DOCSLIB.ORG

Research Brief

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Research Brief School Psychology Review, 2016, Volume 45, No. 3, pp. 362–371 Research Brief Comparison of Students’ Achievement: Deaf, Learning Disabled, and Deaf With a Learning Disability Jacqueline M. Caemmerer, Stephanie W. Cawthon, and Mark Bond The University of Texas and pepnet 2 Abstract. Approximately half of students who are deaf or hard of hearing (DHH) have a co-occurring disability. Although assessing as well as diagnosing learning disabilities (LDs) is particularly difficult in this population, it is important to properly identify students who may be eligible for academic interventions or accommodations. This study analyzed national samples of students who are (a) classified with an LD, (b) DHH, and (c) DHH and classified with an LD. The three samples were compared in terms of their performance on a standardized measure of academic achievement. The results of our exploratory analyses suggest that math calculation skills and classroom grades are useful in classifying students who are DHH with an LD. We discuss the implications of these findings, limitations to the dataset, and areas for further research. Individuals who are deaf or hard of hear- among students who are DHH to better sup- ing (DHH) are linguistically and culturally port their education and service delivery diverse (Bat-Chava, 2000; Mitchell & Karch- (NASP, 2012). However, because of problem- mer, 2011). Adding to this diversity is the atic assessment measures and challenges when possibility that students who are DHH may interpreting findings, there is a growing con- also have disabilities that affect areas of their cern that students who are DHH who have a academic functioning. The National Associa- disability are being improperly identified tion of School Psychologists (NASP) stated (Soukup & Feinstein, 2007). To support the that there is a need for school psychologists to learning of students who are DHH and have a recognize and address this heterogeneity co-occurring disability, which is estimated to Work on this project is partially supported by pepnet 2 (www.pepnet.org). Pepnet 2 is funded by the Research to Practice Division, Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education, via Cooperative Agreement H326D110003. Funding is provided from October 1, 2011, to September 30, 2016. The findings reflected herein do not represent the views of the U.S. Department of Education and should not be taken as an endorsement for any product. Correspondence concerning this article should be sent to Jacqueline M. Caemmerer, Department of Educational Psychology, The University of Texas at Austin, 504 SZB, One University Station, D5800, Austin, TX 78712-0383; e-mail: [email protected] Copyright 2016 by the National Association of School Psychologists, ISSN 0279-6015, eISSN 2372-966x 362 Achievement in DHH, LD, and DHH–LD be 50% of the DHH population (Mitchell & allow the school psychologist to compare the Karchmer, 2011), it is important to properly child’s performance with a nationally repre- identify those who meet eligibility criteria for sentative sample of the child’s same-aged services (Krywko, 2014; Morgan & Vernon, peers. Below-average performance on normed 1994). achievement tests, in conjunction with a pat- As with the general population, learning tern of strengths and weaknesses across vari- disabilities (LDs) are the most prevalent dis- ous data, may be suggestive of a possible LD ability within the DHH population (Mitchell & (Flanagan, Ortiz, & Alfonso, 2013). Karchmer, 2011). Assessing as well as diag- Unfortunately, the standardized achieve- nosing students who are DHH with an LD is, ment tests used to diagnose LDs are not however, a complex process (Morgan & Ver- normed on students who are DHH. This means non, 1994; Soukup & Feinstein, 2007). The that the reference groups for these tests are not federal definition of LDs is one contributing representative of these students (Qi & Mitch- factor to this difficulty. An LD is defined as ell, 2012). In the absence of available DHH follows (U.S. Department of Education, Office norms, most school psychologists compare the of Special Education Programs, 2006): performance of students who are DHH with A disorder in one or more of the basic psy- their same-aged hearing peers. Despite the po- chological processes involved in understand- tential accessibility issues in administering ing or in using language, spoken or written, standardized achievement tests with students that may manifest itself in an imperfect abil- who are DHH, experts still recommend their ity to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or to do mathematical calculations, including use as an important part of a comprehensive conditions such as perceptual disabilities, data-gathering process (Krywko, 2014; Mor- brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dys- gan & Vernon, 1994). Unsurprisingly, educa- lexia, and