Tag Archive for 'Policy'

Page 2 of 3

JLD on professional development

Published on 13 August 2009 in Literacy, News, Policy, Professional development, Research and The press. 2 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , .

JLD cover

The Journal of Learning Disabilities for September-October 2009 features a special series of articles about the teaching of reading teaching. Issue editors R. Malatesha Joshi and Anne E. Cunningham put together a set of articles by stellar authorities in the area of reading to examine “Perceptions and Reality: What We Know About the Quality of Literacy Instruction.”

Moats, L. (2009). Still wanted: Teachers with knowledge of language. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 387-391.

Joshi, R. M., Binks, E., Hougen, M., Dahlgren M. E., Ocker-Dean, E., & Smith, D. L. (2009). Why elementary teachers might be inadequately prepared to teach reading. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 392-402.[Link]

Podhajski, B., Mather, N., Nathan, J., & Sammons, J. (2009). Professional development in scientifically based reading instruction: Teacher knowledge and reading outcomes Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 403-417. [Link]

Cunningham, A. E., Zibulsky, J., Stanovich, K. E., & Stanovich, P. J. (2009). How teachers would spend their time teaching language arts: The mismatch between self-reported and best practices. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 418-430. [Link]

Spear-Swerling, L. (2009). A literacy tutoring experience for prospective special educators and struggling second graders. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 431-443. [Link]

Kaiser, L., Rosenfield, S., & Gravois, T. (2009). Teachers’ perception of satisfaction, skill development, and skill application after instructional consultation services. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 444-457.[Link]

Joshi, R. M., Binks, E., Graham, L., Ocker-Dean, E., Smith, D. L., & Boulware-Gooden, R. (2009). Do textbooks used in university reading education courses conform to the instructional recommendations of the National Reading Panel? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 458-463. [Link]

Stotsky, S. (2009). Licensure tests for special education teachers: How well they assess knowledge of reading instruction and mathematics. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 464-474. [Link]

Lyon, G. R., & Weiser, B. (2009). Teacher knowledge, instructional expertise, and the development of reading proficiency. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 475-480.[Link]

Sphere: Related Content

NCLD report

Published on 23 June 2009 in Administration, Bookshelf, News, Policy and The press. 0 Comments Tags: , , , , , .

The National Center for Learning Disabilities, a US advocacy group, released a report entitled “The State of Learning Disabilities” today. The report presents broad-strokes data about Learning Disabilities (LD) across the life span, including (for example) data about not only school environments, but also work situations.

Highlights from the report include:

  • The identification rate of school-age students with LD has consistently declined for the past 10 years
  • Learning disabilities disproportionately affect people living in poverty
  • People of all races are identified with LD at about the same rate (except people of Asian descent), and,
  • The cost of educating a student with LD is 1.6 times higher than a regular education student (compared with 1.9 for all students with disabilities).

Link to the report.

Sphere: Related Content

LD and chiropracty–NOT

Published on 18 June 2009 in Administration, Comments, Families, News, Policy, Research, The press and Treatment. 0 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , , , , .

Chiropractors are likely to complain about the treatment that their methods receive in posts on this blog. I’ve posted recently that I find wanting the bases for the the (currently-on-tour, see-’em-in-your-neighborhood-soon) Brain Balance Music program. This post will be even more alarming to supporters of those sorts of treatments for LD.

The fundamental problem with the therapies for Learning Disabilities recommended by some chiropractors is that those therapies are bogus. They may be advocated by people who honestly believe that they’re recommending helpful stuff. The hypothetical relations among the neurological and behavioral factors may sound sensible, but that is, in large part, because we’re listening to the words rather than the facts. The folks may have seen what they believe are legitimate improvements in children’s academic and social behavior after the children received the therapy. Parents may have told them how much better the children seem.

None of that counts as scientific (i.e., objective, generalizable, refutable) evidence of benefits. The advocates may be as seriously misled as they mislead their potential clients. They just don’t have the data. Their explanations are post hoc and untested, at best.

In addition to the probably benign Brain Balance Music methods, consider one of the other chiropractic therapies: Cranio-sacral therapy: The hypothesis is that something about the connection between the child’s head and tail causes learning problems (even mental retardation and autism!) and it can be corrected by chiropractic manipulations.

