Discussion: Learning Disorders

Learning Disabilities Policy Issues and Promising Approaches

James C. Chalfant

ABSTRACT: The current status of knowledge concerning learning disabilities is reviewed with respect to areas of consensus and areas of disagreement about this phenom- enon. The adequacy of the knowledge base is evaluated, and implications for social policies regarding the defini- tion, diagnosis, treatment, and education of learning dis- abled children are drawn.

At the present time, the field of learning disabilities is in a state of siege from without and in a state of controversy and disarray from within. Never before have so few been accused of serving so many! Concern has been expressed at national, state, and local levels about the continued increase in the numbers of students classified as learning disabled. The U.S. Department of Education's Sixth An- nual Report to Congress (1984) stated that prevalence has doubled in the past ten years and more than 40% of all pupils served in special education programs are clas- sifted as learning disabled. This represents 4% of all school children nationally. States report that the prevalence of learning disabilities ranges from 26% to 64% of the special education population. This variation between states is an indication of the diversity of the procedural criteria used to identify learning disabled students by educational agencies. Serious questions have been raised concerning the basic concepts upon which the field is based and the manner in which students are being identified and pro- vided educational services. Five criticisms are typically raised.

I. There is little consensus about the definition of learning disabilities.

2. Diagnostic tests are not valid or reliable. 3. Criteria for determining identification and eli-

gibility are questionable. 4. Learning disability teachers do not use special

methods. 5. Special programs for the learning disabled are

not effective. Because of these criticisms, and because of increases

in the number of children identified as learning disabled, the number of special programs, and the cost of services, the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Special Ed- ucation is launching a series of task forces to study the problem. Special task forces and study groups also have been organized by governors, state departments of edu- cation, and local educational agencies. The reports and recommendations from these ad hoc committees and study groups hold a number of potential implications

University of Arizona

I I I

about future policy decisions for the field of learning dis- abilities. The purposes of this article are to (a) make a statement about the current status of the field, (b) identify six major policy issues, (c) discuss some of the more promising alternative strategies for resolving these policy issues, and (d) address potential barriers that could block the resolution and implementation of alternative strate- gies.

Current Status of the Field The field of learning disabilities is alive and growing: The number of children identified as learning disabled and the number of new programs for these children have in- creased. One reason for these increases is that the term learning disabilities was listed as one of the categories included in the definition of handicapped under Public Law 94-142, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975. A national study of the rules and regulations of all state departments of education and the District of Columbia revealed both consensus and divergence in opinions on identification and service delivery procedures (Chalfant, 1984). The major areas of consensus and di- vergence in the field are highlighted in the following para- graphs.

Areas of Consensus

There are three areas of consensus among the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The first area is terminology and definition. Nationally, states are using only five terms to define the population in question: learning disabled, learning disabilities, specific learning disabilities, percep- tually impaired, and perceptual communication disorders in children. An analysis of all the definitions used by state educational agencies revealed that each definition in- cluded from two to five of the following components: a task failure component, an exclusion factor component, an etiological component, a discrepancy component, and a psychological process component. This consensus is due to the fact that states are either using the federal definition verbatim or using it with some modification. Massachu- setts and South Dakota have "non-categorical" services and do not identify or define categories of handicapping conditions.

The second major area of consensus is about the procedure used for identifying high-risk children. Nearly all state guidelines refer to the importance of the pre- referral activities by regular educators. Among the most common recommended prereferral activities are regular

392 February 1989 • American Psychologist Copyrighl 1989 by the American PSychological Association. Inc. 0C03-066X/89/$00.75

VoL 44, No. 2, 392-398

teacher intervention in the classroom; the use of teacher consultants, team teaching, and building-based teacher support teams. Preventative activities help teachers and students before student problems become serious. These preventative activities also help reduce the number of in- appropriate referrals. Most states administer regularly scheduled screening examinations for general health sta- tus, visual and hearing acuity, intellectual potential, speech and language functioning, academic achievement and skill levels, and social and adaptive functioning. All states have established formal referral procedures for re- questing an individualized evaluation, including proce- dures for reviewing referrals to vafidate whether or not a child should be tested.

