The Upside of Dyslexia

This article from Sunday’s NYTimes, is I think, a continuation of a fascinating argument as to whether the learning disability called dyslexia is also a learning style that has built-in skills and attributes.

I’ve heard many times over, some well-argued points against this notion that dyslexia carries its own set of built in, hard-wired talents. Richard Wanderman, founder of this site and my good friend, can always be counted on to dismiss the notion and point out that people develop talents based on how much they work at it. I may be oversimplifying his and others’ similar points of view on this, but I think it’s close. Proponents argue that such things as “three-dimensional thinking’ for example, are often skill-sets that people with dyslexia possess.

Others claim this is nonsense; that there’s no way to categorize all dyslexics as having a consistent set of benefits or associated neurologically-based strengths.

For me, as is my nature, I think the truth lies more towards the middle. While it’s true that not all people with dyslexia have the same profile of weaknesses, there are general things we know about what’s hard for them, and can see them both operationally (in the real world), and neurologically (through testing and brain imagery). By the same token, while we can’t claim that all dyslexics are “holistic thinkers” or artists, or creative, etc.; if I had a dime for every dyslexic kid who I test or work with, that was a phenomenal “Lego” kid or builder of some kind, I’d be a rich guy. The persistence of the conversation that dyslexics have certain visual skills does not in itself mean that it’s likely to be true, but research such as discussed in this NY Times article, is finally specifying specific attributes that may in fact be true.

Intriguing evidence that those with dyslexia process information from the visual periphery more quickly also comes from the study of “impossible figures,” like those sketched by the artist M. C. Escher. A focus on just one element of his complicated drawings can lead the viewer to believe that the picture represents a plausible physical arrangement.

Of course, all styles of information processing have, hopefully, by their very nature, strengths that are very real. But, having inherent strengths that we may be born with, doesn’t mean the old axiom “use it or lose it. isn’t true.” It also doesn’t mean that you can’t develop skills that you just weren’t born with. I sometimes describe myself a mechanical dyslexic in presentations, to make a certain humorous point, but that doesn’t mean that with enough focus, and enough persevering through mistakes, aka the learning curve, that I didn’t put together a very tough outdoor basketball stand and hoop when my kids were going up.

Genetic tendencies, potential talents and weaknesses, all need fertile and supportive environments to gain traction, and bloom, or become somehow less impactful, in the case of weaknesses. Being sleuths or detectives for strengths in children is as important as being clear about their problems.

In the second study, Mr. Schneps deliberately blurred a set of photographs, reducing high-frequency detail in a manner that made them resemble astronomical images. He then presented these pictures to groups of dyslexic and nondyslexic undergraduates. The students with dyslexia were able to learn and make use of the information in the images, while the typical readers failed to catch on.

Know any photographers who are dyslexic?

The National Association of Therapeutic Schools and Programs (NATSAP) will be holding its national conference in Orlando, Florida next week, February 9th-11th at the World Swan and Dolphin Conference Center.

Sanford Shapiro (me) will be presenting next Saturday on the impact of Learning Disabilities on Therapeutic Concerns. The focus of the presentation is to help counselors and therapists become more effective by understanding how LD impacts mental health and one’s response to therapeutic interventions.

The conference is attended by therapeutic schools, wilderness and addiction programs as well as educational consultants worldwide.

Recently someone and I had an exchange about the notion of extra time as an accommodation for standardized tests such as the SAT. He brought up some good questions. Here’s one of them and my reply:

Him: “Let’s talk about SAT tests. The fact that a neurotypical student benefits from extra time seems to indicate that the test is, in fact, sensitive to processing speed.. We’ll ignore for the moment the test’s predictive power vis-a-vis academic success (despite the fact that this is what the test is supposedly designed for!) and just ask whether we believe processing speed is a “scholastic aptitude.”

If it is not a scholastic aptitude, then my argument is that the SAT ought not be designed to reward it.

If, on the other hand, we assume that processing speed IS a scholastic aptitude, then we face a new set of questions, such as:

Is time-to-completion a reasonable, fair measure of competence?

How much processing speed should instructors be allowed to assume when designing assignments and tests?

