Practice of Learning Disabilities as Social Policy

Abstract

This research presents an analysis of learning disabilities from a social-policy perspective. The reading performance of three groups of elementary students was systematically measured during the spring of the school year: regular education students receiving no supplemental instructional services, regular education students receiving remedial Chapter 1 services, and students labeled as learning disabled. The measures consisted of Curriculum-Based Assessment procedures, following the format developed at the Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities at the University of Minnesota. Students' reading performance was compared across the three groups, including the means and semi-interquartile ranges. A discriminant function analysis was applied to predict group membership. The three groups were sorted by level of reading skill with (a) very different means, (b) minimum overlap, and (c) high accuracy in classification. The results support the notion that schools may be consistent in their decision making and allocation of service delivery on the basis of students' classroom achievement. Regardless of legal or scientific definition, it is argued that schools widely employ a social-policy definition of learning disabilities designed to serve students most deficient in achievement.

Use of Curriculum-Based Measurement in Identifying Students with Disabilities

“…In the most ambitious study in this series, Shinn, Tindal, Spira, and Marston (1987) compared the CBM reading performance of three groups of students in grades 1-6: (a) children who had been placed in programs for students with LD based on diagnosed discrepancies between ability and achievement and who had IEP goals in the area of reading; (b) a random sample of children who received Chapter 1 remedial services; and (c) a random sample of children who received all instruction in the regular classroom with no supplemental help.…”

“…Marston (1987Marston ( -1988 compared the relative effectiveness of general and special education by analyzing slope on weekly CBM reading scores. An initial pool of 272 fourth, fifth, and sixth graders was selected for the yearlong study on the basis of performance at or below the 15th percentile on the Minneapolis Benchmark Test.…”

“…and formatively improving those plans over time (Fuchs, Deno, & Mirkin, 1984;Fuchs, Fuchs, Hamlett, & Stecker, 1991;Jones & Krouse, 1988;Wesson, 1991), decertifying and reintegrating students into general education (Allen, 1989;Fuchs, Fuchs, & Fernstrom, 1993), and evaluating the effectiveness of school programs (Germann & Tindal, 1985 ;Marston, 1987Marston, -1988.…”

Kentucky's Early Childhood Continuous Assessment and Accountability System

“…Their use has historically been to document progress within programs and to inform instruction and intervention. There are few empirical studies that investigated their measurement properties for young children, although data are available that support the reliability, content, and criterion-related validity of CBA for older children (Deno, Marston, & Tindal, 1986;Shinn & Marston, 1985;Shinn, Tindal, Spira, & Marston, 1987;Shinn, Ysseldyke, Deno, & Tindal, 1986). It is assumed that the developmental sequences used in these tools are linear, exist for all children, are reasonably sensitive across ability levels, and can be used with confidence for children with disabilities or diverse behavioral repertoires; however, there are little empirical data to support these assumptions.…”

Using Curriculum-Based Measurement to Identify Potential Candidates for Reintegration into General Education

“…Previous research using CBM has relied on the use of typical general education students (i.e., those at the 50th percentile) as the basis for decision making (Deno, Marston, Shinn, & Tindal, 1983;Shinn, Tindal, Spira, 8c Marston, 1987;Shinn 8c Marston, 1985;Shinn, Tindal, 8c Stein, 1988). However, Allen (1989) has suggested that this standard may be too conservative.…”