Handbook of Learning Disabilities

78 FOUNDATIONS AND CURRENT PERSPECTIVES

would unequivocally separate exogenous tion or with direct instruction. The political
and endogenous functioning and that might center of the learning disability movement
provide a prototype for LD” (Kavale & practically dissolved in the mid 1970s . . .
Forness, 1984, p. 22). Kavale and Forness the professional climate a the time was acri-
(1985) then demonstrated how the validity monious and often vituperative” (Hammill,
of the three primary ideas of the Strauss and 1993, p. 303). The scientific LD discipline
Werner paradigm could also be challenged. thus had many competing voices which
In Kuhn’s (1970) analysis of the history of meant that their “messages had limited im-
science, such a situation should initiate a pact and influence on the way the field be-
paradigm shift, but the LD discipline has haved. In many respects, there was a politi-
never really abandoned these questionable cal vacuum in the LD field that was filled at
suppositions. The reason is found in histori- various times by various organizations for
cal linkages (see Hallahan & Cruickshank, various reasons” (Kavale & Forness, 1998,
1973) that demonstrate how the LD disci- p. 262).
pline was shaped by colleagues and students
of Strauss and Werner who naturally incor- Theoretical Development
porated their paradigm into conceptualiza-
tions about the nature of LD. This situation Although process theories were initially pre-
produced “a bias toward the Strauss and dominant in the scientific LD discipline,
Werner ‘paradigm’ that is both profound they were generally found invalid, and alter-
and pervasive” (Kavale & Forness, 1985, p. native theoretical ideas began to appear.
16). Wong (1979a, 1979b) discussed the prob-
lems associated with LD theory at the time
Process Theories in terms of its unidimensional nature and
isolated context and then critically reviewed
In terms of theoretical structure, the emerg- seven theories about LD. In a later analysis,
ing scientific LD discipline was dominated Torgesen (1986) suggested that LD theory
by process theories as conceptualized by was best described in terms of three broad
Cruickshank, Ayres, Frostig, Kirk, Barsch, paradigms including the neuropsychological
Getman, Kephart, Cratty, Myklebust, Dela- (understanding cognitive abilities in terms
cato, and others. The process approach was of the specific brain systems that support
based on the idea that the mind contained a them), information processing (cognitive
variety of processes whose efficient func- ability as symbol manipulation analogous
tioning was prerequisite for learning. to a computer), and applied behavior analy-
sis (behavior explained in terms of observ-
The dominant-process theories began to able relationships between stimuli and re-
witness vigorous philosophical attacks (e.g., sponses).
Mann, 1971) as well as questions about the
“true” relation between processes and acad- Applied behavior analysis theory was
emic learning (e.g., Kavale, 1981b, 1982). combined with information processing the-
Soon following were empirical findings dis- ory to form cognitive behavior modification
counting the benefits of perceptual–motor theory (Meichenbaum, 1977) whose cogni-
training (Hammill, 1972; Kavale & Matt- tive elements were derived from Flavell’s
son, 1983), psycholinguistic training, (1978) construct of metacognition (self-
(Hammill & Larsen, 1974; Kavale, 1981a), awareness and self-regulation). This new
and modality-matched instruction (Arter & theory described the possibility that stu-
Jenkins, 1979; Kavale & Forness, 1987c). dents with LD may have performance
The negative evidence led Vellutino, Steger, deficits rather than ability problems that
Moyer, Harding, and Niles (1977) to ask, were manifested by passive responses to the
“Has the perceptual deficit hypothesis led learning environment (Torgesen, 1977). By
us astray?” (p. 375). The often contentious emphasizing how a student learns as op-
academic debate about the process orienta- posed to what a student learns, Wong
tion of LD soon spread to professional or- (1987) suggested that metacognitive theory
ganizations where “the controversy polar- moved the scientific LD discipline away
ized the field, and most professionals more from deficit-based conceptualizations.
of less identified with the process orienta-
Although paradigmatic pluralism moved

Learning Disability as a Discipline 79

the scientific LD discipline away from nar- scription of LD that made its parallel to nu-
row and unidimensional conceptualizations, merical taxonomy in botany and zoology
LD theory had not yet advanced to support less than exact (Kavale & Forness, 1987a).
a true scientific LD discipline (Kavale,
1987c). Much research was produced that Although LD research was generally
could not be rationally connected to any deemed satisfactory (Swanson & Trahan,
theoretical perspective and thus was not 1986), critiques of LD research were com-
generalizable. To remedy the situation, the mon from the beginning. Cohen (1976) dis-
Bureau of Education for the Handicapped cussed the “fuzziness” and the “flab” where
funded five research institutes in 1977 LD research was “suffocating in correlation
where information processing, social com- coefficients between fuzzies. These findings
petence, LD in adolescents, identification contribute little to man’s basic knowledge
of students with LD, and attention and or to his theoretical models” (p. 135). Nev-
metacognitive difficulties were investigated ertheless, the scientific LD discipline contin-
(see Deshler, 1978). The institutes were gen- ued to explore its research base with at-
erally judged favorably (see Keogh, 1983) tempts to clearly define issues and to
but some criticism was directed at the Uni- provide suggestions for future directions
versity of Minnesota institute investigating (see Vaughn & Bos, 1987).
identification and decision making about
LD (see McKinney, 1983). Basic vs. Applied Research

Research Over time, research emphasis became con-
troversial with differing opinions about the
The volume of inquiry about the nature of merits of basic versus applied research.
LD began to increase significantly (Halla- Some lamented the lack of basic research in
han & Cruickshank, 1973). The empirical LD while others argued that the field was
base continued to outpace theoretical devel- better served by applied research efforts that
opment, however, with an increasing un- teachers could immediately put to use in
wieldyness and inconsistency associated their classrooms. Swanson (1988) presented
with research findings. The difficulties a compelling case for the critical role of ba-
stemmed from two factors: (1) the hetero- sic research in developing a metatheory of
geneity of the LD population and (2) the in- LD: “Theory in turn, allows for the devel-
complete descriptions of the characteristics opment of a genuine service, prevents the
of research subjects. Surveys of the research practice of data collection that does not
literature (e.g., Kavale & Nye, 1981) found contribute to an understanding of events,
that many studies failed to report essential organizes existing studies, and reveals the
sample characteristics, and even if reported, complexity of simple events” (p. 206). But
the studies were done in a manner that did this view was challenged by those with an
not permit precise comparison between applied research bias where treatment was
samples. considered primary; theory was “nice” but
not critical (e.g., Gavalek & Palincsar,
The problem of heterogeneity remained a 1988).
significant barrier to enhanced understand-
ing of LD (Gallagher, 1986). One solution Philosophical Disputes
offered was empirical subtyping techniques
that used methods from numerical taxono- The scientific LD discipline also experienced
my to see how large data sets describing LD philosophical disputes. During the late
characteristics clustered to form discrete 1980s, LD was accused of possessing an en-
and independent groupings (Feagans, Short, during reductionist philosophy that resulted
& Meltzer, 1991). A major goal was to find in the belief “a) that learning disabilities can
not only diagnostic entities but also remedi- be reduced so as to allow definition of a sin-
al groupings that might be the basis of sub- gle verifiable entity (or set of entities), b)
type-by-treatment interactions (e.g., Lyon, that the teaching/learning process is most ef-
1985; McKinney & Speece, 1986). The sub- fective when most reduced (e.g., controlled,
type approach was not without problems, focused, and segmented)” (Poplin, 1988b,
most notably the lack of a formalized de- p. 398).

80 FOUNDATIONS AND CURRENT PERSPECTIVES

Heshusius (1989b) argued against the sci- bears little resemblance to any LD that was
entific LD discipline’s predominant “New- known then or is known now” (Kavale &
tonian mechanistic paradigm [where] all Forness, 1998, p. 257).
complexity is to be broken down into com-
ponents” (p. 404). Iano (1986) offered a This genre of LD analysis reached its
similar critique of the “natural science–tech- zenith with The Learning Mystique: A Criti-
nical” model where the focus was on ana- cal Look at “Learning Disabilites” (Coles,
lyzing a totality into parts. Generally, it was 1987), which described a social “interactivi-
suggested that the scientific LD discipline ty” theory of LD and viewed any biophysi-
needed to move from its positivist roots and cal formulation of LD as “‘blaming the vic-
would be better served by a holistic para- tim’ [because] systemic, economic, social,
digm that attempted to understand com- and cultural conditions are the principle in-
plexity rather than trying to reduce it to fluences contributing to learning failure” (p.
simplicity (Poplin, 1988a). These ideas were 209). In reality, “Marxist analyses fail to en-
not readily endorsed (e.g., Forness, 1988; hance our understanding LD in any mean-
Forness & Kavale, 1987) but were staunch- ingful fashion” (Kavale & Forness, 1998, p.
ly defended (e.g., Heshusius, 1989a; Iano, 258), and the scientific LD discipline could
1987). not advance if Coles’s (1987) views were ac-
cepted. First, it was a unidimensional view
The scientific LD discipline continued to stressing sociopolitical influences while re-
hear claims about the holistic/nonmechanis- jecting biophysical influences. Second, there
tic paradigm being “good” and “better” but was a resistance to accept even validated
little evidence to that effect. Once the scien- scientific evidence about the nature of LD.
tific basis of LD was assailed with philo- Yet, apologists continued to uncritically ac-
sophical arguments, ideology became an in- cept Coles’s view that “the real reason that
creasingly important consideration in children function poorly usually is not that
shaping the LD discipline. Although LD had anything is wrong with the children, but,
its roots in medicine, the real-world of rather because of injustices in the school
schools provided the possibility of social in- system and in society” (Miller, 1990, p. 87).
fluence and political beliefs directing ac- What all these Marxist analyses really
tions. meant was moot because “the proposed so-
lutions are solely political in character and
Learning Disability and Marxist Ideology usually require nothing less than a revolu-
tionary restructuring of present society. The
The late 1970s saw the rise of such an ideol- proposed solutions are simplistic because
ogy in Marxist views where schooling was they fail to recognize the reality (and com-
assumed to serve only the interests of elites, plexity) of phenomena and are dangerous
to reinforce inequalities, and to foster atti- because they emphasize egalitarian fantasies
tudes that maintained the status quo (Sharp, that serve only to exacerbate existing rela-
1980). For example, Carrier (1986) indicat- tions” (Kavale & Forness, 1998, p. 260).
ed that, “Marxist models suggest that learn-
ing disability theory might be explicable as Some solutions discussed the necessity for
a set of beliefs which legitimate capitalist in- “looking through other lenses and listening
equality and social relations” (p. 124) to other voices” (see special series in the
where LD was assumed to be associated Journal of Learning Disabilities) which
with “sociogenic brain damage.” Sleeter combined Marxist ideology with New Age
(1986) reinterpreted the history of LD from wisdom to describe “the problems we face
a conflict perspective that suggested LD was as accomplices in creating and maintaining
a special education category created to ex- bureaucracies and other structures that con-
plain the school failure of white, middle- tribute to the current injustices of ‘ableism’,
class students. Kavale and Forness (1987b) racism, and classism” (Poplin, 1995, p.
suggested that Sleeter’s arguments were fal- 393). The difficulty was that the resultant
lacious and based on assumptions that were sociocultural constructionism placed any
“unremittingly racist, exclusive, and unde- scientific LD in a secondary position, result-
mocratic” (p. 7). Consequently, “There is a ing in a loss of rationality and increasing
permeating unreality to these analyses that difficulty in resolving important questions
such as, “What is LD?”

Learning Disability as a Discipline 81

The Consequences of Ideology (Snowling, 1981), the inability to group
words based on rhyme (Bradley & Bryant,
The increasingly ideological bent of LD had 1985), the significantly longer time required
significant negative consequences for the sci- to process auditory stimuli (McCroskey &
entific LD discipline. Was LD myth or reali- Kidder, 1980), and short-term auditory
ty? For example, the myth idea was ex- memory or encoding limitations (Kamhi,
pressed thusly: “it should by now be clear Catts, & Mauer, 1990). The areas of writ-
that there is no such thing as learning dis- ten language deficits (e.g., Graham, 1990;
ability” (McKnight, 1982, p. 352). Finlan Montague, Maddux, & Dereshiwsky,
(1994) called LD an “imaginary” disease 1990), spelling problems (e.g., Bruck, 1988;
“that was an “ill-conceived movement that Carpenter, 1983), and handwriting (dys-
has run amok and is placing millions of graphia) (e.g., Deuel, 1995; Gerard &
youngsters in a disabling trajectory toward Junkala, 1980) were also investigated.
failure and low self-esteem from which there
is little hope of escape” (p. 8). These critical From the early 1980s, it became apparent
analyses only described the LD concept in that the scientific LD discipline was primar-
terms of what it had become. These descrip- ily oriented toward a metacognitive founda-
tions of LD ignored the associated “specific” tion for explaining performance differences
adjective and attempted to fabricate an ex- (e.g., Bauer, 1987; Wong, 1985). This foun-
pansive LD including students who may re- dation also included enhanced understand-
quire special education but who may not ing about attention (e.g., Riccio, Gonzalez,
meet the parameters defining specific LD. & Hynd, 1994), memory (Swanson &
Thus, “LD moved from a specific condition Cooney, 1991), especially working memory
(‘all LD include learning problems’) to a gen- (Swanson, 1993), and attributions (Bor-
eral condition (‘all learning problems include kowski, Johnston, & Reid, 1986), especially
LD’)” (Kavale & Forness, 1998, p. 265). the notion of “learned helplessness” (Pearl,
Bryan, & Donahue, 1980). The elements of
Theoretical Advances metacognition were explored with respect
to metacomprehension (Bos & Filip, 1984),
Despite the corrosive effects of social con- self-monitoring (Reid, 1996), metamemory
structions of LD, the scientific LD discipline (Lucangeli, Galderisi, & Cornoldi, 1995),
continued to produce major research contri- mnemonics (Mastropieri & Scruggs, 1989),
butions directed at understanding LD and scaffolding (Stone, 1998). Clearly, the
(Vaughn & Bos, 1994). For example, the earlier emphasis on perceptual-motor vari-
linguistic development and behavior of stu- ables for explaining LD were replaced by a
dents with LD was comprehensively de- more cognitive information processing view
scribed (Wiig, 1990). The mathematics area (Lyon & Krasnegor, 1996).
was also investigated (e.g., Cawley, Fitz-
maurice, Shaw, Kahn, & Bates, 1979; Gins- A New Research Agenda
burg, 1997) with particular attention to
dyscalculia (Kosc, 1974). Although the rate of LD publication in-
creased significantly (see Gerber, 1999–
Reading (dyslexia), the most common 2000; Summers, 1986), the theoretical de-
academic deficit among students with LD, velopment of the field still appeared to lag
became a major focus. Rather than primari- behind (Kavale, 1993). A number of theo-
ly a visual–perceptual problem, reading dif- ries were proposed (see Torgesen, 1993),
ficulties began to be viewed as basic linguis- but none could fully explain the deficits ex-
tic deficits (Vellutino, 1977). Among the perienced by an increasingly heterogenous
most important advances was the recogni- LD population: “The difficulty is that not
tion of the importance of phonology (Liber- all students with learning disabilities
man & Shankweiler, 1985), especially demonstrate all these component deficits all
phonemic awareness as a fundamental read- the time. Consequently, any single variable
ing skill (e.g., Stanovich, 1988; Wagner & can explain only learning disabilities in par-
Torgesen, 1987). Reading difficulties were ticular and not learning disabilities in gener-
further described with respect to the greater al” (Kavale & Nye, 1991, p. 152).
amount of processing needed to read
Moats and Lyon (1993) discussed factors

82 FOUNDATIONS AND CURRENT PERSPECTIVES

that may have hampered the development search capacities, and several promising in-
of the scientific LD discipline. What they sights. It has called into question our entire
called for was a new LD research agenda understanding of intelligence, learning, and
that was initiated by the National Institute disability. It has shaken a simplistic, received
of Child Health and Human Development taxonomy of human learning differences to its
(NICHD) (see Lyon, 1995b). The NICHD root and readied us for more complex theory,
then funded research centers that would (1) measurement, and research. These are not
identify critical learning and behavioral di- small or inconsequential intellectual achieve-
agnostic characteristics, (2) develop valid ment and, despite impatience to improve the
early predictors of achievement, (3) map practical lives of real children, continuing on
the course of different types of LD, (4) this path is likely to yield still greater rewards.
identify comorbid conditions that develop (pp. 40–41)
in response to school failure, and (5) assess
the efficacy of different treatment methods The Political Discipline
for different types of LD (Lyon, 1995a).
Advocacy
The NICHD learning disability research
centers have pursued a curious means to The political discipline of LD stands in con-
study LD, however. A number of findings trast to the scientific discipline. In place of
have been reported but one has to search for the goal of understanding, the political LD
findings related to LD because the samples discipline possesses the primary goal of ad-
studied typically included students with vocacy, social action directed at creating
dyslexia or attention-deficit/hyperactivity programs and services to meet the needs
disorder (ADHD). The concepts of LD, and interests of students with LD. Although
dyslexia, and ADHD are not equivalent, a legitimate and necessary activity, advocacy
and it should not be believed that either for LD should not exceed the understanding
dyslexia or ADHD is better defined than of LD. For example, Biklen and Zollers
LD. As suggested by Kavale and Forness (1986) outlined a focus for advocacy in the
(1998), “It could be argued that dyslexia LD field that included increasing public
(reading problems) and ADHD (attention awareness of the LD experience and mini-
problems) are symptoms of LD and not LD mizing negative consequences associated
itself. What are we to make of a student with LD. There was no mention of enhanc-
with LD who possesses neither a reading ing the LD construct, however, and little
nor an attention problem? What are we to discomfort surrounding the fact that LD
do with the many students with LD who was neither defined nor understood in any
possess both a reading and a math prob- precise sense.
lem?” (p. 269).
The political LD discipline appeared to
Evaluating the Scientific Discipline possess an advocacy focus from its start. In
1992, the Journal of Learning Disabilities
The significant theoretical and empirical republished one of its inaugural articles,
contributions over the past 25 years indi- written by Ray Barsch in 1968. The article
cate that the scientific LD discipline has be- addressed the issue about whether the
come well established but continues to face emerging LD should be viewed as a disabili-
a curious dilemma: Far more is known than ty category or a concept where LD “is a
understood about LD. There is little pes- term to be applied to any learner who fails
simism, however, and although there has to benefit from an existing curriculum into
been sometimes quarrelous debate, Gerber which he has been placed” (p. 12). Barsch
(1999–2000) indicated the following: further suggested that “learning disabilities
are to be found wherever there are learners.
My position is that the debate itself has been Narrow definition of a precise set of symp-
an incalcuable benefit. It has unleashed 40 toms will inevitably lead to massive exclu-
years of scholarly interest and effort. That ef- sion” (p.12). Such exclusion has not oc-
fort, in turn, has debunked bromides, generat- curred and ever greater numbers of students
ed valuable new methods and techniques, re- are being served under the LD rubric.