Is processing speed the most significant scholastic aptitude? And if not, is its effect on SAT scores proportionate, or outsized?

And why, if processing speed is salient, is it wrong to take into account the fact that a student needed extra time to complete an assignment or test? Consider that a University’s capacity to provide extra supports may be precious and limited.”

My reply:

Here are my thoughts on some of your excellent questions and points:
You mention: “Let’s talk about SAT tests. The fact that a neurotypical student benefits from extra time seems to indicate that the test is, in fact, sensitive to processing speed.. …and just ask whether we believe processing speed is a “scholastic aptitude.”

If it is not a scholastic aptitude, then my argument is that the SAT ought not be designed to reward it.”

My thoughts: Processing speed is a neurological/cognitive performance marker AND is also an over emphasized academic skill. The fact that it may be both; that some people’s learning disability includes “slow processing speed” or as Dr. Martha Denckla terms it “slow production speed,” should help us see that leveling the playing field to accommodate this is a good and just thing. Certainly the courts have see this to be true. When you have a student who comprehends what they read and hear at a high level, but who processes print at a slow speed (classic bright dyslexic), then the accommodation of extra time to read and/or write makes perfect sense. While extra time may benefit anyone, the level of benefit is markedly different. Having a ramp benefits everyone but makes a world of difference to someone in a wheelchair, or simply one with a sprained ankle. That’s where the concept of universal design comes in. Perhaps the way to go is give everyone the time they need to complete the SAT or the like.

The piece that I wrote about here at this site yesterday, has a very different take from how quite a few folks are reacting to the NY Times piece.

In Motherlode, a parenting blog featured on the NY Times site and one that I subscribe to and enjoy, claims that Professor Sroufe “demonizes” parents and blames them for the condition of ADHD.

I don’t think he does that at all and I commented on Motherlode itself. See for yourself the overall commentary and join in if you are interested.

In an opinion piece in the NY Times, Dr. Alan Sroufe, a psychologist and professor Ameritus from The University of Minnesota argues that we must reduce our reliance on medicating children with stimulants because there are  no studies that indicate these medications have any long-term benefits.

This is sure to create unrest and unease within the medical, educational and parent communities, not to mention the pharmaceutical industry.

As it should.

This is a hugely important area and for various reasons. I am however, afraid that the level of conversation will begin to resemble a presidential debate; facts be dammed and positions defined with self-interest and hyperbole.  For all concerned, I hope everyone reads past the headlines and that science reporters take their time.

While there are clear and sufficient reasons to take stimulant and other medications to help alleviate the symptoms of ADHD, and while the “short-term benefits” both in and out of school can and do save and change lives for the better, this controversial and important area of research brings to light several crucial truths:

1. Over the past decade an increasing amount of well-done research illuminates that environmental pillars of early childhood such as the presence of trauma, and types of childcare to name just two, absolutely influence the architecture of the brain. Children with avoidant, judgmental and/or indifferent childcare/parenting show behavioral and neurological changes that mimic ADHD or PTSD.  The old “Nature versus Nurture” debate has been shifting to a growing understanding that Nurture works with our Natural genetic blueprint to create, minimize or exacerbate genetic predispositions.

Knowing this dramatically shifts the discussion from early medication to emphasis on early childcare responsibility and resources for the encouragement of healthy brains.

2.  If long-term benefits of medications for ADHD have been overstated or worse are an illusion, then we have to recognize that medication is a tool to buy time and with which to incorporate other changes and supports as part of a multi-faceted approach.  Not the least of these should be creating classrooms and homes that are better suited to meet the needs of highly active and/or inattentive, hands-on learners.

3.  Since it is our children who in the long term suffer, this is another opportunity to reduce our impulse to take pills as a long-term solution.  As Dr. Sroufe writes:

Finally, the illusion that children’s behavior problems can be cured with drugs prevents us as a society from seeking the more complex solutions that will be necessary. Drugs get everyone — politicians, scientists, teachers and parents — off the hook. Everyone except the children, that is.

A Specialists’ Debate on Autism Has Many Worried Observers

A debate among medical professionals over how to define autism has spilled over into the public domain, stirring anger and fear among many parents and advocates of those with the neurological disorder, even as some argue that the diagnosis has been too loosely applied.

