As part of my training in educational therapy, I am required to train in the major standardized test batteries. It has been useful, and has deepened my dislike of them. I will go into a diatribe on this on another post. I am not against all standardized testing (I think some CBMs are great – see more below), but we need to look at the research more carefully. Anyhow. Here I would like to focus on a discussion that we had in my class regarding how Maine identifies children with specific learning disabilities, because I think we as a state are in the wrong. And I think we need to start saying so. I yap on about neurodiversity a lot – here is another approach to thinking about ditching the old LD label and why.
In Maine, the identification of specific learning disability (SLD) in students at fourth grade and higher requires evidence that the student has (1) consistent low academic achievement in one or more areas, (2) evidence of a “psychological processing deficit” and, (3) evidence that the student’s general cognitive abilities are average or above (ME DOE, 2013). And yet, research suggests that using data from a student’s response to intervention (RTI) is a more accurate method of identifying a SLD (Brown-Chidsey, 2014).
Frankly, I think that Maine needs to update its policies. The identification of a specific learning disability as outlined in the question is consistent with a cultural paradigm of considering a learning disability as similar to a mental illness, which implies a medical diagnosis. Consistent low academic achievement can be seen as a symptom, the evidence of a psychological processing deficit as the physiological cause, and evidence of otherwise general cognitive abilities implies that the student could potentially be “healed” with special education. This last bothers me the most, as it really paints the low academic achievement as a strong negative trait, instead of what is potentially a temporary state. A child diagnosed with a learning disability under this paradigm develops an identity as someone whose brain is “broken.” I have absolutely had high school students refuse special education supports that were desperately needed, because they just wanted to be seen as normal. I cannot blame them.
Let’s consider learning variability instead from the perspective of neurodiversity and multiple tiered systems of support (MTSS). A different picture emerges, where low academic achievement is merely a transient state, and curriculum-based measurements (CBMs) pinpoint areas of weakness for targeted intervention and hard work. Indeed, it is the difference between an entity mindset approach and a growth mindset approach (Bronson, 2007). If all children have variable neural networks, then a growth mindset approach holds that hard work will allow the student to move along the bell curve. MTSS has most of the students in tier 1 (just to proselytize for a moment, universal design for learning is designed to maximize that number, by creating a flexible curriculum designed to meet a neurodiverse student body). When a student is identified as struggling by CBMs, she or he can receive immediate intervention in tier 2, have their progress tracked in real time, and, in theory, improve. Special education services are then directly targeted to those who need them. Once they improve, they return to tier one education, never having been labeled as LD, taking on, during their psychologically formative years, the damning identity of someone who cannot learn.
Of course, some do not improve. And when they do not respond to intervention, then what you have is a functional definition of a specific learning disability. They are not able to learn in their current setting, and need an even higher level of support. Now it is appropriate to determine that they have a learning disability, and a curriculum needs to be designed that meets their needs accordingly. Now is when a label of learning disabled finally makes (some) sense, and not a moment before. Brian Butterworth identified this paradigm in his excellent workbookDyscalculia Guidance, where he discusses the difficulty of accurately diagnosing dyscalculia. He asserts that the only true way to know that a child is dyscalculic is to mount an intensive intervention, known to be effective in helping children with dyscalculia move forward, and have the child fail to progress. Now we have tier 3. Using a CBM approach, we can be surer that this tier contains the fewest number of students possible, since the goal is to keep students in the least restrictive environment possible. Using the approach outlined by the state, we diagnose and prescribe, without any system in place to determine whether the situation is temporary or permanent, with far too infrequent check-ins. Indeed, page 44 of Chapter 101 states, “A reevaluation conducted under subparagraph (1) shall occur:
(a) Not more frequently than once a year, unless the parent and the local educational agency agree otherwise; and
(b) At least once every 3 years, unless the parent and the local educational agency agree that a reevaluation is unnecessary.”
This is hardly a timely picture. These are children – a great deal of brain development can happen over the course of one year, let alone three.
Finally, you have the confounding issue of language acquisition in the case of ELL students. While the Chapter 101 regulations do make allowance for ELL students (p. 82: Specific learning disabilities does not include learning problems that are primarily the result of … environmental, cultural or economical disadvantage), there is no doubt that when testing for a student in their native language is impossible, an accurate “diagnosis” cannot be made. And lo and behold, the recommendations from the state are to use MTSS to determine the presence of a learning disability in ELL students. From the ME DOE article, Department provides guidance on learning disability eligibility determinations: “if measures with norms for the child’s cultural and linguistic background, physical disability or other contributing factors are unavailable, then the IEP team should replace determinations of a processing disorder and standardized measure of cognitive functioning with a multi-tiered problem-solving approach such as analysis of work samples and other performance data to demonstrate the likelihood of a learning disability.” Ironically, given how much our ELL children struggle, this is an instance in our public school system where it appears to be more advantageous to be an English-language learner.
References:
Bronson, P. (2007). How Not to Talk to Your Kids. New York Magazine. Retrieved from http://nymag.com/news/features/27840/.
Brown-Chidsey, R. (2014). Personal Communication.
Butterworth, B. and Yeo, D. (2004). Dyscalculia Guidance. London: nferNelson Publishing Company.
Maine Department of Education (2013). Chapter 101, Maine Unified Special Education Regulation.
(2014, September 17) Department Provides Guidance on Learning Disability Eligibilty Requirements retrieved from http://mainedoenews.net/2014/09/17/department-provides-guidance-on-learning-disability eligibility-determinations/
Image retrieved from http://blog.edmentum.com/mtss-new-rti
