History of Specific Learning Disabilities (SLD)

 Lee Ann Melchor

University of Central Florida

Department of Education and Graduate Studies

The first learning disability was diagnosed in 1877 by German neurologist Adolf Kussamaul after diagnosing a child with “word blindness”-- "a complete text blindness…although the power of sight, the intellect and the powers of speech are intact."  Another German physician diagnosed the first known case of dyslexia in 1887, while W.E. Bruner diagnosed the first child with reading difficulties in the U.S. in 1905.

Despite these early known reports of learning disabilities and the prior works of psychoanalysts Skinner, Chomisky, Vygotosky and many others, legislation changes in the realm of special education to address learning disabilities did not take place until approx. the 1960s.  In 1963, Samuel A. Kirk uses the term “learning disabled”, marking the first time this term had been used.  The term “learning disability” clearly departs from the mental disorders as classified by early psychoanalysts.

Learning disabilities today, as defined by the federal definition includes perceptual disabilities, brain injury, dyslexia, minimal brain dysfunction and developmental aphasia.  Learning disabilities does not include any disorder that is the primary result of a vision, hearing, motor disability, mental retardation, emotional disturbance, or environmental, cultural or economic disadvantage. (IDEA Amendments, 1997, Sec. 602(26), p.13)

Today, the National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities has created an alternative definition due to dissatisfaction of the federal definition for learning disability.  This alternative definition developed by the NJCLD encompasses including adults, those with self-regulation and social interaction issues, disorders of the central nervous system and to clarify ambiguous term under inclusion, exclusion, spelling and references to the psychological processes. 

In 1965, Congress under Title VI created the Bureau of Education for the Handicapped, now known as the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP).  In 1969, Congress specifically addresses learning disabilities with the passing of the Children with Specific Learning Disabilities Act.  This was later included in the Education of the Handicapped Act of 1970 (PL 91-230).

The Civil Rights Movement of the late 1960s and 1970s marked a radical change in the perception of the disabled.  In 1973, Congress passed the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, to very little public interest.  This act protects the disabled from discrimination due to their disability.  This was followed shortly by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) which protects the rights of families. FERPA specifically gives parents access to all information collected, maintained, or used by a school district regarding their child.

In 1970, Congress passed the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (PL 94-142).  This law incorporated one of the major concepts still used today--free, appropriate public education for all students (FAPE). In 1990, this law was renamed as Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and later reauthorized in 1997 and 2004.  IDEA changed the use of the word “handicap”, replacing it with “disability” therefore changing the public perceptions and increased sensitivity toward those affected by a disability.  Also in 1990, the Americans with Disabilities (ADA) Act was passed which mandates that no one with a disability can be restricted from any activity programs or activities that are federally funded because of their disability.  ADA also utilizes the 504 plan which spells out what accommodations the child will receive in order for students to have the opportunity to perform as their non-disabled peers. 

IDEA (1990) also added in Autism and traumatic brain injury into eligibility categories.  In 1997, general education teachers were included in the IEP process, allowed disabled students access to general education curriculum and also mandated that disabled students would be tested in state-wide assessments.  ADHD also was added to the eligibility categories in 1997.  In 2004, IDEA and No Child Left Behind (NCLB) work together to ensure that students are educated in the least restrictive environment possible and that a child’s disability does not exclude him from promoting forward. 

With the passing of federal legislation, more information readily known about most learning disabilities and changes in perceptions toward the disabled, there has been significant change in moving from institutionalization, to normalization, deinstitutionalization and inclusion.  This radical change in the perceptions and attitudes toward the disabled has been the direct result of parents, advocates, agencies, legislation and other individuals toward improving the quality of life and respect toward those affected by a disability.  This also includes supports and sensitivity to families affected by a loved one with a disability. 

While many causes of disabilities are not known, we have made great strides in improving the knowledge base of environmental, hereditary and other factors that cause some disabilities.  In addition, our focus has shifted toward ensuring that anyone affected by a disability is provided every opportunity to participate in education, employment and other activities as that of their non-disabled peers.  The biggest change by far, is the overall attitudes, levels of acceptance and perceptions about people with disabilities.

References:

Hallahan, D. (2012) Exceptional Learners. Pearson: Upper Saddle River.

