Search

Despite decades of research efforts, data-based instruction (DBI) for students with intensive intervention needs are not being widely used in practice as anticipated, and many educators have difficulties in implementing it. This systematic review aimed to examine what kinds of implementation drivers and strategies have been used to support educators implementing DBI and what kinds of implementation outcomes researchers have measured. Eighteen studies were synthesized using the Implementation Drivers framework and Implementation Outcomes taxonomy and were quality appraised. We found that the majority of studies primarily used competency drivers to increase teachers' DBI expertise, while a limited number of studies focused on organizational and leadership drivers. Acceptability and fidelity were frequently assessed as implementation outcomes. We discussed the implications of the findings, including the need for researchers to incorporate implementation drivers and outcomes at diverse levels to best support educators' implementation of DBI, as well as the limitations of this review, such as the limited generalizability of the findings., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Response to intervention (RTI) has been promoted for nearly 20 years as a valid supplement to or alternative method of learning disability (LD) identification. Nevertheless, important unresolved questions remain about its role in disability identification. We had two purposes when conducting this study of 229 economically and racially diverse poor readers in Grades 4 and 5 in 28 public elementary and middle schools in Nashville. First, we examined predictors of the children's response to a reading comprehension tutoring program. Second, we explored the utility of different methods (growth vs final status) and measures (near- and mid-transfer vs far-transfer) in operationalizing "response," and whether these contrasting methods and measures identified similar children. Findings indicated students with higher pretreatment scores on expressive vocabulary, nonverbal IQ, teacher ratings of attention, and reading comprehension measures were more likely classified as responsive with final status methods. Students with lower pretreatment comprehension scores were more likely identified as responsive with growth methods. These and other findings suggest "response" is strongly context dependent, raising questions about the validity of RTI as a means of disability identification.

Response to intervention (RTI) has evolved from its first decade of implementation. Because states guide and regulate policy and practice at the state and local education agency levels, it is important to understand their critical role in RTI implementation. A systematic review of all 50 state education agency websites was conducted to provide an updated "snapshot" of states' interpretation of RTI a decade after IDEA regulations were finalized. Findings revealed substantive progress towards developing approaches to systematic supports to students, with a major trend in adoption of multi-tiered system of support (MTSS) models. Findings also documented continued variation in how states are communicating about tiered systems on such matters as the roles of tiered systems in schoolwide prevention frameworks, meeting special education requirements, and aligning multiple systems within schools. Implications for special education services for students with learning disabilities are discussed.

Data from a small randomized control trial of teachers' use of Data-Based Instruction (DBI) for early writing were analyzed to determine the influence of teacher knowledge, skills, and treatment fidelity on student Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM) slope. Participants included 11 elementary grade teachers who delivered intensive intervention in early writing and their students ( n = 31), all identified as either at risk for or with disabilities that affect their writing. Teachers received professional development and ongoing coaching to support the implementation of DBI for improving their students' early writing skills. Results from a multiple regression analysis suggest that teacher knowledge and skills in DBI was strongly related to student CBM slope in early writing ( p < .01) and a small but significant relation between fidelity of writing instruction and student CBM slope ( p < .01). Implications for instructional coaching and improving student writing progress are discussed.

The purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness of video-based mathematics instruction for seven middle school students with specific learning disability (SLD), using an augmented reality-based training package. The dependent variable was the percentage of steps students performed correctly to solve each type of mathematics problem. The independent variable was the augmented reality video-based intervention, which used video to model the individual steps for solving four types of multistep mathematics problems: (a) addition and subtraction of integers, (b) multiplication and division of integers, (c) using ratio reasoning to convert measurement units, and (d) using multiplication and division to calculate rate of change. Results indicated a functional relation between the video-based mathematics intervention and the percentage of steps completed correctly for each type of problem. All seven participants showed significant gains immediately after receiving the intervention and maintained improved problem-solving skills in at least three out of the four problem categories.

Assistive technology (AT) was recognized by Congress as a viable need for people with disabilities when it passed the Tech Act in 1988. The legislation, which was reauthorized in 1994, has resulted in numerous programs and services that have helped people with disabilities access and use AT devices. The Tech Act's implications for people with learning disabilities is discussed in this article.

