learning disability: Definition from Answers.com

What connections exist between the body and ‘learning disability’ or ‘mental retardation’? We assume that there is a realm of mental nature separable from physical nature, at least for investigative purposes; we also often see mental disorders as being analogous to physical ones, or physical conditions as causing mental ones. We assume that mental ability or disability is a part of an individual's make-up, and therefore that what is congenital is also largely incurable. All these assumptions are modern, in the historian's sense of the term: they belong to the last three centuries.

According to Galen, the supreme medical authority before modern times, human reason was activated by ‘animal spirits’ which moved around the brain and, if sluggish, caused amentia (mindlessness) ; however, any normal individual could experience this condition temporarily. Sometimes a landowner's heir might suffer from congenital incompetence, but this was a problem for lawyers, not doctors; it was not distinguished from the assumed incompetence of the entire labouring population, and where people did not own property there was no problem. Nor was congenital incompetence necessarily permanent: God might cure it providentially. People whom we might now call ‘learning disabled’ were depicted by artists; but neither their behavioural gestures and bodily features, nor their social role, were clearly distinct from those of jesters and professional fools whose minds were perfectly sound. Medical writers did not research the causes of mental (or physical) monstrosity, since these were God's responsibility; rather, monstrosity demonstrated His marvellous creative powers. Only mavericks among them, such as astrologers or followers of the derided Paracelsus, had a specifically medical interest in connections between the body and permanent lack of reason. Even for them, reason tended to mean divine illumination rather than the personal mental equipment described by modern psychology.

In the seventeenth-century roots of that psychology we begin to find a learning disabled type recognizable to ourselves, defined by the purely mental characteristics of an individual. The influential philosopher John Locke summarized these as a lack of ability to think ‘abstractly’, and psychology has refined this picture very little since then. However, the approach to physiological phenomena associated with ‘idiocy’ (as it was then technically known) has changed frequently. These changes have social and political connections. Locke was also a leading Whig theoretician, and saw idiots as people who lacked the mental equipment needed to exercise their individual autonomy, the basis of the new Whig political philosophy of government by consent. As a medical practitioner himself, he thought this lack might be caused by their having different bodily mechanisms. He did not investigate further, possibly because the discipline of anatomy was controlled by his political opponents. His Tory contemporary, Thomas Willis, believed there was an anatomical distinction between the brains of ‘stupid’ and ‘mad’ people, although he also continued to believe Galen's hypothesis of slow-moving ‘animal spirits’. Descartes's discussion of the mind (one of the sources for modern accounts of a distinctly human psychology) located the reasoning soul in the pineal gland, which previously had been merely a valve controlling the flow of animal spirits. Anatomists under Descartes's influence, dissecting the corpses of mad people and idiots, claimed that the former possessed excessively flexible pineal glands, the latter excessively rigid ones.

Eighteenth-century medical theorists opened up an empire of the mind, developing psychological classifications in terms similar to those of bodily disease. At the same time their interest in the physiology of idiots largely reverted to external characteristics, particularly facial features (physiognomics) and skull shape (phrenology). In the mid nineteenth century, with the rise of colonialism and anthropology, theories of idiocy and race were united. The mental characteristics of idiots were identified with the alleged psychological inabilities and corresponding external physical characteristics of non-whites. Fetal development was thought to retrace the primitive stages of human history which the non-white races still exhibited; sometimes development was arrested, a notion embodied in the ‘mongol’, whose facial features apparently betrayed a low level of psychological competence comparable with that of the mongoloid races. Segregated institutions and then sterilization programmes arose from this culture, with the aim of improving the health of the race. Administered largely by practitioners of physical medicine, they appeared first in the Anglo-Saxon countries; in Germany the same culture led to mass exterminations of learning disabled people at the end of the 1930s.

Since then a rapid refinement in the diagnostic technology of chromosomes and genes has renewed our interest in internal bodily causes. There has been a correspondingly rapid increase in the number of psychological labels attached to syndromes (e.g. ‘fragile X’) ; the human genome project now promises to locate DNA markers for the lower band of a socially determined ‘normal IQ’. This profusion of learning disabled conditions has interacted with rapid changes in their social status and acceptance. Pathology advances in some directions while retreating in others. At the time of writing, for example, genetically-related autism has fanned out into an autistic ‘spectrum’, annexing and reinventing ‘Asperger's syndrome’ as a mild variant which may affect the apparently normal population. Its socially segregating effects are inseparable from the diagnosis itself, by which autistic people are said to belong mentally in a separate world from others; this notion reinforces a separate professional specialization, creating more research and labelling. In a simultaneous but contrary tendency, numbers of prospective parents reject termination after a positive test for Down's syndrome, partly because children and young adults with this condition have become increasingly integrated in the community.

