LEARNING PROBLEMS.pdf

381
Chapter 13
IDENTIFICATION OF
LEARNING PROBLEMS
It was once said that the moral test of government is how that gov-
ernment treats those who are in . . . the shadows of life, the sick, the
needy and the handicapped.
—Hubert H. Humphrey
Issues and Themes
There never was a time when so many children with disabilities were attend-
ing public schools as there is now. One out of every 12 children and youth
between the ages of 5 and 20 has been diagnosed with a serious mental or
physical disability. Clearly, the schools have an important role to play in the
identification and education of these children.
During the 1970s, the federal government assumed a proactive stance
regarding the education of children with disabilities. This position was fos-
tered by the outcome of federal court challenges initiated by parents and
advocates for students with disabilities. The first federal legislation to address
the needs of children with disabilities was section 504 of the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973. The second major piece of legislation was the Education for All
Handicapped Children Act of 1975. This law became known by its Federal
13-Wright-45489.qxd 11/20/2007 4:40 PM Page 381

Register number, P
.L. 94-142. Provisions of the law were strengthened and it
was reauthorized in 1986 as P
.L. 99-457. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2002
has proven to be a challenge to those benignant policies expressed in the
laws of the 1970s. Beyond the classroom, and throughout all aspects of
American life, the rights of people with disabilities are protected by the
Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990.
Classroom teachers are often first to notice the disabling conditions
affecting children (Barkley, 1998). In about 10% of the cases, pediatricians,
parents, and/or preschool teachers are the first to note the child’s possible
special needs. However, 90% of the time it is the classroom teacher who is
first to identify a learning problem. The referral process provides steps and
procedures that schools follow in identifying and implementing programs to
meet the special needs of children with disabilities.
The first intervention after the initial screening by the classroom teacher
usually involves an Instructional Support Team (IST).1
If the recommenda-
tions of this committee prove to be ineffective, the next step for the child may
involve a psychoeducational diagnostic assessment. This large-scale assess-
ment is carried out by a multiple-disciplinary team. Once identified as having a
significant educational or physical disability, the IDEIA guarantees the child a
thorough and efficient education. This education must follow an educational
program designed to meet the individual needs of the identified child. The
Individualized Educational Program (IEP) is developed and periodically moni-
tored in consultation with the child’s parents (Kamphaus & Frick, 2002).
Once a child has been identified as needing special educational services,
and the IEP has been initiated, annual testing becomes an ongoing require-
ment. This provides continuous monitoring and evaluation of the child’s
progress and educational development. There is some question about the
efficacy of special education programs, but this is the best alternative open to
educators working in this age of accountability (Kaznowski, 2004; Shaw &
Gouwens, 2002).
There are several thorny issues raised by the NCLB Act involving the use
of high-stakes tests in grade promotion/retention, report card grades, and as
part of graduation requirements for special needs children. All too frequently
these contentious problems become matters of litigation. Researcher David
Berliner has written, “We note in passing that only people who have no con-
tact with children could write legislation demanding that every child reach a
high level of proficiency in three subjects, thereby denying that individual dif-
ferences exist” (Berliner & Nichols, 2007, p. 48).
Of all the special education issues, perhaps the largest is that of attention
and focus. It is not possible for a child to learn without focusing on the task
of learning and attending to the educational process. Unfortunately, 9%
of elementary school children have significant difficulty doing this. These
382– –PART IV TESTING FOR STUDENT LEARNING

children are usually diagnosed as having attention-deficit/hyperactivity dis-
order (AD/HD). There is no direct physiological measure for this disorder,
and the primary diagnostic tools are observational checklists.
Beyond attention and focus there are a number of specific curriculum areas
where children may experience significant learning problems or have identifi-
able learning disabilities. Diagnostic tests for reading, language, and mathemat-
ics disabilities have been developed and published for use in the schools.
Another method of leveling the playing field of the classroom is to pro-
vide all children who have one or more disabilities with certain accommoda-
tions on tests and other forms of classroom assessments. Most states have
provided for accommodations to meet the needs of students with disabilities
on the statewide mandated assessments.
Learning Objectives
By reading and studying this chapter you should acquire the ability to do the
following:
• Describe the size of the population of special needs students attend-
ing public schools in the United States, and suggest several reasons
for the continuing growth in the percentage of children in need of
special education services.
• Describe what elements teachers should collect as part of an informal
evaluation of a child who may be “at risk.”
• Record anecdotal observations of children in an educational setting.
• Describe appropriate accommodations that should be made to “even the
playing field” for children with disabilities during a test or examination.
• Explain the operation of an Instructional Support Team.
• List who should participate on a multidisciplinary team.
• Describe the elements that should be included in an Individual
Educational Program.
• Discuss the process of conducting a curriculum-based assessment.
• Describe the major diagnostic indicators of attention-deficit/hyperactivity
disorder.
• List and describe several tests that can be used in the identification of
AD/HD.
• Describe the prevalence of reading disorders among elementary
school children.
• Differentiate between standardized achievement tests and diagnostic
tests.
Chapter 13 Identification of Learning Problems– –383

INCIDENCE
The number of children receiving services for special education in the United
States has never been greater, nor has it ever represented a larger proportion
of the population of students enrolled in the schools. In 2003 there were
5,728,000 children enrolled in special education programs. This represents
about 8% of the school-age population. Over 90% of these students were not
identified until they began to attend public school. (To see the state-by-state
breakdown of children with disabling conditions, go to www.ed.gov/about/
reports/annual/osep/2003/index.html.) The critical point is that primary-
grade teachers have a central role to play in the early identification of those
children who will need special assistance. The necessity for teachers to be
vigilant for, and have sensitivity to, the signs that a child may need special
support cannot be overstated.
Early intervention programs for preschool children who are at risk
for disabilities were part of the original Individuals With Disabilities Education
Act (1986). That Act focused on the families of young children who were most
at risk and provided direct service to the child and his or her family
(Scarborough et al., 2004). Follow-up research has shown that early interven-
tion with preschool-aged children with special needs can reduce the long-term
supplemental educational costs for assisting them later in their educational
careers (Wybranski, 1996). It is not just the teacher of young children who must
be cognizant of special education instructional methods; all teachers teach
children with special needs every day (Alvarado, 2006; Gaetano, 2006).
INFORMAL SCREENING
Teachers have a major advantage over parents regarding the early identifica-
tion of children who may need learning support. The simple fact that
teachers see a large number of children each year provides them with a basis
for comparison unavailable to parents. The familiarity teachers have with so
many children facilitates a primary-grade educator’s ability to recognize a
child who is at risk for a significant learning problem. In addition to the
teacher, the elementary school guidance counselor is also part of the early-
identification process. In the best of circumstances, each fall the counselor
should observe the youngest students both in and outside of the classroom.
The role of the counselor is also to consult with the primary-grade teachers
about the beginning students and their progress.
As a normal part of the educational process, primary-grade teachers
should create portfolios containing work samples for each child. These mate-
rials will help with parent conferences and also provide the core elements

needed in the process of identifying learning problems (see Chapter 9). The
portfolio should contain samples of writing, audio tapes of the child’s oral
reading, art work, standardized test scores, as well as the anecdotal observa-
tions made by the teacher.
Anecdotal Records
Whenever a particularly telling incident occurs for a child who is at risk,
the teacher should jot down a brief note to serve as a reminder, and at the first
free moment write the details of the anecdotal incident. These anecdotal
reports should be dated and provide a timeline and location for the occur-
rence. The incident should be described in a factual, straightforward way. The
anecdote should not contain any value statements or judgments by the
teacher. It should only list the people involved (actors) and the specifics of
what they did and said. An anecdotal record can be described as an ongoing
temporal record of an occurrence or incident. Box 13.1 is an example from a
teacher’s anecdotal observation of a second-grade child during recess.
BOX 13.1 Sample Anecdotal Observation
Subject: Richard P. (RP)
Location: School Playground
Start time: 10:05 am
Date: Wednesday, November 1, 2006
10:05 RP runs from the mid-hall door onto playground
10:07 RP is the first to find the 12 in. rubber ball and he takes it into his custody
10:08 RP begins bouncing the ball and running and dribbling it
10:10 Three other boys approach RP and ask to use the ball for a game
10:11 RP raises his voice and refuses to stop bouncing the ball alone
10:12 Ms. Padula, recess aid, stands between RP and the group of other boys, now 7 in number
10:13 Ms. Padula expresses to RP that “the ball is there for all to enjoy and use during recess”
10:13 RP throws the ball into the face of the largest of the boys in the group
10:14 Ms. Padula shouts for RP to follow her back into the school
10:14 RP runs away and tries to exit the school yard
10:16 RP is quickly overtaken by Mr. Blackburn, the teacher of record for the recess period
10:19 RP seated on the bench in the school principal’s outer office, he appears to be crying
NOTE: Created from hypothetical data.