LD Online (2011) Timeline of Learning Disabilities. 

Retrieved from http://www.ldonline.org/

Teaching LD (2011).  Retrieved from http://teachingld.org/pages/DLD-history

Inclusion Model and the Council for Exceptional Children

 

Wanda Lee Ann Melchor

University of Central Florida

College of Education and Graduate Studies

Fall 2011

            Inclusion is defined as mainstreaming or the act of placing students into general education classes and other school activities.  Many countries including the U.S. have adopted inclusion practices with the goal of improving the education of individuals with disabilities.  In the U.S., the passing of the Free and Appropriate Education (FAPE) legislation supports the ideology of inclusion.  While the U.S. has become one of the main proponents of inclusion, inclusion models vary from state to state.  Most states use the inclusion model for students with mild to moderate disabilities.  In addition, there are several levels of inclusion including full inclusion where students spend their entire day in general education classrooms, to partial inclusion-integrated models where students spend part of their day in special education services and most of their day in the general education classroom.  Also, there is a discrepancy in the U.S. between private and public education.  Most private schools do not tend to be held to the same federal standards as public schools.  NCLB, FAPE and IDEA only applies to schools that receive federal funding.

            Inclusion has become a controversial issue over the last 50 years.  Parents of children with severe disabilities that are in support of inclusion report several benefits.  First, children are exposed to more academic and functional skills in the general education classroom.  Non-disabled students are exposed to disabled children with the hope of building tolerance and acceptance.  Disabled students are exposed to social norms and develop social skills.  Disabled children go to school with their non-disabled siblings.

            Parents of children with severe disabilities also report disadvantages to inclusion.  These include the child’s condition may not benefit from inclusion, the burden of the child’s disability is placed on the other students and the teacher and the child does not get the desired level of attention needed from their teacher.  In addition, parents report the child can become overwhelmed by both the social and academic environment and expectations of the general education classroom.  Often teachers and other students do not have the skills needed to deal with the disabled child’s needs or behaviors.  There is also concern that the child will not be treated appropriately by other children, especially with the rising issues of bullying in the schools.

            Educators, parents and critics of inclusion also question the use of partial inclusion claiming that it creates a fragmented education for individuals with disabilities.  While those in support of inclusion report that not allowing inclusion was a violation of the civil rights of individuals with disabilities (Johnstone, 2010).  In the U.S., inclusion was the end result of the desegregation movement.  Inclusion has become the best practice for providing education for individuals with disabilities. 

            One of the main proponents of inclusion is the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC).  The CEC is one of the largest international organizations dedicated toward improving education of individuals with disabilities.  The mission of the CEC is to improve, through excellence and advocacy, the education and quality of life for children and youth with exceptionalities and to enhance the engagement of their families.  CEC defines their key values as promoting:

·   Dignity and worth of all individuals.

·   Diversity and inclusiveness.

·   Advocacy and social justice.

·   Professional excellence, integrity, and accountability.

·   Full participation in society.

·   Effective individualized education.

·   Family engagement.

·   Collaboration and community.

·   Responsibility to members.

CEC also sets high ethical standards for professionals working with individuals with disabilities.  These include:

Professional special educators are guided by the CEC professional ethical principles and practice standards in ways that respect the diverse characteristics and needs of individuals with exceptionalities and their families. They are committed to upholding and advancing the following principles:

A.    Maintaining challenging expectations for individuals with exceptionalities to develop the highest possible learning outcomes and quality of life potential in ways that respect their dignity, culture, language, and background.

B.     Maintaining a high level of professional competence and integrity and exercising professional judgment to benefit individuals with exceptionalities and their families.

C.     Promoting meaningful and inclusive participation of individuals with exceptionalities in their schools and communities.

D.    Practicing collegially with others who are providing services to individuals with exceptionalities.

E.     Developing relationships with families based on mutual respect and actively involving families and individuals with exceptionalities in educational decision making.

F.      Using evidence, instructional data, research and professional knowledge to inform practice.

G.    Protecting and supporting the physical and psychological safety of individuals with exceptionalities.

H.    Neither engaging in nor tolerating any practice that harms individuals with exceptionalities.

I. Practicing within the professional ethics, standards, and policies of CEC; upholding laws, regulations, and policies that influence professional practice; and advocating improvements in laws, regulations, and policies.

