Defining SLD
The most fundamental problem facing SLD remains definition. Almost from its inception, the formal SLD definition has been contentious primarily because it has failed to provide closure about "two critical elements: understanding - a clear and unobscured sense of LD - and explanation - a rational exposition of the reasons why a particular student is LD" (Kavale & Forness, 2000, p. 240). The number of alternative SLD definitions that have been proposed attests to the enduring problem of finding a single statement describing the SLD condition. The primary objection to the present SLD definition is its inherent vagueness and concomitant lack of rigor when implemented in practice.
In discussions of the RTI model, it is suggested that one purpose is to "redefine" SLD but, in reality, SLD is not being redefined but rather re-operationalized. Since the pending reauthorization of IDEA does not include any change in the formal SLD definition, there is technically no "redefining." Instead, a new operational definition is being proposed to supplant the "discrepancy" concept in the long-standing operational definition of SLD.
The reluctance to change the SLD definition seems curious in light of 35 years of debate about its merits. Because formal definition changes must precede and be the foundation for operational clarifications, a rationale for not changing the formal definition seems necessary. The fields of MR and ED provide precedence for changing formal definitions. It, therefore, seems indefensible not to change the formal SLD definition in the face of profound changes being proposed for practice. If the definition of SLD is not to change, then perhaps closer adherence to what is actually stipulated in the definition might be warranted. One notion clearly articulated in the SLD definition is the presence of "disorder in the basic psychological processes." Although a critical definitional feature of SLD, process deficits have been generally ignored in the identification process (Torgesen, 1979). At best, the RTI model can only infer that a process deficit exists and, without direct assessment, there is no way to determine if a student may possess SLD as currently conceptualized (Torgesen, 2002). With modern theories about the importance of processing skills replacing outdated processing views (e.g., perceptual-motor) that were implicit in the SLD concept when first proposed, it becomes critical to re-emphasize process deficits in an operational definition of SLD (e.g., Swanson & Alexander, 1997; Hoskyn & Swanson, 2000).
Previous Page | Next Page
(Introduction) | (SLD Parameters)
