Wednesday, January 12, 2005
Laura Kaloi (Moderator):
Good afternoon. Welcome to LD Talk, the Web’s first and only site devoted to expert discussions on issues concerning learning disabilities. LD Talk is a service of the National Center for Learning Disabilities (NCLD). We look forward to bringing you ongoing opportunities to connect with leading experts in the LD field via this new service, thanks for joining us!
Our expert today is Dr. Stevan Kukic. Dr. Kukic is former Utah State Director of Special Education and has just completed a five year term as chair of the National Center for Learning Disabilities' Professional Advisory Board. He is currently the Vice President for Professional Services for Sopris West Educational Services. Dr. Kukic played an integral role in the development of the new IDEA 04 provisions regarding specific learning disability (SLD) eligibility. His involvement with special education and learning disabilities dates back to the enactment of the Education of All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 and the development of its implementing federal regulations. Thanks for being with us today, Dr. Kukic
Our discussion today will focus on the new provisions in the recently enacted Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA 04) regarding the determination of eligibility for students as having a specific learning disability and its implications at the state and local school district levels. Other important new provisions that relate to LD eligibility will also be addressed. For background on this topic, read the Frequently Asked Questions document we have prepared.
I am Laura Kaloi, Director of Public Policy at the National Center for Learning Disabilities, and I’ll be moderating today’s discussion.
We have received many questions for this discussion. Today we’ll be offering replies to those questions most closely related to our discussion topic and of the broadest interest to our audience. Questions unrelated to this topic can be sent to NCLD’s Help Desk at This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it .
Let's begin the discussion.
Question from Joe Jackson, School Psychologist, Pinnacle Elementary:
Now that SLD classification does not have to be driven by the achievement/ability(IQ) discrepancy, will more "slow learners", students with borderline intelligence, now be classified as SLD? How appropriate is this?
Dr. Stevan Kukic:
Maybe this can happen IF we are not vigilent with our use of the exclusionary factors which require us to differentiate LD from low achievement. The eligibility determination team may not identify a child as having a specific learning disability if the severe discrepancy between ability and achievement is primarily the result of- (1) A visual, hearing, or motor impairment; (2) Mental retardation; (3) Emotional disturbance; or (4) Environmental, cultural or economic disadvantage.
The exclusionary factors are not new and will be maintained in a new regulation because they operationalize the disorders not included in the SLD definition, which is still part of the statute.
SLD continues to be defined as follows:
IN GENERAL: The term `specific learning disability' means a disorder in 1 or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, which disorder may manifest itself in the imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or do mathematical calculations.
DISORDERS INCLUDED.--Such term includes such conditions as perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia.
DISORDERS NOT INCLUDED.--Such term does not include a learning problem that is primarily the result of visual, hearing, or motor disabilities, of mental retardation, of emotional disturbance, or of environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage.
Question from Tina Siedler, Special Education Teacher, Valley View Elementary:
How will the new provisions be carried out state by state. For example will the law be varied by state? Also how will it be spelled out and explained to child study teams and educators? When will it all take affect?
Dr. Stevan Kukic:
The effective date is July 1, 2005! The U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS), with input from parents, educators, researchers and others will hopefully establish a responsible, practical process for this new option, both through formal regulatory and non-regulatory guidance. It is very important to understand that IDEA 04 seeks to update and improve the criteria for SLD identification and eligibility by eliminating the requirement that students MUST exhibit a SEVERE DISCREPANCY between achievement and intellectual ability in order to be found eligible for services under the IDEA (regardless of age).
This requirement has been part of the IDEA federal regulations since 1977 (Sec. 300.541) and, according to a survey conducted by the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities (2003), 48 of 50 states have a statement in their regulations that requires a severe discrepancy between ability and achievement for purposes of special education eligibility in the LD category.
However, there is now widespread agreement that such policies require students to experience failure for several years in order to show the requisite degree of discrepancy. And, despite the fact that clinical judgment, curriculum-based assessments, discrepant results on achievement assessments, parental information and other factors might all point to the presence of a learning disability, up until the new provision in IDEA 04, a student could not be found eligible under the SLD category if this severe discrepancy did not exist. The ’IQ-achievement’ approach has also been found to be particularly problematic for students living in poverty or culturally and linguistically different backgrounds.
In crafting IDEA 04, Congress sought to recognize the growing body of evidence regarding the lack of validity of the ’IQ-achievement’ approach for SLD eligibility and allow for other mechanisms.
What is being added is an option that allows schools to use a process of research based interventions as part of a student evaluation to determine eligibility. It is hoped that each state will take a careful look at the option. If chosen, it is essential that the state and the districts must collaborate on a model to ensure consistency across the districts.
Question from Shelly Weatherford, School Psychologist, Graves County Schools:
Will local school districts need to wait until the federal law is changed at the state level before discarding the discrepancy model in determining eligibility under LD?
Dr. Stevan Kukic:
A good question. Currently, the requirement of a severe discrepancy between intellectual ability and achievement appears in the SLD classification criteria for 48 of the 50 states.
However, the IDEA 04 provision clearly authorizes local school districts to dispense with any existing requirement for a severe ability-achievement discrepancy when making determinations regarding the presence of LD and the need for special education. This authority would override any existing state law or regulation that requires a severe discrepancy beginning with the effective date of IDEA 04 which is July 1, 2005.
Question from Rebecca Spar, Attorney:
Is it up to each district to decide whether to utilize response to intervention or can a state mandate that all districts use it? Does the response to intervention process have to take place within the 60 day period allowed for evaluations? Does a parent have to consent before a district can utilize response to intervention? Can a district base its denial of eligibility solely on the fact that the child doesn't respond to intervention? How can the parent be assured that the intervention is properly implemented and is intensive enough to show results?
Dr. Stevan Kukic:
The role of the state is still a question. We believe that districts interested in this option should work with the state to establish a model. The statute is clear - the research based intervention must be part of a comprehensive evaluation. Parental consent remains a requirement for a comprehensive evaluation for IDEA eligibility determination.
Should schools utilize an intervention process, the statute requires that it is part of a comprehensive evaluation which includes the use of a variety of assessment tools and strategies; therefore, the preponderence of all that evidence would have to indicate the lack of eligibility.
Parents are critical team members and must continue to be involved in the decisions related to the type of interventions the child receives. Input from parents is still integral to team decision making.
The U.S. Department of Education is seeking public input through Feb. 28, 2005 on the implementation of these new provisions. You can find the information about submitting comments and recommendations here.
The notice also indicated that the Department of Education intends to hold public hearings in Atlanta, GA, Newark, DE, Boston, MA, Columbus, OH, San Diego, CA, Laramie, WY, and Washington, D.C. Exact dates and locations have not yet been announced.
Question from Douglas Hamilton, Dean of Admission, Lawrence School:
With the emphasis of the IQ-acievment descrpency formula being dropped, what program/tools are going to be used to determine/detect if a learning disability exists? It also appears that there will be more empahasis placed on classroom performance (success/failure), will the general education teachers receive further education on how to administer these other research-based program/tools and how to interpret the results?
