LD Resources

Philip Schultz, Pulitzer prize winning poet will share his experiences growing up with dyslexia, at Elizabethtown College on February 22nd. I haven’t heard him speak, but have read his book, which pulls no punches when describing the difficulties faced in an unsupportive school environment. His book, My Dyslexia, describes his path to literacy.

The Upside of Dyslexia

This article from Sunday’s NYTimes, is I think, a continuation of a fascinating argument as to whether the learning disability called dyslexia is also a learning style that has built-in skills and attributes.

I’ve heard many times over, some well-argued points against this notion that dyslexia carries its own set of built in, hard-wired talents. Richard Wanderman, founder of this site and my good friend, can always be counted on to dismiss the notion and point out that people develop talents based on how much they work at it. I may be oversimplifying his and others’ similar points of view on this, but I think it’s close. Proponents argue that such things as “three-dimensional thinking’ for example, are often skill-sets that people with dyslexia possess.

Others claim this is nonsense; that there’s no way to categorize all dyslexics as having a consistent set of benefits or associated neurologically-based strengths.

For me, as is my nature, I think the truth lies more towards the middle. While it’s true that not all people with dyslexia have the same profile of weaknesses, there are general things we know about what’s hard for them, and can see them both operationally (in the real world), and neurologically (through testing and brain imagery). By the same token, while we can’t claim that all dyslexics are “holistic thinkers” or artists, or creative, etc.; if I had a dime for every dyslexic kid who I test or work with, that was a phenomenal “Lego” kid or builder of some kind, I’d be a rich guy. The persistence of the conversation that dyslexics have certain visual skills does not in itself mean that it’s likely to be true, but research such as discussed in this NY Times article, is finally specifying specific attributes that may in fact be true.

Intriguing evidence that those with dyslexia process information from the visual periphery more quickly also comes from the study of “impossible figures,” like those sketched by the artist M. C. Escher. A focus on just one element of his complicated drawings can lead the viewer to believe that the picture represents a plausible physical arrangement.

Of course, all styles of information processing have, hopefully, by their very nature, strengths that are very real. But, having inherent strengths that we may be born with, doesn’t mean the old axiom “use it or lose it. isn’t true.” It also doesn’t mean that you can’t develop skills that you just weren’t born with. I sometimes describe myself a mechanical dyslexic in presentations, to make a certain humorous point, but that doesn’t mean that with enough focus, and enough persevering through mistakes, aka the learning curve, that I didn’t put together a very tough outdoor basketball stand and hoop when my kids were going up.

Genetic tendencies, potential talents and weaknesses, all need fertile and supportive environments to gain traction, and bloom, or become somehow less impactful, in the case of weaknesses. Being sleuths or detectives for strengths in children is as important as being clear about their problems.

In the second study, Mr. Schneps deliberately blurred a set of photographs, reducing high-frequency detail in a manner that made them resemble astronomical images. He then presented these pictures to groups of dyslexic and nondyslexic undergraduates. The students with dyslexia were able to learn and make use of the information in the images, while the typical readers failed to catch on.

Know any photographers who are dyslexic?

The National Association of Therapeutic Schools and Programs (NATSAP) will be holding its national conference in Orlando, Florida next week, February 9th-11th at the World Swan and Dolphin Conference Center.

Sanford Shapiro (me) will be presenting next Saturday on the impact of Learning Disabilities on Therapeutic Concerns. The focus of the presentation is to help counselors and therapists become more effective by understanding how LD impacts mental health and one’s response to therapeutic interventions.

The conference is attended by therapeutic schools, wilderness and addiction programs as well as educational consultants worldwide.

.

A Dyslexic Wonder

This is about Jennifer Smith, a finalist in 2010 for an Ann and Allegra Ford Scholarship, and her story of growth and pain. Terribly and typically teased, she persevered through language training and to the growth of her self-confidence. She enters college in the fall, speaks to students about dyslexia, has written a book, “Dyslexia Wonders”
and has created a non-profit group, Jenny’s Wish Foundation. This foundation provides scholarships to kids with learning disabilities, and provides grants to organizations who help them.