Including students with learning disabilities (SWLDs) in general education classrooms is a priority nationwide. Consequently, now more than ever before in our nation's history, university teacher education programs face increased responsibility to ensure general education teaching candidates receive adequate preparation to educate SWLDs. Many stakeholders believe that edTPA-a performance assessment used as a credential requirement-can be an important tool in helping to fulfill this goal. Utilizing survey data from a large, research university, the authors investigated how perceptions of preparation programs, including edTPA, related to general education teacher candidates' perceptions of their preparation for educating SWLDs. Candidates reported feeling more prepared for disability policies if they believed their program was cohesive in its goals and expectations. Candidates who rated edTPA as beneficial for entering the teaching profession also believed that edTPA improved their abilities to educate SWLDs.

We used longitudinal data from Washington State to investigate the relationships among career and technical education (CTE) enrollment, inclusion in general education, and high school and postsecondary outcomes for students with learning disabilities. We replicated earlier findings that students with learning disabilities who were enrolled in a "concentration" of CTE courses had higher rates of employment after graduation than observably similar students with learning disabilities who were enrolled in fewer CTE courses. We also found that students with learning disabilities who spent more time in general education classrooms in high school had higher rates of on-time graduation, college attendance, and employment than observably similar students with learning disabilities who spent less time in general education classrooms in these grades.

Working memory (WM) deficiency is a primary reason for the poor academic performance of children with learning disabilities (LDs). Studies have shown that the WM of typical children could be improved through training, and WM training contributes to improving their fluid intelligence and academic achievement. However, few studies have investigated WM training for children with LDs, and results have been inconsistent. The present study examined the long-term effects of WM updating training and whether it can mitigate LD symptoms. Fifty-four children with LDs were recruited and divided randomly into a training or control group. The training group underwent adaptive running WM training for 20 days. Before and after training, the 2 groups completed a 2-back task, a digit span task (forward and backward), Raven's Standard Progressive Matrices test, and a scholastic attainment test (Chinese and math). The tests were repeated 6 months later. The results showed that, as compared with the controls, the training group exhibited significant improvements in the digit backward span task, 2-back task, and Raven's Standard Progressive Matrices. The math scores of the training group improved significantly by 6 months after the training. The results of this study suggest that WM updating training could mitigate the cognitive deficits of LDs and improve the WM capacity, fluid intelligence, and math scores of children with LDs. Moreover, the training effects could be maintained for at least 6 months.

The purpose of this best evidence synthesis was to identify promising interventions that align with a theoretical model of early writing development, targeting three components of early writing: transcription, text generation, and self-regulation. We determined the extent to which these interventions are effective for children who struggle with early writing skills, by calculating effect sizes for group and single-subject designs, and we examined the overall quality of the research. Twenty-five studies met inclusion criteria. Among group design studies, mean effects (Hedge's g) ranged from 0.19 to 1.17 for measures of writing quantity and from 0.17 to 0.85 for measures of writing quality. Percentage of all nonoverlapping data for single-subject designs ranged from 83% to 100% for measures of writing quantity. Interventions with the strongest evidence of effects and highest methodological quality are described in detail. Recommendations for research and practice are provided.

In this study, we explored the potential of two forms of discussion (disciplinary vs. traditional) for 39 sixth- and seventh-grade students with or at risk for learning disabilities (LD), before writing historical arguments. Nine teachers who led small group discussions in six heterogeneous social studies classrooms implemented the intervention. Students who were involved in disciplinary discussions ( n = 19) scored statistically higher than their peers who engaged in traditional discussions ( n = 20) on a measure of historical knowledge (partial η 2 = .23); they also wrote essays with better persuasive quality (partial η 2 = .43) and greater evidence of historical thinking (partial η 2 = .40). A delayed posttest delivered 8 weeks after instruction ended revealed that students in the experimental condition continued to write in more historically sophisticated ways than did students in the comparison condition (partial η 2 = .19). Challenges, however, remain for struggling learners who must now meet basic and advanced disciplinary literacy goals.

