Kindergarten

Helping Children Transition Into Kindergarten
Entering kindergarten is a big step for any child. Parents can help children adjust by anticipating their needs and preparing them for their new school environment. Ideally transition efforts should start the spring prior to your child’s entrance into kindergarten. Most schools have a day where parents can bring their children in for a visit and for the parents to learn more about the school. The goal is to familiarize your child and yourself with the teacher, classroom, and school; provide the teacher opportunities to “get to know” your child and plan more effectively before he becomes a member of the class; and provide opportunities to become acquainted with the new teacher, class and school policies and procedures, as well as future classmates and their parents. This will, in turn, help the classroom teacher be ready for your child.
What to do before your child begins Kindergarten:
Set up an initial meeting with the teacher. Although this can take place at school, home visits give your child the chance to meet the new teacher in his own environment. This can reduce anxiety later and strengthen the sense of home-school connection, and allow the teacher the opportunity to get a firsthand sense of your child’s home environment.
If possible, plan a visit to the new school that includes spending time with the teacher, exploring the classroom, and playing on the playground.
Let the teacher know about your child’s interests and strengths. Be specific. It will help the teachers know how to engage your child in the early weeks.
Share any concerns or special considerations regarding your child, such as certain fears or food allergies.
Use pictures and/or stories to familiarize your child with their new classroom, school and teacher.
Be sure your child is in good physical and mental health. Schedule doctor and dental checkups early. Discuss with the pediatrician any concerns you have over your child’s emotional or psychological development. The doctor can help determine if concerns are normal, age appropriate issues or that require further assessment. Children benefit if potential issues are identified and addressed early. (See “Considerations Regarding Children With Special Needs below)
If your child has attended preschool, encourage communication between Kindergarten and preschool teachers, particularly if the child has special needs or particular issues coping in the classroom.
How to collaborate with the school once your child begins Kindergarten:
Don’t over-react if the first few days are a little rough. Young children in particular may experience separation anxiety or shyness initially but teachers should be trained to help them adjust. If your child cries at drop off, remain calm and positive. Do not linger but rather reassure your child that he will be okay and that you will be back soon. If your child has a negative reaction for a long period of time, meet with the teacher and school psychologist to develop a plan for transition time.
During the first few weeks of school, teachers and parents should share information about how they think the child is adjusting to school. Email is often an effective way to communicate.
If possible, volunteer in the classroom at least periodically throughout the year. Doing so helps children feel that their school and family life are linked. Being in the classroom is also a good way to develop a relationship with your child’s teacher and classmates, and to get firsthand exposure to their classroom environment and routine. Most kindergarten teachers welcome even occasional parent help.
Check your child’s backpack daily for notes and fliers. These include important information and communication from the school.
Supporting learning before and after your child begins Kindergarten:
Establish a schedule at home and stick to it. Children benefit from structure and this can help them better adjust to Kindergarten schedule.
Work with your child on content related to colors, numbers, letters, etc. It is important to make the experience fun and playful. Preschool and Kindergarten teachers are excellent resources for ideas. Additional resources are listed below.
Provide experiences with books, rhyming, singing, coloring, cutting, paying attention, sharing and sitting. Again, preschool and Kindergarten teachers can provide suggestions for fun and interesting ways to provide these experiences. The resources list below can also help with ideas.
Find out what the Kindergarten classroom routines are and regularly discuss them with your child. When appropriate, practice the routines by acting them out at home. For example, you can help your child practice waiting his turn, raising his hand, asking to go the bathroom, and asking a classmate to play.
Plan to spend extra quiet one-on-one time with your child during the first weeks. Keep the family schedule as simple as possible to allow for your child’s adjustment needs.
Arrange play dates with a new friend (or friends) from school. Strengthening social bonds with classmates helps your child build a sense of familiarity and comfort level in school.
Limit television and videogame time and increase book experiences.
Be aware of differences in children’s development and avoid making comparisons to siblings and other children.
Considerations Regarding Children With Special Needs
Transitioning to a Kindergarten that is governed by IDEA guidelines for eligibility and an Individual Education Plan (IEP) may require some adjustment. You will need to familiarize yourself with the law, the rights of your child, and the school’s particular procedures. Schools can help by providing clear information (in multiple languages) online and in print and making it easy for parents to contact the relevant staff (i.e., school psychologist). This information is often on the school’s website but, if not, call the main office and ask for office of special education or pupil services. Beginning this process prior to the start of school and with the goal of ongoing home-school collaboration is important.
Considerations Regarding Children who are English Language Learners
Children who are English Language Learners may need more time acclimating to the school setting. It is important for the school to provide parents with materials in their native language and to arrange for interpreters when they visit. If these are not yet available, parents should request them. Parents who do not speak English should also feel comfortable bringing a family member or friend to meetings to help interpret. Parents can also provide teachers with information about their culture and how the child will respond to the classroom. Parents are encouraged to continue speaking the family’s native language in the home.
Considerations Regarding Children Who Did Not Attend Preschool
Children who did not attend preschool may need additional time practicing a schedule and interacting with peers. More than one visit to the classroom may also be appropriate for these children.
Resources:
Books
Mrs. Bindergarten Gets Ready for Kindergarten, Joseph Slate & Ashley Wolff.
The Night Before Kindergarten, Natasha Wing & Julie Durrell.
Look Out Kindergarten, Here I Come! Nancy Carlson.
What Do We Say? What Do We Do? Vital Solutions for Children's Educational Success and Creating Positive Home School Connections, Dorothy Rich.Online Resources
Top 10 Signs of a Good Kindergarten: www.naeyc.org
Tools You Can Use: www.nea.org/parents/tools/index.htmlhttp://www.education.com/grade/kindergarten/

