Talk:Learning disability/Archive 1

Firming up the page content

A lot of what's here is good, but there are pieces that are outdated and/or innaccurate. I'm going to make the changes I think are needed, which I guess is the whole point of this wiki stuff! I will check back to see if people are opposed to the changes.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Misterjep (talk • contribs) 17:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

On the subject of ADD

If a student with ADD was still exhibiting extreme difficulty concentrating or just generally learning after recieving treatment, could they be given the same treatment as one in an IEP? If so, could they stay in the gifted program of their school, but simply be given more time to do assignments et cetera?

---

I am by no means an expert on this subject so I don't want to change it myself, but I think there's a slight error on the 'learning disability' page. Under the brief mentioning of Alzheimer's disease the following text can be found: "As the condition progresses, the patient begins losing lifelong memories, with the most recent to go first. Eventually, they often regress to childhood [...]"

Coincidentally, I recently heard that this is a common misconception. In fact the memories that have made the most impact in peoples lives are the ones that remain the longest. The fact that the most impressive memories are usually from when a person was young makes it seem as if a person is slowly regressing to childhood when this is not really what is happening. It's just that memories from childhood are stronger. Also note that in the Alzheimer's disease article regression to youth is not mentioned at all.

Could someone who knows the facts please either correct the article or correct me? ;)

---

Non-verbal learning disability is a learning disorder associated with damage to the white matter in the brain. The right-sided brain functions are adversely affected. Transfer of information between right and left brain via the corpus callosum may also be a problem. People with this disability are strong in verbal skills, with prolific speech and vocabulary, & excellent rote memory. They are often auditory learners, as opposed to the much more common visual learning style. Weaknesses are in math, visual-spatial skills, & social skills where non-verbals are needed (thus the name, "Non-verbal learning disability). NLD children may be clumsy and accident prone. Small muscle skills, such as writing and drawing, are painstaking. Learning to read by decoding is intact, but discerning content and meaning and other higher-order thinking skills will be weak. Generalizing knowledge from specific experiences will also be a weakness. "Getting lost" demonstrates the deficit in visual-spatial skill. "Not fitting in" will describe social relationships.

Interesting stuff. Feel free to add directly to the article, whoever you are :-) -- Tarquin 15:42 Jan 18, 2003 (UTC)

Old material moved from "Mental retardation" page

The following material was on the "Mental retardation" page. It needs cleaning up and updating to modern views on disability. -- Tarquin 15:42 Jan 18, 2003 (UTC)

I suggest using the term COGNITIVE DISABILITY with acknowledgement that MR, mental retardation, is an older, less preferred, term. (Chris Keller) I have edited the following in that spirit, and have added and rephrased.

---

Mental retardation, abbreviated as MR, is an older term used when a person has certain limitations in mental functioning and in skills such as communicating, taking care of him or herself, and social skills. A more policitally correct term, "cognitive disability," reflects more enlightened, more modern theories.

Cognitive limitations will cause a child to learn and develop more slowly than a typical child. Children with cognitive delays/disabilities may take longer to learn to speak, walk, and perform self-care skills such as dressing or eating. They are likely to have trouble learning in school. Their learning curve is gradual. They need accomodations and therapeutic intervention at school. There may be some things in the general curriculum they cannot master.

Causes of Cognitive Disability

I'm disappointed by this page. For example, most people who have learning disabilities and ADHD actually have above average IQ. It shouldn't be associated with mental retardation and should thus be totally separated. Someone who is more qualified than me should also rewrite the article to make it less 'negative'. Perhaps famous, successful people such as Tom Cruise, should be highlighted.

• Genetic conditions. Sometimes mental retardation is caused by abnormal genes inherited from parents, errors when genes combine, or other reasons. Examples of genetic conditions are Down syndrome, Fragile X syndrome, and phenylketonuria (PKU).
• Problems during pregnancy. Cognitive disability can result when the baby does not develop inside the mother properly. For example, there may be a problem with the way the baby's cells divide as it grows. A woman who drinks alcohol (see fetal alcohol syndrome) or gets an infection like rubella during pregnancy may also anticipate that there will be consequences for her child's normal development. A malnourished woman puts her unborn baby at high risk, as well.
• Problems at birth. If a baby has problems during labor and birth, such as not getting enough oxygen, he or she may have mental retardation. Being born early places an infant at risk. Brain bleeds (intraventricular hemorrhages or IVHs)are a common complication of extreme prematurity, and may result in developmental and cognitive delays/disability.
• Health problems. Diseases like whooping cough, the measles, or meningitis can cause mental retardation. Mental retardation can also be caused by extreme malnutrition (not eating right), not getting enough medical care, or by being exposed to poisons like lead or mercury.

Mental retardation is not a disease. Mental retardation is also not a type of mental illness, such as depression. There is no cure for mental retardation. However, most children with mental retardation can learn to do many things. It just takes them more time and effort than other children.

How is Cognitive Disability Diagnosed?

Cognitive disability is diagnosed by formal testing in several domains. These are:

• the ability of a person's brain to process information--learn, think, solve problems, and make sense of the world (called IQ or intellectual functioning); and
• whether the person has the skills he or she needs to live independently (called adaptive behavior, or adaptive functioning).

Intellectual functioning, or IQ, is usually measured by a test called an IQ test. The average score is 100. People scoring below 70 to 75 are thought to have mental retardation. To measure adaptive behavior, professionals look at what a child can do in comparison to other children of his or her age. Certain skills are important to adaptive behavior. These are:

• daily living skills, such as getting dressed, going to the bathroom, and feeding one's self;
• communication skills, such as understanding what is said and being able to answer;
• higher order thinking skills, such as planning and organization;
• social skills with peers, family members, adults, and others.

To diagnose cognitive disability, professionals look at the person's mental abilities (IQ) and his or her adaptive skills.

Signs of Cognitive Disabilty (Mental Retardation)

There are many signs of cognitive disability. For example:

• missing one or more developmental milestones, such as sitting up, crawling, or walking later than other children;
• learning to talk later, or having trouble speaking;
• finding it hard to remember things;
• not understanding how to pay for things;
• having trouble understanding social rules;
• having trouble seeing the consequences of their actions;
• having trouble solving problems, and/or
• having trouble thinking logically;
• reacting or responding more slowly;
• struggling to integrate incoming information from one or more senses.

About 87 percent of people with cognitive disability will only be a little slower than average in learning new information and skills. When they are children, their limitations may not be obvious. They may not even be diagnosed as having cognitive delays until they get to school. As they become adults, many people can live independently or semi-independently.

The remaining 13 percent of people with mental retardation score below 50 on IQ tests. These people will have more difficulty in school, at home, and in the community. A person with more severe disability will need more intensive support his or her entire life. Every child with cognitive disability is able to learn, develop, and grow. With help from family, the medical community and especially from the educational system, as spelled out in the federal IDEA and ADA laws, children with cognitive delays/disabilities can maximize their skills and potential, learn to adapt to their environment, and be included in mainstream society.

---

Title of this article

I don't think the material here belongs at the title Learning Disability. Many of the conditions are not strictly conditions that impair only learning, but more generally cognitive functioning. Learning disability implies things that one is capable of doing in principle but has difficulty learning to do, whereas some of these conditions appear to make people simple cognitively incapable of certain types of activity or thought. Something like cognitive disability or cognitive impairment might be better. This article could either redirect there, or cover specifically issues relating to difficulties learning material. --Delirium 06:58, May 1, 2004 (UTC)

I think there could be more information on the varying meanings of the term 'learning disability' in the Uk for example this term has largely replaced 'mental retardation.' See section below for further information.

Mental Retardation needs its own page

The term "mental retardation" is a perfectly acceptable, widely used diagnosis. While the use of "retard" or "retarded" may be perjorative, "mental retardation" is not. It is a type of developmental disablility, and is found in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV), which is the standardized manual used by psychiatrists and psychologists around the world to diagnose psychological disorders. Here is one of thousands of internet articles on the subject [1]. I'm new to Wikipedia, and this is the first subject I looked up, as I work and was interested in what I'd find here. I'd like to recreate the page. I'll check back to see if there are any objections. Teufelhund9 06:04, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I just came here to say pretty much the same thing, that retard should be a separate page, not a link here. Sam [Spade] 16:40, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

merger?