A two day conference focusing on dyslexia education at USM, Hattiesburg, Mississippi. It’s titled, The 16th annual DuBard Symposium: Dyslexia and Related Disorders and is taking place at the Thad Cochran Center.

Recently someone and I had an exchange about the notion of extra time as an accommodation for standardized tests such as the SAT. He brought up some good questions. Here’s one of them and my reply:

Him: “Let’s talk about SAT tests. The fact that a neurotypical student benefits from extra time seems to indicate that the test is, in fact, sensitive to processing speed.. We’ll ignore for the moment the test’s predictive power vis-a-vis academic success (despite the fact that this is what the test is supposedly designed for!) and just ask whether we believe processing speed is a “scholastic aptitude.”

If it is not a scholastic aptitude, then my argument is that the SAT ought not be designed to reward it.

If, on the other hand, we assume that processing speed IS a scholastic aptitude, then we face a new set of questions, such as:

Is time-to-completion a reasonable, fair measure of competence?

How much processing speed should instructors be allowed to assume when designing assignments and tests?

Is processing speed the most significant scholastic aptitude? And if not, is its effect on SAT scores proportionate, or outsized?

And why, if processing speed is salient, is it wrong to take into account the fact that a student needed extra time to complete an assignment or test? Consider that a University’s capacity to provide extra supports may be precious and limited.”

My reply:

Here are my thoughts on some of your excellent questions and points:
You mention: “Let’s talk about SAT tests. The fact that a neurotypical student benefits from extra time seems to indicate that the test is, in fact, sensitive to processing speed.. …and just ask whether we believe processing speed is a “scholastic aptitude.”

If it is not a scholastic aptitude, then my argument is that the SAT ought not be designed to reward it.”

My thoughts: Processing speed is a neurological/cognitive performance marker AND is also an over emphasized academic skill. The fact that it may be both; that some people’s learning disability includes “slow processing speed” or as Dr. Martha Denckla terms it “slow production speed,” should help us see that leveling the playing field to accommodate this is a good and just thing. Certainly the courts have see this to be true. When you have a student who comprehends what they read and hear at a high level, but who processes print at a slow speed (classic bright dyslexic), then the accommodation of extra time to read and/or write makes perfect sense. While extra time may benefit anyone, the level of benefit is markedly different. Having a ramp benefits everyone but makes a world of difference to someone in a wheelchair, or simply one with a sprained ankle. That’s where the concept of universal design comes in. Perhaps the way to go is give everyone the time they need to complete the SAT or the like.

A new school for students with dyslexia is planned for the Marietta GA area.

As expected, the recent piece in the NY Times Ritalin Gone Wrong, has led to mostly negative commentary from people who read the article as though the professor is attacking the biological case for ADHD and parents. He does claim that since the evidence does not support the long-term efficacy of Ritalin and stimulants for children with ADHD, we need to be aware of what else can be done as part of a treatment plan over the long haul. The article does get feathers riled by talking about how early childhood influences symptoms of ADHD and other behavioral challenges.

The piece that I wrote about here at this site yesterday, has a very different take from how quite a few folks are reacting to the NY Times piece.

In Motherlode, a parenting blog featured on the NY Times site and one that I subscribe to and enjoy, claims that Professor Sroufe “demonizes” parents and blames them for the condition of ADHD.

I don’t think he does that at all and I commented on Motherlode itself. See for yourself the overall commentary and join in if you are interested.

In an opinion piece in the NY Times, Dr. Alan Sroufe, a psychologist and professor Ameritus from The University of Minnesota argues that we must reduce our reliance on medicating children with stimulants because there are  no studies that indicate these medications have any long-term benefits.

This is sure to create unrest and unease within the medical, educational and parent communities, not to mention the pharmaceutical industry.

As it should.

This is a hugely important area and for various reasons. I am however, afraid that the level of conversation will begin to resemble a presidential debate; facts be dammed and positions defined with self-interest and hyperbole.  For all concerned, I hope everyone reads past the headlines and that science reporters take their time.

