In recent years, there has been a noticeable decline in the number of students classified as learning-disabled, causing experts to question the reasons behind this change. According to data from the U.S Department of Education, the percentage of students aged 3 to 21 classified as having a specific learning disability has decreased from 6.1 percent in the 2000-01 school year to 5.2 percent in 2007-08. This equates to a drop from approximately 2.9 million to 2.6 million students.
A specific learning disability refers to a processing disorder that hinders learning but does not affect overall cognitive ability. It is the most common of the 13 disability classifications recognized by federal special education law, covering 40 percent of the approximately 6.6 million students under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
The decline in learning disability classifications coincides with a decrease in overall special education enrollment, although the decrease is not as significant. The percentage of students covered under IDEA decreased from 13.8 percent in the 2004-05 school year to 13.4 percent in 2007-08, with enrollment dropping from approximately 6.7 million to 6.6 million students. Enrollment in the categories of emotional disturbance and mental retardation also decreased, but these groups account for a smaller portion of special education students. Conversely, enrollment of students classified as having an autism spectrum disorder or "other health impairment" saw an increase.
While the change in direction may seem small, experts consider it to be noteworthy. However, the causes behind the decline in learning disability classifications are not entirely clear, and there is still much to be learned about how to classify and treat students with these disabilities.
The decrease in numbers could be attributed to improvements in overall reading instruction, the implementation of response to intervention programs aimed at preventing reading difficulties, and an emphasis on early intervention with younger students before they are classified as learning-disabled. These efforts may help distinguish students with true disabilities from those who simply have not received effective instruction during the early grades. However, it is challenging to determine which program is making the most difference and how long the effects will last.
It is important to note that the decision to label a student as learning-disabled involves human judgment, unlike classifications such as blindness or deafness. This means that schools may be intentionally reducing special education enrollment numbers to avoid academic-accountability penalties or costly requirements imposed by federal mandates. Additionally, some of the decrease in numbers may be due to reclassifying students into different disability categories.
Federal officials attribute the changes primarily to educational improvements, including the focus on response to intervention and enhancements in core reading curricula. They believe that the national efforts in these areas are working together to decrease the number of students classified as learning-disabled. However, there may be an issue of overidentification of learning disabilities, with some students not receiving proper reading instruction.
For example, in the state of Kansas, the adoption of a multitiered system of supports, similar to response to intervention, resulted in a decrease in special education enrollment from 56,328 in 2005 to 55,834 in 2008, according to Alexa E. Posny, the former commissioner of education in Kansas and the current assistant secretary overseeing the Education Department’s office of special education and rehabilitative services.
Overall, there are multiple factors contributing to the decline in learning disability classifications. Continued research and understanding are necessary to determine the true cause and develop effective strategies for classifying and supporting students with learning disabilities.
Instead of quickly identifying a specific learning disability as the main way to support struggling students, the RTI approach focuses on evaluating the overall quality of the instructional program, according to Mary Beth Klotz, a nationally certified school psychologist and chair of the National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. The approach involves providing increasingly intensive instruction or interventions to students showing early reading difficulties, while also monitoring their progress. In Florida, the implementation of the Reading First program led to a decrease in the identification of learning disabilities among elementary school students. This decrease was seen in multiple grade levels and may be attributed to improved teaching methods and differentiated instruction from general education teachers. However, it is unclear if this decrease represents a cure or simply a postponement of classification. Douglas Fuchs, a special education professor at Vanderbilt University, urges caution when interpreting the decrease in enrollment numbers and suggests examining academic achievement data. Early intervention services may be contributing to the enrollment trends, as there has been an increase in the number of infants through 5-year-olds receiving special education services. Early intervention is seen as beneficial in catching learning problems early before they become more difficult to address. However, the impact of declassification on older students is not well-studied. Donald D. Deshler, a special education professor at the University of Kansas, emphasizes the importance of investing in programs for older students, as not all children can be captured through early intervention. It is also important to consider factors outside of the school environment when analyzing trends in learning disability enrollment.
Stephen E. Brock, a professor specializing in special education and school psychology at California State University, Sacramento, published a paper in 2006 that presented evidence suggesting a connection between the increase in low-incidence categories like autism spectrum disorder and "other health impairments" (which includes attention deficit hyperactivity disorder) and a decrease in the number of students classified as having learning disabilities. Another expert, Candace Cortiella, authored a report called "The State of Learning Disabilities 2009" for the National Center for Learning Disabilities based in New York City. Cortiella finds it suspicious that the decline in special education enrollment coincides closely with a shift in federal policy under the No Child Left Behind law, which mandates that schools assess the performance of their special education students and other population groups for accountability. To avoid being penalized, schools may choose not to include certain subgroups in their accountability reports if these subgroups are too small to be statistically reliable. Cortiella suggests that this risk of penalties may lead some schools to artificially lower their enrollment in the special education subgroup. Cortiella states, "There seems to be a strong correlation between the implementation of No Child Left Behind and the decrease in special education enrollment." However, Ms. Posny of the Education Department argues that school districts actually have an incentive to place students in special education because they receive federal funding for educating these students. Posny believes that states are taking responsibility and deciding that some students may not require identification as special education students. According to Posny, the labels attached to students are less important than the outcomes achieved. She emphasizes that special education offers students important protections, such as the right to a free, appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment, and she fully supports these protections. However, she argues that specific classifications are not necessary for ensuring these protections. Ultimately, Posny explains, the label a child carries does not assist educators in identifying and meeting the specific needs of that child.
