Embedded in an otherwise very interesting report about a novel with which I’m unfamiliar, a blogger who identifies his or her blog as “abpsych blog” made the simple mistake of using Learning Disabilities as a generic for special education. Describing the novel’s protagonist, the blogger wrote:
He has either autism of [sic] asperger’s syndrome. Christopher goes to a school for children with learning disabilities and his teacher, Siobahn, gives Christopher the idea to write about his investigation into the murder of his neighbor’s dog.
Not to be picky, but I left a comment on abpsych blog about the mistake. By the way, the book is The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time by Mark Haddon and, based on the blogger’s intriguing analysis of it, I think I’ll get a copy to read.
Published by JohnL on 8 February 2006
in News.
While working on a post for Teach Effectively!, I came across a Web site for a private school that specializes in helping students with Learning Disabilities. That reminded me that I recently had a pleasant chat with the top dog for another private school that’s been quite successful. I wonder if I ought to start a list of these places.
The headline for an article—Health: Is ADD A Learning Disability?—caught my eye. The author, Sarah K. Jenkins, started out on the right foot, but then got it wrong. Here’s her first paragraph.
Attention Deficit Disorder, in itself, is not a learning disability. The term “learning disability” typically refers to a perceptual disability, such as an auditory or visual processing disorder, like autism or dyslexia. A person with ADD, however, has no problems perceiving or interpreting information. Therefore, it does not qualify as a learning disability.
I wondered for a moment if she might be using “LD” in the way that it is used in the UK, but decided quickly that it wasn’t, as there was no mention of IQ or retardation.
Link to Ms. Jenkins’ article. (Beware: Lots of flashing advertisements!)
Here’s another instance of the misuse of “Learning Disabilities” as a generic term. In what is otherwise a nice story about services available to families in the northern Illinois area, Nora Gardner of the Northwest Herald (Crystal Lake, IL, US) got it wrong in her story about Prader-Willi Syndrome.
When Dylan Krambeer was born, he was hospitalized for two weeks and diagnosed with Prader-Willi syndrome, a complex genetic disorder that includes learning disabilities, low muscle tone and an involuntary urge to eat constantly.
It’s probably a losing battle, but I would like the press to understand that mis-using the term “Learning Disability” hinders clear understanding of LD by the general public. I understand the if one is uninformed, then “learning disabilities” can seem like a simple descriptor, but it’s not just a simple problem for those who have Learning Disabilities. I’ll keep tilting at this windmill.
Link to Ms. Gardner’s article. People who want to know about Prader-Willi Syndrome may peruse resources from US National Institutes for Heath’s Medline Plus or the Prader-Willi Syndrome Association of the US or UK (where “learning disabilities” means “mental retardation” in US-speak).
Here’s a message I got over the past weekend followed by my response.
>Professor Lloyd,
>My 8 year old son has dyslexia and he attends a [a local] public school in
>Virginia. I am interested in knowing why the public schools do not use the
>word Dyslexia, and why they do not employ systematic researched based
>methods to help those with the diagnosis? Thank you for answering these
>questions.
(a) The answer to your first question is pretty straight forward. “Dyslexia” is not an educational label, but one used in medicine and the popular press. Dyslexia is one of the disabilities included in “Learning Disabilities.” Learning Disabilities is the category of special education services that allows children with severe problems in reading (what others might call “dyslexia”), arithmetic or mathematics, writing, or other areas to received special education services under federal and Virginia law. Has you son been identified as having Learning Disabilities by the Henrico schools? Who has diagnosed dyslexia?
(b) The answer to your second question is very difficult. I would like to know that answer, too. Although some would dispute it, I think we have very clear evidence about what instructional methods and practices have been scientifically shown to produce better outcomes for students. I have spent most of my adult life describing those methods and practices to teachers, administrators, and colleagues. Still, people seem to chose instructional methods not on the basis of what has been shown to benefit learners, but on other bases. Before I retire, I hope to have a bigger effect on this problem than I have had in the past 30+ years.
I caution you to listen carefully when people say that they are using scientifically documented or “research-based” methods. Some methods that are quite popular have only modest evidence of benefits. It is possible to argue that a method has a scientific basis, but to point to less-important types of research as that basis. One needs to know whether the scientific evidence is expressly connected to student outcomes (e.g., direct comparisons showing that in real school situations a method or practice produces better outcomes on relevant and important measures of student achievement), not that it is “consistent with developmental theory,” “endorsed by such-and-such-group-of-educators,” etc.
Please suggest alternative responses, dear reader.
Published by JohnL on 1 February 2006
in News.
Many readers probably have read about the issues surrounding California’s (US) High School Exit Examination (CAHSEE) and students with Learning Disabilities. The topic’s been swirling for many months, with litigation, legislation, and (of course) political grandstanding. California’s governor signed legislation 30 January exempting high school seniors with disabilities from the requirement; to be exempt students with disabilities must be on track for graduation.
California’s exit exam requires that “all” (yes, I’m hedging) students who receive high school diplomas must pass tests of English and mathematics competence. The tests are designed to determine whether students can handle literacy tasks at about the 10th grade level and arithmetic and mathematics tasks at about the 7th grade level (approximations; grade levels are such a squishy measure). California’s plans included accommodations (e.g., scribes, sign-language interpreters) that should have allayed some of the concerns. However, only about 1 in 3 students with disabilities have passed the test.
I’ve intended to cover this topic, but just haven’t done so. (More paving stones on the road to perdition, I ’spose.) For those who are interested here are a few links to help examine the examination issue.
- CA Department of Education subsite describing the CAHSEE;
- Los Angeles (CA; US) Times article by Duke Helfand about the signing;
- San Fransisco (CA; US) Chronicle forum showing youths’ opinions about the matter.
- Google news search on ‘California high school exit test disabilties’
- Google news search on ‘California high school exit test disabilties’
As an aside: For some practical information about accommodations and students with disabilities, see an article my colleagues and I published in January in Teaching Exceptional Children. It’s not yet listed on the Web site yet, but should be soon. Citation:
Edgemon, E. A., Jablonski, B. R., & Lloyd, J. W. (2006). Large-scale assessments: A teacher’s guide to making decisions about accommodations. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38(3), 6-11.
Latest Comments