This article reports the results of a survey of the 51 State Departments of Education (including Washington, DC) regarding their learning disabilities definitions, identification criteria, and operationalization procedures. A conceptual framework consisting of eight components was used in analyzing the definitions and identification criteria. While revealing variations, results showed the continued impact of the 1977 federal definition and criteria. For example, several state definitions now include the discrepancy component, and the use of language criteria is increasing. To determine current trends, the data are compared with those from a similar survey published in 1985. Findings are discussed in terms of trends, prereferral interventions, assessment instruments, and discrepancy models.

No abstract

This article reports the results of a survey of the 51 state departments of education (including Washington, DC) regarding their definitions of learning disabilities, identification criteria, and operationalization procedures. A conceptual framework consisting of eight components was used in analyzing the definitions and identification criteria. Results show the continued effect of the 1977 federal definition and criteria while revealing variations in state definitions and criteria. For example, several state definitions now include the neurological component, and use of discrepancy criteria is increasing. To determine current trends, the data are compared with those from a similar survey published in 1990. Findings are discussed in terms of trends, prereferral interventions, and noncategorical identification.

A study examined racial/ethnic and gender bias on curriculum-based measurement (CBM) of reading with African-American and Caucasian male and female regular education students across grades 2-5. Simultaneous multiple regression analyses were conducted by grade to examine group differences on CBM as an estimate of reading comprehension. Regression equations were estimated with CBM, gender, race/ethnicity, and the interactions of gender and race/ethnicity with CBM. Results indicated that CBM is a biased indicator of reading comprehension. Although no evidence of bias was found at the second and third grades, intercept bias was found for racial/ethnic groups at the fourth and fifth grades, and intercept and slope bias were found for gender at the fifth grade. Implications suggest that the meaning of CBM scores differs across race/ethnicity or gender, or both, at certain grade levels. CBM performance overestimates the reading comprehension of African American students and underestimates that of Caucasians; and at grade 5, CBM performance overestimates the reading comprehension of girls and underestimates that of boys. Mean differences between boys and girls were also much greater at lower levels of CBM performance than at higher levels. These findings raise issues concerning the use of CBM as a screening measure and in determining eligibility for and termination of special education and related services. (Author/RS) Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document.

Shortages of trained personnel in special education are widely recognized. This need typically translates to special education programs as efforts to increase the numbers of professionals who are appropriately prepared to teach students with disabilities. The difficulty of increasing on-campus sections to respond effectively to the escalating need for more and better trained teachers, has in some cases led to an increased emphasis on alternative ways to deliver required course work. Distance learning is one such alternative. Distance learning can be defined as the separation of the learner from the instructor in location (learner and instructor in different rooms or at different sites), and, in some instances, by time. The promise of distance learning offers an attractive alternative for increasing the numbers of appropriately prepared special education personnel by making college-level instruction easier to receive. Current practices support synchronous communication (e.g., two-way audio, two-way video in real time, or two-way audio, one-way video in real time) and asynchronous communication (E-mail, or the Asynchronous Learning Network which does not necessarily occur in real time but at varying times depending on participants needs). Although it is possible to increase enrollments via distance learning, professionals recognize that there are some potential problems as well. If careful planning and course delivery are not clearly articulated students at remote sites can feel as if they are not part of the whole and that the education they are receiving is substandard. This article reviews promises, practices, and pitfalls associated with distance learning in an effort to inform special education professionals about this increasingly popular personnel preparation alternative.