developmental aphasia (p. 2). tors who work with individuals who are DHH The definition specifies several exclu- report frustration regarding the assessment sionary conditions that preclude a diagnosis, process and the credibility of results (Soukup such as a hearing disability and limited Eng- & Feinstein, 2007). The implications for diag- lish proficiency. If one of the exclusionary nosis and intervention are high: Educators crit- conditions is presumed to be the primary cause icize assessment reports as being inadequate, of the student’s learning difficulties, in this being of low quality, and resulting in an unmet case the student’s status as DHH, then an need for high-quality evaluations for this pop- additional diagnosis of LD is inadmissible. ulation (Cawthon & the RES Team, 2012). Determining whether the hearing loss of stu- In addition to the lack of appropriate dents who are DHH is the primary cause of norms for students who are DHH, other fac- their learning difficulties, or whether there is tors complicate the LD identification process an additional LD present, is thus a challenging in this population. Many of these factors that task for educators. affect LD identification center on issues of Federal criteria also indicate that a stu- language and communication, including vari- dent may have an LD if the “child does not ations in language modality and proficiency, achieve adequately for the child’s age or to the age of onset of hearing loss, exposure to meet State-approved grade-level standards” the English language (Mitchell & Karchmer, (U.S. Department of Education, Office of Spe- 2011), and the match between the communi- cial Education Programs, 2006, p. 2). To iden- cation modalities of children and important tify a student with an LD and determine if the people in their lives. Students with greater child requires special education services, a proficiency in American Sign Language comprehensive evaluation by a trained profes- (ASL), for example, tended to perform better sional, often a school psychologist, is com- on standardized reading tests than those with pleted. This evaluation usually includes the lower ASL proficiency, even after controlling administration of standardized cognitive and for nonverbal IQ (Freel et al., 2011; Strong & achievement measures, at a minimum, which Prinz, 1997). Previous research also suggested 363 School Psychology Review, 2016, Volume 45, No. 3 that if the hearing parents of students who development that occur across the DHH were DHH competently communicated with population. their children using sign language, their chil- Balancing the importance of neither dren were more likely to achieve higher Eng- overidentifying nor underidentifying these stu- lish language achievement scores (Mitchell & dents continues to be a need in the field (Cal- Karchmer, 2011). Students who learned Eng- deron, 1998; Krywko, 2014). Given the lower lish prior to their hearing loss (for those who average reading performance of students who are later deafened) tended to score higher on are DHH, many students may be inappropri- standardized tests (especially reading tests) in ately identified with an LD if the Individuals comparison to students who were born DHH with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) exclu- and did not learn English first (Mitchell & sionary criteria for DHH status were not in Karchmer, 2011). In addition, some students place. In contrast, a practitioner may be hesi- who are DHH use cochlear implants; cochlear tant to diagnose an LD in a student who is implants are surgically implanted electrodes DHH because of the difficulty in ruling out the that can provide a sense of sound by address- student’s hearing loss and reduced exposure to ing individuals’ unique hearing loss. Although robust language and communication models as cochlear implants increase individuals’ access a primary cause of learning difficulties (Kry- to oral conversations, which are thought to be wko, 2014). Examining trends in the achieve- a key incidental learning experience, a study ment of DHH students in comparison to their that compared college students with and with- hearing peers, however, does not directly ad- out cochlear implants found that both groups dress the problem of accurately diagnosing performed similarly on word knowledge tests students who also have a co-occurring LD. (Convertino, Borgna, Marschark, & Durkin, Previous research has looked at qualitative 2014). Combined, these findings illustrate that characteristics, typically from the perspective students who are DHH are a heterogeneous of their teachers (Mauk & Mauk, 1998), that group and their differences, in turn, may in- differentiate between students who are DHH fluence
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Guide to Quality Individualized Education Program (IEP) Development and Implementation