The third major area of consensus is about the ad- ministrative procedures that are recommended for con- ducting multidisciplinary team meetings. These proce- dures include structuring the formats of the multidisci- plinary conferences, developing patterns for scheduling meetings, and providing guidelines for making determi- nations about eligibility and placement. Reference to these administrative practices may be found in nearly all state guidelines, but the degree of specificity varies widely. Al- though the skeletal administrative structure is largely in place, the degree to which recommended practices are administered varies widely from state to state, from school district to school district, and, in some cases, from one school to the next in the same district.

Areas of Divergence

The greatest divergence of opinion within the field of learning disabilities relates to diagnosis. There is no con- sensus concerning the diagnostic procedures that should be used to specify the nature of a student's problems or the criteria for classifying a student as learning disabled. At the heart of the controversy about learning disabilities is the difficulty that practitioners are having in trying to generate criteria from the five component parts of the definition of learning disabilities. State guidelines vary greatly as to which of the five component parts of the definition are used as criteria: task failure, achievement- potential discrepancy, etiological factors, exclusionary factors, and dysfunctions in one or more of the psycho- logical processes.

An array of diagnostic tests are used by practitioners in the field to evaluate these five factors. The extensive number of tests being used results from disagreements in the field on what should be tested and the differences in the way learning disabilities specialists are trained. Diag- nosticians assess the variables they believe to be most important and use those instruments with which they have been trained and feel most comfortable. This laissez faire approach to diagnosis increases the probability of increasing the number of tests being used, many of which have questionable validity and reliability. Finally, objec- tive and consistent standards for determining eligibility are lacking.

The plight of those with learning disabilities becomes even more serious when philosophers, educators, and ad-

ministrators group this population with other under- achieving groups of children, whose learning problems stem from social isolation, poverty, borderline intellectual capacity, family problems, lack of motivation, conduct disorders, or other problems. This beleaguered field is confronted by a number of imminent policy decisions, which could either eliminate learning disabilities as a cat- egory of the handicapped or help resolve the major prob- lems plaguing the field. The five major issues being de- bated are described as follows.

1. Should the category of "specific learning dis- abilities" remain as one of the special education categories included in the term "handicapped children and youth" under Public Law 94-142? There are those who question whether "learning disabilities" should be used to define a category of handicapping conditions, because it is not a real condition or class of problems (Algozzine & Yssel- dyke, 1986). One solution proposed to overcome the problems associated with classification, overidentification, and poor student outcome is to remove learning disabil- ities as a category, eliminate existing rules and regulations, and change to a noncategorical system (Reynolds, Want,, & Walberg, 1987; Stainback & Stainback, 1984). Such an extreme measure may be imprudent and unnecessary. As McKinney and Hocutt (1988) have stated, if the prob- lems of overidentification and rising special education costs have been attributed to the failure to distinguish students who have learning disabilities from those who are underachieving for environmental reasons, does this mean we must dismantle the entire system to correct the problem?

The field oflearning disabilities has gradually shifted from serving children with neurological difficulties to serving a variety of children with other problems whose only similarity is that they are experiencing difficulty in school (Torgesen, 1986). Care must be taken to differ- entiate children whose problems arise from an unfavor- able environment, a mismatch between the educational environment and the individual characteristics of the child, poor teaching, and physical or psychological prob- lems within the child.

Gallagher (1986, 1987) cited three reasons why a classification such as learning disabilities can be helpful to the educational community. First, by maintaining learning disabilities as a category, educators can study a population, heterogeneous though it may be, in order to better understand the causes of the condition. Second, classification is helpful in designing and linking special treatment with clusters of symptoms. In time, instruc- tional strategies may be found that will work across eti- ological groups (Torgesen, 1986). Third, it is necessary to classify a group with common characteristics so that the origins of a condition can be found through epide- miological studies. If we can seek out the cause, then it may be possible to prevent the condition.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to James C. Chalfant, Division of Special Education and Rehabilitation, College of Education, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721.

