The bill includes a special rule for determining eligibility, which provides that lack of adequate instruction in science-based reading, lack of math instruction or limited English proficiency cannot be the deciding factor in deciding whether the child has a disability. Myth 8. More boys than girls have learning difficulties. Reality. Although three times as many boys as girls are identified by schools as having learning disabilities, studies show that, in fact, the same number of boys and girls have the most common form of the learning problem – difficulty reading. Many girls` learning difficulties are not recognized or addressed. The true prevalence of learning disabilities is the subject of much controversy due to the lack of a standard definition of LD and objective diagnostic criteria. Some researchers have argued that the currently recognized prevalence rate of 5% is exaggerated and based on vague definitions, leading to inaccurate identification. On the other hand, research efforts to identify objective early indicators of LD in basic reading skills have revealed that virtually all children who fall below the 25th percentile on standardized reading tests can meet the criteria for a reading disorder. Although less is known about LD in written expression, researchers estimate its true prevalence at 8% to 15% of the school population. Research also shows that about 6% of the school population has math difficulties that are not due to low intelligence, sensory deficits or economic deprivation. According to the provisions of the IDEA, decisions on the presence or absence of a disability, as well as the provision of special education services, are made by a multidisciplinary team which, according to the law, must include parents, a regular teacher, an administrator and all professionals who have assessed the child. The notion of discrepancy is reflected in IDEA, which states that “a team may determine that a child has a particular learning disability” when two conditions are met: (1) “The child does not reach a level appropriate to his or her age and abilities.
whether they have learning experiences appropriate to the age and abilities of the child”; and (2) “The team determines that a child has a significant gap between achievement and intellectual ability” in one or more domains of academic ability. The real problem with using this approach is defining exactly what it means to be below the expected level of performance. Today, children in special education are protected by Public Law 108-446, the Law on the Improvement of Education for Persons with Disabilities (IDEA 2004). The definition of IDEA has not changed in its criteria and guidelines on what constitutes a learning disability. Under the current federal legislation, the following wording has been established. Data shows that 80% of students identified as having learning disabilities have a speech disability. Therefore, for all children suspected of having a learning disability, the speech-language pathologist should ensure that the child receives a speech and language assessment to determine the absence or presence of a speech or language disability. If an ALL continues to require the use of an IQ gap formula to determine if a child has a particular learning disability, the speech-language pathologist should work with other special education and related ALL staff to provide information on why the formula should not be used as the sole means of determining whether a child has a particular learning disability. Indeed, the more politically correct term “learning differences” provides a more accurate snapshot that captures the nature of learning disabilities. With appropriate special education services, students with learning disabilities can thrive academically.
Take, for example, a student with dysgraphia. He or she may have ideas worthy of an A for a paper in his or her head, but without adjustments, those ideas probably won`t deserve the grade they deserve. One possible adaptation for such a scenario is to use text-to-speech technology to write articles. Second, IDEA points out that to determine whether a child has a particular learning disability, an LEA may use a procedure that determines whether a child is responding to research-based scientific interventions as part of the assessment procedures used to determine whether the child has a disability. This is called an intervention response (ITR). The term “specific learning disability” refers to a disorder in 1 or more of the basic psychological processes involved in the understanding or use of spoken or written language, which can manifest as the imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell or perform mathematical calculations. Don`t be misled by the term “learning disabilities,” teachers and parents. This term is based on the widespread assumption that children with learning disabilities cannot learn.
NICHCY suggests something different, explaining, “Children with learning disabilities are not `stupid` or `lazy.` In fact, they usually have average or above-average intelligence. Your brain simply processes information differently. The definition of a learning disability in IDEA also includes an “opt-out clause.” The exclusion clause states that a learning disability “does not include a learning disability that results primarily from a visual, hearing or motor disability, mental retardation, emotional disorder or environmental, cultural or economic disadvantage.” The purpose of this exclusion clause is to prevent inappropriate labelling of children, especially children from different cultures who have acquired learning styles, language or behaviours incompatible with the academic requirements of schools in the dominant culture.