a need to study the types of non-objective data can be useful in decision-making. As important, I think we continue to need systems that help, um, document prevention and early intervention. (WORD?) that help monitor reading acquisition over time and that help teachers in (STAMMERS) multi-disciplinary team, um, members weigh the evidence. (STAMMERS) you know how we, uh, accumulate all this information do you make sense of it. Um, Doug, I think makes a good point that there are children who need, um, special education services and also reinforces the need to link more effectively with general education. I think we are hampered by, um, a standardization of the education process, grade levels accountability systems, etc. So we need to figure out how we may develop different general education structures to help, um, struggling, um, learners. Last point is, um, obviously that there is the need for teacher training. Dr. Moats made that point very effectively. I guess I would just like to add to that that we can't reform teacher education until we reform higher education and as we call for different kinds of teacher training. We need to think about how we can support higher education faculties so that they can develop the new set of skills that are required to serve an increasingly diverse population. Thank you. (APPLAUSE)
ANN KORNBLET
Good morning. This is not a scholarly response so I'm going to ask the timer to hold me, I will just stop when, um, it is time to stop. I feel, um, with Jack sitting right here, I feel the antsy-ness of needing to get on to the question and answer section. Um, as a parent of children with learning disabilities, I was hopeful, when (WORD?) started the process to process to open discussion on the identification and assessment of learning disabilities. As we gear up for another re-authorization of the law that protects our children, it is evident that once again it will be a task of supreme effort. So the discussion at OSEP with their work group in proceeding to gather the most current information on the key issues surrounding learning disabilities (STAMMERS) especially on target. We who have been through the re-authorization process before know that various forces and special interests begin to nip at real or perceived problems, position their organizations and special interests long before the actual re-authorization process begins. With the (STAMMERS) numbers in the LD category continuing to grow for a variety of reasons, this time around we are facing the questioning of the validity of the condition itself. We cannot be distracted from protecting the rights of students with learning disabilities, from protecting, uh, the need for early identification, protecting the complete (STAMMERS) continuum of appropriate services, from protecting access to general education and (STAMMERS) sorry, I'm trying to rush, um, and of course the need for, um, better, um, professional preparation. It is hoped that from the White paper, from surrounding discussions that a basis for understanding, coordinated efforts and (STAMMERS) thoughtful change will emerge.
ANN KORNBLET
In their White paper, Fuchs and Al have taken an extensive look at the research on basic reading performance and students with learning disabilities and students named low achievers. With the current interest in reading and the surrounding controversy on why some children are not learning to read and the reading research being used as a tool to make and/or change policy, this White paper analysis, because it uses reading studies, could provide a strong answer to low achievement equals LD. The authors give, um, an excellent historical overview of the discussions surrounding the condition of learning disabilities and its definition. During the reading, it was necessary for me do distinguish between the terms definition and condition. Being concerned with the defining of the condition, but understanding that the definition is not the condition. Webster's Dictionary states and defines definition as the act of defining a brief and precise description of a thing by its properties. It defines condition as a particular mode of being, a situation, a state, that which is (STAMMERS) requisite for something else to take place or happen, unquote.
ANN KORNBLET
The condition that is termed learning disabilities goes beyond the a description of the presentation of academic symptoms that occur at a point in time, unless it is understood that those symptoms are the result of dysfunction over time and are broader than the manifestation of academic deficits. The white paper reviews the changes that occurred in the field in the '80s with the appearance of a regular education initiative and with it the damaging term mild disability (STAMMERS) used to describe learning disabilities. This is also a time when the different definitions of learning disabilities were looked at with implementation (UNINTELLIGIBLE) being quite different from the law and intent. Schools unable to address the problems of diversity, overcrowded classrooms and not adjusting to the needs of children growing up in a fast-changing society, these same schools and communities (STAMMERS) did not support, are not supporting and training teachers for this new kind of student. Began shifting more and more children into special education. It was a also a time when dramatic generalized statements about inconclusive research was seen more in the journals. And critics of special education were able to widen the factions within the LD field. A bright spot was OSEP's funded research centers that developed and disseminated strategies on how to teach students with learning disabilities. There was much support for professional preparation in service. LD research must become a priority within the Department Of Education again. The next section of the white paper summarizes the role NICHD and its research centers played in, quote, encouraging fundamental change in our thinking about LD, unquote. Everyone in this room is aware of the importance of the work that has come out of the NICHD LD Centers. How ever research has been used, misused, quoted or misquoted is another discussion. NICHD has brought to the attention of the public the problems in our classrooms in beginning and early reading. We cannot praise NICHD enough for this accomplish.
ANN KORNBLET
In the discussion on low achievement and learning disabilities cited in the white paper, it becomes apparent that sound bites, volatile phrases and generalizations do not answer the questions that need to be answered. We must not assume that low achievement and learning disabilities are the same only because each group responds with same basic reading skill training. The difference (WORD?) Fuchs et al and, um, Don Deshler listed this morning, um, points this out. Surely by now the field and the public understand that learning disabilities does not mean a present and/or future of low achievement and failure. The history and discussions set the stage for the full description of this meta-analyses. It was, um, (SOUNDS LIKE) beyond me how they waded through all this research, um, with different studies, using different tests, different definitions and (SOUNDS LIKE) samples defined in assorted ways. I believe the conclusions of this study must be stated in stronger language. From this (WORD?) and the following discussion must come plans for research wider in scope. The discussion of learning disabilities cannot center around early reading alone. The discussion of eligibility criteria must encompass all factors that are used or should be used in the diagnosis of learning disabilities. It is most important that all children who need (UNINTELLIGIBLE) Um, it is most important that all children who need help in school receive it. It is inappropriate to send all children who need help in school to special education. It is not right to suggest that students with learning disabilities no longer need the guidance a true diagnosis gives. It is inappropriate to suggest that students with learning disabilities will receive the support they need from general education in its present form.
ANN KORNBLET
We cannot afford to (WORD?) the category of learning disabilities as described by definition in our Federal law. The regulations and their implementation must be changed to reflect what is known now. I'm almost there. (STAMMERS) Change, um, must not happen based on generalizations as you cannot generalize a child, you cannot generalize, um, the differences in our states and in our school systems. I believe (STAMMERS) we will be able to work together. (SOUNDS LIKE) I won't do this again the third time (WORD?) Um, I believe that general education, special education, um, will, um, work together. Through the reading research I firmly believe that this will be the bridge that opens the doors, um, and the two systems will, um, start to change education in this country. Thank you. (APPLAUSE)
[END OF TAPE]