Spelling is one of the most challenging areas for students with learning disabilities (LD), and improving spelling outcomes for these students is of high importance. In this synthesis, we examined the effects of spelling and reading interventions on spelling outcomes for students with LD in Grades K through 12. A systematic search of peer-reviewed literature published between 2004 and 2014 was conducted using electronic databases and hand searches of relevant journals. To be eligible for inclusion, studies had to meet the following criteria: (a) Participants were identified with LD and were in Grades K through 12, (b) designs were either treatment/comparison or single case, (c) a reading or spelling intervention was implemented, (d) at least one spelling outcome was measured, and (e) instruction was in English. Ten studies met criteria for inclusion in the synthesis, and effectiveness ranged from ineffective to highly effective. Findings demonstrated that spelling outcomes for taught words were improved for students with LD with the use of explicit instruction or self-correction strategies.

Researchers are increasingly interested in working memory (WM) training. However, it is unclear whether it strengthens comprehension in young children who are at risk for learning difficulties. We conducted a modest study of whether the training of verbal WM would improve verbal WM and passage listening comprehension and whether training effects differed between two approaches: training with and without strategy instruction. A total of 58 first-grade children were randomly assigned to three groups: WM training with a rehearsal strategy, WM training without strategy instruction, and controls. Each member of the two training groups received a one-to-one, 35-min session of verbal WM training on each of 10 consecutive school days, totaling 5.8 hr. Both training groups improved on trained verbal WM tasks, with the rehearsal group making greater gains. Without correction for multiple group comparisons, the rehearsal group made reliable improvements over controls on an untrained verbal WM task and on passage listening comprehension and listening retell measures. The no-strategy-instruction group outperformed controls on passage listening comprehension. When corrected for multiple contrasts, these group differences disappeared but were associated with moderate to large effect sizes. Findings suggest-however tentatively-that brief but intensive verbal WM training may strengthen the verbal WM and comprehension performance of young children at risk. Necessary caveats and possible implications for theory and future research are discussed., (© Hammill Institute on Disabilities 2015.)

Using data from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2), this study examines the career and technical education (CTE) course taking of high school students with learning disabilities (LD) in the context of the national movement toward higher standards for determining whether students leave high school "college and career ready." Descriptive analyses document the extent of general education CTE course taking overall by students with LD and their engagement in a concentrated program of occupationally specific general education CTE, a level of course taking early research has linked to improved post-high school employment outcomes. Propensity score modeling was used to determine whether either type of CTE course taking is related to higher odds of full-time employment after high school and whether results differ with the length of time youth were out of high school. Results show no benefits of CTE course taking overall, but demonstrate a significant positive effect for participating in a concentration of occupationally specific CTE in the first 2 post-high school years; effects are nonsignificant for later years. The implications for high school programming and transition planning for students with LD are discussed., (© Hammill Institute on Disabilities 2015.)

This study examines the interaction between the fidelity of implementation of a set of research-based strategies-Collaborative Strategic Reading (CSR)-and outcomes for students with mild to moderate disabilities using data from two nonoverlapping studies in middle school language arts and reading classrooms (Study 1) and middle school social studies and science classrooms (Study 2). The authors use a definition of fidelity that includes both the amount of CSR instruction delivered by teachers and the quality of implementation. Although there were no main effects for quality or amount of CSR instruction, in both studies there was an interaction effect between quality of implementation and special education status. The study used a within-groups design and multilevel analyses, and the results demonstrate that higher quality CSR instruction was associated with higher reading outcomes for students with disabilities. This finding was consistent across Study 1 and Study 2. Implications for practice and future research are discussed., (© Hammill Institute on Disabilities 2016.)

Clinicians uniformly recommend accommodations for college students with learning disabilities; however, we know very little about which accommodations they select and the validity of their recommendations. We examined the assessment documentation of a large sample of community college students receiving academic accommodations for learning disabilities to determine (a) which accommodations their clinicians recommended and (b) whether clinicians' recommendations were supported by objective data gathered during the assessment process. In addition to test and instructional accommodations, many clinicians recommended that students with learning disabilities should have different educational expectations, standards, and methods of evaluation (i.e., grading) than their nondisabled classmates. Many of their recommendations for accommodations were not supported by objective evidence from students' history, diagnosis, test data, and current functioning. Furthermore, clinicians often recommended accommodations that were not specific to the student's diagnosis or area of disability. Our findings highlight the need for individually selected accommodations matched to students' needs and academic contexts., (© Hammill Institute on Disabilities 2014.)

