Key points:
· Many people attribute LDs to laziness, home environment
· Myths can lead to abuse, expert says
· Too-casual use of term said to carry political risks
Briefing highlights debate over meaning of ‘learning disability’
The IDEA is approaching its 35th anniversary, and disability issues are more widely understood than ever before.
However, children with LDs continue to face a stigma, according to GfK Roper.
Roper, formerly known as the Roper Poll, has been conducting surveys on such matters since 1995 on behalf of the Emily Hall Tremaine Foundation.
For example, many people think that “sometimes learning disabilities are really just the result of laziness,” according to the results of the latest such poll, released Oct. 6.
Likewise, many people think “learning disabilities are often caused by the home environment children are raised in.”
Such beliefs are disturbing, according to James Wendorf, executive director of the National Center for Learning Disabilities.
After all, he said, it is precisely such attitudes that cause children with LDs to be scorned by their peers or ignored by their teachers.
“I would say this is our own wake-up call, because it is clear we have not dispelled myths about what learning disabilities are,” he said at a briefing on Capitol Hill.
Wendorf took a slightly different tack from Roper, however, when it comes to what LDs are.
In her remarks, Roper Senior Vice President Annie Weber repeatedly used the terms “learning disabilities” and “learning differences” as if they were synonyms.
Her company did the same thing in its analysis of the results.
“There continues to be a critical lack of understanding among a proportion of both [p]arents and [e]ducators about a foundational issue: learning disabilities refer specifically to learning differences — not physical, mental or emotional disabilities,” it said.
Redefining the classification
Wendorf sees it differently.
An LD is a “neurologically based disorder” in how the brain processes information, he said in response to a question from Special Ed Connection®. Thus, LDs should not be lumped in with learning “differences,” learning “variations” and learning “styles,” he said.
In fact, doing so carries political risks, he said.
“Are we going to be able to continue to justify” the targeted funding to educate such children, he asked, if the term becomes so amorphous? “And how can we expect that kind of support, going forward,” he said, if people are using those words to mean so many things?
Tremaine Foundation president Stewart Hudson said a wider definition of LDs could actually add to the LD community’s political strength.
“The only way is up for building a broader social movement, based perhaps on a different conceptual approach,” he said. But Wendorf wasn’t sure he wanted groups like his to become the standard-bearer for children with such a wide range of issues.
“Specific learning disabilities cannot continue to be the default classification for kids who deserve effective instruction in the regular classroom,” he said at an earlier point in the discussion. In fact, it may be necessary to redefine the term, he said.
“We stand ready . . . to at least ask that question together and explore answers to it,” he said.
In an interview, Wendorf declined to say whether he would push for a narrower construct or whether he would be amenable to a more all-encompassing definition of LDs. But “given the amount of confusion we see among parents and among educators” about what the term means, something must be done, he said.
All he wants is “accuracy and consistency” in how the term is used, he said.
Drawing a distinction
Clarity will be particularly important, one participant said, now that “mental retardation” has been replaced by “intellectual disability” in the IDEA and other laws.
President Obama signed Rosa’s Law, P.L. 111-256, which amended those laws to that effect, Oct. 5.
But in the interview, Wendorf said he is not worried on that score. If anything, he said, the parallel nature of the terms — LD and intellectual disability — will make it easier to distinguish the two.
In a telephone interview Oct. 7, OSERS chief Alexa Posny said educators will also have no trouble in that regard.
Posny used to serve on NCLD’s professional advisory board.
“For us in the field, we understand exactly why and what they’re referring to” when someone uses the term intellectual disability, she said.
But she acknowledged that the terms “learning disability” and “intellectual disability” may sound synonymous to those outside the profession.
People may think, “‘OK, someone who is intellectually disabled is someone who just has trouble learning,’” she said. “It’s going to be a fine line for the majority of the public out there.”
Special Ed Connection® related stories and resources:
· Help students with LDs become self advocates (Aug. 25)
· DSM-5 revision may better align medical, educational definition of LD (June 17)
· REL Northeast & Islands report: Processes and challenges in identifying learning disabilities among students who are English language learners in three New York State districts (February 2010)
· SmartStart: College-Level Accommodations for Students with Learning Disabilities
Mark W. Sherman, a Washington bureau correspondent, covers special education issues for LRP Publications.
October 8, 2010
Copyright 2010© LRP Publications
