Posts
There is also a Specific Learning Disability -- Mathematics (315.1, DSM-IV), known as dyscalculia.
The Dyscalculia Forum chose today as the day to raise awareness.
According to the National Center on Learning Disabilities (NCLD):
Dyscalculia is a term referring to a wide range of life-long learning disabilities involving math. There is no single form of math disability, and difficulties vary from person to person and affect people differently in school and throughout life.
Here's an index page on math and LDs from NCLD. Here's LDOnline's index page on math disabilities. Here's an overview of math disabilities in children from SchwabLearning. Anna J. Wilson's Dyscalculia Primer and Resource Guide.
There are also a couple of good videos on Youtube: start with Dyscalculia: It Is Not Only Trouble With Math.
16 comments:
HRC should be tested for this. Delegate math tough for Clinton
Let's try to avoid bringing politics into discussions where it's not warranted, please. Sometimes it's unavoidable, but this just seems like flame-bait.
"Delegate math tough for Clinton"
I see this as a delightful word play that has nothing to do with politics.
One problem with both definitions (dyslexia and dyscalculia) is the mention of "good instruction."
In most cases (speaking public education here), whether the purported "disability" is in reading or math, the "good instruction" never happened. There certainly are students with disabilities in these areas, but the number of curriculum casualties swamps the numbers who have a neurological issue of some kind. If schools weren't overrun with "dysteachics" we could offer really good programs for those kids who *have* genuine special needs.
Schools that offer a very systematic program in math (or reading) have a very low percentage of "learning disabled" kids. Nothing like the 30-40% you get in some urban systems.
Check out "Project Pride" and City Springs. There are quite a few examples in the UK, I will have to go look them up though, can't remember names offhand.
Unfortunately, if good systematic instruction is deferred for too long, the student does become "disabled" in terms of being able to catch up to the curriculum and achieve his or her potential, and the amount of effort (and time) it takes to make up for the lost years is formidable.
In one of her articles (I think in Pediatric Neurology or somewhere -- I have it at home) Dr. Sally Shaywitz pretty well comes right out and says that poor instruction can cause reading behavior that mimics "dyslexia" (however defined). This was based on her Connecticut Longitudinal Survey and its follow-up studies.
John Mighton has found that even *severely* challenged students -- supposedly "retarded" -- could become proficient at mathematics at a secondary level. The work on neuroplasticity is interesting here. Must share some interesting insights from the work of Dr. Joe Layng at Malcolm X College in Chicago (re math).
Later....
I'm guessing there's not a diagnoses of disteachia coming down the pipes. :(
I didn’t intend to interject politics when I posted the Clinton math comment. When I saw that headline I chuckled, and I just wanted to share. Sometimes it’s not easy to convey humor in the blogosphere. Maybe a smiley face would have helped?
I absolutely agree that the issue of good instruction seems to be ignored when diagnosing these students. It makes me think of the Galen Alessi study that showed that either the student or the parents were ALWAYS blamed by psychologists during the evaluation process. The school’s curriculum, teaching or administration were NEVER judged to be at fault.
Man, when did I turn into a schoolmarm? Tex, I know you weren't flaming, but the gears started tumbling in my head, and I started thinking, 'Man, this could get bad'. I apologize for the accusation.
Anyway, back on topic - if I'm not mistaken, isn't one of the more common protocols for teaching dyslexic students to move them into phonics-based program? If ever-larger percentages of kids keep getting diagnosed as dyslexic, and pushed into a phonics program, where they are suddenly 'cured', doesn't it make sense to start them on the program to begin with?
Independent George--you are partially correct. Dyslexia remediation involves direct, intensive, systematic, multi-sensory instruction in phonemic awareness, moving on to sound-symbol correlations,and the structure of the English language. Just "phonics" isn't sufficient.
Also -- true dyslexia can't be "cured", especially if part of the problem is slow processing speed (half of the "double deficit" theory). The person may be able to read and write fluently, but at a slower rate than a non-dyslexic person.
