Review of Trends, Facts, Needs, Challenges, and Opportunities in the Field of Learning Disabilities

Hi group members,

I just came across a resource I had not seen before.  It is from The Advocacy Institute and the National Center for Learning Disabilities and is dated June 2012.  You can find the Review of Trends, Facts, Needs, Challenges, and Opportunities in the Field of Learning Disabilities at http://www.ncld.org/images/content/files/ncld-situational-analysis-2012.pdf >

Happy reading!

Rochelle Kenyon, Subject Matter Expert

 
 

Comments

 

This is interesting -- a little disconcerting, a lot eye-opening.  Thanks for digging this up and sharing it with us. This report lays out the challenges of getting and focusing attention on a particular set of problems -- in this case, learning disabilities.  From this report, I got a much richer sense of just how complex this issue of a "name" really is.  And it's leading me to the conclusion that I shouldn't be bothered by the label "learning disabilities".  Perhaps I should be thankful, instead, that we have such a useful term.  Perhaps I should be concerned that we are well on the way to losing it.  Now that's a stunning idea.  It got my attention.  I hope that it gets yours. I have written a few times (at least) about how I prefer to talk in terms of "learning differences" or "diffabilities".  I have long felt the sting of that label, but also appreciated the real-world benefits of having a label in the first place (rather than nothing to hang my hat on).  I'd prefer -- I have said -- "learning differences" or "diffabilities" or something along those lines, but I can -- I've also said -- live with "learning disabilities" because people know what it means (more or less); it is useful.  But now I see the unintended consequences of this well-intentioned philosophizing.  The report makes the case: Sometimes you don't know what you have until you've lost it.  The report says, in effect, that we're losing this term -- and it lays out what we're losing as a consequence.  It is sobering stuff. I'd be interested in your comments. 

Hi Dave,

I found your comments fascinating.  You pointed out some key issues.  I am remembering back to some of our heated discussions on this topic from the Learning Disabilities Discussion List.  It would be interesting to hear from Michael G., Hugo, and other frequent posters on this resource.  I join you in inviting others to share their comments and opinions here.

Rochelle Kenyon, SME

Hi, Dave,

Disconcerting is a very apt word for the opening sections of this report. In addition to what you noted, it struck me that the report authors talked about even losing the construct of learning disabilities, that the phrase itself is simply losing its meaning, not to mention its popularity. Years ago I remember a director of adult education reminding staff never to talk about disabilities unless we were also talking about accommodations. But isn't it harder to provide appropriate accommodations if we don't understand what issues the individual is facing? The point of naming, I would argue, is not to label learners, but to assist them to get what they need to learn. Some of my colleagues would argue that is the intent of RTI as well. Much food for thought here. Thanks for your comments,

Margaret

 

Thanks to Rochelle and Margaret for your replies.  May I tap the rest of you on the shoulder again, and ask you one more time for your thoughts about this report? (see the link in Rochelle's opening post in this thread)  This is -- especially for this group -- an important report, for it gets to the very core of what we think we do and what that means.

I am not sure what to make of the silence on this topic.  Was it just a matter of timing?  Did other "news" bury it?  I ask because so many in this group have written repeatedly and long-winded-ly about the many flaws in the "disability" construct.  It was a hot issue just before we switched to this new format and structure.  And as I've written, I had (and still have) my own "issues" with the word.  But this report really cleared things up for me.  It changed my mind.  Now I'm concerned that we might be losing the disability label -- and that this might be a far worse thing than I would have ever thought.  So please forgive me for repeating myself: Please read the report.  You'll find the link in Rochelle's opening post in this thread.  And please share your thinking -- wherever and however you come down on this important question.  It's not a trivial issue.  And it's not too late....yet. 

Dave, and others,

I found the report interesting, informative and written in a clear and compelling style. However, what stood out most for me was the invisibility of the issues of adults with learning disabilities. Did I miss them, or were there no references at all to the needs of and policies regarding adults with learning disabilities?