Dr. Stevan Kukic:
The statute is defining an option -- using research based interventions. Think of the alternative this way. LD is under achievement cause by processes internal to the student. A process utilizing research based intervention suggests that those students who do not respond to effective interventions create a group of students who might be LD. Then, the exclusionary factors are to be used. The general ed teacher is an essential part of the evaluation team. This teacher is part of the team, not the total team.
Question from Donna White, Parent, Prattville High School, Alabama:
My son started special education in the 2nd grade; he is now in the 9th, during which he tested out of special education at his three year evaluation due to the I.Q. and ability factor, he was 1 point above from qualifying. He has been diagnosed as ADHD and Dyslexic. He is comprehending and reading on a 5th to 6th grade level, per the schools testing and outside testing. He is now in regular classrooms with no assistance and struggling. We have not placed him under the 504 plan. Our state also has an exit exam which he will not receive any accommodations on. How does this law affect us since it was passed after he tested out?
Dr. Stevan Kukic:
First, an IQ/Achievement discrepency is only part of the process mandated by IDEA since 1977. If you as parents think another look is called for, you have the right to request such an evaluation. I would definetely use 504, which would likely allow for accommodations -- in school and on the exit exam. Unfortunately, it is possible that your child does not qualify for those accommodations. For more information on accessing accommodations for high-stakes tests, see the transcript of the December 2004 LD Talk.
Question from Jo Hubbard, teacher, Level Creek Elementary:
I work in a state that currently uses a discrepancy model to determine eligibility for LD services. How likely are these states to change this requirement?
Dr. Stevan Kukic:
Good question. The requirement of a severe IQ Achievement-Discrepancy can no longer be maintained as an absolute criteria for determining eligibility as a student with SLD. A state can take discrepancies into account as part of the eligibility criteria. Some states might not be persuaded by the success of places like Heartland School District in Iowa or Minneapolis.
The U.S. Department of Education has established the National Research Center for LD (NRCLD) to study models of responsiveness to intervention as viable identification processes.
Question from Paul Buneo de mesquita, PhD, Associate professor, University of Rhode Island:
Please address the implications of the new LD regulations pertaining to assessment and determination, for school psychologists both in terms of their practices and services, and importantly how we should be preparing and training school psychologists regarding cognitive and academic abilities of children with learning disabilities.
Dr. Stevan Kukic:
First, just a quick clarification, the LD regulations have not yet been developed, and in fact, OSERS is seeking public comment through February 28, 2005.
On to your question, I think the National Association of School Psychologists (NASP) has the answers to this very thoughtful question. The focus needs to shift in our profession (I, too, am a school psych) from reliance on test scores to intervention. I see that you are a professor and as such, I urge you to teach your students a wide variety of interventions so that they can suggest appropriate strategies to the teachers they serve. It is still essential to teach your students how to efficiently measure cognitive and academic abilities. But, think of teaching alternatives as compared to lengthy and costly traditional testing. Teach your students how to interpret state testing, understanding its scope and limitations. Teach them effective strategies for continuous monitoring of student progress. NASP's website has a tremendous resource entitled "Best Practice" that can be extremely helpful.
Question from Laurie Lewis, Education Advocate, The ARC of Mercer County, PA:
How do you think that the school districts can deal effectively and swiftly with the problem of special education teachers teaching multiple subjects at the secondary level in learning support? Surely, these teachers can't become certified in every area they teach...especially if they teach four different subjects.
Dr. Stevan Kukic:
Under the provisions of the law, the teacher of record is the teacher who provides credit. That teacher must be endorsed in the subject matter area. The best role of the secondary special education teacher, in my opinion, is to collaborate with general education colleagues using the expertise gained in individualizing instruction in special education certification.
Question from Rebecca Fogarty, Instructor Special Education Department, Eastern Illinois University:
Realizing there are such a vast array of interpretations currently, can you provide any insight as to what the implications will be at the district level? Do you feel many districts will begin to allow the use of CBM in determining eligibility? Or if that data is allowed will it still fall on the norm-referenced test results to determine eligibilty? Thank you!
Dr. Stevan Kukic:
First of all, I hope each state will develop a unified response to using research based intervention. In that way, statewide guidance will be developed to ensure some level of consistency. I think you have some good models in IL. David Prasse and his colleagues are working diligently in Chicago, as an example. I can foresee that norm referenced test results will be used in this new alternative, but, I predict fewer tests would be given to fewer students. Remember, though, that the exclusionary factors still must be addressed. It will still be a requirement to disclaim these factors as the primary reason for the under-achievement.
Question from Charles Savinar, Special Day Class Teacher, LAUSD:
What impact will IDEA '04 have on Special Day Classes for students with LD, in regard to the current function of Least Restrictive Environment?
Dr. Stevan Kukic:
Special day classess, or self-contained instrucitonal settings, are terms used to describe how specific states group students to provide an education in the least restrictive environment (LRE). IDEA 04 did not change the LRE requirements. They remain that each child must be educated in the least restrictive environment appropriate to that child's needs. The basic premise remains: educate students with disbilities as close as it is appropriate to the general education environment.
Now, another issue that could impact what happens in special day or self contained clasess is the impact of NCLB. We must continue to demand that virtually all students with disabilities be included in district and state accountability systems. Schools systems must be held accountable to the achievement of these students, including those taught in special day classes. What should happen is an assessment of curriculum, instruction, etc. to be certain that these components of the educational system are well targeted to student sucess on state standards.
The National Center for Learning Disabilities has produced a guide for parents to help them understand key provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act, how they interact with IDEA provisions and how to use them to help improve academic achievement of their students. The guide is available here
Question from Jo Rupert Behm, M.S., RN Past President CA Learning Disabilities Assoc.:
The Response to Intervention [RTI] approach for screening/assessing for LD eligibility appears to focus exclusively on reading and early grades. How do you see this approach capturing the LD kids who may be satisfactorily remediated in reading, but never the less have LD which significantly impacts attention, socialization, written language [i.e., dysgraphia], math computation [i.e., dyscalculia], rote/sequential memory impairments, or organization and other executive function skill deficits? How will this approach capture older students who are in the system now, already years behind their grade level peers? Jo Rupert Behm, M.S., RN- Marin Co. CA- parent 20 yr. old college student w/dyslexia, dysgraphia, inattentive ADD
Dr. Stevan Kukic:
Wonderful question. while it is true that the attention has been on K - 3, there are interventions available for older students. What this opportunity gives us is the chance to identify/develop interventions that meet the standard and cover the wide variety of needs of the students you mention. And, many of these interventions exist!
Question from Jody Howard, Special Services Manager, Neighbor To Family,:
I have a child in foster care who is suspected of needing speical services. The school will not accept the psychological that has been completed and insists on a psychoeducational evaluation before and SST meeting will be called. The problem is that the county school system is backed up with evaluation requests and there is approximately a nine month waiting period. What options do I have to help this child?
