High standards dilemma: undergraduates with learning disabilities.

Abstract

The focus on rigor and high standards for undergraduates who wish to become teachers has created a dilemma for colleges in dealing with teacher candidates with disabilities. High stakes testing in P-12 school reform efforts now has a parallel movement in many higher education professional programs including teacher preparation programs. The accountability legislation that has impacted and raised the anxiety levels in our P-12 institutions is now impacting teacher education programs as well. A list of suggestions for instructors and institutions that has been developed from research will guide the reader in assisting candidates with disabilities who want to become teachers.

Rigor & Higher Standards

Accompanying the focus on higher standards and high stakes testing in the current nationwide (P-12) school reform efforts is a parallel movement in many higher education professional programs including teacher preparation programs. The accountability legislation that has impacted and raised the anxiety levels in our P-12 institutions has now reached higher education as well. Despite the Title II Report Card suggestion that "evidence of effectiveness beyond test scores should be included ...", results for teacher preparation programs put university faculty in the same high stakes testing and higher standards reform movement for which they are attempting to prepare their students to teach (Title II, 2000, p. 9). In addition, accreditation of professional preparation programs has also undergone revision in the past few years and one such accrediting body, the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE), has encouraged the alignment of performance-based assessment measures to include the outcomes for public school students taught by an institution's graduates (NCATE, 2001). Given the challenges college students with disabilities already face, the result of these reform efforts may have a deleterious effect on the increasing numbers of students with disabilities who are attempting to enroll, persist, and succeed in higher education settings, particularly in schools and colleges of education.

Many states are revisiting and raising their current certification requirements for initial and professional teacher certification in their efforts to ensure that today and tomorrow's teachers are well prepared to assist their students in attaining higher achievement standards. South Carolina, for example, recently redesigned and reset the cutoff scores for both teacher preparation program entry and initial teacher certification (SC DOE, 2001). These standardized, multiple-choice assessment measures present special challenges to many individuals with disabilities and those from diverse backgrounds (Gronna, Jenkins, and Chin-Chance, 1998). Incentives to reward and acknowledge highly qualified public school teachers through intensive, reflective measures such as National Board Certification programs are also becoming increasingly evident (NBPTS, 2001).

In addition to the higher stakes testing dilemma facing teacher preparation programs, many teacher preparation programs are increasing their entrance requirements as well. For example, Lander University's current requirements for admission to teacher education include: a 2.65 cumulative grade point average after 60 hours of general education requirements, a minimum grade of C in English 102, passing scores on Praxis I examination in Reading, Writing, and Mathematics, and an Oral Interview with a deadline expository writing sample. Thus, the hurdles required to enter, persist, and succeed in professional teacher preparation programs are inching up and may in the process inadvertently eliminate potential candidates in a time when education may well need more individuals who can empathize with and assist in the education of all of our children. When rigor and higher standards are coupled with accountability measures, the temptation to exclude students with disabilities may prove to be as strong for higher education as that faced by their public school counterparts.

Increasing Numbers

In the face of this dilemma is an increase in the number of students with disabilities entering institutions of higher education. The population of college bound students with learning disabilities (LD) is growing most rapidly (Gerber and Reiff 1994). Recent estimates of the numbers of individuals with a learning disability range from 5%-20% of the general population. This translates into between 5-30 million adults (Gerber and Reiff, 1994). Of college freshmen, two-fifths of the 9-10% of students with disabilities identify themselves as having a learning disability (Henderson, 1999). At Lander University, there has been over a 100% increase in enrollment of individuals with learning disabilities from the 1990-91 to the 1999-2000 academic school year (37 to 79). The greatest increase has come most recently from 1997-98 when there were 52 documented individuals to 1999-2000 when there were 79 documented individuals with learning disabilities.

