Learning disability

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Learning disability
Other names: Specific learning disorder,[1] learning difficulties,[2] developmental academic disorder,[3][4] developmental disorder of scholastic skills[4] knowledge acquisition disability,[4] learning disorder,[4] learning difference[5]
A girl holding a sign that says "LD = equally intelligent / Cross out stigma" poses for a photo in Times Square with a man holding a sign that says "Take a picture with a proud Dyslexic".
People at a Learning Disabilities Month event[6]
SpecialtyPsychiatry, neurology
SymptomsDifficulties in school[7]
Usual onsetChildhood[7]
TypesReading disability (dyslexia), math disability (dyscalculia), writing disability (dysgraphia), nonverbal learning disability[7]
Risk factorsFamily history, poverty, prematurity, alcohol[7]
Differential diagnosisBeing disadvantaged, intellectual disability, hearing impairment, traumatic brain injury, ADHD[7][1]
Frequency~10% of children[1]

Learning disabilities (LDs), also known as learning disorders, are a group of conditions that affect the ability to acquire, organize, retain, comprehend, or use verbal or nonverbal information.[7] Intelligence is generally otherwise normal.[7] Onset is during childhood with difficulties in school.[7] Reading disability (dyslexia) makes up about 80% of cases with other types including math disability (dyscalculia), writing disability (dysgraphia), and nonverbal learning disability.[7]

The cause is believed to be a combination of genetic and environmental factors.[7] Risk factors include family history, poverty, prematurity, and nicotine or alcohol exposure during early development.[7][1] The underlying mechanism is believed to be neurological in nature.[7] Diagnosis requires ruling out other potential causes such as being disadvantaged, intellectual disability, hearing impairment, traumatic brain injury, or ADHD.[7][1] LDs; however, are often associated with ADHD, autism, depression, or oppositional defiant disorder.[7]

Management generally involves a combination of teachers, psychologists, and physicians among others.[7] Speech therapy may help with reading disability.[7] Physical therapy may help with difficulty writing.[7] Associated disorders may also require treatment.[7] About 5 to 15% of school aged children are affected globally.[7][1] About 4% of adults remain affected.[1] Males are affected more often than females.[1] Long term consequences may include unemployment.[1]


While learning disability, learning disorder and learning difficulty are often used interchangeably, they differ slightly. Disorder refers to significant learning problems in an academic area. These problems, however, are not enough to warrant an official diagnosis. Learning disability, on the other hand, is an official clinical diagnosis, whereby the individual meets certain criteria, as determined by a professional (psychologist,speech language pathologist, pediatrician, psychiatrist etc.). The difference is in degree, frequency, and intensity of reported symptoms and problems. In the United Kingdom, the term "learning disability" generally refers to an intellectual disability, while difficulties such as dyslexia and dyspraxia are usually referred to as "learning difficulties".[8]

The National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities (NJCLD)[9] used the term 'learning disability' to indicate a discrepancy between a child's apparent capacity to learn and his or her level of achievement.[10] Several difficulties existed, however, with the NJCLD standard of defining learning disability. One such difficulty was its belief of central nervous system dysfunction as a basis of understanding and diagnosing learning disability. This conflicted with the fact that many individuals who experienced central nervous system dysfunction, such as those with cerebral palsy, did not experience disabilities in learning. On the other hand, those individuals who experienced multiple handicapping conditions along with learning disability frequently received inappropriate assessment, planning, and instruction. The NJCLD notes that it is possible for learning disability to occur simultaneously with other handicapping conditions, however, the two should not be directly linked together or confused.[11] In the 1980s, NJCLD, therefore, defined 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, intellectual disability, 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 2002 LD Roundtable produced the following definition:

Concept of LD: Strong converging evidence supports the validity of the concept of specific learning disabilities (SLD). This evidence is particularly impressive because it converges across different indicators and methodologies. The central concept of SLD involves disorders of learning and cognition that are intrinsic to the individual. SLD are specific in the sense that these disorders each significantly affect a relatively narrow range of academic and performance outcomes. SLD may occur in combination with other disabling conditions, but they are not due primarily to other conditions, such as intellectual disability, behavioral disturbance, lack of opportunities to learn, or primary sensory deficits.[12][page needed][13]

The issue of defining learning disabilities has generated significant and ongoing controversy.[14] The term "learning disability" does not exist in DSM-IV, but it has been added to the DSM-5. The DSM-5 does not limit learning disorders to a particular diagnosis such as reading, mathematics, or written expression. Instead, it is a single diagnosis criterion describing drawbacks in general academic skills and includes detailed specifiers for the areas of reading, mathematics, and written expression.[15]

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. People with learning disabilities generally have intelligence that is average or higher.[16]

Legislation in the United States

The Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act 1973, effective May 1977, guarantees certain rights to people with disabilities, especially in the cases of education and work, such being in schools, colleges and university settings.[17]

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.[18] Considered as a civil rights law, states are not required to participate.[citation needed]


In Canada, the first association in support of children with learning disabilities was founded in 1962 by a group of concerned parents. Originally called the Association for Children with Learning Disabilities, the Learning Disabilities Association of Canada – LDAC was created to provide awareness and services for individuals with learning disabilities, their families, at work, and the community. Since education is largely the responsibility of each province and territory in Canada, provinces and territories have jurisdiction over the education of individuals with learning disabilities, which allows the development of policies and support programs that reflect the unique multicultural, linguistic, and socioeconomic conditions of its area.[19]

