And Miles to Go...:
State SLD Requirements
and Authoritative Recommendations

Previous Page | Next Page
(Methodology) | (Analysis)

Report Text

Figures and Tables

Results

Results of analyses to date appear in Tables 2, 3, and 4. Further analyses are underway and will be available from the NRCLD website (http://www.nrcld.org) over the next few months. Tables 2 and 3 are organized to facilitate comparisons to the results of the Mercer et al. studies (1976, 1985, 1990, & 1996). In Table 2 each SEA's LD requirements across a large number of variables are summarized. Table 3 presents information on the methods used by states to determine whether a severe discrepancy exists between ability and achievement. The beliefs items appear in Table 4.

The immediate conclusion that is apparent from examining Tables 2 and 3 is that huge variation exists in SEA requirements for SLD. Variations exist in prevalence, definitions, classification criteria, exclusion factors, existence of ability-achievement discrepancy requirements, methods to determine the discrepancy if one is required, and the magnitude of the discrepancy in order to meet the state eligibility standards. Clearly, there is no national SLD diagnostic system, but rather an amalgamation of SEA systems that have varying degrees of similarity.

SLD Prevalence. Information on SLD Prevalence across the states is provided in the first row of Table 2. These SLD prevalence data are based on the 2001-2002 child count, Table AA 13 (www.ideadata.org). State prevalence of SLD varied from a low of 2.96% in Kentucky to a high of 9.46% in Rhode Island, differing by a factor of three times. The mean prevalence was 5.76%, SD= 1.19. The large difference between the highest and lowest SLD prevalence states is somewhat misleading because of 5 states that are clear outliers (see Figure 1). The states of Kentucky and Georgia are outliers at the low end, and Rhode Island, New Mexico, and Massachusetts at the high end. Absent these 5 states, there is significantly less, though still significant, prevalence variations across the states. Further analyses will be conducted to determine the degree to which state SLD requirements and other state characteristics predict differences in prevalence.

SLD Definition. All states provide a definition of SLD. The clear trend over the past ten years has been toward more widespread adoption of the SLD definition that appears in Federal Regulations at 34 C. F. R. 7. As indicated in Table 2, over-two thirds of the states use the federal definition. An additional seven states use the federal definition with slight variations. Only nine states, compared to fifteen in 1994, use an SLD definition that is different from the federal definition.

Intelligence. A longstanding assumption associated with the diagnostic construct of SLD is normal intellectual ability. Although this assumption is fundamental to SLD (Kavale, 2002), relatively few states have explicit statements about intellectual ability either in their SLD definition or in the classification criteria. Moreover, if there is a discernable trend regarding intelligence, it is toward states' definitions and criteria being silent about the assumption of average or normal intelligence (see Table 2).

Figure 1: Distribution of State SLD Prevalence
Figure 1: Distribution of State SLD Prevalence

Process Disorder. As noted in the introduction to this paper, the Federal definition emphasizes psychological process disorders as underlying learning disabilities. Since a high proportion of the states adopt either the federal definition or a slight variation thereof, it is not surprising that nearly all of the definitions include the concept of process disorder as well as the concept of language disorder. In sharp contrast to the prominence of processing disorders in the definition, however, is the virtual absence of classification criteria regarding the establishment of a processing disorder in determination of SLD eligibility. Only thirteen states or about a quarter of the total number of states actually require determination of a processing disorder as part of eligibility determination. Neurological impairment is included in the criteria for eligibility in 6 states (AR, DE, MD, NY, OK, and VT).

Achievement Domains. There is unanimity across the states in the inclusion of the following achievement domains as areas in which a student might be eligible for the SLD diagnosis: reading, mathematics, writing, oral expression, and listening comprehension. There is slightly less agreement regarding subcategories within those broad domains. Nearly all states identify reading basic skills and reading comprehension separately as is the case with mathematics calculation. Math reasoning is identified specifically in about half of the states. A few states add allow SLD classification if the only discrepant area is spelling (AZ, CO, NH, and NY) and one state appears to recognize officially non-verbal learning disabilities (NH).

Exclusion Criteria. There is unanimity across the states regarding exclusion criteria in the 8 areas of visual impairment, hearing impairment, motor impairment, mental retardation, emotional disturbance, and environmental, cultural, and economic disadvantage. In addition to these areas, a handful of states also specify additional exclusion factors such as autism (CA, MI, VT, and WI) emotional stress (LA and VT), difficulty adjusting to home or school (LA and VT) lack of motivation (LA and TN), and temporary crisis situation (LA, TN, and VT). The trend since 1994 clearly is toward greater consistency across the states in the specification of the exclusion criteria.

Discrepancy Requirement. The requirement of a severe discrepancy between intellectual ability and achievement appears in the SLD classification criteria for 48 of the 50 states. Only two states do not have the discrepancy requirement in state rules (KS and LA). The state of IA permits non-categorical classification across high incidence disability categories, an approach adopted by nearly all of the LEAs in the state. The non-categorical classification criteria in IA do not require the intellectual ability-achievement discrepancy.

The methods to determine the discrepancy and the criteria for a discrepancy to be regarded as severe vary dramatically across the states. In addition to the methods reported in Table 2 a few states reported unusual or even idiosyncratic methods. Methods reported included the use of a true score formula (KY), regressed IQ followed by a standard score discrepancy (ID, MD, and VT), percentage discrepancy (NY), standard score discrepancies between academic areas (LA), and a statistical formula not adequately characterized by the description of other methods (NJ). It is significant to note that two seriously flawed methods reported by Mercer et al in prior surveys, discrepancies measured with grade equivalents and discrepancy between Wechsler Verbal and Performance IQs, are no longer used by any states. Further analysis of discrepancy determination methods appears in Table 3.

Additional information from the states was collected regarding the role of team override, that is, does the majority of the team have the authority to confer the diagnosis of SLD even if the classification criteria are not met. About two thirds of the states allow team override (See Table 2).

Link to Table 2: Components of State Definitions and Criteria

Changes in SLD Requirements. Information from states was collected regarding whether changes had occurred in the SLD requirements since 1994 or whether changes were anticipated in the near future. Slightly over two thirds of the states indicated that changes had been made over the last ten years and another forty percent of the states indicated that changes were anticipated in the future. These results suggest that states are very much aware of national trends regarding SLD classification criteria and indicate the probability of changes over the next five years.

Non-categorical or Cross-categorical. In view of some of the recommendations regarding changes in disability classification (e.g., Donovan & Cross, 2002) information was collected on whether the state allowed non-categorical or cross-categorical approaches in eligibility determination, placement, training, and licensure. Cross- or non-categorical approaches are most often permitted in the approval of training programs, the placement of students in special education programs, and in the licensure of teachers. Approximately one fifth of all states allowed non-categorical or cross-categorical approaches to eligibility determination (See Table 2). A large proportion of states allow cross- or non-categorical placement, teacher training, and teacher licensure. These practices likely are motivated by two conditions, (a) the need to give local schools more flexibility in hiring teachers and placement of students, and (b) the absence of evidence indicating unique teaching methodologies associated with different categories of high incidence disabilities.

Rule replacement or rule waiver. Information was gathered regarding whether there were legal provisions for rule replacement or rule waiver programs. Slightly more than one quarter of all states permit LEA's to petition the state for rule replacement or rule waivers. The provisions under which these rule replacement waivers are provided vary considerably by the states.

Previous Page | Next Page
(Methodology) | (Analysis)