On defining learning disabilities: an emerging consensus

This article reviews the efforts made since 1962 to define learning disabilities, provides readers with a clear picture of the current status of such definitions, and recommends that a consensus form around the definition proposed by the NJCLD.     

The relationship between achievement and IQ in students with learning disabilities

To investigate the relationship between achievement and IQ in the learning-disabled (LD) population, changes in the IQ scores of LD students from the early elementary grades to the high school grades were studied. The intercorrelations among those IQ scores and a variety of achievement scores were then explored for the purpose of ascertaining causal relationships. The results were interpreted as support for the contention that the underachievement of LD students (in particular, reading underachievement) plays a predominant causal role in the achievement-IQ relationship in this population.     

Self-concept and IQ as predictors of remedial success in children with learning disabilities

Twenty-five children with learning disabilities (LD) in the auditory-linguistic realm participated in the present study over two academic years. The purpose of the experiment was to test whether IQ and self-concept were significant predictors of learning ability. IQ was found to have no relationship to the children's learning ability, whereas self-concept predicted patterns of successful achievement in spelling, arithmetic, and written language, but not in visual word recognition. The results were interpreted as support for the "specificity" presumption in LD, but also as support for the importance of self-concept as possibly a primary cause of academic underachievement. The paper develops a remedial model of LD that accounts both for the interplay of self-concept and cognition in learning and for the fundamental implications of the specificity principle.     

The irrelevance of IQ to the definition of learning disabilities: some empirical evidence

The relevance of IQ to the definition of learning disabilities is a much-debated issue. In this article, the effect of not using IQ in the identification of children with reading disabilities is demonstrated. Two classification procedures, differing in their use of IQ, are compared. The first conclusion is that abandoning IQ in classification has a very limited impact on the number of children identified as reading disordered. Our data demonstrate that, if IQ is used, more high IQ children are classified. Another finding pertains to the effect of a restriction of IQ range. The number of children classified as reading disordered is a function of the IQ range.     

Concluding comments. Transfer and transition: the next steps

The chapters in this edition of the journal provide a set of remarkably coherent findings. The effects of transfer, apart from the question of dips in pupils’ academic progress, have been investigated in a variety of settings and cultures. The evidence suggests, however, that current policy and practice are largely directed at ensuring the process is administratively efficient and that the pupil's personal and social concerns are reduced to the minimum. This suggests that future efforts should be focussed on the curriculum and on the accompanying pedagogy. The research conducted within the qualitative tradition further suggests that the transfer process is but one instance of the larger problem of school transition from one year to the next. These transitions need to be considered within the wider context of the pupil's encounters with various status passages that are part of the process of “growing up.” If teachers and policy makers are to manage these transitions effectively, they need to listen more carefully, than in the past, to what pupils have to say on these matters.     

A follow-up study of recent special education graduates of learning disabilities programs

This study investigated the postschool vocational and community adjustment of recent special education graduates from a southwestern metropolitan school district. Sixty-four students with learning disabilities (LD) who had attended self-contained classes at 12 high schools were randomly selected. A questionnaire, administered either via the telephone or in person, was the source of data. Thirty-eight of the LD sample were in competitive employment. In general, the LD students received very few community services. For the most part, they received no agency support after graduation. Most of the LD subjects lived with parents or other relatives and most had a driver's license and car. Implications for postsecondary services and future research are discussed.     

Assessing the learning of pupils with special educational needs and disabilities in mainstream school physical education

In the UK, one consequence of neoliberalism has been the development of test cultures in schools and standardised assessment strategies used to judge all pupils against within and across curriculum subjects. Few studies to date have explored the influence of this on assessing the learning of pupils with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND), and none have centred physical education (PE). This study used the concept of ableism and semi-structured interviews to explore mainstream secondary school PE teachers’ views and experiences of assessing the learning of pupils with SEND. Based on the findings, we discuss the importance of schools disrupting hegemonic, ableist modes of thinking that cast pupils with SEND as being of inferior ability when compared with their peers and thus being disadvantaged by standardised, normative assessment practices. Specifically, we identify a need for senior leaders and teachers in schools to recognise the needs and capabilities of pupils with SEND, through more holistic assessment approaches that focus on social, affective, cognitive and physical learning and development. We end by discussing the significance of initial teacher education and teacher networks to support this endeavour and advocating for the amplification of the voices of pupils with SEND, given that they have expert knowledge about the perceived inclusivity of assessment in PE because they can draw upon their lived and embodied experiences.     

The locus of so-called IQ test results in reading disabilities

It would appear the question of relevance of IQ in the assessment and remediation of children with RD is not quite the relevant question to ask, if only traditional intelligence tests are the focus. From the psychoeducational point of view of refining diagnosis, and from the administrative perspective of accountability, it would be helpful to accept a threshold of something like an IQ of 85 as the lower bound in defining learning or reading disabilities. A discrepancy from this threshold as derived from regression analysis or other more refined analyses and taking into account varying reliabilities, intercorrelations, and standard errors of measurement of different measuring instruments may constitute a learning or reading disability. How discrepant the aptitude-achievement should be to constitute a "significant" difference is a function of, among other factors, the material and human resources available to any particular school system. Leong (1987) has made suggestions for essentially a two-stage assessment leading to more refined diagnosis with the use of well-standardized group tests and teachers' estimates for the first stage (assessment) and more refined individual tests to diagnose those showing discrepant aptitude-learning performance in the border-zone. The rationale is that all those children requiring special services are so served and those in the uncertainty region must be carefully diagnosed so as to minimize so-called "misfits" in accordance with signal detection principles. It should be noted that the diagnosis of learning or reading disabilities can never be exact, even with the use of reliable and valid test instruments, and the "fuzzy set" approach should apply to the process (Horvath, Kass, & Ferrell, 1980).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)