Learning Disability as a Discipline 83

Pseudoscience Should LD be the size that it is? The ques-
tion is difficult to answer primarily because
Although increased numbers are positive for the scientific LD discipline has not provided
the political LD discipline, the scientific LD a “true” prevalence estimate. In place of
discipline suffers because of the continued epidemiological studies, LD prevalence is
movement away from attempts to more often established through policy statements
clearly delineate the basic structure of LD. issued by national organizations, but “this
For example, in the place of real scientific process is inherently political. The decisions
advancement, there is pseudoscientific dis- about prevalence are not based on scientific
cussion about the presence or absence of LD grounds—but political considerations—
in historical figures (e.g., Aaron, Phillips, & primarily, the call to serve more students
Larsen, 1988; Thompson, 1971). There is of- under the LD rubric. Under such circum-
ten little compelling medical or psychologi- stances, LD prevalence estimates become
cal data to support such posthumous diag- unidirectional with a strong bias towards
noses (Adelman & Adelman, 1987). Why increasing prevalence” (Kavale & Forness,
engage in such discussion? The answer is 1998, p. 248).
found in advocacy as demonstrated by Min-
er and Siegel (1992) in their case study of The extraordinary number of students
W. B. Yeats, “We hope that children, parents, with LD has resulted in a loss of integrity
and teachers working with their problem for the field. There is less and less confi-
will be inspired by the brilliant accomplish- dence about whether or not a student is
ments of someone who may have had dyslex- “truly” LD, but this really does not seem to
ia” (p. 375). Thomas (2000) debunked the matter because more students are being
LD of Albert Einstein and suggested that served. The political LD discipline assumes
such discussion may have positive inspira- that as long as students experiencing any
tional effects “but the consequence is of sort of school difficulty receive special edu-
claiming that Einstein had a learning disabil- cation, the field is doing well. The situation
ity without sufficient historical evidence are led Senf (1987) to describe LD as a sponge
deleterious. It distorts the historical record wiping up the spills of general education:
and calls into question the credibility of oth- “The LD sponge grew so fast because it was
er claims regarding the learning disabilities able to absorb a diversity of educational/be-
of prominent persons” (p. 157). The empha- havioral/socioemotional problems irrespec-
sis on advocacy trivializes the scientific disci- tive of their cause, their stabilization, their
pline because a situation is created in which remediation, or their progress” (p. 91).
“a simple axiom captures the state of LD: the
more you don’t know what you are talking Discrepancy, Underachievement, and
about, the greater the number of students Learning Disability
likely to be served under the label about
which you don’t know what you are talking The success of the political LD discipline
about” (Kavale & Forness, 1998, p. 266). may be viewed as a consequence of the lack
of a comprehensive understanding of LD.
Numbers The current definition of LD has been prob-
lematic primarily because of difficulties in
Advocacy for LD has been enormously suc- operationalizing it (Kavale & Forness,
cessful and the LD category now accounts 2000). Although there has been some agree-
for about 52% of all students with disabili- ment about basic concepts (e.g., central ner-
ties served in special education with an ac- vous system dysfunction and process
tual count exceeding 2.5 million. An in- deficits), these elements have been difficult
crease of this magnitude is unprecedented to measure and, consequently, validate. The
and unparalleled. Could any rational specu- difficulties in using the LD definition in
lation in 1970 ever anticipate that more practice led to rules and regulations stipu-
than one-half of all students identified for lating discrepancy as the primary criterion
special education might be subsumed under to be used for LD identification (U.S. Office
a single category? of Education, 1977). The discrepancy con-
cept was introduced in a definition offered

84 FOUNDATIONS AND CURRENT PERSPECTIVES

by Bateman (1965) and was considered a McGue, 1982). The findings appeared to
proxy for the idea that LD was associated show a large degree of overlap between test
with unexpected school failure (under- scores of LD and low achievement (LA)
achievement). The discrepancy concept was groups to the point where it was not possi-
quickly embraced and soon became the pri- ble to differentiate group membership un-
mary (and often sole) criterion used for LD equivocally. These findings were taken to
identification (Mercer, Jordan, Allsop, & mean that efforts at differentiating LD and
Mercer, 1996). LA were futile, and that LD had become an
“over-sophisticated concept” (see Algozzine
The discrepancy concept precipitated & Ysseldyke, 1983) that was best replaced
much debate about statistical and psychome- by a more general category encompassing
tric issues (e.g., Cone & Wilson, 1981; primarily LA. A “reprieve” for the LD con-
Reynolds, 1984–1985; Shepard, 1980) but cept was offered (see Wilson, 1985), along
the real problem, from the scientific LD dis- with caution about concluding that LD and
cipline viewpoint, was that discrepancy rep- LA could not be distinguished: “The fact
resented the operational definition of under- that many diagnosticians . . . do not distin-
achievement (Kavale, 1987b). Consequently, guish learning disabilities from generic low
discrepancy was really not a proxy for LD it- performance does not mean it cannot be
self, but when it was used as the sole identifi- done” (Bateman, 1992, p. 32).
cation criterion, discrepancy by definition
becomes the equivalent of LD. Under- Kavale, Fuchs, and Scruggs (1994) reex-
achievement and LD are not equivalent con- amined the study by Ysseldyke and col-
cepts, which suggests that discrepancy might leagues (1982) using quantitative synthesis
be better viewed as a necessary but not suffi- methods (meta-analysis). On average, it was
cient criterion for LD identification (Kavale, found that it was possible to reliably differ-
1987b). When placed in such a context, dis- entiate 63% of the LD group from the LA
crepancy remains an important foundation group. Conversely, 37% could not be differ-
concept for LD and makes any discussion entiated, and this figure represented the de-
about its “demise” untenable (see Aaron, gree of overlap which stands in sharp con-
1997). trast to the 95% LD–LA overlap reported in
the IRLD study. There was modest group
The reliance on the single criterion of dis- differentiation in the ability area (ES =
crepancy for LD identification resulted in 0.304) but large group differentiation (ES =
increasing vagueness about the LD concept: 0.763) in the achievement area with the LD
“LD is not some scientifically proven, hard- group representing the lowest of the low
to-identify disease but a made-up category achievers; the LD group was thus discrepant
in which to place children” (Finlan, 1994, while the LA group was not.
p. 7). Although the discrepancy criterion
was efficient, its use soon undermined the Algozzine, Ysseldyke, and McGue (1995)
system. First, it was not applied rigorously, countered with the suggestion that although
leading to the finding that sometimes up to students with LD may be the lowest of the
50% of LD samples did not demonstrate low achievers, they did not represent a qual-
the required level of discrepancy (e.g., itatively different population in the same
Kavale & Reese, 1992; Kirk & Elkins, sense as described for severe mental retarda-
1975; Shepard, Smith, & Vojir, 1983). Sec- tion (MR) (Dingman & Tarjan, 1960) and
ond, many students identified as LD were specific reading disability (Rutter & Yule,
simply judged to be “clinical cases” who 1975). When an identified LD group com-
were provided special education for reasons pared to an LA group demonstrates small
other than being LD (Gelzheiser, 1987). differences in ability and large differences in
achievement, the LD group demonstrates a
Learning Disability and Low Achievement “severe discrepancy” which is the basis for
defining “two distinct populations. Because
The vagaries in the LD identification the LD group was lower on achievement di-
process were demonstrated in studies con- mensions but not on ability, they are, in ad-
ducted by the University of Minnesota Insti- dition to being the lowest of the low achiev-
tute for Research on Learning Disabilities ers, a different population defined by an
(IRLD) (see Ysseldyke, Algozzine, Shinn, & ability–achievement distinction represented

Learning Disability as a Discipline 85

in a different achievement distribution but Ames, 1968; Belmont & Belmont, 1980).
not in a different ability distribution” Historically, students with IQ levels be-
(Kavale, 1995, p. 146). tween 70 (or perhaps 75) to 85 (or perhaps
90) have been the most problematic portion
Gresham, MacMillan, and Bocian (1996) of the school population. These “slow
also found an average 61% (ES = 0.28) learners” (SL) (see Ingram, 1935) were not
LD–LA differentiation and concluded that routinely eligible for special education be-
“LD children performed more poorly in cause they neither met the 2 standard devia-
academic achievement than LA children” tions (SDs) below the mean IQ criterion for
(p. 579). In terms of ability (IQ) levels, there MR or the severe discrepancy criterion for
was less group differentiation, suggesting LD (i.e., no unexpected low achievement).
that the LD group “could be reliably differ- The political LD discipline appears to have
entiated using measures of cognitive ability decided to subsume the SL group (about
and tested academic achievement” (p. 580). 14% of the school population) under the
With reference to reading achievement, LD rubric. One consequence of incorporat-
Fuchs, Fuchs, Mathes, and Lipsey (2000) ing the SL group is an increase in the pro-
found that 72% of an LA group performed portion of students with LD who have IQ
better in reading than the LD group (ES = levels in the low average range (IQ = 70–84)
0.61) and concluded that “school personnel (e.g., Gottlieb, Alter, Gottlieb, & Wishner,
in fact do identify as LD those children who 1994; Shepard et al., 1983). The parameters
have appreciably more severe reading prob- of LD have thus changed to include a new
lems compared to other low-performing class of students who possess learning diffi-
students who go unidentified” (p. 95). culties and low average intelligence “but in
doing so has contorted its basic character
Learning Disability and Intelligence and undermined its scientific integrity”
(Kavale & Forness, 1998, p. 251).
The discrepancy notion continued to be as-
sailed with arguments about whether or not Learning Disability and Mental Retardation
IQ was necessary in defining LD (Siegel,
1989; Stanovich, 1991). The arguments sur- The primary problem with the acceptance
rounded questions about what IQ tests mea- of a below average IQ criterion for LD was
sure and possible confounding about cause- the confounding created with MR (MacMil-
and-effect relations between IQ and reading lan, Gresham, Bocian, & Lambros, 1998).
disability. Meyen (1989) objected to these Gresham et al. (1996) demonstrated how
arguments because they “question the effi- the percentage of students classified as men-
cacy of the category of learning disabilities tally retarded was inversely related to the
itself as a means to identify students who percentage of students classified as learning
warrant special education services” (p. 482) disabled (r = –.24) with the result being
and would create a situation where “we large increases in LD and significant de-
would largely serve low achievers and have creases in MR to the point where the MR
no basis for determining whether or not a prevalence rate was at an illogical 0.6% (see
student is achieving at a reasonable level Forness, 1985). The potential confounding
given his or her ability” (p. 482). The dis- between LD and MR created a situation
crepancy criterion is necessary for LD iden- where students with similar cognitive abili-
tification because of the long-standing as- ties and disabilities were served in one state
sumption that IQ levels for students with as LD and in another as MR (MacMillan,
LD need to be at near average or above lev- Siperstein, & Gresham, 1996). For exam-
els in order to “discriminate between poor ple, MacMillan and colleagues (1996)
achievement that is expected (that is, on the found, in a school referred sample of 150
basis of intellectual ability or sensory handi- students, 43 with IQ Յ 75 but only 6 classi-
caps) and poor achievement that is not ex- fied as mentally retarded while 18 classified
pected (that is, the probable presence of as learning disabled. Similarly, Gottlieb and
LD)” (Scruggs, 1987, p. 22). colleagues (1994) found the mean IQ level
of an urban LD group to be 1.5 SDs lower
The possible elimination of IQ in defining than a comparison suburban LD group and
LD also led to the suggestion that LD might
really be associated with any IQ level (e.g.,

86 FOUNDATIONS AND CURRENT PERSPECTIVES

suggested that the real operational defini- (Morrison, MacMillan, & Kavale, 1985)
tion of LD was as follows: “Low-achieving, produced “problem learners with markedly
low ability children who do not exhibit ag- different characteristics than those proposed
gressive or bizarre behavior and whom by formal models” (Gerber, 1999–2000, p.
teachers cannot accommodate in their gen- 40), primarily because the reason for identi-
eral education classrooms” (pp. 458–459). fication was “planning for services” rather
than determining “eligibility” (see Keogh,
The potential confounding between LD 1994). Thus, schools view eligibility and
and MR means that the basic LD concept of classification as secondary concerns (Bo-
specificity might be lost. As IQ level be- cian, Beebe, MacMillan, & Gresham,
comes lower, learning failure becomes less 1999), which is probably the reason why
unexpected and is likely to be exhibited only half the population with LD actually
across all achievement domains. In contrast, meets the discrepancy criterion. Gottlieb
specific LD was assumed associated with in- and colleagues (1994) suggested that “the
traindividual differences where achievement discrepancy that should be studied most in-
deficits were found in one or more (but not tensively is between the definition of learn-
all) domains (Stanovich, 1986). Without the ing disability mandated by regulation and
specific adjective, LD becomes a more gen- the definition employed on a day-to-day ba-
eralized concept that is closer conceptually sis in urban schools” (p. 455).
to MR, particularly at the borderline levels.
“When combined with the perception that The trend toward school-identified LD
LD is a ‘better,’ less stigmatizing, and more undermines the scientific LD discipline be-
acceptable classification, the desire for LD, cause the original construct becomes essen-
rather than MR designation becomes irre- tially “lost.” In schools, the primary eligibil-
sistible and the [political LD discipline] ap- ity criterion becomes the need for special
pears quite willing to accommodate this de- education services rather than a decision
sire” (Kavale & Forness, 1998, p. 250). about LD or not LD (Coutinho, 1995). All
the high-incidence mild disabilities (LD,
“Losing” Learning Disability MR, E/BD) are, to some degree, essentially
“judgmental categories,” and because LD is
When clear differentiation among categories often judged to be the best choice, LD be-
is lacking, it is the LD category that acts like comes the “catch-all” classification where
an “educational sponge,” not MR or emo- the student in question may possibly require
tional or behavior disorder (E/BD). The sci- special education services but whether or
entific advancement of MR and E/BD have not he or she is “truly” learning disabled re-
not been impeded by an increasingly hetero- mains moot. “Thus, LD covers not only stu-
geneous population like that “absorbed” by dents experiencing specific academic diffi-
LD (Kavale, 1987a). Although the “LD culties but also those who possess learning
sponge” is seemingly successful, MacMil- problems with an overlay of lowered intel-
lan, Gresham, Siperstein, and Bocian lectual ability or mild behavior problems”
(1996), in commenting on the magnitude of (Kavale & Forness, 1998, p. 250). Such an
the increased LD numbers, indicated that LD is a far cry from the originally conceived
“were these epidemic-like figures interpret- scientific construct and raises the important
ed by the Center for Disease Control, one question about whether or not this is what
might reasonably expect to find a quaran- LD should now be.
tine imposed in the public schools of Ameri-
ca” (p. 169). Conclusion

When identified by schools, an essentially The LD discipline is presently a major play-
“new” LD group is generated that does not er in special education as exemplified by the
resemble LD groups identified for research significant increase in publications address-
purposes who were probably selected with ing LD (Durrant, 1994). But caution is nec-
criteria more closely paralleling those found essary because “It would be wrong to inter-
in federal regulations or state education pret this increased rate of publication as any
codes (e.g., MacMillan, Gresham, & Bo- kind of evidence of scientific progress.
cian, 1998; MacMillan & Speece, 1999).
The “system-identified” students with LD

Learning Disability as a Discipline 87

Clearly, the topic, LD, instigated many plementation in the real world of schools
scholars to spend a good deal of time think- (Gersten & Dimino, 2001; Malouf &
ing and writing about the phenomenon. Schiller, 1995). Implementing best practice
However, it is reasonable to ask if the time with integrity and fidelity should be the pri-
was well spent” (Gerber, 1999–2000, p. mary focus of the political LD discipline.
33).
The real goal should be a reduction in the
It would be a mistake to believe that the tensions existing between the scientific and
time studying LD has not been well spent, political LD disciplines. “The LD field must
but this is not to suggest that it has been strive to attain a better balance between
solely a “good” time. The “bad” time has politics and science. Science must not be
created a disciplinary split where a scientif- viewed as some esoteric activity” (Kavale &
ic LD discipline and a political LD disci- Forness, 1998, p. 270) and there needs to
pline operate with different goals and ob- be increased belief in the axiom that “there
jectives. The scientific LD discipline seeks is nothing so practical as a good theory”
to understand LD and provide a clear and (see Polansky, 1986). Nevertheless, “Poli-
unencumbered view of the nature of LD. tics is a necessary component of any phe-
The political LD discipline possesses the nomenon . . . [and] . . . although politics is
goal of identifying ever-increasing numbers the mechanism for structuring LD in the
of students to provide the special education real world . . . it does engender much bick-
they presumably require. The difficulty is ering that is counterproductive in produc-
that the students identified by the political ing greater understanding of LD” (Kavale,
LD discipline often bear little resemblance Forness, MacMillan, & Gresham, 1998, p.
to the description of LD offered by the sci- 316). With reduced tensions between scien-
entific LD discipline. Thus, a new and dif- tific and political LD, a more unified disci-
ferent population with LD is created that pline may be created that possesses greater
significantly complicates the goal of under- potential for resolving basic issues.
standing desired by the scientific LD disci-
pline. Even a more unified LD discipline may
likely face new vexing issues (see Swanson,
For the scientific LD discipline, the prob- 2000). Nevertheless, a more unified LD dis-
lems are not entirely conceptual. There ap- cipline will be in a better position to resolve
pears to be an implicit understanding about issues without a predominant politicized
the characteristics of LD (see Swanson & character that is not often informed by sci-
Christie, 1994), which suggests that prob- entific understanding. The likely outcome
lems with identifying LD surround the way would be more rational solutions and the
the definition has been operationalized elimination of discussions about whether or
(Kavale & Forness, 2000). Presently, the not the LD discipline might be in danger of
formal LD definition does not explicitly in- extinction (see Mather & Roberts, 1994).
clude the concept of discrepancy (within the Doing away with the perceived problem
context of underachievement), and yet dis- (i.e., LD) offers no resolution because of the
crepancy is often the only criterion articu- continuing “moral and legal obligation to
lated in the operational definitions used in provide individuals with LDs with appro-
practice. This is not good science, and the priate service” (p. 56). Instead of being on
scientific LD discipline should seek to pro- the defensive (see Keogh, 1987), the LD dis-
vide a new formal definition that explicitly cipline should take the offensive in pro-
states what LD represents based on several claiming that “active debate over concepts,
decades of accumulated understanding policies, and practices of LD produces bene-
about the nature of LD. fits by creating, attracting, and focusing in-
tellectual (as well as material) resources in a
For the political LD discipline, the advo- universe of problems that although com-
cacy focus needs to shift from the goal of in- plex, tangled, ambiguous, even poorly de-
creasing numbers to providing the best in- fined are nonetheless real and important to
struction possible. The scientific LD those who engage over them” (Gerber,
discipline has provided powerful, research- 1999–2000, p. 30). Thus, LD should be cel-
based interventions (e.g., Gersten, 1998; ebrated and, with a more unified perspec-
Swanson & Hoskyn, 1998) but the endur- tive, perhaps move beyond its depiction for
ing research-to-practice gap has limited im-

88 FOUNDATIONS AND CURRENT PERSPECTIVES

some 20 years as a “battered discipline” monitoring in learning disabled and average stu-
(Haight, 1980). dents. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 17,
229–233.
References Borkowski, J. G., Johnston, M. B., & Reid, M. K.
(1986). Metacognition, motivation, and the
Aaron, P. G. (1997). The impending demise of the transfer of control processes. In S. J. Ceci (Ed.),
discrepancy formula. Review of Educational Re- Handbook of cognition, social, and neuropsy-
search, 67, 461–502. chological aspects of learning disabilities (Vol. 2,
pp. 147–174). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Aaron, P. G., Phillips, S., & Larsen, S. (1988). Spe- Bradley, L., & Bryant, P. (1985). Rhyme and reason
cific reading disability in historically famous per- in reading and spelling. Ann Arbor: University of
sons. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21, Michigan Press.
523–538. Bruck, M. (1988). The word recognition and
spelling of dyslexic children. Reading Research
Adelman, K. A., & Adelman, H. S. (1987). Rodin, Quarterly, 23, 51–69.
Patton, Edison, Wilson, Einstein: Were they real- Carpenter, D. (1983). Spelling error profile of able
ly learning disabled? Journal of Learning Disabil- and disabled readers. Journal of Learning Dis-
ities, 20, 270–279. abilities, 16, 102–104.
Carrier, J. G. (1986). Learning disability: Social
Algozzine, B., & Ysseldyke, J. (1983). Learning dis- class and the construction of inequality in Ameri-
abilities as a subset of school failure: The over-so- can education. New York: Greenwood Press.
phistication of a concept. Exceptional Children, Cawley, J. F., Fitzmaurice, A. M., Shaw, R., Kahn,
50, 242–246. H., & Bates, H. (1979). LD youth and mathe-
matics: A review of characteristics. Learning Dis-
Algozzine, B., Ysseldyke, J. E., & McGue, M. ability Quarterly, 2, 29–44.
(1995). Differentiating low-achieving students: Clements, S. D. (1966). Minimal brain dysfunction
Thoughts on setting the record straight. Learning in children: Terminology and identification.
Disabilities Research and Practice, 10, 140–144. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health, Ed-
ucation and Welfare.
Ames, L. B. (1968). A low intelligence quotient of- Cohen, S. A. (1976). The fuzziness and the flab:
ten not recognized as the chief cause of many Some solutions to research problems in learning
learning difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabili- disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 10,
ties, 1, 735–738. 129–136.
Coles, G. S. (1987). The learning mystique: A criti-
Arter, J. A., & Jenkins, J. R. (1979). Differential di- cal look at “learning disabilities.” New York:
agnostic-prescriptive teaching: A critical ap- Fawcett Columbine.
praisal. Review of Educational Research, 49, Cone, T. E., & Wilson, L. R. (1981). Quantifying a
517–555. severe discrepancy: A critical analysis. Learning
Disability Quarterly, 4, 359–371.
Barsch, R. H. (1992). Prospectives on learning dis- Coutinho, M. (1995). Who will be learning dis-
abilities: The vectors of new convergence. Journal abled after the revolution of IDEA? Two very dis-
of Learning Disabilities, 25, 6–16. tinct perspectives. Journal of Learning Disabili-
ties, 28, 664–668.
Bateman, B. (1992). Learning disabilities: The Deshler, D. D. (1978). New research institutes for
changing landscape. Journal of Learning Disabil- the study of learning disabilities. Learning Dis-
ities, 25, 29–36. ability Quarterly, 1, 68–78.
Deuel, R. K. (1995). Developmental dysgraphia and
Bateman, B. D. (1965). An educational view of a di- motor skills disorders. Journal of Child Neurolo-
agnostic approach to learning disabilities. In J. gy, 10, 56–68.
Hellmuth (Ed.), Learning disorders (Vol. 1, pp. Doris, J. (1993). Defining learning disabilities: A
219–239). Seattle, WA: Special Child Publica- history of the search for consensus. In G. R.
tions. Lyon, D. B. Gray, J. F. Kavanagh, & N. A. Kras-
negor (Eds.), Better understanding learning dis-
Bauer, R. H. (1987). Control processes as a way of abilities (pp. 97–116). Baltimore: Brookes.
understanding, diagnosing, and remediating Durrant, J. E. (1994). A decade of research on
learning disabilities. In H. L. Swanson (Ed.), Ad- learning disabilities: A report card on the state of
vances in learning and behavioral disabilities: the literature. Journal of Learning Disabilities,
Memory and learning disabilities (Vol. 2, pp. 27, 25–33.
41–79). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Feagans, L. V., Short, E. J., & Meltzer, L. J. (Eds.).
(1991). Subtypes of learning disabilities: Theoret-
Belmont, I., & Belmont, L. (1980). Is the slow ical perspectives and research. Hillsdale, NJ: Erl-
learner in the classroom learning disabled? Jour- baum.
nal of Learning Disabilities, 13, 496–499. Finlan, T. G. (1994). Learning disability: The imag-
inary disease. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.
Biklen, D., & Zollers, N. (1986). The focus of ad-
vocacy in the LD field. Journal of Learning Dis-
abilities, 19, 579–586.

Bocian, K. M., Beebe, M. E., MacMillan, D. L., &
Gresham, F. M. (1999). Competing paradigms in
learning disabilities classification by schools and
the variations in meaning of discrepant achieve-
ment. Learning Disabilities Research and Prac-
tice, 14, 1–14.