    The University of the State of New York The State Education Department Guide to Quality Individualized Education Program (IEP) Development and Implementation February 2010 (Revised December 2010) THE UNIVERSITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Regents of The University MERRYL H. TISCH, Chancellor, B.A., M.A., Ed.D. .................................................. New York MILTON L. COFIELD, Vice Chancellor, B.S., M.B.A., Ph.D. .................................... Rochester ROBERT M. BENNETT, Chancellor Emeritus, B.A., M.S. ........................................ Tonawanda SAUL B. COHEN, B.A., M.A., Ph.D.......................................................................... Larchmont JAMES C. DAWSON, A.A., B.A., M.S., Ph.D. .......................................................... Plattsburgh ANTHONY S. BOTTAR, B.A., J.D. ............................................................................ Syracuse GERALDINE D. CHAPEY, B.A., M.A., Ed.D. ............................................................. Belle Harbor HARRY PHILLIPS, 3rd, B.A., M.S.F.S. .................................................................... Hartsdale JOSEPH E. BOWMAN, JR., B.A., M.L.S., M.A., M.Ed., Ed.D..................................... Albany JAMES R. TALLON, JR., B.A., M.A. ......................................................................... Binghamton ROGER TILLES, B.A., J.D. ....................................................................................... Great Neck KAREN BROOKS HOPKINS, B.A., M.F.A..................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Fragile X Syndrome
    November 2014, 1 Hour Fragile X Syndrome Fragile X Syndrome (FXS), also called Martin Bell It is estimated to affect 1:5000 males and 1:8000 Syndrome, is the most common heritable cause of females and found in all races and socioeconomic cognitive disability. It is the second known chromoso- groups. Sixty percent of males with FXS exhibit hand mal cause of cognitive disability (Down syndrome is flapping or biting; 90% exhibit poor eye contact and first). It is the most common known cause of Autism 60% have autism. Females with FXS generally have or “Autistic-like behaviors”, and is characterized by higher IQ’s than males and most exhibit shyness and distinct physical and behavioral characteristics. social anxiety. History In the late 1800’s there was an In 1969 Lehrke’s PHD Thesis chromosome. excess of males with Intellectual argued for the presence of an x- In 1991, the mutation causing the Disability noticed based on the US linked intellectual disability gene. FX syndrome was identified and census data. In the 1970’s, Sutherland showed the gene isolated. In 1943 a pedigree was published culture medium lacking folic acid by Martin and Bell describing the appearing to have a gap or break syndrome. in the end of the long arm of the x Genetics The Fragile X name comes from the broken appear- females will have symptoms; however, the severity is ance in the X chromosome where the FMR1 gene is decreased. found. It causes a mutation in the FMR1 gene. The The more repeats, the more unstable the FMR1 gene mutation shuts off the production of the FMR1 pro- is.
    [Show full text]
  • Squires Dyslexia Letter.Pdf
    September 15, 2016 To Whom May Concern: It has come to our attention that there may be a misunderstanding about who is able to diagnose and treat literacy disabilities such as dyslexia. This letter is to educate and inform that it is within the scope of practice of licensed and certified speech-language pathologists (SLPs) to screen and evaluate children (and adults) for dyslexia, diagnose them if appropriate, and provide therapy. Dyslexia Defined as a Language-based Learning Disorder The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development defines dyslexia as “A specific learning disability that is neurobiological in origin. It is characterized by difficulties with accurate and/or fluent word recognition and by poor spelling and decoding abilities. These difficulties typically result from a deficit in the phonological component of language that is often unexpected in relation to other cognitive abilities and the provision of effective classroom instruction. Secondary consequences may include problems in reading comprehension and reduced reading experience that can impede growth of vocabulary and background knowledge.”1 Dyslexia is a language-based learning disability, and as such, is formally diagnosed after an SLP evaluates the child’s spoken and written language and consults with the child’s parents/caregivers and educational professionals. The Oral Language/Literacy Connection The connections between spoken and written language are well established. Spoken language serves as the foundation for the development of reading and writing. Spoken and written language have a reciprocal relationship. Furthermore, children with spoken language problems frequently have difficulty learning to read and write. Finally, instruction in spoken language can result in growth in written language, and vice versa.