Back to school

Back-to-School Transitions
Getting a new school year off to a good start can influence children’s attitude, confidence, and performance socially and academically. The transition from August to September can be a hurdle, even for children who are eager to return to class. Everyone must adjust to the change in levels of activity, structure, and pressures associated with school life. Parents can help their children and family manage the increased pace of life by planning ahead, being realistic, and maintaining a positive attitude. Here are a few suggestions to help ease the transition and promote a successful school experience.
Before School Starts
Be sure your child is in good physical and mental health.
Review all of the information sent by the school as soon as it arrives.
Mark important dates on your calendar, such as back to school night and deadlines for signing up for school clubs or handing in forms.
Keep copies of all your child’s health and emergency information for reference.
Re-establish bedtime and mealtime routines at least 1 week before school starts.
Encourage your child to ease into the learning routine with quiet games, puzzles, flash cards, coloring, or reading as early morning activities instead of watching television.
Visit school with your child, particularly if your child is young or starting in a new school.
Designate and clear a place for homework and studying.
Select a spot to keep backpacks and lunch boxes, as well as a place to put important notices and information sent home for you to see.
Freeze a few easy dinners so that meal planning and preparation will not add to household pressures during the first week of school.
The First Few Weeks
Clear your own schedule and be available to your children.
Be prepared for the return to school:
Make lunches the night before. Have older children help.
Set alarm clocks.
Leave plenty of extra time.
Be sure your child knows what to do after school including where to go or who to call if you are not home.
Send your child’s teacher a brief note letting the teacher know that you are interested in getting regular feedback on how and what your child is doing in school. Let them know the best way to contact you.
Familiarize yourself with all school professionals: the principal and front office personnel; school psychologist, counselor, and social worker; the reading specialist, speech therapist, and school nurse; lunchroom and playground aides; and the after-school activities coordinator.
Avoid over scheduling extracurricular activities.
Overcoming Anxiety
Do not overreact. Even if your child seems distraught at first, they will be fine.
Remain calm and positive. Model optimism and confidence for your child. Reassure them that you love them and will be there at the end of the school day.
Reinforce your child’s ability to cope. Give them a few strategies to manage a difficult situation on his or her own.
Help them identify and connect with at least one friend.
Volunteer in the classroom.
Get help if serious concerns arise. Contact the school to meet with your child’s teachers and school psychologist. They can offer support that will help identify and reduce the problem, as well as suggest resources within the school and community to help you address the situation.
Remember, children are wonderfully resilient. With your support and encouragement, they will thrive throughout their school experience.
Adapted from: “Back to School Transitions: Tips for Parents,” Ted Feinberg & Katherine C. Cowan, Helping Children at Home and School II: Handouts for Families and Educators, NASP, 2004. The full handout is available online at www.nasponline.org/families.

