Comments on: Not too careful http://LDBlog.com/2005/10/02/not-too-careful/ News, commentary, and resources about Learning Disabilities Fri, 21 Nov 2008 20:57:12 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: lizditz http://LDBlog.com/2005/10/02/not-too-careful/#comment-328 lizditz Mon, 03 Oct 2005 19:32:44 +0000 http://johnl.edschool.virginia.edu/blogs/LDBlog/2005/10/02/not-too-careful/#comment-328 Hi John. What I see is that the US Ed data estimate the number of children getting services...which isn't the same as the number of children affected. If the bodies defining the extistences of LDs are school districts, and the districts are in in afunding crunch, would they not be motivated to under-report (and under-serve) kids? Shaywitz seems to be the source for the "20% with reading difficulties". Whether that 20% figure means dyslexia per se, or needing support in the classroom that they are not getting, is another kettle of fish. The long-lasting effects of the "reading is natural" philosophy -- whole language -- could account for a great many students who do not have underlying neurological differences (true dyslexia), but simply have never been taught to read. And when the child cannot read, the child may become a behavior problem, thus triggering a label of ADD (or any of a host of other labels, such as conduct disorder). I look forward to the day when effective reading instruction is as matter-of-fact as effective instruction in learning to operate a motor vehicle. I look forward to the day when we have rapid, low-cost screening tools for deficits in phonological processing/phonemeic awareness and rapid automatic naming. I look forward to the day when those screening procedures are as much a part of kindergarten and first grade as learning to count. In other news, do become acquainted with Autism Diva, this post in particular, "How Autism Grew". http://autismdiva.blogspot.com/2005/09/how-autism-grew.html Hi John. What I see is that the US Ed data estimate the number of children getting services…which isn’t the same as the number of children affected. If the bodies defining the extistences of LDs are school districts, and the districts are in in afunding crunch, would they not be motivated to under-report (and under-serve) kids? Shaywitz seems to be the source for the “20% with reading difficulties”. Whether that 20% figure means dyslexia per se, or needing support in the classroom that they are not getting, is another kettle of fish. The long-lasting effects of the “reading is natural” philosophy — whole language — could account for a great many students who do not have underlying neurological differences (true dyslexia), but simply have never been taught to read.

And when the child cannot read, the child may become a behavior problem, thus triggering a label of ADD (or any of a host of other labels, such as conduct disorder).

I look forward to the day when effective reading instruction is as matter-of-fact as effective instruction in learning to operate a motor vehicle. I look forward to the day when we have rapid, low-cost screening tools for deficits in phonological processing/phonemeic awareness and rapid automatic naming. I look forward to the day when those screening procedures are as much a part of kindergarten and first grade as learning to count.

In other news, do become acquainted with Autism Diva, this post in particular, “How Autism Grew”.

http://autismdiva.blogspot.com/2005/09/how-autism-grew.html

]]>