This article focuses on the four primary issues that directly affect service delivery to students with learning disabilities in postsecondary settings, including (a) How are high school and post-secondary settings different? (b) How are eligibility and access determined? (c) How are reasonable accommodations determined? and (d) How can the independence level of college students with learning disabilities be fostered? Each of these issues will be discussed within the context of the student's transition from high school, where Public Law 94-142 is in effect, to college, where Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 applies.

Promoting Access, Accommodations, and Independence for College Students with Learning Disabilities

In this article we review the research literature since 1980 on uses of technology in special education. Unlike past reviews, which have typically focused on academically related issues and the effectiveness of computer-assisted instruction, this review also summarizes the extensive observational and naturalistic studies, as well as research efforts in technology-based assessment. This diversity of research in special education stems from the multiple roles of the special education teacher, who, in addition to bearing instructional responsibilities, often determines eligibility for services, tracks progress toward IEP goals, and facilitates a student’s day-to-day participation in general education settings.

A Historical Review of Technology Research in Special Education

Behavioral characteristics of children with vocal fold nodules.

I was asked to address the future of the field of learning disabilities (LD) from the perspective of a director of one of the five Institutes for Research on Learning Disabilities (IRLD) funded by the Office of Special Education Programs more than 25 years ago. The theme of each of the Institutes differed; the Minnesota IRLD focused on assessment and decision making. We conducted research on how school personnel sorted students who were achieving poorly in school into those who were and those who were not LD, and worked to develop improved ways to use assessment information to plan and adapt instructional interventions. We pointed to the considerable variability at that time (late 1970s and early '80s) in the kinds and numbers of students receiving LD services in different settings, and to the tremendous variability in criteria used by state and local education agencies. On many days in many ways, we asked this question: Who are students with learning disabilities and what is being done for them in special education? For five years we addressed a set of issues in assessment and decision making. We produced 144 research reports, and in 1983 (20 years ago) we (Ysseldyke et al., 1983) stated 14 generalizations based on the studies we conducted. An abridged version of these generalizations is found in Table 1. In the conclusions to the 1983 paper we indicated that an alternative to current practice was one of intervening at the point of referral and using data on student performance to make eligibility decisions (an early call for a prereferral intervention or "response-to-intervention" approach). On many occasions since that writing, I have argued that we spend far too much of our professional time making predictions about students' lives, and far too little time making a difference in their lives. Documenting then prevalent assessment and decision-making practices, we argued that there was much to be gained by abandoning much of what we were doing (Ysseldyke et al., 1983). Since our work more than 20 years ago, many have challenged our findings and the direction that they set. Yet, little has changed since we did our work or they did theirs. Certainly, there have been calls for change--some louder than others. Professional associations, advocacy groups, and government agencies have formed task forces and task forces on the task forces to study identification of students with LD. We have had mega-analyses of meta-analyses and syntheses of syntheses. Nearly all groups have reached the same conclusion: There is little empirical support for test-based discrepancy models in identification of students as LD. Most task forces have called for a response-to-intervention (variously called problem solving, intervention support team, intervention-based assessment) model (Burns, Appleton & Stehouwer, 2004; Fuchs, Mock, et al., 2003), even though "The RTIs differ in terms of the number of levels in the process; who delivers the interventions, and whether the process is viewed as a precursor to a formal evaluation for eligibility, or if RTI is itself the eligibility evaluation" (Fuchs, Mock et al., p. 159). Clearly there is a political push and political will to change (International Dyslexia Association, 2002; National Center for Learning Disabilities, 2002; National Research Council, 2002; Learning Disabilities Summit Majority Report, 2002; the President's Commission on Excellence in Special Education, 2002). Current legislation (IDEA 2004) gives states the option to move away from a discrepancy model in identification of students as LD and permission to move toward a response-to-intervention or problem-solving model. A remnant of test authors continue to argue for cognitive assessment, process assessment, and discrepancy-based identification (American Academy of School Psychology, 2004). Those who advocate for a response-to-intervention model (Gresham et al., 2004) argue for "Direct measurement of achievement, behavior and the instructional environment in relevant domains as the core loci of a comprehensive evaluation in SLD" (p. …

/pdf/assessment-and-decision-making-for-students-with-learning-37zancexpm.pdf

Assessment and decision making for students with learning disabilities: What if this IS as good as IT gets?

Based on interviews with 9 learning-disabled (LD) students, 9 of their nondisabled peers, and their 3 teachers (2 regular, 1 LD), we describe their perceptions of life in 2 fifth-grade classrooms with a permanent teaching team. All 13 LD students in fifth grade were fully integrated into these classes for the entire year. Data are organized according to respondents' perspectives on 3 themes: classroom social climate; instructional effect, including provisions for small-group and individual assistance; and distribution of teachers' roles and tasks. Students reported that school was a highly positive experience, that their teachers provided motivating instruction, and that the social climate was one of relative unity and help for everyone. No evidence that general education students recognized that their peers were labeled LD was apparent, and LD students did not see being taken out of the regular classroom for assistance on an ad hoc basis as problematic, in contrast to these students' dislike of formal, p...

https://www.jstor.org/stable/info/1001935

Teachers' and Students' Views of Team Teaching of General Education and Learning-Disabled Students in Two Fifth-Grade Classes

/pdf/generalizations-from-five-years-of-research-on-assessment-2sertxgnms.pdf

James E. Ysseldyke

Papers

Generalizations from Five Years of Research on Assessment and Decision Making.