In January of 2014, I posted a note (got-ld-tell-what-its-like) about a study by Elizabeth Geiger, a graduate student at Teachers College, Columbia University; she was seeking participants in her study about what it’s like to have LD. She’s looking for participants for another study now. Here’s her pitch:
Hello my name is Elizabeth Geiger and I am a doctoral student in the Counseling Psychology program at Teachers College, Columbia University. I am looking for individuals who would like to participate in my research study exploring the life experiences of students diagnosed with a learning disability/disabilities. This survey should only take about 20 minutes of your time. This survey is a continuation of an earlier study. If you previously participated in our other study, you can still participate in this study.
If you are willing and eligible to participate, please click on the link provided below. Thank you in advance for your time and input. Also, I would really appreciate it if you could pass this message along to anyone else that you think may be eligible and willing to participate.
* Must be at least 18 years old.
* Must reside in the U.S.
* Must be diagnosed with a learning disability/disabilities.
* Must be currently enrolled in college or graduate school.
If you meet the above eligibility criteria and are interested in participating, please click on the link below to take you to the survey:
***This study has been approved by the Teachers College, Columbia University Institutional Review Board: (Protocol #14-020).
It is possible that participants may recall experiences and events involving stigmatization and discrimination that may be unpleasant or uncomfortable. In order to help minimize any discomfort, participants may skip questions or leave the survey at any time without penalty.
If you have any complaints, questions, concerns, or would like to know the results, please feel free to contact me via e-mail at email@example.com or my faculty sponsor Dr. Melanie Brewster at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Janet Weiss Lerner, author of one of the first and most enduring texts about Learning Disabilities, died 25 May 2015. She was 88 years old. She began her career studying under Sam Kirk, Alfred Strauss, and Laura Lehtinen; having learned from the pioneers in the history of special education, Professor Lerner went on to exert giant influence, herself, especially in the area of Learning Disabilities.
Professor Lerner completed a Bachelors of Arts at Milwaukee State Teachers College (now the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee) when Professor Kirk chaired the special education department there; later she took a Masters of Education from National Louis University and a Doctor of Philosophy from New York University. She taught at multiple grade levels in both general and special education in New York and Chicago, often focusing on helping children with reading problems.
Continue reading ‘Janet W. Lerner’
In a post on her blog that was also carried by the Huffington Post, Karem Ensley discussed “3 Things You Should Know About Learning Disabilities.” I don’t want to steal her content (better that one read it in its original form), but suffice it to say that she focused on foundational points (e.g., having LD does not mean one is dumb) and avoided falling into popular traps (e.g., she addressed “learning differently” without going for learning styles).
In a recent installment of “Stephanie’s Heroes,” Stephanie Satchell, a local TV reporter, tells the story of Lauren Baetsen, Emily Nemec, and Amanda Halacy who are undergraduates at the University of Virginia and who will spend their summer working with children who have moderate to severe intellectual disabilities and other disabilities in Lusaka, Zambia. The effort by these young women makes for a marvelous story, and I’m very glad Ms. Stachell covered it. It’s too bad she does not know “learning disabilities” from this host of other problems, though.
Continue reading ‘LD misrepresented again’
U.S. Representative Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, with the support of Representative Julia Brownley of California, introduced a resolution to the U.S. House of Representatives 10 January 2014 calling on “State and local educational agencies to recognize that dyslexia has significant educational implications that must be addressed.” The resolution, which was foreshadowed by a kick-off event by the Congressional Dyslexia Caucus in November of 2013, is drawing support around the Internet, as it should, from diverse sources:
- Sally and Bennett Shaywitz, noted advocates and researchers on dyslexia, posted a notice on their site, Yale Center for Dyslexia & Creativity, and published a guest editorial in the influential political news source, The Hill calling for support of the resolution.
- Pete and Pam Wright of Wrightslaw, the widely esteemed site for legal information about students with disabilities, lent their support to the effort, recommending constituents contact their representatives.
- Over on Barto’s World (long-time connection with LD Blog), Amy Barto posted an entry pointing to the Yale Center’s and Wrightslaw’s pages.
- Over on High Expectations Advocacy, Sandra Fitzpatrick posted a blog entry pointing to the Yale Center post and recommending that people contact their own representatives to encourage those legislators to support the resolution.
- Joan Brennan, at Help for Struggling Readers provided a message of support including some useful links (along with some links to her own product).
Dyslexia is the most common reason that students are identified as having learning disabilities in the US. It is, indeed, a problem that deserves very careful consideration and systematic, evidence-based treatment. Even though some may glamorize it and others may ignore it, I agree that the most appropriate course of action is to recognize it and empower schools (and others) to address it effectively and humanely.