February 1989 • American Psychologist 393

A logical approach is to retain the category and launch programmatic research efforts to resolve the problems related to describing the population, generate criteria, adopt valid and reliable diagnostic techniques, and evaluate the kinds of programs necessary to bring about change in learning disabled students. The barriers that could prevent a thoughtful scientific inquiry and data- based approach to the problem are the failure of re- searchers to address the critical issues, failure to use valid and reliable research practices, or failure to acquire needed support for their efforts.

2. Can all students with learning problems be served more effectively by adapting instruction in regular class- rooms as advocated by the Regular Education Initiative? One of the most debated issues in special education today is whether students with handicaps, including those with learning disabilities, can be better served by the traditional cascade of special education services or by being taught in regular education classrooms, which have been adapted to their needs. Will (1986) stated that the Regular Edu- cation Initiative is directed toward students "who are having learning difficulties, including those who are learning slowly; those with behavior problems; those who may be educationally disadvantaged; and, those who have mild specific learning disabilities and emotional problems, and perhaps as we impose our knowledge, those with more severe disabilities" (p. 5).

This Initiative recommends a promising alternative to special education services. Instead of special education, which removes students from the regular classroom for part of a school day or an entire school day for individ- ualized or small group instruction, the Regular Education Initiative recommends adapting the regular classroom to make it possible for the student to learn in that environ- ment. The Initiative emphasizes four perspectives for ed- ucating students with learning problems within the reg- ular classroom setting: (a) providing increased instruc- tional time for students who move through curriculum at a different pace, who learn better in smaller groups and individually, and who require modified texts or sup- plementary materials, and more supervision; (b) provid- ing building-level support teams to assist classroom teachers; (c) empowering building principals to control all programs and resources at a building level; and (d) implementing new instructional approaches, such as per- sonalized curricula, a formal data base to monitor student progress, reduced class size, increased time in school, more efficient use of time and the use of controlled teach- ing steps (Will, 1986). The approach to change that is recommended by the Regular Education Initiative is to establish innovative pilot programs and evaluate them by systematic and rigorous monitoring and dissemination of information about the efficacy of these programs.

The Regular Education Initiative is founded on the idea that a student's learning problems in school are not caused by deficits within the student but within the teacher and the educational environment (Biklen & Zollers, 1986). Students are viewed as victims of the system. This assumption is not shared by many professionals. Kauff-

man, Gerber, and Semmel (1988) argued several points: students are not overidentified for special education, and the gap between regular and special education is not wid- ening; the failures of students should not be attributed solely to teachers; teachers who are more competent do not necessarily have more positive attitudes toward stu- dents with handicaps; school reform does not necessarily mean that students with handicaps will be instructed more effectively in the regular classroom; and when low-per- forming students are taught with all students, their failure will become more obvious and their stigma will not be avoided. Chalfant (1987) pointed out that regular class- room teachers are not trained to plan for and individualize instruction in the classroom, nor do they want to teach students who deviate too much from the students in their classrooms.

Students with specific learning disabilities constitute a heterogeneous population because of the variety of de- velopmental imbalances and intra-individual differences. Thus Bryan, Bay, and Donahue (1988) pointed out that it is unlikely that classroom modifications alone, regard- less of a teacher's pedagogical skill is sufficient to meet the complex needs of this heterogeneous population. Hallahan, Keller, McKinney, Lloyd, and Bryan (1988) discussed the many limitations in the research data base supporting the Regular Education Initiative with respect to limitations on methodology, the age of the studies (which impedes their generalizability), and the emphasis on physical placements instead of practices within the placements. Rather than assuming that a single-service configuration will meet the needs of all students, Hallahan et al. (1988) believe it is more logical to provide a variety of service configurations (e.g., self-contained classes, re- source rooms, total mainstreaming).

Another barrier to implementing the Regular Ed- ucation Initiative is the lack of research on the effects of cooperative learning models, teacher consultation models, prereferral consultation, and peer-mediated in- terventions in general education settings (Lloyd, Crow- ley, Kohler, & Strain, 1988). The supporting data are primarily descriptive rather than experimental and do not currently justify reducing special education services or providing definitive direction for future programs. During the past few years, however, the Office of Special Education Programs has been stimulating research pro- jects to add to the existing data base. Lloyd et al. (1988) are correct in emphasizing the need for careful and sys- tematic research in these areas.