Dr. Stevan Kukic:
If there is this sort of lengthy waiting period, there is a real problem for the county to handle. I think you should talk to the county director of special ed to get assistance here. It would be unethical of me to suggest any other alternative without much more information.
Also, a new provision in IDEA 04 seeks to address this specific problem by requiring that all evaluations are completed within 60 days of parental consent unless the state has established its own requirement.
Question from Gertrude Nash, Diagnostician, Alief Independent School District:
It has been said that bias in testing may contribute to an over-identification of ethnically and culturally different students in special education. Would you please elaborate on this subject and identify bias in testing for these learners.
Dr. Stevan Kukic:
It seemes to be that an over-reliance on any standarized test score increases the probability of this significnat problem. Most IQ tests measure verbal ability. Some students from other cultures, especially those who suffer from the ravages of poverty, come from homes that do not stress literacy. These students will not score well on IQ tests because of their environments not because of an innate limitation in cognitive ability. I believe a process using research based intervention will provide a much more instructionally relevant look at student performance.
For more information and recommendations on over-identification of minority students, see the recent report of the National Research Council, Minorities in Gifted and Special Education.
Question from Marty Clark, CHADD of Jacksonville Florida:
How should a request be worded for a child's IEP to insure that a research based program appropriate to that child's specific reading problem is used and used in the manner that the research demonstrates is most effective?
Dr. Stevan Kukic:
The statute is clear that the option is for a district to use a process using scientific, research based interventions for the identification of children as LD under IDEA 2004. The test on the IEP is three fold: First, the process must be followed to develop the IEP. Second, the provision of services laid out in the IEP must result in the child receiving some benefit. This is the two-fold definition of the word appropriate in the term free, appropriate, public education. Third, there is new provision in IDEA 2004 that calls for "a statement of the special education and related services and supplementary aids and services, based on peer-reviewed research to the extent practicable, to be provided to the child, or on behalf of the child, and a statement of the program modifications or supports for school personnel that will be provided for the child-- ``(aa) to advance appropriately toward attaining the annual goals; ``(bb) to be involved in and make progress in the general education curriculum in accordance with subclause (I) and to participate in extracurricular and other nonacademic activities; and ``(cc) to be educated and participate with other children with disabilities and nondisabled children in the activities described in this subparagraph; Therefore, it seems to me that the test is whether the interventions suggested have a good likelihood of working with the child in question. The likelihood clearly increases if the intervention has a strong research base with children like the target child which is the reason for the new provision. Last, if an intervention with a strong research base is not used with fidelity, it has a great liklihood of not working! Push hard for fidelity of implementation.
Question from Deb Merritt, Parent in Texas:
The assessment person at my son's school told me he may not qualify for Special Education with a new assessment. Will states differ in policy regarding the new act.
Dr. Stevan Kukic:
States will differ, as they do now. States define the current law uniquely. IQ/Achievement discrepency is defined state by state with fairly wide variation. The same will be true in any model. Is it possible that your child will not qualify because of the growth he has made?
Question from Teri Lane, parent, Granite School District:
How does IDEA04 affect the identification and services provided for students who are twice-exceptional (gifted with learning disabilities) many of who test at or well above grade level yet have difficulty functioning in the classroom due to LDs (dysgraphia, dyslexia, visual processing deficit, etc)?
Dr. Stevan Kukic:
The new option provides a good solution for this type of child. With this new option, what matters is the effect of the instruction and interventions provided. Students who are gifted and LD who function in classrooms adequately usually will not be found eligible. Legal mandates do not declare best practice. They simply declare what is acceptable practice.
Question from Linda Rhodes,Adult Student:
Will this determination have any influence on students in college?
Dr. Stevan Kukic:
I would say no. The hope is that the use of research based intervention will provide more success for more students with LD early on, to help them be more successful as they progress K-12. This would suggest more success in post secondary endeavors. IDEA does not apply to students in post secondary education.
Question from Inara Silkalns, Tutor:
What is the status of Functional Behavior Assessment under the reauthorization of IDEA? Thanks!
Dr. Stevan Kukic:
Thanks for asking about this! Behavioral supports are critcal to student learning for many of our children.
IDEA 04 continues to require that, in the development of Individualized Education Programs (IEPs), IEP teams consider, in the case of a child whose behavior impedes the child's learning or that of others, the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and other strategies, to address that behavior. typically, a FBA would be conducted in order to determine appropriate behavior intervention strategies.
In addition, IDEA 04 continues to require a FBA for students who have violated a school's code of conduct and whose behavior has been found to be a manifestation of their disability.
So, FBAs will continue to play a key role in providing an appropriate education for students with disabilities whose behavior is impeding their education.
The Center for Effective Collaboration and Practice developed a useful guide to FBAs and the development of Behavior Intervention Plans. It is available here.
Question from Candace Cortiella, Director, The Advocacy Institute:
Are there other new provisions in IDEA 04 that might help provide early intervention services for children who show difficulty in learning?
Dr. Stevan Kukic:
There is a provision that allows for up to 15% of the district's IDEA funds to be used for early intervention services. These services must be proven strategies. These services must be coordinated across agencies in and outside of Education. There is a definite connection between IDEA 2004 and NCLB. There seems to be intent of the Congress that special ed will put a major focus on early intervention services.
Question from Candy Myers, Principal Consultant, Colorado Dep't of Education:
We have received inconsistent interpretations as to whether a state may require a consistent method of determining eligibility through the use of an RTI process (not giving the LEA's an option to continue use of a discrepancy formula) -- what is your read on this?
Dr. Stevan Kukic:
I want the decision to be made state by state. The issue is that the statute says that the LEA makes the decision. I think states should be pushing to make certain that, at least, the state is invloved in the decision.
Question from Elizabeth Wallace, Parent:
Does the IDEA04 deal directly with issues concerning high stakes testing and students with an IEP? We live in Florida where the FCAT is used for graduation purposes, grade promotion and (in the instance at my daughter's middle school) class placements.
Dr. Stevan Kukic:
IDEA04 was written using NCLB as a context for its provisions. Alternate assessment is still available for students with the most significant disabilities. Florida will continue to evolve its policies related to high stakes testing and students with disabilities. I think we all need to advocate that almost all students with disabilities be included in this testing so that the system is held accountable for these students' achievement.
Question from Laurie Lewis, Education Advocate, The ARC of Mercer County, PA:
This model that you suggest is best utilized when students are fully included in the regular education classrooms. What is going to happen, however, to teachers who instruct students in multiple subject areas in the "segregated" learning support classroom? This seems to be a lot of pressure on the special education teachers to go for even more schooling (re: certifications in multiple areas) and more testing. I believe that the pressure needs to be placed on the administration of these school districts to "re-vamp", so to speak, their special education programs and not take the less costly way out. They should have one special education teacher for each subject area. Is this the actual goal of this new provision in IDEA, or is full inclusion the ultimate goal?
