When children fail to meet standards for achievement and behavior set by a classroom teacher, they may be identified as learning disabled. Recently, because of rising identification rates and evidence of overidentification, it has been suggested that those who fail to meet expectations be accommodated by modifying classroom instruction. The pertinence of such a suggestion may not be recognized, because of the medical model of disability held by most educators. Accommodation to difference is consistent with a minority model of disability. Efforts to reduce the number of students identified as learning disabled would be more successful if they were advocated within a minority view of disability.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BickelW. E. (1982). Classifying mentally retarded students: A review of placement practices in special education. In HellerK. A.HoltzmanW. H., & MessickS. (Eds.), Placing children in special education: A strategy for equity (pp. 182–229). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
2.
BogdanR., & KugelmassJ. (1984). Case studies in mainstreaming: A symbolic interactionist approach to special schooling. In BartonL. & TomlinsonS. (Eds.), Special education and social interests (pp. 173–191). New York: Nichols Publishing.
3.
CantrellR. P., & CantrellM. L. (1976). Preventive mainstreaming: Impact of a supportive services program on pupils. Exceptional Children, 42, 381–386.
4.
ChalfantJ. C. (1984). Identifying learning disabled students: Guidelines for decision making. Burlington, VT: Northeast Regional Resource Center.
5.
ChalfantJ. C.PyshM. V., & MoultrieR. (1979). Teacher assistance teams: A model for within-building problem solving. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 2, 85–96.
6.
CrollP., & MosesD. (1985). One in five: The assessment and incidence of special educational needs. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
7.
EdgertonR. B. (1979). Mental retardation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
8.
FrassinelliL.SuperiorK., & MeyersJ. (1983). A consultation model for speech and language intervention. ASHA, 25(11), 25–30.
9.
GerberM. M., & SemmelM. J. (1984). Teacher as imperfect test: Reconceptualizing the referral process. Educational Psychologist, 19, 137–148.
10.
GeschwindN. (1984). The brain of a learning-disabled individual. Annals of Dyslexia, 34, 319–327.
11.
GliedmanJ., & RothW. (1980). The unexpected minority: Handicapped children in America. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovitch.
12.
GradenJ. L.CaseyA., & BonstromO. (1985). Implementing a prereferral intervention system: Part II. The data. Exceptional Children, 51, 487–496.
13.
GrossmanH. J. (1973). Manual on terminology and classification in mental retardation, 1973 revision, Special Publication Series No. 2. Washington, DC: American Association of Mental Deficiency.
14.
HeberR. (1959). A manual on terminology and classification in mental retardation. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, Monograph Supplement, 64(2).
15.
HellerK. A.HoltzmanV. H., & MessickS. (Eds.). (1982). Placing children in special education: A strategy for equity. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
16.
HornW. F.O'DonnellJ. P., & VitulanoL. A. (1983). Long-term follow-up studies of learning-disabled persons. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 16, 542–555.
17.
LazarusB. (1985, April). Getting a special education identity: How an experienced teacher decides. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
18.
MeyersJ. (1973). A consultation model for school psychological services. Journal of School Psychology, 11, 5–15.
19.
PearR. (1985, March 10). U.S. is reviewing benefits stance. The New York Times, p. 33.
20.
RitterD. R. (1978). Effects of a school consultation program upon referral patterns of teachers. Psychology in the Schools, 15, 239–243.
21.
RogersE. M., & ShoemakerF. F. (1971). Communication of innovation: A cross cultural approach (2nd ed.). New York: Free Press.
22.
RosenholtzS. J., & RosenholtzS. H. (1981). Classroom organization and the perception of ability. Sociology of Education, 54, 132–140.
23.
SarasonS. B. (1971). The culture of school and the problem of change. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
24.
SarasonS. B., & DorisJ. (1979). Educational handicap, public policy, and social history: A broadened perspective on mental retardation. New York: MacMillan.
25.
ShepardL. A.SmithM. L., & VojirC. P. (1983). Characteristics of pupils identified as learning disabled. American Educational Research Journal, 20, 309–332.
26.
SlavinR. D. (1984). Team assisted individualization: Cooperative learning and individualized instruction in the mainstream classroom. Remedial and Special Education, 5, 33–42.
27.
SmithM. L. (1982). How educators decide who is learning disabled. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
28.
TriffilettiJ. J.FrithG. H., & ArmstrongS. (1984). Microcomputers versus resource room for LD students: A preliminary investigation of the effects on math skills. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 769–76.
29.
U.S. Department of Education. (1984). Executive Summary, 6th annual report to Congress on the implementation of Public Law 94–142: The education for all handicapped children act. Exceptional Children, 51, 199–202.
30.
WangM. C.PeverlyS., & RandolphR. (1984). An investigation of the implementation and effects of a full-time mainstreaming program. Remedial and Special Education, 5, 21–32.
31.
YsseldykeJ. E. (1983). Current practices in making psychoeducational decisions about learning disabled students. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 16, 226–233.
32.
YsseldykeJ. E., & ThurlowM. L. (1984). Assessment practices in special education: Adequacy and appropriateness. Educational Psychologist, 9, 123–136.
