The 2008 DLD Showcase: A Celebration of 25 Years

The Division for Learning Disabilities (DLD) of the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) celebrated its 25th anniversary with a very impressive Showcase of Presidents who told the story of the DLD's contentious beginnings and its journey as an organization. Looking back over the years, history clearly depicts the DLD's leadership as laying the foundation for the current emphasis on the importance of research and evidence–based practice. Changes in policy and law at the local, state, and federal levels have put the spotlight on the need for rigorous research and the importance of using the evidence from that research to develop curriculum, select programs, and implement interventions. The DLD was way ahead of the curve and was calling for evidence–based practice as far back as 1983, when the DLD was formed.

In the early 1980s, leaders within the Division for Children with Learning Disabilities (DCLD) were engaged in serious discussion about the need for a new organization. Some of the members wished to withdraw from the CEC because of conflicts with the parent organization, while others were loyal to the CEC and wished to remain a part of the CEC family. As Hal McGrady reminded us, in February of 1983, an ad hoc committee spearheaded by Samuel Kirk and William Cruikshank began to debate the question, “Do we stay or do we go?” Cruickshank chaired the discussion, serving as a strict enforcer of the rules of order, but there was considerable tension. Several of the younger leaders in the DCLD were not happy with the CEC and were determined to form a new organization, which became the Council for Learning Disabilities (CLD). Other leaders were adamant about remaining a part of the CEC and began the process to form a new division within the CEC, the DLD.

Since that time, the DLD has led the field for a quarter of a century and has remained true to its mission—“to work on behalf of students with learning disabilities and the professionals who serve them as well as support the use of methods, materials, techniques, procedures, and approaches that have substantial research foundations.” A review of the list of DLD presidents provides evidence that the organization has remained true to its goal of promoting research to practice.

The following presidents have volunteered countless hours to enable the DLD to provide the leadership, guidance, and advocacy needed over the years: Sister Marie Grant (deceased), Carol Weller (deceased), Harold McGrady, Sharon Vaughn, Jeannette Fleischner (deceased), Robert Abbott, Cathy Barlow, Jean Lokerson, Elise Blankenship, Cynthia Terry, Candace Bos (deceased), Esther Minskoff, Cheri Hoy, Donald Deshler, Jean Schumaker, Daniel P. Hallahan, Edward Martin, Charles Hughes, Naomi Zigmond, Edwin Ellis, Susan Osborne, John Wills Lloyd, Karen J. Rooney, and Kathleen A. Marshall.

To celebrate the anniversary of the DLD's founding, the past presidents were polled to see if they would be willing to respond to two questions as participants on a panel during the DLD Showcase session at the 2008 CEC Convention in Boston. Within a day, e–mail after e–mail indicated there was considerable interest. As a result, 11 of the past presidents gathered to recall the historic events that occurred during their respective tenures and give advice to the leaders who will guide the DLD in the future.

The past presidents were asked to respond to two questions when planning their remarks, which were limited to about 10–15 minutes:

What were the major concerns in the field at the time of your presidency?

What is the main piece of advice you would give to guide the DLD into the future?

The presidents spoke in the order of their terms so the flow of the DLD's history could weave throughout the presentations; Hal McGrady began, because he was the first president.

Hal Mcgrady

Hal opened the session by asking the audience to remember Dr. Helmer Myklebust, the last of the pioneers in the field of learning disabilities (LD), who passed away recently.

During Hal's term, service delivery systems were being challenged and the definition of the term “learning disability” was still being discussed. The seminal works, Rethinking Special Education and Educating Children with Learning Problems–A Shared Responsibility, were published. Major concerns about so many different types of problems being served under the LD category prevailed, which was a topic of a conference in Utah called “Future Directions and Issues in Learning Disabilities.” By the end of Hal's term, membership quadrupled to 11,124 and the work of the professionals serving students with learning disabilities was influencing every area of education, including general education.

Hal's message for the future was that we not forget the past. The details may change, but the primary purpose of the DLD should be maintaining the effort to make those who work in the field of LD first–class professionals. He shared DeGaulle's comment that his political position was not to the right, the left, or the center, but was above politics. In an era of “legislate and litigate,” professionals in the DLD should be trained to be above the politics of the day.

Sharon Vaughn

More than 30 years ago, Sharon decided that she was inadequately prepared to teach the students in her class and realized that she required more knowledge and expertise to meet the needs of her students with severe behavior and learning disabilities. As a result, she went from Columbia, Missouri to the University of Arizona, where the program was excellent and the climate was warm. Her program was a clinical model, resulting in a degree in reading and learning disabilities. One of the things she was most proud of was that she worked closely with Sam Kirk and was his last doctoral student. Dr. Kirk was concerned with identification and appropriations at a time when LD was not listed as a category for funding. He constantly asked the questions: What is special about special education for children with LD? How can we make that instruction special? What do you do that is different for these students than other students? Thirty years later, we are asking the same questions:

How do we accurately identify children with LD?