The anecdotal record should be free of any suppositions, guesses, or
judgments about the child or the occurrence. This may be followed by a
separate page where the teacher is free to provide his or her thoughts
about what happened and why. For example, as November 1 is the day
after Halloween, there may be a link between behavior and an alteration in
RP’s eating habits. It is also possible that the group of boys had teased him
on the bus while on the way to school that morning. But, as these things
were not directly observed, they are not part of the anecdotal record.
INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT TEAM
After the teacher and guidance counselor have conferred and reviewed
what is known about a child who may have a learning problem, the next
step is to meet with the child’s parents. The purpose of such a meeting is
to share information and determine if there is a strategy that the classroom
teacher could use that would be supported at home by the parents. Only
after this step has been taken, and the intervention efforts have been shown
not to provide enough help for the child, would the teacher and counselor
make a referral for intervention by an Instructional Support Team (IST).
This step must also include the school’s principal, as he or she will be
directly involved in the process, and the child’s parents, who are integral to
the process.
Membership
The IST should include the classroom teacher, other senior teachers, a
guidance counselor, educational specialists who work with children in that
school (e.g., reading, art, music, and physical education teachers and the
school librarian), a school nurse, and the principal or assistant principal of the
building. This committee should meet as soon as a referral is received. This
committee may address the educational problems the child is experiencing
even though the problems are not severe enough to require special
education. Parents should be part of the IST process and attend the meeting
of the IST. All communications with the child’s home must be in the language
that the parents can understand. This can be a significant challenge, because
over 50 different primary languages are common among those attending

public schools in the United States (Salvia, Ysseldyke, & Bolt, 2007). The care-
ful application of this process can meet the requirements of section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (P
.L. 93-112).2
First order of business for the instructional support team is the task
of reviewing the problem and all the information that the classroom
teacher has brought together in the referral process. As the plan is dis-
cussed and tentatively developed to help the child, the parents should
be involved and meet regularly with the IST. They should serve as
members pro tempore during all meetings. This level of parent involve-
ment serves the function of enlisting them into the effort. Parental par-
ticipation also serves to provide the IST with an invaluable source of
information about the child when he or she is not in school. Each year
children spend 15% of their time in school while the rest of their time is
under the protection and control of their parents. Educators must always
remember that parents can feel outnumbered and outgunned by the
process. It is easy for parents to become defensive and angry during the
committee meetings. For that reason, schools should initiate training for
the staff involved with the IST committee that is focused on communica-
tion and consensus building (O’Donovan, 2007).
The outcome of the IST meeting should be a written instructional sup-
port program for the child. This instructional support program is a guide for
the teacher as well as a set of educational activities that the parent should do
with the child at home.
Schedule
The IST should meet on a regular basis to review the progress of the
child and discuss ideas and educational strategies with the classroom
teacher. These ongoing IST meetings also provide a forum in which the
teacher can express his or her frustration if the efforts are not working.
It is usual that toward the end of the school year a final IST meeting is
held that also includes the child’s parents. If possible, the teacher(s)
who will work with the child in the next grade should also be present. At
this final meeting the child’s progress for the year may be summarized
and ideas for the parents and child to work on over the summer pre-
sented and discussed. Also, tentative plans for the next year could be
outlined.

When the new school year begins in the fall, it is the responsibility of the
new teacher to carry out the ideas and plans spelled out in the child’s instruc-
tional support plan, and enunciated again at the end of the year conference.
REFERRAL, ASSESSMENT,
AND THE IEP COMMITTEE
When the intervention program is found not to have had the desired effect,
a second more formal referral should be made. The referral organizes and
presents all of the initial IST materials along with the instructional support
plan, the interim IST reports, and any new assessment scores from tests
administered since the initial referral. This effort may be coordinated by the
guidance counselor or the lead teacher on the IST.
Parent Participation
Before any diagnostic testing can be done, the school must have written
approval from the child’s parents. This whole process may require an initial
home visit by a school social worker. A number of states including Pennsylvania
provide specialized certification and licenses for school social workers. The
parents should be brought up-to-date with the child’s progress and provided
with the reasons for a new round of assessments. The entire process along with
a statement of the child’s rights should be thoroughly explained. This explana-
tion should be made using nontechnical, clear language. If the parents do not
speak English, this meeting and all subsequent conferences should include an
interpreter. Also during a home visit the parents should be requested to attend
the meeting of the Individual Educational Program (IEP) committee.
Case in Point (13a)
Significant disabilities such as sensory loss or severe neurological problems
are normally identified and well known by the child’s family long before the
youngster enters school. Mild or marginal mental retardation, attention-
deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and other less obvious disabilities are frequently
not identified until the child is in school. For this reason it is often the educa-
tors who must work with the parents as they come to an understanding of the
nature of their child’s disability.
For more
information, see
“Considerations on
Point” at
www.sagepub.com/
wrightstudy

Many times parents grieve over what they feel is a loss of their child’s
potential for a good life. This process of reaching acceptance takes time. To
prepare for meeting with parents, educators should collect reading material
about the child’s condition and brochures and other literature from advocacy
groups. After the parent is introduced to the nature of the child’s condition,
these materials will provide a bridge to help open conversations about plan-
ning a course of action to help their child with disabilities. The school should
encourage the formation of advocacy groups for the parents of children with
disabilities and provide such groups with meeting space and other support.
The pupil services department of every school system should develop pro-
grams that could be presented to these advocacy groups. Programs could
include topics such as the following:
1. Introducing your friends and family to the problems associated with
your child
2. Helping neighbors work with their children to better understand your
child’s disability
3. Educating others on the difference between the normal, occasional
misbehavior of your child and the behaviors that may be a function of
his or her condition
4. Learning to advocate for your child:
• In regard to the thoughtless language of others . . . (e.g., “your
retarded kid”)
• In regard to the planning for your child’s future
• For inclusion in age-appropriate activities beyond school
• With educators and in the development of educational (and test-
ing) plans for your child
5. Learning to accept and channel the compassion that others will want
to show for you and your child
6. Learning the support and opportunities guaranteed by legislation such
as the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990
An important resource for teachers who are not trained in special edu-
cation and for the parents of children with special needs is available at
www.ncld.org/content/view/978.
This important Web page was established by the National Center for
Learning Disabilities in 2006 and provides state-by-state information on
the rights of children with disabilities. It also provides important informa-
tion about the resources available to help the families of children with spe-
cial needs.

Box 13.2 Referral Form for a Multidisciplinary Team
SPECIAL STUDENT SERVICES REFERRAL FORM
Date of Referral ______________________________________________________________________________
Student ________________ Birthdate ________________ Sex ________________ Grade ________________
School __________________________________ Homeroom Teacher ________________________________
Parents’ Name _______________________________________________________________________________
Address ______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Phone #: Home: _________________________________ Work: _____________________________________
Interventions Tried Prior to Referral
______________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Referring Person’s Signature _________________________________________________________________
What best describes child’s social reactions?
Adequate group involvement
Few friends
No group involvement
Belligerent
What best describes how child responds
to constructive criticism?
Evaluates realistically
Hurt, discouraged
Rejects, becomes hostile
What best describes how others react to child?
Actively accept him/her
Protect him/her
Tolerate him/her
Ignore him/her
Reject him/her
What best describes child’s attitudes
toward rules and authority?
Acceptance
Overly conscientious
Mild resistance
Blames others
Hostile resistance
What best describes child’s self-control
and emotional expression?
Realistic expression of emotions
Little emotional response
Impulsive and unpredictable
Physical and/or verbal aggression
What best describes child’s
independence while working?
Works well independently
Subtle resistance to help
Excessive reliance on others
Refuses to accept help
What best describes child’s attention span?
Average
Long
Short
What best describes child’s oral
comprehension?
Quick understanding
Average
Slow to understand

What best describes child’s ability to follow What best describes child’s verbal
directions? expression?
Follow appropriately Clear expression of ideas
Needs continued explanation Poor expression of ideas
Ignores directions Cannot express ideas
Current Achievement (Estimate if data unavailable)
Grade Level Performance Level
Reading _________________ _________________
Language Arts _________________ _________________
Mathematics _________________ _________________
Records Review
Hearing Screening: Date: ______________ Results: ________________________________________
Vision Screening: Date: ______________ Results: ________________________________________
Other Relevant Health Information: ___________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Preschool Experience: Yes __ No __ N/A __ (If yes, attach any relevant documents)
Days Absent Last Year: _________ Days Absent Current Year: _________ Grades Repeated: _________
Currently receiving (Mark all that apply.):
Title I Speech OT/PT Language
Individual Guidance Other (explain) ________________________________
The following records are attached (*required for all referrals; + as applicable):
*Cumulative Records *Discipline Records
+State Assessment Test Scores +Competency Scores
Parents’ and/or student’s native language or other primary mode of communication if other than
English (specify): _____________________________________________________________________________
State reason you believe this child has a disability (impairment and a need for special education)
such as academic and non-academic performance and medical information; any special
programs, services, interventions used to address this student’s needs and the results of those
interventions, etc.
______________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________

