To Robin:
Excellent points including the FDR quote.
Bill


On 8-Nov-07, at 1:32 PM, robinschwarz1 at aol.com wrote:


> Bill--- We know the intervention is correct when the person  

> requesting it says it works.   Part of what I have been trying to  

> say is that asking the persons in question about what they need and  

> how best it should be provided will result in far better results  

> all over the place than detailed diagnostic workups with tests.

>

>  Let us not forget WHY the original laws were needed-- because  

> people who learned differently were not allowed by their teachers  

> or schools to learn differently--so laws had to be created to  

> assure that they were allowed to do so---then that gradually got  

> turned into diagnosticians and service providers telling people  

> what they needed instead of finding out from them.

>

> There was a  terrific study that lasted 5 years at James Madison  

> University in VA that formalized the "let the learner tell us"  

> approach: On arriving at the college, students with special  

> learning needs were given the opportunity of meeting with a  

> counselor ( usually students in the SPed/LD master's program) about  

> getting support.  Then, as classes got going the student with SLN  

> worked with the counselor to fit the support to the class--one  

> student might need a scribe in one class, but not another, or a  

> content tutor in one class but not another.  The  very careful  

> attention to what each student wanted for specific circumstances  

> was very successful on all levels-- learner, counselor and  

> professors--and of course the school--which had a higher success  

> rate that usual.    That is a model I wish were more widespread.

>

> And I couldn't agree more about the diagnostic teaching.  It is  

> something I actively teach in my training sessions--I was taught to  

> do it as a special ed. teacher----basically it was/is the  

> embodiment of FDR's famous quote--"If something works do more of  

> it; If it doesn't, do something else"

>

> Robin Lovrien Schwarz, M. Sp. Ed:LD

> Independent Consultant in Adult ESOL/Education and Learning  

> Difficulties.

>

>

>

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

> From: Will Fagan <wfagan at mun.ca>

> To: The Learning Disabilities Discussion List  

> <learningdisabilities at nifl.gov>

> Sent: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 6:05 pm

> Subject: [LearningDisabilities 1485] Re: definition/diagnosis

>

> Robin:

> Thanks for your input.

> If we don't know who we are working with (questionable or general  

> diagnosis) then how do we know that the intervention is correct?

> If we base our diagnosis on the discrepancy model, then we are  

> creating a generic category and assuming that a "one size fits all"  

> intervention will do. Maybe some individuals with a learning  

> disability (read in your definition) do not have problems with math?

> Also the IQ discrepancy could arise for a number of reasons, such  

> as lack of motivation, or emotional  difficulties which may not be  

> easily detectable.

>

> It is interesting how we go round in circles. Responsiveness to  

> Intervention is new to me. But I can recall in the 1970's the big  

> thrust was "diagnostic teaching" which seems to be the same  

> concept. Through diagnostic teaching procedures, teachers provided  

> intervention for children experiencing difficulty in learning.  

> There was no need to label and children were not removed from the  

> classroom.

>

> Only when we fit the  intervention to the diagnosis will be making  

> strides in dealing with learning disabilities. But this must start  

> with a diagnosis that lets us determine the nature of the disability.

> Bill

>

>

>

>

> On 7-Nov-07, at 5:23 PM, robinschwarz1 at aol.com wrote:

>

>> Bill-- if I can jump in here---Kathleen's quote is, unfortunately  

>> more or less accurate.  This is the great soft underbelly of the  

>> field: no consistent definition nor diagnostic procedures.  The  

>> great criticism of the definitions is that they are not  

>> diagnosable--they only are exclusive--it is such and so problem  

>> that is not the result of this or that.   That fact, plus the  

>> unavoidable fact that despite the testing world's devotion to it,  

>> the discrepancy model is full of flaws. What Kathleen's quote  

>> primarily refers to is that states' laws about how many standard  

>> deviations on IQ and achievement tests constitute a profile  

>> considered to be typical of LD varies so much that indeed, one  

>> COULD travel west to east and be LD, not LD, ADD, MR, etc. The  

>> variation is so great that one can only conclude that at bottom,  

>> the decision about cutoff scores is arbitrary.  There is no real  

>> reason why in one someone havin g scores that diverge by 1.5  

>> standard deviations is more or less LD than someone having scores  

>> diverging by 2 standard deviations in the state next door.

