As indicated by Dr. Melvin Levine M.D. from University of North Carolina, noted for his research brain functions:
The field of learning disorders is in need of a conceptual model that will accommodate and respond to the extreme heterogeneity of the students classroom teachers educate each day. We propose that the use of labels, such as learning disabilities, or attempts to fit children with learning disorders into a few syndromes represents an oversimplification of poor performance in the classroom. The following outcomes may result from such limited orientations to learning disorders . . . . The results are unlikely to capture the essence of the wide range of learning disorders, strengths, and affinities. [And], the results may not contribute to defining the true needs of all individuals who need classroom accommodations or direct interventions. Far too many students will fall between the crack between recognition, assessment, and/or proper management. Instead of labels or a set of syndromes, we propose students will benefit from the use of well-informed description, or profiles, of a student's areas of weakness, strength, affinity, and preferred styles of learning and working as being far more likely to be authentic, redemptive, and helpful. (italics added) (Levine and Swartz)
Often these test results are misleading because they are too narrow in their diagnostic scope. Therefore, if the student does not fit the limited range of the test, he or she is ineligible for legally required accommodations. The anecdotal evidence of this problem is vast. For example, in second grade, a male student was tested by a district psychologist and diagnosed as learning disabled. He was put in a Special Education class for a school year. The next year, he was retested. Because his performance scores were higher now, he was taken out of Special Education. Legally, his teachers were no longer obligated to accommodate this student. However, despite his identified potential, he still had organizational difficulties, a common SLD.
To fulfill his potential, accommodations
were still necessary, but no longer available. For example, in 8th
grade, he scored 99% on the Iowa Test of Basic Skills, but got a D in science
because he kept turning in homework that didn’t follow the teacher’s format
requirements. Moderate accommodations - a hard copy of the teacher's assignment
requirements and due dates, as well as peer support after school - would have
dramatically increased his academic success. In 10th grade,
he earned a 99% on the Test of Academic Performance, but got C's and D's in
several English classes because he consistently lost his homework in his locker.
Although, as the test indicated, language related skills were his forte, organizational
skills were his specific learning disorder. In both grades, because he
did not have documentation of his disability, counselors would not accommodate
him with teacher syllabi and peer support.
In order for a student’s SLD to be recognized by a school, he or she must be tested by an accredited psychologist or Special Education specialist. However, many insurance policies, particularly the university-sponsored policies that most college student have, will not cover this type of testing. For many students, the cost of testing is prohibitive.
Because of these and many other reasons for not being formally tested for SLD’s, students in postsecondary institutions do not have the appropriate documentation to require accommodations. However, faculty should be willing to accommodate these "self-diagnosed" students when they exhibit significant signs of SLD’s.
Return to "Accommodating SLD's" main
page
________________________________
Levine, Melvin D. and Carl W. Swartz. "The Disabling of Labeling: A Phenomenological
Approach to Understanding and Helping Children Who Have Learning Disorders." LDOnline
14 Feb. 2002 <http:
www.ldonline.org/mminds/levine_paper.html>.