Membership
The multidisciplinary team and its parallel Individual Educational Program
(IEP) committee normally include the school psychologist, a special educa-
tion teacher, a school nurse, the school social worker, the school’s principal
or assistant principal, a guidance counselor who is familiar with the child, edu-
cational specialists, and specialized therapists as needed (e.g., physical ther-
apy, occupational therapy, a speech specialist and/or hearing specialist, and a
teacher certified for the visually impaired), and the child’s parents (for more
on the IEP
, see below). On occasion these meetings may also include a pedi-
atric psychiatrist, neurologist, ophthalmologist, or physiatrist.
Schedule
The best practice is to have two meetings; the first is of the multidiscipli-
nary team. Frequently the time pressures on school make scheduling diffi-
cult. The first committee meeting is a time when the plan for the child’s
assessment is discussed and responsibilities for testing assigned. During the
first meeting of the multidisciplinary team, it is normal to discuss the child’s
strengths and solicit and discuss the parents’ ideas for their child’s education.
It is also a time to discuss the child’s performance on standardized tests and
state-mandated assessments. During the first meeting the school psycholo-
gist (or another testing expert) normally makes a presentation of test data to
the parents. The parents need to have accurate but understandable informa-
tion to make an informed decision. The instruments that will be used in
the full psychoeducational diagnostic assessment should also be carefully
explained to the parents during that first meeting. A written record should be
maintained of all phases and steps in the process, including the written
request to the parents to attend the meetings, all recommendations, major
observations, and the final documentation and IEP
.
At the second meeting, multidisciplinary team members can morph into
an IEP committee. Before an IEP can be written, the multidisciplinary team
must decide if the child is eligible for special education services. If the com-
mittee determines that the child has a significant impairment that makes
learning excessively difficult, then he or she exceeds the threshold for being
entitled to special services.
Once a special education entitlement decision has been made, the IEP
committee writes the child’s educational plan using the data and recommen-
dations brought together by the multidisciplinary team. Once again the
parents should attend the IEP meeting. During this second meeting, the IEP
for the child is finalized and discussed and possibly modified. A signed copy

is given to the parents and another is kept in the school’s records. No special
educational services can be provided to the child if the parents have objec-
tions to any part of the IEP
.
ASSESSMENT PROCESS
School Psychologist
Following the initial meeting of the interdisciplinary team, the task of
evaluating the child to diagnose his or her specific areas of difficulty can
begin. The role of the school psychologist is often central in this process. The
school psychologist will coordinate a psychoeducational assessment, which
may include assessments by other professionals such as the reading teacher,
the school nurse, and the school social worker. The psychoeducational diag-
nostic assessment is likely to include an individually administered test of cog-
nitive ability and several individually administered clinical tests of perception,
personality, and learning style. The assessment may also include the clinical
observations by the school psychologist of the child interacting with peers
and when he or she is at free play.
Curriculum-Based Assessment
One important part of most assessment protocols involves curriculum-
based measurements (CBM). Curriculum-based measurements are con-
ducted to identify problematic areas from the curriculum that is taught to the
child. This specialized form of measurement is accomplished by noting the
child’s actual capability to perform the tasks that are seminal to the learning of
any particular component of the curriculum. Once the child’s capabilities are
identified, the need for remediation can be established by an examination of
the discrepancy between the child’s performance levels to those of his or her
peers. These measurements are carried out by using a series of curriculum
probes (Burns, MacQuarrie, Campbell, 1998). Each probe requires only a few
minutes to complete and involves actual material used in the classroom. A
probe might involve an assessment of the number of words the child can read
in a minute or a brief test of the child’s ability to solve multiplication problems
involving two columns of numbers. CBM identifies the exact skills that need to
be improved through remediation, thereby providing the precise data needed
to develop an IEP
. When the curriculum-based measurements are combined
with more traditional measurements, including dimensions such as achieve-
ment on normative measures and cognitive/intellectual ability test scores, the

process is referred to as a curriculum-based assessment (CBA) (Lichtenstein,
2002). The combination of these measures with the personality and other
noncognitive measures make up the psychoeducational diagnostic assessment.
In addition to the curriculum measurements that the school psycholo-
gist may employ, the school’s educational specialists may use published
instruments to make assessments of possible learning problems in specific
curriculum areas. Examples of measurements of reading, language, and mathe-
matics are included later in this chapter.
FORMAL ASSESSMENTS OF ATTENTION AND FOCUS
Children who cannot attend to the tasks involved with learning and who lack
the ability to focus on classroom instruction will experience great difficulty
in school. This disability was named by the American Psychiatric Association
(APA) as attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (AD/HD), predominantly
inattentive type (APA, 1994).
Incidence
Even though only 8% of school children receive special education, over
9% of all children have AD/HD. One implication of this imbalance is that more
work needs to be done to identify AD/HD children in the primary grades. Only
20% of those children who are identified with AD/HD are girls. Thus, it is likely
that 12% of all boys have this disorder (Committee on Quality Improvement
[CQI], 2000). The diagnosis of AD/HD is often found to be associated (comor-
bid) with anxiety, conduct disorder, and/or severe oppositional behavior
(CQI). Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder is also found among many
children with problems in language and speech development as well as those
who have difficulty learning to read. There is no definitive medical or psycho-
logical test to determine AD/HD (APA, 1994). There is, however, evidence for
a genetic component to the problem (Chang, 2005). For that reason, the best
method for identification of a child with attention deficit disorder (ADD) or
AD/HD is by observation and the use of observational checklists.
There is a new research paradigm that is exploring a possibly distinctive
neurological morphology among children with AD/HD (Chang, 2005).
Research into the brain’s architecture has been ongoing for years. For example,
the importance of the right parietal lobe of the brain in learning logic and
mathematics, and the left hemisphere in learning to read, are well established
(Joseph, 2000). More recently, studies involving magnetic resonance imagery (MRI)
of the human brain are expanding on this understanding of neurofunctions.

Brain research conducted on a human who is responding to environmental
conditions and stimuli is in the earliest stage. These small-scale studies are ten-
tative and incomplete in 2007, but they hold promise for the future (Plessen et
al., 2006; Shaw et al., 2006).3
Another promising direction in research into understanding AD/HD is in
the area of diet. There is proof that food additives have a negative impact on
susceptible children, making it difficult for them to focus on learning and
possibly increasing the child’s activity level (Stevenson, et al. 2007). These
findings have resulted in Great Britain’s health service issuing a warning to
parents to limit their child’s intake of the food preservative sodium benzoate
and a range of artificial food colorings.
All of the checklists used in the identification AD/HD include items to be
answered by the parents. The combination of both school (teacher and coun-
selor) and home (parents) observations makes a diagnosis by the school psy-
chologist possible. The fact that having a child who exhibits the behaviors
associated with AD/HD changes parenting behavior is well documented and
needs to be considered in developing the IEP (Lin, 2001). A clinical interview
of the parent by either the school’s social worker or psychologist can provide
the data to make this possible.
Parent education through seminars or support groups can go a long way
toward overcoming the child’s difficulty. Another factor to keep in mind
when working with the parents of an AD/HD child is the very real possibility
that one or both parents may also exhibit AD/HD behaviors. This means they
may be forgetful with tasks and disorganized with complex paperwork.
Checklists
There are several checklists that are used to organize the observations of
children thought to have ADD or AD/HD. The diagnostic guidelines provided
in the APA’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, 4th ed. (DSM-IV), provide the
basis for most of these checklists. The American Psychiatric Association sug-
gests that a child may be diagnosed with AD/HD if he or she persistently
exhibits an array of these behaviors at particular times in both school and
home settings:
1. Inattention
a. Fails to follow through and complete tasks
b. Is easily distracted by the environment and others in it
c. Finds it hard to concentrate on schoolwork or sustain attention
d. Does not listen when spoken to
e. Is forgetful and tends to lose items (homework, lunch, books, etc.)

2. Hyperactivity
a. Will climb and roam
b. Constantly shifting from one task to another
c. Talks excessively
d. Is constantly on the go as if driven by a motor
e. Is restless and cannot remain seated for a long period
f. Does not play well with others (has few friends)
3. Impulsivity
a. Acts without thinking or planning
b. Frequently calls out in class
c. Frequently interrupts others and butts into conversations
d. Cannot wait before taking a turn
4. Early Onset
There should have been an early onset of the disorder, with the symp-
toms occurring before the age of 7, and the symptoms must have persisted
for more than 6 months.
Jolene Huston, of the Agriculture Extension Service of the Montana State
University, wrote a resource for parents and others who are learning to live
with AD/HD in their families. This monograph can be seen here: www.mon
tana.edu/wwwpb/pubs/mt200304.html.
AD/HD MEASUREMENT SCALES
There are over two dozen observational scales that have been published for
the identification of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (AD/HD). Five
observational scales that are commonly used to gather data about children
experiencing learning problems related to attention deficit are reviewed
here. These same five scales are also widely used in research and are fre-
quently cited in the educational psychology literature.
Behavior Assessment System for Children,
2nd Edition (BASC-2)
The BASC-2 can be described as a multidimensional approach to the
assessment of a range of childhood disorders including attention
deficit–hyperactivity. It was published in 2004 by American Guidance Service,
a division of Pearson Education, and is used with children between ages 2 and 21

