{"id":2016,"date":"2020-07-17T16:20:00","date_gmt":"2020-07-17T22:20:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ldanc.org\/?p=2016"},"modified":"2023-03-06T17:50:17","modified_gmt":"2023-03-06T23:50:17","slug":"current-advocacy-issues","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ldanc.org\/current-advocacy-issues\/","title":{"rendered":"Current Advocacy Issues"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Changes to the NC Policies on SLD Eligibility and SLD Evaluations<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

In February 2016 the North Carolina State Board of Education approved changes<\/a> to the North Carolina regulations (the NC Policies) pertaining to Specific Learning Disabilities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\u00a0approved changes<\/a>\u00a0become effective immediately upon a Local Education Agency (LEA) completing NC DPI\u2019s Intent to Implement document, and no later for all remaining LEA\u2019s by July 1, 2020.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

LDA-NC Opposes the Changes<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

LDA-NC opposes these changes and has filed two complaints to the U.S.Department of Education on behalf of children with learning disabilities.  We believe:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

(1) the changes violate the civil rights of students with learning disabilities because now schools use different benchmarks (depending on a student\u2019s cultural and linguistic peer group, classroom or school) to determine if that student is underachieving academically (academic underachievement is the first test in deciding if a LD student is eligible for special education);<\/p>\n\n\n\n

(2) the changes do not conform to the federal law and regulations including North Carolina\u2019s new definition of Specific Learning Disability;<\/p>\n\n\n\n

(3)  the changes prohibit a psychological evaluation as part of a comprehensive evaluation for a specific learning disability unless an intellectual disability is suspected<\/a>;<\/p>\n\n\n\n

(4) the changes remove from the SLD eligibility criteria the patterns of strengths and weaknesses method criterion; and<\/p>\n\n\n\n

(5) the changes make Response-to-Intervention (RtI) the sole method of determining eligibility for special education in the category of specific learning disabilities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

(These concerns are discussed in more detail below.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Changes<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The changes were first proposed by NC Department of Public Instruction (NC DPI) to the State Board of Education in\u00a0February 2015<\/a>. \u00a0From the beginning LDA-NC opposed the proposed changes; in\u00a0March 2015<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0January 2016<\/a>\u00a0LDA-NC submitted comments urging the State Board to not adopt the changes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On February 4, 2016 the NC State Board of Education adopted the changes to the NC Policies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In February 2016 NC DPI published a\u00a0version of the approved changes that shows which sections of the NC Policies are changed<\/a>. \u00a0Among many other problems, the approved changes remove an \u201ceducational evaluation, including nationally normed and criterion-referenced assessments, as appropriate when using RtI; and\u00a0 [a]\u00a0 Psychological evaluation, to include an intellectual evaluation, as appropriate when using RtI,\u201d from the list of assessments to be done as part of a comprehensive evaluation for SLD (see pages 75 and 76).\u00a0\u00a0 The approved changes also make Response to Intervention the sole method of evaluation and eligibility for special education in the category of SLD (see pages 74, 76 \u2013 78).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

LDA-NC\u2019s Complaint to OSEP<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

On\u00a0May 5, 2016, LDA-NC filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs<\/a>\u00a0(OSEP);\u00a0 the complaint maintains that the changes to the NC Policies do not conform to the federal special education law (IDEA). The complaint was followed-up with a second letter to OSEP on June 1, 2016 which included a copy of all the\u00a0Public Comments<\/a>\u00a0submitted to NC DPI about the proposed changes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As of April 1, 2017, LDA-NC has not received any response from OSEP.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Civil Rights Complaint<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

On\u00a0June 1, 2016, LDA-NC filed a separate complaint with the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights\u00a0<\/a>(OCR), which avows that one specific provision of the changes violates the civil rights of children in North Carolina because it instructs schools to use different eligibility standards for students depending on their peer or cultural group. \u00a0OCR twice requested additional information from LDA-NC; LDA-NC responded to these requests on\u00a0September 27, 2016<\/a>\u00a0and on\u00a0October 24, 2016<\/a>. LDA\u2019-NC\u2019s second response explains how the changes are racially discriminatory:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cNorth Carolina\u2019s new regulations will now use a child\u2019s race and ethnicity to determine which academic yardstick will be used to measure a child\u2019s academic performance.  If the child is African-America or Hispanic, the child\u2019s academic achievement will no longer be compared to \u201cstate standards\/benchmarks\u201d, but will be measured by an \u201cAfrican-American\u201d or \u201cHispanic\u201d yardstick, or as in the words of North Carolina\u2019s new regulations, a child will be compared to \u201cculturally and linguistically similar peers, classroom and\/or school.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

In determining whether the academic achievement level of a child is inadequate, and thus if that child is eligible for special education, North Carolina will now use different academic standards for different \u201ccultural groups.\u201d  A school will decide whether a child does not achieve adequately not by asking \u201cIs the child is able to achieve State-approved grade-level standards?\u201d  but instead the school will ask \u201cIs the child able to achieve at the same level as his culturally and linguistically similar peers, classroom and\/or school?\u201d\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As of April 1, 2017, LDA-NC has not had additional communication with OCR.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Changes to the North Carolina Definition of a Specific Learning Disability<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The NC Policies changes redefine Specific Learning Disability so that the North Carolina definition no longer conforms to the federal definition.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The federal definition of a Specific Learning Disability is:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cSpecific learning disability means a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological<\/strong> processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, that may manifest itself in the imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or to do mathematical calculations, including conditions such as perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia.\u201d  [34 CFR Section 300.8(c)(10)(i)] (Emphasis added.)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The new North Carolina definition of Specific Learning Disability is:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

