The Demise of IQ Testing The Demise of IQ Testing for Children with Learning for Children with Learning Disabilities in Rhode Disabilities in Rhode Island:Island:We Can Be FunctionalWe Can Be Functional

W. Alan Coulter, Ph.D.W. Alan Coulter, Ph.D.Human Dev. Center, LSU Health Human Dev. Center, LSU Health Sciences CenterSciences Center

Based on a presentation by Based on a presentation by

Robert H. Pasternack, Ph.D.Robert H. Pasternack, Ph.D.Assistant Secretary, Office of Special Education Assistant Secretary, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Servicesand Rehabilitative Services

National Association of School National Association of School Psychologists Psychologists 2002 Annual Convention2002 Annual Convention

Main Points Main Points (1)(1)

–Validity of the Validity of the conceptconcept of LD does of LD does NOTNOT hinge on the validity of IQ-Achievement hinge on the validity of IQ-Achievement Discrepancy as a means for identifying Discrepancy as a means for identifying individuals with LD.individuals with LD.–IQ-Achievement Discrepancy is not a IQ-Achievement Discrepancy is not a valid means for identifying individuals valid means for identifying individuals with LD.with LD.–There is no compelling need for the use There is no compelling need for the use of IQ tests in the identification of LD.of IQ tests in the identification of LD.

Main Points Main Points (2)(2)

– Elimination of IQ tests in the Elimination of IQ tests in the identification of LD will help shift identification of LD will help shift the emphasis in Special the emphasis in Special Education away from eligibility Education away from eligibility and towards getting children the and towards getting children the interventions they need to be interventions they need to be successful learners.successful learners.

Why Discrepancy?Why Discrepancy?

““Capacity must obviously limit content. It Capacity must obviously limit content. It is impossible for a pint jug to hold more is impossible for a pint jug to hold more than a pint of milk and it is equally than a pint of milk and it is equally impossible for a child’s educational impossible for a child’s educational attainment to rise higher than his educable attainment to rise higher than his educable capacity (Burt, 1937, p. 477).”capacity (Burt, 1937, p. 477).”

The impetus for the discrepancy model The impetus for the discrepancy model involved the concept of unexpected involved the concept of unexpected underachievement - the otherwise bright underachievement - the otherwise bright child who struggled with reading or math.child who struggled with reading or math.

What is IQ-What is IQ-Achievement Achievement Discrepancy?Discrepancy? The IQ-Achievement Discrepancy modelThe IQ-Achievement Discrepancy model

– Is a model for identifying children with LD, i.e., Is a model for identifying children with LD, i.e., low achievers who are not intellectually low achievers who are not intellectually deficient.deficient.

– It presumes that children whose low It presumes that children whose low achievement is discrepant from their IQ achievement is discrepant from their IQ constitute a class of children with unexpected constitute a class of children with unexpected low achievement.low achievement.

– It further presumes that such children are It further presumes that such children are qualitatively distinct from children whose low qualitatively distinct from children whose low achievement is consistent with their IQ.achievement is consistent with their IQ.

Levels of Levels of Classification for LDClassification for LD The concept of LD is valid!The concept of LD is valid!

– LD vs. typically achieving - yesLD vs. typically achieving - yes– LD vs. mentally deficient - yesLD vs. mentally deficient - yes– Reading vs. math disabled - yesReading vs. math disabled - yes– IQ-discrepant vs. low achieving - IQ-discrepant vs. low achieving -

nono

Origins of IQ-Origins of IQ-DiscrepancyDiscrepancy IQ-Achievement discrepancy represented IQ-Achievement discrepancy represented

an attempt to operationalize criteria for an attempt to operationalize criteria for LD. When PL 94- 142 was passed, states LD. When PL 94- 142 was passed, states asked for assistance in identifying children asked for assistance in identifying children with LD. The result was regulations in the with LD. The result was regulations in the 1977 Federal Register that are still part of 1977 Federal Register that are still part of IDEA regulations. IDEA regulations.