(Reynolds Kamphaus, 2004).The system includes teacher, parent, and self-
report personality questionnaires. It also has a formal student observation
system and a form for collecting the child’s developmental history. When ana-
lyzed as a whole, the instrument assesses the possibility of impairment in the
child’s “executive function” related to attention deficit.4
The BASC-2 was well normed and corrected for gender differences on
all items. It has good internal consistency and test–retest reliability with
Cronbach α′ coefficients in the 0.90 range. The BASC-2 system exhibits good
overall concurrent validity but exhibits a modest level of predictive validity
for AD/HD children.
Each part of the BASC-2 takes about 30 minutes to complete. An analysis
of the various data sources can be done using software available from the
publisher. An enhanced clinical diagnostic software package—BASC-2, Assist
Plus—is also available for school psychologists and clinicians. The BASC-2
requires that the professional interpreting the instrument be educated to
what was once described as level B.5
(For information about these qualifica-
tion levels see Chapter 12.) There is also a version of the BASC-2 that was
published in Spanish. A validation study of the Spanish version in Puerto Rico
raised questions about the construct validity and test–retest reliability of the
parent questionnaire (Perez Ines, 2004).
To review a sample parent report, see www.agsnet.com/Group.asp?
nGroupInfoID=a30000.
Brown ADD Scales for Children and Adolescents
This scale, commonly referred to as the Brown ADD Scales for Children,
was published by the Harcourt Assessment Division of the Psychological
Corporation in 2001 (Brown, 2001). The Brown ADD Scales for Children
includes a teacher questionnaire, parent questionnaire, and a semi-structured
clinical interview. To administer to questionnaire it is necessary to have been
trained at a B level.6
The scale exhibits a high degree of concurrent validity with other mea-
sures of attention deficit and good test–retest reliability. It was normed for
use with a population between the ages of 3 and 12 years, and it provides
comparative and diagnostic tables up to age 18. Unfortunately, the sampling
process used by Brown opened the measure to criticism as having a poten-
tially biased normative base (Jennings, 2003).
The Brown ADD Scales for Children requires about 20 minutes for the
classroom teacher or the child’s parent to complete. The instrument pre-
sents multidimensional data along six subscales that are aligned with the

diagnostic criteria used in the DSM-IV. The test manual presents a wealth of
information that can be used in developing an IEP
. There are three question-
naires that make up the instrument, one each for the teacher, parents, and
the child to complete.
Conners’ Rating Scales-Revised (CRS-R)
The Conners’ Rating Scales were designed and normed to be used with
a population of children between the ages of 3 and 17 years by Multi-Health
Systems Inc. of Canada (Conners, 1997/2000). They are distributed in the
United States by Pearson Education. The CRS-R provides a global index score
as well as scores that align with the DSM-IV AD/HD classification. The scoring
and interpretation of the CRS-R is limited to those educators who have a
B level of training in measurement.
There are seven other subscale scores that are a part of the CRS-R,
including Oppositional, Cognitive Inattention and Problems, Hyperactivity,
Anxious–Shy, Perfectionism, Social Problems, and Psychosomatic. The CRS-R
has versions (forms) that are both long and short. These two lengths of forms
are available for both the parent and teacher editions of the measure. Starting
at age 12 there is also a self-report adolescent scale. This additional question-
naire adds subscales of problems with Anger Control, Conduct, Emotions,
and Family Relations.
Minor gender differences are built into the instrument. The CRS-R was
standardized on a large sample of students from Canada and the United
States that was weighted to provide a good representation to the 1990 U.S.
census. The Conners’ Rating Scales-Revised exhibit impressive levels of inter-
nal consistency and test–retest reliability. Unfortunately, reliability studies of
the subscales found that the three that are aligned with the diagnosis of
AD/HD (Hyperactivity, Cognitive Problems, and Anxiety–Shy) have alpha
levels below 0.50 (Hess, 2001).
Early Childhood ADD Evaluation Scale (ECADDES)
The Early Childhood Attention-Deficit Disorder Evaluation Scale is
appropriate for children between the ages of 2 and 6 years. ECADDES was
designed by Stephen McCarney and Nancy Johnson (1995) to align with the
diagnostic characteristics listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual,
4th ed. The ECADDES is published by Hawthorne Educational Services. Two
observational checklists make up this instrument, one for use in the school

and the other for use in the child’s home. Data from the observations in the
two settings are used to derive scores on two subscales, Inattentive and
Hyperactive–Impulsive. The observational checklists take less than half an
hour to be completed by the preschool teacher and the parent.
The ECADDES was standardized on a sample of almost 2,900 children.
The sample was not nationally representative, with an underrepresentation
of children from ethnic minority groups and an overrepresentation of
children from rural settings in the upper Midwest (Cohen, 2001; Keller,
2001). The upper age limit of the ECADDES is 78 months, which is 6 months
younger than the DSM-IV specifies as the lowest age (7 years) a diagnosis of
AD/HD can be made (APA, 1994). The questionnaires can be completed by
preschool caregivers and parents, but a B level of training is needed to inter-
pret those scores. To learn more about the ECADDES and see a copy of the
instrument, see www.hes-inc.com/hes.cgi/02250.html.
The school checklist exhibits good test–retest reliability (r 0.90) and
the home instrument more modest levels of demonstrated reliability (r
0.70). A problem area is validity. The authors make a case for the instrument
having “face validity” as judged by a panel of experts. Also they point out that
the instrument can confirm that children who have been diagnosed as exhibit-
ing behaviors similar to AD/HD score in the appropriate levels for AD/HD.
As the ECADDES has sampling problems and poorly defined validity,
and because it is designed to be used prior to a child being ready for a spe-
cial education intervention, it is to be viewed only as a preliminary screen-
ing device.
Scales for Diagnosing AD/HD
Gail Ryser and Kathleen McConnell (2002) developed an instrument that
can identify children and adolescents (ages 5 through 18 years) who exhibit
AD/HD behaviors. This instrument, published by Pro-Ed, has two forms:
school and home. The questionnaires are completed with teachers and
parents and are scored by a B-level test administrator. The 39 Likert-scale
questions on the two forms yield three subscale scores that align with DSM-
IV criteria (viz., inattentiveness, hyperactivity, and impulsivity).
The normative group included a representative sample of 3,448 children
between 5 and 19 years of age. The two Likert scales (school and home) have
very substantial internal consistency (α
α 0.90) and the test–retest reliability
is even greater. Also, there is good interterm reliability (r 0.90). The valid-
ity of the measurement of the three subscale scores was well established by
factor analysis (Law, 2001).

This measure is a good way to screen for AD/HD, and it is also an appro-
priate device to use to monitor students who have an IEP for attention-
deficit/hyperactivity disorder.
Diagnosis vs. Disability
Once a child has been diagnosed with an attention-deficit/hyperactivity
disorder, he or she is not automatically eligible for special education. To qual-
ify for special education services a child must meet the guidelines of the
Individuals With Disabilities Educational Improvement Act (IDEIA; 2004)
Section 301, parts a and b. This requires that the child persists in exhibiting a
significant gap between achievement and his or her ability after a period of sci-
entifically appropriate instructional interventions have been attempted. In
other words, the old discrepancy idea (described in Chapter 11) is alive and
well and living in the rules laid out in the IDEIA passed into law in July of 2005.
ASSESSMENTS OF READING PROBLEMS
Reading is a core skill needed by every child. The third grade, with its high-
stakes reading test, can be a nightmare for those who have fallen behind in
the development of this skill. For that reason it is critical that primary-grade
teachers monitor the burgeoning reading skills exhibited by their students.
More referrals are made for reading problems than for any other area of the
curriculum (Lyon, 1998). Only 5% of children learn to read without any for-
mal instruction, and another 35% have little difficulty learning to read in
school. Another 40% of our children learn to read with considerable effort,
and 20% find learning to read the most difficult task they have ever faced.
Severe cases of reading disability occur in about 4% of all children and can
even involve mirror-image reading (APA, 1994).7
Learning to Read
The task of learning to read involves having the child learn to recognize
the 26 letters of the alphabet and the 40 sounds that they can represent.
Next, the child must learn that the spoken language is made up of these same
sounds (phonemes) and that the printed letters are representations of those
sounds. Once this is obtained, the child must learn to connect phonemes
into words, recognize those words, and attach meaning to them. Taken

together, these steps make up the decoding process of reading. It takes the
average child somewhere between 4 and 14 separate exposures to a written
word before being able to quickly and easily decode it into what it represents
(Lyon, 1998). Disabled readers may require 20 or more experiences with the
word before being able to decode it. The amount of experience the child has
had with the word in the environment relates to the numbers of exposures
needed. Children who had a broader range of experiences and who had
many opportunities to see and hear words read to them (parental reading)
can be expected to learn to read with less difficulty.
Phonemic Awareness
It is evident that the first step in the difficult task of becoming a reader
of the English language is connecting sounds with the letters of the alphabet.
This process is known as phonemic awareness. The foundation for phone-
mic awareness is set long before the child enters school. A simple screening
test of the child’s phonemic awareness given early in kindergarten can iden-
tify those children who are at risk for having a problem learning to read.
Once identified, those children need to be given direct and efficient instruc-
tion in this vital prereading skill.
Comprehension
The need for this decoding process to increase in speed is the child’s
next task. Comprehension is built on the rapid decoding and processing of
written words. Slow decoding makes it impossible for the developing reader
to understand and derive meaning from what has been read. By fourth grade
some children who have had reading test scores that indicate a level of pro-
ficiency through the third grade can begin to have reading problems as com-
prehension becomes the new task (Leach, Scarborough, Rescorla, 2003).
Environmental Factors
The fact that a child experiences difficulty in learning to read does not
mean that there is a neurological or psychological problem. Most children
who are at risk for having difficulty in learning to read are those who have
had little exposure to reading materials and few literacy experiences prior
to kindergarten. Children who were surrounded with numerous children’s