    [Show full text]
  • Characteristics of Children with Learning Disabilities
    National Association of Special Education Teachers NASET LD Report #3 Characteristics of Children with Learning Disabilities Children with learning disabilities are a heterogeneous group. These children are a diverse group of individuals, exhibiting potential difficulties in many different areas. For example, one child with a learning disability may experience significant reading problems, while another may experience no reading problems whatsoever, but has significant difficulties with written expression. Learning disabilities may also be mild, moderate, or severe. Students differ too, in their coping skills. According to Bowe (2005), “some learn to adjust to LD so well that they ‘pass’ as not having a disability, while others struggle throughout their lives to even do ‘simple’ things. Despite these differences, LD always begins in childhood and always is a life-long condition” (p. 71). Over the years, parents, educators, and other professionals have identified a wide variety of characteristics associated with learning disabilities (Gargiulo, 2004). One of the earliest profiles, developed by Clements (1966), includes the following ten frequently cited attributes: • Hyperactivity • Impulsivity • Perceptual-motor impairments • Disorders of memory and thinking • Emotional labiality • Academic difficulties • Coordination problems • Language deficits • Disorders of attention • Equivocal neurological signs Almost 35 years later, Lerner (2000) identified nine learning and behavioral characteristics of individuals with learning disabilities:
    [Show full text]
  • Eliminating Ableism in Education
    Eliminating Ableism in Education THOMAS HEHIR Harvard Graduate School of Education In this article, Thomas Hehir defines ableism as “the devaluation of disability” that “results in societal attitudes that uncritically assert that it is better for a child to walk than roll, speak than sign, read print than read Braille, spell independently than use a spell-check, and hang out with nondisabled kids as opposed to other dis- abled kids.” Hehir highlights ableist practices through a discussion of the history of and research pertaining to the education of deaf students, students who are blind or visually impaired, and students with learning disabilities, particularly dyslexia. He asserts that “the pervasiveness of...ableistassumptionsintheeducationof children with disabilities not only reinforces prevailing prejudices against disability but may very well contribute to low levels of educational attainment and employ- ment.” In conclusion, Hehir offers six detailed proposals for beginning to address and overturn ableist practices. Throughout this article, Hehir draws on his per- sonal experiences as former director of the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Special Education Programs, Associate Superintendent for the Chicago Public Schools, and Director of Special Education in the Boston Public Schools. Ableist Assumptions When Joe Ford was born in 1983, it was clear to the doctors and to Joe’s mom Penny that he would likely have disabilities. What wasn’t clear to Penny at the time was that she was entering a new world, that of a parent of a child with disabilities, a world in which she would have to fight constantly for her child to have the most basic of rights, a world in which deeply held negative cul- tural assumptions concerning disability would influence every aspect of her son’s life.
    [Show full text]
  • Learning Disability
    Learning Disability Distributed By: Maine Parent Federation PO Box 2067 Augusta, Maine 04338 1-800-870-7746 (Maine Only) 207-588-1933 Email: [email protected] Online community: www.mpf.org Original: 01/2000 Updated: 05/2017 Learning Disability Information Disclaimer The purpose of the information packet is to provide individuals with reader friendly information. We believe that a good overview is a realistic one. For this reason we have included a variety of information that may include the more difficult characteristics of a diagnosis or topic along with medical, educational and best practice information. All information contained in this packet is for general knowledge, personal education and enrichment purposes. It is not intended to be a substitute for professional advice. For specific advice, diagnosis and treatment you should consult with a qualified professional. When this packet was developed, Maine Parent Federation made every effort to ensure that the information contained in this packet was accurate, current and reliable. Packets are reviewed and updated periodically as changes occur. 09/2011 Disclaimer The contents of this Information Packet were developed under a grant from the US Department of Education, #H328M110002. However, those contents do not necessarily represent the policy of the US Department of Education, and you should not assume endorsement by the Federal Government. Project Officer, Marsha Goldberg. 1 Distributed by Maine Parent Federation 1-800-870-7746 www.mpf.org 05/2017 Learning Disability Table of Content Learning Disabilities (LD) 3 Supports, Modifications, and Accommodations for Students 10 State Resources 15 National Resources 16 Library Materials 17 2 Distributed by Maine Parent Federation 1-800-870-7746 www.mpf.org 05/2017 Learning Disability Learning Disabilities (LD) A legacy resource from NICHCY Disability Fact Sheet 7 (FS-7) January 2011 | Links updated, July 2015 Sara’s Story When Sara was in the first grade, her teacher started teaching the students how to read.
    [Show full text]
  • For Individuals With
    ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY FOR INDIVIDU A LS WITH COGNITIVE IMP A IRMENTS A Handbook for Idahoans with Cognitive Impairments and the People Who Care for Them Promoting greater access to technology for ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGYIdahoans FOR INDIVIDU withA LS WITHcognitive COGNITIVE IimpairmentsMP A IRMENTS 1 Acknowledgements A number of people need to be thanked for their assistance in making this handbook a reality. First, a big thank you goes to the staff of the Idaho Assistive Technology Project for their help in conceptualizing, editing, and proof-reading the handbook. A special thank you to the North Dakota Interagency Program for Assistive Technology (IPAT), and especially to Judy Lee, for allowing the use of their materials related to assistive technology and people with cogni- tive disabilities. A special thank you also goes to Edmund Frank LoPresti, Alex Mihailidis, and Ned Kirsch for allowing the use of their materials connected to assistive technology and cognitive rehabilitation. Illustrations by Sarah Moore, Martha Perske, and Sue House Design by Jane Fredrickson Statement of Purpose This handbook is designed as a guide for individuals, families, and professionals in Idaho who are involved with persons who experience cognitive disabilities. The application of assistive technology for meeting the needs of individuals with cognitive disabilities is still in its infancy in Idaho. This handbook was developed to increase knowledge and expertise about the use of assistive technology for this population. The handbook also provides information about how to locate funding for needed devices and lists a broad array of resources related to this topic. The handbook is designed to provide information that can be used by persons of all ages.