Consider the Federal definition of LD and Consider the Federal definition of LD and the subsequent regulations involving the subsequent regulations involving discrepancy in 1977 and 1997:discrepancy in 1977 and 1997:

Statutory Definition of Statutory Definition of LDLD The term “specific learning disability” means The term “specific learning disability” means a disorder a disorder

in one or more of the basic psychological processesin one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, which may manifest itself in an imperfect or written, which may manifest itself in an imperfect ability to listen, speak, read, write, spell, or to do ability to listen, speak, read, write, spell, or to do mathematical calculations. The term includes such mathematical calculations. The term includes such conditions as perceptual handicaps, brain injury, minimal conditions as perceptual handicaps, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia. brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia. The term does not include children who have learning The term does not include children who have learning disabilities which are primarily the result of visual, disabilities which are primarily the result of visual, hearing, or motor handicaps, or mental retardation, or hearing, or motor handicaps, or mental retardation, or emotional disturbance, or of environmental, cultural, or emotional disturbance, or of environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage (USOE, 1968).economic disadvantage (USOE, 1968).

1977 Federal 1977 Federal RegulationsRegulations A severe discrepancy between A severe discrepancy between

achievement and intellectual ability in achievement and intellectual ability in one or more of the areas: one or more of the areas: 1.1.oral expression; oral expression; 2.2.listening comprehension; listening comprehension; 3.3.written expression; written expression; 4.4.basic reading skill; basic reading skill; 5.5.reading comprehension; reading comprehension; 6.6.mathematics calculation; or mathematics calculation; or 7.7.mathematic reasoning. mathematic reasoning.

1977 Federal 1977 Federal RegulationsRegulations The child may not be identified as The child may not be identified as

having a specific learning disability if having a specific learning disability if the discrepancy between ability and the discrepancy between ability and achievement is primarily the result of: achievement is primarily the result of:

1.1.a visual, hearing, or motor handicap; a visual, hearing, or motor handicap;

2.2.mental retardation; mental retardation;

3.3.emotional disturbance; or emotional disturbance; or

4.4.environmental, cultural, or economic environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage (USOE, 1977).disadvantage (USOE, 1977).

1997 Federal 1997 Federal RegulationsRegulations

A team may determine that a child has a A team may determine that a child has a specific learning disability if: specific learning disability if: – the child does not achieve commensurate the child does not achieve commensurate

with his or her age and ability levels in one with his or her age and ability levels in one or more of the areas listed in paragraph (a)or more of the areas listed in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, when provided with (2) of this section, when provided with learning experiences appropriate for the learning experiences appropriate for the child’s age and ability levels; and child’s age and ability levels; and

– the team finds that a child has a severe the team finds that a child has a severe discrepancy between achievement and discrepancy between achievement and intellectual ability in one or more of the intellectual ability in one or more of the following areas (IDEA, 1997).following areas (IDEA, 1997).

Types of Validity Types of Validity EvidenceEvidence Is there a natural break in the Is there a natural break in the

distribution of reading skills?distribution of reading skills? Qualitatively distinct cognitive Qualitatively distinct cognitive

profiles?profiles? Differential prognosis?Differential prognosis? Differential response to Differential response to

intervention?intervention?

Is There a Break?Is There a Break?Isle of Wight StudiesIsle of Wight Studies Initial studies in the Isle of Wight in Initial studies in the Isle of Wight in

the early 1970’s suggested that there the early 1970’s suggested that there was a natural break in the distribution was a natural break in the distribution of reading scores, with a group of IQ- of reading scores, with a group of IQ- discrepant poor readers and a group discrepant poor readers and a group of IQ- consistent poor readers.of IQ- consistent poor readers.

These results have not been These results have not been replicated in 5 subsequent replicated in 5 subsequent epidemiological studies.epidemiological studies.

Is there a break?Is there a break?

*Only one subgroup of older children*Only one subgroup of older children

StudyStudy CountryCountry p?p?

Rodgers, 1983Rodgers, 1983 UKUK NoNo

Silva, 1985Silva, 1985 New New ZealandZealand

NoNo

Jorm et al., Jorm et al., 19861986

AustraliaAustralia NoNo

Stevenson, Stevenson, 19881988

UKUK Yes*Yes*

Shaywitz, et Shaywitz, et al., 1992al., 1992

USAUSA NoNo

Validity of IQ-Validity of IQ-Achievement Achievement DiscrepancyDiscrepancy Even if there is not a natural break and Even if there is not a natural break and

academic skills are dimensional, IQ-academic skills are dimensional, IQ-discrepant and IQ-consistent children may discrepant and IQ-consistent children may differ.differ.