Bos, C. S., & Filip, D. (1984). Comprehension

Learning Disability as a Discipline 89

Flavell, J. H. (1978). Metacognitive aspects of prob- ment, and mild mental retardation: More alike
lem solving. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), The nature of than different? Journal of Learning Disabilities,
intelligence (pp. 231–235). Hillsdale, NJ: Erl- 29, 570–581.
baum. Haight, S. L. (1980). Learning disabilities—The
battered discipline. Journal of Learning Disabili-
Forness, S. R. (1985). Effects of public policy at the ties, 13, 452–455.
state level: California’s impact on MR, LD, and Hallahan, D. P., & Cruickshank, W. M. (1973).
ED categories. Remedial and Special Education, Psychoeducational foundations of learning dis-
6, 36–43. abilities. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Hammill, D. D. (1972). Training visual perceptual
Forness, S. R. (1988). Reductionism, paradigm processes. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 5,
shifts, and learning disabilities. Journal of Learn- 552–559.
ing Disabilities, 21, 421–424. Hammill, D. D. (1993). A brief look at the learning
disabilities movement in the United States. Jour-
Forness, S. R., & Kavale, K. A. (1987). Holistic in- nal of Learning Disabilities, 26, 295–310.
quiry and the scientific challenge in special edu- Hammill, D. D., & Larsen, S. C. (1974). The effec-
cation: A reply to Iano. Remedial and Special Ed- tiveness of psycholinguistic training. Exceptional
ucation, 8, 47–51. Children, 41, 5–14.
Heshusius, L. (1989a). Holistic principles: Not en-
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Mathes, P. G., & Lipsey, M. hancing the old but seeing A-new. A rejoinder.
W. (2000). Reading differences between low- Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 595–602.
achieving students with and without learning dis- Heshusius, L. (1989b). The Newtonian mechanistic
abilities: A meta-analysis. In R. Gersten, E. P. paradigm, special education, and contours of al-
Schiller, & S. Vaughn (Eds.), Contemporary spe- ternatives: An overview. Journal of Learning Dis-
cial education research: Syntheses of the knowl- abilities, 22, 403–415.
edge base on critical instructional issues (pp. Iano, R. P. (1986). The study and development of
81–104). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. teaching. With implications for the advancement
of special education. Remedial and Special Edu-
Gallagher, J. J. (1986). Learning disabilities and cation, 1, 50–61.
special education: A critique. Journal of Learning Iano, R. P. (1987). Rebuttal: Neither the absolute
Disabilities, 19, 595–601. certainty of prescriptive law nor a surrender to
mysticism. Remedial and Special Education, 8,
Gavelek, J. R., & Palincsar, A. S. (1988). Contextu- 52–61.
alism as an alternative worldview of learning dis- Ingram, C. P. (1935). The education of the slow-
abilities: A response to Swanson’s “Toward a learning child. New York: Ronald Press.
metatheory of learning disabilities.” Journal of Kamhi, A. G., Catts, H. W., & Maurer, D. (1990).
Learning Disabilities, 21, 278–281. Explaining speech production deficits in poor
readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23,
Gelzheiser, L. M. (1987). Reducing the number of 632–636.
students identified as learning disabled: A ques- Kavale, K. A. (1981a). Functions of the Illinois Test
tion of practice, philosophy, or policy? Excep- of Psycholinguistic Abilities (ITPA): Are they
tional Children, 54, 145–150. trainable? Exceptional Children, 47, 496–510.
Kavale, K. A. (1981b). The relationship between
Gerard, J. A., & Junkala, J. (1980). Task analysis, auditory perceptual skills and reading ability: A
handwriting, and process based instruction. Jour- meta-analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities,
nal of Learning Disabilities, 13, 49–58. 14, 539–546.
Kavale, K. A. (1982). Meta-analysis of the relation-
Gerber, M. M. (1999–2000). An appreciation of ship between visual perceptual skills and reading
learning disabilities: The value of blue–green al- achievement. Journal of Learning Disabilities,
gae. Exceptionality, 8, 29–42. 15, 42–51.
Kavale, K. A. (1987a). On regaining integrity in the
Gersten, R. (1998). Recent advances in instruction- LD field. Learning Disabilities Research, 2,
al research for students with learning disabilities: 60–61.
An overview. Learning Disabilities Research and Kavale, K. A. (1987b). Theoretical issues surround-
Practice, 13, 162–170. ing severe discrepancy. Learning Disabilities Re-
search, 3, 12–20.
Gersten, R., & Dimino, J. (2001). The realities of Kavale, K. A. (1987c). Theoretical quandaries in
translating research into classroom practice. learning disabilities. In S. Vaughn & C. S. Bos
Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 16, (Eds.), Research in learning disabilities: Issues
120–130. and future directions (pp. 19–29). Boston: Col-
lege-Hill/Little, Brown.
Ginsburg, H. P. (1997). Mathematics learning dis- Kavale, K. A. (1993). A science and theory of learn-
abilities: A view from developmental psychology. ing disabilities. In G. R. Lyon, D. B. Gray, J. F.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 20–33. Kavanagh, & N. A. Krasnegor (Eds.), Better un-

Goldstein, K. (1939). The organism, a holistic ap-
proach to biology derived from pathological data
in man. New York: American Book.

Gottlieb, J., Alter, M., Gottlieb, B. M., & Wishner,
J. (1994). Special education in urban America:
It’s not justifiable for many. Journal of Special
Education, 27, 453–465.

Graham, S. (1990). The role of production factors
in learning disabled students’ composition. Jour-
nal of Educational Psychology, 82, 781–791.

Gresham, F. M., MacMillan, D. L., & Bocian, K.
M. (1996). Learning disabilities, low achieve-

90 FOUNDATIONS AND CURRENT PERSPECTIVES

derstanding learning disabilities (pp. 171–195). Keogh, B. K. (1987). Learning disabilities: In de-
Baltimore: Brookes. fense of a construct. Learning Disabilities Re-
Kavale, K. A. (1995). Setting the record straight on search and Practice, 3, 4–9.
learning disability and low achievement: The tor-
tuous path of ideology. Learning Disabilities Re- Keogh, B. K. (1994). A matrix of decision points in
search and Practice, 10, 145–152. the measurement of learning disabilities. In G. R.
Kavale, K. A., & Forness, S. R. (1984). The histori- Lyon (Ed.), Frames of reference for the assess-
cal foundation of learning disabilities: A quanti- ment of learning disabilities (pp. 15–26). Balti-
tative synthesis assessing the validity of Strauss more: Brookes.
and Werner’s exogenous versus endogenous dis-
tinction of mental retardation. Remedial and Spe- Kirk, S. A. (1963, April). Behavioral diagnosis and
cial Education, 6, 18–24. remediation of learning disabilities. In Proceed-
Kavale, K. A., & Forness, S. R. (1985). Learning ings of the First Annual Meeting of the ACLD
disability and the history of science: Paradigm or Conference on Exploration into the Problems of
paradox? Remedial and Special Education, 6, the Perceptually Handicapped Child (pp. 1–7).
12–23. Chicago: Author.
Kavale, K. A. & Forness, S. R. (1987a). The far side
of heterogeneity: A critical analysis of empirical Kirk, S. A., & Elkins, J. (1975). Characteristics of
subtyping research in learning disabilities. Jour- children enrolled in the child service demonstra-
nal of Learning Disabilities, 20, 374–382. tion centers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 8,
Kavale, K. A. & Forness, S. R. (1987b). History, pol- 630–637.
itics, and the general education initiative: Sleeter’s
reinterpretation of learning disabilities as a case Kosc, L. (1974). Developmental dyscalculia. Jour-
study. Remedial and Special Education, 8, 6–12. nal of Learning Disabilities, 7, 164–177.
Kavale, K. A., & Forness, S. R. (1987c). Substance
over style: A quantitative synthesis assessing the Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revo-
efficacy of modality testing and teaching. Excep- lutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago
tional Children, 54, 228–234. Press.
Kavale, K. A., & Forness, S. R. (1995). The nature
of learning disabilities: Critical elements of diag- Liberman, I. Y., & Shankweiler, D. (1985). Phonol-
nosis and classification. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. ogy and the problem of learning to read and
Kavale, K. A., & Forness, S. R. (1998). The politics write. Remedial and Special Education, 6, 8–17.
of learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quar-
terly, 21, 245–273. Lucangeli, D., Galderisi, D., & Cornoldi, C. (1995).
Kavale, K. A., & Forness, S. R. (2000). What defin- Specific and general transfer effects following
itions of learning disability say and don’t say: A metamemory training. Learning Disabilities Re-
critical analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, search and Practice, 10, 11–21.
33, 239–256.
Kavale, K. A., Forness, S. R., MacMillan, D. L., & Lyon, G. R. (1985). Educational validation of learn-
Gresham, F. M. (1998). The politics of learning ing disability subtypes. In B. P. Rourke (Ed.),
disabilities: A rejoinder. Learning Disability Neuropsychology of learning disabilities: Essen-
Quarterly, 21, 306–317. tials of subtype analysis (pp. 228–253). New
Kavale, K. A., Fuchs, D., & Scruggs, T. E. (1994). York: Guilford Press.
Setting the record straight on learning disability
and low achievement: Implications for policy- Lyon, G. R. (1995a). Critical research needs in
making. Learning Disabilities Research and Prac- learning disabilities: A programmatic response
tice, 9, 70–77. from the NICHD. Thalmus, 15, 10–11.
Kavale, K. A., & Mattson, P. D. (1983). “One
jumped off the balance beam”: Meta-analysis of Lyon, G. R. (1995b). Research initiatives in learn-
perceptual-motor training. Journal of Learning ing disabilities: Contributions from scientists sup-
Disabilities, 16, 165–173. ported by the National Institute of Child Health
Kavale, K. A., & Nye, C. (1981). Identification cri- and Human Development. Journal of Child
teria for learning disabilities: A survey of the re- Neurology, 10, 120–126.
search literature. Learning Disability Quarterly,
4, 383–388. Lyon, G. R., & Krasnegor, N. A. (Eds.). (1996). At-
Kavale, K. A., & Nye, C. (1991). The structure of tention, memory, and executive function. Balti-
learning disabilities. Exceptionality, 2, 141–156. more: Brookes.
Kavale, K. A., & Reese, J. H. (1992). The character
of learning disabilities: An Iowa profile. Learning MacMillan, D. L., Gresham, F. M., & Bocian, K.
Disability Quarterly, 15, 74–94. M. (1998). Discrepancy between definitions of
Keogh, B. K. (1983). A lesson from Gestalt psychol- learning disabilities and school practices: An em-
ogy. Exceptional Education Quarterly, 4, 115– pirical investigation. Journal of Learning Disabil-
127. ities, 31, 314–326.

MacMillan, D. L., Gresham, F. M., Bocian, K. M.,
& Lambros, K. M. (1998). Current plight of bor-
derline students: Where do they belong? Educa-
tion and Training in Mental Retardation and De-
velopmental Disabilities, 33, 83–94.

MacMillan, D. L., Gresham, F. M., Siperstein, G.
N., & Bocian, K. M. (1996). The labyrinth of
IDEA: School decisions on referred students with
subaverage general intelligence. American Jour-
nal on Mental Retardation, 101, 161–174.

MacMillan, D. L., Siperstein, G., & Gresham, F.
(1996). A challenge to the viability of mild men-

Learning Disability as a Discipline 91

tal retardation as a diagnostic category. Excep- Morrison, G. M., MacMillan, D. L., & Kavale, K.
tional Children, 62, 356–371. A. (1985). System identification of learning dis-
MacMillan, D. L., & Speece, D. L. (1999). Utility abled children: Implications for research sam-
of current diagnostic categories for research and pling. Learning Disability Quarterly, 8, 2–10.
practice. In R. Gallimore, L. P. Bernheimer, D. L.
MacMillan, D. L. Speece, & S. Vaughn (Eds.), National Advisory Committee on Handicapped
Developmental perspectives on children with Children. (1968). First annual report, special ed-
high-incidence disabilities (pp. 111–133). Mah- ucation for handicapped children. Washington,
wah, NJ: Erlbaum. DC: Department of Health, Education, and Wel-
Malouf, D. B., & Schiller, E. P. (1995). Practice and fare.
research in special education. Exceptional Chil-
dren, 61, 414–424. Pearl, R., Bryan, T., & Donahue, M. (1980). Learn-
Mann, L. (1971). Psychometric phrenology and the ing disabled children’s attributions for success
new faculty psychology: The case against ability and failure. Learning Disability Quarterly, 3,
assessment and training. Journal of Special Edu- 3–9.
cation, 5, 3–14.
Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (1989). Con- Polansky, N. A. (1986). “There is nothing so practi-
structing more meaningful relationships: cal as a good theory.” Child Wefare, 65, 3–15.
Mnemonic instruction for special populations.
Educational Psychology Review, 1, 83–111. Poplin, M. S. (1988a). Holistic/constructivistic prin-
Mather, N., & Roberts, R. (1994). Learning disabil- ciples of the teaching/learning process: Implica-
ities: A field in danger of extinction? Learning tions for the field of learning disabilities. Journal
Disabilities Research and Practice, 9, 49–58. of Learning Disabilities, 21, 401–416.
McCroskey, R. L., & Kidder, H. C. (1980). Audito-
ry fusion among learning disabled, reading dis- Poplin, M. S. (1988b). The reductionist fallacy in
abled, and normal children. Journal of Learning learning disabilities: Replicating the past by re-
Disabilities, 13, 69–76. ducing the present. Journal of Learning Disabili-
McKinney, J. D. (1983). Contributions of the insti- ties, 21, 389–400.
tutes for research on learning disabilities. Excep-
tional Education Quarterly, 4, 129–144. Poplin, M. S. (1995). Looking through other lenses
McKinney, J. D., & Speece, D. L. (1986). Academic and listening to other voices: Stretching the
consequences and longitudinal stability of behav- boundaries of learning disabilities. Journal of
ioral subtypes of learning disabled children. Jour- Learning Disabilities, 28, 392–398.
nal of Educational Psychology, 78, 365–372.
McKnight, R. T. (1982). The learning disability Reger, R. (1979). Learning disabilities: Futile at-
myth in American education. Journal of Educa- tempts at a simplistic definition. Journal of
tion, 164, 351–359. Learning Disabilities, 12, 529–532.
Meichenbaum, D. (1977). Cognitive behavior mod-
ification: An integrative approach. New York: Reid, R. (1996). Research in self-monitoring with
Plenum Press. students with learning disabilities: The present,
Mercer, C. D., Jordan, L., Allsop, D. H., & Mercer, the prospects, the pitfalls. Journal of Learning
A. R. (1996). Learning disabilities definitions and Disabilities, 29, 317–331.
criteria used by state education departments.
Learning Disability Quarterly, 19, 217–232. Reynolds, C. R. (1984–1985). Critical measure-
Meyen, E. (1989). Let’s not confuse test scores with ment issues in learning disabilities. Journal of
the substance of the discrepancy model. Journal Special Education, 18, 451–476.
of Learning Disabilities, 22, 482–483.
Miller, J. L. (1990). Apolcalypse or renaissance or Riccio, C. A., Gonzalez, J. J., & Hynd, G. W.
something in between? Toward a realistic ap- (1994). Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder
praisal of “The learning mystique.” Journal of (ADHD) and learning disabilities. Learning Dis-
Learning Disabilities, 23, 86–91. ability Quarterly, 17, 311–322.
Miner, M., & Siegel, L. S. (1992). William Butler
Yeats: Dyslexic? Journal of Learning Disabilities, Rutter, M., & Yule, W. (1975). The concept of spe-
25, 372–375. cific reading retardation. Journal of Child Psy-
Moats, L. C., & Lyon, G. R. (1993). Learning dis- chology and Psychiatry, 16, 181–197.
abilities in the United States: Advocacy, science,
and the future of the field. Journal of Learning Scruggs, T. E. (1987). Theoretical issues surround-
Disabilities, 26, 282–294. ing severe discrepancy: A discussion. Learning
Montague, M., Maddux, C. D., & Dereshiwsky, M. Disabilities Research, 3, 21–23.
I. (1990). Story grammar and comprehension and
production of narrative prose by students with Senf, G. M. (1987). Learning disabilities as socio-
learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabil- logic sponge: Wiping up life’s spills. In S. Vaughn
ities, 23, 190–197. & C. Bos (Eds.), Research in learning disabilities:
Issues and future directions (pp. 87–101).
Boston: Little, Brown/College Hill.

Sharp, R. (1980). Knowledge, ideology, and the pol-
itics of schooling: Towards a Marxist analysis of
education. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Shepard, L. (1980). An evaluation of the regression
discrepancy method for identifying children with
learning disabilities. Journal of Special Educa-
tion, 14, 79–91.

Shepard, L. A., Smith, M. L., & Vojir, C. P. (1983).
Characteristics of pupils identified as learning
disabled. American Educational Research Jour-
nal, 20, 309–331.

92 FOUNDATIONS AND CURRENT PERSPECTIVES

Siegel, E. (1968). Learning disabilities: Substance or Thompson, L. J. (1971). Language disabilities in
shadow? Exceptional Children, 35, 433–437. men of eminence. Journal of Learning Disabili-
ties, 4, 39–50.
Siegel, L. S. (1989). I. Q. is irrelevant to the defini-
tion of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Torgesen, J. K. (1977). The role of non-specific fac-
Disabilities, 22, 469–478, 486. tors in the task performance of learning disabled
children: A theoretical assessment. Journal of
Sleeter, C. E. (1986). Learning disabilities: The so- Learning Disabilities, 10, 27–35.
cial construction of a special education category.
Exceptional Children, 53, 46–54. Torgesen, J. K. (1986). Learning disabilities theory:
Its current state and future prospects. Journal of
Snowling, M. J. (1981). Phonemic deficits in devel- Learning Disabilities, 19, 399–407.
opmental dyslexia. Psychological Research, 43,
219–234. Torgesen, J. K. (1993). Variations on theory in
learning disabilities. In G. R. Lyon, D. B. Gray, J.
Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Cognitive processes and F. Kavanagh, & N. A. Krasnegor (Eds.), Better
the reading problems of learning disabled chil- understanding learning disabilities (pp.
dren: Evaluating the assumption of specificity. In 153–170). Baltimore: Brookes.
J. K. Torgesen & B. Y. L. Wong (Eds.), Psycho-
logical and educational perspectives on learning Tucker, J., Stevens, L. J., & Ysseldyke, J. E. (1983).
disabilities (pp. 87–131). Orlando, FL: Academic Learning disabilities: The experts speak out.
Press. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 16, 6–14.

Stanovich, K. E. (1988). Explaining the differences U.S. Office of Education. (1977, December 29). As-
between the dyslexic and the garden-variety poor sistance to states for education of handicapped
reader: The phonological-core variable-difference children: Procedures for evaluating specific learn-
model. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21, ing disabilities. Federal Register, 41(230),
590–604. 52404–52407.

Stanovich, K. E. (1991). Discrepancy definitions of Vaughn, S., & Bos, C. S. (Eds.). (1987). Research in
reading disability: Has intelligence led us astray? learning disabilities: Issues and future directions.
Reading Research Quarterly, 26, 7–29. Boston: College-Hill/Little, Brown.

Stone, C. A. (1998). The metaphor of scaffolding: Vaughn, S., & Bos, C. (Eds.). (1994). Research issues
Its utility for the field of learning disabilities. in learning disabilities: Theory, methodology, as-
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 344–364. sessment, and ethics. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Strauss, A. A., & Lehtinen, L. E. (1947). Psy- Vellutino, F. R. (1977). Alternative conceptualiza-
chopathology and education of the brain-injured tions of dyslexia: Evidence in support of a verbal-
child. New York: Grune & Stratton. deficit hypothesis. Harvard Educational Review,
47, 334–354.
Summers, E. G. (1986). The information flood in
learning disabilities: A bibliometric analysis of Vellutino, F. R., Steger, B. M., Moyer, S. C., Hard-
the journal literature. Remedial and Special Edu- ing, C. J., & Niles, J. A. (1977). Has the percep-
cation, 7, 49–60. tual deficit hypothesis led us astray? Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 10, 375–385.
Swanson, H. L. (1988). Toward a metatheory of
learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabil- Wagner, R. K., & Torgesen, J. K. (1987). The nature
ities, 21, 196–209. of phonological processing and its causal role in
the acquisition of reading skills. Psychological
Swanson, H. L. (1993). Working memory in learn- Bulletin, 101, 192–212.
ing disability subgroups. Journal of Experimental
Child Psychology, 56, 87–114. Werner, H., & Strauss, A. A. (1940). Causal factors
in low performance. American Journal of Mental
Swanson, H. L. (2000). Issues facing the field of Deficiency, 45, 213–218.
learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarter-
ly, 23, 37–50. Wiederholt, J. L. (1974). Historical perspectives on
the education of the learning disabled. In L.
Swanson, H. L., & Christie, L. (1994). Implicit no- Mann & D. Sabatino (Eds.), The second review
tions about learning disabilities: Some directions of special education (pp. 103–152). Philadelphia:
for definitions. Learning Disabilities Research JSE Press.
and Practice, 9, 244–254.
Wiig, E. H. (1990). Linguistic transitions and learn-
Swanson, H. L., & Cooney, J. B. (1991). Learning ing disabilities: A strategic learning perspective.
disabilities and memory. In B. Y. L. Wong (Ed.), Learning Disability Quarterly, 13, 128–140.
Learning about learning disabilities (pp.
103–127). New York: Academic Press. Wilson, L. R. (1985). Large-scale learning disability
identification: The reprieve of a concept. Excep-
Swanson, H. L., & Hoskyn, M. (1998). Experimen- tional Children, 52, 44–51.
tal intervention research on students with learn-
ing disabilities: A meta-analysis of treatment out- Wong, B. Y. L. (1979a). The role of theory in learn-
comes. Review of Educational Research, 68, ing disabilities research: Part I. An analysis of
277–321. problems. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 12,
585–595.
Swanson, H. L., & Trahan, M. (1986). Characteris-
tics of frequently cited articles in learning disabil- Wong, B. Y. L. (1979b). The role of theory in learn-
ities. Journal of Special Education, 20, 167–182. ing disabilities research: Part II. A selective re-
view of current theories of learning and reading
Thomas, M. (2000). Albert Einstein and LD: An disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 12,
evaluation of the evidence. Journal of Learning 649–658.
Disabilities, 33, 149–157.

