User:Jordan Rho/sandbox
Specific Learning Disabilities
Definition
According to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) a specific learning disability (SLD) is “a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, that may manifest itself in the imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or to do mathematical calculations.” Intelligence is not minimized by having a learning disability present; however, lifelong difficulties may be present.
Prevalence and Characteristics
2.4 million (42%) of the 5.7 million school-age American children with disabilities are identified as having a learning disability, making SLD the largest category of special education services [1]. Once the fastest growing category of special education, the SLD category has declined by 18 percent from 2002 to 2011, while overall, special education has declined by only 3 percent. In 2011, about 5% of the school-age population in the United States had been identified as having SLD.
Special Education Students 2011 By Category IDEA chart
Identification rates for SLD vary considerably from state to state - from 30% of special education in Kentucky to 60% in Iowa.
Male, black, and Hispanic students are overrepresented in the SLD category. Nationwide, males represent 51 percent of public school enrollment but 66 percent of students with SLD. In many states, black and Hispanic students are identified for SLD at a higher rate than the percentage of black and Hispanic students of the states' total school enrollments. This indicates that students from these groups are disproportionately identified as having SLD.
The most common pattern of students with SLD is the unbalanced development of academic skills, students achieve at many levels in different areas, some high and some low. Thus, there is no single profile of students with SLD, and students can display one or more of the following characteristics:
- Struggles with new settings
- Has low reading/writing ability
- Has sequencing, organization, and memory issues
- Spells words incorrectly and many different ways
- Needs more time to complete a task
- Has short attention span
- Struggles with comprehension of texts
- Displays apparent frustrations
- Problems with retelling or summarizing
- Has confusion with figurative language
Identification Process
SLD can be identified using two different approaches. The severe discrepancy approach is determined by administering an intelligence test and an achievement test. The intelligence test determines a student's expected level of achievement. Then, if the student scores significantly lower than expected on a standardized, norm-referenced achievement test, it is determined that a "severe discrepancy" exists between the expected and actual academic achievement.
The second approach has become more prevalent since the 2004 IDEA amendments mandated that states cannot require the use of the severe discrepancy approach to identify SLD. As a result, many schools and states adopted a Response to Intervention (RTI) approach. This approach is based on the premise that students should only be identified as having an SLD after they have been provided high-quality, individualized instruction and still continue to struggle to learn academic content.
Response to Intervention model [2]
RTI Pyramid Fig.1
This instruction includes Tier 1 instruction that takes place in the general education classroom, Tier 2 instruction that takes place in small groups, and Tier 3 instruction that is intensive and individualized. If frequent (often, biweekly) progress monitoring reveals that a student continue to struggle, a multidisciplinary team may conclude that he/she should be identified as having an SLD.
Regardless of the primary criterion used to (severe discrepancy or RTI), the following three criteria must also be met in order to identify students with SLD: the learning problem does not stem from another disability (e.g., mild intellectual disability or visual impairment) and/or environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantages; the learning problem is not the result of poor teaching; the learning problem cannot be overcome in the general education setting without special education services [3].
The RTI approach has been promoted to address some of the problems related to the severe discrepancy approach. Critics of the severe discrepancy approach note that children must wait to fail before a severe discrepancy exists and the severe discrepancy is not educationally meaningful (students who are behind grade level are taught using the same methods as students with a severe discrepancy). Advocates of the RTI approach argue that RTI provides assistance in a timely manner as opposed for waiting for students to fail. It also helps ensure that students' learning problems do not arise from poor instruction. Furthermore, the progress monitoring data collected during RTI are useful educational information for students' teachers. Critics note drawbacks of the RTI approach, particularly when it comes to implementation [4]; [5]; [6]. The roles and responsibilities of the members of the multidisciplinary teams - general education teachers, special education teachers, psychologists, etc. are not always clear and general education teachers are not always well prepared to implement the RTI approach.
Academic Instructional Strategies
Students with an SLD benefit from strategies that effective for any student below grade level - with or without a disability. Given that reading is a common area of weakness for students with SLD and a fundamental skill for much other learning, many interventions for students with SLD focus on improving reading and language skills.
Some effective instruction strategies for students with an SLD include:
- Explicit and systematic phonics instruction has been found to benefit all early elementary students, regardless of disability status [7]. General education teachers directly teach the "rules" of phonics in a clearly defined sequence with more basic skills being taught first.
- Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies is a peer-tutoring program for elementary students that has been proven to improve comprehension and reading fluency skills for students with SLD [8]; [9]. Students take turns acting as the tutor, coaching and correcting one another. The sessions should be 30-35 minutes and teachers should reassign tutoring pairs regularly based on teacher judgement of student needs and abilities.
- Scaffolding - the support that teachers give students as they learn content - can assist students at all grade levels and in all subjects. Students with an SLD, who may need more steps in instruction and more support, can particularly benefit. Teachers provide students with scaffolding as they need it and withdraw support when it is no longer necessary [10].
Behavioral Strategies & Supports
Best practices for behavior plans are centered around the idea or main objective of protecting the student’s confidence and self esteem. the focus is to encourage students and not let them feel singled out because of their disability. At every opportunity possible, give feedback immediately. Students with SLD are already struggling and facing much adversity, demonstrating patience when encountering them goes a long way. One should be sure to offer explicit instructions as often as possible. Positive reinforcement often helps to motivate students and works well for SLD students. Things to avoid are scolding, reprimanding and punishing. These negative reinforcement tactics discourage SLD learners from even trying at all.
Relevant Resources
What Works Clearinghouse is a resource for identifying and selecting evidence-based programs and strategies for students, including students with an SLD
The National Reading Panel report shares best practices in reading that can benefit all students, including students with an SLD
The RTI Action Network provides resources for implementing RTI in schools as well as information about using RTI to identify students with a Specific Learning Disability
- ^ Cortiella & Horowitz, 2014
- ^ Bolanos, Griffin, & Heinemann, 2017
- ^ McLeskey, Rosenberg, & Westling, 2011
- ^ Gerber, 2005
- ^ Kavale et al., 2005
- ^ Mastropieri & Scruggs, 2005
- ^ Ehri, Nunes, Stahl, & Willows, 2001
- ^ Fuchs, Fuchs, Mathes, & Simmons., 1997
- ^ Saenz, Fuchs, & Fuchs, 2005
- ^ Kame'enui & Simmons, 1999