This review investigates effective interventions for teaching algebra to students with learning disabilities and evaluates the complexity and alignment of skills with the Common Core State Standards in math. The review includes the results of 10 experimental and 5 single-subject designs (N = 15) producing a moderate overall effect size (g = 0.48). A total of five interventions were identified and analyzed across the studies using effect size data., (© Hammill Institute on Disabilities 2014.)

The purpose of this experimental study is to investigate the effects of using content acquisition podcasts (CAPs), an example of instructional technology, to provide vocabulary instruction to adolescents with and without learning disabilities (LD). A total of 279 urban high school students, including 30 with LD in an area related to reading, were randomly assigned to one of four experimental conditions with instruction occurring at individual computer terminals over a 3-week period. Each of the four conditions contained different configurations of multimedia-based instruction and evidence-based vocabulary instruction. Dependent measures of vocabulary knowledge indicated that students with LD who received vocabulary instruction using CAPs through an explicit instructional methodology and the keyword mnemonic strategy significantly outperformed other students with LD who were taught using the same content, but with multimedia instruction that did not adhere to a specific theoretical design framework. Results for general education students mirrored those for students with LD. Students also completed a satisfaction measure following instruction with multimedia and expressed overall agreement that CAPs are useful for learning vocabulary terms., (© Hammill Institute on Disabilities 2013.)

This study examined the quality of the research base related to strategy instruction priming the underlying mathematical problem structure for students with learning disabilities and those at risk for mathematics difficulties. We evaluated the quality of methodological rigor of 18 group research studies using the criteria proposed by Gersten et al. and 10 single case design (SCD) research studies using criteria suggested by Horner et al. and the What Works Clearinghouse. Results indicated that 14 group design studies met the criteria for high-quality or acceptable research, whereas SCD studies did not meet the standards for an evidence-based practice. Based on these findings, strategy instruction priming the mathematics problem structure is considered an evidence-based practice using only group design methodological criteria. Implications for future research and for practice are discussed., (© Hammill Institute on Disabilities 2013.)

A synthesis and meta-analysis of the extant research on the effects of reading interventions delivered using social studies content for students with learning disabilities in kindergarten through Grade 12 is provided. A total of 27 studies met criteria for the synthesis, with 16 studies providing sufficient data for inclusion in the meta-analysis. Reading interventions implemented within the context of social studies have employed the use of graphic organizers, mnemonics, reading and answering questions, guided notes, and multicomponent comprehension instruction. The overall mean effect size for interventions included in the meta-analysis was 1.02, indicating that reading interventions delivered using social studies content have a substantial positive effect on outcomes among students with learning disabilities.

This study examined the extent and patterns of usage of web courses, and their contribution to the academic and social perceptions of 964 undergraduate students with and without learning disabilities studying in higher education. Students were asked to complete four questionnaires examining the usage patterns of various adaptive technologies and their contribution to the student. The questionnaires assessed Perceptions of Learning through Online Usage; Accessibility of Campus Computing; Hope Scale and Subjective Well-being Scale. A detailed examination of the usage patterns of online courses revealed that, compared to the comparison group, students with LD log more often into the course sites, going into the forum more frequently and leaving significantly more messages on the forum than students in the comparison group. Findings indicated that students with LD are more familiar with assistive technology and use it more than the comparison group. Students with LD reported higher scores on the Hope scale, they felt an increased drive to find different pathways to attain their goals, as well as being motivated to pursue those goals, and their subjective well-being was higher that of the students in the comparison group.

The accommodation of students with learning disabilities (LD) on mandatory high stakes tests continues to heighten concern over the equity and effectiveness of current practices. As students transition from high school, they are required to complete timed graduation tests and postsecondary entrance examinations. The most common accommodation accessed by transitioning adolescents with LD is extended time. In order to inform test accommodation practices, a meta-analysis was conducted to address whether test scores from accommodated (i.e., extended time only) and standard test administrations are comparable for transitioning adolescents with LD as compared to their normally achieving peers. The results of the meta-analyses raised more questions than answers and highlighted the need for future research in this area., (© Hammill Institute on Disabilities 2012.)