Yes, This Actually Happens!!!

First of all, in an era of budget cuts in California I fail to see the wisdom in purchasing laptops for students. Secondly, what assignments could a 6th grader possibly be getting that require a personal computer at home provided by the school. When I was in 6th grade we completed assignments in our coursebooks and read assigned texts when instructed. I think I had to complete a country report at the end of the year which was typed, but that was it, one assignment. Lastly, parental issues aside (you can make up your own mind on that one), I am troubled by the fact that a student this young has the ability to navigate through wireless networks in order to be able to access inappropriate material online. Methinks this is not the first time this little one has been engaging in such nefarious activities.

Evidence Based Comprehensive Assessment

I just finished going over the new California RTI or RTI (squared) implementation guidelines for determining eligibility within a response to intervention model. Although that is the title, the bulk of the memo is spent on painting RTI (sorry Cali but you are not getting a squared from me just because you think it sounds hip and refreshing) as a general education model for closing the achievement gap. While RTI in some sense can be utilized for a global educational outcome such as this, one must differentiate between RTI for categorical decision making and RTI for general ed. instructional reform; for a brilliant summation of the ramifications of this check out a recent Communique article by Matthew Burns of the University of Minnesota. Essentially what the authors point out is that so much of the literature on RTI continues to extol it for general instructional reform and pre-categorical intervention purposes while there continues to be a gap and much confusion as it relates to defining what exactly is a comprehensive assessment at the end of such a model. The current California policy memo outlines a double deficit achievement requirement (deficit in achievement level and rate of learning), absent any evidence relating to the current federal rule outs. On face value this model seems to be a large step forward in bringing more evidence based assessment and intervention practices to the state however, a more careful read of the document reveals some disturbing additions.

First, in the introduction the panel lists some foundations for which the RTI model is based upon the first of which is that all students can and will learn if given the right instruction, this is followed up with the contradictory statement of one the three purposes of assessment in RTI, in order to determine what area's students cannot achieve in. I am not a rocket scientist but it would seam to me that if all children can learn there would be no reason to conduct this type of assessment.

More importantly, in outlining eligibility requirements for SLD in an RTI model the panel allows for an alternative method of assessment which is based on cognitive, academic, or other strengths and weaknesses present which relate to the achievement deficit. Validity issues aside, the key word is relate which is ripe for abuse. That means that if clinicians choose this option they must justify that the areas of cognitive weakness must naturally relate to the achievement area in question. However, why are we even discussing this, there is absolutely no credible research that demonstrates that such profile and index patterns are accurate in separating LD from non-LD students. I have thoroughly talked about the validity and reliability problems of indexes and subtest analysis in other posts. Also, ipsative profile analysis in general has been thoroughly debunked in the research for decades (see anything by Joe Glutting and others). The fact is that while profiles do exist, they are not clinically significant, see the base rates in your trusty manuals.

So once again, shame on you California way to continue to perpetuate unreliable assessment practices. The good news in all of this is that Mike Vanderwood did confirm to me in a personal communication that this is not in fact the RTI document that is slated to come out later this year. This CDE document was released by this panel over a year ago (talk about bureaucracy) and the things in it that I am highlighting here led to the creation of a separate panel. So I guess the good news is that the current policy recommendations are non-binding, which should be interesting to look at when the new, and hopefully better, memo is released later this year as to whether or not it has a procedural mandate for school districts embedded in it. If it doesn't then no matter how good it is there will be many districts that continue to resist reform.

