Shifting the focus to Effective Instruction
By Nancy Salvato (01/16/06)
An Interview with G. Reid Lyon - Dr. G. Reid Lyon received his Ph.D. from the University of New Mexico with a dual concentration in psychology and special education. He served as a faculty member of Northwestern University and the University of Vermont. He has practical experience as a learning disabilities teacher, third grade classroom teacher, and school psychologist for 12 years in the public schools.
Perhaps Reid Lyon is best known for his role as a research psychologist and an advisor to President Bush and First Lady Laura Bush on child development and education research and policies He was one of the architects of Reading First – a Federal legislative initiative to improve reading in grades K through 3. He recently resigned his position as the Chief of the Child Development and Behavior Branch within the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) at the National Institute of Health to take a position with Best Associates as a senior vice president for research and evaluation.
In his new position, Dr. Lyon will help develop innovative approaches for the American College of Education, a national teacher’s college that will train teachers and administrators to use the most current scientifically-based educational methodologies. Courses began this fall.
He is also helping to develop Whitney International University, part of GlobalEd’s mission to create high-quality institutions in key regions of the world and making private postsecondary education more available to all qualified students. Curriculum will focus on relevant professional, technical, and practical training and education that prepares students to successfully enter the workforce.
Response To Instruction discrepancy shows that the student does not learn even when provided with quality instruction that produces learning and achievement in the majority of students. This is important because the definition and identification of LD (learning disabilities) are now linked explicitly to instruction rather than lengthy, expensive, and frequently invalid diagnostic assessments.
Q. Should we eliminate “ability achievement discrepancy” and implement Response to Instruction (RTI) to identify those who are demonstrating learning difficulties for more specialized instruction?
A. Aptitude achievement discrepancy is, to be blunt, an invalid marker for learning disabilities. The discrepancy model is based on the clinical observation that learning disabilities (LD) are characterized by a mosaic of strengths in many areas with specific deficits in one or more academic skills such as reading, math, writing and/or language. In a practical sense, LD is characterized by “unexpected underachievement”, where despite average to above average intelligence the student struggles academically. For years, the IQ-achievement discrepancy was thought to be a way to quantify this gap between learning “potential” and achievement. Unfortunately, IQ tests do not reliably predict strengths or weakness in specific reading, math, or writing skills - thus, it is not a strong measure of “potential”.
Is an IQ score a good predictor of academic ability? Not really. It isn’t that strong.
To gain a better understanding of the validity and the utility of IQ scores and their relationship to academic achievement, we began to ask several questions over the past decade:
1. Is an IQ score a good predictor of academic ability? Not really. It isn’t that strong. It has a general predictive capability but it’s not that powerful in telling us how kids will do in learning to read, write and calculate. This is particularly the case in reading, where most kids have difficulty at the decoding level which IQ doesn’t predict well at all
2. A second question we asked was whether kids with and without IQ-achievement discrepancies respond differently to remediation efforts? No. Our studies have shown little difference in response to treatment. Thus, the predictive ability of the IQ measure in terms of “potential” to learn is not well supported – again, at least in terms of specific reading and basic math skills.
3. Is there a neurological/physiological difference between discrepant and non discrepant kids? No. For example, kids with IQ-achievement discrepancies do not show us a different neurophysiologic signature than kids without a discrepancy between their IQ scores and their scores on achievement measures.
The use of an IQ-achievement discrepancy criterion for the identification of students with LD actually institutes a “wait to fail” model.
Very importantly, it is also important to understand that the use of an IQ-achievement discrepancy criterion for the identification of students with LD actually institutes a “wait to fail” model. That is, the discrepancy will not occur until the kids have already failed to perform well on achievement tests. Given the fact that waiting to intervene limits a student’s response to instruction, it is critical to identify students at risk for failure as early as possible and implement instructional programs that can PREVENT learning failure.
Response to instruction (RTI) is a much better indictor of severe LD.
Given that IQ-achievement discrepancies are not predictive of response to instruction or differential neurophysiology, and given that the use of discrepancy constitutes a “wait to fail” model, there is little reason to use discrepancy as a diagnostic marker for LD.
An IQ measure can provide some rich clinical information with respect to general verbal and non-verbal skills which certainly are important for learning and instruction, but the information is not specific enough for the identification of an LD. It can be used along with other information such as a student’s response to well designed instruction.
Response to instruction (RTI) is a much better indictor of severe LD. Moreover, using RTI as one factor in the identification of students as LD shifts the focus from eligibility to concerns about providing effective instruction.
If students with LD are provided instruction that has been found to be effective for most students through well designed studies, then we can infer that the student has unexpected difficulty learning. Thus, rather than requiring an IQ-achievement discrepancy, an RTI discrepancy shows that the student does not learn even when provided with quality instruction that produces learning and achievement in the majority of students. This is important because the definition and identification of LD are now linked explicitly to instruction rather than lengthy, expensive, and frequently invalid diagnostic assessments.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
IDEA: We don’t have enough data for RTI outside of reading, although studies are in progress. States and local districts can use a variety of means to assess students for the presence of LD, but they are not required to employ an IQ discrepancy.
RTI should be a critical & main part of what they do. They shouldn’t use IQ to identify students but the flexibility to use it is there. As I mentioned earlier, IQ measures can provide a good deal of valuable clinical information that can help teachers and parents understand some general learning characteristics, but IQ is weak when applied for identification purposes.
Unfortunately, many districts don’t have capability yet to do early screening, find kids at risk, place them in effective instruction and measure if they’re responding or not.
Unfortunately, many districts don’t have capability yet to do early screening, find kids at risk, place them in effective instruction and measure if they’re responding or not. There is a capacity issue. When these factors are in place RTI is a much better indicator of LD.
It should be said that no matter how good the science, translating scientific evidence into practice is quite difficult because the system typically resists anything new. And to be sure, guiding instruction on the basis of evidence of what works is a very new concept in education. When we designed the Reading First initiative we knew that implementing effective evidence-based programs would be very difficult to accomplish if funds were not tied to the selection and implementation of effective programs and approaches. Education is beginning to change now, although very slowly, we now have science driving policy and educational practice, which carries money with it.
Articles in this Complete Series Include:
1. Shifting the focus to Effective Instruction
2. Effective Reading Programs Share Common Characteristics
3. The Federal role in Education
4. Getting Beyond Polarization of Bilingual Methods
5. Developing an American College of Education
Copyright © Nancy Salvato 2006
(Printer friendly version) Email: Nancy Salvato
