Talk:Learning disability

Would like update on what is going on with page

Hi,

This article has been changed from a "disambiguation page" for to a regular article, which by itself I don't necessarily have an issue with. In case you're not familiar with disambiguation pages, take a look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)

But I do have a couple of questions regarding the purpose of the page at this point.

- It looks like there is some intention of turning this page into an article series. What is the plan for this change? Which articles are expected eventually to be part of the series?

- It looks like this page is now very U.S.-centric. If there will be a subordinate article for LD in the U.S., shouldn't the "parent" page represent a global view rather than the US view? (which is covered in detail on another page).

Would someone fill me in on the plan for this article, or article series?

Thanks,

Rosmoran 13:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merging articles "Learning disability" and "Learning disability (US)"

This merge is essentially a "revert" of a restructure I did to the previous organization a few weeks ago. Basic background is: Evidently in the UK, the term "learning disability" means what we call "developmental disability". So as not to cause confusion, I broke the article into two pages turned "Learning disability" into the disambiguation page pointing to "Learning disability in the US" and "Learning disability in the UK".

Subsequently, the UK editors decided to redirect "Learning disabilities in the UK" to "developmental disability." There was discussion of moving the "Learning disabilities in the US" content back into the "Learning disability" page, but I haven't had time to do it until now. Best, Rosmoran 18:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Learning Disabilities and of Special Education

Hi Nburden,

Why did you revert my contribution ?:

19:16, 23 October 2007 Nburden (Talk | contribs) m (26,892 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by 80.178.225.127. using TW) (undo)

80.178.225.127 20:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

follows copy of: Learning disability

80.178.221.98 11:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nburden,

why did you revert my contribution ?:

19:16, 23 October 2007 Nburden (Talk | contribs) m (26,892 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by 80.178.225.127. using TW) (undo)

80.178.225.127 20:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the information presented would be more appropriate in an article of its own, with better coverage from outside sources. Nburden ^(T) 20:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An article of its own now, would be a stub. In the meantime, it would be worthwhile permitting students and readers have the option of getting acquainted with this aspect of the subject, don't you think so ?

Cheers, 80.178.225.127 22:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with a stub. There are many wikipedians who try to expand stubs, which means a stub would be very likely to be expanded. Further, it would increase the likelyhood of better sourcing, which was a problem in my opinion. Nburden ^(T) 01:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with a stub, besides being a stub, but it is also not compulsory and inevitable. Better sourcing could be added in the same article even though it is not a problem now in my opinion . I still think it would do very well as it is.

Cheers, 80.178.221.98 08:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

update of this copy:

80.178.181.53 11:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I was saying is that a stub is much more visible. Regardless, I would have pulled the section for the sourcing alone. You had only one source for multiple paragraphs, which makes it look like spam. However, if you want to add it back in, I won't remove it right away again. Just know that if the sourcing doesn't get better pretty quick, I'll tag it. Nburden ^(T) 16:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Nburden, some more sourcing would be helpful--Vannin 00:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The article would benefit from a section that addresses this aspect of the subject. I'm sorry to say, however, that the information in question does not do very well as it is because there are major issues with the content and the point-of-view from which it is written.

All of the issues could be addressed with a major revision of the material, but it would be essentially a rewrite. I will point out specifics not to be unkind, but to be clear on what needs to be addressed.

The biggest issue, as has been pointed out, is the complete lack of sourcing. As written, the material can only be interpreted as personal opinion, not to mention very POV (for example, by labeling as "pseudo-science" several illnesses that are proved to be neurological in origin, and claiming that the "unschooling" version of home schooling cures all learning problems).

Aside from the many editorial problems which are easy to fix, the material is also written in a very un-encyclopedic style, for example, it uses the term "Criticism of Learning Disabilities and of Special Education" as the subject of multiple sentences, as though it were a proper noun.

I don't know how new a Wikipedian you are, but I'm sure that many of the repeat editors of this page would be willing to help guide you on how to revise the text so that it comes closer to meeting basic Wikipedia requirements.

Rosmoran 04:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I also think the article would benefit from a section that addresses this aspect of the subject. Still criticism by its own nature must address subjects from a different point-of-view and I wonder if "criticism of one personal opinion" is not as valid and most important criticism.

To my knowledge the "unschooling version of home schooling" issue is not research supported, hence I assume it is not to be included.

As for the neurological origin of the mentioned illnesses, there is no proof of it (see: Gerald Coles, The Learning Mystique: A Critical Look at "Learning Disabilities.").

Cheers,

80.178.181.53 14:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quote:

"Today, with alarming frequency, children of normal intelligence who do not perform at the same level as their peers are branded 'learning disabled', the victims of a neurological dysfunction. This book demonstrates that the theories behind neurological explanations are unproven."