David J. Rosen

djrosen123@gmail.com

 

Hi David,

The issue that prompted my comments here -- and perhaps it would be best to see my first reply to Rochelle's initial post -- has to do with the implications of "losing" the "learning disabilities" construct.  The report makes a strong case: The term "learning disability" has been mis-used, watered-down, and widely criticised (including on this listserv -- and to some extent, by me).  There are real implications to this.  The report makes that clear.  I'd say that their basic argument begins with this quote:

"Whatever the reasons and good intentions, a fading use of the term “learning disabilities” coupled with its overuse as a proxy for all disabilities, is problematic in the context of NCLD’s mission and work. Confidence in the validity of the LD construct, including how it is diagnosed, needs repair."

That the report only mentions adults twice is another worthwhile conversation, but I do think that it should be a concern to everyone who works with learning disabled adults, that we might be losing the very construct that defines what we do, why we do it, how we do it, and whether there is any support (monetary or otherwise) for it.  That, to me, is the fundamentally troubling message of this report.

- Dave Middlebrook

   textmapping.org

 

 

Still mulling over the report.  Here's another quote: "The cumulative effect is a lack of regard for LD as a real disorder and as a diagnosis that has meaning, relevance and provides critical information that can guide differentiated instruction."

If you work in the field -- whether with adults or children -- this should be troubling to you.  One example: College programs for LD and other struggling students.  Where would you be without the learning disabilities construct and the tools that it brings.  Think funding.  Think student and faculty awareness.  Think instructional methods.  What would happen if we lost the construct?  What if we're already well on the way?  

And another thought (It's Saturday.  Nothing I have to do...).  I wasn't happy with changing the name of this list from "learning disabilities" to "disabilities".  I wasn't a vocal objector.  I thought that some of the reasons given in support of the idea were reasonable.  But in retrospect, I really don't think that it was a good idea.  Read the report.  It's in there.  See how easily we let these important things evaporate right out from under our feet?

Those who are educationally disadvantaged are 'learning disabled' as well as those with intrapersonal disabilities.  Both may be helped by experiments.

That is why I  urge you to look at the spelling section on this mailing list.  Unnecessarily difficult spellings can baffle them - altho you have mastered them with ease.

They struggle - and often fail completely.

I appreciate Rochelle sharing the report with the group. I work in special education teacher preparation. I can attest to the point made in the report that we rarely now offer any type of focused and intensive interventions for adolescents with learning disabilities or for adolescents who may be far behind in reading for whatever reason. Special education teachers try to support students in various ways while being a co-teacher in general education. Separate classes tend to be a mish mash of students with a large range of challenges (mostly behavioral).  Without some focused time working with students, it is difficult for sped teachers to really understand how an individual child can really learn and even more difficult to facilitate that within one of the two contexts of inclusion and special classes. We have also narrowed the curriculum with fewer opportunities for students to develop other abilities such as the arts or more hands on offerings exemplified by many of the trades.  Like any label, diagnosing an individual with any type of 'disorder' is serious matter. The research is solid that learning disabilities are real. What that means in terms of schooling is now very confusing.

The report was eye-opening to those who have not worked in a classroom of special education students. In many cases, the children are grouped according to age, rather than their needs. Special education teachers are not trained to deal with what they are charged with; too often their training is no different thanthat of a general education teacher. With the emphasis on testing and meeting the requirements of No Child Left Behind, much time is spent on test prep so that schools can meet their goals. This doesn't help our learning disabled students learn to read and write or do math. By the time these students reach adolescence, many have been completely turned off to school and learning. 

While I haven't worked in a full time special education class, I have worked with children from those classes. Their reactions often were to the effect that their teacher didn't tell us how to do ..... whatever it was I was teaching (mostly reading). Is it the teacher's fault, the fault of the training received, the emphasis on testing, the way students are placed, the lack of resources, or all of these things? I suspect that some of my past students have or will arrive in our ABE classes and I wonder if we can adequately serve them.

 

Learning disabilities are real and last a lifetime. They cannot be cured.

