Role and contribution of nurses for learning disabilities: a local study in a county of the Oxford–Anglia region

In a recent issue of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, Danforth, Slocum, and Dunkle (2010) discussed the historical contributions of Dr. Samuel A. Kirk, a well known special education pioneer and psychologist, to the fields of mental retardation (now known as intellectual disability) and learning disabilities. Although we agree with some of the authors' points—including the assertion that Kirk had a powerful influence for decades on the development and delivery of special education services for all children—several of their statements do not appear to represent Kirk's viewpoints accurately or provide adequate representations of the origins and conceptual foundations of the learning disability field and its relationship to mental retardation. In order to set the record straight, we have used Kirk's exact words within this response from his publications over his lifetime to place into proper historical perspective his views on the origins of the learning disabilities field, as well as the relationship between mental retardation and learning disabilities. Contrary to the statements made by Danforth et al., we maintain that Kirk's beliefs concerning mental retardation and learning disabilities were not complex and confusing.In fact, the claims made by Danforth et al. (2010) seem to us to be the result of a bit of revisionist history. In this article, we discuss several of Danforth et al.'s comments, including (a) the history of the learning disability construct, (b) Kirk's three claims regarding the constructs of learning disability and mental retardation, (c) the concept of intraindividual differences, (d) the assertion that Kirk left children with mental retardation behind, and (e) the belief in the educability and potential of all children.Danforth et al. (2010) asserted thatKirk did not believe that learning disability was a "recent invention," or that it was "crafted as a conceptual outgrowth of the mental retardation construct," or "developed by researchers working with children with mental retardation." The origins of the conceptual foundations of learning disability are nearly as longstanding as many of the other disability categories, and the roots can be traced back to at least the early 1800s (Hallahan & Mercer, 2002; Hammill, 1993; Wiederholt, 1974). In fact, Kirk often noted that the most common learning disability, dyslexia or specific reading disability, has been studied for over a century and has its own history that is totally separate from the history of mental retardation. In this regard, Kirk and Gallagher (1983) stated:Kirk (1974) further wrote: "Disabilities in reading, writing, and spelling have been of interest to neurologists, ophthalmologists, psychologists, and educators since and before the beginning of this century" (p. 1).Danforth et al. (2010) noted that the conceptual and diagnostic basis for learning disability evolved from the "Strauss syndrome." Although Kirk was highly influenced by the work of Alfred Strauss and acknowledged the contributions of Strauss by explaining that "Strauss gave the initial impetus to the field of learning disabilities" (Kirk & Chalfant, 1984, p. 30), he always maintained that "The discipline now called learning disabilities had its beginning in the early contributions of neurologists who studied the loss of language in adults and ophthalmologists who were concerned about children's inability to develop language or to read or spell" (Kirk & Chalfant, 1984, p. 21). For example, throughout his writings, Kirk discussed how the origins of specific reading disability can be traced back to the 1800s when various physicians studied brain injury in patients who had lost the ability to read (Kirk & Chalfant, 1984; Kirk & Gallagher, 1983). Physicians from the United Kingdom, Germany, and the United States provided the first case studies of individuals who had lost the power to read—usually because of a stroke or brain injury—and these physicians attempted to identify the characteristics, etiology, and methods that would be most effective for treating these reading disorders (Anderson & Meier-Hedde, 2001). As an example, in 1872, Sir William Broadbent described the cortical damage present in an autopsy of an individual who had speech disturbances and reading disabilities (Broadbent, 1872). Five years later, Kussmaul (1877a) noted that "a complete text blindness may exist although the power of sight, the intellect, and the powers of speech are intact" (p. 595). In this regard, the term word blindness was first applied to individuals with aphasia who had lost the ability to read (Kussmaul, 1877b). Thus, Kussmaul gave birth to the idea of specific reading disability (Hallahan & Mercer, 2002), a type of learning disability that Kirk would study his entire career (Kirk, 1984).From early in his career, Kirk was fascinated by the enigma of children with specific reading disabilities and how they could be best served. In 1929, he began his master's degree at the University of Chicago. During his graduate studies, he also worked as a resident instructor at the Oaks School in Oak Park, Illinois (a suburb of Chicago), where his job was to manage 50 delinquent boys who had mental retardation (Kirk, 1984). He worked at the school under the tutelage of Dr. Marion Monroe, a researcher at the Institute for Juvenile Research in Chicago and a leading reading expert who had originally worked with Dr. Samuel Orton in Iowa. Orton is often