Daniel P. Hallahan, University of Virginia, & Cecil D. Mercer, University of Florida
Learning Disabilities Summit: Building a Foundation for the Future White Papers
This paper is available in alternative formats: | Download Word | Download pdf |
Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
During the most recent period of learning disabilities history, several things have occurred that have solidified the field of learning disabilities even further, but several issues have also threatened to tear the field apart. Driving much of the concern for the latter issues is the extraordinary growth in the prevalence of learning disabilities. From 1976-1977 to 1998-1999, the number of students identified as learning disabled has doubled. There are now more than 2.8 million students identified as learning disabled, which represents just over half of all students with disabilities (USOE, 2000). Although some (Hallahan, 1992) have argued that there may be good reasons for some of this growth, most authorities acknowledge that there is a very good chance that many children are being misdiagnosed as learning disabled.
Areas in which there has been further solidification are definition, the research strands of the learning disabilities research institutes, research on phonological processing, and research on biological causes of learning disabilities. Issues contributing to the turbulence in the field include concern about identification procedures, debate over placement options, and denunciation of the validity of learning disabilities as a real phenomenon by constructivists.
Early during this period, several new and revised definitions surfaced: the ACLD (now the LDA) definition of 1986, the Interagency Committee on Learning Disabilities (ICLD) definition of 1987, and the NJCLD revised definition of 1988. In the meantime, the definition in federal law covering learning disabilities remained virtually unchanged.
ACLD/LDA definition (1986). The LDA definition is distinctive for its emphasis on the lifelong nature of learning disabilities, its lack of an exclusion clause, and its reference to adaptive behavior:
Specific Learning Disabilities is a chronic condition of presumed neurological origin which selectively interferes with the development, integration, and/or demonstration of verbal and/or nonverbal abilities. Specific Learning Disabilities exists as a distinct handicapping condition and varies in its manifestations and in degree of severity. Throughout life, the condition can affect self-esteem, education, vocation, socialization, and/or daily living activities. (ACLD, 1986, p. 15)
ICLD definition (1987). The ICLD, consisting of representatives from several federal agencies, was charged by Congress to report on several issues. Although Congress did not direct them to do so, they did formulate a definition. Their definition was essentially the same one as the 1981 NJCLD definition, except for two changes. It mentioned deficits in social skills as a type of learning disability, and it added attention deficit disorder as a potential comorbid condition with learning disabilities:
Learning disabilities is a generic term that refers to a heterogeneous group of disorders manifested by significant difficulties in the acquisition and use of listening, speaking, reading, writing, reasoning, or mathematical abilities, or of social skills. These disorders are intrinsic to the individual and presumed to be due to central nervous system dysfunction. Even though a learning disability may occur concomitantly with other handicapping conditions (e.g., sensory impairment, mental retardation, social and emotional disturbance), with socioenvironmental influences (e.g., cultural differences, insufficient or inappropriate instruction, psychogenic factors), and especially with attention deficit disorder, all of which may cause learning problems, a learning disability is not the direct result of those conditions or influences. (ICLD, 1987, p. 222)
NJCLD revised definition (1988). The NJCLD revised definition was in response to the LDA definition's emphasis on the lifelong nature of learning disabilities and the ICLD's listing of social skills deficits as a type of learning disability. The NJCLD revised definition agreed with the former but disagreed with the latter:
Learning disabilities is a general term that refers to a heterogeneous group of disorders manifested by significant difficulties in the acquisition and use of listening, speaking, reading, writing, reasoning, or mathematical abilities. These disorders are intrinsic to the individual, presumed to be due to central nervous system dysfunction, and may occur across the life span. Problems of self-regulatory behaviors, social perception, and social interaction may exist with learning disabilities but do not by themselves constitute a learning disability. Although learning disabilities may occur concomitantly with other handicapping conditions (for example, sensory impairment, mental retardation, serious emotional disturbance) or with extrinsic influences (such as cultural differences, insufficient or inappropriate instruction), they are not the result of those conditions or influences. (NJCLD, 1988, p. 1)
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Reauthorized definition (1997). The definition in federal law has remained virtually unchanged since the one included in P.L. 94-142:
A. IN GENERAL.--The term "specific learning disability" means a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, which disorder may manifest itself in imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or do mathematical calculations.