Learning Disability as a Discipline 93

Wong, B. Y. L. (1985). Metacognition and learning abled individual? Learning Disability Quarterly,
disabilities. In D. L. Forrest-Pressley, G. E. 10, 189–195.
MacKinnon, & T. G. Waller (Eds.), Metacogni- Ysseldyke, J. E., Algozzine, B., Shinn, M. R., &
tion, cognition, and human performance (Vol. 2, McGue, M. (1982). Similarities and differences
pp. 137–180). New York: Academic Press. between low achievers and students classified
learning disabled. Journal of Special Education,
Wong, B. Y. L. (1987). How do the results of meta- 16, 73–85.
cognitive research impact on the learning dis-

6

English-Language Learners
with Learning Disabilities

Russell Gersten
Scott Baker

This chapter highlights key instructional is- 2002 reports by the National Research
sues related to English-language learners Council (NRC) on the disproportionate rep-
with learning disabilities (LD). It is divided resentation of ethnic minority students in
into three sections. The first section discusses special education frame issues of dispropor-
the issues of disproportionate representation tional representation in terms of the need to
of English-language learners in special edu- clearly specify the conditions under which
cation, and the LD category, in particular. disproportionate representation creates
The second section describes ongoing re- problems. The reports deemphasize the ex-
search by the authors on first-grade reading tensive focus on various quantitative esti-
instruction for English-language learners. mates of minority student overrepresenta-
The goal of this research is to begin to articu- tion (or underrepresented) in different
late dimensions of teaching in general educa- special education categories such as LD.
tion settings that prevent reading failure for Framing the issue this way has special rele-
English-language learners who are grappling vance for English-language learners, espe-
with the double demands of learning to read cially those suspected of having a learning
and learning a new language. The final sec- disability. The continuing relevance of some
tion highlights key instructional issues in- of the conditions specified in the 1982 re-
volved in merging English-language develop- port, in particular, have held up well over
ment with academic instruction. It is based, the 20-year period, not only in their con-
in large part, on research we have conducted temporary importance but also in the
over the past decade and a research synthesis unique ways they affect English-language
we conducted (Gersten & Baker, 2000c). learners.

Disproportionate Representation Invalid Placement
of English-Language Learners
in Special Education Disproportionate representation may be a
problem when certain groups of students
It is telling that both the 1982 report by are inappropriately identified as having a
Heller, Holtzman, and Messick and the disability they do not, actually, possess. Un-
derlying problems can often be the assess-

94

English-Language Learners with LD 95

ment measures and procedures used and/or disorders, mild mental retardation) is under
subsequent interpretations used for the de- attack, especially in the case of learning dis-
termination. As many chapters in this book abilities. Traditional methods for determin-
indicate, the LD category, more than any ing the existence of a learning disability by
other, presents the most controversial and measuring the discrepancy between ability
problematic diagnostic challenge. And when and achievement has been criticized as con-
the students under scrutiny are English- ceptually flawed (Fuchs & Fuchs, 1998;
language learners, the challenge is particu- Lyon et al., 2001), procedurally cumber-
larly great. some (Shinn, 1989), and largely useless in
being able to provide helpful information
In the Heller and colleagues (1982) re- about potentially effective instructional op-
port, the assessment controversy centered tions (Marston, 1989). These problems are
on what was then consistent overrepresen- exacerbated when the students being as-
tation of minority students in the mild men- sessed are English-language learners because
tal retardation category, which at that time it is unclear whether low scores on either in-
represented the largest group of students in telligence or achievement tests are due to ac-
special education. At issue was the use of in- tual problems, language difficulties, or un-
telligence tests with minority students (pri- familiarity with cultural conventions.
marily African Americans) and related is-
sues having to do with classic notions of test Increasingly, the claim is made that a bet-
validity (Messick, 1980). ter way of determining the existence of a
learning disability is to document that learn-
In the report, little was said specifically ing problems are pervasive over time and
about assessment issues involving English- occur despite the presence of instructional
language learners. In a sense, this is curious approaches that enable the majority of the
in that a major stimulus for national atten- referred student’s peers to learn successfully.
tion turning toward the issue of overrepre- One way this conceptual definition of a
sentation of ethnic minority students in the learning disability has been operationalized
mild mental retardation category was the is low rates of learning growth measured by
classic research study by Jane Mercer (1970). consistent academic measures administered
Her sample included Hispanic as well as regularly over time (Lyon, 1994).
African American students. The key finding
in Mercer’s study was that many students Reconceptualizations of LD are beginning
from ethnic minority groups were diagnosed to have an impact on the field, albeit a rela-
as educable mentally retarded but were not tively small one so far. A 2002 report from
perceived as disabled, or to have problems the National Research Council indicates
functioning successfully, in their homes or that alternative models of disability identifi-
communities. In other words, they were only cation that include low rates of academic
perceived “disabled” when they were in growth as a key identification variable are
school. Mercer questioned the legitimacy of producing positive benefits for students
labeling students as mentally retarded given (Ikeda et al., 2002).
this contradiction. This issue has great rele-
vance for the LD category 30 years later. Another focus in the 2002 NRC report is
Mercer’s sample included both Latino and the importance of special interventions in
African-American students. the regular classroom to address learning
problems, particularly in reading, as early as
However, major national attention was possible. Both of these issues—determining
focused on overrepresentation of African rates of academic growth over time as a key
Americans in special education at that time. criterion of a disability and intervening as
The reader needs to recall that 1982 was at early as possible with students experiencing
the beginning of what has become the learning problems—have significant impli-
largest wave of immigration in the history cations for English-language learners.
of the United States, a movement that has
dramatically increased the number of Eng- For native English speakers, these new
lish-language learners in the schools. proposals have an intuitive appeal and there
is substantial evidence of student benefit. Es-
In the 2002 report, the entire assessment sentially, students who enter school with low
system for determining high-incidence dis- literacy skills, or who make low rates of lit-
abilities (i.e., learning disabilities, behavior eracy growth over time, are considered to be

96 FOUNDATIONS AND CURRENT PERSPECTIVES

at risk for school failure. As part of the pre- demic learning problems exist and what to
referral intervention process, these students do about them (Gersten, 1996b).
are provided with instructional opportuni-
ties—typically more intensity or just more It is unclear what rates of growth in lan-
instruction—which their peers who are not guages other than English are important for
at risk do not receive. By intervening early, English-language learners, and to what ex-
the expectation is that many students who tent growth in a student’s native language
would normally not receive help until they will serve as a sufficient safeguard against
experienced sufficient failure to qualify for eventual problems with English acquisition,
special education are provided with early as- especially the acquisition of the formal, ab-
sistance that will help them improve their stract language of academic disciplines. Ul-
rate of learning and enable them to keep pace timately, when English is introduced in
with their peers. In this way, a formal referral third, fourth, or fifth grades, it is unclear
to special education can be avoided. when and how to separate normal problems
in learning a new language (i.e., English)
But for a large percentage of English-lan- from problems that constitute a legitimate
guage learners, lower levels of initial English learning disability that require the need for
literacy skills can be expected on average be- special education services. All students
cause they have not learned English at home grapple with the issue that English has a ter-
the way monolingual English-speaking stu- ribly complex and often irregular system for
dents have. More important, the very con- converting letters or letter combinations
cept of adequate rates of academic growth into sounds compared to a language such as
(at least in English) is largely unknown un- Spanish or Arabic. For these reasons, many
less a great deal is known about the profi- have identified disproportionately low rates
ciency these students have in their native lan- of English-language learners in certain dis-
guage and in English. In addition, it is tricts in the category of LD (e.g., Gersten &
important to know about the details of the Woodward, 1994; Harry, 1992).
instructional environment these students ex-
perience, which may be very different than For English-language learners who are
that of their native English-speaking peers. taught to read in English very early in
school, it is similarly unclear the extent to
Optimal instructional programs for Eng- which the challenges they face learning a
lish-language learners, especially when pre- new language and acquiring academic
referral assessments and interventions are at content simultaneously (Gersten, 1996a)
their most intense for native English speak- change from becoming normal challenges
ers, are complex and controversial. Only in faced by English-language learners into
the past 2 years have researchers started to learning problems indicating the presence of
study them, and none of the research is yet a learning disability.
complete. Many continue to advocate that
native language programs are necessary until In summary, the idea of early, preventive
a student reaches an adequate level of Eng- interventions advocated in the 2002 report
lish-language proficiency. For example, this makes a great deal of sense for native Eng-
was the position taken by the National lish speakers. We have solid evidence re-
Academy of Sciences report on beginning garding what constitutes a strong program
reading (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998), al- in beginning reading (Snow et al., 1998),
though the panel did agree there was ab- how reading progress can be monitored fre-
solutely no empirical support for such a po- quently over time (Fuchs, 1986), and how
sition. Others (Anderson & Roit, 1998) have to intervene successfully to increase stu-
reasoned that learning to read in English as dents’ learning trajectories. For English-
early as possible is important in that reading language learners, however, it is unclear
and writing are excellent venues for the de- how well this model fits.
velopment of English-language proficiency.
Poor Quality Instruction in General
When English-language learners are Education and Its Impact on Special Education
taught predominantly in their native lan- Referrals for English-Language Learners
guage and gradually introduced to English,
a number of conceptual problems present Disproportionate representation is a prob-
themselves in trying to determine what aca- lem when students from certain ethnic

English-Language Learners with LD 97

groups are more likely to be referred and lowed. This report clearly states that large
placed in special education than are their program evaluation studies, which have
peers. One of the causes cited in the Heller characterized much of the federally support-
and colleagues (1982) report was that the ed research on English-language learners,
quality of instruction provided to students have not produced particularly useful re-
in low-income schools with high ethnic mi- sults. This research has tried, essentially, to
nority populations may often be problemat- determine whether it is better to teach stu-
ic. The 1982 report recognized the inherent dents in English or their native language
complexity of trying to determine what con- (usually Spanish) in the primary grades. In
stitutes quality instruction for students in noting that the research suffers from
general education. For the most part, the re- methodological and conceptual problems,
port offered rather instructional guidelines August and Hakuta (1997) conclude,
for determining quality. “There is little value in conducting evalua-
tions to determine which type of program is
A major difference between the Heller best” (p. 138).
and colleagues (1982) report and the 2002
NRC report is that the initial report primar- This conclusion is analogous to the re-
ily had at its disposal research on which search of the 1970s and 1980s that attempt-
particular instructional settings or place- ed to determine which instructional setting
ments seemed to produce better outcomes— or placement (self-contained class or general
regular classes or separate special education education classroom) was best for students
classes—“rather than on the characteristics with LD. For research with English-
of effective instruction” (Heller et al., 1982, language learners, the solution is “not find-
p. 21). In contrast, the 2002 report devotes ing a program that works for all children
a good deal of attention to which types of and all localities, but rather finding a set of
instructional approaches appear to be most program components that works for the
effective or promising for students regard- children in the community of interest, given
less of setting. that community’s goals, demographics, and
resources” (August & Hakuta, 1997, p.
It is interesting to consider the parallel be- 138). Research carried out this way would
tween lack of research on effective instruc- have a significant impact on both of the
tional approaches for students with learning conditions outlined previously that address
disabilities identified in the Heller and col- when disproportionate representation of
leagues (1982) report and the current void English-language learners in the LD catego-
in the knowledge base on the best ways to ry is a problem.
teach English-language learners. Since 1982,
there have been significant advances in what Despite the fact that little research has
we know about components of effective in- been conducted on components of effective
struction for students with learning disabili- instruction for English-language learners,
ties (Gersten, Baker, Pugach, Scanlon, & the research that is available can provide an
Chard, 2001; Swanson & Hoskyn, 1998). initial knowledge base to build on. In the
That knowledge base is evident in the 2002 next two sections we describe some of our
report. research on this topic. We then address
highlights of our attempt to synthesize the
For example, the 2002 NRC report clear- knowledge base on effective teaching of
ly lays out important components of English-language learners using both meta-
programs in beginning reading. Specific rec- analytic and multivocal (qualitative) tech-
ommendations are also provided for high- niques for research synthesis (Gersten &
quality first- and second-tier interventions Baker, 2000c).
when students do not respond successfully
to initial instruction. The First-Grade Classroom
Observational Study
It is important to note that this level of in-
structional specificity is not part of the We now have a reasonably sound research
knowledge base for English-language learn- base on critical components for building lit-
ers. This void will change, however, if the eracy in the early grades and converging ev-
report by the National Research Council
(August & Hakuta, 1997) on effective edu-
cation for English-language learners is fol-

98 FOUNDATIONS AND CURRENT PERSPECTIVES

idence of what approaches prevent reading son, Evertson, & Brophy, 1979; Foorman,
failure and reduce inappropriate referral Francis, Fletcher, & Lynn, 1996; Stallings &
into special education (National Reading Kaskowitz, 1974). Precise operational defi-
Panel, 2000; Snow et al., 1998). We have nitions are used to determine things such as
consistently argued that effective reading in- the number of minutes of academic engaged
struction principles are directly relevant for time, the number of positive responses, and
teaching reading to English-language learn- the latency of teacher feedback to students.
ers, although significant modulation and Second, open-ended qualitative observa-
adjustment are required (Gersten & Baker, tions have been used to a considerable de-
2000c; Gersten & Jiménez, 1994). Modula- gree in classrooms of English-language
tion, for example, would require much learner, including much of our earlier work
greater linkage of vocabulary instruction (e.g., Gersten, 1999; Jiménez & Gersten,
with word attack and analysis instruction 1999). In these studies, we immersed our-
for English-language learners than for na- selves in approximately 15 classrooms serv-
tive English speakers. Additional attention ing English-language learners in grades 3 to
should also be paid to teaching phonemes 6, and took relatively open-ended field
and sounds that are prevalent in English but notes to describe patterns of instruction that
not existent in a student’s native language appeared to be productive or ineffective in
(be it Korean or Tagalog, Spanish or Ara- terms of teaching reading and language arts,
bic). English-language learners would likely and promoting English-language develop-
require many more opportunities to practice ment. Although we employed a coding sys-
speaking and reading aloud, and more time tem to help us sort out and categorize eight
on vocabulary development, including the major issues (Gersten, 1996b), observers’
teaching of meanings of words that will be notes were open-ended, including verbatim
quite familiar to virtually all native English excerpts, statements of working hypotheses
speakers in first grade. with supporting evidence, and narrative de-
scriptions of instruction. Finally, a moder-
Two years ago, we began a study to begin ate-level inference observational instrument,
to explore some of these hypotheses. We such as the one used in a recent study of
reasoned that given the limited knowledge teaching quality by Stanovich and Jordan
base, it made the most sense to systematical- (1998), includes aspects of both low-infer-
ly observe beginning reading instruction in ence and open-ended instruments. Attempts
classrooms for evidence of how practicing are made to define key variables of interest
teachers were addressing these issues. We in observable terms, but rather than ob-
collected and analyzed observation and servers attempting to quantify what they
reading outcome data for a set of 20 first- observe in real time, they use their profes-
grade classrooms, in which English- sional judgment and knowledge of the ob-
language learners comprised the majority of servation setting to rate the quality of what
students. Teachers in these classrooms were they see many times on a Likert scale. For
also implementing a research-based ap- example, an observer might rate the quality
proach to early literacy based on the recent- of feedback a teacher provide students or
ly adopted California Reading and Lan- the complexity of academic discourse be-
guage Arts Framework. Our goals for tween students.
conducting observations were to analyze
teaching practice by measuring what we re- We agreed on a moderate-level inference
ferred to as quality of instruction on key in- instrument for several reasons. We were still
structional dimensions. We expected these in the exploratory stages of investigating
goals would ultimately lead us to identifying this issue; thus, a precise measure of rates of
key pedagogical factors critical to reading select classroom interactions would be pre-
improvements for English-language learners mature. On the other hand, purely open-
learning to read in English. ended qualitative field notes did not seem
the right fit for this type of study in that we
Essentially, there are three general ap- had a definite sense of promising instruc-
proaches for classroom observation instru- tional variables, based on effective teaching
ments. First, there are low-inference mea- research and effective reading instruction,
sures such as the instruments used in the and wanted some systematic database. Also,
classic studies of beginning reading (Ander-

English-Language Learners with LD 99

based on earlier qualitative research, we had English-language learners. Whereas 19
reasonable hypotheses as to specific instruc- classrooms had Spanish-speaking, English-
tional techniques and modulations that language learners, 30% of the classrooms
could lead to enhancing the reading and also included other English-language learn-
language development of English-language ers (e.g., Vietnamese, Somali, and Cambodi-
learners and wished to see if these variables an). Each classroom selected for observa-
correlated with student growth in reading. tion was made up of at least 75%
English-language learners.
Items on the instrument were derived
from four sources: (1) process–product Growth in reading performance was as-
studies on effective teaching of beginning sessed using the Dynamic Indicators of Ba-
reading (Anderson et al., 1979; Stallings & sic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS; Kaminski
Kaskowitz, 1974); (2) reading instruction & Good, 1996), a series of 1-minute read-
for students with significant reading prob- ing tasks representing phonemic awareness,
lems (Leinhardt, Zigmond, & Cooley, 1981; alphabetic understanding, and oral reading
Stanovich & Jordan, 1998); (3) descriptive fluency. An additional reading measure was
studies of effective instructional environ- adapted from the California Reading Re-
ments for English-language learners (Tik- sults Reading Comprehension Assessment
unoff et al., 1991), and current thinking on (California Reading and Literature Project,
best practice (Echevarria, Vogt, & Short, 1999).
2000); and (4) the knowledge base on
teaching beginning reading. Classrooms were observed during the en-
tire instructional period for reading/lan-
Effective teaching research conducted guage arts. California’s reading standards
over the past 25 years suggests numerous ef- mandate a minimum of 2.5 hours for read-
fective pedagogical strategies for the devel- ing/language arts instruction. Each class-
opment of reading and early literacy skills. room teacher was observed from two to
Variables such as the influence of time spent four times toward the middle of the school
engaged in academic tasks—as well as the year. To reduce the possibility of an interac-
importance of preteaching, scaffolding, and tion effect between observers and teachers,
quality of feedback—are recognized today observers rotated through the various class-
as critical elements of classroom teaching. rooms and consulted frequently to discuss
Many of these formed the framework for the meaning of items and how to code dif-
the study by Stanovich and Jordan (1998). ferent instructional events.