described as providing the first report on word blindness in America and as being the key figure for setting the stage for the study of reading disabilities in the United States (Hallahan & Mercer, 2002).Kirk, therefore, had parallel interests in both mental retardation and the concept of reading disability, dating back to his early graduate studies and his work experiences at the time. Reflecting on his experiences at the Oaks School, Kirk (1976) stated:Kirk's first publication based on his master's thesis was a study that explored the learning of simple words by what he referred to as "subnormal boys" (Kirk, 1933). He later explained (Kirk, 1984):As did Fernald, Orton, and Monroe, Kirk found that retention for word learning was improved when tracing was added to the teaching procedure. Kirk (1984) also hypothesized at this time that "remedial reading might alleviate delinquency in some children" (p. 29).As was the case with other early pioneers, Kirk was concerned about finding the most efficacious ways of instruction for children who were struggling to learn to read. Kirk (1984) explained how Monroe's 1932 book, Children Who Cannot Read, was for a while his "bible" (p. 31) and how her system of diagnosing reading errors and profiling abilities and disabilities continued to influence his work in later years. In discussing Monroe's remedial program, Kirk noted that "Her remedial work was continued by two of her students who studied with her at the Institute for Juvenile Research in Chicago" (Kirk & Chalfant, 1984, p. 32). These two students, Thorleif G. Hegge and Samuel A. Kirk, along with his wife, Winifred, went on to develop the Hegge, Kirk, and Kirk Remedial Reading Drills (1936), which evolved from the study of children with reading disabilities, and their development was "influenced by Marion Monroe and the Fernald kinesthetic method" (Kirk, 1984, p. 32).Monroe (1932) also created an expectancy formula as a way of identifying reading disabilities that was based on comparing a child's chronological age, mental age, and arithmetic ability to reading performance (Hallahan & Mercer, 2002; Monroe, 1932). The resulting discrepancy indicated the severity of the reading disability. Influenced by Monroe, Kirk (1962) recommended that for diagnosing severe reading disabilities (dyslexia), one would determine a child's reading potential or capacity by comparing his or her Stanford-Binet IQ score and measures of vocabulary and arithmetic computation to the present level of reading achievement (pp. 265–266). This type of discrepancy expectancy formula or ability-achievement discrepancy was incorporated into P. L. 94–142, Education for All Handicapped Children Act (1975).Danforth et al. (2010) asserted that Kirk's own thinking about the relationships between mental retardation and learning disabilities was complex, multifaceted, and confusing. They noted that Kirk made the following three claims: (a) mental retardation was an exclusionary criterion to learning disability, (b) a child could have both a learning disability and mental retardation, and that (c) "learning disability was often mental retardation in disguise" (p. 189). Although it is understandable how readers unfamiliar with the origins of these fields could view such claims as "complex and even confusing" (p. 188), Kirk, in fact, viewed them as quite consistent as we discuss below.Danforth et al. (2010) indicated that Kirk "came to believe that he could not promote the new learning disability construct without clearly distinguishing it from the older, more established condition of mental retardation" (p. 182). On the surface, Danforth et al.'s statement is true. In fact, Kirk (1977) stated that the characteristics associated with learning disabilities were distinguishable from those associated with mental retardation, and in his scholarly endeavors and governmental public policy work during his years in Washington, DC, he attempted to differentiate between these two constructs. Kirk was well aware that federal legislation in the late 1950s and early 1960s already provided teacher training for students having mental retardation (e.g., P.L. 85–926, National Defense Education Act of 1958, that provided funds for training professionals to train teachers of students having mental retardation) and for students who were deaf (e.g., PL 87–276, Special Education Act of 1961, that provided funds for training professionals to train teachers of students who were deaf) (Kirk, 1984).Just as he had done for children having cerebral palsy or mental retardation, Kirk wanted to create another category of special education that would protect and provide services for children with specific learning disabilities. In discussing the category of learning disabilities, Kirk and Gallagher (1983) explained: "The label learning disability includes the heterogeneous group of children who do not fit neatly into the traditional categories of handicapped children" (p. 366). In the 1950s and early 1960s, public schools did not provide special educational services for these children. Kirk and Chalfant (1984) explained that the field of learning disabilities emerged for the following two reasons:Hammill (1993) also agreed that the most influential group in the learning disabilities movement were parents; it was their advocacy work that was primarily responsible for the specific legislation that was passed. In fact, Kirk often noted the important role and success of parents and parent groups, such as the Association for Children with Learning Disabilities, in establishing