V. Dion Haynes
Washington Post
Dear Mr. Haynes,
In your article about changes in the administration of special education in Washington (DC, US), entitled “Special-Ed Getting New Computer System, Staff” appearing 27 February 2008 on page B04,” you used the term “Learning Disabilities” as a generic reference for students with various other, legally recognized disabilities. Here is an extract (my underlining):
For years, city and school officials have criticized programs provided by the D.C. schools’ special education office, which serves 9,400 students with physical or learning disabilities. The school system spends about $137 million a year on private school tuition for about 2,400 children it cannot serve in the public schools.
Specific Learning Disabilities is a specific category of disability under US federal law (Public Law 108-446, 108th Congress), and it is expressly differentiated from mental retardation, emotional disturbance, and other disabilities. It is not a generic term and should not be used to refer to multiple categories of disabilities. Although it may seem trivial to some, this difference is important to many. Using the term “learning disabilities” as a generic obscures important differences in students and may even undermine efforts by parents and educators to seek services for students who have learning disabilities, emotional or behavioral disorders, intellectual disabilities, autism, and speech-language disorders (among others).
I hope that this note is helpful. Thank you for your reporting of the substantive content in your article (which I’ve covered elsewhere).
John Wills Lloyd, Ph.D.
Editor, LD Blog
Professor, University of Virginia
Seen TZP?
This is the lead from an editorial praising a movie the movie, “Taare Zameen Par.” The movie is generating multiple entries in my Google news searches.
Later in the editorial, the author trots out the usual list of famous individuals said to have had dyslexia and raises the currently pop ideas of Professor Julie Logan from the Cass Business School in London, which we’ve discussed before on LD Blog. Sigh.
Although I have serious problems with those lapses and the intellectually challenged idea expressed in the film and the editorial title (”every child is special”), I wonder what the movie’s like. Anyone seen it? I’d like to see it.
Links:
The original editorial ;
The earlier post about Professor Logan’s research;
The official Web site for the film.