Response to “Is ‘Learning Disabilities' Just a Fancy Term for Low Achievement? a Meta-Analysis of Reading Differences between Low Achievers with and without the Label”

There has been a dramatic rise in the percentage of children counted by educators as having a learning disability (LD) since 1976–1977, when schools were first required to track students enrolled in programs offering LD services. Specifically, the percentage of students labeled as LD has grown from 1.8% in 1976–1977 to 5.2% today. Moreover, more than half of all students receiving special education services are classified as having an LD compared to only 22% a quarter century ago. This marked increase in the number of students being identified as eligible for LD services underscores the importance of finding an answer to the question posed by Fuchs et al.: “Is learning disabilities just a fancy term for low achievement?” In essence, if the two groups cannot be differentiated scientifically or theoretically, there is no defensible way to justify why one segment of this low achieving (LA) group receives special services (under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act [IDEA]) whereas the other does not have access to these services. Yet if special services were made available to all students who are designated as low achievers, it would be extremely problematic from an economic and policy standpoint.