Dr. Stevan Kukic:
In my view, as I'm sure it is true for you, placement should not determine quality of the educational opportunity. Choices for self-contained schools and programs are two: one would be to properly endorse teaching staff in all subject matter areas in which credit will be given; the second choice would be to develop a model wherein general education staff works closely with teachers in the self-contained setting to assure that these students receive not only appropriately individualized instruction, but also appropriate subject matter instruction.
Question from Susan J. Gustavson, Child Advocate:
In light of the language of the statute regarding SLD identification, how must the regulations address the requirements to meet the definition (psychological processing disorder) and all aspects of the disability which would also include the area of psychological processing?
Dr. Stevan Kukic:
The current regulations do not demand an assessment of "psychological processing disorder". The change in the statute does not call for a change in that part of the LD identification process. What the current regs require is a determination tha the IQ/Achievement discrepency is in one of 7 areas. None of those area directly address the psychological processing area you address.
Question from Jo Rupert BEhm, M.S., RN Past President CA Learning Disabilities Assoc./current Govt. Affairs Chair:
Will the USDOE be developing for states, a cohesive, research-based, scientific and educationally valid framework for the Response to Intervention approach to screening/referring for assessments for SLD? For example, who is eligible [i.e., minimum qualifications] to teach and screen vs. formal evaluations, instruction at what student/teacher ratios, using which proven curriculums, for how long [weeks, months] and intensity [hrs per day/week]? How will the curriculum, screening, assessment tools and frameworks adapt for non-proficient Engligh language students and different ages/grades? Jo Behm, M.S., RN- parent of 20 yr old college student w/dyslexia, dysgraphia, inattentive ADD
Dr. Stevan Kukic:
I hope for regulations and non-regulatory guidance that will define a responsible, comrehensive process for implementing response to intervention (RTI) as a model. I think the federal government will continue to fund projects to define effective practice in the areas you mention. The decision of what will be used locally will continue to be a state responsibility in my opinion.
To be effective, any model must address the needs of all students in need. The English Language Learners (ELL) student will be a special emphasis with IDEA 04. There are some tools available to help these students. Sheltered instruction is a promising strategy.
Question from T Hawk, Program Improvement Coordinator Special Education Centralia School District:
What would identification criteria look like in place of the current discrepancy model?
Dr. Stevan Kukic:
Under the new option, there would be a record of the effect of research based interventions on the student's achievement. This record would then be used for those students found eligible as a rich, instructionally relevant foundation for IEP planning. During the evaluation process, the continued resistance to interventions will provide the basis for the team to evaluate the reasons for the resistance, as well using a variety of assessment tools and strategies as required under IDEA to make the determination of eligiblity.
Question from Jacqueline Scott, parent LD 14 yr. old:
1)Does the discrepancy formula of 1.5 SD still exist for qualifying a student as LD? If not,on what basis can a student qualify? 2) Can a child who has been classified as Language disabled also be classified as learning disabled? What is the difference between the two? Does one or the other classification preclude certain types of services or accommodations in school or on standardized tests?
Dr. Stevan Kukic:
To your first question, the IQ/Achievement discrepency model is still an option in IDEA 2004. Nothing in the federal law demands a 1.5 Standard Deviation (SD) standard. To the second question, Language Disability is not a federal classification. Perhaps you meant Speech Language Impairment as a category?
Children with language disabiltities can be identified as LD in the areas of oral expression and listening comprehension. This has been true since 1977. Language is the basis of academic competency. For a child to read, he/she must translate the symbol into a sound and then into meaning. This is a language process.
Question from Nicole Kelly, Social Worker, LDA of WNY:
What happens to students who demonstrate learing difficulties that are apparently due to to cultural disadvantage? What mechanism for lack of a better word addresses this issue and huge group of students, while recognizing these students may not fit the truest sense of the definition learning disabled? How specifically does NCLB come into play?
Dr. Stevan Kukic:
Clearly, students from every culture can have a learning disability. The issue in the current and future regulations is whether the cultural difference at that moment is the primary reason for the low achievement. If it is, the child cannot be found eligible for special education in the LD category. In regard to NCLB, children from different cultures can be considered part of a subgroup related to that culture or can be in a subgroup related to their disability, or both. On another level related to NCLB, the issue is not whether the student is disabled or not, the issue is that each and all students will become proficient at grade level.
Question from Carol Whitley, RN:
Under IDEA04, will children with Non-Verbal LD (NVLD) be eligible for special education, that addresses the needs of this population of children? Currently, many of these children go without identification or appropriate help, with devastating consequences.
Dr. Stevan Kukic:
These students can be eligible. Having a disabitiy is not enough, The disability must adversely affect the student's education. NVLD can be devastating. I think the RTI process will help to identify these students in a much more instructionally relevant manner.
Question from Snow White-Wardell, parent, volunteer advocate, Colorado:
As the parent of a twice exceptional child, I had a difficult time convincing educaters of my sons SLD. His overall assessments were in the highly gifted range. I pointed out that his area a SLD scores were very low. Our schools still uses the discreptency rule, and those "percentages" are different from school to school. My son had a 31 point difference between verbal IQ and performance IQ. I was told the cut off was 32 points. With the reauthorization, I understand this descrepency model goes away completely. My question is, what tools do I have to help my son when his triannual staffing comes up, and he is in high school? Thank you, Snow
Dr. Stevan Kukic:
First, the IQ/Achievement model does not necessarily go away. The district with the state must decide to move to the response to intervention process (RTI). Second, my experience says that IQ/Achievement discrepency is a comparison of a test of cognitive ability and an achievement test, not a comparison of two parts of the same IQ test. Gifted students with LD will have a continuing dilemma. The law does not mandate best practice. The law madates that each student be given opportunities to achieve and that each student show some benefit from the experience. That level of benefit may not achieve the standards you have for your child's growth. The tri-annual evaluation is becoming less of an emphasis in the new IDEA 2004. You continue to have the right to ask your district for appropriate assistance related to your child's achievement.
Laura Kaloi (Moderator):
That concludes our discussion for today. Thanks to everyone for the thoughtful questions and thanks to Dr. Kukic for his time today.
A transcript of today's chat will be available at LD Talk.org very soon.
Our next LD Talk is scheduled for February 8, 2005 on the topic of early identification of reading difficulties featuring leading reading researcher, Dr. Joe Torgesen.
Thank you for joining us!
Good afternoon. Welcome to LD Talk, the Web’s first and only site devoted to expert discussions on issues concerning learning disabilities. LD Talk is a service of the National Center for Learning Disabilities (NCLD). We look forward to bringing you ongoing opportunities to connect with leading experts in the LD field via this new service, thanks for joining us!
