Monthly Archive for October, 2005

Page 2 of 2

Simulating LD

Published on 11 October 2005 in News. 3 Comments

A story in the Dallas Fort Worth Star-Telegram recounts efforts by some folks to help individuals in the community understand what it is like to have a Learning Disability. They describe two simulations they use. They require that an individual

  • Listen “to one person talk, while others to the side were barking at her, creating a distraction” or
  • “Trace a picture of a star looking only at a mirror image.”

I am a little skeptical about the effectiveness of these simulations; they seem to be predicated on engendering some sudden insight, and the evidence for their benefits is anecdotal. However, I’m intrigued.

I’d like to create a collection of simulations. Please submit your favorites.

Link to the story.

Sphere: Related Content

VA LD directory

Published on 8 October 2005 in News. 0 Comments

As it has for many years, the Virginia Branch of the International Dyslexia Association has published its directory to services in Virginia (US). The directory lists services such as assessment, tutoring, counseling, employment, and many other resources.

Link to the page on the organization’s Web site where one can obtain more information about the product.

Sphere: Related Content

Boy’s-eye view of LD

Published on 7 October 2005 in News. 2 Comments

Eight-year-old Chandler Schaak explains his problems with reading and writing to audiences by referring to a “juggler” that mixes up letters and the order in which they appear, according to Sophia Tareen of the Portland (OR, US) Oregonian. It is wonderful to learn that a student is providing advocacy for those who have Learning Disabilities, but the story is so chockful of misinformation that it is very disappointing. Here are several quotes:

[The 'juggler' is] the name the 8-year-old Forest Grove boy gives to dyslexia, the learning disability that causes him to write d’s for b’s and mix up letter order when he reads.

We have plenty of evidence that reversals are not diagnostic of LD. I’m sorry to see anyone perpetuating this myth.

Schaak, who considers himself an advocate for dyslexia awareness, is involved locally in organizations such as the Reversals Group.

I hope that this group’s name is not indicative of its focus. If people are focusing on remediating the reversal of symbols in hopes of fixing dyslexia, I fear they will sorely disappointed.

However, the juggler can be trained. Schaak says he has to memorize each word and know it right away, instead of relying on his visual abilities to sound it out.

Uh-oh. If Mr. Schaak has to memorize each word rather than acquiring facility with sounding them out (i.e., mastering the alphabetic principle), he will be forever limited to something on the order of 3rd-4th grade reading. At about that age, the vocabulary demands of English literature, math, science, and social studies expand rapidly, going from a few thousand words to 10s of thousands of words. However, people are only good at remembering a few thousand separate items.

I hope someone will explain to Ms. Tareen the importance of checking her facts. More importantly, I hope someone will explain to Mr. Schaak that his juggler is probably just a metaphor, an explanation that people who do not know better have foisted on him. Of course, people will wonder why I would doubt the personal experience of someone with a condition that I’ve never experienced. I do so because I do not want people to be misled and because I know both personally and scientifically that people are easily misled. Consider the research about recovered memory as a case example.

Link to Ms. Tareen’s article.

Sphere: Related Content

Schaffer v Weast today

Published on 5 October 2005 in News. 3 Comments

Today is the day for oral arguments before the Supreme Court in the Schaffer v. Weast case. The case turns on the question of whether, when a dispute about an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) goes to administrative hearing, parents or schools are responsible for proving that an IEP is appropriate. Here is the situation as I understand it.

When then-7th-grader Brian Schaffer’s private school was not meeting his unique educational needs, his parents asked the Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS; Jerry Weast is superintendent) to provide an IEP. MCPS proposed an IEP in which Brian received support services in general education settings (inclusion). Based on their expert’s opinion that Brian had “central auditory processing disorder” and therefore could not learn successfully in such a situation, the Schaffers disagreed with this IEP, placed him in a private school, and requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ).

In the due process hearing, the two sides presented their cases, and the ALJ found that it was a tie. In the case of ties, the outcome depends on which party bears the burden of proof. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) does not specify whether parents or schools bear the burden of proof, so the ALJ chose to put the responsibility for proving the point on the parents. The parents appealed and thus, the Schaffer v. Weast case worked its way through the courts—actaully going up and down— until it got to the Supreme Court.

The legal folks in special education will be watching this one closely, because it could affect many of the thousands of administrative hearings held annually in the US. Furthermore, it could actually influence the development of IEPs!

