Learning Disabilities Summit: Building a Foundation for the Future White Papers
This paper is available in alternative formats: | Download Word | Download pdf |
Additional issues related to identifying children with SLD were also discussed. Although the researchers were not directed to come to consensus about these topics, they articulated some important points for further discussion and clarification. The following section describes the researchers' discussions about the relationship between regular education and special education, the role of clinical judgment, and teacher preparation.
In an ideal system that ensures that no child is left behind, early screening, early intervention, continuous monitoring of progress, and specially designed instruction are needed. However, questions arise concerning who is responsible for the delivery of these services. Historically, regular education and special education have been viewed as two separate systems. Discussion on this topic focused on how to systematically increase the capacity of general educators to educate all students and how to move away from the traditional perception of a dual system. Among their varied roles, special educators should serve in a consultative role to regular educators in a systemic pre-referral intervention process before a child is referred for evaluation for special education. By serving in this capacity, special educators could share interventions, accommodations, and strategies with general educators and could ensure that some interventions are implemented prior to referral for special education. Given the critical need for, and advantages of, early screening and early intervention, such a process may facilitate early access to specialized services and possible special education identification. Concerns exist about whether special educators with classroom responsibilities would have the time to serve as both expert instructors and consultants and whether implementing interventions in regular education under current funding levels would diminish funding that supports special education. Some states have already decided to fund the delivery of early intervention services, but this practice is not in place in every state. The recently reauthorized Elementary and Secondary Education Act (No Child Left Behind) may assist with this problem. Research on the effectiveness of pre-referral interventions is mixed, though recent research indicates that high-quality pre-referral can lead to a reduction of inappropriate referrals to special education.
Clinical judgment is an integral component of the decision-making process in special education, from pre-referral to identification to placement. Clinical judgment is required in interpreting and evaluating multiple sources of information related to disability classification and treatment. These judgments must be based on consideration of data and must be consistent with the multiple sources of information provided. For example, clinical judgment is involved in decisions about the following:
Because clinical judgment is a critical component in the appropriate identification of children who need special education services, it must be exercised in a responsible way. There is a continuing national need to address clinical judgment skills in teacher training and professional development programs, and to set standards for balancing the relative importance of clinical judgment and evaluating results when making educational placement decisions. To improve this aspect of the decision-making process, pre-service and in-service professional development programs must teach and enhance these critical skills.
Both pre-service and in-service training are essential to developing the competency of educators. However, many teachers obtain more information about teaching and instruction from the mass media than from professional journals, textbooks, or research-based resources available on the Internet. In addition, many teacher training institutions are not teaching scientifically based practices. As an example, one participant stated that graduates of a particular curriculum and instruction program were taught to be skeptical about phonics instruction--a practice with strong research validation. Both pre-service and in-service teacher preparation programs for all teachers require dramatic improvements. Beyond an emphasis on the dissemination of research-based practices, teacher preparation programs should infuse information about screening and formative assessment procedures, specific content-area instruction methodologies, and methods of individual and small-group instruction into the curricular for all educators, not just for special educators. Toward that end, OSEP, other offices within the U.S. Department of Education, and professional organizations should increase their efforts and continue to support the dissemination of research-based practices especially given the goals of No Child Left Behind.
The researchers also discussed current research findings and identified areas where additional research is needed. New research findings have the potential to drive policy decisions, refine current classification and identification procedures, and improve service delivery in the field of special education and SLD. Thus, the researchers believed that their discussion was timely as Congress moves toward the upcoming reauthorization of IDEA.
The researchers determined that in order to answer some of the more difficult questions regarding improving the identification process for children with SLD, further research is needed in the following areas:
Funding for NRCLD is provided by the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special
Education Programs. Award No. H324U010004. Opinions expressed herein are those of the National
Research Center on Learning Disabilities and do not necessarily represent the position of the U.S.
Department of Education.
© 2007 National Research Center on Learning Disabilities
Last Updated: November 19, 2007
Contact: nrcld@ku.edu