Description of the English-Language Learner Interrater reliability was established
Classroom Observation Instrument through joint observations and frequent
conferencing following independent com-
The final instrument was composed of 29 pletion of rating scales. The median interob-
items, which were rated on a 1–7 Likert server agreement, with agreement defined as
scale, with 7 being most effective and 1 being observers being within 1 point of each oth-
least effective. The pilot version contained er, was 74% across the items with a range
50 items. Items were deleted, collapsed or re- from 55% to 88%. For a moderate infer-
vised due to (1) low base rate, (2) low inter- ence rating system, this was an acceptable
rater reliability, and (3) redundancy. Ratings level of agreement.
were complemented by observers’ qualita-
tive notation of activities and responses ob- We developed six empirically derived sub-
served during the observational period. To scales based on factor scores. These sub-
expand the scope of the data, observers con- scales and related items appear in Table 6.1.
tinued to record low base-rate items on a The internal consistency of the subscales
separate sheet attached to the instrument. was quite high. Cronbach’s alpha for each
subscale ranged from .80 to .95 with a me-
The Observation Instrument was field dian of .89.
tested in 1999 and 2000 in 25 California
classrooms within three urban districts in Student Outcomes Related to
California. In the final sample of 20 class- Observed Instruction
rooms, 10 classrooms had some native Eng-
lish speakers while 10 consisted solely of In the 20 classrooms there were 229 Eng-
lish-language learners whose reading skills

100 FOUNDATIONS AND CURRENT PERSPECTIVES

TABLE 6.1. Empirical Subscales from the were assessed in both winter and spring. As-
English-Language Learner Classroom sessments at the beginning of the study
Observation Instrument would usually have occurred much closer to
the start of the academic year, but this was
1. Explicit teaching/the art of teaching not possible because preparations for the
ț Models skills and strategies study were not completed until well into the
ț Makes relationships overt fall term.
ț Emphasizes distinctive features of new
concepts The range of performance on each out-
ț Provides prompts come measure was considerable, indicating
ț Length of literacy activities is appropriate that some English-language learners ap-
ț Adjusts own use of English during lesson peared to be acquiring reading skills at an
impressive rate while others were clearly
2. Instruction geared toward low performers struggling.
ț Achieves high level of response accuracy
ț Ensures quality of independent practice One potential explanation for different
ț Engages in ongoing monitoring of student levels of reading performance is overall Eng-
understanding and performance lish-language proficiency. We used available
ț Elicits responses from all students school records for the most recent test data
ț Modifies instruction for students as needed for English-language proficiency to divide
ț Provides extra instruction, practice, and the English-language learners into three
review groups. There were 208 English-language
ț Asks questions to ensure comprehension learners for whom language test data was
available. Student scores indicated (1) very
3. Sheltered English techniques low levels of English-language proficiency,
ț Uses visuals or manipulatives to teach (2) moderate levels of proficiency (corre-
content sponding to limited English proficiency cate-
ț Provides explicit instruction in English gory on the Language Assessment Scales), or
ț Encourages students to give elaborate (3) those with strong levels of proficiency.
responses
ț Uses gestures and facial expressions in Table 6.2 presents these data. On two of
teaching vocabulary and clarifying the three reading measures, students at the
meaning of content lowest level of English language proficiency
actually did slightly better than students
4. Interactive teaching who were moderately proficient. The differ-
ț Secures and maintains student attention ence is very small, however, and difficult to
during lesson interpret. Not surprisingly, students at the
ț Extent to which students are “on task” highest level of English-language proficiency
during literacy activities did much better than students in the two
ț Selects and incorporates students’ other groups, which supports the important
responses, ideas, examples, and role of English-language proficiency and
experiences into lessons English-language development.
ț Gives students wait time to respond to
questions Student Reading Outcomes by
Instructional Ratings
5. Vocabulary development
ț Teaches difficult vocabulary prior to and It is informative to examine the range of
during lesson reading scores of English-language learners
ț Structures opportunities to speak English in the 20 classrooms in relation to ratings of
ț Provides systematic instruction to instruction effectiveness. Figure 6.1 presents
vocabulary development the classroom mean for each of the 20 class-
ț Engages students in meaningful rooms on our major reading outcome mea-
interactions about text sure, oral reading fluency, adjusted for
pretest performance on Letter Naming Flu-
6. Phonemic awareness and decoding ency administered at the beginning of the
ț Provides systematic instruction in study. The line around the mean represents
phonemic awareness the 95% confidence interval. The 20 class-
ț Provides systematic instruction in rooms are organized into quartiles on the
letter–sound correspondence
ț Provides systematic instruction in
decoding

English-Language Learners with LD 101

TABLE 6.2. Means for Reading Outcome Measures by English-Language Proficiency Status

Measure Low (n = 84) Limited (n = 79) High (n = 45)
Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD)

Word Attack 43.4 47.5 69.1
Oral Reading Fluency (27.9) (31.2) (30.8)
Reading Comprehensiona
41.4 37.7 63.4
(34.2) (27.5) (34.4)

2.2 1.9 5.1
(2.9) (2.8) (3.1)

aBecause of scheduling difficulties, not all students were administered the Reading Comprehension measure. The
numbers of students tested on this measure were 83, 73, and 44, for the Low, Limited, and High groups,
respectively.

basis of their overall rating of instructional nearly all of the first-grade classrooms. Our
quality. Within each quartile, the class- observations were conducted during the en-
rooms are ordered from low to high in tire reading and language arts block; thus
terms of overall instructional rating. we have considerable experience with these
teachers from which we derive the following
Across quartiles, classrooms that were more qualitative impressions of instruction
rated higher in terms of overall instructional in these classrooms.
quality had higher adjusted reading scores
at the end of grade 1. In other words, the Perhaps our most dominant impression is
observations seemed to do a reasonable job the extensive variability in instructional ef-
demarcating broad groups of classrooms on fectiveness we observed. In a number of
the basis of instructional factors related to classrooms we saw instruction that was of
reading. Given the entire range, it does seem extremely high quality—students were ac-
that factors associated with our ratings of tively engaged throughout the reading
instructional quality were moderately asso- lessons and the activities seemed interesting
ciated with improved reading outcomes. and challenging to students. Teachers tar-
geted important reading skills.
Both authors of this chapter (RG and SB)
were members of the observation team and In many classrooms, instruction was
spent a considerable amount of time in problematic. Students were rarely engaged

FIGURE 6.1. Quality of instruction ratings and student performance on oral reading fluency.

102 FOUNDATIONS AND CURRENT PERSPECTIVES

and teachers did not seem to have a real vocabulary activities provide natural and
sense of what they wanted to accomplish or structured breaks from the abstract phone-
how to use the curriculum. Among the spe- mic awareness activities, but it fostered an
cific practices that seemed to distinguish exciting pace and rhythm to the lesson and
teachers in the most effective classrooms provided a cognitively challenging task that
from those in classrooms where instruction students could participate in at many differ-
was most problematic, the following ent levels.
seemed particularly noteworthy: In the most
effective classrooms there was a seamless Another factor that seemed to clearly sep-
quality to instruction that made the 2 hours arate successful from problematic class-
much more productive and pass much more rooms was the incorporation of writing ac-
quickly. One activity blended naturally into tivities into the reading lesson in a highly
the next and it was clear that teachers had integrated fashion. In most of the high-
planned carefully for these transitions. One achieving classrooms, there was a strong
of our observation items concerned the ap- emphasis on, or at least considerable time
propriateness of the length of literacy activi- spent on, writing activities. In the most ef-
ties. In effective classrooms, activity length fective classrooms the connection between
was more appropriate for 6-year-olds than reading and writing activities was very clear.
in less effective classrooms. A 2-hour in-
structional block requires many different In one effective classroom, for example, a
activities, especially with first-graders. In ef- connected set of reading and writing activi-
fective classrooms, activities rarely lasted ties was extended over several days. With
more than 20 minutes or so. In problematic the teacher, students read a story about the
classrooms, activities might go on for 45 jungle. As part of preparing to read the sto-
minutes or more; students got bored and ry they studied key vocabulary, a standard
started looking for more interesting things prereading task. In this classroom, students
to do. Minor behavior problems increased wrote these key words and others they en-
in frequency and intensity as the length of countered or thought about in a journal
the activity increased. they would use to eventually write their
own jungle story.
Although not captured as dramatically as
we predicted, our field notes indicated that Over the course of 2 days, the teacher re-
vocabulary instruction clearly distinguished viewed this story and target words a number
the most effective classrooms from the least of times, preparing students to write their
effective ones. In fact, as we had previously own story. The teacher outlined a story
hypothesized (Gersten & Baker, 2000c), in structure that each student was expected to
some particularly effective classrooms, vo- use and required that students include a cer-
cabulary served as a kind of anchor around tain number of words they had entered in
which many other activities revolved. That their journals. When it was time for students
is, vocabulary activities were incorporated to write their stories, they seemed prepared
throughout the reading lesson and were and eager for the task. There were a couple
combined with other literacy activities. of key points in the lesson. First, there was a
consistent and effective emphasis on vocabu-
During instruction to build phonemic lary development. Second, the connection to
awareness, for example, teachers would not reading and writing was explicit.
only have students manipulate the sounds
in target words, but they would also build Merging English-Language Development
vocabulary activities involving those words. and Reading/Language Arts Instruction:
Many of the target words were easy to vi- The Emerging Knowledge Base
sualize, which increased the relevance of the
vocabulary segment of the lesson. Students In our final section, we respond to the re-
and teachers would offer definitions and cent challenge articulated by Rosalinda Bar-
sentences involving target words and pro- rerra (cited in Jiménez, Moll, Rodríguez-
vide extended descriptions based on person- Brown, & Barrera, 1999):
al experience or knowledge. Teachers
would provide pictures or offer line draw- The real challenge for schools today is not the
ings on the board. Not only did infusing growing number of Latino/a children who

English-Language Learners with LD 103

speak Spanish (and must learn English) but the meeting the goal of promoting English-
school’s continuing need to do a far better job language proficiency.
of delivering instruction to them in English.
This would entail that schools and teachers ac- Understanding the Components of a
knowledge and understand these children as Comprehensive English-Language
second-language learners and develop quality, Development Program
content-rich ESL programs for them. . . . It also
means that we must teach English reading and In her study of an innovative approach for
writing from a second-language. (p. 225) teaching reading comprehension of English-
language learners with disabilities, Echevar-
In January 2002, in the Reauthorization ria (1995) noted that “language is a primary
of the Elementary and Secondary Education vehicle for intellectual development” (p.
Act, Congress set a national goal of devel- 537). The connection between language de-
oping English-language proficiency within 3 velopment and acquisition of academic con-
years for all students who are English- tent and strategies for reading and problem
language learners. This would include stu- solving is fundamental to virtually all in-
dents with learning disabilities. Thus, it structional research for this population.
seems to be a particularly timely issue.
August and Hakuta (1997) note how all
This section provides insights gained contemporary theories “share the important
from our years of research in this area. A claim that academic language is different
major emphasis of our research has been on from language use in other contexts” (pp.
codifying the knowledge base on how to 36–37). Despite widespread understanding
teach English-language learners effectively of the distinction between these two types
in a second language, and how to merge of language uses, it is still common for
English-language development with literacy teachers to make the erroneous assumption
instruction. The various studies have almost that possessing command of conversational
invariably included students with LD and English means a child can follow abstract
we have tried to conceptualize implications discussions of concepts such as antipathy, or
for teaching this group of students. specific gravity, or the causes of World War
II.
Research we conducted began with a se-
ries of qualitative studies regarding the na- Determining how to teach this language
ture of instruction provided to English- to students has been a challenge. Early at-
language learners making the transition into tempts at English-language development
all English-language instruction in grades (English as a second language [ESL]) in-
3–6 (Gersten, 1996a, 1996b, 1999; Gersten struction focused extensively on the formal
& Jiménez, 1994) describing both the structures of language (e.g., definitions, syn-
strengths (Jiménez & Gersten, 1999) and tax, subject verb agreement, and placement
problems in current practice (Gersten, of adjectives) using a mix of conversational
1999). Next we conducted a thorough re- English and more formal, literary language.
view of both the qualitative and quantita- This approach is now routinely criticized
tive research on the topic and conducted a because it fails to capitalize on the central
series of expert focus groups involving both communicative function of language, it does
researchers and professional educators with not often generate student interest, and it
expertise in this topic (Gersten & Baker, results in limited generalization (Cummins,
2000b, 2000c). Our major goal was to use 1980; Tharp & Gallimore, 1988).
these groups to articulate a vision of what
most saw as critical issues and promising The 1980s saw the beginning of more
practices. “natural” conversational approaches to
teaching English. These approaches were
We use these sources as a means for artic- also criticized extensively on at least two
ulating our sense of what we know about grounds. First, they do not necessarily help
effective instructional practice, useful con- students develop competence in the highly
cepts in understanding components of best abstract, often decontextualized language of
practice and critical issues that require fur- academic discourse. “Natural” conversa-
ther research. Our focus is in teaching stu- tions may help with development of conver-
dents reading and other content areas in sational English (which many students
English in a sensitive, effective fashion while

104 FOUNDATIONS AND CURRENT PERSPECTIVES

seemed to be acquiring through everyday Two problems that emerged were the fol-
life in the United States anyway), but they lowing:
rarely helped where help was needed
most—with abstract, academic English, crit- ț Few districts have a curriculum program
ical to understanding science, mathematics, or approach that promotes students’
history, and so forth. proper use of the English language;

A small but increasing number of re- ț Teachers often did not provide sufficient
searchers and scholars argued that English- time for English-language development
language reading can serve as a powerful activities, and that content coverage
tool in building English-language proficien- tended to dominate time allocation.
cy and saw a reciprocal influence between
learning to read in English and a child’s In the words of one participant, this ap-
English-language development. The stress proach often fails, “to provide adequate
on infusing English-language development time for English language learning” (Ger-
into reading and language arts instruction sten & Baker, 2000b). In other words, par-
and using literature and vocabulary in sto- ticipants felt that teachers often emphasize
ries read as the core of an English-language content acquisition over building English-
development program is a major advance in language abilities. As one teacher noted,
our thinking. “It’s important to use content as a basis for
language development . . . [however] there
Developing dialogue related to texts read is a risk during content instruction of ne-
by the student or by the teacher to the stu- glecting language development.”
dent seems a logical direction for English-
language development instruction to pro- Another major discussion item in the ex-
ceed in. It would seem particularly critical pert focus groups was the failure to system-
for those involved in teaching students with atically impart to students skills in speaking
LD, as there often is a strong language or and writing standard English, even as late as
language-related component to the disabili- middle school. Though many group mem-
ty. Literature seems an excellent venue for bers felt that the policy of never correcting
building the more formal language of school students for grammatical or pronunciation
discourse in students. problems during English-language instruc-
tion made sense during the early years of
Classes that merge English-language de- English-language development, there was
velopment activities with reading/language general consensus that students need feed-
arts or other types of content area instruc- back on their formal English usage as they
tion are often called sheltered or content progress in school. Furthermore, teachers
area ESL or immersion approaches. In the lack any kind of coherent system for provid-
United States, these have largely been ing it. One professional work group sug-
“homegrown” approaches to teaching, de- gested that in the early phases of language
veloped by districts, and sometimes individ- learning, teachers should modulate the feed-
ual teachers, to meet the needs of students. back they provide students and be sensitive
to the problems inherent in correcting every
With this approach, “teachers do not sim- grammar mistake students make. However,
plify—they amplify, they reiterate, reinstate, during later stages, one member reflected
exemplify in diverse ways. . . . They con- the feeling in the group by noting the “im-
struct support mechanisms (the reiterations, portance of identifying errors and providing
examples, diagrams) that . . . enable learn- specific feedback.”
ers to access sophisticated concepts and re-
lationships” (Walquis, 1998, cited in Ger- A recent research study by Fashola,
sten & Baker, 2000a). Use of English is Drum, Mayer, and Kang (1996) may pro-
modulated so that it is comprehensible to vide some direction in this area. They noted
the student (Gersten, 1996a). In some cases, how errors made by Latino students in Eng-
a student’s native language may be used to lish are usually predictable, and how these
help the student complete a task, clarify a predictable errors could become the basis of
point, or respond to a question. proactive curricula: “Rather than simply
marking a predicted error as incorrect, the
The expert focus groups conducted by teacher could explicitly point out that the
Gersten and Baker (2000c) noted some dif-
ficulties, in practice, with this approach.

English-Language Learners with LD 105

phonological or orthographic rule in Eng- velopment, although both studies by
lish is different from the one in “Spanish” Klingner and Vaughn (1996, 2000) begin to
(p. 840). Fashola and colleagues provide provide interesting insights.
numerous examples of how teachers could
proactively use knowledge of differences be- To date, most of our knowledge base in
tween Spanish and English to help their stu- this area remains more theoretical and expe-
dents avoid making these same predictable riential, as does virtually every topic in the
errors. Analogous strategies can be used for education of English-language learners,
other languages, and especially to assist stu- than based on controlled research.
dents whose home language is drastically
different than English. This would appear to Guiding Principles for Best Practice
be a major focus for curriculum develop-
ment in this area. We conclude with a succinct overview of
several additional instructional principles
After reviewing these issues with expert that seem to guide best practice. We limit
focus groups and reading about problems this discussion to three critical instructional
with content area ESL in sources as diverse issues that seem to permeate many aspects
as virtually every newspaper in a large ur- of instruction.
ban area and the Harvard Educational Re-
view (Reyes, 1992), we concluded that an BUILDING AND USING VOCABULARY AS A
effective English-language development
program should include a component de- CURRICULAR ANCHOR
voted to helping students learn how to use
the second language according to estab- Vocabulary learning should play a major
lished conventions of grammar and syntax. role in successful programs for English-
On the other hand, providing some time language learners. The number of new vo-
each day when English-language learners cabulary terms introduced at any one time
have opportunities to work on all aspects should be limited. Criteria for selecting
of English-language development and pro- words should be considered carefully, so
viding academically challenging content in- that words are selected that convey key con-
struction (be it in native language or Eng- cepts, are of high utility, are relevant to the
lish) are likely to be more easily achievable, bulk of the content being learned, and have
especially if teachers take time to make meaning in the lives of students. The exam-
goals clear. ple cited earlier from a particularly effective
first-grade classroom gives the reader a
A promising body of research suggests sense of how this goal can be accomplished.
that peer-mediated approaches to instruc- It is critical at all grade levels.
tion, such as peer-mediated instruction (Ar-
reaga-Mayer, 1998) and collaborative Restricting the number of words students
strategic reading (Klingner & Vaughn, are expected to learn per day will help them
1996, 2000), may be excellent venues for learn word meanings at a deep level of un-
students not only to help build comprehen- derstanding. One expert teacher we have
sion strategies and reading fluency but also worked with previously provided insights
to help in various aspects of English- into the methods she used to select and
language development. teach. She noted how she chose words for
the class to analyze in depth that represent-
These approaches involve heterogeneous ed complex ideas—adjectives such as “anx-
small groups of students and provide clear ious,” “generous,” and “suspicious,” and
guidelines for working together on various nouns such as “memory”—words that Eng-
aspects of strategic reading, including sum- lish-language learners are likely to need help
marizing, clarifying, using context clues to with and words that were linked to the sto-
help understand word meanings, and gener- ry in meaningful and rich ways. Students
ating questions for peers that help members had to read the story and look for evidence
focus on critical information. To date, there that certain events or descriptions that were
has been little specific inquiry on precisely connected to vocabulary instruction per-
which students benefit, the nature of dis- tained to a particular character or incident.
course, and other fascinating and important Intervention studies have also addressed vo-
issues that center on English-language de- cabulary development directly supporting

106 FOUNDATIONS AND CURRENT PERSPECTIVES

this approach (Rousseau, Tam, & Ram- language content instruction, effective
narain, 1993). teachers intentionally vary cognitive and
language demands to achieve specific goals.
USE OF VISUALS TO REINFORCE CONCEPTS
When cognitive demands are high, lan-
AND VOCABULARY guage expectations are simplified. In this
case, for example, teachers may accept brief
The double demands of learning content or truncated responses in English. In anoth-
and a second language are significant and er part of the lesson, cognitive demands are
the difficulty should not be underestimated. intentionally reduced so that students can
Because the spoken word is fleeting, visual more comfortably experiment with extend-
aids such as graphic organizers, concept and ed English-language use.
story maps, and word banks give students a
concrete system to process, reflect on, and This proposition was supported in each
integrate information. of the five expert focus groups conducted. It
also appears consistent with contemporary
The effective use of visuals during instruc- theories of second-language acquisition
tion with English-language learners has (e.g., August & Hakuta, 1997). These ex-
ranged from complex semantic visuals amples from Gersten (1996a) convey a
(Reyes & Bos, 1998) to visuals based on sense of how a teacher can adjust the lan-
text structures, such as story maps and com- guage and cognitive demands within a les-
pare–contrast “think sheets.” son. The following is an example of a
teacher using the constructs and principles
Intervention studies and several observa- of instructional conversations:
tional studies have noted that the effective
use of visuals during instruction can lead to “For example,” the teacher, Mrs. Tapia asked,
increased learning. Rousseau and colleagues “What do you think the story will be about?
(1993) used visuals for teaching vocabulary Do you think this lady will be in the story?”
(i.e., words written on the board and the use She delicately elicited a wide range of predic-
of pictures), and Saunders, O’Brien, Len- tions; each prediction was placed on the chart.
non, and McLean (1998) incorporated the
systematic use of visuals for teaching read- Student involvement was extremely high.
ing and language arts. Visuals also play a Even the more passive students volunteered
large role in Cognitive Academic Language a prediction. The teacher provided prompts
Learning Approach (CALLA), shown to be to students who seemed to be floundering,
related to growth in language development such as: “With a title like this and this pic-
(see Gersten & Baker, 2000b, for further ture on the cover, Fernando, what do you
discussion). think this story will be about?’ “ Her style
of feedback and mediation was interesting.
Implementation of even simple techniques She never judged a response incorrect or il-
such as writing key words on the board or a logical. However, when a student predicted
flip chart while discussing them verbally can that the people in the story “will have a
support meaningful English-language devel- ranch,” a statement that seemed to make no
opment and comprehension. However, even sense, she asked him why.
the simple integration of visuals is drastical-
ly underused, and it seems that even when Even the more reticent students volunteer
used, methods are typically inconsistent or their predictions. All are recorded on the
superficial and do not support students’ flip chart. At the conclusion of this brief sto-
deep processing and thinking. ry, a discussion of mood ensues. Mrs. Tapia
asks, “What did you think about it?” One
MODULATION OF COGNITIVE AND student answers, “It was kind of sad.” Mrs.
Tapia responds, “How do you know?”
LANGUAGE DEMANDS Miguel, one of the students she earlier de-
scribed as a student with learning difficul-
This last instructional strategy carries a dif- ties, says “Because old people.” Mrs. Tapia
ferent weight of importance, and we view it praises Miguel for his insight. Because the
as the most speculative among those we idea is on the right track, even though the
have proposed. Yet, we think it is critical for English grammar is incomplete, the re-
successful English-language development.
The proposition is that during English-