    [Show full text]
  • Developmental Disabilities
    SERVING CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES A Video Series for Child Welfare Workers Developmental Disabilities GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER CENTER FOR CHILD HEALTH AND MENTAL HEALTH POLICY 3307 M STREET, NW, SUITE 401 I WASHINGTON, DC 20007-3935 I (202) 687-8635 SERVING CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES A Video Series for Child Welfare Workers Overview of the Video Series erving Children with Disabilities, A Video Series for Child Welfare Workers, was developed by the Georgetown University Child Development Center, through a grant from the U.S. SDepartment of Education’s Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP). This program is designed to help child welfare workers and other professionals who provide support to families with young children (ages birth–8 years) served by the social service system. The videos and training will help staff to: • Identify various disabilities found in young children and the characteristics associated with them; • Develop skills needed to identify young children who may have disabilities; • Recognize the extra stress families face as they raise a child who has special needs; • Identify strategies for assisting families in the care of their child with a disability; • Identify the components of IDEA and the services available through it; • Assist families to obtain the services their children need; and • Assist families to recognize and use their own resources and supports as well as those in their communities. Audience This video series is designed for use by child welfare personnel working in child protective services, family preservation programs, foster care, and adoption services. Other service providers who work with children in the social service system, such as legal advocates, health professionals, and childcare providers will also find this video series helpful.
    [Show full text]
  • Foot Health and Mobility in People with Intellectual Disabilities
    1 Foot health and mobility in people with intellectual disabilities 1*§ 2* Ken Courtenay Anita Murray 1Dept. Intellectual Disabilities, Barnet, Enfield and Haringey, Mental Health NHS Trust London UK 2Greenwich Community Services, Oxleas Foundation Trust London UK *These authors contributed equally to the work §Corresponding author Tel: +44 20 8489 1395 Fax: +44 20 8489 1327 E-mail addresses: KC: [email protected] AM: [email protected] 2 Abstract Foot disorders affect people with intellectual disabilities and have an impact on their ability to mobilise in the community. The prevalence of foot disorders appears to be higher than in the general population. Foot problems are recognised as part of certain syndromes associated with intellectual disabilities. The Special Olympics has highlighted the increased prevalence and the nature of foot problems among athletes. The issues in the development of foot problems are related to knowledge among carers and people with ID of foot problems. The important issues in the management of foot problems include awareness by carers and podiatrists of foot disorders in people with intellectual disabilities, effective communication with the person, and the assessment of mental capacity by podiatrists when proposing interventions to manage the problems. Maintaining a person’s mobility through active attention to their foot health has benefits not just for the person but their access to community life and reduced costs in meeting their health needs. Keywords: podiatry, foot, intellectual disabilities, Down syndrome 3 Introduction Feet are essential to an ability to mobilise independently or with support. The ability to mobilise without aid changes with age because muscles, bones, and ligaments weaken predisposing to injury and periods of immobility.
