Lou Danielson’s Luncheon Address

1. Lou Danielson’s Luncheon Address Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium December 4-5, 2003 • Kansas City, Missouri The National Research Center on Learning Disabilities, a collaborative project of staff at Vanderbilt University and the University of Kansas, sponsored this two-day symposium focusing on responsiveness-to-intervention (RTI) issues. The symposium was made possible by the support of the U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs. Renee Bradley, Project Officer. Opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the position of the U.S. Department of Education.

2. Today’s Topics • History of OSEP investment in Learning Disabilities • LD Initiative • NRCLD work with the RRCs • OSEP activities • Pending legislative Changes Lou Danielson's luncheon address during NRCLD's Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, December 2003.

3. 1970’s • LD became a legitimate category • Money was available for training programs • Child Service Demonstration Centers were funded to “showcase” how children should be identified and served • CSDC brought attention to LD, provided needed resources to parents , provided some information on how to identify and serve Lou Danielson's luncheon address during NRCLD's Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, December 2003.

4. 1980’s • 5 LD Research Institutes • Columbia University –Dale Bryant – focus on information processing difficulties • University of Illinois, Chicago – Tanis Bryan – focus on social competence and attributions about success and failure • University of Kansas –Donald Deshler – focus on educational interventions for adolescents Lou Danielson's luncheon address during NRCLD's Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, December 2003.

5. University of Minnesota – Jim Ysseldyke – focus on identification and CBM • University of Virginia – Dan Hallahan – focus on metacognitive problems, ADHD Lou Danielson's luncheon address during NRCLD's Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, December 2003.

6. OSEP LD Initiative • Workgroup • Commissioned papers • LD Summit • Researcher Roundtable • Finding Common Ground Roundtable • Funding the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities (NRCLD) • Work with RRCs Lou Danielson's luncheon address during NRCLD's Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, December 2003.

7. Commissioned Papers • Learning Disabilities: Historical Perspectives Hallahan & Mercer • Classification of Learning Disabilities: An Evidence-Based Approach Fletcher et. al. • Empirical and Theoretical Support for Direct Diagnosis of Learning Disabilities by Assessment of Intrinsic Processing Weaknesses Torgesen • Learning Disabilities as Operationally Defined by Schools Siperstein & McMillan • Early Identification and Intervention for Young Children with Reading/Learning Disabilities Jenkins & O'Connor Lou Danielson's luncheon address during NRCLD's Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, December 2003.

8. Commissioned Papers • Is Learning Disabilities Just a Fancy Term for Low Achievement: A Meta-analysis of Reading Differences Between Low Achievers with and without the Label Fuchs et. al. • Responsiveness to Intervention: An Alternative Approach to the Identification of Learning Disabilities Gresham • Discrepancy Models in the Identification of LD Kavale • Judgments in Identifying and Teaching Children with Language-Based Reading Difficulties Wise & Snyder Lou Danielson's luncheon address during NRCLD's Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, December 2003.

9. Researcher Roundtable Concept of Learning Disabilities: • Strong converging evidence supports the validity of the concept of specific learning disabilities (SLD). This evidence is particularly impressive because it converges across different indicators and methodologies. The central concept of SLD involves disorders of learning and cognition that are intrinsic to the individual. SLD are specific in the sense that these disorders each significantly affect a relatively narrow range of academic and performance outcomes. SLD may occur in combination with other disabling conditions, but they are not due primarily to other conditions, such as mental retardation, behavioral disturbance, lack of opportunities to learn, or primary sensory deficits. Lou Danielson's luncheon address during NRCLD's Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, December 2003.

10. Researcher Roundtable (continued) IQ/Achievement Discrepancy: • Majority:IQ/Achievement Discrepancy is neither necessary nor sufficient for identifying individuals with SLD. IQ tests do not need to be given in most evaluations of children with SLD. There should be some evidence that an individual with SLD is performing outside the ranges associated with mental retardation, either by performance on achievement tests or performance on a screening measure of intellectual aptitude or adaptive behavior • Minority: Aptitude/achievement discrepancy is an appropriate marker of SLD, but is not sufficient to document the presence or absence of underachievement, which is a critical aspect of the concept of SLD. Lou Danielson's luncheon address during NRCLD's Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, December 2003.