English-Language Learners with LD 107

sponse is evaluated for content rather than second language and simultaneous growth
the extent to which it conformed to correct in both oral and written English-language
language use. proficiency. We also note instructional fac-
tors that appear to explain, in part, growth
Responses are never labeled right or in reading fluency and comprehension dur-
wrong, but sometimes students are asked to ing first grade, arguably the most critical
explain the rationale for their answers or year for reading instruction.
opinions. Jorge, for example, explains that
he “liked it because it was sad and it was An emerging body of research suggests
happy,” and he proceeds to provide several that the use of approaches such as “shel-
examples of sad and happy instances. tered English,” whereby the linguistic de-
mands placed on students are aligned with
While discussing another story, the class their knowledge of English, can lead to stu-
had concluded that the leading character dents’ learning of complex, age-appropriate
had transformed himself from a “bad man” content, as well as English-language devel-
(a thief) to a “good man” (one who helps opment. We have proposed that particularly
people). Mrs. Tapia asked for examples. In effective teachers carefully modulate their
my estimation, the story contained about use of English depending on their teaching
30. Even the most reticent students volun- goals. They decrease cognitive demands
teered to provide evidence as to how we when English-language development is the
know the thief has become a good man. primary goal and increase cognitive de-
Every child who participated provided a mands when content acquisition is the goal.
reasonable piece of evidence. The momen-
tum of the group propelled some otherwise Increasingly, researchers argue that we
reticent students to volunteer. need to think of components of instruction
that lead to improved learning outcomes as
Summary and Conclusions opposed to broad instructional labels that,
at best, crudely describe complex instruc-
Both Heller and colleauges (1982) and NRC tional interventions (August & Hakuta,
(2002) reports on disproportionate repre- 1997). We have attempted to highlight some
sentation of minorities in special education of the principles of best practice that have
highlight the fact that the quality of instruc- begun to emerge. However, the empirical
tion provided to minority students in gener- knowledge base remains slender on this crit-
al education classrooms is deeply connected ical topic.
to any problems or issues that may lead to
disproportionate representation. The erratic Acknowledgments
quality of instruction provided to many
English-language learners has been fre- Sections of this chapter are adapted from Gersten
quently documented and would seem a piv- and Baker (2000a, 2000c).
otal area for major national efforts, and
reform of special education for English- References
language learners with LD is impossible
without significant improvements in the Anderson, L., Evertson, C., & Brophy, J. (1979). An
quality of instruction provided in general experimental study of effective teaching in first-
education. This chapter highlighted key is- grade reading groups. Elementary School Jour-
sues in instruction for English-language nal, 79, 193–223.
learners and principles suggested to be effec-
tive in our own research and our previous Anderson, V., & Roit, M. (1998). Reading as a gate-
review of the research base. way to language proficiency for language-minori-
ty students in the elementary grades. In R. M. Ger-
We stress that English-language develop- sten & R. T. Jiménez (Eds.), Promoting learning
ment has been sorely neglected and provide for culturally and linguistically diverse students:
examples and principles for how to merge Classroom applications from contemporary re-
English-language development with reading search (pp. 42–54). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
and language arts instruction to provide the
beginnings of knowledge base for effective Arreaga-Mayer, C. (1998). Language sensitive peer
teaching of English-language learners in a mediated instruction for culturally and linguisti-
cally diverse learners in the intermediate elemen-
tary grades. In R. Gersten & R. Jiménez (Eds.),

108 FOUNDATIONS AND CURRENT PERSPECTIVES

Promoting learning for culturally and linguisti- Gersten, R., & Baker, S. (2000c). What we know
cally diverse students: Classroom applications about effective instructional practices for Eng-
from contemporary research (pp. 73–90). Bel- lish-language learners. Exceptional Children, 66,
mont, CA: Wadsworth. 454–470.
August, D., & Hakuta, K. (1997). Improving
schooling for language-minority children. Wash- Gersten, R., Baker, S. K., Pugach, M., Scanlon, D.,
ington, DC: National Academy Press. & Chard, D. (2001). Contemporary research on
California Reading and Literature Project. (1999). special education teaching. In V. Richardson
Reading professional development institute fo- (Ed.), Handbook for research on teaching (4th
cusing on results, K–3. San Diego: California ed., pp. 695–722). Washington, DC: American
Reading and Literature Project. Educational Research Association.
Cummins, J. (1980). The cross-lingual dimensions
of language proficiency: Implications for bilin- Gersten, R., & Jiménez, R. (1994). A delicate bal-
gual education and the optimal age issue. TESOL ance: Enhancing literacy instruction for students
Quarterly, 14(2), 175–187. of English as a second language. The Reading
Echevarria, J. (1995). Interactive reading instruc- Teacher, 47(6), 438–449.
tion: A comparison of proximal and distal effects
of Instructional Conversations. Exceptional Chil- Gersten, R., & Woodward, J. (1994). The language
dren, 61, 536–552. minority student and special education: Issues,
Echevarria, J., Vogt, M., & Short, D. J. (2000). themes and paradoxes. Exceptional Children,
Making content comprehensible for English-lan- 60(4), 310–322.
guage learners: The SIOP model. Boston: Allyn
& Bacon. Harry, B. (1992). Cultural diversity, families, and
Fashola, O. S., Drum, P. A., Mayer, R. E., & Kang, the special education system: Communication
S. (1996). A cognitive theory of orthographic and empowerment. New York: Teachers College
transitions: Predictable errors in how Spanish- Press.
speaking children spell English words. American
Educational Research Journal, 33(4), 825–844. Heller, K. A., Holtzman, W. H., & Messick, S.
Foorman, B. R., Francis, D. J., Fletcher, J. M., & (1982). Placing children in special education: A
Lynn, A. (1996). Relation of phonological and strategy for equity. Washington, DC: National
orthographic processing to early reading: Com- Academy Press.
paring two approaches to regression-based, read-
ing-level-match designs. Journal of Educational Ikeda, M. J., Grimes, J., Tilly, W. D., Allison, R.,
Psychology, 88, 639–652. Kurns, S., & Stumme, J. (2002). Implementing an
Fuchs, L. (1986). Monitoring progress among mild- intervention-based approach to service delivery:
ly handicapped pupils: Review of current practice A case example. In M. R. Shinn, H. M. Walker,
and research. Remedial and Special Education, & G. Stoner (Eds.), Interventions for academic
7(5), 5–12. and behavior problems II: Preventive and reme-
Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1998). Treatment validi- dial approaches (pp. 53–70). Bethesda, MD: Na-
ty: A unifying concept for reconceptualizating the tional Academy of Sciences Publications.
identification of learning disabilities. Learning
Disabilities Research and Practice, 13, 204–219. Jiménez, R., & Gersten, R. (1999). Lessons and
Gersten, R. (1996a). The double demands of teach- dilemmas derived from the literacy instruction of
ing English language learners. Educational Lead- two Latina/o teachers. American Education Re-
ership, 53(5), 18–22. search Journal, 36(2), 265–301.
Gersten, R. (1996b). Literacy instruction for lan-
guage-minority students: The transition years. El- Jiménez, R. T., Moll, L. C., Rodríguez-Brown, F. V.,
ementary School Journal, 96(3), 227–244. & Barrera, R. B. (1999). Latina and Latino re-
Gersten, R. (1999). Lost opportunities: Challenges searchers interact on issues related to literacy
confronting four teachers of English-language learning. Reading Research Quarterly, 34(2),
learners. Elementary School Journal, 100(1), 217–230.
37–56.
Gersten, R., & Baker, S. (2000a). Practices for Eng- Kaminski, R. A., & Good, R. H. (1996). Toward a
lish-language learners. Topical Summary for the technology for assessing basic early literacy skills.
National Institute for Urban School Improve- School Psychology Review, 25, 215–227.
ment.
Gersten, R., & Baker, S. (2000b). The professional Klingner, J. K., & Vaughn, S. (1996). Reciprocal
knowledge base on instructional interventions teaching of reading comprehension strategies for
that support cognitive growth for English-lan- students with learning disabilities who use Eng-
guage learners. In R. Gersten, E. Schiller, & S. lish as a second language. Elementary School
Vaughan, Contemporary special education re- Journal, 96, 275–293.
search: Syntheses of the knowledge base on criti-
cal instructional issues (pp. 31–79). Mahwah, Klingner, J. K., & Vaughn, S. (2000). The helping
NJ: Erlbaum. behaviors of fifth graders while using collabora-
tive strategic reading during ESL content classes.
TESOL Quarterly, 34(1), 69–98.

Leinhardt, G., Zigmond, N., & Cooley, W. (1981).
Reading instruction and its effects. American Ed-
ucational Research Journal, 18, 343–361.

Lyon, G. R. (1994). Frames of reference for the as-
sessment of learning disabilities: New views on
measurement issues. Baltimore: Brookes.

Lyon, G. R., Fletcher, J. M., Shaywitz, S. E., Shay-
witz, B. A., Torgesen, J. K., Wood, F. B., Schulte,
A., & Olson, R. (2001). Rethinking learning dis-

English-Language Learners with LD 109

abilities. In C. E. Finn, A. J. Rotherham, & C. R. guage impairments. Education and Treatments of
Hokanson (Eds.), Rethinking special education Children, 16, 254–271.
for a new century (pp. 259–288). Washington, Saunders, W., O’Brien, G., Lennon, D., & McLean,
DC: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation and the J. (1998). Making the transition to English litera-
Progressive Policy Institute. cy successful: Effective strategies for studying lit-
Marston, D. (1989). Curriculum-based measure- erature with transition students. In R. Gersten &
ment: What is it and why do it? In M. R. Shinn R. Jiménez (Eds.), Promoting learning for cultur-
(Ed.), Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing ally and linguistically diverse students: Class-
special children (pp. 18–78). New York: Guilford room applications from contemporary research
Press. (pp. 99–132). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Mercer, J. R. (1970). Sociological perspectives on Shinn, M. R. (Ed.). (1989). Curriculum-based mea-
mild mental retardation. In H. C. Haywood surement: Assessing special children. New York:
(Ed.), Social-cultural aspects of mental retarda- Guilford Press.
tion. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Snow, C. S., Burns, S. M., & Griffin, P. (1998). Pre-
Messick, S. (1980). Test validity and the ethics of as- venting reading difficulties in young children.
sessment. American Psychologist, 35, 1012–1027. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Report of the Na- Stallings, J., & Kaskowitz, D. (1974). Follow-
tional Reading Panel: Teaching children to read: through classroom observation evaluation 1972–
An evidence-based assessment of the scientific re- 1973 (SRI Project URU–7370). Stanford, CA:
search literature on reading and its implications Stanford Research Institute.
for reading instruction. Washington, DC: Nation- Stanovich, P. J., & Jordan, A. (1998). Canadian
al Institute of Child Health and Human Develop- teachers’ and principals’ beliefs about inclusive
ment. education as predictors of effective teaching in
National Research Council. (2002). Minority stu- heterogeneous classrooms. Elementary School
dents in special and gifted education (Committee Journal, 98, 221–238.
on Minority Representation in Education, M. S. Swanson, H. L., & Hoskyn, M. (1998). Experimen-
Donovan & C. T. Cross, Eds.). Washington, DC: tal intervention research on students with learn-
National Academy Press. ing disabilities: A meta-analysis of treatment out-
Reyes, E., & Bos, C. (1998). Interactive semantic comes. Review of Educational Research, 68,
mapping and charting: Enhancing content area 277–321.
learning for language minority students. In R. Tharp, R. G., & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing
Gersten & R. Jiménez (Eds.), Promoting learning minds to life. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Uni-
for culturally and linguistically diverse students: versity Press.
Classroom applications from contemporary re- Tikunoff, W. J., Ward, B. A., van Broekhuizen, L.
search (pp. 133–152). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. D., Romero, M., Castaneda, L. V., Lucas, T., &
Reyes, M. (1992). Challenging venerable assump- Katz, A. (1991). Final report: A descriptive study
tions: Literacy instruction for linguistically differ- of significant features of exemplary special alter-
ent students. Harvard Educational Review, 62(4), native instructional programs. Los Alamitos, CA:
427–446. The Southwest Regional Educational Laboratory.
Rousseau, M. K., Tam, B. K. Y., & Ramnarain, R. Walquis, A. (1998). Legal declaration (California
(1993). Increasing reading proficiency of lan- case #C-98-2252 CAL).
guage-minority students with speech and lan-

7

Searching for the Most Effective Service
Delivery Model for Students with
Learning Disabilities

Naomi Zigmond

Learning disabilities (LD) as an educational meaningless . . . [and who] need more inten-
phenomenon has a rather short history. sive assistance than the classroom teacher
Whereas public schools have recognized and can be expected to provide” (p. 208),
provided services for students with physical, Kephart suggested what would later be
sensory, and intellectual handicaps since the known as a resource room model: “a clini-
beginning of the twentieth century, students cal approach in which [the student with LD]
with LD did not come to the attention of is removed from the classroom for a short
public schools until the 1960s, and large- time, a half-hour or an hour a day. During
scale provision of special education services this short period, individually or in small
for this population of students dates back groups of two or three, intensive attack is
only to 1975 and the passage by Congress of made on his learning problems—not upon
Public Law (PL) 94-142, the Education of curriculum matters, but upon the learning
All Handicapped Children Act. problem itself and the methods by which he
processes information” (p. 208). The child
From the very start, practitioners and with minor learning problems, Kephart be-
school administrators assumed that there lieved, had much more to gain from interac-
was no “one best way” to provide educa- tions with peers in the general education
tional services for the LD population. As classroom than from intensive activities in a
early as 1970, Kephart was advocating for a segregated program. This child could be
full continuum of services. For some stu- helped by the regular classroom teacher and
dents with LD, “the so-called hard-core would be fully included in the mainstream.
case[s] whose interferences are so extensive
that [they] will probably need major alter- In the first edition of Lerner’s (1971) clas-
ations of educational presentations for the sic textbook on LD, she, too, called for a
length of [their] educational career[s]” (p. continuum of placements matched to the
208), Kephart recommended a segregated educational needs of the child with LD: spe-
classroom. But for those with somewhat less cial classes for students with severe prob-
severe problems, “whose interference with lems, itinerant teaching services for children
learning is such that much of the activities of whose learning disability is not severe
the [general education] classroom become enough to warrant a special class, and re-

110

Searching for the Most Effective Service Delivery Model 111

source rooms for most students with LD at The question of which service delivery
both elementary and secondary school lev- model is best for students with disabilities
els. By 1975, Hammill and Bartel were sug- was hotly debated again in the mid-1980s,
gesting that special schools and special as essays on the failure of part-time and
classes “should be used with considerable pullout special education began to prolifer-
caution and viewed as a last resort” (p. 3). ate. For students with LD, the focus of the
They, also, advocated for a resource room debate was on the more than 80% of stu-
model that permitted “the pupil to receive dents who were already spending at least
instruction individually or in groups in a some of their time in general education
special room . . . [in which] the emphasis is classrooms. And the theme was consistent:
on teaching specific skills that the pupil Fundamental changes in the delivery model
needs. At the end of his lesson, he returns to for special education were needed to in-
the regular classroom and continues his ed- crease the accomplishments of those stu-
ucation there” (p. 4). dents. Biklin and Zollers (1986) asserted
that “students do not benefit from this
Data in the first annual report to Con- [pull-out] special education” (p. 581). Ha-
gress (U.S. Department of Health, Educa- garty and Abramson (1987) concluded that
tion and Welfare, 1979) confirmed that a a “split scheduling approach for providing
continuum of service delivery models for services . . . is neither administratively nor
students with LD was, indeed, in place: In instructionally supportable” (p. 316). And
the 1976–1977 school year, 81% of the stu- Madeline Will (1986), then Assistant Secre-
dents with LD were based in general educa- tary of Education and head of the Office of
tion classes and received pullout special ed- Special Education Programs, proclaimed,
ucation services for less than half of the “Although well intentioned, the so-called
schoolday, 17% were served primarily in ‘pull out’ approach to the educational diffi-
special classes, and 2% were in separate fa- culties of students with learning problems
cilities. Twenty-one years later, the 22nd an- has failed in many instances to meet the ed-
nual report to Congress (U.S. Department ucational needs of these students” (p. 413).
of Education, 2000) indicated that across Will and others (e.g., Gartner & Lipsky,
the nation, the distribution of students with 1987, 1989; National Association of State
LD across service delivery models had shift- Boards of Education, 1992) called for com-
ed only slightly. In the 1997–1998 school pletely integrated educational experiences
year, 83% were based in general education for children with learning problems to
classes, receiving pullout special services for achieve “improved educational outcomes”
less than half of the schoolday, 16% were (Will, 1986, p. 413). Advocates for this
served primarily in separate classes, and just new, fully inclusive service delivery model
under 1% were in separate facilities. for special education pressed for elimination
of all pullout programs in favor of full-time
What these relatively stable numbers integration in general education classrooms.
mask is the heated debate that has raged for
at least 20 years and the flurry of research it In the 1997 reauthorization of the Indi-
generated on which service delivery model is viduals with Disabilities Education Act, the
actually best for serving students with LD in question of preferred service delivery model
public schools. A similar question had first was raised again, and this time with a new
been asked by Lloyd Dunn in 1968 with ref- urgency. With the additional requirement
erence to special education services for stu- that students with disabilities participate in
dents with mild mental retardation, and re- (and perform respectably on) statewide as-
sponse to his article spurred the adoption of sessments and accountability procedures,
resource room services in place of special pressures to favor one kind of placement
day classes for these students in the 1970s. (full inclusion in the general education class-
The question was raised again with the pas- room) over any other (providing some pull-
sage of PL 94–142, the Education of All out services in some other place) mounted.
Handicapped Children Act (1975), and an- In the public policy debates that ensued, lit-
swered ambiguously, with support for a tle attention was paid to research evidence
continuum of services on the one hand and on the efficacy of the various service deliv-
a preference for placement in the general ed- ery models. Would a review of that body of
ucation classroom on the other hand.

112 FOUNDATIONS AND CURRENT PERSPECTIVES

work have helped to shape the debate about dation or emotional handicaps, and on the
what is the most effective model and who usefulness of special class placements over
should get what? placement in the regular class. He conclud-
ed, on the basis of a half dozen studies con-
This chapter looks at research studies and ducted in the 1960s, and a review of re-
research reviews that focus on the relative search published by Kirk in 1964, that there
effectiveness of service delivery models for was no empirical support for educating stu-
students with LD and other mild/moderate dents with mild disabilities in special class-
disabilities. In these studies, the students are es. “Retarded pupils make as much or more
generally school-identified using state and progress in the regular grades as they do in
local guidelines. I argue, as many others special education [and] efficacy studies on
have before me, that research evidence on special day classes for other mildly handi-
the relative efficacy of one special education capped children, including the emotionally
placement over another is scarce, method- handicapped, reveal the same results”
ologically flawed, and inconclusive, in large (Dunn, 1968, p. 8). Though Dunn called for
part because studies of the educational out- the abandonment of special day classes for
comes of students with disabilities in one students with mild disabilities, he argued
place or another can rarely conform to the persuasively for part-time pullout special
rigorous standards of experimental re- education services to meet their specialized
search. But I also argue that, in practical educational needs.
terms, “Which service delivery model is
most effective?” is the wrong question to Ten years later, Sindelar and Deno (1978)
ask. This question assumes that each service reported research results that supported that
delivery model (special class, resource position. In a narrative review of 17 studies,
room, itinerant, full inclusion) represents a Sindelar and Deno concluded that resource
clearly specified treatment and that each is rooms were more effective than regular
implemented with fidelity. In other words, classrooms in improving academic achieve-
when a researcher says a group of children ment of students with LD. At about the same
were getting “full inclusion” or “resource time, a meta-analysis of efficacy studies com-
room” services, he or she and the readers pleted by Carlberg and Kavale (1980) re-
know what educational experiences the stu- ported more complex results. Carlberg and
dents were receiving. This is simply not the Kavale’s calculations of effect sizes showed
case. I suggest that if the goal of research on that students with mental retardation in spe-
service delivery models is to improve out- cial class placements performed as well, aca-
comes for students with LD, there are more demically, as those placed in regular grades.
important questions to ask, and a search for But they also showed a modest academic ad-
these more important questions should vantage for students with learning or behav-
prompt a move away from outcomes-based ior disorders in special classes (both self-con-
experimental designs toward new ways of tained and resource programs) over those
thinking about research on service delivery remaining in the regular class. Leinhardt and
models and the educational processes they Palley (1982) also concluded from their re-
support. search review that resource rooms were bet-
ter than regular placements for students with
Outcomes-Based Efficacy Studies LD. And 1 year later, Madden and Slavin
of Service Delivery Models in (1983) reviewed seven studies on the efficacy
Special Education of part-time resource placements compared
to full-time special education classes and
For more than three decades, special educa- full-time placement in the mainstream and
tion researchers and scholars have re- concluded that if increased academic
searched, and synthesized research on, the achievement is the desired outcome, “the re-
relative usefulness of one place or another search favors placement in regular classes
for serving students with disabilities. Dunn . . . supplemented by well designed resource
(1968) focused his review of the efficacy of programs” (italics added; p. 530).
special education placements on research
conducted with students with mental retar- Research support for supplemental re-
source room services was, however, over-
looked in the national frenzy to reshape spe-

