The Focus of Advocacy in the LD Field
Authors: Biklen Douglas , Zollers Nancy 
Published: December 2008

In our field, the intent of all advocacy is to benefit those with learning disabilities. Currently, there is great emphasis on case-by-case advocacy designed to ensure client rights to services and to guarantee that informed consent and due process practices are followed correctly. And there also continues to be class advocacy, which moves the focus from individuals to groups and often strives for changes in prevailing policies and system practices to ensure benefits for the entire group. But there is more to understand about advocacy than might be gleaned from observation of these practices.

Advocacy in a field has many facets. It may be formal or informal, explicitly outlined or covert, highly organized or relatively uncoordinated. It may indeed take the form of case-by-case or class advocacy regarding daily practices, but it also may be concerned about the proper focus of the field's research and training activity as well. Besides its form and focus, advocacy also involves a variety of strategies ranging from dissemination of information to legislative lobbying and litigation. And advocates differ with regard to their choice of focus and strategies, for example, some want to continue in established directions; others worry that this would result in perpetuating an unsatisfactory status quo. An understanding of the nature of advocacy can provide a basis for helping to shape or reshape the field.

In a real sense, the respondents to the Future of the LD Field Survey are all advocates, that is, with regard to the field's future directions. Doug Biklen and Nancy Zollers go beyond most survey respondents in calling for a shift in the field's advocacy focus. They offer a critical look at the advocacy agenda that is reified daily by the types of concerns stressed in the LD literature and by special education practices. Then, they review examples of alternative ideas and practices that suggest a new focus for advocacy. In concluding, they outline a “blueprint” containing five objectives for future advocacy. Their underlying theme is that, ultimately, successful learning at school for most students presently labeled as LD depends on schools becoming truly pluralist institutions. Thus, they see schooling that accommodates a wider range of individual differences within the mainstream as preventing many learning problems and enabling students with learning disabilities to remain in and profit from regular classroom structures.

Biklen and Zollers raise serious concerns about the current focus of advocacy in the LD field. If their concerns are valid, leaders in the field, especially those involved in organized advocacy, will have to reevaluate the thrust of their present activity. Clearly, the first order of business in planning for the future is to be as certain as we can that the substance of our advocacy agenda is sound; then we can consider how to improve the impact of our advocacy strategies. Biklen and Zollers' presentation provides a fine starting place for those ready to enter into discussion about the proper future course of advocacy in the LD field—Howard S. Adelman and Linda Taylor, Guest Editors