Right, which is why I said "say, dyslexic," meaning dyslexia as one example of loads of possible things. I've known multiple brilliant people with dyslexia (including at least two of my high school teachers), so it's one of the things I tend to think of first.
But I did think there was a difference between just not doing X skill well because one wasn't terribly bright, and having a specific neurological quirk that one could learn ways to get around, and it seems to me that anyone who can benefit from learning the skill can benefit from learning in ways that accommodate their quirks.
Having some problems parsing your second sentence (probably because tired and allergies). Again, someone with cognitive scores in the 80s is not going to have their scores improved by improving their reading skills. I knew students in just that position--their reading comprehension remained at the concrete level because they were performing at their ability level. I could have taught abstract reasoning from now until forever and they might have picked it up slowly...or not, depending on how interested they were in it.
On the other hand, someone with a normal to high cognitive level could, if presented with the same information and reading in a manner that worked around their reading disability, grasp the abstract reasoning and understand those elements.
Keep in mind that there are three pieces to reading--decoding, fluency, and comprehension. Poor decoding leads to poor fluency but may not necessarily mean lack of comprehension. Poor comprehension combined with poor decoding, however....
I wasn't talking about cognitive scores there at all, and by "X skill" I meant to imply that I was talking about any possible LD, not just reading disabilities.
Ah. To be blunt, cognitive scores are what distinguish the label between learning disability and intellectual disability. Quite often the remedial techniques will be very similar. Math computation disability, for example, often has very similar origins in spite of the cognitive ability.
IOW, if the IQ is below 70 and there are life skill deficits, it's an intellectual disability. If the IQ is above 90, it's a learning disability. If it's in the 80s, it's a slow learner. Now I do personally happen to disagree with hanging the 80s out to dry, but until we're in a world where education and especially special education gets better funding and support...triage has to happen. RTI was supposed to be the intervention that helped. Instead, with the exception of places who did it right, it's become another means to keep kids out of special education.
More blunt talk: when budgets get tight, that's when special education identification gets shafted and triage happens. I spent my last years teaching in a school building trying to protect kids as best as I could because of an idiot state-level administrator who demanded that my district cut their numbers (and I happened to have the highest caseload by percentage of school population). Now I'm working in an alternative school setting and doing what I can to help those kids online. Many of those kids might have benefited from special education services at an early age. In another era (cough-cough "90s" cough-cough) they would have gotten those services. Now? Iffy.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
james_davis_nicoll) wrote2016-05-01 10:34 am
no subject
But I did think there was a difference between just not doing X skill well because one wasn't terribly bright, and having a specific neurological quirk that one could learn ways to get around, and it seems to me that anyone who can benefit from learning the skill can benefit from learning in ways that accommodate their quirks.
no subject
On the other hand, someone with a normal to high cognitive level could, if presented with the same information and reading in a manner that worked around their reading disability, grasp the abstract reasoning and understand those elements.
Keep in mind that there are three pieces to reading--decoding, fluency, and comprehension. Poor decoding leads to poor fluency but may not necessarily mean lack of comprehension. Poor comprehension combined with poor decoding, however....
no subject
no subject
IOW, if the IQ is below 70 and there are life skill deficits, it's an intellectual disability. If the IQ is above 90, it's a learning disability. If it's in the 80s, it's a slow learner. Now I do personally happen to disagree with hanging the 80s out to dry, but until we're in a world where education and especially special education gets better funding and support...triage has to happen. RTI was supposed to be the intervention that helped. Instead, with the exception of places who did it right, it's become another means to keep kids out of special education.
More blunt talk: when budgets get tight, that's when special education identification gets shafted and triage happens. I spent my last years teaching in a school building trying to protect kids as best as I could because of an idiot state-level administrator who demanded that my district cut their numbers (and I happened to have the highest caseload by percentage of school population). Now I'm working in an alternative school setting and doing what I can to help those kids online. Many of those kids might have benefited from special education services at an early age. In another era (cough-cough "90s" cough-cough) they would have gotten those services. Now? Iffy.