Dogmatic Insularity in Learning Disabilities Classification and the Critical Need for a Philosophical Analysis

The recent revision of the Individuals with Disabilities Act (Individual with Disabilities Education Improvement Act; IDEIA) in the United States (U.S.) has created the opportunity for an unprecedented change in the way in which learning disabilities (LD) are identified. As a result of this revision, intense and often polarizing debate has surfaced regarding models and methods relevant to classifying learning disabilities in children. This paper presents a philosophical/worldview framework developed to facilitate discussion among and limit dogmatic insularity within the field of LD diagnosis as it attempts to further delineate LD identification procedures. Identification of LD is discussed in relation to four root-metaphorical world views: mechanism, organicism, contextualism, and formism. Application of world view principles to discussion and debate regarding proposed LD classification models might help the field avoid entrapment within dogmatic, insulated, and limited perceptual frameworks that tend to marginalize competing models while magnifying strengths and minimizing (or inadvertently ignoring) weaknesses of a favored LD diagnostic model. This discussion is critical because learning disabilities comprises 51% of all special education diagnoses in the U.S.; yet, consensus has not been attained regarding the most appropriate LD diagnostic parameters.