Readers interested in obtaining a PDF copy of the full resolution can download one.
According to Samantha White, a reporter for the Burns (OR, US) Times-Herald, a local advocate for individuals with disabilities had a dream of promoting longer periods of schooling for students with disabilities. “That dream was to provide more opportunities for her son, Nicholas, and other people in Harney County who have developmental disabilities, such as autism, Down syndrome, and other learning disabilities.”
Ooops! Is this a case of using LD as a generic? Did Ms. White mean to write “developmental disabilities, autism, Down syndrome, learning disabilities, and other problems?” What do you think?
Later in her article, entitled “A ‘Desert Dream’ come true,” Ms. White revealed that she had searched a popular Website (Autism Speaks) for data about about autism. She apparently passed on the chance to search any of several reasonably authoritative sources about LD such as LD Online, TeachingLD, CLD International, the LD Association of America, NJCLD, and the non-governmental National Center on LD. Sigh.
Given the continuing interest in response to instruction (or intervention), it’s important to remember that parents can still request that their child be evaluated for special education. Thanks to organizations such as the Learning Disabilities Association of America (LDA), parents can be well-informed about how and why to pursue this avenue when they have a child who needs help. Just because a school is using an RTI process, that’s not sufficient reason to delay an eligibility evaluation. The RTI data may be a part of the evidence in determining eligibility, but shouldn’t be the sole criterion.
I’m no lawyer so this is not legal advice, but as I understand it, schools cannot use RTI to stand in the way of a parent’s request. LDA published a helpful position paper on this matter in 2013, and it is available for free.
Over on EBD Blog, I have a post about a pending October-2013 talk by child psychologist Ross Greene, author of The Explosive Child and Lost at School. The talk is scheduled for 10 October 2013 at Piedmont Virginia Community College in Charlottesville (VA, US) and is free and open to the public. Read the post for details.
In the spring of 2012, Louisa Moats published an article in New Times for DLD, the newsletter of the Division for Learning Disabilities (DLD) of the Council for Exceptional Children, that presented concerns about the consequences of US states’ adoption of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) on the teaching and learning of students with Learning Disabilities. Moats, who is well-known for her work on early literacy and professional development, noted that the CCSS consists of goals that must be turned into curricula and lesson plans by others, and it is those instructional procedures that will be critical for students with or at risk of developing Learning Disabilities. Given how common students with Learning Disabilities, language problems, and other learning risks are, Moats said that instructional practices cannot leave mastery of fundamental skills up to incidental learning or embedded instruction.
With the recent promotion of the CCSS’ emphasis on informational text, complex text, reading aloud, and inquiry-based learning, the kind of instruction most necessary and beneficial for students with LD is getting very little emphasis in workshops, publications, and policy discussions. The teacher-directed, systematic, sequential, explicit approaches that work best for students with LD and learning challenges (Archer & Hughes, 2011) are receiving much less attention than they deserve, and the result will be lower student achievement, not higher.
Moats made additional points, including a strong appeal for advocating to prepare educators to teach literacy skills effectively. Interested readers can obtain a copy of the full copy of “Reconciling the CCSS with Realities of Learning Disabilities” from the DLD Web site, TeachingLD.org.
[Disclosure: I’m associated with DLD as a member, a former officer, and its executive director.]
The American Psychiatric Association (APA) posted a video of Susan E. Swedo, M.D. and Chair of the APA’s work group that developed the revised definition of “learning disorder” for APA’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Fifth Edition (DSM-5), explaining that the new definition will allow psychiatrists to use a broad classification and then focus on specific characteristics of individual cases. You can watch this 50-sec video of Dr. Swedo explaining not very much about what’s been a pretty controversial decision.
I would encourage folks not to work themselves into too much of a lather about the APA’s decision to alter its definition of “learning disorders.” The psychiatrists’ definition of these problems doesn’t have much effect in the USA on the legal definition of LD that influences decisions about services in schools. The APA (not, by the way, to be confused with the American Psychological Association, aka “APA”) uses its definition for the purposes of classification and (importantly) billing insurance companies. The diagnostic and statistical manuals are designed to be used by “a wide range of health and mental health professionals, including psychiatrists and other physicians, psychologists, social workers, nurses, occupational and rehabilitation therapists, and counselors” (see the DSM site), not by educators.
For folks wanting to learn more on this topic, the Learning Disabilities Association of America posted a brief document in the summer of 2012 in which Larry Silver summarized background and updated information about DSM and learning disorders in DSM-5.