Ruth Colker
Distinguished University Professor
Moritz College of Law
The Ohio State University

Need Inclusionary rather than Exclusionary
Approach
Various Factors
that cause dyslexia
Various factors
that could
cause poor
reading other
than dyslexia

“For unto every one
that hath shall be
given, and he shall
have abundance: but
from him that hath
not shall be taken
away even that which
he hath.”

No Child Left
Behind
◦ Achievement
approach

Individuals
with
Disabilities
Education Act
◦ Disability
approach

Child A:

Child B:

Child C:

Child D:
◦ 85 Reading Achievement Score
◦ 100 Aptitude Score
◦ 85 Reading Achievement Score
◦ 95 Aptitude Score
◦ Without intervention, reading might decline to 80 by Fourth Grade
◦ 85 Reading Achievement Score
◦ 90 Aptitude Score
◦ Without intervention, might also decline to 80 by Fourth Grade
◦ 95 Reading Achievement Score
◦ 110 Aptitude Score
◦ Moves to School District that uses “RTI” approach – no longer
qualifies for any intervention


1887: Professor Berlin coined term “dyslexia”
1895: Also called “word blindness”
◦ Different from “alexia,” the utter inability to read



1904: Dyslexic child responded well to
intervention
1965 Definition: Emphasized “educationally
significant discrepancy between their estimated
intellectual potential and actual level of
performance”
1975 Isle of Wight Study by Rutter and Yule: lent
support to discrepancy definition
◦ But others have not been able to replicate those results
Reading Ability
Spelling
Math-Arithmetic
Reading
Backward Group
9 years 4
months
8 years 6
months
19
Specific Reading
Retardation
Group
8 years 10
months
7 years 10
months
15.5

“It may be that the two groups of poor
readers require different remedial
approaches. This possibility requires study
and such study might lead to more effective
remedial procedures. Whether or not this
happens, it seems clear on the basis of
present evidence that all those concerned
with children’s reading skills will have to pay
closer attention to the differentiation between
general reading backwardness and specific
reading retardation.”


Verbal scale on IQ test often measures skills
developed through reading, so IQ and
achievement are not independent measures
Large-scale studies have not been able to
replicate Rutter and Yule and some
researchers have actually attained opposite
results (for children in category D)
◦ Rutter responded in 1989, noting that “it remains
uncertain whether the reading processes per se in
[IQ-discrepant group] differ from those in [IQconsistent group].”

Lack of consistency between states




IQ testing is a waste of money
IQ testing is not useful in determining who
should receive assistance as learning disabled
A move away from the discrepancy model
should result in earlier, not later, intervention
A model that replaces the discrepancy model
should be less rather than more subjective




(1) Students receive high-quality researchbased instruction in their general education
environment,
(2) Continuous monitoring of student
performance in comparison with peers,
(3) All students are screened for academic
and behavioral problems; and
(4) Multiple levels (tiers) of instruction that
are progressively more intense, based on the
student’s response to intervention

Still need IQ testing to rule out cognitive
impairment
◦ Even need IQ (arguably) to design effective remediation

RTI intervention is not individualized and
therefore not likely to help students with LD
◦ Even more delays and few students ultimately identified
◦ “Watch them fail” rather than “wait and fail”

RTI is actually more subjective with every school
district having a different approach
◦ Who are peers?
◦ What is a science-based response?
Control
Discrepancy
Definition
and High
IQs
Discrepancy
Definition
and Average
IQs
Poor Readers
but did not
meet
Discrepancy
Definition
Second
Grade
Reading
114
92
79
85
Fifth Grade
Reading
111
96
89
87

Directly measure:
◦ Components of the reading process, such as word
recognition, fluency and comprehension
◦ Components of word recognition difficulties, such
as phonological awareness, rapid naming,
phonological (working) memory and vocabulary

Crucial to reach children before second grade
◦ Typical reading readiness tests from 1970s and
1980s had a predictive validity close to zero!
◦ Do we have those tools?

Fundamental normative questions raised by
this research:
◦ Who do we want to help with federal/state
assistance?
 Only children scoring below grade level?
 Primarily children whose deficits are a result of a
disability?

Should we get rid of the Learning Disability
category and address all these problems with
No Child Left Behind?