This article should not be merged w mental retard. Lerning disabled is a broader satagory, including attention deficit and dyslexic and all kinds of people who arn't retards. I do think alopt of content w this page could be merged tho, and this page expanded on the non-retarded types of learning disabilities (esp attention deficit / hyperactivity disorder, which seems neglected). Sam [Spade] 00:39, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that the "mental retard" article is the one which should be hollowed out and deprecated, and this one much expanded. "Mental retard" is an old-fashioned term which is going the way of "idiot" and "moron". Let's try things like "pervasive developmental disorder" instead. -- The Anome 00:53, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

I'm saying your wrong. Its an important term, and wikipolicy suggests we use the most commonly used term. Pervasive developmental disorder includes alot of stuff that isn't retards, same as learning disabled. Maybe you should be more careful w your overly broad attempts at political correctness. At least my old fashioned terms are specific and functional. Sam [Spade] 01:39, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm not up on the lingo, but I'm pretty sure that PDD is not the same as MR (mental retardation), and I'm very sure that MR is not the same condition as a learning disability. Sam, I agree with your conclusion but could you please not use the word "retard" unless you're referring specifically to the derogatory term? Saying "retardation" in reference to the condition is fine, but saying "retards" isn't really acceptable. Rhobite 05:53, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

Whichever, I think I'll go edit Political correctness and Newspeak now ;) (P.S. I used to work as a caretaker of the retarded, and the first thing they taught us was to treat them like everybody else. I showed my roommates a good time, let me tell ya! IMO its all about how you treat others, not how you label them.) Sam [Spade] 20:42, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I was reasonably sure you'd have a knee-jerk reaction to my perceived "political correctness." All I'm asking is for you to not use the word "retard" where it's unnecessary, which in my opinion is up there with "fag" and "bitch." I'm not asking you to say things like "differently abled," I'm just asking you to refrain from using a term which is regarded by most people as offensive. Rhobite 00:26, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

I of course challenge that "most people" bit, the word "retard" gets alot of use, indeed it easilly ranks in say... the 1,000 most used words, I'd wager. From a socio-linguistic perspective, I think the key is being better people, and sincerely caring more for others, rather than simply shifting our vocabulary (which only ends up shifting the unfriendliness to the new term, like how "special" is an insult now, thanks to PC foolishness). Sam [Spade] 12:25, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Just because a word is used doesn't make it acceptable. I dare say a lot of people still say Nigger, but I dont suppose the majority of Wikipedians would say that thats an acceptable term. Oh, and speaking as a disable person, the word special is as bad. We dont want to be treated as "special" we just want to be treated the same as everyone else.

The definition and resulting discusion is centred very much around an american perspective. In the UK there are various definitions also, and the pne on wikipedia would seem to fit the term used in law regarding education. The department of health (2001) however in its document "Valuing People: A New Strategy for Learning Disability for the 21st Century," (outlining UK government policy,) states the fillowing:

"Learning disability includes the presence of:

a significantly reduced ability to understand new or complex information, to learn new skills (impaired intelligence), with:

a reduced ability to cope independently (impaired social functioning); which started before adulthood, with a lasting effect on development. This definition encompasses people with a broad range of disabilities.

A low IQ (below 70 for example) is not - on its own - enough to decide whether someone should be provided with additional health and social care support. An assessment of social and communication skills is also taken into account when determining need. Many people with learning disabilities also have physical and / or sensory impairments.

The definition covers adults with autism who also have learning disabilities, but not those with a higher level autistic spectrum disorder who may be of average or even above average intelligence - such as some people with Asperger's Syndrome.

'Learning disability' does not include all those who have a 'learning difficulty' which is more broadly defined in education legislation."

There is an atempt at the start of the article to denote this however, this is not very clear and only uses the term 'develomental disability.'

Also further, taken from Gates, B (2004: 8) Understanding Learning Disabilities. In Gates, B. (Ed) Learning Disabilities, Toward Inclusion. (4th edition) London: Churchill Livingstone:

Generaly speaking in the UK the term 'learning disability' is used to describe people with a significant developmental delay that results in arrested or incomplete achievement of the 'normal' milestones of human development; relating to intellectual, emotional, spritual and social aspects. The term 'mental handicap,' used until recently in the UK, has largely been replaced as it was seen to give a negative image. The term 'mental retardation' is not used much any more in the UK either.

Though it seems that 'intelectual disabilities' is becoming more and more popular in the UK. Gates, B. (Ed) (2006) Care Planning and Delivery in Intellectual Disability Nursing. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing - As well as a whole ramge of other books.

As the term is broad, but can have different meanings in different countries, would it not be better to add a further (clearer) description to enlighten the readers to this, rather than merging the two articles?

Summary Edits

I have reservations about the second paragraph in the summary:

Someone with a learning disability does not necessarily have low or high intelligence, nor any innate inability to learn. It just means this individual has an impairment to their ability due to a processing disorder, such as auditory processing or visual processing, that is detrimental to normal teaching methods. Learning disabilities are usually identified by school psychologists through testing of intelligence, academics and processes of learning.

The distinction with cognitive deficits is appropriate (though it could be made clearer), but the content regarding processing disorders is dated and the statement about identification by school psychologists is slightly inaccurate. [2]. I recommend the following revision:

In the US and Canada, individuals with Learning Disabilities usually have IQs within the normal range (i.e., 85-115), but some may have IQs above 115. It is not their intelligence that is impaired, but their ability to learn academic skills and content under usual instructional conditions.

Individual students with Learning Disabilities are officially identified by a team of educators (including general and special education teachers, speech-language therapists, school psychologists, and school administrators) working with students' parents. Although medical professionals may contribute to the diagnosis, Learning Disabilities is an educational, not a medical, condition.

I revised the section on ADHD to reflect current thinking about co-morbidity and to tighten content about the relationship between LD and ADHD.

I edited the list of resources to include those provided by professional, parent, and similar organizations that serve as sources of advocacy and provided resources about Learning Disabilities. Given their stature and authority, these should be featured.

Source: Hallahan et al. (2005). Learning disabilities: Foundations, characteristics, and effective teaching (3rd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon
JohnL 17:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I took out ADHD from the summary. It is not considered a learning disability, according to the official definitions. Sources: learn-dis/learning%20disabilities.html and [3] I plan to make the summary more general again, as the criteria for LD vary from place to place and from professional to professional. If somebody wants to make a case for keeping the summary as it is on this date, please say so. Logophile 21:36, 6 May 2005 (UTC}

I included Canada in the list of countriesn who use the definition, I changed socio-biological to psychological, which is more correct. I added dysgraphia to the list of learning disabilities (it is listed in the DSM-IV along with dyslexia). I removed autism because strictly speaking it does not meet the criteria for a learning disability. Under the DSM-IV autism has its own classification of disorders under the heading pervasive developmental disorder. BarryCull 17:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)Professor of Psychology http://www.conestogac.on.ca/~bcull

I have taken a couple of terms out of the list, namely brain damage and perceptual disability because they are not strictly considered learning disabilities. The term perceptual disability was used for a term in the sixties and seventies to refer to a class of children that lacked perceptual-motor skills. The theory was that there lack of coordination, poor movement , poor visual-tracking etc. led to learning disabilities elsewhere, most notably reading. The term more recently seems to have come back with a quite different meaning. My research led me to the CNIB site, a link to which I have provided [here http://www.cnib.ca/Library/for_libraries&schools/resource_kit/index.htm]. The definition appears to refer to a sensory impairment, rather than an LD. If folks think it should go back in the link, I would suggest that there be an accompanying write-up explaining what it is. Otherwise it adds to confusion rather than knowledge. This was a "null link" before.

There is the term "Processing Disorder" that also has a null-link (it goes nowhere). As psychologists we often speak of people having processing deficits, these in fact are the hypothesized problems in the person's ability to take in information that are at the root of the learning disability. I would be willing to tidy this piece up should their be a concensus (or no response at all). As it stands it is misleading because it implies there is a specific disorder called a "processing disorder" and because the link goes nowhere.

Finally, I had some trouble, because I am new at the formatting, putting a link inside the box at the top right referencing the DSM-IV. If anyone can see what needs to be fixed, I appreciate the help. BarryCull 20:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC) Psych Prof

Special?

An accepted way of referring to these people as "special" As someone with a learning disabillity I can tell you right now if someone came up to me and reffered to me as "Special" i would be majorly offended. I understand what your trying to say (that it's more acceptable than calling someone a "retard") but the way it's worded gives the impression that it's an ok practice to do, it's not. Deathawk 19:51, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Depends on the context. Obivious if someone walked up to a learning disability person and referred to him/her as a "special person" it would be offensive. However, terms like "Special education" and "Special assistance" are commonlly use and I have never seen anybody take offense at the name. Bayerischermann 22:57, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Added Dyspraxia to list

Hope you dont mind my small change :)

Removed section

I've removed the following addition by User:JohnHanson:

Use of self-teaching fun materials like Tooties, Calculators like Casio 260 and Sharp printing along with a stop watch can be very effective in preventing learning disabilities if started at an early age. Once a child has been labeled with learning disabilities, therapy sessions of at least three hours are required with a trained and certified Tootie teacher. Finding a occupational therapist trained in Tooties can be very helpful. The Brain Development Center has trained teachers around the world who can cure almost any learning disability or at least dramatically improve the condition. Brain damage with partially disabled limbs have made very good progress with the Tooties System. You may not believe it works but millions of children have used Tooties in homes and schools since 1962 so it is worth looking into before you get too discouraged even tho many other professionals may scoff at the idea. They just don't know it is possible. There is a condition called Quindrexia which is the state of not knowing what you don't know. The more educated we become the more we find out that we don't know and then must decide if we want to know it. If you have a child with any kind of learning problems it may be worth your time to learn about Tooties and what they can do.

because the information was inappropriate for the 'see also' section, as well as being unencyclopaedic. Natgoo 19:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Removed external links

The list of external links on this page was getting huge! Remember that Wikipedia is not a directory of external links. Also, the list was beginning to attract links to local services for learning disabilities, which are no doubt helpful to their users, but not to most Wikipedia readers. I've pruned it severely, and added a couple of links to www.dmoz.org (which is a directory of external links). Please think carefully before adding external links to this article, and take a look at our external links policy. There are many, many sites about learning disabilities on the web, and we can't list all of them. FreplySpang 17:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Responsiveness to intervention

I added in new material on the responsiveness to intervention approach--Vannin 14:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Special education legal issues and processes need to be in separate articles

I would like to propose that information related to the special education legal requirements, processes, and terminology be placed in a separate article. To my mind, there are at least a couple of reasons to do this:

First, the legal and public school aspects of qualifying and educating children with LDs differ dramatically from country to country. Since the English Wikipedia is relevant to all English-speaking countries, I think it would be a good idea to cover country-specific legal issues elsewhere.

