Learning Disabilities/Special Education

Abstract

Special education has a long tradition of valuing a continuum of placements and services to meet individual students' needs (Deno 1970). The alignment with response to intervention (RTI) and the provision of evidence-based intervention is strong. In this chapter, we discuss the research base and characteristics of RTI as they relate to students with learning disabilities (LD) and special education services in general. We discuss RTI as both a system of educational service delivery as well as a method for determining eligibility for special education services as a student with LD. Both definitions and approaches are important to examining the intersection of RTI and special education and there is a good amount of overlap.The authors begin this chapter with definitions of some of the key terms that are important to the treatment of the topic throughout the rest of the chapter. Next, the research base in relation to some key components of RTI and how they link to the needs of students with LD and the provision of special education services are presented. These include (a) eligibility and exit determinations, (b) tiered delivery of services, (c) evidencebased practices (EBPs), (d) universal screening, and (e) progress monitoring. Finally, some directions for future research in this area that are derived from prior research and gaps therein as well as implications of the current research base for the implementation of RTI are provided. Definitions• Aptitude-achievement discrepancy: A method for identifying students with LD. It includes comparing a student's performance on a standardized, norm-referenced achievement test to a test of cognitive ability. A student is determined to have a LD if his/her achievement score is less than would be predicted given his/her cognitive ability. The RTI framework can be used as an alternative method for identifying students with LD.• Child Find: A federal mandate that requires school districts to locate, identify, and evaluate children with disabilities, from birth to age 21, to ensure provision of a free and appropriate public education through special education and/or related services.• Curriculum-based measurement (CBM): A measurement system which uses instruments and metrics highly associated with the curriculum a student is expected to learn. Thus, little inference is required regarding the determination of students' skill level.• Evidence-based practices (EBPs): Instructional practices that are supported by high-

Multitiered Early Literacy Identification in 3-Year-Old Children in Head Start Settings

“…These results are consistent with prior studies involving 4- and 5-year-old children participating in tuition-based and income-eligible programs (i.e., Carta et al, 2015; Greenwood et al, 2012) and 4- and 5-year-old children participating in Head Start programs (Albritton et al, 2017). Specifically, simulated tier placement percentages for 3-year-old children in the current study closely approximate the percentages that have been theoretically proposed in the K-12 and early childhood RtI literature (e.g., Buysse & Peisner-Feinberg, 2010; Fuchs et al, 2012; Griffiths et al, 2007; Hosp et al, 2016; Stoiber & Gettinger, 2016). In addition, the current study demonstrates that an RtI early literacy screening process might be feasible for 3-year-old children in Head Start settings and would provide helpful information for determining who should receive additional supports beyond Tier 1 instruction.…”

“…Movement among each tier may occur throughout the academic year based on data obtained from progress monitoring and/or benchmarking measures. Within an RtI framework, the approximate expected percentages of children in Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3 are 80%, 15%, and 5%, respectively (Buysse & Peisner-Feinberg, 2010; Fuchs et al, 2012; Griffiths et al, 2007; Hosp et al, 2016; Stoiber & Gettinger, 2016). When children are meeting benchmarks as indicated through universal screening data and progress monitoring data, this typically suggests that the existing Tier 1 instructional quality is adequate for the context (Ardoin et al, 2016; Buysse & Peisner-Feinberg, 2010).…”

IDEA’s Double Bind: A Synthesis of Disproportionality Policy Interpretations

“…It is important to note that although CEIS has been emphasized in IDEA for more than a decade, the effect in reducing disproportionality appears limited (Albrecht et al, 2012; USGAO, 2013). Studies are mixed, but there is research support for the potential of high-quality RTI to reduce referrals and identification for special education (e.g., Hosp, Huddle, Ford, & Hensley, 2016). Conversely, consistent with findings of minimal change under past regulations, research also points to inadequate professional preparation and fidelity of implementation in limiting the effectiveness of CEIS (e.g., RTI; Sullivan & Long, 2010; Vujnovic et al, 2014).…”

Τμήματα Ένταξης Στη Δευτεροβάθμια Εκπαίδευση: Κριτική Θεώρηση Των Διαδικασιών Και Μέσων Αξιολόγησης Και Παρέμβασης Που Υιοθετούνται.

“…Όπως διαπιστώθηκε, δεν ακολουθείται κάποια συστηματική διαδικασία ανίχνευσης των μαθητών με ε.ε.α., αλλά παρατηρείται μια ευκαιριακή προσέγγιση της ανίχνευσης που δεν βασίζεται σε αξιόπιστα κριτήρια. Αυτό συνιστά ένα έλλειμα στην έγκαιρη αντιμετώπιση των εκπαιδευτικών αναγκών με συνέπεια να μένουν αδιάγνωστοι αρκετοί μαθητές και να χάνεται το όφελος της έγκαιρης παρέμβασης (Hosp et al, 2016).…”