People began by wanting a physical diagnosis of learning disability, for various religious and political reasons, in the seventeenth century when biochemistry was inconceivable. But whatever the precision of today's diagnostic techniques in this respect, it has not been matched, either in psychology or in cognitive and behavioural genetics, by a corresponding precision in the diagnosis and description of the ‘mental’ aspects; these remain as fluid and subject to social context as ever.

— Christopher Goodey

Bibliography

Wright, D. and Digby, A. (1996). From idiocy to mental deficiency: historical perspectives on people with learning disabilities. London.
Trent, J. (1994). Inventing the feeble mind: a history of mental retardation in the United States. Berkeley

Learning disability
Classification and external resources
ICD-10	F 81.
ICD-9	315
MeSH	D007859

Overview

This section requires expansion.

The National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities (NJCLD) defines the term learning disability as:

a heterogeneous group of disorders manifested by significant difficulties in the acquisition and use of listening, speaking, reading, writing, reasoning or mathematical abilities. These disorders are intrinsic to the individual and presumed to be due to Central Nervous System Dysfunction. Even though a learning disability may occur concomitantly with other handicapping conditions (e.g. sensory impairment, mental retardation, social and emotional disturbance) or environmental influences (e.g. cultural differences, insufficient/inappropriate instruction, psychogenic factors) it is not the direct result of those conditions or influences.

The NJCLD used the term to indicate a discrepancy between a child’s apparent capacity to learn and his or her level of achievement.^[1]

Types of learning disabilities

Learning disabilities can be categorized either by the type of information processing that is affected or by the specific difficulties caused by a processing deficit.

Information processing deficits

Learning disabilities fall into broad categories based on the four stages of information processing used in learning: input, integration, storage, and output.^[2]

Input

This is the information perceived through the senses, such as visual and auditory perception. Difficulties with visual perception can cause problems with recognizing the shape, position and size of items seen. There can be problems with sequencing, which can relate to deficits with processing time intervals or temporal perception. Difficulties with auditory perception can make it difficult to screen out competing sounds in order to focus on one of them, such as the sound of the teacher's voice. Some children appear to be unable to process tactile input. For example, they may seem insensitive to pain or dislike being touched.

Integration

This is the stage during which perceived input is interpreted, categorized, placed in a sequence, or related to previous learning. Students with problems in these areas may be unable to tell a story in the correct sequence, unable to memorize sequences of information such as the days of the week, able to understand a new concept but be unable to generalize it to other areas of learning, or able to learn facts but be unable to put the facts together to see the "big picture." A poor vocabulary may contribute to problems with comprehension.

Storage

Problems with memory can occur with short-term or working memory, or with long-term memory. Most memory difficulties occur in the area of short-term memory, which can make it difficult to learn new material without many more repetitions than is usual. Difficulties with visual memory can impede learning to spell.

Output

Information comes out of the brain either through words, that is, language output, or through muscle activity, such as gesturing, writing or drawing. Difficulties with language output can create problems with spoken language, for example, answering a question on demand, in which one must retrieve information from storage, organize our thoughts, and put the thoughts into words before we speak. It can also cause trouble with written language for the same reasons. Difficulties with motor abilities can cause problems with gross and fine motor skills. People with gross motor difficulties may be clumsy, that is, they may be prone to stumbling, falling, or bumping into things. They may also have trouble running, climbing, or learning to ride a bicycle. People with fine motor difficulties may have trouble buttoning shirts, tying shoelaces, or with handwriting.

Specific learning disabilities

Deficits in any area of information processing can manifest in a variety of specific learning disabilities. It is possible for an individual to have more than one of these difficulties. This is referred to as comorbidity or co-occurrence of learning disabilities.^[3] In the UK, the term dual diagnosis is often used to refer to co-occurrence of learning difficulties.