books, and who had caregivers that played rhyming games, read out loud,
talked, and worked to expand the child’s vocabulary, are the ones who are
most likely to learn to read without difficulty. The National Reading Panel
(Armbruster, Lehr, Osborn, 2003) published a list of those parental linguis-
tic interactions that facilitate a child’s learning to read. These include talking
and listening, reading children’s books out loud, learning and talking about
books, learning to recognize the letters of the alphabet, and demonstrating
the letter–sound link.
Diagnostic Tests
The IDEIA provided a new requirement that children with disabilities be
identified early. For that reason, kindergarten and first-grade children are often
the focus of identification efforts. One method being employed in this effort for
early identification is known as Response to Intervention (RTI) (James, 2004).
Diagnostic tests are made up of items that measure a specific skill
needed to successfully learn. Students without a reading disability score rel-
atively high on these tests. However, the full range of children is used in the
normative group. This results in a distribution of scores characterized by a
significant negative skewness. The skew in the data makes it possible to iden-
tify and see differences between students who are struggling to learn to read.
Their scores are spread out on the long tail of the skewed data. The skew
makes it possible for the instrument to be more sensitive to small differences
among low-scoring children.
Data from a diagnostic test can be used to inform the IEP writing process.
Reassessment with the same instrument can also be used to track improve-
ment over the baseline established during the initial diagnostic testing.
EARLY READING TESTS
There are a number of reading tests that are a part of larger batteries of
achievement tests. An example of such a test is the third edition of the
Woodcock–Johnson Tests of Achievement.
Woodcock–Johnson
While much more than just a reading test, the third edition of the
Woodcock–Johnson battery does provide an excellent measure of reading.

The person using and interpreting this test is required to be highly qualified
at the C level and have specific training in the use of this test.8
The Diagnostic
Reading Battery (WJ III, DRB) is part of a separate achievement test—the
Woodcock–Johnson III Tests of Achievement (WJ III, ACH). These measures
are appropriate for all children and adolescents over the age of 2 years
(Woodcock, McGrew, Mather, 2001). The reading related subtests
include (a) Letter–Word Identification, (b) Reading Fluency, (c) Passage
Comprehension, (d) Story Recall, (e) Story Recall Delayed, (f) Oral Language,
(g) Reading Vocabulary, (h) Oral Comprehension, (i) Sound Awareness,
(j) Reading Comprehension, (k) Oral Expression, (l) Phoneme–Grapheme
Knowledge, and (m) Verbal Comprehension.
The total set of all achievement tests requires almost 2 hours for admin-
istering. Each of the various subtests requires a minimum of about 5 minutes
to complete, making it possible to obtain just a reading score in a little over
an hour (Cizek, 2003). Computerized scoring and profiling is available from
the publisher, Riverside Publishers. It is well standardized, highly reliable, and
has been shown to be a valid measure of learning problems in reading
(Semrud-Clickeman, 2003).
Wechsler Individual Achievement Test
Another individually administered achievement battery that can be used
to measure early reading is the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test, 2nd
ed. (WIAT-II). Once again, this battery provides an example of what an indi-
vidualized reading test can measure; however, it is not a “one-trick pony.”
This test provides measures for four areas of reading, two of mathematics, a
test of listening comprehension, one of oral expression, and a test of written
expression. This achievement battery is appropriate for the assessment of
children as young as 4 years of age. It is also a test that requires the examiner
be trained in its use and have a level-C background. The test for younger
children requires less than an hour to administer. The early reading tests are
designed to assess phonological awareness and involve items measuring the
ability to name the letters of the alphabet, identify and generate rhyming
words, identify the beginning and ending sounds of words, and the matching
of sounds with letters and letter blends (Psychological Corporation, 2001).
The WIAT-II is constructed to align with the recommendations of the
National Reading Panel (2000) and was standardized using a stratified ran-
dom sample that was balanced for ethnicity, SES, gender, and geography. It
has good reliability and a solid validation (Doll, 2003).

Dynamic Indicators
There are also more than a dozen tests of early reading that can be used
with preschool, kindergarten, and elementary school populations. One of
these is the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Literacy Skills, 6th ed. (DIBELS).
This measure is designed for use with children between kindergarten and
third grade (Good et al., 2002/2003). It is an inexpensive, individually admin-
istered brief screening and monitoring test of children’s developing reading
skills. The measure should be administered by a person with a B level of
training and requires about 20 minutes per child. Scoring is complex, but an
online option is available.
The University of Oregon provides a Web page where it is possible to
learn much more about this test: http://dibels.uoregon.edu/.
The DIBELS subtests measure Initial Sound Fluency, Letter Naming
Fluency, Phoneme Segmentation Fluency, Nonsense Word Fluency, Oral
Reading Fluency, and Word Use Fluency. In addition, comprehension is
assessed through a measure of Oral Retelling Fluency. One of the remarkable
findings in the literature about this test is the high levels of reliability exhib-
ited by the parts of the battery. High reliability scores on a test for young
children are not easy to achieve. Most of the reliabilities for this measure are
in the 0.90 range (Brunsman, 2005; Shanahan, 2005).
The DIBELS is a good match for monitoring children as they approach
the high-stakes reading test in third grade, and it provides a method for
checking the mastery of the critical early reading skills. This test is also widely
employed by primary-grade teachers as a method to track children who are
in the process of developing their reading skills.
However, a lack of specificity about the norming sample data makes this
instrument one that should not be used for the specific identification of dis-
abled readers. It is best employed as a classroom measure that monitors the
progress early readers are making (Brunsman, 2005; Shanahan, 2005).
Test of Early Reading
The Test of Early Reading Ability, 3rd Edition (TERA-3), is an easy to
administer early reading test designed for children between the ages of 3½
and third grade. It was published by Pro-Ed in 2001 (Reid, Hersko, Hamill,
1981/2001). This is another individually administered test requiring a half-
hour of testing time per child. While the test may be given to the child by a
teacher’s aid, the examiner who scores and interprets the test data should
have a B level of educational background.

This measure provides four scores: a measure of the child’s understand-
ing of the alphabet, the understanding of the conventions of print, and the
ability to derive meaning from the printed word. The fourth and final score
is a total reading quotient (deFur, 2003). The test does not provide a measure
of phonemic awareness and is not well aligned with the most recent recom-
mendations of the National Reading Panel (Armbruster, Lehr, Osborn,
2003). The norming sample was small but representative of the diversity of
the early school population. TERA-3 is a reliable and valid instrument with a
quarter-century history.
STAR Early Literacy
A new direction in testing is represented by the STAR Early Literacy
test. This is a criterion referenced, computer-adaptive measure written and
published by Renaissance Learning in 2001. Once the software license has
been purchased, children as young as 3 years of age, and as old as 9, can be
given regular reading literacy assessments. These assessments can require
as little as 10 minutes to administer. The score areas from the STAR Early
Literacy tests include Graphophonemic Knowledge, General Readiness,
Phonemic Awareness, Phonics, Comprehension, Structural Analysis, and
Vocabulary. A major advantage to this testing system is that groups of
children can take the assessment at the same time. The license agreement
is sold in units of 40. The system also makes it easier for the classroom
teacher to track and monitor the developing level of reading skills in a class-
room of children.
To see a sample of the STAR Early Literacy test, visit www.renlearn
.com/starearlyliteracy/screens.htm.
The STAR software includes 2,400 items from which only 25 are required
to test an individual child. This measurement is a good example of computer-
adapted testing. The system remembers each child and creates a test at the
child’s last reading level. All items have been well standardized and balanced
for difficulty through an application of item response theory (Graham, 2003).
The testing system uses a large and representative sample of subjects to bal-
ance and equate items.
The STAR Early Literacy tests have demonstrated good reliability and
superior validity. The test may provide a positive advantage to those students
who have had more extensive computer experiences at home. Yet, it does
provide each child with a baseline at the start of the school year and through
regular retesting can track individual progress toward the learning goals of
the grade level.