Tier 2 Pilot Data

Here is some of the final tier 2 data from last year that I promised to release. One of the unfortunate things that I found once school started this year was that as we were conducting universal screening for the first time (yeah for us), most of my kiddos DORF scores regressed back to baseline levels at the begining of tier 2. Now this is somewhat expected given all the research that shows that students in an intensive reading intervention gradually lose gains a couple of months after intervention ceases however, there are some sobering reminders for those implementing RTI because of all of the time, manpower, and fiscal resources that are out into tier 2 and tier 3 assessment and intervention. If they accomplish nothing more then to momentarily increase DORF scores with no other generalization of maintenance beyond a couple of months, how much can that do for a child that is reading three years behind grade level? It is not to say that RTI is a waste of time, to the contrary, it is a necessary step toward moving the field toward a more evidence based service delivery model. The real implications are on the research end where some advocates pontificate that RTI is a finished product (e.g. Tilly). This is nonsense; we need to continue to investigate intervention effectiveness and even the assessment piece of RTI so that we find the inherent flaws in the model so that we can continue to grow and progress toward that impossible ideal of a "perfect" model. Or as Kuhn (1996) puts it, it is only by our continued investigation of what we think we know that we create the conditions for paradigm shifts, otherwise we run the risk of turning the school psychology into a field of "nominal science."

Gender	Grade	Baseline	Intervention	ROI	Effect Size
Male	6	100	121	21	.58
Female	4	56	90	34	.94
Female	4	46	46	0	.00
Male	4	62	68	6	.16
Female	3	75	103	28	.77
Male	3	25	35	10	.27
Male	3	69	83	14	.38
Male	2	26	14	-12	-.33
Male	2	39	51	12	.33

Yes, this actually happens!

I came across this article in the New York Times and have to admit that it doesn't surprise me in some respects. What else can you say? I am thinking about creating a "Yes this actually happens!" post section whenever I come across some ridiculous tidbit like this that is currently going on in schools. If anyone out there has an interesting story feel free to post a comment, this could get interesting.

California Releases Guidelines for RTI

During a meeting with my doctoral advisor I spied a document from the California Department of Education on guidelines and recommendations for implementing RTI in California. So it finally appears that RTI (or something closely resembling it) has arrived statewide. Don't get too excited yet as this is a policy first draft that will almost certainly go through the bureaucratic process of being disseminated by interested stakeholders, revised several times, and eventually passed on to LEA's for individualized implementation. I am also sure that you can expect some vocal opposition from a few school psychologists who continue to believe that RTI will be the end of assessment and school psychological practice as we know it and other nonsense. I am getting a copy of the document as I read through it I will post anything that I find of import.

Thinking About Systems Change

This is a good introductory short video by one of the key figures in the Florida RTI movement that has really been well conceptualized statewide. I cannot stress enough how important these first steps of planning are as practitioners begin asking these questions at their sites. My best advice is for psychologists to access as much of the literature as they can to see which roll-out model will work best in their environment. I think an important point that Dr. Batsche makes is that RTI is about reforming general educational service delivery, it is a new way of thinking. That is a little tough for school psycho's to get their head around because that is not what we are primarily trained in.

Can we measure Cognitive Processing?

A question that I have continued to investigate as I am playing with assessment models and elements is the validity behind our historical construction of cognitive processing. There has been a gap in the literature regarding this issue that I think needs to be addressed, especially with the emergence of hierarchical models of cognition which encompass several broad "processing" abilities. It seems to me that historical views of processing (codified by LD definitions dating back to the 60's) stipulate that it is separate and distinct entity apart from general intelligence; otherwise why would we measure it? However, CHC research clearly demonstrates that Gv, Ga, and elements of attention account for some general factor variance in overall cognition. That is three of the four processing elements in traditional measurement (I am not counting association, conceptualization, and expression because I have no idea what they are or how to validly measure them, nor does anyone else for that matter), the only remaining is sensory-motor which may be accounted for as a specific ability but I am not sure (regardless, VMI has no construct validity as it accounts for more variance in language then it does in math or reading...see VMI-5 manual). So if you are using a CHC based cognitive instrument you are basing your full scale cognitive estimate on a model that doesn't differentiate traditional processing elements from overall ability. So again, we have stumbled into a large world of measurement confound as almost every broad assessment includes a reliable index of GV and auditory processing tests like the TAPS-3 load significantly on WISC-III full scale scores.