through litigation the rights of their children with disabilities (Kirk & Gallagher, 1983, p. 15).Kirk attempted to differentiate between those learning disabilities that were attributed to a neurological impediment that resulted in a specific academic problem from the more generic learning problems in children that could result from limited school attendance, inadequate instruction, or other environmental conditions. Such children were excluded from the learning disability category because their difficulties could be attributed to a lack of opportunity to learn (Kirk & Gallagher, 1983). In 1963, Kirk was invited to speak at the Conference on Exploration Into Problems of the Perceptually Handicapped Child. He proposed that the term learning disability be used to categorize these children who did not fall into the traditional categories of disability, but nevertheless had learning impairments (Kirk, 1984).Kirk was also concerned that learning disability would become a category for all types of learning problems when it was meant to capture only those individuals with specific disabilities that did not interfere with all types of learning. He found that the field of learning disabilities was experiencing the same type of problems with expansion and misidentification as did programs for the educable mentally retarded, stating:Kirk, therefore, was very concerned about differentiating between children having mental retardation, where their learning was negatively affected across many academic and adaptive learning skills areas (e.g., reading, math calculation, spelling, writing, social interactions, eating, dressing) from those having a specific learning disability within one or more academic areas (e.g., reading and/or math calculation).Danforth et al. (2010) noted that "Kirk steadfastly maintained that, in some instances, a child could have both a learning disability and mental retardation" (p. 187). This statement is true and an accurate reflection of Kirk's beliefs. Because Kirk viewed a learning disability as a perceptual impairment, a person of any level of intelligence, including intellectually gifted individuals, could have a learning disability. In an interview with Arena (1978), Kirk explained this conceptualization of learning disability: "I like to define a learning disability as a psychological or neurological impediment to development of adequate perceptual or communicative behavior, which first is manifested in discrepancies among specific behaviors or between overall performance and academic achievement" (p. 617). Kirk, Kliebhan, and Lerner (1978) also noted that "the concept of discrepancy applies to mentally superior, mentally normal, and mentally retarded children" (p. 27). Thus, Kirk did maintain that individuals of any level of intelligence and with any other disability could also have a learning disability. He understood that comorbidity can exist among numerous disorders, such as a child having both a sensory impairment and mental retardation or a child having both a learning disability and physical impairments. Kirk (1962) explained this in the following manner:Thus, for Kirk a learning disability differed from mental retardation in that it stemmed "from intrinsic cognitive or perceptual difficulties interfering with a child's learning" (Kirk, 1984, p. 40). He further stated:Children who have mental retardation or an emotional disability could also have an intrinsic neurological impediment to learning; and these children would be considered to be "multiply handicapped and remediated as such" (Kirk & Chalfant, 1984, p. 16). Thus Kirk noted that learning disabilities are "not primarily due to severe mental retardation, sensory handicaps, emotional problems, or lack of opportunity to learn" (Kirk & Gallagher, 1983, p. 368).Kirk was always concerned about misclassification of children because it would lead to inadequate understanding of the child as well as inappropriate instruction. Kirk and Chalfant (1984) stated: "In classifying children for instructional purposes, considerable care must be taken to avoid mistaken diagnoses and misclassifications" (p. 14). Kirk was well aware that children could be diagnosed as having mental retardation when, in fact, they did not. He found that some children who were classified as having mental retardation would be better classified as having learning disabilities. Throughout his career, he stressed that the diagnosis of children was for the purpose of remediation, not for classification or categorization. In this regard, Kirk and Johnson (1951) stated: "The purpose of any diagnosis, or the determination of etiology, is to assist in structuring the most adequate rehabilitation procedures" (p. 109).Kirk always viewed the concept of intraindividual discrepancies as a defining feature of learning disabilities, with Kirk and Gallagher (1983) stating the following: "Although such children form a heterogeneous group and fail to learn for diverse reasons, they have one thing in common: discrepancies (intraindividual differences) in abilities and achievement" p. 366). Regardless of the type of disability, however, Kirk was always interested in the concept of intraindividual differences, specifying what children could do, what they had difficulty doing, and, most importantly, how to resolve their difficulties. He commented: "I have felt for some time that labels we give children are satisfying to us but of little help to the child himself" (Kirk, 1975, p. 8). He felt that labels did not translate into intervention needs, and these needs could only be