Gerald Coles, The Learning Mystique: A Critical Look at "Learning Disabilities" -- Book Description"

80.178.181.53 22:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right about the appropriateness of including information reflecting different aspects of a subject. However, it must still be written from a neutral point of view, and the information in its previous form was not. (Using a neutral point of view is not my standard but a Wikipedia principle -- see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Examples.) Don't feel discouraged because you didn't know this --- I think most Wikipedians go through a similar learning curve. I certainly did.

The disorders I was referring to that have been proved to be neurological in origin are ADD and OCD (which your information labeled as pseudo-science). Their etiology has been proved not by theorists or by LD professionals, but by medical researchers using functional imaging techniques such as PET and fMRI. These clearly show that brain activity is very different in people with the disorders. (There are similar findings for dyslexia that are also based on brain imaging, but the research has not yet shown solid evidence for LD's in the more general sense.)

If you want to include the information, it can certainly be rewritten from a neutral point of view. If you're not sure how to do this, there are many experienced Wiki contributors who would be happy to help. There are also some good examples of what to do and not to do in the Wiki articles I mention above.

Best, Rosmoran 01:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to tell me after you read Gerald Coles' book I mentioned and the articles I included in my information.

~ "Not brains are different but people and their relations to their environment are different."

Gerald Coles, The Learning Mystique: A Critical Look at "Learning Disabilities."

That's the reason it's called "criticism," because it disagrees, until one of the parties becomes convinced -- if that happens some day.

". . .1. An important factor underlying the dramatic increase in the numbers of "Learning Disabled" children is our culture's preoccupation with the medical model of problem-solving. Simply put, here is what this means. For about 150 years, modern Western medicine has been producing a seemingly unending series of spectacular successes. The process, based on the application of "scientific method", involves identifying a disease with precision; finding a universal cause for the disease; and creating a cure. So well has this process seemed to work in making Western populations healthier, that the model is assumed to be applicable to others areas as well.

This is not the place to discuss whether the model is valid even in medicine, or whether it works in such areas as social or political problem solving, where it has been widely used. But it is worth noting the effect the model has had on education, to which it has been assiduously applied for over thirty years. Schools are viewed as "sick," as plagued with "ills" that must be "cured". Periodically, and with great frequency, educators announce new "remedies" that they have found for specific pathologies in the education process. These remedies are supposed to work like antibiotics against bacterial infection: they are to be applied in a prescribed manner until the ill goes away. The fact that virtually every remedy that has ever been announced for schools has not worked, despite the willingness of the public to pay for them every time, does not faze the "doctors" of education: after all medicine too has had its share of false starts and unsuccessful panaceas, and that has not shaken the faith of the public in doctors, has it?

The field of special ed is particularly noted for the application of the medical model to individual children who are pupils in the school system. Schools find themselves defining with increasing narrowness and precision what a "normal" or "healthy" child should be like, and "diagnosing" every departure from this norm as some sort of "disorder". In line with medicine's preoccupation with regular checkups for everyone, even for people who feel perfectly fine, the schools develop ever more sophisticated general tests for all pupils of all ages. These tests are used to bring to light alleged learning disabilities, as are the observations and reports of teachers and counselors, who -- though not trained at all in the way medical doctors are trained – become diagnosticians in the educational field. So dominant has the medical model become in schools, that children who are labeled as LD are by now generally considered to suffer from real organic disorder in brain function, even though the evidence is UNIVERSAL that only a tiny fraction of children labeled as LD can be demonstrated to be actually suffering from a neurological or physiological disorder that can be identified by accepted medical means. Anyone who doubts this should read the superb and thorough study written in 1987 by Gerald Coles entitled "The Learning Mystique", published by Ballantine Books. The validity of his conclusions has not been affected by any studies that have appeared since the date of publication.

The medical model is simple, and therein lies its appeal. It makes simple statements, and points to simple remedies. But it just hasn't worked in the schools, and it never will, BECAUSE IT DOESN'T APPLY, Schools are not hospitals, and the sooner we break away from the analogy the more quickly we will put special education into its proper perspective . . ."

fragment of, "SPECIAL EDUCATION" -- a Noble Cause Run Amok

Cheers, 80.178.175.21 03:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not interested in arguing with you about theories of the origin of learning disabilities, nor is this an appropriate location for such a discussion to take place. (Perhaps you could register and create a user page for such discussions.)

If you would like to reframe the information that you want included so that it takes a neutral point of view, I encourage you to do so --- that way the information could be incorporated into the article.

BTW, would like to clarify something. Using a neutral point of view does not mean that controversial or contrary perspectives should not be included. In fact, they *should* be included --- they just need to be represented in a non-partisan way and with apprpriate citation. For example, on the unschooling issue, the lack of research support does not on its own rule out its inclusion. But if included, it needs to presented neutrally and not from the perspective of an advocate. Also, it needs to be based on statements or claims that come from verifiable outside sources, such as a book or a peer-reviewed publication.