New Standards for Training

Since beginning my current research binge on RTI and data based decision making over the past couple of months I have really started to notice significant differences in both content and structure of current school psychology training programs. In several conversations that I have had over the past year with colleagues who were enrolled at "RTI" based training programs it is apparent their training was much more focused on providing tools for instructional consultation, curriculum reform, academic intervention and fidelity, and evidence based decision making. While my "traditional" program, as well as other programs similar to it, were void of academic instruction and systems based delivery models. This training gap was bridged with courses focusing more on social/emotional assessment and intervention, clinical psychopathology, and cognitive processing. While it is clear that the recent NASP blueprints for training and practice are much better represented in the former model, I think it is important to understand the reasons for that. In my opinion, one of the really important changes from the previous blueprints edition was a deliberate attempt to circumnavigate any domain coverage specifying the neuropsychological constructs of learning.

The second edition listed "biological basis of learning" under the learning development and differences domain, which I interpret as a clear attempt to categorize the (then) emerging cognitive neuroscience trend in learning and performance. Unfortunately, as practitioner's, we now see that a decade or so later that this movement has not fulfilled its promise as a viable alternative from the discrepancy model in understanding and intervening in learning differences. I am planning a more through review of the school neuropsychology movement, suffice it to say there are several conceptual and measurement issues with this model, despite its intuitive intellectual appeal. To get back to the larger point, the third edition does not mention biological or neuropsychological underpinnings of learning within this domain of coverage.

The reason why this is so important is because it is clear that how we are trained is directly correlated to how we see learning and social problems. As a traditionalist I was trained to see problems (whether academic or social) as within-child deficits with clear biological underpinnings, and thus my role was conceptualized as that of a gatekeeper, responsible for determining whether or not a child met or did not meet eligibility standards. While those trained in RTI principals view "problems" primarily through a functional lens with specific focus on core academic deficits, for the purposes of determining how to best intervene to ameliorate those deficits. So we have to be careful to understand that the reason why a traditionalist has such a hard time understanding why an RTI proponent can approach a problem with certainty as to its environmental correlates, an RTI trained practitioner does not see the value in assessing for cause or subtype; it is simply a matter of training that creates a paradigm in which practitioner's are conditioned to see their instructional environments.

While I certainly think that all school psychologist's should be experts in psychometrics and measurement, the focus of such expertise should not be on administering assessments as much as determining what are valid and reliable assessment practices for the purpose of intervention. While training approaches that have a systems based foundation are clearly linked to better outcomes for students, relying on systems content alone will not adequately prepare a practitioner for service within a comprehensive RTI model. It is clear that in these emerging models of service delivery school psychologists will have to be prepared to intervene and consult directly on instructional decisions, as well as, validly and reliably assess multiple instructional environments within school settings. In order to do this, we have to become knowledgeable about best practices in core academic areas of teaching, a focus which is not present in most training programs. One exception to this (and their are certainly others) is the Ph.D. program at the University of Oregon which requires all graduates to specialize in a core content area of intervention (math or reading). I believe that this type of subspecialization is the right way to go for training in order for school psychologists to be relevant within the broader accountability and systems change movements within education today.