• The Regular Education Initiative has made few ref- erences to implementing its strategies in the secondary schools; Schumaker and Deshler (1988) identified three barriers: the large gaps between the skill level of students and academic requirements in secondary classrooms, the intensive instruction required to ameliorate skill and strategy deficits, and the structural limitations inherent in secondary schools. Schumaker and Deshler also dis- cussed creating a partnership between special education and regular education in secondary schools for serving at-risk students as opposed to having states mandate cer-

394 February 1989 • American Psychologist

tain changes in the name of the Regular Education Ini- tiative without any regard for the principle of organiza- tional change.

Perhaps the greatest barrier to implementing the Regular Education Initiative is that the initiative was conceived and is being led by special educators and that many regular educators are unaware of the Initiative, the controversy it has created, or the plans special educators are making for classroom teachers. The regular education community must become involved with special education in this Initiative if"A Shared Responsibility" is to become a reality.

3. How can the heterogeneous group of children called "learning disabled" be defined and differentiated from students with other kinds of learning problems? The term learning disability refers to a group of children with diverse problems. For example, academic disabilities in- clude disabilities in reading, writing, arithmetic, and spelling. Developmental disabilities include disabilities in attention, perception memory, concept formation, and problem solving (Kirk & Chalfant, 1984). Each year in- creasing numbers of students have been inappropriately identified as learning disabled. It is critical to the future of the field that the population in question be more clearly described and defined in order to differentiate between students with learning disabilities and students whose learning difficulties are due to other handicapping con- ditions, either within the students or within the educa- tional environment.

A major issue is agreeing on the criteria that are being used to identify those with learning disabilities. The Federal Register (1977) has emphasized the discrepancy between achievement and intellectual potential as the major criterion for identification. This has not been a successful approach, because many practitioners tend to use the discrepancy between intellectual potential and achievement as the only criterion in the identification process. As a result, many underachieving students have been inappropriately identified as having learning dis- abilities.

A second criterion used in identification is the ex- clusion criterion: students whose primary learning prob- lem is due to conditions other than a learning disability are excluded from the category. Although state guidelines are fairly specific about criteria for physical handicaps, visual and hearing impairments, and mental retardation, more precise criteria are needed for exclusion factors such as emotional disturbance and environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage. Care should be taken not to overlook students who have a learning disability in ad- dition to another handicap.

The psychological process criterion, which may be the elusive "learning disability" sought so long by so many, is a third criterion used to identify learning disabled students. The federal rules and regulations (Federal Reg- ister, 1977) did not include this most important com- ponent as part of the criteria. By focusing on academic failure and the discrepancy between academic achieve- ment and intellectual potential, the federal rules and reg-

ulations led the state departments and local educational agencies away from the one consideration of intra-indi- vidual difference, which might help resolve the criteria dilemma.

Dysfunctions in one or more of the psychological processes, such as attention, memory, language, visual- perceptual-motor abilities, concept formation, or problem solving, can interfere with learning. When children de- velop normally in some functions and are significantly delayed in the development of other functions, these dis- crepancies may be indicative of learning disabilities. The diagnosis of a dysfunction in using a discrepancy between one or more of the psychological processes is difficult for several reasons. First, there is no widely accepted theo- retical base for such a diagnosis, there is no consensus as to which psychological processes or syndromes of pro- cesses should be considered. Second, there are few valid and reliable instruments for measuring process dysfunc- tions, and only inferences about psychological abilities and disabilities can be made from observations.

Thus another barrier to implementing the Regular Education Initiative is that many learning disabilities teachers are trained to deal with academic problems and not with psychological processing disabilities, and some members of the field reject the concept of psychological processes. Nevertheless, 18 states find the psychological process criterion helpful and have included it as one of the criterion in their state guidelines. Research is needed to resolve the conceptual basis and diagnostic procedures for measuring processing dysfunctions.