>>

>> Moreover, a roomful of diagnosticians interpreting the tests would  

>> have wildly divergent conclusions about who had LD and who did  

>> not--in both groups.  The fragility of a decision based on the  

>> scores of just the two tests is such that diagnosticians  

>> realistically need a LOT of supporting evidence gained through  

>> other testing, evaluation, interview and history.  A really good  

>> diagnosis should involve several sessions with the diagnostician  

>> and hours of interpretation.  Few adults in adult education ever  

>> get that kind of diagnosis because it is very expensive.   In my  

>> mind, the whole process is downright scary, to say nothing of  

>> harmful to a lot of people.

>>

>> And relevant to the field of adult ed. is the fact that few  

>> diagnosticians are trained and experienced in testing and  

>> evaluating ADULTS.  I remember hearing two states TANF  

>> representatives a couple of summers ago reporting on fiascos that  

>> had happened in their states when they thought they had vetted  

>> diagnosticians well, but had not. The diagnosticians were either  

>> declaring all members of different groups as having MR or using  

>> cutoff scores without reference to other tests or information-- 

>> which, as I indicated above, will inevitably result in lots of  

>> people being declared LD or even MR despite other evidence to the  

>> contrary. In both cases, panic ensued as these conclusions were  

>> 100% actionable.

>>

>> One flaw cited since the inception of the discrepancy model in the  

>> mid 70's to satisfy the federal law according accommodations to  

>> those deemed to have LD is that if one took any population of  

>> 1,000 "normal" people and gave them IQ and achievement tests, a  

>> great many would have the discrepancy profile that is considered  

>> typical of LD; conversely, if you tested 1,000 people who had been  

>> previously diagnosed as having LD, many of those would NOT have  

>> the discrepancy needed for legal definition of LD.   That is  

>> because the field of identification of the real causes of and  

>> nature of LD as we know it in the US is still in its infancy.   

>> Neuroscience is on the way to providing us with much finer tuned  

>> answers to what is going on in someone's brain.  A  

>> neuropsychologist I worked with not long ago commented after  

>> attending an MIT conference on the brain that he felt like he was  

>> doing his diagnostic work with axes and shovels, so crude does the  

>> testing model look i n the face of sophisticated science that can  

>> watch the brain work.

>>

>> Another problem with the discrepancy model is that it is a self- 

>> fulfilling prophecy--if one has reading deficits or processing  

>> difficulties or abstraction difficulties, one will do poorly on  

>> the IQ and/or achievement tests-- so even if one has actually kept  

>> up in school through excellent compensatory skills, the  

>> achievement tests will not show that.  That is why a good  

>> diagnostician needs to look at a wide variety of tests and  

>> information and not just the two pieces used for the discrepancy.

>>

>> Still another decades-old objection to the IQ and achievement  

>> testing is that they are culturally biased if one is not of the  

>> American middle class.  Work has been done to alleviate the bias,  

>> but much of it is still there.  A story I read just a few years  

>> ago about Wechsler, of the IQ test, was about one item in the  

>> verbal reasoning test in which a child is asked what he would do  

>> if a playmate hit him while they were on the playground.   

>> Sociologists and others representing inner-city children said that  

>> in those cultures the right answer would be to hit the other kid  

>> back--while Wechsler was quoted as saying. " That is wrong.  A  

>> child should walk away from a fight."     Ha ha.....    Of course,  

>> no amount of work is going to make our testing models culturally  

>> and linguistically appropriate for persons from other cultures and  

>> language backgrounds--but that is a discussion unto itself!