Elementary School Reading Tests
There are more than 80 different reading tests published in English
available for use in the elementary grades. Among these are several group-
administered diagnostic reading tests that dominate the school market. One
of these is the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test, 4th ed. (SDRT-4). This mea-
sure is published by Harcourt Assessments. Another is the California
Diagnostic Reading Test (CDRT), published by CTB, McGraw-Hill. A group-
administered reading test commonly used in the schools is the Grey Oral
Reading Test, 4th ed. (GORT-4).
The first Gates–MacGinitie reading test was published in 1928 and the
fourth edition in 2003 by Riverside Publishing. The new Gates–MacGinitie
offers an optional computerized scoring system, the Lexile Framework, which
presents a customized list of 15 books selected to match the reading level of
the child.
ASSESSMENTS OF LANGUAGE
AND SPEECH PROBLEMS
Central to being able to communicate is the ability to decode and understand
the meaning of the sounds of speech. This is referred to as the receptive task
of language. Aligned with this ability are the two parts of verbal speech: artic-
ulation and expression. The last area of expressive language to develop is that
of writing. Developmental problems in the child’s ability to communicate can
occur singly with one of these dimensions or in combination. There is also a
high degree of comorbidity for expressive and receptive language problems
with other disabling conditions, including AD/HD.
Measures for the Identification of Language Problems
The first step in determining if a child has a developmental problem in
the acquisition of those receptive and expressive language skills appropriate
for his or her age involves a pediatric evaluation along with an audiologist’s
assessment. Hearing is primary among these potential physiological prob-
lems. Possible medical problems can include neurological disorders and
nutritional questions. Once these physical issues have been accounted for,
language testing to establish a baseline and writing of an IEP can proceed.
Ongoing testing can be used to support the special education intervention by
monitoring progress toward the goals of the IEP
.

Communication Abilities Diagnostic Test
One of these measures of language, published in 1990 by Riverside
Publishing, is appropriate for use with children between the ages of 3 and 10.
This test, the Communication Abilities Diagnostic Test (CoADT), is adminis-
tered to the child in a one-to-one format by the assessor. The testing process
requires 45 minutes to administer, and an equal amount of time is needed for
the setup prior to testing and the scoring afterward (Johnson Johnson,
1990). This measure represents an innovative approach to language sam-
pling. It is not a test per se, but a structured method of sampling the child’s
language. It uses a storytelling technique and also an engaging board game
that the examiner plays with the child. A verbatim transcript of what the child
says must be kept and analyzed after testing. The complexity of this evalua-
tion makes it essential that the examiner be educated at the B level.
From an analysis of the transcript of the child’s language it is possible
to measure a Total Language Score and also subtest scores of Structure,
Grammar, Meaning, Pragmatics, and Comprehension. Composite scores for
Semantics, Syntax, and Language Expression are also available to the exam-
iner. The test provides a norm-based scoring system that makes it possible to
determine a point of comparison. It also provides criterion scoring, which
facilitates goal setting when an IEP is written (Haynes Shapiro, 1995).
The CoADT was developed with a statistically balanced sample that is
a good representation of the general population. The test is reliable and
demonstrates a reasonable level of predictive validity. It does have a problem
with inter-rater reliability, especially with the Grammar scale.
OWLS
A battery of language tests has been written by Elizabeth Carrow-
Woolfolk, including the Oral and Written Language Scales Listening
Comprehension and Oral Expression (OWLS-L; 1995) and the Oral and
Written Scales Written Expression (OWLS-W; 1996). These measures require
that the administrator has been educated to the B level. Both the OWLS-L
and the OWLS-W are published by American Guidance Services.
The OWLS-L and its companion test, the OWLS-W
, were standardized as
one instrument but later separated as two different tests. The OWLS-L pro-
vides an Oral Composite score along with two subscales: Listening
Comprehension and Oral Expression. The Listening Comprehension sub-
scale presents the child with an array of line drawings and requires the child
identify objects and activities on the pictures in response to the examiner’s

questions (Graham Malcolm, 2001). The oral expression test uses line
drawings as stimuli and asks the child to discuss aspects of what is depicted
in the drawing. The scoring of the OWLS-L provides an item analysis that facil-
itates the study of the pattern of errors that the child made. The test is reli-
able and is built upon a solid theoretical foundation. It can be used as part of
an evaluation and to write an IEP
.
The writing test, OWLS-W
, is easily administered and can be given to small
groups of students. The difficult task is scoring the measure (Carpenter
Malcolm, 2001). Each writing task has its own set of directions and scoring
rubrics. The measure involves having the child write sentences dictated by the
examiner. The OWLS-W also has children write several short story endings and
complete an expository writing task. The measure provides scores of Writing
Conventions, Linguistics, and Content. The OWLS-W is reasonably reliable and
exhibits both good content validity and predictive validity. The two measures,
OWLS-L and OWLS-W
, would be best used together in a language assessment.
Test of Early Language
The third edition of the Test of Early Language Development (TELD-3),
which is published by Pro-Ed, requires only a C level of formal training
(Hresko, Reid, Hammill, 1999). This qualification level may reflect the sim-
plified manual that accompanies the TELD-3. This publication provides excel-
lent background and directions for the use of this instrument. The
instrument requires about 40 minutes to administer and a similar timeframe
to score. This individually administered instrument can be used to determine
a Spoken Language Quotient and also provides subscale scores for Receptive
and Expressive Language.
The TELD-3 is a highly reliable measure that has good concurrent and
predictive validity (Morreale Suen, 2001). It can be used in the process of
identification of a language disability and add critical data to the child’s IEP
.
The baseline data obtained during the use of the instrument for diagnosis
can become the starting point for ongoing tracking of the child’s communi-
cation development.
MEASURES FOR THE IDENTIFICATION OF
PROBLEMS LEARNING MATHEMATICS
Children of all ability levels can have difficulty in learning mathematics. Being
unable to understand a concept that others have mastered is frustrating for

any child. Early grade difficulty with arithmetic, and the associated feelings of
frustration and loss of a sense of self-efficacy, are the reasons many otherwise
bright and motivated children avoid mathematics.
Occurrence
For the most part, mathematics learning problems occur in association
with other learning problems. Usually, mathematics disability is paired with a
reading disability. The incidence of occurrence of mathematics learning dis-
abilities in association with other learning disabilities is about 6% among the
population of elementary children (Fuchs Fuchs, 2002). The incidence of
a mathematics learning disability occurring alone is much smaller, equaling
about 1% of the school-age population (APA, 1994).
Nature of the Problem
Children enter school with wide disparities in their developmental readi-
ness for learning mathematics. To learn the basic arithmetic operations, it is
essential that the child conceptualize a number as an immutable entity. Most
children have acquired this concept by first grade, but as many as a third of
all children will require a year or two more before they recognize that the
number 10 is made up of 10 distinct and unvarying single units (Piaget,
1930,1952/1964). The presence of a high-stakes test in third grade makes it
absolutely essential that all children acquire a true understanding of the base
10 system of numeration by the end of first grade. All arithmetical processes
require this as a foundation.
There are a number of published tests that can quantify the development
of mathematical knowledge in kindergarten and the primary grades. Scores
on these measures can be used to write an IEP and also serve to establish a
baseline for charting the child’s growth in mathematical understanding. One
of these measures is group administered and requires a C level of knowledge
of testing. The other is the Key Math–Revised, an individually administered
assessment that requires the user be qualified at the B level.
Key Math–Revised
American Guidance Services published the Key Math–Revised: A
Diagnostic Inventory of Essential Mathematics in 1998 (Connolly, 1998). The
test provides a total score based on the combination of three subscales: Basic

Concepts, Operations, and Applications. Each of the subscales is made up of
several test areas.9
Depending on the age and ability of the child, the Key
Math–Revised may require up to an hour to complete. It is an appropriate
diagnostic measure that can be used with children from kindergarten
through middle school.
The content of the test has been criticized as being dated with an
overemphasis on computational skill (Kingsbury Wollack, 2001). The mea-
sure is easy to administer and the scoring system is not difficult to follow. It
does provide valid and reliable diagnostic data that can be used in the devel-
opment of IEPs.
American Guidance Service was acquired by Pearson Assessments in
2006, and in 2007, a new online edition of the Key Math Test was published.
This version provides a very wide measurement range, preschool through
age 21. As with the Key Math–Revised, the third edition (KMT III) presents
subscale scores for Basic Concepts, Operations, and Applications. The test
requires 45 minutes with young children and over an hour for adolescents
and youths.
Diagnostic Math Test
The group-administered test of arithmetic skills is the Stanford
Diagnostic Mathematics Test, 4th ed. (SDMT-4; Harcourt Brace Educational
Measurement, 1996). This test has six versions and covers all the grade levels
from first through high school graduation (grade 13). The SDMT-4 provides
a total score and two subtest scores: Computation, and Concepts and
Applications. There are up to 17 skill areas measured by the upper grade-
level test. It takes over an hour to administer the SDMT-4 in the lower grades
and over an hour and a half in the upper grades.
The SDMT-4 was normed on a large sample of the population (N =
27,000), and the various scales are reported to have very high reliabilities.
The test reports are both norm based and criterion based, providing a useful
set of scores. The publisher provides excellent software that assists in report
writing (Lehmann, Nagy, Poteat, 1998).
The content of the SDMT-4 was based on the standards published by
the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. As those standards were
revised after the SDMT-4 was published, the validity of the test is suspect.
A number of the items seem to be a bit dated. For example, a money ques-
tion uses a drawing of coins that includes a 50-cent piece. Except for coin
collectors, that coin has just about vanished and would not be familiar to
children today.

