This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Lester, G. Articles by Kelman, M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Lester, G. Articles by Kelman, M. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

State Disparities in the Diagnosis and Placement of Pupils with Learning Disabilities

Gillian Lester, is an acting professor of law at UCLA, with research interests in the fields of education and employment law. Address: Gillian Lester, UCLA School of Law, 405 Hilgard Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90095.

Mark Kelman

Mark Kelman, is William Nelson Cromwell professor at Stanford Law School. His research interests include education law, antidiscrimination theory, and economic policy.

We investigated the hypothesis that interstate disparities in the diagnosis of pupils with learning disabilities (LD) are more strongly correlated with demographic and sociopolitical factors than with the biological prevalence of the disability. We also investigated the relationship of these factors to placement practices. Thirteen independent variables representing state characteristics were simultaneously regressed against each of seven static dependent variables, measuring diagnostic and placement practices in 1989, and two dynamic dependent variables, measuring changes in practices between 1976 and 1989. Results of the regression indicated that although demographic and sociopolitical factors explained none of the total prevalence of the four most common physical disabilities (adjusted R²[R²] = 0), they did explain to a moderate degree the state prevalence of LD (R² ranged from .15 to .28), and were more predictive still depending on measure of LD prevalence. Moreover, these same factors strongly predicted the extent to which states mainstreamed their pupils (R² = .59) and the size of the nonmainstreamed cognitively disabled (LD and educable mentally retarded) population (R² = .56).

Journal of Learning Disabilities, Vol. 30, No. 6, 599-607 (1997)
DOI: 10.1177/002221949703000603


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				D. P. Waber, M. D. Weiler, P. W. Forbes, J. H. Bernstein, D. C. Bellinger, and L. Rappaport Neurobehavioral Factors Associated with Referral for Learning Problems in a Community Sample: Evidence for an Adaptational Model for Learning Disorders J Learn Disabil, October 1, 2003; 36(5): 467 - 483. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. J. Coutinho, D. P. Oswald, and A. M. Best The Influence of Sociodemographics and Gender on the Disproportionate Identification of Minority Students as Having Learning Disabilities Remedial and Special Education, January 1, 2002; 23(1): 49 - 59. [Abstract] [PDF]