Learning Disability (LD) vs not~~~

Discussion in 'Special Ed 101' started by wakeupcall, Apr 30, 2008.

  1. wakeupcall

    wakeupcall Well-Known Member

    Let me get this straight.......schools don't WANT any children with learning disabilities because it costs more money to educate them. Right? Now, the definition is.....if a student is not performing up to their potential (what is "potential"....IQ?), then it could be because of a learning disability (and someone has to find out what the Learning Disability (LD) is..) BUT, if the school's diagnostician rates a student's IQ as much lower, then the student is "learning" at his "potential".

    At difficult child's last IEP meeting, husband and I were told by admin that we didn't want him to have a label as "learning disabled". (OK, so we'd rather have his IQ stated as low(er), instead???) Could it be that then difficult child couldn't be in the social development class (maximum of seven students), but have to go to "Special Education" classes which are more populated?

    I'm not very versed on this subject. Can someone help? Do I have this correct?
  2. Martie

    Martie Moderator


    IDEA 2004 prohibits the use of "discrepancy formulae" (which is what you are describing) to determine Learning Disability (LD). Part of the reason for this is IQ tests discriminate against minority children, so they do not "have" LDs at the same rate as majority children if one uses the discrepancy method.

    The two pronged test remains:
    Presence of a qualifying disability (which, of course, Learning Disability (LD) is)
    Negative education impact on the child's progress in the the gen ed curriculum.

    You are correct: someone must DETERMINE the presence of LDs and it remains an diagnosis by exclusion (it NOT anything else.)

    RtI is also impacting many kids with LDs because using RtI effectively does help students with MILD learning problems, including those with LDs.

    There are highly specific requirements in Federal (and most state) law regarding what components must be in a full case study evaluation. Your SD SHOULD be using instruments that are validated for the measurement intent that is needed, i.e., instruments must be demonstrably reliable and valid, administered in accordance with protocol by highly qualified personnel.

  3. wakeupcall

    wakeupcall Well-Known Member

    Thanks, Martie. I don't dispute their methods at all......it's just that all this testing doesn't add up. Some results are off the wall to say the least as far as I'm concerned, but how does one know which test is correct and which isn't? How does one make an education plan till you know which is which? I feel like we have to test till it begins to add up......or majority rules. I've had such bad experiences with the schools that I tend to not trust any testing that they do, so perhaps I need to stick with independents.

    difficult child has never had a neuropsychological work up, therein could be some answers, though I know not to count on it, or anything, too much.

    Thanks for your response!