Ruth Colker Distinguished University Professor Moritz College of Law The Ohio State University

 Need Inclusionary rather than Exclusionary Approach Various factors that could cause poor reading other than dyslexia Various Factors that cause dyslexia

 “For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.”

 No Child Left Behind ◦ Achievement approach  Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ◦ Disability approach

 Child A: ◦ 85 Reading Achievement Score ◦ 100 Aptitude Score  Child B: ◦ 85 Reading Achievement Score ◦ 95 Aptitude Score ◦ Without intervention, reading might decline to 80 by Fourth Grade  Child C: ◦ 85 Reading Achievement Score ◦ 90 Aptitude Score ◦ Without intervention, might also decline to 80 by Fourth Grade  Child D: ◦ 95 Reading Achievement Score ◦ 110 Aptitude Score ◦ Moves to School District that uses “RTI” approach – no longer qualifies for any intervention

 1887: Professor Berlin coined term “dyslexia”  1895: Also called “word blindness” ◦ Different from “alexia,” the utter inability to read  1904: Dyslexic child responded well to intervention  1965 Definition: Emphasized “educationally significant discrepancy between their estimated intellectual potential and actual level of performance”  1975 Isle of Wight Study by Rutter and Yule: lent support to discrepancy definition ◦ But others have not been able to replicate those results

Reading AbilitySpellingMath-Arithmetic Reading Backward Group 9 years 4 months 8 years 6 months 19 Specific Reading Retardation Group 8 years 10 months 7 years 10 months 15.5

 “It may be that the two groups of poor readers require different remedial approaches. This possibility requires study and such study might lead to more effective remedial procedures. Whether or not this happens, it seems clear on the basis of present evidence that all those concerned with children’s reading skills will have to pay closer attention to the differentiation between general reading backwardness and specific reading retardation.”

 Verbal scale on IQ test often measures skills developed through reading, so IQ and achievement are not independent measures  Large-scale studies have not been able to replicate Rutter and Yule and some researchers have actually attained opposite results (for children in category D) ◦ Rutter responded in 1989, noting that “it remains uncertain whether the reading processes per se in [IQ-discrepant group] differ from those in [IQ- consistent group].”  Lack of consistency between states

 IQ testing is a waste of money  IQ testing is not useful in determining who should receive assistance as learning disabled  A move away from the discrepancy model should result in earlier, not later, intervention  A model that replaces the discrepancy model should be less rather than more subjective

 (1) Students receive high-quality research- based instruction in their general education environment,  (2) Continuous monitoring of student performance in comparison with peers,  (3) All students are screened for academic and behavioral problems; and  (4) Multiple levels (tiers) of instruction that are progressively more intense, based on the student’s response to intervention

 Still need IQ testing to rule out cognitive impairment ◦ Even need IQ (arguably) to design effective remediation  RTI intervention is not individualized and therefore not likely to help students with LD ◦ Even more delays and few students ultimately identified ◦ “Watch them fail” rather than “wait and fail”  RTI is actually more subjective with every school district having a different approach ◦ Who are peers? ◦ What is a science-based response?

ControlDiscrepancy Definition and High IQs Discrepancy Definition and Average IQs Poor Readers but did not meet Discrepancy Definition Second Grade Reading Fifth Grade Reading

 Directly measure: ◦ Components of the reading process, such as word recognition, fluency and comprehension ◦ Components of word recognition difficulties, such as phonological awareness, rapid naming, phonological (working) memory and vocabulary  Crucial to reach children before second grade ◦ Typical reading readiness tests from 1970s and 1980s had a predictive validity close to zero! ◦ Do we have those tools?

 Fundamental normative questions raised by this research: ◦ Who do we want to help with federal/state assistance?  Only children scoring below grade level?  Primarily children whose deficits are a result of a disability?  Should we get rid of the Learning Disability category and address all these problems with No Child Left Behind?