Introduction
What if the identification of children with learning disabilities (LD) reflected research results over the last 25 years? What are the probable consequences of changes? Will children profit from the changes? Can professionals acquire the new skill sets involved with changes in LD identification and how will these changes affect job roles, satisfaction, and time allocations? Will LD continue as a viable diagnostic construct and will the infrastructure for services to children with significant achievement problems be enhanced or diminished?
Overview
Consequences of LD changes depend heavily, first, on what kinds of changes and, then, the support/incentives for professionals to acquire additional skill sets and, finally, on the results for children compared to current practices. That was easy. The rest of this paper will address (a) the general principles underlying possible changes, (b) the current conditions in LD policies, practices, and prevalence, (c) the alternatives to current practices, and (d) the supports needed for successful change. LD changes are not inevitable. It is not inconceivable that the current fundamentally flawed definitions, classification criteria, and interventions will prevail 25 years from now. In the interests of children, I believe the field needs to move expeditiously toward policies and practices that support effective interventions for children with achievement problems.
Before discussing changes and, in doing so, alienating about half of this audience, let me suggest a common ground for these discussions. First, all studies that I have read or conducted on children and youth with LD confirms virtually without any exceptions that all have significant achievement problems. The extreme LD critics on the politically left and right are wrong. There is an important reality represented by the 2.8 million children with LD in U.S. schools. There is no "fraud" in LD. On that I believe most will agree.
Underlying Principles for Change
I hope we can establish two additional areas of common agreement. Two principles should drive our decisions about changes in LD identification. First, scientific evidence should drive change in LD identification. Admittedly, research evidence always is an approximation to truth, representing conclusions with the most support given the current state of knowledge. Despite these limitations, I believe traditional tenets of western science and logical positivism are the best tools to determine LD identification and practices. Second, and this may be somewhat more controversial, change should be driven by an outcomes criterion (Reschly, 1979; Reschly & Ysseldyke, 2002). Simply stated, the outcomes criterion emphasizes the relationships between what we do in screening, diagnosis, classification, and intervention to identifiable results for children and youth. Practices clearly related to positive results should be expanded and those with weak or non-existent relationships to results should be avoided and abandoned.
The outcomes criterion is atheoretical and pragmatic. Any practice within ethical boundaries is acceptable if it produces significant benefits to students. Many other pragmatic criteria apply as well such as cost effectiveness. If these criteria are applied to LD, I believe that significant changes in screening, diagnosis, classification and intervention will occur in the next decade. If you agree with these 2 principles to guide decisions about the future, I think you will support changes in LD identification including definition and classification criteria.
Where are we now?
The most vulnerable feature in modern special education for persons with high incidence disabilities is insufficient documentation of positive benefits to children and youth. This is not a new problem, but it is an increasingly crucial challenge in the context of expanding federal and state accountability demands. The failure to document positive special education outcomes had a profound effect on overrepresentation litigation in the 1970-2000 period (Donovan & Cross, 2002; Reschly, Kicklighter, & McKee, 1998, Reschly & Bersoff, 1999) and continues to markedly influence OCR compliance monitoring and special education policy (IDEA, 1997, 1999 see 34 C.F.R. 300-755). Moreover, when positive outcomes are documented in LD, the magnitude is modest (Kavale & Forness, 1999, see pp. 1006-1008). The LD outcomes problem is unacceptable because many effective practices are not implemented routinely or widely (e.g., Gersten, Vaughn, Deshler, & Schiller; 1997). Outcomes will be better if changes in LD identification supported implementation of effective interventions.
Previous Page | Next Page
(Table of contents) | (Unscientific Policies & Practices)