United Kingdom

In the UK, terms such as specific learning difficulty (SpLD), developmental dyslexia, developmental coordination disorder and dyscalculia are used to cover the range of learning difficulties referred to in the United States as "learning disabilities". In the UK, the term "learning disability" refers to a range of developmental disabilities or conditions that are almost invariably associated with more severe generalized cognitive impairment.[20] The Lancet defines 'learning disability' as a "significant general impairment in intellectual functioning acquired during childhood", and states that roughly one in 50 British adults have one.[21]


In Japan, acknowledgement and support for students with learning disabilities has been a fairly recent development, and has improved drastically in the last[which?] decade. The first definition for learning disability was coined in 1999, and in 2001, the Enrichment Project for the Support System for Students with Learning Disabilities was established. Since then, there have been significant efforts to screen children for learning disabilities, provide follow-up support, and provide networking between schools and specialists.[22]


The effects of having a learning disability or learning difference are not limited to educational outcomes: individuals with learning disabilities may experience social problems as well. Neuropsychological differences can affect the accurate perception of social cues with peers.[23] Researchers argue persons with learning disabilities not only experience negative effects as a result of their learning distinctions, but also as a result of carrying a stigmatizing label. It has generally been difficult to determine the efficacy of special education services because of data and methodological limitations. Emerging research suggests adolescents with learning disabilities experience poorer academic outcomes even compared to peers who began high school with similar levels of achievement and comparable behaviors.[24] It seems their poorer outcomes may be at least partially due to the lower expectations of their teachers; national data show teachers hold expectations for students labeled with learning disabilities that are inconsistent with their academic potential (as evidenced by test scores and learning behaviors).[25] It has been said that there is a strong connection between children with a learning disability and their educational performance.[26]

Many studies have been done to assess the correlation between learning disability and self-esteem. These studies have shown that an individual's self-esteem is indeed affected by his or her awareness of their learning disability. Students with a positive perception of their academic abilities generally tend to have higher self-esteem than those who do not, regardless of their actual academic achievement. However, studies have also shown that several other factors can influence self-esteem. Skills in non-academic areas, such as athletics and arts, improve self-esteem. Also, a positive perception of one's physical appearance has also been shown to have positive effects of self-esteem. Another important finding is that students with learning disabilities are able to distinguish between academic skill and intellectual capacity. This demonstrates that students who acknowledge their academic limitations but are also aware of their potential to succeed in other intellectual tasks see themselves as intellectually competent individuals, which increases their self-esteem.[27]

Research involving individuals with learning disabilities who exhibit challenging behaviors who are subsequently treated with antipsychotic medications provides little evidence that any benefits outweigh the risk.[28]


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:


Learning disabilities are often linked through genetics and run in the family. Children who have learning disabilities often have parents who have the same struggle. Kids whose mother who has had less than 12 years of school are more likely to have a reading disability. Some children have spontaneous mutations (i.e. not present in either parent) which can cause developmental disorders including learning disabilities.[29] One study[30] estimated that about one in 300 children had such spontaneous mutations, for example a fault in the CDK13 gene which is associated with learning and communication difficulties in the children affected.[31]

Pregnancy and birth

A learning disability can result from anomalies in the developing brain, illness or injury. Risk factors are fetal exposure to alcohol or drugs and low birth weight (3 pounds or less). These children are more likely to develop a disability in math or reading. Children who are born prematurely, late, have a longer labor than usual, or have trouble receiving oxygen are more likely to develop a learning disability.[29]

After birth

Learning disabilities can also be caused by head injuries, malnutrition, or by toxic exposure (such as heavy metals or pesticides).[32][33]


IQ-achievement discrepancy

Learning disabilities can be identified by psychiatrists, speech language pathologists, school psychologists, clinical psychologists, counseling psychologists, neuropsychologists, speech language pathologists, and other learning disability specialists 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 (DSM-IV uses the term "disorder" rather than "disability").

Although the discrepancy model has dominated the school system for many years, there has been substantial criticism of this approach among researchers.[34][35] Recent research has provided little evidence that a discrepancy between formally measured IQ and achievement is a clear indicator of LD.[36] 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 than their academic performance would suggest).

Since 1998 there have been attempts to create a reference index more useful than IQ to generate predicted scores on achievement tests. For example, for a student whose vocabulary and general knowledge scores matches his/her reading comprehension score a teacher could assume that reading comprehension can be supported through work in vocabulary and general knowledge. If the reading comprehension score is lower in the appropriate statistical sense it would be necessary to first rule out things like vision problems[37]

Response to intervention

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 criteria. Their performance can be closely monitored to determine whether increasingly intense intervention results in adequate progress.[36] 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 "non-responders." 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.[38] 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 inform design instruction. By not taking into account specific cognitive processes, RTI fails to inform educators about a students' relative strengths and weaknesses[39] 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 consists of members of general education teachers, in conjunction with other qualified professionals.[40] Occupational therapists (OT's) in particular can support students in the educational setting by helping children in academic and non-academic areas of school including the classroom, recess and meal time. They can provide strategies, therapeutic interventions, suggestions for adaptive equipment, and environmental modifications. OT's can work closely with the child's teacher and parents to facilitate educational goals specific to each child under an RTI and/or IEP.[40]

