This paper addresses how the federal government defines a learning disability, and why this definition is important for extra services and support in the educational and social system. This five page paper has eight sources listed in the bibliography.
Name of Research Paper File: D0_TJlearn1.rtf
Unformatted Sample Text from the Research Paper:
definition also allows for the exclusion of some children who need services and who many believe are learning disabled because of their disorders. Several characteristics of the definition rely on
performance discrepancies based on aptitude-achievement testing which vary from state to state. In addition, several disorders such as attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and several emotional and behavioral disorders are excluded but
educators and researchers believe impair academic performance. In other instances, many children who would be state labeled as mentally retarded are often labeled by the school boards as learning disabled
because of reluctance to label children as mentally retarded based on controversial definitions. In 1997, President Clinton introduced as an extension of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Individuals with
Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA). This Act was written with the intent to provide children with learning and other disabilities a "free and appropriate public education" (Riley, 1995, p.1). The
label "disability" covers a broad range of defined impairments but the definition of "learning disabled students" was fairly distinct in its terminology. Learning disability students are considered those with mental
retardation, hearing impairments which include deafness, speech or language impairments, visual impairment which includes blindness, serious emotional disturbance, orthopedic impairments, autism, traumatic brain injury, other health impairments, or specific learning
disabilities and those who need special education or related services (U.S. Department of Education, 1997, p. 1; 2002). The definition of learning disabilities on a federal level began many
discussions in regards to the appropriateness and inclusiveness of the definition. The definition was considered good in many ways in that it provided a starting point to label students so
that supplementary support could be implemented in the education system (Titsworth, 1998). However, many critics believed that once children were labeled, they would have difficulty overcoming those labels and would