Articles and Recent News
September/October, 2010 - from the Newsletter of the Orange County Learning Disabilities Association of California
Are The Numbers Changing? The Downward Trend In Learning Disabilities Classification
By Joan Levine, Ph.D. Lecturer and Field Supervisor
College of Education, Dept. of Special Education
California State University, Fullerton
Vice-President, Adult Issues
Orange County Affiliate, Learning Disabilities Association of California
For many years students identified as having learning disabilities outnumbered all other categories of special needs students. In the last year, however, these numbers have been dropping and the reasons have encouraged a debate among educational professionals.
In 2000-2001 specific learning disabilities in 3 to 21 year olds peaked at 6.1% but by the 2007-2008 school years had decreased to 5.2%. The United States Department of Education 2009 Digest of Education Statistics rates this as 2.9 million to 2.6 million school age children.
This category has always been the largest of the 13 disability categories determined by the Special Education Law IDEA. This is about 6.6 million or 40% of those designated into that category. It is interesting to note that this pattern is evident in enrollment in all Special Education groupings. The numbers are not huge but are worth looking at: 2004-2005, 13.8% 2007-2008, 13.4%. Emotionally disturbed and developmentally delayed, though a smaller group also decreased, while an increase in Autism and “other health impaired” was seen.
The causes in the decrease are hazy but that does not reduce the need for further study in classification and teaching strategies. Most of the students in the LD category (80%) are struggling readers. Therefore, better reading instruction, the rise of the use of RtI (Response to Intervention) and the pressure to intercede earlier in a child’s education may contribute to this decrease in numbers. With all these efforts we should be able to separate those with legitimate disabilities earlier but the method and long term achievements may be difficult to assess.
Others attribute reasons to the teaching environment. “The decision to label a student as LD carries a sizeable dollop of human judgment in a way that classification like blindness or deafness do not. That means it’s possible schools could be nudging special education enrollment numbers down to avoid academic accountability penalties or costly requirements driven by federal mandates” (Samuels, 2010).
Alexa E. Posny assistant secretary, overseeing the Education Department Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Service believes there is an over-identification of students with LD when in actuality, they have not been taught how to read.
NCLB (No Child Left Behind) signed into law in 2002, spurred the RtI method, encouraged by the federal Reading First Initiative, thus requiring schools accepting federal funds to use researched-based reading methods as part of the course of study. Instruction is intensified with added strategies to booster those struggling with early reading problems. Students are monitored and tracked to measure progress.
Dr. Joseph K. Torgeson of Florida State University, Tallahassee (a nationally known figure in the field), noted a change in Florida’s elementary school children using the Reading First methodology. The implementation showed a drop in identification of third graders as well as K-2. “He suggests that general education teachers are more attuned to offering differentiated instruction to their students. In turn, those teachers are choosing not to refer students for special education evaluation” (Samuels, 2010).
Dr. Douglas Fuchs, special education professor at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, warns that we must look at the academic achievement data before applauding a decrease in numbers. “Where is the data to indicate these numbers are going down because of the effectiveness of instruction…It is very important to be critical—not negative, but critical—of what these prevalence numbers really mean” (Samuels, 2010).
Therefore with the backing of the reauthorization, the support for early identification is significant to reduce the over-representation of certain minority categories and support early learners. Federal allocations provide 15% of the funds for this purpose. We cannot reach everyone and must also provide for the older students who “fell through the cracks.”
In addition to instruction in all its stages, outside elements may play a role in the decreasing numbers: school structure and federal mandates. These may constitute the cost of educating a child with learning disabilities, class size, limiting services in a strapped district or identifying fewer students.
Candace Cortiella, writing for the New York City based National Center for Learning Disabilities, “believes that it is suspicious that the drop in special education numbers corresponds closely to the shift in federal policy, under the NCLB law, that requires schools to highlight the performance of their special education students, among other education population groups, for accountability purposes.
Schools and districts may choose not to count subgroups for accountability purposes if subgroups are so small they are statistically unreliable. Ms. Cortiella suggested that the risk of penalties may prompt some schools to keep their enrollment in the special education subgroup low” (Samuels 2010). The point here is the mutual relationship between the federal mandate and the decrease in numbers. Several states have refused funds to avoid implementing NCLB and even gone to court over it. On the other hand, some districts increase their numbers to gain federal resources to help with educational costs.
Alexa Posny of the Education Department, states that “labels are less important then results…Special Education does confer on students certain protections, such as the right to a free, appropriate public education in the LRE (Least Restrictive Environment)…when it comes to what we need to know to provide that child’s needs… the label doesn’t help us with that” (Samuels, 2010).
Without testing, identifying and labeling (which has its negative side), how does one know who needs what?
Reference:
Samuels, Christine A. (2010). Learning-disabled enrollment dips after long climb.
Education Week 30(3) 1, 14-15.