APPROPRIATE INSTRUCTION IN CLASSROOMS WITH DIVERSE LEARNERS REQUIRES A VARIETY OF INSTRUCTIONAL METHODS TO ADDRESS INDIVIDUAL NEEDS. MANY EDUCATORS, HOWEVER, FIND THEMSELVES PHILOSOPHICALLY TIED TO ONE INSTRUCTIONAL APPROACH FOR EVERY LEARNER TO THE EXCLUSION OF OTHER APPROACHES. THIS ALLEGIANCE TO ONE METHOD OF TEACHING REDUCES CHOICES FOR TEACHERS AND STUDENTS. STRICT ADHERENCE TO A LIMITED VIEW OF LEARNING CAN ALSO HINDER INCLUSION EFFORTS BY DENYING SOME STUDENTS APPROPRIATE INSTRUCTION. A CONTINUUM OF TEACHING METHODS THAT INCLUDES “EXPLICIT” AND “IMPLICIT” INSTRUCTIONAL APPROACHES IS PROPOSED AS A MORE INCLUSIVE ALTERNATIVE. RESEARCH THAT SUPPORTS A CONTINUUM OF APPROACHES IS REPORTED ALONG WITH IMPLICATIONS FOR CLASSROOM INSTRUCTION AND TEACHER EDUCATION.

Techuology-mediated distance education (e.g., two-way interactive television, Web based instruction) is revolutionizing the delivery of university-level courses. The great promise provided by increased enrollments in efforts to meet supply and demand needs has made learning at a distance particularly popular in special education. In this research, student ratings were compared in a methods course that was affered on campus and off campus using different means of instruction. Students' ratings were also compared for students in the distance education course at local and remote facilities. End-of-course student evaluations (e.g., overall mean, and component evaluations which examined course, instructor, and general evaluation items) were examined using an independent groups comparison design. Analysis of outcome measures revealed no difference in the overall course means. Overall ratings as well as cluster ratings for course, instructor, and general items were similar for a methods and materials course in learning disabilities taught on campus and at a distance. When outcome measures for on-campus students vs. off-campus students were examined, again, no differences were evident in the overall ratings. Similarly, course, instructor, and general item ratings were similar across settings and courses. Implications for future research in planning, implementing, and evaluating instruction at a distance are suggested.

This article defines constructivism and examines the theory in terms of the view of the learner, the content, teacher-student interactions, motivation, and assessment. The standards generated by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics are reviewed in terms of their sensitivity to students with moderate to mild disabilities. Constructivistic teaching principles are abstracted from the constructivism and learning strategy literature and research. Nineteen instructional components are identified and discussed in terms of teacher behaviors, teacher modeling of explicit strategies, teacher-student interactions, instructional content, and learning factors. An analysis of these components reveals that most constructivists adopt an exogenous constructivistic approach to teaching math to students with moderate to mild disabilities. Finally, obstacles to applying research-based constructivistic components in classrooms are identified.In the spring of 1992, I (the senior author) had the opportunity to work on a math project with second-grade teachers and their students in a rural Florida school. During the last week of school I attended the end-of-the-school-year picnic. I was sitting at a table enjoying an ice cream cone when I heard a confident but quiet voice say, "I know ninety-nine times zero." Standing beside the table was a second grader named Matt, with his hands in his pockets, waiting for my response. I decided to have some fun. I said, "How could you possibly know ninety-nine times zero and still be in the second grade? That must be at least a third-grade skill." Matt quickly replied, "Ninety-nine times zero is zero." With a surprised expression, I said, "Lucky guess!" Matt looked directly at me and said, "I'll come back." Then he turned and walked away. A few minutes later, Matt approached the table with several of his second-grade friends. Upon their arrival, one of Matt's friends said, "I know one thousand times one." I responded, "You're kidding. That problem is impossible for a second grader." The friend blurted out, "One thousand." More second graders joined our discussion. They continued to share with me their knowledge of multiplication-a million times one, six thousand times zero, nine times eight, and so on. The group of 8 to 10 students consisted of normally achieving students and students with learning problems.They displayed their knowledge of rules, multiplication facts, and problemAddress: Downloaded from solving skills. I praised them for their knowledge and smartness. I was surprised that the students continued to discuss math when they had the opportunity to be playing. That afternoon while driving home, I realized that I had learned a lesson about empowered students.Unfortunately, this scenario of students excited about their math learning is uncommon. For many students, math problems often result in school failure and lead to much anxiety. Although deficiencies in reading are cited most often as a primary characteristic of students with learning disabilities, Mastropieri, Scruggs, and ...