While there are clear and sufficient reasons to take stimulant and other medications to help alleviate the symptoms of ADHD, and while the “short-term benefits” both in and out of school can and do save and change lives for the better, this controversial and important area of research brings to light several crucial truths:

1. Over the past decade an increasing amount of well-done research illuminates that environmental pillars of early childhood such as the presence of trauma, and types of childcare to name just two, absolutely influence the architecture of the brain. Children with avoidant, judgmental and/or indifferent childcare/parenting show behavioral and neurological changes that mimic ADHD or PTSD.  The old “Nature versus Nurture” debate has been shifting to a growing understanding that Nurture works with our Natural genetic blueprint to create, minimize or exacerbate genetic predispositions.

Knowing this dramatically shifts the discussion from early medication to emphasis on early childcare responsibility and resources for the encouragement of healthy brains.

2.  If long-term benefits of medications for ADHD have been overstated or worse are an illusion, then we have to recognize that medication is a tool to buy time and with which to incorporate other changes and supports as part of a multi-faceted approach.  Not the least of these should be creating classrooms and homes that are better suited to meet the needs of highly active and/or inattentive, hands-on learners.

3.  Since it is our children who in the long term suffer, this is another opportunity to reduce our impulse to take pills as a long-term solution.  As Dr. Sroufe writes:

Finally, the illusion that children’s behavior problems can be cured with drugs prevents us as a society from seeking the more complex solutions that will be necessary. Drugs get everyone — politicians, scientists, teachers and parents — off the hook. Everyone except the children, that is.

Dr. Gordon Sherman on Brain Research and Reading

This is the transcript of an interview Gordon F. Sherman, Ph.D. did with Schwab Learning that although a few years old, is an good summary of the neurological basis of dyslexia. Dr. Sherman is the Executive Director of The Newgrange School in New Jersey. He was previously Director of the Dyslexia Research Laboratory at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston and Assistant Professor of Neurology at Harvard Medical School and is a former president of the International Dyslexia Association.

A Specialists’ Debate on Autism Has Many Worried Observers

A debate among medical professionals over how to define autism has spilled over into the public domain, stirring anger and fear among many parents and advocates of those with the neurological disorder, even as some argue that the diagnosis has been too loosely applied.

Personally, I’m very disappointed that the issue of adjusting the definition of Autism in the as-yet-to-be-completed DSM-5 (American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual) is first generating controversy about protecting costs and other basic questions concerning eligibility. Changes to the Autism Spectrum Diagnosis have been debated now for a few years and we’re first hearing there’s not even consensus about how many people currently meeting the criteria for Autism Spectrum Disorder would still meet them and how many folks would lose eligibility for services? To hear that the scientific community is still in seeming disarray about fundamental issues such as these seems ridiculous and gives me way less faith in the process already undertaken.

“We have to make sure not everybody who is a little odd gets a diagnosis of autism or Asperger disorder,” said Dr. David J. Kupfer, a professor of psychiatry at the University of Pittsburgh and chairman of the task force making the revisions, which are still subject to change. “It involves a use of treatment resources. It becomes a cost issue.”

Ugh. I’m sorry, but the chairman of the task force is still voicing a concern about that? Really? They haven’t settled that yet and the manual’s due to come out next year? I understand the impetus to refine and not make this diagnosis a catch-all and fall-back category. I really do. There are pressures and self-serving motivations for some parents and professionals to diagnosis shop, but they are not the majority and further, most learning disabilities (like dyslexia) and developmental disorders (such as Autism Spectrum) do run on a continuum from “mild” to “severe.”

I realize everything these days is a “cost issue,” but jeez, are the scientists on task forces designed to protect children the ones who should have that as their go-to concern about which they’re speaking in news interview? Those questions should have been settled long ago. Let the scientists and educators and other expert and interested parties struggle with the data and human questions and let the policy makers and politicians argue out the monitory pieces.

Apple’s Entrance into Digital Textbooks: revolutionary?

Apple announced its entrance into digital textbooks, now selling through its iTunes and iBooks online. Though this has been somewhat expected, it’s exciting news.

Believe me, this is not even the tip of the iceberg. I’ve already downloaded samples of the 8 textbooks listed in the iBooks store. While I think these books will become significantly more interactive and creative in design, much like some of the early digital magazines, they’re already way more interesting than standard textbooks.

Imagine how much students backs and shoulders will love when they can carry five 300 page textbooks inside their iPad.

Way less expensive too!