Overview: Specific Learning Disabilities and Methodology

1. Overview: Specific Learning DisabilitiesandMethodology February 27, 2013 Sara Mauk – semauk@earthlink.net

2. Purpose of the Presentation • To highlight the interpretation of IDEA per OSEP rulings and case law: Specific Learning Disability and instructional methodologies. • Discuss critical issues regarding methodology. • Disclaimer: this is an overview and does not reflect every point of law.

3. INTRODUCTION Specific Learning Disabilities and Methodology • Specific Learning Disability • “Peer reviewed research” • Instructional methodologies • IEP requirements • Specifically designed instruction • RtI: methodology requirements?

4. Specific Learning Disability • 34 CFR 300.320(a)(10)-Definition of IEP • General. 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, that may manifest itself in the imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or to do mathematical calculations, including conditions such as perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia.

5. Peer-Reviewed Research • 34 CFR 300.320(a)(4)-Definition of IEP • A statement of the special education and related services and supplementary aids and services, based on peer-reviewed research, to the extent practicable, to be provided to the child, or on behalf of the child, and a statement of the program modifications or supports for school personnel that will be provided to enable the child— • Definition of Peer-Reviewed Research, “research that is reviewed by qualified and independent reviewers to ensure that the quality of the information meets the standards of the field before the research is published.” 71 Fed. Reg. 46,664 (2006).

6. Instructional Methodologies • No definition in IDEA • Language used in IDEA: Analysis and Comments; 71 Fed. Reg. 46,665 • Instructional strategies: graphic organizers, thematic instruction, big ideas, planning routines, scaffolding • Instructional methods: direct teaching, cooperative learning, brainstorming, lecture, lecture with discussion, multimedia, role playing, games, large/small group discussion, worksheets/surveys, computer simulations, independent study, guest speakers, etc.

7. IEP requirements • Language in IDEA: Analysis and Comments; Page 46,665 • Does not require an IEP to include specific instructional methodologies • IEP team determines the special education and related services that are needed by the child in order for the child to receive FAPE • Can be in IEP if IEP team determines necessary • Parents can raise use of particular methodology during IEP meeting

8. Specifically designed instruction • Definition: Special education means specially designed instruction, at no cost to the parents, to meet the unique needs of a child with a disability, including—300.39 • Means adapting, as appropriate to the needs of an eligible child under this part, the content, methodology, or delivery of instruction—to address unique needs and to ensure access to the general curriculum—300.39(a)(3) • Transition Services—may be special education, if provided a specially designed instruction, or a related service—300.43(b) • IEP Team: A representative is qualified to provide or supervise the provision of, specially designed instruction

9. RtI: Methodology • Alternative to IQ/discrepancy model • Identification, progress monitoring, instructional delivery framework • Same Methodology: scientifically based instruction, NCLB • Peer-reviewed research • Challenging RtI • Discussion

10. OSEP & Case Law • Rulings on whether IEP is required to include a specific methodology • Rowley—holding that once a court determines that the procedural requirements of the Act have been met, questions of methodology are for resolution by the states. U.S. Supreme Court, 1982 (interpreter) • Lachman—parents cannot compel a specific program/methodology if FAPE is provided. 7th Circuit, 1988 (total communication vs. cued speech)

11. OSEP & Case Law • T.H. v. Palatine, N.D. Ill, 1999 (ABA) • Articulating a particular methodology • Appropriate methodology • Best methodology • Eclectic methodology • Predetermined methodology • Disagreements over methodology • Denial of FAPE: wrong methodology • Individualized family service plans and peer-reviewed research requirement

12. CONCLUSION • U.S. Department of Education • What Works Clearinghouse • Knowledgeable Expert Testimony • 105 ILCS 5/14-8.02. Identification, Evaluation and Placement of Children • (g-5) to ensure parent participation • Burden of Proof at hearing • Questions