SLD \u201cMeans a disability in one or more of the basic processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, that may manifest itself in the impaired ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or to do mathematical calculations.  The disability substantially limits academic achievement so that the child does not learn at an adequate rate when provided sustained, high quality instruction and scientific research-based intervention. Alternate terms may include, but are not limited to, dyslexia and dyscalculia.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The new NC definition fails to recognize that a SLD is a cognitive processing disorder that impacts \u201cbasic psychological processes.\u201d  It also conflates the effect of a SLD, substantially limited academic achievement, with the cause which is the disorder.  It also adds Response-to-Intervention to the definition.  Lastly, it erroneously lists \u201cdyslexia\u201d and \u201cdyscalculia\u201d as \u201calternate terms\u201d of SLD when instead they are types of Specific Learning Disabilities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Changes to the North Carolina Requirements of a SLD Comprehensive Evaluation<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Prohibition of a Psychological Evaluation<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The changes to the NC Policies remove from the list of assessments to be done as part of \u201ccomprehensive evaluation\u201d for a SLD a \u201cpsychological evaluation, to include an intellectual evaluation.\u201d (Intellectual evaluations are also called cognitive assessments or evaluations, and sometimes called IQ Tests.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The prior NC Policies required a psychological\/intellectual evaluation as part of a comprehensive evaluation; this identified, through interpretation of the IQ sub-test scores, a student\u2019s cognitive strengths and weaknesses.  With this information psychologists and educators could ascertain how a student will learn and develop an education plan that met the needs of the student.  Without a cognitive assessment teachers can not know WHY a student is having trouble learning.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Is a Psychological Evaluation ever permitted as part of a SLD Comprehensive Evaluation?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yes, when it is suspected that the reason for a student\u2019s low academic achievement is due to a cognitive impairment (that is low IQ).  Otherwise, a psychological evaluation will not be part of a SLD Comprehensive Evaluation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In\u00a0October 2016 NC DPI issued an Information Sheet<\/a>\u00a0which may lead parents to believe that every child who has a comprehensive evaluation for a SLD will have as part of that evaluation a cognitive assessment:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cThe use of cognitive assessments as part of a full and individual evaluation of students suspected of a learning disability is not prohibited.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

This statement by NC DPI provides incomplete information; under the changes a cognitive assessment<\/strong> is not prohibited, but it is only permitted when an intellectual disability (that is a low IQ) is suspected<\/strong> as the cause of the child\u2019s learning issues.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In\u00a0April 2015 NC DPI issued a White Paper<\/a>\u00a0on the proposed changes which makes it clear:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cIf information suggests an intellectual disability, then, and only then, are cognitive ability measures relevant to educational decision making administered.\u201d  (Emphasis added.) See page 7.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

So, as before the changes, parents can still request that their child have a \u201ccomprehensive evaluation\u201d for a Specific Learning Disability, But, a psychological evaluation, including a cognitive assessment, is only permitted when an intellectual disability (that is low-IQ) is suspected.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

North Carolina has made Response-to-Intervention the Sole Method of Identifying a Specific Learning Disability<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The NC Policies changes remove from the SLD eligibility requirements the \u201cstrengths and weaknesses\u201d method for identifying students with SLD.  What remains as the sole method for identifying students with SLD is Response to Intervention (RtI).  But, RtI is not a diagnostic assessment; rather it is a general education initiative.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

NC DPI\u2019s Implementation of the Changes<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

On\u00a0August 30, 2016 William J. Hussey, Director of Exceptional Children\u2019s Programs at NC DPI sent a memo<\/a>\u00a0to the school districts regarding implementation of the changes. \u00a0On\u00a0September 23, 2016, LDA-NC asked Mr. Hussey for a list of the school districts<\/a>\u00a0which have submitted an Intent to Implement. \u00a0On\u00a0September 29, 2016 Mr. Hussey<\/a>\u00a0responded that he does not have this information.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

U.S. Department of Education Responds<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\u00a0U.S. Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights, on June 9, 2017 responded to LDA-NC\u2019s complaint, and dismissed the complaint<\/a>. \u00a0The\u00a0U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services in a letter dated August 22, 2017 responded to LDA-NC\u2019s letter of concern.<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Additional Documents<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Mishkin, Benjamin, NC High School Teacher, April 26, 2015<\/a>, letter to the North Carolina State Board of Education expressing concerns with the proposed SLD changes<\/p>\n\n\n\n

North Carolina\u00a0Council on Educational Services for Exceptional Children, January 2016 Statement<\/a>\u00a0to the State Board of Education on the proposed changes to the NC Policies.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Changes to the NC Policies on SLD Eligibility and SLD Evaluations In February 2016 the North Carolina State Board of Education approved changes to the North Carolina regulations (the NC Policies) pertaining to Specific Learning Disabilities. The\u00a0approved changes\u00a0become effective immediately upon a Local Education Agency (LEA) completing NC DPI\u2019s Intent to Implement document, and no later for […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":2014,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[74],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ldanc.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2016"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ldanc.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ldanc.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ldanc.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ldanc.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2016"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/ldanc.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2016\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2017,"href":"https:\/\/ldanc.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2016\/revisions\/2017"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ldanc.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2014"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ldanc.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2016"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ldanc.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2016"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ldanc.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2016"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}