• Teachers
• School Psychologists
• School & District Administrators
• State Departments of Education
• Researchers
• Parents

• NRCLD Home
• SLD and RTI Tools
• SLD Determination
• What is RTI?
• "How to" topics
• Changing roles of educators
• About NRCLD
• NRCLD research
• NRCLD publications
• NRCLD presentations
• NRCLD Contacts
• SLD and RTI resources

And Miles to Go...:
State SLD Requirements
and Authoritative Recommendations

Previous Page | Next Page
(SLD Beliefs) | (Discussion)

Report Text

• Introduction
• SLD Definitions and Classification Criteria
• Historical Overview
• Questioning the Ability-Achievement Discrepancy
• Recommendations for Change in SLD Definition and Classification Criteria
• State Education Agency SLD Definitions and Criteria
• Methodology
• Results
• Analysis of Discrepancy Determination Methods
• Summary of Trends
• SLD Beliefs
• Further Analyses
• Discussion
• References

Figures and Tables

• Figure 1: Distribution of State SLD Prevalence
• Table 1: Consensus Conclusions: LD Summit Follow-Up (Bradley et al., 2002)
• Table 2: Components of State Definitions and Criteria
• Table 3: Methods used to determine the discrepancy
• Table 4: LD Beliefs

Further Analyses

Additional analyses of these data are underway and additional data will be collected concerning state SLD requirements and practices. The analyses will be conducted in order to determine if systematic relationships exist between the characteristics of states, state SLD requirements, and SLD prevalence differences among states.

Table 4: LD Beliefs

	Mean	S.D.	Strongly Disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly Agree
1. Too many students are being classified as learning disabled and placed in special education.	3.86	1.09	5	10	5	53	28
2. The requirement of a processing deficit should be added to or strengthened in the LD classification criteria	3.33	1.25	10	17	27	27	20
3. Assessing general intellectual functioning should remain a crucial component of LD identification.	3.21	1.41	18	18	15	30	20
4. Students are often classified as LD so that services can be provided even though they do not have a genuine disability.	4.05	.98	3	8	5	48	38
5. The information from standardized ability tests, e.g., the WISC-III, is NOT useful in designing interventions.	3.24	1.24	8	25	20	30	18
6. Diagnosis of neuropsychological causes of learning problems is useful in intervention planning.	3.29	1.03	5	23	20	48	5
7. Effective instructional methods are largely the same for students with LD, mild MR and ED.	2.95	1.30	10	39	5	33	13
8. The effectiveness of matching teaching methods to processing strengths is strongly supported by research.	3.02	1.15	8	26	33	21	13
9. The LD field should retain the IQ-achievement discrepancy criterion as an essential part of LD eligibility determination.	2.29	1.20	35	25	20	18	3
10. LD should be identified through the exclusion factors and dual discrepancy criteria, that is, low rate of progress with good instruction and large differences in levels of achievement compared to peers.	3.64	1.06	3	18	13	50	8
11. LD classification should be based on the exclusion factors and a severe discrepancy between ability and achievement.	2.39	1.09	23	39	15	23	0
12. The LD field should move to a response to treatment criterion for eligibility (with exclusion factors) to replace the IQ-achievement criterion.	3.71	1.08	5	8	21	44	23
13. The IQ-achievement discrepancy method (with the exclusion factors) identifies the poor readers who are most likely to make significant gains in reading with remedial services.	2.46	1.00	18	36	33	10	3
14. The IQ-achievement discrepancy method (with the exclusion factors) often causes harm by delaying identification of LD to the third grade and beyond.	3.58	1.20	8	13	13	45	22
15. Early treatment of reading problems through early identification (Ktg-1st grade) is demonstrably more effective than treatment that begins at third grade or later.	4.54	.88	3	3	3	18	75
16. Intra-individual differences (scatter or inconsistent performance) are more important than inter-individual differences (differences from average levels of performance for all students) in identifying LD.	3.25	1.05	3	26	26	34	11
17. If an IQ-achievement discrepancy is used, the regression method is superior to the standard score difference method (e.g., 1 or 1.5 standard deviations difference).	3.36	1.11	5	16	30	32	16
18. Neuropsychological information is useful to determine who has a genuine learning disability rather than undifferentiated low achievement.	3.17	1.00	5	24	24	43	2
19. The current special education classification system of 13 disabilities should be simplified to three or four categories (e.g., mild disabilities, severe disabilities, sensory disabilities).	2.80	1.02	10	28	33	26	2
20. Progress monitoring (e.g., CBM) with formative evaluation (changing instructional interventions based on data that are collected frequently) should be required by law in all special education programs for students with LD.	3.63	1.34	11	8	22	24	35
21. The IQ-achievement discrepancy eligibility requirement should be retained because it is the one unique feature of LD that makes LD distinct from other disability categories.	2.12	.97	34	32	26	8	0
22. Too many minority students are being identified as LD.	3.53	1.33	5	24	16	21	34

Previous Page | Next Page
(SLD Beliefs) | (Discussion)