Return-Path: <nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id e9C4Fv911237; Thu, 12 Oct 2000 00:15:57 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 00:15:57 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <002201c03402$efb6fde0$23bffea9@hppav> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: "Mary Ann Corley" <macorley1@earthlink.net> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-POVRACELIT:180] LD Discussion as it relates to this list X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 Status: O Content-Length: 4798 Lines: 86 Anne, George, and others on this list who are interested in learning disabilities (LD) issues: Thanks for your helpful insights on this topic. I don't know if there are complete answers to this issue yet, but there is a growing body of evidence from research being done across the country by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) that points toward the critical role of phonemic awareness in reading skills acquisition. (The NICHD studies have yet to be replicated on adults.) These studies declare with confidence that phonemic awareness (not phonics) is the most potent predictor of a child's ability to learn to read (to decode, that is, or to map sound to print). This does not negate the whole language approach to reading, but rather says that the answer is neither phonics nor whole language--but a balanced approach of both of these. But reading entails more than decoding. Accurate decoding is critical to building automaticity and fluency in reading. Automaticity and rapidity of decoding are critical to reading comprehension, because the learner who struggles and labors to decode words soon loses the meaning of the text. Comprehension is dependent on the reader's knowledge of language structure, including phonology, morphology, orthography, semantics, syntax and text structure. For your reference: There's an incredible report (1999) by Louisa C. Moats entitled "Teaching Reading IS Rocket Science: What Expert Teachers of Reading Should Know and Be Able to Do." It can be downloaded from the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) webpage. (Louisa is the project director of the NICHD Early Interventions Project.) But---more to the point of this discussion list--allow me to share with you some thoughts that have been rattling around in my head for some time on how persons who live daily with the effects of LD, poverty, racism, or language and cultural acquisition problems may share some common issues of limited access to social/political/economic opportunities. I welcome your comments/reactions: The traditional definitions of LD say that it is presumed to be neurologically based. The manifestations of LD are problems in understanding or using spoken or written language (I won't go into specifics here in the various skill areas). During my tenure at the National ALLD Center, I came to understand that persons with LD often suffer discrimination on a personal as well as an institutional level because of there "different-ness." There is research evidence that persons with LD experience higher rates of unemployment or underemployment in low-paying, low-prestige jobs than the population in general. Yet, we know that persons with LD can be wonderfully creative, highly intelligent, and multi-talented individuals. Is the employment discrimination they experience different from that experienced by persons who live with the effects of poverty or racism? As the National ALLD Center trainers conducted the initial round of Bridges training across the country, we kept getting the question: How are these manifestations of LD different from the language acquisition problems that our ESL students have? How are they different from the problems demonstrated by persons who are/were educationally disadvantaged, had limited opportunities to learn, or grew up in a different culture, for example, one of intergenerational poverty? These questions really gave us pause. Apparently, the manifestations of information processing problems can be the same or similar, but the root causes of the problems can be different, e.g., poverty, racism, language and cultural acquisition problems. Does this mean that the instructional strategies that are effective for persons with LD may also be effective for other low-achieving learners? We think so. Can we say this with confidence? No. If our field is to move forward, research of issues such as the above is critical. We must get to the point where we can define the instructional interventions that are proven effective for adult learners, particularly those who have a history of educational low achievement, whether because of LD, language and cultural acquisition problems, or the effects of poverty and racism. Is this part of building toward recommendations for a national research agenda? We hope so. Please share your thoughts on the above. I would truly welcome your input--it can be extremely valuable to bounce ideas off colleagues who are equally committed to the issue and who can provide different perspectives. As we struggle together with these concepts, perhaps some direction will begin to emerge. ********************************* Mary Ann Corley, Ph.D. Director, National Center for Literacy and Social Justice macorley1@earthlink.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 16 2001 - 14:47:27 EST