Personally, I’m very disappointed that the issue of adjusting the definition of Autism in the as-yet-to-be-completed DSM-5 (American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual) is first generating controversy about protecting costs and other basic questions concerning eligibility. Changes to the Autism Spectrum Diagnosis have been debated now for a few years and we’re first hearing there’s not even consensus about how many people currently meeting the criteria for Autism Spectrum Disorder would still meet them and how many folks would lose eligibility for services? To hear that the scientific community is still in seeming disarray about fundamental issues such as these seems ridiculous and gives me way less faith in the process already undertaken.

“We have to make sure not everybody who is a little odd gets a diagnosis of autism or Asperger disorder,” said Dr. David J. Kupfer, a professor of psychiatry at the University of Pittsburgh and chairman of the task force making the revisions, which are still subject to change. “It involves a use of treatment resources. It becomes a cost issue.”

Ugh. I’m sorry, but the chairman of the task force is still voicing a concern about that? Really? They haven’t settled that yet and the manual’s due to come out next year? I understand the impetus to refine and not make this diagnosis a catch-all and fall-back category. I really do. There are pressures and self-serving motivations for some parents and professionals to diagnosis shop, but they are not the majority and further, most learning disabilities (like dyslexia) and developmental disorders (such as Autism Spectrum) do run on a continuum from “mild” to “severe.”

I realize everything these days is a “cost issue,” but jeez, are the scientists on task forces designed to protect children the ones who should have that as their go-to concern about which they’re speaking in news interview? Those questions should have been settled long ago. Let the scientists and educators and other expert and interested parties struggle with the data and human questions and let the policy makers and politicians argue out the monitory pieces.

Apple’s Entrance into Digital Textbooks: revolutionary?

Apple announced its entrance into digital textbooks, now selling through its iTunes and iBooks online. Though this has been somewhat expected, it’s exciting news.

Believe me, this is not even the tip of the iceberg. I’ve already downloaded samples of the 8 textbooks listed in the iBooks store. While I think these books will become significantly more interactive and creative in design, much like some of the early digital magazines, they’re already way more interesting than standard textbooks.

Imagine how much students backs and shoulders will love when they can carry five 300 page textbooks inside their iPad.

Way less expensive too!

The lecture is one of the oldest forms of education there is.

… lecturing has never been an effective teaching technique and now that information is everywhere, some say it’s a waste of time. Indeed, physicists have the data to prove it.

Many of us, me for example, have known this about lecturing for a while.

In this article from NPR, Physicists at Harvard have figured this out after one of their physics instructors,  Eric Mazur, began questioning his own assumptions about teaching and started observing and thinking about what his students actually knew versus formulas they memorized.

Using approaches that asked students to reassess what they think they know, slow down their answering process so that they can work in small groups to ponder and converse with one another about a particular problem, Mazur found that learning improved significantly.

Historically and with frustration, students with learning disabilities have long-known that collaboration and hands-on learning are always more effective that dense lectures.

The Anne Ford and Allegra Ford Scholarships offer financial assistance to two graduating seniors with documented learning disabilities (LD) who are pursuing post-secondary education.  The Anne Ford Scholarship was first awarded in 2002; in 2009, with a generous donation from Anne’s daughter, Allegra, the award was renamed the Anne Ford and Allegra Ford Scholarship and granted to two students. Beginning 2012, we are offering two separate scholarships, the Anne Ford Scholarshipand Allegra Ford Scholarship.  To be considered, your complete application must be postmarked by December 31, 2011.

Notice that these are scholarships specifically awarded to students with documented a LD. However, also note that winners are selected by criteria above and beyond simply having a diagnosis of Learning Disabilities.
Here are examples from parts of the selection criteria.  Go to the NCLD website to read all the criteria.