B. DISORDERS INCLUDED.--Such term includes such conditions as perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia.
C. DISORDERS NOT INCLUDED.--Such term does not include a learning problem that is primarily the result of visual, hearing, or motor disabilities, of mental retardation, of emotional disturbance, or of environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage. (IDEA Amendments of 1997, Sec. 602(26), p. 13)
As we noted earlier, Keogh (1983) noted that four of the learning disabilities research institutes funded by the USOE in the late 1970s and early 1980s (Columbia University, University of Illinois at Chicago, University of Kansas, University of Minnesota, and University of Virginia) approached learning disabilities as a strategic, information processing problem and developed their interventions within this framework. She pointed out that the institutes' data on outcomes were very promising. McKinney (1983) reported that the institutes' intervention research demonstrated that students with learning disabilities are capable of learning task-appropriate strategies that enable them to succeed in academic learning and adaptive functioning. Although it is conjecture, it is easy to postulate that the institutes' rigorous research standards and encouraging findings provided a springboard for future research.
Columbia University. The Columbia institute's research in reading most likely helped facilitate the proliferation of reading intervention research that has occurred in the field of learning disabilities. For example, Lyon (1998) reported that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has received more than $25 million to study how students with and without disabilities learn to read. Today, findings from the NIH studies are having a significant impact on the reading instruction provided youngsters with learning disabilities. Judith Birch of Columbia University recently teamed with numerous NIH researchers to develop a very informative video series that presents research-based practices in teaching reading to students with learning disabilities.
University of Illinois at Chicago. The Chicago institute's research introduced social competence as an area worthy of investigation. The importance of this affective side of learning disabilities was very timely in that it quickly captured the attention of many educators. For example, during the 1980s, social skill deficits were featured in three nationally disseminated definitions of learning disabilities (i.e., ACLD/LDA in 1986; ICLD in 1987; NJCLD in 1988).
Gresham (1988) reported that 75% of all published articles in social skills were published between 1983 and 1988. Given the concern for safety in America's schools, such affective topics as social competence, self-concept, dependency, loneliness, suicide, drug usage, and impulsivity are certain to attract more attention. These topics are discussed in the recent learning disabilities literature and research (Mercer, 1997). Unfortunately, the goal of developing highly effective interventions for social skills still remains elusive (Forness & Kavale, 1996; Vaughn, McIntosh, & Spencer-Rowe, 1991; Vaughn & Sinugab, 1998).
University of Kansas. The work of the Kansas institute has not only continued but also expanded. Since 1978, the University of Kansas Center for Research on Learning (the parent organization for the Institute for Research in Learning Disabilities) has continued to focus on the mission of designing and validating interventions for adolescents and young adults with learning disabilities. In this organization, more than $20 million of contracted research has been conducted on adolescents and young adults with learning disabilities (Deshler, Ellis, & Lenz, 1996).
University of Minnesota. It is fair to say that the research on assessment at the Minnesota institute has made diagnosticians more aware of the specific weaknesses of standardized tests and the decision-making processes based on assessment data. The assessments in special education continue to be an area of substantial controversy (e.g., over-representation of minorities in special education) and more research in needed.
The Minnesota research initiative that focused on CBA has also influenced many assessment practices nationwide in special education. CBA refers to any approach that uses direct observation and recording of a student's performance in the school curriculum as a basis for obtaining information to make instructional decisions (Deno, 1987). Specific procedures include assessing students' academic skills with repeated rate samples using stimulus materials taken from the students' curriculum. The primary uses of curriculum-based measurement (CBM) are to establish district or classroom performance standards, identify students who need special instruction, and monitor individual student progress toward long-range goals. Over the years, researchers have garnered considerable evidence supporting the positive association between data-based monitoring and student achievement gains. In a meta-analysis of formative evaluations, Fuchs and Fuchs (1986) found that data-based programs that monitored student progress and evaluated instruction systematically produced 0.7 standard deviation higher achievement than nonmonitored instruction. This represents a gain of 26 percentage points. Moreover, CBM measures have good reliability and validity (Fuchs, 1986; Tindal & Marston, 1990).
