The school records were examined on 379 students, ages 6 to 12-11, who had been referred for possible placement In classes for the learning disabled. The purpose was to determine what portion of the referred students had demonstrated a severe achievement deficit as measured by an aptitude-achievement formula, to determine the results of the vote of the multidisciplinary team, and to determine what portion of the referred students were placed in LD programs. The Investigation revealed that more than 80% of the referred students were placed In LD classes, that two-thirds of those referred scored below the severe discrepancy cutoff on the aptitude-achievement formula, and that about half of those students who did not score below the severe discrepancy cutoff were still placed in LD classes, based on the professional judgment of the multidisciplinary team.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlgozzineB., & KorinckL. (1985). Where is special education for students with high prevalence handicaps going?Exceptional Children, 51, 388–394.
2.
ChristensonS.YsseldykeJ., & AlgozzineB. (1982). Institutional constraints and external pressures influencing referral decisions. Psychology in the Schools, 19, 341–345.
3.
ColarussoR.P. (1984). Test score conversion manual: A resource for implementing the 1984 Georgia SLD guidelines.Atlanta: Metro West Georgia Learning Resources Center.
4.
ConeT., & WilsonL. (1981). Quantifying a severe discrepancy: A critical analysis. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 4, 359–371.
5.
DangelH.L., & EnsmingerE.E. (1984). Screening Checklist—Seven Areas of Learning; Indepth ChecklistSeven Areas of Learning.Atlanta: Metro West Georgia Learning Resources System.
6.
DavisW.A., & ShepardL.A. (1983). Specialists’ use of tests and clinical judgment in the diagnosis of learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 6, 128–138.
7.
EppsS.McGueM., & YsseldykeJ.E. (1982). Interjudge agreement in classifying students as learning disabled. Psychology In the Schools, 19, 209–220.
8.
EppsS.YsseldykeJ.E., & McGueM. (1984). “I know one when I see one”—Differentiating LD from non-LD students. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 7, 89–101.
9.
FederalRegister (1977, December 29), Washington, DC: U. Government S. Printing Office, pp. 65082–65085.
10.
FornessS.R.SinclairE., & GutherieD. (1983). Learning disabilities discrepancy formulas: Their use in actual practice. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 6, 107–114.
11.
FrankenbergerW., & HarperJ. (1987). States’ criteria and procedures for identifying learning disabled children: A comparison of 1981/82 and 1985/86 guidelines. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20, 118–121.
12.
FriedrichD.FullerG.B., & DavisD. (1984). Learning disability: Fact or fiction. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 17, 205–209.
13.
Georgia Department of Education (1984). Rules and regulations: Program for exceptional children.Atlanta: Author.
14.
HarrisA.J., & SipayE.R. (1979). How to teach reading: A competency based program.New York: Longman.
15.
HayekR.A. (1987). The teacher assistance team: A prereferral support system. Focus on Exceptional Children, 20, 1–7.
16.
JohnsonM.D. (1983). Learning disabilities, formulas, and eligibility. Unpublished EdS paper, Georgia State University.
17.
KavaleK.A., & FornessS.R. (1985). Learning disabilities and the history of science: Paradigm or paradox?Remedial and Special Education, 6, 12–23.
18.
Marshall. v. Georgia. (1984). U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, CV482–233.
19.
ReynoldsC.R. (1985). Critical measurement issues in learning disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 18, 451–475.
20.
ShepardL.A., & SmithM.L. (1983). An evaluation of the identification of learning disabled students in Colorado. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 6, 155–127.
21.
SinclairE., & AlexsonJ. (1986). Learning disabilities discrepancy formulas: Similarities and differences among them. Learning Disabilities Research, 1, 112–118.
22.
ThurlowM.L., & YsseldykeJ.E. (1979). Current assessment and decision making practices in model LD programs. Learning Disability Quarterly, 2, 15–24.
23.
ThurlowM.L.YsseldykeJ.E., & CaseyA. (1984). Teachers’ perceptions of criteria for identifying learning disabled students. Psychology in the Schools, 21, 349–355.
24.
VaughnS., & BosC.S. (Eds.). (1987). Research in learning disabilities: Issues and future directions.Boston: Little, Brown/College-Hill Press.
25.
YsseldykeJ.AlgozzineB., & EppsS. (1983). A logical and empirical analysis of current practice in classifying students as handicapped. Exceptional Children, 50, 160–166.
26.
YsseldykeJ.E.AlgozzineB.RicheyL., & GradenJ. (1982). Declaring students eligible for learning disability services: Why bother with the data?Learning Disability Quarterly, 5, 37–44.
