Alternative Approaches to the Definition and Identification of Learning Disabilities: Some Questions and Answers

Annals of Dyslexia, Dec 2004 by Fletcher, Jack M, Coulter, W Alan, Reschly, Daniel J, Vaughn, Sharon

Recent consensus reports concur in suggesting major changes in the federal regulatory approach to the identification of learning disabilities (LD). These reports recommend abandoning the IQ-discrepancy model and the use of IQ tests for identification, and also recommend incorporation of response to instruction (RTI) as one of the identification criteria. These changes are also recommended to states in the current reauthorization of the U.S. Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA). While not mandatory, states that follow these recommendations will experience major changes in identification and treatment of students served under the LD category. This paper reviews the basis for these recommendations, summarizing four recent consensus group reports on special education that concur in suggesting these changes. Seventeen commonly asked questions about these changes are presented, with responses. In order to ensure adequate instruction for students with LD, it is essential that identification practices focus on assessments that are directly related to instruction, that any services for students who are struggling prioritize intervention over eligibility, and that special education be permitted to focus more on results and outcomes and less on eligibility and process. Identification models that incorporate RTI represent a shift in special education toward the goals of better achievement and behavioral outcomes for students identified with LD, as well as those students at risk for LD.

In the past few years, increasing concern has been expressed in the United States about common definitions and procedures for identifying students with learning disabilities (LD). These concerns involve all four components of most definitions of LD, including the federal definition recommended in 1977 to states by the United States Office of Education (USOE, 1977). Three of these components-discrepancy, heterogeneity, and exclusioncan be found in the 1977 federal definition. Discrepancy in most definitions is indicated by the presence of a difference between aptitude and achievement, represented in the federal regulatory definition as a severe discrepancy between IQ and achievement test scores. Heterogeneity represents the multiple domains in which LD occurs: seven in the 1977 federal definition, including various disorders of reading, math, written expression, and language. The exclusion component reflects the orientation that LD should not be identified if the primary cause involves a sensory disorder, mental deficiency, emotional disturbance, economic disadvantage, linguistic diversity, or inadequate instruction. In addition, these three components-discrepancy, heterogeneity, and exclusion-are the basis for the fourth component of most definitions, the belief that LD is due to constitutional factors intrinsic to the student. Thus, a student who meets the criteria stemming from the first three components is presumed to have an achievement problem that is due to neurobiological factors. These components, which have served as the foundation for identifying students with LD since the inception of the construct, resulted from a general agreement that this was the best way to proceed, considering the lack of empirical evidence. These components of most definitions continue to prevail despite the emergence of a significant evidence base that suggests problems and alternatives to this consensus.

In the United States, recent efforts at educational reform have focused on the notion of accountability for results and the implementation of evidence-based instructional approaches. These efforts have specifically targeted improving reading instruction, reflecting the accumulation of research on how children learn to read and how to assist struggling readers. The impetus for reform and the emphasis on reading have multiple sources, the most salient being stagnant gains on different national and international assessments over the past 20 years. Of significant concern was the failure of schools to close the gap between achievement scores of economically advantaged, primarily nonminority students, and economically disadvantaged, predominantly minority students. These concerns eventuated in the reauthorization of the Elementary and secondary Education Act, or the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Public Law 107-110 (NCLB, 2002). Fundamental to NCLB is Reading First, which requires the implementation of approaches to reading instruction supported by scientifically based reading research documented in multiple consensus reports such as the 1998 National Research Council's Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998), the report of the National Research Panel (2000), and a report on reading comprehension by the RAND Reading Study Group (2002).

These same issues are affecting the major piece of special education legislation in the United States, the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA), which is presently being considered for reauthorization by Congress. This reauthorization was preceded by four consensus reports on special education: the National Research Council report on minority overrepresentation in special education (Donovan & Cross, 2002), a report entitled Rethinking Special Education by the Fordham Foundation and the Progressive Policy Institute (Finn, Rotherham, & Hokansen, 2001), the Learning Disabilities Summit by the U.S. Office of Special Education Programs (Bradley, Danielson, & Hallahan, 2002), and the President's Commission on Excellence in Special Education (2002). Each of these reports was significantly influenced by reading research as well as research on the classification and identification of individuals with LD. All four reports suggested that the number of individuals identified with LD could be reduced if more effective reading instruction was in place, noting that many students placed in special education may not have received adequate instruction in general education. This lack of adequate instruction within general education also helps explain the disproportionate representation of minorities in special education. These reports also observed that current regulations for the identification of LD lacked a research base and constituted obstacles to the implementation of better instructional approaches for students with disabilities. Thus, in the reauthorization of IDEA, bills under consideration in both the House and Senate loosen the grip of the U.S. federal regulatory definition of LD, allowing states options for a) not using IQdiscrepancy or even not giving IQ tests as part of a standard identification process, and b) allowing states to include response to instruction (RTI) criteria as part of the identification process.