University of Virginia. The work at the Virginia institute appears to have provided a springboard for much further research on attention deficits, metacognition, and instruction. Since 1980, attention deficits have been featured in the subsequent editions of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV). Moreover, there is a high degree of comorbidity between learning disabilities and ADHD (Lyon, 1995b).
Metacognitive deficits have also continued to receive much attention. For example, from a knowledge base of 11,000 statistical findings across 28 categories, Wang, Haertel, and Walberg (1993/1994) found that the metacognitive and cognitive processes of students ranked second and third on their influence of student learning. Cognitive behavior modification techniques highlighted by the Virginia institute are an integral part of many widely used instructional materials. For example, teacher modeling using think-alouds is an integral part of the University of Kansas learning strategies (Deshler et al., 1996) and Doug and Lynn Fuchs have used self-monitoring in some of their intervention packages.
Given that the majority of individuals with learning disabilities experience reading difficulties, the research on phonological awareness has the potential to improve the assessment and intervention practices used to treat learning disabilities. Adams (1990) reported that the discovery of the nature and importance of phonemic awareness is considered to be the single greatest breakthrough in reading in the 20th century.
Definition and nature of phonemic awareness. The National Reading Panel (2000) noted that phonemes are the smallest units of spoken language and that phonemic awareness is the ability to focus on and manipulate phonemes. Reid Lyon, Chief of the Child Development and Behavior Branch of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) of the NIH, periodically reports on the research findings of NIH studies concerning reading development for children with and without reading difficulties. In a 1998 report to the U.S. Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, Lyon (1998) discussed the following specific findings related to phonemic awareness, early intervention, and poor readers:
In contrast to good readers who understand that segmented units of speech can be linked to letters and letter patterns, poor readers have substantial difficulty developing this "alphabetic principle." The culprit appears to be a deficit in phoneme awareness--the understanding that words are made up of sound segments called phonemes. Difficulties in developing phoneme awareness can have genetic and neurobiological origins or can be attributable to a lack of exposure to language patterns and usage during the preschool years. The end result is the same however. Children who lack phoneme awareness have difficulties linking speech sounds to letters--their decoding skills are labored and weak, resulting in extremely slow reading. This labored access to print renders comprehension impossible. (p. 8)
Applications of phonemic awareness research. Phonemic awareness skills allow for early assessment. For example, phonemic assessments in kindergarten and first grade serve as powerful predictors of children who will have reading difficulties. Lyon (1998) has noted that these assessments are efficient (i.e., they take approximately 20 minutes) and predict with 80% to 90% accuracy who will become good or poor readers.
It is also recognized that the development of phonemic awareness is a necessary but not sufficient condition for learning to read fluently. Phonemic awareness training must be combined with other types of reading instruction to improve reading skills of poor readers to average levels.
Lyon (1998) has highlighted the need for multiple interventions:
We have learned that for 90% to 95% of poor readers, prevention and early intervention programs that combine instruction in phoneme awareness, phonics, fluency development, and reading comprehension strategies, provided by well trained teachers, can increase reading skills to average reading levels. However, we have also learned that if we delay intervention until nine-years-of-age, (the time that most children with reading difficulties receive services), approximately 75% of the children will continue to have difficulties learning to read throughout high school. (p. 9)
Definition of dyslexia. Phonemic awareness research has already had an influence on the definition of dyslexia. In 1994, the Research Committee of the Orton Dyslexia Society (now known as the International Dyslexia Association), along with representatives from the National Center on Learning Disabilities and the NICHD, set forth the following working definition of dyslexia:
Dyslexia is one of several distinct learning disabilities. It is a specific language-based disorder of constitutional origin characterized by difficulties in single word decoding, usually reflecting insufficient phonological processing abilities. These difficulties in single word decoding are often unexpected in relation to age and other cognitive and academic abilities; they are not the result of generalized developmental disability or sensory impairment. Dyslexia is manifested by variable difficulty with different forms of language, often including, in addition to problems reading, a conspicuous problem with acquiring proficiency in writing and spelling. (Lyon, 1995a, p. 9)
It will be interesting to see if phonemic awareness research will be a factor in shaping future definitions of learning disabilities or federal regulations pertaining to identification of learning disabilities.
