Learning disabled and emotionally disturbed: Will the labels affect teacher planning?

Abstract

Teachers' conception and use of the terms “learning disability” and “emotional disturbance” was investigated in two studies to determine the implications for developing educational programs. In Study I, experienced teachers in a special education certification program categorized 106 child characteristics as LD, ED, or both LD and ED. In Study II, in-service teachers specified annual achievement goals and extent of regular class placement for the same child bearing either the LD or ED label. Results from Study I showed that the majority of child characteristics were considered by teachers to be relevant to either LD or ED labels. A subset of 23 characteristics was significantly related to one or the other label—LD characteristics representing academic and health/development areas, and ED characteristics representing psychological and behavioral areas. In Study II, teachers recalled the ED label significantly more often than the LD label, but did not specify significantly different goals or regular class participation for the child under the two labeling conditions. The findings support the conclusion that teachers can treat the LD and ED constructs as mutually exclusive when eligibility for special service is the decision, and as mutually inclusive when program-planning decisions are made.