Rosmoran 05:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to focus this discussion page on the article rather than on the topic. In terms of the article, some of this other perspective has already been covered off with the section on Sternberg, and I think that may be sufficient. In many ways the article does not really push for a medical model or organic causes and indeed also has the piece on response to instruction and the role of remediation, so I think it is ok.--Vannin 05:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On home education - homeschooled children in the unschooling approach (just for the record):

"Are learning disorder labels the "emperor's new clothes" of the schools? Philosophers have an interesting tool called Occam's Razor, a handy device for cutting through preposterous theories: "the simplest theory that fits the facts of a problem is the one that should be selected." What are the facts? It is a fact that many school children, mostly males, have learning difficulties. But it is also a fact that there is a group of hundreds of thousands of children in the world, both male and female, among whom this "genetic" defect is absent: homeschoolers. In this group, learning difficulties are virtually unknown, except for those children recently in school."

Fragment of, "Learning Disability": A Rose by Another Name, by Jan Hunt

80.178.186.120 00:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all of this evidence, why don't you just rewrite the information as a properly sourced addition, as opposed to listing it on the talk page, where it doesn't really belong? Nburden ^(T) 02:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect: an outside, verifiable source. You can use this as the source for your unschooling material. Just be sure to write it from a neutral perspective, as though you don't have a personal opinion on the topic. Just the facts.

Rosmoran 13:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nburden writes: "Drop the 'pseudo-scientific'."

02:18, 28 October 2007 Nburden (Talk | contribs) m (31,425 bytes) (→Criticism of Learning Disabilities and of Special Education - Drop the "pseudo-scientific.") (undo)

The use of the concept rests upon at least two sources:

1.

"To achieve this homogenization of the classroom, all the non-standard kids had to be "diagnosed" as having some illness, that justified the expense of special ed. And so, in the past decade or two, a host of new so-called disorders has arisen -- attention deficit disorder (ADD), hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), reading disorders, cognitive disorders, and many others -- none of which have been, or can be, traced to any physiological dysfunction whatsoever. These pseudo-scientific diagnoses have caused a whole generation of non-standard children to be labeled as dysfunctional, even though they suffer from nothing more than the disease of responding differently in the classroom than the average manageable student. When this process of labeling and separation is applied to adults -- as it was for several generations in the Soviet Union -- there is a general hue and cry denouncing such action as a malicious suppression of freedom and individual variation. Alas, when the same process is being applied to more and more children in our own land of the free and home of the brave, hardly a voice is raised in protest, and those few who object are berated for attacking the schools!" [1]

2.

Gerald Coles' research and his book, The Learning Mystique: A Critical Look at "Learning Disabilities."

"The author argues against today's dominant theory that learning disabilities are caused by neurological deficits."

"Yet, as Coles points out in this important critique, there is little concrete, scientific evidence to prove the condition exists as described. By proposing an alternative theory, one that focuses on a variety of social and familial relationships experienced by children, as well as individual neurological differences that are not necessarily dysfunctions, Coles challenges the educational establishment."

80.178.191.102 07:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've tightened up the writing in this section so that the key points are highlighted, and the language is less polemic. I hope that this maintains the main issues that are raised here.--Vannin 19:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've reverted this section so all of the key points be kept as they were, clear, well defined, well explained, well justified and well documented, as fit for Wikipedia. Not all the main issues that were raised here were maintained in the "tightening up", e.g. todays homogenization and standardization of schools that bring with them learning disabilities and special education.

By the way, the phrase, "Special education models in which children are labelled with the term learning disability...," is baseless.

80.178.168.108 13:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think we'll have to keep working on this because it will have to be rewritten, and needs to be concise and clear, rather than being a general rant. First - let's get agreement on what the key points are. It is a bit hard to tell, but I think you are trying to say that 1. the special education models that involve labelling have been criticized. 2. the current education model that has a chronological lock step focus is the real problem because 3. children learn at different paces in different ways. And further 4. the finding of neurological impairments have not been "proven" (although I think with all the fMRI, autopsy, and other data, this will be a bit harder to get agreement on). You propose 5. that home-schooling is the solution to allowing children to go at their own pace. In the meantime, we may have to take the whole thing out, because what is there now is not up to standard. --Vannin 14:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vannin,

Please notice that the sources for the first four paragraphs of this section are, "SPECIAL EDUCATION" -- a Noble Cause Sacrificed to standardization, "SPECIAL EDUCATION" -- a Noble Cause Run Amok," from the book, Education In America -- A View From Sudbury Valley, and Chapter 5, THE OTHER 'R's, from the book FREE AT LAST -- The Sudbury Valley School, by Daniel Greenberg. NOT, The Learning Mystique: A Critical Look at "Learning Disabilities," by Gerald Coles, as you wrote.

80.178.171.242 21:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:80.178.242, I've changed the source as you indicated.--Vannin 23:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]