Issues in Eligibility: The Difficult to Categorize Child

Pennsylvania Bar InstituteFriday, September 12, 200310:30 to 12:00 NoonMargaret J. Kay, Ed.D., NCSP & Vivian Narehood, Attorney at Law

Eligibility for Services under IDEA

Must meet specific criteria for 1 of 13 predetermined categories

Must show that disability adversely affects child’s educational performance

Children often defy rigid definitions This impels disputes that the

definitions were designed to avoid

Contentious Issues

Diagnosis of learning disability using the “Severe Discrepancy” formula Prevents “Prevention” Denies services to low functioning

students Adverse affect

By reason of the disability child needs Specially Designed Instruction (SDI)

Reasonable educational progress

Discrepancy Formula Approach to Learning Disability Identification

Origin of IQ-Achievement discrepancy dates back to 1920 with the notion of an “Accomplishment Quotient”

Calculated as ratio of “Educational Quotient” (achievement) to “Intelligence Quotient” (ability)

Discrepancy Approach to LD Identification: Historical Overview

Barbara Bateman (1965) coined the term “educationally significant discrepancy” between intelligence & actual level of performance to characterize learning disability

US Office of Education (1977) specified procedure for diagnosis of LD using discrepancy model

Discrepancy Approach to LD Identification: Federal Requirements

There is NO federal requirement for any mathematical measurement of “severe discrepancy”

There are no federal definitions for terms “achievement”, “intelligence” or “severe”.

Multi-step Process for Determining LD

Team determines that child is not achieving at level commensurate with age and ability when provided with educational opportunity

MDT’s are often tempted to establish a mathematical formula to identify students with LD

Measuring Severity of Discrepancy between Ability & Achievement

Over-reliance on a “magic number” Should use standard scores Should take into account

phenomenon of “regression towards the mean”

Mathematical formulas should not be used to deny services

Problems with Severe Discrepancy Formulas

Used as administrative device to trim special education rolls

“Wait and Fail” approach

Child is forced to cross a threshold of severe academic failure prior to service delivery

Dyslexia as Example of Formula Failure

Studies show that if child is not reading at grade level by the end of 3rd grade, that child has only a 1 in 7 chance of ever reading at grade level

Historically the discrepancy formula has delayed and denied services until after 3rd grade for children who are “at risk” for reading failure

Conflicts with “No Child Left Behind”

Two Well-Known Phenomena

The “Matthew Effect” “The rich get richer and the poor get

poorer.” (Stanovich, K. 1994)

The “Mark Penalty” The same learning disabilities that

depress achievement also depress scores on ability tests (Dumont & Willis, 2001)

Alternatives to the Discrepancy Model

Provide SDI before children fail Make SDI accessible in general

education setting Link assessment to intervention Intent of IDEA is to focus on

effective & efficient delivery of special services

“Response to Intervention” Model

Identify children who are “at risk” and demonstrate processing deficits which impede learning (e.g. phonological processing)

Employ “Best practice intervention” (i.e. Code-emphasis reading instruction)

Assess response to intervention (e.g. Can now decode but not fluent)

Revise intervention method/s (e.g. Best practice to improve fluency)

“Component Skills” Model

Identify poor performance in component skills E.g. Reading: phonological awareness

and letter naming fluency Introduce intervention to improve

component skills Advantage: Can intervene earlier

when we look for impaired component skills

NASP Guidelines

Systematic problem-solving process Tier 1: High quality instructional &

behavioral interventions for all students in general education

Tier 2: Intensive prevention & remediation services for students who lag in performance & rate of progress

Tier 3: Comprehensive special education & related services