determined through thorough study of each child. He wrote: "Their classification as mentally retarded had little relevance to the training of these children. Each child needed a diagnosis, and each child needed a different program (Kirk, 1984, p. 37). Kirk always asserted that instead of using labels "it is more accurate and meaningful to describe behavior" (Kirk, 1975, p. 9). When evaluating children with mental retardation, he asked the following questions: "What abilities does this child have? What deficits exist? What do we do about these particular deficits?" (Kirk, 1984, p. 37).These types of questions led Kirk to develop a test of specific perceptual and linguistic functions, the Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities–ITPA (Kirk, McCarthy, & Kirk, 1968). Profiles were used to identify a specific child's strengths and weaknesses for the purpose of planning the most appropriate educational intervention. Kirk (1962) explained the importance of profiles, stating: "The profiles showed typical assets and deficits in growth which necessitate different educational methods and programs for various types of deviant children; the gifted, mentally retarded, auditorily handicapped, visually handicapped, speech handicapped, crippled, socially maladjusted, and multiply handicapped" (p. 32). Kirk (1984) further observed that "the ITPA was popular from the beginning because it is an intraindividual test, comparing a child's own abilities and disabilities for the purpose of organizing remediation for deficits" (p. 38).Throughout their article, Danforth et al. (2010) suggested that Kirk's turning of his "educability narrative" was a way to promote the learning disability construct while negating mental retardation. In describing how Kirk's viewpoints changed, Danforth et al. stated:Danforth et al. further explained thatDanforth et al. (2010) asserted that "Students with learning disabilities were nuggets of gold among the coal heap, untapped assets buried within a defective population, awaiting discovery and instructional polishing up" (p. 190) and thatThus, Kirk is portrayed as turning away from the population of children having mental retardation, essentially leaving these children behind, in a "coal heap" because of their limited learning potential. Danforth et al. did, however, note at one point that Kirk "remained a strong supporter of the educational training of students with mental retardation throughout his career" (p. 190), but later, they more negatively claimed that this message was somehow lost or obscured and that he "also negated that very message in certain circumstances" (p. 190). In addition, in discussing a quote by Kirk, Danforth et al. explained that Kirk asserted that although a child with mental retardation required "care" and "management," the child with learning disabilities had assets and disabilities that may be amenable to remediation.To set the record straight, Kirk never negated the message of being a strong supporter of the education and training of students with mental retardation; he only attempted in many of his publications, speeches, and federal government public policy work to clarify the similarities and differences between mental retardation and learning disabilities. Moreover, concerning the aforementioned comment by Danforth et al. (2010) regarding the "care" and "management" quote by Kirk in relation to mental retardation, readers of this Journal and Danforth et al. should be aware of the fact that Kirk stated that the label of mental retardation applies to children who require "certain kinds of care, management, and education [italics added]" (Kirk, 1967, p. 13). Education was never excluded by Kirk from care and management, as Danforth et al. suggested.Kirk believed that all children, regardless of type of disability, had learning potential and would be responsive to educational intervention and treatment. He commented that his experience at the Wayne County Training School "pointed out to me that much more could be done with handicapped children than most people believed" (Kirk, 1984, p. 32) and "biased me toward a belief in the power of intervention" (Kirk, 1984, p. 35). Throughout his career, Kirk was a champion for children with all types of abilities and disabilities, including those who were gifted. He was concerned with the accurate identification of disabilities for ensuring the most effective services. Kirk would not agree that he turned his back on children having mental retardation or that these children had limited learning potential. In fact, he commented that throughout his career, it was "a great source of satisfaction to participate and help the parent movements—first for children with cerebral palsy, then for the mentally retarded, and lastly for the learning disabled" (Kirk, 1984, p. 41). When helping one group, he never abandoned the others as Danforth et al. implied. Kirk always believed in the educability and potential of all children and that all children were unique and deserving of the best instruction possible.Kirk (1962) maintained that one basic principle was inherent in the philosophy of a democracy, namely, that all children have the right to develop to their maximum potential. He commented that the expression "All men are created equal" denotes not only equality before the law, but also equality of opportunity. He summarized his view as follows:This, in fact, is the legacy that Dr. Samuel A. Kirk left behind, not just for the fields of learning disability and intellectual disability, but for all areas of disability.

