Return-Path: <nifl-ld@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g0EDgn019059; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 08:42:49 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 08:42:49 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3C42E09D.39CDB333@ellijay.com> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-ld@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-ld@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-ld@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: Art LaChance <arthur@ellijay.com> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-ld@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-LD:3827] RE: NIFL-LD:3810 NO Support for phonetic X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I) Status: O Content-Length: 6222 Lines: 102 It really does not matter what the circumstances are Clif, EXCEPT in the cases you mention where there is in fact a genetic based "timing", or chemical, or structural, anomaly that prevents or inhibits data collection, storage, or transfer. My specific problem is that a very high percentage of those isolated out of mainstream society and labeled as deficient in those traits are in fact not. A good many of those assigned to evaluating such cases are not 'qualified' (i.e. experienced) to make such determinations in the interest of the student and end up making decisions that are in favor of the system, which necessarily relieves the system from responsibility. Our avoidance to 'testing' of skills taught at particular grade levels has resulted in a high percentage of high school 'graduates' who can't do college level work because they can't read or do math at the entry level required. This scenario actually begins in K, 1st, 2nd, and 3rd grade where the child doesn't receive or understand the necessary components to decoding reading or math. If they don't 'get-it' by the time they get to 4th grade nobody notices, and if they do notice, "there must be something wrong with the child", and nobody attempts to fill in the gaps, so the child is left to his own devices. The emotional component then comes on line full force in direct response. That scenario is not concrete, the information shortage, self-image and emotional component can come on line at any point in the cycle from K-12. The only difference is that children can be brought back to normal faaarr quicker than an 'adult'. After years of negative reinforcement that academic self image becomes stronger and stronger and less likely to change easily. But that just means it takes more effort and expertise on the part of the teacher. As for the difference between TBI and emotional difficulties and just plain "was absent that day", there isn't much except that one may take more time and effort on the part of the teacher and/or student to reach the goals. The brain responds to 'demand', an internal demand (you can't make the horse drink ....) and that's where the self image, esteem, and trust factors come in, as so eloquently stated by Lucille. If the negative factors stand in the way, they must be relieved or rectified prior to any attempt to teach, otherwise it's simply a self-fulfilling prophecy - for the teacher. My secondary problem with this whole thing is that I keep hearing and reading that learning is a black or white issue and if the student isn't learning there must be something wrong with the student. In most of the cases that I've seen and heard about I would believe in a "teaching disability" long before I would believe in a learning disability. Research and practice? How many "researchers" actually have more than a few weeks of classroom experience with a myriad of adult students that most adult literacy practitioners spend years collecting before they can make any judicial decisions regarding who they are and what needs to be done? And when they do have some experience in the matter, what are they looking to prove in their research? The revealing questions are not being asked, Clif, and they won't be for a while, but I suspect that the new federal legislation governing 'testing' and teacher proficiency is a step in the right direction. Art clifwillard wrote: > Art, > > If a person has a TBI and has language loss as a result, then any kind of > rehabilitation needs to include any of the OG+ methods. In a TBI situation, > there is great likely that with these methods, the person regain some > facility in language and in some cases complete recovery. This is because > there is loss due to brain damage. Re-learning is essential for new > pathways to develop the replace or compensate for the damaged neurons. In > the situation of a TBI, the brain knows that there has been damage and loss > and will attempt to compensate for the loss of facility in any way it can. > Using OG+ methods will dramatically increase the likelihood that the brain > will develop new neural pathways the replace the ones lost. If however the > person does not have any loss or brain damage and the symptoms are caused > by a timing error which is not damaged tissue, then the brain will not > develop new pathways as it does not perceive anything damaged or > threatening to it's existence. This is the major difference between genetic > and acquired disability. Some have suggested that it does not matter where > the disability comes from. That kind of thinking is just a reflection of > the fear of being wrong. "My mind is made up, do not confuse me with the > facts." > > There is one major characteristic that separates brain injury from a > genetic based language disability. That is that the person with a genetic > based language disability experiences a dynamic nature to the symptoms > whereas a person with a TBI does not. If a person has a genetic language > disability in reading, sometimes they can appear to read well. A few > minutes later they are back to reading poorly. Sometimes they can appear to > do it but it does not last. Teachers look puzzled and often say, "but you > knew it a minute ago!" This is an example of the dynamic nature to a > genetic based language disability and is one of the most confusing of all > the symptoms. It is however part of the disability. A person with an > acquired disability experiences consistent, non-dynamic symptoms. They > never have times when they can do and then not. Their reading is always the > same. they gradually improve over time but they do not exhibit any dynamic > symptoms. It is essential that the cause be accurate or the instruction > will be for the wrong problem and not provide meaningful results. > > There must be a strong correlation between research and practice and > practice and research. One cannot ignore one and claim knowledge in the > other. One of the main problems of education is that by the time > information get in the textbooks, it is already 5 years old. Everyone must > work together and maintain an open mind if any one is to find solutions to > the many problems we all face. > > Clif
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jan 17 2003 - 14:41:12 EST