Our expert today is Dr. Stevan Kukic. Dr. Kukic is former Utah State Director of Special Education and has just completed a five year term as chair of the National Center for Learning Disabilities' Professional Advisory Board. He is currently the Vice President for Professional Services for Sopris West Educational Services. Dr. Kukic played an integral role in the development of the new IDEA 04 provisions regarding specific learning disability (SLD) eligibility. His involvement with special education and learning disabilities dates back to the enactment of the Education of All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 and the development of its implementing federal regulations. Thanks for being with us today, Dr. Kukic
Our discussion today will focus on the new provisions in the recently enacted Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA 04) regarding the determination of eligibility for students as having a specific learning disability and its implications at the state and local school district levels. Other important new provisions that relate to LD eligibility will also be addressed. For background on this topic, read the Frequently Asked Questions document we have prepared.
I am Laura Kaloi, Director of Public Policy at the National Center for Learning Disabilities, and I’ll be moderating today’s discussion.
We have received many questions for this discussion. Today we’ll be offering replies to those questions most closely related to our discussion topic and of the broadest interest to our audience. Questions unrelated to this topic can be sent to NCLD’s Help Desk at This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it .
Let's begin the discussion.
Question from Joe Jackson, School Psychologist, Pinnacle Elementary:
Now that SLD classification does not have to be driven by the achievement/ability(IQ) discrepancy, will more "slow learners", students with borderline intelligence, now be classified as SLD? How appropriate is this?
Dr. Stevan Kukic:
Maybe this can happen IF we are not vigilent with our use of the exclusionary factors which require us to differentiate LD from low achievement. The eligibility determination team may not identify a child as having a specific learning disability if the severe discrepancy between ability and achievement is primarily the result of- (1) A visual, hearing, or motor impairment; (2) Mental retardation; (3) Emotional disturbance; or (4) Environmental, cultural or economic disadvantage.
The exclusionary factors are not new and will be maintained in a new regulation because they operationalize the disorders not included in the SLD definition, which is still part of the statute.
SLD continues to be defined as follows:
IN GENERAL: The term `specific learning disability' means a disorder in 1 or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, which disorder may manifest itself in the imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or do mathematical calculations.
DISORDERS INCLUDED.--Such term includes such conditions as perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia.
DISORDERS NOT INCLUDED.--Such term does not include a learning problem that is primarily the result of visual, hearing, or motor disabilities, of mental retardation, of emotional disturbance, or of environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage.
Question from Tina Siedler, Special Education Teacher, Valley View Elementary:
How will the new provisions be carried out state by state. For example will the law be varied by state? Also how will it be spelled out and explained to child study teams and educators? When will it all take affect?
Dr. Stevan Kukic:
The effective date is July 1, 2005! The U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS), with input from parents, educators, researchers and others will hopefully establish a responsible, practical process for this new option, both through formal regulatory and non-regulatory guidance. It is very important to understand that IDEA 04 seeks to update and improve the criteria for SLD identification and eligibility by eliminating the requirement that students MUST exhibit a SEVERE DISCREPANCY between achievement and intellectual ability in order to be found eligible for services under the IDEA (regardless of age).
This requirement has been part of the IDEA federal regulations since 1977 (Sec. 300.541) and, according to a survey conducted by the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities (2003), 48 of 50 states have a statement in their regulations that requires a severe discrepancy between ability and achievement for purposes of special education eligibility in the LD category.
However, there is now widespread agreement that such policies require students to experience failure for several years in order to show the requisite degree of discrepancy. And, despite the fact that clinical judgment, curriculum-based assessments, discrepant results on achievement assessments, parental information and other factors might all point to the presence of a learning disability, up until the new provision in IDEA 04, a student could not be found eligible under the SLD category if this severe discrepancy did not exist. The ’IQ-achievement’ approach has also been found to be particularly problematic for students living in poverty or culturally and linguistically different backgrounds.
In crafting IDEA 04, Congress sought to recognize the growing body of evidence regarding the lack of validity of the ’IQ-achievement’ approach for SLD eligibility and allow for other mechanisms.
What is being added is an option that allows schools to use a process of research based interventions as part of a student evaluation to determine eligibility. It is hoped that each state will take a careful look at the option. If chosen, it is essential that the state and the districts must collaborate on a model to ensure consistency across the districts.
Question from Shelly Weatherford, School Psychologist, Graves County Schools:
Will local school districts need to wait until the federal law is changed at the state level before discarding the discrepancy model in determining eligibility under LD?
Dr. Stevan Kukic:
A good question. Currently, the requirement of a severe discrepancy between intellectual ability and achievement appears in the SLD classification criteria for 48 of the 50 states.
However, the IDEA 04 provision clearly authorizes local school districts to dispense with any existing requirement for a severe ability-achievement discrepancy when making determinations regarding the presence of LD and the need for special education. This authority would override any existing state law or regulation that requires a severe discrepancy beginning with the effective date of IDEA 04 which is July 1, 2005.
Question from Rebecca Spar, Attorney:
Is it up to each district to decide whether to utilize response to intervention or can a state mandate that all districts use it? Does the response to intervention process have to take place within the 60 day period allowed for evaluations? Does a parent have to consent before a district can utilize response to intervention? Can a district base its denial of eligibility solely on the fact that the child doesn't respond to intervention? How can the parent be assured that the intervention is properly implemented and is intensive enough to show results?
Dr. Stevan Kukic:
The role of the state is still a question. We believe that districts interested in this option should work with the state to establish a model. The statute is clear - the research based intervention must be part of a comprehensive evaluation. Parental consent remains a requirement for a comprehensive evaluation for IDEA eligibility determination.
Should schools utilize an intervention process, the statute requires that it is part of a comprehensive evaluation which includes the use of a variety of assessment tools and strategies; therefore, the preponderence of all that evidence would have to indicate the lack of eligibility.
Parents are critical team members and must continue to be involved in the decisions related to the type of interventions the child receives. Input from parents is still integral to team decision making.
The U.S. Department of Education is seeking public input through Feb. 28, 2005 on the implementation of these new provisions. You can find the information about submitting comments and recommendations here.
The notice also indicated that the Department of Education intends to hold public hearings in Atlanta, GA, Newark, DE, Boston, MA, Columbus, OH, San Diego, CA, Laramie, WY, and Washington, D.C. Exact dates and locations have not yet been announced.
Question from Douglas Hamilton, Dean of Admission, Lawrence School:
With the emphasis of the IQ-acievment descrpency formula being dropped, what program/tools are going to be used to determine/detect if a learning disability exists? It also appears that there will be more empahasis placed on classroom performance (success/failure), will the general education teachers receive further education on how to administer these other research-based program/tools and how to interpret the results?
Dr. Stevan Kukic:
The statute is defining an option -- using research based interventions. Think of the alternative this way. LD is under achievement cause by processes internal to the student. A process utilizing research based intervention suggests that those students who do not respond to effective interventions create a group of students who might be LD. Then, the exclusionary factors are to be used. The general ed teacher is an essential part of the evaluation team. This teacher is part of the team, not the total team.
You are right to say that a major professional development strategy is needed to help general classroom teachers gain the skills they need to identify, implement, and evaluate effective interventions; however special education teachers and other professionals, should be involved in determining which interventions are appropriate. If this process using research based intervention to work for students, all staff and parents must be well trained.
