Changing Eligibility for LD – A Cautionary Note
Kenneth A. Kavale, PhD
Distinguished Professor of Special Education
Regent University
Virginia Beach, VA
The following is a cautionary note about how replacing a disfavored diagnostic marker with a “scientific” one will lead the field of learning disability (LD) to a state of anarchy. The presumptive scientific marker is the response to intervention (RTT) process where LD is operationally defined as an inadequate response to instruction. The RTI process proceeds as follows: a) students are provided with empirically validated interventions, b) progress is monitored systematically, c) students not responding receive either more intensive or different instruction, d) progress continues to be monitored, and e) failure to respond may qualify a student for special education. The RTI process seeks to replace traditional psychometric methods with procedures that close the gap between identification and treatment. In essence, RTI moves the identification process away from diagnosing deficits to focusing on student outcomes.
Although seemingly a positive change, modifications in the way LD is operationalized ultimately influences the basic nature of LD which, at this point with RTI, makes it solely a narrowly focused early reading problem. The LD construct is far more complex. For example, LD, since the time of Kirk’s initial description has been associated with intra-individual variation most notably the difference between expected and actual achievement. This defines the discrepancy criterion which, since 1977, has made LD a category predicated on the presence of underachievement, not simply low achievement. With little or no explanation for poor academic performance, discrepancy provides the basis for LD eligibility decisions.
Although the present reauthorization (IDEIA) does not eliminate the discrepancy criterion, it does indicate that consideration of discrepancy is no longer required. The case against discrepancy seems unwarranted and ill-advised because it may lead to the exclusion of a critical LD marker from eligibility decisions. For example, it has been argued that IQ is not necessary in defining LD. Without IQ, however, there would be no means to determine an expected achievement level, a necessary part of the discrepancy criterion. Students with and without LD may show similar levels of actual achievement (e.g., below average) but in only one case would this low achievement be unexpected. For students with IQ’s in the low average range (e.g., 70-85), similar low average achievement would be expected; this defines the “slow learner.” A student with LD is not a slow learner but rather an underachiever whose unexpected (and unexplained) school failure is associated with a complex amalgam of specific difficulties interfering with the acquisition and assimilation of academic content.
In the reauthorization, schools may use a process that determines if there is a positive response to scientific research-based intervention. For students not achieving, increasingly intensive types and levels of instruction (usually in reading) are provided until the lack of response leads to referral for special education services as a student with LD. The most egregious aspect of RTI is encountered at this point: Why is this child now considered LD? Is the LD identification process really complete at this point? Is lack of response an appropriate single diagnostic criterion for LD? Could the lack of response be due to a different disability (e.g., MR or EBD)?
The student who does not respond can be legitimately considered to possess significant reading difficulties (RD). Is this LD? Maybe or maybe not but without additional diagnostic information it is not possible to be confident about LD status. Under the RTI process, it appears that RD transforms itself into LD by fiat. Presently, too great a conceptual leap is necessary for unresponsiveness to be the foundation for LD. Clearly, the history of LD demonstrates that the construct evolved from more than a reading problem that resists intervention efforts.
It seems that RTI is misplaced as a diagnostic process; the primary focus of RTI is prevention, eliminating the need for special education. In essence, RTI appears to be a pre-referral process, albeit one that is more rigorous and systematic than in the past. As such, RTI should be included in the LD identification process but should not be the primary procedure. How can failure to respond to a specific intervention be confidently translated into a specific diagnosis? The change in status from non-responder to student with LD does not seem justified. More importantly, achievement in reading is not a diagnosis of LD but rather is best viewed as a symptom common to many special education categories.
The RTI process should not stand alone as the primary means of identifying LD. Regardless of the RTI model used, RTI still represents only a single diagnostic criterion (i.e., non-responsiveness). The use of a single diagnostic criterion was a criticism leveled against discrepancy and it was valid. The difference is that discrepancy holds the advantage of documenting the presence or absence of underachievement, a critical LD marker, while RTI only documents low achievement in reading. Underachievement is properly viewed as a necessary but not sufficient criterion for LD identification and, when documented, should be followed by attempts to validate additional LD diagnostic criteria that will ultimately provide confidence in establishing LD status.
Besides assisting the diagnostic process, a comprehensive evaluation of intellectual/cognitive, academic, and psychosocial functioning will also reveal unique learning needs interfering with academic performance. After a child advances through the RTI process and deemed eligible for special education, what is the best course of action? The child has not responded to the best available interventions so what is to be done now? A comprehensive evaluation offers the possibility of identifying factors impeding student progress and offers the possibility for designing truly individualized intervention.
At best, RTI identifies students at risk for reading failure but such a circumscribed problem does not represent the complexity of LD in any significant sense. The disconnect between the RTI process and LD construct appears to radically alter LD by having the effect of eliminating much of what has been learned about LD. Consequently, RTI can only be endorsed as part of a larger comprehensive diagnostic process that provides the opportunity of identifying LD in more than name only. |
|
|