Reading disability (ICD-10 and DSM-IV codes: F81.0/315.00)

The most common learning disability. Of all students with specific learning disabilities, 70%-80% have deficits in reading. The term "dyslexia" is often used as a synonym for reading disability; however, many researchers assert that there are different types of reading disabilities, of which dyslexia is one. A reading disability can affect any part of the reading process, including difficulty with accurate and/or fluent word recognition, word decoding, reading rate, prosody (oral reading with expression), and reading comprehension. Before the term "dyslexia" came to prominence, this learning disability used to be known as "word blindness."

Common indicators of reading disability include difficulty with phonemic awareness -- the ability to break up words into their component sounds, and difficulty with matching letter combinations to specific sounds (sound-symbol correspondence).

Writing disability (ICD-10 and DSM-IV codes F81.1/315.2)

Speech and language disorders can also be called Dysphasia/Aphasia (coded F80.0-F80.2/315.31 in ICD-10 and DSM-IV).

Impaired written language ability may include impairments in handwriting, spelling, organization of ideas, and composition. The term "dysgraphia" is often used as an overarching term for all disorders of written expression. Others, such as the International Dyslexia Association, use the term "dysgraphia" exclusively to refer to difficulties with handwriting.

Math disability (ICD-10 and DSM-IV codes F81.2-3/315.1)

Sometimes called dyscalculia, a math disability can cause such difficulties as learning math concepts (such as quantity, place value, and time), difficulty memorizing math facts, difficulty organizing numbers, and understanding how problems are organized on the page. Dyscalculics are often referred to as having poor "number sense".^[4]

Nonverbal learning disability [this disorder is not listed in the ICD-10]

Nonverbal learning disabilities often manifest in motor clumsiness, poor visual-spatial skills, problematic social relationships, difficulty with math, and poor organizational skills. These individuals often have specific strengths in the verbal domains, including early speech, large vocabulary, early reading and spelling skills, excellent rote-memory and auditory retention, and eloquent self-expression.^[5]

Dyspraxia

Sometimes called motor planning, dyspraxia refers to a variety of difficulties with motor skills. Dyspraxia can cause difficulty with single step tasks such as combing hair or waving goodbye, multi-step tasks like brushing teeth or getting dressed, or with establishing spatial relationships such as being able to accurately position one object in relation to another.

Disorders of speaking and listening

Difficulties that often co-occur with learning disabilities include difficulty with memory, social skills and executive functions (such as organizational skills and time management).

Auditory processing disorder

Difficulties processing auditory information include difficulty comprehending more than one task at a time and a relatively stronger ability to learn visually.

Diagnosis

IQ-Achievement Discrepancy

Learning disabilities are often identified by school psychologists, clinical psychologists, and neuropsychologists through a combination of intelligence testing, academic achievement testing, classroom performance, and social interaction and aptitude. Other areas of assessment may include perception, cognition, memory, attention, and language abilities. The resulting information is used to determine whether a child's academic performance is commensurate with his or her cognitive ability. If a child's cognitive ability is much higher than his or her academic performance, the student is often diagnosed with a learning disability. The DSM-IV and many school systems and government programs diagnose learning disabilities in this way.

Although the discrepancy model has dominated the school system for many years, there has been substantial criticism of this approach among researchers.^[6]^[7] Recent research has provided little evidence that a discrepancy between formally-measured IQ and achievement is a clear indicator of LD.^[8] Furthermore, diagnosing on the basis of a discrepancy does not predict the effectiveness of treatment. Low academic achievers who do not have a discrepancy with IQ (i.e. their IQ scores are also low) appear to benefit from treatment just as much as low academic achievers who do have a discrepancy with IQ (i.e. their IQ scores are higher).

Response to Intervention (RTI)

Much current research has focused on a treatment-oriented diagnostic process known as response to intervention (RTI). Researcher recommendations for implementing such a model include early screening for all students, placing those students who are having difficulty into research-based early intervention programs, rather than waiting until they meet diagnostic criterion. Their performance can be closely monitored to determine whether increasingly intense intervention results in adequate progress.^[8] Those who respond will not require further intervention. Those who do not respond adequately to regular classroom instruction (often called "Tier 1 instruction") and a more intensive intervention (often called "Tier 2" intervention) are considered "nonresponders." These students can then be referred for further assistance through special education, in which case they are often identified with a learning disability. Some models of RTI include a third tier of intervention before a child is identified as having a learning disability.

