Content area
Full Text
Abstract
This article reviews issues related to the definition of learning disabilities in the context of the Guckenberger v. Boston University case. Four major questions are addressed: (a) Who is learning disabled? (b) How should learning disabilities be assessed? (c) Who is qualified to make a decision about whether or not an individual has a learning disability? and (d) What accommodations should be provided by a postsecondary institution and how should they be selected? Although these are complicated and difficult questions, it is. possible to develop a simple, reasonable classification system for learning disabilities, and to conduct assessments based on a coherent and relevant set of achievement tests in which individuals who score below a cutoff are considered learning disabled. Scores on IQ tests are irrelevant and not useful and may even be discriminatory. The issues of decision making regarding learning disabilities and appropriate accommodations remain significant dilemmas for the field; resolution of these issues seems virtually impossible without agreement on appropriate procedures for the definition, identification, and assessment of learning disabilities.
A number of fundamental issues that are relevant to the definition and assessment of learning disabilities (LD) emerged in the Guckenberger v. Boston University case. In this article, four issues will be addressed: (a) the determination of who is actually learning disabled; (b) the problem of what constitutes appropriate assessment for learning disabilities; (c) the question of who is qualified to make the determination that an individual does (or does not) have a learning disability; and (d) if a learning disability exists, the decisions regarding which accommodations should be provided by a postsecondary institution and who should decide whether or not those accommodations will be provided.
In Guckenberger, the defendant, Boston University, and the plaintiffs, Guckenberger et al., disagreed about these issues. Boston University argued that sufficient evidence had not been presented for some students who claimed to be learning disabled; the plaintiffs claimed that they did, in fact, have learning disabilities and that the evidence was sufficient. Boston University claimed that the evaluations some students presented to validate their learning disability were carelessly conducted by individuals who were not qualified; the plaintiffs claimed that the evaluations were valid. Boston University claimed that, in some cases, the assessments did not provide...