Definition of Learning Disability

The field has grappled with what constitutes a learning disability and consensus on the definition appears to be ever in flux (Gregg, 1994). It is understandable, therefore, that there are still professionals as well as members of the public who do not understand what constitutes a learning disability or even believe that learning disabilities actually exist. In a recent survey of 1,200 adults asked about learning disabilities, 60% associated it with blindness, 66% with deafness, and 85% with mental retardation (Roper, 1995). Among university faculty the question of the existence of certain conditions related to learning disabilities and the appropriateness of classifying the condition as a disability are also ongoing issues. The recent court case in Massachusetts (Guckenberger v. Boston University 1997) raised questions related to definition, assessment, accountability, and accommodations (Siegel, 1999). Some of the recent decisions influenced by Sutton (Alexander v Sandoval, Olmstead v. L.C. Sutton) may undermine rights and current provisions and protections provided by Section 504 and Title II of the ADA.

Most definitions describe learning disabilities as a group of disorders that affect the ability to acquire and use listening, speaking, reading, writing, reasoning, or math skills (Gerber and Reiff, 1994; National Center for Learning Disabilities, 1997). These difficulties may vary in severity, may persist across the lifespan, and may affect one or more areas of an individual's life, including work, learning and social functioning. Federal regulations for implementing the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act use the term "specific learning disabilities" to indicate a disorder in one or more central nervous system processes involved in perceiving, understanding, and using information both verbal and nonverbal (Gerber and Reiff, 1994). Although adults with learning disabilities indicate concerns with being considered failures or slow learners (Cohn, 1998), they usually have average to above average intelligence. Adult learners with LD may face challenges in several areas in the educational arena in addition to academic concerns. Organizational skills, daily routines, and social interactions may impact the individual's ability to be successful in college. Research suggests that success is influenced by educational experiences, background, and personal characteristics (Gerber and Reiff, 1994; Greenbaum, Graham, and Scales, 1995).

Characteristics of College Students with Learning Disabilities

The major characteristic of learning disabilities is it's language-based heterogeneous nature and manner in which may affect performance. While Language-based learning disabilities are the most common type, there are other aspects that can impact college level performance. In reading and written language, time may be a critical factor in addition to commonly recognized difficulties with comprehension, word recognition, spelling, grammar, copying, vocabulary and organization of ideas. The processing of oral language may impact the ability to follow directions, express understanding or participate in class discussions and group work. In mathematics, number reversals and difficulties with spatial relationships as well as language-based problems related to comprehension and understanding of key concepts may impede performance. Issues with attention, distractibility, time management, and overall organizational skills can contribute to generalized problems irrespective of content area. Research related to sub-typing of learning disabilities suggests that some adults with learning disabilities may demonstrate strong verbal and academic skills and yet have social skills problems due to their inconsistent perceptual abilities. These individuals may have difficulty detecting the difference between sincere and sarcastic comments, be unable to recognize other subtle changes in tone of voice, or be inefficient in registering nonverbal cues in social discourse. Difficulties in interpreting nonverbal messages may contribute to difficulties in working cooperatively with others (Lerner, 2000).

Of premier importance to the college student with a learning disability is the issue of higher cut-off scores for admission to and completion of professional programs. There are two issues in relation to this: 1) the norming sample population in the development of these standardized measures; and 2) the impact of their disability on standardized test-taking performance. Since it is generally recognized that students with mild disabilities traditionally perform more poorly on standardized test measures than students without (Gronna, Jenkins, and Chin-Chance, 1998), we may find ourselves discouraging students from attempting to enter programs. Further, it may discourage many from applying in the first place since these tests serve as "gatekeepers;" placing a major hurtle at the entrance and yet another at the exit of teacher licensure programs. Current legislation does not require post-secondary institutions to compromise the essential elements of the program/course instruction, or alter content/processes that are essential to evaluation, or that directly relate to licensing requirements (Section 104.44 (c)). This then begs two questions: Do the current licensure examination requirements effectively measure the knowledge, skills and dispositions necessary for educators? And, are there other valid and reliable ways for individuals to demonstrate their qualifications? Both are difficult to answer and yet, from an ethical standpoint, ones we as professional educators need to address if the intent of the law is to be met.