11. Researcher Roundtable (continued) Response to Intervention: • There should be alternate ways to identify individuals with SLD in addition to achievement testing, history, and observations of the child. Response to quality intervention is the most promising method of alternate identification and can both promote effective practices in schools and help to close the gap between identification and treatment. Any effort to scale up response to intervention should be based on problem solving models that use progress monitoring to gauge the intensity of intervention in relation to the student’s response to intervention. Problem solving models have been shown to be effective in public school settings and in research. Lou Danielson's luncheon address during NRCLD's Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, December 2003.

12. National Research Center on Learning Disabilities Research Technical Assistance RRC Work Lou Danielson's luncheon address during NRCLD's Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, December 2003.

13. LD: State of the States • 94% of states require as severe discrepancy between achievement and intellectual ability, BUT • No consistent method • 32% of states provide no guidance on how to determine the discrepancy or the size of the discrepancy required Lou Danielson's luncheon address during NRCLD's Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, December 2003.

14. LD: State of the States • Discrepancy determination methods • 24% use standard score difference, stated in terms of SD or point spread • 24% use regression method • 42% do not specify method or criteria OR leave it to the “professional judgment” of the team • 20% miscellaneous, or uninterpretable • Percentage criterion (NY) • Unspecified statistical formula • Differences between achievement areas Lou Danielson's luncheon address during NRCLD's Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, December 2003.

15. What is Meant by an RtI Model? • RtI refers to an individual, comprehensive student-centered assessment model. RtI is sometimes referred to as a problem-solving model. RtI models focus on applying a problem solving framework to identify and address the student’s difficulties using effective, efficient instruction and leading to improved achievement. Lou Danielson's luncheon address during NRCLD's Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, December 2003.

16. Work with RRCs • Identify schools using RtI • Document the districts’ RtI model and associated student outcomes, including their academic progress. • Compare outcomes for referred students in RtI schools with outcomes for students in otherwise similar schools that use psychometric discrepancy models. • Determine how RtI corrects or improves on disability determination and outcomes related to equity, consistency, accuracy, timeliness, and fidelity. • Provide models for future large scale implementation Lou Danielson's luncheon address during NRCLD's Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, December 2003.

17. Some examples of questions we still need answers to • Are students with SLD accessing needed services more quickly than traditional models? • Does the model improve the accuracy with which students with SLD are identified? • What are the components in special education eligibility? • Who implements the components? Lou Danielson's luncheon address during NRCLD's Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, December 2003.

18. What was the basis for deciding that a student had a disability? • What are the time requirements on staff to implement the LD identification model for a student? • What is the fidelity of implementation of an LD identification model in a school? Lou Danielson's luncheon address during NRCLD's Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, December 2003.

19. Looking AheadOther OSEP Investments • NRCLD • Centers for Implementing K-3 Behavior and Reading Intervention • Research Institute on Progress Monitoring • Technical Assistance and Dissemination Center on Progress Monitoring. Lou Danielson's luncheon address during NRCLD's Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, December 2003.

20. Current Language • SPECIFIC LEARNING DISABILITY- (from Section 602(26)) • (A) IN GENERAL- The term 'specific learning disability' means a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, which disorder may manifest itself in imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or do mathematical calculations. • (B) DISORDERS INCLUDED- Such term includes such conditions as perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia. • (C) DISORDERS NOT INCLUDED- Such term does not include a learning problem that is primarily the result of visual, hearing, or motor disabilities, of mental retardation, of emotional disturbance, or of environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage. Lou Danielson's luncheon address during NRCLD's Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, December 2003.

21. Senate Bill 1248 • (A) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding section 607, when determining whether a child has a specific learning disability as defined in section 602(29), a local educational agency shall not be required to take into consideration whether a child has a severe discrepancy between achievement and intellectual ability in oral expression, listening comprehension, written expression, basic reading skill, reading comprehension, mathematical calculation, or mathematical reasoning. • (B) ADDITIONAL AUTHORITY.-In determining whether a child has a specific learning disability, a local educational agency may use a process that determines if the child responds to scientific, research-based intervention. Lou Danielson's luncheon address during NRCLD's Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, December 2003.

22. Resources • www.NRCLD.org • www.air.org/ldsummit/ • www.ld.org/advocacy/CommonGround.doc • www.erlbaum.com • IDENTIFICATION OF LEARNING DISABILITIES Research to PracticeAuthor: Renee Bradley (ed.), Louis Danielson (ed.), and Daniel P. Hallahan (ed.)ISBN: 0-8058-4448-1 Year: 2002Price: $49.95 Lou Danielson's luncheon address during NRCLD's Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, December 2003.

23. final thoughts Lou Danielson's luncheon address during NRCLD's Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, December 2003.