The study of LD is facing a crisis. Although this has been repeated to the point of boredom, its truth value, if not its news value, seems indisputable: LD remains a field with many departures, but too few arrivals. On the surface, LD should not be more problematic than any other area of special education, but it is imbued with more confrontation and contention than its cohorts in special education. Although both mild mental retardation (MMR) and behavior disorder j (BD)-its partners in the broad designation "mildly handicapped"-are not without problems, the problems of LD take center stage in any discussion. The problems seem to defy resolution, and spiral into an ever-thickening web of conundrums from which there appears to be no escape. This is not mere hyperbo~e: No other area of special education has ever been called on to answer questions about its very existence. Klatt (1991), for example, examined the propositions found in LD definitions, and concluded that the LD was indefensible in its present form. Such critiques usually evoke a response defending the LD construct (e.g., Keogh, 1987a; Scruggs &Mastropieri, 1988), but the time and effort put into these dialogues, deflect attention from more substantive issues. A search of the MMR and BD literature would find no comparable discussion about the existence of these categories. It is only LD that is referred to as a "phantom category" and this skepticism has been repeated often enough to engender doubt in even the staunchest advocate.