Searching for the Most Effective Service Delivery Model 113

cial education that swept the country in the Manset and Semmel (1997) compared
mid-1980s. With the introduction of newer, eight inclusion models for elementary stu-
full-inclusion service delivery models, par- dents with mild disabilities, primarily LD,
ticularly full-inclusion models for students as reported in the research literature be-
with mild/moderate disabilities that used tween 1984 and 1994. They reiterated Ho-
special education teachers in consulting or cutt’s conclusions: Inclusive programs can
co-teaching roles, the early research com- be effective for some, although not all, stu-
paring special pullout placements with regu- dents with mild disabilities. Waldren and
lar class placements seemed dated and irrel- McKleskey (1998) appeared to agree. In
evant. In those earlier studies, it was easy to their research, students with severe LD
draw stark contrasts between regular class made comparable progress in reading and
placements where no special services were math in pullout and inclusion settings, al-
available to students with disabilities and though students with mild LD were more
pullout services staffed by trained teachers likely to make gains commensurate with
who provided special instruction. In the those of peers without disabilities educated
newer, more inclusive service delivery mod- in inclusive environments versus receiving
els, students with disabilities were supposed special education services in a resource
to be receiving specially designed instruc- room.
tion or supplemental aids and services right
in the general education classroom without Holloway (2001) reviewed five studies
having to be pulled out. Research docu- conducted between 1986 and 1996 compar-
menting student progress in these new full- ing traditional pullout services to fully in-
inclusion models was needed, and it prolif- clusive service delivery models and models
erated. that combined in-class services with pullout
instruction. Though his findings are limited
Some studies seemed to show positive to students with mild LD and to the out-
trends when students were integrated into come of reading, his conclusions did not
general education classrooms (see Affleck, give strong support for the practice of full
Madge, Adams, & Lowenbraun, 1988; inclusion. Reading progress in the combined
Baker, Wang, & Walberg, 1995; Deno, model was significantly better than in either
Maruyama, Espin, & Cohen, 1990; Schulte, the inclusion-only model or the resource
Osborne, & McKinney, 1990; Walther- room-only model.
Thomas, 1997; Wang & Baker, 1985–
1986). Some researchers found that full- In recent research, Rea, Mclaughlin, and
time placement in a general education Walther-Thomas (2002) used qualitative
classroom resulted in student academic and quantitative methods to describe two
progress that was just as good as that schools and their special education models:
achieved by students in separate settings in one that was fully inclusive and one with
elementary schools (see Banerji & Dailey, more traditional supplemental pullout ser-
1995; Bear & Proctor, 1990). But others re- vices. They showed that students served in
ported disappointing or unsatisfactory aca- inclusive schools earned higher grades,
demic and social achievement gains from in- achieved higher or comparable scores on
clusion models (see Fox & Ysseldyke, 1997; standardized tests, committed no more be-
Saint-Laurent et al., 1998; Sale & Carey, havioral infractions, and attended more
1995; Vaughn, Elbaum, & Boardman, schooldays than did students in the more
2001; Zigmond & Baker, 1990; Zigmond et traditional schools with pullout programs.
al., 1995). It should come as no surprise,
then, that in a review of research on these In a specific review of co-teaching as the
newer special education service delivery inclusive service delivery model, Zigmond
models, Hocutt (1996) reported equivocal and Magiera (2002b) found only four stud-
findings: “Various program models, imple- ies that focused on academic achievement
mented in both general and special educa- gains, three at the elementary level and one
tion, can have moderately positive academic at the high school level. In the three elemen-
and social impacts for student with disabili- tary studies, co-teaching was just as effec-
ties” (p. 77). She concluded that no model is tive in producing academic gains as resource
effective for all students. room instruction or consultation with the
general education teacher. In the high school
study, students’ quiz and exam grades actu-

114 FOUNDATIONS AND CURRENT PERSPECTIVES

ally worsened following the co-teaching ex- education have been reported in numerous
periment. research reviews, as far back as Kirk (1964)
and Semmel, Gottlieb, and Robinson
Murawski and Swanson (2002) in their (1979). The criticisms are always the same.
meta-analysis of co-teaching research litera- Some studies use control groups, often sam-
ture found six studies from which effect ples from among students experiencing
sizes could be calculated; dependent mea- “traditional” programs (sometimes referred
sures included grades, achievement scores, to as business as usual) in nonexperimental
and social and attitudinal outcomes. Mu- schools. Most researchers use intact groups
rawski and Swanson reported effect sizes of students assigned to the teacher or the
for individual studies ranging from low to school building that volunteered to partici-
high with an average total effect size in the pate in the experimental treatment pro-
moderate range. Both literature reviews on gram, not random assignment of students to
co-teaching concluded that despite the cur- treatments. Often the experimental treat-
rent and growing popularity of co-teaching ment is well described, although the degree
as a service delivery model, further research of implementation is not. Descriptions of
is needed to determine whether it is an effec- the control treatment and its degree of im-
tive service delivery option for students with plementation (if indeed a control group is
disabilities, let alone a preferred one. used) are rarely provided. Most often, nei-
ther treatment is described sufficiently, nor
Limitations of Outcomes-Based its implementation monitored sufficiently,
Experimental Research to make replication possible. Thus, even if
one study demonstrates reliable achieve-
The more than three decades of efficacy re- ment changes, difficulty in identifying treat-
search reviewed here provide no simple and ment variables makes replication impossible
straightforward answer to the question of in virtually all cases. Achievement gains, or
which service delivery model is best for stu- lack thereof, often cannot be related to
dents with LD. Despite the fact that dozens replicable interventions and the fundamen-
and dozens of studies have been reported in tal question of whether Model A is better
refereed special education journals, Mu- than Model B cannot actually be answered.
rawski and Swanson (2002) were right to
ask, “Where are the data?” (p. 258). Studies The accumulated experimental evidence
worthy of consideration in a meta-analysis to date produces only one unequivocal find-
or narrative literature review, with appropri- ing: Languishing in a regular education
ate controls and appropriate dependent mea- class where nothing changes and no one
sures, are few and far between. Of course, re- pays any attention to an individual is not as
search on the efficacy of special education useful to students with learning and behav-
models is hard to conduct, let alone to con- ior disorders as getting some help (though it
duct well. For example, definitions of service does not seem to matter for students with
delivery models or settings vary from re- mild mental retardation). All other evidence
searcher to researcher, and descriptions of on whether students with disabilities learn
the treatments being implemented in those more, academically or socially, and are hap-
models or settings are woefully inadequate. pier in one service delivery model or anoth-
Random assignment of students to treat- er is at best inconclusive. Resource pro-
ments is seldom an option, and appropriate- grams are more effective for some students
ly matched (sufficiently alike) samples of ex- with disabilities than self-contained special
perimental and control students and teachers education classes or self-contained general
are rare. As a result, “place” or “service de- education classes, but they are less effective
livery model” are not phenomena that lend for other students with similar disabilities.
themselves to precise investigation. Fully inclusive programs are superior for
some students with disabilities on some
Research designs used to explore the ef- measures of academic or social skill devel-
fectiveness of different service delivery mod- opment and inferior for other students on
els often employ pre–posttreatment group other measures. The empirical research does
designs. The limitations of these research not identify one most effective model; it also
designs for studying the efficacy of special often finds equivalent progress being made

Searching for the Most Effective Service Delivery Model 115

by students with LD across models (i.e., the indirectly what they learn. Second, we did
research reports nonsignificant differences not define reading instruction as simply
in outcomes). Interpreting nonsignificant everything that went on during allocated
findings can be tricky. Do we conclude that reading time. Instead, we assumed that class-
the proverbial cup is half full or half empty? room activities fell into three broad cate-
Do we acknowledge that it does not matter gories: those directly related to reading (e.g.,
where students receive their special educa- they involved students responding to print);
tion services and allow parents or school those that indirectly supported some aspect
personnel wide berth in making choices? Or, of reading but were not reading (e.g., listen-
do we proclaim that one model is preferred ing to the teacher or talking about a story);
over another for philosophical, social, or and those that were so tangential to the ac-
moral reasons, because the research shows quisition of reading as to be nonreading
that this model “doesn’t hurt”? (working on mathematics skills, drawing,
cutting, or pasting). We imposed this view of
Asking a Different Set of Questions classroom instruction and reading behaviors
on our observational system.
In trying to understand the relative useful-
ness of service delivery models of special ed- We designed a study that would provide
ucation, the question “Which is more effec- accurate descriptive information on reading
tive?” may be too simplistic and naïve. Not instruction in self-contained classrooms,
only is research to answer that question hard and that would also permit exploration of
to do well, but the answer in the end is un- the plausibility of specific causal relation-
satisfying because it does not help explain ships among specific process and outcome
why one model seems better than another or variables (see Figure 7.1). We assumed that
how to make the less effective model more how teachers structured the learning envi-
effective. An alternative approach to the con- ronment would make a difference in how
trolled experiment began to take shape for students spent their time, and how students
me out of a fortuitous introduction to spent their time would influence the level of
William Cooley, Gaea Leinhardt, and the reading proficiency they attained at the end
concept of explanatory observational studies of the academic year. Figure 7.1 displays the
(Cooley, 1978). By the late 1970s and early causal model of how the variables were as-
1980s, classroom-based educational re- sumed to be influencing each other in the
search had clearly established that what stu- classroom. Solid black lines indicate signifi-
dents learn from their classroom experiences cant relationships in which we assumed a
is a function of what they do during class causal directionality but in which both vari-
time (see Fisher & Berliner, 1979; Stallings, ables were measured at approximately the
1979). Research on classroom activities that same time. Dotted lines indicate relation-
contribute to student growth had begun to ships that we predicted would be significant
converge. However, there was still a need for but were not. The main point of Figure 7.1
more careful descriptions of student class- is to show that posttest was assumed to be
room experiences that significantly influ- dependent on student behaviors and in-
enced the development of reading skills. structional content; student behaviors were
Cooley, Leinhardt, and I set out on a study of assumed to be influenced by prior test per-
reading instruction in self-contained class- formance and teacher behaviors.
rooms for students with LD to explore the
relative effectiveness of various classroom We spent more than 2 years studying 11
instructional practices for improving self-contained LD classrooms and more than
achievement. Two basic assumptions about 100 students with LD and their teachers. The
effective reading instruction guided our data data confirmed our expectations. What went
collection and analysis activities. First, we on in classrooms and how each student ex-
assumed that what students learn is a func- perienced and responded to the instructional
tion of what they do in class, and that fea- environment made a difference in terms of
tures of the curriculum and teacher behavior achievement growth. Students in these self-
influence directly what students do and only contained classrooms spent, on average,
only 26 minutes of a 362-minute school day
engaged in oral or silent reading; on average,
they also made only a little progress in read-

116 FOUNDATIONS AND CURRENT PERSPECTIVES

FIGURE 7.1. A model for explaining reading achievement. From Leinhardt, Zigmond, and Cooley
(1981, p. 352). Copyright 1981 by the American Educational Research Association. Adapted by per-
mission.

ing achievement. However, time spent on box” at how students were spending their
task by individual students with LD in direct time and at what instructional and learning
and indirect reading activities was highly opportunities were being provided for them
predictive of reading growth. could not only help answer the questions of
why one service delivery model might be
Looking “inside the Black Box” better than another, but also how either
could be improved. This conviction was
This explanatory observational study con- strengthened in “The Case of Randy” (Zig-
vinced me that looking “inside the black mond & Baker, 1994). This article de-

Searching for the Most Effective Service Delivery Model 117

scribed the reading progress (or lack there- prompted us to shift our focus from the
of) of one student with LD during a year in study of which service delivery model is
which special education services were pro- more effective to what we came to think of
vided in a part-time self-contained class- as a more important question, “What kinds
room, and 1 year later when they were pro- of instructional and learning opportunities
vided in a fully inclusive, general education are (or can be) made available to students
fifth-grade classroom. The data showed no with LD in different educational settings?”
significant differences in reading growth in Sometimes using quantitative observation
the two service delivery models. The obser- protocols and sometimes using qualitative
vational data helped to explain why. ones, colleagues and I embarked on a series
of studies to understand how general educa-
In the mainstream, Randy was “stretched.” tion classrooms worked, and the extent to
He was taught out of level, from a fifth grade which they were (or might be) appropriate
book, when he was barely fluent in first grade venues for educating students with LD.
level text. He was kept engaged on relevant
tasks. His learning to read was directed and The first study was carried out in one ur-
monitored by one of his two teachers almost ban elementary school (Baker & Zigmond,
all the time. The proportion of his allocated 1990). The students with LD in this school
reading instruction time that he used to spend were school identified using state and dis-
on independent seatwork he now spent in a trict guidelines. Data on classroom ecolo-
whole group reading lesson, mostly listening gies were collected through informal and
or passively engaged. Though he was allocated formal observations of reading, math, and
less time for reading instruction in the main- special subject classes and interviews of
stream, that time was spent more efficiently school personnel. Across the entire school,
each day—with considerably less of Randy’s our analyses revealed no evidence of differ-
reading time spent off task. But Randy also entiated instruction and no structures in the
spent less time talking (about things reading- general education classrooms that could
related) and writing than he had in the re- support it (Baker & Zigmond, 1990). Most
source room. And despite all these differences classes operated with only one adult, the
in time allocation and time distribution, min- teacher. The primary mode of instruction in
utes per week of time-on-task in oral and all classrooms was the single lesson taught
silent reading was virtually the same in the to the whole group, or the same seatwork
mainstream as the year before in the pull-out activity assigned to the whole class. The
special education program. (italics added; teachers in this school had uniform expecta-
(Zigmond & Baker, 1994, pp. 115–116) tions for all students, and that mind-set was
evident in the ways they organized and
As we had previously established that stu- managed instruction. Teachers valued quiet
dents learn what they spend time doing and order. Instructional programs were rou-
(Leinhardt, Zigmond, & Cooley, 1981), and tine. In fact, teachers seemed more commit-
Randy had not spent any more time doing ted to routine than to addressing individual
reading in one setting than in the other, his differences, and they were more responsive
lack of differential reading progress was ex- to district mandates than to evidence from
plainable. The observation data confirmed their students that the curriculum or pacing
that it was not the setting but the teaching needed to be adapted. If this was what a
and learning opportunities made possible in student with LD in a fully inclusive service
the setting that would account for reading delivery model of special education could
growth. expect, we predicted that the model would
not be efficacious (Baker & Zigmond,
The observation data, or the look inside 1990).
the service delivery model, however, re-
vealed something more serious. In the main- Our experience in that urban elementary
stream fifth-grade class, Randy was not re- school was not unique. Again and again, we
ceiving a special education. He was not collected both qualitative and quantitative
receiving individually tailored, remedial in- data to characterize general education class-
struction on specific reading skills in which room instruction. Again and again, we stud-
he was deficient. His fifth-grade education ied what is going on in general education
was no more special or uniquely suited to classrooms, not what could be going on or
him than to anyone else in the class. This

118 FOUNDATIONS AND CURRENT PERSPECTIVES

what should be going on. And, again and tempts to bypass the student’s weaknesses.
again, we discovered how functional the For instance, to compensate for the reading
current organization of classrooms was for and writing problems . . . the teacher might
the sets of learners that populated them, administer class tests orally” (Lewis &
and how resourceful general education Doorlag, 1991, p. 240).
teachers could be in accommodating diver-
sity without changing the basic organization Wang (1989) described these same two
and structure of their classroom. But we components (but in the reverse order) as the
also noticed that whether left alone, or adaptive instruction that should be avail-
bombarded with intensive in-service train- able to students in full inclusion models.
ing, general education teachers were more
committed to accommodation than to Modifi[cation of] the learning environment to
learning, and more likely to emphasize or- accommodate the unique learning characteris-
der and quiet than individual differences tics and needs of individual students, and
and student needs. [provision of] direct or focused intervention to
improve each student’s capabilities to success-
We used these observations to counter the fully acquire subject-matter knowledge and
prevailing view that general education class- higher-order reasoning and problem-solving
rooms could be transformed into appropri- skills, to work independently and cooperative-
ate settings for the delivery of special educa- ly with peers, and to meet the overall intellec-
tion services to students with LD. We tual and social demands of schooling. (p. 183)
argued that, historically, students with LD
assigned full time to a general education We believed it reasonable to investigate
classroom were assumed to be capable of whether these practices were actually being
coping, on their own, with the ongoing implemented. My colleagues and I set out to
mainstream curriculum. General education explore, once more, the educational oppor-
classrooms were not places where “special tunities being provided for students with LD
stuff” was (or could be) going on. Of in full-inclusion models judged to be suc-
course, despite our arguments, public policy cessful by teachers, administrators, parents,
and the social climate demanded a change and professional colleagues—if students
toward a service delivery model for students with LD were, in fact, experiencing both
with LD that eliminated virtually all pullout compensation (adapted learning environ-
services. Now, students who had been diag- ments) and remediation (direct or focused
nosed, and for whom an individualized edu- instruction in skills and strategies that
cation plan (IEP) had been written, were to would enable them to cope with the main-
be retained in the general education class stream curriculum). If only compensation
full time, and special education resources (adapted learning environments) was in
were to be “pulled in,” instead of the stu- place, students might be “managing the
dents being “pulled out.” There were many mainstream” but not learning fundamental
variations on this theme (see Jenkins, Jewell, skills and strategies that would allow them
Leicester, Jenkins, & Troutner, 1990; Rey- to become independent, self-directed learn-
naud, Pfannenstiel, & Hudson, 1987; ers. If only remediation (direct or focused
Stevens, Madden, Slavin, & Farnish, 1987; instruction in skills and strategies that
Wang, 1987; Zigmond & Baker, 1990), but would enable them to cope with the main-
in each of them, students who would other- stream curriculum) were going on, students
wise have attended special education class- might be spending a considerable portion of
rooms full or part time were returned full each day in failure experiences.
time to general education classes. Several
authors (e.g., Lewis & Doorlag, 1991) de- We studied five elementary school build-
scribed two components of instruction for ings that had, for several years, implement-
mainstreamed students with LD. “In the re- ed fully inclusive service delivery models for
mediation approach, the teacher instructs students with LD. Observation and inter-
the student in skills that are areas of need. view data in these buildings were searched
. . . Extra assistance might be provided to a for evidence of those two kinds of services
fourth grader who spells at the second grade for students with LD: (1) adaptations or ac-
level. Compensation, on the other hand, at- commodations that were designed to make
the extant curriculum and instruction man-
ageable for the student with LD by “bypass-

Searching for the Most Effective Service Delivery Model 119

ing” his or her deficits; and (2) focused, re- tions; and in the assignment of grades. Spe-
medial instruction that would increase the cial education pullout settings allow stu-
capacity of the student with LD to cope dents to be learning different “stuff” in dif-
with curriculum and materials, however ferent ways and on a different schedule. If
they were presented. We found a lot of the students need intensive instruction in basic
former and, disappointingly, little of the lat- academic skills well beyond the grade level
ter. at which peers without disabilities are learn-
ing how to read or do basic mathematics, if
Conspicuously absent, as we watched special students need explicit instruction in control-
education teachers and general education ling behavior or interacting with peers and
teachers teach students with LD ... were activ- adults, or if students need to learn anything
ities focused on assessing individual students that is not customarily taught to everyone
or monitoring progress through the curricu- else, a pullout special education setting may
lum. Concern for the individual was replaced be more appropriate.
by concern for a group—the smooth function-
ing of the mainstream class, the progress of We continue to ask the more important
the reading group, the organization and man- question, “What kinds of instructional and
agement of cooperative learning groups or learning opportunities are (or can be) made
peer tutoring. No one seemed concerned available to students with LD in different
about individual achievement, individual service delivery models?” in current ongo-
progress, or individual learning. (Baker & ing research on co-teaching (e.g., Zigmond
Zigmond, 1995, p. 171) & Magiera, 2002a). In a co-teaching model,
students with LD and their teacher are inte-
The works just cited are but a few exam- grated into the general education classroom,
ples of research on service delivery models and the two teachers share instructional re-
that have searched “inside the black box,” sponsibilities. But we have discovered that
and on the basis of our own studies, and even that question does not dig deeply
those of many others (see Carr, 1995; Guet- enough. Our search for “most effective” has
zloe, 1999; Harrington, 1997; Kauffman & failed to specify “most effective for whom?”
Pullen, 1996; Klingner, Vaughn, Hughes, &
Argulles, 1999; Shinn, Powell-Smith, & Looking at Individual Students
Good, 1996; Vaughn & Klingner, 1998) we
have come to a conclusion that is not at all Special education has evolved as a means of
profound: Different settings offer different providing specialized interventions to stu-
opportunities for teaching and learning. The dents with disabilities based on individual
general education classroom allows for ac- student progress on individualized objec-
cess to students who do not have disabili- tives. The bedrock of special education is in-
ties, access to curricula and textbooks to struction focused on individual need. The
which most other students are exposed, ac- very concept of “one best model” contra-
cess to instruction from a general education dicts this commitment to individualization.
teacher whose training and expertise are Furthermore, results of research on how
quite different from those of a special edu- groups of students respond to treatment set-
cation teacher, access to subject matter con- tings does not help the researcher or practi-
tent taught by a subject matter specialist, tioner make an individualized decision for
and access to all the stresses and strains as- an individual student’s plan. A better ques-
sociated with the preparation for, taking of, tion to ask, if we dare, is, “For what kind of
and passing or failing of statewide assess- student with LD is one service delivery
ments. If the goal is to have students learn model more opportune than another?” That
content subject information, or learn how is, for which individual students with which
to interact with peers without disabilities, individual profiles of characteristics and
the general education setting is the place to needs are the right opportunities likely to be
do that. provided through one service delivery mod-
el or another? We think that an answer
Pullout settings allow for smaller teacher– to this much more complicated question
student ratios and flexibility in the selection would require new research designs and
of texts, curricular objectives, and pacing of data analyses.
instruction; in the scheduling of examina-