What should services for these children look like?

What instruction do they need?

How do we know they are succeeding?

Special education has had many initiatives (such as the Regular Education Initiative). Initiatives come through special education, we give them names and are optimistic that everyone will embrace them—mainstreaming, inclusion, response–to–intervention (RTI). We are looking for promising approaches for reliable and useful identification and treatment of children with LD. A synthesis examining effectiveness of tertiary interventions in reading showed effectiveness for students who entered the third tier after having second–tier intervention reduced considerably. Can we design and implement instruction for students with LD in the third tier? We do well with learning differences, but not with children with true disabilities. We need treatment protocols for children who really have LD.

Jean Lokerson

Jean Lokerson opened her comments by referencing previous DLD publications to remind us that what the DLD stood for in the past was clearly a prologue to the future. For example, the DLD's 1991–1992 publication, Current Research in Intervention, called for the LD field to use research data as a basis for future intervention programs. The 1994 DLD brochure titled Inclusion: A Guide for Teachers stated that “a regular education classroom setting cannot provide the specific and/or intensive instructional services appropriate for some students with learning disabilities” and added “there is no validated body of research to support large–scale adoption of inclusion as the service delivery model for ALL students with learning disabilities.” The DLD Showcase session at the 1994 CEC Convention also had a prophetic title—Current Research in Intervention: Prologue to the Future. The DLD has always been skilled at targeting critical issues and should continue to do so.

Jean advised the DLD to remember four areas in which the DLD must continue to give its strong, relentless, and authoritative leadership during the next 25 years:

1

The number of students identified as having LD has increased, in part, because almost any minor academic shortcoming in general education classrooms might be identified as a LD. There is a growing tendency to focus on LD as a mild/moderate, high–incidence disability and forget the many students with severe LD. More recently, LD is too often used synonymously with academic underachievement or reading disabilities—concepts that unrealistically narrow the range of difficulties typical of many students with LD.

On the bright side, however, the cyclical nature of education suggests a better future that will integrate the best of problem–solving processes and data–driven achievement measures with comprehensive diagnostic processes and qualitative data. The result will be the expanded understanding of LD, broadened instructional approaches, and an improved opportunity for the expert in LD to contribute more effectively to the academic, work, and life success of the nation's students with LD.

Don Deshler

Don Deshler advised the DLD to be aware of the field's history because it holds potentially important lessons for the future. He provided two examples. First, in the deliberations leading up to the 1997 Amendments to Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), two major issues, student discipline and the definition of LD, resulted in a spirited and prolonged debate. Closure agreements were reached on student discipline, but the issues surrounding the LD definition were not resolved prior to the legislation being signed. Shortly after the Amendments of 1997 became law, Judith Heuman, then Assistant Secretary for the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, appointed a Task Force on Learning Disabilities to address the broad array of issues surrounding the LD definition. One of the actions taken by this task force was to hold an LD Summit in 2002. The purpose of this summit was to present what empirical evidence existed to support the LD construct. Shortly after the Summit, Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) funded the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities to further study LD identification. Each of these actions helped professionals and parents begin to examine RTI as an alternative to IQ–achievement discrepancy approaches in identifying students with LD. When reauthorized in 2004, the IDEA provided schools the option of using procedures that embodied RTI principles to make determination decisions.

Second, when the Bureau of Education for the Handicapped (OSEP's predecessor) was established in 1967, federal policy makers brilliantly laid the foundation for directly connecting research and practice by implementing five interrelated Part D investments. When P.L. 94–142 was passed, efforts were made to extend this policy. Specifically, a deliberate linkage was made between Parts B and C of the legislation (i.e., direct services to children) with Part D (i.e., supports to direct services such as research, personnel preparation, etc.). This direct connection between direct services and federal investments to enhance the quality of those services resulted in significant achievements. As a part of the Institute of Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002 (IES), the research function that was formerly housed within Part D of the IDEA was removed and placed in the IES. Hence, the formal linkages have been broken between research and Parts B and C of the IDEA. It is incumbent upon the DLD and professionals in the IES, OSEP, and the field to ensure that linkages between these funding investments keep. In the absence of legislative mandate, important translations of research findings to personnel preparation and field practices may not happen.

