Hi Glenn,

Sorry to be so late in replying to this.

i wonder if there are articles, books, that you have found particularly 
good?  As a person with LD, your knowledge of the field can be very  
useful to us.,

Andrea


On Jan 9, 2007, at 1:29 PM, Glenn Young wrote:


> To the List

>

> All the points raised in the discussion of research are valid and 

> needed ---

> however there are clearly things that need to be addressed in research 

> that

> is not being mentioned in this discussion so far --- so while all the 

> points

> are needed .. And I agree with them -- we need to look at bigger 

> picture

> stuff first.

>

> The basic reason for looking at the bigger piece first is that unless 

> we do,

> we will continue the "selection bias" that is inherent in almost all

> research on LD ... And this selection bias is based on myths about LD 

> that

> continue to persist and therefore taint the selection and assignment 

> pools

> into any research project ... In addition using the current systems of 

> LD

> identification (which the US Dept of ED no longer supports) continues 

> the

> myth that schools are appropriately identifying the LD population and 

> that

> we can rely on their selections for the follow up research ... The 

> Shaywitz

> and other studies have proven that we can not rely on the schools for 

> proper

> or complete LD identification ... Which is often based more on money 

> than

> anything else, and historically has miss extensive numbers of persons 

> who

> are LD and who are females, poor, ELL (English Language Learners) and

> persons of color ....

>

> Therefore -- in order to know what works for persons with LD ... We 

> need to

> properly identify those with LD - All those with LD, not based on 

> school

> identifications  ...  And include them in the research pools (as NICHD 

> did

> in their studies). We simple must stop having studies that say  ... We

> looked at 47 white middle class boys and 4 girls ... And say that the

> findings of the study have any validity for anything more then 47 white

> middle class boys ....

>

> And we can not properly identify those with LD based on the out of 

> date,

> racist and sexist "expectation models" nor on the racist and sexist

> "discrepancy model" which has historically failed to identify so many

> females with LD and also would classify a person of color with the same

> profile as a white person as being MR and the white LD ...

>

> So --- in other words --- the first thing we really need to do is 

> develop LD

> identification tools that eliminate racist sexist, classist and 

> language

> issues from the process (MIR's for ALL would be great) but there are 

> other

> ways ... At least we need to develop means that lessen the racist, 

> sexist

> and classist determinations by using such tools as regression scales 

> -- but

> the main point is that first piece of research that we really need is 

> to

> develop ways and means of properly identifying all those with LD and 

> to make

> sure that all those with LD are included in selection pools for 

> testing of

> theories ....

>

> As a real starting point in research we need to test what we think we 

> know

> based on the old models and what we think we know from more current 

> research

> of the past decades.  What we think we now know from the more current

> research is that those with LD fall into 9 general categories, with

> subsections for each and also a 10th subsection of "outliers" who 

> don't fit

> into the general categories.

>

> These broad categories are:

>

> 1) Those with LD identified in schools and get proper and successful

> services and go on to achieve a productive academic and vocational life

> 2) Those with LD identified in schools and get moderately successful

> services and go on to achieve a moderately successful academic and

> vocational life

> 3) Those with LD who interventions in school are unsuccessful and they 

> go to

> a relatively unsuccessful academic and vocational success

> 4) Those with LD not identified in schools, nor later in life, and 

> receive

> no services for LD and go on to achieve a highly productive academic 

> and

> vocational life

> 5) Those with LD not identified in schools, nor later in life, and go 

> on to

> achieve a moderately successful academic and vocational life

> 6) Those with LD not identified in school, nor later in life, who go 

> to a

> relatively unsuccessful academic and vocational success

> 7) Those with LD not identified in schools, and receive no services 

> for LD

> and go on to achieve a highly productive academic and vocational life, 

> and

> identified with LD later in life.

> 8) Those with LD not identified in schools, and receive no services 

> for LD

> and go on to achieve a moderately successful academic and vocational 

> life

> and identified later in life.

> 9) Those with LD not identified in school, and receive no services for 

> LD

> who go to a relatively unsuccessful academic and vocational success 

> and are

> identified later in life.

> 10) Outliers from each of the groups and others who don't fit into any 

> of

> the profiles

>

> In addition, in section 7, 8 and 9 there would be subsets for each in 

> which

> late life LD identification has little, moderate and extensive impact 

> on the

> person's academic and vocational life.

>

> 	Also -- the exogenous factor of co-morbidity with other disabilities

> needs to be incorporated into each of the 	groups (ADHD, OCD, etc)

>

> 	Also - the exogenous factor of family structure and support, and

> family wealth need to be incorporated for each 	group

>

> Based on the conflicts that currently exist in LD identification and 

> the

> need for programs such as schools to protect themselves there would be 

> great

> controversy on what percent of the LD population fits into each of 

> these

> categories.

>

> However, from what we can tell from the existing research when looked 

> at in

> total, - not just following those identified in schools, but looking 

> at the

> total population of LD, including those found in welfare programs, 

> adult

> literacy, etc who have never been identified,  ... It would appear 

> (and this

> is best guess - not solid)

>

> 	That the vast minority of those with LD fall into categories 1 and 4

> ...