A primary benefit of such a model is that it would not be necessary to wait for a child to be sufficiently far behind to qualify for assistance.^[9] This may enable more children to receive assistance before experiencing significant failure, which may in turn result in fewer children who need intensive and expensive special education services. In the United States, the 2004 reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act permitted states and school districts to use RTI as a method of identifying students with learning disabilities. RTI is now the primary means of identification of learning disabilities in Florida.

The process does not take into account children's individual neuropsychological factors such as phonological awareness and memory, that can help design instruction<Fletcher-Janzen, Reynolds. (2008). Neuropsychological Perspectives on Learning Disabilities in the Era of RTI: Recommendations for Diagnosis and Intervention>. Second, RTI by design takes considerably longer than established techniques, often many months to find an appropriate tier of intervention. Third, it requires a strong intervention program before students can be identified with a learning disability. Lastly, RTI is considered a regular education initiative and is not driven by psychologists, reading specialists, or special educators.

Assessment

Many normed assessments can be used in evaluating skills in the primary academic domains: reading, not including word recognition, fluency, and comprehension; mathematics, including computation and problem solving; and written expression, including handwriting, spelling and composition.

The most commonly used comprehensive achievement tests include the Woodcock-Johnson III (WJ III), Weschler Individual Achievement Test II (WIAT II), the Wide Range Achievement Test III (WRAT III), and the Stanford Achievement Test–10th edition. These tests include measures of many academic domains that are reliable in identifying areas of difficulty.^[8]

In the reading domain, there are also specialized tests that can be used to obtain details about specific reading deficits. Assessments that measure multiple domains of reading include Gray's Diagnostic Reading Tests–2nd edition (GDRT II) and the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Assessment. Assessments that measure reading subskills include the Gray Oral Reading Test IV – Fourth Edition (GORT IV), Gray Silent Reading Test, Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP), Tests of Oral Reading and Comprehension Skills (TORCS), Test of Reading Comprehension 3 (TORC-3), Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE), and the Test of Reading Fluency. A more comprehensive list of reading assessments may be obtained from the Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.^[10]

The purpose of assessment is to determine what is needed for intervention, which also requires consideration of contextual variables and whether there are comorbid disorders that must also be identified and treated, such as behavioral issues or language delays.^[8]

Treatment and intervention

This section includes a list of references or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations. Please help to improve this article by introducing more precise citations where appropriate. (February 2008)

Interventions include:

Mastery model:
- Learners work at their own level of mastery.
- Practice
- Gain fundamental skills before moving onto the next level
  - Note: this approach is most likely to be used with adult learners or outside the mainstream school system.

Direct Instruction:^[11]
- Highly structured, intensive instruction
- Emphasizes carefully planned lessons for small learning increments
- Scripted lesson plans
- Rapid-paced interaction between teacher and students
- Correcting mistakes immediately
- Achievement-based grouping
- Frequent progress assessments

Classroom adjustments:
- Special seating assignments
- Alternative or modified assignments
- Modified testing procedures
- Quiet environment

Special equipment:
- Electronic spellers and dictionaries
- Word processors
- Talking calculators
- Books on tape
- computer
- dictation programs

Classroom assistants:
- Note-takers
- Readers
- Proofreaders
- scribes

Special Education:
- Prescribed hours in a special class
- Placement in a special class
- Enrollment in a special school for learning disabled students
- individual education plan (IEP)

Sternberg^[12] has argued that early remediation can greatly reduce the number of children meeting diagnostic criteria for learning disabilities. He has also suggested that the focus on learning disabilities and the provision of accommodations in school fails to acknowledge that people have a range of strengths and weaknesses, and places undue emphasis on academic success by insisting that people should receive additional support in this arena but not in music or sports.

Causes and risk factors

This section includes a list of references, related reading or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations. Please improve this article by introducing more precise citations where appropriate. (November 2009)

The causes for learning disabilities are not well understood, and sometimes there is no apparent cause for a learning disability. However, some causes of neurological impairments include:

Heredity - Learning disabilities often run in the family.
Problems during pregnancy and birth - Learning disabilities can result from anomalies in the developing brain, illness or injury, fetal exposure to alcohol or drugs, low birth weight, oxygen deprivation, or by premature or prolonged labor.
Accidents after birth - Learning disabilities can also be caused by head injuries, malnutrition, or by toxic exposure (such as heavy metals or pesticides).

Impact on affected individuals

This section requires expansion.