Here's what Wilson wrote about the remediation of dyscalculia:
How can dyscalculia be remediated?
There has been much work on this question in the educational field, and there are many curricula designed for children with difficulties in mathematics. However very few of these curricula have been rigorously tested for their efficacy, and the studies that do exist include children who have difficulties in mathematics for all sorts of reasons, not just those with dyscalculia.
So in a way, research on this is just beginning. I personally am involved in a project to test a remediation designed for dyscalculic children, and there are other such projects underway. We hope that in the next 5 to 10 years, some clear and solid answers to this question will emerge.
Don't get me wrong: "dysteachia" exists and gives students trouble in both math and reading (and writing). However, even with expert, skilled teaching there are also students with normal to above-average intelligence who will need additional expert instruction to become literate and numerate.
I agree with Liz, especially on this point.
Don't get me wrong: "dysteachia" exists and gives students trouble in both math and reading (and writing). However, even with expert, skilled teaching there are also students with normal to above-average intelligence who will need additional expert instruction to become literate and numerate.
I have a daughter with dyslexia, who is an excellent reader now, by the way.
In kindergarden when the other kids were learning to read, she could only learn the sounds of 3 letters of the alphabet. That was with daily practice at home and school. It wasn't until we started using a multi-sensory program, that she made progress. She is of above average intelligence. Even a good teacher who used 'phonics' at school, wasn't enough for her.
Although she is an excellent reader now she has not been 'cured' of dyslexia. She still has poor spelling, has trouble understanding verbal directions, and has a hard time coming up with the words that she she needs. (Lots of 'thingy's' and 'stuff')
Palisadesk, I'm confused by something you wrote:
Schools that offer a very systematic program in math (or reading) have a very low percentage of "learning disabled" kids. Nothing like the 30-40% you get in some urban systems.
Do you mean that 30%-40% of all students in "some urban systems" have an LD designation, or do you mean 30%-40% of students in special education in "some urban systems" have an LD designation?
Do you mean that 30%-40% of all students in "some urban systems" have an LD designation, or do you mean 30%-40% of students in special education in "some urban systems" have an LD designation
Neither of the above. In low SES areas there is much less emphasis on getting the "designation." Kids move a lot, parents may not co-operate, staff may not see a clear benefit (especially in areas that hve a "radical inclusion" philosphy, etc.), lots of obstacles may be put in the path of people who want the formal designation (it gives certain rights to service).There is huge variation in how these matters are dealt with.
Many kids who should be designated "LD" because they have specific learning difficulties that should be addressed by specialized teaching, never get so identified. Many kids whose "LD" is strictly (or almost entirely) an instructional deficit, DO get designated LD. I find the riddle of who does/who doesn't an interesting one, but not one with particularly consistent parameters.
Some districts still use the "discrepancy" definition, so you are automatically "LD" if you are significantly below grade level. It is of course assumed (shades of Galen Alessi) that the school instruction has nothing to do with the poor performance of the student.
One large eastern district (not mine) which I won't name not only goes by the "discrepancy" definition, it includes low IQ children in its designation of "LD." This does not meet NIH or IDA criteria. The "discrepancy" definition has been rejected empirically but still prevails in many districts, including mine. The RTI initiative shows promise but the devil will be in the details.
The number of students who meet criteria for LD based on the discrepancy definition in my area of my district is over 40%, but 30% is one that is more conservative but probably also more representative and not just of low-SES populations. There is little consistency even within particular states, much less across the country.
In any event, the students with truly exceptional learning needs are ill-served because of the vast numbers of curriculum casualties that drive up "special education" expenses and prevent effective, targeted programs from gaining a foothold where they are most needed.
As an aside, I have to agree that "phonics" (per se) is not the answer -- most children with reading difficulties have trouble with "phonics" unless it is taught interactively, intensively and the processing skills are taught as well; you find children who "know phonics" but can't read because they can't blend sounds, segment words, etc. These skills have to be taught.
