Learning Disability Definitions
This article addresses the components of The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (2004) and The National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities (1981) definitions of Learning Disabilities. Their similarities and differences in terms of their impact on identification and program development for students , the Canadian definition perspective as well as the inclusion of studying tips for special needs students is explored. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act is the American federal law that governs special education services for children from the time of birth until they graduate from high school. Revised in 2004, the Act defines Learning Disabilities as the following:
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 may manifest itself in an imperfect ability to listen, think, speak,
read, write, spell or to do mathematical calculations. The term included such
conditions as perceptual handicaps, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction,
dyslexia and developmental aphasia. This term does not include children who have
learning problems which are primarily the result of visual, hearing, or motor
handicaps, of mental retardation, of emotional disturbance, or of environmental,
cultural, or economic disadvantage. (Public Law 108-446)
The National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities (1981) has defined Learning disabilities as the following:
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. 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, it is not the direct result of those conditions.
From the definitions above, it can be determined that there is controversy in defining the term. As outlined in the matrix below, it is important to note the similarities and the differences of the components of the above noted definitions to ascertain the correct and appropriate usage of such a general term. Definitions
| Difference in aptitude and achievement. Severe discrepancy between IQ and achievement test scores.
| Multiple domains in which the LD manifests due to one or more psychological processes involved in understanding or in using listening, thinking, speaking, reading, writing,spelling and math.
| Excludes individuals who have learning difficulties as the result of visual, hearing, or motor handicaps, of mental retardation, of emotional disturbances, or of environmental, cultural, or economic misfortune.Includes conditions such as perceptual handicaps, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia and developmental aphasia.
| LD is due to intrinsic influences. Individuals who meet the first three criteria is presumed to have achievement issues due to Neurobiological factors Extrinsic factors of prenatal, postnatal and the environment may influence a LD.
| Significant differences in achievement cannot be solely based by a quantitative score
| LD is used in a general term – multiple domains which the LD manifests by significant difference in acquisition and use of listening, speaking, and reading, writing, reasoning and math skills.Intra- Inter- individual differences are noted across life span.
| Excludes sensory impairments, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, mental retardation and emotional disturbances Includes co-morbidity with other disorders that manifest...
References: American Speech- Language –Hearing Association. (1998) Operationalizing the NJCLD Definition of Learning Disabilities for Ongoing Assessment in Schools. doi: 10. 1044/policy.RP1998-00130
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Caplan, G.,& Grunebaum, H. (1967). Perspectives on primary prevention. Archives of General Psychiatry, 17, 331-346.
Committee on Integrating the Science of Early Childhood Development. (2000). In J. P. Shonkoff & D. Phillips (Eds.), From neurons to neighborhoods: The science of early childhood development. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Cortiella,C. (2006) Responsiveness-to-intervention: An overview. In a Parent’s Guide to Helping Kids with Difficulties. SchwabLearning.org. www.schwablearning.org/articles.aspx?r=840
Edmunds, A., & Edmunds, G
Fuchs, D., Mock, D., Morgan, P.L., & Young, C. L. (2003). Responsiveness –to- intervention: Definitions, evidence and implications for the learning disabilities construct. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 16, 174-181.
Hammill, D.D., Leigh, J. E., McNutt, G., & Larsen, S. C. (1981). A new definition of learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 4,336-342.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004. (2004). Public Law 108-446
Jones, V., & Jones, L
Kauffman, J. M., Bantz, J., & McCullough, J. (2002) Separate and better: A special public school class for students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Exceptionality,10,149-170.
Learning Disabilities Association of Canada (2002). Retrieved January, 3, 2011 from www.ldac.acta.ca
National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities
Paul-Brown, D., & Caperton, C. J. (2001). Inclusive practices for pres-school age children with Specific language impairment. In M.J. Guralnick (Ed.), Early Childhood Inclusion: Focus on change. Baltimore: Brookes.
Sedita, J. (1999). Helping Your Child with Organization and Study Skills. Retrieved from http://ldonline.org/article
U.S. Department of Education (2004). Twenty fifth annual report to Congress on implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: Author.
Walker, H. M., Ramsey, E., & Gresham, F. M. (2004). Antisocial behavior in school: Strategies and best practices (2nd ed.) Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Please join StudyMode to read the full document