Diminshed Expectations, Diminshed Outcomes

Since the re-authorization of IDEA in 1997 there has been a great deal of focus on individual student programming through goal setting, through IEP's and other standardized means. However, in practice these goals have become nothing more than procedures for case carriers and in most cases are not utilized in order to effectively drive curriculum. The Feds recognized this in 2004 when they effectively tied IDEA to NCLB, for the first time including exceptional students in the broad based accountability movement. In the past 7 years or so, the accountability measures have had little demonstrable effect on contemporary special education practice as evidenced by statistical measures that demonstrate that over 90% of all special education students will never be exited form categorical service.

So how do we correct this injustice? The former President's Commission on Special Education (2002) highlighted these issues in its report and offered broad reform recommendations focusing on general research and teacher training. The most forceful of these recommendations was for full RTI implementation........how's that working out for you California? For the most part we have addressed some of these concerns in ramping up teacher training requirements with new things like TPA'S, CBEST, CSET, and Praxis I and II. The feds created the what works clearing house to address research problems, which has had a big effect although I would argue that it hasn't yet been felt at the site level. And yet the problem still remains.

One area that has yet to be addressed has been at the practice level of special education goal writing. If IEP's are the lifeblood of the special education service model (and lord knows it has to be if parents are willing to hire David Boies in order to get one) then the goals are where the proverbial rubber meets the road. If you really want to measure effectiveness then you have to start holding case carriers responsible for the goals that they write.

We have all heard the stories of districts tha have "goal banks" in which generic goals are stored under different academic subject areas which can be cut and pasted to fit a specific child's IEP rubric. Not only is it not individualized but it doesn't take much imagination to figure out why they are not effective at remediating academic deficits. To be sure there is not a problem because children are failing to reach there goals, there is a problem because they almost certainly do. I have sat in almost a hundred IEP meetings at this point and I can count on one hand the times that a parent was notified that there child had failed to substantively meet the goals in their IEP. Almost every child meets their IEP goals yet when it comes time to share the achievement test scores or go over grades sure enough the student is still failing math or still has a delayed score in reading comprehension. Not once have I heard some one ask "if they met their goals then how come they didn't improve." The answer to that rhetorical question that I pseudo-imposed to myself is that we effectively move the goal post so that we never have to actual improve core deficits. Here are some examples of some IEP goals that I have come across just this year to back this up.

John will miss no more then 10 days of school this coming year.
John will ask clarifying questions when he doesn't know what to do on an assignment.
Cindy will copy letters of the alphabet with accuracy of 80%.
Cindy will utilize functional math skills using manipulatives.

Our fictional Cindy is a second grade student who does not yet know the alphabet and is functionally illiterate. Since alphabet mastery is a pre-first grade content standard in the state of California I am assuming that even if Cindy achieves this goal she will still be exponentially behind her grade level peers. The point is this, Cindy needed to know her letters yesterday, why not set a goal that can make some meaningful progress for her like CVC decoding. She may not reach this goal by the end of the year however, her progress towards it will leave her in a lot better place then if we were to focus on the lowest common denominator.

Non-Categorical Service Delivery

Just finished reading an older book of edited chapters titled Special Education in Transition. While the book is not exactly a staple in most training programs, it is edited and authored by some pretty big names in the school psychology reform movement (Tilly, Reschly, Ysseldyke, Grimes, Good, Shinn etc.). This was one of the first titles that I surveyed after my conversion to RTI and I have to say that while it is a bit dated, there are some pretty powerhouse chapters in it that I think are relevant to every practicing school psychologist today. The book is edited and written from the more conservative "problem solving" viewpoint of alternative service delivery and as such may turn some potential readers away at the gate. While I tend to subscribe to the standard protocol approach myself I believe that there are some valuable things that we can learn from the problem solving crowd especially as it relates to viewing educational problems through a functional lens rather then a pathological one. While early chapters on school reform and data-based decision making are certainly compelling reads with good scientific referencing, the later chapters on functional alternatives to low-incidence disabilities and transitional service planning are a bit dry.