A fourth criterion, one that is used to determine a learning disabled student's eligibility for services, is that a student requires a special method of instruction de- signed specifically for that student's specific disability. This means that the exact nature ofthe learning disability must be clearly determined and that special methods of in- struction should be used to teach students with that dis- ability. Present practices in our schools lack precision in identifying specific disabilities as well as in matching them with special teaching methods.

Practitioners in the field are not making disciplined decisions based on the four criteria just outlined. If ex- isting criteria were used to validate the diagnosis of stu- dents identified as learning disabled in the public schools, probably half of the students currently identified would not be eligible to receive services. Decisions for eligibility are often based on a student's need for some kind of spe- cial help rather than on whether or not a student meets rigorous eligibility criteria for learning disabilities services.

One way to encourage practitioners to apply more rigor in using existing criteria is to limit the number of learning disabled students to 2% of school enrollment for a three-year period. Although the 2% cap would be op- posed vigorously, as it was in the 1970s, it would stimulate practitioners to reevaluate their criteria and tighten their decision-making process, thereby helping reduce the number of students inappropriately labeled learning dis- abled. Imposing a 2% cap does, however, present the dan- ger of excluding bonafide learning disabled students from

February 1989 • American Psychologist 395

needed services, and of raising the objections of parents, teachers, and professional groups.

A more positive approach is to define the group in terms of their most common characteristic, "'intraindi- vidual differences" (Gailagher, 1966; Chalfant & Schef- felin, 1969; Kirk & Chalfant, 1984). Learning disabled children may show intra-individual differences in three ways: differences between psychological processes or de- velopmental abilities; differences between intellectual po- tential and achievement; and differences between perfor- mance on different tasks or between academic areas. Keogh (1988) also emphasizes the concept of an incon- sistent ability profile as a marker for learning disabilities as opposed to the ability-achievement discrepancy that characterizes both mental retardation and learning dis- abilities. The problem with using intra-individual differ- ences as a marker is that many professionals object to considering students' problems as originating from within the student rather than from within the environment.

Perhaps the most promising approach is to identify subgroups within the learning disabled population (Tor- gesen, 1982). The existence of subgroups is widely ac- cepted (e.g., attention deficit disorders, receptive and ex- pressive language disorders, visual-perceptual motor problems, memory disorders, and problems with concept formation and problem solving can be singled out). Al- though the terminology and descriptors may vary, the characteristics used to describe particular subgroups are similar. By identifying subgroups it will be possible to obtain more definitive descriptions of diagnostic cate- gories and the correlates and characteristics that learning disabled students have in common within and between subgroups.

There is currently a lack of consensus on which subgroups are valid. A national meeting or a series of conferences held for the purpose of describing and con- ceptuaUy labeling subgroups could reduce the amount of time involved in bringing the field to consensus. Such an effort could be followed by articles and meetings to widen the discussion and tighten the description of the subgroup populations.

4. What kinds of educational programs are most effective for meeting the individual needs of bonalide learning disabled students both in special programs and in regular classrooms? Four criticisms have been leveled at special education instructional programs for the learn- ing disabled: students must demonstrate failure before they can be placed in special education programs; the use of criteria for determining eligibility and admission to special programs excludes other students who need help but do not meet eligibility requirements; segregation from classmates in specialized programs leads to stig- matization resulting in social rejection; and special pro- grams often result in adversarial relationships between parents and the school with respect to diagnosis and placement (Will, 1986). These arguments often exagger- ate, misrepresent, or make incorrect implications and ig- nore the benefits of specialized programs (Chalfant, 1987).

The efficacy of special education programs for

learning disabled students has been challenged by Algoz- zine and Ysseldyke (1983) and Madden and Slavin (1983). The results of studies that compare the progress of school- identified learning disabled children with slow-learning children are highly suspect, because many underachieving students are inappropriately and often defiberately labeled learning disabled and placed in special programs to pro- vide them with some kind of service (Keogh, 1986; Tor- gssen, 1986). The effects of placement for learning dis- abled children have seldom been evaluated with respect to the kinds of disability and the type of services delivered (Carlberg & Kavale, 1980).