Spanish English learners

Demographers in the United State report that there has been a significant increase in immigrant children in the United States over the past two decades.[41] This information is vital because it has been and will continue to affect both students and how educators approach teaching methods. Various teaching strategies are more successful for students that are linguistic or culturally diverse versus traditional methods of teaching used for students whose first language is English. It is then also true that the proper way to diagnose a learning disability in English language learners (ELL) differs. In the United States, there has been a growing need to develop the knowledge and skills necessary to provide effective school psychological services, specifically for those professionals who work with immigrant populations.[42]

Currently, there are no standardized guidelines for the process of diagnosing English language learners (ELL) with specific learning disabilities (SLD). This is a problem since many students will fall through the cracks as educators are unable to clearly assess if a student's delay is due to a language barrier or true learning disability. With an unclear diagnosis, many students will suffer because they will not be provided with the tools they need to succeed in the public education school system. For example, in many occasions teachers have suggested retention or have taken no action at all when they lack experience working with English language learners. Students were commonly pushed toward testing, based on an assumption that their poor academic performance or behavioral difficulties indicated a need for special education.[43] Linguistically responsive psychologist understand that second language acquisition is a process and they understand how to support ELLs' growth in language and academically.[44] When ELLs are referred for a psychoeducational assessment, it is difficult to isolate and disentangle what are the effects of the language acquisition process, from poor quality educational services, from what may be academic difficulties that result from processing disorders, attention problems, and learning disabilities.[43] Additionally not having trained staff and faculty becomes more of an issue when staff is unaware of numerous types of psychological factors that immigrant children in the U.S dealing could be potentially dealing with. These factors that include acculturation, fear and/or worry of deportation, separation from social supports such as parents, language barriers, disruptions in learning experiences, stigmatization, economic challenge, and risk factors associated with poverty.[45][46] In the United States, there are no set policies mandating that all districts employ bilingual school psychologist, nor are schools equipped with specific tools and resources to assist immigrant children and families. Many school districts do not have the proper personnel that is able to communicate with this population.[47][page needed]

A well trained bilingual school psychologist will be able to administer and interpret assessment all psychological testing tool. Also, an emphasis is placed on informal assessment measures such as language samples, observations, interviews, and rating scales as well as curriculum-based measurement to complement information gathered from formal assessments.[46][48] A compilation of these tests is used to assess whether an ELL student has a learning disability or merely is academically delayed because of language barriers or environmental factors. It is very unfortunate that many schools do not have school psychologist with the proper training nor access to appropriate tools. Also, many school districts frown upon taking the appropriate steps to diagnosing ELL students.


Many normed assessments can be used in evaluating skills in the primary academic domains: reading, 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 IV (WJ IV), Wechsler 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.[36]

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.[49]

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.[36] These contextual variables are often assessed using parent and teacher questionnaire forms that rate the students' behaviors and compares them to standardized norms.

However, caution should be made when suspecting the person with a learning disability may also have dementia, especially as people with Down's syndrome may have the neuroanatomical profile but not the associated clinical signs and symptoms.[50] Examination can be carried out of executive functioning as well as social and cognitive abilities but may need adaptation of standardized tests to take account of special needs.[51][52][53][54]

Differential diagnosis

People with an IQ lower than 70 are usually characterized as having an intellectual disability and are not included under most definitions of learning disabilities because their difficulty in learning are considered to be related directly to their overall low intelligence.

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.[55]

People diagnosed with ADHD sometimes have impaired learning. Some of the struggles people with ADHD have might include lack of motivation, high levels of anxiety, and the inability to process information.[56] There are studies that suggest people with ADHD generally have a positive attitude toward academics and, with developed study skills, can perform just as well as individuals without learning disabilities. Also, using alternate sources of gathering information, such as websites, study groups, and learning centers, can help a person with ADHD be academically successful.[56]

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 effect on "executive functions" required for learning. This has not as yet affected any official definitions. Though, historically, ADHD was not clearly distinguished from other disabilities related to learning.[citation needed] Scientific research continues to explore the traits, struggles, and learning styles of those with ADHD.


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

By stage of information processing

Learning disabilities fall into broad categories based on the four stages of information processing used in learning: input, integration, storage, and output.[57] Many learning disabilities are a compilation of a few types of abnormalities occurring at the same time, as well as with social difficulties and emotional or behavioral disorders.[58]

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, or 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 in a classroom setting. Some children appear to be unable to process tactile input. For example, they may seem insensitive to pain or dislike being touched.
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.
Problems with memory can occur with short-term or working memory, or with long-term memory. Most memory difficulties occur with one's short-term memory, which can make it difficult to learn new material without more repetitions than usual. Difficulties with visual memory can impede learning to spell.
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. Such difficulties include 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 with handwriting, buttoning shirts, or tying shoelaces.

By function impaired

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.[59] In the UK, the term dual diagnosis is often used to refer to co-occurrence of learning difficulties.

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

Reading disorder is the most common learning disability.[60] Of all students with specific learning disabilities, 70–80% have deficits in reading. The term "Developmental 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 or fluent word recognition, or both, 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).

