Can We Prevent Learning Disabilities?

Is it possible to prevent learning disabilities? There’s a policy push to donjust that, and it was the main focus of the 2004 revisions to the Individualsnwith Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

n

My afternoon today was consumed with meetings. When I worked at the collegenlevel we used to joke that meetings were the logical alternative to work. Butntoday’s meetings were less frivolous…

n

Normally I spend my afternoon working through some very scriptednreading interventions with small groups of students that I pull out of theirnclassrooms – some fifth graders, some fourth graders, and a mixed group of firstnand second graders. Today those students stayed in their classrooms, and mynafternoon was instead spent in a series of IEP meetings.

n

If you’re not familiar with IEP meetings, let me introduce the concept. Thenacronym stands for Individualized Education Program. Students who have beenndetermined to have an educational disability under IDEA have an IEP, a documentnthat describes how their school is accommodating that disability at thenmoment.

n

The meetings were chaired by my principal and they took place in her office.nA specialist for the central office was present today. Obviously I was in thenmeetings. The classroom teacher that has the child also sat in on each meetingnand contributed to the discussions that took place. And when we’re lucky, thenchild’s parent comes to the meeting. At this school, we’re generally lucky innthat way; but today we didn’t have parents in most of meeting – although we’dntalked to them about what was going to happen in the meetings.

n

Five of the six meetings today were routine, almost formalities. We hadnmeetings to discuss whether a particular student needed to continue seeing thisnor that specialist for a particular problem. We had two meetings to discuss thenstatus of a child’s disability; a requirement that comes around every threenyears.

n

One of the meetings was not particularly routine. It was a meeting to decidenwhether a particular student had a disability – whether, under IDEA 2004, theynwere eligible for services as a special education student. For obvious reasonsnof confidentiality, I can’t say much about the child or the meeting. But Incan tell you that the process of identifying some disabilities is vaguenand slippery.

n

Emotional disturbance (some states call them behavior disorders) are verynreal. But federal law is so vague that they are almost impossible tonlegally define. Children with emotional disturbances make up only a verynsmall portion of those who qualify to be served under IDEA. But students whonhave learning disabilities make up a much larger portion of the specialneducation population.

n

Until 2004 we had a pretty clear definition of learning disabilities. Itnwasn’t a very good one. We called it the discrepancy model. It was clear as anbell – a mathematical definition of a disability. Unfortunately, it was a timenconsuming definition to satisfy and it often meant allowing a child to fail angrade as proof that they needed help. For years we did this to kids…

n

IDEA 2004 came up with an entirely new definition of learning disabilities.nConceptually, it’s rather clear. A learning disability is evidenced by thenfailure of a child to respond to academic interventions designed to bring his ornher achievement up to grade level. Those are my words, not a technical quote.nThe difficulty now is that we are grappling with just what those interventionsnshould be, and what level of response is sufficient to avoid the determinationnthat a child does in fact have a disability. And as a result, there’s not nearlynas much certainty in the process as there once was.

n

If you are an idealistic optimist you will say that one of the main goals ofnthe new law is to use intervention to prevent a child’s problems from everndeveloping into a disability. If you are a cynic you will scoff that the newnlaw’s goal is just as I phrased it above – to avoid the determination that anchild has a disability, even if they really do. But either way, you are beggingnthe question of what actually constitutes a learning disability. It’s a questionnI expect to keep begging for a few years.

n

So I go back to my original question: Is it possible to prevent learningndisabilities?

n

The irony of the new law is that a breakthrough in medical research thatnoccurred at about the time the new law was passed challenges some of itsnassumptions. Somewhere between two-thirds and four-fifths of childrennclassified as having learning disabilities are thought to be dyslexic. And aboutnthe time the President signed the new law on educational disabilities, a medicalnresearcher published findings that showed that a dyslexia gene exists. A yearnlater, two more genes connected to dyslexia were discussed at a meeting of the AmericannSociety of Human Genetics.

n

The question of whether we can prevent learningndisabilities may now be largely a question of whether or not we can prevent angenetic condition. And as for identifying them, a cheek swab or simple bloodntest at birth may soon accomplish that.

n

I suspect that the policy makers will all have to rethink learningndisabilities again soon – maybe before the 2004 revisions to IDEA even get fullynimplemented in most states…

n

Greg Cruey, Guest Blogger

n