What researchers constantly ignore are the disabling effects of English spelling. Bright and parentally well supported students manage to learn to read and write despite them, but they make learning to read and write English exceptionally difficult.

English has 44 sounds and spells them in a total of 411 different ways, if u add up the different ways each sound can be spelt  http://englishspellingproblems.blogspot.com/2009/12/rules-and-exceptions-of-english.html . The number of different graphemes is however only 205, because 69 of them are used for more than one sound, e.g. ou in: sound/ soup/ sought/ should/ shoulder / touch... (see further down). If u compare this to Finnish which spells its 38 sounds with merely 38 phonically totally reliable graphemes, or the average of 50 graphemes for all alphabetically written languages, it becomes obvious why learning to read and write English is exceptionally difficult and takes a long time.

The worst aspect of English spelling irregularities is that they do not merely make learning to write exceptionally time-consuming, but learning to read as well. No other alphabetically written language poses both problems.

English reading difficulties are due to the phonic unreliability of the following 69 graphemes:

a:   and - apron, any, father

a-e:   came - camel

ai:   wait - said, plait

al:   always - algebra

all:   tall - shall

are:   care - are

au:   autumn - laugh, mauve

-ate:   to deliberate - a deliberate act

ay:   stays - says

cc:   success - soccer

ce:   cell - cello

ch:   chop - chorus, choir, chute

cqu:   acquire - lacquer

e:   end - English

-e:   he - the (car)

ea:   mean - meant, break

ear:   ear - early, heart, bear

-ee:   tree - matinee

e-e:   even - seven, fete

ei:   veil - ceiling, eider, their, leisure

eigh:   weight - height

eo:   people - leopard, leotard

ere:   here - there, were

-et:   tablet - chalet

eau:   beauty - beau

-ew:   few - sew

-ey:   they - monkey

ge:   get - gem

gi:   girl - ginger

gy:   gym - gynaecologist

h:   house - hour

i:   wind - wind (down)

-ine:   define - engine, machine

ie:   field - friend, sieve

imb:   limb - climb

ign:   signature - sign

mn:   amnesia - mnemonic

o:   on - only, once, other

-o:   go - do

oa:   road - broad

o-e:   bone - done, gone

-oes:   toes - does, shoes

-oll:   roll - doll

omb:   combine - bomb, comb, tomb

oo:   boot - foot, brooch

-ot:   despot - depot

ou:   sound - soup, couple

- ough:   bough - rough, through, trough

ought:   bought - drought

oul:   should - shoulder, mould

our:   sour - four, journey

ow:   how - low

qu:   queen - bouquet

s:   sun - sure

sc:   scent - luscious, molusc

-se:   rose - dose

ss:   possible - possession

th:   this - thing

-ture:   nature - mature

u:   cup - push

ui:   build - fruit, ruin

wa:   was - wag

wh:   what who

wo:   won - woman, women, womb

wor:   word - worn

x:   box - xylophone, anxious

-y-:   type - typical

- -y:   daddy - apply

z:   zip - azure

The phonic inconsistencies in the above 153 words give only a glimpse of the reading difficulties they create, because altogether they make at least 2000 relatively common English words tricky to read:

www.englishspellingproblems.co.uk/html/sight_words

Masha Bell
Ex English teacher, now independent literacy researcher
http://EnglishSpellingProblems.blogspot.com
http://ImprovingEnglishSpelling.blogspot.com

www.EnglishSpellingProblems.co.uk
and Youtube video 'Why improve English spelling?'
Wareham, Dorset, UK

Masha,

Spelling is neither the cause nor the cure for learning disabilities. Students with learning disabilities are present across all groups, even those who don't and never did speak English. Learning disabilities are found in groups who only speak Arabic, Chinese, Hebrew, or Russian to name a few. 

Children with parental support do better regardless of whether they have learning disabilities, speech defects, autism, etc. or no learning problems than those without parental support. Not all bright, learning disabled children with parental support will learn to read and write well.

I realize that you and a few others are on a campaign to change English spelling, but changing spelling will not cure the problems people with learning disablities have. 

