Learning disabilities
Ten years later
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 11259179 |
|---|---|
| Authors | J Michael Coleman, Jason Coleman (0000-0003-4167-2762, corresponding author), Earl E Davis (0000-0003-4516-217X) |
| Year | 1976 |
| Volume | 53 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 180-186 |
| Publication date | 1976-04-01 |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Peabody Journal of Education (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0161-956X • E-ISSN: 1532-7930 |
| Publisher | Informa UK Limited (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1080/01619567609538075 |
| OpenAlex | W1972623024 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 11 |
In 1964, a group of parents, educators, psychologists, and other professionals banded together to create the Association for Children with Learning Disabilities. The focal point of this collective emphasized the diagnosis and education of brain-injured children. Since that time other organizations such as the Council for Exceptional Children have created divisions within their own structure that focus on learning disabilities. The fiscal impact of these organizations on federal funding in this area has been dramatic. Federal funding totalled approximately $20,000,000 in 1971, with nearly $31,000,000 spent on teacher training and model centers in 1973. These sums do not include state appropriations. With the onset of mandatory education in many states this financial input is considerable. The State of Tennessee, for example, estimates that its 1975 expenditure in learning disabilities services will exceed $10,000,000. As Bryan states, field is quite bullish in what must be considered a very bearish time.' The area of learning disabilities has come of age. It receives funds and provides services at a rapidly expanding rate. Black demonstrated that the decade from 1962 to 1972 witnessed a veritable explosion of publications on the topic of learning disabilities.2 A review of Exceptional Child Education Abstracts indicated over 350 articles relating to learning disabilities published during 1974. This mass of money, research, literature, and program services would suggest unification in the field at least to the extent of common agreement as to the population that should be served. Yet, at this point there remains no consensus of attributes that consistently characterize the learning disabled child. Wepman, et al., suggest that, There is little
Developmental psychology · Economics · Education Act · Federal funds · Learning disability · Mathematics education · Medical education · Point (geometry · Political science · Population · Public relations · Sociology · Special education · State (computer science · Demography · Diverse Education Studies and Reforms · Education Discipline and Inequality · Family and Disability Support Research · Medicine · Psychology
| Highly cited | No |
|---|