The central premise of the volume is to create a new service delivery paradigm by which special education is delivered through a non-categorical approach, regardless of the presenting problem (i.e. traditional labels like SLD, ED, Autism, MR, etc.). While at face value this argument seems simplistic, the authors go beyond the same tried arguments against labeling (social consequences, stigma) and present a critical case for evaluating what purpose labels serve. Essentially, labels serve a diagnostic purpose by which individuals can be separated into diagnostic categories for the purposes of effective treatment. Thus educational labeling emanates from the medical model where diagnosis are used to determine which treatments or medications should be prescribed.

While this model works in medicine (i.e. a person with a cold gets a different and more effective treatment then a person who is diagnosed with heart problems), it fails in education because the treatment options in special education are essentially the same for every student. While intuitively it makes sense that a child that is diagnosed with MR should receive different educational accommodations then a student who is LD, this is most often not the case. Research clearly shows that the only thing that differs from label to label is the level of intervention intensity rather then type of intervention (Kavale & Forness, 1999). Therefore, the authors conclude that labels often are utilized by educators as convenient excuses when children with special needs fail to reach educational goals and objectives in the classroom.

The authors posit that a label is only effective if it leads clinician's to discriminate between effective treatment options, in the absence of that they are worthless and should be scuttled for less stigmatizing options. Replacing the current eligibility process with a more functional approach that views educational problems through a social discrepancy lens (child is not meeting grade level expectations within a specific academic subject) is much more conducive to effective intervention as well as less stigmatizing. I highly recommend this book to anyone who continues to argue for the merit of current categorical service models of eligibility.

Book Review: Integrating Cognitive Neuropsychology with RTI

Just finished reading Dr. Steven Feifer's book on integrating RTI with cognitive neuropsychology which is the precursor to his popular lecture series on the subject on conferences throughout the country. His assessment methodology is similar to the cognitive hypothesis testing procedures presented earlier by Hale and Fiorello (2005) although, in Feifer's model cognitive assessment is tailored more specifically to the referral concern (i.e. math or reading). He proposes that knowledge of a student's neuropsychological strengths and weaknesses will aide in both treatment and diagnostic validity. Essentially, once we know the academic deficit we then look for the cognitive correlates that are linked to the processing of that deficit to determine LD (phonological processing for reading and working memory for reading comprehension, etc.). At face value this methodology appears eerily similar to traditional intelligent testing and ipsative approaches that emphasize index and cluster score profiling. Feifer continues along this vane encouraging clinicians to administer cognitive assessments without giving any regard to full-scale scores. Despite the overwhelming evidence against such methods the model does seem to be getting a lot of attention as a welcome alternative for traditional "processing advocates" as a rejoinder to full-scale RTI assessment methods. It has also been helped by the growing popularity of the emerging school neuropsychology movement.

A couple of inconsistencies clearly stood out for me after I finished the book. The first was the reliance on the processing elements of the discrepancy model. While Dr. Feifer clearly stipulates that the traditional discrepancy model is dead, he builds his whole model around the cognitive processing elements of LD. Essentially, he claims that the model which gives us cognitive processing as a requirement for LD is dead yet a key element of that model is correct. It would seem to me that you can't have your cake and eat it to (denounce the discrepancy model in order to save face with the RTI and school reform crowd while continuing to rely on the element that has created the most confound within the discrepancy model). In fact, the problem with the discrepancy model from a scientific point of view is not necessarily the discrepancy hypothesis, as most RTI advocates would stipulate that LD kids are bound to have some form of a discrepancy between ability and achievement. At least the discrepancy model attempts to define the hallmark of LD which is "unexpected underachievement." However psychological processing is an element of the definition that was only operationalized by 7 states and has never been clearly established in the research (by the methods we use today) to enhance intervention outcomes or establish better diagnostic validity. Another shortcoming with Feifer's thesis is that while the "processing" elements of Reading are clearly established (phonological awareness and rapid naming) there is no consensus around any processing elements related to writing, reading comprehension, or math. More importantly, the author claims a comprehensive assessment using neuropsychological methodologies is needed for accurate diagnosis for eligibility after a child fails to respond to tiered intervention yet, he provides no operationalized construct for what constitutes a disability utilizing such methods. Essentially it is up to the clinician to determine which child gets an IEP based on their own interpretation of cognitive strengths and weaknesses as they relate to the referral concern. While I applaud Feifer for advocating for an RTI model of intervention before assessment, the assessment piece of the model appears to be a step back in terms of reliability.