Accommodating adult basic education (ABE) learners with learning disabilities (LD) is common practice across many instructional, testing, and work settings. However, the results from this literature search indicate that very few empirically based studies are available to support or reject the effectiveness of a great deal of accommodation implementation. In addition, in light of the profound changes to literacy taking place in today's digital, networked, and multimodal world, technology is redefining traditional concepts of accessibility and accommodation.

The purpose of this study is to provide an up-to-date review of the literature on postsecondary students classified as having learning disabilities (LD). The review focused on the criteria by which students were classified as LD and the cognitive and achievement characteristics of the participants. From almost 400 studies, only 30% were empirical (data-based) investigations reporting original data. Findings showed that a wide range of criteria was used to classify students as LD, although various discrepancy criteria and registration with university offices of disability services were most often cited. Participants' mean scores on standardized intelligence and achievement tests were in the average range but somewhat lower than those of other college students. Generally, the findings show a lack of consensus among diagnosticians and researchers about how LD should be diagnosed and also show that college students classified as LD tend to have average achievement, despite scoring below their classmates.

Gersten, Jordan, and Flojo (in this series) review their research on math difficulties, with an emphasis on applying current knowledge to inform practices of early identification and intervention. On a practical level, educators are in dire need of empirically based screening and intervention tools. From a scientific perspective, it is important to recognize the need to clearly define what we seek to identify and remediate, and to acknowledge that we are currently far from achieving this goal despite recent advances in the field. Among the studies reviewed by Gersten et al., as well as other studies by several other researchers, there is much variability in how mathematics difficulties are defined and measured, and even in the terms used to refer to them. I address the degree of consensus and controversy currently characterizing the state of math learning disabilities research, with an emphasis on the usefulness of a developmental perspective in appraising this young field.

This commentary addresses issues concerning (a) the measurement of numbers, letters, and words versus cognitive processes in early screening batteries, and (b) comorbid associations of reading, math, and attention disorders. Based on reading prediction studies, assessments that include numbers should be most predictive of math outcomes. However, given the comorbid association of reading, math, and attention disorders, measures sensitive to reading and attention difficulties may be necessary in early screening batteries for math disabilities.

Gersten, Jordan, and Flojo (in this issue) provide the beginnings of an essential bridge between basic research on mathematical disabilities (MD) in young children and the application of this research for the early identification and remediation of these forms of learning disability. As they acknowledge, the field of MD is in the early stages of development, and thus recommendations regarding identification measures and remedial techniques must be considered preliminary. I discuss the importance of maintaining a tight link between theoretical and empirical research on children's developing numerical, arithmetical, and mathematical competencies and future research on learning disabilities in mathematics. This link will provide the foundation for transforming experimental procedures into assessment measures, understanding the cognitive strengths and weaknesses of children with these forms of learning disability, and developing remedial approaches based on the pattern of cognitive strengths and weaknesses for individual children.

Gersten, Jordan, and Flojo (in this issue) have written an elegant summary of the research on early identification and interventions for students with mathematical difficulties. The general constructs of arithmetic combinations, counting strategies, and number sense encapsulate elemental components of early math learning and suggest approaches to remediation. Recent changes in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act may enhance opportunities for researchers, practitioners, and young learners to benefit from this knowledge.

This study examined achievement, neuropsychological, and intervention outcomes at a mean age of 11 years in children with very low birthweight (VLBW, <1500 g) compared with a term-born control group. To assess the prevalence and correlates of specific learning disabilities (LD), the sample was limited to children without neurosensory disorders who had at least low average IQ. Participants included 31 children with <750 g birthweight, 41 with 750-1499 g birthweight, and 52 controls. The <750 g group obtained lower scores in math, IQ, and perceptual-organizational skills than the term-born group. The < 750 g group also had higher rates of past and present LD than the controls. Despite these differences, the groups did not differ significantly in rates of special education or tutorial/remedial assistance. These findings suggest that children with extremely low birthweight without gross physical or intellectual impairments are at higher risk for LD and cognitive deficiencies than their term-born peers and that further efforts are needed to improve identification and treatment of these learning problems.

