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?

A Dyslexic Wonder

This is about Jennifer Smith, a finalist in 2010 for an Ann and Allegra Ford Scholarship, and her story of growth and pain. Terribly and typically teased, she persevered through language training and to the growth of her self-confidence. She enters college in the fall, speaks to students about dyslexia, has written a book, “Dyslexia Wonders”
and has created a non-profit group, Jenny’s Wish Foundation. This foundation provides scholarships to kids with learning disabilities, and provides grants to organizations who help them.

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.

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!

Researchers continue to find that while intensive dietary modifications may help some small sub-groups, kids with ADHD need a overall healthy diet of low processed foods and high on quality proteins, fruits and vegetables, whole grains, and quality fats, such as Omega-3.

A couple of days ago, The New York Times reported further on these medication shortages. According to the report, these shortages are the result of the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA ) being out of synch with the FDA and others involved with the sale and safety aspects of such medications.

The disconnect between the D.E.A. and just about everyone else involved in the sales of the medicines is so profound that they even disagree over whether there are shortages.

“We believe there is plenty of supply,” Special Agent Gary Boggs of the D.E.A.’s office of diversion control said in an interview.

And yet, among others, multiple drug manufacturers announced that their supply of these medicines are scarce. The Food and Drug Administration also lists these drugs as being in short supply.

Officials at the F.D.A. blame the shortages on overly strict quotas set by the D.E.A. — making for a rare open disagreement between two federal agencies.

Shortages, no shortages, essential medications, ripe for being misused on college campuses and elsewhere.  The government agencies need to get their act together.

Ben Shifrin, Head of The Jemicy School, in Owings Mills, MD, has been inducted into the International Dyslexia Association’s Hall of Fame. Frankly, I had no idea there was such a Hall of Fame. For me, this is another chance to bring recognition to what I’ve always thought of as a great school for kids who have learning disabilities, particularly dyslexia. I’ve not been to the newer High School but have spent time at the Lower and Middle School. Jemicy School does educate the whole child, in terms of developing strengths as well as remediate weaknesses, and as a result, kids just seem to feel good while they’re getting the help they need.

I haven’t seen or heard of this happening in the northwest, where I live, but this is potentially very concerning for lots of folks, especially if it spreads and gets worse.

NPR did a story about this emerging shortage of ADHD meds, characterizing it as being part of a nationwide and increasing shortage of other medicines in general, most notably some cancer treatment drugs.

Yikes.

[via Richard Wanderman]

These new guidelines, discussed here on NPR’s On Point Radio Show, are designed to signal parents and professionals that signs consistent with ADHD can appear in children as young as four. As part of early identification, there’s a lot of good that can come out of this. Not surprisingly however, this has begun to generate a firestorm of discussion.

There are pieces to these new guidelines that’s entirely good and fundamentally sound. I have a couple of issues however: Especially with young children, doing a thorough and differential evaluation (which means to look at other or overlapping possibilities that explain the presenting behaviors), one needs to include a complete history and observation of the child in different settings in addition to the office. Evaluation of ADHD or other conditions has to be deep and authentic, and should not rely solely on parent or even teacher rating scales or comments. For this reason, the idea of a general practitioner or family pediatrician being able to diagnose ADHD in a 15-20 minute office visit is nonsensical. However, the idea of a pediatrician alerting or confirming to parents there’s a need to do a more extensive follow-up investigation, is a good thing.

People who are getting frantic already about these new guidelines are jumping to a conclusion that they will quickly lead to getting young kids on medications. This is not the intent of early identification. I’m not unconcerned about over medication, but overall, we applaud early identification measures for physical diseases or developmental disorders (Autism), so why not for other neurological and brain-based conditions?

[via Richard Wanderman]

If you watch the video of the new iPhone personal assistant Siri, you may barely notice that the woman listening to her message (instead of reading it) and then replying (and Siri putting and sending her spoken words into text) via text message, is blind (she’s reading braille).

Steve and Apple have done so much for me, and for my students who learn differently. We wish the family well.

There’s been a recent study released that should lead to more kids getting more resources and services and hope. Unfortunately there are some headlines that insinuate the opposite, that dyslexia isn’t real.

Here’s the reality. In a recent study from Stanford University, scientists have zeroed in on the brain activation patterns of poor readers. They have found that such brain activation maps are similar in those with higher and lower IQs.

In other words, dyslexia doesn’t mean your dumb. On the other hand, it doesn’t mean that just because you’re dyslexic, you’re automatically brilliant. The article’s title is even,”Brain imaging study shows physiological basis of dyslexia.”

According to Stanford’s School of Medicine, “…in the wake of recent behavioral studies showing that phonological deficits — that is, difficulties in processing the sound system of language, which often leads to difficulties in connecting the sounds of language to letters — are similar in poor readers regardless of IQ.”

This is further evidence that, as Sally Shaywitz has argued previously, IQ and reading skills are not as coupled as many previously thought. While on the one hand this means that if you struggle with reading and spelling due to core phonological deficits in decoding and recoding of phonemics, it doesn’t reflect your capacity to be smart and successful, it also means that people who test out in the below average range of IQ can also be dyslexic. As some responsible folks have noted (including those from MIT and Stanford), these findings should lead to the opening up of resources for a broader range of students.

Instead, and here’s where I get angry, there are articles with the following headlines, “Doubts raised over dyslexia diagnoses” with the subheading: “Dyslexia could be just a label, according to scientists, after a study of brain scans found there is little difference between the way children with the condition think while trying to read and those who simply have a low IQ.”

Again, direct from Stanford (who did the study):

“Researchers at the Stanford University School of Medicine have used an imaging technique to show that the brain activation patterns in children with poor reading skills and a low IQ are similar to those in poor readers with a typical IQ. The work provides more definitive evidence about poor readers having similar kinds of difficulties regardless of their general cognitive ability.”

Is it just me, or does this upset anyone else?

From Good.is This is a tantalizingly exciting teaser article and video (TED.com) about a radical reshaping of what we used to consider vocational schools, in England. It’s spreading there quite rapidly and I for one, can’t wait to hear and see more.

The founding group has attempted to wrestle with and address two fundamental problems in education and society: 1. Many teens are bored and tuned out from school. They’re failing and disinterested and they don’t see any relation between school and the real world. Further, they’re disenfranchised because they don’t see jobs at the end of their school story. 2. The second problem is that employers feel too many kids come looking for work with a lack of skills, including their attitudes towards work and fitting into a team.

Studio schools operate by having 80% of the schooling take place out from behind desks. The idea of a studio is a place where learning and real work happen together and gets integrated. Working on real projects on small teams in areas such as engineering, creative and media industry, tourism and health care are some of the examples they cite.

From the sounds of it, they’re getting great results.

We need something different.