For the record I am a dyslexia/LD specialist with much experience in the field (although I am not teaching LD now) and can certainly vouch for the fact that many students I have seen who were identified as "LD" were nothing more than curriculum casualties. Others had minor "issues," as many non-LD people do, and a minority had genuine learning disabilities of various kinds. Some students I have seen have what I would call the equivalent of iatrogenic disease -- pedagogenic LD. School-induced reading disability.
Statistics (and definitions) vary, but the achievement gap is real. If you reject the idea that inadequate instruction plays a large role, then you are left with the explanation that 40, 50, even 60% of kids in many low-SES schools have organic brain impairment.
I have seen no medical or empirically validated data to support the latter conclusion, whereas data about such initiatives as the Great Falls project, Follow Through, the Bereiter-Engelmann Preschool, "Miss A" and many more suggest that most chldren will be successful in the right circumstances. Provision of appropriate programming for the real LD kids is dependent on our getting a handle on improving instruction for ALL kids, so that the unfortunately often true observation of -was it Samuel Kirk or Lloyd Dunn?- that most Special Ed "ain't special, and ain't education" can be put to bed for good.
Exceptional children deserve the best that we can offer. One reason they aren't getting it is because we are massively failing children in the mainstream.
For those interested in learning disabilities and mathematics specifically, a leading researcher in the field is David Geary from the U. Missouri whose website is here:
David Geary
Here's a recent comprehensive synthesis he published of the research on the neurological underpinnings of learning disabilities in mathematics:
An evolutionary perspective on learning disabilities in mathematics
It's not for the faint of heart but is thorough and suggestive of avenues to pursue for better understanding of the processes involved.
Someone probably flagged up this item from Scientific American last year but it bears revisiting:
The Numbers Game
Research suggests that "math disability" is not a single construct, but rather can be related specifically to specifics of computation or mathematical reasoning (or both -- but frequently is it one or the other).
As has happened with reading disability, better understanding will facilitate development of effective instructional intervention.
"It is of course assumed (shades of Galen Alessi) that the school instruction has nothing to do with the poor performance of the student."
This has always been one of my big questions. Our schools believe that kids will (naturally?) learn when they are ready. How do they really know if the child isn't ready yet, it's a short term hurdle, a long term disability, poor teaching, bad curricula, or that the child needs a swift kick in the rear, meaning that they are ready, but not learning naturally?
There is nothing natural about my son doing his homework or piano practice.
But schools don't apply this definition in a rote (!) fashion, do they? In our area, parents have mixed motivations. They don't really want their child labeled, but the official label allows them to get access to money and programs. That's why our percentages are so high. But, I do know that many of these programs are short term. I wish I knew what the percentage breakdown is, but I don't.
What Palisadesk says is true. Poor instruction and bad curricula lead to kids getting far behind, and that increasing labeling, because that's the only way to get money to solve the problem. This kind of teaching is very expensive, and that takes money away from those who really need it.
I suppose that once they determine that there is a problem, parents want it solved and won't (can't?) argue over what caused it. In my nephew's case, however, they just assumed that he was slow and expected less from him. There was no special or different program. In his case, my sister and brother-in-law worked with him and they "solved" the problem.
But what about the kids who are far above the mean? Do schools apply the "discrepancy" definition in those cases; that their success has little to do with their instruction? Well, I hear the opposite all of the time. Since a number of kids get to algebra in 8th grade, there can't be a problem with their curriculum and teaching.
I will call this Swiss cheese education. It's full of holes. They seem so very sure of themselves, and they are the ones who pretend to teach critical thinking skills.
"...so you are automatically 'LD' if you are significantly below grade level."
Let me add that my nephew was not "significantly" below grade level. They just thought he was slow, although they might have used different words. This is perhaps the worst place to be; struggling with bad teaching and/or curriculum, but can't get the help you need.
I think our schools try hard to get all kids the help they need, but they have no way to judge the effectiveness of their teaching and curricula. Problems are ascribed to the child, and that means remediation, not a change in their teaching.
Thank you for nice information
Post a Comment