Glenn, I'm afraid the lack of response on my part would have been simple
confusion.  To wit: 

"
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 ... "  
 

I *think* you're trying to say that our key research should be to find
out whether our current system of support works or not.


That would assume we have a consistent "system of support," which we
don't (which is something else that you may have been trying to say). 
Identification is done very differently in different places - race,
gender and class having a lot to do with it but sometimes being manifest
in radically different ways.  (For example, in some systems a given
student is going to have less expected of him/her, and so identification
as special ed isn't going to happen; in another system Special Ed is
that place where you *send* the kiddos you don't want to deal with in
the classroom.  Remember the schools in the south where African-American
students were systematically placed in special ed?)  

In my experience, LD's (and learning patterns in general) can manifest
very differently in students in fascinating patterns based on gender or
race or class (for instance, females tend to have language strengths
that mask language processing difficulties; most of us are familiar with
the brain stuff that showed that when men and women processed reading,
they tended to use their brains differently; I don't remember whether
there were other filters/biases in that research group so could be that
these were all Caucasians.)   Doesn't help that these are just plain
*touchy* subjects, either.  

    Every time I've read research reports, I have wanted to know what
kind of identification system was used.  I would think it could be done
objectively:  a certain performance pattern on the psychoeducational
testing, for instance.  No, not perfect because the testing isn't
perfect and we have to figure out who gets to have that testing.
However, it would be really nice to do something a little more
systematic to support or debunk thigns that we "learn" from experience. 
I've learned that when students do a, b, and c on a math problem, I want
to give 'em the "step by step" approach; another student who does d, e,
and f I'm going to give the "big picture" first.  When does reviewing
the little pieces a million times to mastery work, and when would a more
"whole to part" approach work better?   
 


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



>>> "Glenn Young" <gyoungxlt at comcast.net> 1/9/2007 12:29 PM >>>

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 SUJONES at parkland.edu.