Disorder of written expression (ICD-10 and DSM-IV-TR codes 315.2)

The DSM-IV-TR criteria for a disorder of written expression is writing skills (as measured by a standardized test or functional assessment) that fall substantially below those expected based on the individual's chronological age, measured intelligence, and age-appropriate education, (Criterion A). This difficulty must also cause significant impairment to academic achievement and tasks that require composition of written text (Criterion B), and if a sensory deficit is present, the difficulties with writing skills must exceed those typically associated with the sensory deficit, (Criterion C).[61]

Individuals with a diagnosis of a disorder of written expression typically have a combination of difficulties in their abilities with written expression as evidenced by grammatical and punctuation errors within sentences, poor paragraph organization, multiple spelling errors, and excessively poor penmanship. A disorder in spelling or handwriting without other difficulties of written expression do not generally qualify for this diagnosis. If poor handwriting is due to an impairment in the individuals' motor coordination, a diagnosis of developmental coordination disorder should be considered.

By a number of organizations, the term "dysgraphia" has been used as an overarching term for all disorders of written expression.

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

Sometimes called dyscalculia, a math disability involves difficulties such 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".[62]

Non ICD-10/DSM

  • Nonverbal learning disability: Nonverbal learning disabilities often manifest in motor clumsiness, poor visual-spatial skills, problematic social relationships, difficulty with mathematics, 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.[63]
  • 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).


Spell checkers are one tool for managing learning disabilities.

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:[64]
    • 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:
  • Classroom assistants:
    • Note-takers
    • Readers
    • Proofreaders
    • Scribes
  • Special education:

Sternberg[66] 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. Other research has pinpointed the use of resource rooms as an important—yet often politicized component of educating students with learning disabilities.[67]

Society and culture

School laws

Schools in the United States have a legal obligation to new arrivals to the country, including undocumented students. The landmark Supreme Court ruling Plyler v. Doe (1982) grants all children, no matter their legal status, the right to a free education.[68][69] This ruling suggests that as a country we acknowledge that we have a population of students with specific needs that differ from those of native speakers. Additionally specifically in regards to ELL's the supreme court ruling Lau v. Nichols (1974) stated that equal treatment in school did not mean equal educational opportunity.[70] Thus if a school teaches a lesson in a language that students do not understand then they are effectively worthless. This ruling is also supported by English language development services provided in schools, but unfortunately, these rulings do not require the individuals that teach and provide services to have any specific training nor is licensing different from a typical teacher or services provider.

Critique of the medical model

Learning disability theory is founded in the medical model of disability, in that disability is perceived as an individual deficit that is biological in origin.[71][72] Researchers working within a social model of disability assert that there are social or structural causes of disability or the assignation of the label of disability, and even that disability is entirely socially constructed.[72][73][74][75][76] Since the turn of the 19th century, education in the United States has been geared toward producing citizens who can effectively contribute to a capitalistic society, with a cultural premium on efficiency and science.[77][78] More agrarian cultures, for example, do not even use learning ability as a measure of adult adequacy,[79][80] whereas the diagnosis of learning disabilities is prevalent in Western capitalistic societies because of the high value placed on speed, literacy, and numeracy in both the labor force and school system.[81][82][83] In the bigger picture, these points demonstrate how the label of disability is socially constructed and represents a lack of fit between Western conceptions of educational institutions and proper students.


There are three patterns that are well known in regards to mainstream students and minority labels in the United States:

  • "A higher percentage of minority children than of white children are assigned to special education";
  • "within special education, white children are assigned to less restrictive programs than are their minority counterparts";
  • "the data — driven by inconsistent methods of diagnosis, treatment, and funding — make the overall system difficult to describe or change”.[84]

In the present day, it has been reported that white districts have more children from minority backgrounds enrolled in special education than they do majority students. “It was also suggested that districts with a higher percentage of minority faculty had fewer minority students placed in special education suggesting that 'minority students are treated differently in predominantly white districts than in predominantly minority districts'".[85]

Educators have only recently started to look into the effects of culture on learning disabilities.[86] If a teacher ignores a student's culturally diverse background, the student will suffer in the class. “The cultural repertoires of students from cultural learning disorder backgrounds have an impact on their learning, school progress, and behavior in the classroom”.[87] These students may then act out and not excel in the classroom and will, therefore, be misdiagnosed: “Overall, the data indicates that there is a persistent concern regarding the misdiagnosis and inappropriate placement of students from diverse backgrounds in special education classes since the 1975”.[36]

Social roots in the US

Learning disabilities have a disproportionate identification of racial and ethnic minorities and students who have low socioeconomic status (SES). While some attribute the disproportionate identification of racial/ethnic minorities to racist practices or cultural misunderstanding,[88][89] others have argued that racial/ethnic minorities are overidentified because of their lower status.[90][91] Similarities were noted between the behaviors of “brain-injured” and lower class students as early as the 1960s.[73] The distinction between race/ethnicity and SES is important to the extent that these considerations contribute to the provision of services to children in need. While many studies have considered only one characteristic of the student at a time,[92] or used district- or school-level data to examine this issue, more recent studies have used large national student-level datasets and sophisticated methodology to find that the disproportionate identification of African American students with learning disabilities can be attributed to their average lower SES, while the disproportionate identification of Latino youth seems to be attributable to difficulties in distinguishing between linguistic proficiency and learning ability.[93][94] Although the contributing factors are complicated and interrelated, it is possible to discern which factors really drive disproportionate identification by considering a multitude of student characteristics simultaneously. For instance, if high SES minorities have rates of identification that are similar to the rates among high SES Whites, and low SES minorities have rates of identification that are similar to the rates among low SES Whites, we can know that the seemingly higher rates of identification among minorities result from their greater likelihood to have low SES. Summarily, because the risk of identification for White students who have low SES is similar to that of Black students who have low SES, future research and policy reform should focus on identifying the shared qualities or experiences of low SES youth that lead to their disproportionate identification, rather than focusing exclusively on racial/ethnic minorities.[93][94] It remains to be determined why lower SES youth are at higher risk of incidence, or possibly just of identification, with learning disabilities.