Question from Donna White, Parent, Prattville High School, Alabama:
My son started special education in the 2nd grade; he is now in the 9th, during which he tested out of special education at his three year evaluation due to the I.Q. and ability factor, he was 1 point above from qualifying. He has been diagnosed as ADHD and Dyslexic. He is comprehending and reading on a 5th to 6th grade level, per the schools testing and outside testing. He is now in regular classrooms with no assistance and struggling. We have not placed him under the 504 plan. Our state also has an exit exam which he will not receive any accommodations on. How does this law affect us since it was passed after he tested out?
Dr. Stevan Kukic:
First, an IQ/Achievement discrepency is only part of the process mandated by IDEA since 1977. If you as parents think another look is called for, you have the right to request such an evaluation. I would definetely use 504, which would likely allow for accommodations -- in school and on the exit exam. Unfortunately, it is possible that your child does not qualify for those accommodations. For more information on accessing accommodations for high-stakes tests, see the transcript of the December 2004 LD Talk.
Question from Jo Hubbard, teacher, Level Creek Elementary:
I work in a state that currently uses a discrepancy model to determine eligibility for LD services. How likely are these states to change this requirement?
Dr. Stevan Kukic:
Good question. The requirement of a severe IQ Achievement-Discrepancy can no longer be maintained as an absolute criteria for determining eligibility as a student with SLD. A state can take discrepancies into account as part of the eligibility criteria. Some states might not be persuaded by the success of places like Heartland School District in Iowa or Minneapolis.
The U.S. Department of Education has established the National Research Center for LD (NRCLD) to study models of responsiveness to intervention as viable identification processes.
Question from Paul Buneo de mesquita, PhD, Associate professor, University of Rhode Island:
Please address the implications of the new LD regulations pertaining to assessment and determination, for school psychologists both in terms of their practices and services, and importantly how we should be preparing and training school psychologists regarding cognitive and academic abilities of children with learning disabilities.
Dr. Stevan Kukic:
First, just a quick clarification, the LD regulations have not yet been developed, and in fact, OSERS is seeking public comment through February 28, 2005.
On to your question, I think the National Association of School Psychologists (NASP) has the answers to this very thoughtful question. The focus needs to shift in our profession (I, too, am a school psych) from reliance on test scores to intervention. I see that you are a professor and as such, I urge you to teach your students a wide variety of interventions so that they can suggest appropriate strategies to the teachers they serve. It is still essential to teach your students how to efficiently measure cognitive and academic abilities. But, think of teaching alternatives as compared to lengthy and costly traditional testing. Teach your students how to interpret state testing, understanding its scope and limitations. Teach them effective strategies for continuous monitoring of student progress. NASP's website has a tremendous resource entitled "Best Practice" that can be extremely helpful.
Question from Laurie Lewis, Education Advocate, The ARC of Mercer County, PA:
How do you think that the school districts can deal effectively and swiftly with the problem of special education teachers teaching multiple subjects at the secondary level in learning support? Surely, these teachers can't become certified in every area they teach...especially if they teach four different subjects.
Dr. Stevan Kukic:
Under the provisions of the law, the teacher of record is the teacher who provides credit. That teacher must be endorsed in the subject matter area. The best role of the secondary special education teacher, in my opinion, is to collaborate with general education colleagues using the expertise gained in individualizing instruction in special education certification.
Question from Rebecca Fogarty, Instructor Special Education Department, Eastern Illinois University:
Realizing there are such a vast array of interpretations currently, can you provide any insight as to what the implications will be at the district level? Do you feel many districts will begin to allow the use of CBM in determining eligibility? Or if that data is allowed will it still fall on the norm-referenced test results to determine eligibilty? Thank you!
Dr. Stevan Kukic:
First of all, I hope each state will develop a unified response to using research based intervention. In that way, statewide guidance will be developed to ensure some level of consistency. I think you have some good models in IL. David Prasse and his colleagues are working diligently in Chicago, as an example. I can foresee that norm referenced test results will be used in this new alternative, but, I predict fewer tests would be given to fewer students. Remember, though, that the exclusionary factors still must be addressed. It will still be a requirement to disclaim these factors as the primary reason for the under-achievement.
Question from Charles Savinar, Special Day Class Teacher, LAUSD:
What impact will IDEA '04 have on Special Day Classes for students with LD, in regard to the current function of Least Restrictive Environment?
Dr. Stevan Kukic:
Special day classess, or self-contained instrucitonal settings, are terms used to describe how specific states group students to provide an education in the least restrictive environment (LRE). IDEA 04 did not change the LRE requirements. They remain that each child must be educated in the least restrictive environment appropriate to that child's needs. The basic premise remains: educate students with disbilities as close as it is appropriate to the general education environment.
Now, another issue that could impact what happens in special day or self contained clasess is the impact of NCLB. We must continue to demand that virtually all students with disabilities be included in district and state accountability systems. Schools systems must be held accountable to the achievement of these students, including those taught in special day classes. What should happen is an assessment of curriculum, instruction, etc. to be certain that these components of the educational system are well targeted to student sucess on state standards.
The National Center for Learning Disabilities has produced a guide for parents to help them understand key provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act, how they interact with IDEA provisions and how to use them to help improve academic achievement of their students. The guide is available here
Question from Jo Rupert Behm, M.S., RN Past President CA Learning Disabilities Assoc.:
The Response to Intervention [RTI] approach for screening/assessing for LD eligibility appears to focus exclusively on reading and early grades. How do you see this approach capturing the LD kids who may be satisfactorily remediated in reading, but never the less have LD which significantly impacts attention, socialization, written language [i.e., dysgraphia], math computation [i.e., dyscalculia], rote/sequential memory impairments, or organization and other executive function skill deficits? How will this approach capture older students who are in the system now, already years behind their grade level peers? Jo Rupert Behm, M.S., RN- Marin Co. CA- parent 20 yr. old college student w/dyslexia, dysgraphia, inattentive ADD
Dr. Stevan Kukic:
Wonderful question. while it is true that the attention has been on K - 3, there are interventions available for older students. What this opportunity gives us is the chance to identify/develop interventions that meet the standard and cover the wide variety of needs of the students you mention. And, many of these interventions exist!
Question from Jody Howard, Special Services Manager, Neighbor To Family,:
I have a child in foster care who is suspected of needing speical services. The school will not accept the psychological that has been completed and insists on a psychoeducational evaluation before and SST meeting will be called. The problem is that the county school system is backed up with evaluation requests and there is approximately a nine month waiting period. What options do I have to help this child?
Dr. Stevan Kukic:
If there is this sort of lengthy waiting period, there is a real problem for the county to handle. I think you should talk to the county director of special ed to get assistance here. It would be unethical of me to suggest any other alternative without much more information.
Also, a new provision in IDEA 04 seeks to address this specific problem by requiring that all evaluations are completed within 60 days of parental consent unless the state has established its own requirement.
