Do State Methods of Quantifying a Severe Discrepancy Result in Fewer Students with Learning Disabilities?

Abstract

Minimizing misclassification of students with LD is a major concern for policymakers, particularly if financial incentives are available for placing children in such programs. In the current study, individual states' methods of defining a severe discrepancy for determining LD eligibility are examined, as well as the way use of such methods influences misclassification. The percentage of the total population identified as LD by individual states (as reported to the federal government) was compared. Results showed variations from 2.19% to 8.66% in the percentage of students aged 7 to 16 identified as LD across states. Seven of the states in the lowest percentage decile used a method for determining a severe discrepancy; in comparison, only two of the states in the decile identifying the most students used a method of determining a severe discrepancy. It was concluded that use of any method to determine a severe discrepancy may help reduce the number of inappropriate placements resulting from labeling students as LD.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

American Association of School Administrators. (1983). Financing a free and appropriate public education for handicapped students. Alexandria, VA: Author.

Clarizio

H. F.

Phillips

S. E.

(1989). Defining severe discrepancy in the diagnosis of learning disabilities: A comparison of methods. The Journal of School Psychology, 27, 383–391.

Cone

T. E.

Wilson

L. R.

(1981). Quantifying a severe discrepancy: A critical analysis. Learning Disability Quarterly, 4, 358–379.

Finlan

T. G.

(1990). The growth of learning disabilities: Fiscal and definitional implications. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Penn State University.

Frankenberger

Harper

(1987). States' criteria and procedures for identifying learning disabled children: A comparison of 1981/1982 and 1985/86 guidelines. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20, 118–121.

Hallahan

Keller

Ball

(1986). A comparison of prevalence rate variability from state to state for each of the categories of special education. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 8–14.

Hobbs

(1975). The futures of children: Categories, labels, and their consequences. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Keogh

B. K.

(1986). Classification, compliance, and confusion. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 16, 25.

Noel

M. M.

Fuller

B. C.

(1985). The social policy construction of special education: The impact of state characteristics on identification and integration of handicapped children. Remedial and Special Education, 6(3), 27–35.

10.

Shepard

L. A.

Smith

M. L.

(1983). An evaluation of the identification of learning disabled students in Colorado. Learning Disability Quarterly, 6, 115–127.

11.

Tucker

Stevens

L. J.

Ysseldyke

J. E.

(1983). Learning disabilities: The experts speak out. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 16(1), 6–14.

12.

U. S. Department of Education. (1984). 6th annual report to Congress on the implementation of public law 94–142. Washington, DC: Author.

13.

U. S. Department of Education. (1989a). 11th annual report to Congress on the implementation of public law 94–142. Washington, DC: Author.

14.

U. S. Department of Education. (1989b). Projections of education statistics to 2000. Washington, DC: Author.

15.

U. S. Office of Education. (1977). Education of handicapped children: Implementation of Part B of the Education of Handicapped Act. Federal Register, 42(163), August 23.

16.

Ysseldyke

J. E.

Algozzine

Regan

McGue

(1981). The influence of test scores and naturally occurring pupil characteristics on psychoeducational decision making with children. Journal of School Psychology, 19, 167–177.

17.

Ysseldyke

J. E.

Algozzine

Shinn

M. R.

McGue

(1982). Similarities and differences between low achievers and students classified as learning disabled. Journal of Special Education, 16, 73–85.

18.

Ysseldyke

J. E.

Thurlow

M. L.

(1984). Assessment practices in special education: Adequacy and appropriateness. Educational Psychologist, 19(3), 123–136.