As a whole the model never comes together as Feifer presents interventions for each academic area (i.e. Ladders to literacy and road to the code for reading) claiming that processing assessment will enhance intervention outcomes without providing a single intervention that can be tied to the assessment data he advocates for (save for the CTOPP). Essentially there is not an intervention listed that cannot be determined from giving an achievement test. Nor does Feifer present any evidence that shows that cognitive processing enhances our understanding of how children will respond to treatment.

While Feifer's book may intuitively appeal to many practitioner's because of its marketing as a "third way" between the current assessment dichotomy that exits in our field, it is nothing more then an attempt to legitimize tried pseudoscientific methods as real reform. Furthermore Feifer's methods are aimed to seduce the masses through intuition rather then science and serve as a step back in the movement towards evidence based assessment practices.

LD as a social construct

Interesting lecture that I attended at a recent conference about the philosophical construct of learning disability. Dr. Deborah Webar, a Harvard University Psychologist, presented on the social construct of LD. Namely, that in other countries throughout the world there is no such thing as LD and LD is dependant on the fact that there is some inherent expectation of academic achievement within a society. One interesting little tidbit that she presented was that almost 90% of all children did not graduate from high school a century ago in this country which really makes one think about how far we have come as a society in a relatively short amount of time (historically speaking).

While I agree with the notion that LD is inherently a social construct she lost me with here next point which is essentially that RTI makes a leaping assumption that all children can learn, should learn, and will learn, if given the right conditions. Using the above point as a backdrop she essentially went on to conclude that RTI ignores the social construction of learning and that expecting all children to learn flies in the face of evolutionary data. Look, I stipulate that it is an impossible task to get all children to achieve at some arbitrary benchmark; statistics tells us that there will always be some outliers. However, using that excuse underachievement is not defensible for an educator or a psychologist. How would you like it as a teacher or a parent if you referred your child because of reading deficits and I came back with, "you know 80 years ago being illiterate was no big deal so just give it time, we are asking your child to do something very difficult, I am sure eventually they will come around."

I will agree though with the idea that LD as a whole is a social construction. Which makes me think more and more about the validity of the concept of true LD. After all this concept didn't even exist in the literature before Samuel Kirk and Bateman identified it in the 60's (although researchers back to Galton were writing about learning difficulties). More and more I am starting to think that LD is a nebulous construct which is utilized now to define within-child, biological immovable deficits as a reason to justify why we can't intervene rather then a discrepancy for which we can ameliorate through targeted intervention. Interesting stuff to think about....and I admit that whenever you start going with the constructionist stuff eventually you turn everything on to its head so I will stop here.

ADOS

I just completed my ADOS training and was impressed by the coverage and scope of the assessment with some strong(er) technical qualities as compared to traditional measures used in autism assessment. I was really surprised at how easy it was to conceptualize in a matter of hours, I think that if you have some experience around the spectrum and you know what your looking for in diagnostic properties then it would be a worthwhile investment to pair up with the ADI-R for some really comprehensive, targeted, and ultimately reliable assessments. Drawbacks are cost (!) and some under-reported development and standardization techniques.

Interestingly while the ADOS was normed principally on a diagnosed sample, it avoids the confounding effect that is present in most rating scales that have this problem by focusing on low-threshold behaviors (Miller, 2009). Of course, there is subjectivity, but I think that can be overcome by the comprehensive training offered by WPS and if your really feeling frisky......the University of Michigan clinical training. Again, interesting stuff, really piqued my interest to explore the assessment development side of autism diagnosis, I feel it is an area that doesn't get a lot of attention.