INDIVIDUALIZED EDUCATIONAL PLAN (IEP)
The requirement for each child with a special need to have an Individualized
Educational Plan is prescribed in federal legislation known as the Individuals
With Disabilities Educational Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEIA; P
.L. 108-446,
2004). This is the successor to the original Education for all Handicapped
Children Act (P
.L. 94-142, 1975) and its later versions, including IDEA (1997).
One change in the focus of educational policy that was brought about by the
NCLB legislation is in the way children who need special education are
viewed. Heretofore, the focus of federal law and policy has been to provide
access for special needs children to all aspects of the educational programs.
Since the NCLB law, the focus became the learning outcomes. This changes
the goal for providing assistance from providing access to working to ensure
that all special education children achieve a level of academic proficiency.
NCLB Special Education Conflict
This law was written in an attempt to align special education with the
provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act (U.S. Department of Education,
2005). The crux of the problem between IDEIA and NCLB is with the provi-
sions of the NCLB Act that required that 99% of all students take the same
state-mandated assessment test. In other words, the children who received
special education services were required to be tested with the state’s man-
dated NCLB test using a test form appropriate for a child of his or her age
(not developmental level). Beginning in 2006, a modification made it possi-
ble for a larger group to avoid the grade-appropriate NCLB test. Yet, even
with this concession, only 3% of the children can now be tested with an
instrument that is developmentally more appropriate.
It has been argued that the NCLB Act is antithetical to the whole concept
of special education. If all children who are currently classified as being in need
of special educational services are required to be proficient by 2014, special
education as we know it will disappear. This is a logical consequence of the fact
that a proficient child is not one who can be classified as needing special ser-
vices (Wasta, 2006). Likewise, we expect that all children, even those that we
identify through our diagnostic systems and evaluation methods as having spe-
cial learning needs, will somehow magically be on-grade-level (Hehir, 2007).
The fact that this is a statistical impossibility was noted in Chapter 3.
There is evidence that the NCLB law has had a positive impact for some
students with disabilities. Specifically students who are deaf or hard of hearing
have found that public schools have increased the resources that are used on

their behalf. It also appears that the amount of effort and attention that students
with “low incidence disabilities” are receiving is being increased as schools work
to meet the proficiency mandates of the NCLB Act (Cawthon, 2007).
High school graduation based on a required test score in 21 of the 22 states
with that requirement poses a related problem for special education students.
Passing a high-stakes test in high school may not be something children with
cognitive deficiencies can be reasonably expected to be able to do. In 2006,
California required all students to pass a graduation test to get their high school
diploma. The result of this mandate for testing was an increase in the high
school dropout rate, which went from 24% to 36% that year. The dropout rate
is one reason why the state put off requiring students with disabilities from
meeting the testing requirement until the spring of 2008 (Williams, 2007).
Massachusetts is one state that provides an alternative route for special
education students to achieve a high school diploma. In 2004, 2,000 high
school students attempted to earn their diploma using the Massachusetts port-
folio assessment system. Of that number, only 47 (2.35%) of the special educa-
tion students passed and were awarded their diploma (Schworm, 2004).
This leaves little opportunity to provide alternative assessments for
students with disabilities. For those children functioning well below grade
level, this provision leads to frustration and parent opposition. Likewise, the
slow progress of students with disabilities toward reaching the tested level of
“Proficient” is likely to introduce a negative skew to a school’s data. The
result is that a handful of special education students may make a school
unable to reach the annual yearly progress goals set by the state. Should this
occur, the whole school receives a grade of “Needs Improvement.” When a
school does not reach the mandated annual progress goal, the community
only hears that the school “failed.” All too often this designation leads to the
public sanctioning of the school and its educators (Phillips, 2005).
In addition to the pressure that this possibility places on special educa-
tors and children, in eight states special education students must also face
another very high hurdle. In these states special education students are
required to pass the mandated NCLB test to be promoted to the next grade.
The NCLB Act requires that almost all children with disabilities test at a pro-
ficient level, the same requirement that non-disabled children must meet.
In 2005, increasing opposition to this lack of flexibility for students with
disabilities led U.S. Secretary of Education Spellings to allow states to petition
the Education Department for permission to provide alternative assessments
to 3% of the student population (Aspey Colby, 2005). During the
2004–2005 school year, Texas was in open revolt with the NCLB mandates
and used alternative assessments for 9% of their students. In 2005–2006,
Texas reduced this to 5% and was in compliance with the 3% rule in 2007.

The pressure on schools can be great. Not only must a school have the
average score of all children reach an annual benchmark for adequate yearly
progress, but so must every one of the disaggregated subgroups within the
school. Schools have become adept at exploiting privacy rules within the
NCLB regulations. These regulations require the public reporting data from
the seven subgroups of the student population only after the size of that sub-
group exceeds 45 students. Many of the classifications overlap and a child can
conceivably be simultaneously classified in as many as five groups. Those
seven groups include English-language learners, those receiving a free or
reduced-cost lunch, special needs, Hispanic, African American, Native
American, and Anglo-White. By carefully managing the classification of every
child, the likelihood of a school failing to achieve adequate yearly progress
can be greatly reduced.10
Another strategy involves the manipulation of the child’s Individual
Educational Plan to provide a year of private special education outside of the
public school. By spending school district funds, it then becomes possible for
Grade-Level Standard
Solving for an unknown
quantity
Match pictures
and objects to
create and
compare sets
Progression of standards
Less complex More complex
Standard
“as written”
Solve simple
one- and two-digit
number sentences
Grade 7–8
learning
standard #2
for algebra
Solve simple
algebraic
expressions for
given values
1 + 1 + 1 = x
2 + x = 5
Understand
symbols and
meaning of
• addition +
• subtraction −
• equal to =
Example
3a2
− b,
for a = 3, b = 7
Example
Figure 13.1 Sample From the Alternative Assessment Used in Massachusetts in Eighth-Grade
Mathematics
SOURCE: Massachusettts Department of Education.

the district to move a few students out of the database of the school during
a high-stakes testing year. Another approach is to help the parents home-
school their child.
Individual Educational Plan Format
While the law (IDEIA, 2004) requires an individualized education plan for
all children with disabilities, it does not prescribe a particular format for the
plan. Most local school systems have developed their own formats for writing
IEPs. Additionally, purveyors of educational software have developed com-
puterized techniques for writing these plans. One advantage of the comput-
erized IEP is that it provides documents of a similar quality in all the schools
and for all the special students of a school system (Margolis Free, 2001).
Examples of such software can be reviewed at the following Web sites:
www.tera-sys-inc.com/tsim.asp
www.iepware.com/IEPSD.html
Figure 13.2 Left Hanging
SOURCE: Cartoon by Merv Magus.

ACCOMMODATIONS FOR
CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES
A bedrock foundation belief of the American people is that all people should
be treated equally and fairly. Thus, we wrote this requirement for equal pro-
tection into the U.S. Constitution, Amendment 14, Section 1:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges
or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive
The IEP must include the following items:
1. The child’s current educational performance level across all areas of the
curriculum and a description of how the disability affects the child’s
involvement and progress in school.
2. A list of annual goals that can reasonably be expected to be accomplished
in the school year.
3. Description of how progress toward the annual goals will be measured
and how the child’s parents will be kept apprised of that progress.
4. Description of special education and related services that will be provided
to the child, including any modifications and program supports the child
will receive.
5. A description of the extent to which the child with a disability will
participate in regular classroom activities with non-disabled peers.
6. A list of the modifications or accommodations needed for the child to take
the mandated standardized tests.
7. A start date when the special education and related services will be
provided to the child and the frequency and duration of these activities
and support services.
8. Provision for the transition of the child into life after school. (This
component must be in place before the child reaches the age of 14.)
9. Provision for counseling about the rights that the child will accrue upon
reaching the age of 18. (This must be done at least one year prior to the
child’s 18th birthday.)
NOTE: For more information about the elements of an IEP, see www.ed.gov/parents/
needs/speced/iepguide/index.html

any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor
deny any person within its jurisdiction to the equal protection of the
laws. Ratified July 9, 1868.
This “equal protection” provision has been used as the foundation for
legal arguments to provide students with disabilities with the right to an
appropriate education. Providing a public school education for all children
with disabilities is a recent innovation. Before World War II public schools
usually referred children with disabilities to outside agencies, state hospitals,
and private training homes. When Congress passed, and President Ford
signed, the Education for all Handicapped Children Act in 1975, a new era for
the education of students with disabilities began.
The inclusion of children with disabilities in all aspects of public school
life has been one result of this legislation. Special education students now
participate in regular classroom testing as well as large-scale state assess-
ments with their non-disabled peers. This is accomplished by providing the
students with special needs a “level playing field.” This is done by providing
certain accommodations for special education students. The goal of such
accommodations is to assure that we are not evaluating what the child’s dis-
abilities prevent him or her from doing but rather measuring what has been
accomplished.
One fear of special educators is that the children with the most signifi-
cant reading disabilities are being left behind by the testing provisions of the
NCLB Act. The point can be made that for these children who struggle to
extract meaning from the written page, one morpheme at a time, and who
see each paragraph as an enemy to be subdued through one-on-one combat,
there are no accommodations that will somehow put them on a par with
their peers who are facile readers (Meek, 2006). The state-mandated tests are
all dense with reading material and require that children are able to read for
understanding and meaning, or risk being forever “Below Proficient.” This
testing mandate can be viewed as being especially concerning for the parents
of children with severe reading disabilities. Recent research has demon-
strated that reading disabilities are brought about by disruptions in the nor-
mal neural processing of the posterior section (left occipitotemporal region)
of the developing cortex of some children (Shaywitz et al., 2002; Shaywitz
Shaywitz, 2005, 2007). Severe reading disabilities are biological phenomena
that are marginally tractable. Improvement of the neurological functions
related to reading requires an organized effort by well-educated reading
teachers, which begins with the child in his or her early years.
Each state has set out its own set of guidelines for providing testing
accommodations during statewide assessments. A state-by-state listing of

