Search results

Based on the aforementioned data, the risk index (RI) identifies the percentage of all students of a given racial/ethnic group in a given disability category. The RI is calculated by dividing the number of students in a given racial/ethnic group served in a given disability category (e.g. LD) by the total enrollment for that racial/ethnic group in the school population. The 1998 OCR data revealed risk indices for all racial/ethnic groups that were higher for LD than those found for MR. The NRC (2002) report stated that, “Asian/Pacific Islander have placement rates of 2.23%. Rates for all other racial/ethnic groups exceed 6%, and for American Indian/Alaskan Natives, the rate reached 7.45%” (p. 47). The second index, odds ratio, provides a comparative index of risk and is calculated by dividing the risk index on one racial/ethnic group by the risk index of another racial/ethnic group. In the OCR and OSEP databases, the odds ratios are reported relative to White students. If the risk index is identical for a particular minority group and White students, the odds ratio will equal 1.0. Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicate that minority group students are at a greater risk of identification, while odds ratios of less than 1.0 indicate that they are less at risk. Using the 1998 OCR placement rates, the LD odds ratio for American Indian/Alaskan Natives is 1.24, showing that they have a 24% greater likelihood of being assigned to the LD category than White students. Odds ratios for Asian/Pacific Islander are low (0.37). For both Black and Hispanic students, the odds ratios are close to 1.0. The third index, composition index (CI), shows the proportion of all children served under a given disability category who are members of a given racial/ethnic group and is calculated by dividing the number of students of a given racial or ethnic group enrolled in a particular disability category. Two underlying assumptions of the CI are that the sum of composition indices for the five racial/ethnic groups will total 100%, and baseline enrollment of a given racial/ethnic group is not controlled. More specifically, the CI may be calculated using the percent of 6- through 21-year old population with the racial/ethnic composition of IDEA and U.S. census population statistics. For example, if 64% of the U.S. population is White, 15% is Black, 16% is Hispanic, 4% is Asian, and 1% is American Indian these data not interpretable without knowing the percentage of the racial/ethnic composition with IDEA. Hypothetically, IDEA data may show that of the 6–21 year olds served under IDEA, 63% are White, 20% are Black, 14% are Hispanic, 2% are Asian, and 1% is American Indian. To calculate disproportionality, a benchmark (e.g. 10%) against which to measure the difference between these percentages must be used. If the difference between the two percentages and the difference represented as a proportion of the group’s percent of population exceeds +10, then the racial/ethnic group is overrepresented. Conversely, if the difference between the two percentages and the difference represented as a proportion of the group’s percent of the population is larger than −10, then, the racial/ethnic group is underrepresented.

In many ways the state of affairs for students, service delivery personnel, and researchers in the field of college students with learning disabilities (LD) has remained largely unchanged over the past 25 years. Many of the same barriers to student success that we have seen over the past three decades remain today. In this chapter, I review issues related to success for college students with LD, explore current service delivery models, and discuss potential areas of future research that could lead to improved outcomes for college students with LD. Additionally, I explore the possible need to reconceptualize service delivery models on college campuses.

The Royal College of Psychiatrists set up an interface group to look at the interface between old age psychiatry and learning disability and, as part of its work, the group commissioned a survey of learning disability and old age psychiatrists to investigate their experience of working across the boundary between the two specialities. This paper is based on the report produced. It summarises the findings of the survey and sets out eight recommendations to further the work. There was no clarity on how services should be provided to older people with a learning disability who develop a mental health problem in later life but the need for collaboration between the two specialities is compelling.

Learning disabilities (LD) and attention deficit hyperactivity disorders (ADHD) include one of the largest special education populations in the United States. These disabilities can range in severity from mild to severe and although these concepts were formulated in the United States, they are also being diagnosed across the globe in other countries. This chapter begins with an historical explanation of the origins of the term LD followed by the U.S. Federal Laws enacted to protect students with LD. Next, the identification of LD, the characteristics, diagnoses, and supportive services are described. Following this description is information about students with ADHD, their diagnoses, and supports in educational environments. Specific characteristics and difficulties students with LD and ADHD possess are then defined within academic activities including reading, math, writing, and social skills as well as overall difficulties students may experience are not defined within these academic subject areas. Some possible strategies are then offered to help ameliorate the effects of LD and ADHD and finally the prevalence of LD/ADHD and the supportive environments for these students throughout the world are described.

De‐institutionalisation and resettlement have had a significant impact on offenders with learning disabilities (LD) who are now more visible in the wider community than before. Perhaps because of the challenges presented by people who were previously contained in institutions, there has been a growth of interest in their characteristics, the services and clinical interventions required to support them.This narrative review presents and discusses recent developments concerning offenders with LD. It looks at the historical association between crime and low intelligence, and then examines the evidence concerning the prevalence of offending by people with LD and recidivism rates. Recent research concerning service pathways for this population is summarised and progress in the development of actuarial, dynamic and clinical assessments of the future risk of offending is outlined.The second half of the paper focuses on a review of the evidence for and recent developments in the treatment of offending behaviour (anger/aggression, sexual offending and fire‐setting), utilising broadly cognitive behaviourally‐based approaches. Finally, future directions for research and practice innovation are proposed.

Targets set in 2005 by the Department of Health in the form of a public service agreement (PSA, 2003‐2006) standard require the development of comprehensive CAMHS, which provide services for children and young people with learning disabilities (LD). This standard presents particular challenges to the existing national CAMHS workforce.This paper reports on a specific project to undertake a northwest regional audit regarding capacity and capability of staff working in CAMHS to care for children and young people with learning disabilities.

In the United States, students with disabilities have moved from learning in a segregated environment to being included in the general education classroom. Legislative mandates have encouraged this shift to occur in public schools in order to equal the playing field for students with disabilities. Both general and special education students with learning disabilities (LD) have been affected from inclusion. This chapter describes the legal, historical, psychological, and instructional concepts shaping the way students with LD are educated today.

Students with learning disabilities (LD) have a wide range of academic needs. Since the passing of P.L. 94-142, significant research has been done on effective interventions for this group of students. Starting with the Learning Disabilities Research Institutes through the recent Handbook of Learning Disabilities, reviews of lines of research make several broad ideas about interventions clear. Primary among these is that students with LD can learn if provided with appropriate, effective instruction. Specifics about this idea and its implications are discussed in the following chapter.

Research has documented post-school outcomes for students with emotional and behavioral disabilities and learning disabilities continue to be poor. To improve student outcomes for these populations, research has recommended implementing evidence-based practices and predictors in the classroom. The purpose of this chapter is to identify evidence-based practices and predictors targeted for students with emotional and behavioral disorders and learning disabilities in the area of secondary transition. We identify and briefly describe 12 evidence-based practices and 14 evidence-based predictors for students with emotional and behavioral disorders and learning disabilities. Implications for practice and suggestions for future research are also discussed.

For a number of years, the American School Counselor Association has been working to identify and clarify the role and function of school counselors within Developmental and Comprehensive School Counseling programs. The terms “Developmental” and “Comprehensive” mean that school counseling programs establish goals for their programs that are developmentally appropriate to the age and needs of students and that current and future goals build upon previous goal achievement. Thus, school counseling programs should be in place throughout students’ entire K-12 academic experience.