Differences between IQ-discrepant and IQ-Differences between IQ-discrepant and IQ-consistent poor readers have been consistent poor readers have been proposed in several domains: proposed in several domains: –cognitive characteristics cognitive characteristics –prognosis prognosis –response to interventionresponse to intervention

Reading Disabilities GroupsReading Disabilities Groups

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

Problem Solving ConceptFormation

PhonologicalAwareness

Rapid Naming Vocabulary Paired AssociateLearning

Visual Motor

IQ- Consistent

Ag

e A

dju

ste

d S

tan

dard

ized

S

core

IQ-Discrepant

Cognitive DifferencesCognitive Differences

What about other forms What about other forms of LD?of LD?

Studies of children who are Studies of children who are IQ-discrepant and IQ-IQ-discrepant and IQ-consistent in math and in consistent in math and in speech and language have speech and language have not supported IQ-discrepancy not supported IQ-discrepancy model.model.

Discrepancy Speech Discrepancy Speech and Language Disordersand Language Disorders

“… “… the children with general delay closely the children with general delay closely parallel the specifically language-impaired group parallel the specifically language-impaired group … current diagnostic methods and standards for … current diagnostic methods and standards for specific language impairment do not result in a specific language impairment do not result in a group of children whose profiles of language group of children whose profiles of language achievement are unique.” (Tomblin & Zhang, achievement are unique.” (Tomblin & Zhang, 1999, p. 367)1999, p. 367)

Consensus report from the National Institute of Consensus report from the National Institute of Deafness and Communication Disorders (NIH) Deafness and Communication Disorders (NIH) specifically recommended that “IQ referencing” specifically recommended that “IQ referencing” not be used for identifying children with speech not be used for identifying children with speech and language disorders. (Tager- Flusberg & and language disorders. (Tager- Flusberg & Cooper, 1999)Cooper, 1999)

PrognosisPrognosis

Children who are IQ-discrepant Children who are IQ-discrepant and IQ-consistent do not differ in and IQ-consistent do not differ in the long-term development of the long-term development of reading ability. (Francis et al., reading ability. (Francis et al., 1996; Silva et al., 1987)1996; Silva et al., 1987)

Response to Response to InterventionIntervention Studies of responsiveness to Studies of responsiveness to

intervention generally do not find intervention generally do not find relationships with IQ or IQ-relationships with IQ or IQ-discrepancy.discrepancy.

May seem counterintuitive, but IQ May seem counterintuitive, but IQ tests do not measure cognitive skills tests do not measure cognitive skills like phonological awareness that are like phonological awareness that are closely associated with LD in closely associated with LD in reading.reading.

Response to InterventionResponse to Intervention “… “… the IQ-achievement discrepancy the IQ-achievement discrepancy

does not reliably distinguish between does not reliably distinguish between disabled and non-disabled readers … disabled and non-disabled readers … children who were found to be children who were found to be difficult [and easy] to remediate … difficult [and easy] to remediate … and it does not predict response to and it does not predict response to remediation.”remediation.”

Vellutino et al. (2000), p. 235Vellutino et al. (2000), p. 235

Summary of Validity Evidence Summary of Validity Evidence for IQ-Achievement Discrepancyfor IQ-Achievement Discrepancy

““neither the phenotypic nor the genotypic indicators neither the phenotypic nor the genotypic indicators of poor reading are correlated in a reliable way with of poor reading are correlated in a reliable way with IQ discrepancy...” (Stanovich & Siegel, 1994, p. 48).IQ discrepancy...” (Stanovich & Siegel, 1994, p. 48).

IQ- Discrepant and IQ- Consistent groups do not IQ- Discrepant and IQ- Consistent groups do not differ qualitatively in differ qualitatively in

– Individual CharacteristicsIndividual Characteristics– Cognitive Profiles, Cognitive Profiles, – Prognosis,Prognosis,– Response to interventionResponse to intervention

Failure of validity evidence is expected due to the Failure of validity evidence is expected due to the quantitative and arbitrary nature of discrepancy quantitative and arbitrary nature of discrepancy model.model.

Discrepancy – Discrepancy – Psychometric FactorsPsychometric Factors We could continue to study IQ-discrepancy, but We could continue to study IQ-discrepancy, but

psychometric factors alone make it unlikely to psychometric factors alone make it unlikely to be a reliable procedure. We have known this be a reliable procedure. We have known this since 1984.since 1984.

Academic skills are normally distributed. Academic skills are normally distributed. Subdividing a normal distribution with cut-Subdividing a normal distribution with cut-points that are inherently arbitrary leads to points that are inherently arbitrary leads to unacceptable instability in who scores above unacceptable instability in who scores above and below the cut-point.and below the cut-point.