Since the 1960s, most definitions of learning disabilities have made reference to a neurological basis for learning disabilities. However, it was not until the 1980s and especially the 1990s that evidence began to accumulate to support a biological basis for learning disabilities. Researchers have used two different sources of evidence to support the conclusion that learning disabilities may be the result of neurological dysfunction: postmortem studies and neuroimaging studies. Furthermore, evidence has begun to mount that hereditary factors are implicated in many cases of learning disabilities.
Postmortem studies. Albert Galaburda and Norman Geschwind and their colleagues (Galaburda & Kemper, 1979; Galaburda, Menard, & Rosen, 1994; Galaburda, Sherman, Rosen, Aboitz, & Geschwind, 1985; Geschwind & Levitsky, 1968; Humphreys, Kaufmann, & Galaburda, 1990) made postmortem comparisons between the brains of people with and without dyslexia. When they first started this research, it was difficult to assess its reliability because the number of cases was so small. By the 1990s, however, they had accumulated data on more than a dozen cases, and their results were demonstrating a consistent pattern. In most brains of the nondyslexic group, the left planum temporale (a section of the left temporal lobe, including a large segment of Wernicke's area) is larger than the planum temporale in the right temporal lobe. The left and right planum temporales in the brains of those with dyslexia, in contrast, are the same size or the planum temporale in the right hemisphere is larger than the one in the left hemisphere.
Neuroimaging studies. Using magnetic resonance imaging (MRIs) and computerized axial tomography (CAT) scans, researchers have found the same symmetry or reversed symmetry for the planum temporales of adults with dyslexia (Hynd & Semrud-Clikeman, 1989; Kusch et al., 1993; Larsen, Hoien, Lundberg, & Odegaard, 1990). Studies of brain metabolism, using positron emission tomography (PET) scans and fMRIs, have also begun to reveal differences between individuals with and without dyslexia (Flowers, 1993; Flowers, Wood, & Naylor, 1991; Gross-Glenn et al., 1991; Hagman et al., 1992; Shaywitz et al., 1998). Again, the left hemisphere appears to be the locus of the abnormal functioning, with some of the evidence pointing to Wernicke's area.
Hereditary factors. The 1990s also witnessed an increase in evidence pointing to the hereditary nature of learning disabilities. Researchers have found that about 40% of first-degree relatives of children with reading disabilities have reading disabilities themselves (Pennington, 1990). An approximately equal degree of familiality has also been found for speech and language disorders (Beichtman, Hood, & Inglis, 1992; Lewis, 1992) and spelling disorders (Schulte-Korne, Deimel, Muller, Gutenbrunner, & Remschmidt, 1996). Furthermore, studies of heritability, comparing monozygotic versus dizygotic twins, have found a high degree of concordance for reading disabilities (DeFries, Gillis, & Wadsworth, 1993), speech and language disorders (Lewis & Thompson, 1992), and oral reading ability (Reynolds et al., 1996).
At least two issues related to identification have occupied the learning disabilities literature at the end of the twentieth century. The first pertains to the use of the discrepancy between achievement and intellectual potential; the second is the issue of over-representation of minorities in the learning disabilities category.
Discrepancy between achievement and intellectual potential. By the 1990s, the majority of states had adopted a discrepancy between achievement and intellectual potential as part of their identification procedures (Frankenberger & Franzaglio, 1991). However, during this same time period many learning disabilities researchers began to question seriously the use of discrepancy. These critics have cited at least four reasons for their objections. First, they argue that studies that were instrumental in justifying a discrepancy approach in the first place were flawed. Researchers conducted epidemiological studies on the Isle of Wight in which they used regression scores between reading and performance IQ scores to differentiate students who had specific reading retardation (discrepant readers) from those who had general reading backwardness (nondiscrepant readers) (Rutter & Yule, 1975). Finding a "hump" in the lower end of the distribution of residual reading scores for those with specific reading retardation, some researchers used these data as evidence of the validity of using discrepancy to define students with learning disabilities. Several researchers, however, have leveled criticisms at the Isle of Wight studies, e.g., inability to replicate the results and ceiling effects on the reading test, which could have led to an inflated number of discrepant readers and resulted in the "hump." (See Vellutino, Scanlon, & Lyon, 2000, for a more in-depth discussion of these criticisms.)