    [Show full text]
  • Transformative Anti-Ableist Pedagogy for Social Justice: Charting a Critical Agenda for Inclusive Education
    OUTLINES - CRITICAL PRACTICE STUDIES • Vol. 21, No. 1 • 2020 • (69-97) • www.outlines.dk Transformative anti-ableist pedagogy for social justice: Charting a critical agenda for inclusive education Dušana Podlucká Department of Social Science, LaGuardia Community College City University of New York New York, USA Abstract Higher education institutions are legally bound to provide equal educational opportunities for diverse learners, traditionally materialized as individualized accommodations. This paper contends that despite the growing interest and scholarship in implementing more inclusive pedagogy enabling access to education for all students (e.g. Universal Design for Learning), those efforts still fall short of systematically addressing intersecting, oppressive, and anti-ableist practices in the classroom. I argue that in order to develop a truly inclusive, equitable, socially just and transformative pedagogy, we need a theory that frames disability in the context of learning and development in a manner that overcomes dichotomized and reductionist perspectives of disability and individualistic notions of learning. Drawing on my research on the dis/abling impact of teaching and institutional practices for a community college student diagnosed with autism, analyzed through the lens of Critical Disability Studies in conjunction with Vygotsky’s theory of defectology and recent advances in cultural-historical activity theory, especially the Transformative Activist Stance (Stetsenko, 2016), this paper offers steps toward integrating these approaches into a transformative pedagogy framework for inclusive, equitable, and anti-ableist pedagogy for all learners. Podlucká • 70 Higher education institutions in the U.S. are legally bound to provide equal educational opportunities and inclusive learning environment for diverse learners. However, educators and administrators are struggling to come to a clear understanding of what educational equality and inclusion means and how it should be implemented.
    [Show full text]
  • Cripping School Curricula: 20 Ways to Re-Teach Disability David Connor
    Cripping School Curricula: 20 Ways to Re-Teach Disability David Connor Hunter College, City University of New York & Lynne Bejoian Teachers College, Columbia University Abstract: As instructors of a graduate level course about using film to re-teach disability, we deliberately set out to “crip” typical school curricula from kindergarten through twelfth grade. Utilizing disability studies to open up alternative understandings and reconceptualizations of disability, we explored feature films and documentaries, juxtaposing them with commonplace texts and activities found in school curricula. In doing so, we sought to challenge any simplistic notions of disability and instead cultivate knowledge of a powerful, and largely misunderstood aspect of human experience. The article incorporates twenty suggestions to re-teach disability that arose from the course. These ideas provide educators and other individuals with a set of pedagogical tools and approaches to enrich, complicate, challenge, clarify, and above all, expand narrowly perceived and defined conceptions of disability found within the discourse of schooling. Key Words: media, curriculum, disability studies in education *Editor’s Note: This article was anonymously peer reviewed. As instructors of a graduate level course on using film to re-teach disability, we deliberately set out to crip school curricula from kindergarten through twelfth grade. Historically, representations of people with disabilities in film have been characterized as damaging, restrictive, stereotypic, pessimistic, and inaccurate (Norden, 1994; Safran, 1998a; Safran, 1998b). Acknowledging the profound degree of influence film exerts on the public’s consciousness, we actively seek to challenge such depictions. Using the insights of disability studies to open up alternative understandings and reframings of disability, we explore feature films and documentaries, juxtaposing them with typical texts and activities found in school curricula.
    [Show full text]
  • Learning Disabilities and Alphabet Soup: LD, AIS, 504, and IEP*...What's It All About?
    Learning Disabilities and Alphabet Soup: LD, AIS, 504, and IEP*...What’s it all about? Heather Adams, PhD Assistant Professor, Division of Child Neurology Spring 2018 LD: Learning Disability AIS: Academic Instruction Services 504: Section 504 Plan IEP: Individualized Education Plan Objectives Learning Disabilities ‐ Overview Evidence –Based Assessment & Diagnosis of LD Evidence –Based intervention for LD LD and the educational system Learning Disabilities ‐ Overview What is a learning disability? “an unexpected, specific, and persistent failure to acquire efficient academic skills despite conventional instruction, adequate intelligence, and sociocultural opportunity” Lagae (2008) review DSM‐5: Specific Learning Disability A neurodevelopmental disorder of biological origin manifested in learning difficulty and problems in acquiring academic skills markedly below age level and manifested in the early school years, lasting for at least 6 months; not attributed to intellectual disabilities, developmental disorders, or neurological or motor disorders Specify if: • With impairment in reading • With impairment in written expression • With impairment in mathematics Specify current severity: Mild ‐ Moderate ‐ Severe LD Epidemiology • LDs in reading, writing, math: ~ 5% of children overall • 15% of U.S. population has ever received an LD diagnosis • Of those with LD, about 80% have a reading disability • Nearly 2.9 million students are currently receiving special education services for learning disabilities in the U.S. Source: National Center for Learning Disabilities (NCLD) LD Epidemiology • 50% of students receiving special education services through the public schools are identified as having learning disabilities. • 66% of secondary students with learning disabilities are reading three or more grades levels behind. And, 20% percent are reading five or more grade levels behind.
    [Show full text]