Designations of IQ-Discrepant are Designations of IQ-Discrepant are NOT STABLE NOT STABLE OVER TIME.OVER TIME.

Learning Disabilities as Learning Disabilities as Operationally Defined by Operationally Defined by Schools Schools Siperstein, McMillanSiperstein, McMillan

Identification of children with LD at the Identification of children with LD at the school level exhibits great variability.  school level exhibits great variability.  

Schools have opted to ignore exclusionary Schools have opted to ignore exclusionary criteria criteria

Identification is further complicated by one-Identification is further complicated by one-time assessments based on assumptions time assessments based on assumptions that LD is caused by intrinsic neurological that LD is caused by intrinsic neurological difficulty as opposed to poor instruction.  difficulty as opposed to poor instruction.  

Great heterogeneity within LD populations Great heterogeneity within LD populations with differing etiologies and presumably with differing etiologies and presumably differing educational needs. differing educational needs.

What Role for IQ Tests What Role for IQ Tests in LD Identification? in LD Identification?

There is an emerging consensus! There is an emerging consensus! The concept of intelligence in LD The concept of intelligence in LD

outmoded.outmoded. IQ tests lead to a focus on eligibility by IQ tests lead to a focus on eligibility by

which children are quantitatively sorted by which children are quantitatively sorted by IQ and achievement.IQ and achievement.

IQ-Discrepancy does not identify distinct IQ-Discrepancy does not identify distinct groups of individuals who differ in groups of individuals who differ in characteristics, cognitive strengths and characteristics, cognitive strengths and weaknesses, or response to intervention. weaknesses, or response to intervention.

We do not need IQ tests to identify LD.We do not need IQ tests to identify LD.

What’s the What’s the Alternative?Alternative? There is a better way!There is a better way! Focus on intervention and Focus on intervention and

outcomes, not eligibility and test outcomes, not eligibility and test scores.scores.

Prioritize diagnosis for instruction, Prioritize diagnosis for instruction, not classification.not classification.

2002 NRC Report on Minority 2002 NRC Report on Minority Representation in Special Representation in Special EducationEducation ““While an IQ test may provide While an IQ test may provide

supplemental information, no IQ test supplemental information, no IQ test

would be required, and results would not would be required, and results would not

be a primary criterion on which eligibility be a primary criterion on which eligibility

rests…the committee regards the effort rests…the committee regards the effort

to assess students’ decontextualized to assess students’ decontextualized

potential or ability as inappropriate and potential or ability as inappropriate and

scientifically invalid.” (p. 8- 23).scientifically invalid.” (p. 8- 23).

NRC AlternativesNRC Alternatives

Early identification: Screen all children Early identification: Screen all children for learning and behavior problems.for learning and behavior problems.

Traditional disability definitions should Traditional disability definitions should be “revised to focus on behaviors be “revised to focus on behaviors directly related to classroom and directly related to classroom and school learning and behavior (e.g., school learning and behavior (e.g., reading failure, math failure, persistent reading failure, math failure, persistent inattention…).” (p. 8-22)inattention…).” (p. 8-22)

NRC ReportNRC Report “…“…federal guidelines for special education federal guidelines for special education

eligibility should be changed to encourage eligibility should be changed to encourage

better integrated general and special better integrated general and special

education services. We propose that education services. We propose that

eligibility should ensue when a student eligibility should ensue when a student

exhibits large differences from typical levels exhibits large differences from typical levels

of performance …with evidence of of performance …with evidence of

insufficient response to high quality insufficient response to high quality

interventions…” (p. 8- 22)interventions…” (p. 8- 22)

NRC ReportNRC Report

Focus shifts from eligibility and Focus shifts from eligibility and compliance to results: A shift from who compliance to results: A shift from who has the correct test scores to what can has the correct test scores to what can we do for this child in the classroom.we do for this child in the classroom.

Key is the monitoring of progress for Key is the monitoring of progress for all children and response to all children and response to intervention for any child who is intervention for any child who is enrolled in or is a candidate for special enrolled in or is a candidate for special education.education.

Consensus Report – Consensus Report – LD SummitLD Summit IQ/Achievement Discrepancy is neither IQ/Achievement Discrepancy is neither

necessary nor sufficient for identifying necessary nor sufficient for identifying individuals with SLD (specific learning individuals with SLD (specific learning disabilities). disabilities).

IQ tests do not need to be given in most IQ tests do not need to be given in most evaluations of children with SLD.evaluations of children with SLD.

