By Melissa A. Johnson
Abstract
The need to support struggling readers is evident throughout research. Within the context of struggling learners, there is also a need to address educational practices within an increasingly diverse student population. This review of literature aims to provide information regarding Specific Learning Disabilities and the Response to Intervention process, as well as ways in which to support culturally and linguistically diverse learners.
Keywords: specific learning disabilities, response to intervention, diverse learners
The country’s population of learners has grown increasingly diverse, and classrooms are filled with students of varying abilities, needs, and proficiency levels (Meyer and Patton, 2001). Many urban public school students represent a wide variety of cultures, attitudes, and abilities. Given such diversity, addressing the needs of diverse students has become increasingly challenging for some educators. The repercussions of not meeting the needs of diverse learners has the potential to impact their placement in the educational setting. One example is the use of response to intervention (RtI) as a means for placement of students in special education. Most often, students who fail to respond to intervention may be identified as having a Specific Learning Disability (SLD) and placed within special education.
According to IDEA (2004), the term Specific Learning Disability refers to a disorder which impacts one’s ability to use and/or understand language, whether it be written or spoken and may “manifest itself in the imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or do mathematical calculations”. While IDEA itself has undergone many changes, this definition has remained unchanged for many years. The term SLD is an umbrella encompassing a range of disorders such as dyslexia, dyscalculia, dysgraphia, perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, and developmental aphasia (Individuals with Disabilities Act, 2004). In 2017, it was reported that the percentage of students ages 3 through 21 being serviced under IDEA with a SLD was 34%; the highest percentage amongst all disability types (U.S. Department of Education, 2017).
Literature Review
One widely researched area of concern when examining learner outcomes is the achievement gap between students with disabilities and their typically developing peers. The U.S. Department of Education’s National Assessment for Educational Progress program (2017) reported achievement gaps in reading, writing, and math (among other content areas) when examining assessment outcomes across populations. Furthermore, these gaps existed across grade-levels, longitudinally, as well as across states throughout the nation. In 2017, it was reported that fourth grade students in the U.S. with disabilities were 40 points behind their typically developing peers in reading (U.S. Department of Education, 2017).
Achievement gaps have been a concept of inquiry for many special education researchers over the years. Gilmour, Fuchs, and Wehby (2019) conducted a meta-analysis of 23 studies and estimated that while reading achievement gaps differed across disabilities, students with disabilities were performing more than three years below their typically developing peers. Given this, it is imperative to look closely at what the literature states about SLD and the identification of students through response to intervention. As educators, we should also reflect on the practices implemented within our country’s growing population of diverse learners.
Identification of Students with SLD
In attempts to support struggling learners, numerous schools have implemented a multi-tiered systems of support approach (MTSS). This multi-tiered system is used to target and support students with learning and/or behavioral challenges. Within this approach, many states have adopted the Response to Intervention (RtI) framework as a way to help identify students who may present with a SLD. In the state of Florida, eligibility for SLD is determined in part by lack of adequate achievement (not due to deficits in instruction or learning experiences), a lack of progress based on the RtI process, and must not be primarily due to any of the following factors: visual, motor, or hearing disability; intellectual disability; behavior or an emotional/behavioral disability; environmental or cultural factors, limited English proficiency; or truancy/attendance factors (Florida Department of Education, 2009).
Concerns with Intervention and Identification
There has been some debate over the implementations of RtI, as well as its role in identifying students with SLD’s. The way states, districts, and even schools implement RtI differs which may impact representation, as well as the quality of interventions. One study by Vollmer, Gettinger, & Begeny (2019) reported that of the 95 program directors of undergraduate teacher education programs surveyed across the U.S:
- 6.3% were unfamiliar with RtI, and 37.9% were somewhat familiar;
- 29.2% stated they felt RtI training was not important or somewhat important for undergraduate students to receive;
- less than 25% reported training in four or more evidence-based interventions;
- less than 20% reported training in three of more assessment tools;
- 21.4% reported RtI was not addressed at all in their program.
Moreover, of the 21.4% respondents who stated their program did not address RtI at all, 26.3% endorsed the following: “Training in RTI is not necessary for our program because we prepare general education teachers and RTI is a special education initiative”.
Cultural and Linguistic Diversity
It has been noted that diverse learners have often been disproportionally represented in special education programs throughout the years (Meyer & Patton, 2001). This is not to say that all students’ needs are inaccurately identified, nor does it attempt take away from teachers and service providers who are skilled in identifying the needs of their learners. However, it does indicate a need to examine issues within a very delicate population of learners which may be influencing their ability to succeed. Meyer and Patton (2001) point out key factors which impact disproportionate representation. These factors include: inadequate assessment, referral, and special education evaluation measures of diverse learners; a disconnect of race, culture, and socioeconomic status between some teachers and the students’ races, cultures, and socioeconomic statuses; procedures, policies, and instructional methods which do not promote cultural responsiveness; and a lack of relationships demonstrating respect and reciprocity between the schools and families.
Relationships between School and Home
Many families of students with and without disabilities have reported being unsatisfied with the relationship between them and school providers (Grenot-Scheyer, Sramek, & Milorin, 2004). This issue is critical given that families and caregivers can provide an unsurmountable amount of information when it comes to the learner. Furthermore, parents of struggling learners have reported wanting to increase student “capital”, but feel unsure as to how to do so (Klingner & Edwards, 2006). As educators, building meaningful collaboration between the school and home is instrumental given that positive collaboration between families and schools may yield positive results (Grenot-Scheyer, Sramek, & Milorin, 2004). Given the importance of effective collaboration, possible implications for fostering positive relationships between the school and home will be provided.