The ideal Anne Ford Scholar is a student who:

• Articulates his or her LD and clearly demonstrates the importance of self-advocacy
• Is committed to completing a four-year college degree and has begun to set realistic career goals
• Excels as a role model and spokesperson for others who struggle with LD

To be eligible for the 2012 Anne Ford Scholarship, an applicant must:

• Be a graduating high school senior who will be attending a four-year bachelor’s degree program in the fall of 2012
• Have an overall grade point average (GPA) of 3.0 or higher on a 4-point scale (or equivalent)

In his book “What the Dog Saw,” based on a collection of his essays and New Yorker articles, Malcolm Gladwell wrote about the notion of Puzzles and Mysteries. Gladwell encouraged us to discern whether a problem or challenge to be solved was a puzzle or a mystery.

What about kids with learning disabilities?  Is understanding a student’s learning profile, stemming from an evaluation of information processing, cognitive skills, and achievement strengths and weaknesses, a puzzle or a mystery?

A puzzle, according to Gladwell’s and national-security expert Gregory Treverton’s definition, is something that is solved when there’s enough clear information. The key to solving a puzzle comes through the reporter and the reporting of the information. Given enough data, a puzzle gets solved. Determining Osama bin Laden’s whereabouts was a puzzle, and once enough information was given, puzzle solved. How Iraq would evolve after the fall of Saddam Hussein was anyones’s guess, and still a mystery. With mysteries, too much information can cloud understanding. With the fall of Enron, the giant energy company, the information was there ahead of time. That company released thousand of pages of financial information that should have but didn’t, alert the authorities, even though it was right in front of their faces.  In fact there was so much information it hid the truth.

What about Learning Profiles? We’ve become better and better at giving tests and evaluations that help us understand the nuances of information processing. We’re becoming experts on categorizing the data that comes from these evaluations and with ever increasing precision, describing the profile as Dyslexia. Non-Verbal Learning Disability, Autism Spectrum Disorder, ADHD, and the like.

Understanding how individual children and teenagers will cope with and respond to their individual circumstances is much more difficult to understand. Which kids with learning disabilities will turn to drugs and alcohol? Who will turn their anger inward?  Who will turn their adverse circumstances and challenges into food for success and then thrive?

I know we can, and most likely will, apply more information to these questions, and we might be tempted to think that as a result, we automatically get better at providing the right interventions and predicting outcomes.  But it’s not always that simple. You might suppose for example, that a child from a wealthy family will stand a better chance to succeed in school, or that providing Orton-Gillingham training or another best practice to a child or teenager with reading difficulties will definitely give that kid a leg up. With enough intervention hours and enough improvement, will self-esteem issues disappear?

It doesn’t always work out that way.

One of the keys to making headway in providing holistic interventions and support, as well as predicting trajectories, may be in recognizing  that these questions are both a puzzle and a mystery.

Mysteries are understood and dependent upon more than logic and more than sequential reasoning.

Mysteries are dependent on stripping away some of the excess “information” to find essence.  Steve Jobs and Jon Ive of Apple understood on a design and product level, that simplicity can mean deep understanding and expression of the essence of excellence for a particular machine. In terms of kids with LD, this doesn’t mean discarding or dumbing down our understanding of IQ scores, achievement levels, or processing weaknesses; it may mean adding what’s thought of as right brain processing, intuition, and deep listening (both verbally and non-verbally). It means opening up to the mystery and diversity of cognitive processing, and our gut about what makes a particular child tick, their essence, and the psychological forces that impact both the observed and the observer.

Puzzle or mystery?

From Good.is

The average community college student in Washington spends about $1,200 per year on textbooks.

I know that as a society we’re probably in the infancy of this movement to digitize textbooks and in a variety of ways, bring down the costs of textbooks to students. I don’t understand how they deal with fees to the writers of textbooks, but Washington State has created a way to access collections of textbooks as well as other educational materials- mostly for free.  Apparently the most a school can charge for these is $30 per student.

They’ve begun with eighty-one of the state’s most popular general education and pre-college classes taken.  These are open licenses, which means that they’re available to other colleges and universities and anyone else who wants to give them a try.

I’ve already been on the site and looked at some US History text. It’s a pretty easy sign-in process and once I was looking over a chapter, and since I was using my Safari browser, it was easy to highlight, right-click and have my computer read it to me (if I was tired or dyslexic or had another learning disability).

I’m a big fan of a college education, but not always as the only route nor necessarily the immediate route after high school. It’s time to rethink.