A Legal Perspective on the Use of Specific Reading Methods for Students with Learning Disabilities

By Bhat, Preetha; Rapport, Mary Jane K. et al. | Learning Disability Quarterly, Fall 2000 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

A Legal Perspective on the Use of Specific Reading Methods for Students with Learning Disabilities


Bhat, Preetha, Rapport, Mary Jane K., Griffin, Cynthia C., Learning Disability Quarterly


Abstract. This article reviews 27 legal decisions published between 1989 and 1998 involving students with learning disabilities and parental requests for specific reading methods selected and used by the school district. These decisions were analyzed in an effort to look at specific parental requests for particular reading methods and the courts' response to this type of request. The review of these decisions indicated that parents of students with learning disabilities were of the opinion that the basic tenets of IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) were violated when their child did not receive reading instruction using a specific method. This premise was based primarily on the lack of academic progress made by the child in reading. Parents also expressed concern over the appropriateness of the reading programs offered by the school district and voiced the sentiment that their child would show academic progress if the school district used one of several multisensory methods for reading instruction. The legal issues are defined and interpreted through a careful examination of existing decisions at several judicial levels. Rationales employed by the state-level hearing officers, judges, and federal agencies in reaching decisions related to educational methods and children with learning disabilities are discussed in detail and implications are presented.

Without effective approaches to reading instruction, many students who experience reading problems at a young age continue to have difficulties into high school (Lyon, 1995). Researchers and practitioners alike have searched tirelessly for materials and methods that remediate the decoding and comprehension problems these students encounter. This interest in remediating students' reading problems has yielded an extensive literature base on reading instruction and a myriad published reading programs.

Historically, the dominant approaches to reading instruction and remediation for students with learning disabilities (LD) have utilized multisensory, synthetic techniques originally developed by Samual Orton, Anna Gillingham, and Bessie Stillman (Clark, 1988). These approaches are characterized by the use of multisensory feedback to teach individual grapheme-phoneme correspondences, along with explicit instruction and practice in "sound blending." These methods place heavy emphasis on direct instruction and the development of alphabetic reading skills. Most of the research supporting these methods has come from case studies (Frankiewicz, 1985; Ogden, Hindman, & Turner, 1989). The Lindamood approach, for example, has been found successful in enhancing phonological awareness and spelling skills in very poor readers with LD (Kennedy & Blackman, 1993). In addition, the Orton-Gillingham method has proven to be effective at remediating the decoding problems of students with LD (Vickerey, Reynolds, & Cochran, 1987). Other approaches employing a primarily synthetic phonics method, but with less emphasis on multisensory experiences, also have been evaluated positively with children with LD (Brown & Felton, 1990; Epstein & Cullinan, 1981; Gittelman & Feingold, 1983).

While basal reading programs are used widely by teachers in public schools (Anderson, Hiebert, Scott, & Wilkinson, 1985), multisensory experiences, direct instruction, and the development of alphabetic reading skills may not be a part of the instructional methods included in these programs (Meyer, Green, & Crummey, 1986). These two instructional conditions, and other factors, have led a group of parents of students with LD to question the appropriateness of programs and methods used by schools to teach their children to read (e.g., E.S. v. Independent School District, 1998; Moubry v. Independent School District, 1998; Austin Independent School District, 1997; Brandywine School District, 1994; Garden City Public Schools, 1991).

This is particularly the case for students who have not made adequate progress in school.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

A Legal Perspective on the Use of Specific Reading Methods for Students with Learning Disabilities
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?