True Disability There Has Been

True Disability

There has been a great deal of speculation as to whether or not students who have been identified with a learning disability are truly disabled or are they simply low achievers, non-English speakers, or possibly victims of poor reading and math instruction. Kaufman, Hallahan and Wills (1998) in their article, "Politics science and the future of learning disabilities" posit that advocacy for those labeled as learning disabled has taken on a more political position than a scientific one, while readily acknowledging that there have been some advancements in the field but not to the level that has significantly informed the research and as such affected real change for the students. Further, the writers acknowledge that in order for real advancement to transpire within learning disability, there must be consistent, persistent, careful and systematic empirical research completed (Hallahan, Kauffman & Lloyd, 1999).

This component is deemed important because in the Kaufman, Hallahan and Wills opinion, and others within the educational system, learning disability as a descriptor has taken on a wide reaching and overarching meaning that clouds the issue and makes it difficult to determine what students are truly learning disable and those who may have fallen or been placed in that category for any number of reasons.

Kaufman, Hallahan and Willis acknowledge that advocacy on behalf of the millions of children labeled as learning disabled is important because in the absence of this kind of advocacy, these children would not have access to the educational services prescribed as a result of their educational classification. What seems to be the focus of their argument, however, is that truly determining whether a student is indeed learning disability cannot be lost in the political positioning because in the end, the students those properly classified and those who are not, are the ones who suffer in the end. What serves to complicate this issue is the fact or posited opinion that there is no clear reliable and consistent method of diagnosis universally applied in determining whether or not a student is truly learning disabled.

There is no unified decision amongst the experts as to the best possible way to arrive at proper diagnosis, which leaves the issue open to political pundits. At present, the only kind of routine and systematically applied diagnosis comes from student response and as such many are misclassified. This creates increased difficulty in for example, students who have poor comprehension as well as those who may be second language English learners. If a child already struggles academically for reasons that may not be a true learning disability, they will struggle in their responsiveness and resultantly be classified as learning disabled, in many instances.

Confusion in whether a child is mentally retarded; scoring low in most if not all subject matter and response to what is determined to be adequate instruction; students who perform poorly in significant areas but show appropriate or acceptable scores in others, are often classified as learning disabled. But is that really the case? Kaufman, Hallahan and Wills argue that because etiology cannot truly be ascertained by the methodology most commonly employed to make the decision regarding a child's educational classification, then confusion in classification is the end result. Moreover, what is deemed acceptable performance? Once again, this mile marker is not universally applied as there are inconsistencies in determining what acceptable truly is.

Gresham, MacMillan and Bocian (1996) in their study showed differentiation in the results from those subjects who were learning disabled vs. those classified as mildly mentally retarded and those classified as low achievers. The study purportedly supports other similar empirical findings posited by noted researchers in the field. According to researchers, the purpose of their investigation was to show the difference between participants that were classified as mildly mentally retarded, low achievers and those classified as learning disabled in an effort to determining if there are commonalities or overlap and how this impacts social and educational functioning.

The study included 152 students in three elementary grades (2nd, 3rd and 4th) that were referred for assistance within various school districts in southern California. Nearly 40% of the participants were female and purportedly various ethnicities were represented. Random stratification was utilized as a means of determining how the participants would be divided in the study. Various intelligence tests were used in determining what groups the students would fall within. There were a number of dependent variables that the participants were compared on including social skills, academic achievement, problem behaviors, and school history to name a few. Overall, the study was considered reliable, valid and generalizable because of the method in which the researchers undertook the study. The results determined from the study, according to researchers, indicates that there is significant differentiation between students that are learning disabled and those that are low achievers and classified as mildly mentally retarded. What was significant in the present study is that instructors or teacher rating of social skills failed to recognize the differences in the students particularly in the area of behavioral problems. What does that mean for how students are classified? Is it possible that because students who are struggling behaviorally and happen to have academic struggles as well are being disproportionately labeled with learning disability that in many instances removes them from mainstream education and into special education -- relieving the instructor from having to deal with said student?

Response to intervention is considered an academic intervention frequently used to offer a systematic and early intervention to children who have difficult in learning. The goal of response to intervention with intense instruction that is research based, increased and frequent measurements of performance are to keep children from failing academically. Moreover, response to intervention is offered as another method to determining if a child has a disability that is not based solely on achievement or ability or the "discrepancy model" (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006). RTI has faced some support as well as some criticism with the criticism being based on the fact that RTI seems more appropriate for prevention rather than remediation and actually making the determination if a learning disability exists (Hale, Naglieri, Kaufman & Kavale, 2004).

Although there has been support for RTI citing fewer children, particularly minority children, being referred to special education based on learning disabilities, RTI does not seem to be the solution to the continuing and pervasive problem of misclassification of children as learning disabled. As evidenced by the aforementioned, there continues to be a great deal of confusion with regard to those students who are truly disabled and those who are low achievers, poor responders to math and reading instruction and non-native English speakers. The answer to the question of whether students who are truly learning disabled are identified as such or confused with other kinds of learners, the response is yes. There are certainly children who are learning disabled who have been appropriately classified. It would be remiss on the part of educators or any one working with these children to discount true disability because of the perception that they are "simply" low achievers or don't speak the language well or don't respond to instruction. That takes the oweness off instructors to be responsible and proactive in what and how they teach. It further discounts the struggles of those students who have a true disability.