Faculty and Institutional Support

Faculty attitudes about, preparedness for, and recognition of students with disabilities can play a pivotal role in their successful college completion. Surveys of college faculty indicate willingness, for the most part, in making accommodations and adaptations for students with disabilities although the level of institutional support and amount of personal experience can be key contributing factors (Vogel, Leyser, Wyland, and Brulle, 1999). Systematic, ongoing training for college faculty can greatly enhance the personal and academic success of students with disabilities in the college community (Scott and Gregg, 2000) as well as a systematic attempt to examine the methods for measuring and evaluating the kinds of knowledge we value. Several studies have indicated that there is a variety of individual and institutional practices that can increase the likelihood of success for learning with disabilities and those from diverse backgrounds (Scott and Gregg, 2000; Cohn, 1998; Greenbaum, Graham, and Scales, 1995; Brinkerhoff, 1991).

Suggestions for instructors and institutions

1. Encourage students to meet with an instructor during office hours and have students identify ways you, as a faculty member, can assist in facilitating their learning of course material.

2. Provide students with a detailed course syllabus that clearly spells out expectations (e.g., grading, material to be covered, and due dates). If possible, make it available prior to registration.

3. Start each class with an agenda of the material to be covered. At the conclusion of class, briefly summarize key points. Provide guided notes when appropriate.

4. Speak directly to students, and use gestures and natural expressions to convey further meaning--check for understanding. Pair visual and auditory cues when appropriate.

5. Present new or technical vocabulary on the overhead or blackboard. Provide a student handout. Use terms in a context to convey greater meaning.

6. Give assignments both orally and in written form to avoid confusion.

7. Announce reading assignments well in advance for students who are using taped materials. It may take up to a month to get a text tape-recorded.

8. If possible, select a textbook with an accompanying study guide and website for optional student use.

9. Provide adequate opportunities for questions and answers, including review sessions and peer tutors.

10. Allow students to tape record lectures to facilitate their note taking.

11. Provide, in advance, study questions for exams that illustrate the format, as well as the content of the test. Explain what constitutes a good answer and why.

12. If necessary, allow students with learning disabilities to demonstrate mastery of course material using alternative methods or by providing test accommodations (e.g., extended time for testing, oral exams, revised format, and flexible scheduling).

13. Permit use, when appropriate, of assistive technology devices when they will not substantially alter course requirements/purposes.

14. Encourage students to use campus support services (e.g., pre-registration, assistance in ordering taped textbooks, alternative testing arrangements, specialized study aids, peer support groups, organization and study skills, developmental courses, and tutorial assistance).

15. Use activities that address a variety of learning styles. This will benefit all of students whether or not they are classified as having a learning disability.

16. Encourage the institution to provide additional assistance to help students with disabilities prepare for high stakes standardized tests.

17. Evaluate assessment measures used in courses and for program admission/completion for potential areas of cultural, linguistic, and disability biases.

Additional Supports

There are individuals with learning disabilities who are not identified until they are adults. Instructors may observe certain discrepancies in a student's performance which may lead them to suspect a learner may have a disability e.g.: an adult learner who has average/above average ability but demonstrates unexpected underachievement; behavioral difficulties (attention, concentration, organization) which appear to interfere with learning. In addition, error patterns in reading, writing, speaking, and math may be evident. In alignment with IDEA guidelines, an evaluation by trained personnel with appropriate, culturally sensitive measures should be completed for suspected students who self identify. An individual with a learning disability who is not identified until the post-secondary level may have significant issues with self-esteem and motivation from years of internalizing negative feedback related to their ability to perform in both academic and social settings (Gregg and Ferri, 1998; Cohn, 1998). Adults with LD may also experience frustration and anger in response to academic failure, social difficulties, and the attitudes of others. Laws and accommodations "will only partially redress discrimination of persons with learning disabilities if social/emotional function" are not addressed (Gerber and Reiff 1994, p. 80). A number of institutions have provided support services that include personal counseling, social/interpersonal skills training, peer support, assistance in self-advocacy with faculty, and stress management. The need for further research in the efficacy of these services is evident (Mull, Sitlington, Alper, 2001).