Question from Gertrude Nash, Diagnostician, Alief Independent School District:
It has been said that bias in testing may contribute to an over-identification of ethnically and culturally different students in special education. Would you please elaborate on this subject and identify bias in testing for these learners.
Dr. Stevan Kukic:
It seemes to be that an over-reliance on any standarized test score increases the probability of this significnat problem. Most IQ tests measure verbal ability. Some students from other cultures, especially those who suffer from the ravages of poverty, come from homes that do not stress literacy. These students will not score well on IQ tests because of their environments not because of an innate limitation in cognitive ability. I believe a process using research based intervention will provide a much more instructionally relevant look at student performance.
For more information and recommendations on over-identification of minority students, see the recent report of the National Research Council, Minorities in Gifted and Special Education.
Question from Marty Clark, CHADD of Jacksonville Florida:
How should a request be worded for a child's IEP to insure that a research based program appropriate to that child's specific reading problem is used and used in the manner that the research demonstrates is most effective?
Dr. Stevan Kukic:
The statute is clear that the option is for a district to use a process using scientific, research based interventions for the identification of children as LD under IDEA 2004. The test on the IEP is three fold: First, the process must be followed to develop the IEP. Second, the provision of services laid out in the IEP must result in the child receiving some benefit. This is the two-fold definition of the word appropriate in the term free, appropriate, public education. Third, there is new provision in IDEA 2004 that calls for "a statement of the special education and related services and supplementary aids and services, based on peer-reviewed research to the extent practicable, to be provided to the child, or on behalf of the child, and a statement of the program modifications or supports for school personnel that will be provided for the child-- ``(aa) to advance appropriately toward attaining the annual goals; ``(bb) to be involved in and make progress in the general education curriculum in accordance with subclause (I) and to participate in extracurricular and other nonacademic activities; and ``(cc) to be educated and participate with other children with disabilities and nondisabled children in the activities described in this subparagraph; Therefore, it seems to me that the test is whether the interventions suggested have a good likelihood of working with the child in question. The likelihood clearly increases if the intervention has a strong research base with children like the target child which is the reason for the new provision. Last, if an intervention with a strong research base is not used with fidelity, it has a great liklihood of not working! Push hard for fidelity of implementation.
Question from Deb Merritt, Parent in Texas:
The assessment person at my son's school told me he may not qualify for Special Education with a new assessment. Will states differ in policy regarding the new act.
Dr. Stevan Kukic:
States will differ, as they do now. States define the current law uniquely. IQ/Achievement discrepency is defined state by state with fairly wide variation. The same will be true in any model. Is it possible that your child will not qualify because of the growth he has made?
Question from Teri Lane, parent, Granite School District:
How does IDEA04 affect the identification and services provided for students who are twice-exceptional (gifted with learning disabilities) many of who test at or well above grade level yet have difficulty functioning in the classroom due to LDs (dysgraphia, dyslexia, visual processing deficit, etc)?
Dr. Stevan Kukic:
The new option provides a good solution for this type of child. With this new option, what matters is the effect of the instruction and interventions provided. Students who are gifted and LD who function in classrooms adequately usually will not be found eligible. Legal mandates do not declare best practice. They simply declare what is acceptable practice.
Question from Linda Rhodes,Adult Student:
Will this determination have any influence on students in college?
Dr. Stevan Kukic:
I would say no. The hope is that the use of research based intervention will provide more success for more students with LD early on, to help them be more successful as they progress K-12. This would suggest more success in post secondary endeavors. IDEA does not apply to students in post secondary education.
Question from Inara Silkalns, Tutor:
What is the status of Functional Behavior Assessment under the reauthorization of IDEA? Thanks!
Dr. Stevan Kukic:
Thanks for asking about this! Behavioral supports are critcal to student learning for many of our children.
IDEA 04 continues to require that, in the development of Individualized Education Programs (IEPs), IEP teams consider, in the case of a child whose behavior impedes the child's learning or that of others, the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and other strategies, to address that behavior. typically, a FBA would be conducted in order to determine appropriate behavior intervention strategies.
In addition, IDEA 04 continues to require a FBA for students who have violated a school's code of conduct and whose behavior has been found to be a manifestation of their disability.
So, FBAs will continue to play a key role in providing an appropriate education for students with disabilities whose behavior is impeding their education.
The Center for Effective Collaboration and Practice developed a useful guide to FBAs and the development of Behavior Intervention Plans. It is available here.
Question from Candace Cortiella, Director, The Advocacy Institute:
Are there other new provisions in IDEA 04 that might help provide early intervention services for children who show difficulty in learning?
Dr. Stevan Kukic:
There is a provision that allows for up to 15% of the district's IDEA funds to be used for early intervention services. These services must be proven strategies. These services must be coordinated across agencies in and outside of Education. There is a definite connection between IDEA 2004 and NCLB. There seems to be intent of the Congress that special ed will put a major focus on early intervention services.
Question from Candy Myers, Principal Consultant, Colorado Dep't of Education:
We have received inconsistent interpretations as to whether a state may require a consistent method of determining eligibility through the use of an RTI process (not giving the LEA's an option to continue use of a discrepancy formula) -- what is your read on this?
Dr. Stevan Kukic:
I want the decision to be made state by state. The issue is that the statute says that the LEA makes the decision. I think states should be pushing to make certain that, at least, the state is invloved in the decision.
Question from Elizabeth Wallace, Parent:
Does the IDEA04 deal directly with issues concerning high stakes testing and students with an IEP? We live in Florida where the FCAT is used for graduation purposes, grade promotion and (in the instance at my daughter's middle school) class placements.
Dr. Stevan Kukic:
IDEA04 was written using NCLB as a context for its provisions. Alternate assessment is still available for students with the most significant disabilities. Florida will continue to evolve its policies related to high stakes testing and students with disabilities. I think we all need to advocate that almost all students with disabilities be included in this testing so that the system is held accountable for these students' achievement.
Question from Laurie Lewis, Education Advocate, The ARC of Mercer County, PA:
This model that you suggest is best utilized when students are fully included in the regular education classrooms. What is going to happen, however, to teachers who instruct students in multiple subject areas in the "segregated" learning support classroom? This seems to be a lot of pressure on the special education teachers to go for even more schooling (re: certifications in multiple areas) and more testing. I believe that the pressure needs to be placed on the administration of these school districts to "re-vamp", so to speak, their special education programs and not take the less costly way out. They should have one special education teacher for each subject area. Is this the actual goal of this new provision in IDEA, or is full inclusion the ultimate goal?
Dr. Stevan Kukic:
In my view, as I'm sure it is true for you, placement should not determine quality of the educational opportunity. Choices for self-contained schools and programs are two: one would be to properly endorse teaching staff in all subject matter areas in which credit will be given; the second choice would be to develop a model wherein general education staff works closely with teachers in the self-contained setting to assure that these students receive not only appropriately individualized instruction, but also appropriate subject matter instruction.
