• 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
(Analysis) | (SLD Beliefs)

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

Summary of Trends

Although some trends are apparent, it is our impression that relatively little has changed regarding SLD classification requirements since the Mercer et al survey (1996). First, there is a clear trend toward adoption of the Federal SLD definition. Since 1994 the number of states adopting the SLD definition that appears in Federal regulations grew from 24 to 34, and the number of states with unique definitions declined from 15 to 9. There is virtual unanimity in the areas of eligibility, i.e., the areas that may be discrepant from ability. All states recognize the same basic areas with only a few states adding additional areas such as spelling. In addition to increasing agreement on definition and areas of eligibility, there is virtual unanimity on the exclusion factors associated with SLD eligibility. There fundamental agreement on SLD definition, achievement areas that might be affected, and exclusion factors.

Table 3: Methods used to determine the discrepancy

Standard Scores N=3	Georgia	Magnitude 20
	Nebraska	Magnitude 20
	North Carolina	Magnitude 15
Standard Deviations N=7	California	SD 1.5 + 1 SEM
	Florida	SD 1 or 1.5
	Hawaii	SD 1.5
	Minnesota	SD 1.75
	Missouri	SD 1.5
	Mississippi	SD 1.0
	Texas	SD 1.0
Regressed IQ w/ Standard Score Discrepancy N=3	Idaho	Magnitude 1.5 SD
	Vermont	Magnitude 1.5 SD
	Maryland	1.5 SD below the educ. expectancy, M=100, SD 15
Percentage Discrep.	New York	50%-not used in a strict quantitative manner
Standard Score Between Academic Areas	Louisiana	SD .5 (grades K-2) SD 1 (grades 3-12)
Regression Prediction Formula N=14	AL, AR, CO, CT, DE, MT, NV, SD, TN, UT, WA, WV, WI, WY
True Score Formula or Deviation N=1	Kentucky
Statistical Formula	New Jersey	LEAs required to use a statistical formula of their own choosing
Professional Judgment of a Team only N=5	IN, IA, KS, NH, ND
Not stated how operationalized N=14	AK, AZ, IL, ME, MA, MI, NM, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, VA

Similar to Mercer et al (1996), there appears to be wide variation in the methods used to determine and the criteria for a severe discrepancy between intellectual ability and achievement. Nearly all states require a discrepancy; however, there is little agreement beyond that basic requirement. If there are significant trends in discrepancy determination, considering the complexity of this information and the difficulty in categorizing different state methods accurately, they are the following:

• Reduced use of clearly inadequate means of determining the discrepancy such as Wechsler Verbal-Performance IQ differences and grade equivalent differences.
• Slight increase in use of relatively objective procedures to determine the discrepancy and to evaluate the severity of its magnitude. Regression methods are used more frequently than simple differences stated in terms of standard score points or in standard deviation units
• Continued existence of a substantial number of states that provide clearly inadequate guidance to LEAs on discrepancy determination and magnitude.

In view of the many differences, it is not surprising that SLD prevalence varies by a factor of over three times, comparing the lowest to the highest prevalence states. The practical effect of these variations is to make difficult if not impossible comparisons of students with SLD across different LEAs or SEAs or to expect consistency across various jurisdictions in SLD eligibility determination.

A major issue in view of the severe criticism of the IQ-achievement discrepancy method of determining eligibility is the likelihood of changes by the states regarding eligibility criteria. The survey data indicated that many states had made changes and that many other states are anticipating changes in the future. The key issue is the direction of those changes.

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