It Works for Me, part 3

more, from Part 3:

While bad teaching was incidental to the traditional method in earlier days, it has now become an inherent part of how much math is taught today. The NSF-sponsored texts with their emphasis on multiple algorithms, open-ended questions, top-down discovery and spiral learning force teachers to omit explicit instruction, although more experienced and knowledgable teachers may supplement (or supplant) such texts.

curriculum casualties

It is interesting therefore to learn that direct instruction and mastery learning are recommended methods of teaching for students with learning disabilities. (Rosenberg, et al., 2008) It is also interesting to note that over the past two decades, the number of students with learning disabilities has increased. In 2006, approximately 2.6 million students were identified with learning disabilities, more than three times as many as were identified in 1976-1977. Although one reason for this growth might be better means of diagnoses of specific disorders, there has still been growth. Between 1990 and 2004, 650,000 additional students were identified with learning disabilities, representing a 31% increase at a time when the overall student population grew by only 15%. (U.S. Department of Education, 2006).

My understanding of the LD category in special ed is that it is not diagnostic. A SPED child may certainly have a diagnosis, but until the law changed recently an LD categorization was based on the "discrepancy model," which meant simply that there was a discrepancy between IQ and achievement. No reason had to be given, and I'm fairly sure the term "dyslexia"wasn't formally used in SPED documents. (pls correct if I'm wrong)

I'm not sure how this relates to the increase in classified kids, but I suspect the causal relationship, assuming there is one, runs heavily in the direction of school failure causing diagnosis, as opposed to improved diagnosis causing drastically higher levels of SPED identification.

Also, I've been writing about psychiatric issues, including ADHD, which is often associated with LD, for many years now. I don't have the sense that there was at any point a sudden, enormous upswing in the ability to diagnose previously undiagnosed kids -- something that did take place with high-functioning autistic kids, I might add. One can find references to hyper kids going back at least to the 19th century; the "clinical" profile has been pretty familiar for a very long time.

The ADHD diagnosis did undergo one revolution thanks to John Ratey and Ned Hallowell, which was the recognition that ADHD afflicted adults as well as children. This recognition, along with Jimmy's diagnosis of autism, led John and me to write Shadow Syndromes.

I don't know the history of research on and diagnosis of dyslexia well. I do have the sense that there has been an enormous upswing in identification of dyslexia.

But that's the point.

ADHD, which we know can be associated with learning problems, has been recognized since at least the last century, and I don't believe we saw a sudden improvement in the ability to identify ADHD in elementary school kids in the past couple of decades.

In sharp contrast, it appears that we have seen a sudden and enormous upswing in the ability to identify "specific learning disabilities" such as dyslexia.

I believe Reid Lyon is right. We are looking at large numbers of children who are best considered "curriculum casualties." But the source of their problems has been misdiagnosed.

Instead of making the connection between bad teaching and bad learning, these children's failures to learn have been medicalized and handed off to special ed.


the question

Rosenberg et. al, also note that up to 50% of students with learning disabilities have been shown to overcome their learning difficulties when given high-quality instruction. Is the shift toward inquiry-based teaching resulting in more students being identified with learning disabilities? Are these students who in earlier days would have swum with the rest of the pack?

It Works for Me, Part III

How to Prevent Reading Disabilities by Reid Lyon
It Works for Me, Part 1
It Works for Me, Part 2
It Works for Me, Part 3