Recommendations
Meaningful Professional Development
While it is not to say that educators are not equipped to implement RtI or support students with reading difficulties, the aforementioned research implicates areas in which we may improve. For one, ensuring preservice teachers have applied experience in implementing RtI with fidelity seems key. As Vollmer, Gettinger, & Begeny (2019) point out, RtI has shown promising outcomes however, this greatly relies on the skill level and knowledge of the interventionist. Collaboration with experienced interventionists, opportunities for professional development, and opportunities for applied practice may further aid novice teachers in the explicit, direct, and systematic implementation of interventions.
Harry (2008) also notes that in preparation for effective collaboration with families, we should be placing preservice teachers in diverse educational settings. Policy makers, school districts, universities, service providers, and experienced educators can play a vital role in supporting our teachers. Through collaboration, professional development, policy change, and quality instruction teachers and students alike may benefit from the positives of evidence-based practices.
Culturally Responsive Practices
As previously noted, intervention methods may differ from state to state, amongst districts, and even within the same school. Furthermore, students’ cultural and linguistic diversities are often unaccounted for. Drawing upon considerations from Klingner and Edwards (2006), some ways in which literacy instruction may be enhanced for diverse students are: taking into account communication styles and practices in literacy in order to support instruction; using the home as a building block for literacy instruction; using families and communities to draw upon and build background knowledge; and adding on to existing “capital” by providing families with strategies and support.
Gay (2002) has also noted that through implementation of programs and practices which incorporate students’ cultures, perspectives, and experiences, educational quality improves significantly. A suggestion by Gay is for educators to analyze their own values, beliefs, and assumptions to examine ways they impact their own behaviors. Gay additionally suggests that educators familiarize themselves with cultural elements which impact student behaviors such as: communication and learning styles; values and societal issues; contributions and social problems; and levels of ethnic identity development and affiliation. Both self-analysis and analysis of other cultures allows educators to analyze components of diversity which directly impact teaching and learning.
Likewise, Meyer and Patton (2001) propose educators, service professionals, administrators: consistently engage in self-assessment and evaluate one’s own values, attitudes, and beliefs; examine and enhance assessments with diverse learners in mind; create culturally rich opportunities and diverse programs aimed at supporting the inclusion of all learners; create opportunities for families, communities, organization, and policy-makers to engage in discourse on race, disability, and overrepresentation; and gain a better understanding of the issues through empirical research.
Fostering Relationships between School and Home
Another concept echoed throughout research is the suggestion that strong school/home partnerships can improve student outcomes. Once a relationship is established, educators may gain useful knowledge from families and caregivers which may help to support goals (Klingner & Edwards, 2006). Harry (2008) provides insight on six key components families identified as key facets of effective collaboration:
- Respectful, understandable, and useful communication;
- commitment to the child and family;
- equal power in the service implementation and decision making process;
- competence in implementing and achieving goals;
- mutual trust; and
- mutual respect.
Conclusions
Within the literature, there are many valuable recommendations from educational experts to include applied experience for preservice teachers across diverse settings, professional development and collaboration, use of research-based practices, as well as culturally responsive practices. Most importantly, as the educators of a population of diverse learners we must also not forget about the experts with perhaps the most valuable information; the families, caregivers, and communities of culturally and linguistically diverse learners.
References
Florida Department of Education. (2009). Exceptional student education eligibility for students with specific learning disabilities. Retrieved from Specific Learning Disabilities: info.fldoe.org/docushare/dsweb/Get/Document-5586/dps-2009-177.pdf
Gay, G. (2002). Culturally responsive teaching in special education for ethnically diverse students: setting the stage. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education (QSE), 15(6), 613–629. doi-org.ezproxy.fiu.edu/10.1080/0951839022000014349
Gilmour, A. F., Fuchs, D., & Wehby, J. H. (2019). Are students with disabilities accessing the curriculum? A meta-analysis of the reading achievement gap between students with and without disabilities. Exceptional Children, 85(3), 329–346. doi-org.ezproxy.fiu.edu/10.1177/0014402918795830
Grenot-Scheyer, M., Sramek, H., Milorin, E. & Education Development Center, N. M. N. I. for U. S. I. (2004). Keeping the faith & climbing one mountain at a time: Reflections of two mothers on their children’s educational journeys.
Harry, B. (2008). Collaboration with culturally and linguistically diverse families: Ideal versus reality. Exceptional Children, (3), 372. Retrieved from search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.fiu.edu/login.aspx
Individuals with Disabilities Act. (2004). Section 1401 definitions. Retrieved from Individuals with Disabilities Act: sites.ed.gov/idea/statute-chapter-33/subchapter-I/1401
Klingner, J. K. & Edwards, P.A. (2006). Cultural considerations with response to intervention models. Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1), 108. Retrieved from search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.fiu.edu/login.aspx
Meyer, G., Patton, J. M., & Education Development Center, N. M. N. I. for U. S. I. (2001). On the nexus of race, disability, and overrepresentation: What do we know? Where do we go? On point…Brief discussions of critical issues in urban education. Retrieved from search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.fiu.edu/login.aspx
U.S. Department of Education. (2017). Achievement gap dashboard. Retrieved from National Assessment of Educational Progress: www.nationsreportcard.gov/dashboards/achievement_gaps.aspx
U.S. Department of Education. (2017). Individuals with disabilities education act (IDEA) database. Retrieved from www2.ed.gov/programs/osepidea/618-data/state-level-data-files/index.html
Vollmer, L. E., Gettinger, M., & Begeny, J. C. (2019). Training preservice general education teachers in response to intervention: A survey of teacher educators throughout the United States. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 35(2), 122–145. Retrieved from search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.fiu.edu/login.aspx
Download this Issue
To Download a PDF file version of this Issue of the NASET LD Report –CLICK HERE