Second, significant material on the special education aspects of learning disabilities obscures the main topic of the article --- the learning disabilities themselves. There is a myriad of information about LDs to be covered here already.

I propose that we create an article regarding the IDEA aspects of LDs and link to it from this article. It could also be integrated with the information structure on Special Education. smoran 20:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Tidy up

The section on terminology was getting a bit long so I broke it up and added the distinction between underlying factors and academic performance when looking for "cures". --24.69.4.155 02:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Revised to clarify focus of article

As proposed above on April 7, I removed the school-specific information from this page. I am creating a "stub" page so that this information isn't lost, but it is more related to special education in the public school system rather than to the learning disabilites themselves. I'm not sure what to call the new page, though. Any suggestions? I added more specific information about the kinds of information processing deficits and how they impede learning, and added more specific information about individual learning disabilites. Still need to add specific sources -- trying to learn the correct format for citing these. smoran 19:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• It is tricky to separate out school-specific information, because the condition is inferred from school performance and is not measured separately. Thus the diagnostic criteria all involve measuring academic skills. This is why the concept of responsiveness to intervention is very relevant to the whole issue of the term learning disability, and should probably not be separated into a school page. This is the focus of a lot of current research and should really be put back, otherwise this ld page is beginning to look rather out of date. --Vannin 19:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

======= Good point. I suspect there are a number of stimulating philosophical discussions we could have on this topic!

I agree that response to intervention as a methodology is an appropriate topic for this page. Also, what we know about LDs from scientific research, and the topics of ongoing research, should definitely be included on this page. What I'd like to see us avoid here is getting into the laws, regulations and policies that govern special education in public schools. Instead, I think this page should focus on the psychological processes and deficits that manifest in people regardless of where they are from 8:00 - 3:00 on weekdays.  :-)

Discussion of the legal and policy issues surrounding how public schools use special education to manage the provision of services is a very legitimate topic for Wikipedia, and is rich fodder for many articles. In fact, there are already articles in Wikipedia for IDEA, FAPE, Response to Intervention, Least Restrictive Environment, and probably others that I haven't run across yet.

Would your concern be addressed if we include a section that discusses at a high level how public schools address LDs and that provides links to these other articles where more information can be found? smoran 05:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for being so open about this. I think my concern is more that the focus is moving away too much from the academic skills (not so much the procedures in the schools but the actual learning to read, write, and do 'rithmetic), and perhaps too much on the underlying neurological conditions - which we really can only infer from the testing that we do. Some people really reify the cognitive processes, and get very caught up in the various dyslexia, dyspraxia groups. The whole concept of learning disability really is in interaction between cognitive abilities and academics, as well as factors such as emotional health. Depression, for example, can affect cognitive functioning and children who are depressed may not do well in school and end up looking exactly the same on testing as children with a more typical learning disability. I know that we need to separate out the district by district policy stuff, but I worry that the article is not as balanced anymore. I will give some more thought to how to include some of the current research on the topic --Vannin 21:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

=== You're right. LDs can have a huge impact on social and emotional functioning, and of course once this cycle of failure-shame-failure kicks in they all become mutually re-inforcing. My understanding is that emotional issues are not necessarily secondary to the learning difficulties, but can actually cause learning disabilities. This isn't something I have seen personally, though, so I have a hard time relating to it. Mostly what I see is LDs that trigger and are further exacerbated by emotional issues, which is not to say that the other doesn't exist.

I agree, of course, that the article needs to be balanced. I try to be objective, but my perspective is very likely biased and based largely on my personal experience, so I'm happy to find someone else interested in working on the topic.

Regarding academic skills, again I think you're right. In fact, that should be a primary focus (if not *the* primary focus) of the primary LD article. I may well have focused too narrowly on the psychological aspects of LDs. People coming to the topic for the first time are likely to be interested in getting basic information because they have a child having trouble learning, rather than coming to get information about the underlying issues that cause learning disabilities. Maybe defining who we think would be most likely to access the topic for information would help us define the primary boundaries of the topic. One of the most basic things to consider when beginning to write about a topic is defining the audience, right?  :-)

It occurs to me that the topic of learning disabilities is very broad. Perhaps we should consider making it a "group" of topics, with an overview / structure / navigation article referring to separate articles covering different the aspects. What do you think? One of the things I struggle with in Wikipedia is keeping the information encyclopedic rather than comprehensive. (I actually sought out a mentor for this very reason. I'll see if he has any suggestions on how to limit the scope of information to be covered.)

May I suggest that we brainstorm the topics that we think should be considered for inclusion in this topic area, and then discuss how to divide up the information? Let me know what you think. smoran 19:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Good point about making the article encyclopaedic rather than comprehensive. In that case, I think the focus really should be - 1. diagnosis, 2. treatment, 3. onsequences and support, and possibly a little bit on subtypes or underlying processing. Right now we have way too much on subtypes and underlying processing, and we really are repeating ourselves in this area--Vannin 22:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

diagnosis

==== OK. Let's take the first item, diagnosis, and clarify what kind of information you would include. Visible symptoms of a learning disability? For example, symptoms that would cause an informed observer to suspect that a someone might have some kind of learning disability?

Evaluation? For example, the types of assessments a psychologist would use to get information about specific areas of deficit?

Areas of academic performance that are often affected by learning disabilities?

smoran 19:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I took a quick stab and brought back in some of the material from the previous version - I don't know who worked on it, but I thought that it worked well - but made it a bit more general and less related to specific school districts and the US situation. I don't think it needs to get very specific about what psychologists look at when doing assessments, but can instead be tackled more generally.--Vannin 20:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm having trouble finding our discussion the way it's embedded here. I'm going to start a new topic at the bottom of this page so we can continue. smoran 22:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Average or above intelligence

took out references to average or above intelligence, as people with low average or even borderline intelligence can still have learning disabilities.--Vannin 20:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Another good point!

The "average to above average" qualification is one of the criteria used by public schools for identification. That certainly doesn't mean that LDs don't occur in people who have below average IQ's, which is an abstract construct anyway. smoran 05:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Terminology Used in Different Countries

There's a very important discussion that began a few comments up regarding the terminology to be used in this article given that the term "learning disability" means very different things depending on one's geographical location.

I'm going to try to get some input on how we might handle this from someone more experienced in the Ways of Wiki than I.  :-)

smoran 19:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

=== I went to the Wiki Village Pump and asked for the Wiki guidelines in such a situation, and was told that the correct solution is to create what they call a "disambiguation" page. Here's a link to information about this :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disambiguation

I will create a proposed disambiguation page and request feedback in this forum.

smoran 14:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I created a "disambiguation page" to address the issue regarding the term having different usages depending on the country. Here are the pages that now exist:

• Learning disability -- this page is the disambiguation page.
• Learning disability (U.S.) -- this page.
• Learning disability (U.K.)

The developmental disability article comprehensively describes learning disability in the UK, as the terms are synonymous in their application. I don't think the page Learning disability (U.K.) is necessary, and have redirected it to developmental disability. I think a better idea would have been to use the other form of disambiguation - to add the following to the very top of the learning disability article:

This article refers to the term learning disability as it is used in the United States. For the use of the term in the United Kingdom, please see the article developmental disability.

I think learning disability (U.S.) should be moved back to learning disability with the above addition, and learning disability (U.K.) should be deleted. It's customary to wait quite a bit longer than 2 days when requesting feedback on a proposal for such major moves. Cheers Natgoo 20:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

---

OK. I don't have a particular issue with what you've described. From discussions earlier on this page, it was clear that there was some disagreement regarding terminology. There was also some UK-specific information embedded in the article, which I found distracting.

I followed the guidelines in wikipedia:disambiguation, as advised in Village Pump. I wasn't aware of a customary length of time between proposal and implementation. How long after making a proposal would you consider appropriate before making the change, such as creating a disambiguation page? I only waited a couple of days because there have been very few people participating in this discussion for the last couple of months --- just Vannin and myself. Other than the two of us (and now you), I believe the the last time someone else participated was sometime in March.

I haven't followed the discussions on content in the developmental disability page. Are the folks involved on that page pretty much in consensus that this is the term they want used instead of "learning disability?"

smoran 22:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Natgoo 18:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

---

How about Learning Disability (North America)? Canada is not part of the States. -misterjep74.12.75.159 16:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Ongoing discussion about content

Vannin: You put back quite bit of the information I removed, which is OK. Rather than just editing it willy-nilly, I'll bring up specific areas that I'm interested in.

Do you have a particular preference for "psychological" instead of "neurological?" The primary LD sites on the web use "neurological." I'm not saying that any web site is pentultimate source for information of any kind, but I find it significant that so many LD websites I look at use "neurological" and not "psychological." (LDOnline, CCLD, NCLD, SchwabLearning, etc etc.