Final Comments

In the face of our ever-growing need to prepare quality educators for our public schools, we need to find ways to expand the potential pool of applicants rather than restrict it. While we support the need for rigor and higher standards in professional programs, we question the need for the narrow definition that higher, gatekeeper scores on standardized test measures provide. As the growth of the population of individuals with disabilities increases in both P-12 and post-secondary programs, it appears incumbent on us as "educational professionals" to model ways to improve and measure performance for all students. While Affirmative Action has helped to address the inequity and access for many marginalized populations, those with disabilities and diverse learning needs have not been as fortunate. As Gregg and Ferri state in response to Phillip Cohn's Why Does My Stomach Hurt?, "Although it is difficult to listen to the pain of college students (with disabilities) without immediately suggesting a quick fix, it is important to be willing to learn from the voices of this population. Let us not be fooled by their masks and ignore needed cognitive and affective supports" (p. 519).

References

Bourke, A.B., Strehorn, and Silver, P. "Faculty Members' Provision of Instructional Accommodations to Students with LD" Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, no. 1, January/February 2000: 26-32.

Brinckerhoff, L.C. "College Students with Learning Disabilities" Association on Higher Education and Disability (AHEAD), Boston University: 1991.

Cohn, P. "Why Does My Stomach Hurt? How Individuals with learning Disabilities Can Use Cognitive Strategies to Reduce Anxiety and Stress at the College Level." Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, no. 5, September/October 1998, 514-516.

Gerber, P. J., and Reiff, H., Eds. Learning Disabilities in Adulthood: Persisting Problems and Evolving Issues. Stoneham, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann, 1994.

Greenbaum, B.; Graham, S.; and Scales, W. "Adults with Learning Disabilities: Educational and Social Experiences During College." Exceptional Children, 61, no. 5 March/April 1995:460-471.

Gregg, N. "Eligibility for Learning Disabilities Rehabilitation Services: Operationalizing the Definition." Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 4, 1994: 86-95.

Gregg, N. and Ferri, B.A. "Hearing Voices, Witnessing Pain: In Response to "Why Does My Stomach Hurt?" Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, no. 5, September/October 1998, 517-519.

Gronna, S.S., Jenkins, A.A., and Chin-Chance, S.A. "The Performance of Students with Disabilities in a Norm-Referenced, Statewide Standardized Testing Program." Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, no. 5, September/October 1998: 482-493.

Henderson, C. "College Freshman with Disabilities, 1999: A Biennial Statistical Profile. Statistical Year 1998" ERIC Document # ED436900.

Kerka, S. "Adults with Learning Disabilities." ERIC Digest #189, ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education: 1998. http://ericacve.olrg/docs/dig189.htm.

Lerner, J. Learning Disabilities: Theory, Research, and Practice--8th Edition, Houghton-Mifflin: 2000.

Mull, C., Sitlington, P1L., Alper, S. "Post-Secondary Education for Students with Learning Disabilities: A Synthesis of the Literature." Exceptional Children, 68, no. 1, 97-118.

National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, http://www.nbpts.org/about/news_center/facts/state_incentives.html: June 13, 2001.

National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Preparation, Professional Standards for the Accreditation of Schools, Colleges, and Departments of Education, Washington, DC: 2001. www.ncate.org.

Roper Starch Worldwide, Inc. Learning Disabilities and the American Public. Roper Starch Worldwide, Inc. 1995. ED 389 101.

Scott, S.S. and Gregg, N. "Meeting the Evolving Education Needs of Faculty in Providing Access for College Students with LD" Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, No. 2, March/April 2000, 158-167.

South Carolina Department of Education Division of Teacher Quality, "Teacher Certification Overview" 2001, http://scteachers.org/scteachers/Cert/Certification.htm.

Teacher Preparation, Accountability, and Evaluation Commission, An Opportunity to Teach: Meeting Title II Teacher Education Reporting Requirements: Manual for Institutions and States, Washington, DC: 2000. www.aascu.org.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Reference and Reporting Guide for Preparing State and Institutional Reports on the Quality of Teacher Preparation: Title II, Higher Education Act, NCES 2000-089. Washington, DC: 2000.

Vogel, S.A., Leyser, Y., Wyland, S., and Brulle, A. "Students with Learning Disabilities in Higher Education: Faculty Attitude and Practices" Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 14, no. 3, 1999:173-186

O'Connor is an Assistant Professor of Special Education and Reading in the School of Education at Lander University. Bennett is a member of NCATE' s Board of Examiners and serves as the Associate Dean of The Teachers College at Emporia State University.