GETTING STARTED: FINDING WHAT YOU WANT TO KNOW - WE CAN HELP

There is much confusion in determining whether a child or person has “special needs,” or what it means. Developmental, physical, cognitive, and/or developmental domain weaknesses can only be identified through diagnostic testing by a qualified specialist or physician. No single testing instrument can be used to determine a child's educational future. (Turnbull, R, Stowe, M.J. & Huerta, N.E. 2007. Free and Appropriate Public Education. Denver: Love Pub. p. 136-137).

Parents should not jump to false conclusions prematurely, but can learn more about it here. There now can be non-stigmatizing, private, and thorough evaluations of the whole child.

What is RTI - Response to Intervention?: The definition of responsiveness to intervention (RTI) is based upon the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities (NRCLD). “RTI is an assessment and intervention process for systematically monitoring student progress and making decisions about the need for instructional modifications or increasingly intensified services using progress monitoring data." (US Office of Special Education Programs: Ideas that Work. August 2006. RTI Manual. http://www.nrcld.org)

Why was Change Needed? Why IDEA? This report is a review of how special services were performed from when it first became law in 1975, up until 2004 with the reauthorization act.

Twenty-Five years ago: In 1975: Congress passed Public Law 94-142 (Education of All Handicapped Children Act), now codified as IDEA - (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act - 2004). In order to receive federal funds, states must develop and implement policies that assure a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to all children with disabilities.

Correcting Difficult Problems: The reauthorization of IDEA (2004) was designed to correct stigmatizing and mislabeling shortcomings that created personally damaging flawed inhibitors for children. No longer could there be any discrimination or labeling of children. The discriminatory classification categories and the discrepancy formula were eliminated for identifying learning disorders.

Formerly, Learning Disabled children had to meet a difficult- to-determine, discrepancy formula. These were categories on the basis of the discrepancy between their IQs and reading achievement scores (the Discrepancy Model). This form of classification of poor readers was based upon two premises of this discrepancy between their IQs and reading achievement scores using the Discrepancy Model, which was to be outlawed in 2004. (Aaron, P.G. December, 1997. The Impending Demise of the Discrepancy Formula. Review of Educational Research. Indiana Sate University, vol. 67 no. 4. 461-502).

School psychologists became over-worked with the requests for extensive diagnostics and evaluations. Applying the discrepancy formula to determine if child qualified for special services was a lengthy and labor-intensive process. The student was required to have an average or better intelligent quotient, which was determined through extensive standardized psychological tests.

Test-assessment had to be evaluated through the team Staffing process. Subsequently, schools understaffed and overworked, testing soon became severely modified or given cursory attention.

Teachers referred many children “who fell through the cracks”; were slow learners, inattentive, or perhaps hyper-active, and could qualify as “behaviorally disordered.” They could be “pulled” from the classroom for individualized instruction, relieving the teacher from having the child in the classroom.

Early Identification and the Testing Process: Nevertheless, there were, and still are, long lists of referred children awaiting formal assessments in schools. There were special services staff shortages, as the test administration required advanced degrees in the specific field areas.

Early identification is now encouraged with more parent involvement in the identification referrals, screenings/testing/diagnostics, placement and treatment. Individual Educational Plans (IEPs) are to be now closely monitored at regular intervals with submitted reports to the state.

A helpful website is the Special Education Advisor, which details through classification articles the various learning challenges and solutions. (http://www.specialeducationadvisor.com)

 

1. Referral: Teacher, parent, or medical or diagnostic specialist refers the student for testing. This is called the referral, and the child goes on a waiting list at school for team assessment.
2. Identification through Diagnostics: Screening – Assessment (testing) down by certified diagnosticians. This can be an independent assessment.
3. Evaluation – Qualified “Team Staffing” meets and decides with the parents the Placement and Treatment Plan. Is the resulting IEP appropriate? This placement and treatment plan can be completed by an independent private specialist in addition to the child’s school.
4. Individual Educational Plan is written by the Specialist for the child to strengthen weaknesses, improve strengths.
5. Treatment can be in-class tutoring or online training assistance in school or at home.

The 1975 law of twenty-five years ago had 13 classification categories, ranging from medical and physical conditions, mental impairments, behavioral and learning disabilities, to speech and language disorders.

Unfortunately, many of these disabilities overlapped, were often misdiagnosed and misclassified; assessments were incomplete, or not administered. There were acronyms for each of the thirteen disability classification categories, which became common nomenclature with school team specialists.

Staffing Problems: Eager to expedite the Staffing meeting process, the referred child could be placed with a convenient label, such as LD for “Learning Disability, BD “Behaviorally Disturbed” or, the term, MR “Mental Retardation” if tested with a low intelligence quotient. It became a “meat ax” approach with little individualized testing, decision making, or how the results would be used. (Turnbull, R, Stowe, M.J. & Huerta, N.E. 2007. Free and Appropriate Public Education. Denver: Love Pub. p. 116).

Additionally, some teachers did not want to have to remain after hours following classes, and did not attend, leaving meetings short-staffed and rushed. Subsequently, Children were often quickly evaluated, labeled, and placed in special services, even with parents in attendance, who didn’t understand the classifications and what they meant.

Children with auditory processing (listening problems) were also found placed in rooms with those diagnosed with having mental retardation. Subsequently, children received misplacements for special services, or had coaching in a specific, identified weak academic skill area.

These inaccuracies resulted from inappropriate testing stigmatized the students by labeling them as having a disability, when in reality it may have been a gray academic deficiency area, or even a socio-economic status or racial bias issue.

Parents were confused with the technicalities and terms, let alone placement implications. They were left uninformed as they waited for diagnostic assessments and evaluations. Furthermore, parents felt intimidated and defensive at the team mandated state Staffings, which were sometimes not attended by the required certified decision-makers.

Major criticisms of school evaluations: With IDEA, no longer could students be labeled or stigmatized, and racial bias was eliminated through inappropriate testing practices. (Turnbull, R, Stowe, M.J. & Huerta, N.E. 2007. Free and Appropriate Public Education. Denver: Love Pub. pp. 114-116). School district funding depended upon the automaticity of the labeling and these services. With the funding certain, a disability label became permanent, and could not be escaped, outgrown, or rebutted. There was a saying, “Once in, never out” (p. 115). The word “disabilities” became stigmatizing, and many children were unfortunately labeled with damaging, life-long effects.

Later, in the 1980s, reform policy dictated that special needs students were to be taught within the regular classroom, now called "Class within a Class." Occasionally, they are still removed for individualized or small group, instruction, which can be a stigmatizing event being labeled as a “slow learner needing special assistance.”

Medications Become Popular: As time went on, in the late 1980s – 1990s, some parents refused to take part in the diagnostic and labeling process. Medications became an alternative resource, as they were less intimidating and stigmatizing. The new reform IDEA law was in process. Yet, these medications carried long-term risks, as there is little, if any, longitudinal research on the stimulant drug usage.

Fidelity of Implementation of an individual Education plan. (IEP) Individual plans must address the whole child and his specified needs. See the cognitive skill areas and learn about information processing.

Now, that you have an idea as to how complex the identification and placement process is, go to the next section, as to how to find professional help in your own geographical area for complete diagnostics and evaluations.