The search for excellence: an encore.

A question of perspective—parenting and other matters in the lives of people with learning disabilities

In Politics of Learning Disabilities (this issue) Kavale and Forness signal a crisis in the field of learning disabilities and sound a call to action. In their view, the field of learning disabilities is a critical juncture in its brief history because it is disproportionately under the influence of forces. While they recognize that the creation of learning disabilities occurred through the confluence of and forces, they now view A primary difficulty ... to be the imbalance between the and sides of LD with the scales heavily tipped in favor of the political (p. 245). This imbalance creates the untenable situation of policy decisions being guided by particular ideological and philosophical perspectives associated with positions at the expense of the logical and rational represented in decision making (p. 245). According to the authors, the validity claims in the field of learning disabilities are under serious threat from this imbalance. As the field has become increasingly balkanized through interest organizations that define the who and what of learning disabilities, the historical, classification of learning disabilities is besieged by ideological and philosophical disputes. The effect is a high level of politicized learning disabilities activities in the public sphere. In the face of this crisis, the authors call for a restoration of the scientific base in learning disabilities and of a better balance between politics and (p. 270). In undertaking this process of restoration, the authors hope to reposition science the rational leader in implementation efforts in the public domain through conceptualization of learning disabilities as a entity meeting real-world demands (p. 245). We applaud Kavale and Forness' conclusion that a dominant conceptual challenge in learning disabilities today is the restoration of right reason (p. 245) through an analysis of the field's and aspects. Like Kavale and Forness, we recognize that science and political/social philosophy intersect in the lives of individual students with learning disabilities in nstructional settings, and that the consideration of b th influences is the one most likely to lead to greater understanding. We also believe that the authors' admonition for careful analysis is correct.

The construct of culture has been largely invisible in the research and long-standing debates in the learning disabilities (LD) field, such as those pertaining to the definition of LD and how research knowledge is used in local settings. When used, the idea of culture tends to be defined as unrelated to LD and studied as restricted to individual/group traits. We challenge the culture–LD dichotomy and the limited conception of culture used in this knowledge base. For this purpose, we make the case for a cultural model of learning that can inform scholarship about the nature of LD, and we propose a culture-based model for the study of research knowledge use in professional practices. Moreover, we offer a third perspective on culture to study the strategies that the LD research community might be using to demarcate and maintain a cultureless paradigm of LD. Our discussion offers potentially rich opportunities for a culturally minded and reflexive stance in the LD field that is urgently needed in our increasingly diverse society.