>>

>> In fact, if one mines the literature of LD well, only dyslexia has  

>> been pinned down enough internationally through brain studies to  

>> be diagnosable through direct testing--and that means testing for  

>> phonological deficits that appear to cause reading difficulties,  

>> not through the discrepancy model.  However, even that conclusion  

>> is being hotly contested by those who say there is still an  

>> underlying cause to the phonological deficits and THAT would be  

>> the cause of dyslexia--so stay tuned and open minded about changes  

>> in diagnosis and definition that hopefully will be more specific  

>> and helpful.

>>

>> Robin Lovrien Schwarz, M. Sp. Ed:LD

>> Independent Consultant in Adult ESOL/Education and Learning  

>> Difficulties

>>

>>

>>

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

>> From: Katherine G <Kgotthardt at comcast.net>

>> To: The Learning Disabilities Discussion List  

>> <learningdisabilities at nifl.gov>

>> Sent: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 10:12 am

>> Subject: [LearningDisabilities 1469] Re: Transition Questions

>>

>> Someone on another list told me if you want to change your  

>> diagnosis, just

>>

>>

>>

>> cross state lines.  Does that answer your question?  LOL.

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> Katherine Mercurio Gotthardt, ESOL Online Instructor

>>

>>

>>

>> Prince William County Public Schools

>>

>>

>>

>> Adult Education

>>

>>

>>

>> P.O. Box 389

>>

>>

>>

>> Manassas, VA 20108

>>

>>

>>

>> work 703-791-8387

>>

>>

>>

>> fax 703-791-8889

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

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

>>

>>

>>

>> From: learningdisabilities-bounces at nifl.gov

>>

>>

>>

>> [mailto:learningdisabilities-bounces at nifl.gov]On Behalf Of Will Fagan

>>

>>

>>

>> Sent: Monday, November 05, 2007 1:09 PM

>>

>>

>>

>> To: The Learning Disabilities Discussion List

>>

>>

>>

>> Subject: [LearningDisabilities 1456] Re: Transition Questions

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> Is there a common diagnosis for learning disability across the  

>> nation?

>>

>>

>>

>> Are common tests used as part of this diagnosis?

>>

>>

>>

>> Or would diagnosis of learning disability depend on the state or  

>> region or

>>

>>

>>

>> district in which a person lives?

>>

>>

>>

>> Bill Fagan

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> On 4-Nov-07, at 7:49 PM, PatMFL at aol.com wrote:

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> 1. For the student with a learning disability that is planning on  

>> continuing

>>

>>

>>

>> their education at a post-secondary institute, what information  

>> should the

>>

>>

>>

>> student know about themselves and what would be the best  

>> documentation to

>>

>>

>>

>> provide?

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> 2. What information should be included in a student's summary of  

>> performance

>>

>>

>>

>> so that this document would be useful to those who will be providing

>>

>>

>>

>> services in post-secondary settings?

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> 3. What transition assessments provide the most useful information  

>> for the

>>

>>

>>

>> student with a learning disability that is planning on continuing  

>> their

>>

>>

>>

>> education in a post-secondary institution?

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> 4. What are the skills that need to be learned by a student with a  

>> learning

>>

>>

>>

>> disability that is transitioning from a "world on entitlement" to  

>> a "world

>>

>>

>>

>> of eligibility"?

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> Patrick Mulvihill, M.Ed

>>

>>

>>

>> Consultant

>>

>>

>>

>> The Transition Center at the University of Florida

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> **************************************

>>

>>

>>

>> See what's new at http://www.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

>>

>>

>>

>> Email delivered to wfagan at mun.ca

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

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

>>

>>

>>

>> 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

>>

>>

>>

>> Email delivered to robinschwarz1 at aol.com

>> Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail!

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

>> 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

>> Email delivered to wfagan at mun.ca

>

> =

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

>

> 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

>

> Email delivered to robinschwarz1 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

> Email delivered to wfagan at mun.ca


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.nifl.gov/pipermail/learningdisabilities/attachments/20071110/d86b1fac/attachment.html