I strongly object to "psychological condition," primarily because of the common misperception that if someone has a "psychological condition" he or she is "insane." There is also the perception that psychological issues aren't "real" issues. That is, people perceive them not to be biologically based.

Another alternative to neurological is "neuropsychological." The Wikipedia article on neuropsychology states that it "aims to understand how the structure and function of the brain relate to specific psychological processes and overt behaviors." .... "It is scientific in its approach and shares an information processing view of the mind with cognitive psychology and cognitive science."

I've also seen neurobiological.

I think the most commonly used term is neurological, but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. smoran 23:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Psychological has very little to do with being insane and is a term used to apply to human behaviour and cognition. It is wider than neurological - which is more brain/nerve based, and thus includes social factors, behaviour, and cognitive factors and is much better term here because it captures the interactions of the different areas. --Vannin 15:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• the history of learning disabilities is unrelated to diagnosis, as is the NCLD definition. Because I think the information is useful, I created a section titled "Overview" for this information. I'm sure that a better section title can be devised. It was the best I could come up with on the fly.

• I revised the Diagnosis section to be a less school-specific description of the process. We'll want to refer to other wiki articles that cover this information.

My previous point was that we cannot remove some reference to school as the whole point here is that learning disabilities relate to the learning of academic, or school subjects. We are not talking about musical disabilities here, but about disabilities that affect the 3Rs. The key, though is to avoid reference to IDEA, which is solely US and make it less specific to individual countries

• In addition to the basic information about RTI in this article, there is an article specifically for Response to intervention. It is currently designated as an orphan article, though I've created a couple of links to and from it, so hopefully it won't disappear on us. It could definitely use some attention, though. Since this is an area of expertise, Vannin, could you be persueded to beef it up?  :-)

smoran 00:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that RTI needs a separate article. It fits nicely as a paragraph in learning disabilities, I think. --Vannin 15:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed Information

In many school districts this is transformed into looking for a discrepancy between academic achievement and IQ scores.

I'm not sure why you took this out. This is quite relevant and is not country-specific. It also fits with the DSM-IV diagnostic criteria. --Vannin 15:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

there are a lot of changes going on at once. I think it might be easier if we slowed down, and just dealt with one at a time. THat way, we may be able to open the discussion up to more people--Vannin 15:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and many of the changes are unencyclopaedic, written in convoluted language, badly formatted and not supported by evidence. It's pretty messy. Natgoo 18:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Constructive Criticism

Folks: I always welcome constructive criticism and suggestions for improvement, and I'm very glad that there are others interested in the topic so that we can collaborate. I am accustomed to working collaboratively in a business environment and prefer to work as part of a team.

Recently there have been some "pot shots" hurled about on this discussion page, and they appear to be directed at me. I don't do this, and I would appreciate the return courtesy.

An FYI: I am not the source of the majority of the information on this page. I'm working with what is there, section by section, much of which in my opinion is supporting information (at best) that does not belong in an introductory article. However, I'm uncomfortable deleting a large amount of information at once, especially without discussion.

Regarding substantive changes to an article, I've read many wiki how to's, and they pretty much all encourage new contributors to "be bold." I have been. It appears that "being bold" has some guidelines --- customs might be a better word --- with which I am not yet familiar. I will follow guidelines and customs I am aware of to the best of my ability. If I'm stepping out of bounds, I would appreciate courteous but specific pointers to the guidelines I should be using. I am more than willing to be taught/coached. In fact, I have sought out a "mentor" on the adoption page, but we are just starting to work together. I still have a great deal to learn.

I agree that it would be a good idea to slow down the revisions and discuss changes before they are made.

Can we all agree to approach this step by step? And to do so courteously? smoran 23:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Smoran, I'm sorry that your feelings are being hurt. I'm not sure that there have been any "pot shots" hurled about though, and you may want to avoid stepping into emotional language at this point. I think that Natgoo was making references to the state of the article rather than personal comments directed to you, which you can pretty much ignore altogether if you did not do the writing. --Vannin 00:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Vannin: If I misunderstood the comments, I certainly apologize, and I appreciate your clarification. smoran 01:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Sami, I'm also sorry you took my comments as pot shots - that was not my intention. The article looks and reads a lot better now - it is far more coherent, although still in need of work. Well done to both of you. Natgoo 14:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, Natgoo. I think I just misunderstood the tone of the comments. smoran 01:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Terminology: psychological condition or neuropsychological disorder

I think it would make sense to use the term that is typically used in the LD and interventions research communities. It appears to me that the most commonly used term is "neuropsychological disorder." Here are a few of my sources:

* National Center for Learning Disabilities: "A learning disability is a neurological disorder that affects the brain's ability to receive, process, store and respond to information."

* Coordinated Campaign for Learning Disabilities (CCLD): A learning disaiblity is "... a neurological disorder in which a person's brain works or is structured differently."

* Learning Disabilities Association of America (LDA): "A learning disability is a neurological disorder that affects one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using spoken or written language."

Note: The above definition also includes the word "psychological" in the phrase "basic psychological processes."

Also from LDA: "A learning disability is a neurologically-based processing disorder resulting from "faulty" wiring in the cortex."

Are you aware of a significant number of sources using the terms "psychological condition" or "psychological disorder"? I've seen "psychological processes" sometimes in this context, but never "psychological condition" or "psychological disorder". smoran 23:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, learning disabilities fall under "mental disorder" as classified by both the DSM-IV and ICD-9. I though psychological condition was a little more gentle, though, but if you wish to be technical we should use mental disorder.--Vannin 00:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

-- Could you point me to your references? According to everything I can find, the DSM IV lists Learning Disorders under "Disorders Usually First Diagnosed in Infancy, Childhood, or Adolescence." Here are a few of the locations where I've found information:

• Wikipedia article DSM IV
• http://dpa.state.ky.us/library/manuals/mental/Ch21.html
• http://www.education.uiowa.edu/schpxych/handouts/DSM-IV.pdf
• http://www.appi.org/book.cfm?id=2073

I can provide additional references if needed. smoran 03:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The DSM-IV is the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. All the disorders listed in it are mental disorders. There is no judgement attached to this term, unless you apply it yourself.--Vannin 05:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

-- True --- I've always thought that the title/acronym should be changed!

Would you give me some more information about why you would choose to focus on a medical diagnosis rather than use the terminology used generally in the LD community? I don't understand your reasoning.

I'm not looking for an argument -- just trying to understand your perspective. smoran 14:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

One way around this maybe to avoid the term altogether. Many of the researchers are moving away from tying the condition to neurology and instead are talking about individuals who are poor readers or are having academic difficulties regardless of the cause. This is why the responsiveness to intervention approach is not just a school issue but is tied into the whole conceptualization of the field. Instead we could have "people with learning disabilites have unexpected difficulty with one or more fundamental academic task, such as reading, writing, or mathematics". and leave it at that --Vannin 02:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

-- Good idea. I've seen that approach in a number of places also, and it probably is more to the point for the audience likely to look up the topic.

Incidentally, I agree completely with you that RTI's applicability is not dependent on it being implemented by schools.

It sounds like you are very familiar with the research on RTI --- I haven't been able to locate very much in the way of actual research studies. All I've been able to find is the typical research summary written for people who aren't really interested in the detail.

Could you point me to some of the data? smoran 03:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Handbook of Learning Disabilities by H. Lee Swanson, Karen R. Harris, & Steve Graham (Eds), Contemporary Intellectual Assessment: Theories, Tests, and Issues by Dawn P. Flanagan, Judy L. Genshaft & , Patti L. Harrison (Eds) etc.--Vannin 05:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

-- Thanks. I'll look them up.

We seem to have achieved consensus between us on your suggestion to adjust the initial description of a learning disability so that it doesn't use any psychological terms. Shall we go ahead and revise the article accordingly, or do you think we need to wait for a few more days to see if anyone else shows up to disagree? smoran 14:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that we need to hurry here. Let's leave it as it is for a bit. In the meantime, the big areas of problem with the article lie in the repetition of lists of types of learning disabilities/specific learning disabilities/areas of perception/ and terminology and classification--Vannin 15:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It looks like someone already did the revision (wasn't me).  :-)

Regarding the categories and redundancies, it appears that the article goes in several different directions regarding how to break up the overall concept of learning disabilities into a logical framework. I don't think any of them are necessarily invalid, but since we focused the basic description specific academic difficulties, I'm thinking we ought to use the same perspective when deciding which classification model to use. That is to say, move away from the focus on "psychological processing" and focus on the academic tasks.

The one negative that occurs to me with this approach is that learning disorders do not apply only to children or to the school environment. They are life long and have a much more pervasive impact on the lives of affected individuals.

Thoughts?

smoran 06:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of overlap between the section on information processing deficits, areas of perception and terminology and classification (and to a lesser degree with specific learning difficulties. I don't want to stand on your toes if you added some of this in, but a lot of this can be collapsed over. I'm not sure where you see a problem here for life span issues. All of this seems relevant to adults as well.--Vannin 14:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

No offense taken. I worked some on the "information processing" section, which someone had already added, and I revised some of the content to make it more balanced. But there's very little in it that I actually wrote.