Peer Reviewed

The historical roots of the field of learning disabilities go back over 150 years, even though the term is one of the most recent in the area of special education. Lerner (1985) divided the history of learning disabilities into four distinct periods. These included the foundation phase (1800–1930), which emphasized basic scientific research related to the brain, and the transition phase (1930–1960) during which time the brain research was applied to the study of children. More recent phases were the integration phase (1960–1980) at which time learning disabilities were recognized within school programs, and the contemporary phase (1980 to the present), which reflects emerging and future directions. When these phases are studied more closely, two important points are noted. First, the field of learning disabilities had its origins firmly implanted within a medical model. For example, an evolution of medically related terms were used to describe children who were having learning and behavioral problems. These included brain injured, perceptually handicapped, minimal brain dysfunction, and the Strauss syndrome. Even today, there are vestiges of this theoretical base applied in the schools. The second point is that the actual acknowledgment of the term learning disability as an educational disability is relatively recent. In fact, the history of the actual term learning disability is relatively short yet extremely complex.

The need for effective approaches for identifying English language learners with learning disabilities is great and growing. Meeting this need is complicated by recent developments in the field of learning disabilities that are unrelated to the English language learning status, and by limitations in existing knowledge specific to the identification of English language learners with learning disabilities. We review recent developments in the field of learning disabilities concerning the need for earlier identification, the need for a more appropriate conceptualization of learning disability, and the need for more effective assessments and treatments. We discuss challenges to assessment and identification of English language learners with learning disabilities, provide examples of two approaches to meeting these challenges, and describe some remaining challenges.

Part I: Foundations and Current Perspectives. Swanson, Harris, Graham, Overview of Foundations, Causes, Instruction, and Methodology in the Field of Learning Disabilities. Hallahan, Mock, A Brief History of the Field of Learning Disabilities. Fletcher, Morris, Lyon, Classification and Definition of Learning Disabilities: An Integrative Perspective. Herr, Bateman, Learning Disabilities and the Law. Kavale, Forness, Learning Disability as a Discipline. Gersten, Baker, English-Language Learners with Learning Disabilities. Zigmond, Searching for the Most Effective Service Delivery Model for Students with Learning Disabilities. Part II: Causes and Behavioral Manifestations. Cutting, Denckla, Attention: Relationships Between Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder and Learning Disabilities. Bowers, Ishaik, RAN's Contribution to Understanding Reading Disabilities. Siegel, Basic Cognitive Processes and Reading Disabilities. Swanson, Saez, Memory Difficulties in Children and Adults with Learning Disabilities. Geary, Learning Disabilities in Arithmetic: Problem-solving Differences and Cognitive Deficits. Mann, Language Processes: Keys to Reading Disability. Elbaum, Vaughn, Self-concept and Students with Learning Disabilities. Miller, Sanchez, Hynd, Neurological Correlates of Reading Disabilities. Thomson, Raskind, Genetic Influences on Reading and Writing Disabilities. Part III: Effective Instruction. Lovett, Barron, Benson, Effective Remediation of Word Identification and Decoding Difficulties in School-age Children with Reading Disabilities. Williams, Teaching Text Structure to Improve Reading Comprehension. L. S. Fuchs, D. S. Fuchs, Enhancing the Mathematical Problem Solving of Students with Mathematics Disabilities. Graham, Harris, Students with Learning Disabilities and the Process of Writing: A Meta-analysis of SRSD Studies. Berninger, Amtmann, Preventing Written Expression Disabilities through Early and Continuing Assessment and Intervention for Handwriting and/or Spelling Problems: Research into Practice. Scruggs, Mastropieri, Science and Social Studies. Part IV: Formation of Instructional Models. Wong, Harris, Graham, Butler, Cognitive Strategies Instruction Research in Learning Disabilities. Adams, Carnine, Direct Instruction. Jenkins, O'Connor, Cooperative Learning for Students with Learning Disabilities: Evidence from Experiments, Observations, and Interviews. D. S. Fuchs, L. S. Fuchs, McMaster, Al Otaiba, Identifying Children at Risk for Reading Failure: Curriculum-based Measurement and the Dual-discrepancy Approach. Englert, Mariage, The Sociocultural Model in Special Education Interventions: Apprenticing Students in Higher-order Thinking. Part V: Methodology. Abbott, Amtmann, Munson, Exploratory and Confirmatory Methods in Learning Disabilities Research. Schumaker, Deshler, Designs for Applied Educational Research. Speece, The Methods of Cluster Analysis and the Study of Learning Disabilities. S. E. Shaywitz, B. A. Shaywitz, Neurobiological Indices of Dyslexia. MacArthur, What Have We Learned about Learning Disabilities from Qualitative Research?: A Review of Studies.