J. Advocating for professional conditions and resources that will improve learning outcomes of individuals with exceptionalities.

K.    Engaging in the improvement of the profession through active participation in professional organizations.

L.     Participating in the growth and dissemination of professional knowledge and skills.  

Item # C above emphasizes their belief in the practice of inclusion and their expectation that professionals working with individuals with disabilities also support inclusive practices. 

            As both a teacher and a parent of children with special needs, I do believe that there are benefits to inclusion.  Like the parents reported above, disabled children that are exposed to their non-disabled peers are exposed to higher academic standards, increased social interactions that assists disabled students with learning social norms, increases communication skills and helps non-disabled students become familiar with disabilities including physical, mental and learning disabilities.  While the goal of inclusion is to provide disabled students with more normal opportunities and to provide social acceptance by their non-disabled peers, there are disadvantages to inclusion.  This includes the risk of bullying, being ostracized and the increased social pressures and stresses of trying to fit in.

            While I am overall supportive of inclusion, I do have an issue with inclusion practices.  The right of a child to participate in inclusion seems automatically imposed upon the child and the parents.  There does not seem to be in place any procedures for allowing the child or the parents to determine what level of inclusion the child should participate in, if at all.  I do believe there are times when inclusion is not appropriate to meet the needs of the child and their disability.  The stress and inability to cope with their disability, combined with not being able to successfully participate academically and socially in inclusion combined with the needs of their disability and the resources available to them in the inclusion environment should factor in to whether a child or their parents can elect not to participate in full or partial inclusion. 

One of the main considerations in determining inclusion practices and modifying the education environment, is to consider whether general education teachers have the ability to meet the needs of students with disabilities.  Teacher attitudes toward educating students with disabilities is one of the main factors in determining the quality of education disabled students receive in the mainstream environment.  Teacher attitudes not only encompass the teacher’s attitudes toward the disabled child, but also the teacher’s perception in her abilities to teach disabled individuals and non-disabled students combined in the same classroom (Gaad, 2007).  Under inclusion, teachers do not have the right to determine whether they have the skills and the ability to meet the educational needs of disabled students.  It is automatically imposed on all teachers.  It is important to consider if the teacher’s attitude and perceptions of her ability to educate disabled students determine that she feels inadequate to do so, then how effective is her instructional methods and the quality of education she provides to the disabled student?  Clearly, if inclusion is to be the only acceptable method of education, then teachers must be adequately prepared and trained in order to meet the needs of both the disabled and non-disabled child.

            Overall, I believe inclusion is working to improve the quality of life for individuals with disabilities.  I also believe that it is bringing disabilities into social acceptance.  Like any other educational practice, inclusion needs continual review to improve the quality and integrity of the process.  Inclusion is a relatively new concept historically. It will take time and effort to continually improve the application of inclusion.  I believe agencies like CEC will continue to strive to ensure the quality of education for individuals with disabilities.

References

CEC (2011).  About the Council for Exceptional Children. 

Retrieved from http://www.cec.sped.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=About_CEC

Gaad, E. (2007).  Primary Mainstream Teachers’ Attitudes Toward Inclusion of Students with                                            

Special Educational Needs in the Private Sector: A Perspective from Dubai.  International Journal of Special Education, vol. 22, n. 2.  Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/EJ814493.pdf

Johnstone, C. (2010).  Inclusive Education Policy Implementation: Implications for Teacher

Workforce Development in Trinidad and Tobago.  International Journal of Special Education, vol. 25 n. 3. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/EJ909034.pdf

Florida's RtI Model: An Overview

Lee Ann Melchor

University of Cenral Florida

College of Education and Graduate Studies

Overview of Florida’s RtI Model

The RtI Model is designed to provide a multi-tiered approach to providing individualized instruction and interventions delivered at the right level to meet the individual student’s needs.  RtI is highly centered around data collection and assessment to ensure students are properly referred to special education services and that no student population is overrepresented in special education (FDOE, 2011).  RtI can assist district with delivering services efficiently and managing their limited resources.  RtI is a cyclical process of defining the student’s needs, analysis of why it is occurring, implementation of services and Evaluation of what is working and the process starts over.  Since 2004, Florida has continually worked on improving the process of RtI.