You're right --- there is clearly a great deal of redundancy among the sections you cite -- they present similar information but from different perspectives. What's not clear to me is which approach would make the most sense in a Wiki article.

We have to start somewhere, so here's a straw-man proposal for us to kick around:

• Keep several existing sections in the following order:

1. Top level description

2. Overview (I'm not partial to the information in this section and am inclined to remove it. Do you think it's necessary to include the origin of the term? If we keep it, the heading should be revised in any event.)

3. Specific Learning Disabilities

4. Diagnosis

5. Intervention

6. Contrast with Other Conditions

• Remove (or move to a different article) information in the following sections:

- Areas of Perception Involved

- Information Processing Deficits (not sure about this one -- we may want to keep some of it in a much abbreviated form)

- Terminology and Classification

- Causes (or include a more general statement about the kinds of things that *might* cause neurological impairments, and then link to a neurological article).

combined redundant sections

As already said, I prefer to work on one task at a time rather than try to control the whole article. I've gone ahead and combined the redundant sections, and hopefully not lost information in the process --Vannin 15:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

OK. I must have missed your statement to that effect.

I was hoping to get us in sync on the planned content of the article so that we don't work at cross purposes. I'm flexible on this, so tell me how you'd like to work and I can accommodate.

smoran 20:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

You mentioned earlier that you had taken out school-specific information and given it its own page. Do you want to provide the link to that page, and then move the IDEA stuff there - that's all US specific and doesn't apply to the rest of the world? In the meantime, can I put the stuff back in on the discrepancy model? I'm still not sure why you took it out, as it is not district specific, but has been the dominant model in North America for sometime, even if I don't like it.--Vannin 03:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Discrepancy model

I think that it's fine to include information about the discrepancy model as referred to in some of the definitions of LD, eg, "a discrepancy between a child’s apparent capacity to learn and his or her level of achievement." I would like to avoid discussing the "discrepancy model" as a formula used by public schools to determine whether a child "deserves" special education services. smoran 01:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

why? It has been used by Psychologists for many years in providing the diagnosis. I have repeatedly argued against its use, but it is still the dominant model to this day and is used by colleges, and government ministries providing services and training for people with disabilities as well as within the school system. I'm not sure why we would avoid mentioning it but keep in reference to the US IDEA. --Vannin 01:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that the government uses a discrepancy model when providing training to people with disabilities. Do they use a process similar to that used in public schools? I'd love to learn more about this, so if you can, please point me to a website or two where I can learn about this.

It may be that our thinking regarding the content of this article isn't as different as it seems at first glance. Let me try to explain where I'm coming from and you can decide.

I have no issue with discussing the discrepancy model as a method used by psychologists and other educational diagnosticians as part of an objective diagnostic process conducted by professionals who do not have any agenda other than identifying whether the individual has a problem, and if so, in which areas of functioning it manifests.

My issue is related specifically to how the public schools claim to use a diagnostic process to identify children with learning disabilities, when in fact what they do is conduct a qualifying process to determine whether a child has an "educational need" severe enough to justify granting (that is, spending the money to provide) special education and related services. In this qualification process, they use a "discrepancy" model that is purely formulaic -- that is, the discrepancy between a child's Full Scale IQ and one or more subtest scores from an achievement battery. If the discrepancy between the FS IQ and the subtest score is big enough, then the child "qualifies" for special education services. If the discrepancy is one point below their cutoff point, well, this child must not have a learning disability. He or she is "achieving" at ability level.

Clearly, this process is more about gatekeeping than it is about diagnosing learning disabilities, and any result of the process would have to be considered something other than a valid educational diagnosis.

So, that's why I'd prefer to avoid discussing in this article the "discrepancy" model as used in public schools. Both its purpose and its implementation is very different from that as used by psychologists. smoran 02:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

As with you, I disagree with the use of this model for determining services. However, it is still the dominant model, and historically has been used in this way, and we need to be honest about that. (this is why I was so keen on having the RTI approach in there - this one is much more functional - if a child is having trouble with the academic skills then they need help, regardless of their IQ) By the way, the people providing the diagnosis with children are school or child psychologists, in my area. I don't have a website reference for the people with disabilities - but in my area we are required to use the diagnostic criteria used by the Ministry of Advanced Education (discrepancy model), and it is detailed as one of the entry routes for the program providing employment programs for people with disabilities, others of course being physical and mental disabilities.--Vannin 18:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah. You're in Canada. That may explain why our views differ so strongly. What are the criteria used by the Ministry of Advanced Education to determine whether learning disabililties are present?

Again, I don't have a strong objection to the discrepancy model per se, as long as it is just one part of a broad diagnostic evaluation. What I have a problem with is how public schools across the country have, not to put too fine a point on it, bastardized that model and distorted it to meet their own purposes. Evaluations are conducted by school psychologists and child psychologists where we are also, but those child and school psychologists have to take those test scores and do with them what their employer has directed them to do. Does this create ethical problems? You betcha.

Here's an example of the kind of thing that happens regularly in US schools: Imagine a child who has a very high verbal IQ, more than 130 on the WISC IV. But, the child has a processing speed in the 2nd percentile, and an ability to process symbols in the 7th percentile, which causes the performance index to be brought way, way down. When the Composite IQ is calculated, the child's FS IQ comes out right around 100. The child's achievement scores hover around a SS of 85, so the school determines that the child clearly doesn't have learning disabilities. The child is achieving within the normal range as compared to his or her FS IQ.

Is this school using a "discrepancy model"? Well, yes, sort of. Is it the dominant model? Well, it's the dominant model in the U.S. public school system. Is it the same kind of model likely to be used by an independent examiner? Nope. Clearly, an objective evaluation process would look deeper at the pattern of strengths and weaknesses and not just use a formula to "diagnose" whether the child has LDs.

I object strongly to including discussion about the discrepancy model as used in schools, unless there is also a description of how some U.S. schools "customize" that model and use it to qualify children for services, not to diagnose whether or not they have learning disabilities.

If we can keep the discussion of the discrepancy model to describing how it can be used objectively as part of an overall evaluation process, without stating or implying that public schools use that model "correctly," I can live with that.

smoran 00:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

ok, so I've gone ahead and changed the section on diagnosis. I don't think that this is saying that the discrepancy model should be used in schools at all, but it does indicate that it has been (historic fact) and this is important in keeping the article encylopaedic. In fact, I think the piece as it currently stands is tending to argue against the use of the discrepancy model. Hope you like it. --Vannin 17:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's a historic fact. It's also a historic fact that there are many children who have been disenfranchised as a result of the use of this model. But that is a separate issue that should be addressed from a different angle in a different article.

I think your text is ok. I made a couple of minor edits (corrected a misspelling, spelled out latin abbreviations).

On a related note, I've been reading recently about RTI having been researched and validated both for math and reading disabilities, but that there is not yet evidence for using RTI to diagnose other types of learning disabilities -- for example, non verbal learning disabilities, dyspraxia, etc. Is this an area of RTI research that you're familiar with?

smoran 07:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

we're supposed to save this page for discussion of the article, rather than the topic, but non-verbal ld has a big overlap with the autism spectrum disorders, which are classed as a pervasive development disorder because they affect functioning in many domains beyond the academic, including the all important social skills area, with big consequences for intervention, of course. The idea with rti is that the more intense remedial intervention will allow for identification of children with a variety of issues, and hopefully these children and their families can then receive a variety of services both inside and outside the school system.--Vannin 17:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'm not sure I follow your logic. LDs have a hugely negative impact on an individual's social skills and mental health. Obviously these impede intervention. Help me understand where you're coming from on this. smoran 14:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

References

Can the full citations for the references in the overview section be added please? Ta, Natgoo 15:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Page for learning disabilities in U.S. special education

Vannin asked about providing a link to the page that contains the school-specific information. A couple of weeks ago I created a "stub" article called Learning disabilities in special education and placed some information I removed from this article in the stub so it wouldn't be lost. The article is far from complete, however, so I haven't created any links to it --- at this point it may be better that it remain an "orphan" for now. The article probably needs a new title as well. Feel free to add, remote, edit information there at will.  :-) Keep in mind that there are already articles for Special Education, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE), and Response to intervention, so some of the information that is in the stub may be better placed in one of those articles. smoran 01:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Included information about interventions. These work for both children and adults --Vannin 17:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

LD categories labeled speculative because not listed in ICD-9

In the Specific Learning Disabilities subsection, there was a notation that Nonverbal Learning Disorder is speculative because it isn't recognized by the ICD-9. For the purposes of this article, I don't think that being listed specifically in the ICD-9 or DSM-IV should necessarily define an LD as speculative. Nonverbal LDs have been accepted (and researched with resulting publications) by the Learning Disabilities Association of America, the National Center for Learning Disabilities, National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities, and others. Articles on the subject have been published by many well-respected journals such as the Journal for Learning Disabilities and the Annals of Dyslexia, Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, and many more. I don't have an issue with stating that NLD doesn't have its own ICD-9 code, but labeling it as speculative is misleading at best. I removed the word "speculative" but left the notation that it is not listed in the ICD-9. smoran 22:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the revision in how footnotes and references are cited and organized

The article contained conflicting methods of source citation, primarily how footnotes and book references are cited. I revised the format and citation model based on the following wiki style pages: Wikipedia:Citing sources, Wikipedia:Citation templates, Help:Footnotes, and Wikipedia talk:Footnotes. To summarize the reorganization, several experienced wiki editors cited "good" Wiki articles that use a style that combines footnotes and sources used for in-text references into a single list (see the talk:Footnotes discussions). References to sources provide solely for additional reading are maintained in a separate list as are external links. Revising the citation method was a pain because the tags for creating the different citation types overlap. However, I chose the current approach because it allows a great deal of flexibility in how editors prefer to create source citations, and it simplifies maintenance of reference sections because adding a new reference does not require backtracking and updating pre-existing references. smoran 09:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete request - content of this page moved back to Learning disability

This delete 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. Now we just need to delete the leftover article "Learning disability (U.S.)

