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 g15Kvju17162; Tue, 5 Feb 2002 15:57:45 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 15:57:45 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3C604792.8EF20BD4@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:3898] RE:NIFL-LD:3895 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: 6754 Lines: 154 Clif, I look beyond the DSM-IV criteria. I look past it to 'capability' rather than focus on incapability. I look directly into the "why" factor(s). In terms of DSM-IV criteria, we all fit into some category that could very well be defined as a disabling condition if that were our purpose. Unfortunately, the vast majority of folks I've encountered who carry a DSM-IV "diagnostic" label buy right into it and stop attempting to circumvent the difficulty. And you may respond that one cannot circumvent the disability. If in fact it is a true disability, then yes the student may not be able to circumvent it, but I have not found any situation that remains the same, it is all subject to change. So what do we look for? Change, however slight, gives indication of capability. IF however the support mechanism for the "disability" is consistently reinforced by outside sources then the possibility of change is limited and will remain at minimum. I look for small step processes in logical order with positive feedback, without judgement. If I find the student is capable of change then I invalidate the diagnosis. The criteria and the success measure is "change", however slight, knowing that the brain builds pathways one neuron at a time, and that it takes time and repetetion. I also educate the parents, or other family members who may sustain the "disability" issue. And you respond "Where's your license, or certification, to do that". My response is that I find many children and adults saddled with a "disabling condition" by "licensed professionals" when no actual "disabilty" exists. So because I can teach somebody to read who has received a life limiting title - that makes me bad? hmmmmm I guess places like the Sylvan Learning Centers are in big trouble then. It is fairly easy to find support for the DSM-IV criteria which really only addresses symptomatology and quite conviently avoids the "why" issues. And one really doesn't need to ask the whys of most situations. IF we continue to apply curriculum in assembly-line fashion there will continue to be those who don't keep up with the group, for a myriad of reasons. The process has absolutely nothing to do with social status and everything to do with social acceptance and understanding of childrens' issues at their level of capacity for resolve. There are very intricate and complex emotional responses to certain life issues that confound and complicate daily life that children are unable to understand. These situations very often obscure daily functioning and the child exists on automatic schedule. Physically they are where they should be but conscious attention is distracted to another arena. And again, I do not for a hearbeat believe that the above scenario applies to all. But my experiences tell me that if I don't try to dispel the negative accusations placed upon the student then I, as well, have done them a disservice. Art >Art, A name (label) that is used to identify a cluster of symptoms and the exclusion of others is necessary and does not in itself connote of any judgment like "good" or "bad", it just is. The DSM-IV is not only a diagnostic tool but a dictionary of terms as well. If I refer to a DSM-IV disorder, everyone who reads that knows the criteria and symptoms I am referring to. This is essential for any reasonable communication. Without such a specific meaning to a name (label) the name would be meaningless. If the meaning is too vague it is of little value in that those with different meanings argue meaning and run in circles. Though I do not agree with the DSM-IV criteria for a Reading Disorder and take issue with the criteria for ADHD of "difficulty organizing..." I understand what the name refers to and accept that meaning for that name. These names however do not refer to or indicate cause or judgement, only symptoms. There are two areas of acceptance with any disability. The need for the person with the disability to accept the disability and the need for society to accept a disability as a disability without judgement. In my practice, I focus mainly on the individual accepting their disability as a matter of fact. They can then understand what it is and what it is not, (often more important). I do not sell any assistive device of any kind nor do I sell or endorse any program or product of any kind. I derive no income what so ever from my model or theory. Any meaningful theory must be dynamic if it is to be valid. My understanding of a reading disorder and ADHD are the result of an ongoing process of interaction with my patients, families, and others in the field of education and psychology as well as reviewing current research. I am always looking for exceptions to the model and theory. When I come across any inconsistency, I look at it very very closely. It is very difficult to feel accepted if you cannot accept yourself. If secretly you believe the judgements or afraid they might be so, then you are always on the defensive and in fear of being found out. It is not that you think you are smart or that you think you are low functioning, the problem is you do not know for sure and are afraid to find out. It is essential for a person to fully acknowledge the facts of their disability for there to be any acceptance. Otherwise there is only conditional acceptance and that is not acceptance. The attitude of society I believe is the product of misinformation and the lack of education. I have seen for myself the dramatic shift in attitude that takes place among K-12 teachers when they understand the nature of these disabilities. It truly is dramatic. I never ask that they believe me, only consider the information in regard to their direct experience and then decide. The results are always the same. Last November I gave a 2 hour presentation twice at the same two day conference. First on Monday and then on Tuesday. It was interesting that almost half of the people attending Tuesday had attended Monday. Generally, they said that they thought about what I had said and it began to answer many of their questions. Their attitudes had changed and many tell me how they will do things differently. They get that Ah ha. That is the second part of my validation. The first being my patients. I had a University faculty member in the college of psychology challenge me for two hours one day but agreed in the end. Education is the most effective tool to change public opinion about these disabilities. Promises that to not materialize breed misbelief and negative judgement. Again, What criteria do you use to decide on which program to purchase? What are the criteria you use to measure results of these programs? What is considered successful? Clif
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jan 17 2003 - 14:41:14 EST