Finally, Don underscored the opportunity and necessity, with the emergence of RTI, of the field carefully specifying the unique attributes that differentiate tier three interventions from instruction that is typically used in tiers one and two.

Dan Hallahan

Dan Hallahan used the good news–bad news dichotomy to make his comments. The good news is the increased emphasis on research to bring interventions to scale. The data on peer tutoring, peer–assisted learning, mnemonics, learning strategy training, and self–regulation provide sufficient evidence to implement these interventions in classrooms. The bad news is the diminution of attention to instruction and continuing emphasis on placement issues. There is currently a phobia about placing students with LD in any type of separate environment. Almost half the students with LD are being educated in general education classrooms, which suggests that either many of these students really do not have LD, or they are not getting the intensive instruction they need. Co–teaching is a concern because many situations are not working well, and there is little research behind the model. Research supports the use of strategies that may be taught more effectively in separate settings, but few teacher–training situations allow preservice teachers the opportunities to instruct students. Instead, these trainees end up shadowing special education teachers who, in turn, shadow general education teachers.

There are several indicators of the erosion of the LD field. Licensing changes promoting noncategorical training and the blending of special and general education have resulted in a loss of professional identity as a “LD teacher.” In the last 10 years, membership in the CEC has fallen 26 percent; membership in the DLD has fallen 51 percent.

In the face of these many negatives, there are a couple of bright spots. Neuroimaging research is providing documentation that LD is a real condition, countering those critics who've questioned its existence. And the current emphasis on progress monitoring will perhaps lead the field back to a focus on intensive instruction.

Jean Schumaker

Jean Schumaker advised the group that she has seen the pendulum swing a couple of times during her years as a DLD member. Fads such as mainstreaming, whole language, and the swing to full inclusion caused her to commit to being president of the DLD to make sure the field of LD survived. She was concerned that special education teachers were being removed from resource rooms to become aides to other teachers instead of providing intensive instruction to students with LD. Educational research was being criticized as not being rigorous enough. Nevertheless, she knew that rigorous research had shown that, with intensive instruction, students with LD could gain meaningful access to the general education curriculum and could meet high expectations. She also knew that research had shown that co–teaching was not helping students in any way that had been measured.

Jean and her colleagues saw the times as being dangerous. Although they spoke to many colleagues about special education teachers being removed from their primary duties with regard to providing intensive and effective evidence–based instruction to students with LD, no one seemed to understand the consequences of this movement. Under her leadership, the DLD Board worked to encourage and support the use of evidence–based practices. The “Bridging the Gap between Research & Practice” conference was initiated to disseminate such practices for students with LD and planning for online services began. In addition, the DLD Board renewed their commitment to disseminating rigorous research results by negotiating a new contract for the journal, and the Current Practice Alerts series was initiated.

Seven years later, research conducted by the University of Kansas Center for Research on Learning staff has shown that many schools are not using evidence–based practices for students with LD. In general education classes, almost no evidence–based practices were observed, and only one such practice was observed in a resource setting. Students with LD were enrolled in “glorified study halls” and were not being taught the skills needed to be successful in high school and beyond.

Jean requested that the DLD continue to sponsor the research–to–practice conference, continue to publish articles about and promote rigorous research, and increase lobbying for funding for special education research. The dismantling of OSEP has resulted in lost ground for LD research and the destruction of the community of researchers who have focused on the LD field. The new process should be changed to welcome back and reorganize skilled grant writers to increase research in the field of LD.

Charlie Hughes

Charlie began by stating what a great experience it was for him to serve as president of the DLD and later as executive director, and he applauded the efforts of Board members over the last 25 years to improve services to students with LD. He then went on to say that he views events in the field as a parent, teacher, and as researcher and teacher–educator.

He acknowledged that, as a parent of a child with LD, he had access to information that many parents did not, but noted that more recently there has been an increase of helpful (and accurate) resources for parents, primarily through the several LD organizations. From his perspective as a parent, he shared that one of his pet peeves is recent efforts to use terms such as “learning differences” or “different learners” rather than LD. He acknowledged that, while he understands why parents may prefer these terms and that it is important to stress strengths as well as weaknesses, it is critical to keep in mind that this is a real disability—not just a “difference.” Finally, he identified the transition from school to work as a critical issue for students and their parents.

In terms of his experience as a teacher, Charlie noted that, when he started teaching back in 1970, he had little guidance in terms of research–informed practices for the classroom. To stress this point, he shared his remembrance of being told to use Doman–Delacato patterning techniques to help remediate academic problems. He stated that this situation has changed immensely over the past two decades and that teachers have much more access to information about research–supported interventions through professional journals, Web sites (such as TeachingLD.org, the DLD's Web site) and other sources. He cautioned that teachers need to be savvy consumers of this information as there are still plenty of nonsupported (and in some cases harmful) approaches being promoted, especially on the Internet.

