Dogmatic Insularity in Learning Disabilities Classification and the Critical Need for a Philosophical Analysis.

Abstract

The recent revision of the Individuals with Disabilities Act (Individual with Disabilities Education Improvement Act; IDEIA) in the United States (U.S.) has created the opportunity for an unprecedented change in the way in which learning disabilities (LD) are identified. As a result of this revision, intense and often polarizing debate has surfaced regarding models and methods relevant to classifying learning disabilities in children. This paper presents a philosophical/worldview framework developed to facilitate discussion among and limit dogmatic insularity within the field of LD diagnosis as it attempts to further delineate LD identification procedures. Identification of LD is discussed in relation to four root-metaphorical world views: mechanism, organicism, contextualism, and formism. Application of world view principles to discussion and debate regarding proposed LD classification models might help the field avoid entrapment within dogmatic, insulated, and limited perceptual frameworks that tend to marginalize competing models while magnifying strengths and minimizing (or inadvertently ignoring) weaknesses of a favored LD diagnostic model. This discussion is critical because learning disabilities comprises 51% of all special education diagnoses in the U.S.; yet, consensus has not been attained regarding the most appropriate LD diagnostic parameters. The issue of learning disabilities (LD) diagnosis requires broad, expansive thinking to ensure that theorists, researchers, and practitioners in the field are not inadvertently operating from within dogmatic, insular perspectives. Philosophical analyses of tacit influences on the major assumptions in a field can enable professionals in that field to perceive the possibility of their own entrenchment in limited perceptual frameworks. This paper suggests that the field of LD classification/diagnosis could benefit from a philosophical analysis that employs deep-level, metaphorical constructs. With the reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDIEA), revised parameters concerning learning disabilities (LD) identification have been established for public school systems in the U.S. The field now has the option of predicating LD diagnosis on a comprehensive evaluation, rather than the LD discrepancy model. In addition, the field is afforded the option of using a process that determines if the child responds to scientific, research based intervention (i.e., response to treatment). In light of changes to the federal regulations, the field of LD classification now has the opportunity to pause, reflect, and examine the accumulated research evidence to determine a viable LD classification model. The overwhelming majority of research clearly indicates that the discrepancy model should be cast aside (Aaron, 1997).

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 9 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.