Anniversaries offer a time for reflection, celebration, validation, and sometimes, simply a candid conversation on the current state of a field. In the field of learning disabilities, anniversaries offer a time to consider how far the field has come and just how far is left to go to understand what a learning disability is. Definitional understanding is foundational for moving forward. This column presents findings from a series of short conversations with past presidents of the Council for Learning Disabilities, individuals who are also leading experts in the field of learning disabilities. Results suggest four different thoughts about the definition of learning disabilities, two main themes regarding areas in which the field needs to focus, and two themes specific to where the field may be headed in the next 20 to 25 years. The column concludes with a discussion of implications for the future.

One of the most significant characteristics of the development of American education during the past seven decades is the remarkable growth in utilization of intelligence tests. As fundamental component of efforts to make educational research more scientific and educational practice more efficient, intelligence testing has gained an important and apparently secure position in American education. Intelligence tests are used in variety of ways. In the field of learning disabilities, for example, intelligence scores are used extensively to identify children for learning disability services. According to recent state and federal regulations, child is considered learning disabled if he/she demonstrates a severe discrepancy between achievement and intellectual in any of several intellectual areas (Sec. 121a.541 of Amended PL 94-142). Professionals in learning disabilities (LD) have developed several formulas for determining such discrepancies--all of them relying on intelligence scores as the indicator of intellectual ability (O'Donnell, 1980). Recent information provided by the California State Department of Education (CSDE) (1983a) concerning LD eligibility also illustrates the importance placed on standardized intelligence scores when identifying child as learning disabled: The determination of severe discrepancy necessitates the use of standardized achievement test and test of intellectual ability. The required 1.5 standard deviation criteria is the that must be corroborated by other assessment data. (CSDE No. 1, p. 1) A number of other states have adopted IQ scores as the critical threshold for determining LD eligibility. In fact, intelligence testing has become so common that its utility or efficacy is rarely questioned. Such wide acceptance of intelligence testing should not imply, however, that intelligence tests have achieved satisfactory level of design or implementation. From the beginning, intelligence testing has encountered serious theoretical and practical problems which have cast doubt over the tests' ability to yield proper and accurate information. This article contains review of the