First, discourse is discussed as concerning the subtler lineaments of knowledge production in notions about difference and difficulty. The unhelpful influences that these notions have had on the development of special education research and practice are discussed. The importance of the scholar-practitioner in undoing some of these understandings is further developed. Second, the point is stressed that politics and political questions are intertwined with empirical questions and that a discourse of objectivity propagates and fosters a belief that the supposed paraphernalia of science (measurement, experiment, prediction) can be employed without cost. Third, the point is made that the individual discourse is rooted in the theoretical context of special education--with unhelpful consequences for the way that difficulty continues to be construed as rooted in individuals, whether those individuals be children or schools.

The purpose of this article is to respond to Reid and Valle's article "The Discursive Practice of LD: Implications for Instruction and Parent-School Relations" in this issue. Our response to the discursive analysis is organized around two major themes: (a) the issue of balance in the scholarship on learning disabilities (LD) and (b) the centrality of the discourse of general education to the discourse of LD. Following our response to the discursive analysis, we comment on the implications for instruction and parent-school relations drawn by Reid and Valle. Highlighted in this section is the disconnect between the macro-level findings from the discursive analysis and the micro-level orientation of their "sociopolitical vision" for instruction and parent-school relations.

In this article, I discuss the 11 diverse responses to Reid and Valle's work on the discursive practice of learning disabilities (LD), implications for instruction, and parent-school relations. I highlight key ideas from each article and then focus on three common areas of interest shared by most respondents: the unacceptable status quo of schooling practices; desired changes in schooling practices; and knowledge production in the field of special education and its relation to schooling practices. In light of the many issues raised, I urge the need for a reflective turn in the field of LD and for openness toward diversification of thought.

The purpose of this study is to examine how 4 teachers with learning disabilities (LD) negotiate multiple, complex, and sometimes contradictory discourses of disabilities in constructing their own understandings of LD. We chose to study teachers with LD because of their unique access to at least 3 different sources of knowledge about LD: (a) professional discourses on disability, (b) mainstream cultural messages about LD, and (c) insights gained from their own life experience. We drew on aspects of critical discourse analysis and narrative inquiry for this investigation. Our findings indicate that participants draw on these discourses and on their teaching experience in various and complex ways to construct meaning about LD. In some instances, participants use the dominant discourses; at other times, they work to subvert these meanings. Yet, paradoxically, whether speaking with or against these meanings, their voices are inescapably engaging with authoritative discourses and cultural scripts surrounding disability.

Currently, educators separate out from typical students those whose learning needs vary from the norm. The norming and sorting process may earmark students as "different" without providing markedly unique instruction and without producing robust academic outcomes. An alternative to fragmentation for some students is the creation of classrooms in which human differences are valued and provided for, yet few teachers (including specialists) seem currently to have the skill or will to develop these sorts of settings. Educators need to examine the potential costs and benefits of alternative approaches to addressing the learning needs that exist among people.

Inclusion practices and special education can be transformed by using a disability studies perspective, which constructs differences as natural, acceptable, and ordinary. Although inclusion is a moral imperative in promoting social justice, some inclusive practices continue to marginalize students with disabilities. A truly inclusive school reflects a democratic philosophy whereby all students are valued, educators normalize difference through differentiated instruction, and the school culture reflects an ethic of caring and community.

Reid and Valle (in this issue) illustrate how discourse within the field of learning disabilities (LD) determines what can and cannot be said and shapes what counts as knowledge or truth. Because basic assumptions about disability often remain unquestioned, Reid and Valle ask us to focus on the epistemological foundations of the field of LD. They demonstrate how discourse, far from being simply an academic or abstract theoretical pursuit, has direct material consequences for people labeled as having LD. In this response, I highlight some of the ways that the discourse in the LD field is getting in the way of truly transforming education for all learners and impeding our ability to ask the hard questions about our own complicity in issues such as the overrepresentation of students of color and the inaccessibility of general education learning environments.

In this article, I discuss two interrelated sets of challenges that the discursive practice of learning disability (LD) will need to address, namely, issues associated with the development of a historiography of special education and a more complex understanding of representation issues. I use social theory to address these challenges and raise questions the LD field will need to grapple with as we move toward the consolidation of discursive practices.