Second, some have cited the Matthew effect (better readers learn more about their world and, therefore, are likely to score higher on IQ tests) as a problem. They have pointed out that the IQ scores of students with reading disabilities may be underestimated (Siegel, 1989).
Third, using a discrepancy approach makes it very difficult to identify children as learning disabled in the early elementary grades. This is particularly problematic because research has generally shown that intervention is more effective the earlier it is implemented (Fletcher et al., 1998)
Fourth, researchers have been unable to discriminate between students with a discrepancy from those with low reading achievement but no discrepancy on measures considered important for reading, e.g., phonological awareness, orthographic coding, short-term memory, word retrieval (Fletcher et al., 1994; Foorman, Francis, Fletcher, & Lynn, 1996; Stanovich & Siegel, 1994). Although low achievers do not differ from those with a discrepancy on these variables, this does not mean that low achievers do not differ from students identified as learning disabled, using broader identification criteria (Fuchs, Mathes, Fuchs, & Lipsey, 1999).
Researchers have just begun to explore alternatives to the discrepancy approach to identification. One alternative would rely on the assessment of phonological processes (Torgesen & Wagner, 1998). Another, referred to as the treatment validity approach, would involve assessment of students' levels of academic performance and learning rates on curriculum-based measures (Fuchs & Fuchs, 1998).
Disproportionate representation of minority students. Since at least the time of Lloyd Dunn's classic article, "Special Education for the Mildly Retarded: Is Much of It Justifiable?" (Dunn, 1968), there has been concern over identification of children from minority backgrounds in special education. Although most of the concern has been focused on the categories of mental retardation and emotional disturbance, there is also some evidence of disproportionate representation in learning disabilities. For 1998-1999, 4.49% of all students (aged 6 to 21 years) were identified as learning disabled. Following are the percentages for different ethnic groups: White (4.27%), African American (5.57%), Hispanic (4.97%), Asian/Pacific Islander (1.70%), American Indian/Alaska Native (6.29%, U.S. Department of Education, 2000). These figures indicate substantial over-representation of African Americans and, especially, American Indian/Alaska Natives in the learning disabilities category and a very large under-representation of Asian/Pacific-Islanders.
Researchers have not yet been able to disentangle the reasons why disproportionate representation in learning disabilities and other areas of special education exists. Factors that researchers have cited as potential causes are racially biased tests, racially biased professionals, and inadequate community resources, such as health care and educational opportunities (Hallahan & Kauffman, 2000). Most authorities do agree that disproportionate representation is a complex problem, and the federal government has begun to highlight it as a major problem:
The complexity of this issue requires an integrated and multifaceted effort to promote greater educational access and excellence for racial/ethnic minority students that involves policy makers, educators, researchers, parents, advocates, students, and community representatives. The disproportionate representation of racial/ethnic minority students in special education programs and classes points to the need to:
In the mid-1980s, the Assistant Secretary of Education, Madeleine C. Will, proposed the regular education initiative (REI). The mother of a child with Down syndrome, Will (1986) called for general educators to take more ownership for the education of students who were one or more of the following: economically disadvantaged, bilingual, or disabled. The REI launched a movement toward inclusion of students with disabilities, including those with learning disabilities, that continues to this day. At the same time, it triggered a debate about placement options that also continues to this day.
