Archive for February, 2006

Parents are the future

Published by JohnL on 27 February 2006 in Comments. 0 Comments

On 27 February I spoke with a group of parents and educators in Taipei about Learning Disabilities. The photo at the right shows the banner advertising the talk; I can only read a bit of it, including virtually none of the Chinese.

The group was wonderfully attentive. Although most of them spoke very good English, my friend and colleague Porfessor Li-yu Hung translated (and probably clarified) most of my remarks. There were good questions and we could have used plenty more time. My thanks to Joyce Liu and the Assocation of Learning Disabilities of Taiwan for inviting me to talk with them.

For those who know me, it may come as a surpise that I spoke without using computer-generated slides. Here are some notes:

  1. Context for Considering the Future
    • I recounted how historical factors (e.g., post-WWII baby boom and emphasis on education; Flesch’s Why Johnny Can’t Read… , etc.) provided a context for the emergence of LD in the US. Within this context, there were children whom no one would expect to have difficulties (were not retarded, not physically or sensorally handicapped, nor the off-spring of uncaring parents), but who did, in fact, have deficits in achievement; it was the parents of these children who sought help and, banding together with important educational researchers of the time, launched the LD movement.
    • Then I provided a quick summary of some of the important contributions to education that have come from the study of LD. Not only has LD helped educators to think about children as individuals, but also there have been products from research (progress monitoring assessment; strategy training) that have benefitted not just students with LD but also others who are at risk, have other disabilities, or just need better instruction
  2. Concerns about and Threats to LD
    • I reitereated some of the criticisms of LD (e.g, LD stands for “lazy” and “dumb”; LD is being mitigated and diluted by well-intentioned alternative descriptions such as “learning differences”; all children with LD can be served in the general education environment; LD is “mild” disability). For these, I noted some of the germs of truth and underscored the inadequacy of each overall argument.
    • I noted that without a category of LD, compliant children with substantial underachievement probably would not be eligible for special education services, that LD is a resource for education.
  3. Advocacy for LD
    • I finished by explaining that the beneficial factors (the value of the LDconstruct, the field’s contributions to education, etc.) provide good reasons to resist efforts to disband LD.
    • I suggested that it is critical for parents and educators to work together as political force to ensure that in the future children with LD will have access to the services that the parents and educators of 50 years ago made available to our children today.

Travels

Published by JohnL on 19 February 2006 in Administrivia. 0 Comments

I’ll be away for a bit, traveling to the East. I hope to keep up from where ever I am.

JohnL

Reading accommodations

Published by JohnL on 16 February 2006 in Dyslexia and News. 0 Comments

Students wtih Learning Disabilities in Texas (US) will have read-aloud and extra-time accommodations when they take the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills, according to Jennifer Radcliffe, writing in the Houston Chronicle.

Teachers will now read aloud all proper names — such as Mississippi, Constitution or Elizabeth — that appear in the test passages so that children don’t have to spend extra time making sense of them. Teachers will also read the question-and-answer choices to dyslexic students.

“Dyslexic kids have problems with proper nouns because they’re not high-frequency words. A lot of time, proper nouns really trip them up,” said Victoria Young, the state’s director of TAKS assessment.

To minimize fatigue, dyslexic children will also take the untimed reading portion over two days, rather than being asked to finish it all in one sitting. Third-graders, for example, will read two passages and answer an average of 23 questions each of the two days, Young said.

Referring to students with dyslexia and using the 20% prevalence estimate promulgated by some, Ms. Radcliffe leads with how the accommodations will affect 1000s of students. I suspect those two figures don’t go together. Drawing data from the 25th Annual Report to Congress, I estimate that Texas has about 4.8 million school children, so 20% would be about 1 million students getting accommodations. I bet Texas isn’t going to be offering accommodations to that many children. I’d have to guess that it’s going to be some subset of the approximately 250,000 who are identified as having Learning Disabilities.

Link to Ms. Radcliffe’s article.

NCLB feedback

Published by JohnL on 15 February 2006 in Comments and News. 0 Comments

The Aspen Institute has a deal with the US government (read $$ contract) to assemble people’s comments about the US “No Child Left Behind” law and its implementation. Go there and tell ‘em what you think! Please. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the law or its implementation, write to ‘em. Give ‘em data that they have to analyze. For serious.

Link for NCLB comments.

More Shaffer v. Weast

Published by JohnL on 14 February 2006 in News. 0 Comments

Members of the Washington (DC, US) school board are divided about how they should approach the matter of whom the burden of proof should fall on when parents and schools disagree about a special education issue, according to a story by V. Dion Haynes in the Washington Post. In the recent case about burden of proof, Shaffer v. Weast, the US Supreme Court upheld Maryland (MD) law, essentially putting the burden on parents, as they are the ones most likely to challenge decisions about special education services. The DC board has been debating whether it should change its rules so that they align with those used in MD, the state where the Shaffer v Weast case arose.

Advocates of the change, noting that the District school system spends a disproportionately large portion of its budget on special education, contend that shifting the burden of proof to parents could reduce the number of legal challenges filed against the system and save money.

But other board members say requiring the school system to show why its plans are adequate is an appropriate safeguard, given the system’s long-standing problems in delivering special education services. They also argue that school administrators have offered little evidence that changing the law would have much financial impact.

Link to Mr. Haynes’ story.

IDEA deserves full funding

Published by JohnL on 11 February 2006 in Comments and News. 0 Comments

This is a copy of a letter I just sent to my U.S. Representative about full funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

February 11, 2006

The Honorable Virgil H. Goode Jr.
House of Representatives
1520 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-4605

Re: Please Encourage the House Budget Committee to Provide Full Funding for IDEA

Dear Representative Goode:

As president of the Division for Learning Disabilities, the largest membership organization of educators concerned with Learning Disabilities, and as your constituent, I strongly encourage you to co-sign by 13 February a letter to House Budget Committee Chairman Nussle and Ranking Member Spratt supporting provision of full funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act in fiscal year 2007. IDEA is essential for the millions of children (and their families) who need special education services, and the federal government has not lived up even to half of its responsibility to provide funding of this important law.

On Tuesday, 14 February 2006, Congressman Charles Bass will testify before the House Budget Committee on the need for Congress to honor its promise to fund IDEA fully. At that time, Congressman Bass will present the committee with a letter co-signed by his House colleagues who support fully funding IDEA. I ask that you sign that letter and show your support for the children with disabilities who are served by IDEA, but often do not have the supports and services they need due to lack of funding. The deadline for signing the letter is close of business Monday 13 February.

Ever since the enactment of IDEA’s predecessor, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (1975), the US federal government has pledged to provide 40 percent of each state’s “excess cost” for educating children with disabilities. Although the law itself continues to work in other ways, the intended financial partnership among the federal, state, and local entities has faltered, because Congress has never lived up fully to its responsibilities.

In fact, funding for IDEA has decreased from 18.6 percent to 17.8 percent for fiscal year 2006. The President’s fiscal year 2007 request takes a step further backward, providing IDEA funding at just 17 percent! As a result, local communities and states have been forced to pay a higher proportion of the special education costs. Ultimately, however, children and families are the ones who are paying the price.

Please join Congressman Bass and support efforts to secure full funding for IDEA in fiscal year 2007. Please sign on Monday. Please issue a public statement endorsing the Bass letter.

Thank you for your consideration of my request that you sign the Bass letter on full funding for IDEA. I look forward to your response to my request.

Sincerely,
John Wills Lloyd, Ph.D., President Division for Learning Disabilities

Write your own letter! The Council for Exceptional Children has a site you can use and suggested language.