In these days of achievement gap, evidence-based practices, and accountability issues, Julie Allan's Complicating, not explicating: Taking up philosophy in learning disability challenges us to think seriously about how well we as a field are meeting our mission of providing for academic and social needs of students with learning disabilities, including preparing them for life after school. In Allan's view, research and practice in field of learning disabilities as currently construed are not working; students with learning disabilities are not empowered, but constrained and controlled by discourses and practices in special education (p. 154). According to Allan, inequalities of a normative power of ideology that attributes success to children's characteristics results in students with learning disabilities viewing themselves in terms of what they lack (p. 159). Allan further asserts that knowledge base of field of learning disabilities is seriously flawed; its linear, hierarchical nature, grounded as it is in scientific method, makes it out of touch with subjective reality experienced by students with learning disabilities. For Allan, solution requires a political liberation of sorts, a deconstruction of status quo, not more conventional science. Allan goes on to propose that we align our research and practices not with scientific method, but with philosophers of difference in order to think differently about construction of learning disability and to envision new forms of learning. To do so, she suggests following theoretical concepts of transgression and rhizome, as well as theoretical practices of deconstruction and rhizomic analysis. All of this leads to what Allan sees as a theory and ethics of research that shifts our attention within learning disabilities away from fault, blame, and lack and towards ... more positive understandings of human differences that lead to more productive teaching practices and arrangements, more inclusion, and, in end, a more lucid sense of what we are about as educators and researchers (pp. 159-160). There is merit to what Allan is saying, but I find it disconcerting that she dismisses, largely through omission, current body of knowledge and practice in learning disabilities. While this stance is consistent with her philosophy of deconstruction, I had thought that purpose of her paper was to foster healthy dialogue, consider both the value and limitations of scientific thinking, and widen circle of discourse, not create a new, exclusive one. That said, points Allan makes are worthy of consideration. Certainly, we need to be sure that we don't become so obsessed with measurable outcomes that we fail to take into account feelings and preferences of our students; indeed, if, in process of serving students, we unwittingly cause them to feel at fault for their problems and/or disassociated from their classmates, we need to know about it and adjust what we do accordingly. We need to keep student failure in perspective and be ever mindful that a failure in one area we deem important does not mean that a student is failing in everything. Student perceptions must be a critical part of our research and teaching agendas so that we can monitor any unintended ill effects. Too, we need to continually and aggressively question our research assumptions, hypotheses, and findings. Now is not time to be complacent, particularly in view of less-than-robust life outcomes attained by students with learning disabilities compared to nondisabled peers, in form of lower graduation rates (U.S. Department of Education, 2001), higher rates of underemployment (Wehman, 2001), lower earnings (Shapiro & Rich, 1999), and a greater dependency on others (Blackorby & Wagner, 1996). As Allan states, being too linear can leave us unprepared to adjust to derailments . …

The purpose of this chapter is to explain the role of (post/neo)coloniality in the development of the field of learning disabilities in Kuwait. We draw heavily on data from a qualitative study on local/sociocultural knowledge and universalistic models in the field of learning disabilities in Kuwait, which provides a description of the current interpretation of the imported model from the point of view of local educators, in this case, teacher assistants. Through focus group and in-depth, conversational interviews, the teacher assistants described how the school’s practices relied almost entirely on such features as dependence on imported resources, dominance of the deficit-based model, and exclusion of local/sociocultural knowledge. Juxtaposing these features with the local history of development of the field of learning disabilities, the social, cultural, and political context, and personal experience, a pattern seems to form, taking the shape of a cycle. We argue that this cycle transformed what was regarded as a “difficulty” into a “disability.” Second, we explain how, as the cycle went through several of its iterations, it “handicapped” teacher assistants/local educators in their own society. In the long term, one consequence that can be foreseen is the total erosion of the Arabic language and the loss of the local culture. We conclude that the prevailing pattern in the field of learning disabilities in Kuwait is not just a cycle, rather a downward spiral.

The field of learning disabilities, like education in the main, is undergoing calls for reform and restructuring, an upheaval brought on in great part by the forces of opposing paradigms--reductionism and constructivism. In reexamining our past, we must begin to address the failures of traditional deficit models and their abysmally low "cure" rate. Several new theories have arisen that challenge traditional practices in both general and special education classrooms. Particularly influential has been the work of Howard Gardner, whose theory of multiple intelligences calls for a restructuring of our schools to accommodate modes of learning and inquiry with something other than deficit approaches. At least some current research in the field of learning disabilities has begun to focus on creativity and nontraditional strengths and talents that have not been well understood or highly valued by the schools. In this article, we briefly summarize the findings in our search for the talents of students labeled learning disabled, evidence of their abilities, implications of these for the schools, and a beginning set of practical recommendations.

Chapter 1 - Learning Disabilities: An Historical and Conceptual Overview