Best, Rosmoran 18:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

Criticism section is very problematic

Hi,

I'm sure that it is no surprise to editors following the development of this page that the "Criticism" section is in the process of a major reworking.

I'm not sure where we are in this process, but the section as it now stands is so polemical that the information it contains comes off as highly questionable. At the very least, it is still extremely POV.

I think that the section is important and should be reworked until we can achieve consensus on its form and content. However, I'm thinking that we should remove it from the page until the content and tone has settled a bit.

I am willing to create a "sandbox" page that we can use for the development process. Alternatively, we could do the development on the Discussion page.

Rosmoran 01:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Rosmoran, I'm working away at making the material more neutral, paragraph by paragraph, while still trying to keep the key points. I have removed some of the quotes because they really don't add to the main issues that are being raised.--Vannin 03:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, good. I'm glad you're still engaged. You're doing a very good job of reframing the material so that it retains the essential content but presents it in a non-partisan tone. Rosmoran 11:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

There, I've finished the first go-through, and I think the banner can be removed while we go through it and tidy it up.--Vannin 14:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The home-schooling statement needs a reference - it appears to be pure speculation at the moment. I have certainly worked with adults who were home-schooled as children who qualify as having lds, although it could well be argued that their self-esteem might be better than it would had they stayed in the mainstream. Again, though, I have not seen any research on this--Vannin 14:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC).

Schools are very problematic (or How Schools Cheat)...

...ditto for people that are not familiar with the subject.

Snell, Lisa, Special education confidential: how schools use the "learning disability" label to cover up their failures.

• Lisa Snell is director of education policy at the Reason Foundation.

"This winter (Dec, 2002) Congress is scheduled to reauthorize the Individuals With Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA),which dispenses $6o billion a year to school districts around the country. While there's no question that IDEA has provided legal protections and services for students with handicaps, it has also created perverse incentives that encourage schools to call kids disabled as a way of attracting more funding and masking instructional failures. Instead of restructuring the program to mitigate these unintended consequences, Congress is set to simply throw more money at the problem.

Disability As an Excuse

Nearly 12 percent of American students in kindergarten through 12th grade are assigned to the special education system. Children with severe disabilities, such as mental retardation, autism, blindness, and deafness, account for only a tenth of these students. The remaining 90 percent are described as suffering from conditions that are less obvious and harder to verify objectively, such as specific learning disability (SLD), speech and language delays, mild mental retardation, and emotional disorders. SLD is the most common label, accounting for more than half of all students covered by IDEA. SLD diagnoses, which have risen by 34 percent since 1991, are the main factor contributing to the dramatic increase in special education enrollments since 1976." [4]

"Andrew J. Coulson sums it up neatly in his book Market Education: The Unknown History. "In the world of public schooling," he writes, "SLD diagnosis is often reduced to a devastatingly simple formula: if a child is smart but cannot read or do math, he is disabled."

The SLD label is increasingly popular not because it suggests a particular pedagogical approach but because it brings schools extra money." [5]

"EVEN IN A sluggish economy, special education remains a growth industry, reveals LISA SNELL in "Special Education Confidential" (page 40). Snell is the director of the Reason Public Policy Institute's education program, but her most dispiriting encounters with pedagogical bankruptcy have been personal. As a college instructor in public speaking, Snell found that "students didn't have the grammatical or rhetorical skills to write a speech, let alone give one." Her last feature for reason was the August-September 2001 cover story, "Schoolhouse Crock," which related the dismal track record of her son Jacob's public elementary school. As of this fall, Jake is receiving exemplary instruction-from Snell and her husband, at home in Orange County, California." [6]

Criticisms of IDEA

"- Schools label children as "learning disabled" and place them in special education even if the child does not have a learning disability, because the schools have failed to teach the children basic skills."

"The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is a United States federal law that governs how states and public agencies provide early intervention, special education, and related services to children with disabilities. It addresses the educational needs of children with disabilities from birth to the age of 21."

How Schools Cheat, Lisa Snell | June 2005 Print Edition.

From underreporting violence to inflating graduation rates to fudging testscores, educators are lying to the American public.

Cheers, 80.178.171.242 15:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The discussion page is for discussion of the article itself, not a platform for an ideological position-- Also, you need to create a user account and log in so that people can discuss this with you on your talk page Vannin 15:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It is not an ideological position. Its is the objective reality of the topic of the article itself, and sources that can be included to improve the subject.

80.178.171.242 15:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

---

follows copy of: Learning disability

80.178.221.98 11:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

update of this copy:

80.178.181.53 11:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

---

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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!" [7]

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

I've removed the links to an outside website, to reduce possible spam. Of interest, this website is associated with scientology--Vannin 00:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Vannin, Can you clarify how you determined that association? I know the C.o.S. believe psychiatry is junk science but the question to be asked is does the source website merely "borrow" from C.o.S. "research" which happens to agree with their point of view or is the website sponsored/created by the C.o.S ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.102.205.160 (talk) 17:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Because the Ablechild site is run through a scientology server - see [[8]] and also ownership [[9]]--Vannin (talk) 20:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Taken out the lengthy quote from a website. It repeated what has already been said, but with a non-neutral tone.--Vannin 01:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

links

The external links section is already quite long and I think we need to be careful to avoid linking to commercial sites. Digital Reporter, I've answered your e-mail on your talk page regarding this issue. Hope that helps explain it--Vannin (talk) 21:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

NJCLD

Definition needs a better citation - reference to the National Center for Learning Disabilities site maybe? http://www.ncld.org/content/view/458/398/
--User:Brenont (talk) 21:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

You might try this: increasing intelligence

If you have a good natural gesture communication with your pupil, you can try the following: The task of thinking is to form a correct picture of the environment. That is very close to the task of the senses. If the pupil manages to be clear headed about what is where of his or her experiences, he or she can learn things quicker. So encourage the pupil to use the sense of sight, a seen picture of the enviroment and of all the things in it, even when he or she is naturally concentrated mainly on other things, for example on social life. That can make your friend clear-headed. In addition, encourage your friend to use his or her senses and listen to sensations and feelings, so as to observe things better instead of acting out of the memory, or solely out of social kind of guesses of what you want from him or her. InsectIntelligence (talk) 07:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC) Ok so this is the dumbest thing I have ever heard what the hell do you mean? Need more clairification. Learning Disabilities is just to put people down. It's shit! That's what it is. I have a very close friend with a LD, she is soo smart. But was she given a chance no!

Criticism of learning disabiltiies section

This section is problematic for a couple of reasons. First, the approach is odd --- even aside from personifying "criticism" (which I have attempted to remove).

The section seems to be attempting to address the idea that labeling children as learning disabled actually undermines the child's ability to learn, the alternative being educators looking at each child as a different type of learner and customizing a teaching approach that fits that child's development.

I think the problem I'm seeing has to do with *what* is undermining childrens' learning. It isn't the label itself, but the fact that educational institutions (consciously or unconsciously) lower their expectations for children who have been labeled as "learning disabled." The assumption becomes that the child is incapable of learning, not that the child needs a different method of instruction. Thus, it is the expectations that the institution has of the child that undermine's the child's ability to succeed.

Is this what is intended in the section, or am I missing the point?

Rosmoran (talk) 07:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I think this section was created as criticism of the entire educational system, with the idea being that teachers are opting out of teaching children who are more demanding, and school districts are using the label to get extra funds etc. If I remember correctly the section evolved in part out of some anti-psychiatry/psychology websites that oppose all labelling (of course they are missing the real labelling that goes on in the school yard if there is an absence of appropriate intervention. The section was pretty much an attempt at compromise, but well worth revisiting and re-doing I would think.--Vannin (talk) 05:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

So, it occurs to me that this label/no label issue is more than just criticism of categorizing some kids in a bucket called "learning disabled." Some researchers actually approach the problems from a different perspective, avoiding categorical labels of disability. For example, Mel Levine talks about approaching learning difficulties by identifying the place in the learning process that breaks down for each child.

This approach is, at best, implied criticism of the LD label.

Would it make sense to reframe the section so that it is something like "Alternatives to the learning disability label"???

Rosmoran (talk) 08:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Additional thoughts

There is an argument by some that die-hard behaviorists would like to do away with the learning disabilities label all together. The argument goes that behaviorists really don't see the point in labeling kids because struggling kids should always get additional support. Putting these kids in special classes doesn't improve their academic outcomes and it subjects them to a lot of cognitively-based intervention that behaviorists think serves no purpose (since it doesn't link directly to clearly measurable [i.e., behavioral] outcomes). That's not my opinion, and I wish i could think of a reference at the moment, but I can't. An example of a behaviorist who might be seen as having this perspective is Reschly (see his 2005 article in the Journal of Learning Disabilities).