Views on placement options have ranged from full inclusion15 to a preservation of the continuum of placements. The following two excerpts illustrate the two different views. The first attacks the concept of the least restrictive environment (LRE):
Three generations of children subject to LRE are enough. Just as some institution managers and their organizations--both overt and covert--seek refuge in the continuum and LRE, regional, intermediate unit, and special school administrators and their organizations will continue to defend the traditional and professionally pliable notion of LRE. The continuum is real and represents the status quo. However, the morass created by it can be avoided in the design and implementation of reformed systems focusing all placement questions on the local school and routinely insisting on the home school as an absolute and universal requirement. In terms of placement, the home-school focus renders LRE irrelevant and the continuum moot. (Laski, 1991, p. 413)
The second responds to full inclusion advocates' frequent use of battle metaphors to defend their position:
For many...[defenders of a continuum of placements] regular education remains a foreign and hostile territory, neglecting many children with disabilities. PL 94-142, with its declaration of a free and appropriate education and its cascade of services and the LRE principle, represented in 1975 the capturing of the beachhead for children with disabilities. It is time to gather our energies and courage; validate comprehensive integration strategies; pressure mainstream administrators and teachers to make greater accommodations; move inland! But as we mount this new offensive, we, like any general worthy of his rank, must make certain that the beachhead remains secure. It's the beachhead, after all, that provides supplies and, in a worst-case scenario, guarantees a safe retreat. The cascade of services is a source of strength and safety net for the children we serve. Let's not lose it. (Fuchs & Fuchs, 1991, pp. 253-254)
In keeping with the REI philosophy, this time period also spawned a concern for students with learning disabilities' access to the general education curriculum, their inclusion in high stakes testing, the use of pre-referral strategies, and the use of cooperative teaching practices. However, not all learning disabilities professionals have been completely sold on the value of these concerns and practices. In particular, some have voiced objections that too much focus on inclusive practices has resulted in students with learning disabilities not receiving enough intensive, specialized instruction:
The reason why children with learning disabilities are not getting enough of the intensive, structured instruction is that many schools, for all intents and purposes, are offering inclusion in the regular class as the only type of model for our kids. They give lip service to the full continuum of placements, in order to remain legal, but in reality they push an inclusion model over other options: "You have a learning disability, this is what we have for you--full time in a regular class." This one-size-fits all thinking is reminiscent of what we had prior to PL 94-142: "You have a learning disability; this is what we have for you--a self-contained class." ...
Recently, the Council for Exceptional Children released a report entitled, "Conditions for Special Education Teaching." This survey of special education teachers, general education teachers, and special and general education administrators tells an alarming tale. It's no wonder that special education teachers are leaving the profession in droves. Almost a third of special education teachers spend 20 to 30 percent of their time on paperwork related to identifying students and developing IEPs. And 12% spend more than half their time doing this. This doesn't even count other types of paperwork, like taking attendance, writing notes to parents, and so forth. Fifty-eight percent report spending 10 to 20% of their time in meetings related to IEPs, and 25% report spending 20 to 30% of their time in such meetings. And this doesn't count the time required to collaborate with general educators. From the way these data are reported it's not possible to arrive at a precise measure of how much time is spent in either meetings or paperwork, but a not unreasonable estimate would be that about half the special education teachers report spending about half their time in IEP-related meetings or paperwork.
So where's the time for instruction? There isn't any. Thirty-one percent of special education teachers report they spend less than 1 hour per week in individual instruction. Twenty-two percent spend ... 1 to 2 hours per week in individual instruction. And ... 15% spend zero time in individual instruction. (Hallahan, 2000)
Kauffman (1999) has expressed concern and displeasure about the current status of special education. Specifically he has stated, "I am not very happy with most of what I see in our field today. I think we are in a period of considerable upset and danger, and our future could look rather bleak depending on how we respond to current pressures" (p. 244).
Kauffman's words of unrest are, in part, due to the spread of postmodernism and its position that special education is fundamentally flawed and needs reconceptualization. The position of postmodernists is in stark contrast to the point of view of Kauffman and others who believe that special education is basically a sound system that needs incremental improvements guided by scientific inquiry. Various terms, such as incremental improvement versus substantial reconceptualization (Andrews et al., 2000), modern versus postmodernism/cultural relativism (Sasso, 2001), modern versus postmodernism/constructivism (Kauffman, 1999), and modern versus postmodernism (Kavale & Forness, 2000), have been used to describe these two camps; however, in this discussion, modern and postmodernism are used. The major tenets and implications of the two positions are apparent when their respective views on the nature of knowledge, disability, special education, and expected outcomes for students with disabilities are examined.
Nature of knowledge. The modern position holds that the current state of knowledge is promising and provides a solid basis on which to build. The modern position supports the use of the scientific method of inquiry to increase knowledge and features experimental research designs and quantitative analysis. Postmodernism rejects the modern view of science in favor of alternative ways of knowing. Postmodernism primarily supports a socially constructed view of knowledge in which logical inquiry is a social enterprise. This social negotiation approach to knowing is used to focus on topics such as racism, systems, researchers as change agents, and the redefining of ethical and moral behavior.