Shellie

English spelling inconsistencies are not the only cause of literacy learning disabilities. A poor visual memory, or simply a poor memory and difficulties with identifying the sound of words make learning to read and write more difficult too. But with regular spelling systems they have a much less detrimental effect on learning to read and write.

Frith, Wimmer and Landerl studied the difficulties faced by English and German dyslexics. They reported in the Scientific Studies of Reading in 1998: “English dyslexic children suffered from much more severe impairments in reading than the German dyslexic children”. They concluded that English dyslexics “were at an enormous disadvantage in their struggle to learn to read and write” and that “the adverse effect of English orthography remains evident at age 12 and may well persist”.

          At the university of Milan professor Eraldo Paulesu examined the relationship between dyslexia and the English, French and Italian spelling systems.  He concluded in 2001 that, “English dyslexics would have an easier life if their writing system was more regular”.

This really is not rocket science. Anyone who is born with a predisposition to find learning to read and write more difficult than most is going to have a harder time in a language which spells its 44 sounds with 205 graphemes (see table below), 117 of which are used unpredictably and have to be learned word by word, e.g. seek – speak, shriek, seize, scene, machine', and 69 graphemes used for more than one sound, like the ‘o’ in ‘on – only, once, other’, as I showed in my last post, than they would in languages which use only around 50 graphemes, all of which have only one pronunciation. And when something is more difficult to learn, u get more failure.

Table 1. The listing below shows all the different ways in which the 44 English speech sounds can be spelt. The most frequently used spelling for that sound is shown first.

(The figures in brackets show how many of the 7,000 most used English words which I have analysed use that spelling - and how many spell it differently.)

The irregularities necessitate memorisation of variant spellings for 3,700 common words http://englishspellingproblems.blogspot.com/2010/11/english-spelling-rules.html .

1.  a:  cat – plait, meringue  (466 – 3)

2.  a-e:  plate – wait, weight, straight, great, table

                    dahlia, fete   (338 – 69)

      -ain: rain – lane, vein, reign, champagn(39 – 19)

      -ay:  play – they, weigh, ballet, cafe, matinee (35 – 20)

3.  air:  care – hair, bear, aerial, their, there, questionnaire (31 – 27)

4.  ar:  car are  (+ 55 UK South, e.g. bath) (138 – 1)

5.  au:  sauce – caught, bought, always, tall, crawl (44 – 76)

-aw:  saw – (0) - but in UK 11-aw  + 39 or, four, sore, war

 

6.  b: bed  (0)

 

7.   ca/o/u:  cat, cot, cut character, kangaroo, queue  (1022 – 33)

cr/cl:  crab/ clot – chrome, chlorine  (192 – 10)

-c:  lilac – stomach, anora(89 – 9)

-ck:  neck – cheque, rec  (62 – 6)

k:  kite/ kept – chemistry  (124 – 7)

-k:  seek – unique   (36 – 5)

-sk:  risk – disc, mosque  (86 – 10)

qu:  quick – acquire, choir (78 – 4)

x:  fix – accept, except, exhibit (98 – 15)        

 

8.  ch: chest – cello (155 – 1)

-tch: clutch – much (24 – 7)

9.   d: dad – add, blonde (1,010 – 3)

 

10. e: end – head, any, said, wednesday, friend, leisure,

           leopard, bury (301 – 67)

11.  er:  her – turn, bird, learn, word, journey (70 – 124)

 

12.  ee:  eat – eel, even, ceiling, field, police, people,

          me, key, ski, debris, quay  (152 – 304)

--y:  jolly – trolley, movie, corgi (475 – 39)

 

13.  f:  fish – photo, stuff, rough (580 - 44)

14.  g:  garden – ghastly, guard  (171 – 28)

15.  h:  house – who  (237 – 4)

 

16.  i:  ink – mystery, pretty, sieve, women, busy, build  (421 – 53)

17.  i-e:  bite – might, style, mild, kind, eider, height, climb

           island indict sign  (278 – 76)