  1. 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fifth ed.). American Psychiatric Association. 2013. pp. 66-74. doi:10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596.156852. ISBN 978-0-89042-555-8. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
  2. "Developmental academic disorder (Concept Id: C1330966) - MedGen". NCBI. 2019-12-20. Archived from the original on 2021-04-12. Retrieved 2019-12-20.
  3. "Code System Concept". phinvads.cdc.gov. 2018-12-05. Archived from the original on 2020-07-21. Retrieved 2019-12-20.
  4. 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 "2020 ICD-10-CM Diagnosis Code F81.9: Developmental disorder of scholastic skills, unspecified". The Web's Free 2019/2020 ICD-10-CM/PCS Medical Coding Reference. 2019-10-01. Archived from the original on 2018-05-10. Retrieved 2019-12-20.
  5. "Learning Disabilities vs. Differences". www.ldanys.org. Archived from the original on 15 April 2021. Retrieved 1 March 2021.
  6. Kate Adams (September 30, 2012). "October Is Learning Disabilities Awareness Month in Canada!". baytoday.ca. LDAO – North Bay and Area News Release. Archived from the original on 21 July 2015. Retrieved 28 April 2015.
  7. 7.00 7.01 7.02 7.03 7.04 7.05 7.06 7.07 7.08 7.09 7.10 7.11 7.12 7.13 7.14 7.15 7.16 7.17 7.18 Dominguez, O; Carugno, P (January 2021). "Learning Disability". PMID 32119258. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  8. Gates, Bob & Mafuba, Kay. Use of the Term ‘Learning Disabilities’ in the United Kingdom: Issues for International Researchers and Practitioners. Learning Disabilities: A contemporary Journal. 14. (1). 9 - 23 Archived 2021-08-28 at the Wayback Machine.
  9. "National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities". LD Online. WETA. 2010. Archived from the original on 2020-08-11. Retrieved 2020-08-06.
  10. 1981; 1985.[full citation needed]
  11. Disabilities, National Joint Committee on Learning (May 1987). "LD Definition". Learning Disability Quarterly. 10 (2): 136–138. doi:10.2307/1510220. JSTOR 1510220.
  12. Bradley, Renée; Danielson, Louis C.; Hallahan, Daniel P. (2002). Identification of learning disabilities: research to practice. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-8058-4448-1. Archived from the original on 29 June 2019. Retrieved 2 May 2010.
  13. Reschly, Daniel J.; Hosp, John L.; Schmied, Catherine M. (20 August 2003). And Miles to Go…: State SLD Requirements and Authoritative Recommendations (Report). National Research Center on Learning Disabilities (NRCLD). Recommendations for Change in SLD Definition and Classification Criteria. Archived from the original on 25 September 2010. Retrieved 2010-05-01.
  14. Reiff, Henry B.; Gerber, Paul J.; Ginsberg, Rick (Spring 1993). "Definitions of Learning Disabilities from Adults with Learning Disabilities: The Insiders' Perspectives". Learning Disability Quarterly. 16 (2): 114–125. doi:10.2307/1511133. JSTOR 1511133.
  15. "Specific Learning Disorder" (PDF). American Psychiatric Association DSM-5 Development. American Psychiatric Association. 15 May 2013. Archived (PDF) from the original on 23 September 2015. Retrieved 6 August 2020.
  16. "Types of Learning Disabilities". Learning Disabilities Association of America. 2013-09-20. Archived from the original on 2018-06-22. Retrieved 4 July 2018.
  17. Wegner, Judith Welch (1984). "The Antodiscrimination Model Reconsidered: Ensuring Equal Opportunity Without Respect to Handicap Under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973". Cornell Law Review. 69 (3): 401–516. PMID 10317437.
  18. 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq.
  19. Stegemann, K. C. (2016). Learning disabilities in Canada. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, (1), 53. Retrieved November 1, 2016
  20. Holland, Ken (February 2011). "Learning Disabilities Factsheet". bild.org.uk. British Institute of Learning Disabilities. Archived from the original on 12 September 2017. Retrieved 13 September 2017.
  21. "Demography still dictates destiny for children with disabilities". Lancet. 386 (9993): 503. 2015. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(15)61459-3. PMID 26293424.
  22. Kataoka, Mika; van Kraayenoord, Christina E.; Elkins, John (August 2004). "Principals' and Teachers' Perceptions of Learning Disabilities: A Study from NARA Prefecture, Japan". Learning Disability Quarterly. 27 (3): 161–175. doi:10.2307/1593666. JSTOR 1593666. Archived from the original on 2021-08-09. Retrieved 2020-08-06.
  23. Rourke, B. P. (1989). Nonverbal learning disabilities: The syndrome and the model. New York: Guilford Press.
  24. Shifrer, Dara; Callahan, Rebecca; Muller, Chandra (2013). "Equity or Marginalization? The High School Course-Taking of Students Labeled With a Learning Disability". American Educational Research Journal. 50 (4): 656–82. doi:10.3102/0002831213479439. PMC 4074008. PMID 24982511.