Since the implementation of RtI, Florida students have shown increases in reading as well as decreased special education enrollment.  In addition, students who also received positive behavioral supports (PBS) showed a significant decline in behavioral issues.

One of the leading advantages of RtI is that it can assist districts with meeting requirements under NCLB and IDEA as they assist schools with working toward meeting their annual yearly goals under AYP (FDOE, 2011).  RtI also serves as the basic framework for all programs in Florida administered by Florida Department of Education (FDOE) to ensure there is continuity of services and in an effort for FDOE to maximize and manage their resources.

The goal of RtI is to use evidence based interventions and to ensure interventions are driven by the needs of the student.  RtI also ensures that a child does not stay in special education services their entire academic career, but only receives services in the least restrictive environment for only as necessary. 

Tier I

The school provides all students access to high quality instruction inside the classroom.  Tier 1 services include general education services and behavioral instruction to all students across settings.

Tier II

The school provides small groups intervention services for those who need more support than Tier 1.  This level is more targeted and instruction/intervention and supplemental support provided in addition to the general education services and behavioral instruction received under Tier 1.

Tier III

The school develops and implements interventions to meet the individual needs of students.  This level is the most intense level of intervention.  Tier III is highly focused, intense interventions with a very narrow concentrated focus.  In addition, the student receives supports under Tier I and Tier II.

Teaching and Interviewing in Each Tier

Under RtI, learning standards are structured to ensure seamless learning from grade to grade.  It is required of the teachers to understand and use formal and informal assessments to ensure that data collected is valid and reliable in developing instructional methods.  Teachers are responsible for ensuring that students make adequate yearly progress and to refer students as needed for more intense services. 

In order to meet these requirements, teachers must be highly qualified and understand the RtI process.  In addition, teachers must be vested in ensuring the success of their students and the RtI system.  Teachers must be committed to ongoing progress monitoring to ensure student progress and the effectiveness of interventions used. 

Under Tier 1, teachers are responsible for normal delivery of instruction and behavior support to all students. In addition, teachers are responsible for gathering information and conducting assessments to determine whether more interventions are needed.

Under Tier 2, teachers provide all the instructional delivery of services, but also supplemental support to groups of targeted students.  General education teachers may provide more intense assistance with reading or other subjects or work cooperatively with other teachers and professionals delivering services.

Under Tier 3, teachers provide intensive specialized services and behavioral support.  The student may not be serviced solely in the general education classroom.  The student may need pull-outs for intensive services such as speech, intensive reading or other services.

Changing Roles of Teachers when Implementing RtI

Teachers may provide the services and interventions individually or as part of a larger team, working cooperatively with other teachers and professionals who are delivering services.  In addition, teachers are data collectors, record keepers and assessors of students’ abilities.  Also, teachers assume the role of advocate to ensure students are only placed in the right level of services needed only for as long as needed. Interventions can be effective when delivered by a variety of school personnel, as long as the personnel are adequately trained to deliver the intervention (Tackett, 2009).

Issues and Solutions

Some districts in the State of Florida may not be as advanced in the RtI process as some districts.  In addition, districts, schools and individual teachers may be reluctant to devote the time and resources to successfully implementing and utilizing RtI.  It is imperative that districts, schools and teachers receive continual training, participate in advisory teams and RtI improvement in order to buy in to the success of RtI.  Successful implementation of RtI often relies on the ability of teachers and school leaders to implement RtI practices with fidelity (Tackett, 2009). 

Additional Resources

There are many resources devoted to RtI.  For assessment, this includes the National Center on Response to Intervention.  For data management, there is the Progress Monitoring and Reporting Network.  The Florida Center for Reading Resource provides guidance for determining instructional reading levels.  A completed list of additional resources can be found at http://www.florida-rti.org/Resources/index.htm

References

Education, F. D. (2011). Florida Response to Instruction/Intervention. Retrieved from http://www.florida-rti.org/index.htm: http://www.florida-rti.org/index.htm

Institute., F. C. (n.d.). Recognition and Response: Findings from the First Implementation Study. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED506946.pdf:http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED506946.pdf

Tackett, K. e. (2009). Implementing Response to Intervention: Practices and Perspectives from Five Schools--Frequently Asked Questions. Retrieved from Center on Instruction.: http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED521572.pdf