The most promising approach to resolving the ef- ficacy of special education programs for the learning dis- abled is to select students who have special characteristics with respect to their specific disabilities and to study the impact of different service programs on these students. Of particular significance are the kinds of specialized in- struction provided and the amount of intervention per day or per week. Perhaps a more intensive or compre- hensive set of services other than the resource room model is needed in order to alter the developmental patterns and achievement levels of children (Gallagher, 1986).

The field of learning disabilities should collaborate with the regular education community to answer the question, "To what extent can regular classroom teachers effectively serve students with bonafide learning disabil- ities within the structures of the regular classroom?" The capabilities of teachers to work with the learning disabled in regular classrooms is not clear. Research is needed to carefully evaluate different mainstream models in differ- ent regular classroom settings. For example, the number of students in the class, the presence of an aide, the level of the curriculum, and the kinds of tasks that are being presented should be studied. The capabilities of learning disabled students should be studied within these different settings, with attention to factors such as the type of learning disability, the strengths and deficits of the stu- dents as a result of that specific disability, their response to the various required classroom tasks, their need for individual help, their social interaction with other stu- dents, and the support #oven to the families of these stu- dents. Grants should be made available to evaluate the progress of students with learning disabilities in a wide range of educational settings.

Resistance to implementing these ideas may be an- ticipated from organized groups of parents of learning disabled children; advocates of the Regular Education Initiative, who reject the existence of learning disabilities as a condition; and regular classroom teachers who may object to having students with learning problems placed in their classrooms. For example, teachers in states that require skill testing of all students in three-year cycles as a prerequisite to promotion will be very sensitive about having their teaching efforts spread to learning disabled and other handicapped students. Professional organiza- tions in special education also may be somewhat defensive about evaluating and altering the patterns of existing ser- vices, particularly if alternative programs in regular ed-

396 February 1989 ° American Psychologist

ucation mean changes in the roles of their members or in the kinds of special education services to be provided.

5. How should federal and state rules, regulations, and guidelines be modified to make it possible to develop and evaluate alternative programs? Federal and state rules and regulations sometimes create barriers by either in- hibiting or prohibiting the research and development of more effective programs. For example, regulations that prohibit serving students both with and without handicaps prevent the most effective and efficient use of available resources within a school building. A promising approach is to develop an alternative plan for serving all students who need special help in a school. First, identify specific passages in the rule, regulation, or guideline that prevent or limit the implementation of a new alternative plan. Second, seek a waiver on that particular passage, which would allow the implementation of the alternative plan. Third, evaluate the plan during a specified period of time.

This approach would not result in totally discarding or placing a waiver of all rules and regulations. Instead, it offers a practical and controlled method for imple- menting and evaluating promising alternative programs for serving learning disabled and other nonhandicapped students with learning problems, without disrupting the entire system. This approach can accommodate those who have a feasible program alternative that merits eval- uation. The only barrier would be the flexibility of federal or state agencies to develop procedures for approving, controlling, and using available funds to support exper- imental alternative programs that do not conform to ex- isting rules and regulations.

6. How should federal funds be directed and mon- itored toward resolving policy issues related to program support, personnel preparation, and research in the area of learning disabilities? The policy issue that must be re- solved concerns two populations. The first is those stu- dents whose difficulties stem from unfavorable environ- ments, such as those from low-income families or those with cultural differences or economic or educational dis- advantages. The second population is learning disabled students, whose problems may range from mild to severe. We must determine to what extent these two populations should be served together or apart. How can federal funds be used most effectively to resolve policy issues with re- spect to serving all students who have learning problems in our schools?

The use of categorical funds allocated to special ed- ucation for research, program support, and personnel training could assist in such an effort, but categorical funding should not be the sole source of funding for re- solving a policy issue that spans both regular and special education. The use of block grants is often raised as an alternative to categorical funding. The block grant is a lump sum of money provided by the federal or state gov- ernment to a school system to support all educational services. Block grants would make it possible to support policy resolution efforts for all students with learning problems and remove the restrictions of categorical fund- ing. Many administrators would welcome the flexibility

of block grant funding. Historically, when funds have not been allocated specifically for the handicapped, they have been swallowed up by the needs in regular education pro- grams to serve the larger nonlaandicapped school popu- lation. Understandably, many parents and special edu- cators would fear that block grant funding would grad- ually result in the withdrawal of financial support for special education services.