these accommodations can be found at a Web page from the University of
Minnesota: http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/TopicAreas/Accommodations/
AccomFAQ.htm.
In a similar way, all school systems should have an approved set of poli-
cies in place for accommodating the needs of special education students
on classroom tests and examinations. A backlash of opinion against these
accommodations has been reported. Students who see their peers given
extra time on classroom tests and even on the SAT II have spoken out against
what is perceived as a lack in equitable treatment (Green, 2007).
One accommodation that must be addressed occurs in the schools of the
states that require children to pass a high-stakes test to be promoted to the
next grade. In these states, children with disabilities may be retained simply
on the basis of having low test scores. Yet, low test scores provide one of the
reasons the children were determined by the IST (Instructional Support
Team) process to be entitled to special educational services to begin with.
Once a child is measured on a high-stakes test as being proficient, he or she
is no longer eligible for special services. It is clear that this issue needs fur-
ther clarification, and the development of a transparent model for account-
ability with children that have special needs (Gaffney Zaimi, 2003).
Testing Environment
When a child is unable to attend and concentrate on the testing task,
it may be necessary to have that child tested alone using a study carrel.
Naturally, someone will need to administer the test to the child. This could
be done by a counselor, student teacher, or even a library aid. In addition to
AD/HD diagnosed children, others who may need to be tested in a separate
area are those with pervasive developmental disabilities (e.g., Asperger’s
disorder), those who may be disruptive for others (e.g., Tourette’s disorder),
and those who may need close supervision (e.g., Oppositional Defiant
Disorder).
Time
Ten or more percent of the children in school may have a specific learn-
ing disability. By far the most common among these is in reading. These
children may need to be accommodated by having extra time for reading pas-
sages and answering comprehension questions. A total of 37 of the 50 states
permit children with learning disabilities to have unlimited time to complete
statewide assessment tests. Other accommodations that may facilitate testing

for children with difficulty attending and focusing on tasks include having the
child assessed in a low-distraction environment. This accommodation is an
approved strategy in 41 of the 50 states (Thurlow Bolt, 2001). When com-
bined, these two accommodations would make it possible to provide a quiet
location away from distractions and unlimited time constraints for children
with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.
Modality
Not all children can read or otherwise use the test material. One way this
inability occurs is when children with visual impairments can’t see to read the
test material. Thirty-eight of the states provide a Braille version of the state’s
test, while 40 states offer a large-print edition for children with low vision.
Those with severe musculoskeletal spasticity or who have paresis (e.g.,
cerebral palsy) will need to have the test verbally administered and answered.
Children with the inability to write or make small answer-sheet marks with a
pencil are accommodated in 43 states by having an adult read the questions
and mark the answers that the child gives. These proctors can also take dic-
tation on performance (constructed response) questions.
Children with a hearing disability may need to have headphones to facil-
itate hearing test directions, while deaf children will require the test direc-
tions be signed to them. Signing is a labor-intensive activity. One sign language
interpreter may not be enough for a long test.
Thirty-six states require that children who are English-language learners
be provided with a qualified translator to assist in the administration and
recording of the answers for the test (Thurlow Bolt, 2001).
The decision to provide accommodations for the child with a disability
during tests is something that is normally addressed during meetings of the
instructional support team and addressed by the Individual Educational Plan.
The goal of all accommodations is not to give the child an advantage but to
make it possible for the special-needs child to fully participate and experi-
ence a level playing field.
Each decade the proportion of children diagnosed with a serious special
learning need increases. Today, 1 American child in 12 has a serious disabling
condition that makes learning difficult without specialized assistance. This
Summary

represents almost 6 million children. Beginning in the 1970s, the federal gov-
ernment has worked to provide a level playing field for students with disabil-
ities. These efforts have become more complex since the passage of the No
Child Left Behind Act of 2002. The central issue is the level of test children
with special needs will be required to take. Before 2002, local schools used
developmentally appropriate measures to assess and chart the educational
growth and development of children with disabilities. Under the rules of the
No Child Left Behind Act, only a tiny fraction of the special education popu-
lation can be measured following that model. The Act requires that 99% of all
students demonstrate proficiency on an age-appropriate measure, not a
developmentally appropriate one.
One step in the process of helping a child who experiences learning
problems in school involves a meeting of parents, teachers, and others with
a role to play to identify ways to assist the child. These Instructional Support
Teams can provide a framework for assistance that may be all the child
requires to catch up with his or her peers. If there is a greater need, the deci-
sion can be made to initiate a full psychoeducational diagnostic assessment
by a multidisciplinary team. This team, with the participation of the parents,
can make an entitlement decision to provide the child with special education
services. The first step in that process is the development of an Individual
Educational Plan for the child.
Data that become part of this process may include informal and anecdo-
tal observations by the homeroom teacher and others in the school commu-
nity of the child. The data on the child may also involve the administration of
highly specialized measures of achievement and learning. These can take the
form of published instruments as well as by a school psychologist probing an
individual child’s specific areas of curriculum weakness and strength.
Discussion Questions
1. What are some likely reasons why the number of children having dis-
abilities in school today is greater in both absolute and relative terms
than has been true of the previous cohorts of students?
2. Starting with the first informal observation by the teacher of a student’s
possible learning problem, list all the personnel and the amount of time
each is likely to spend working on the child’s behalf before the IEP is
written and instituted. Then use the figure of $7511
per hour as the cost
of these faculty and specialists (including overhead) and estimate how

much it actually costs to reach an entitlement decision and start a pro-
gram of special education assistance for one child. You may substitute
the actual local average per hour cost if $75 is not appropriate.
3. What are the applicable federal laws that define the educational
services for children with disabilities? What legal conflict exists with
regard to how children with disabilities are measured and educated?
4. This week purchase a newspaper or magazine written in a language
you do not know. Spend a half hour “reading” it. Now, what accommo-
dations will you need before you can take a test on the contents of
that publication?
5. What is the role of the child’s parents on an IEP committee? If possi-
ble, ask a school counselor or administrator what the school’s policy
is regarding a child’s IEP when the two parents disagree with each
other about the best approach to follow with the education of their
special needs child.
Educational Assessment on the Web
Log on to the Web-based student study site at www.sagepub.com/
wrightstudy for additional Web sources and study resources.
NOTES
1. These teams are known by many names: Student Assistance Teams, Learning
Support Teams, Educational Resource Committees, etc.
2. Section 504 provides equal access to education (and all other activities) to
children with disabilities. This legislation requires classroom accommodations to
meet the needs created by any mental or physical disability. For example, if a
child has a partial hearing loss, the accommodation may involve providing ampli-
fiers for the teacher’s voice.
3. The spectrum of autism-related problems has been reported to be a new epi-
demic with numbers approaching 1 in 160 school-age children. These may prove
to be exaggerated and an artifact of several other factors. The U.S. Department
of Education did not classify autism as a special education entitlement classification
until 1992. Also, today there are more sources for help and support for families
with children with autism than ever before (Wallis, 2007).
Student Study Site

4. The “executive function” is a cognitive construct describing a mental system that
controls and manages other mental processes. The abilities to plan ahead and
concentrate are directed by the executive function.
5. The user holds a master’s degree in psychology, education, social work, or sim-
ilar field and has completed graduate-level coursework in testing and educa-
tional measurement.
6. For a review of the meaning of these qualification levels see Chapter 12.
7. Mirror image reading was formerly known as dyslexia or streptosymbola.
8. The Woodcock–Johnson III provides a test battery of cognitive abilities (see
Chapter 12) that is constructed on the framework of the Cattell–Horn–Carroll
theory of cognitive ability.
9. Basic concepts: numeration, rational numbers, geometry. Operations: addition,
subtraction, division, mental computation. Applications: measurement, time and
money, estimation, interpreting data, problem solving.
10. There is an urban legend about a school district that quietly purchased a new
home for a family that had four children with profound neurologically based cog-
nitive disabilities. The educational costs and specialized transportation needs for
these children was in excess of $45,000 per year for each child. The new home
the original school district purchased was located in another school system. The
biennial cost of specialized private education for these seriously impaired
children was more than the cost of the new house.
11. This is based on an average annual salary of about $72,000 per year for a team
composed of school psychologists, school administrators, nurses, counselors,
physical therapists, social workers, and reading specialists. Overhead is assumed
to be about 50% of the base pay and includes health programs, Social Security,
retirement, and local taxes and tariffs paid by the schools. Once a child has an
IEP and is receiving services, the average cost of his or her education is approx-
imately 1.5 times that of the student’s peers who are not disabled.

LEARNING PROBLEMS.pdf

More Related Content

Similar to LEARNING PROBLEMS.pdf (20)

More from International advisers (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

LEARNING PROBLEMS.pdf