  25. Shifrer, Dara (2013). "Stigma of a Label: Educational Expectations for High School Students Labeled with a Learning Disability". Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 54 (4): 462–480. doi:10.1177/0022146513503346. PMID 24311756.
  26. Genizi, J. (2013) Primary headaches, attention deficit disorder and learning disabilities in children and adolescents. The Journal of Headache and Pain [online]. Available at: https://thejournalofheadacheandpain.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/1129-2377-14-54 Archived 2018-06-03 at the Wayback Machine (accessed 23/10/17)
  27. Cisden, Merith; Elliot, Katherine; Noble, Sharon; Kelemen, Eve (1999). "Self-Understanding and Self-Esteem in Children with Learning Disabilities". Learning Disability Quarterly. 22 (4): 279–290. doi:10.2307/1511262. JSTOR 1511262.
  28. Brylewski, J.; Duggan, L. (2004). "Antipsychotic medication for challenging behaviour in people with learning disability". The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (3): CD000377. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD000377.pub2. ISSN 1469-493X. PMID 15266428.
  29. 29.0 29.1 Johnson, Beena. “Learning Disabilities in Children: Epidemiology, Risk Factors and Importance of Early Intervention.” BMH Med J, vol. 4, no. 1, ser. 31-37, 2017. 31-37, doi:22348-393X.
  30. McRae, Jeremy F.; Clayton, Stephen; Fitzgerald, Tomas W.; Kaplanis, Joanna; Prigmore, Elena; Rajan, Diana; Sifrim, Alejandro; Aitken, Stuart; Akawi, Nadia (2017). "Prevalence and architecture of de novo mutations in developmental disorders" (PDF). Nature. 542 (7642): 433–438. Bibcode:2017Natur.542..433M. doi:10.1038/nature21062. PMC 6016744. PMID 28135719. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2019-04-27. Retrieved 2020-08-06.
  31. Walsh, Fergus (2017-01-25). "Child gene study identifies new developmental disorders". BBC News. Archived from the original on 2019-04-17. Retrieved 2017-01-27.
  32. "Helping Children with Learning Difficulty". Apparent Lifestyle. 9 July 2014. Archived from the original on 12 July 2014. Retrieved 6 August 2020.
  33. Winogron, H. W., Knights, R. M., & Bawden, H. N. (1984). "Neuropsychological deficits following head injury in children". Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology. 6 (3): 269–286. doi:10.1080/01688638408401218.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  34. Aaron, P.G. (1995). "Differential Diagnosis of Reading Disabilities". School Psychology Review. 24 (3): 345–60. ISSN 0279-6015.
  35. Patti L. Harrison; Flanagan, Dawn P. (2005). Contemporary intellectual assessment: theories, tests, and issues. New York: Guilford Press. ISBN 1-59385-125-1.
  36. 36.0 36.1 36.2 36.3 36.4 Marcia A. Barnes; Fletcher, Jack; Fuchs, Lynn (2007). Learning Disabilities: From Identification to Intervention. New York: The Guilford Press. ISBN 978-1-59385-370-9.
  37. Tulsky; et al. (2001). "Development of a general ability index for the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale--Third Edition". Psychol Assess. 13 (3): 566–71. doi:10.1037//1040-3590.13.4.566.
  38. Finn, C.E., Rotherham A.J. & Hokanson C.R. (2001). "Rethinking Special Education For A New Century". Progressive Policy Institute. Archived from the original on 2011-01-28. Retrieved 2020-08-06. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  39. Fletcher-Janzen, Reynolds. (2008). Neuropsychological Perspectives on Learning Disabilities in the Era of RTI: Recommendations for Diagnosis and Intervention
  40. 40.0 40.1 Reeder, Deborah L.; Arnold, Sandra H.; Jeffries, Lynn M.; McEwen, Irene R. (2011-01-19). "The Role of Occupational Therapists and Physical Therapists in Elementary School System Early Intervening Services and Response to Intervention: A Case Report". Physical & Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics. 31 (1): 44–57. doi:10.3109/01942638.2010.497180. ISSN 0194-2638. PMID 20735199.
  41. Child Trends, 2014.[full citation needed]
  42. Ruiz, Melissa; Kabler, Brenda; Sugarman, Melissa (January 2011). "Understanding the plight of immigrant and refugee students". Communiqué. National Association of School Psychologists. 39 (5). Archived from the original on 2017-02-02. Retrieved 2020-08-06.
  43. 43.0 43.1 Klingner, Janette K.; Harry, Beth (2006). "The special education referral and decision-making process for English language learners: Child study team meetings and placement conferences". Teachers College Record. 108 (11): 2247–2281. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00781.x.
  44. Rodriguez et al., 2014.[full citation needed]
  45. Jones, 2009; Martines, 2008; Rhodes.[full citation needed]
  46. 46.0 46.1 Ochoa, & Ortiz, 2005.[full citation needed]
  47. Frisby, Craig L. (2013). Meeting the psychoeducational needs of minority students: Evidence-based guidelines for school psychologists and other school personnel. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley and Sons. doi:10.1002/9781118092620. ISBN 978-1-118-09262-0. OCLC 822560271.
  48. Geva, E., & Wiener, J. (2015). Psychological assessment of culturally and linguistically diverse children and adolescents: A practitioner’s guide. New York, NY: Springer.