As a researcher, he applauds the emphasis on using research to inform practice as well as the increasing standards for what is “good” research. He stated that while the use of higher standards for what constitutes an evidence base is in general a positive trend, we also need to be aware that there may be unintended consequences. He used as an example how some agencies, in their efforts to identify quality research studies, may overrely on the technical merits of studies in terms of internal validity, while ignoring other aspects of research methodology (and reality). He pointed out, too, that often the individuals who are evaluating studies are not educators but statisticians, and thus have no background in the ecological variables related to schools and classrooms: There is more to quality research than random assignment. To illustrate, he described a recent report put out by a government agency that identified only one study on the topic of teaching students with LD reading comprehension skills as meeting quality standards. The reader of this report is left to conclude that there is only one effective approach to teaching comprehension. He wrapped up this topic by noting that single–subject research has not been “approved” by government agencies as an appropriate research design, thereby eliminating approximately half the research conducted in special education conducted over the last 40 years from any discussion of “what works.”

Naomi Zigmond

Naomi Zigmond described 2002–2003 as being a “moment in time” for her after 40 years of worrying about students with LD from even before there was the term “learning disability.” As early as 1962, Naomi wondered why some children learned when others did not and why did some children learn some things and not other things. Naomi described LD as each child having a unique disorder in how their brains handled information. To answer questions such as what was going on in these children's heads, who are these children, what is keeping them from learning, and how do we teach them more effectively, Naomi was advised to be a detective. She was taught to watch what the child did and plan the next step in instruction based on the responses the child made. Then, in the 1980s, there was a shift to writing out planned courses or syllabi for the entire year instead of planning lessons one day at a time, which was an oxymoron for teachers of students with LD. The approach shifted the teaching focus from the individual child to larger groups and away from individualized instruction.

Naomi advised the DLD to focus on three areas:

1

Identification of LD: The DLD should not be seduced into believing special education needs to serve everyone; we need to be selfish about maintaining our focus on children with LD.

Susan Osborne

When Susan Osborne became president in 2004, the federal government was considering two pieces of legislation that have had profound implications for students with LD their families, and the teachers who serve them. IDEA 2004 had just been reauthorized but the regulations determining how the law would actually be enacted were still being debated and would not appear until fall 2006. At the same time, Congress was also working to align No Child Left Behind and the reauthorization of IDEA. During this period, the DLD worked with the International Council for Exceptional Children and other organizations that had a major interest in LD to develop regulatory language that would protect the legal and educational rights of individuals with LD and to support professional educators in delivering these services. The DLD's concerns regarding the impact of these legislative changes and regulations were centered in three areas.

The first issue, which is of continuing importance to the DLD, relates to the identification and diagnosis of LD. In the reauthorization, the problematic wording “significant discrepancy” was removed as a defining characteristic and the psychometrically equally problematic concept of RTI was included. Four major concerns about RTI remain unresolved as the DLD celebrates its 25th anniversary. First, we have yet to determine what constitutes empirically supported interventions in the academic areas identified in the definition. Specifically, how do states, school districts, and teachers select such programs or interventions? Second, what constitutes appropriate progress? Third, how do we determine whether an intervention has been applied with “fidelity”? And finally, if RTI is interpreted as ensuring high–quality, empirically supported instruction for all pupils with initial targeted interventions being provided through general education programs, how do we bring this to scale when we have a generation of elementary school teachers, many of whom themselves were never prepared to implement intensive instruction in phonemic awareness, phonics, or reading fluency? Incidentally, how is implementation of RTI qualitatively different from the prereferral interventions that have long been part of the referral and identification process?

The second issue of great importance to us is accountability in providing services. Susan does not believe that one–size–fits–(virtually) all, high–stakes, standardized testing is helpful in driving effective instruction or in evaluating student progress for most students with individualized education programs. In her opinion, we need to (a) assess the effects of individually tailored intervention programs on the individuals for whom they were designed and (b) evaluate students at their instructional levels—not where we think they should be based on their age or grade levels. And we must acknowledge that even our best tools may not ensure success of all our students. In fact, research indicates that, despite our best efforts, at least 20 percent of our clients will continue to struggle. In short, policy makers have to acknowledge that we cannot simply legislate that all students will achieve at grade level—if we could have legislated a cure for LD, we would have done so years ago. As an organization, we need to advocate for psychometrically defensible and useful assessments of instructional quality and student performance over time: assessments that can guide instructional decision making. At the same time, we must turn our attention and resources as researchers and clinicians to those individuals who do not respond adequately to our current best practices. These conundrums form the frontier for LD in the 21st century.