-y:  my – high, pie, rye, buy, i, eye  (17 – 14)

 

18.  j: jam/ jog/ jug (0) 

    jelly, jig – gentle, ginger (18 – 20)

 -ge: gorge,

-dg:  fidget – digit  (29 – 11)

19.  l:  last – llama (1,945 – 1)

20:  m:  mum – dumb, autumn (1,128 – 19)

21.  n:  nose – knot, gone, gnome, mnemonic (2,312 – 34)

22.  -ng: ring (0)   22

 

23.  o:  on – cough, sausage, gone (357 – 5)

          want – wont (19 – 1);    quarrel – quod (10 -1)

24.  o-e:  mole – bowl, roll, soul; old – mould

             boast, most, goes, mauve (171 – 100)

-o:  no – toe, dough, sew, cocoa, pharaoh, oh, depot  (106 – 59)

25.  oi:  oil – oyster    (29 – 1) 

-oy:   toy – buoy  (12 – 1)

26.  oo (long): food – rude, shrewd, move, group, fruit, truth, tomb,

            blue, do, shoe, through,   manoeuvre (95 – 101)

-ce:  face, fence – case, sense  (153 – 65)

-tion:  ignition – mission, pension, suspicion, fashion  (216 – 81)

 

37.  u:  up – front, some, couple, blood  (308 – 68)

38.  u-e:  cute you, newt, neutral, suit, beauty, Tuesday, nuclear (137 – 21)

-ue:  cue – few, view, menu (20 – 22)

 

39.   v: van (0)

-ve:  have – spiv (116 – 3) [80 with surplus –e]

-v-:  river – chivvy (73 – 7) – v/vv after short vowel

 

40.  w:  window – which (216 – 31)

41.  y:  yak – use (31 – 11)

 

42.  z:  zip – xylophone (16 – 1)

 -se:  rose – froze (85 – 33)

         wise – size (UK 31 – 3, US 11 – 22))

 

43. zh: -si-/-su-: vision, measure – azure (20 – 3)

 

44.  Unstressed, unclear vowel sound (or schwa),

       occurring mainly in 8 endings and 2 prefixes:

-able:  loveable – credible (33 – 17)

-ccle: bundle (2 consonants + l) (0)

-al:  vertical – novel, anvil, petrol (200+  –  32)

-ary:  ordinary – machinery, inventory, century, carpentry (37 – 55)

-en:  fasten – abandon, truncheon, orphan, goblin, certain (73 – 132)

-ence:  absence – balance (33 – 26

-ent: absent – pleasant ((176 – 58)

-er:  father – author, armour, nectar, centre, injure, quota (UK 340/US 346 – 135/129)

        butcher – picture (42 –ure)

de-:  decide – divide  (57 – 29)

in-:  indulge – endure  (73 – 30)

 

Consonant doubling rule for showing short, stressed vowels

merry (regular) – very(missing)  – serrated(surplus)  - (381 – 439 – 153)

 

I realise that many people find the suggestion that we should modernise English spelling in order to make learning to read and write English easier unappealing. Perhaps this is because they have never been made aware of how much confusing, illogical rote-learning English literacy acquisition necessitates or what the costs of this learning burden are http://englishspellingproblems.blogspot.com ?

Masha Bell

Masha,

I'm not against simplifying spelling. What I am against is saying that spelling is the cause of learning disabilities and that simplified spelling is the cure. It is obvious from your writing that your spelling is not American spelling but rather British spelling. It seems to me that the first step is to spell words either the American way or the British way. That would end some of the confusion. Some of the words in your list, llama and ski, for example, are directly imported from other languages; other of your words are spellings not used in the United States (cheque). 

While I haven't studied the English language as you have, I have spent many years working with learning disabled children. Learning disabled children are taught rules to help them decode and spell but they are also taught that there are exceptions. The rules give them a hook on which to hang their learning.. In order to learn, people need to make connections and rules help the learning disabled child make the connections he or she needs in order to learn. Is it perfect? Definitely not but it does help them make the connections.