So, I'm not sure whether that was the intention or not, but clearly a better version of this should be written. I would encourage you to just go ahead and rewrite it. Save some of the content, but it really needs a rewrite to be made NPOV and clearer. Kearnsdm (talk) 04:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

On labeling, there has been a move by disabled activists in the UK to redefine and reclaim the meaning of words such as 'disabled', 'impaired' and so on; much in the same way that African-Americans have sought to reclaim words like 'black' and 'nigger'. These words may in one context stigmatise people and reproduce inequalities, but in other contexts they can also form the basis of collective action amongst oppressed peoples. We should keep this in mind when editing. I'm not sure that disabled people themselves are calling for the phrase 'learning disabled' to be abandoned. --Nicholas (talk) 11:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Keep in mind, also, that the purpose of the article is not for editors to make decisions or recommendations. It's to describe the facts objectively, including opposing points of view if they are "significant" (meaning that it's not just the opinion of some lone crackpot ....).

Based on what I know, it seems like a large percentage of stakeholders agree that the labels are helpful (for various reasons). A smaller percentage assert that labels are not helpful, and another smaller percentage assert that labels are actually harmful (for various reasons).

Our job is to objectively represent all reasonable sides of the issue, using the undue weight and NPOV Wikipedia guidelines.

Best, Rosmoran (talk) 23:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Substantial revision needed

This article is drawing many well-intentioned contributions and criticisms. It needs a thorough reworking with substantial explanation of what a learning disability is or seems to be, before getting into causation and social effect. The treatment section is simply a list of generic educational approaches, some of which should not be used together; it is not specialized to situations of learning disabilities.

I am coming off Hurricane Ike and had previously promised to work on other articles, but I will check back in October to see what y'all think Cwilsyn (talk) 07:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Worldwide view?

Is there a general consensus that the "worldwide view" tag is needed? I put it there based on the discussion above, but if only one editor feels this way, and nobody has any suggestions to improve the "worldwideness" of the article, maybe it should be deleted. Dawn Bard (talk) 13:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Introduction

I realized that learning disability is caused by unknown factors because if someone who suffers from mental retardation but cannot learn effectively does this person has a learning disability? No, because it is caused by mental retardation, a known factor. Someone who suffers from learning disability, there is no known factors. It is all theories but nothing about real causes. If you have any issues with this, please let me know. Esthertaffet (talk) 16:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

History merge

I've history merged this page with Learning disability (U.S.), so all the edit attribution is in one place. There will be some overlapping edits between April 2007 and early July 2007. Graham87 14:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was page not moved. @harej 03:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Learning disability → Learning disorder —Learning disability is quite offensive in areas such as the United Kingdom. I would like to gain a consensus here. If anyone can offer suggestions, on rather this move would be appropriate or not, I would appreciate it. Esthertaffet (talk) 14:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Strongly oppose 'Disorder' implies that people with perceived impairments are somehow unusual and out of the ordinary. Besides, the term 'learning disability' is the term used by the UK by government, the media, healthcare experts, natural and social scientists, doctors (see, for instance, the Journal of Intellectual Disability Research), the care sector, and disabled people themselves. --Nicholas (talk) 22:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - see WP:COMMONNAMES
  — V = I * R (talk) 00:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose At least in the US, this is the much more common term. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Disorder" only partly accurate in the US

While concrete afflictions like dyslexia are disorders, Learning Disability is, in the US, more a label than a disorder--disorders and diseases are diagnosed by doctors and psychiatrists, while the LD label is often applied by school councilors with very little medical or psychiatric qualifications. Disorders are contained within the label LD, but nobody has ever been diagnosed by a doctor as simply learning disabled, there has to be a more specific problem to meet the rigor of science. The diagnostic links on the classification and external resources say as much. To be generous, LD is a classification including several disorders, and to be honest, it is a label (at least in the US) applied to children with learning disorders, behavioral problems and stress or that generally don't get along in class.75.73.32.46 (talk) 17:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Intelligence Citations Bibliography for Articles Related to IQ Testing

Because the article mentions IQ testing, I thought I should mention a bibliography that should be helpful for Wikipedians working on updating this article. That is the bibliography of Intelligence Citations for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in those issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research and to suggest new sources to me by comments on that page. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 23:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Phrasing word-for-word with LD OnLine

Hi all,

At the end of the first and the beginning of the second paragraphs we find:

"if left to figure things out by themselves or if taught in conventional ways.

A learning disability cannot be cured or fixed."

The exact same is found at LD OnLine's "What is a Learning Disability" article:

"if left to figure things out by themselves or if taught in conventional ways.

A learning disability can't be cured or fixed[...]"

I'm not sure which came first, but I wanted to bring attention to this as neither Wikipedia nor LD OnLine cites any source.

Educe (talk) 00:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Learning Disorder NOS

Doesn't this article need some information on Learning Disorder Not Otherwise Specified? It has mostly everything besides that. Lighthead ^þ 20:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I have tagged the page. Thanks. Lighthead ^þ 20:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I would also recommend that if someone has a copy of the DSM-IV-TR, that they create the article Learning Disorder Not Otherwise Specified, or some variation on the capitalization thereof. Lighthead ^þ 22:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

No mention of learning styles?

This article does not mention the alternative concept of learning styles or of multiple intelligence types, whether Howard Gardner's or Sternberg's Triarchic. Without listing these, this article is not truly neutral. Also this article seems to be written in support of the concept of learning disabilities. Especially since there is an advocacy section and no criticism section with my fellow wikipedians screening criticisms of learning disabilities to make sure they fit into your standard of reasonable criticism.

--RowdyShortPerson (talk) 05:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Politically correct term

for people of low intelligence. Some people aren't very intelligent. Doesn't make them bad people, but it isn't a complete disability either. Many intelligent people have "athletic difficulties".--MacRusgail (talk) 16:01, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

SES? what does it stand for?

The sentence starts off with "others have argued that racial/ethnic minorities are overidentified because of their lower average SES... Then continues on without explaining what it is. If I had to take a wild guess from the SES list I sure hope it doesn't mean Socioeconomic status because that is flat racism and should be on wikipidea. Pity racism is by far worse then overt racism.
--OxAO (talk) 20:14, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The sentence immediately before that says, "One of the most clear indications of the social roots of learning disabilities is the disproportionate identification of racial and ethnic minorities and students who have low socioeconomic status." If you disagree that racial minorities in the U.S. are, as a group, of lower socioeconomic status than the general population, you either do not understand what SES is or need to read a newspaper or two. If you don't understand how lower SES can result in overidentification of learning disabilities (etc.), you need to read the rest of the paragraph you are criticizing. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:13, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Dyspraxia

I haven't seen yet, but does Dyspraxia count as one? I'm pretty sure it does. 90.197.112.28 (talk) 22:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

No. Developmental dyspraxia is ICD-9 315.4. Learning disabilities are ICD-9 315.0-315.3. (315 codes are "Specific delays in development".) - SummerPhD (talk) 02:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Why does Specific Learning Disability lead here then, as as Dyspraxia is an SpLD? 94.14.79.75 (talk) 21:08, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Terminology

Hi

The term developmental disabilities is not really used in UK in social care settings although it may be acceptable in medical circles. People with learning disabilities tend to use to use the term learning difficulties, although that in itself can be confused with dyslexia and other educational learning difficulties. Isn't the term used in the US 'Mental Retardation'?

Mcdad (talk) 20:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

No. Mental retardation refers to generalized low intelligence (for shorthand, below 70 points on an IQ test normed at 100 AND impairments in daily living) appearing no later than adolescence. Developmental disability applies to autism and other wide-ranging problems in children's functioning. Learning disability is a specific problem such as difficulty in auditory processing and may appear in adults following stroke or head trauma. None of the three terms has anything to do with mental illness. The terms do get confused in lay usage.

Cwilsyn (talk) 07:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Greetings! I'm a random U.S. grad student pulling an all-nighter on a paper on learning disabilities right now who's never edited a Wikipedia page before, so sorry if this is wildly out of format, in the wrong place, etc., but I noticed a question on the Definitions section about the origin of the National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities definition of a learning disability. A google search for 'national joint committee on learning disabilities definition' produced this as the second result (the date is different than what is specified in this article, but the language is identical): https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:_JSDQswq7ysJ:www.ldonline.org/pdfs/njcld/NJCLDDefinitionofLD.pdf+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESj8P2JRkoxIcG--XTbpv9rDOAHKJE1XZHlxjAGVNVKOXN8RGjXgpyGI2scKDQsb763MCIz2ACVzPtZMmL0A7iMY5HoKicz2YXY0JvYkE4tPt4hetspu6M1MdIMzTzBP5aPL4R2R&sig=AHIEtbR7ZQtdmdWSfaExxmbwYp63jweLaA

Happy editing :) 107.2.93.150 (talk) 06:30, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

"Anglo-Saxon individuals"

I have removed this material: "Most teachers are Anglo-Saxon individuals, they may offer an underlying discomfort for children who are of a different race or culture, and therefore make this student feel uncomfortable:".