  49. Southwest Educational Development Laboratory (SEDL), 2007.Southwest Educational Development Laboratory Archived 2020-09-25 at the Wayback Machine Accessed September 15, 2007.
  50. Thompson, S.B.N. "Dementia and memory: a guide for students and health professionals." Aldershot: Ashgate 2006.
  51. Thompson, S.B.N. (2000). "The Central Executive System in people with Down's syndrome and dementia". Clinical Gerontologist. 21 (3): 3–32. doi:10.1300/j018v21n03_02.
  52. Thompson, S.B.N. (2000). "Investigation into Down's syndrome and dementia". Journal of the Association of Practitioners in Learning Disability. 17 (3): 10–14.
  53. Thompson, S.B.N. (1999). "Examining dementia in Down's syndrome (DS): decline in social abilities in DS compared with other learning disabilities". Clinical Gerontologist. 20 (3): 23–44. doi:10.1300/j018v20n03_04.
  54. Thompson, S.B.N. (1999). "Assessing dementia in people with learning disabilities for cognitive rehabilitation". Journal of Cognitive Rehabilitation. 17 (3): 14–20.
  55. Dowshen, S. (2015). Learning problems. Retrieved from https://kidshealth.org/en/kids/learning-disabilities.html Archived 2020-09-20 at the Wayback Machine
  56. 56.0 56.1 Reaser, A.; Prevatt, F.; Petscher, Y.; Proctor, B. (2007). "The learning and study strategies of college students with ADHD". Psychology in the Schools. 44 (6): 627–638. doi:10.1002/pits.20252.
  57. "Reading and Learning Disabilities". National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities (NICHY). Academy for Educational Development (AED). 2004. Archived from the original on 23 May 2007. Retrieved 11 May 2007.
  58. Lyon, G. Reid (1996). "Learning Disabilities". The Future of Children. 6 (1): 54–76. doi:10.2307/1602494. JSTOR 1602494. PMID 8689262. Archived from the original on 2021-08-09. Retrieved 2020-08-06.
  59. "Amanda Kirby speaking on the co-occurrence of learning difficulties". dysTalk. Archived from the original on 2009-07-06. Retrieved 2009-04-22.
  60. Handler SM, et al. (March 2011). "Learning disabilities, dyslexia, and vision". Pediatrics. 127 (3): e818–56. doi:10.1542/peds.2010-3670. PMID 21357342.
  61. American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed., text revision). Washington, DC: Author.
  62. "Dyscalculia expert Jane Emerson explains number sense and its relevance to dyscalculia". dystalk.com. Archived from the original on 2009-05-15. Retrieved 2009-04-23.
  63. Lerner, Janet W. (2000). Learning disabilities: theories, diagnosis, and teaching strategies. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. ISBN 0-395-96114-9.
  64. "Direct Instruction". National Institute for Direct Instruction. 2014 National Institute for Direct Instruction. Archived from the original on 2021-02-26. Retrieved 2022-03-14.
  65. Glomb, N. K.; Morgan, D. P. (1 January 1991). "Resource Room Teachers' use of Strategies that Promote the Success of Handicapped Students in Regular Classrooms". The Journal of Special Education. 25 (2): 221–235. doi:10.1177/002246699102500206.
  66. 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
  67. Journal of Learning Disabilities, Dec 1973; vol. 6: pp. 609 - 614
  68. U.S. Department of Education, 2014.[full citation needed]
  69. Plyler v. Doe, 457 202 (U.S. 1982).
  70. Lau v. Nichols, 563 (U.S. 1974).
  71. Gallego, Margaret A.; Durán, Grace Zamora; Reyes, Elba I. (November 2006). "It Depends: A Sociohistorical Account of the Definition and Methods of Identification of Learning Disabilities". Teachers College Record. 108 (11): 2195–2219. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00779.x. Archived from the original on 2011-06-27. Retrieved 2020-08-06.
  72. 72.0 72.1 Reid, D. Kim; Jan Weatherly, Valle (2004). "The Discursive Practice of Learning Disability: Implications for Instruction and Parent-School Relations". Journal of Learning Disabilities. 37 (6): 466–481. doi:10.1177/00222194040370060101. PMID 15586465. Archived from the original on 2021-08-09. Retrieved 2020-08-06.
  73. 73.0 73.1 Carrier, James. 1986. Learning Disability: Social Class and the Construction of Inequality in American Education. New York, NY: Greenwood Press.
  74. Dudley-Marling, Curt (2004). "The Social Construction of Learning Disabilities". Journal of Learning Disabilities. 37 (6): 482–489. doi:10.1177/00222194040370060201. PMID 15586466.
  75. Ho, Anita (June 2004). "To be labelled, or not to be labelled: that is the question". British Journal of Learning Disabilities. 32 (2): 86–92. doi:10.1111/j.1468-3156.2004.00284.x.
  76. Williams, Val; Heslop, Pauline (May 2005). "Mental health support needs of people with a learning difficulty: a medical or a social model?". Disability & Society. 20 (3): 231–245. doi:10.1080/09687590500060554.