Continue reading ‘LD and chiropracty–NOT’

Sphere: Related Content

ICDR input opportunity

Published on 19 April 2009 in Events, Families, News, Policy and Research. 0 Comments Tags: , , .

The Interagency Committee on Disability Research (ICDR) issued a reminder about its process for securing recommendations about priorities for about disability and rehabilitation research. Following its earlier call for recommendations, ICDR now solicits public voting about the agenda.

The ICDR Seeks Your Recommendations on Emerging Disability Research Topics

Web site provides opportunity to vote and prioritize disability issues of greatest concern

This year for the first time, the federally mandated Interagency Committee on Disability Research (ICDR) is utilizing an innovative Web-based approach to collect online disability research comments to assist in developing a federal disability and rehabilitation 2010 research agenda. This technology-driven approach gives the public a three-week timeframe from March 27th through April 17th to submit their recommendations. Additionally, registered participants will be invited to review all comments submitted and vote on their top 10 concerns in each topic area during the one-week period from April 22nd through April 29th. Public comments from stakeholders are the focal point of the disability research recommendations in the ICDR Annual Report to the President and Congress.

All disability-related research topics are welcomed, including discussion about concerns important to the veteran and military communities. The ICDR is seeking comments with special emphasis placed in the following areas:

  • Collaboration and coordination among federal agencies;
  • Health information technology and/or electronic health records;
  • Health disparities;
  • Health promotion in the workplace;
  • Employment and health; and
  • Other critical research issues.

    • Guidelines and Instructions:

  • Access the ICDR Public Comment Web site: http://www.icdr.us/stakeholders for complete instructions, guidelines, and registration.
  • If you do not have access to a computer or the Internet, you may mail your comments to ICDR c/o CESSI, 6858 Old Dominion Drive, Suite 250, McLean, VA 22101 or fax to 703-442-9015. Please follow the following instructions for written comments:
    • No longer than 250 words or 1500 characters
    • Single-spaced using 12-point font in Times New Roman

    • Key Dates:

  • Web-based Public Comments: March 27 – April 17, 2009 (3:00 P.M. EDT)
  • Written Comments: March 27 – April 17, 2009 (Must be postmarked no later than the deadline)
  • Online Public Voting: April 22 – 29, 2009 (11:59 P.M. EDT)

    • Cross-posted with EBD Blog.

    Sphere: Related Content

    Research input opportunity

    Published on 28 March 2009 in Families, News and Research. 0 Comments Tags: , , , , .

    Here’s a copy of a post I put on EBD Blog that has content that’s also relevant here.

    The US Interagency Committee on Disability Research (ICDR) is seeking citizens’ recommendations about a research agenda. Although this initiative aims at addressing issues for adults in the community, which differs from the focus of EBD Blog (educational issues related to children and youth and their families), I want to mention it here so that readers who may have interests in health, employment, and similar topics will get the news.

    This year for the first time, the federally mandated Interagency Committee on Disability Research (ICDR) is utilizing an innovative Web-based approach to collect online disability research comments to assist in developing a federal disability and rehabilitation 2010 research agenda. This technology-driven approach gives the public a three-week timeframe from March 27th through April 17th to submit their recommendations. Additionally, registered participants will be invited to review all comments submitted and vote on their top 10 concerns in each topic area during the one-week period from April 22nd through April 29th. Public comments from stakeholders are the focal point of the disability research recommendations in the ICDR Annual Report to the President and Congress.

    ICDR stakeholders page.

    Sphere: Related Content

    Poll 2 on RtI and LD

    Published on 5 August 2008 in Administration, Assessment, Dyslexia, News, Policy and Treatment. 0 Comments Tags: , , , , .

    Here’s an announcement of the second in the series of polls to assess readers’ perspectives on response to intervention or response to instruction (RtI) and Learning Disabilities. RtI (which was expressly permitted in the US Individuals with Disabilities Education Act), is commonly considered to have multiple tiers of intensity with careful monitoring of students’ progress informing decisions about providing increasingly more intensive services. The mechanisms of RtI are the focus of this poll. Although they are being adopted broadly, the only RtI models that have been studied closely are in early literacy, so I’m limiting this discussion to those efforts.
    Continue reading ‘Poll 2 on RtI and LD’

    Sphere: Related Content

    Poll 1 on RtI and LD

    Published on 2 July 2008 in Administration, Dyslexia, Policy and Treatment. 3 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , , , .

    With this post, I’m beginning a series of polls to assess readers’ perspectives on response to intervention or response to instruction (RtI) and Learning Disabilities. As most people concerned with LD know, RtI was expressly permitted in the most recent set of regulations under the US law, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Although most special educators agree at least in part with RtI, one of the most controversial issues is whether implementing RtI will reduce the incidence of LD. That’s the topic of this poll.

    Do you expect that providing tier-one and tier-two reading instruction according to an RTI model during primary and elementary grades will reduce the incidence of Learning Disabilities (dyslexia)?

    • No (39%, 14 Votes)
    • Yes, a little (e.g., from ~5% to ~4%) (33%, 12 Votes)
    • Yes, some (e.g., from ~5% to ~2-3%) (22%, 8 Votes)
    • Yes, lots (e.g., from ~5% to ~1%) (6%, 2 Votes)

    Total Voters: 36

    Loading ... Loading ...

    By the way, the Division for Learning Disabilities published a good booklet providing basic background about RtI. It is written in practitioner-friendly language and can be read in only a few minutes. Visit the products section of TeachingLD.org to learn more about it. (Yes, I contributed to the booklet, but I don’t make any royalties from it.)

    By the way (2), over on Teach Effectively there are a set of slides from presentations about RTI. These presentations were delivered by prominent special educators at the 2007 meeting of the Council for Exceptional Children.

    Please note that this poll should not be consider scientific evidence. Do not construe the results of any of these polls as representative of systematic polls conducted by reputable polling organizations. These results simply reflect the opinion of the people who responded to the question. The sample of people who respond is selective, not randomly drawn from a defined population.

    Sphere: Related Content

    An illiterate teacher

    Published on 13 February 2008 in Dyslexia, News, Policy and The press. 1 Comment Tags: , , .

    Joanne Jacobs has a post entitled “The illiterate teacher” about author John Corcoran who reports in a book that he “taught high school social studies, bookkeeping and P.E. for 17 years despite being illiterate.” Ms. Jacobs reported that Mr. Corcoran, who’s book is The Teacher Who Couldn’t Read, also funds a foundation that promotes reading instruction. According to the John Corcoran Foundation Web site, Mr. Corcoran has also written another book, Bridge to Literacy: No Child – or Adult Left Behind.

    Link to Ms. Jacob’s post. See also the John Corcoran Foundation Web site.

    Sphere: Related Content

    FCRR dyslexia document

    Published on 10 February 2008 in Administration, Dyslexia, Families, News, Policy and Research. 2 Comments Tags: , , , , , .

    Joe Torgesen, Barbara Foorman, and Richard Wagner of the Florida Center for Reading Research published an excellent overview of dyslexia that is readily available for public download. Although the title, “Dyslexia: A Brief for Educators, Parents, and Legislators in Florida,” makes it sound as if it is only applicable to people in a specific geographical area bounded by arbitrary marks on maps, this paper will be useful to millions of people.

    In the document, Torgesen and his eminent colleagues address questions such as these: What is Dyslexia? What type of instruction is most effective for students with dyslexia? and Can reading difficulties in dyslexic students be prevented? How effective is remedial instruction for older students with dyslexia? The writing is clear as well as clearly well-informed.

    This document will be valuable to people in PreK-12 schools, students studying education and the professors who should be teaching them the contents of the document; parents who are seeking straight talk with the authority of firm scientific underpinnings; and advocates who can benefit by distributing a tightly reasoned and written document to help explain concepts to constituents.

    Snag a free copy from the Florida Center for Reading Research.

    Sphere: Related Content

    NJCLD Jan 08

    Published on 23 January 2008 in Administration, News and Policy. 0 Comments Tags: , , , , , .

    Last weekend on behalf of the Division for Learning Disabilities, I attended the semi-annual meeting of the National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities (NJCLD). The NJCLD has a long and distinguished history, one that I ought to describe in a page or post, but that’s the basis for another post, but not this one.

    The basis for this post is to alert folks that NJCLD will soon publish new papers that discuss important topics about Learning Disabilities. One of them is the long-in-development treatment of adolescent literacy. Watch for it. It should appear in the summer of 2008.

    Another is a very brief paper about the construct of Learning Disabilities. It also should appear in the summer (I hope), in time to be in the portfolios of people who will be discussing special education issues in the next US Congress and presidential administration.

    Sphere: Related Content