Would you address in your post, alternative to discrepancies,  which I write quite frequently so to qualify students.  If scores are scattered, showing a fluctuation of skills vs. ability but not showing the discrepancy needed (in a district that has not employed a full RTI model yet) with two assessments, but shows typical LD behavior/scores, I write a very lengthy paper describing almost every aspect of strengths vs. needs from the psych report, all info in the cum. folder, and using work samples, along with other items that support the decision.  These papers have to include what the scores do show, typical LD strengths/needs, and again, a host of other information that I have to explain and justify using.

I go into great length and use a vast amount of research that I do (for the most part) of  why this student needs specially designed EC services (spec. ed).  We do all we can to serve students that although not showing the standard discrepancy between ability and skills, do show a typical pattern of scattered scores (highs and lows).  Hope this makes sense ... I am only two years into sp. ed. teaching and I may not have the precise vocabulary down yet.  

I would like to add that I am enjoying every discussion on this list and that finding other professionals that want to help students and also discuss/debate these issues is very refreshing.  While new to special education, I am not new to education and this list is helping me zero in on areas that I sometimes haven't considered.

Kathy
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Darla Hatton 
  To: learningdisabilities at nifl.gov 
  Sent: Saturday, October 31, 2009 11:55 AM
  Subject: [LearningDisabilities 4199] Re: Implications of using 25% rule


        Some states require that a student not only meet the discrepancy model, but also must exhibit a broad cluster score one standard deviation below the mean or in other terms exhibit a broad cluster score on the bell curve below an 85.  Due to subtest scatter and the very nature of dyslexia -- this requirement precludes many who still need specialized help from getting the assistance they require and can be detrimental to individual outcomes.  

        In addition, these requirements often preclude twice exceptional students from getting any assistance what-so-ever.  Their giftedness masks their disability and the disability masks their giftedness and in doing so strives for mediocrity.  So neither the LD or giftedness is recognized and addressed at its specific need.

        Here is a video we created that demonstrates the potential unintended outcomes:

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHGo-64dXJc&feature=related


        It is more important to meet each student at their particular need.  When studies are preformed to determine eficacy -- often there are parameters that are necessary to be met in order to be considered for the control group and/or the experimental group.  The parameters of these groups are often more narrow than could be applied across an effected population.  For example, to qualify for breast cancer treatments -- patients might be required to be in a specific stage of cancer or meet certain criteria to be considered as part of the experimental group or there may even be specific criteria determine to meet the specifications of the control group.  Once a drug or methodolgy has proven to be effective -- of it can be applied and have positive implications across a larger population. 

        I would be interested to learn if these same measures were applied to the "famous" persons so often touted as having dyslexia -- how many would actually still qualify to be included in this listing.  The same protocols that apply to research may not be the best indicator of who should and shouldn't receive help.

        Regards,

        Darla Hatton
        www.DyslexiaFacts.Net



        --- On Sat, 10/31/09, learningdisabilities-request at nifl.gov <learningdisabilities-request at nifl.gov> wrote:


          From: learningdisabilities-request at nifl.gov <learningdisabilities-request at nifl.gov>
          Subject: LearningDisabilities Digest, Vol 49, Issue 28
          To: learningdisabilities at nifl.gov
          Date: Saturday, October 31, 2009, 10:08 AM


          When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
          than "Re: Contents of LearningDisabilities digest..."



          Today's Topics:

             1. [LearningDisabilities 4180]  Averages, means,    and norm- vs.
                criterion-referenced assessments (Michael Gyori)
             2. [LearningDisabilities 4181] Re: Felon (Sheri Rogers)
             3. [LearningDisabilities 4182] Re: Active
                legislation/laws/policiesregarding Dyslexia (Mary Loescher)
             4. [LearningDisabilities 4183] Re: Felon (Mary Loescher)
             5. [LearningDisabilities 4183] Re: Active
                legislation/laws/policiesregarding Dyslexia (Brant Hayenga)
             6. [LearningDisabilities 4184] Re: Averages, means,    and norm-
                vs. criterion-referenced assessments (Brant Hayenga)
             7. [LearningDisabilities 4185] Re: Learning expectations
                (Jeanette Schandelmeier)
             8. [LearningDisabilities 4186] Re: Averages, means,    and norm-
                vs. criterion-referenced assessments (Michael Gyori)
             9. [LearningDisabilities 4187] Re: Future directions (Brant Hayenga)
            10. [LearningDisabilities 4188] Re: Thanks (Brant Hayenga)
            11. [LearningDisabilities 4188]  Thank you (Mary Loescher)
            12. [LearningDisabilities 4189] Re: Social vs. physical sciences
                (tsticht at znet.com)
            13. [LearningDisabilities 4190]  What does a grade level gain
                mean? (tsticht at znet.com)
            14. [LearningDisabilities 4191]  IDA Conference (Maureen Carro)

          ----------------------------------------------------
          National Institute for Literacy
          Learning Disabilities mailing list
          LearningDisabilities at nifl.gov
          To unsubscribe or change your subscription settings, please go to http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/learningdisabilities 




------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  ----------------------------------------------------
  National Institute for Literacy
  Learning Disabilities mailing list
  LearningDisabilities at nifl.gov
  To unsubscribe or change your subscription settings, please go to http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/learningdisabilities
  Email delivered to kmoulton at triad.rr.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.nifl.gov/pipermail/learningdisabilities/attachments/20091031/30a0d5d1/attachment.html