Alternatives to the Traditional LD Definition and Severe Discrepancy

Alternatives to current LD practices have been advocated by several groups and professional associations in the last 5 years. These alternatives are described with particular emphasis on the most plausible alternative in current thought, response to intervention (RTI).

Change the LD Definition. Alternative LD definitions that do not emphasize ephemeral, underlying processes have been developed and should be considered. The 1988 LD definition by the National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities is an example (Hammill, 1990). Although this definition has controversial elements, it clearly illustrates the development of an LD definition that is not framed in terms of discredited cognitive processes.

"Learning disabilities is a general term that refers to a heterogeneous group of disorders manifested by significant difficulties in the acquisition and use of listening, speaking, reading, writing, reasoning, or mathematical abilities. These disorders are intrinsic to the individual, presumed to be due to central nervous system dysfunction, and may occur across the life span. Problems in self-regulatory behaviors, social perception, and social interaction may exist with learning disabilities but do not by themselves constitute a learning disability. Although learning disabilities may occur concomitantly with other handicapping conditions (for example, sensory impairment, mental retardation, serious emotional disturbance) or with extrinsic influences (such as cultural differences, insufficient or inappropriate instruction), they are not the result of those conditions or influences." (Hammill, 1990, pp. 77)

Reconceptualize Disability and Learning Disability. The National Academy of Sciences Panel on Minority Overrepresentation considered the evidence for the traditional LD diagnostic construct and classification criteria, concluding that significant changes were needed in order to prevent harm to minority children and enhance the likelihood of effective general and special education interventions (Donovan & Cross, 2002). A key recommendation was to adopt a non-categorical approach to high incidence disabilities OR to change the criteria for LD. The LD researchers and the LD Roundtable participants also suggested changing the LD classification criteria (Bradley, et al., 2002, p. 791-806).

Alternative LD Classification Criteria. The alternative classification criteria focus on response to intervention (RTI); hence, the focus of this conference on RTI. The RTI criteria have the general requirements of multi-tiered interventions (See Tables 1 & 2) (Donovan & Cross, 2002). Children and youth would become eligible for special education through a multiple gating process that depends on 3 or 4 intervention tiers depending on how special and general education are defined. Tables 1 and 2 define the multiple tiers for academic achievement and behavior problems.

---

Table 1. Multi-tiered Academic Interventions

Academics: The tiers involve empirically-validated instruction, with tiers differentiated by intensity and measurement precision

Tiers	Treatment	Students
General Education	Instruction in general classrooms	All students
Standard Protocol Treatments	Small group tutoring (3-5 students)	About 20% of students at any time; groups of 3-5
Problem Solving	Individualized interventions in general education, intensive methods	About 5% of students at any time
Special Education IEP-based	Intensive instruction treatments, measured precisely with formative evaluation	About 12% of students over time across all disabilities

---

Table 2. Multi-tiered Behavioral Interventions

Behavior: The tiers involve empirically-validated behavioral interventions, with tiers differentiated by intensity and measurement precision

Tiers	Treatment	Students
General Education	School-wide Positive Behavior Supports	All students
Standard Protocol Treatments	Effective classroom organization and behavior management	All Students-Selective interventions with teachers depending on needs
Problem Solving	Targeted individual interventions in general education	About 5% of students at any time
Special Education IEP-based	Intensive instruction treatments, measured precisely with formative evaluation	About 12% of students over time across all disabilities

---

Figure 1: NRC Multi-tiered Interventions (Figure adapted from Heartland AEA Program Manual, 2002).

---

Eligibility. The criteria for LD eligibility recommended by the National Academy of Sciences Panel would incorporate these elements (Donovan & Cross, 2002):

1. Demonstration of large differences between the child's performance and the performance of like age peers using local, state, and/or national norms in relevant domains (academic achievement, social/behavioral skills, and emotional regulation) using direct measures of performance in the natural setting, plus
2. Insufficient response to high quality instructional and behavioral interventions over multiple tiers that are differentiated by increasing intensity and measurement precision, and
3. Documented adverse impact on educational performance and
4. Documented need for special education (specially designed instruction) and/or related services in order for the child to obtain an appropriate education.
5. Exit criteria defined in terms of targets for improved performance.
6. Application of exclusion factors including screening for mental retardation (MR), emotional disturbance (ED), speech language disorders and other disabilities through screening measures or short-form assessments.

Previous Page | Next Page
(Unscientific Policies & Practices) | (Implications)