The Supreme Court will not rule on the merits of the original case, but those merits are interesting to me. I am a bit skeptical about the diagnosis of “central auditory processing disorder,” but I am pretty sure that there are some students with Learning Disabilities whose unique educational needs cannot be met in general education settings. Schools need to recognize this and provide services accordingly.

Links:

Sphere: Related Content

Magic solutions for LD

Published on 3 October 2005 in Comments. 0 Comments

In a post to her blog, J. Bailey describes the time when her son learned to write his name. According to her account, it happened suddenly and involved them going to a store to purchase a large quantity of shaving cream.

When we got home, I told him that I needed him to cover the table in shaving cream.

Of course he had a blast making sure that not only the table, but both of us were covered in that dang shaving cream.

We began drawing things in the shaving cream.

Pretty soon I showed him how easy it was to DRAW his name in it and erase it as often as he wanted….

About 90 minutes into it, my son could DRAW his name, both first and last.

I’m very glad that Ms. Bailey’s son learned to write his name. I have reservations, however, about the role of the shaving cream incident in causing it. Only those who invest great faith in magic are likely to believe it was responsible for the learning. To believe so requires that one ignore the boy’s previous learning.

I am concerned about the misdirection that these sorts of explanations provide. They encourage us to reach for the odd, the atypical, the exotic technique. Special education is rarely, if ever, accomplished by odd, atypical, exotic, or magical means; it requires dogged persistence. Naomi Zigmond put this quite well; in a chapter she described special education this way: “It is carefully planned. It is intensive, urgent, relentless, and goal directed. It is empirically supported practice, drawn from research.” (Zigmond, 1997, p.385)

Furthermore, lurking just under the surface of Ms. Bailey’s account is the misperception that some especially motivating activity will bring substantial improvements in children’s learning. Not. The L in LD does not stand for lazy.

Link to Ms. Bailey’s blog entry. Reference for Naomi’s wonderful chapter:
Zigmond, N. (1997). Educating students with disabilities: The future of special education. In J. W. Lloyd, E. J. Kameenui, & D. Chard (Eds.), Issues in educating students with disabilities (pp. 377-390). Mahwah, NJ:   Lawrence Erlbaum.

Sphere: Related Content

Not too careful

Published on 2 October 2005 in Comments. 1 Comment

In the Austin Business Journal, Anna Hatchitt reported about an initiatvie to promote prevention of reading problems. As Ms. Hatchitt reported, a critical feature of the case for the initiative is that, left uncorrected, Learning Disabilities in reading have substantial costs to society.

The story has a lot of good feelings. Who can argue that prevention of Learning Disabilties in reading is waste? Of course, it is worthwhile. If children are detered from succeeding, from participating with their peers, from pursuing their dreams,then we should pursue reasonable paths to eliminate these deterences.

I support the idea, but I have reservations about the what seem to me to be hyperbolic arguments used to support the case. According to Ms. Hatchitt’s story, “Experts say dyslexia affects 10 percent to 20 percent of the public school population.” Could that be true?

Let’s see, Learning Disabilities, the category of special education in the US that includes reading problems (the most extreme are often called “dyslexia”) currently includes between 5 and 6% of the school-age population (according to U.S. Department of Education data). Because Learning Disabilities includes students with problems in areas other than reading, then the percentage of students who have Learning Disabilities in reading must be fewer than 5-6%. How does that square with “experts” who say 10-20%?

Furthermore, how does it square with the arguments of experts who say that too many children are identified as having Learning Disabilities? If 5-6% is too many and that 5-6% includes students with other Learning Disabilities, how can there be 10-20% with Learning Disabilities in reading?

I guess it’s the new math. Perhaps if one says that 10-20% have Learing Disabilities in reading and then, a few years later, one points to U.S. ED data showing that only 6% have Learning Disabilities of any kind, one can claim success, no?

In literature, hyperbole is an appropriate tool for making a point. In public policy, it is a way to get elected or move one’s political agenda. In science, hyperbole is called something else.

Do those who are officially identified as having Learning Disabilities need help? You betcha. They have a legal right to services! Do many of those who are not identified as having Learning Disabilities need help. Dang straight! Should people play fast and loose with either group’s educational needs in order to make a point? No.

Link to Ms. Hatchitt’s article. Link to the U.S. Reports to Congress showing the percentatges ot students getting services because of Learning Disabilities (and other categories of special education); note that Table AA11 shows not one of the states exceeding 7% of the population identified as having Learing Disabilities of any sort.

Sphere: Related Content