Neuropsychological differences can impact the accurate perception of social cues with peers ^[13].

Societal Factors

This section is in a list format that may be better presented using prose. You can help by converting this section to prose, if appropriate. Editing help is available. (November 2009)

Society both impacts upon, and is impacted by, individuals with learning disabilities. Significant factors in this relationship include poverty (with its concomitant reliance on welfare/public assistance), gender, and crime/imprisonment.

Welfare/Public assistance relating to educational development

A 36 month study conducted by Taylor and Barusch^[14] included 284 welfare recipients, who were frequently interviewed, called, and visited with in their homes. In this study the average age was 34 and 97% of the participants were female. Of the welfare participants 22.9% were learning disabled and 32% had no high school diploma or GED. Findings from this study imply that long term learning disabled welfare recipients will not be able to support their family through employment.

A study conducted by Margai and Henry^[15] found that the laws of identifying special education children have been revised within the past years. Learning disabled children in public schools now make up 6% of all kids.

High risk neighborhoods and poor living conditions add to the factor of being more vulnerable to having a learning disability. A study was conducted exploring the areas of pollution and socioeconomic factors related to having a higher risk of a learning disability. Margai and Henry [10] used primary data and analyzed clusters of people in a distinct part of a community near a toxic waste place, living in poor neighborhoods and living in poverty). The results confirmed that a majority of the people with a learning disability came from some socio-economic indicator such as poverty, subdivided housing, and lower adult educational attainment. Individuals with a learning disability will rely more heavily on public assistance/welfare than individuals who do not because of their lack of knowledge

Gender issues

Researchers believe that there are more boys in special education programs compared to girls. Coutinho and Oswald^[16] found that data was collected from the U.S. office of Civil Rights to view the underrepresentation of females in special education. Oswald [11] found that 73% of learning disabled individuals in special education programs were boys.

However, the ratio of boys to girls (having a learning disability) is equal. In dealing with learning disabilities no significant gender differences were found in a study of more than 400 children. Bandian^[17] found that if identified by research criteria there were no differences in gender, but if learning disabilities were identified by general education teachers and/or special education teachers, there was twice as many boys identified compared to girls. Alongside that, there was another statement said by Bandian [12] that supported the claim stated above “boys were twice as like[ly] to be identified by teachers as in need of a learning disability programs [sic] [compared to girls].”

In a study 266 youths between the ages of 12-18 were voluntarily interviewed with 74 structured questions in a small classroom, question structure was based on “special education, juvenile justice, and child and adolescent development literature,” and then categorized into three parts: personal, home, and school. Based on the information the individuals provided to the interviewers the juvenile delinquents were put into a category, special education, or non-special education. Zabel and Nigro^[18] stated that

“girls are less often viewed as disruptive and disturbing behavior patterns that often lead to special education.”

In contrast to that Zabel and Nigro [13] also found that the

“gender pattern was reversed for LD classification, with nearly 78.6% of females who had been in special education.”

Crime and prison population

Individuals in a detention facility are more likely to have a learning disability, receive poor grades, and repeat a grade. Zabel and Nigro [13] conducted a study with 266 youths (currently in a detention facility), with the youths ages ranging from 12-18. The individuals were voluntarily interviewed with 74 structured questions. Based on the information provided from the individuals, the individuals were categorized into two groups, special education or non-special education. Zabel and Nigro [13] stated “a majority of participants had received failing grades, and many had repeated at least one grade.” The researchers also found that 88.6% of the youth had been suspended, and those in the SpEd group were more likely than those in the non-SpEd group to report their first instance of trouble in elementary school. This information provided relates to the factor of when most learning disabled individuals are identified is in elementary school thus proving that it would make sense that the individuals in the SpEd group had their first instance of trouble in elementary school and it is hard for LD individuals to complete the education system, thus resulting in having to rely on welfare and public assistance.

Another statistic (calculated from the study stated above) found by Zabel and Nigro [13] was that 37.1% had been involved with special education, and classified having EBD and/or LD. Zabel also found that those individuals with a learning disability were at a higher risk that those with no special education experience (in the violent inmates, 17 of 30 were LD, and in the nonviolent, 13 of 30 were LD).

