Timothy Shanahan University of Illinois at Chicago

The identification of LD has depended upon the use of the “discrepancy model” To be designated as LD you had to exhibit learning problems, but only when no learning problems should exist

Generally, this model meant you could either exclude poverty children from special education OR you had to pretend that poverty posed no learning problems and put large numbers of poverty kids into special education

 The political reality is that no one was willing to allow poor kids to be kept out of these programs  And because both learning disabled and poverty-disrupted learners were being served by LD programs, the growth of “LD” rates was phenomenal and expensive

 Further complicating things was that the scientific validity of the discrepancy view was questionable (Aaron, 1997; Bentum & Aaron, 2003) ◦ No cognitive differences between LD students and poor readers ◦ No difference in responsiveness to instruction ◦ Low success of LD resource rooms

We needed a system for identifying students with learning problems that would… --stop increasing and start reducing enrollment in LD programs --improve treatment outcomes (these are kids, not labels)

 Response to instruction/intervention  Multiple tier models: 1. Classroom instruction 2. Interventions 3. Special Education

RTI is better than discrepancy because  It is more consistent with what we know about learning  It reduces labeling of children  It involves more educators in trying to solve the problem  It is aggressive about children’s learning

RTI is a problem, however, because  Instead of being a way to ensure success for children, it can be a mechanical process, that simply rushes kids into special education in a new way

And that is why I have become a proponent of my controversial 9-tier model

 First line of defense in meeting children’s learning needs is to provide sufficient and appropriate classroom teaching  This is not an issue about Learning Disabled children: this should be the fundamental response to the needs of all children  But what is sufficient and appropriate teaching?

A LL STUDENTS MUST RECEIVE SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNTS OF EXPLICIT TEACHING ALONG WITH GUIDED PRACTICE AND INDEPENDENT PRACTICE  2-3 hours per day of actual instruction  This is a teaching issue more than a scheduling issue (management, planning, involvement, engagement)

T HEY SHOULD RECEIVE EXPLICIT TEACHING OF CURRICULAR ELEMENTS THAT PROVIDE A CLEAR LEARNING ADVANTAGE TO CHILDREN --phonological awareness --phonics --oral reading fluency --vocabulary (oral language) --reading comprehension --writing

Q UALITY TEACHING --Clear explanations --Appropriate modeling, explanation, guided practice, independent practice --Lots of interaction and student response --Appropriate scaffolding

T HERE NEED TO BE ADEQUATE SUPPORT SYSTEMS TO MAINTAIN QUALITY INSTRUCTION --Professional development --Instructional materials --Assessment information --Supervision and collaboration

 Just because kids are in the same classroom doesn’t mean they’re having the same experience  Learning needs and responses to instruction differ and these differences mediate learning  Teachers should adjust to instruction to increase the possibility of learning

--Attentional difficulties: change seating, placement --General: increase responsiveness --Phonological difficulties: reduce noise, make sure child can see teacher’s mouth --Reading speed difficulties: Give the student a head start (or preview) --Vocabulary, spelling, sight words, etc.: Provide extra practice

--Reading comprehension difficulties: Divide text into smaller chunks, make sure to include him/her in questioning, anticipate difficult parts --Push-in models go here (as long as the focus is on learning)  Best to plan these adjustments with other professionals (coaching support)  Peer tutoring

 The benefits of additional, targeted classroom instruction  Provide extra teaching to children who lag behind  Reading in Motion effort in Chicago: students who underperform on DIBELS are retaught in groups of 3 (same teacher, same materials, same instruction)  But added amount and intensity raises achievement

 NLP finding: Parents indicated a willingness to help, particularly if their child was having difficulty, but schools rarely called on these parents to work with their children  NELP review: Parent involvement programs helped raise students’ early literacy performance  Senechal analysis: Parent involvement was most powerful when it was the most like teaching

 Early in the process, parents need to be informed  This information should include specific guidance in how they can help  Parent information was always a part of the special education placement process, but it has too rarely been a part of RtI

 Pull-out instruction is an opportunity to provide children with additional help from another teacher during the school day  The soft (or less intense) intervention will be group lessons  These groups lessons will probably take place no more than 2-3 times per week

 There is a need to coordinate these lessons with the classroom instruction  Most important coordination is time (do not reduce classroom teaching for this kind of intervention)  Need to coordinate the focus of the instruction (and perhaps the lessons/materials)

 Remediation does not need to be a follow up  It is possible for intervention to lead classroom instruction  Pull-out interventions often engage kids in literacy at easier levels than classroom instruction—they make available much support that is unnecessary  Consider turning this around: provide kids with greater challenges when there is more support available

 Soft interventions will not be sufficient for all children  Intensive interventions requiring 1-on-1 tutoring or groups no larger than 3  Intensive interventions need to be daily  Intensive interventions also require coordination (though in some cases it is very reasonable to drop back to a much easier level)

 Additional instruction can be provided before school, after school, or during other non- instructional time (lunch?) during a school day  Afterschool programs can be effective in raising achievement (as long as they increase instructional time and focus on key learning)  Children report greater opportunities to learn in afterschool programs  Can be a good venue for peer tutoring

 Students who struggle lose more ground during the summer  Summer school instruction is a powerful way to improve reading achievement  Summer schools with smaller classes do best  Parent involvement is important here, too

 In Chicago, kids make greater gains per month during the summer than during the school year (more focused curriculum, selectivity with teachers)

 Some kids really do need to receive some of their basic instruction in much more advantaged situations  This can be replacement teaching  This needs to be in particularly small groups  With a teacher specialized in learning problems  Fewer than 1 in 10 children is likely to need such placements

 Such placements should not ignore the other tiers (afterschool, summer, parent, etc. programs are for these kids, too)

 The point isn’t the tiers, but the continuing effort to meet students learning needs, with increasingly intense (effective) supports  Isn’t this confusing for teachers and administrators?

Timothy Shanahan University of Illinois at Chicago