 

Dear Shellie

There are not many differences between US and UK spelling. The few that exist occur mainly in word endings (labour - labor, advertise - advertize). There are far more differences in word usage (boot - trunk, pushchair - stroller, pavement - sidewalk...). If u look through the 287 words which I used to illustrate the rules and exceptions of English spelling, u can see that most have the same spellings in both languages.

As u say, Learning disabled children are taught rules to help them decode and spell but they are also taught that there are exceptions.

But imagine for a moment being able to teach just the rules, without any exceptions. U can surely appreciate that this would make both teaching and learning to read and write English much easier?

Getting rid of all the exceptions in one go, after 300+ years of doing nothing about them, would be a very big challenge. Personally, I am also far less bothered by the irregular spellings which merely make learning to write more difficult (late - eight, straight). The irregularities which trouble me most are the seven which impede progress in both reading and writing:

e: end – head, any, said, wednesday, friend, leisure, leopard, bury (301 – 67)

u: up – front, some, couple, blood (308 – 68)

ee: eat – eel, even, ceiling, field, police, people, me, key, ski, debris, quay (152 – 304)

o-e: mole – bowl, roll, soul; old – mould, boast, most, goes, mauve (171 – 100)

-o: no – toe, dough, sew, cocoa, pharaoh, oh, depot (106 – 59)

oo (long): food – rude, shrewd, move, group, fruit, truth, tomb, blue, do, shoe, through, manoeuvre (95 – 101)

Irregular consonant doubling for showing short, stressed vowels

merry (regular) – very(missing) – serrated(surplus) - (381 – 439 – 153)

 

They are responsible for over half of the total memorisation burden of irregular spellings in 3,700 common words

http://englishspellingproblems.blogspot.com/2010/11/english-spelling-rules.html and make learning to read more difficult too:

on - only, once, other

to read - read yesterday

 

Yet there is no real need or justification for such confusing inconsistencies. Generation after generation, English-speaking countries have relatively high levels of literacy failure only because children are forced to learn to use silly spellings instead of sensible ones.

All that is needed to make things better, is getting away from the accepted notion of 'correct' spelling and allowing more sensible new spellings to exist alongside the quirky traditional ones. Perhaps the simplest way to start would be not correct any 'wrong' but perfectly legible student spellings?

 

 

 

 

I was recently ata conference where once again dyslexia came up.  I wish I could remember everything aobut the Finnish example, BUT I can remem-ber that the Finns have had a giant longitudinal study going for a number of years (all babies born at a certain time?) nad thereare 2 conclusions:dyslexia runs in families, and a predisposition to dyslexia can be identified in very young children.  As you know, in finnish there is a 100% sound/symbol relationship.  

 

As to whether English spelling CAUSES dyslexia, that is nonsense. Let's not beat around the bush, here.  Laerning to read English is harder than learning to read Finnish, because English does not have a simple sound/symbol relationship.  Dyslexia adds another layer of complication. The root cause of dyslexia is neurological.

 

Andrea

I was recently at a conference where once again dyslexia came up.  I wish I could remember everything about the Finnish example, BUT I can remem-ber that the Finns have had a giant longitudinal study going for a number of years (all babies born at a certain time?) and there are 2 conclusions:dyslexia runs in families, and a predisposition to dyslexia can be identified in very young children.  As you know, in Finnish there is a 100% sound/symbol relationship.  

 

As to whether English spelling CAUSES dyslexia, that is nonsense. Let's not beat around the bush, here.  Learning to read English is harder than learning to read Finnish, because English does not have a simple sound/symbol relationship.  Dyslexia adds another layer of complication. The root cause of dyslexia is neurological.

 

Andrea

Dear Andrea

My most up to date account of the development of English spelling is in my recent ebook Spelling it out: the problems and costs of English spelling

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_4_5?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=masha+bell&sprefix=masha%2Cstripbooks%2C351  published last July at $ 3.20

My blog http://englishspellingproblems.blogspot.com/2010/04/how-english-spelling-became-so.html gives a condensed version.

Masha