Individuals in detention facilities may have a learning disability and more specifically have dyslexia (severe difficulty in recognizing and understanding written language, leading to spelling and writing problems). Gretchell, Pabreja, Neeld, and Carrio^[19] conducted a study that compared the difference of children with dyslexia and without. Twenty six individuals were dyslexic and 23 individuals were not. Individuals were tested with the Test of Gross Motor Development and Movement Assessment Battery for Children. Individuals with dyslexia performed significantly lower than the control group (individuals who aren’t dyslexic).

Youth in a detention facility are more likely to have a special education problem, such as a learning disability, than not. Zabel and Nigro [13] found in their study that

“about one half of SpEd participants and nearly 20% of the total sample reported their classification as learning disabilities.”

LD individuals make up a large portion of individuals in a detention facility which may have been a result from the LD individual not learning at a significant pace in the education system and also potentially not completing the education system. Zabel and Nigro’s study was made up of 266 youth between the ages of 12-18 who were currently in a detention facility.

Contrast with other conditions

People with an IQ lower than 70 are usually characterized as having mental retardation (MR), mental deficiency, or cognitive impairment and are not included under most definitions of learning disabilities, because their learning difficulties are considered to be related directly to their low IQ scores.

Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is often studied in connection with learning disabilities, but it is not actually included in the standard definitions of learning disabilities. An individual with ADHD may struggle with learning, but he or she can often learn adequately once successfully treated for the ADHD. A person can have ADHD but not learning disabilities or have learning disabilities without having ADHD. The conditions can co-occur

Some research is beginning to make a case for ADHD being included in the definition of LDs, since it is being shown to have a strong impact on "executive functions" required for learning. This has not as yet affected any official definitions.

Criticism of the concept of learning disabilities

This article's Criticism or Controversy section(s) may mean the article does not present a neutral point of view of the subject. It may be better to integrate the material in those sections into the article as a whole. (November 2009)

This section contains weasel words, vague phrasing that often accompanies biased or unverifiable information. Such statements should be clarified or removed. (November 2009)

Some critics of the concept of learning disabilities and of special education take the position that every child has a different learning style and pace and that each child is unique, not only capable of learning but also capable of succeeding. These critics assert that applying the medical model of problem-solving to individual children who are pupils in the school system, and labeling these children as disabled, systematically prevents the improvement of the current educational system.

Describing current instructional methods as homogenization and lockstep standardization, alternative approaches are proposed, such as the Sudbury model of democratic education schools, an alternative approach in which children, by enjoying personal freedom thus encouraged to exercise personal responsibility for their actions, learn at their own pace rather than following a chronologically-based curriculum.^[20]^[21]^[22]^[23]^[24] Proponents of unschooling have also claimed that children raised in this method do not suffer from learning disabilities.

Gerald Coles asserts that there are partisan agendas behind the educational policy-makers and that the scientific research that they use to support their arguments regarding the teaching of literacy are flawed. These include the idea that there are neurological explanations for learning disabilities.^[25]

Marva Collins' experience

Marva Collins started a low cost private school in inner city Chicago specifically for the purpose of teaching low-income black children whom the public school system had wrongly labeled as being "learning disabled." She once wrote,

"I have discovered few learning disabled students in my three decades of teaching. I have, however, discovered many, many victims of teaching inabilities. ^[26]

Learning disabilities and law

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973

The Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act was taken in effect in May 1977, this American legislation guarantees certain rights to people with disabilities, especially in the cases of education and work, such being in schools, colleges and university settings.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, formerly known as the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, is a United States federal law that governs how states and public agencies provide early intervention, special education and related services to children with disabilities. It addresses the educational needs of children with disabilities from birth to the age of 21.^[27] Considered as a civil rights law, states are not required to participate.

United States and Canada

In the United States and Canada, the terms learning disability and learning disorder (LD) refer to a group of disorders that affect a broad range of academic and functional skills including the ability to speak, listen, read, write, spell, reason, organize information, and do math.

United Kingdom

In the UK, terms such as specific learning difficulty (SpLD), dyslexia, dyspraxia and dyscalculia are referred as learning difficulties, rather than learning disabilities. In the UK, the term "learning disability" refers to a range of conditions that are almost invariably associated with more severe cognitive impairments.