Question from Susan J. Gustavson, Child Advocate:
In light of the language of the statute regarding SLD identification, how must the regulations address the requirements to meet the definition (psychological processing disorder) and all aspects of the disability which would also include the area of psychological processing?
Dr. Stevan Kukic:
The current regulations do not demand an assessment of "psychological processing disorder". The change in the statute does not call for a change in that part of the LD identification process. What the current regs require is a determination tha the IQ/Achievement discrepency is in one of 7 areas. None of those area directly address the psychological processing area you address.
Question from Jo Rupert BEhm, M.S., RN Past President CA Learning Disabilities Assoc./current Govt. Affairs Chair:
Will the USDOE be developing for states, a cohesive, research-based, scientific and educationally valid framework for the Response to Intervention approach to screening/referring for assessments for SLD? For example, who is eligible [i.e., minimum qualifications] to teach and screen vs. formal evaluations, instruction at what student/teacher ratios, using which proven curriculums, for how long [weeks, months] and intensity [hrs per day/week]? How will the curriculum, screening, assessment tools and frameworks adapt for non-proficient Engligh language students and different ages/grades? Jo Behm, M.S., RN- parent of 20 yr old college student w/dyslexia, dysgraphia, inattentive ADD
Dr. Stevan Kukic:
I hope for regulations and non-regulatory guidance that will define a responsible, comrehensive process for implementing response to intervention (RTI) as a model. I think the federal government will continue to fund projects to define effective practice in the areas you mention. The decision of what will be used locally will continue to be a state responsibility in my opinion.
To be effective, any model must address the needs of all students in need. The English Language Learners (ELL) student will be a special emphasis with IDEA 04. There are some tools available to help these students. Sheltered instruction is a promising strategy.
Question from T Hawk, Program Improvement Coordinator Special Education Centralia School District:
What would identification criteria look like in place of the current discrepancy model?
Dr. Stevan Kukic:
Under the new option, there would be a record of the effect of research based interventions on the student's achievement. This record would then be used for those students found eligible as a rich, instructionally relevant foundation for IEP planning. During the evaluation process, the continued resistance to interventions will provide the basis for the team to evaluate the reasons for the resistance, as well using a variety of assessment tools and strategies as required under IDEA to make the determination of eligiblity.
Question from Jacqueline Scott, parent LD 14 yr. old:
1)Does the discrepancy formula of 1.5 SD still exist for qualifying a student as LD? If not,on what basis can a student qualify? 2) Can a child who has been classified as Language disabled also be classified as learning disabled? What is the difference between the two? Does one or the other classification preclude certain types of services or accommodations in school or on standardized tests?
Dr. Stevan Kukic:
To your first question, the IQ/Achievement discrepency model is still an option in IDEA 2004. Nothing in the federal law demands a 1.5 Standard Deviation (SD) standard. To the second question, Language Disability is not a federal classification. Perhaps you meant Speech Language Impairment as a category?
Children with language disabiltities can be identified as LD in the areas of oral expression and listening comprehension. This has been true since 1977. Language is the basis of academic competency. For a child to read, he/she must translate the symbol into a sound and then into meaning. This is a language process.
Question from Nicole Kelly, Social Worker, LDA of WNY:
What happens to students who demonstrate learing difficulties that are apparently due to to cultural disadvantage? What mechanism for lack of a better word addresses this issue and huge group of students, while recognizing these students may not fit the truest sense of the definition learning disabled? How specifically does NCLB come into play?
Dr. Stevan Kukic:
Clearly, students from every culture can have a learning disability. The issue in the current and future regulations is whether the cultural difference at that moment is the primary reason for the low achievement. If it is, the child cannot be found eligible for special education in the LD category. In regard to NCLB, children from different cultures can be considered part of a subgroup related to that culture or can be in a subgroup related to their disability, or both. On another level related to NCLB, the issue is not whether the student is disabled or not, the issue is that each and all students will become proficient at grade level.
Question from Carol Whitley, RN:
Under IDEA04, will children with Non-Verbal LD (NVLD) be eligible for special education, that addresses the needs of this population of children? Currently, many of these children go without identification or appropriate help, with devastating consequences.
Dr. Stevan Kukic:
These students can be eligible. Having a disabitiy is not enough, The disability must adversely affect the student's education. NVLD can be devastating. I think the RTI process will help to identify these students in a much more instructionally relevant manner.
Question from Snow White-Wardell, parent, volunteer advocate, Colorado:
As the parent of a twice exceptional child, I had a difficult time convincing educaters of my sons SLD. His overall assessments were in the highly gifted range. I pointed out that his area a SLD scores were very low. Our schools still uses the discreptency rule, and those "percentages" are different from school to school. My son had a 31 point difference between verbal IQ and performance IQ. I was told the cut off was 32 points. With the reauthorization, I understand this descrepency model goes away completely. My question is, what tools do I have to help my son when his triannual staffing comes up, and he is in high school? Thank you, Snow
Dr. Stevan Kukic:
First, the IQ/Achievement model does not necessarily go away. The district with the state must decide to move to the response to intervention process (RTI). Second, my experience says that IQ/Achievement discrepency is a comparison of a test of cognitive ability and an achievement test, not a comparison of two parts of the same IQ test. Gifted students with LD will have a continuing dilemma. The law does not mandate best practice. The law madates that each student be given opportunities to achieve and that each student show some benefit from the experience. That level of benefit may not achieve the standards you have for your child's growth. The tri-annual evaluation is becoming less of an emphasis in the new IDEA 2004. You continue to have the right to ask your district for appropriate assistance related to your child's achievement.
Laura Kaloi (Moderator):
That concludes our discussion for today. Thanks to everyone for the thoughtful questions and thanks to Dr. Kukic for his time today.
A transcript of today's chat will be available at LD Talk.org very soon.
Our next LD Talk is scheduled for February 8, 2005 on the topic of early identification of reading difficulties featuring leading reading researcher, Dr. Joe Torgesen.
Thank you for joining us!
The Fine Print
All questions are screened by an LD.org editor and the guest speaker prior to posting. A question is not displayed until it is answered by the guest speaker. We cannot guarantee that all questions will be answered, or answered in the order of submission. Guests and hosts may decline to answer questions. Concise questions are encouraged.
Please be sure to include your name and affiliation when posting your question.
If your questions are not related to the current topic, please send them to This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it and they will be answered by an on-staff expert. This site's functionality does not permit email response.
LD.org's online chat site, LDTalk.org, is an open forum where readers can participate in a give-and-take discussion with a variety of guests. LD.org reserves the right to condense or edit questions for clarity, but editing is kept to a minimum. Transcripts may also be reproduced in some form in our print edition. We attempt to correct errors in spelling, punctuation, etc. In addition, we remove statements that have the potential to be libelous or to slander someone. In cases in which people make claims that could be libelous, we will remove the names of institutions and departments. But in those cases, we will not alter the ideas contained in the questions. Please read our privacy policy if you have questions.
"LD.org Editors