There should be alternate ways to identify There should be alternate ways to identify individuals with SLD in addition to individuals with SLD in addition to achievement testing, history, and achievement testing, history, and observations of the child.observations of the child.

Consensus Report - Consensus Report - AlternativesAlternatives Response to quality interventionResponse to quality intervention is the most promising is the most promising

method of alternate identification and can both method of alternate identification and can both promote effective practices in schools and help to close promote effective practices in schools and help to close the gap between identification and treatment.the gap between identification and treatment.

Any effort to scale up response to intervention should Any effort to scale up response to intervention should be based on problem solving models that be based on problem solving models that use progress use progress monitoring to gauge the intensity of intervention monitoring to gauge the intensity of intervention in in relation to the student’s response to intervention. relation to the student’s response to intervention.

Problem solving modelsProblem solving models have been shown to be have been shown to be effective in public school settings and in research.effective in public school settings and in research.

Early Identification and Early Identification and Intervention – LD SummitIntervention – LD SummitJenkins, O'ConnorJenkins, O'Connor

Children with reading disabilities lag behind.  Children with reading disabilities lag behind.   Research shows that early training of Research shows that early training of

phonological awareness facilitates decoding and phonological awareness facilitates decoding and explicit decoding instruction produces better explicit decoding instruction produces better orthographic reading skill.orthographic reading skill.

Early identification constitutes the first step in Early identification constitutes the first step in reducing the severity of reading disabilities, reducing the severity of reading disabilities, identification must take place much earlier than it identification must take place much earlier than it usually occurs. usually occurs.

A sizable number of children remain resistant to A sizable number of children remain resistant to early intervention- these are the kids who need early intervention- these are the kids who need special education.special education.

Responsiveness to Intervention: Responsiveness to Intervention: An Alternative Approach to Identification - An Alternative Approach to Identification - LD SummitLD SummitGreshamGresham

A responsiveness to intervention approach to A responsiveness to intervention approach to eligibility determination identifies students as eligibility determination identifies students as having a learning disability if their having a learning disability if their performance does not change in response to performance does not change in response to validated intervention implemented with validated intervention implemented with integrity. integrity. 

Exposure to intensive reading instruction Exposure to intensive reading instruction should be used to distinguish between should be used to distinguish between reading problems caused by cognitive deficits reading problems caused by cognitive deficits and those caused by poor reading instruction.and those caused by poor reading instruction.

Why give IQ Tests?Why give IQ Tests?

Eligibility evaluations are costly: IQ tests are Eligibility evaluations are costly: IQ tests are time consuming and do not contribute to time consuming and do not contribute to treatment planning.treatment planning.

Wait to fail model- we wait for kids to fail to Wait to fail model- we wait for kids to fail to provide services.provide services.

All the research we have points to the value All the research we have points to the value of early intervention.of early intervention.

IQ tests contribute to over- representation of IQ tests contribute to over- representation of minorities in special education. minorities in special education.

Role of school psychologist should change.Role of school psychologist should change. CHANGE IS GOOD!CHANGE IS GOOD!

Heartland AEA (IA) vs. National Heartland AEA (IA) vs. National Patterns of School Psychology Patterns of School Psychology PracticePractice

Reschly, D. J., Ikeda, M. J., Tilly, W. D. III., Reschly, D. J., Ikeda, M. J., Tilly, W. D. III., Allison, R., Grimes, J. P., & Upah, K. .F. Allison, R., Grimes, J. P., & Upah, K. .F. (2000, April). School psychology without (2000, April). School psychology without IQ: Roles, assessment, satisfaction, IQ: Roles, assessment, satisfaction, supervision, and evaluation. Symposium, supervision, and evaluation. Symposium, Annual Convention of the National Annual Convention of the National Association of School Psychologists, New Association of School Psychologists, New Orleans, LA.Orleans, LA.