References

^ 1981; 1985
^ National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities (NICHY), 2004. [1]. Accessed May 11, 2007.
^ "Amanda Kirby speaking on the co-occurrence of learning difficulties". dysTalk. http://www.dystalk.com/talks/57-co-occurrence-of-learning-difficulties. Retrieved 2009-04-22.
^ "Dyscalculia expert Jane Emerson explains number sense and its relevance to dyscalculia". dystalk.com. http://www.dystalk.com/talks/32-what-is-dyscalculia. Retrieved 2009-04-23.
^ Lerner, Janet W. (2000). Learning disabilities: theories, diagnosis, and teaching strategies. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. ISBN 0395961149.
^ Aaron, P.G. (1995). "Differential Diagnosis of Reading Disabilities.". School Psychology Review 24 (3): 345–60. ISSN 0279-6015.
^ Patti L. Harrison; Flanagan, Dawn P. (2005). Contemporary intellectual assessment: theories, tests, and issues. New York: Guilford Press. ISBN 1-59385-125-1.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d Marcia A. Barnes; Fletcher, Jack; Fuchs, Lynn (2007). Learning Disabilities: From Identification to Intervention. New York: The Guilford Press. ISBN 1-59385-370-X.
^ Finn, C.E., Rotherham A.J. & Hokanson C.R. (2001), Rethinking Special Education For A New Century, Progressive Policy Institute, http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=110&subsecID=900030&contentID=3344
^ Southwest Educational Development Laboratory (SEDL), 2007.Southwest Educational Development Laboratory Accessed September 15, 2007.
^ National Institute for Direct Instruction [2]. Accessed May 23, 2007
^ Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (1999). Our labeled children: What every parent and teacher needs to know about learning disabilities. Reading, MA: Perseus Publishing Group
^ Rourke, B. P. (1989). Nonverbal learning disabilities: The syndrome and the model. New York: Guilford Press.
^ Taylor, M.J. & Barusch, A.S. (2004). Personal, family, and multiple barriers of long-term welfare recipients. Social Work, 49(2), 175-183
^ Margai, F. & Henry, N. (2003). A community-based assessment of learning disabilities using environmental and contextual risk factors. Social Science & Medicine, 56(5), 13.
^ Coutinho, M.J. & Oswald, D.P.(2005). State variation in gender disproportionally in special education: Finding and recommendations. Remedial and Special Education, 26(1), 7-15
^ Bandian, N.A. (1999). Reading disability defined as a discrepancy between listening and reading comprehension: A longitudinal study of stability, gender differences, and prevalence. Journal of Learning Disabilities,32(2) 138-148.
^ Zabel, R.H. & Nigro, F.A. (1999). Juvenile offenders with behavioral disorders, learning disabilities, and no disabilities: Self- reports of personal, family, and school characteristics. Behavioral Disorders, 25(1), 22-40.
^ Gretchell, N., Pabreja, P., Neeld, K. & Carrio, V. (2007) Comparing children with and without dyslexia on the movement assessment battery for children and the test of gross motor development. Perceptual and Motor skills, 105(1), 207-214.
^ Greenberg, D. (1992), Education in America, A View from Sudbury Valley, "Special Education" -- A noble Cause Sacrificed to Standardization.
^ Greenberg, D. (1992), Education in America, A View from Sudbury Valley, "Special Education" -- A Noble Cause Run Amok.
^ Greenberg, D. (1987), Free at Last, The Sudbury Valley School, Chapter 1, And 'Rithmetic.
^ Greenberg, D. (1987), Free at Last, The Sudbury Valley School, Chapter 5, The Other 'R's'.
^ Greenberg, D. (1987), Free at Last, The Sudbury Valley School, Chapter 19, Learning.
^ Gerald Coles (1987). The Learning Mystique: A Critical Look at "Learning Disabilities". Accessed April 4, 2008.
^ Marva Collins Seminars, Inc.
^ 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq.

External links

This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)

Donate to Wikimedia

		Dictionary. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2007, 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. Read more
		Britannica Concise Encyclopedia. Britannica Concise Encyclopedia. © 2006 Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. All rights reserved. Read more
		World of the Body. The Oxford Companion to the Body. Copyright © 2001, 2003 by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. Read more
		Dental Dictionary. Mosby's Dental Dictionary. Copyright © 2004 by Elsevier, Inc. All rights reserved. Read more
		Columbia Encyclopedia. The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition Copyright © 2003, Columbia University Press. Licensed from Columbia University Press. All rights reserved. www.cc.columbia.edu/cu/cup/. Read more
		Wikipedia. This article is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Learning disability". Read more

learning disability

Contents