The most promising alternative for establishing pol- icy for serving all students who are having learning prob- lems, as well as those with specific learning disabilities, is a joint planning effort between special education and regular education as proposed by Gallagher (1986). Ac- cording to this plan, both regular and special education would share responsibility for funding and providing per- sonnel. Gallagher's five-stage action plan consists of first conducting a historical review of the literature on students with mild learning problems and synthesizing the infor- mation. Second, convene the leaders from special edu- cation and regular education, poficy analysts, economists, and parents to engage in a joint planning effort and ex- plore the range of options, which could be made available at the local level to serve the students with mild learning problems. Third, conduct a policy analysis that displays alternative strategies against a set of policy related criteria: cost, vertical equity, political feasibility, and evidence of past effectiveness (Gallagher, 1981). Fourth, use funds from federal and state agencies to establish demonstration centers, specify the students to be served, describe the services to be delivered, and assess the efficacy of these programs. Such centers should include preschools and elementary and secondary schools and should use models for intensive delivery of service and mainstreaming. Fil~h, use professional associations, conventions, and publica- tions to disseminate the historical review, the results of the conference, and the recommendations of the policy analysis.

A sister action plan could be simultaneously directed toward moderate and severe learning disabled children. This plan also would include a historical review of the literature; an invited conference addressing the issues of definition, criteria for identification, subtypes, and deliv- ery of service alternatives; policy analysis; demonstration sites; and dissemination. A steering committee would monitor both action plans, serve as liaison between the two groups, and assist in any areas where overlap of ac- tivities might occur.

A coordinated, two-pronged attacl~ on this problem is long overdue. The few barriers that might prevent these action plans from being implemented can be overcome. First, professionals representing special education and regular education could be convened by the Department of Education to draft a plan for a cooperative effort. Sec- ond, the authority and flexib'dity to spend relatively small sums of money would be needed to support these action plans. By addressing the critical issues in a systematic manner, it should be possible to provide the information needed to make policy decisions about the adoption of the best practices for all students with learning problems.

February 1989 • American Psychologist 397

The Turning Point Policy decis ions a b o u t the field o f learn ing disabi l i t ies should be m a d e after a careful pol icy analysis has been conduc ted on the var ious a l ternat ives ( M c K i n n e y & Ho- cuR, 1988). Pol icy decis ions should no t be the resul t o f publ ic pressure, the a rgumen t s o f a small g roup o f per- suasive professionals, da t a col lected on non- lea rn ing dis- ab led students, poli t ical expediency, or p rema tu re changes in service del ivery sys tems b y admin i s t r a to r s and school b o a r d m e m b e r s who j u m p on the latest bandwagon to be on the cu t t ing edge.

The Regu la r Educa t ion Ini t ia t ive holds p romise for the fu ture educa t ion o f m a n y s tudents wi th lea rn ing p rob lems , bu t special educa t ion and regular educa t ion are at a tu rn ing point . There is too m u c h at s take to make radical and revo lu t iona ry pol icy changes wi thout first cons ider ing the evidence suppor t ing each pol icy al ter- native. There are more op in ions than there are rel iable da t a and facts. In this ar t ic le I have ident if ied six m a j o r pol icy issues, d iscussed some o f the m o r e p romis ing al- ternat ive strategies, and emphas i zed the need to ob ta in valid and re l iable da t a on which long-s tanding pol icy de- cisions can be based. Only th rough careful pol icy analysis can we make those decis ions tha t will best serve all stu- dents with learning problems, including learning disabled students.

REFERENCES

Aigozzine, B., & Ysseldyke, J. (1983). Learning disabilities as a subset of school failure: The oversophistication of a concept. Exceptional Children, 50, 242-246.

Algozzine, B., & Ysseldyke, J. E. (1986). The future of the LD field: Screening and diagnosis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 19, 394- 398.

Biklen, D., & Zoilers, N. (1986). The focus of advocacy in the LD field. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 19, 579-586.