120 FOUNDATIONS AND CURRENT PERSPECTIVES

A first step in that direction might be to model is less important than what is going
reanalyze group design data at the individ- on in the implementation of the program.
ual student level. For example, we collected
achievement test data for 145 students with Thus, reflecting on the past 35 years of ef-
disabilities in three full inclusion programs ficacy research, what do we know? We
as well as for many of their classmates with- know that what goes on in a place is what
out disabilities (Zigmond et al., 1995). makes the difference, not the location itself.
Rather than reporting average growth of the We know that we learn what we spend time
students with LD, my colleagues and I re- working on, and that students with disabili-
ported the number and percentage of stu- ties will not learn to read or to write or to
dents with LD who made reliably significant calculate if they do not spend more than the
gains (their gains exceeded the standard er- usual amount of time engaged in those
ror of measurement of the reading test) dur- tasks. We know that students with LD need
ing the experimental year. We also reported explicit and intensive instruction. We know
on the number and percentage of students that some instructional practices are easier
with LD whose reading gains matched or to implement and more likely to occur in
exceeded the average gain of their grade lev- some settings than in others. We know that
el peers. And, finally, we reported on the we need more research that asks better and
number and percentage of students with LD more focused questions about who learns
whose achievement status (i.e., their relative what best where. And, we know that we
standing in the grade-level peer group) had need to explore new research designs and
improved during the school year. These ana- new data analysis techniques that will help
lytic techniques allowed for the exploration us bridge the gap between efficacy findings
of setting effects individual by individual. and decision making on placements for indi-
Waldron and McLeskey (1998) followed vidual students.
this same tactic in their 1998 study. This ap-
proach seems more promising in terms of In response to the query, What is special
answering the question “most effective for about special education? We can say with
whom?” than more traditional approaches some certainty that the model is not what
used to date. makes special education “special” or effec-
tive. Effective teaching strategies and an in-
Final Comments dividualized approach are the more critical
ingredients in a special education, and nei-
As early as 1979, federal monitoring of ther of these are associated solely with one
state programs was put into place not only particular model of service delivery. That
to guard against too much segregation of said, we must also remember that typical
students with disabilities but also to guard general education environments have been
against “inappropriate mainstreaming” shown in research not to be supportive
(U.S. Department of Health, Education and places in which to implement what we
Welfare, 1979, p. 39). Although most know to be effective teaching strategies for
would agree that students with mild disabil- students with disabilities. Based on research
ities should spend a large proportion of the evidence to date, placement decisions must
schoolday with peers without disabilities, continue to be made by determining
research does not support the superiority of whether a particular placement option will
any one service delivery model over another. support those effective instructional prac-
Furthermore, effectiveness depends not only tices that are required for a particular child
on the characteristics and needs of a partic- to achieve his or her individual objectives
ular student but also on the quality of the and goals.
program’s implementation. A poorly run
model with limited resources will seldom be The search for the most effective model
superior to a model in which there is a for delivery of special education services is a
heavy investment of time, energy, and mon- legitimate one, but it has tended to be fueled
ey. Good programs can be developed using by passion and principle rather than by rea-
any model; so can bad ones. Service delivery son and rationality. Until we are ready to
say that receiving special education services
in a particular setting is good for some stu-
dents with disabilities but not for others;
that different educational environments are

Searching for the Most Effective Service Delivery Model 121

more conducive to different forms of teach- learning, Journal of Teacher Education, 30(6),
ing and learning; that different students 42–48.
need to learn different things in different Fox, N. E., & Ysseldyke, J. E. (1997). Implement-
ways; and that traditional group research ing inclusion at the middle school level: Lessons
designs may not capture these individual from a negative example. Exceptional Children,
differences in useful ways, we may never get 64(1), 81–98.
beyond the equivocal findings reported to Gartner, A., & Lipsky, D. K. (1987). Beyond special
date. We may even fail to realize that, in education: Toward a quality system for all stu-
terms of the most effective of special educa- dents. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 367–395.
tion service delivery, we have probably been Gartner, A., & Lipsky, D. K. (1989). The yoke of spe-
asking the wrong questions. cial education: How to break it. Washington, DC:
National Center on Education and the Economy.
References Guetzloe, E. (1999). Inclusion: The broken promise.
Preventing School Failure, 43(3), 92–98.
Affleck, J., Madge, S., Adams, A., & Lowenbraun, Hagarty, G. J., & Abramson, M. (1987). Impedi-
S. (1988). Integrated classroom versus resource ments to implementing national policy change for
model: Academic viability and effectiveness. Ex- mildly handicapped students. Exceptional Chil-
ceptional Children, 54, 339–348. dren, 53, 315–323.
Hammill, D. D., & Bartel, N. R. (1975). Teaching
Baker, E. T., Wang, M., & Walberg, H. J. (1995, children with learning and behavior problems.
December/January). The effects of inclusion on Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
learning. Educational Leadership, pp. 33–35. Harrington, S. (1997). Full inclusion for students
with learning disabilities. A review of the evi-
Baker, J., & Zigmond, N. (1990). Snapshots of an dence. School–Community Journal, 7(1), 63–71.
elementary school: Are regular education classes Hocutt, A. M. (1996). Effectiveness of special edu-
equipped to accommodate learning disabled stu- cation: Is placement the critical factor? The Fu-
dents? Exceptional Children, 56(6), 515–527. ture of Children, 6(1), 77–102.
Holloway, J. (2001, March). Inclusion and student
Baker, J., & Zigmond, N. (1995). The meaning and with learning disabilities. Educational Leader-
practice of inclusion for students with learning ship, pp. 86–88.
disabilities: Themes and implications from the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. (1997).
five cases. Journal of Special Education, 29(2), Public Law 107-05, 20 U. S. C. §§ 1400 et seq.
163–180. Jenkins, J. R., Jewell, M., Leicester, N., Jenkins, L.,
& Troutner, N. (1990, April). Development of a
Banjerji, M., & Dailey, R. (1995). A study of the ef- school building model for educating handicapped
fects of an inclusion model on students with spe- and at-risk students in general education class-
cific learning disabilities, Journal of Learning rooms. Paper presented at the annual meeting of
Disabilities, 28, 511–522. the American Educational Research Association,
Boston.
Bear, G. G., & Proctor, W. A. (1990). Impact of a Kauffman, J., & Pullen, P. (1996). Eight myths
full-time integrated program on the achievement about special education. Focus on Exceptional
of non-handicapped and mildly handicapped Children, 28(5), 1–12.
children, Journal of Exceptionality, 1, 227–238 Kephart, N. C. (1970). Reflection on learning dis-
abilities: Its contribution to education. In J. I.
Biklin, D., & Zollers, N. (1986). The focus of advo- Arena (Ed.), Meeting total needs of learning dis-
cacy in the LD field. Journal of Learning Disabil- abled children: A forward look (pp. 206–208).
ities, 19, 579–586 Pittsburgh, PA: Association for Children with
Learning Disabilities.
Carlberg, C., & Kavale, K. (1980). The efficacy of Kirk, S. A. (1964). Research in education. In H. A.
special versus regular class placement for excep- Stevens & R. Heber (Eds.), Mental retardation: A
tional children: A meta-analysis. Journal of Spe- review of (pp. 57–99). Chicago: University of
cial Education, 14, 295–309. Chicago Press.
Klingner, J., Vaughn, S., Hughes, M. T., & Argulles,
Carr, M. (1995) A response to the responders. Jour- M. (1999). Sustaining research-based practices in
nal of Learning Disabilities, 28(3) 136–138. reading: A 3-year follow-up. Remedial and Spe-
cial Education, 20(5), 263–274.
Cooley, W. W. (1978) Explanatory observational Leinhardt, G., & Pallay, A. (1982). Restrictive edu-
studies. Educational Researcher, 7(9), 9–15 cational settings? Exile or haven. Review of Edu-
cational Research, 52 , 557–578.
Deno, S., Maruyama, G., Espin, C., & Cohen, C. Leinhardt, G., Zigmond, N., & Cooley, W. W.
(1990). Educating students with mild disabilities (1981). Reading instruction and its effects. Amer-
in general education classrooms: Minnesota al- ican Educational Research Journal, 18(3),
ternatives, Exceptional Children, 57, 150–161. 343–361.
Lerner, J. W. (1971). Children with learning disabil-
Dunn, L. M. (1968). Special education for the mild-
ly retarded—Is much of it justifiable? Exception-
al Children, 35, 5–22.

Education of All Handicapped Children Act.
(1975). Public Law 94-142, § 612 (5)(B).

Fisher, C. W., & Berliner, D. C. (1979). Clinical
inquiry in research on classroom teaching and

122 FOUNDATIONS AND CURRENT PERSPECTIVES

ities: Theories, diagnosis, and teaching strategies. U.S. Department of Education. (2000). Twenty-sec-
Boston: Houghton Mifflin. ond annual report to Congress on the implemen-
Lewis, R. B., & Doorlag, D. H. (1991). Teaching tation of the Individuals with Disabilities Educa-
special students in the mainstream (3rd ed.). New tion Act. Washington, DC: U.S. Government
York: Merrill. Printing Office.
Madden, N. A., & Slavin, R. E. (1983). Main-
streaming students with mild handicaps: Acade- U.S. Department of Health Education and Welfare.
mic and social outcomes. Review of Educational (1979). Progress toward a free appropriate public
Research, 53, 519–569. education: A report to congress on the implemen-
Manset, G., & Semmel, M. I. (1997). Are inclusive tation of Public Law 94-142, the Education of
programs for students with mild disabilities effec- All Handicapped Children Act. Washington, DC:
tive? A comparative review of model programs. U.S. Government Printing Office.
Journal of Special Education, 31, 155–180.
Murawski, W. W., & Swanson, H. L. (2002). A Vaughn, S., Elbaum, B. E., & Boardman, A. G.
meta-analysis of co-teaching research: Where are (2001). The social functioning of students with
the data? Remedial and Special Education, 22(5), learning disabilities: Implications for inclusion.
258–267 Exceptionality, 9(1&2), 47–65.
National Association of State Boards of Education.
(1992). Winners all: A call for inclusive schools. Vaughn, S., & Klingner, J. (1998). Students’ percep-
Alexandria, VA: Author. tions of inclusion and resource room settings.
Rea, P. J., McLaughlin, V. L., & Walther-Thomas, Journal of Special Education, 32(2), 79–88.
C. (2002). Outcomes for students with learning
disabilities in inclusive and pull-out programs, Waldren, N. L., & McCleskey, J. (1998). The effects
Exceptional Children, 68, 203–222 of an inclusive school program on students with
Reynaud, G., Pfannenstiel, T., & Hudson, F. (1987). mild and severe learning disabilities, Exceptional
Park Hill secondary learning disability program: Children, 64(3), 395–405.
An alternative service delivery model. Implemen-
tation manual. Kansas City: Missouri State De- Walther-Thomas, C. (1997). Co-teaching experi-
partment of Elementary and Secondary Educa- ences: The benefits and problems that teachers
tion. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services and principals report over time. Journal of
No. ED 28931) Learning Disabilities, 30(4), 395–407.
Saint-Laurent, L., Dionne, J., Glasson, J., Royer, E.,
Simard, C., & Pierard, B. (1998). Academic Wang, M. (1987). Toward achieving educational
achievement effects of an in-class service model excellence for all students: Program design and
on students with and without disabilities. Excep- student outcomes, Remedial and Special Educa-
tional Children, 64, 239–253. tion, 8(3), 25–34.
Sale, P., & Carey, D. M. (1995). The sociometric
status of students with disabilities in a full-inclu- Wang, M. (1989). Accommodating student diversi-
sion school. Exceptional Children, 62, 6–19. ty through adaptive education. In S. Stainback,
Schulte, A. C., Osborne, S. S., & McKinney, J. D. W. Stainback, & M. Forest (Eds.), Educating all
(1990). Academic outcomes for students with students in the mainstream of education (pp.
learning disabilities in consultation and resource 183–197). Baltimore: Brookes.
programs. Exceptional Children, 57, 162–172.
Semmel, M. I., Gotleib, J., & Robinson, N. (1979). Wang, M., & Baker, E. T. (1985–1986). Main-
Mainstreaming: Perspectives in educating handi- streaming programs: Design features and effects.
capped children in the public schools. In D. Journal of Special Education, 19(4), 503–521.
Berliner (Ed.), Review of research in education
(pp. 223–279). Itaska, IL: Peacock. Will, M. C. (1986). Educating children with learn-
Shinn, M., Powell-Smith, K., & Good, R. (1996). ing problems: A shared responsibility. Exception-
Evaluating the effects of responsible reintegration al Children, 52(5), 411–415.
into general education for students with mild dis-
abilities on a case-by-case basis. School Psycholo- Zigmond, N., & Baker, J. (1990). Mainstreaming
gy Review, 25(4), 519–539. experiences for learning disabled students: A pre-
Sindelar, P. T., & Deno, S. L. (1978). The effective- liminary report. Exceptional Children, 57(2),
ness of resource programming. Journal of Special 176–185.
Education, 12(1), 17–28.
Stallings, J. (1979). How to change the process of Zigmond, N., & Baker, J. (1994). Is the mainstream
teaching reading in secondary schools, Educa- a more appropriate educational setting for stu-
tional Horizons, 57(4), 196–201. dents with learning disabilities: The case of
Stevens, R., Madden, N., Slavin, R., & Farnish, A. Randy. Learning Disabilities Research and Prac-
(1987). Cooperative integrated reading and com- tice, 9(2), 108–117.
position: Two field experiments. Reading Re-
search Quarterly, 22, 433–454. Zigmond, N., Jenkins, J., Fuchs, L., Deno, S.,
Fuchs, D., Baker, J. N., Jenkins, L., & Coutinho,
M. (1995). Special education in restructured
schools: Findings from three multi-year studies.
Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 531–540.

Zigmond, N., & Magiera, K. (2002a). Co-teaching
in secondary schools. Paper presented at the an-
nual convention of the Council for Exceptional
Children, New York.

Zigmond, N., & Magiera, K. (2002b). Current
practice alerts: Co-teaching. Arlington, VA: Divi-
sion for Learning Disabilities of the Council for
Exceptional Children.

II

CAUSES AND BEHAVIORAL
MANIFESTATIONS

This page intentionally left blank

8

Attention: Relationships between
Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity
Disorder and Learning Disabilities

Laurie E. Cutting
Martha Bridge Denckla

Learning disabilities (LD) represent a het- solid understanding of the cognitive charac-
erogeneous set of disorders that include dif- teristics of reading disability but also strong
ficulty (not predicted from measures of gen- evidence for genetic and brain bases of read-
eral cognitive aptitude) in a variety of ing disability, albeit that the precise genetic
academic and social domains. Over the and brain mechanisms involved are still un-
years, researchers have studied the cognitive der exploration. Another approach to
profiles and brain–behavior relationships as- studying LD has been to study the pheno-
sociated with different types of LD. Of type of known genetic disorders that have a
these, reading disabilities have been the high prevalence of LD to understand more
most extensively researched (e.g., Adams, about brain–behavior relationships; study
1990; Lyon, 1995; Shaywitz & Shaywitz, of genetically mediated LD allows for devel-
1999); other types of LD, such as math and oping models of different subtypes of LD as
written language disorders, have also been well as understanding how different brain
investigated, but to a lesser extent (e..g., circuits may lead to similar behavior.
Berninger, Abbott, Abott, Graham, & The Learning Disabilities Research Center
Richards, 2002; Berninger & Hart, 1992; (LDRC) at the Kennedy Krieger Institute,
Berninger & Rutberg, 1992; Berninger & under the direction of Dr. Martha Bridge
Swanson, 1994; Geary, 1990, 1992, 1993; Denckla, has taken this gene-to-brain-to-
Hooper, Swartz, Wakely, de Kruif, & Mont- behavior approach in the study of LD, with
gomery, 2002; Mazzocco, 2001). a particular focus on the link between LD
and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder
A variety of approaches have been taken (ADHD).
to study LD. One approach has been to fo-
cus on the specific type of LD, such as read- Background, with Glossary
ing disability, to try to determine from the
“behavior” the brain and genetic underpin- Before going into the specifics of this chap-
nings (e.g., Davis, Knopik, Olson, Wads- ter, it seems prudent to provide readers with
worth, & DeFries, 2001; DeFries & Alar- some background, including terminology,
con, 1996; DeFries et al., 1997; Smith et al.,
2001). Such research has yielded not only a

125

126 CAUSES AND BEHAVIORAL MANIFESTATIONS

with which to appreciate the concepts and A term used by cognitive psychologists
data. and cognitive neuroscientists, “executive
function” refers to a set of control processes;
First and foremost, we wish to explain so broad is the range of these control
why the chapter says much about ADHD processes that the reader of any body of liter-
but little about “attention,” instead focus- ature about “executive function” must “read
ing on the cognitive domain of executive the fine print” of operational definitions.
function as the relevant issue attached, as it Particularly important for educators is the
were, to the diagnosis of ADHD. Much lit- inclusion within “executive function” of less
erature, culminating in Barkley’s (1997a, lofty (and earlier developing) components
1997b) formulation of the concept of such as inhibition and working memory; this
ADHD as a syndrome of deficient self-con- caveat is stated because it is all too easy to el-
trol, has redirected the research of the past evate “executive function” to a synonym for
decade in such a way that many authorities “metacognition.” When talking about
on the subject regret the nomenclature so young children in elementary school, the
prominently declaring “attention deficit.” cognitive neuroscientists should be defining
Many nonprofessional people still refer to a the term more as a set of infrastructural ele-
nonexistent term and even use as an adjec- ments (inhibition and working memory)
tive “ADD” (attention deficit disorder) even rather than organization/planning and other
further spreading the misplaced emphasis more future-oriented, higher-order compo-
on “attention.” Briefly summarized, the evi- nents of executive function domain.
dence is overwhelming to the effect that in
children and adults with ADHD, there is no Neurology identifies executive function
“deficit” in “attention” (in the sense of re- with the frontal lobe and its circuits, an as-
sources in short supply); rather, there is a pect of brain architecture that is character-
deficit in the deployment or allocation of at- ized by protracted, relatively slow matura-
tentional resources that characterizes both tion for over three postnatal decades. For the
children and adults with the syndrome past 15 years, neurological research has em-
called ADHD. The allocation or deploy- phasized the parallel circuits connecting dif-
ment of attention is an “executive func- ferent anatomic subdivisions of frontal lobe
tion,” one of a group of functions collec- with separate, circuit-specific regions of
tively designated “executive.” Evidence basal ganglia and cerebellum. Magnetic res-
continues to accumulate in favor of a con- onance imaging (MRI) has, of course, facili-
cept of ADHD that unifies the apparent tated study in living children of such parallel
“inattentiveness” with the other cluster, fronto–striato–cerebello–thalamo–frontal
“hyperactivity/impulsivity” by virtue of the circuits. (Striatum refers to a portion of the
overarching executive function domain of basal ganglia.) These parallel circuits corre-
self-control. Of course, allocation/deploy- spond to dedicated separate pathways for
ment of attention exists within a subdomain motor control, cognitive control, and so-
of cognitive control, whereas the more glar- cial–emotional control; the segregation of
ing deficiencies of self-control manifest in circuits is “breached” at the level of the
“hyperactivity” or “impulsivity” belong to frontal cortex, such that only at the top (and
the subdomain of social–emotional control. last-to-reach-maturity) level is there “cross-
talk” (integration) whereby the circuits in-
Cognitive neuroscience is more preoccu- fluence each other.
pied with the attention/executive function
distinction; the syndrome of ADHD, when Learning Disabilities Research at the
discussed in relation to school problems and Kennedy Krieger Institute
learning issues, resolves itself in this context
into a broader executive impairment but a Over the past 12 years, the LDRC at the
narrower attentional impairment than is im- Kennedy Krieger Institute/Johns Hopkins
plied by the name of the disorder, in the School of Medicine has taken a behavioral
sense that more cognitive deficiencies than neurogenetics approach to studying LD.
just attention are characteristic of the The different disorders that have been the
ADHD category. However, at the same focus of this research are neurofibromatosis
time, only a particular subtype (not every
component) of attention is substandard.

Attention: Relationships between ADHD and LD 127

Type 1 (NF-1), fragile X syndrome, and nitive component of ADHD and LD, often
Tourette syndrome. The genetic etiology of accompanied by executive dysfunction (see
both NF-1 and fragile X is known but has Figure 8.1). NF-1, in that its cognitive phe-
not been established as of yet for Tourette notype presents as a “classic” LD (particu-
syndrome. In addition, because so many larly reading disability accompanied by
children with Tourette syndrome have ADHD), has yielded further understanding
ADHD, children with ADHD have served about these typically co-occuring disorders.
as a comparison group for this project.
The Tourette syndrome project has yield-
The NF-1 project’s original focus was to ed an understanding of the executive func-
understand “nonverbal” LD; however, find- tion-based influence of slow “processing
ings from this project, as well as other speed”—another common characteristic of
LDRC projects, have resulted in a shift in LD. Children with Tourette syndrome, 60%
understanding; NF-1 is no longer regarded of whom also have ADHD, tend to exhibit
as accurately exemplifying “nonverbal” LD; slow “processing speed” with regard to cog-
furthermore, it has emerged that “nonver- nitive tasks, whereas children with ADHD
bal” LD in general (not just as associated exhibit motoric slowing. Most important,
with the NF-1 phenotype), in its purest findings with regard to ADHD have illus-
sense, does not often occur. Instead, al- trated that the term “slow processing
though individuals may have “nonverbal” speed” would be more precisely expressed
deficits, they almost always also have other as “slow output speed,” in that we have
deficits, either in the verbal domain or in ex- found deficiencies not of “processing,” in
ecutive functioning. Another area of focus the sense of intake functions, but of output
of the LDRC has been to examine the co- or producing functions of the brain. This
morbidity of ADHD and investigate how usage differs from the broader “processing”
that is related to the executive function as an overarching term, in which case it sub-
deficits often seen in individuals with LD. sumes “producing.”
Two disorders, NF-1 and Tourette syn-
drome, have been shown to be particularly In the subsequent sections, we present se-
applicable to understanding the overlap be- lected findings from our research for NF-1
tween the executive function that is the cog- and Tourette syndrome, including our ef-
forts to specify the neuropsychological pro-

Learning Disabilities Attention-Deficit/
Hyperactivity
Disorder

Executive Dysfunction

FIGURE 8.1. Overlap between LD and ADHD.