Underpinning the technical gaze that dominates learning disabilities theory and practice is the assumption that learning disabilities are a pathology that resides in the heads of individual students, with the corollary that remedial efforts also focus on what goes on in the heads of students classified as learning disabled. This article begins with a critique of the ideology of individualism that situates individual success and failure in the heads of individuals as a means of introducing an alternative perspective--social constructivism--that locates learning and learning problems in the context of human relations and activity. Extended examples are used to illustrate how the performative aspects of learning disabilities emerge in the context of human relationships. The primary argument developed here is that one cannot be learning disabled on one's own. It takes a complex system of interactions performed in just the right way, at the right time, on the stage we call school to make a learning disability. The article concludes with a brief consideration of the instructional implications of a social constructivist stance.

This response focuses on the effects of the current construction of learning disabilities (LD) on families of children from devalued racial/ethnic groups. Agreeing with the arguments of Reid and Valle, we add that parents from such groups are further disenfranchised because they are not participants in the critical discourse surrounding LD and because of the persistent belief that their parenting skills are deficient. We also suggest that the expectation of parental advocacy may be alien to parents whose cultures do not embrace an individualist perspective. Professionals can improve their responses to such parents by an understanding of the principle of cultural reciprocity.

This article expands the ideas presented in Reid and Valle's essay by further exploring the construct of normality and its implications for children in schools. It examines the reasons for the nature of current school policy and practice by explicating who benefits and who loses from typical school structures and recent national legislation. Finally, it advocates for a transformation of thinking about the purpose of schools and suggests a radical restructuring that would support social reciprocity and community.

Similarities and differences between discursive practitioners and scientist-practitioners are discussed in reference to a variety of issues. The scientist-practitioner's approach to generating and evaluating new knowledge is illustrated with two partnerships: (a) between the University of Washington Multidisciplinary Learning Disability Center and a school district (at-risk first graders in the Los Angeles Unified School District) and (b) between the University of Washington Literacy Trek Project and a local school (at-risk second graders in Seattle public schools). Both partnerships involved mostly children who were English language learners. These partnerships also illustrated how Vygotsky's approach to fostering cognitive development through social interaction can be integrated with that of his pupil Luria, who assessed the neuropsychological processes of the individual mind/brain. The most effective instruction for school-age children, who exhibit biological and cultural diversity, takes into account individual and social-cultural variables.

Changing discursive practices is necessary for educational social justice and is made possible through the interanimation of diverse ways of knowing that create dynamic tensions and challenge reliance on narrow views of what counts as legitimate knowledge. In this article, we accept the challenge that Reid and Valle put forth in creating new discourses of possibility through the animation of sociocultural and critical theory as they might apply to the interrogation of two aspects of the meaning-making process: (a) the interanimation of voices across systems as a condition of reculturing institutions and communities of practice, and (b) instructional activity settings in educational contexts (e.g., disciplinary apprenticeships). We conclude this article by examining possibilities for collaborative research activity.

This article serves as an invitation to rethink and to broaden the scope of learning disabilities (LD) research and practice. We begin with 3 assumptions: Education in a representative democracy is inevitably a political enterprise; social justice is everyone's responsibility, but educators have a special role to play; and segregated schooling is neither equal nor equitable. After an analysis of the primary extant discourses, we argue for a more comprehensive and more openly political vision of the LD field, which we think is supported by Disability Studies in Education. Finally, we draw 3 conclusions relevant to our collective work as researchers and educators. First, learning disabilities are not objective fact; they are historically and culturally determined. Second, disability is both a personal and a societal attribute. Finally, learning disabilities are not and have never been immutable. We contend that we are ethically bound to transform educational practices to both welcome and accommodate everybody's children.

This study assessed responsiveness to a 16-week mathematical problem-solving treatment as a function of students' risk for disability. Among 301 third graders, TerraNova scores were used to categorize students as at risk for both reading and mathematics disability (MDR/RDR; 20 control and 12 experimental), at risk for mathematics disability only (MDR-only; 5 and 8), at risk for reading disability only (RDR-only; 12 and 15), or not at risk (NDR; 60 and 69). Interactions among at-risk status, treatment, and time showed that as a function of treatment, MDR/RDR, MDR-only, and RDR-only students improved less than NDR students on computation and labeling, and MDR/RDR students improved less than all other groups on conceptual underpinnings. Exploratory regressions suggested that MDR/RDR students' math deficits or their underlying mechanisms explained a greater proportion of variance in responsiveness to problem-solving treatment than reading deficits or their underlying mechanisms.