Bryan, T., Bay, M., & Donahue, M. (1988). Implications of the learning disabilities definition for the Regular Education Initiative. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21(I ), 23-28.

Carlherg, C., & Kavale, K. (1980). The efficacy of special versus regular class placement for exceptional children: A metaanalysis. The Journal of Special Education, 14, 295-309.

Chalfant, J. C. (1984). Identifying learning disabled students: Guidelines for decision making (sponsored by Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC). Burlington, VT: North- east Regional Resource Center, Trinity College.

Chalfant, J. C. (1987). Providing services to all students with learning problems: Implications for policy and programs. In S. Vanghn & C. Bos (Eds.), Research in learning disabilities (pp. 239-251). Boston, MA: Little, Brown.

Chalfant, J. C., & Scheffelin, M. A. (1969). Centralprocessing dysfunc-

tions in children: A review of research (NINDS Monograph No. 9). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, Pub. L. No. 94- 142.

The Federal Register. (1977, December 29). Gallagher, J. J. (1966). Children with developmental imbalances: A psy-

cho-educational definition. In W. M. Cruickshank (Ed.), The teacher of brain-injured children. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.

Gallagher, J. J. (1981). Models for policy analysis: Child and family policy. In R. Haskins & J. Gallagher (Eds.), Models for analysis of social policy: An introduction (pp. 37-77). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Gallagher, J. J. (1986). Learning disabilities and special education: A critique. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 10, 595-601.

Gallagher, J. J. (1987). Public policy and the malleability of children. In J. Gallagher & C. Ramey (Eds.), The malleability of children (pp. 199-208). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Hallahan, D. E, Keller, C. E., McKinney, J. D., Lloyd, J. W., & Bryan, T. (1988). Examining the research base of the Regular Education Initiative: Effieacy studies and the adaptive learning environments model. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21(1), 29-35.

Kauffman, J. M., Gerber, M. M., & Semmel, M. I. (1988). Arguable assumptions underlying the Regular Education Initiative. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21(1), 6-11.

Keogh, B. K. (1986). A shared attribute model of learning disabilities. In S. Vaughn & C. Bos (Eds.), Research in learning disabilities (pp. 3-12). Boston, MA: Little, Brown.

Kengh, B. K. (1988). Improving services for problem learners: Rethinking and restructuring. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21(I), 19-22.

Kirk, S. A., & Chalfant, J. C. (1984). Academic and developmental learning disabilities. Denver, CO: Love.

Lloyd, J. W., Crowley, E. P., Kohler, E W., & Strain, P. S. (1988). Re- defining the applied research agenda: Cooperative learning, prereferral, teacher consultation, and peer-mediated interventions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21(I), 43-52.

Madden, N. A,, & Slavin, R. E. (1983). Mainstreaming students with mild handicaps: Academic and social outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 53, 519-569.

McKinney, J. D., & Hocutt, A. M. (1988). The need for policy analysis in evaluating the Regular Education Initiative. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21(1), 12-18.

Reynolds, M., Wang, M. C., & Walherg, H. J. (1987). The necessary restructuring of special and regular education. Exceptional Children, 53, 391-398.

Schumaker, J. B., & Deshler, D. D. (1988). Implementing the Regular Education Initiative in secondary schools: A different ball game. Jour- nal of Learning Disabilities, 21(1), 36--42.

Sixth annual report to Congress on the implementation of Public Law 94-142: The Education of All Handicapped Children Act. (1984). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education.

Stainback, W., & Stainback, S. (1984). A rationale for the merger of special and regular education. Exceptional Children, 51, 102-111.

Torgesen, J. K. (1982). The use of rationally defined subgroups in research on learning disabilities. In J. P. Das, R. E Mulcahy, & A. E. Wall (Eds.), Theory and research in learning disabilities. New York: Plenum Press.

Torgesen, J. K. (1986). Learning disabilities theory: Its current state and future prospects. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 19, 399--407.

Will, M. (1986, November). Educating students with learning problems: A shared responsibility. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Edu- cation, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.

398 F e b r u a r y 1989 • A m e r i c a n Psychologist