The LD Label for Relatively Well-Functioning Students: A Critical Analysis

Abstract

The number of students identified since the mid-1970s as having learning disabilities has produced a corresponding increase in the population of such individuals in postsecondary programs. The Americans with Disabilities Act, along with Section 504 of the Vocational Rehabilitation Act of 1973, provide the basis for civil rights for students in higher education. These laws protect individuals who have a substantial limitation in a major life activity when compared with the general population. A disparity between the legal definition and the clinical definition of learning disabilities, which can encompass those identified on the basis of academic underachievement relative to intellectual potential, has stimulated debate about the fairest, most appropriate standard for declaring a student functionally impaired. Extending services to individuals without significant academic impairment may tax or even deplete scarce resources for others in greater needs, distort the normal processes by which individuals select careers, and diminish the credibility of the diagnosis itself.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Algozzine, B. , & Ysseldyke, J.E. (1986). The future of the LD field: Screening and diagnosis. Journal of Learning Disabilities , 19, 394-398.

American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author .

Blachman, B. (1997). Foundations of reading acquisition and dyslexia . Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Frankenberger, W. , & Harper, J. (1987). States' criteria and procedures for identifying learning disabilities in children: A comparison of 1981/82 and 1985/86 guidelines . Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20, 118-121.

Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ. New York: Bantam Books .

Gordon, M. , & Keiser, S. (Eds.). (1998). Accommodations in higher education under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA ): A no-nonsense guide for clinicians, educators, administrators, and lawyers. New York: Guilford Publications.

Gottlieb, J. , Alter, M. , Gottlieb, B.W. , & Wishner, J. (1994). Special education in urban America: It's not justifiable for many. The Journal of Special Education, 27, 453-465.

Gregg, N. , Hoy, C. , & Gay, A. F. (Eds.). (1996). Adults with learning disabilities: Theoretical and practical perspectives (pp. 66-84). New York: Guilford Press.

Kavale, K.A. , & Forness, S.R. (1984). A meta-analysis of the validity of Wechsler Scale profiles and recategorizations: Patterns or parodies? Learning Disability Quarterly, 7, 136-156.

10.

Kelman, M. , & Lester, G. (1997). Jumping the queue. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

11.

Lorry, B. (1998). Learning disabilities. In M. Gordon & S. Keiser (Eds.), Accommodations in higher education under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): A no-nonsense guide for clinicians, educators, administrators, and lawyers (pp. 130-153). New York: Guilford Publications.

12.

Neisser, U. , Boodoo, G. , Bouchaard, T.J. , Boykin, A.S. , Brody, N. , Ceci, S.J. , Halpern, D.F. , Loehlin, J.C. , Perloff, R. , Sternberg, R.J. , & Urbina, S. (1996). Intelligence: Knowns and unknowns. American Psychologist, 51, 77-101.

13.

Roth v. Lutheran General Hospital, 57 F.3d 1446 (7th Cir. 1995).

14.

Pazer v. New York State Bd. of Law Examiners, 849 F. Supp. 284 (S.D.N.Y. 1994).

15.

Price v. National Bd. of Medical Examiners, 966 F. Supp. 419 (S.D.W.Va. 1997).

16.

Siegel, L.S. (1999). Issues in the definition of and diagnosis of learning disabilities: A perspective on Guckenberger v. Boston University. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32(4), 304-319.

17.

Silver, L.B. (1988). A review of the federal government's Interagency Committee of Learning Disabilities Report to the U.S. Congress. Learning Disabilities Focus, 3, 73-80.

18.

Smith, C.R. (1998). Learning disabilities: The interaction of learner, task, and setting (4th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

19.

Spear-Swerling, L. , & Sternberg, R.J. (1998). Curing our "epidemic" of learning disabilities. Phi Delta Kappan, 79, 397-401.

20.

Stanovich, K.E. (1991). Discrepancy definitions of learning disability: Has intelligence led us astray? Reading Research Quarterly , 26, 7-29.

21.

Stanovich, K.E. (1999). The sociopsychometrics of learning disabilities . Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32(4), 350-361.

22.

U.S. Office of Education. (1997). Nineteenth annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

23.

Ysseldyke, J.E. , Algozzine, B. , & Epps, S. (1983). A logical and empirical analysis of current practice in classifying students as handicapped. Exceptional Children , 50, 160-166.