Fsychofogv
in
the
Schools
Volume
23,
Ocrober
1986
REFERRAL REASONS FOR LEARNING DISABLED STUDENTS
PEGGY
L.
ANDERSON, MARY
E.
CRONIN, AND JAMES
H.
MILLER
University
of
New
Orleans
Referral information for
269
LD students in grades one through five was examined.
Referral reasons were classified according to three major types: (a) academic, (b)
behavior, and (c) academic and behavior. These major referral types
also
were analyzed
according to particular concern (e.g., reading deficits, attentional problems, etc.).
The results indicated that the majority of students were referred for either academic
(42%) or
both
academic and behavioral
(41
Vo)
reasons; referrals initiated solely for
behavior problems accounted for only 17% of the total. The grade level analysis re-
vealed that academic concerns were less likely
to
be noted in the first and fifth grades,
and that the number
of
referrals diminished as grade level advanced (51
Vo
of
the sample
was diagnosed by second grade). Referral statements within each major referral type
tended to be general, as opposed to specifying particular concerns
to
be explored in
the evaluation. Preservice and in-service training recommendations are given.
During recent years, it has become increasingly evident that procedures commonly
used to identify LD students have been less than satisfactory in achieving their objec-
tive. Researchers who have examined the referral to placement process for the LD have
uncovered a virtual plethora of problematic issues that have cast suspicion on identifica-
tion practices and have raised questions concerning the credibility of the special educa-
tion profession. One of the paramount issues involves the contention that all too often
the assessment data used to place students in LD programs are not consistent with federal
and/or state definitional criteria of the handicap (Mann, Davis, Boyer, Metz,
&
Wolford,
1983;
Shepard
&
Smith,
1983;
Ysseldyke, Algozzine, Richey,
&
Graden,
1982).
This
research has suggested that state-of-the-art placement practices do not discriminate be-
tween “true” LDs and those students who are experiencing difficulty due to various other
reasons. Concomitant issues concern the use of inadequate psychoeducational measures
(Harber,
1980;
Shepard
&
Smith,
1983;
Thurlow
&
Ysseldyke,
1979),
professionals’ lack
of expertise in interpreting test data (Davis
&
Shepard,
1983),
and the apparent
capriciousness that characterizes the decision-making process at the staffing level (Thurlow
&
Ysseldyke,
1979;
Ysseldyke
&
Algozzine,
1979, 1981;
Ysseldyke, Algozzine, Richey,
&
Graden,
1982).
In sum, research in LD identification practices has left the impression that the field
is riddled with ineptness. However, this gloomy picture imputing widespread in-
competence and confusion has perhaps been unfairly ascribed to a profession that is
grappling with predictable problems associated with understanding the ambiguous con-
cept of a learning disability. The content of PL
94-142
did little to elucidate the nature
of this handicapping condition. And although the guidelines for identification that fol-
lowed under the guise of an “operational definition” (U.S.O.E.,
1977)
were a welcome
addition, they fell far short of providing impetus for stringency in diagnosis that would
promote consistency in classification. The nebulous “severe discrepancy” criterion in itself
was enough to virtually ensure that interpretation of the law would vary widely. This
expectation has been borne out, but it is the aggregation of reports of serious flaws in
the system that presents an embarrassing situation that hopefully will encourage con-
structive modifications in practice.
Reprint requests should be sent to Peggy L. Anderson, Dept. of Special Education, University
of
New
Orleans, Lakefront, New Orleans, LA 70148.
388