Daily Archive for February 27th, 2006

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.