  77. Jenkins, Richard. 1998. "Towards a Social Model of (In)competence." Pp. 222-230 in Questions of Competence – Culture, Classification and Intellectual Disability, edited by R. Jenkins. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  78. Thomas, George M., Lisa R. Peck, Channin G. De Haan (2003). "Reforming Education, Transforming Religion, 1876-1931.". In Smith, C (ed.). The Secular Revolution: Power, Interests, and Conflict in the Secularization of American Public Life. Postgraduate Medical Journal. Vol. 79. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. pp. 355–394. doi:10.1525/california/9780520230002.003.0008. ISBN 9780520230002. PMC 1742730. PMID 12840131.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  79. Nuttall, Mark. 1998. "States and Categories: Indigenous Models of Personhood in Northwest Greenland." Pp. 176-193 in Questions of Competence – Culture, Classification and Intellectual Disability, edited by R. Jenkins. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  80. Van Maastricht, Sylvia. 1998. "Work, Opportunity and Culture: (In)competence in Greece and Wales." Pp. 125-152 in Questions of Competence – Culture, Classification and Intellectual Disability, edited by R. Jenkins. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  81. Baron, Stephen; Riddell, Sheila; Wilson, Alastair (1999). "The Secret of Eternal Youth: Identity, Risk and Learning Difficulties". British Journal of Sociology of Education. 20 (4): 483–499. doi:10.1080/01425699995227.
  82. Carrier, James G. (1983). "Explaining Educability: An Investigation of Political Support for the Children with Learning Disabilities Act of 1969". British Journal of Sociology of Education. 4 (2): 125–140. doi:10.1080/0142569830040202.
  83. Chappell, Anne L. (1992). "Towards a Sociological Critique of the Normalisation Principle". Disability, Handicap & Society. 7 (1): 35–51. doi:10.1080/02674649266780041.
  84. McDermott, R.; Goldman, S.; Varenne, H. (2006). "The cultural work of learning disabilities". Educational Researcher. 35 (6): 12–17. doi:10.3102/0013189x035006012. Archived from the original on 2021-08-09. Retrieved 2020-08-06.
  85. Fletcher, T.V.; Navarrete, L.A. (2003). "Learning disabilities or difference: A critical look at issues associated with misidentification and placement of Hispanic students in special education programs". Classics RESQ Article. 22 (4): 30–38.
  86. Artiles, A.J.; Thorious, K.K.; Bap, A.; Neal, R.; Waitoller, F.R.; Hernandez-Saca, D. (2011). "Beyond culture as group traits: Future learning disabilities ontology, epistemology, and inquire on research knowledge use". Learning Disability Quarterly. 34 (3): 167–179. doi:10.1177/0731948711417552.
  87. Utley, C.A.; Obiakor, F.E.; Bakken, J.P. (2011). "Culturally responsive practices for culturally and linguistically diverse students with learning disabiltiies". Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal. 9 (1): 5–18.
  88. Patton, J. M. (1998). "The Disproportionate Representation of African Americans in Special Education: Looking Behind the Curtain for Understanding and Solutions". The Journal of Special Education. 32 (1): 25–31. doi:10.1177/002246699803200104. ISSN 0022-4669.
  89. Reid, D. K.; Knight, M. G. (2006). "Disability Justifies Exclusion of Minority Students: A Critical History Grounded in Disability Studies". Educational Researcher. 35 (6): 18–23. doi:10.3102/0013189X035006018. ISSN 0013-189X.
  90. MacMillan, D. L.; Reschly, D. J. (1998). "Overrepresentation of Minority Students: The Case for Greater Specificity or Reconsideration of the Variables Examined". The Journal of Special Education. 32 (1): 15–24. doi:10.1177/002246699803200103. ISSN 0022-4669.
  91. Skiba, Russell J; Simmons, Ada B; Ritter, Shana; Gibb, Ashley C; Rausch, M. Karega; Cuadrado, Jason; Chung, Choong-Geun (2008). "Achieving Equity in Special Education: History, Status, and Current Challenges". Exceptional Children. 74 (3): 264–288. doi:10.1177/001440290807400301. Archived from the original on 2018-02-19. Retrieved 2020-08-06.
  92. Haveman, Robert; Sandefur, Gary; Wolfe, Barbara; Voyer, Andrea (2004). "Trends in children's attainments and their determinants as family income inequality has increased". In Neckerman, Kathryn M. (ed.). Social inequality. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. ISBN 0-87154-620-5. OCLC 53903734.
  93. 93.0 93.1 Shifrer, Dara; Muller, Chandra; Callahan, Rebecca (2010). "Disproportionality: A sociological perspective of the identification by schools of students with learning disabilities" (PDF). Disability as a Fluid State. Research in Social Science and Disability. Vol. 5. pp. 279–308. doi:10.1108/S1479-3547(2010)0000005014. ISBN 978-0-85724-377-5. ISSN 1479-3547. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2011-09-28. Retrieved 2011-06-17.
  94. 94.0 94.1 Shifrer, D.; Muller, C.; Callahan, R. (2010). "Disproportionality and Learning Disabilities: Parsing Apart Race, Socioeconomic Status, and Language" (PDF). Journal of Learning Disabilities. 44 (3): 246–257. doi:10.1177/0022219410374236. ISSN 0022-2194. PMC 4133990. PMID 20587753. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2012-03-25. Retrieved 2022-03-14.

Further reading

External links

External resources