Critics of postmodernism (Kauffman, 1999; Kavale & Forness, 2000; Sasso, 2001) maintain that the most questionable tenet of postmodernism is the rejection of science because it is thought of as untrustworthy or evil. The concern emerges because the rejection of science insulates socially constructed knowledge from compelling criticism and allows points of view to be endorsed that promote agendas that could be scientifically challenged.
The implications of postmodernism concerning the nature of knowledge have much potential to influence the field of learning disabilities in a negative manner. For example, there has been a rapid growth of scientific knowledge about the nature and treatment of learning disabilities during the past decade. If this knowledge were not recognized as valuable, it probably would not be used to improve the identification and treatment of individuals with learning disabilities in our public schools.
Nature of disability. The modern position views disability as a phenomenon that is within the individual and is consistent with the medical model view of wellness and illness. The disability is owned by the individual and needs to be treated, accommodated, and/or endured. Postmodernism views disability primarily as a social construction that is based on incorrect immoral assumptions about difference. Although the notion of a disability is not totally rejected, most postmodernists believe that disability exists more in the perceptions of the beholder than in the bodies of the beheld (Andrews et al., 2000). The aim is to change the flawed constructions of disability. Kauffman (1999) maintains this position undermines the concepts of disability. Sasso (2001) provides an interesting perspective on the postmodern view of disability:
Having apparently decided that teaching competency skills to children with disabilities is too difficult, they have decided that instead of changing children with disabilities, they will change everyone else. Thus, their reasoning goes, schools, the community, courts of law, the government, indeed all of society must be made to change to accommodate and accept individuals with disabilities. As with most initial claims of postmodernists, the basic goal of attitude change appears reasonable. When translated to practice, the illogic of these critics becomes apparent. (pp. 188-189)
The postmodernism view of disability has significant implications for individuals with learning disabilities. The social construction of disability risks minimizing or trivializing an individual's disability. One of the most caring acts that educators can do is to apply current and forthcoming research-based assessments and interventions to identify and teach individuals with learning disabilities to read, write, problem solve, socialize, communicate, and be independent. The social construction process must not overlook the biological construction process.
Nature of special education and outcomes. The modern view of special education is to use instruction in order to enhance the functioning, knowledge, skills, and socializations of individuals with disabilities. Modernists hope that these cumulative interventions eventually enable individuals with learning disabilities to have successful and rewarding postschool experiences. Although the postmodern view of special education mentions the importance of enhancing performance, the primary focus is on changing social constructions that limit individuals with disabilities. Postmodernists value the outcome of creating a caring adaptable society that treats differences and needs without labels, stigmas, or exclusion (Andrews et al., 2000).
It would seem that modern and postmodern conceptions regarding the nature of special education and related outcomes should naturally blend together. Unfortunately, the strong and radical feelings between these two positions foster extreme viewpoints and minimum common ground. Sasso (2001) points out that the overall purpose of postmodernism is to dismantle special education, to undermine the epistemic authority of the science of disability and valorize "ways of knowing" incompatible with it.
The intensity of this special education divide is captured in Sowell's (1995) words:
Those who accept this vision [postmodernism] are deemed to be not merely factually correct but morally on a higher plane. Put differently, those who disagree with the prevailing vision are seen as being not merely in error, but in sin. For those who have this vision of the world, the anointed [postmodernists] and the benighted [modernists] do not argue on the same moral plane or play by the same cold rules of logic and evidence. The benighted are to be made "aware," to have their "consciousness raised," and the wistful hope is held out that they will "grow." Should the benighted prove recalcitrant, however, then their "mean-spiritedness" must be fought and the "real reasons" behind their arguments and actions exposed. (pp. 2-3)
If individuals with learning disabilities are to receive the very best education possible and be accepted by a caring and loving community, educators must join to stop yet another "education war" that truly deters special education from being the helping profession it was created to be.
Funding for NRCLD is provided by the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special
Education Programs. Award No. H324U010004. Opinions expressed herein are those of the National
Research Center on Learning Disabilities and do not necessarily represent the position of the U.S.
Department of Education.
© 2007 National Research Center on Learning Disabilities
Last Updated: November 19, 2007
Contact: nrcld@ku.edu