A third great concern for our organization is the recruitment, preparation, and retention of highly skilled professionals who must be knowledgeable about content of instruction and about pedagogy for students with LD. In too many cases, the requirements to be “highly qualified” drive talented individuals from the field as they are required to take even more courses or pass more tests in content areas in order to be licensed. Teachers must also be skilled consumers of research and must be able to translate research finding into classroom practice. To this end, Susan proposes that the DLD advocate for teacher preparation that stresses the importance of teachers as consumers of research. We need research that addresses teacher understanding of and application of intervention research findings. We need to identify ways to enable teachers to document their own efforts in using research–based practice—the procedures, the barriers, the outcomes, and perhaps to archive their own efforts and observations in an electronic database that would allow practitioners and researchers to collaborate downstream to investigate the effects of research–based practice. In short, we need to know what it takes for best practices to become common practice.

At present, we face a critical shortage of special education teachers; however, we are also facing a difficult economic period. Traditionally, during tough economic times, we see more individuals seeking initial or second careers in education. People often view education, including special education, as a relatively recession–proof career that offers benefits. As we consider how best to recruit and prepare teachers, we should also investigate the factors that make teaching students with LD a rewarding profession and work to ensure that schools are safe, exciting, and satisfying places to build careers.

Finally, Susan encourages the DLD to look beyond current research in education to inform our field. As we reexamine the very definition of LD, we need to pay particular attention to the phrase “of presumed neurological origin,” which has taken on new importance with the growing sophistication of brain imaging technology. Thirty years ago, Susan told a graduate class that we had to presume the neurological origin of LD because we could only infer that neurophysiology held the key to the differences we observed between the functioning of individuals with and without LD. “We can't look inside live individuals’ heads while they are reading,” she said. Thirty years later, we can do exactly that and fMRIs are becoming old technology as neuroscientists are developing and using far more sensitive imaging techniques to investigate brain functioning. It behooves us to seek collaborations that can inform our understanding of LD and of the neurological effects of interventions as well as informing neuroscientists’ interpretations of their research.

John Lloyd

John recalled the work of the giants who established the field when they found some children who did not have mental retardation or were not deaf, but who were not learning. People wanted help for these students and data–based researchers who had clinical bonds said they could “work on that.” Some misguided theories included perceptual–motor training (one fell off the balance beam), but children with LD are the ones who don't succeed by getting garden variety or sloppy instruction. The most effective instruction that works for these kids does not always work for all kids. The DLD needs to focus on giving these kids systematic instruction based on research data with a strong emphasis on progress monitoring. We need to go back to the past that has been producing lines of empirical data and move to the future to provide empirically based instruction.

Conclusion

The past presidents who shared their experiences during the Showcase comprised remarkable educators and researchers who have played key roles in the field of LD; many could even reminisce about their direct links to the “pioneers.” The integrity of this chain of leadership has allowed the DLD to adhere to its mission with unfailing dedication, vigor, and commitment over the years. Teachers; local, state, and federal education agencies; other professional organizations; and policy makers have always turned to the DLD as a source of information because there has been an underlying recognition that the DLD would respond using the most current, rigorous research data available. Comments by the past presidents indicate a serious need for the DLD to continue to be the organization that guides professionals as well as parents seeking answers to troubling questions now facing special education, particularly the area of LD.

Woven through the terms of all 11 past presidents were the persistent concerns about definition, identification procedures, service delivery, adequate funding for research, and implementation of evidence–based practice. With the change in the law to allow RTI as part of the process to identify LD, the use of terms such as “underachievement,”“learning difference,” and “reading disability” instead of learning disability and the increase in the number of schools implementing inclusive models, the DLD will need to provide clear, proactive leadership as it has in the past. Based on the experience and advice shared by the past presidents, the DLD, its Board, and its membership have been given the directive to defend the construct of LD, promote evidence–based practice, define the third tier or role of special education in RTI models, establish standards for professional development, and maintain advocacy for increased funding opportunities for research to produce the empirical data necessary to answer questions related to definition, identification, and effective intervention for individuals with LD.

The DLD can be very proud of its past, but must also recognize and be prepared for the challenges of today as well as tomorrow. The past years have provided the foundation that will enable the DLD to have the vision to provide responsible leadership in the future and serve its membership by continuing to focus on its mission: research to practice. Congratulations to all for a splendid 25 years!

About the Author