On Babies and Bathwater: Addressing the Problems of Identification of Learning Disabilities

In this article, we review problems in identification of learning disabilities and consider proposed alternatives to present procedures. We argue that no proposed alternative meets all the necessary criteria for identification of learning disabilities, and that radically altering or eliminating current conceptualizations of learning disabilities may amount to “throwing the baby out with the bathwater.” We conclude that the major problems of identification of learning disabilities — including overidentification, variability, and specificity — can be eliminated by increasing specificity and consistency of state criteria and strict adherence to identification criteria on the local implementation level. Finally, we argue that scarce special education funds should not be employed to address the problems of general education. THOMAS E. SCRUGGS, Ph.D., is professor, George Mason University. MARGO A. MASTROPIERI, Ph.D., is professor, George Mason University. Since the inclusion of learning disabilities (LD) as a category in the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (PL 94-142; 1975), concerns have been expressed over appropriate identification procedures. Although far from alone in its search for more appropriate definitions (e.g., the American Association on Mental Retardation has revised its 1921 definition of mental retardation nine times; see Beirne-Smith, Ittenbach, & Patton, 1998), the field of learning disabilities has experienced some very specific problems in identification (Kavale & Forness, 1995; Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1994-1995). These problems include (a) overidentification, (b) variability, (c) specificity, (d) conceptual considerations, (e) discrepancy issues, (f) early identification, and (g) local implementation. As a consequence, it has been suggested that the category of learning disabilities be eliminated or significantly altered (Aaron, 1997; Algozzine, 1985; Lyon et al., 2001). In this article, we review problems in identification of learning disabilities and commonly agreedupon characterizations of learning disabilities and consider proposed alternatives to present procedures for identification of learning disabilities. We argue that no proposed alternative meets all necessary criteria for identification of learning disabilities. We conclude that the major problems of identification of learning disabilities — including overidentification, variability, and specificity — can be eliminated by increasing the specificity of state criteria and strict adherence to identification criteria on the local implementation level.