Anyone who wishes to restore this, please consider that "Anglo-Saxon" does not mean what it seems you think it means and the quote given does not say the teachers are white (let alone descendants of a particular Germanic tribe). It says many of the "students are from a cultural or linguistic group different from their own". Yeah, many of the teachers in the United States are white. They are also U.S. born, middle-class and above, speak only English, are highly educated, etc. Their students do not match them in one or more of these areas.

Further, the sections quoted do not say this makes the students "feel uncomfortable". Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. This single source offers the differences as possible "contributing factors to their underachievement". (We should also find a way to clarify the meaning of "CLD". As it is buried in a direct quote, we can't just add a link, we'll need to write it in somehow.) - SummerPhD (talk) 15:23, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you SummerPhD! Of course you are right. I wonder about the source of the next sentence as well, “On average, almost one-fourth of special education teachers’ students are from a cultural or linguistic group different from their own, and 7 percent are English language learners” - is this really from the Fletcher book? I have tried to search the book via Google books, but I didn't find anything that came close to this sentence. Lova Falk talk 18:36, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

PS I found it. It was originally sourced with the Fletcher article, not the book. It's possible it was me who confused these two sources... File:Blush.png But now it is fixed.

The following section is overly prescriptive and suggests silent reading is a cure-all for students with reading difficulty.

Teachers need to focus on giving students extra time to read silently in class, and to never force them to do it out loud in front of the whole class. This can discourage the student from wanting to read. Silent reading time is good for all students, however, will give the student dealing with dyslexia more time to practice on their own, and if they need help they can always ask their teacher. Another aspect to pay attention to is to create a quiet area of the classroom. Doing so will give the student a space to concentrate and not be bothered by the noise of the other students.

This should be at the least re-written, but should probably be eliminated.74.114.172.53 (talk) 14:57, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Michelle McDowall, Teacher

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)

There needs to be a clear distinction between "Cognitive Deficit/ Cognitive Impairment" and the term "Intellectual Impairment". These terms are not interchangeable, not the same. The "Definition" (UK) section uses "Cognitive Impairment" & redirects to "Intellectual Impairment". It is erroneous to equate the two terms. Each term has it's own page clearly explaining the difference. There needs to be a clear statement that "Learning disability UK" equates to "Developmental Disability." & Links to "Intellectual Impairment." & Then the "Definition" (US) section must use the term "Cognitive Deficit/ Cognitive Impairment" & link to the Cognitive Deficit" page. Katibode79 (talk) 18:09, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

There needs to be a clear statement that "Learning Disability"(US) does not equal "Learning Disability"(UK). Katibode79 (talk) 18:14, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Redirect?

Can we redirect "Learning disability" to "Learning disabilities" since "Learning disabilities" include ALL the various disorders but learning disability does not? It would clear the misconception that a person with learning disability must have average to above-average intelligence when people with lower IQ can still be labeled as moderate to severe learning disabilities. Mellywelly15 (talk) 20:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, this article should make space for all the various learning disabilities. We commonly have the title of the article in singular form, for example Personality disorder describes all personality disorders. So, please be bold and add or edit in this article - as long as you have good sources. Lova Falk talk 10:05, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

There needs to be a clear distinction between "Cognitive Deficit/ Cognitive Impairment" and the term "Intellectual Impairment". These terms are not interchangeable, not the same. The "Definition" (UK) section uses "Cognitive Impairment" & redirects to "Intellectual Impairment". It is erroneous to equate the two terms. Each term has it's own page clearly explaining the difference. There needs to be a clear statement that "Learning disability UK" equates to "Developmental Disability." & Links to "Intellectual Impairment." & Then the "Definition" (US) section must use the term "Cognitive Deficit/ Cognitive Impairment" & link to the Cognitive Deficit" page.

There needs to be a clear statement that "Learning Disability"(US) does not equal "Learning Disability"(UK). Katibode79 (talk) 18:31, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

There needs to be a clear distinction between "Cognitive Deficit/ Cognitive Impairment" and the term "Intellectual Impairment". These terms are not interchangeable, not the same. The "Definition" (UK) section uses "Cognitive Impairment" & redirects to "Intellectual Impairment". It is erroneous to equate the two terms. Each term has it's own page clearly explaining the difference. There needs to be a clear statement that "Learning disability UK" equates to "Developmental Disability." & Links to "Intellectual Impairment." & Then the "Definition" (US) section must use the term "Cognitive Deficit/ Cognitive Impairment" & link to the Cognitive Deficit" page.

There needs to be a clear statement that "Learning Disability"(US) does not equal "Learning Disability"(UK). Katibode79 (talk) 18:33, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Move to "Learning disability (USA)"?

The page was just moved to Learning disability ( USA). I reverted the move, because I didn't see that there was any consensus for it, and because it is likely inaccurate, given that the article mentions Canada as well. I also think that, if the article doesn't represent a universal point of view, a better option would be to bring it to the talk page and add sourced information to try to improve the article. Is there, in fact, consensus for the move to Learning disability (USA)?--Dawn Bard (talk) 01:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

This Article as it stands can only relate to North America and the issues related to how learning Disabilities are defined on that continent, whcih would not be the case for any other area of the world, as eacxh country isuall has thei own constitutions and legal statutes which define these issues, which in turm wouls not include the USA or Canada. So ~There needs to be a Geographicb reference for the nature of the content of any WIKI article and this article can only refer to issues in the USa anjd Canada, or North America.

Unless you wish to include all the legisalation from every country in the world regarding Learning Disability in which case the article should retain ists current Title.

dolfrog (talk) 01:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC) in the United Kingdom

I have added the {{worldwide}} tag to the article - can anyone point to any sources about how the definitions of learning disabilities are different in other parts of the world? I think that, even if there end up being separate articles like "Learning disability (USA)" there should still be a catchall article here that provides an overview and points to the geography-specific fork articles. Dawn Bard (talk) 01:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

this could bedone by creating a WIKI "Learing Disability" Category, not too sure how that is done, and then you can have a template for the category which could include the various geographical locations. This was done for the Dyslexia WIKI page but those who their way around WIKI have now left the project http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Dyslexia

dolfrog (talk) 02:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

There needs to be a clear distinction between "Cognitive Deficit/ Cognitive Impairment" and the term "Intellectual Impairment". These terms are not interchangeable, not the same. The "Definition" (UK) section uses "Cognitive Impairment" & redirects to "Intellectual Impairment". It is erroneous to equate the two terms. Each term has it's own page clearly explaining the difference. There needs to be a clear statement that "Learning disability UK" equates to "Developmental Disability." & Links to "Intellectual Impairment." & Then the "Definition" (US) section must use the term "Cognitive Deficit/ Cognitive Impairment" & link to the Cognitive Deficit" page.

There needs to be a clear statement that "Learning Disability"(US) does not equal "Learning Disability"(UK). Katibode79 (talk) 18:39, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

There needs to be a clear statement that "Learning Disability"(US) does not equal "Learning Disability"(UK).

There needs to be a clear distinction between "Cognitive Deficit/ Cognitive Impairment" and the term "Intellectual Impairment". These terms are not interchangeable, not the same. The "Definition" (UK) section uses "Cognitive Impairment" & redirects to "Intellectual Impairment". It is erroneous to equate the two terms. Each term has it's own page clearly explaining the difference. There needs to be a clear statement that "Learning disability UK" equates to "Developmental Disability." & Links to "Intellectual Impairment." & Then the "Definition" (US) section must use the term "Cognitive Deficit/ Cognitive Impairment" & link to the Cognitive Deficit" page.

There needs to be a clear statement that "Learning Disability"(US) does not equal "Learning Disability"(UK). Katibode79 (talk) 18:47, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

IQ Achievement discrepancy

Hi, I've added a reference and sentence to the section to try to update it a little. The notion that a discrepancy criterion essentially creates a privileged group being the only ones deserving support was a very valid criticism, and since 1998 the test publishers have created at least one more sensitive index called GAI to use as a reference point to create scores for separate achievement tests and have measured standard deviation stratified along levels of constant GAI. I'm not happy that the research is 'publisher-centric' and would not, I imagine, be immune from bias. I would think that a research-based analysis of many types of discrepancy could be used, for instance a student with poor vocabulary, and whose reading comprehension score shows exactly the decrease that would be caused by poor vocabulary, needs work learning the meanings of words. Currently vocabulary is just one component of GAI, and it would not be right to merely depend on the publisher's research. Anyway, the idea would be that if a student has a low GAI they aren't just 'generally disabled' and undeserving of support, there is help for them....while, aggregating many scores into GAI doesn't, yet, tease out exactly what should be done. Publishers do provide raw subtest scores unsupported by research.Createangelos (talk) 10:42, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

"Learning disability disambiguation" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Learning disability disambiguation. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. DannyS712 (talk) 01:08, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Why can’t students be enrolled in separate classroom?

How is adding that enrollment in a separate classroom unnecessary but enrollment in a special school is necessary? Zoe1013 (talk) 19:33, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2018 and 28 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cstewart1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 April 2020 and 20 July 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rach and Williams.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:00, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 January 2021 and 25 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bedrum00. Peer reviewers: Red027, Lridley097, JamonicaLewis.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:00, 18 January 2022 (UTC)