ABSTRACT
The meta-analysis of studies comparing low achievers and students with learning disabilities (LD) by Fuchs et al. (see also Fuchs, Fuchs, Mathes, & Lipsey, 2000a; Fuchs, Fuchs, Mathes, Lipsey, & Eaton, 2000b) examined and compared the reading performance of underachieving children with and without the LD label given by school evaluation teams. The researchers found several differences between these groups and they contend that special education has selected and served the poorest readers in the LD category. In their introductory statement of purpose, Fuchs et al. express concern that those who have argued against using an IQ-achievement discrepancy to classify children as LD may also aim to do away with the LD category in special education. They also fear that the demise of a discrepancy criterion for LD classification could result in the adoption of a simple achievement cut-off for special education eligibility. In fact, leading critics of IQ-discrepancy formulas such as Linda Siegel, Keith Stanovich, Reid Lyon, Jack Fletcher, Frank Vellutino, and others have not called for elimination of the LD category and, with the exception of Siegel, do not endorse a simple low achievement definition. Instead they are asking the field to confront and change ineffective, discriminatory, and scientifically indefensible policies and practices that have emanated from current conceptions of LD—reasons that are not contradicted by the results of the Fuchs analysis.