Compared Heartland school psychologists Compared Heartland school psychologists (N=60) to a national sample (N=900)(N=60) to a national sample (N=900)

02468

1012141618202224262830

US IA

US 18.16 12.89 10.64 17.59 10.49 1.76 20.44

IA 0.04 12.3 28.69 0.44 0 0.81 7.11

Ability EducationalBehavior

ObservationProjectives V-M

Pre-school/Family

Social/Emotional A.B

School Psychology Assessment School Psychology Assessment in Traditional and Alternative in Traditional and Alternative Delivery SystemsDelivery Systems

0123456789

10111213

US IA

US 1.49 0.42 0.69 0.68 1.43 1.61 3.51 4.04 2.88

IA 0 0.03 0 0.03 0.03 12.12 0 0 0.52

K-TEA Key-Math PIAT WRAT CBM/CBE W-J ACH WIAT Other

Assessment of Assessment of Educational Skills: U.S. Educational Skills: U.S. and Iowaand Iowa

0

1

2

3

4

5

<Lo

w Job

Sat

isfa

ctio

n H

igh>

Job Satisfaction Dimension

US IA

US 3.54 4.01 3.34 3.03 2.29

IA 3.81 4.13 4.64 2.95 2.95

Work Colleagues Supervision Pay Promotion

School Psychologists’ Job School Psychologists’ Job Satisfaction in the U.S. and Satisfaction in the U.S. and IowaIowa

02468

1012141618202224

Estim

ated

Hours

Per

Wee

k

School Psychology Role

US IA

US 22.6 7.3 6.6 2.6 1

IA 14.6 9.2 12.2 3.6 0.8

Assessment Direct Intervention Problem SolvingSystems

Organizational Consultation

Research/Evaluation

Current Roles of School Current Roles of School Psychologists in the U.S. and Psychologists in the U.S. and IowaIowa

Despite what Despite what some would say…some would say… ““When the discrepancy formula disappears When the discrepancy formula disappears

from the educational scene, so will the from the educational scene, so will the concept of LD.” (Aaron, 1997, p. 489)concept of LD.” (Aaron, 1997, p. 489)

“…“…the notion of discrepancy… has led to a the notion of discrepancy… has led to a confounding… most clearly seen in the confounding… most clearly seen in the suggestion that there are more similarities suggestion that there are more similarities than differences between LD and low than differences between LD and low achieving students. Such a suggestion achieving students. Such a suggestion calls into question the very notion of LD.” calls into question the very notion of LD.” (Kavale & Forness, 1994, p. 43)(Kavale & Forness, 1994, p. 43)

Despite what Despite what some would say…some would say… Validity of LD does not hinge on IQ-Validity of LD does not hinge on IQ-

Discrepancy.Discrepancy. Classifications may be valid even Classifications may be valid even

though a particular method may not though a particular method may not be capable of identifying such be capable of identifying such individuals. individuals.

IQ tests provide no added value in IQ tests provide no added value in identification or intervention with LD. identification or intervention with LD.

Recap - Main PointsRecap - Main Points Validity of the Validity of the conceptconcept of LD does of LD does NOTNOT hinge hinge

on the validity of IQ-Achievement Discrepancy on the validity of IQ-Achievement Discrepancy as a means for identifying individuals with LD.as a means for identifying individuals with LD.

IQ-Achievement Discrepancy is not a valid IQ-Achievement Discrepancy is not a valid means for identifying individuals with LD.means for identifying individuals with LD.

There is no compelling need for the use of IQ There is no compelling need for the use of IQ tests in the identification of LD.tests in the identification of LD.

Elimination of IQ tests in the identification of Elimination of IQ tests in the identification of LD will shift the emphasis in special education LD will shift the emphasis in special education away from eligibility and towards getting away from eligibility and towards getting children the interventions they need to be children the interventions they need to be successful learners.successful learners.

AcknowledgementsAcknowledgements The material in this presentation is based in The material in this presentation is based in

part on presentations by part on presentations by – Lyon et al., 2000 at the Fordham/PPI Lyon et al., 2000 at the Fordham/PPI

Conference (Conference (www.edexcellence.net/library/special_edwww.edexcellence.net/library/special_ed), ),

– Fletcher et al., 2001 at the OSEP LD Fletcher et al., 2001 at the OSEP LD Summit (Summit (www.air.org/ldsummitwww.air.org/ldsummit), and ), and

– testimony by D.J.Francis for the President’s testimony by D.J.Francis for the President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Commission on Excellence in Special Education (Education (www.ed.gov/inits/commissionsboards/whspwww.ed.gov/inits/commissionsboards/whspecialeducationecialeducation))

Special ThanksSpecial Thanks

Special thanks to Dr. Jack M. Special thanks to Dr. Jack M. Fletcher of the University of Texas Fletcher of the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston Health Science Center at Houston and Dr. David J. Francis of the and Dr. David J. Francis of the University of Houston, both of University of Houston, both of whom provided significant whom provided significant technical assistance in the technical assistance in the development of this presentation.development of this presentation.