>

> 		It appears the most likely upwards of 90% of those with LD

> fall into the moderately successful or those not 		achieving

> success categories ...

> 		And upwards of 66% falling into the categories dealing with

> those never 4-6 - never identified ....

>

> This is a best guess --- so the key research that really needs to be 

> done it

> to test this concept that under the current system of support the

> overwhelming persons with LD are not being successful - or to prove the

> opposite ...

>

> If the findings show that the projection is true (most persons with LD 

> are

> not doing well) the question needs to be asked

>

> 	What is the economic impact of this "LD failure" -  This question is

> actually far more paramount then all others - 	since if we can show

> extensive economic impact, then resource will be forth coming ... If 

> we can

> not show economic 	impact there would be no reason to increase support

> for efforts.

>

> Then if we can show economic impact then we need to ask -- what can we 

> do

> differently to increase outcomes? So the next research questions needs 

> to

> be:

>

> 	What are the interventions, at what age and under what conditions,

> that can increase success for all persons with 	LD, and how do the 

> factors

> of race, gender, age, class, language and other factors (family 

> support,

> informed 	consumer, etc)impact various approaches

>

> Then, only then, can we start to ask the questions being asked in the 

> other

> responses to this research questions ... So ... The research agenda 

> must

> deal with the "Macro" first  --- who pays for this? ... Well you 

> didn't ask

> that question, just what was needed ....

>

> As a final plea, we need to change the paradigm, filled with racism, 

> sexism

> and such, that has got us into this mess.  Unless we do, we will only 

> waste

> money on research that will continue to re-enforce myths about LD.

>

> OK --- enough .. Look forward to response ...

>

>

> Glenn Young

> 530 Auburn Ave.

> Buffalo, New York 14222

> Ph. and Fax 716-882-2842

> Cell 703-864-3755

> e-mail gyoungxlt at adelphia.net

>

> -----Original Message-----

> From: learningdisabilities-bounces at nifl.gov

> [mailto:learningdisabilities-bounces at nifl.gov] On Behalf Of Susan Jones

> Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 11:31 AM

> To: The Learning Disabilities Discussion List

> Subject: [LearningDisabilities 838] Re: Priorities for Research in the

> LDField

>

> Personally I think public and professional awareness is lagging behind 

> the

> research... so I'd love some research about that just to shed more 

> light on

> whether I"m right or not :)

>

>

> Susan Jones

> Academic Development Specialist

> Academic Development Center

> Parkland College

> Champaign, IL  61821

> sujones at parkland.edu

> Webmastress,

> http://www.resourceroom.net

> http://bicyclecu.blogspot.com

>

>

>>>> Andrea Wilder <andreawilder at comcast.net> 1/4/2007 8:14 PM >>>

> Rochelle--

>

> This would be a subheading under a purpose of , say, "Increasing 

> literacy."

>

> You are being kind--I'm trying to think this through.  What would we 

> say

> about learning disabilities?  First would be something like:  "test

>

> and diagnose any learning disabilities."  This might be good to start 

> with.

>

> Now, on the research part--actually, we should compile what we DO know,

>

> so we know what we don't  have, what questions still need to be 

> researched.

>

> (Maybe i should go to bed.)

>

> Thanks for asking this, an excellent exercise.

>

> OK--literacy--do we need to define this?

>

> Andrea

>

> On Jan 4, 2007, at 8:38 PM, RKenyon721 at aol.com wrote:

>

>>

>> Andrea,

>>

>> Why don't we look at Literacy and Learning Disabilities, the topic of

>

>> our Discussion List.  That will narrow the "field" considerably.

>>

>> What do you think?

>>

>> Rochelle

>>

>>

>>

>> Hi Rochelle

>>

>> This is a great question.  First, it seems to me, we need to define

>> the scope of the field, its purpose, then we will be able to figure

>> out research questions.

>>

>> Andrea

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> Rochelle Kenyon, Ed.D., Project Trainer LD Academies Project

>> 6315 Capstan Court

>> Rockledge, Florida 32955-5765

>> Telephone: 321.637.1319

>> Fax: 321.637.1920

>> Email: RKenyon721 at aol.com

>>  ----------------------------------------------------

>> National Institute for Literacy

>> Learning Disabilities mailing list

>> LearningDisabilities at nifl.gov

>> To unsubscribe or change your subscription settings, please go to

>> http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/learningdisabilities

>> Message sent to andreawilder at comcast.net.

> ----------------------------------------------------

> National Institute for Literacy

> Learning Disabilities mailing list

> LearningDisabilities at nifl.gov

> To unsubscribe or change your subscription settings, please go to

> http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/learningdisabilities

> Message sent to GYOUNGXLT at comcast.net.

>

> ----------------------------------------------------

> National Institute for Literacy

> Learning Disabilities mailing list

> LearningDisabilities at nifl.gov

> To unsubscribe or change your subscription settings, please go to 

> http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/learningdisabilities

> Message sent to andreawilder at comcast.net.

>